Agenda Council 25 November 2015

AGENDA FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER NORMAN KIRK DRIVE, ROLLESTON ON WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMENCING AT 1 PM

Note: 9:00 – 11:00am

District Plan Committee

11:00am

Eastern Selwyn Development Programme

1:00pm

Council Meeting

“The only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary.” ~ Vidal Sassoon

AGENDA WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015

COMMITTEE Mayor (K J Coe), Councillors, M A Alexander, N P Barnett, J B Bland, S T Broughton, D Hasson, P S Hill, M B Lyall, D P McEvedy, G S Miller, J B Morten and S G Walters APOLOGIES

IDENTIFICATION OF ANY EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BUSINESS

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Conflicts of interest (if any) to be reported for minuting.

PUBLIC FORUM

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1.

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Selwyn District Council, both open and closed, held in the Selwyn District Council Headquarters, Rolleston on Wednesday 28 October 2015 (Pages 11 - 25) Recommended: ‘That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Selwyn District Council, held on Wednesday 28 October 2015 as circulated.’

MATTERS ARISING MATTERS UNDER INVESTIGATION (Page 26) RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 1.

Springs Ellesmere Discretionary Fund The Springs and Ellesmere Discretionary Funds Committee will meet prior to the meeting of Council.

2.

District Licensing Committee and Chief Licensing Inspector

(a)

Monthly Report for the period 1 October 2015 – 30 October 2015 (Pages 27 - 31) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the report on the activities of the District Licensing Committee and the Chief Licensing Inspector for October 2015.’

3.

Acting Mayor

(a)

Report for the period 24 September – 25 October 2015 (Pages 32 - 33)

MEETINGS ATTENDED BY COUNCILLORS

REPORTS 1.

Chief Executive Officer

(a)

Monthly Report – November 2015 (Pages 34 - 36) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the Chief Executive’s Report – November 2015, for information.’

2.

Council Secretary

(a)

Adoption of Proposed Meeting Schedule 2016 (Pages 37 - 41) Recommended: ‘That the Council adopts the meeting schedule for 2016.’

3.

Planning Manager

(a)

To seek ratification from Council of the UDS Refresh summary project proposal following its consideration and endorsement by the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee at its meeting on the 9 October 2015 (Pages 42 - 49) Recommended:

‘That Council ratify the approach to undertaking a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy as outlined in the summary project proposal.’

4.

Systems Accountant

(a)

Financial Report to 30 September 2015 (Pages 50 - 85) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the financial report for the period ending 30 September 2015 for information.’

5.

Corporate Accountant

(a)

Central Plains Water Trust annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015 (Pages 86 - 106) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the Central Plains Water Trust’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015 for information.’

6.

Emergency Management Support Officer

(a)

Adoption of the revised Selwyn District Council Fire Plan (Pages 107 - 230) Recommended: ‘That the Council adopts the revised Selwyn District Council Fire Plan dated November 2015.’

7.

Community Development Team Leader

(a)

Newcomers and Migrants Strategy (Pages 231 - 247) Recommended: ‘That the Council approves the adoption of the Newcomers and Migrants Strategy.’

8.

Assets Administrator - Roading

(a)

Naming of New Roads in the Woodlands Subdivision, 60 Blakes Road, Prebbleton (Pages 248 - 251) Recommended:

‘That pursuant to section 319A of the Local Government Act 1974, the Selwyn District Council approve the following names for the new roads in the Woodlands subdivision, 60 Blakes Road, Prebbleton.

Road 1 Road 2 Road 3

Carpenter Driver Hazelnut Avenue Almond Lane.’

9.

Environmental Services Manager

(a)

Housing Accord (Pages 252 - 287) Recommended: ‘That the Council a) Approves entering into a Housing Accord with the Ministry of Housing for the purposes of increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability in Rolleston by facilitating development of quality housing that meets the needs of the growing population. b) Provides the CEO with the delegation to make minor amendments to the Housing Acord that occur as a result of discussions with the Minister of Housing.’

10.

Asset Manager – Water Services

(a)

Potential Water race Closures – Council Deliberation and Decision (Pages 288 - 322) Recommended: ‘That the Council: a) Consider the recommendation from the Water Race Sub-Committee (non confirmed) “that the period for comments on the potential closure of 9 lengths of water races totalling approximately 45.4kms in the Ellesmere and Paparua water race schemes has now closed.

That following deliberations of matters in this report, closures other than 2 and 3, proceed, and further investigation and consultation takes place with Te Taumutu Runanga regarding closures 2 and 3 and report back to the Committee for further consideration at a future meeting.” b) Consider views received on the potential Water Race closures including those heard at the Sub-Committee’s meeting on 9 November.

c) Following deliberation of the matters in this report, provide a decision on whether all, or any, of the Water Races should be closed.’

11.

Refresh Zone Committees

(a)

Refresh of committee membership: Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee (Pages 323 - 327) Recommended: ‘That the Council: 1. appoint community members of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee as follows: • Robert Wynn-Williams (to 31 Dec 2018) • Kevin Brown (to 31 Dec 2018) • Suzanne Furkert (to 31 Dec 2018) • Lance Kenyon (to 31 Dec 2018) 2. Extend the appointment of Chris Kelliher to December 2017 3. Confirm the appointment of Herewini Banks as representative for Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke on the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee.’

(b)

Refresh of committee membership: Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee (Pages 328 - 331) Recommended: ‘That the Council appoints community members of the Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee as follows: • Maree Goldring (to 31 Dec 2018) • Victor Mthamo (to 31 Dec 2018) To extend the appointment of Bill Lambie and Allen Lim to December 2017.’

12.

Property and Commercial Manager

(a)

Approval of Central Plains Water Loan in principle subject to satisfactory loan terms (Pages 332 - 364) Recommended: ‘That the Selwyn District Council agrees in principle to loan up to $8million to Central Plains Water Limited subject to a satisfactory loan agreement and terms being negotiated.’

(b)

Update on proposed Dunsandel Community Centre Progress (Pages 365 373) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the update report on proposed Dunsandel Community Centre and request staff to undertake the following: a) b) c) d)

Continue with the detailed design process Lodge the building consent when appropriate Support the steering committee with their external fund raising Issue an information package to the community outlining the design, cost and funding e) Report back to the council in February 2016 on progress.’

(c)

Update on West Melton Community Centre Progress (Pages 374 - 382) Recommended: ‘That the Council receives the update report on West Melton Community Centre and request staff to undertake the following: a) b) c) d)

Continue with the detailed design process Lodge the building consent when appropriate Support the steering committee with their external fund raising Issue an information package to the community outlining the design, cost and funding e) Report back to the council in February 2016 on progress’ 13.

Community Services Manager

(a)

Selwyn Sister Cities Committee: Report on the Inaugural Exchange With Sister City Coventry, Rhode Island, United States of America (Pages 383 – 385) Recommended: 'That the Council accepts for information the report on the inaugural exchange with Sister City, Coventry, Rhode Island, United States of America, prepared and presented by the by the Chairperson of the Selwyn Sister Cities Committee, Mrs Allison Rosanowski.'

GENERAL BUSINESS 1.

Documents for Signing (Page 386) Recommended: That the following transactions and the fixing of the Common Seal under authorised signatures be approved: Client Authority & Instruction Form 1.

Encumbrance of development contributions, 155 Brookside Road, Rolleston RC 135470 2.

Easement in Gross to drain water and convey sewage – Broadfield Estate, Liffey Springs, Lincoln RC 145482 3.

Easement in Gross for SDC to drain sewage over Lot 188 RC 125211 Stage 5 Newman Park 4.

Purchase Lot 1 DP 490851 550 Birchs Road, Lincoln – Claridge to SDC – Purchase is to accommodate a road linkage in ODP4 from Birchs Road into the balance of ODP4 Deed of Licence 5.

John James Van Nus & Hayley Louise Saunders – Reserve 3048 and Reserve 4349 3.4ha Hut Settlement 6.

Southern Pastures (Kenburn Farm) L.P. – Reserve 4625 North Rakaia Road, Mead 2.0234 ha 7.

D W & J I Syme – Gazetted Water Race Reserve 1329 cnr Kimberley & Tramway Road 0.4148 ha Fencing Covenant 8.

Newman Incorporation Ltd – RC 125211. To indemnify council from any responsibility towards fencing on reserves.

2.

Reports Circulated for Information Nil.

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BUSINESS

REVIEW OF ISSUES RAISED IN PUBLIC FORUM

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC Recommended: ‘That the public be excluded from the following proceedings of this meeting, namely Items 1 and 2.

The general subject matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason of passing this resolution in relation to the matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

REASONS FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO EACH MATTER

GROUND(S) UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THIS RESOLUTION

1.

Service Delivery Manager (Assets) – Review of the Service Delivery of Water Services Operations and Maintenance

Good reason to Section 48(1)(a) withhold exists under Section 7

2.

Asset Manager Open Space and Property – Property Transaction

Good reason to Section 48(1)(a) withhold exists under Section 7

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act or Section 6 or Section 7 or Section 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows: Item 1

Item 2

Protect information where the making available of the Information would disclose a trade secret or Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the Commercial position of the person who supplied Or is the subject of the information; or

Section 7(2)(b)

Enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; or

Section 7(2)(h)

Enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Section 7(2)(i)

Protect information where the making available of the Information would disclose a trade secret or Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the Commercial position of the person who supplied Or is the subject of the information; or

Section 7(2)(b)

Enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; or

Section 7(2)(h)

Enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Section 7(2)(i)

11

MINUTES OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF THE SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ROLLESTON HEADQUARTERS, 2 NORMAN KIRK DRIVE, ROLLESTON ON WEDNESDAY 28 OCTOBER 2015 COMMENCING AT 1.00 PM PRESENT Mayor (K J Coe), Councillors, M A Alexander, N P Barnett, S T Broughton, J B Bland, S T Broughton, D Hasson, P S Hill, M B Lyall, D P McEvedy, G S Miller, J B Morten and S G Walters IN ATTENDANCE Messrs D D Marshall (Property and Commercial Manager – Acting Chief Executive), G Bell (Manager Corporate Services), T Harris (Environmental Services Manager), S Hill (Business Relationship Manager), M Washington (Assets Manager), C Moody (Corporate Accountant), Ms L Symington (Community Services Manager), Mr J Mackey (Audit New Zealand), Ms K Anderson (Council Secretary) and Ms N Smith (Executive Assistant) APOLOGIES Nil. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BUSINESS Nil. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Nil. PUBLIC FORUM Nil. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1.

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Selwyn District Council held in the Selwyn District Council Headquarters, Rolleston on Wednesday 14 October 2015 Amendments:

12

Page 3

Should read ‘Councillor Alexander advised that he attended the Selwyn Business Breakfast at Edendale Café as well as making a visit to view the new Housing NZ flats in Bealey Ave.’

Page 7

Add the wording ‘Report for Appointment of Proxy for Sicon Ferguson Ltd AGM’ under identification of any extraordinary general business

Page 14

Remove the wording ‘That the Council approves:’ from Item 5

Page 7

Councillor Walters requested an addition

The Research and Policy Advisor provided an explanation noting that the proposed local and neighbourhood centres will likely be similar to the existing B1 zones in most of the townships, as they will be close to residential areas and community services. As these centres will be assessed under the District Plan as business zones, the Council is unable to stop these businesses from operating there as similar businesses are already operating in existing business zones.

She also noted that the Council is also limited in a comparative sense of not having the data that there is a difference between neighbourhood and local centres and existing business zones or that there is harm in allowing alcohol sales from within these centres compared to alcohol sales in existing business zones Moved – Councillor McEvedy/Seconded - Councillor Lyall

‘That the Council confirms the Minutes, both open and public excluded, of the Ordinary Meeting of the Selwyn District Council held on Wednesday 14 October 2015 as amended.’

CARRIED MATTERS ARISING Nil. MATTERS UNDER INVESTIGATION Noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 1.

Springs and Ellesmere Discretionary Funds Committee Nil.

13

2.

District Licensing Committee and Chief Licensing Inspector

(a)

Monthly Report for the period 1 September 2015 – 30 September 2015 Moved – Councillor Walters/Seconded - Councillor Lyall

‘That the Council receives the report on the activities of the District Licensing Committee and the Chief Licensing Inspector for September 2015.’

CARRIED MEETINGS ATTENDED BY COUNCILLORS Councillor Alexander advised that he attended the St John of God Hauora Trust AGM. Councillor Walters indicated that she will provide a written report of meetings attended.

Councillor Miller reported that along with the Deputy Mayor, he attended the Responsible Business Awards held recently in Lincoln.

Councillor McEvedy reported that he attended a meeting with the new Secretary for the Ministry for Environment and representatives at Environment Canterbury regarding collaborative planning. He also attended the Ellesmere College Scholarships and the Ellesmere A&P Show presentations. He noted that he attended the Southbridge 150th Anniversary Celebrations.

Councillor Barnett provided a presentation of his recent excursion to Coventry, United States of America which is Sister City of Selwyn.

REPORTS 1.

Corporate Accountant

(a)

Adoption of the Annual Report 2014/15 Members provided a brief overview and indicated that this report has been presented to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee. Congratulations were passed to staff for their hard work.

Mention was made that this report shows the Council as being in a strong financial position and being prudent. It was noted that debt repayment would occur when there is opportunity.

Mr Mackey (Audit New Zealand) spoke to the meeting. He reiterated the earlier comments from members regarding the work put into the report. He noted that the key message is that Council has a good sound operating result. He noted

14

that Council received an unmodified opinion. He also advised that there is nothing of major significant concern in terms of a governance perspective.

Mention was made of issues Council had to contend with in the past year; referencing that Council had to apply new public sector accounting standards. He reported that a challenge for part of the audit was the sale of land to the Port of Tauranga land. It was noted that the Company was considered a Council controlled Organisation (CCO), there would be requirement for tax to be paid. He indicated that he is satisfied as to how the monies have been accounted for in the financial statements.

Members made reference to a sentence that explained the difference between budgeted and actual expenditure for the year and asked for further understanding.

The Corporate Services Manager advised that it was a technical accounting adjustment that means costs and income for land sales were shown as gross amounts in the actual results but were shown as a net figure in the budget. Mr Mackey noted that the land is being treated as inventory.

Moved – Councillor Miller/Seconded – Councillor McEvedy

‘That the Council: a) Adopts the 2014/15 annual report. b) Applies the $4,962.595 general rate underspend for the 2014/15 financial year to reduce general rate borrowings.’

CARRIED

(b)

Selwyn District Charitable Trust annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015 Moved – Councillor Alexander/Seconded – Councillor Barnett

‘That the Council: a. b.

receives the Selwyn District Charitable Trust’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015 for information. acting as Trustee of the Selwyn District Charitable Trust approves the Trust to make a grant payment to the Selwyn District Council for the benefit of the Dunsandel Community Centre totalling $41,955 plus any interest earned on donations received to date.’

CARRIED

15

2.

Chief Executive Officer

(a)

Monthly Report – October 2015 Members raised concerns around the wording of the undertaking of the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration indicating that it could be viewed as ambitious. It was noted some of the wording is specific as to what, if Council agreed, to what they would be required to do. It was noted that this matter has not been discussed with our communities.

Discussion was held about incorporating this matter into the next annual plan process.

Reference was also made to the fact that some of these matters may not be appropriate in the more rural areas.

The meeting sought an update from the Acting Chief Executive regarding the land use agreement with Rolleston Primary School. The Acting Chief Executive indicated that there has been an exchange of emails and he is awaiting the outcome of a School Board meeting. The School’s concern was if there was flexibility for use beyond 2017. Members indicated that there needs to be movement regarding this matter or rediscuss it.

The Acting Chief Executive will bring the matter to a conclusion.

Members were in agreement with joining the Rural Health Alliance.

Moved – Councillor Broughton/Seconded – Councillor Walters

‘(a) (b)

That Council receives the Chief Executive’s report – October 2015, for information; and The Council agrees to join the Rural Health Alliance.’

CARRIED

3.

Accounting Officer

(a)

Request for a Grant – Darfield Tennis Club Concerns were raised that this is quite a significant amount of expenditure being sought from what is usually a small club. In terms of inconsistency, clarity was sought as to why some clubs have their needs met and if sufficient rates are being applied in this area.

Members discussed the application.

Moved - Councillor Morten/Seconded - Councillor Broughton

16

‘That a grant of $3,500.00 be approved from the Council’s Sport and Cultural Fund to the Darfield Tennis Club to assist with the cost of resurfacing courts.’

CARRIED (b)

Adoption of the initial proposal for the Representation Review Members acknowledged the work of Council staff over the representation review period. Reference was made that it was considered that the proposal is fair for the District and represents a balanced view of where the District is currently at. It was noted that it is likely that there will be further changes in 3 or 6 years which may require a new model and may address some concerns.

The Acting Chief Executive indicated that a peer review has been undertaken and summarised the proposed changes to the recommendations in the agenda before members. He indicated that the proposed changes relate to the Ward boundary descriptors. Reference was also made the new resolution components from J to L regarding the changes in the proposal compared to the 2013 election.

He indicated that they are doing this to capture all the changes so that the resolution stands alone.

Members sought clarity around some wording and boundary definitions within the resolution and adjustments were made after discussion.

Some members raised concerns with the proposed removal of the Selwyn Central Community Board and considered that there may have been a lack of future proofing The Mayor reminded members that Council had covered the consultation process appropriately.

The meeting were advised that if there was community concerns regarding the proposed removal of the Community Board that there was still the ability for the community to appeal this decision to the Local Government Commission. Mention was made that Council’s decision is reflecting the community’s wishes.

Moved - Councillor Alexander/Seconded - Councillor Broughton

‘That Council adopts the final proposal for the Representation Review, for the local authority election to be held in 2016 and subsequent elections until altered by a subsequent decision such that: (a) the Council compromise of eleven elected members from four wards, and the Mayor elected at large; (b) the members be elected by the FFP method; (c) the Council retain the existing ward names, comprising of Ellesmere, Springs, Malvern; and Selwyn Central;

17

(d)

the proposed boundaries of the four wards be as shown on the map attached and are described as follows: i.

Ellesmere Ward The Ellesmere ward boundary commences where the Rakaia River meets the coastline, the Ellesmere Ward follows the Rakaia River to Steeles Road then along Steeles Road to Rakaia Terrace Road then along Rakaia Terrace Road in a south easterly direction to the intersection of Rakaia Terrace Road, Sharland Road and Te Pirita Road and then in a northerly direction along Te Pirita Road to where meshblock 2726700 meets Te Pirita Road then in a northeasterly direction along the boundary of meshblock 2726700 to where that meshblock meets Ardului Road then north along Ardului Road to where Ardului Road intersects with Illingworth and Haldon Roads and then along Haldon Road to where that road meets Dunsandel Road and then in an easterly direction along Dunsandel Road until that road becomes Hororata Dunsandel Road and then along that road until it intersects with Gillanders Road and then along Gillanders Road to the Selwyn River where the boundary then follows the Selwyn River to the point where State Highway 1 crosses the river then north on State Highway 1 to where State Highway 1 intersects with Thomsons Road and then in a westerly direction along Thomsons Road to the intersection of that road with 2 Chain Road then in a northerly direction along 2 Chain Road until the intersection with that road and Aylesbury Road and then in an easterly direction along Aylesbury Road until that road crosses State Highway 1 and becomes Burnham Road and along Burnham Road until that road intersects with Brookside Road and Ellesmere Junction Road and then in a south westerly direction along Brookside Road until it intersects with Selwyn Road and then in a southerly direction along Sewlyn Road until that road reaches the Selwyn River where the boundary follows the Selwyn River until the river meets Lake Ellesmere at Hurst Road and along the boundary between meshblocks 2722503 and 2722504 until the boundary with Selwyn District and Christchurch City is reached (noting that where Lake Ellesmere meets the coast, the coastline is in Christchurch City) and then in a southerly direction along the Selwyn District and Christchurch City boundary and then the coastline until the point where the Rakaia River meets the coast.

18

ii.

Malvern Ward The Malvern ward boundary commences where the Rakaia River meets Steeles Road, the boundary of the ward follows then along Steeles Road to Rakaia Terrace Road then along Rakaia Terrace Road in a south easterly direction to the intersection of Rakaia Terrace Road, Sharland Road and Te Pirita Road and then in a northerly direction along Te Pirita Road to where meshblock 2726700 meets Te Pirita Road then in a northeasterly direction along the boundary of meshblock 2726700 to where that meshblock meets Ardului Road then north along Ardului Road to where Ardului Road intersects with Illingworth and Haldon Roads and then along Haldon Road to where that road meets Dunsandel Road and then in an easterly direction along Dunsandel Road until that road becomes Hororata Dunsandel Road and then along that road until it intersects with Gillanders Road and then along Gillanders Road to the Selwyn River where the boundary then follows the Selwyn River to the point where State Highway 1 crosses the river then north on State Highway 1 to where State Highway 1 intersects with Telegraph Road and then in a westerly direction along Telegraph Road until where that road meets Highfield Road and then in a northerly direction along Highfield Road until that road intersects with State Highway 73 and then in an easterly direction until that road reaches the intersection of State Highway 73, Aylesbury Road, Bealey Road and Station Road and then in a northerly direction along Station Road until that road becomes Intake Road and then until that Road reaches the Waimakariri River which is the northern boundary of the District and then in a westerly direction along the Selwyn District and Waimakariri District boundary and then northerly direction until the boundary becomes the Selwyn District and Hurunui District boundary which follows a northerly direction before following a westerly direction where the boundary becomes the Selwyn District and Westland District boundary at which point the boundary follows a sourtherly direction until the boundary reaches a point where the Selwyn District, Westland District and Ashburton District boundaries intersect at which point the ward boundary follows the Selwyn District and Ashburton District boundary in an easterly direction with the boundary eventually being recognised as the Rakaia River and the boundary continues along the river in an easterly direction as the southern

19

iii.

boundary of the ward until the Rakaia River meets Steeles Road.

Selwyn Central Ward The Selwyn Central ward boundary commences where State Highway 1 intersects with Telegraph Road and then in a westerly direction along Telegraph Road until where that road meets Highfield Road and then in a northerly direction along Highfield Road until that road intersects with State Highway 73 and then in an easterly direction until that road reaches the intersection of State Highway 73, Aylesbury Road, Bealey Road and Station Road and then in a northerly direction along Station Road until that road becomes Intake Road and then until that Road reaches the Waimakariri River which is the northern boundary of the District and then in an easterly direction along the river until the river meets where Weedons Ross Road meets land parcel part Res 3452 and along the southern boundary of that land parcel until it reaches Mcleans Island Road where that road then becomes Chattertons Road and then in a southerly direction along Chattertons Road until that road becomes Dawsons Road and then along that road until it reaches State Highway 1 where Dawsons Road becomes Waterholes Road and then along Waterholes Road until that road reaches the intersection of Waterholes Road and Hamptons Road and then along Hamptons Road until that road reaches the intersection with Shands Road and then in a southerly direction along that road until it intersects with Selwyn Road and then along that road until it intersects with Brookside Road and then in a northerly directions along Brookside Road until that road intersects with Burnham Road and then in a northerly direction along Burnham Road until it crosses State Highway 1 where is becomes Aylesbury Road and along that road until it reaches the intersection of Kerrs Road, Sandy Knolls Road, Grange Road and 2 Chain Road and then in a southerly direction along 2 Chain Road until it intersects with Thomsons Road and then in an easterly direction along that road until it reaches State Highway 1 and then in a southerly directions along State Highway 1 until it reaches the intersection of Telegraph Road.

iv.

Springs Ward The Springs ward boundary commences where State Highway 1 intersects with Waterholes Road and then along Waterholes

20

Road until that road reaches the intersection of Waterholes Road and Hamptons Road and then along Hamptons Road until that road reaches the intersection with Shands Road and then in a southerly direction along that road until it intersects with Selwyn Road and then along that road until it reaches the Selwyn River where the boundary follows the Selwyn River until the river meets Lake Ellesmere at Hurst Road and along the boundary between meshblocks 2722503 and 2722504 until the boundary with Selwyn District and Christchurch City is reached (noting that where Lake Ellesmere meets the coast, the coastline is in Christchurch City) and then in an easterly direction along the Selwyn District and Christchurch City boundary until the point where the canal at the end of the Halswell River enters Lake Ellesmere and then in a northerly direction up the canal to a point where the canal is adjacent to the Osbornes Drain pump station where the Selwyn District and Christchurch City boundary follows in a easterly direction the boundary of meshblock 2718600 which eventually crosses State Highway 75 at Motukarara and then the meshblock and District and City boundary continues until Bush Road (a paper road) where the District and City boundary becomes the eatern boundary of meshblock 2486600 which is recongised as a ridgeline which starts up in a northerly direction crossing Park Hill Road and then continuing up the ridgeline, the District and City boundary and meshblock 2486600 until the Summit Road is reached and then in a northerly direction along the road until meshblock 2485900 commences with the road and meshblock northern boundary is reached which is recognised as the head of Early Valley where the boundary follows the boundary to a point where the Selwyn District and Christchurch City boundary can be recognised as Early Valley Road and then along that road until it intersects at a point with Old Tai Tapu Road, Potters Lane and the Halswell River where the ward boundary and the Sewlyn District and Christhchurch City boundary become the Halswell River continuing upstream in a northerly direction initially until the river crosses under State Highway 75 continuing until the river crosses under a bridge where Saby’s Road and Trices Road meet, where the ward boundary and the Sewlyn District and Christhchurch City boundary become Trices Road until a point where Trices Road, Ellesmere Road intersect where the boundaries then follow a water course until that water course crosses Whincops Road where the boundary follows a southerly direction along Whincops Road until the intersection

21

of that road with Longstaffs Road and then in a northerly direction along Longstaffs Road until that road intersects with Hodgens Road where the boundary continues in a northerly direction along Hodgens Road until that road intersects with Springs Road and then in an easterly direction along Springs Road until that road intersects with Marshs Road and then in a north westerly direction along Marshs Road crossing over Shands Road until Marshs Road intersects with State Highway 1 and then in a southerly direction along State Highway 1 until Templeton township where the ward and Christchurch City/Selwyn District boundary passes to the south of the residential/commercial area and along State Highway 1 again until State Highway 1 intersects with Waterholes Road. (e) the population each ward will represent is as follows:

(f) there be a Community Board representing the Malvern ward where: (a) the name of this Board be the Malvern Community Board; (b) the Malvern Community Board comprises of five elected members; (g) the Malvern Community Board has two subdivisions, namely the Hawkins and Tawera Subdivisions with the boundaries as shown in a map attached and are described as follows: i)

Tawera subdivision The Tawera subdivision boundary commences where the Rakaia River meets Steeles Road, the boundary of the ward follows then along Steeles Road to Rakaia Terrace Road then along Rakaia Terrace Road in a south easterly direction to Te

22

Pirita Road then in a northerly direction along Te Pirita Road to where meshblock 2726700 meets Te Pirita Road then in a northeasterly direction along the boundary of meshblock 2726700 to where that meshblock meets Ardului Road then north along Ardului Road to where Ardului Road intersects with Drewitts Road and then along Drewitts Road to where that road intersects with Bealey Road and east along Bealey Road until that road crosses the Hororata River and then in a westerly direction along the river until the river is crossed by Beatty Road and then in a northerly direction along that road until it becomes Deans Road and then along that road until it intersects with Auchenflower Road and then in an easterly direction until that road meets the boundary of meshblock 2463800 and then follows the eastern boundary of that meshblock until it meets meshblock 2463600 and then along the eastern boundary of that meshblock until it reaches the Waimakariri River which is the northern boundary of the District and then in a westerly direction along the river until the river meets the western boundary of the District which is the Southern Alp peaks and along that boundary until the boundary meets the Rakaia River which is the southern boundary of the District and then in an easterly direction along the Rakaia River until Steeles Road ii)

Hawkins subdivision The Hawkins subdivision boundary commences where Illingworth Road meets Ardului Road then north along Ardului Road to where Ardului Road intersects with Drewitts Road and then along Drewitts Road to where that road intersects with Bealey Road and east along Bealey Road until that road crosses the Hororata River and then in a westerly direction along the river until the river is crossed by Beatty Road and then in a northerly direction along that road until it becomes Deans Road and then along that road until it intersects with Auchenflower Road and then in an easterly direction until that road meets the boundary of meshblock 2463800 and then follows the eastern boundary of that meshblock until it meets meshblock 2463600 and then along the eastern boundary of that meshblock until it reaches the Waimakariri River which is the northern boundary of the District and then in a easterly direction along the river until the river meets the eastern boundary of the Malvern ward following it south until the southern boundary of the Malvern Ward until it meets Illingworth Road.

23

(h) there be no Community Boards in the Springs, Ellesmere or Selwyn Central Wards; That the population each subdivision will represent is as follows:

(i) there be no Maori Ward in Selwyn.’ (j) That the changes to the ward boundaries for the Ellesmere and Selwyn Central wards reflect the imbalance in the growth in population in the District and thus the need to transfer the area around and including the Burnham Military Camp from the Selwyn Central Ward to the Ellesmere Ward thus ensuring the population deviation thresholds can be met across the District with a minimal change to ward boundaries (k) That the changes to the subdivision ward boundaries for the Tawera and Hawkins subdivisions of the Malvern ward reflect the growth in population in the areas around Darfield and Kirwee in particular and have resulted in the Hororata township and surrounding area being moved from the Hawkins subdivision to the Tawera subdivision thus ensuring the population deviation thresholds can be met across the Malvern Ward with a minimal change to subdivision boundaries (l) That the Selwyn Central Community Board is no longer part of the Council’s governance structure on the basis that there is adequate community representation to the council in the Selwyn Central Ward being provided to the council via the existing residents associations, council reserve and community hall committees and four ward councillors and that this Ward is geographically of a smaller size and a smaller number of committees allowing councillors to represent their residents more easily than larger wards.’ CARRIED

24

GENERAL BUSINESS 1.

Documents for Signing Members queried if additional information can be provided for each transaction so they have a better understanding of matters.

Moved – Councillor McEvedy/ Seconded – Councillor Morten

‘That the following transactions and the fixing of the Common Seal under authorised signatures be approved: Client Authority & Instruction Form 1. Grant Easement to drain water over Council Reserve Lot 101 and Fencing Covenant – RC 145417 Doolyttle & Sons 2. Cancellation of Consent Notice – Lot 138 – Barton Fields Subdivision BHL Trust 145551 3. Replacement of Bond with a Covenant to retain existing family flat – 1021 Goulds Road, Rolleston 4. Cancellation of a Bond due to removal of a second dwelling – 713 Newtons Road, Rolleston 5. Subdivision RC 135636 and 105169 Lincoln Recreation Area 154 North Belt, Lincoln 6. Easement in Gross – 145282 ‘The Woods’ GW Prebbleton Fencing Covenant 7. Doolyttle & Sons RC 145417 8. Barton Fields Subdivision BHL Trust RC 145551 9. CDL Land NZ Ltd 10. CDL Stonebrook Stages 17 and 25 RC 145543 Compensation Certificate 11. Storer, Cardale Street, Darfield CPWL Access agreements Stage 2 investigations’

CARRIED

2.

Reports Circulated for Information Nil.

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BUSINESS

25

Nil. REVIEW OF ISSUES RAISED IN PUBLIC FORUM Nil.

The meeting closed at 2:32pm DATED this

day of

__________________ MAYOR

2015

26

MATTERS UNDER INVESTIGATION FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER 2015

Subject

Meeting Referred From

Earthquake Recovery Update

8 March 2011

Traffic and Parking Bylaw Climate Change Declaration

Comments

Officer Responsible

A blue page report to be provided quarterly.

Commercial and Property Manager

14 October 2015

A report to be provided from the Chief Executive

Chief Executive

28 October 2015

Incorporate this matter into the next annual plan process

Commercial and Property Manager

Report Date /Action 9 December 2015 31 March 2016 10 February 2016

27

REPORT TO:

Environmental Services Manager

FOR:

Council

FROM:

Gail Shaw – Secretary of District Licensing Committee and Helene Faass –Chief Licensing Inspector

DATE:

12 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Joint District Licensing Committee and Chief Licensing Inspector Monthly Report for period 1 October 2015 – 30 October 2015

1.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council receives the report on the activities of the District Licensing Committee and the Chief Licensing Inspector for October 2015

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to inform the Council of activity in the Alcohol Licensing section.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT / COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This report does not require any assessment against the significance test.

4.

PROPOSAL TYPE OF LICENCE

LICENCE ISSUED

New On Licence – October 2015 Renew On Licence with – October 2015 The Club at Terrace Downs

59/ON/018/2015 R910061

Renew Club Licence with Variation – October 2015 Darfield Bowling Club

59/CLUB/011/2015 R900012

28 Renew Club Licence with – October 2015 New Managers Certificates – October 2015: Paul Guest (Arthurs Pass Café and Store)

59/CERT/113/2015 R9612451

Sandeep Sethi (The Club at Terrace Downs)

59/CERT/112/2015 R961254

Rosanne Victoria Croft (Kirwee Bowling Club)

59/CERT/114/2015 R961249

Renew Managers Certificates – October 2015: Christopher William McMillan (Southbridge Rugby Football Club)

59/CERT/111/2015 R9650240

Andrew Graeme Barr (Ellesmere Golf Club)

59/CERT/109/2014 R961174

Special Licences – October 2015: Staight 8 Estate Ellesmere A & P Show

SP/59/1842/2015 SP150775

Ellesmere Agricultural & Pastoral Assc.

Leeston A & P Showgroundsl

SP/59/1844/2015 SP150774

Leeston Rugby Football Club Leeston Rugby Football CLub

SP/59/1847/2015 SP150763

The Sore @ Tai Tapu The Store @ Tai Tapu

SP/59/1848/2015 SP150782

Straight 8 Estate Southbridge Town Hall

SP/59/1845/2015 SP150776

Leeston Rugby Football Club Leeston rugby Football Club

SP/59/1838/2015 SP150779

Lindsay Family Cellars Ltd Broadfield Garden

SP/59/1836/2015 SP150773

Southbridge 150 Anniversay Prebbleton Community Hall

SP/59/1823/2015 SP150747

Canterbury Aero Club Southbridge Township, Park and Hall

SP/59/1852/2015 SP150777

29 Straight 8 Estate Southbridge Rugby Grounds

SP/59/1851/2015 SP150794

Red Leaf Winery Lincoln Farmers Market

SP/59/1854/2015 SP150785

Brewers Union Southbridge Park

SP/59/1849/2015 SP150795

Brewers Union Southbridge Town Hall

SP/59/1850/2015 SP150796

Southbridge Rugby Football Club Southbridge Rugby Football Club

SP/59/1846/2015 SP150788

Alison M McGregor Hororata Domain

SP/59/1853/2015 SP150801

Rolleston Rugby Football Club Rolleston Rugby Football Club

SP/59/1856/2015 SP150790

Wigwam Brewing Company Broadfield Garden

SP/59/1837/2015 SP150772

Lincoln Golf Club Lincoln Golf Club

SP/59/1857/2015 SP150804

Ellesmere Collage Ellesmere College

SP/59/1839/2015 SP150783

Lincoln University Lincoln Sports Field (Garden Party)

SP/59/1838/2015 SP150778

Darfield High School PTA Darfield School Hall

SP/59/1840/2015 SP150768

Darfield Bowling Club Darfield Bowling Club

SP/59/1841/2015 SP150781

Melton Estate Leeston A & P Show

SP/59/1843/2015 SP150789

Temporary Authorities – October 2015 Hamish William Jenkins The Oaks Darfield

059/ON/292/2012 R910103

Marie Michele Thomson The Bridge Restaurant & Bar

059/ON/012/2014 R910054

Harpreet Singh Southbridge Hotel

059/ON/260/2008 R910079

30 Harpreet Singh Southbridge Hotel

059/OFF/123/2008 R920075

Licences currently being processed – October 2015: A total of 48 applications are currently being processed and awaiting issue, which can be broken down into the following categories: Club Licence:

0

new applications

4

renewal applications

1

new applications

2

renewal applications

0

new applications

3

renewal applications

3

new applications

9

renewal applications

Temporary Authority

0

applications

Special Licence:

10

applications

Variation of Licence

0

applications

On Licence: Off Licence: Managers Certificate:

There are 16 applications On Hold pending further information required.

COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT LICENSING COMMITTEE October has once again been a busy month in Alcohol Licensing administration. The number of Special licence applications that were processed was larger than normal which kept staff extremely busy. Four Temporary Authority’s were issued which is also higher than normal. Manager’s Certificate applications as well as On, Off and Club applications continue to be received consistently, with additional Temporary Authority applications being placed.

Reminder letters and invoicing for renewals have been completed up until the end of December. Annual fee letters and invoices have been completed up until the end of December. There are no outstanding annual fees owing. Six waiver requests were received, and granted in October for special licence applications received less than 20 working days before the event.

Licensed Premises that did not apply for extended hours for the Rugby World Cup seven working days before the event were unable to open for the final Game. The Police held a very clear strong stance on this matter.

CHIEF INSPECTORS REPORT The specials continue to come in for events over November and December. A

31 number of previously large specials were held in October. These included the Ellesmere A and P show, Southbridge 150th and the Lincoln Students Garden Party.

I was unable to attend these events this year due to leave but my partner agencies attended and reported that they all went smoothly. The Garden party had a large number of attendees and with the hot weather, a number of students arrives intoxicated. If they were halls students they were referred back to the halls (sent home!) and if they were from out of town, they were admitted to the detox tent to be Supervised.

This system worked well with the Police reporting only two persons removed for minor offences.

Gail Shaw SECRETARY DISTRICT LICENSING COMMITTEE

ENDORSED FOR THE AGENDA

Tim Harris ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER

Helene Faass CHIEF LICENSING INSPECTOR

32

REPORT FROM ACTING MAYOR 24th September – 25th October 2015 24th Sept

Edendale Business Breakfast (Guest speaker)

26th Sept

Gold Star Ceremony for Greg Hughes (Kirwee Volunteer Fire Brigrade)

28th Sept

Malvern Community Board meeting, Kirwee Community Hall Christchurch Little River Rail Trail Trust meeting

29th Sept

Passenger Transport Advisory Group (update and tour of Bus interchange)

30th Sept

Lincoln University State of the Environment Address (Sir Alan Mark)

2nd Oct

Te Waihora Co-Governance meeting Ghandi Photo Exhibition opening, Lincoln Event Centre

5th Oct

Meeting with Te Taumutu Rūnanga, along with CEO

6th Oct

Greater Christchurch PT Working Group NZTA ILM (investment Logic Mapping) Workshop – SH73, 76 and 1 - part 1

7th Oct

Portfolio Holders Meeting

9th Oct

Local Government Zone 5 & 6 meeting (along CEO and Crs Broughton & Morten) Darfield Art Week Opening & Exhibition

10th Oct

Lincoln Multicultural Festival

11th Oct

Lincoln & Districts Community Care “Spring Fling” at Broadfield Garden

12th Oct

Powhiri to welcome new Clearview School Principal, Mr Rob Rush Regional Transport Plan Refresh Sub-Committee Representation Review Hearings

13th Oct

NZTA ILM (investment Logic Mapping) Workshop – SH73, 76 and 1 - part 2

14th Oct

Council meeting and citizenship ceremony West Melton Residents Assn meeting

15th Oct

New library and learning centre opening, Sheffield School

16th Oct

Te Kotahu Youth Centre (ex Lincoln Library) opening

17th Oct

Blessing for Christchurch Earthquake memorial site Fire Service Awards, Rolleston

33

19th Oct

Christchurch Little River Rail Trail Trust meeting

20th Oct

“Fruit Trees in Schools� inaugural planting, Weedons School Darfield High School Richards Scholarship interviews Constellation Cup (Australia vs New Zealand) Christchurch Netball Game

21st Oct

Broadcasting School interview Selwyn Central Community Board meeting Responsible Business Awards, Lincoln (Prebbleton, Tai Tapu)

24th Oct

Memorial service for Alistair Campbell Christchurch Diwali Festival

34 REPORT TO:

Council

FOR:

Council Meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Chief Executive Officer

DATE:

6 November 2015

SUBJECT:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT – NOVEMBER 2015

RECOMMENDATION (a)

‘That the Council receives the Chief Executive’s Report – November 2015, for information.’

1.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT PROPOSED CHANGES On Tuesday 3 November, the Minister of Local Government, Hon Paula Bennett, issued a media release outlining plans to amend the Local Government Act 2002 in 2016 in order to make it easier for Councils to establish joined up mechanisms for delivering core infrastructure. This follows on from her speech at LGNZ’s conference in July and signals the intention to give Councils a broader range of structures to choose from, in order to focus on region-wide economic growth and make decisions about infrastructure development beyond their specific boundaries.

The Minister’s media release states the change in legislation is intended to: • •

Ensure Councils have the flexibility to develop appropriate structures and coordinate infrastructure across a region to support future growth; and Allow Councils to transfer functions and responsibilities between regional councils and territorial authorities.

Hon Paula Bennett notes that the current legislation limits the ability of Councils to effectively coordinate services.

2.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT Government has released a draft position paper on proposed enhancements to the RMA. Staff are considering our submission to that paper. Anybody that has any suggestions please contact Tim Harris directly.

3.

SHOP TRADING HOURS AMENDMENT BILL The Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill has been referred to the Commerce Select Committee. The Bill enables local communities to decide whether retailers in their districts can open on Easter Sunday. The rationale for the Bill is that the Easter Sunday shop trading exemptions are out of date and create an unfair advantage for certain businesses and regions that can continue trading while others stay shut.

35 The Bill provides change to Easter Sunday trading only. Good Friday, Anzac Day and Christmas Day shop trading restrictions will remain. Submissions to the Bill close on 16 January 2016. Staff are currently considering Council’s response.

4.

REGIONAL GROWTH Selwyn has once again topped the country for population growth over the past 12 months with a figure of 6.5%, outstripping last year’s figure increase of 5.9%. Again, this outcome requires SDC to further focus our attention on the manner in which we as an organisation are responding to both the speed of this growth, the changing demographic within our district, and the expectations of those who are moving to our district.

5.

SELWYN DISTRICT REVALUATION 2015 During the two weeks, residents would have received notices from Quotable Value identifying the revaluation of their properties as at 1 July 2015. Objections to valuations close on 17 December 2015. The new values will be used for rating purposes from 1 July 2016. In a recent presentation to Council, staff from Quotable Value identified overall residential dwelling movement increasing 18.8% on capital value from 2012 with varying levels of increase in both the business sector, lifestyle and rural sectors.

6.

COMMUNITY EVENTS Diwali – this event, organised by Selwyn District Council in collaboration with Lincoln resident Archna Tandon of Colours of India New Zealand, was one of the actions the Council had planned as part of its Newcomers and Migrants Strategy to support new residents and migrants to settle into Selwyn, and to celebrate the diversity they bring to Selwyn.

Held on Saturday 31 October between 4.30pm and 8.30pm, this free event was held on the green by Lincoln Library to mark Diwali, the Indian Festival of Lights. Lincoln Libraries hosted free craft sessions for children and adults where they were able to learn how to make lotus origami flowers lit with electronic lights. This was a great event for families and attracted an estimated attendance of 1,000, with 400 people also going through the Lincoln Library.

Marae Open Day – Selwyn District Council staff manned a display area at the Marae open day on Sunday 1 November. The stand was visited by a number of open day attendees with several stopping to talk to Council staff.

7.

DELEGATIONS MANUAL There have been a number of matters to attend to within the staff delegations manual.

These are purely administrative but nevertheless I am bound to inform Council of these changes:

36 (a)

Planning & Commercial - There is a change required to the expenditure authorities, which is to include the new function of Acquisitions, Disposals and Leasing Manager.

EXPENDITURE AUTHORITIES

MD-102

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Schedule 7 Clause 32 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council delegates the power to enter into contracts on its behalf to employees holding the following positions, provided that the contracts have been approved in the current Annual Budget (Plan) or Selwyn Community Plan (LTP) and do not exceed the budgeted figure, except to the extent expressly provided for below.

Acquisitions, Disposals and Leasing Manager Asset Manager Transportation Asset Manager Water Services Asset Manager Open Spaces & Property Asset Manager Solid Waste Team Leader Transportation Team Leader Water Services Team Leader Property and Facilities Service Delivery Manager Planning Manager Building Manager Finance Manager Information Services Manager Business Relationship Manager Major Projects Property Manager

$20,000

The role of Acquisitions, Disposals and Leasing Manager has superseded the position of Property Co-ordinator, which is now removed from the authority ist below.

Human Resources Manager Property Coordinator/Administrator Asset Engineer Reserves Contract Supervisor (Roading, Sewer, Water) Development Engineer Road Safety Coordinator Senior Animal Control Officer Systems Officer Reserves Officer Surface Water Operations Engineer Development Support Engineer Water & Wastewater Engineer Asset Administrator Reserves Landscape Architect Water races Coordinator Water Services Technician Water Services Officer

$5,000

Unless queried, the amendments will be made to the Delegations Manual on the basis of a resolution that Council receives this report for information, as recommended.

David Ward CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

37

38

39

40

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 2016 Meeting

Council

Selwyn Waihora Zone

Time Venue

Day

1.00 pm

Jan 1

Dec 12

Feb 2

Mar 3

Apr 4

May 5

Jun 6

Jul 7

Aug 8

Sep 9

Oct 10

Nov 11

2nd Wed

10

9

13

11

8

13

10

14

-

2

Council Chambers

4 Wed

24

23

27

25

22

27

24

28

26

23

1.00 pm

1st Tue

2

1

5

3

7

5

2

6

4

1

6

1st Thu

4

3

7

5

2

7

4

1

6

3

1

3rd Wed

17

16

20

18

15

20

17

21

22

29

26

23

27

25

22

26

25

28

(Tuesday)

(Tuesday)

th

14

MR1 Industrial Park

3.00 pm Izone Cafe

Selwyn Central Community Board

4.30 pm Rolleston

Malvern Community Board

4.00 pm

Selwyn District Road Safety SubCommittee

9.30 am

3rd Thu

Rolleston

Quarterly

19

21

20

19

1.30 pm

2nd Mon

15

9

8

7

Rolleston

Quarterly

18

12

11

17

18

12

11

17

Selwyn District Council Water Race Committee

Malvern Hills Water Supply SubCommittee (Malvern Community Board) Hororata/Acheron Rural Supply SubCommittee (Malvern Community Board

4th Mon

25

Darfield

8.30am

2nd

(Tuesday)

Thu

Darfield

Quarterly

10.30am

2nd Thu

Darfield

Quarterly

41 Meeting

Time

Day

Venue Audit & Risk SubCommittee

3 pm

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

3

2

6

4

1

6

3

7

5

2

7

3

16

-

4

15

20

31

-

5

16

-

1 Wed st

Rolleston MR1

Portfolio-holders Meetings (Assets, Community Services and Planning)

8.30 am to 2.00 pm Rolleston N.B. These are not public meetings

Wed (Every 6 weeks)

Election is tentatively set down for Saturday 8 October 2016

42 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Planning Manager

DATE:

9 November 2015

SUBJECT:

To seek ratification from Council of the UDS Refresh summary project proposal following its consideration and endorsement by the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee at its meeting on the 9 October 2015.

1.

RECOMMENDATION That Council ratify the approach to undertaking a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy as outlined in the summary project proposal.

2.

PURPOSE To seek ratification from Council of the UDS Refresh summary project proposal following its consideration and endorsement by the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee at its meeting on the 9 October 2015.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Consideration has been given to criteria set out in the policy, including: • • • • • •

the potential effects on delivery of the Council’s policy and strategies the degree to which the decision or proposal contributes to promoting and achieving particular community outcomes the magnitude of the net costs of the proposal or decision to the Council and / or to affected communities or groups the level of community interest in the proposal, decision or issue the extent to which the proposal or decision impacts upon community members or groups, and the numbers of people or groups affected the values and interests of Ngāi Tahu whānau, hapū and rūnanga, as mana whenua for the region

Council staff are involved as a UDS partner in the project itself. The community will have the opportunity to input into the UDS Refresh through the significant community engagement process identified.

43

On this basis the matter is considered to be of low significance.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) was launched in 2007 and is overseen by a joint committee, the UDS Implementation Committee (UDSIC). The UDSIC has governance representation from each of the UDS Partners. UDS Partners have, for some time now, being considering the most opportune time to undertake a review of this strategy. The focus in recent years on prioritising recovery activity has deferred such consideration.

In the last few months the UDSIC has identified the need to commit to a refresh of the UDS, partly in response to the opportunity arising from recovery transition planning.

5.

PROPOSAL At its meeting on 9 October, the UDSIC endorsed a summary project proposal (attached), outlining the rationale, approach, timeframes and budget to complete such a UDS Refresh. One of the resolutions from that meeting was to seek ratification from individual partner governance meetings.

The Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG) will maintain an overview for this work and provide strong direction to ensure it meets its intended objectives. A working group of UDSIC has also been established to ensure governance views are integral to the project delivery.

The UDS Refresh will be completed and ready for UDSIC and partner consideration in July 2016. The report presented to UDSIC is attached to provide further information.

6.

OPTIONS Council has two options available to resolve this issue: I.

That Council ratify the approach to undertaking a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy as outlined in the summary project proposal (recommended option); or

II.

That Council not ratify the approach to undertaking a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy as outlined in the summary project proposal, and instead suggest any changes it sees appropriate back to the UDSIC for consideration.

44

7.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS The relevant legislation and Selwyn District Council policies/plans applicable to a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy are the: • • • • • • •

8.

Local Government Act 2002 (LGA); Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA); Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS); Selwyn District Plan; Urban Development Strategy (UDS); Selwyn 2031; and Selwyn District Council Long Term Plan

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES Community views have not been sought in preparing this report. Members of the community will have the opportunity to lodge submissions on the refreshed Urban Development Strategy document through the community and stakeholder engagement process.

It is noted that this report has taken account of the Community Outcomes identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan regarding the Environment, Social, Economic and Culture of the community. This recommendation to Council is considered consistent with achieving those outcomes.

9.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS There are not considered to be any negative impacts of a refresh of the Urban Development Strategy as outlined in the summary project proposal. Selwyn District Council would be supporting the UDS partnership in undertaking this project.

10.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no adverse legal implications associated with Council being party to the UDS Refresh project.

11.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Any funding implications associated with this UDS Refresh proposal have been addressed through existing budgets for the 2015/16 financial year.

45

12.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT CONSIDERED?

FROM/ON

OTHER

DEPARTMENTS

BEEN

Limited consultation has been undertaken with other departments of Council on this UDS Refresh summary project proposal at this time given the early stage of the process. The Executive Management Team is however aware of the proposal and will be seeking appropriate input from staff at various stages of the refresh process.

JESSE BURGESS PLANNING MANAGER

ENDORSED FOR AGENDA

TIM HARRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER

46

UDS Refresh

Context

• UDS 2007 and UDS Action Plan 2010 • Post EQ focus on recovery and regeneration • Strong UDS Partnership but not visible • Expedited decision-making processes • Stakeholders and public fatigued • Confusion about strategic framework

Delivery Structure

Key Dates October/November 2015: Endorse project proposal December 2015: Initial strategy framework

Value proposition

• Show visible collaborative leadership • Demonstrate readiness and ability to lead • Outline renewed strategic framework • Deliver central government ‘Better Public Service’ aim for Greater Christchurch • Engage widely to reaffirm UDS • Highlight journey from UDS and ‘Share an Idea’ • Broaden commitment/implementation • Integrate resilience focus areas • Provide more balance to well-beings • Establish refreshed and focused strategic action plan

Stage Two January – March 2016 $350,000 (engage with stakeholder networks) Project management; follow-up workshop; showcase and roadshows; technical analysis; peer review

Key Dates December 2015/February 2016: Feedback from workshops March 2016: Endorse consultation draft Stage Three April - July 2016 $250,000 (engage with wider community) Project management; legal; printing; consultation, submissions and hearings

Strategy document

• Key elements • vision • principles • strategic outcomes • key themes • strategic action plan • 30 pages • People-centred but strategic and spatial • Easy-read: accessible, succinct, designed

Stage One September - December 2015 $300,000 (engage with stakeholders) Project management; communications plan; stakeholder briefings; engagement platform establishment; Ng`ai Tahu support, workshops

Risks • • • •

Work-streams not well connected Inadequate staff resources Poor strategic partner buy-in Negative media portrayal

• Rockefeller does not understand the benefits of integrating 100 RC approach • Unmatched community expectations

Key Dates July 2016: Endorse final strategy

Total Budget: $900,000

47

GREATER CHRISTCHURCH URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

8. UDS REFRESH - SUMMARY PROJECT PROPOSAL Author: Contact:

Keith Tallentire, UDS Implementation Manager 03 941 8590

Purpose To provide UDSIC with a summary project proposal for undertaking of a UDS Refresh, following the completion of initial project planning work and consideration by the Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG).

Report 1. In August this Committee agreed amended resolutions to enable a broader stakeholder and public engagement process than previously envisaged to be incorporated into the UDS Refresh.

2. The resolutions sought that the UDS Implementation Manager work with partner staff and CEAG to further develop proposals and report back to this Committee.

3. The summary project proposal included as Attachment A to this report provides a project brief to be presented to individual partner governance meetings for endorsement.

4. The discussions with partner staff and CEAG have helped refine and shape the final proposal.

5. The financial implications of undertaking a well-structured, inviting and meaningful engagement process are now clearer and will likely require some additional funding beyond that identified in the UDS budget for 2015/16.

6. The summary project proposal highlights significant opportunities which the UDS Refresh can deliver and confirmation of the intended approach is now sought so that commissioning of key external engagement support services can occur.

7. A full Project Initiation Document (PID) is also being provided to partner Chief Executives based on this project brief.

Recommendation That the Committee: a) Endorse the summary project proposal included as Attachment A to this report as the basis for undertaking the UDS Refresh, including the timeframes set out and the intended document structure for the renewed UDS strategy b) Agree that the summary project proposal is reported to individual partner governance meetings seeking ratification c) Agree that the CEAG maintain an overview of UDS Refresh implementation and resourcing (staffing and budget) matters, providing direction as necessary to the Project Leader d) Receive regular updates as the project progresses and consider for endorsement a consultation draft of a renewed UDS strategy by April next year.

48

UDS Refresh: Summary Project Proposal Key contacts Keith Tallentire, UDS Implementation Manager (Project Leader) Jill Atkinson, Director, Strategy and Programmes (Project Sponsor) Bill Wasley, UDSIC Independent Chair

Background and context · · · · ·

·

The Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy (UDS) was launched in 2007. The actions in the UDS were updated in August 2010.

The earthquakes shifted the focus from the UDS to recovery, driven by the Recovery Strategy and though recovery plans and programmes.

The UDS provided a strong platform for recovery planning and the UDS governance committee provided a forum with which CERA and the Minister could seek advice.

Elements of the UDS have been advanced through recovery planning and implementation but some aspects require renewed attention or refocusing.

Recovery activity has required: o greater communication, information sharing and collaboration with government departments than existed pre-earthquakes, and o expedited decision-making processes leading to feelings of disenfranchisement among some stakeholders and the community.

The extent, timeframes and complexity of many of the issues consulted on has left many groups and individuals fatigued. There is some confusion how plans, strategies and the statutory functions of strategic partners form a coherent planning framework.

Rationale and value proposition The UDS Refresh provides an opportunity to: · show a more visible face to the collaborative leadership among the strategic partners; · demonstrate that strategic partners are ready, able and willing to lead the recovery, regeneration and long-term strategic planning for Greater Christchurch; · outline a renewed strategy for Greater Christchurch which provides a shared framework that draws from and profiles recent strategic work of the partners and outlines a balanced approach to address economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being; · Deliver central government ‘Better Public Service’ aim for Greater Christchurch; · Provide an engagement mechanism to reaffirm or adjust the strategic directions contained in the UDS and broaden public awareness of and the range of organisations who commit to the renewed strategy and its implementation · highlight the Refresh as being the next stage of public dialogue following the development of the UDS from 2004, the Share an Idea engagement in 2011 and recent recovery plan and long term plan consultations; · integrate the resilience initiatives in 100RC which provides opportunity for support from Rockefeller Foundation partners; and · establish a strategic action plan that informs and prioritises future programmes of work and prioritises issues impacting Greater Christchurch that require further collaborative action.

49

Project Approach The project approach comprises a technical and an engagement work stream.

Technical (maintaining a 2041 horizon): § § § § § § § § § § § §

lift key principles and elements out of the existing UDS document weave together key directions from recent strategies, plans and programmes update land-use assessment - demographics, supply capacity, constraints, staging, etc. incorporate the concepts and focus areas from resilience assessments scope mega trends which are emerging, such as new technologies, climate variability etc.

December/February: feedback to UDSIC and partners on workshop outcomes develop a strategic action plan outlining collaborative workstreams March/April: UDSIC endorsement consultation draft for public comment May 2016: hold an informal hearings process (with a panel drawn from UDSIC) undertake an impact assessment commission an independent peer review July: finalise the renewed strategy document and seek UDSIC and partner endorsement

Engagement: (led by the CDHB Visioning Team – as part of the core project team) § § § § § ·

·

§ § § ·

understand previous community feedback (especially UDS, Share an Idea and LTPs) agree an engagement title which will maximise its relevance to desired audience(s) seek early involvement and partnering from local media link in with other current engagement activities (e.g. Youth Vision 2030) work with Ngāi Tahu, papatipu rūnanga and maata whaka to reflect cultural values meet with individual stakeholder groups to present proposition and gain commitment - ~ 2000 people from up to 200 stakeholder groups who then nominate workshop participants from their group 27-29 November 2015: hold a 2½ day cross-sectoral intensive workshop - ~ 300 participants from strategic partners, stakeholders and other organisations, including government department; ~ 20004000 people contributing through discussions within stakeholder groups and networks and relaying feedback into the process assess workshop outputs against emerging strategy framework February 2016: reconvene workshop to test ideas against constraints create an interactive central showcase event and roadshow events informed by the workshops February/March 2016: invite wider networks to attend showcase(s) - ~ 5000 people attending through invitation from stakeholder groups. April 2016: open showcases to the wider public through an advertised programme - ~ 20,000 people

Budget - Total estimate:

approx. $900,000 (excl. in-kind support)

The technical expertise required to prepare a renewed strategy exists with strategic partner organisations and information can be sourced from the strategies and plans already prepared. Strategic partners have also committed in-kind officer support either into the core project team or through the partners working group and their internal support from colleagues.

To create, facilitate and manage a significant and challenging engagement piece requires additional professional expertise. Given the tight timeframes a project management resource is also advisable.

The UDS budget 2015/16 has identified provision for $500,000 towards the UDS Refresh. Additional funding from partner councils or other strategic partners could be offset by investigating sponsorship opportunities from organisations which would not bring a conflict of interest.

REPORT

50

TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Systems Accountant

DATE:

4 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Financial Report to 30 September 2015

RECOMMENDATION That the Council receives the financial report for the period ending 30 September 2015 for information.

INTRODUCTION This report covers the period 1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015. This report will provide an overview of the Council’s key financial performance results and highlight any major variances.

This report is part of a 2 Tier financial monitoring reporting process. It includes an executive summary showing the Council’s overall financial performance, plus a series of one page reports on key activities.

These activity reports include operating financial performance plus key performance indicators for the activity. The report is supplemented with a cash flow summary plus an appendix that records the position on Council’s capital projects, with “soft” operational projects to feature in future reports.

Please note the report is based on the Council’s monthly management accounting information and does not include technical accounting adjustments that are made at the end of the year to comply with accounting standards. The expenditure information is cash based and does not include depreciation.

Tier 1 Tier 2 Treasury Report

The monthly council report focusing on the overall position from a financial perspective, plus activity level reporting for key activities.

The monthly community committee reports reporting on the individual scheme accounts.

The quarterly treasury report provides information on the Council’s cashflow and borrowing.

Executive Summary

51

Financial Performance to 30 September 2015 The Council financial performance to the end of September 2015 is summarised in the table below.

Overall funding impact statement 2016 YTD Actual

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Interest and dividends from investments Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B) Sources of capital funding Subsidies for capital expenditure Development and financial contributions Increase / (decrease) in debt Gross sales proceeds from sale of assets Total sources of capital funding (C) Applications of capital funding Capital - grow th Capital - level of service Capital - renew als Increase / (decrease) in reserves Increase / (decrease) of investments Total applications of capital funding (D) Surplus / (deficit) of capital funding (C-D) Funding balance (A-B) + (C-D)

$'000

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

3,672 6,573 1,707 4,346 1,712 86 18,096

3,635 6,556 1,548 4,373 726 48 16,886

37 17 159 (27) 986 38 1,210

14,542 26,894 6,312 14,957 7,996 192 70,893

13,050 23,745 3,675 19,361 10,837 296 70,964

15,054 813 64 15,931 2,165

16,143 1,225 111 17,479 (593)

1,089 412 47 1,548 2,758

61,854 4,898 444 67,196 3,697

53,646 3,652 381 57,679 13,285

4,467 1,818 6,285

3,438 4,822 8,260

1,029 (3,004) (1,975)

13,753 29,519 19,287 62,559

23,252 (20,051) 32,909 36,110

4,230 1,250 1,385 1,585 8,450 (2,165)

3,969 1,599 1,913 186 7,667 593

(261) 349 528 (1,399) (783) (2,758)

55,210 16,100 9,688 1,854 (16,596) 66,256 (3,697)

16,010 4,586 7,810 9,499 11,490 49,395 (13,285)

-

-

-

-

-

The table indicates that: • The Council achieved an operational net surplus of $2,165,000 to 30 September, compared with a budgeted deficit of $593,000, this is largely due an unbudgeted dividend from Orion of $875,000 as well as lower operational expenditure which includes operational projects.

• Development contributions revenue was above budget reflecting the continued growth trend.

• Capital expenditure is unfavourable to budget by $616,000, staff are continuing to review budget phasing to align with the work programme.

The following pages provide a financial summary on key activities along with performance indicators.

Operational financial performance by activity.

52

Democracy funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance FY Budget f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Actual

709 206 2 917

709 204 1 914

477 513 31 1,021 (104)

494 513 30 1,037 (123)

2016

2 2 (1) 3 17 (1) 16 19

Note

$'000

2,835 816 5 3,656

2,779 659 72 14 3,524

1,672 2,054 119 3,845 (189)

1,427 1,758 71 3,256 268

Commentary There are no major variances to report on as at 30 September 2015.

Service targets for democracy Performance measure

Target

The annual report is prepared within statutory timeframes and with an unmodified audit opinion.

The 2014/15 annual report is prepared within statutory timeframes and with an unmodified audit opinion.

The LTP is prepared within statutory timeframes and with an unmodified audit opinion.

The 2016/17 annual plan is prepared within statutory timeframes.

Actual to date

Comments

Achieved

Adopted by Council 28 October 2015

Community Centres funding impact statement 53 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance FY Budget f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Actual $'000

174 294 11 153 632

174 314 1 114 603

(20) 10 39 29

696 1,255 4 465 2,420

482 1,033 43 487 2,044

370 27 128 525 107

438 83 128 649 (46)

68 56

1,786 333 511 2,630 (210)

1,234 283 484 2,000 44

124 153

Note

1

Commentary 1. Payments to staff and suppliers cover 27 facilities and include $359,000 of operating expenditure costs and contributes $63,000 to the favourable variance. Significant contributors to the variance are Rolleston Community Centre $30,000 maintenance and payroll and instructor costs.

There are currently 62 operating projects in place, actual costs are $10,000 and contribute $5,000 to the favourable variance. Year to date six projects have been started.

Activity Lincoln Event Centre • September had a total of 315 hires with total hours of 896.

• September major events included a Judo Champs and an Afghani Wedding.

Rolleston Community Centre • Work has begun on a new reception desk / work area as part of the foyer remodel at the Centre.

• Senior Services, Ministry of Social Development, ran a workshop for superannuitants, with 64 attendees • FAB club, a free school holiday programme, had 100 children attending.

Service targets for Community centres Performance measure Lincoln Event Centre

Target

Actual to date

Comments

Achieve revenue target (excl targeted rate)

$230,175

$87,767

On track to exceed revenue target.

Recreation programme attendees

11,500

4,089

Achieve revenue target (excl targeted rate)

$124,704

$41,597

Recreation programme attendees

9,250

2,001

Rolleston Community Centre On track to exceed revenue target

54 Recreation & Reserves funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance FY Budget f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Actual

Note

$'000

370 295 7 182 854

370 305 26 102 803

(10) (19) 80 51

1,480 1,219 104 410 3,213

1,024 832 147 325 28 2,356

472 49 116 1 638 216

551 34 116 701 102

79 (15) (1) 63 114

1,802 135 463 1 2,401 813

1,253 211 429 1,893 463

1

2

Commentary

1. Fees and charges are favourable to budget, significant variances include leases and licences income $80,000. Annual leases have been invoiced therefore variance should be considered as timing, with the budget being allocated evenly each month.

2. Contributing amounts to the favourable variance for payments to staff and suppliers is made up of various small variances over many Recreation Reserves. The season to date has resulted in less mowing needing to be completed, this is reflected in the favourable maintenance works variance of $75,000 and mowing $14,000.

Recreation and Reserves have 74 projects in place, 16 with actual costs to date.

Year to date overall actual costs are tracking to budget both at $82,000.

55 Libraries funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

781 10 27 818

751 54 805

478 93 571 247

506 93 599 206

30 (44) 27 13 28 28 41

3,006 217 3,223

2,714 88 2,802

1,865 373 2,238 985

1,679 364 2,043 759

Note

1

2

Commentary 1. Receipt of the balance of the Lincoln relocation costs of $25,000 contribute significantly to the other operating funding favourable variance.

2. Payment to staff and suppliers are favourable to budget by $28,000. Contributing variance come from outreach and promotion activity, cleaning, software and subscriptions which are predominately timing related. Payroll is $16,000 unfavourable to budget which in part reflects the library restructuring costs.

Activity • • •

1057 people attended events in libraries (target for the month was 666).

Libraries rebranding has been completed.

Planning was begun on an “Early Years Strategy” for children up to 3 years of age, to encourage membership and to develop new programmes and activities for this age group.

Service targets for Libraries Performance measure Visits to libraries

Target 333,190

Actual to date 78,770

Comments

Event attendees

8,000

2,680

Note increased attendance due to new programmes and learning positives

Swimming Pools funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

56 2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

133 356 307 796

133 353 289 775

539 105 67 711 85

558 108 67 733 42

3 18 21 19 3 22 43

534 1,411 1 1,156 3,102

369 1,317 3 1,281 2,971

2,266 433 267 2,966 135

2,145 433 252 2,830 141

Note

1

Commentary 1. Community pools are $45,000 favourable due to seasonality as the season goes from October to March. Year to date SAC is $26,000 unfavourable to budget, electricity $15,000, maintenance $6,500, staff $16,000 offset by favourable training variance $10,000.

Activity • • • • •

The Aquatic Centre hosted the first ever Selwyn Swim Club Junior Meet – 200 swimmers competed from Canterbury wide.

A successful Speedo Fashion Parade was held with 50 people attending.

The Aquatic Centre hosted a Koru Games activity, with 46 swimmers competing.

Flipper Ball – 7 teams completed a 6 week competition, with a total of 54 players.

The facility continues to experience heavy demand on pool space, especially for lane swimming whilst the Swim School is operating. The Centre noticeboard advises of “best times to lane swim”.

Service targets for Swimming Pools Performance measure

Target

Actual to date Comments

Selwyn Aquatic Centre Achieve revenue target

$1,118,344

$306,725

Attendees

290,000

66,060

On track to exceed target.

Townships funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

57 2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

581 3 584

581 4 585

-

(1)

2,326 15 2,341

1,609 33 8 1,650

427 121 12 560 24

384 121 35 540 45

(43) 23 (20) (21)

1,559 485 139 2,183 158

1,310 448 108 1,866 (216)

3 (4) -

Note

1

Commentary 1. The main contributor to the unfavourable variance of payments to suppliers relates to tree maintenance. Areas of the district have been hit by snow and wind damage that required cleaning up. The full year budget for tree maintenance is $57,000 with $57,000 being spent to the end of August. It has been identified that it will be a challenge to maintain normal maintenance with year to date costs being so close to budget.

58 Buildings & Other funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

533 4 267 13 817

533 3 302 2 840

1 (35) 11 (23)

2,131 10 1,197 7 3,345

1,474 32 1,223 29 2,759

498 1 181 1 681 136

637 3 181 821 19

139 2 (1) 140 117

2,400 12 740 3,153 192

1,572 6 864 2,442 317

Note

1

The above table includes all other Community facilities: Cemeteries, office buildings, public toilets, and forestry, housing and gravel reserves.

Commentary

1. Gravel reserves expenditure favourable to budget by $82,000 (which includes $49,000 of operational projects), staff have authorised rehabilitation work on Lochheads Pit (estimate $15,000) while other pits will also be worked on prior to Christmas reducing this variance, public toilet expenditure favourable to budget by $17,000, office buildings $74,000 (which includes $99,000 of operational projects) and cemetery by $20,000. These favourable variances are offset by increased expenditure in office buildings operating expenditure of $26,000 (maintenance and electricity) and forestry by $9,000.

Service targets for Buildings & Other Performance measure Cemeteries

Target

Number of complaints received per annum related to cemetery ≤10 service

Actual to date

Nil

Comments

59 Community services funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

630 41 8 679

630 26 14 670

-

9

2,520 104 55 2,679

2,360 169 259 18 2,806

430 76 5 511 168

560 76 9 645 25

130 4 134 143

2,190 304 36 2,530 149

2,006 295 57 2,358 448

15 (6) -

Note

1

Commentary 1. Community Services contribute $143,000 to the favorable for payments to staff and suppliers, staff costs $53,000 and events and activity $95,000 which relates to the timing of events and the activity season.

Rural Fire unfavourable variance of $13,000. Operating projects of $21,000 which include fire ground costs of $17,000 of which the majority will be on charged to property owners or claimed off the National Rural Fire Authority.

Activity Community Development • Consultation workshops were run for both the youth strategy and the new district youth guide – “The Insider’s Guide to Selwyn”.

• September included 2 events as part of the walking festival.

• Youth events included Darfield’s got Talent and Rapid Storm.

• Community training included Facebook 101 and “Telling Stories through Video”.

Emergency Management • The enlarged Rural Fire District planning is progressing, with a report being presented to Council late November.

Service targets for community services Performance measure Number of events delivered/facilitated

Target 22 Events

Number of events targeted at youth

40 Youth 5 events 12 Community 7 workshops

Community organisation training programmes

Actual to date 18

Comments Walking Festival

Facebook 101; Telling Stories Through Video

60 Environmental services funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

1,091 15 1,979 3,085

1,091 25 2,001 3,117

2,481 330 2,811 274

2,509 330 1 2,840 277

(10) (22) (32)

4,364 102 7,174 11,640

3,865 115 6,453 10,433

28

10,204 1,320 5 11,529 111

8,031 1,283 9,314 1,119

1 29 (3)

Note

1

Commentary 1. Payments to staff and suppliers – the favourable variance of $28,000 is largely related to lower than budgeted staff costs of $21,000, other favourable variances include general expenditure $37,000, and legal expenses $43,000. These are partly offset by an unfavourable variance in Building levies of $50,000 due to the continued increased growth in the district, which will be reflected in a favourable variance for income in this area.

See appendix for Performance targets for Environmental services

Transportation funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

61 2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

1,221 280 1,626 46 3,173

1,221 273 1,461 45 3,000

1,603 217 360 2,180 993

1,643 232 360 2,235 765

7 165 1 173 40 15 55 228

4,885 1,092 5,843 180 12,000

5,917 1,035 5,440 17 172 12,581

6,571 928 1,450 8,949 3,051

5,900 834 1,339 8,073 4,508

Note

1

2

Commentary 1. The favourable variance in subsidies relate to NZTA’s share of the Lincoln to Rolleston cycle way costs which are unbudgeted.

2. The better spring and early summer weather has meant that pre-reseal repairs and other sealed pavement maintenance (digout repairs) are under way. Removal of high shoulders has also been carried out with 54 km completed.

The total expenditure is under the year to date budget with maintenance and operations above and renewals below. With resealing starting in October the renewals expenditure will increase over the next six months.

Service targets for Transportation services Performance measure Response to service requests: The percentage of customer service requests relating to roads and footpaths to which the territorial authority responds within the time frame specified in the long term plan.

Maintenance of a sealed local road network: The percentage of the sealed local road network that is resurfaced.

Road Safety: The change from the previous financial year in the number of fatalities and serious injury crashes on the local road network, expressed as a number.

Service Area All

Target >75% resolution within the timeframe specified

Actual to date

Comments

Sealed roads

≼6.3% (70km)

0km

No resurfacing has occurred yet

Road Safety

Progressively reducing number of fatal and serious crashes.

Actual to date: 1 Fatal,7 Serious injury Previous financial year (full yr) 10 Fatal , 36 Serious injury

62 Solid waste management funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

1,267 1,005 2,272

1,310 4 930 2,244

(43) (4) 75 28

5,241 15 1,998 7,254

4,616 48 2,042 6,706

1,814 88 1,902 370

2,025 88 2,113 131

211 211 239

6,377 352 6,729 525

5,355 330 5,685 1,021

Note

1

2

Commentary 1. Fees and charges relate to all Resource Recovery Park (RRP) activities and is favourable to budget by $75,000, relating to RRP receipts.

2. Expenditure relating to refuse collection operations: • •

Recycling contract payments are favourable by $93,000 Tip charges favourable by $65,000.

Expenditure relating to refuse disposal operations: •

Operational projects favourable to budget by $60,000.

Water supply funding impact statement

63 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges and targeted rates for metered w ater Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

1,131 52 284 1,467

1,103 39 284 1,426

-

41

5,081 1,136 6,217

4,220 1,206 1,048 3 6,477

715 568 18 1,301 166

762 568 1,330 96

47 (18) 29 70

3,787 2,272 6,059 158

2,898 2,096 111 5,105 1,372

28 13 -

Note

1

Commentary 1. This represents the net total operating expenditure of urban and rural water supplies.

Operational expenditure has an overall favourable variance of $29,079. Within this favourable variance, total maintenance costs are unfavourable by $65,421 (Sicon standard charges are on budget, while reactive charges are over budget by $65,468). Electricity charges are over budget for the first quarter by $10,408. This figure is largely offset by consultant’s fees being under budget by $9,274. Monitoring of water quality costs is under budget, year to date, by $28,350 due to reduced transgressions. The balance of the overall favourable variance being made up from numerous accounts.

Lower than budgeted expenditure on operational projects total $84,241. This positive variance arises from a number of small projects yet to be commenced but which have been phased to occur evenly throughout the year.

Service targets for Water supply Performance measure Water supply The total number of complaints received about drinking water clarity, continuity of supply, odour, taste, pressure and flow, expressed per 1000 rated properties.

(Mandatory Performance Measure)

Target

Actual to date

Comments

Less than 15.

<3

On track

The extent to which the drinking water supplies comply with the drinking water standards for bacteria compliance.

(Mandatory Performance Measure)

â&#x2030;Ľ97% of monitoring 99.89% treatment On track samples comply, at both plant the treatment plant and 100% reticulation within the reticulation, across the district

Waste water funding impact statement

64

2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

1,161 (4) 160 1,317

1,124 51 160 1,335

744 461 321 1,526 (209)

836 601 321 1,758 (423)

(55) (18)

4,495 203 640 5,338

4,445 658 591 5,694

92 140 232 214

3,860 2,403 1,280 7,543 (2,205)

2,863 1,697 1,183 5,743 (49)

37

Note

1 2

Commentary

1. Operational expenditure has an overall favourable variance of $91,999. Included within this

variance is a prior year credit from Sicon totaling $42,272 (Sicon standard charges are slightly under budget and reactive charges, after adding back the prior year credit, are over budget by $16,186). Further analysis of the overall favourable budget shows that electricity is over budget by $23,801 and the monitoring of water quality is $23,325 under budget. The balance of the favourable variance is made up from numerous accounts.

Lower than budget operational project costs total $56,764. This positive variance arises from a number of small projects yet to be commenced but which have been phased to occur evenly throughout the year.

2. Reduced interest charges because of lower than budgeted borrowing levels.

Service targets for Waste water Performance measure Waste water The total number of complaints received about sewage odour, blockages and system faults, expressed per 1000 rated properties.

(Mandatory Performance Measure) The number of wet and dry weather wastewater overflows from the wastewater system, expressed per 1000 rated properties.

(Mandatory Performance Measure)

Target

Actual to date

Comments

Less than 15.

<2

On track

Less than 1 overflow Nil

On track

Stormwater funding impact statement

65

2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

173 173

184 184

(11) (11)

735 735

549 1 550

88 37 59

158 40 59 257 (73)

70 3

709 160 237 1,106 (371)

286 127 217 630 (80)

184 (11)

73 62

Note

1

Commentary 1. Operating expenditure has an overall favourable variance totaling $70,426. Within this variance, lower than budgeted maintenance costs total $26,133.

Lower than budget operational project costs total $40,760. This positive variance arises from a number of small projects of which the majority have been started. The project for the preparation of stormwater catchment management plans is the largest of the projects with a full year budget of $138,770 and is well underway.

The balance of the favourable variance is made up from numerous accounts.

Service targets for Storm water Performance measure Storm water

Target

The number of complaints received about the performance of the Less than 10 storm water system, expressed per 1000 rated properties. (Mandatory Performance Measure) The number of flooding events that occur as a result of overflow from Nil in less than 50 the storm water system that enters a habitable floor. year storm events.

(Mandatory Performance Measure)

Actual to date

Comments

<2

On track

Nil

On track

66 Water races and land drainage funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

11 487 79 81 658

11 495 40 81 627

376 162 538 120

541 162 703 (76)

-

31

43 1,981 294 325 2,643

17 1,721 373 300 2,411

165 165 196

2,175 650 2,825 (182)

1,809 600 2,409 2

(8) 39 -

Note

1

Commentary 1. Operating water race expenditure has an overall favourable variance of $128,944, largely due to lower maintenance costs favourable by $114,129 (Sicon standard charges are on budget, the reactive charges are $114,129 under budget) and urban maintenance and enhancements costs under budget by $9,498. Operating projects are under budget by $3,190. This positive variance arises from a number of small projects yet to be commenced but which have been phased to occur evenly throughout the year. The balance of the favourable variance is made up from numerous accounts.

Operating land drainage expenditure has an overall favourable variance of $35,807 due to lower maintenance costs being under budget by $24,364. Operating projects are under budget by $8,205. This positive variance arises from a number of small projects yet to be commenced but which have been phased to occur evenly throughout the year. The balance of the favourable variance is made up from numerous accounts.

Service targets for Water races and land drainage Performance measure Target Water Races The total number of complaints received about continuity Less than 200. of supply, expressed per 1000 rated properties.

Actual to date

Comments

<4

On track

The number of complaints received about the Less than 10 performance of the Land Drainage system, expressed per 1000 rated properties.

Nil

On track

Izone southern business hub funding impact67 statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B) Sources of capital funding Subsidies for capital expenditure Development and financial contributions Increase / (decrease) in debt Gross sales proceeds from sale of assets Total sources of capital funding (C) Applications of capital funding Capital - grow th Capital - level of service Capital - renew als Increase / (decrease) in reserves Increase / (decrease) of investments Total applications of capital funding (D) Surplus / (deficit) of capital funding (C-D)

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000

-

2016

3

-

8

3

568 568 (565)

(5)

8

(5)

31

113 28 141

(79) (79) (84)

1,615 1,615 (1,584)

2,839 43 2,882 (2,741)

2,694 2,694

(876) (876)

10,774 10,774

(10,103) 32,066 21,963

-

-

1,211 1,253 565

2,213 2,213 481

(42) 1,002 960 84

27,800 (18,610) 9,190 1,584

1,915 17,307 19,222 2,741

-

-

-

-

-

1,818 1,818 42

Funding balance (A-B) + (C-D)

489 489 (481)

31 -

Note

1

2

3

Commentary 1. Izone expenditure directly related to increased sales activity and cost associated with Stage 7 planning.

2. Forecast sales activity indicates that gross proceeds budget will be met; a further $750,000 of sales is forecast to be received by December 2015.

3. Stage 7 in preliminary stage, with construction costs to be incurred from October 2015 onwards.

Service targets for Izone Southern Business Hub Performance measure Sale of 10 ha on average per year.

Target 10 ha

Actual to date Comments 1.6ha 2 lots sold as at 31/08/15

68 Internal Council services funding impact statement 2016

Sources of operating funding General rates Targeted rates Subsidies and grants for operating purposes Fees and charges Internal charges and overheads recovered Other operating funding Total operating funding (A) Application of operating funding Payments to staff and suppliers Finance costs Internal charges applied Other operating funding applications Total application of operating funding (B) Surplus / (deficit) of operating funding (A-B)

2016

2016

2016

2015

YTD Actual YTD Budget Variance f/(u) $'000 $'000 $'000

FY Budget

Actual

$'000

$'000 (6,846) 603 147 2,238 11,182 10,855 18,179 11,039 208 1,370 34 12,651 5,528

(1,818) 143 554 3,005 1,712 3,597

(1,818) 140 2 465 3,005 726 2,521

-

986 1,076

(7,270) 562 130 1,742 12,084 7,996 15,244

2,951 (84) 348 5 3,220 377

3,012 124 348 36 3,520 (1,000)

61 208 31 300 1,376

11,020 494 1,427 144 13,085 2,159

3 (2) 89

Note

1

2

Commentary 1. Due to an unbudgeted dividend received from Orion of $875,000 as part of the share buyback process.

2. Due to working capital being used for major capital projects instead of external borrowing.

Internal council services Support services Internal support and administration functions exist to assist the Council’s significant activities in the delivery of outputs and services with the exception of taxation expense. The cost of all support services (overheads) is allocated to each of the Council’s significant activities on a cost basis.

Support services include: CEO’s department, Finance function, Information services, Records management and Asset management and service delivery.

The internal Council services activity also covers the Council’s corporate income, including dividends, interest and property leases. Because it includes corporate income, the Internal Council Services activity generates a surplus. This surplus is used to reduce the general rate requirement so that all ratepayers benefit from this income. As a result, the general rates line in the funding impact statement represents a reduction to general rates rather than funding from general rates.

69

Cash flow Report September 2015 Cashflow forecast 2015/16 ($000) 2015 YTD

2016 October

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

March

April

May

June

Total

Opening cash

6,856

4,166

1,863

1,752

1,824

1,156

1,341

2,842

2,597

1,255

6,856

Cash inflow s

26,018

3,796

9,377

12,925

3,774

9,037

12,497

6,638

9,432

11,893

105,384

Operating cash outflow s Capital cash outflow s

(14,205)

(5,211)

(5,211)

(5,201)

(5,201)

(5,201)

(5,196)

(5,196)

(5,196)

(5,181)

(60,999)

(7,155)

(3,231)

(3,300)

(4,374)

(1,664)

(2,173)

(2,003)

(3,759)

(2,201)

(1,966)

(31,826)

(657)

(977)

(1,277)

(577)

(15,820)

Izone cash outflow s

(426)

Investments Total outflow s

(1,477)

(2,797)

(1,927)

(4,377)

(1,327)

(6,923)

3,000

-

-

3,000

-

-

4,000

1,000

-

(28,709)

(6,099)

(9,488)

(10,852)

(4,442)

(8,851)

(9,996)

(6,882)

(10,774)

(8,474)

4,165

1,863

1,752

3,825

1,156

1,342

3,842

2,598

1,255

4,674

7,672

-

-

-

(2,000)

-

-

(1,000)

-

-

(3,000)

(6,000)

4,165

1,863

1,752

1,825

1,156

1,342

2,842

2,598

1,255

1,674

1,672

55,092

55,092

55,092

53,092

53,092

53,092

52,092

52,092

52,092

49,092

49,092

Forecast cash balance Borrow ing required Closing cash Cumulative borrow ing

55,092

4,077 (104,568)

Commentary Expected future cash flows for the remainder of this financial year indicate that no further borrowing requirement is needed. Borrowing is forecast to reduce by $6m in the current financial year, reflecting the continued growth trend seen in the last financial year.

The quarterly treasury report for period July to September provides further information on the borrowing requirements to meet Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cash flows needs.

Carl Colenutt SYSTEMS ACCOUNTANT ENDORSED FOR AGENDA:

GREG BELL CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGER

70

Appendix 1 LIMS TOTALS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2015

Average Processing Days for September:

5

LIMS Issued September 2015:

170

LIMS Issued August 2015:

162

LIMS Received September 2015:

172

MONTH July August September October November December January February March April May June

2015-2016 170 162 170

2014-2015 151 140 150 190 171 110 129 164 170 146 143 157

2013-2014 172 183 170 173 175 104 142 155 190 164 184 164

2012-2013 130 151 144 165 204 99 123 139 176 167 185 151

71

LIMS YTD TOTALS MONTH July August September October November December January February March April May June

2015-2016 170 332 502

2014-2015 151 291 441 631 802 912 1041 1205 1375 1521 1664 1821

2013-2014 172 355 525 698 873 977 1119 1274 1464 1628 1812 1976

2012-2013 130 281 425 590 794 893 1016 1155 1331 1498 1683 1834

72 Appendix 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES STATISTICS REPORT TO 30 September 2015

73

BUILDING STATISTICS

JULY 2015

AUGUST 2015

SEPTEMBER 2015

Pims Number Received

67

76

85

Number of PIM's Issued

86

97

83

84 21.33 86.60%

80 4.78 96.39%

Number Issued within 20 working days 73 Average Processing Days 20.62 Percentage completed within 20 days 84.88%

Number Received

231

New Dwellings 101

Number of Consents Issued

210

108

12

16

74

209

112

10

13

74

236

142

13

14

67

655

362

35

43

215

203 10.46

103 11.44

12 11.67

15 10.94

73 8.80

198 12.83

110 12.4

7 17

12 11.54

69 13.30

223 13.59

135 14.17

11 14.92

14 0

63 15.10

624 12.34

348 12.81

30 14.40

41 7.56

205 12.20

96.67%

95.37%

100.00%

93.75%

98.65%

94.74%

98.21%

70.00%

92.31%

93.24%

94.49%

95.07%

94.03%

95.27%

96.13%

85.71%

95.35%

95.35%

288 210 (78) (27% )

138 108 (30) (22% )

4 12 8 200%

6 16 10 167%

140 74 (66) (47% )

240 209 (31) (13% )

148 112 (36) (24% )

6 10 4 67%

14 13 (1) (7% )

72 74 2 3%

221 236 15 7%

121 142 21 17%

87 67 (20) (23% )

2790 655 (2,135) (77% )

1626 362 (1,264) (78% )

119 35 (84) (71% )

154 43 (111) (72% )

808 215 (593) (73% )

BUILDING CONSENTS

No. Issued Within 20 Working Days Average Processing Days % Completed within 20 Days No. of Consents Issued 2014/15 No. of Consents Issued 2015/16 Increase (Decrease) % Increase (Decrease) CODE COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATES No. of Applications Received

Total

Comm

Ind

Other

Total

Comm

Ind

Other

Total

220

New Dwellings 102

10

10

110

5

18

95

179

New Comm Dwellings 97 6

YEAR TO DATE 1/7/15 - 30/06/16

Indust

Other

Total

10

66

84.62% 100.00% 5 13 8 160%

8 14 6 75%

Comm

Indust

Other

630

New Dwellings 300

21

38

271

26

26

16

68

226

194

207

627

224 0.72 99.12%

192 0.74 98.97%

204 2.42 98.55%

CERTIFICATES OF ACCEPTANCE Number Received

1

2

0

3

No. of Cert's of Acceptance Issued

0

1

0

1

No. of Notices to Fix Issued

0

0

0

0

EXEMPTIONS No. of Exempetions Received No. of Exemptions Granted/Declined

3 6

3 3

9 6

15 15

6

34

No. of CCC's Issued No. Issued Within 20 Working Days Average Processing Days % Completed within 20 Days

620 1.29 98.88%

NOTICES TO FIX

Note:- there is no statutory timeframe within which an Exemption shall be issued however we endeavour to deal with these on a weekly basis.

Natural Disasters Number Received

6

7

74

75

76 1 JULY 2015 - 30 JUNE 2016 RESOURCE CONSENT STATISTICS STATUS OF APPLICATIONS

Number of Applications Received 01/07/15 - 30/06/16

233

Status of these applications as at 31/07/2015 Deceision Notified Deferred Under S.91 Formally Received Further Information required & received Deferred - On Hold Application returned - Incomplete Currently Being Processed (including awaiting hearing) Process Suspended by Applicant Section 223 approved Section 224 Issued Withdrawn

133 1 35 21 12 5 10 3 2 4 7

TIMELINESS OF ISSUE (includes issue of consents received prior to 1/7/13)

57.1% 0.4% 15.0% 9.0% 5.2% 2.1% 4.3% 1.3% 0.9% 1.7% 3.0%

Jul-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Non Notified Number Completed Within 20 Working Days % Completed Within 20 Working Days Average Processing Days

Land Use 40 40 100% 12.65

Subdivision 14 14 100% 12.43

Total 54 54 100% 12.59

Notified (no hearing) Number Completed Within 50 Working Days % Completed Within 50 Working Days Average Processing Days

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

Notified With Hearing Number Completed Within 130 Working Days % Completed Within 130 Working Days Average Processing Days

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

Limited Notification (no hearing) Number Completed Within 65 Working Days % Completed Within 65 Working Days Average Processing Days

0 0 N/A 0.00

1 1 100% 31.00

1 1 100% 31.00

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0.00

0 0 % 0

1 1 100% 37

1 1 100% 37

0 0 N/A 0.00

2 2 100% 34.00

2 2 100% 17.00

Limited Notification With Hearing Number Completed Within 100 Working Days % Completed Within 100 Working Days Average Processing Days

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0

0 0 N/A 0%

1 1 100% 57.00

1 1 100% 57.00

2 2 100% 57.00

2 2 100% 66.50

1 1 100% 85.00

3 3 100% 72.67

3 3 100% 63

2 2 100% 71

5 5 100% 67.17

40 40 100% 12.65

15 15 100% 13.67

55 55 100% 12.92

38 38 100% 11.66

15 15 100% 15.00

53 53 100% 12.60

46 45 98% 12.78

18 18 100% 19.61

64 63 98% 14.70

124 123 99% 12.39

48 48 100% 16.31

172 171 99% 13.49

TOTAL ISSUES NUMBER COMPLETED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIMEFRAME % COMPLETED WITHIN TIMEFRAME AVERAGE PROCESSING DAYS

Land Use Subdivision 37 14 37 14 100% 100% 10.43 12

Total 51 51 100% 10.86

Land Use Subdivision 44 16 43 16 98.00% 100% 10.34 14.44

Total 60 59 98% 11.43

YEAR TO DATE (1/7/15 - 30/06/16) Land Use Subdivision 121 44 120 44 99% 100% 11.13 13.02

Total 165 164 99% 12.08

77

78

79

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & ANIMAL CONTROL STATISTICS BY YEAR

Environmental Health

Number of Liquor Licences Issued Club Licences On Licences Off Licences General Managers & Club Managers combined from 1.7.14 Club Managers - Finished Special Licences Temporary Authorities Total Number of Licenced Food Premises / Trades Reported Infectious Diseases

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 8 14 7 12 17 4 22 26 28 26 21 24 18 18 18 16 9 12 102 141 160 133 142 171 11 15 22 13 25 8 87 95 102 124 142 134 30 38 6 12 23 27 270 333 343 336 379 380

2014/15 8 23 16 134 0 106 0 287

2015/16 8 9 4 83 0 45 8 157

177

189

189

218

201

224

240

242

75

30

210

75

66

94

122

31

Animal Control

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

No of Dogs Registered at Period End No of Dogs Unregistered at Period End

10,248 10,378 10,628 11,003 11,434 11,814 12,352 0 19 8 47 0 0 0 10,248 10,397 10,636 11,050 11,434 11,814 12,352 100.00% 99.82% 99.92% 99.57% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

11,943 188 12,131 98.45%

No of Dogs Legally Required to be Micro chipped No of Dogs Micro chipped at Period End % of Dogs Micro chipped of those Legally Required to be Micro chipped

4,117 3,665 89.0%

5,236 6,429 7,371 8,580 4,618 5,446 6,265 7,490 88.2% 84.71% 85.00% 87.30%

5,962

6,180

6,395

6,689

6,968

436

590

645

704

No. of Infringements Issued

41

23

26

Total Number of Dogs Classified as Menacing (by breed / deed)

27

35

Total Number of Dogs Classified as Dangerous

2

2

No of Owners at Period End Urgent Number of Dog Related Complaints No of Dog Complaints attended to within 4 hours % of complaints attended to within 4 hours

9,228 8,358 90.57%

9,311 8,273 88.85%

7,294

7,693

7,621

677

756

1182

245 245 100.00%

47

77

78

130

3

43

47

39

56

65

65

2

2

3

4

5

3

Please note: Staff have contacted most owners that are unregistered. Infringements have been issued - 25 owners are to be visited.

Appendix 3

Assets Capital projects >$100k

80

81

82

Appendix 4 Property & Commercial Capital projects >$100k

83

84

85

Appendix 5 Other Council capital projects >$100k

86 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Corporate Accountant

DATE:

28 October 2015

SUBJECT:

Central Plains Water Trust annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015

1.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council receives the Central Plains Water Trust’s annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015 for information.

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to give the Council the opportunity to review the Central Plains Water Trust’s results for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT The trust is a Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act 2002 and is required to complete their annual report by the end of September each year. The Trust received an unmodified audit opinion on the 30 September 2015.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND Not relevant to this report.

5.

PROPOSAL The Central Plains Water Trust’s annual report for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 is attached for information.

6.

OPTIONS Not relevant to this report.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION Not relevant to this report.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS Not relevant to this report.

G:\Finance\Central Plains Water\Trust\2015\Report to Council on CPWT Annual Report 2015.doc

87 9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES Not relevant to this report.

10.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS Not relevant to this report.

11

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Not relevant to this report.

12

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS There are no funding implications.

13

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Not relevant to this report.

Craig Moody CORPORATE ACCOUNTANT ENDORSED FOR AGENDA

Greg Bell CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGER

G:\Finance\Central Plains Water\Trust\2015\Report to Council on CPWT Annual Report 2015.doc

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

ADD SEWLYN LOGO AND CD LOGO

111

NOV 15FIRE PLAN

DECEMBER 2013

112

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ADOPTION OF FIRE PLAN.................................................................................. 6 SECTION 1 ......................................................................................................... 7 REDUCTION – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES .................................................... 7 SELWYN DISTRICT RURAL FIRE AUTHORITY ......................................................... 7 RURAL FIRE AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................... 7 FIRE HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ..................................... 8 FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ..................................................................... 8 LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ......................................................................... 9 PUBLIC EDUCATION ACTIVITIES ........................................................................... 11 COST RECOVERY/PROSECUTION POLICIES ......................................................... 11 DISTRICT BYLAWS ................................................................................................... 12 FIRE CONTROL MEASURES .................................................................................... 12 ASSESSING OF FIRE HAZARDS AND STRATEGIC TACTICAL FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................................................................................................... 12 SECTION II ...................................................................................................... 13 READINESS – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ..................................................... 13 SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ....................... 13 ........................................................................................................... 13 MAPS RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHAIN OF COMMAND ................................................... 14 APPOINTMENT OF RFOS ........................................................................................ 15 PRINCIPAL RURAL FIRE OFFICER & RURAL FIRE OFFICERS .............................. 15 MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS ................................................................................. 16 COMMITTEES................................................................................................... 17 TRAINING ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................. 17 RESPONSE ASSISTANCE .......................................................................................... 17 ARRANGEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS ..................................................................... 18 SPECIAL PROTECTED AREAS.................................................................................. 18 FIRE SEASON STATUS.............................................................................................. 20 TRIGGER POINTS FOR IMPOSING FIRE SEASON STATUS .................................... 20 TRIGGER POINTS RELATIVE TO EXOTIC FORESTS ............................................. 20 FIRE PROTECTION WORKS .................................................................................... 20 FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEM ............................................................................ 21 AWARENESS & RESOURCE RESPONSE TO EACH LEVEL OF FIRE DANGER ..... 21 DEGREES OF READINESS NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES .................................... 23 FIRE WEATHER MONITORING .............................................................................. 23 FIRE DANGER LEVEL INDICATOR BOARDS ......................................................... 23 FIRE DETECTION .................................................................................................... 23 EQUIPMENT READINESS AND MAINTENANCE..................................................... 23

113

SECTION III.....................................................................................................25 RESPONSE – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ......................................................25 RECEIPT OF FIRE CALLS ........................................................................................ 25 INITIAL RESPONSE TO FIRES ................................................................................. 25 REPORTING AND CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE INCIDENTS..................................... 26 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 26 FIRE-FIGHTING RESOURCES .................................................................................. 28 CHAIN OF COMMAND ............................................................................................ 28 ORGANISATION CHART .......................................................................................... 29 ORGANISATION CHART FOR SMALL FIRES .......................................................... 30 INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNITS ATTENDING RURAL FIRES....................................... 30 KEY DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES OF INCIDENT CONTROLLERS (IC) ................. 32 COMMUNICATIONS METHODS ............................................................................... 32 ACTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY ATTENDING RFO ...................................... 32 FIRE LOG AND INCIDENT ACTION PLAN ............................................................. 35 FIRE REGISTER ........................................................................................................ 35 RURAL FIRE REPORT............................................................................................... 36 PERSONNEL & EQUIPMENT RECORDS ................................................................. 36 SECTION IV .....................................................................................................37 RECOVERY - POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ......................................................37 HEALTH & SAFETY OF PERSONNEL ..................................................................... 37 OPERATIONAL REVIEWS ........................................................................................ 37 OPERATIONAL DEBRIEFS ....................................................................................... 37 CRITICAL INCIDENT STAFF DEBRIEF .................................................................... 37 RURAL FIRE INVESTIGATION(S) ............................................................................ 38 REHABILITATION .................................................................................................... 38 COMMUNITY RECOVERY AND RESPONSE ............................................................ 38 PLAN DISTRIBUTION -------------------------------------------------------------------28 APPENDICES------------------------------------------------------------------------------29 APPENDIX A - RESOURCES REGISTER .................................................................. 33 APPENDIX B - PERMIT TO LIGHT FIRE ................................................................. 61 APPENDIX C - SELWYN DISTRICT ADJOINING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ............ 64 APPENDIX D - SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL - HILL AND HIGH COUNTRY .......... 65 APPENDIX D1 - SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL - PLAINS AND PORT HILLS ............ 66 APPENDIX E - SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL VRFF CALLOUT AREAS ..................... 67 APPENDIX F - NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICES PREDETERMINED FIRE RESPONSE AREAS (PDA) ........................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX G - NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE URBAN FIRE DISTRICTS................. 69 APPENDIX G1 - NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE URBAN FIRE BOUNDARIES ......... 70 APPENDIX G2 - NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE URBAN FIRE BOUNDARIES ......... 71 APPENDIX H - NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE - RURAL FIRE DISTRICTS ......... 72

114 APPENDIX I - DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - FIRE CONTROL AREAS ......... 73 APPENDIX J - SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL - ROADING HIERARCHY ................... 74 APPENDIX K - AGREEMENT - HEB CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ............................. 75 APPENDIX L - REGISTER OF COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AT RISK 76 APPENDIX M - NSIRRFC - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ........................ 78 APPENDIX N - NOTIFICATION - RESTRICTED FIRE SEASON ................................. 83 APPENDIX O - NOTIFICATION - PROHIBITED FIRE SEASON ................................ 85 APPENDIX P - LIFTING OF FIRE RESTRICTIONS ..................................................... 86 APPENDIX Q - FORMS Q1 FIRE LOG ..................................................................................... 87 Q2 RURAL FIRE REPORT .................................................................. 88 Q3 PERSONNEL & VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT – DAILY SUMMARY .... 89 Q4 WILD FIRE – INITIAL REPORT.................................................... 90 Q5 FIRE BEHAVIOUR........................................................................ 92 Q6 NRFA NOTIFICATION FORM ...................................................... 93

115

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL FIRE PLAN

ADOPTION OF FIRE PLAN

This Fire Plan is prepared under the provisions of section 39(1) of the Forest and Rural Fires Regulations 2005.

It sets out the Policies and Procedures of Selwyn District Council to manage rural fires for the areas under Selwyn District Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s jurisdiction.

This Fire Plan was adopted by Council resolution on: 11 December 2013

Signed:

Kelvin Coe Mayor Selwyn District Council

Date:

11 December 2013

116

SECTION 1 REDUCTION – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This section sets out the policies and procedures Selwyn District Council have in place to mitigate and reduce the impact of a fire event within its Rural Fire Area.

SELWYN DISTRICT RURAL FIRE AUTHORITY Selwyn District Council is the Rural Fire Authority for its territorial area excluding those areas under the responsibility of other fire authorities.

Description Selwyn District is 6,492 square kilometres or 649,000 hectares in area and is bounded north and south by the Waimakariri and Rakaia Rivers. The District extends 150 kilometres from Lake Ellesmere around the edge of Christchurch City to the Southern Alps and Arthur’s Pass National Park. Approximately 320,000 hectares are within the Hill and High country with the balance of 330,000 on the plains.

The District is bisected by the Selwyn River which flows from the foothills into Lake Ellesmere.

Steep glacial mountains cover the western half of the District, rolling foothills occupy the middle and a broad plain with a patchwork of farms and small towns covers the east. Much of the High country tussock land is used for sheep grazing or is under the protection of the Department of Conservation.

Amendments of the plan Amendments of this plan will be done so with the approval of the Principal Rural Fire Officer and reported to the Selwyn District[CL1] Council October 2015 – amendments made to this plan Population Centres Selwyn has no large towns or cities. Approximately 45% of the population live in small towns and settlements, while the remainder live on farms and rural lifestyle blocks. Most people live on the plains within a short drive of Christchurch with only 5% living in the Hill and High country. Rapid growth is being experienced in the townships of Prebbleton, Lincoln, West Melton and Rolleston. The District population is estimated at 42,000: 52,000[CL2]

RURAL FIRE AUTHORITIES Within Selwyn District, there are three rural fire authorities and an urban fire authority (New Zealand Fire Service – NZFS). The Department of Conservation is the Fire Authority for all conservation lands, unoccupied crown lands as well as associated fire safety margins. Its responsibility covers 269,000 hectares with the majority being in the Hill and Hill country. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is the Fire Authority for Burnham Camp, Burnham Rural Fire District and West Melton Rural Fire District - an area of 1,758 hectares. The New Zealand Fire Service Brigades are responsible for their gazetted urban fire districts (2,592 hectares) and respond to rural areas within their call out area. Selwyn District Council is the Rural Fire Authority for all rural areas except those identified above and the gazetted urban fire districts - an area of 376,000 hectares or 3,760 square kilometres.

117

FIRE HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Selwyn District Council, as the Rural Fire Authority has statutory powers under the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977), the Forest and Rural Fires Regulations 2005 and the Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Bylaw 2009 to control the use of fire and those activities known to cause fire. These may include:  Seasonal restrictions on the use of fire (will be implemented based on either weather conditions or public activity);  Fire Risk Management Strategy  Land Management Strategies);  Public education (to educate community in fire risk and management);  Fire investigation (carried out to determine cause of all large or suspicious fires) - Section IV;  Cost recovery/Prosecutions (considered when appropriate);  District Rural Fire By law);  Fire Control Measures);  Assessment of fire hazards and tactical plans.

FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Fire Prevention Planning Regular inspections will be carried out on potential fire hazards and where appropriate notices will be issued requiring mitigation of the risk.in accordance with either the Local Government Act (2002) or the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977). Enforcement will be used to gain compliance with established standards.

Fire Zones The Council’s Fire Authority area is made up of two zones for rural fire management purposes. These are designated as: Zone 1 – The Hill and High Country Zone 2 – The Plains and Port Hills Zone 1 - The Hill and High Country The Hill and High Country zone is specifically defined by Canterbury Regional Council (formerly NCCB Map M566) and is generally all the land west of Rakaia Gorge Road, Windwhistle Road, Downs Road, Bridge Street, Homebush Road, Deans Road and SH 73 except the plains area around Sheffield, Waddington, Dalethorpe and Springfield. .

The Hill and High Country zone has special features: It is sparsely populated and fires can reach serious proportions before any control measures could be initiated.

Topography and lack of access and communication through the radio-telephone network make suppression and distribution of men and equipment costly and difficult.

The time factor in suppression and patrol can cover a lengthy period.

Serious permanent damage can result to soil and water values.

A more detailed description can be found in the Arthur’s Pass and High Country Strategic Tactical Fire Management Plan.

118

Zone 2 - The Plains and Port Hills The Plains start at the Hill and High Country zone boundary, go down to the Port Hills, Lake Ellesmere and the Coast and are bounded by the Rakaia River to the South West and the Waimakariri River to the North East The Plains consists of flat and rolling terrain and has a number of small towns and communities with a medium to large concentration and hence wildfire threat in a growing rural urban interface situation towards the boundary with Christchurch City. This interface can be best described as the number of lifestyle blocks from 5000 m2 to 4 ha in size, often having a higher proportion of vegetation in the form of shelter trees and gardens. These lifestyle blocks are often adjacent to each other, can have narrow access points for fire appliances and little in the way of fire fighting equipment that an urban property might have.[CL3] Selwyn District has a rapidly developing urban/rural area that presents a number of challenges for managing fire.[CL4] A more detailed description can be found in the Selwyn Plains Strategic Tactical Fire Management Plan.

The Port Hills are bounded by Christchurch City Council and the Plains. The terrain consists of steep slopes, covered grasslands, forests and increasing life-style blocks. The Hills have has an elevated fire risk due to land cover and recreational activities.

A more detailed description can be found in the Port Hills and Lyttelton Harbour Basin Strategic Tactical Fire Management Plan.[CL5] Fire Seasons The Council as a fire risk management strategy shall impose an open, restricted or prohibited fire season for the whole district or on an electoral ward basis[CL6], depending upon the fire danger applicable within each ward.

The area designated Zone 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Hill and High Country, within the Malvern electoral ward boundary, will remain in a permanent Restricted Fire Season. A Prohibited Fire Season may also be imposed in this zone.

Selwyn residents can view the councilscouncilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural fire section on the website www.selwyn.govt.nz/ruralfire to find current fire season status and search by location to find out[CL7] which zone or Rural Fire Authority they must contact.

Permanent Restricted Fire Season In the Hill and High country a Restricted Fire Season is permanently in place and Fire Permits are required all year round.

Fire permits are issued by Selwyn District Council except for those areas under Department of Conservation jurisdiction.

Resource consents for certain categories of burns are required from Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury defines Hill and High Country as having a land slope of more than 20 degrees or being more than 600 metres above sea level.

LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Fires as a Land Management Tool Policy The Plains area of the Selwyn District Council is predominantly an agricultural area. As such, Council recognises that properly managed fire is a suitable land management tool. The normal Restricted Fire Season for the Plains area within Zone 2 will allow burning of agricultural crop residues under certain conditions

119

without a Fire Permit. At all times a Fire Permit (permit to light fires) will be required in the Hill and High Country zone. (A copy of the Fire Permit is attached as Appendix B).

Fire Permits will generally not be issued for Zone 2 (Plains and Port Hills) during a Prohibited or Restricted season. or Restricted Season. FFire Permits may be issued on a case-by-case basis and depending on the current and predicted fire danger.

Fire Permits The responsibility for issuing Fire Permits rests with the Principal Rural Fire Officer (PRFO) or designated Deputy or Rural Fire Officers approved by the PRFO to issue Fire Permits.

Details and Policy on the issuing of fire permits are[CL8] contained in Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rural Fire Policy and Procedures Manual.

Fire permit holders must abide by all conditions set out in the permit. Failure to do so is a breach under the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977[CL9] A Fire Permit Register is to be maintained and copies of all permits issued retained.

Prescribed Fire Prescribed burning, as approved by the Principal Rural Fire Officer (PRFO) will be encouraged to assist landowners with farm management practices and to reduce fuel loading risk.

Rural fire officers will assist property owners to formulate prescribed burning plans and where appropriate, advise on best burning practices. [CL10] Hill and High country burning must follow district plan/ECAN rules.

Firebreak Specifications Firebreaks are required as a condition of lighting a fire under a Restricted Fire Season, for burning of crop residue or Fire Permit requirements requirements .and for plantations and wood lots.

All firebreaks are to be kept clear of flammable materials.

Outside a Restricted Fire Season, Council provides a set of guidelines and best practices for burns including recommended fire break specifications. The SewlynSelwyn District Rural Fire Bylaw 2009 conditions must be followed for any lighting of fire in the open air.

Firebreak Specifications for Crop Residue Firebreaks will generally be of a minimum width of 10m cleared to mineral earth.

Fire Break Specification Required by Fire Permits Fire break widths and any special requirements will be outlined in the Fire Permit Special Conditions.

Access Requirements and Standards Selwyn District Council as the fire authority has access to land in accordance with Section 36, Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977). Individual property owners must ensure access and egress for fire appliances and tankers and allow for turning points. A 4 metre height by 4 metre width is recommended to property owners.[CL11] Forest Areas

120

There are no registered forest areas within the Selwyn District Council Rural Fire District.

Protected Areas There are no designated protected areas within the Selwyn District Council Rural Fire District. Council will designate and review the need for protected areas on a case[CL12] by case basis.

PUBLIC EDUCATION ACTIVITIES Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Authority will actively carry out public education and awareness on rural fires. A budget item is provided for this purpose. The Annual Public Education Plan is developed and a copy can be found in Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rural Fire Policy and Procedures Manual. Does this exisit?? Fire Danger Indicator board sSigns are positioned in Darfieldage, Burnham (NZDF) and at the Selwyn District Council offices in Rolleston. in the district? In Use of media for periods of high fire danger, Rural Fire Officers actively alert residents of fire risk via council website banner information, local and social media and Selwyn Gets Ready. Permit holders are also contacted and/or appropriate action taken to minimise the risk of fire.?[CL13]

COST RECOVERY/PROSECUTION POLICIES Council will consider recovering fire fighting costs. No cost level is set down and costs are reviewed on a case by case basis. For border line cases, costs above $1,000 will be sought.[CL14] A charge of $50075 plus GST will be charged to recover cost for any fire that is lit without a fire permit in a Restricted or Prohibited Season[CL15] Council will also consider prosecution action in accordance with the provisions of the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977), the Forest and Rural Fire Regulations (2005) and the Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Bylaw (2009).

The Council recommends all landowners to have adequate Public Liability and Fire Suppression insurance in place before undertaking any burning activity.[CL16] If you are in doubt whether your insurance cover is adequate it is recommended you contact your insurance broker or insurer.[CL17] Charges for Services All costs will be recovered at the current contractual rates or current National Rural Fire Authority Rates as applicable.

Removal of Rubbish The removal of rubbish from a fire site is the responsibility of the land owner or the person in charge of the land.

121

DISTRICT BYLAWS Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Bylaw 2009 came into force on 1 July 2009. This bylaw supports the Forest and Rural Fire Act 1977, and the Forest and Rural Fire Regulations 2005 and provides authority to Council to manage fires within open fire seasons. It also ensures compliance with directions of Rural Fire Officers or Fire Service Personnel when required to extinguish fires.

FIRE CONTROL MEASURES In carrying out fire control measures, Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Authority will take into account any relevant National/Regional Policy Statements, Regional or Local District Plans or Regulations made under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Environment Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan Chapter 3: Air Quality has rules around types of material allowed to be burnt in rural areas and effectively prohibits outdoor burning in the District residential areas and in proximity to sensitive areas.

This fire plan and rural fire management recognises the requirements of Chapter 3: Air Quality.

There is a new proposed Canterbury Air Regional Plan which states current rules for outdoor burning. . For up to date information see: http://ecan.govt.nz/our-responsibilities/regional-plans/regional-plans-under-development/airplan/Pages/Default.aspx[CL18]

ASSESSING OF FIRE HAZARDS AND STRATEGIC TACTICAL FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANS Wild Fire Threat Assessments (WTA’s) have been carried out in conjunction with other members of the Canterbury Regional Rural Fire Authorities. Tactical plans have been developed based on WTA’s to identify, analyse, evaluate and treat the fire risks identified.

Within Selwyn District Territorial Boundaries, there are four (4) Strategic Tactical Fire Management Plans (STMP). They are designated: i) ii) iii) iv)

Plan MC-A Plan MC-C Plan MC-G Plan MC-H

-

Lower Waimakariri Port Hills and Lyttelton Harbour Selwyn Plains Arthur’s Pass and High Country.

These Plans identify the mitigation strategies to assist in rural fire reduction as well as providing guidelines in fire response.

The WTA was first carried out in 2006 with the Assessment reviewed and updated in September 2011. This review meets the National Rural Fire Authority requirements to complete a WTA by June 2013.

The STMPs meet the National Rural Fire Authorities Standard Assessing Fire Hazards. These Plans are reviewed every 2 years (Readiness/Response) and every 4 years (Reduction/Recovery).

122

SECTION II READINESS – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This section sets out the Policies and Procedures to maintain Selwyn District Council’s Rural Fire Authority in a state of readiness to respond to any rural fire event.

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

At all times the safety of human life must take priority over all other actions. Fire Fighter safety must be considered with this. The gGeneral order of priority is First

Human life

Second

Property/animals and stock

Third

Protected sites and high value conservation areas

Fourth

Vegetation and other values

In relation to its responsibilities, Council’s objectives are to carry out efficiently, and according to the degree of risk, its responsibilities as set out in the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) and the Forest and Rural Fire Regulations 2005:  To prevent unauthorised fires.  To detect and suppress in their early stages such fires as do occur.  To organise all potential fire fighting personnel, plant and equipment to the point where sufficient forces are readily available to suppress or control the largest of fires.  To train volunteer fire fighters in fire fighting methods and tactics.  To continually review and improve the organisation of fire fighting personnel and equipment within the limits of financial resources.  To reduce or control fire risk by efficient use of fire restrictions and publicity.  To identify and register special protected areas.

HEALTH AND SAFETY The wellbeing of all personnel is priority for Selwyn District Council while training and operating within the control of the Authority.

The provisions of the Health and Safety in the Workplace Act and soon to be law, Health and Safety Reform Bill must be complied with at all times.

A Health and Safety Hazard ID workplan for Rural Fire is being developed and DC…  Health and Ssafety policy and procedures updated whichand will be communicated to all personnel./ manual to be referred to (still in development)[CL19]

MAPS Maps showing 1) Selwyn District Council’s Rural Fire District, 2) adjacent Rural Fire Authorities, 3) principal roads, 4) Rural and Urban Call Out Areas, 5) Defence Rural Fire Districts, 6) Department of Conservation Fire Control Areas, are appendices to the Fire Plan.

123

Up to date maps on Fire Authority jurisdiction can be found on the Selwyn District Councils website http://www.selwyn.govt.nz/services/rural-fire/obtaining-a-permit.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND CHAIN OF COMMAND Selwyn District Council Fire Control Management Structure As required by the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) - Section 13, Selwyn District Council has appointed a Principal Rural Fire Officer (PRFO) and Rural Fire Officers (RFO).

The PRFO shall carry out all the responsibilities and duties contained within the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) Forest and Rural Fires Regulations 2005, the Selwyn District Authority Council Rural Fire Bylaw 2009 and any subsequent amendments.

The Principal Rural Fire Officer shall ensure that the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Rural Fire Authority is in a state of readiness to respond to any rural fire event.

A Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officer (DPRFO) will assume the above responsibilities during any absence of the PRFO. The PRFO or designated RFO will be the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s member on the Canterbury West Coast Regional Rural Fire Committee.

A Fire Force Controller and Deputy will be appointed to each Volunteer Rural Fire Force Unit. The Fire Force Controller is directly responsible to the PRFO for the management and operation of their units.

124

APPOINTMENT OF RFOS As required by Section 13 of the Forest and Rural Fire Acts (1977) Council, as the Rural Fire Authority will appoint Warranted RFOs. All RFOs including the PRFO and Deputies will hold a Warrant of Appointment.

This Warrant may be revoked at will by the appointed authority.

All Volunteer Rural Fire Force Units will have a minimum of two Warranted RFOs appointed.

PRINCIPAL RURAL FIRE OFFICER & RURAL FIRE OFFICERS

POSITION

NAME

Principal Rural Fire Officer

Wilson Brown

(Selwyn District Council)

Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officer

Douglas MarshallRobert Peard

(Selwyn District Council)

Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officer

Robert PeardDouglas (Selwyn District Council) Marshall

Rural Fire Officer

Alistair Hutt Timothy (Selwyn District Council) Mitchell

Rural Fire Officer

Christopher Hewitt

(Selwyn District Council)

Rural Fire Officer

Ian Butler

(Selwyn District Council)

Rural Fire Officer

Anthony Ward

(Selwyn District Council)

Rural Fire Officer

Ryan O’RourkeAlistair Hutt

(Selwyn District Council) (Selwyn District Council)

Rural Fire Officer Carrie Lakin Rural Fire Officer

Nicolas Menary

(Arthur’s Pass)

Rural Fire Officer

Graeme KatesHamish (Arthur’s Pass) Reid

Rural Fire Officer

Bruce Simpson

(Lake Coleridge)

Rural Fire Officer

Neil Fraser

(Lake Coleridge)

Rural Fire Officer

John Doherty

(West Melton)

Rural Fire Officer

Christopher Caldwell

(West Melton)

Rural Fire Officer

Graeme Kates

(Selwyn District RFO)

Rural Fire Officer

Anthony Teeling

(Selwyn District RFO)

Rural Fire Officer

Mark Strowger

(HEB Construction)

125

MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS To assist in the management of Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Authority, two management documents are provided:i)

The Policy and Procedures Manual This sets out how the governance, management and administration functions are managed and operate.

ii)

The Operational Details Manual This manual lists and describes the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural fire physical resources and keeps records of the testing and auditing required.

126

COMMITTEES Selwyn District Council is the Rural Fire Authority for the Selwyn District Rural Fire district.

TRAINING ARRANGEMENTS Training Policy The PRFO, DPRFOs and RFOs will hold and complete the required qualifications and standard of training required by this Fire Plan and required National Training Standards.

As a minimum all RFOs will hold Unit Standard 20399 - Responsibilities of a Rural Fire Officer..

All RFOs and members of the Emergency Response Team (ERT) are to hold a minimum of Level 2 of the Coordinated Incident Management Systems (CIMS) and Demonstrate knowledge of protection of personal safety at vegetation fires..[CL20] All Rural Fire Personnel are to receive training to the level required by their position and as required by this Fire Plan and required National Training Standards.

All RFOs and the Emergency Response Team are to attend at least two training exercises per year.

Annual Training Plan An annual training plan is developed for each training year (July to June). This plan will identify training activities to be carried out by VRFF units and includes progression path towards required unit standards for fire fighters, pump operators and crew leaders.

An annual training plan is developed for Rural Fire Officers and Crew Leaders.

Competency Training Selwyn District Council as the Rural Fire Authority will carry out all training to Unit Standard level and in line with required National Training Standards.

Training Records Selwyn District Council as the Rural Fire Authority maintains records of training for all rural fire and associated personnel. These records include all training carried out as well as any future training required.

RESPONSE ASSISTANCE A list of agencies equipment and personnel who can assist in fire fighting or related activities can be found in the Annual Resources Register. Ref Appendix A â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Resource Register.

127

ARRANGEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS Volunteer Rural Fire Force Units Selwyn District Council as the Fire Authority has three registered Volunteer Rural Fire Forces (VRFF) Units.

These are:    

Arthur’s Pass West Melton Lake Coleridge Darfield

No 211 No 212 No 260 Currently being registered October 2015

Each unit has a VRFF agreement between the Council and appropriate VRFF unit. These agreements are held in Selwyn District Council offices by the Principal Rural Fire Officer.

A Fire Force Controller and Deputy have been appointed as Warranted Rural Fire Officers for each unit and are directly responsible to the PRFO for the management and operation of their units. As such, they are subject to the control and direction of the PRFO to meet the standards required by the Fire Plan, National Standards and Fire Authority Directives and Instructions.

Others HEB Construction Limited Agreements are in place with HEB Construction Limited for the provision of equipment and fire fighting personnel. Their services are provided on a commercial basis. HEB personnel, including warranted Rural Fire Officers are required to hold Required Unit Standards.

Northern South Island Regional Rural Fire Committee A Memorandum of Understanding is in place with members of the Northern South Island Rural Fire Committee which sets Rural Fire Control Liaison between the parties involved in this agreement. The Regional Incident Management Team (RIMT) policy sets out the assistance agreement in place with neighbouring Rural Fire Authorities and may be requested via FireIREcommCOMM.[CL21] Agreement under Forest and Rural Fire Act 1977 Selwyn District Council has no arrangements made under Section 14, 15 or 16 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) Reference Appendices K L M

HEB Construction Limited New Zealand Red Cross[CL22] Memorandum of Understanding – Northern South Island Regional Rural Fire Committee/ (NSIRRFC)

SPECIAL PROTECTED AREAS/BUILDING RISK REGISTER A Register of all Commercial, Industrial and High Risk Residential and Public Structures within the district has been developed and maintained. The register lists the address and gives a brief description of each structure, a risk rating and whether each building has a risk and tactical action plan.

128

The buildings identified on the Register are based on the risk score matrix developed by the New Zealand Fire Service and provided to the NZFS for it to develop both Site and Tactical Plans.

This Register is held by the Principal Rural Fire Officer and is reviewed annually and made available to the NZFS. Reference Appendix L â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Register of commercial and industrial buildings at risk.

129

FIRE SEASON STATUS Although the Fire Season is generally considered to be from 1 October to 30 April each year, fires can occur at any time.

Selwyn District Council as the Rural Fire Authority for its rural area may impose restrictions as it sees fit, in the interest of public safety. As far as practicable, co-ordination of imposition and lifting of fire restrictions within the area of the Canterbury Rural Fire Co-ordinating Committee will be practised.

Council (through the PRFO) will, by public notice and on its website and in newspapers circulating in the district, declare any period to be a “Restricted or Prohibited Fire Season”. The PRFO is also responsible for implementing and notifying the public of the imposition and subsequent lifting of any Restricted or Prohibited Fire Season.

A permanent restricted fire season is in place for the hill and high country.

Copies of forms for advertising Restricted/Prohibited Fire Season(s) are attached as appendices: N O P

Restricted Fire Season Prohibitive Fire Season Lifting Restrictions

TRIGGER POINTS FOR IMPOSING FIRE SEASON STATUS The following trigger points adopted by the Canterbury West Coast Rural Fire Committee meeting of 3 November 1997 will provide guidance as to fire season status.

As the NZ Fire danger rating pays credence to weather related factors, and not to topography or land use, Selwyn Rural Fire Authority may or may not impose fire restrictions outside these guidelines based on weather, topography or other such factors.

Grassland Curing (%)

Build-up Index (BUI) 0 – 25

25 – 50

50 – 80

> 80

0 – 60

Open

Open

Restricted

Restricted

60 – 80

Open

Restricted

Restricted

Prohibited

> 80

Restricted

Restricted

Restricted

Prohibited

TRIGGER POINTS RELATIVE TO EXOTIC FORESTS Consultation will take place with forest owners before setting any trigger points for closing of access to any exotic forests within the Council’s Rural Fire district. Section 21 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977 may be imposed in the opinion of the PRFO due to extreme fire hazard to minimise risk of fire. [CL23]

FIRE PROTECTION WORKS Fire protection works will be considered on a case-by-case basis for high hazard areas. These would include provision and maintenance of fire breaks, water supply points/dams and provision of fire fighting resources.

130

FIRE DANGER RATING SYSTEM The Fire Weather Index (FWI) system will be used to determine the fire danger.

Information from the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fire weather station at Darfield will be used as the main determinate for Selwyn District.An amalgamation of all Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) data will be used to determine fire danger in the Selwyn District[CL24] AWARENESS & RESOURCE RESPONSE TO EACH LEVEL OF FIRE DANGER The setting of trigger points to provide differing degrees of readiness and response is a subjective procedure that can be influenced by many different factors.

The underlying degree of readiness is to be established by the PRFO or a designated DPRFO who can exercise discretion and judgement as to how the trigger points and response may be appropriate depending on the conditions and resources available at any given time.

Differing Degrees of Readiness (referred as 'Levels), are based on trigger points from the appropriate Fire Danger Class and is based in the fire weather indices (FWI) reported from the Darfield Remote Automatic Weather Station ( RAWS) based on the Grass Fire Danger Levels as follows: DEGREE OF READINESS Fire Danger Class

Trigger Point

Response

Degree Of Readiness

Low

On the day the FWI is at this level

Resource status at normal with no specific readiness required.

Maintenance can be carried out on equipment.

Level 1

Moderate

After 4 consecutive days of the reported FWI at this level or higher.

Resource status at normal.

However all equipment is to be operational and available together with minimum personnel numbers available to form operational VRFF and other fire fighting teams.

Level 2

The introduction of fire restrictions should be considered if this FWI frequently occurs. All available resources will be available and operational. Standby procedures and rosters shall be implemented for personnel. All reports and sighting of smoke and unauthorised burning are to be promptly investigated and acted upon as necessary.

Level 3

High

After 3 consecutive days of the reported FWI at this level or higher

Very High

After 2 consecutive days of the reported FWI at this level or higher

As for HIGH. In addition Council water tankers and multi use fire equipment are to revert to fire use priority.

Level 4

Extreme

On the day the FWI is at this level

Consider introducing Prohibited Season based on previous occurrence and long range weather forecasts. All possible resources

Level 5

131

DEGREE OF READINESS Fire Danger Class

Trigger Point

Response are to be available and on standby.

All previously authorised burning via permits and other arrangements will be suspended until further notice.

Degree Of Readiness

132

DEGREES OF READINESS NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES The Fire Weather Indexices (FWI) is ravailableeceived on a daily basis from the National Rural Fire AuthorityRural Fire Net. The FWI will determine the ‘Level’ of Degree of Readiness that is appropriate. The PRFO or in his/her absence the Duty RFO shall determine the level of activation and alerting required. Selwyn Gets Ready and pager notification can be used to notify key RFO staff and Selwyn residents to elevated risk level of fire. Refer notification policy…. .[CL25]

FIRE WEATHER MONITORING Daily monitoring and, when applicable four hour monitoring of data from Fire Weather System Rural Fire Net is to be carried out during high fire danger season. Readings from the Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) at Darfield, Burnham[CL26], Leeston, Snowdon and Motukarara will provide an indication of fire danger rating and trends.

FIRE DANGER LEVEL INDICATOR BOARDS Selwyn District Council provides fire danger level indicator boards within the District and these will indicate the current fire danger level. When a Restricted or Prohibited fire season is in place, this will be advertised on these boards.

FIRE DETECTION All fire personnel will maintain additional vigilance during high fire danger conditions. Council staff and other organisations within the District are also asked to maintain this level of vigilance. All reports of wild fires should be through the 111 system. The general public will be encouraged to report any wild fires through an awareness programme,

EQUIPMENT READINESS AND MAINTENANCE Fire Force Controllers are responsible for the operational readiness and effectiveness of both personnel and their resources/equipment. Checks are to be carried out on at least a three monthly basis and records maintained. These are to be forwarded immediately to the PRFO. Readiness All fire fighting resources/ equipment must be in a state of operational readiness. The PRFO must be advised when any significant piece of equipment is unavailable.

All machinery, including vehicles shall be kept in a state of full readiness i.e. .Warrants of Fitness, fuel, oil, water. All used fire equipment is to be decommissioned in accordance with station checklists.

Testing and Checks All hoses, including suction hoses shall be tested two yearly and records kept as required by National Standards.

All pumps shall be tested for output against manufacturer specifications annually and records kept as required

by National Standards.

All fire fighter helmets, overalls, gloves and boots shall be inspected after use and at least at three monthly intervals with records kept of inspection.

Clothing/Equipment All units will meet the minimum equipment levels required by the Fire Plan and required by National Standards.

133

All Fire Fighters/RFOs will be equipped to the required level to enable them to carry out their assigned tasks on the fire ground.

Standards, Inspections and Testing Records Council, as the Rural Fire Authority will keep and maintain all records required by National Standards to the level required and on the appropriate forms.

134

Section III RESPONSE – POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This section sets out the policies and procedures of how Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Authority will respond to a rural fire event. These include:       

Receipt of fire call Initial response to fires Reporting of fire incident Additional resources Fire fighting resources Chain of command CIMs structure –organisation chart

RECEIPT OF FIRE CALLS 

The NZFS Communications Centre (FireCom) receives fire notifications via the ‘111’ emergency telephone system and initiates the service response to fire incidents in the Selwyn District Council’s rural fire boundaries on a continuous 24-hour year round basis.



The Selwyn District Council provides a continuous 24 hour/365 days Rural Fire Duty Officer response to rural fire incidents in its rural fire district. FireCom initiates this through its service response turnout process.



Each Rural Fire Duty Officer (PRFO, DPRO, RFO) is provided with a vehicle, cell phone, handheld radio, Satellite phone and duty bag to allow them to respond in a fully efficient manner within 30 minutes over 24-hours/365 days.



Voluntary Rural Fire Force (VRFF) members or Council staff receiving fire notifications directly from any non-NZFS source are to immediately notify FireCom via the ‘111’ emergency telephone service.

INITIAL RESPONSE TO FIRES 

FireCom immediately despatches the NZFS or VRFF brigade to attend.



FireCom notify the Council’s Duty Rural Fire Officer (RFO) of the fire by 24-hour contact procedure i.e. pager. Duty RFO is to acknowledge pager by phoning Firecom.



Responding NZFS brigade provides Situation Report which FireCom relates to Duty RFO.



The Duty RFO determines, based location of fire, whether this is a Selwyn Rural Fire Authority responsibility or not. If not a Selwyn fire, the Duty RFO will ask FireCom to alert appropriate authorities



The Duty RFO determines response requirement and mobilises within 30 minutes as required.



If additional support is required, this is either dispatched by FireCom or the Rural Fire Duty Officer.



NZFS continue with initial attack until relieved or fire out.



On arrival at the fire scene the Duty RFO nominates an Incident Controller from either attending Fire Service Unit or responding RFA.



The Duty RFO notifies Selwyn District Council’s PRFO of fire if, in his view, the seriousness of the fire warrants itthe PRFO’s attendance.

135

REPORTING AND CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE INCIDENTS Under the NRFA Standard – to achieve timely response to fires, Selwyn District Rural Fire Authority is required to report and classify on fires to the level required by the standard.

Reporting is required as follows: 1.

For claims to the Rural Fire Fighting Fund or for commercial forest fires;

2.

For level 2 and 3 fires as described in the Rural Fire Management Handbook.

Reporting details and requirements can be found in the Rural Fire Policy and Procedures documents. The Policy and Procedures also sets out the requirements and level of fire investigation required for each of the above group (1 and 2).

Fire incidents are to be classified as per the Fire Classification Levels set out in the current National Rural Fire Authority (NRFA) Rural Fire Management handbook.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

Any RFO warranted by the Council, or the NZFS Officer in Charge, may call upon such additional assistance and resources considered necessary for the early containment and suppression of vegetation fires in the rural fire district. The Duty Rural Fire Officer is to be advised of any request.



The authority to request helicopters lies with the incident controller. A NZFS or VRFF Incident Controller is authorised to engage one helicopter and must seek permission of a Selwyn District Council Operations RFO to order further aerial firefighting resources. Refer to Aircraft Use Policy 2015[CL27].



This authority applies to: o

The immediate deployment of or placement of helicopters or other aircraft on ‘standby’;

o

The immediate deployment of or placement of fire fighting resources including VRFFs on ‘standby’;

o

The immediate use of or placement on ‘standby’ of equipment, chemicals and other resources available to the Fire Authority through contracts or mutual fire agreements.



In addition to the RFA’s own VRFF resources, there is a formal agreement in place with HEBSICON Ltd for the provision of personnel, resources and equipment.



Each request for additional resources is to clearly identify the type, quantity and priority of the resources requested e.g., ground crews, smoke chaser, water tanker, pumps, chemicals etc. The ‘blanket’ or ‘non-specific’ call out of resources is generally to be avoided.



Where any large, serious or other fire operation is likely to become prolonged, contingency planning should commence early to meet on-going logistical support requirements i.e. catering, relief personnel, first aid, equipment and communications etc. of the operation. The SDC Emergency Response Team (ERT) to respond as IMT support to an incident.[CL28]



If the fire is beyond the capability of the Selwyn District Rural Fire Authority or will need significant staff/resources, the PRFO or the Incident Controller will request the through Manager Rural Fire to

136

supply a Regional Management Incident Team (RMIT). (Refer to the NSICWCRRFFC, Memorandum of Understanding and the RMIT Operational Guidelines.)

137

FIRE-FIGHTING RESOURCES The Selwyn District Council as the Fire Authority has significant human and equipment resources available for fire suppression in the District.

Direct Fire Authority Resources Held In Readiness Resources directly under the control of the Fire Authority are grouped into the following areas: i)

Selwyn District Council Appropriately trained staff have been assigned roles of PRFO, DPRFOs and RFOs. A rostered Duty Rural Fire Officer is available at all times via pager and all PRFO and RFOs are equipped with mobile phones. Access to the Duty Rural Fire Officers is also available through the after hoursafterhours answering and message forwarding service.

A buscaravan, set up as an Incident Control Pointommand Post (ICP), is held ready at a location in Rolleston.the Leeston Emergency Management Garage. ii)

Via NZ Fire Service Eight Council owned and maintained tankers/appliances have each been assigned to the respective NZFS brigades of Dunsandel, Leeston, Lincoln, Rolleston, Southbridge, Kirwee, Springfield and Hororata. These tanker/appliances are called out in conjunction with NZFS Appliances as required.

iii) Voluntary Rural Fire Forces (VRFFS) VRFFs have been strategically established in Arthurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pass, Lake Coleridge and West Melton and Darfield (Darfield is currently being set up as of October 2015). Eeach has been assigned rural fire equipmentappliances. In addition, Lake Coleridge also has a Nissan Pump Truck, Smoke Chaser Trailer and Fire Trailer with pump and equipment and Arthurs Pass has a smoke chaser. Additional depots of mobile fire equipment are strategically placed around the District. [CL29]

iv) Others â&#x20AC;&#x201C; HEB Construction Limited Formal agreements are in place with HEB Construction Limited for the provision of equipment and personnel and access to an extensive array of heavy earth moving machinery, fire fightingfirefighting personnel, rural fire tankers, smoke chaser and rural fire trailers.

CHAIN OF COMMAND The NZFS is to assume control of the incident if first on the scene, and will set up the Coordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) structure.

The NZFS will appoint the most senior officer at the fire as the Incident Controller.

Where the NZFS has initially assumed control, the Duty Rural Fire Officer on arrival will liaise with the Incident Controller, receive a full briefing, and must obtain full situational awareness of the incident. Once Situational Awareness is gained, the responding RFO canand then either assume the position of Incident Controller or nominate an Incident Controller when it is safe to do so. Refer to Handover Procedure. . If the

138

fire assumes larger proportions, the PRFO may make the appointment instead of the Duty Rural Fire Officer.[CL30] The Incident ControllerPRFO or RFO (in that order) has authority over all resources.

CIMS will be used by the Rural Fire Authority for the effective management and suppression at larger fires, and where there are other organisations involved.

The Incident Controller will assign personnel.

Any person at any level (Incident Controller to Fire Fighter) should ensure for themselves and others that three basic requirements are met:  a clearly defined job within a person’s capabilities;  a clear understanding of who a person is responsible to; and  a clear understanding of what each person is responsible for.

LACES must be communicated and understood[CL31]

 ORGANISATION CHART The organisation chart depicted below and the associated position descriptions are based on the New Zealand CIMS structure.

This chart may be adapted to meet the particular operational requirements of each fire incident. The command structure actually adopted for each incident will depend upon the size and nature of the fire incident. f

id Dep

S f

Air R Air Informatio

S

l

F iliti C Fi

M Air

M di l

Divisio G

d

139

Sector

ORGANISATION CHART FOR SMALL FIRES Most fires fall into the “small fire” category, and supervision is ‘direct line’ from Crew Leader to the firefighters. This may include two crews with one Crew Leader acting as Incident Controller.

id

SA

[CL32]

i

INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNITS ATTENDING RURAL FIRES All responding units mustunits must report to the Incident Control Point (ICP) on arrival at the fire ground.

Crew Leaders or Fire Officers are to check in at the Incident Controlmmand Pointst (ICP) detailing all personnel and equipment under their control.

Contractors are to also check in at the ICP and receive an engagement letter and Personal Protective Equipment as appropriate for the task.[CL33] Receive a defined task identifying:      

designation within organisational structure; who they are responsible to; who they are responsible for; their task and timeframes safety briefings/issues; additional resources available.

Receive a full briefing on:  

fire (fuel types, methods of suppression, sectors, threats, weather forecasts, hazards etc.); communications system (disposition of resources, call signs, radio channels);

140

Brief team personnel to: 

ensure that they understand assigned responsibilities and tasks.

Carry out assignment or tasks to:    

ensure safety of all personnel they are responsible for; maintain communication and progress reports up the chain of command; maintain records of equipment and personal use; monitor and record fire weather, fire behaviour and task success.

Demobilisation:    

ensure successor is briefed; check out at the ICP; ensure the accompanying personnel and/or equipment are checked out; provide copy of record.

141

KEY DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES OF INCIDENT CONTROLLERS (IC) Ensure that all personnel at the fire are working safely i.e. monitor the progress of the fire, wind direction, fire weather index and location of fire crews to ensure that any changes do not result in personnel being trapped by the fire.

Ensure that commands are given calmly, simply and clearly, and are understood.

Maintain situational awareness and contact up and down the fire command chain at all times.

COMMUNICATIONS METHODS Initial Turnout  FireCom will turn out the nearest NZFS/VRFF Brigade, and notify the Duty Rural Fire Duty Officer/PRFO by pager.

Fire ground  NZFS will use its own communications systems. SDC Rural Fire Teams will use own hand held radios. , Ccell phones or satellite phones (SAT phone) can be used if required. SDC portable repeater may be deployed.

Fire ground to FireCom  Fire service channels and Land Mobile Radio (LMR) or cell phone/SAT phone.

Fire ground to Incident Control Point (ICP)  Hand held radios. FIRE 1 primary or if fire is sectored, FIRE 2 or 3 may be used. and cell phone/SAT phone.

Incident Control Point to Emergency Operations Centre (EOC)  Base sets, hand held radios, BGAN, email, cell phones and satellite phones.

Ground to Air  Base sets and hand held radios.  Operators arriving at fire ground will make contact on Fire 4.  The air operations channel will be Fire 4 unless otherwise advised.

ICP/EOC to other agencies  Cell phone, land lines (as appropriate), base sets or hand held radios.

ACTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY ATTENDING RFO The following is a list of actions to be carried out when managing a fire event:  Confirm location of fire and determine ownership.  Notify the Rural Fire Authority responsible.  Obtain Situational Awareness of the incident  Ensure an immediate fire fighting response.  Assess the fire fighting needs. (Weather, Topography, Fuels).

142

Obtain Situational Awareness of the incident  Provide Situational Report to Operations RFO or PRFO.  Assume control from NZFS if appropriate..  Set up an incident control point and implement CIMS. Consider responding IMT.  Warn any persons likely to be affected by the fire and arrange evacuation procedures if warranted.

Request Police, Traffic/Rail/Power Management via Firecom.  Evacuation of animals will be supported by Selwyn District Council Animal Control Officers [CL34]

 Brief and dispatch staff and equipment.

143



Review resource requirements (water supply resources, equipment, retardants, personnel etc).  Set up a communications network.  Record the following information: o details in a Fire Log (fire development, critical information, communications, declaration the fire is out) - Appendix Q – Q1; o on-going fire behaviour – Appendix Q – Q5; o the precise location and cause of fire – Appendix Q – Q2; o all evidence and witnesses – Appendix Q – Q2; o details on Rural Fire Report after fire – Appendix Q – Q2; o all incoming and outgoing personnel and equipment – IAP and T Cards.  Notify: o o o o o o o o o o o o

DOC (if fire on/within 1km of DOC lands); NZFS (if not already advised); Landowner/ Forest Owner if required; Police (if close to a major road, houses); Ambulance service if fire is significant ; Electricity authority (if pylon lines, high voltage lines, buildings threatened); Rail operator (if adjacent to rail lines); Gas distribution authorities if needed; SDC Animal Control Rangers for support evacuating/co-ordinating animals[CL35] Neighbouring Rural Fire Authorities if significant or close to a boundary; NRFA if publicity/fund claim involved, death or injury occurs, or significant fire damage (within 24 hours); PRFO (if not already notified).

 Arrange logistical support: o back-up crews if fire is longer than four hours; o additional equipment; o fuel, water, batteries; o catering. o  Uplift appropriate equipment (e.g. fire store, Radios, pumps).  Use if necessary: o helicopters: buckets, filling equipment, crew, fuel, helipads; o fire retardant/suppressants  Maintain a record of fire behaviour and keep fire behaviour specialist advised on a regular basis – Appendix Q – Q5.  Stand down - persons stood down must report their departure from fire ground to incident controlcommand pointst.  Mop up - hot spots and smoulders are to be located and thoroughly suppressed. When there are high drought codes and deep seated fires, further monitoring and checking by infra-red cameras is required. A FLIR E8 is held at West Melton Fire Station and can be used by trained operators.  Manage and inform landowners as appropriate[CL36]  Patrol hazardous areas, ensure fire is out.  Public statement is only to be issued that the ‘fire is out’ when it is certain that the fire is completely extinguished.

144

 Ensure protection of fire origin and arrange fire investigation.  Incident report, fire logs and fire behaviour reports to be supplied to PRFO.  Check all records/forms are completed and a copy retained.  Notify National Rural Authority within 24 hours of a likely claim on the Rural Fire Fighting Fund, in the event of death or significant damage.  Communicate actions to landowners[CL37] when appropriate.  Where large or multiple fires occur, the Canterbury Regional Rural Fire Authorities may implement a Response Co-ordinator at an Emergency Operation Centre to support Incident Management Teams/s and co-ordinate resource requirements: o o o o o o

track the status of fires and resources; develop strategies; obtain resources; prioritise the use of scarce resources; co-ordinate public information; make recommendations to the National RFO to declare a Regional Rural Fire Emergency should the situation escalate.

FIRE LOG AND INCIDENT ACTION PLAN A fire log is to be maintained at all times during a fire. The Incident Controller will initiate the Fire Log and Incident Action Plan and may delegate the development and maintenance to an appropriate officer. The time of all entries will be included along side each entry.

Information in the Log and Incident Action Plan will record:        

Confirmed location of the fire; Observed fire behaviour; Incident Control Point (ICP) location and other facilities; Command Structure and names of the incident management team; A communication plan; Notification to other affected parties; Logistics and other resource status; Other relevant information.

Each member of the incident management team should record as much information on individual logs as appropriate.

Fire Log – Appendix Q– Q1 Incident Action Plan RF 200 Form Situational Reports

FIRE REGISTER

145

Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Authority maintains a register in which the details of all rural fire call outs are recorded. The register includes Fire Reference, Date/Time of Fire, Location, Agencies involved, Type of Fire and Area Burnt.

RURAL FIRE REPORT A Rural Fire Report is required for all fires attended by VRFF and RFOs. This Report is to be forwarded to PRFO as soon as practicable after the fire event using Form Appendix Q – Q2.

PERSONNEL & EQUIPMENT RECORDS All personnel and equipment records will be on the forms described in the Incident Action Plan (IAP) and meet requirements set out by the National Rural Fire Authority circulars.

The personnel and vehicle/equipment daily summary – Appendix Q – Q3 is to be completed for all fires. This form is to be forwarded to the Operations PRFO as soon as practicable after the event. The form is to be supported by daily time records (DTR) s.

146

Section IV RECOVERY - POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This section sets out the Policies and Procedures on how Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Organisation will manage the recovery aspects of a rural fire event.

HEALTH & SAFETY OF PERSONNEL All Volunteer Rural Fire Force personnel and Council staff involved in rural fire will comply with the requirements of Selwyn District Council’s Health and Safety Policy, Rural Fire Policy and Procedures and the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1982.

A Safety Advisor will be appointed at all fires where there is significant hazard or more than 16 persons operationally engaged in firefighting. Refer policy.

All hazards must be reported and communicated by all personnel.

Any accident must be notified to the Incident Controller and “sectorised” to manage the patient. Accidents must be reported and documented on a Pink Card. NZFS personnel to report through their own process.

All near misses are to be reported to the Incident Controller as soon as possible.

The Incident Controller will advise the PRFO of all incidents and near misses as soon as possible The SDC Health and Safety Hazard Register is a living document which must be adhered to by all personnel and added to as required.[CL38]

OPERATIONAL REVIEWS The Rural Fire Authority will cooperate with the National Rural Fire Authority in any operational review with the aim of identifying actions taken in managing the fire and implementing systems or procedures to improve fire management practises.

OPERATIONAL DEBRIEFS Debriefs will be conducted for all major fire events or for any fire where operational aspects can be improved or lessons learnt.

While no set maximum time is set down to conduct debriefs, debriefs should occur as soon as possible after the event. The Principal Rural Fire Officer shall organise all debriefs.

A record of all debriefs will be kept. Debriefs will be conducted in four parts – Background, Operations, Assessment and Recommendation. A written report shall be provided.

CRITICAL INCIDENT STAFF DEBRIEF A critical incident staff debrief for individuals or teams should be considered for all personnel that experience emotional reactions to fire ground incidents or resulting from it.

A critical incident staff management team may be requested through the New Zealand Fire Service or through Council’s People and CapabilityHuman Resources Manager.

147

RURAL FIRE INVESTIGATION(S) The Rural Fire Authority will, in the event of any fire where the cause is not readily apparent or where a claim on the Rural Fire Fund is likely, arrange for an investigation into the source of the ignition by trained fire investigators.

All rural fire investigations will be to the required standard and meet the requirements of the National Rural Fire Authority.

REHABILITATION Rehabilitation of damage caused by fire suppression measures will be addressed on a case by case basis.

Any rehabilitation caused by the fire or suppression activity shall be in accordance with Section 55 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977. Any other rehabilitation requirements shall be the responsibility and cost of the landowner upon whose property the fire occurred.

COMMUNITY RECOVERY AND RESPONSE Community Welfare requirements and Community Recovery will be managed through the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CDEM Organisation, Welfare and Recovery Teams and Plans.

148

Plan Distribution A full copy of the plan will be provided to the following employees, elected representatives and organisations: SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL

NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE

K .Coe

Regional Commander –Region 4

Mayor

D .Ward Chief Executive

Fire Communication Centre

D Marshall

Leeston Volunteer Fire Brigade

R O’RourkeW Brown Emergency Management Manager R Peard Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officer

Southbridge Volunteer Brigade

D Marshall

Rakaia Volunteer Fire Brigade

C Hewitt

Dunsandel Volunteer Fire Brigade

T Mitchell

Rolleston Volunteer Fire Brigade

A Hutt

Lincoln Volunteer Fire Brigade

C Lakin M Strowger I Butler

Kirwee Volunteer Fire Brigade

T Ward

Darfield Volunteer Fire Brigade

T Teeling

Sheffield Volunteer Fire Brigade

Councillors

Sheffield Volunteer Fire Brigade

Community Board members

Springfield Volunteer Fire Brigade

Service Centres

Coalgate Volunteer Fire Brigade Hororata Volunteer Fire Brigade

RURAL FIRE AUTHORITIES

VOLUNTEER RURAL FIRE FORCES

Ashburton District Council

Arthur’s Pass

Christchurch City Council

Lake Coleridge

Waimakariri District Council

West Melton Darfield

Department of Conservation OTHER ORGANISATIONS HEB Construction Limited NZ Defence Force, Burnham Camp Environment Canterbury Canterbury Regional Council

149

NATIONAL RURAL FIRE AUTHORITY National Rural Fire Officer - Wellington Manager National Rural Fire Authority â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Christchurch

150

APPENDICES Appendix A

Resources Register

Appendix B

Fire Permit

Appendix C

Selwyn District and Adjoining Districts Boundaries

Appendix D

Selwyn District Council – Hill and High Country

Appendix D1

Selwyn District Council – Plains and Port Hills

Appendix E

Selwyn District Council VRFF Callout Areas

Appendix F

New Zealand Fire Service Predetermined Fire Response Areas (PDA)

Appendix G

New Zealand Fire Services Urban Fire Districts

Appendix G1

New Zealand Fire Service Urban Fire Boundaries

Appendix G2

New Zealand Fire Service Urban Fire Boundaries

Appendix H

New Zealand Defence Force – Rural Fire Districts

Appendix I

Department of Conservation – Fire Control Areas

Appendix J

Selwyn District Council – Roading Hierarchy

Appendix K

Agreement –HEB Construction Limited

Appendix L

Register of Commercial and Industrial Buildings at Risk

Appendix M

NSIRRFC – Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix N

Notification – Restricted Fire Season

Appendix O

Notification – Prohibited Fire Season

Appendix P

Notification – Lifting Fire Restrictions

Appendix Q

Forms  Q1 Fire Log  Q2 Rural Fire Report  Q3 Personnel and Vehicle/Equipment – Daily Summary  Q4 Wild Fire – Initial Report  Q5 Fire Behaviour Form  Q6 NRFA Notification Form

151

CONTACTS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PERSONNEL, RESOURCES, EQUIPMENT USERS GUIDE Page

Guide

Page

Selwyn District Council Volunteer Rural Fire Force Units (Contact details + equipment info)

38

Smoke Chaser / Fire Trailers, Contacts and Equipment Details

49

Selwyn District Council Rural Fire Officers (Contact details)

39

Helicopter Service Providers, Equipment Details & Load Capability (Need to have on site or responded suitable resource for water fill points if dip filling is not available, consider appointing an air ops manager).

50/51

Rural Fire Authorities (Neighbouring Principal Rural Fire Officers)

40

Monsoon Buckets (Most Helicopter Providers supply own buckets)

51

Defence (Contact details)

41

Fixed Wing Aircraft (Need adequate landing strips near water fill points, high volume pumps on fill points required, caution when using with other aircraft congestion of air space, and consider appointing an air ops manager).

52

National Rural Fire Authority (Contact

41

Earthmoving Machinery (Can be significant delays before equipment arrives. Use those closest first, refer to comment field as some operators are fire fighter trained).

53

42

Fuel Aviation Suppliers (Most operators supply their own fuel for safety reasons.

Check before ordering.

54

43/44

Fuel Diesel & Petrol Suppliers (Consider health & safety of refilling operation and location of fuel stores)

54

details)

Department of Conservation (Contact details) New Zealand Fire Service (CFO Contacts + Appliance Information) Defence Force Appliances (Contact details)

44

Foam Suppliers/Retardants

54

New Zealand Fire Service (Adjacent Brigades CFO Contacts & Appliance details)

45

Fire Safety Equipment

55

HEBâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Selwyn Rural Fire Force (Contacts and Equipment details)

46

Traffic Control/Road Signage Suppliers (Note requirements & suppliers vary depending on local road and State Highways)

55

152

Page

Guide

Page

New Zealand Fire Service Managers (Contacts)

46

Generator and Lighting Units

56

Fire Ground â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Earthwork Operators

47

Radio Portable Repeaters Suppliers (Need persons who know how to install, need to think of best location to cover fire ground and access to repeater site.)

56

47

Radio Communications (Contact details)

57

48/49

Infra Red Cameras (IR Camera) (Contact details)

57

Railways Contacts

61

(Contact details)

Environment Canterbury (Contact details) Water Tankers Contacts and Equipment Details (Use Fire Service Tankers first followed by SICON tankers)

Portable Toilets (Contact details)

58

Doctors/Medical Centre Locations Contacts (In an emergency dial 111)

58

Poisons

62

Hospital Locations and Contacts (In an emergency dial 111)

58

Bottled Water

62

Police Stations (In an emergency dial 111).

Contacts

59

Catering Onsite Providers

62

Critical Incident Stress Counselling Providers. (Contact details)

59

Catering (Food (Retailers)

63

Fire Investigators (Approval of PRFO required before requesting, briefing required on level and detail of report required, including purpose for investigation, evidence gathering, interview process & timeframe)

60

Radio Stations Contacts

64

Television Stations Contacts

64

Newspapers Contacts

65

Fire Behaviour Specialists (Contact details) Power Line Companies (Contact details)

60

60

Airways Cooperation (Contact details) Meteorological Services (Weather forecasts) (Make sure the report to be provided is for the specific location of the fire and covers operational period plus brief extended period for two days ahead.)

61

153

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL VOLUNTEER RURAL FIRE FORCE UNITS Station

Arthur's Pass

Fire Force Controller

Phone Numbers A/H Chief Fire Station Officer

Nic Menary (Fire Force Controller)

Wk. (03) 318 9258 Cell 027 367 2138

Turn out Method

Appliance

Call sign

Water Capacity

Appliance

Notes

Phone

111 Fire Comm

4*4 Rural Appliance

96-71

600 lt

Smoke Chaser

96-25

2800 lt

98-109871

Nil1,800 lt

98-10

1,000 ltNil

Hm (03) 318 9220

Lake Coleridge

West Melton

Hamish Reid

Cell 027 451 1550

(Deputy) Mark Van der pyl (Station currently not manned)Bruce Simpson

Hm (03) ????

021 222 9088 318 5889

Neil Frazer

(03) 318 5050

(Deputy)

0274 949 781

John Doherty

(03) 347 8411

Hm (03) 347 9711

SDC111 Fire Comm

111 Fire Comm

Pump ( Nissan )4*4 Rural Appliance Smoke chaser Trailer Pump ( Nissan ) Equipment TrailerSmoke chaser Trailer Ford Ranger 4x4Equipment Trailer

Rural Appliance

Nil1,000 lt 98-25

NilNil

95-11

3,600 lt

(027) 339 2709

IR Camera FLIR E8

154

(Fire Force Controller) 4 x 4 appliance

95-71

1,800

Cell (027) 284 5851

Toyota Hilux 4x4

95-25

Nil

Tanker

696

11,000 lt

Smoke Chaser

RF2

400 lt

Tanker

101

10,000 lt

Chris Caldwell

Hm (03) 347 7256

(Deputy)

Wk (03) 325 2800 Cell (027) 699 8517

Al Hutt (Fire Force Mark Strowger (Fire Force Controller)

Darfield

Wk. (03) 363 7806

Carrie Lakin (Deputy) Pager 026 246 8537 Carrie Lakin (Deputy)

Wk. 03 347 273317 9683 Cell 027 666 9803 270 4239 Hm. 03 347 9527318 7019 SDC Wk. 03 347 2714 Cell 027 807 8672 Hm. 03 680 6215

155

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL RURAL FIRE OFFICERS Position

Selwyn District Council

Douglas MarshallWilson Brown

Selwyn District Council

Rob Peard

Phone Numbers Work Home Cell phone (03) 325 (027) 458 (03) 347 2701800 7945342 5878 415790 1874 (03) 302 (03) 347 2800 2666318 0800 (027) 432 3388

Douglas Marshall

(03) 347 2800

Rural Fire OfficerRural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer

Selwyn District Council Selwyn District CouncilSelwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Arthurs Pass

(03) 347 2800(03) 372 8629 (03) 347 2800 (03) 347 2800 (03) 347 2800 (03) 347 2800 (03) 347 2715

Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer Rural Fire Officer

Arthurs Pass Lake Coleridge Lake Coleridge West Melton West Melton HEB Contracting

Chris HewittTim Mitchell Chris Hewitt Ian Butler Al Hutt Tony Ward Ryan Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rourke Lauren Kelley[CL39] Carrie Lakin Nic Menary Graeme KatesHamish Reid Bruce Simpson Neil Frazer John Doherty Chris Caldwell Mark Strowger

Principalle Rural Fire Officer Deputy Principalle Rural Fire Officer Deputy Principle Rural Fire Officer

Unit

Name

(03) 325 7945 (03) 322 1448 (03) 325 7365 (03) 322 1448 (03) 974 1371 (03) 347 9527 (03) 424 2488 (03) 322 1630

(03) 347 2714 (03) 318 9258

(03) 6809 6215 (03) 318 9258

(03) 318 9220

(03) 318 9249 (03) 318 5889 (03) 318 5050 (03) 347 9711 (03) 347 7256 (03) 318 7821

(03) 363 7806 (03) 325 2800 (03) 317 9683

(027) 458 4157 (027) 490 2174(027) 703 2223 (027) 490 2174 (027 ) 594 9949 (027) 666 9803 (027)4 90 2118 (027) 273 2009 (027) 137 7003 (027) 807 8672 (027) 367 2138 (027) 921 6287451 1550 (021) 147 1779 (027) 494 9781 (027) 284 5851 (027) 699 8517 (027) 270 4239

Notes

(021) 154 7671 Out of district 027 207 6523

156

RURAL FIRE AUTHORITIES Agency Christchurch City Council

Contact Darrin Woods ( PRFO)

Paul Devlin (DPRFO)

Warren Hunt (DPRFO) Persons above can also be contacted through Southern Communication Centre

Phone numbers (03) 941 8999 (call centre) (03) 941 8781 (DDI) (027) 226 1367 Hm (03) 385 1811 (03) 941 7570 9DDI) (027) 226 7962 Hm (03) 332 9844

Base Location Christchurch

Port Hills

(027) 475 9708 (03) 941 7712 (DDI) (03) 341 0266 (they will page person required)

Bottle Lake

Waimakariri District Council

Tim Sheppard (PRFO)

(03) 313 6136 (021) 480 830 Hm (03) 312 5883

Rangiora

Ashburton District Council

Don Geddes (PRFO)

(03) 307 7700 (0274) 989 968 Hm (03) 308 6489

Ashburton

Ashley Rural Fire District

Graeme Knight (PRFO)

(03) 313 8015 (021) 222 7905 (03) 312 5740

Rangiora

Hurunui District Council

Allan Greigg (PRFO)

(03) 314 8816 (027) 586 1733

Amberley

157

West Coast Rural Fire District

Mark Boere

(03) 768 0313 (027) 482 2086

Greymouth

South Canterbury Rural Fire District

Rob Hands (PRFO)

(03) 684 8199 (027) 224 7912 Hm (03) 693 9036

Timaru

Phone numbers (03) 363 0065

Base Location Burnham

DEFENCE Agency Defence

Contact Office Staff Sgt GroverGrover (Fire Master)

Hm (03) 363 067 (027) 671 2789

Fire Control

(03) 363 0067

NATIONAL RURAL FIRE AUTHORITY Agency NFRA

Contact Office Kevin Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connor (National Rural Fire Officer)Murray Dudfield

Tim Mitchell (Manager Rural Fire)John Barnes

Russell Barclary (Manager Rural Fire)

Phone numbers (04) 496 368800

Base Location Wellington

(04) 496 3689 (021) 662 133 Fax (04) 496 3700 (03) 372 8623 (021) 927 778

Christchurch

03 467 7562 021 927 779 Fax (03) 477 1140

Dunedin

158

159

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Agency DOC

Contact Christchurch Office Contact can be made through FireCom

Phone numbers (03) 371 37009 9758 - Office (03) 371 3767 - Control Rm (03) 365 1388 - Fax

Duty Officer

(027) 281 6709 (24 hour)

PRFO Andy Roberts

(03) 371 373500 (027) 280 9186

DPRFO Craig Alexander

(03) 371 3700 (027) 209 454281 6709

Bruce Janes Rangiora Fire Depot

WK (03) 313 5456 cell (027) 278 5052

Brian Taylor RFO Waimakariri Area Office

WK (03) 3130829 cell (027) 229 7735

Base Location

160

New Zealand Fire Service CFO Contacts + Appliance Details Station / Contact

Lincoln

Chief Fire Officer Jeremy GreenwoodKevin Greene

Phone Numbers Station Chief Fire Officer

(03) 325 2801

Rolleston

Nigel Lilley

(03) 347 8398

Leeston

Lloyd ClausenNoel Thian

(03) 324 3430

HM (03) 325 33122346 Cell (0274) 283600 0589 733 WK (03) 347 4138 HM (03) 347 4138 Cell (027) 284 8130

HM (03) 324 3134 3755 Cell (0274) 360 137(0274) 401 916 Southbridge

Donald McMillian

(03) 324 2866

Dunsandel

Ian Chatterton

(03) 325 4150

Hororata

Rodger Parsons

(03) 318 0888

WK (03) 324 2902 HM (03) 324 2902 Cell (027) 204 4936 WK (03) 302 7802 HM (03) 325 4234 Cell (027) 417 7278 Hm( 03) 318 0713 HM (03) 318 0713 Cell (021) 702 951

Callsign

Water Capacity

Pump Rescue

41-7

1,350 lt

Pump

41-1

1,400 lt

Tanker Pump Rescue Tanker

41-11 42-7 42-11

11,000 lt 1,800 lt 11,500 lt

027 224 33944800 319 027 480 03192243 394 No Cell027 4474 104 027 451 7061 027 451 7062

Pump Rescue

43-7

1,800 lt

027 4515 409

Tanker

43-11

5,000 lt

027 6884 914

Pump Tanker

45-1 45-11

1,800 lt 7,000 lt

027 2542 415 027 702 1150

Pump Tanker

44-1 44-11

2,000 lt 12,000 lt

0274 467 095 027 680 4979

4WD CAFS Pump Tanker

73-1 73-11

550 lt 7,000 lt

No cell No cell

Appliance

Appliance Phone

Notes

IR Camera

IR Camera

161

Coalgate

Philip Shaw

(03) 318 2888

WK (03) 318 2816 HM (03) 318 2816 Cell (027) 248 9632

Pump

70-1

1,800 lt

027 3489 632

162

New Zealand Fire Service CFO Contacts + Appliance Details (Continued) Station / Contact

Chief Fire Officer

Darfield

Allan Kittelty

Kirwee

Stuart Jones

Sheffield

Neville Croy

Springfield

Grant Williams

Phone Numbers Station Chief Fire Officer (03) 318 8005 WK(03) 318 8622 HM (03) 364 4357 Cell (021) 043 0048 (03) 318 1888 WK (03) 318 1847 HM (03) 318 1642 Cell (027)481 4000 (03) 318 3888 WK (03) 318 3818 Cell (021) 650 554 (03) 318 4888 HM (03) 318 4889 Cell (0274) 305 309

Callsign

Water Capacity

Pump Pump CAFS

69-1 69-2

1,800 lt 2,000 lt

Appliance Phone 027 229 0810 027 292 7948

Pump Rescue Tanker

72-7 72-11

2,000 lt 7,000 lt

027 4898 491 No cell

Pump

71-1

1,800 lt

027 480030

Pump Rescue 4 x 4 Appliance

74-7 74-11

1,350 lt 4,000 lt

027 292 6278

Appliance

Notes

Defence Force Appliances Agency Contact Burnham Camp Staff Sgt Grolover ( Fire Master )

Contact Details

Turn out Method

Appliance

Callsign

Water Capacity

(03) 363 0067 - Fire Station Wk (03) 363 006517 8084 Day (03) 363 0668 0065 AH (03) 363 0067

111 Fire Comm

Pump Rescue Pump Rural Fire Appliance Rural Fire Appliance Rural Fire Appliance

91-7 91-1 91-11 91-61 91- 602

1,80350 lt 1,350 lt 2,700 lt 2,700 lt 2,700 lt

Command Unit

B-191-14

Appliance Phone

Notes

4WD, CAFS, no radios 4WD, no radios 4WD, CAFS, no radios 027 671 2789774 976

4WD Ute

163

New Zealand Fire Service - Adjacent Brigades CFO contacts + Appliance Details Adjacent Brigades Rakaia

Donald Dunleaey

(03) 302 7013

Methven

Selwyn Allred

(03) 302 8501

Little River

David Irving Pike

(03) 325 1102

Governors Bay

Andrew NorrisGilbert Stace

Christchurch

Addington Harewood St Albans Sockburn Cityentral

Oxford

Trevor Ealam

(03) 329 9777

(03) 332 1764 (03) 359 8204 (03) 355 6415 (03) 349 0181 (03) 377 64511 3600

(03) 312 4005

WK (03) 32407 2089502 HM (03) 302 7470 Cell (021) 872365 WK (03) 303 3093 HM (03) 302 8493 Cell (0274) 388 493 WK (03) 325 104204 HM (03) 325 1204 Cell (0272) 346 227042

WK (03) 341 0266 HM (03) 329 9153764 Cell (02721) 498 049 1733267 (027) 319 720 (027) 314 807 (0274) 318 053 (027) 886 1 242

Cell (0272) 977 564(03) 318 4849

Pump Tanker

64-1 64-11

1,800 lt 5,000 lt

025 437 065

Pump Rescue Pump Tanker

63-7 63-1 63-11

1,800 lt 1,500 lt 10,000 lt

027 478 9582 027 247 9833

Pump

47-1

1,800 lt

Tanker

47-11

6,000 lt

Pump

331

2,000 lt

Rural Appliance

3311

12,000 lt

Pump Pump Pump Pump rescue

22-1 26-1 23-1 25-7

1,800 lt 1,800 lt 1,800 lt 1,800 lt

025 319 720 025 314 807 025 318 053 025 314 806

Pump Rescue Pump Command Unit

21-7 21-1 21-14

1,800 lt 1,800 lt

025 226 0359 025 314 785 025 320 754

Pump Pump

79-1 79-2

0274 748 091

IR Camera

164

Tanker Pump Aerial

79-11 21-4

165

HEB - Contracting– Selwyn Rural Fire Force Station

HEB Contracting

Contact

Mark Strowger

Contact Details Cellphone Hm (03) 318 7019221 Wk (03) 317 9683 Cell (027) 229 8704

Appliance

Callsign

Water Capacity

Appliance Phone

Notes

1. HEB PAGERDuty Officer – (026) 244 152527) 270 4239 2. Mark Strowger – (027) 270229 42398704

New Zealand Fire Service Managers- Contacts Station / Contact

Fire Officer

Fire Comm Centre Emergency Contact

Contact Details

Appliance

Callsign

(03) 341 0266

Comm Centre Manager

Chris MunroIain Lynn

Fire Region Commander

Steve TurekBrendan Nally

Area Manager

Dave Berry

Wk (03) 341 0260 cell (027) 4315 49887180

STHCOM2

Wk (03) 372 8614 cell (027) 807437 67380063 Wk (03) 347 210813 6092 cell (027) 480 0403

19ALPHA

Water Capacity

Appliance Phone

Notes

166

Fire Ground â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Earthwork Operators Station T George Ltd

Contact

Phone Number

Trevor George

Cell (027) 433 1263

Richard Stubbs

Cell (027) 481 4000

Greer Howarth

Cell (021) 307 493

Appliance

Callsign

Water Capacity

Appliance Phone

Notes

Environment Canterbury Agency

ECan After hours duty fire officer 24hr contact 03 353 9725

Contact

Simon Woods (Fire Team)

Brian Dimbleby (DO)

Phone numbers (027) 228 2595 Day (03) 323 5385 (03) 310 0223 AH (026) 668 8492 Day (03) 318 1134 AH

David Owen David Owen (027) 434 7394 (03) 367 7186(027) 434 7394 Day (03) 358 7223 AH

Hugh Stevenson

(027) 433 9765 (03) 367 7228

Base Location

167

168

Tankers ( Water) Agency Johnsons

Christchurch City Council

Contact Office Paul Johnson Greg Wheeler Office Darrin WoodsKeith Marshall ( PRFO)

Warren Hunt (DPRFO)

City Care

Office Brian Keown

Laing Contractors

Office George Henry Ross Lane Office Lindsay Forbes Murray Francis Jason Fischer Ross DebenhamOffice Blair Ferguson Roy Haberfield Michael Earnshaw

Road Metals Co

Fulton Hogan

Phone numbers

Base Location

Water Capacity

(03) 324 3744 (0274) 329 590 (027) 6752 658 (03) 941 8999

Leeston

7,000 lt

Ex fire service tanker

Bottle Lake

2,700 lt

All 4 WD

Brooklands

5,000 lt 5,000 lt

(03) 941 8781 (027) 226 1367 Hm (03) 385 1811 (03) 941 7540 (0274) 759 708 Hm (03) 383 3795 (03) 941 7200 Hm (03) 332 9607 (027) 276 1631

(03) 349 5162 (021) 350 266 (021) 710 907 (03) 342 9131 (021) 350 266 (021) 321 311 (027) 704 9912 (027) 807 9196 (027) 838 7139 (027) 836 4788 (027) 886 0555

Christchurch

Sockburn

Christchurch

Pound Road QuarryChristchurch Miners Road Quarry McLeans Island

Cost

Notes

8,000 lt 8,000 lt 8,000 lt 8,000 lt 8,000 lt 10,000 10,000

$100/hr $100/hr

Self filling pump with sprayers

10,000

$90/hr

Self filling pump discharge

25,000 lt

$135/hr

Not all have self-fill but all have NZFS attachments.

18,000 lt 18,000 lt

$135/hr $135/hr

“ “

169

Quarry (027) 208 3548 Synlait Fonterra HEB Construction

Kelvyn Jolly Office Office

(03) 373 3000 (03) 317 9700 (03) 317 9683

Quarry Manager Dunsandel Darfield Darfield

170

Tankers (Water) ( Continued ) Caution with the use of the following tankers limited filling options.

Private Geoff Riach (03) 318 4709 Private Warwick Leech (03) 318 8609 (0274) 338 693 Selwyn Sawmills Office (03) 318 0812 Mike Halliday HM (03) 318 0832 Ian Densem (Contractor) Office (03) 324 2289 027 221 5288 Gerald Innes Gerald Innes (03) 318 6802

Darfield Darfield Hororata

9,000 lt 11,500 lt 5,000 lt 2,000 lt

Leeston

7,000 lt

Windwhistle School

4000 lt

Suction but can not pump water

No pump Fire Hydrant on site

Smokechaser / Fire Trailers Owner

Contact

SDC

SDC

Via SDCBruce Neil

Phone Numbers Location Phone Number Castle Hill

Snowdon Middle Rock' Lake Coleridge Rd

SDC

Lake ColeridgeLake Coleridge

Lake Coleridge

SDC

Lake Coleridge

Lake Coleridge

SDC

Darfield

Darfield`

(03) 347 280018 6889

Turn out Method

Resource

Callsign

Water Capacity

Duty RFO

Fire Trailer

Nil

Via SDCBruce Neil

Fire Trailer

Nil

Fire CommVia SDC

Fire Trailer

1,000 lt

Via SDCFire Comm

Equipment Trailer

Nil

Via SDC

Equipment

Nil

No cell phone reception SDC abovePer Lake Coleridge VRFF SDC abovePer Lake Coleridge VRFF SDC above

Appliance Phone

Notes

171

Trailer

172

Helicopters â&#x20AC;&#x201C; request via FireCom or contact below: Agency

Air Force Christchurch HelicoptersHeli Pro PAGER 086 508 107

Garden City Helicopters 24hrs - 03 358 4360

Contact Air Operations Duty Officer

Phone numbers

(04) 529 6333

Office Terry MurdochDion Edger

(03) 359 0470

Rob HuntKent Wilson Dougal Monkavid Townsend Kevin Walsh Matt Wright Regan Graham

(027) 316228 84444415

Office Matthew BoulcottStuart Farquhar Dion Edgar Mark Read Regan Graham Simon Duncan

(03) 358 4360

Kent Wilson Chris Wilding

(027) 228 4415 (027) 221 0110

Base Location

Blenheim Harewood Aviation Park

(0271) 433987 2647971

(027) 531444 44062483 (027) 270 7733 (027) 425 1137 (027) 449 5527

(027) 449 5527 (027) 432 8080

Registration

Water Capacity

Cost

Notes

Iroquois Twin Squirrel AS355F2 355 F1

1,000 lt ZK- HUQYN

6750 lt

$2,150

Squirrel AS350BABK117

ZK-HOQHYZ

651,200 lt

$3,250

Bell206 Jet RangerR44

ZK-HRS IAA

500 lt3 PAX

$1,130

Robinson R44 R11

ZK-HFP

Fire Observation

Ground crew

Guimbal Cabri G2

ZK-HCS

Fire Observation

Engineer on staff Comms

ZK HYT

650 lt 4 PAX

$2,150

ZK HGUUG

10700 lt

$31,1850T

BK117D2

ZK-IVB

1000 lt

Squirrel AS350B3BK117 B2

ZK IMN

1,000 lt

$2,9500

ZK IHL ZK-HQTZK IQT ZK IQT

651,200lt

$1952,500 $1,650 $1,750 $1150

Monsoon Buckets *53 Foam units, lifting equipment, side podsFoam injector *2 2 x 1350 lt fuel tankersFuel A1 tanker 14,000 ltr

Ground crew (03) 347 2946 Christchurch Airport

(027) 734274 54014662 (021)274 2749

AircraftAppliance

Greymouth

B)105 BK117 B2Squirrel AS 350 B

Squirrel AS 350BA Squirrel AS 350BAEC 120 EC 120 R44

Air platform Air Platform

Platform - Air Attack /R44 Monsoon Buckets, comms, NVG *2 Foam injector Based in Nelson

173

Way To Go Heliservices

Office (Mandy Smart) Rob Kittow Steve Askin Matt Cruickshank

0800 929 246 (027) 444 9644 (027) 243 5474

Rangiora AirfiledAirfield Lead pilot

(027) 688 6922 (021) 770 375

Eurocopter AS350SD Hughes 500D Robinson R44 Robinson R44

ZK-HKW ZK-HXZ ZK-IFL

1000 lt 600 lt Air platform

$2150 $1750 $1300

ZK-IXG

Air platform

$1300

700 lt500 lt / 700 lt

$1,550 / $1,950

700 lt / 650 lt

$1,950 / $1,650

Foam injection

Matt Kerr Mount Hutt Helicopters

Josh Kershaw

Plus 6 other pilots

(03) 302 8401

Alford Forest Metlthven

((0274) 425 5862

AS 350 BA

ZK HBC /ZK HDQ ZK IBC / MD 530 FF

AS 350 BA

ZK IMKHDQ

700 lt

Robinson R44AS 350BA MD 520 N

ZK IRWZK IBC ZK HBC

Air Platform700 lt 500 lt

$1,950 FLIR mounted to skid$1,950 $1,500

MD 520 NotarMD 530 FF

ZK HBCZK HUJ

650 lt

$1,650

MD520N / AS 350 BA

Greymouth Coastwide Helicopters

Marlborough Helicopters

Stuart Gorrie

(027) 433 6792 (03) 302 8401

Office

(03) 578 9684

Owen Dodson

Hm (03) 578 2315 (0274) 833747 (03) 575 7257 (027) 212 4064

Ron Small

Ridge Air Ltd

Simon Moar Norman Clifford Aron Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Donnell

(03) 579 5587 (021) 224 9590 (03) 572 8885 (021) 322 852

Blenheim

Blenheim

Bell 206 L3 Bell 206 B3 Bell 206 BB

ZK ZK HZE ZK HJL

700 lt 600 lt 600 lt

$1,520 $1,520 $1,520

MD 500D

ZK HOI

500 lt 4 PAX

$1,700

R44

ZK HDD

$1,200

Monsoon Buckets *2Greymouth Mt Hutt Mt HuttMonsoon Bucket *1 Fuel and Ground crew included in rateNorth Island Handheld FLIR Monsoon Bucket *1 Foam injector Alt no (03) 578 2315 Ground Crew, Fuel And 4WD Fuel Vehicles 1x 500 bucket, 2 Tanker Trucks 1 4WD Tanker Truck

Water Tanker Truck, Fuel Tankers, Pumps, Hose 20,000 lt Water Unit

174

Amuri Helicopters

Office

24 hr 0800 888 308

Tony Michelle Darron McCully Daniel (office administrator)

0800 888 308 (03) 315 7758 (0274) 325 085 (027) 276 1735 (027) 366 1835

Hanmer Springs

As 350 FX2

ZK HJM

1,000 lt

Monsoon Buckets *1 Foam injector Ground crew

175

Helicopters Continued Agency Anderson Helicopters Hokitika

Amuri Helicopters Hanmer Springs

Contact

Office Kevin Anderson Fletcher Anderson Office Tony Michelle Darron McCully

Phone numbers

(03) 755 6606 Wk (03) 755 6606 (027) 433 8137 (027) 212 3855 0800 888 308 (03) 315 7758 (0274) 325 085

Base Location

Appliance

Callsign

Water Capacity

Cost

Hokitika

Bell Jet Ranger Eurocopter AS 350 B2

ZK HSG ZK HKA

500 lt 1,000 lt

$1,520 $2,150

Hanmer Springs

As 350 FY2

ZK HJM

1,000 lt

$2,200

R44

ZK HTF

Notes

Monsoon Buckets * 2 Ground Crew 2 Fuel Tankers

$1,180

2 4WDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s with them Monsoon Buckets *1 Foam injector Ground crew

Cost

Notes

Monsoon Buckets Agency DOC

NZ Army

Contact Rangiora Depot Arthurs Pass Depot Bruce Janes Fire Comm Burnham Fire Station

Phone numbers (03) 313 5456 (03) 318 9211 (027) 278 5052 111 (03) 363 0067

Base Location Rangiora Arthurs Pass Burnham Tekapo

Equipment 1x 600 lt 2 x 600 lt 600 lt 600 lt

176

177

Fixed Wing Aircraft Agency Wyndon Aviation Sky Farmer

Contact Bruce Owens Office Duncan Hart

Donald Hart Farmers AirAerial Sowing Ltd

Bruce Evans David Evans

Phone numbers

Base Location

(03) 347 8720 (03) 302 8191 Hm (03) 302 8400191 (027) 481 1915 Hm(03) 302 8191400 (027) 432 0187

Rolleston MethvenAshburton

(03) 314 4181 (0274) 323 585 (03) 314 82284954

Harwarden

Callsign

Water Capacity

Cost

ZK WAT ZK SAT

2000 1650

$1,525 +GST $1,475

ZK BII

1200

Fletcher FU24 T

ZK EUF

1300

$1,350

Cresco 750

ZK WAT

2000

$1,550

Aircraft Type Cresco 750 Air Tractor Fletcher FU24

Canterbury Aero Club

Aero Works

Fairlie

Glen Claridge

(03) 685 8337 027 4730 952 027 457 0771

Cresco 750 Cresco 750

ZK EEL ZK PKB

Jay Peters

(03) 359 2121

Christchurch

Partenavia

ZK NMK

Rangiora

P68B

ZK MIR

West Melton

Cessna 172P

ZK SBK

Piper Cub Cresco

ZK BNL

Ben Robinson Duncan Frazer

(03) 347 8419 (03) 358 2511 021 647 008 (021) 353 127 (027) 263 7910

Rangiora Operations

2000 2000

Fuel Tanker Fuel Tanker 12,000 water tanker

(027) 4344 828 Jim Nimmo

Notes

$1,400 / $400 standby $1400/$400 standby

Air Observation Air Observation Air Observation Air Observation

Fuel tanker 14,000 l Ground Support @ Fairlie not set up yet Fuel Tanker A1,300 1 *2 Cresco 750 Aviation Comms Only

Experienced

Translan Doors

178

Farmers Air Ltd & Kiwi Air

Aero Works Central South Island Helicopters

Guy Stevenson Andy Stevenson (manager) Andrew Denniston Greg Bayless

(06) 868 4803 (021) 968 365

Gisborne â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 hrs to Christchurch

Cresco

(021) 246 3355 (027) 276 8518 (021) 900 559

Masterton â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1 hr to Christchurch

Cresco

(027) 657 0000

Twizel

Cresco

Full automated fire doors

Fire Doors certified

179

Earthmoving Machinery Agency Johnsons

Densem Contractors Ltd

Contact Office Paul Johnson Greg Wheeler Office

Sicon

Gavin Lee Mark Hart

WA Boyes Contracting

Wayne Boyes

G & G Contracting

Mike Gollan

Rooney Earth Moving Ltd

Sheat Contracting HEB Construction Isaac Construction Ltd Jeremy Dixon Construction Manager (027) 495 8347

Office Andrew Rae Craig Matheson Warren Sheat Office Office Brian Warren Paul Hope

Phone numbers

Base Location

Graders

Diggers

(03) 324 3744 (027)4329 590 (027) 6752 658 (03) 324 2289 (027) 221 5288 (027) 279 9819 (021) 643 315 Cell (0274) 313 986 Cell (027) 201 7533

Leeston

1 x 12H

5 x 18 ton Wheel 8 x 2-30 ton Track

1 x D6

RD 3 Leeston

3 x 14G 1 x 15H

2 x 20 ton Track 3 x 25 ton Track 1 x 30 ton Track

1 x D6 4 x D7

Darfield

5 x 12G 1 x 720A 1 x 120 1 x 130

4 x 20 ton Track 1 x14 ton Track 1 x 8 ton Track

1 x D4 1 x 9200

Hm(03) 318 8303 Cell (0274) 710 674 Hm (03) 324 4323 Cell (027) 272 8058

Darfield

1 x 20 ton Track 1 x 15 ton Track 1 x 16 ton Wheel 1 x 6 ton Track

1 x D6 1 x D7 -

(03) 308 6011 (027) 414 2118 (027) 221 8249 (03) 324 4028 (0274) 431 8709 (03) 317 9683

Ashburton

(03) 359 9145 (027) 282 2119 (027) 480 1499

Lincoln

-

6 x 14G

Dunsandel Darfield Christchurch

Dozers

1 x D6 2 x D8 1 x 18 ton Wheel

Notes Some staff are fire fighters

4 axle transport to carry 35 ton pay load Fire Fighter

2 x Slipon Tanks 10,000 lt Trailer 100 pumps plus 100mm hose Fire Fighter

Darfield 12 x 5-22 ton track

1 x D4 1 x D5

5 x Watercart

180

Cullen Earthworks

Glassey Contracting

Scott

(03) 3477 377 (0274) 436 681

West Melton

(0274) 399 281

Tai Tapu

1 x 12H

1 x 12 ton Track 1 x 7 ton Wheel 1 x 5.5 ton Track 1 x 14 ton Wheel 1 x 5 ton Track

Fuel Aviation Agency Air BP Christchurch Airport Jack Robert Garden City Helicopters

Contact

(03) 358 6901 (03) 358 4360

Phone numbers (03) 358 6900 027 433 3967 0800 359 424

Base Location

Notes

Christchurch Airport

Fuel Diesel & Petrol Agency

Contact

Mobil Oil NZ / Allied Petroleum Z Energy Ltd Caltex Oil (Chevron NZ) 24 hrs

Mini Tankers

Phone numbers

0800 383 566 0800 474 355 0508 666 111 0800 733 835

Base Location

Christchurch Christchurch

Notes

0800 474 355

Christchurch

Foam/Retardants Agency Philips and Smith

Contact Jock Little

Phone numbers 021 615 417

Base Location Christchurch

Notes

181

Southern Retardant Depot

Rob Hands

027 224 7912 027 482 5738

Geraldine

Northern Retardant Depot

Darrin WoodsKeith Marshall

027 226 1367 03 941 8781

Christchurch

Mechanical Issues Heavy Transport Specialists (through SDC RFO only)

Paul McDonald

027 617 1117

Darfield

182

Fire Safety Equipment Agency NZ Safety Ltd

Contact Jason Muir

Phillips & Smith

Chubb

Jock Little Graeme McFarlaneChris Owens Jason Maynard

Fire Equipment

Grant Gallagher

Connell Bros

Victor Strang

Blackwoods Protector Safety

Phone numbers (03) 344 436455 027 435 622634 3527 0800 697 233 (09) 818 8048 (027) 722 2265 (03) 348 8658 027 213 487584 1748 (09) 270 7234 027 495 7794 0800 800 535 AH 027 484 5738 (03) 378 303800 (03) 984 700 (021) 777 262

Base Location

Notes

Christchurch

Auckland Christchurch Christchurch

Auckland

Christchurch Auckland

Traffic Control / Road Signage Agency HEB (Local Roads)

Fulton Hogan (State Highways)

Contact

Chris Phillips Bernard Kople Gavin Lee Mark Hart Nathan Peters

Phone numbers (03) 3498217 Cell (027) 270 4174 Cell (027) 944 037 Cell (0274) 313 986 Cell (027) 201 7533 0800 762 334 (03) 349 7039

Base Location

Christchurch

Notes

NZTA â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0800 444 449

183

Generators and Lighting Units Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Base Location

Alastair Thomas (Private)

3497-208

Prebbleton

Murray Skilling (Private)

3243 676 027 251 4504 (03) 366 0385 (03) 349 7503

Leeston

Base Location

Hirequip Hirequip Hornby

Moorhouse Ave

Notes Need a truck with hiab to lift 44KVA Simon Gilmore Electrical to install on trailer 31kva, 32 phase + cables, 240 volt plugs.

Christchurch Hornby

Radio Portable Repeaters Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Selwyn District

Ryan Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;RourkeWilson Brown

(03) 3472 715800 (027) 273 20094) 901 874

Department Of Conservation

Office Duty Officer

NZ Fire Service

Comms Centre

(03) 341 9100 or (03) 310 0820371 3767 (03) 365 2766 (027) 281432 67094742 (03) 341 0266

Rolleston

Christchurch/Mahaanui Office, Hornby and Rangiora / Rangiora

Christchurch

Notes Three in One Stand alone and link repeater

184

Radio Communications Agency

Contact

Selwyn District Council

Ryan Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;RourkeWilson Brown

TRS Communications

Simon Williams

TL Parker

Terry Parker

Tait Communications

Brent Painter

HTS Communications

Matthew Beavon

Emergency Vehicle Systems NZ Police

Steve Barber John Coleman

Phone numbers

Base Location

Notes

(03) 3472 800 (0274) 901 874 (03) 366 7227 (021) 222 8877 (03) 358 8082 (03) 326 6963 0800 662 453 (03) 357 2750 office 021 908 313 (03) 343 2036 (021) 228 6072 (04) 473 5017 (03) 363 4203

Rolleston

16 ICOM Radios Most channels refer to channel plan

Christchurch Christchurch

Cell phones contracts Tait Radios

Christchurch

Icoms Radios

Wellington

Simoco Radios Civil Defence Repeater ( Located on Benmore )

Infra Red Camera Agency New Zealand Fire Service

Department Of Conservation

Contact Fire Comm Non Urgent Mark Boere Office Bruce Janes

Phone numbers 111 (03) 371 3600 (027) 482 2086 (03)313 5456 (027) 278 505271 3767 (027) 432 7361

Base Location

Notes

Christchurch

On a city fire appliance

Rolleston

Volunteer brigade owns their own

ChristchurchRangiora Christchurch

FLIR P620 high resolution uUsually flown by Helicopter early in the morning but can ground truth also.

185

Fire Depot Manager Craig Alexander PRFO Fire Depot Manager

(03) 371 3777

186

Portable Toilets Agency Tuffnelll Drainage Ltd Dakins Rent a Loo Hire pool â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Port A Loo

Contact Bill Tuffnell

Hirequip Ltd Superloo Portable Sanitation

Phone numbers (03) 324 2543 HA 0800 325 467 0800 151 515 (03) 353 0358 (03) 352 9194 (03) 366 0385 0800 500 205 (03) 344 0134

Base Location

Notes

Leeston Christchurch

24 hours

Christchurch Papanui Moorhouse Ave Chrictchurch Christchurch

Fax 0800 109 965 (027) 221 4038 AH

Doctors Agency

Contact

Leeston Medical Centre Darfield Medical Centre Lincoln Medical Centre Rolleston Medical Centre

Phone numbers (03) 324 3850 (03) 318 8511 (03) 325 2411 (03) 347 8848

Base Location Leeston Darfield Lincoln Rolleston

Notes New premises - old Leeston Council Bldg

Hospitals Agency Christchurch Public Burwood

Contact

Phone numbers (03) 364 0640 (03) 383 6836

Base Location Christchurch Christchurch

Notes

187

Police Agency Police

Contact

Phone numbers

Canterbury District Headquarters

(03) 363 7400

Rolleston Arthurs Pass Darfield Leeston Lincoln

(03) 347 9248 (03) 318 9212 (03) 318 8002 (03) 378 0150 (03) 378 0160

Base Location

Notes

Critical Incident Stress Counselling Agency Child Youth and Family Salvation Army NZ Red Cross NZFS

Contact

Carol Ball Arrange through Fire Comm

Phone numbers 0508 326 459 (03) 338 5154 (03) 339 7111

Base Location Christchurch Christchurch Christchurch

Notes

(24 hours)

188

Fire Investigators - (Full Investigation Arrange Through Manager Rural Fire) Agency

Contact

NZFS Rural Fire Solutions

Wayne Hamilton

NRFA

John Barnes

Private

Bob King

Phone numbers

Base Location

Notes

Christchurch Hm (03) 386 2723 (027) 555 9946 (03) 371 3621 wk (03) 385 7297 HM (021) 927 778 Hm (03) 347 8361 021 206 0169

Christchurch

West Melton

Fire Behaviour Specialists Agency SCION Forest Research Institution

Contact

Grant Pearce

Veronica Clifford

Phone numbers

(03) 364 2949 (027) 471 2840 AH (03) 364 2987 Ext 7828 (03) 364 2987 Ext 3043

Base Location

Christchurch

Notes

189

Power Line Companies Agency

Contact

Orion Transpower Emergency Transfield Services

Phone numbers (03) 363 9898 (03) 349 7043 0800 843 474 (03) 349 0800

Base Location

Notes 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours

190

Airways Corporation (Inc) Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Christchurch Control Centre

0800 282 737

Centre Supervisor

(03) 358 1500 0800 626 756 (03) 353 7716

Control Tower

Base Location

Notes

Base Location

Notes

Meteorological Services Agency

NZ Met Service Land Forecasts

Contact

Plains High Site Special Special Bulletins

Blue Skies Met Phone Canterbury Weather Line

Phone numbers

(03) 358 4223 0900 999 25 0900 999 20

Christchurch International Airport

(04) 470 0714 (03) 314 7318 0900 99 903

Railways Agency Kiwi Rail First point of contact

Contact

Phone numbers 0800 808 400

Base Location

Notes Emergency Train Control

191

Poisons Agency

Contact

National Poison Centre

Phone numbers (03) 474 700

Base Location

Notes

Dunedin

Bottled Water Agency Frucors

Contact Owen Perring

Phone numbers (03) 378 0000 (021) 871807

Base Location

Notes

Christchurch

Catering (Onsite) Agency Rolleston New World Lincoln Hospitality Lincoln Hospitality Country Feasts Catering

Contact The Deli Department Sandra or Heather Thomas or Marian Frey

Phone numbers (03) 347 4404 (03) 325 3620 (03) 325 3800 (03) 344 3044 (027) 310 4411

Base Location Rolleston Lincoln Lincoln Prebbelton

Notes

192

Catering ( Food Retailers ) Location

Permise Name

Phone numbers

Arthurs Pass Christchurch Darfield Darfield Darfield Darfield Darfield

Store and Café Dominos Pizza Fish and Chip Terrace Bar and Café Darfield Bakery Express Yourself Café Dairy and Tearooms

(03) 318 9235 (03) 344 5267 (03) 318 8306 (03) 318 7303 (03) 318 8460 (03) 318 8134 (03) 318 8602

Dunsandel Hororata Kirwee Leeston Leeston Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Lincoln Prebbleton

Dunsandel Store Café & Wine Bar Kowhai Foods Leeston Takeaways Hillyars Café Lincoln Fish Hillyars Café Felix Café Lincoln Chinese Prebbleton Takeaways

(03) 3254 037 (03) 3187 059 (03) 318 1706 (03) 3243 592 (03) 3243 159 (03) 325 2296 (03) 3252 595 (03) 325 3228 (03) 325 2528 (03) 349 4200

Rakaia

Rakaia Takeaways

(03) 302 7446

Rolleston Rolleston Rolleston Rolleston Rolleston Rolleston Southbridge Springfield

BP Service Station Dragonfly Café Dominos Pizza Food Bar New World Subway Takeaways Te Kowai Café

(03) 347 7790 (03) 347 3314 (03) 347 4812 (03) 347 8640 (03) 347 4404 (03) 347 9794 (03) 3242 549 (03) 318 4880

Location West Coast Road Hornby North Terrace North Terrace North Terrace North Terrace North Terrace Main South Road Hororata Road Old West Coast High Street High Street Gerald Street Gerald Street Gerald Street Gerald Street Springs Road Main South Road Main South Road Rolleston Drive Rolleston Drive Chaucer Street Rolleston Drive Rolleston Drive High Street West Coast

Cnr Main South Goulding Ave

Open 24 hours Next to supermaket

Ring by 9:00 will have packed lunches by lunch Rolleston Square

193

Springfield Tai Tapu Tai Tapu Tai Tapu

Springfield Store / Café Tai Tapu Café Raspberry Café Mamas Pizza

(03) 318 4840 (03) 329 6753 (03) 329 6979 (03) 329 6618

Road West Coast Road SH Rhodes Road SH

Radio Stations Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Fax Number

Newstalk ZB Radio Network

(03) 379 9600 (03) 363 3555

More FM

(03) 377 1993

Radio Works Canterbury Radio 1 (94.5)

(03) 961 3102 (03) 340 9292 (03) 379 1290 (03) 379 1290

Radio Plains FM

(03) 365 7997

(03) 340 0967

Radio RDU 98

(03) 364 2983

(03) 364 2509

Radio Pacific

(03) 379 1290

(03) 366 5301

Radio Rhema

(03) 366 1612

(03) 366 1613

Notes 3ZB/98FM, 91ZM National

(03) 636 3553

(03) 366 5301 (03) 366 5301

Canterbury University Student Radio

(0800 000 717)

194

Television Stations Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Fax Number

Television NZ (TV 1 & 2)

(03) 961 8585

(03) 365 6705

TV 3 & TV 4

(03) 943 3004

0800 883 6397

CTV - Canterbury TV

(03) 377 7033

(03) 377 7277

Notes

195

Newspaper Agency

Contact

Phone numbers

Fax Number

The Press Reporters Advertising

(03) 379 0940 (03) 379 0941 (03) 377 8778

(03) 364 8492

The Star

(03) 379 7100 (03) 379 1110

(03) 364 7484

Canterbury News

(03) 313 6183

(03) 313 5487

Canterbury Times

(03) 379 1100

(03) 364 7480

Advertising

(03) 379 1531

Notes

196

APPENDIX B PERMIT TO LIGHT FIRE Section 23, Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL 1.

Permit Number:

------------------------------------------------------------------

2.

Permit Holder:

------------------------------------------------------------------

3.

Mailing Address of Permit Holder:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.

E-mail Address of Permit Holder:

------------------------------------------------------------------

5.

Telephone Number of Permit Holder:

------------------------------------------------------------------

6.

Facsimile Number of Permit Holder:

------------------------------------------------------------------

7.

Location of Fire:

------------------------------------------------------------------

[indicate on the location map showing

------------------------------------------------------------------

the rural address, roads, grid references etc.]

8.

Fuel Types to be Burned:

------------------------------------------------------------------

[indicate on the property location map the fuel types to be used and the size/area to be burned]

------------------------------------------------------------------

9.

Permit Valid from:

……………………to………………….

(inclusive)

10.

Time of Day:

……………………to………………….

(inclusive)

11.

General Information About the Nature and Purpose of the Fire:

------------------------------------------------------------------

[e.g. land clearing operation, incinerator fire]

------------------------------------------------------------------

This permit is issued under section 23 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977). You may light a fire in the open air at the location described above, subject to compliance with the following conditions.

197

INFORMATION FOR PERMIT HOLDERS Meaning of Open Air Lighting a fire in the open air means lighting a fire out of doors other than in an approved fireplace, incinerator, barbecue, or other authorised receptacle.

Resource Consents This permit is not resource consent to discharge smoke or other contaminants into air. It does not exempt you from any obligations you may have under section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991. You should check these matters with the relevant Regional Council.

Additional Permits Depending on where the fire authorised by this permit is to be lit, further Fire Permits may be required from the Department of Conservation, another Fire Authority, or the relevant City of District Council.

Escape If the fire escapes, and if it is safe to do so, try to extinguish it. Otherwise telephone 111.

Extreme Fire Danger Fire Permits are suspended if a fire ban or an order prohibiting open air fires is in place. During a period of extreme fire danger, check with the Fire Authority on whether you may light a fire. If lighting a fire is essential for emergency purposes (e.g. for destroying diseased or dead stock, or combating the likely spread of introduced organisms) you will need a special permit from the Fire Authority.

Insurance This permit is not a legal defence against claims for damage or fire-fighting costs caused by the fire. We advise you to have adequate fire insurance to cover any misadventures.

Offences It is an offence not to produce this permit within a reasonable time when asked to do so by a member of the Police or a RFO. It is an offence, when there is a restricted or prohibited fire season in place, to light a fire in the open air without a permit, or to breach permit conditions.

Full details of these and other offences relating to lighting fires in the open air are set out in the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977).

198

CONDITIONS The following conditions apply: a) b) c)

You must not light a fire if a strong wind is blowing or if the conditions are such that the fire is likely to spread beyond the limits of the land or other property for which this permit is issued.

This permit is suspended if there is a prohibition or order under section 20 or section 21 of the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977) against the lighting of fires in the open air at the location described in paragraph 7.

Immediately before lighting a fire you must make reasonable efforts to confirm that no prohibition or order is currently in force.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS Refer attached special conditions.

……………………………………….

Rural Fire Officer

……………………………………….

Date I understand the conditions of this permit and have read the ‘Information for Permit Holders’.

……………………………………….

Permit Holder

……………………………………….

Date

199

APPENDIX C

200

APPENDIX D

201

APPENDIX D1

202

APPENDIX E

203

APPENDIX F

204

APPENDIX G

205

APPENDIX G1

206

APPENDIX G2

207

APPENDIX H

208

APPENDIX I

209

APPENDIX J

210

APPENDIX K

211

212

APPENDIX L Register of Commercial, Industrial and at High Risk Residential and Public Structures - Risk Score Rating 16 at above (37) Reviewed 1.3.13 Address of Structure

Alpine Motels, 52 West Coast Road, Arthur’s Pass Arthur’s Pass Outdoor Education Centre, 83 West Coast Road, Arthur’s Pass The Chalet Arthur’s Pass, 131 West Coast Road, Arthur’s Pass Kennedy Lodge, 69 Brake Hill Road Arthur’s Pass Wilderness Lodge , SH 73 Graigieburn Grassmere Lodge, West Coast Road Craigieburn Education Centre of NZ, 9611 West Coast Road Mt Cheeseman Ski Club, Castle Hill Lake Coleridge Lodge, Hummocks Road Lake Coleridge Lake Coleridge Power Station, Hummocks Road Lake Coleridge Mt Hutt Lodge, 46 Zig Zag Road Windwhistle Te Waior Christian Healing Camp, 236 Hororata Road Black Berry Patch Community House, 2538 Bealey Road Hororata Glenroy Baptist Camp, 778 Sleemans Road Hororata NZDEF Ammunition Depot, Turballs Road Glentunnel Hororata Hotel, 15 Hororata Road Hororata Prime Foods, 165 Hororata Road, Hororata Fonterra Dairy Plant, West Coast Road, Darfield Brinks Chicken, 1310 Main Road Rolleston Santa Rosa Marketing, 448 Two Chain Road, Burnham South Pacific Meats Malvern Abattoirs, Two Chain Road Burnham Community House, 456 Jones Road Rolleston Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo Youth Justice Residence, South Runners Road, Rolleston Rolleston Prison, Walkers Road, Rolleston Natural Dairy Products, 368 Kings Road, Southbridge Ngati Moki Marae, 914 Pohau Road, Taumutu Oakleys Premium Fresh Vegetables, 422 Cryers

Brief Description of Structure

Risk/Tactical Plans (Site Plans)

Motels Conference venue and dormitory

NIL Nil

Meals and accommodation

Nil

Accommodation Accommodation lodge Accommodation lodge Outdoor education centre

Nil Nil Nil Nil

Ski Club Meals and accommodation

Nil Nil

Hydro power station fed by pen stocks Accommodation and meals Community house

Nil

Community house

Yes

Camp

Nil

Army ammunitions demolitions depot Hotel - closed due 4.9.10 earthquake Salmon processing plant Still to be rated

Yes

Nil nil

Yes

Chicken farm and processor Chicken processor

Yes Complex Plan required Yes Yes

Meat killing and processing plant

Yes

Community House Youth prison

Yes Yes

Prison complex Ice cream plant

Yes Requires plan

Marae

Yes

213

Road, Southbridge CMP, Knyvetts Road, Southbridge Synlait Milk Plant, Heaslerton Road, Dunsandel Synlait Milk Power Plant Community House, 119 Adams Road Community House Rolleston, Old West Coast Road Hohepa Village, 1 Trices Road, Halswell Claddagh Haven Trust, 1058 Weedons Ross Road Springston Hotel, Leeston Road, Springston SI Agricultural Field Days Site, Weedons Road Lincoln Motukarara Camp, 52 Fiddlers Road, Motukarara

Meat packers and processors Milk processing builds and boiler house Power plant Community house Community house Community workshop Community house Hotel and meals Field day site

Requires plan Complex plan required Requires plan Nil Nil Nil Yes Yes Yes

Camping ground

nil

214

APPENDIX M

215

216

217

218

219

APPENDIX N

RESTRICTED FIRE SEASON Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Forest & Rural Fires Act (1977), the lighting of fires in the open air within the rural areas of Selwyn District is restricted from midnight until further notice.

The exemptions to this are: 1.

2.

The burning of crop residue will be permitted without the issue of a Fire Permit providing the following conditions are met: (a)

Fires shall only be lit during daylight hours and must be out by dark.

(b)

No fires shall be lit while strong winds are blowing or forecasted, or when conditions are such that the fire is likely to spread beyond the limits of the land for which this Authority is issued.

Maximum allowable wind strength is 19kph (Beaufort Scale 3).

(c)

The area to be burnt is to be surrounded by a continuous fire break, cleared of all combustible material to a minimum width of 10 metres.

(d)

The fire is to be patrolled by the person lighting the fire until it is completely out.

(e)

Prior to lighting, the occupiers of neighbouring properties are to be advised of the time and date of burning.

(f)

That some form of Fire Fighting Equipment such as grubbers, beaters, fire extinguishers or vehicle mounted water supply/spray units is on site to deal with any fire outbreaks.

Fires are permitted in enclosed drums providing the following conditions are met: (a)

The drum top must be covered with a wire mesh sized no greater than 20mm or have a lid and flue with a spark arrester fitted.

(b)

The drum must be surrounded by a 3 metre area that is cleared of combustible material and be at least 3 metres away from other buildings, trees or vegetation.

(c)

The area must be serviced by a reticulated water supply or an alternative water supply (tanker, dam, etc). The water supply must be capable of fully extinguishing the drum fire and the area immediately around it.

(d)

The drum fire must only be lit during daylight hours and fully extinguished by dark.

(e)

The drum fire must be attended by someone at all times until it is completely out.

(f)

The drum fire must not be lit when the wind is blowing or forecasted to be above 19kph (Beaufort Scale 3).

(g)

The drum fire must not be lit or allowed to burn when the smoke is likely to cause nuisance to neighbours.

220

(h)

Only vegetation, paper, cardboard and untreated wood are allowed to be burnt under Environment Canterbury Air Plan.

3.

Gas fuelled barbecues lit in properly constructed containers.

4.

Only gas fuelled barbecues lit in properly constructed containers are permitted in Council Reserves.

5.

Burning may be permitted if a Fire Permit has been obtained from the Principal Rural Fire Officer.

Notes 1.

These exemptions apply to the Rural Areas of Selwyn District only. No open air fires may be lit within residential areas without a Resource Consent from Environment Canterbury.

2.

Any Permit used is not a Legal Defence against a Claim for any damage which may be caused by the fire. The responsibility for its control and the liability for any damage which may arise lies with the person lighting the fire.

D D MarshallW J Brown

PRINCIPAL RURAL FIRE OFFICER

221

APPENDIX O

SELWYN DISTRICT COUNCIL PROHIBITED FIRE SEASON

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Forest and Rural Fires Act (1977), a PROHIBITED FIRE SEASON is extended over the whole of the Selwyn District as from ................................................... until further notice.

During the Prohibited Fire Season, it is an offence to light any fires in the open air. The prohibition does not apply to barbecues (in enclosed containers), lit on a property serviced by a high pressure water supply.

D D MarshallW J Brown

PRINCIPAL RURAL FIRE OFFICER

222

APPENDIX P

Lifting of Fire Restrictions Notice is hereby given that the previously advertised Restricted Fire Season, which extended over the Plains area of the Selwyn District, is lifted as from midnight, ……………………

Fires may now be lit in the open air without a Fire Permit. Restrictions may be reimposed at a later date if changed weather conditions create a potentially dangerous fire situation.

All residents are requested to take care when lighting open fires and are reminded that legal liability for costs associated in fighting an uncontrolled fire lie with the person lighting the fire.

Before lighting an open fire, due attention must be given to weather conditions, adequacy of firebreaks, and the patrolling of fires until completely out, and it is requested that fires not be lit after dark.

Notes: 1.

A permanent Restricted Fire Season remains in place for the Hill and High Country of the District.

2.

Property owners are reminded that for the Department of Conservation Estate and Fire Control Areas, fire control measures are in place all year and that organisation should be contacted for a Fire Permit prior to any burning.

3.

No fires maybe lit in residential areas without a Resource Consent from Environmental Canterbury.

D D MarshallW J Brown Principal Rural Fire Officer 25.01.2011

223

FIRE LOG Date

Time

Message

Actioned

224

1.

Incident Name

Name: M No:

2.

Operational Period

RURAL FIRE REPORT

Date: Time:

3.

Location Owner: Road: Rapid No: 6.

Area Burnt Sq Metres: Hectares:

4.

5.

NZMS Map Grid Ref Eastings: Northings:

7.

Weather Temp: Wind speed: Humidity:

9.

Appliances/Crews Attending VRFF/Brigade OIC

10.

Regulation Breach?

If So-Why?

Fuel Type

8.

Fire Season Open: Restricted: Prohibited:

Appliances/Tankers/Others

11.

Fire cause Known: Suspected: Unknown: Details:

Registration No.

No. of Crew

12.

Investigation required?

Reason:

13. Fire Site Area of origin identified/secured Witnesses identified

Details:

Any other information

Details:

14.

Officer making report:

15.

Report Date:

16.

For office use only: Report received:

Date:

Follow up File:

Date:

Particulars:

Position Held:

225

Selwyn District Council Fire Authority Personnel and Vehicle/Equipment Daily Summary Fire Name Date Incident No Fire Location VRFF UNIT

Personnel / Crew: Travel to incident Start Finish

Name

Incident Ground Start Finish

Travel from Incident Start Finish

Vehicle Records: Callsign

Type

Category

Travel To (K’s)

Travel From (K’s)

Onsite Operations

Onsite Standby

Rate

Costings

Equipment Records: Item

Signed

Type

No Used

Rate/Cost

Name/Title

Date

Approved Wilson Brown Principal Rural Fire Officer

Costings

Date

GL Code

226

WILDFIRE – INITIAL REPORT

Fire Authority Fire Location:

Fire Number:

Fire Origin: Grid Ref:

Fire Date:

Suspected

Known

Location Description:

Time of Ignition: File reported by: Fire reported to:

Address: Date:

Fire Season Status: Open

No

Restricted

Yes

No

Prohibited

Yes

No

Description of circumstances: (Include information provided by other witnesses about their first sighting of the fire.)

General Area of Origin: Adjacent to road/track

Suspected Yes

Known

No

Road/Track Name:

Distance from road/track: Track only 4 x 4

Yes

Side of track: No

Motorbike

Yes

No

Walking Yes

Access road(s) name: Description of initial stages of fire: (Direction of travel, rate of speed, wind direction, speed, topography, etc.) duel, type:

More than one ignition site:

Fire Cause:

Suspected

Yes

No

Known

Natural – Lightning

Malicious/Criminal Intent

Children

Non Permit Operation

Escape from Fire permit Operation Escape from Campfire Machinery/Equipment use Disposal of Waste Other – (Describe): Description of Circumstances:

No

227

Witness – Action and Observations: Initial Attack Crew Boss/Officer: Date of arrival: Access route: Other Brigades/Crews present:

RFA/NZFS: Time of arrival: Direction travelled:

Suppression action at or near area of origin: Area of origin secured:

Yes

No

Vehicles/people observed by witnesses:

Yes

(If yes, details)

No

Items/events observed by witnesses:

Yes

No

Other information provided by witnesses:

Yes

(If yes, details) (Details)

No

Sketch Plan

Legend X

Point of Origin/Area of Origin

Area Burnt

Backburn Edge

Fence Line

Direction of Origin/Area of Origin



>

Road or Track Intersection



Building or Structure

Tree

 

Clump of trees

Rural Fire Officer:: Signature: Fire Authority:

Direction of Fire Travel – Backing Edge

Fire Location:

228

Date:

229

FIRE BEHAVIOUR FORM Fire Name: Observerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Name: Site Characteristics Observation Vegetation Type Slope % Aspect Shade Factor % (Cloud or Canopy) Weather Observations Characteristics Temperature Wind Speed RH Rain Wind Direction Fire Characteristics Fire Type Rate of Spread Flame Length Flame Height Spotting Distance Length to Breadth Ratio Area Spread From Smoke and Venting Crown Fraction Burned Depth of Burn Scorch Height Fire Type m (smouldering) c (creeping) r (running) s (spotting) Spread From P (point) Comments:

Date:

Ic Cc Fw

(intermittent crowning) (continuous crowning) (fire whirls) L (line)

230

2013/2014 Rural Fire Notifications from RFA to NRFA Manager Rural Fire (This document must be emailed as an attachment to NRFA MRF or Duty MRF)

Fire Date Fire Start Time (24 hrs) Rural Fire Authority Fire Incident Name Fire Incident Fire Level (refer to Fire Level Description in Guideline & NRFA Standard reporting requirements) Area Burned (Ha) Predominant Vegetation Type Incident Controller Name Who Advised Com Cen? MRF Advised by RFA NRFA advised within 24 hours Origin Commercial Forest?

RFFF Claim?

Type of Fire Investigation Underway Suspected Cause of Fire Party Responsible (if known) Safety Incidents Near Hit/Serious Harm/Fatality (if so provide background under comments) Comments (include resources deployed, status of fire and other information pertinent to the Fire)

Estimated Losses (structures, fence lines, stock etc.)

Estimate fire suppression cost Range (excl GST) Estimate Cost (excl GST) EFFF Claim No.

This number is issued when claim is lodged

231 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting – 25 November, 2015

FROM:

Community Development Team Leader

DATE:

16 November, 2015

SUBJECT:

Newcomers & Migrants Strategy

1.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council approves the adoption of the Newcomers & Migrants Strategy.

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend the adoption of the Selwyn Newcomers & Migrants Strategy.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Low significance.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND Selwyn District has consistently been the fastest growing district in New Zealand over recent years, with population growth of 4.5% between July 2012 and June 2013 (2013 Census).

The population in Selwyn District is currently estimated at 52,000, with projections anticipating an additional 30,405 people by 2031, equivalent to adding a city larger than Timaru to the district. More recent data from Statistics New Zealand in early 2015 reinforces these projections, with mid-range projections at 2033 anticipating a district population of 77,100.

Many of the newcomers to Selwyn have been people from Christchurch, seeking a “safer” area in which to live, while often retaining work and family connections in the city. And many migrant workers are supporting Selwyn agriculture and dairying.

232

233

234

235

T F

A R

D

Selwyn District Council

Newcomers & Migrants Strategy growing strong communities

together

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

236

Contents Foreword from the Mayor........................................2 Definition.................................................................2 Purpose...................................................................2 Background.............................................................3 Vision.......................................................................4 Mission....................................................................4 Values......................................................................4 Our community........................................................6 Selwyn wards..........................................................7 Where are newcomers and migrants from..............8 Trends......................................................................9 District growth.........................................................9 Our growing diversity............................................10 A collaborative approach......................................12 Advisory and steering groups...............................13 Working parties.....................................................14 Research findings for newcomers and migrants in selwyn..........................................15 Key focus areas.....................................................16 Key outcomes.......................................................17 Implementation plan........................................ 18-20

growing strong communities

together Publication August 2015

1

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

237

Foreword from the Mayor Selwyn district has been experiencing rapid population growth for several years. Its reputation as a great place to live, work and play has drawn many new residents. This has been accelerated by the Canterbury earthquakes, with people moving from Christchurch in search of ‘safer’ land, along with people arriving from overseas to live in Selwyn and contribute to the Christchurch rebuild.

Selwyn’s agricultural industry has attracted a number of migrant workers, who have added to the growing diversity of the district.

This strategy aims to address the needs of people new to the district, so that they can settle well and call Selwyn their home.

Kelvin Coe MAYOR

Definition For the purpose of this strategy a ‘newcomer’ refers to anyone who has not lived within Selwyn district, but has moved into the area from anywhere in New Zealand.

A ‘migrant’ is someone who was born in another country and who has come to work or live either temporarily or permanently within Selwyn district.

Purpose Selwyn district has consistently been the fastest growing district in New Zealand over recent years, with population growth of 4.5% between July 2012 and June 2013.

The population in March 2013 was 44,595, with projections anticipating an additional 30,405 people by 2031, equivalent to adding a city larger than Timaru to the district. More recent data from Statistics New Zealand in early 2015 reinforces these projections, with midrange projections at 2033 anticipating a district population of 77,100.

Reflecting changes in the wider New Zealand population, Selwyn is growing in diversity. The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance, respect, an understanding that each individual is unique, and recognising our individual differences.

Diversity within communities contributes to the social, cultural and economic strength of any district.

The Selwyn District Council wants all new residents, regardless of their reasons for coming to live in Selwyn, to establish their lives quickly and successfully in local communities, to participate and contribute fully to the district’s social, cultural and economic life and to stay in the district as long-term residents.

A supportive community plays a vital role in helping newcomers and migrants feel welcome, enabling them to settle well into their new homes and communities.

Integration into a new community does not, however, mean loss of cultural identity: cultural identity matters to all residents. It is important that the community celebrates and values the ethnic and cultural diversity that newcomers and migrants bring to Selwyn.

Welcoming people of diverse cultures makes a community more connected with the world, and more open to the opportunities the modern world offers. A collaborative approach is required to address the challenges newcomers face as they settle in Selwyn and into their local communities.

This strategy sets direction and outcomes which the Selwyn District Council wishes to work on collaboratively with government agencies, non-government organisations, local agencies, community groups and the community.

2

Background Selwyn District Council’s Newcomers and Migrants Strategy is part of the Council’s Social Wellbeing Strategy, which outlines a broad range of wellbeing objectives and initiatives for all parts of the community.

The Newcomers and Migrants Strategy links in with the following policy documents: ∙∙ New Zealand Newcomers Network Strategic Plan, 2011-2014 ∙∙ New Zealand Settlement Strategy ‘our future together’. ∙∙ The Mayoral Forum’s Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy (2015) and work programme on newcomer and migrant settlement support ∙∙ SDC Selwyn District Council Economic Development Strategy, 2013-2019 ∙∙ The New Zealand Migrant Settlement and Integration Strategy ∙∙ Community in Mind Strategy’ He Pauawai Waitaha, developed

by CERA This strategy was collated with information from: ∙∙ Statistics New Zealand Census 2013 ∙∙ Population projections using Selwyn District Council data ∙∙ Research commissioned by Selwyn District Council to inform the development of a Health and Social Services Strategy, particularly identifying the findings around provision for newcomers and people from diverse cultural backgrounds ∙∙ Report commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development to gather the view of newcomers to Selwyn District ∙∙ Review of relevant strategies and polices Research has highlighted that little collaboration is taking place within Selwyn between the different services for newcomers, with a tendency to “own the newcomer” space and discourage others who want to be part of the solution. This has led to a very wide range of disconnected and fragmented opportunities and is confusing for newcomers.

This strategy aims to move forward with a collaborative approach, to acknowledge that newcomers groups have different needs and to combine resources and energy to find solutions. The strategy also includes detailed implementation plans for action through collaboration.

3

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

238

Vision

Mission

All newcomers and migrants to Selwyn feel welcome, settle in, fully participate and enjoy good health and wellbeing, enabling them to flourish in the Selwyn community.

To support all newcomers and migrants to have access to information and services, so they can participate in the community and connect with others, enabling them to contribute and feel part of their new community.

Our values Respect We encourage people to be accepting of each other and to recognize their values, cultures and beliefs, thereby upholding their dignity and worth.

Respect

Inclusiveness All people who come to live or visit Selwyn feel welcomed, included and connected.

We encourage people to be accepting of each other and to recognize their values, cultures and beliefs, thereby upholding their dignity and worth.

Celebration

Inclusiveness

We encourage people to get together to celebrate and share their diverse cultures.

All people who come to live or visit Selwyn feel welcomed, included and connected.

Connectedness We will create opportunities for newcomers and migrants to be able to connect and to empower them to participate and contribute to their communities.

Celebration We encourage people to get together to celebrate and share their diverse cultures.

Collaboration

Connectedness

Relevant agencies and communities will work together to achieve outcomes.

We will create opportunities for newcomers and migrants to be able to connect and to empower them to participate and contribute to their communities.

growing strong communities

4

Our values

together

Collaboration Relevant agencies and communities will work together to achieve outcomes.

5

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

239

Our Community

Selwyn District Wards The Selwyn district has four wards: Malvern, Selwyn Central, Springs and Ellesmere.

Selwyn district is located in the middle of the South Island, extending 150 kilometres from the main divide in the west to the coastline near Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, and bounded by the Waimakariri River to the north and the Rakaia River to the south.

DISTRICT POPULATION

45,595 32.6

A comparison of age structure within the district identifies Malvern ward as having the greatest proportion of older people, followed

by Ellesmere ward; the population is older in the rural areas of Selwyn district. Preschoolers comprise the largest proportion of the population in Selwyn Central and Ellesmere.

% Arthurs Pass

DISTRICT POPULATION INCREASE SINCE 2006

SELWYN WARD 17,343 RESIDENTS

38.9%

THE DISTRICT COVERS

649,000

OF THE DISTRICT

Major ethnic groups

Castle Hill

HECTARES

European

Maori

Arthurs Pass

7.0%

Castle Hill

Glentunnel

Springfield Lake Coleridge Sheffield

MALVERN WARD 7,788 RESIDENTS

Springfield Lake Coleridge

Pacific peoples

Darfield West Melton Rolleston

0-14 YEAR OLDS 15-24 YEAR OLDS 25-39 YEAR OLDS 40-64 YEAR OLDS 65+ YEAR OLDS

91.9%

1.2%

Lincoln

15.2%

Whitecliffs Glentunnel Glenroy

Coalgate Darfield

Kirwee West Melton

Hororata

OF THE DISTRICT

Southbridge

Asian Middle Eastern, Latin American, African

OF OUR DISTRICT’S % POPULATION IS

22 UNDER 15

1AGED 1 65 OR OVER % OF OUR DISTRICT’S POPULATION IS

Other

Rolleston Burnham

3.2%

0.6%

2.3

%

0-14 YEAR OLDS 15-24 YEAR OLDS 25-39 YEAR OLDS 40-64 YEAR OLDS 65+ YEAR OLDS

21% 11% 15% 29% 15%

Doyleston Leeston

6,759 RESIDENTS

17.5% OF THE DISTRICT

As a district Selwyn has a stronger representation of children, youth and middle aged residents and lower representation of older people.

0-14 YEAR OLDS 22% 15-24 YEAR OLDS 12% 25-39 YEAR OLDS 18% 40-64 YEAR OLDS 34% 65+ YEAR OLDS 12.2%

Prebbleton

Lincoln Springston Tai Tapu

Dunsandel

ELLESMERE WARD

24% 13% 19% 36% 8%

Motukarara

Selwyn Huts Southbridge

Rakaia Huts

SPRINGS WARD 12,709 RESIDENTS

28.5% OF THE DISTRICT

0-14 YEAR OLDS 21% 15-24 YEAR OLDS 16.3% 25-39 YEAR OLDS 12.9% 40-64 YEAR OLDS 39% 65+ YEAR OLDS 11.4%

*At time of 2013 Census 6

7

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

240

Where are newcomers and migrants coming from?

Trends The 2013 Census shows us:

ENGLAND

50%

CHINA

3.6%

AUSTRALIA

12%

GERMANY

1.8%

IRELAND

1.7%

SOUTH AFRICA 12% SCOTLAND

5.4%

WALES

1.7%

PHILIPPINES

5%

FIJI

1.5%

INDIA

1.5%

NETHERLANDS 4.7%

Where New Zealand residents have come from in the last five years OTHER NZ CITY 8%

Where migrants in Selwyn district have settled

OVERSEAS 16%

ELLESMERE 13% NORTH ISLAND 14%

SOUTH ISLAND 11% CHRISTCHURCH 46%

8

WAIMAKARIRI 2%

3.9%

OF RESIDENTS IN SELWYN HAD LIVED ELSEWHERE FIVE YEARS EARLIER

Selwyn district growth trends 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20 01

USA

16,428 38%

20 12 20 /13 13 20 /14 14 20 /15 15 20 /16 16 20 /17 17 20 /18 18 20 /19 19 20 /20 2 20 0/21 21 20 /22 22 20 /23 23 20 /24 2 20 4/25 25 20 /26 26 20 /27 27 20 /28 28 20 /29 29 /3 0

Countries residents originated from prior to settling in the Selwyn district

20 06

The 2013 Census sought information on where people lived five years previously in 2008.

∙∙ The Selwyn district had a population of 27,291 in 2001 ∙∙ The population grew to 33,645 by 2006 by 2013 the population was 44,595. The current population is estimated to be 50,000. ∙∙ Growth over the next 15 years is expected to rise to 75,000 by 2031 ∙∙ 80% of the growth is in urban areas ∙∙ The largest growth will be in Rolleston and Lincoln ∙∙ 20% of the growth is in rural areas ∙∙ This trend is expected to continue over the next 10 years or more

SELWYN CENTRAL 38%

MALVERN 17%

SPRINGS 32%

WIDER CANTERBURY 5%

9

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

241

Our growing diversity Selwyn is growing in diversity with significant expansion in dairy farming being a major contributor.

Alongside dairying, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) populations are coming into the area because they are employed in other types of farming (eg Filipino pig farmers in Hororata) or because they are working in the rebuild (eg Mexican tradespeople living in Hororata and working in the city). The most commonly identified CALD populations were Filipino, Fijian Indian, Pasifika and Latin American.

Selwyn’s child population (0-16 years) is much more culturally diverse than the population as a whole, with age structures of non-European populations tending to be younger in composition.

Ngai ˉ Tahu is the mana whenua of Selwyn. One of the iwi’s 18 runanga is based in Selwyn, at Taumutu. Schools report diversity of whakapapa of Maori ˉ students, as with the Maori ˉ population of Selwyn in general.

10

11

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

242

A collaborative approach This strategy aims to set out a collaborative approach to address the issues newcomers and migrants are facing when moving into Selwyn district.

A framework has been developed to create a working document for implementation ‘on the ground’.

Migrant and Newcomers Strategic Plan

Advisory Group

Steering Group

Outcome One

Outcome Two

Outcome Three

Outcome Four

Outcome Five

Outcome Six

Advisory group

Working parties

The advisory group comprises key agencies which have experience in the newcomer and migrant field. The group’s purpose is to:

Working parties will be formed comprising people “on the ground” who are in a position to take action and make things happen within Selwyn’s communities.

∙∙ Advise on the direction of the Selwyn District Council Newcomers and Migrant Strategy and associated implementation plan ∙∙ Share information via Selwyn District Council ∙∙ Advise the steering group on current trends and issues, as well as any services that Selwyn newcomers and migrant residents can access ∙∙ Advocate for relevant services to be delivered within Selwyn district for newcomers and migrants ∙∙ Advise members of the steering group and working party, as necessary ∙∙ Support and link in relevant connections when required for projects and initiatives

Steering group The steering group comprises a mix of key local community agencies and agencies which have an interest in the newcomers and migrant sector.

The group’s purpose is to: ∙∙ Work collaboratively across the district to address the needs identified in recent research and to achieve the outcomes as set in the Newcomers and Migrant Strategy ∙∙ Identify projects/initiatives to achieve the outcomes and identify lead agencies and community groups to drive projects/ initiatives through the implementation plan ∙∙ Identify working parties to make “action happen on the ground” ∙∙ Share information, resources and support other community groups and agencies with projects/initiatives ∙∙ Keep up to date with current trends, issues and services that Selwyn migrant residents can access ∙∙ Advocate for relevant services to be delivered within Selwyn district for newcomers and migrants ∙∙ Seek advice and feed issues to the advisory group as required via steering committee process ∙∙ Support and link into relevant connections when required for projects and initiatives

This will be a collaborative group of people who have an interest in developing initiatives that contribute to the Strategy outcomes.

Level Involved Partner

Advisory Steering Working Group Group Party

Community & Public Health Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) Christchurch Migrant Centre Pegasus Health Immigration Ministry of Social Development Police Lincoln and Districts Community Care (LDCC) Selwyn Central Community Care (SCCC) Ellesmere Community Care Oganisation (ECCO) Two Rivers Community Trust (TRCT) Selwyn Parenting Network Rolleston Newcomers Network Salvation Army Community Development Team Selwyn District Council Selwyn District Council Libraries Selwyn District Council Emergency Management MP’s Office

Implementation Plan

Working Parties

Anton Ortiz – Filipino Community Representative Christchurch Multicultural Council Burnham Military Camp Te Taumutu Ru¯nanga

12

13

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

243

Research findings

Key focus areas

2

Need to connect newcomers and migrants with information

Newcomers and migrants have been identified as a population group which needs support and which the whole community needs to be striving to welcome. In many cases they bring skills and experience which are missing from the Canterbury labour market.

∙∙ one point of contact via a newcomers website and walk-in information venues ∙∙ web-based media and information hubs in different communities of Selwyn (eg libraries) ∙∙ places where information is easily and readily accessible, in hard copy and via informed experts

Challenges facing newcomers and migrants1: A collaborative district wide approach to welcoming newcomers

Information needs ∙∙ Access to information ∙∙ Who to go to? ∙∙ Where to go?

∙∙ coordinating the many initiatives currently happening

∙∙ No time to find information ∙∙ What’s available to do?

Access to social agency support from Christchurch ∙∙ Seminars, expos etc.

Connecting with others ∙∙ Getting to know people ∙∙ Where and how to link in with groups

∙∙ Feeling confident to go and meet neighbours ∙∙ Newcomers groups predominantly European

Access to migrant support expertise from Christchurch ∙∙ Lack of bi-cultural and multicultural presence in community buildings and public art work

Adjustment issues ∙∙ Adjusting from urban lifestyles to more rural lives ∙∙ Not as many services ∙∙ Young people not connecting

∙∙ Young people used to a wider range of recreation options ∙∙ Language barriers

Isolation ∙∙ Filipinos, older people and families with disabilities

Adjustment

Isolation ∙∙ Being away from family ∙∙ No friend support networks

∙∙ CALD communities and access to transport

∙∙ Both newcomers and migrants find it hard to adjust, with different expectations, particularly coming into semi-rural and rural areas

∙∙ Patch protections

Wellbeing

Lack of collaboration ∙∙ between different services

∙∙ All newcomers and migrants have the opportunity to be able to implement the five ways to wellbeing into their day to day lives (Connect, Give, Take Notice, Keep Learning, Be Active).

Lack of cultural diversity ∙∙ Research indicated that Selwyn’s CALD newcomer population was growing but “invisible” – not acknowledged and celebrated enough within the community

Access to health and social services ∙∙ What services are available? ∙∙ Where are they?

∙∙ How to access them ∙∙ Who can access them?

Taken from research commissioned to inform the development of a Selwyn Health and Social Services Strategy, particularly identifying the findings around provision for newcomers and people from diverse cultural backgrounds; and a report commissioned by the Ministry of Social Development to gather the views of newcomers to Selwyn District.

2

Taken from research commissioned to inform the development of a Selwyn Health and Social Services Strategy, particularly identifying the findings around provision for newcomers and people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

1

14

15

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

244

Key outcomes 1

All newcomers and migrants in Selwyn district know where and how to access information, both online and in person.

2

Community groups and agencies collaborate, share information and support each other to deliver initiatives through a coordinated approach across the district.

3

All newcomers and migrants are informed of and have access to social agency and migrant support, both locally and from Christchurch.

4

Initiatives are developed to celebrate our diverse community. Our community buildings and public art work better reflect the many cultures within Selwyn district.

5

A range of projects and support services are developed to help newcomers and migrants adjust to their new home and feel less isolated.

Community in mind strategy principals: Collaborative Develop relationships and facilitate working partnerships in ways that compliment each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strengths.

Strengths-based Focus on the drivers of community strength and resilience. Improve the capacity of people to cope, adapt and move forward with their lives.

Holistic Consider all the things that help keep people healthy: the determinants of health.

Targeted and evidence informed Use local and international evidence to evaluate and target services to those most in need.

Belonging and connectedness Recognise that people are part of a whanau, communities and networks which bind them together.

Community focused Enabling and empowering communities to shape their own recovery is positive, self-organising and supportive of diversity.

6

All programmes, projects and initiatives align with the principles taken from:

The five ways to wellbeing:

16

17

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

245

Implementation Plan OUTCOME 1 All newcomers and migrants in Selwyn district know where and how to access information online and in person.

OUTCOME 3 All newcomers and migrants are informed and have access to social agency and migrant support both locally and from Christchurch.

ACTION

PARTNERS

ACTION

PARTNERS

All community groups are aware of services available for newcomers and migrants and how to refer to them

Steering group, Advisory group

Libraries to have a key information access point for newcomers and migrants

Selwyn Libraries - Steering group to advise on relevant information

Advocate to relevant organisations for the needs of support and services for migrants and newcomers

Advisory group, Steering group

Independent newcomers and migrants website developed and maintained

Selwyn District Council - Working party established from community groups identified by steering group

Look at feasibility of information available where possible in different languages for migrants and link in with current resources.

Lead partner identified and working party’s established via steering group.

Centralised calendar of events and activities

Steering group

Look at how local community groups who run transportation services can assist isolated newcomers and migrants.

Salvation Army, Pegasus, LDCC, SCCC, ECCO, TRCT

Access to migrant community leaders

Migrant Centre: Steering group, Advisory group

Information seminars/expos in Selwyn

Lead partner identified and working parties established via steering group

OUTCOME 2 Community groups and agencies collaborate, share information and support each other to deliver initiatives through a coordinated approach across the district.

ACTION

Set up systems to enable community groups to share information

Community groups to work collaboratively on projects to meet the needs of newcomers and migrants by bringing projects and initiatives to the attention of the steering group

18

OUTCOME 4 Celebrate our diverse community, with our community buildings and public art work better reflecting the many cultures of the Selwyn District.

ACTION

PARTNERS

Strengthen relationships with new and existing art groups of all genres to create more opportunities for showcasing diversity within the arts

Selwyn Arts Trust, Selwyn District Council

Cultural celebrations and exhibitions

Lead partner identified and working parties established via steering group

Advocate and work with current events to look at focusing on cultural focusing on cultural diversity as part of the planning process

Steering group

Cultural diversity to be taken into account when developing spaces and places

Selwyn District Council

PARTNERS

Salvation Army, Steering group

Steering group, Advisory group

19

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

Selwyn District Council – Newcomers and migrant Strategy 2015

246

OUTCOME 5 A range of projects and support services are developed to help newcomers and migrants adjust to their new home and feel less isolated.

ACTION

PARTNERS

Develop a cultural market

Lead partner identified and working party established via steering group

Welcome packs supported, developed and distributed via different sources

Selwyn District Council, Rolleston Newcomers, TRCT, LDCC, ECCO

Development of information sessions relevant to migrants needs and driven by migrant leaders

Lead partner identified and working parties established via steering group

Development of ESOL classes and identify current ESOL classes

Selwyn District Council libraries

Support the development of migrant led initiatives and strengthen existing projects

Selwyn District Council

Investigate the feasibility of transport services for isolated migrants

Lead partner identified and working party established via steering group

Marketing, identification of target groups and better referral systems are put in place to help support current newcomers programs

Steering group, Advisory group

growing strong communities

together

Acknowledgements The following agencies support and have contributed to the development of the Newcomers and Migrants Strategy.

OUTCOME 6 All programmes, projects and initiatives align with the principles taken from “community in mind”. strategy and five ways of wellbeing ACTION

PARTNERS

Community groups and agencies have a clear understanding of how to implement this outcome within their work

CPH, (CDHB) Steering group

Checklist to be developed to ensure principles are weaved across work

Selwyn District Council, CPH, Steering group

As well as the above organisations we would like to acknowledge the Filipino Community, the office of the Hon Amy Adams, MP, New Zealand Immigration and Te Taumutu Ru¯nanga.

20

21

247

www.selwyn.govt.nz

248

249

250

251

252 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Environmental Services Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

HOUSING ACCORD

1.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council a) Approves entering into a Housing Accord with the Ministry of Housing for the purposes of increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability in Rolleston by facilitating development of quality housing that meets the needs of the growing population. b) Provides the CEO with the delegation to make minor amendments to the Housing Accord that occur as a result of discussions with the Minister of Housing.

2.

PURPOSE This report is to obtain the Council’s approval to enter into an agreement (Housing Accord) with the Ministry of Housing. A draft Housing Accord is attached as Appendix 1 and while it is not anticipated that this will change significantly, approval is also sought for the ability of the CEO of Selwyn District Council to make minor amendments in the light of any comments received from the Ministry of Housing and its officials.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed using the significance policy, and the following is noted: a) The matter does not affect all or large portion of the community in a way that has a potential impact or consequence on the affected persons. b) There are not any financial implications on the Council’s resources that would be substantial and are likely to generate a high degree of controversy.

253

It should be noted any land added through the Housing Accord would be subject to a degree of public consultation for those who are directly affected (being those residents adjoining a special housing area).

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (the Act) was introduced in 2013. The purpose of the legislation is to enhance housing affordability by facilitating an increase in land and housing supply in certain regions or districts listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, that have been identified as having housing supply and affordability issues. Selwyn District was added to Schedule 1 of the Act in 2015.

The legislation does have some time limits, and while it commenced on 16 September 2013, the ability to establish new housing areas ceases on the 16 September 2016. The entire Act will be repealed on the 16 September 2018.

In simple terms the Housing Accord is an agreement between a Territorial Authority and Central Government which sets out how the purpose of the Act will be achieved, and identifies as targets and criteria for special housing areas as a first step.

Once a Housing Accord is entered into, the next step is for special housing areas to be identified through an order in council. Application for complying development areas could be made and assessed against the Housing Accordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s criteria. The Council could then choose to limited notify an application to adjacent landowners, infrastructure providers and designating authorities. After that process is completed the special housing area would effectively have a resource consent bestowing on it the Living Z provisions.

The diagram below summaries the Acts process:

254

Summary of process under HASHAA Step

Description

Add district to Schedule 1

Requires an Order in Council by the Governor General following a recommendation of the Minister Will only be done where the Minister is satisfied that the district is "experiencing significant housing supply and affordability issues"

Enter into a Housing Accord

A housing accord is an agreement between the Minister and a territorial authority for a scheduled district that sets out how the two parties will work together to address housing affordability issues Section 11 sets out specific matters that the Accord must contain and a range of matters that it may contain.

Identify Special Housing Areas

Requires an Order in Council by the Governor General following a recommendation of the Minister Will only be made if the Minister is satisfied that there is demand for residential housing in these areas and there is adequate infrastructure to service development OIC may specify criteria for qualifying developments relating to the maximum number of storeys, the maximum building height, the minimum number of dwellings to be built and the percentage of dwellings that must be affordable (including criteria specifying how affordability is determined) (s15).

Lodge application for Qualifying Developments

Application lodged with the territorial authority, which is processed in accordance with the provisions of HASHA rather than the usual RMA provisions A qualifying development must be predominantly residential and comply with all applicable criteria specified in the Order in Council (s14).

255

Growth The growth in Rolleston has not slowed over the last year. The numbers of new dwellings continues to rise, with around 60 to 80 building consents for new homes in Rolleston being processed per month. This continued growth follows a significantly increased growth rate as a consequence of the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.

Rolleston is identified by Statistics New Zealand as the location in Greater Christchurch which experienced the largest population increase between the 2006 and 2013 censuses (the usually resident population increased from 4,919 to 9,555).

The latest population estimate available for Rolleston from Statistics New Zealand as at 2015 is 11,810 people.

A recent report commissioned to assist the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) review (Updating LURP Projected Housing Demandâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Market Economics June 2015) has found that the projected increase to 2028 for Selwyn is considerably greater than previous estimates, potentially creating an additional 4,000 households by 2028.

For Selwyn District, the latest (Census-based) estimate for 2012 is also close to the previous estimate, differing by just +70 households, or +0.7%. However, the projected increase to 2028 for Selwyn is considerably greater than the previous estimate, at +10,300 households (+64%) over the period. This is an additional 4,000 households, which would take the Selwyn total households to 20,420 by 2028. This would be +4,070 more households (+24.9%) than the previous estimate; 1 While it is acknowledged that population growth is difficult to gauge, it should be noted that there is a growing economic basis to support that growth with significant investment in the master planning of the Rolleston Town Centre and the expansion of industrial land north of Rolleston including two inland container terminals, a large format retail centre and some two hundred and eighty hectares of industrial land.

Currently this industrial hub employs close to 700 hundred workers which is anticipated to increase to around 2,000 over the next ten years.

Other recent and proposed expenditure in infrastructure such as the Christchurch Southern Motorway, the Selwyn Aquatic Centre, Foster Recreational Park, the development four new primary schools (the latest one locating in the Hughes SHA) and one proposed High School (2017) all indicate that Rolleston has strong drivers for sustained growth.

Most recently the Statistics New Zealand subnational population estimates at 30 June 2015, which were released on the 22 October 2015 signals the continued rapid growth in Selwyn District.

New Zealand's three fastest-growing territorial authorities in the June 2015 year were all in the South Island. Selwyn experienced the highest growth (6.5 percent), followed by Queenstown-Lakes (4.9 percent), and Waimakariri (3.6 percent). These three areas also grew the fastest in each of the previous two years.

1

Updating LURP Projected Housing Demand â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Market Economics June 2015 p3

256

To date the developer response to this demand has been to supply a standard 3/4 bedroom house with attached garage on a uniform allotment size. Because of demand levels there is little incentive to provide affordable housing through design, selection of build materials or build processes. Also the Council has no tools available to influence and provide for affordable housing. If it could do so in a broader sense, Council could better manage resources such as land and infrastructure services including transport in a sustainable way.

The amount of Greenfield land that is able to be developed is dwindling. Of all the land rezoned through Plan Change 7, (some 350 hectares), 90% is already in the development process, which equates to about 1 years supply remaining.

Accordingly there is a pending shortage of single ownership Greenfield land that is able to be developed in Rolleston. This lack of supply will be an issue in terms of maintaining supply to meet the demand for residential growth in Rolleston. If Rolleston cannot meet that demand then the District will not grow which is neither a good outcome for it nor the region. Also it does not necessarily follow that if Rolleston cannot provide for growth, that growth will take place elsewhere within the region. It may be lost to the region.

LURP Action 18 A year ago the Selwyn District Council progressed a number of parcels of land through Action 18 of the LURP to accommodate earthquake related growth in Rolleston. In total there were approximately 350 hectares of land yielding an approximate 4,500 lots. This land is currently developed as low density rural residential development on the outskirts of the urban area of Selwyn District (see Appendix 2).

257

Unlike the Plan Change 7 growth areas, the LURP growth areas are characterised by fragmented land ownership, involving landowners with different objectives and expectations in relation to the use, value expectations and development of their land. These differences and the lack of co-ordination between landowners are acting as a constraint on residential land supply. Much of the land in the LURP growth areas has been purchased and developed as â&#x20AC;&#x153;lifestyleâ&#x20AC;? properties and this prevents the land from being made available to the market at a price that enables residential development to occur. We have feedback from experienced developers detailing unsuccessful efforts to purchase and amalgamate blocks for development.

In addition, a considerable proportion of this land is unlikely to be serviced in the near future. These impediments to development in this area has resulted in only 30 out of the potential 4,500 lots entering into the development process over the last year.

While in the fullness of time some this land may be expected to be developed, the inevitable conclusion is that this is not likely to be the case in the foreseeable future.

The constraint is real.

Why was this land promoted via Action 18?

The Action 18 land had already been rezoned as suitable for deferred residential development through Plan Change 7 to the Selwyn District Plan four years ago.

That land was included in a decision by Hearing Commissioners. Accordingly it seemed appropriate that this land, as deferred, should be the first put forward for further residential development under the LURP. 5.

PROPOSAL The objective of this report is to allow the Council to consider whether it wants to enter into a Housing Accord with the Ministry for Housing.

If the Council wants to continue with a Housing Accord it is suggested that the Draft Housing Accord attached to this report in Appendix 1 could be used as the basis for such an agreement. This Draft Housing Accord has already been sent to the Ministry for Building Innovation and Employment for comment. The timeframes for getting an agreement in place and completing the other parts of the Actâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s processes before its expiry in September 2016 (the date by which applications for qualifying developments are required to be lodged) are tight and accordingly it is proposed that the CEO be provided the delegation to progress the agreement with Central Government rather than needing to come back to the Council for its final approval.

The Housing Accord is concluded when it is signed by the Mayor and the Minister for Housing.

Fundamentally, the purpose of the Housing Accord would be to enable subdivision and development of houses in suitable locations outside those growth areas identified in the LURP but inside the Rolleston projected infrastructure boundary as identified in the RPS.

258

In order to avoid the issues of multiple land ownership which appear to be slowing development of the LURP areas, the Housing Accord focusses on enabling development of large parcels of land under single ownership or control.

Furthermore the Housing Accord is intended to ensure that a suitable proportion of housing delivered is affordable at first sale by comparison with median sale prices in the District.

The Housing Accord would potentially contain a number of targets which would include the number of sections consented within a specified timeframe, the number of houses to be delivered within a specified timeframe, and provide required densities.

In addition the Housing Accord includes a number of criteria that a Special Housing Area would need to meet, including being inside the infrastructure boundary for Rolleston, outside of the Christchurch International Airport noise contour, a size perhaps not less than 30 hectares, single party ownership or control, evidence of housing demand, the availability of adequate infrastructure, and an agreed outline development plan.

These criteria limit the amount of land that could be brought forward as a Special Housing Area, with the only two blocks that would meet these criteria are shown in Appendix 2. In addition, every Special Housing Area, irrespective of meeting the Housing Accord criteria, is still subject to Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discretion as to whether it should proceed. It is also noted that the Act expires in 2018. So the Act, given its limited duration and focus, is a one off opportunity provided by Central Government to specifically address and resolve supply and affordability issues.

The key advantage of a Special Housing Area developed under the Act is that it provides a timely response to housing supply issues. It also it allows the Council to work closely with landowner and developer to an provide opportunities for urban design outcomes and affordability criteria not available through a RMA process.

Appendix 3 provides an indicative layout for Farringdon South which gives an illustration of some of the outcomes that could be achieved in a in a Special Housing Area.

6.

OPTIONS The core option for Council is whether to continue to progress an agreement for a Housing Accord. The table below identifies some of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with a Housing Accord

259

Advantages

Disadvantage

Comments

Speed of delivery of residential activity and maintain and an adequate supply of developable residential greenfield land.

It is envisaged that from the signing of the Housing Accord to the establishment of residential activity could be as short as 9 to 18 months.

Affordability

It is acknowledge that improving the affordability of housing is a complex issue and requires consideration of wider issues, not all of which will be able to be addressed under this Housing Accord. However a Housing Accord provides an opportunity to seek to address and provide affordability opportunities not available via standard development process.

Design outcomes

The process available under the Housing Accord and the linked Order in Council provides an opportunity to provide for not only establishing special housing areas but via a detailed ODP providing for detailed urban design outcomes.

With a willing and focused developer a more detailed urban design outcome compared to standard processes is possible because providing and securing urban design outcomes will be a key element of a qualifying development.

260 Advantages

Disadvantage

Efficient use of infrastructure

Comments If the entry price for new housing is affordable, demand will continue and more units will be built ensuring better utilisation of infrastructure. Furthermore the areas identified as being potentially appropriate for Special Housing Areas are already able to access existing infrastructure.

Over supply of housing

In reality the majority of Greenfield developments in Canterbury with any scale are undertaken by a relatively small group of very experienced and well-resourced development companies. These parties are careful to manage carefully the amount of developed sections they bring to the market at any one time in order to ensure there is not a market perception of oversupply and that they do not get exposed financially.

Inconsistency if Plan Change does not proceed to address the underlying zoning and consistency with the CRPS.

The Act expires 2018, and accordingly a plan change would be beneficial to change the underlying zoning and the CRPS.

Consistency with Councils Strategic planning process (Rolleston Structure Plan)

The potential Special Housing Areas are within the existing infrastructure boundary and were also within the overall urban boundary for the previous PC1.

Accommodate existing and anticipated future growth

Consistent growth in Rolleston continues (Market Economics report) and the latest Stats NZ figures combined with the constraints facing much of the Action 18 land means that developable greenfield residential land in Rolleston is dwindling.

261 Advantages

Disadvantage

Comments

Slow down existing LURP 18 land

LURP growth areas are ultimately suited to residential use however achieving efficient development responses will be intrinsically difficult in the short term.

Inconsistency with Growth continues at Rolleston. regional approach to Providing for this growth may be managing growth seen by some as inconsistent with the regional approach to managing growth. However the areas that could be subject to the Housing Accord are within an area that has been subject to the Rolleston Structure Plan and were pre-earthquake within the urban limit.

Alternative Processes At the Urban Development Strategy Implementation Committee (UDSIC) meeting of Friday the 6 November 2015, a resolution was passed in respect of the Housing Accord discussion. That resolution asked that Selwyn District Council consider any alternatives to the Act for providing land for residential purposes.

One alternative would be to progress changes to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement though normal RMA processes. Both the UDSIC and Chief Executives Advisory Group (CEAG) have discussed this in the last few months. However views is being formed that this process would be expensive and have significant litigation risks. It has also been suggested that the timeframes for this process could stretch to around 2 years.

Another potential option exists through the UDS Refresh process, however it is unclear at this point to what extent that refresh would address residential land supply issues across greater Christchurch. Even if it did in itself this document would not have significant statutory weight. Any subsequent change to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement would again take significant time with no surety of the outcome.

In conclusion both of these options are not seen as viable alternative as they lack any certainty and the timeframes that are potentially involved do not address the current land supply issue in Rolleston in a timely way.

262 However while both of these alternatives had issues in terms of the lack of certainty and the length of time that they would take to provide a result, they are still alternatives that could be further explored. Given the tight timeframes for developing a Housing Accord under the Act, it is recommended that this process be continued alongside exploring other alternatives for rezoning of land within Rolleston. Each application for special housing areas is entirely at the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discretion to grant or not to grant so even once a Housing Accord is entered into, there remains the ability for the Council not to proceed with a Special Housing Area and/or withdraw from the Housing Accord at any time it chooses. This may well be a pathway that the Council choses if other alternatives materialise and provide more benefits.

Accordingly it is recommended that the Council continues to discuss these other options with its strategic partners and particularly the Canterbury Regional Council while continuing to enter into a Housing Accord and progress Special Housing Areas under the Act. 7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION This matter as discussed above has been raised with Councils Strategic partners.

No other views have been obtained

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS A legal opinion commissioned by Council staff concludes that it is appropriate and reasonable for Selwyn District Council to seek to rely on the provisions of the Act as it considers there are issues of housing affordability and supply which are not being adequately addressed by the LURP. The legal opinion goes on to advise that enabling urban development outside of the current urban limits is not incompatible with the Land Use Recovery Plan, the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Canterbury Earthquake Strategy.

Parliament so as to ensure effective government should not pass legislation that is inconsistent. To do so causes confusion. Intended legislation is always considered for inconsistency. Given the Act has been passed by Parliament against the context of the CER and RMA Acts, it is assumed Parliament knew and understood what it was doing and was satisfied that no inconsistency existed. In its own provisions the Act clearly provides how it works alongside the RMA and planning documents prepared under the RMA. These provisions clearly demonstrate no inconsistency is evident.

9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES It is noted that this report has taken account of the Community Outcomes identified in the Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Long Term Plan regarding the Environment, Social, Economic and Culture of the community. This recommendation to Council is considered consistent with achieving those outcomes.

263

10.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS At this point no legal implications are foreseen.

11.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The work to date has included staff time and is within existing budgets. There is however recognition that there could be significant costs from future plan changes that are driven by successful Special Housings Areas that are developed under the Act. As the Special Housing Areas will proceed by way of resource consenting it is important to note that Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s usual cost recovery policy for the processing of resource consents will apply. In addition it is contemplated that a plan change to both the district and regional plan will follow on subsequent to the resource consent.

Currently it is not clear if this will be a private initiated plan change or alternatively a Council led plan change. However there will be costs incurred by this subsequent plan change process and Council will be requiring a significant contribution to those costs from the developers. If the plan change is to be privately initiated and also to provide for funding there will need to be careful identification of the developer undertake providing resources and funding.

It is not possible at this point to be definitive about overall costs. However it is fair to say costs with these types of processes are never inexpensive. Accordingly the Council will be seeking to enter into agreements with developers associated with Special Housing Areas requiring them to work with the Council in a cooperative way and to identify costs and provide for them.

TIM HARRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER

264

SELWYN HOUSING ACCORD FIFTH DRAFT 11 November 2015

265

Contents

Selwyn Housing Accord ........................................................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Principles to guide how the Government and the Council will work together ............................. 4 Targets..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Special Housing Areas ............................................................................................................................. 5 Qualifying Developments ........................................................................................................................ 6 Other Matters ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Governance and Process ........................................................................................................................ 7 Monitoring and Review .......................................................................................................................... 7 Termination of the Accord ..................................................................................................................... 8 Dispute Resolution Process ..................................................................................................................... 8 Publicity ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Ratification and Commencement of the Accord.................................................................................... 9

266

Selwyn Housing Accord 1

The Selwyn Housing Accord between the Selwyn District Council(Council) and the Government is intended to result in increased land and housing supply in Rolleston during the period in which the Act applies.

Background 2

Growth in Rolleston has been identified as a priority and an expectation for Selwyn District for many years.

3

The 2009 Rolleston Structure Plan identified that Rolleston was expected to grow from a population of 6800 to approximately 22,000 in 2041 – an average increase of approximately 500 persons or 160 houses per annum.

4

Since 2009 greenfield land for future residential development in Rolleston has been identified by way of six specific growth areas, through Plan Change 7 to the Selwyn District Plan.

5

Rolleston experienced a significantly increased growth rate as a consequence of the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, which had resulted in a short term loss of between 10,000 and 20,000 dwellings in the Greater Christchurch area. Rolleston is identified

by Statistics New Zealand as the location in Greater Christchurch which experienced the largest population increase between the 2006 and 2013 censuses (the usually resident population increased from 4919 to 9555).The latest population estimate available for Rolleston from Statistics New Zealand as at 2015 is 11810 people.

6

In particular, those Plan Change 7 growth areas under the control of single landowner developers have experienced sales level significantly in excess of initial projections. Much of the land in single ownership has been developed or is nearing the final stages of development.

7

Recently the potential capacity has been supplemented by way of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP), which has created six more growth areas which have a theoretical capacity of 4500 dwellings. The Selwyn District Plan anticipates the development of all these areas in accordance with Outline Development Plans.

There has been very limited development to date in these areas.

8

Unlike the Plan Change 7 growth areas, the LURP growth areas are characterised by fragmented land ownership, involving landowners who have different objectives and expectations in relation to the use and development of their land. These differences and the lack of co-ordination between landowners is likely to act as a constraint on residential land supply. Much of the land in the LURP growth areas has been purchased and developed as “lifestyle” properties which prevents the land from being made available to the market at a price that enables residential development to occur. A considerable proportion of it is unlikely to be serviced in the near future.

9

While in the fullness of time some of this land may be expected to be developed, the inevitable conclusion is that this is not likely to be the case in the foreseeable future.

10

In April 2015 a report by Davie Lovell Smith entitled the Rolleston Residential Growth Report examined the extent of this issue. This report reviewed the PC7 growth areas and demonstrated their dwindling capacity. It looked in turn at each LURP growth area and identified a number of common practical issues inhibiting the likelihood of extensive short term growth – notably related to multiple land ownership, infrastructure availability, and land value issues (particularly associated with developed rural lifestyle blocks with extensive homes).

267

11

The DLS report concluded that while there is no question the LURP growth areas are ultimately suited to residential use achieving efficient development responses will be intrinsically difficult in the short term.

12

As such, it has been identified that during the next few years there is likely to be a land supply problem in Rolleston. This could have the effect of reducing the affordability of the remaining sections in the growth areas.

13

The key purpose of this Accord is thus to increase supply of land in Rolleston in suitable locations, and a further purpose is to ensure that a proportion of the new dwelling supply created is affordable housing.

14

The parties acknowledge that improving the affordability of housing is a complex issue and requires consideration of wider issues, not all of which will be able to be addressed under this Accord.

15

The Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA) provides an opportunity to address these problems by facilitating an interim fast track consent process for suitable landholdings in the general vicinity of the LURP priority areas, while not precluding the LURP area development as appropriate in the longer term.

Purpose 16

The Selwyn Housing Accord is intended to enable subdivision and development of housing in suitable locations outside those growth areas area identified in the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) but inside the Rolleston Projected Infrastructure Boundary.

17

In order to avoid a repeat of the issues of multiple landownership which are likely to slow the development of the LURP areas, the Accord is focused on enabling development of large parcels of land under single ownership or control.

18

The Accord is also intended to ensure that a suitable proportion of the housing delivered is affordable at first sale by comparison with median sales prices in the district.

Principles to guide how the Government and the Council will work together 19

The Council and the Government agree that they will: •

Work collaboratively to facilitate an increase in housing supply in Rolleston

•

Allocate appropriate resources to achieve the objectives of this Accord

•

Prioritise achievement of targets in the Accord

•

Adopt a no surprises approach

•

Seek to resolve differences quickly

•

Respect the obligations resulting from each party’s statutory and legislative requirements

268

Targets 20

The Council and Government acknowledge the importance of agreeing targets to give effect to the purpose of this Housing Accord that will assist in delivering the level of land supply and dwellings necessary to meet Rollestonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing needs.

21

The agreed aims and targets are set out below. They are focused on Special Housing Areas and recognize the currently stated repeal dates under the Act. It is understood that all applications for qualifying developments must be lodged with the Council on or before 16 September 2016.

Aim

Target

To increase the opportunity for increased supply of residential sections and dwellings within Rolleston

The section/dwelling capacity of land identified for development by Special Housing Area declarations under the Selwyn Housing Accord is at least 900 By 16 September 2016.

To increase the supply of residential land holding consents for subdivision within Rolleston.

The number of sections consented within Special Housing Areas is at least 150 by 16 September 2016, at least 300 by 16 September 2017, and at least 450 by 16 September 2018.

To increase the delivery of residential sections within Rolleston.

The number of new titled sections within Special Housing Areas is at least 150 by 16 September 2017, at least 300 by 16 September 2018, and at least 450 by 16 September 2019.

To ensure efficient use of land and variety of product, including affordable small dwelling options

The sections/buildings consented shall be developed at a net density measured across each Special Housing Area of not less than 12 dwellings per hectare (net density as defined under the Selwyn District Plan).

At least ten percent of the dwellings enabled by the consents are affordable in price-relative terms at first sale.

Special Housing Areas 22

Upon commencement of this Accord, the Council will have the ability to recommend the creation of Special Housing Areas to the Minister of Building and Housing under the Act. If the Government agrees, the recommended Special Housing Areas could be established by Order in Council, enabling the Council to access the powers available under the Act to streamline resource consent approvals.

269

23

The Council will not recommend the creation of a Special Housing Area unless it is satisfied that the land meets all of the following requirements: a. It is located on land zoned Rural Inner Plains zone under the Operative Selwyn District Plan within the area bounded by Dunns Crossing Road, Selwyn Road, Weedons Road and State Highway 1; b. It is not subject in any part to the Christchurch International Airport Noise Contour under the Operative District Plan; c. It comprises a contiguous land area of not less than 30 hectares adjacent or opposite an existing ODP Area ; d. It is owned or controlled by a single party, or there is a contact for this party to purchase all of the land; e. There is evidence of demand to create qualifying developments in this area and there will be demand for residential housing in the proposed special housing area, and the party described in clause 23d is or is partnered with an experienced land developer and has a genuine intention to develop the land; f.

It is in a location where adequate infrastructure to service qualifying developments within the proposed special housing area either exists, or is likely to exist, having regard to relevant local planning documents, strategies and policies, and any other relevant information;

g. Council and the party described in clause 23d have agreed an Outline Development Plan for the whole of the special housing areas (SHA) following the agreed format of the Selwyn District Plan and that will achieves an outcome that is consistent with the provisions of the Living Z zone.

Qualifying Developments 24

25

26

Any party may propose to the Council for consideration Qualifying Developments within SHAs which are: •

Predominantly residential;

•

Have capacity for 50 or more dwellings or 50 or more vacant residential sites;

•

Have a maximum dwelling height in accordance with the provisions of the Living Z zone of the Operative District Plan;

•

Will achieve, or will not frustrate the achievement of, a net density of 12 dwellings per hectare, measured across the SHA.

When considering an application for a Qualifying Development under Section 34 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act: •

there is no requirement to give effect to the provisions of the operative Canterbury Regional Policy Statement; and

•

any regard that is had to the Operative Selwyn District Plan shall be with reference to the objectives, policies and rules of the Living Z zone, andany reference therein to a relevant Outline Development Plan will be a reference to the Outline Development Plan prepared with the Order in Council referred to in clause 23g. This shall apply even though the land within the SHA may not be zoned Living Z in the Operative Selwyn District Plan at the time

Qualifying Developments are required to give consideration to the provision of affordable housing. It is anticipated that this will be provided by way of smaller dwellings for which land use consent is required under the rules of the Living Z

270

zone.

27

Conditions of qualifying development consents to be recorded by way of Consent Notices(or other suitable legal mechanism) on titles may include a requirement that a number of dwellings being equivalent to not less than 10% of the total potential yield of the Qualifying Development shall be affordable dwellings. Affordable in this clause shall be defined as the sale price at the first sale being not more than 75% of the median house price for the Selwyn District(as published or available from Quotable Value for the month prior to the land use consent being granted. Consent notices may include a requirement that the first sale for the purpose of this clause shall be to an individual or individuals (rather than building companies and investors)

Other Matters 28

Where by 16 September 2018 land in a Special Housing Area has been substantially developed the Council undertakes at the earliest opportunity thereafter, subject to obtaining suitable support from the developers who utlise this Accord and subject to its obligations under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act and the Resource Management Act, to prepare a Change to the Selwyn District Plan and to seek associated changes to the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

29

This change will apply the Living Z zoning and associated Outline Development Plan to all land for which a title exists pursuant to a subdivision consent issued under the HASHA Act.

Governance and Process 30

Governance of this Accord will rest with a Joint Housing Steering Group comprising the Mayor of Selwyn and the Minister of Building and Housing. The Joint Housing Steering Group will meet annually.

31

The Joint Housing Steering Group has the ability to amend this Accord, including targets, upon agreement. The targets shall be reviewed annually, subject to reports on progress and the state of the building/construction sector.

32

The Council and the Government shall establish an Officials Working Group which will meet as often as required to advance implementation of this Accord.

33

The Officials Working Group will report to the Joint Housing Steering Group and will prepare any progress or monitoring report as requested by the Steering Group

Monitoring and Review 34

In order to ensure that the purposes of this Accord are achieved, the Steering Group will monitor and review the implementation and effectiveness of this Accord. An official from each of MBIE and Council will be present to advise and observe the Steering Group Meetings.

35

In order to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of this Accord the Officials Working Group will meet as required to: •

Review progress in implementing the Accord

•

Review progress towards the Accord targets and declaration/ implementation of Special Housing Areas

•

Review progress on the other areas of joint action or information sharing

271

36

A full review of the effectiveness of the Accord will be carried out by the Officials Working Group after its first 12 months of operation and be reported to the Joint Housing Steering Group.

Termination of the Accord 37

This Accord will come to an end: •

On 16 September 2018, as specified in section 3(1) of the Act, or

•

Six months following the date that either party gives notice of its intention to withdraw from this Accord, subject to clause 39

38

Subject to first complying with the requirements in clauses 41 to 46 either party may terminate this Accord, on any of the grounds set out in clause 40by giving not less than six (6) months’ notice to the other.

39

The grounds on which this accord may be terminated are: •

Failure to reach the agreed targets as set out in the Accord; whether the failure results from inaction or ineffective action;

•

Failure of either party to allocate adequate resources to support the purpose or the exercising of powers and functions under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act;

•

Failure on the part of the Council to exercise the powers and functions of an Authorised Agency under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act;

•

The parties agree that there is an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship;. or

•

Selwyn is removed from Schedule 1 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act, in accordance with that Act e.g. if Selwyn no longer meets the affordability and land supply criteria provided for under that Act.

Dispute Resolution Process 40

The parties will attempt to resolve any dispute or difference that may arise under or in connection with this Accord (including seeking to terminate) amicably and in good faith as set out below).

41

The initiating party must immediately refer the dispute to the other party in writing.

42

The Joint Housing Steering Group must meet for the purpose of resolving the dispute within 10 business days of the dispute being referred to the parties.

43

If, for any reason the Steering Group is unable to resolve the dispute in the meeting referred to in clause 43 above, the Steering Group must reconvene for the purpose of resolving the dispute within 20 business days of the meeting referred to in clause 43 above.

272

44

If the Steering group remains unable to resolve the dispute at the second meeting, either party may terminate the Accord by giving written notice to the other party. This notice must provide for at least six months in advance of the termination date.

45

The parties must continue to perform their obligations under this Accord as if the dispute had not arisen, pending final resolution of the dispute in accordance with this section of the Accord.

Publicity 46

The Mayor and the Minister of Building and Housing agree that any communications or publicity relating to this Accord will be mutually agreed prior to release.

Ratification and Commencement of the Accord 47

The Accord commences from the date at which the latter of the following occurs: â&#x20AC;˘

The Accord is signed by the Minister of Building and Housing and the Mayor of SDC, and;

â&#x20AC;˘

SDC ratifies the agreement by formal council resolution.

Signed on this

Hon Dr Nick Smith Minister of Housing

day of

2015

His Worship Kelvin Coe Mayor of Selwyn District

273

APPENDIX 2

274

FARINGDON SOUTH, ROLLESTON

Layout Design Background Report Hughes Development Limited

275

276

DOCUMENT CONTROL RECORD

CLIENT PROJECT HG PROJECT NO. HG DOCUMENT NO. DOCUMENT

Hughes Developments Limited Faringdon South, Rolleston 1021-131706-01 R002v1-AK131706-igc Layout Design Background Report

ISSUE AND REVISION RECORD DATE OF ISSUE STATUS

12 November 2015 Final

ORIGINATOR

Ian Craig - Urban Design Manager

REVIEWED

Michael Kibblewhite - Urban Designer

APPROVED FOR ISSUE

Ian Craig - Urban Design Manager

OFFICE OF ORIGIN

Newmarket

TELEPHONE

09 917 5000

EMAIL

i.craig@harrisongrierson.com

File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

277

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

278

1.0

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This report has been requested by Tim Harris for a Selwyn District Council meeting scheduled for late November 2015. Its purpose is to: ┓┓

Describe the urban design background to the Faringdon South Master Plan and Outline Development Plan;

┓┓

Illustrate possible outcomes for new rear lane typologies;

┓┓

Illustrate possible outcomes for affordable housing;

┓┓

Illustrate possible outcomes for medium density lots.

2.0

BACKGROUND

Hughes Developments Limited is assisting SDC with the establishment of a Housing Accord under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act. The Accord will enable SDC to request the creation of Special Housing Areas for landholdings of 30 hectares or more which meet a range of other criteria.

As a consequence of that process Council will be able to consider applications for subdivision and development of those landholdings as though they were zoned Living Z. One of the criteria is that Council and the landowner or controller of the landholding must have agreed with SDC an Outline Development Plan (“ODP”) for the landholding.

Faringdon South is a 42 hectare landholding owned or controlled by Hughes Developments Limited which fits the SHA selection criteria. Harrison Grierson, urban designers for Faringdon to date, have prepared a preliminary master plan for Faringdon South which in turn has been used to derive an ODP for the landholding. This report describes the rationale for the design.

Faringdon South is envisaged to be a logical extension of the Faringdon development, and the master plan reflects this. However, it includes design elements and future typologies not yet seen in Faringdon, incorporated in response to recent changes to the Living Z rules encouraging “rear lane” development. This report uses worked 3D examples to show how these comprehensively-designed rear lane typologies might work.

When applications are made to develop land with SHA status the Accord will also require that consideration is given to the provision of affordable housing, anticipated to be by way of smaller dwellings for which land use consent is required under the rules of the Living Z zone.

The concept of affordable housing has been grappled with in Auckland under its Special Housing Areas. It has also been a requirement of the government’s Hobsonville Point development. The Report showcases completed examples of how this requirement has been met at Hobsonville Point and provides a worked 3D example of how this might be provided in Faringdon South as part of a rear lane typology.

Lastly, HDL has learned a lot from its collaboration with its housebuilding partners in Faringdon. The report discusses and illustrates how medium density housing on small lots might be provided in future, taking into account recent changes to the Living Z zone intended to address this development type.

Page 1

279

3.0

FARINGDON SOUTH MASTER PLAN AND ODP

d

ns Roa

addiso

East M

See Fig. 8

KEY LOW DENSITY (min 550m2, Average 670m2)

See Fig. 6&7

MEDIUM DENSITY SMALL LOTS (min 400m2, Average 447m2) MEDIUM DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE LOTS DRAINAGE OR RECREATION RESERVE

Fig 1

Selwyn Road

PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN FOR FARINGDON SOUTH

Scale 1:4,000

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

280

st

Ea

st

Ea

M

M

ad

ad

n iso

n iso

ad Ro

ad Ro

lw

Se

yn

ad

Ro

lw

Se

yn

ad

Ro

Legend

Legend

18 September 2015

0 25

50

100

Fig 2

Parcel

Parcel

Recreation Reserve

Recreation Reserve

School

Primary Route

Primary Route

Secondary Route

Secondary Route

Park Edge Road Network

Park Edge Road Network

Proposed Outline Development Plan Faringdon South Green Network

N

200

ODP Boundary

ODP Boundary

ODP - GREEN NETWORK

18 September 2015

N

0 25

Fig 3

50

100

200

Proposed Outline Development Plan Faringdon South Movement Network

ODP - MOVEMENT NETWORK

st

Ea M n

iso

ad ad

Ro

lw

Se

yn

ad

Ro

Legend ODP Boundary

School

Parcel

Recreation Reserve

Low Density

Primary Route

Medium Density Small Lots

Secondary Route Park Edge Road Network

Medium Density Comprehensive Lots

18 September 2015

N

0 25

Fig 4

50

100

200

Proposed Outline Development Plan Faringdon South Density Plan

ODP - DENSITY PLAN

Page 3

281

It should be noted that that the Preliminary Master Plan has at this point been developed primarily to create the ODP – to lock in the “bones” of the development. Much of the further detail to follow is subject to refinement and discussion with SDC, and further market analysis, prior to applications coming forward.

The Master Plan has been prepared assuming application of the current Living Z provisions. It depicts a potential total of over 500 residential lots (i.e. over 12 lots per hectare) based on a mix of three products: ┓┓

185 Low Density lots complying with the 550m2 minimum and 650m2 minimum average rule;

┓┓

194 Medium Density (Small-lot) lots complying with the 400m2 minimum and 500m2 maximum average rule;

┓┓

“Super lots” for development as Medium Density comprehensively designed housing.

Final total yield would depend on how the Superlots were developed. The Master Plan currently shows a yield of 139 lots emerging from the comprehensive developments, giving a total of 518 lots.

The Master Plan also includes a four hectare site for a primary school. The school site has been located with road frontage on three sides. It is envisaged that it would be accessed from the road abutting its eastern boundary, with its classrooms clustered at the southern end of the parcel, and the playing fields at the north.

HDL has completed an agreement for sale of this parcel to the Ministry of Education and there are plans for the school to open in Term 1 of 2017.

In addition to the large area of open space associated with the school, the layout is based around four pocket parks with roaded edges, each in excess of the 2500m2 which has typically been sought by SDC as a minimum in the balance of Faringdon. The reserves form the focal point for individual neighbourhoods within Faringdon South. Small Lot and comprehensive medium density typologies are located opposite the parks, as per the pattern in existing Faringdon.

Roading pattern, like in existing Faringdon, is distinctively rectilinear, with its roading pattern favouring north-south roads in order to create lots with optimal east-west orientation.

A common “rule of thumb” in urban design is to control block length and block perimeter to ensure permeability. Lengths of 200m to 250m are often cited. Block lengths proposed are typically less than this, compliant with the perimeter guidance offered by the Living Z zone.

Four future road connections to the east have been included. A new West-East boulevard road is incorporated running east from East Maddisons Road. It is envisaged that one day this, like Shillingford Boulevard, could connect across to Springston-Rolleston Road. First it, and the other east-bound roads would intersect an extension of Faringdon Boulevard running north to south and eventually linking Dynes Road to Selwyn Road.

Figure 5 is drawing combining the Faringdon South and Faringdon Master Plans, which demonstrates how, at a broad development pattern scale, the development forms an integrated whole.

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

282

A LD U O

D A O R

S LD

U O G

DISO

G

MAD

S

R

O

EAST

D

G

O

U

LD

S

R

O

A

D

Go u

ld s

Ro

ad

G

O

U

LD

S

R

O

A

D

Dynes Road

NS ROA D

d

ns Roa

addiso

Faringdon Boulevard

East M

Selwyn Road

Fig 5

COMBINED FARINGDON MASTER PLAN

Scale 1:7,500

Page 5

283

4.0

COMPREHENSIVE REAR LANE DEVELOPMENT TYPOLOGIES

SDC completed several changes to the Living Z zone rules in December 2014. One change in particular has had a consequence on the approach to the layout, being new rule 12.1.3.53: “For Medium Density areas shown on an Outline Development Plan, subdivisions consented after 30th June 2014 shall be designed to provide rear service lane access to small lot medium density sites. Comprehensive development blocks are to be a minimum of 35m deep to enable the provision of a rear service lane as part of a future comprehensive development.”

The new rule has been inserted because: “the ability to provide vehicle access to lots via a rear service lane .. provide[s] increased flexibility for future residential unit design and … minimise[s] the visual impact for garaging on the street scene.”

The layout does not fully accord with this, though the encouragement of rear lanes has been taken into account in planning for the comprehensive developments. While some of the future comprehensively developed lots will be accessed directly from the street (similar to those planned for comprehensive development in existing Faringdon), a portion are currently envisaged as rear lane development. This is in locations opposite three of the reserves and opposite the school, and directly abutting a fourth reserve (i.e. the front doors are actually accessed from the reserve).

This creates an attractive garage-free frontage across from the reserves and school, and has the advantage of eliminating reversing manoeuvres and freeing up parking opposite the school, which are beneficial from a safety and convenience perspective.

While there are benefits from removing garages from the streetscape (in terms of aesthetic impact and improved visual interaction/surveillance) and from using rear lanes to position garaging at the south of a site (leaving the northern frontage open for greater glazing and solar access) there are a number of potentially adverse consequences to be aware of, such as: ┓┓

rear lane development is typically very land consumptive;

┓┓

rear lanes may require mechanisms for maintenance, or conversely can become poorly maintained;

┓┓

rear lanes work best if they are short and straight, but with all but the most regular grid patterns it is difficult to create short straight lengths;

┓┓

where rear lanes are long and it is not possible to see from one end to the other rear lanes can be perceived as (or actually become) unsafe;

┓┓

rear lanes can actually de-activate the street edge (because residents and even familiar visitors tend to arrive and leave by car at the rear).

In our opinion rear lane development can thus have a place in medium density design but should be used judiciously and logically. Where used in Master Plans designed by the Harrison Grierson Urban Design Unit rear lane access will be typically only be for comprehensive development, and located opposite or fronting onto an amenity such as a park or a green street, or in a location where the frontage road cannot be easily accessed by vehicle, or other traffic safety issues are relevant.

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

284

Figures 6 and 7 are derived from a 3D model illustrating how a typical rear lane typology could work on a block in the southwest quadrant of the development. Essentially the front doors face the park and the garages are separate, and are accessed from the rear lane. As seen in Figure 7, rear lane development can also incorporate a studio or semi-self-contained living space above the garage, which provides activity near and surveillance of the rear lane itself.

Fig 6

REAR LANE DEVELOPMENT FRONTING ONTO A PARK

Fig 7

POSSIBLE EXTRA LIVING SPACE ABOVE REAR GARAGE

EXAMPLE OF REAR LANE TERRACE DEVELOPMENT WITH FRONT DOORS OPENING ONTO A PARK AT STONEFIELDS, AUCKLAND

Page 7

285

5.0

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Experience in Aucklandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Special Housing Areas suggests that there are many ways to approach affordable housing provision. However, unless it has been created for sale to a long term housing provider, the affordable housing needs to be commercially viable. For housing to be viable there has to be savings in house size, construction materials, and land price.

For most, this has been by way of providing a small dwelling and small land parcel at a price point lower than average house prices within the Region. In that way an affordable house provided under the Auckland Accord cannot later in time be sold on for a premium. Other than usual market increases the value of that house will not suddenly increase.

Many affordable typologies have been used in SHA projects. The Hobsonville Point development is possibly the most advanced in its thinking in this regard â&#x20AC;&#x201C; having had requirements for affordability in place since before the HASHAA legislation. Solutions used include single storey front access two bedroom developments, and various forms of terraces. The photographs opposite illustrate completed affordable houses at Hobsonville Point. The key point is that while they are small and efficiently built, they are not lacking in urban design quality, and sit well in their neighbourhoods.

HDL has considerable further investigations to do before it is in a position to establish its particular solution for this matter.

Common to many approaches is the concept that affordable developments can be successfully provided, in urban design terms, as a rear lane terraced housing typology. Such a typological solution is being utilised for Fletcher Residential Limited for Whenuapai Village, one of the first greenfield SHAs to get off the ground in Auckland. At this point in time this is one of the preliminary design intentions for affordable product Faringdon South.

Figure 8 shows 3D model illustrating how such a type, with two upstairs bedrooms, living areas at the ground floor, its front doors facing the street and rear lane access to a car port could work on one of the rear lane blocks (opposite the south end of the school).

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

286

EXAMPLES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCED UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HOBSONVILLE POINT DEVELOPMENT

Fig 8

POSSIBLE AFFORDABLE REAR LAN DEVELOPMENT OPPOSITE SCHOOL SITE

Page 9

287

6.0

MEDIUM DENSITY SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT

Another December 2014 change to the Living Z rules was an increase in the minimum lot size of 400m2 for vacant medium density lots (instead of 350m2) and a maximum average of 500m2. This has been met in the Master Plan, and was intended to promote greater variation between the small lot product and the comprehensively designed (and more dense) product.

The new rules introduced are a consequence of concerns that, in effect, as-of-right built development on existing medium density lots can produce long rows of relatively monotonous and garage-dominant development. Other rules introduced at that time for small lots include requirements for garage setbacks and that any garages greater than 3m wide must be accessed from a rear lane.

The Preliminary Master Plan for Faringdon South does not comply with Rule 12.1.3.53. In particular most or all of the medium density small lot development is envisaged to be on lots with garages which are accessed from the street. This aspect of the layout accords with what the land developer, builders and market have sought to date in Faringdon. For many the rear lane concept is land consumptive and relies on the owner being happy to be part of the ownership of the rear lane.

In our opinion the new rules are unusually extreme in their approach to garaging.

When the layout is progressed towards a consent application HDL will engage with SDC staff over other design initiatives which could be introduced to ensure that good urban design outcomes can be faciltatated on the small lot product. The concepts could include limiting the proportion (not just the width) of garage doors within the street facades, splitting double garages into twin doors and so on.

HDL is also keen to encourage two storey housing into the vacant lot product mix, but has found most of its builder and buyer market to be resistant to this. Solutions thus need to be found which suit one and two storey outcomes.

EXAMPLES ONE AND TWO STOREY HOUSING SOLUTIONS WHICH ADDRESS THE STREET AND DIMINISH THE IMPACTS OF GARAGING.

FARINGDON SOUTH - LAYOUT DESIGN BACKGROUND REPORT File Path:U:\1021\131706_a\UD\Docs\131706- farringdon South - Layout and Design Background report-v1.1.indd

288 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 25 November 2015

FROM:

Asset Manager Water Services

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Potential Water Race Closures - Council Deliberation and Decision

1.

RECOMMENDATION That the Council: a) Consider the recommendation from the Water Race Sub-Committee (non confirmed) "that the period for comments on the potential closure of 9 lengths of water races totalling approximately 45.4kms in the Ellesmere and Paparua water race schemes has now closed.

That following deliberations of matters in this report, closures other than 2 and 3, proceed, and further investigation and consultation takes place with Te Taumutu RĹŤnanga regarding closures 2 and 3 and report back to the Committee for further consideration at a future meeting." b) Consider views received on the potential Water Race closures including those heard at the Sub-Committee's meeting on 9 November. c) Following deliberation of the matters in this report, provide a decision on whether all, or any, of the Water Races should be closed.

2.

PURPOSE Staff seek that the Council consider and implement the above recommendation.

By way of background, the following proposed closures were approved for public consultation at the Water Race Sub-Committee Meeting on 10 August 2015: Ellesmere 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Closure of 5.4km of race through 6 properties east of South Two Chain Road (Holmes) Closure of 8.3km of race through 9 properties east of Cowans Road (Croft) Closure of 5.8km of race through 5 properties west of Cowans Road and south of Alexanders Road (Greenwood) Formalise closure of 3.2km of race through 2 properties off Sharlands Road (Cascade Farms) Formalise closure of races through 1 property below Sharlands Road (Stevenson) Closure of 9.7km of race through 6 properties south of Wrights Road (Coltman) Closure of 8.3km of race through 5 properties Westenras Road (Michael) Closure of Haldon intake and 4.5km of downstream races to Hororata Dunsandel Road through 3 properties (Council)

289 Paparua 9. Closure of 0.37km of race through Izone stage 7 north of Railway Road.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Explicit provision has been made in the 2015/25 LTP for water race closures1 initiated by rate payers and proactive closure of the Haldon and downstream races by Council. The LTP has identified the following as major projects: •

• •

• •

Proactively progress the closure of the Haldon water race intake (within the Ellesmere Water Race Scheme) including the down gradient race network which is supplied by this intake. Targeted Stream Augmentation will possibly be taken into account with some lengths of races remaining open to convey this flow.

Progress ratepayer initiated water race closures once approved by the Water Race Sub-Committee for closure.

Work with Central Plains Water to develop a concept for converting the Kowai River sourced water race network (part of the Malvern Water Race Scheme) into a combined water race and irrigation network. This concept will then be used for further consultation with the community.

Work with Environment Canterbury and key stakeholders to realise opportunities to use consented stock water for environmental enhancement including targeted stream augmentation.

Investigate options for integration of the stock water races with Central Plains Water.

Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, reflecting section 5 of the Local Government Act, states that significance should be assessed in terms of consequences for: • • •

The district or region Any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by or interested in the proposal, decision or matter The capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

The Significance and Engagement Policy also sets out criteria for assessing significance which are applied in section 3.1 below.

The 2015/25 LTP identifies Water Races as a strategic asset. Strategic assets are assets or groups of assets that the local authority needs to retain to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that is important to the current or future well-being of the community.

The LTP states that the level of significance of a decision will determine the process used by the decision maker considering Council’s commitment to constructive community engagement. An assessment of significance has been included below for the Council discussion and recommendation.

3.1

Decision Making Considerations

The proposed water race closures included in this report in table 4.1 have been considered against the criteria for assessing significance from the Significance and Engagement Policy contained in the LTP 2015/25 (see page 213-214 of the LTP):

1

LGA S 97 (2) a

290 Policy and Outcomes • •

Council has indicated its intention to progress rate payer initiated water race closures and proactively progress the closure of the Haldon and downstream races. The proposed closures do not conflict with other Council policies or strategies.

The following community outcomes are considered relevant to proposed water race closures: Table 3.1 Assessment against Community Outcomes.

• • • • •

Community Outcome

Level of Support

A living environment where the rural theme of Selwyn is maintained

Rural land use is changing. The proposed water race closures are being driven by the Community in line with their changing needs, therefore water race closures support this community outcome.

Selwyn has a strong economy which fits within and complements the environmental, social and cultural environment of the District.

Council seeks to support existing agriculture and other land based sectors. Ceasing to operate inefficient and ineffective assets that are no longer required by the Community supports the local economy.

Closing water races that are no longer required by the community provides benefit to the rural communities of the District and reflects the changing needs of these communities.

Closing water races have minimal impact on Council overall costs. This is discussed further in section 12.

There are no known impacts on Council’s capacity to undertake its statutory responsibilities.

Council has indicated its intentions to proactively progress the closure of the Haldon intake and downstream races and progress rate payer initiated closures.

There are no known inconsistencies with any existing policy, plan or legislation.

The role of water races in maintaining a living environment where the rural theme of the District is maintained, has been recognised in the LTP. Providing an effective water race service and delivering levels of service is a key part of delivering community outcomes.

Where a race cannot be supplied due to consent limits at the intakes or operational issues and leakage, maintaining channels that are not used or that have intermittent flow is counter to achieving this objective.

Communities •

•

•

With the exception of the Haldon intake and downstream races described in item 8, section 2 above, all of the proposed water race closures were initiated by the respective landowner.

There is a high degree of interest from the Ellesmere Community in closing water races in the Ellesmere Water Race Scheme.

The number of property owners affected by each closure is detailed in section 4.1, table 1. Consultation to the wider community has occurred along with notification of key stakeholders namely the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu.

Affected persons were directly consulted on all water race closures. These included rated and non rated properties that have a water race on or adjacent to their property.

Where a closure has attracted 100% support from directly affected property owner(s), the closure is likely to be of low significance.

291 Staff have considered the ecological impact of race closures by consulting with DoC and will continue to minimise that impact, eg by facilitating fish salvage where appropriate.

• It is not expected that proposed water race closures will generate wider national or international interest.

Ngāi Tahu

•

•

See section 7.3 of this report.

Context and Implications • •

An assessment of the options considered as alternatives to water race closure is included in section 6 of this report.

The proposed water race closures are not expected to have any unintended consequences for community interests. The environmental, social and cultural impacts of the closures have been considered as outlined below: 1. Cultural interests – the race closures proposed are not considered to impact the character of the District they are often on private land and exist extensively in other parts of the District. Closure of the Haldon intake is in line with the Iwi Management Plan and Ngāi Tahu views have been sought (see further section 7.3).

2. Social interests – water races on private property are not considered to provide amenity value to the wider community and their closure is therefore not considered significant. Race closures on the roadside may have some visual impact in areas with high amenity. Under Council’s process, for a rate payer initiated race closure to proceed, all affected property owners (those with a race on or adjacent to their property regardless of whether they are rated for stockwater) are consulted and approval is required for closure to be progressed. Further public submissions are invited from the wider community.

3. Economic interests – the proposed race closures will have no identifiable economic impact on the wider Selwyn District. Council and rate payers will benefit from operational and capital cost savings and Council will monitor the cumulative impact on rate revenue reduction which is discussed further in section 12.

4. Quality of the Environment – opportunities for fish salvage will be provided in consultation with the Department of Conservation prior to any race closure. Closing ineffective and inefficient races provides environmental benefit as discussed further in section 7.

• •

The proposed water race closures are not considered to impact a scarce resource. The provision of water for stock can generally be provided from alternative sources.

The proposed water race closures are considered as irreversible where they cross private property. Council do not hold easements for most water races and are unlikely to have the power to enforce reinstatement of water race channels on private property.

However, stock water supply can generally be provided from other sources.

The proposed water race closures represent the following loss to each of the schemes: Ellesmere • Reduction in length of water races 10.2% • Loss of targeted rates income 13% Paparua • Reduction in length of water races 0.07% • Loss of targeted rates income 0.1%

292 These are considered to be low percentage reductions when considered against the total length of water race. The loss of targeted rates income is also considered low, and as detailed in section 12, closure of these races have minimal impact on operational costs.

Based on the above assessment, staff recommend that the proposed closures are considered of low significance.

Water Race Sub-Committee The Sub-Committee were asked to: a) Note that the period for comments on the potential closure of 9 lengths of water races totalling approximately 45.4kms in the Ellesmere and Paparua water race schemes has now closed. b) Consider views received on the potential Water Race closures including those heard at the meeting c) Provide recommendations on whether all or any of the Water Races should be closed.

At its 9 November meeting the Sub-Committee heard views from Te Taumutu Rūnanga which are set out in section 7.3. In summary, the Rūnanga does not oppose the closure of the proposed races if mahinga kai values are provided for, with the exception of water races 2, Cowans Road East and 3, Alexanders Road/Cowans Road West. They believe the assessments undertaken have not considered; the impact of closing the races on Waikekewai Creek, Wahi Taonga sites or the hydraulic connection between races and the surrounding area.

As indicated in Table 7.4, parts of water races 1, 4, 5 and 7 have been filled in by land owners (without Council approval) so their formal closure does not affect mahinga kai values. Similarly there is no water in races 6 and 8 so no mahinga kai values will be affected by their closure. Rūnanga along with DOC will be involved with the fish and mahinga kai salvage, as and if required, of any races which are flowing.

Given the Rūnanga's concerns on the closure of water races 2 and 3, the Sub-committee determined, as set out in the resolution below, that further investigation and consultation needs to take place with Te Taumutu Rūnanga regarding the closure of those sections of water races.

Pat McEvedy declared his interest in this matter and refrained from voting.

The following resolution was made: Moved Alan French / Seconded Martin le Comte "that the period for comments on the potential closure of 9 lengths of water races totalling approximately 45.4kms in the Ellesmere and Paparua water race schemes has now closed.

That following deliberations of matters in this report, closures other than 2 and 3, proceed, and further investigation and consultation takes place with Te Taumutu Rūnanga regarding closures 2 and 3 and report back to the Committee for further consideration at a future meeting."

CARRIED

293 4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND

4.1

Proposed Closures Recommended for Progression Council has received requests for closure of the following races.

Table 4.1 – Proposed Water Race Closures Recommended for Approval to Progress to Public Consultation Ref Scheme

Received from

Road Name

1

Ellesmere

Holmes

2

Ellesmere

Croft

South Two Chain Road East of Cowans Rd

3

Ellesmere

Greenwood

4

Ellesmere

Cascade Farms

5

Ellesmere

Stevenson

6

Ellesmere

7

8

Number of affected Props 6

Approx KM Race

Progress

5.4km

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers below South Two Chain Road.

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers.

Further investigation and consultation with Te Taumutu Rūnanga recommended 100% support gained from directly affected rate payers below Southbridge Leeston Road. Further investigation and consultation with Te Taumutu Rūnanga recommended 100% support gained from directly affected rate payers.

9

8.3km

Alexanders Road

5

5.8km

Sharlands and Hunters Rds Sharlands Road

2

3km

1

Unknown

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers. No races present on this property, property owner returned closure form.

Coltman (Canlac Holdings)

Wrights Road

6

9.7km

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers. Agreement forms received from 4 rated properties and 2 non rated properties to close main race below Wrights Road.

Ellesmere

Michael

5

8.3 km

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers.

A soakhole is required to be installed and Council are working with ECan to combine the soakhole with the TSA location on the Nixon property.

Ellesmere

Haldon

Westenras Road below Graham property Dunsandel Road

3

4.5km

100% support gained from directly affected rate payers. Council initiated closure.

Grigg has requested to use the headworks for a hydro scheme. Any agreement from SDC on use of Council infrastructure would be subject to

294 Ref Scheme

9

Paparua TOTAL

Received from

Port of Tauranga

Road Name

Railway Road

Number of affected Props

Approx KM Race

1

370m

20

45.4km

Progress

the property owner obtaining their own consent for the activity from Environment Canterbury.

No direct objections received. Closure as part of Izone stage 7 development.

Appended to this report are maps showing the location of the above sections of race proposed for closure.

295

5.

PROPOSAL Staff seek that the Council consider and implement the recommendation set out in section 1 above.

6.

OPTIONS Where a request for water race closure is received, there are a number of potential options available to Council.

Table 6.0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Alternative Options Considered Option 1.

Water race closure

Details Race closure with the agreement of all affected land owners (rate payers on the race or directly adjacent to the race), subject to public consultation and reasoned consideration and response to issues raised during consultation.

Advantage Objective is achieved and wishes of rate payers considered.

Disadvantage Loss of rating income.

Ecological values of races not maintained.

2.

Piping of water race

Piping can be considered if downstream property owners wish to maintain supply.

Piping to be funded by each landowner.

Piping a water race will not maintain the ecological value of an open water race channel.

Supply to downstream property owners maintained.

Landowners responsible for maintenance of pipes with potential upstream impacts if not maintained.

Higher cost to land owners.

Ecological values of races not maintained.

3.

Race relocation

Relocation could be considered if downstream property owners wish to maintain supply for stockwater purposes.

Costs to be met by landowners.

Do nothing races retained.

Rating income retained.

Unlikely to achieve benefits of race closure required by land owners.

Potential impacts on adjacent land owners.

Cost to land owners.

Rating income retained.

On site alternatives e.g. a well, could be considered if land owners wish to retain a stockwater service.

Stockwater supply retained.

Needs of rate payers requesting closure not met.

High cost to property owners for installation and on going maintenance.

Ecological and other race values not retained.

4.

Race retained 5.

Onsite alternatives

296

These options are alternatives to closure of an open race if a downstream landowner requires a stockwater supply to continue. Water race closures will only occur for short lengths of race (excluding whole or major part of scheme closures) if 100% support from affected land owners is obtained.

7. VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION 7.1

Views of those affected

The Local Government Act section 82 requires consultation with persons affected by or have an interest in a decision. They must also be provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their views to the Local Authority.

Rate payer initiated closures and closure of the Haldon and down gradient races has been provided for the 2015/25 LTP. As required by Council’s water race closure process agreement to close water race forms have been received from all affected property owners. An affected property owner has been deemed to be those with a race on or adjacent to the property, regardless of whether the property is rated. A letter was sent to all directly affected property owners to notify them that the proposed closure has been approved to progress to public consultation.

The potential closure of the nine lengths of water races described in section 2 above were publically advertised in the following ways: • Council Call 15 September and 29 September • Ellesmere Echo 25 September edition • Letter to Department of Conservation, Environment Canterbury, Fish and Game, Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited and Te Taumutu Rūnanga • A summary of proposal, maps and copy of the public advert detailing the proposed race closures was posted on the Council’s website

297

The closing date for response was 16 October 2015.

No written submissions or queries were received from members of the public as a result of the advert.

298

7.2

Interested Parties Consultation

Specific stakeholders identified as Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, and Ngāi Tahu were directly provided with a copy of the above advertisement and their views on the proposed closures requested.

A memo from the Department of Conservation was received dated 16 October 2015. The memo generally supports Council’s consultation on water race closures and provides advice on fish salvage which is discussed further in section 7.4.

Council has delegated powers to the Water Race Sub-Committee to hear submissions and make recommendations on the significance of water race closures to Council. Minutes from the Water Race Sub-Committee meetings are available for public viewing on Council’s website.

If the closure is approved, the Historic Places Trust will be notified that the intake has been decommissioned and that Council do not intend to continue to maintain or remove the headworks infrastructure.

7.3

Ngāi Tahu views

The entire Selwyn district lies within the rohe of Ngāi Tahu. The importance of Ngāi Tahu is recorded in the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy (section 6).

Te Rununga O Ngāi Tahu’s Freshwater Policy recognises the importance of providing a stockwater supply to communities. This principle is considered alongside a number of others which seek to protect the environment and its inhabitants. By proposing the closure of ineffective, inefficient and no longer required water race assets, Council is proposing to better balance the needs of rate payers, Iwi and the environment.

Mahaanui, The Iwi Management Plan 2013 ("IMP"), recognises the importance of the water race network and states that they should be managed as waterways. In support of these principals Council require that heavy stock (deer and cattle) is fenced from entering the water races and provides advice to landowners on how to provide stock access to drink without entering the channel.

In support of the principles outlined in the IMP Council are currently running a trial for installation of a fish screen at the Upper Kowai intake. Following successful completion of the trial, fish screens will be installed at all active intakes. By proposing closure of the Haldon intake, Council will not be required to install a fish screen at this site providing a cost saving for rate payers.

It should be noted that in general water races requested for closure are often tail end races (lateral races) where excess water is disposed of to ground. Where a water race feeds another water course further consideration will be given to impacts on that waterway. The races proposed for closure do not directly discharge to another water course.

On behalf of Te Taumutu Rūnanga, Lisa McKenzie spoke in relation to the proposed closures in the public forum of the Water Race Sub-Committee being held on 9 November 2015.

The submission tabled by Te Taumutu Rūnanga is included in Appendix E. In summary, Lisa McKenzie raised two points of concern for Te Taumutu Rūnanga in respect to the proposed water race closures.

299

1. The salvage of mahinga kai Te Taumutu Rūnanga consider that before any race is closed there needs to be an investigation first to identify not only the fish within but also any other mahinga kai (food and other natural resources and the places where those resources are obtained) and any method used is consistent with the values, issues and aspirations for the recognition, protection and management of taonga (treasures) and cultural interests within the Iwi Management Plan (IMP) in particular policy WM14.2. This policy is related to drain management but has a number of points that are applicable including the identification of races used for mahinga kai, removal of fish, methods and involvement of tangata whenua.

Where there are known values the rūnanga would like to see an agreement and process of how the salvage will occur. Te Taumutu Rūnanga wish to ensure that any salvage is done in a way that consider their values and will protect the limited mahinga kai resources in the district, as once the closures occur the races will be filled in and any values they held will be lost.

2. Proposed closures 2 and 3 and the impact these closures will have on wahi tapu sites in the Waikekewai Catchment.

The rūnanga does not oppose the closure of the proposed races if mahinga kai values are provided, with the exception of water races 2, Cowans Road East and 3, Alexanders Road/Cowans Road West. They believe the assessments undertaken have not considered the impact of closing the races on Waikekewai, the associated important sites or the hydraulic connection between races and the surrounding area.

Other concerns raised by Te Taumutu Rūnanga were: • • • • •

Groundwater takes for irrigation If races are closed then any benefit the augmentation may have will be compromised.

The impact on the Rūnanga’s restoration process of the lower Waikekewai catchment which includes riparian planting and the reestablishment of a wetland.

The consultation documents identify proposed closure 3 as having regionally important ecological values.

These races are within the Waikekewai Catchment and include tribally significant wahi tapu (places sacred to Maori in the traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual or mythological sense).

Bret Painter of ECAN has indicated he would be supportive of further investigation.

Te Taumutu Rūnanga oppose closures 2 and 3 and suggest further work is undertaken to understand their connection to water resources in the catchment and solutions are found to ensure all values held and the buffer they provide are not lost.

7.4 Ecological Considerations The Canterbury Water, Selwyn Wahiora Zone Implementation Programme acknowledges that Council are reviewing the operation of the stockwater race network and seeking opportunities for rationalisation while managing some races for biodiversity and community values.

The Implementation Plan supports race rationalisation and recognises the importance of reliable stockwater supplies while identifying opportunities for supporting an aquatic corridor from mountains to sea via water races and creating wetlands at discharge to ground locations.

300

The proposed closure of the Haldon intake is being done in line with the objectives of the Selwyn Waihora Zone Implementation Plan. Section 2.8 of the ZIP Addendum comments on the impact of the stockwater supply through the Haldon intake on the ecological and cultural values of the Hororata River and identifies opportunities to supply stockwater using Alpine water thereby improving flows in the Hororata River.

Mahaanui, the Iwi Management Plan 2013 recognises the importance of the water race network for biodiversity and habitat for native freshwater fish. Where appropriate opportunities for fish salvage and relocation will be provided to DOC and Fish and Game prior to a water race closure.

EOS Ecology undertook an assessment of sites of high ecological value within the Ellesmere and Malvern Water Race schemes in 2011. A copy of the findings of the assessment is included in Appendix C. Proposed closure 3 is a site of regionally significant ecological value with freshwater mussels and native aquatic invertebrate diversity.

DOC have indicated that in general terms if a race has been dry for a period of time, low levels of aquatic life are expected to be present and limited to isolated pools.

Information from the water race operators has indicated that 3 of the races proposed for closure have some water in them. The following information was provided to the Department of Conservation on 19 August 2015.

Table 7.4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Water Race, Information provided to DoC Ref Scheme

Received from

Road Name

Number of affected Props 6

Approx KM Race

Comments

1

Ellesmere

Holmes

2

Ellesmere

Croft

South Two Chain Road East of Cowans Rd

5.4km

Filled in races

9

8.3km

Alexanders Road Sharlands and Hunters Rds Sharlands Road

5

5.8km

2

3km

No water reported below Harts Road, ends in soakholes.

Water at Leeston Southbridge Rd Race filled 10+ years ago

3

Ellesmere

Greenwood

4

Ellesmere

5

Ellesmere

Cascade Farms Stevenson

1

Unknown

Race filled 10+ years ago

6

Ellesmere

7

Ellesmere

Coltman (Canlac Holdings) Michael

Wrights Road

6

9.7km

Reported that there is no water in the race.

Westenras Road 5 below Graham property Dunsandel Road 3

8.3 km

Railway Road

370m

Race already filled in by land owner at the top of the closure.

Intake gate remains closed, no water in race since October 2014.

Race currently ends in a soakhole on their southern boundary, will be moving soakhole 370m upstream.

8

Ellesmere

Haldon

9

Paparua

Port of Tauranga

1

4.5km

301

Ref Scheme

Received from

Road Name

TOTAL

Number of affected Props 20

Approx KM Race

Comments

45.4km

In a memo to Council dated 6 July 15 which can be found in Appendix B, DoC have indicated that the level of input from DOC may need to be prioritised based on predicted distribution of threatened species and external contractors may need to be used. DoC may provide guidance to Council and Contractors on the process the suitable sites for relocation.

Further to this memo, DoC responded to the stakeholder notification with a memo dated 16 October 2015 which is appended to this report. The memo indicates that all races proposed for closure could support long and shortfin eels and upland bullies. Races 6, 7, and 8 have a high probability of Canterbury Mudfish being present or recorded.

DoC have indicated that they can provide further advice and may be able to assist with salvage in sites 6 and 7 depending on availability. Council staff will continue to liaise with DoC. Where DOC staff are not available to undertake fish salvage and it is deemed necessary, consulting companies exist that are equipped to undertake electrofishing, however this may attract significant cost. The Agreement to Close Water Race form states that the benefiting property owners are liable for their share of the costs associated with the closure. To date this has been the cost of installing a soakhole at approximately $3,000.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS

The closures included in this report are consistent with Council Policy W107 Closure of Water Races.

As stated in section 3 Water Race Closures are being progressed in line with Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Significance Policy.

9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES

Community outcomes are discussed in section 3.1 above.

10.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS

No negative impacts or effects were raised prior to the hearing that cannot be appropriately mitigated or minimised. As discussed in section 3.1 above, the concerns of Te Taumutu raised during the hearing have been taken into account in the Sub-Committee's recommendation to Council.

11.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommendation complies with the requirements in the Local Government Act and the Council's policies and internal procedures.

302

12.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

12.1

Rating Impact

The sections of water races detailed in this report are expected to have the following impact on rating income if all closed: Table 12.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Funding Implications of Proposed Race Closures Percentage of Total Rating Income

Scheme

Received from

Road Name

Loss of Targeted Rating Income

1

Ellesmere

Holmes

South Two Chain Road

$

9,371.65

2.0%

2

Ellesmere

Croft

East Cowans Road

$

5,726.40

1.2%

3

Ellesmere

Greenwood

West Cowans Road

$

7,253.70

1.6%

4

Ellesmere

Cascade Farms

$

6,024.70

1.3%

5

Ellesmere

Stevenson

$

3,032.30

0.7%

6

Ellesmere

Coltman

$

13,758.45

3.0%

7

Ellesmere

Michael

$

8,767.60

Below Intake Railway Rd

$

7,422.45

$

622.75

TOTAL

$

Ref

8 9

Ellesmere Paparua

Sharlands Road Sharlands Road Wrights Westenras Road

Haldon Izone S7

61,980.00

1.9% 1.6% 0.1% 13.5%

The cumulative impact of closures will continue to be considered as more closure requests are received. Over the last 3 meetings closures have been approved that totals (excluding the above) of an additional 1.9% loss of rating income: May 2015 February 2015 November 2014

(included above) 1.5% 0.4%

12.2 Cost Savings Closures to date have typically been short lengths of lateral water race that are maintained by the property owners. Closure of these races have minimal impact on operational costs.

The lengths of races proposed for closure in this report are more extensive and include a headworks site. The following operational, capital and renewal cost savings have been estimated. Actual costs will be negotiated with Council's maintenance contractor once race closure are approved:

303

304

PROPOSED CLOSURE 1 - SOUTH TWO CHAIN ROAD

PROPOSED CLOSURE 2 – COWANS ROAD EAST

305

PROPOSED CLOSURE 3 – ALEXANDERS ROAD/COWANS ROAD WEST

PROPOSED CLOSURE 4 – SHARLANDS ROAD

306

PROPOSED CLOSURE 5 – SHARLANDS ROAD

PROPOSED CLOSURE 6 – WRIGHTS ROAD

307

PROPOSED CLOSURE 7 – WESTENRAS ROAD

308

PROPOSED CLOSURE 8 – HALDON INTAKE

PROPOSED CLOSURE 9 – IZONE STAGE 7

309

APPENDIX B – MEMO’S FROM DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

310

Date: 6 July 201513 November 2015 To:

Jo Golden – Water Services Engineer – Selwyn District Council

CC:

Murray England – Asset Manager – Water Services – Selwyn District Council Anita Spencer – Biodiversity Ranger, Conservation Services, Mahaanui District, Department of Conservation Rosemary Miller – Freshwater Manager, Science & Capability Group, National Office, Department of Conservation

From:

Nicholas Dunn – Freshwater Science Advisor, Science & Capability Group, National Office, Department of Conservation

Memo: Notes from fish salvage from the Selwyn District Council stockwater race below Crossgates Road prior to closure This memo describes the freshwater fish salvage conducted by Department of Conservation staff in the Selwyn District Council stockwater race below Crossgates Road, Southbridge, and considerations for future salvage operations.

Crossgates Road salvage Fish salvage was conducted on 11 and 12 May 2015 in 2.3 kms of stockwater race below Crossgates Road in the Ellesmere scheme. Below this, 730 m until the end of the water was not considered fish habitat. A further 1.96 km of race below this again was dry. The salvage followed recognisance visits on 19 November 2014 and 30 April 2015.

A total of 225 upland bully (Gobiomorphus breviceps) and 2 longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) were captured over the two day period, being relocated to a section of race on North Rakaia Road near the intake from the Rakaia River.

Future salvage Observations during the current salvage could be used to guide future salvages: • • •

Three staff members took part in the salvage each day. This level of input needs to be prioritised against other biodiversity work. Future salvages may need to be guided by DOC staff, but be undertaken by external contractors.

Dependant on the location of the race closure, the level of input from DOC may need to be prioritised by the known or predicted distribution of species based on their conservation status under the New Zealand Threat Classification System.

Having the water race ranger on site during recognisance visits is beneficial. This allows identification of sections of race that have previously dried or had low water levels, or lack bankside vegetation and instream macrophytes, and thus likely represent low quality fish habitat.

311

APPENDIX C – EOS ECOLOGY, SITES OF HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALUE – 2011.

312

313 APPENDIX D – WATER RACE CLOSURE PROCESSES Start

Water Race Closure Process January 2015 Working Draft

Request for race closure recieved Confirm race suitable for closure e.g. not required for operational reasons

No

Is the proposed closure considered significant in Council’s Significant and Engagement Policy?

Significant closures cannot occur until provided for the LTP. Closure to go on hold until provision is made.

Yes No

Have water race closures been provided for in the LTP? Yes

Closure pack sent to initiator of closure (to be posted on website)

Closure pack sent to initiator of closure (to be posted on website) Initiator to provide signed permission forms from all affected rate payers, application fee and map

Initiator to provide signed permission forms from all affected rate payers, application fee and map

Has 70% of affected rate payer/adjacent land owner support been gained?

Notify initiator of closure that sufficient support not obtained

No

Yes

Unanimous affected rate payer/adjacent land owner support?

No

Yes

Provide a report to Council of requested race closures going out for consultation Publically advertise closures in news paper – 8 weeks prior to water race subcommittee. Send copy of notice to DOC, F&G and Ngai Tahu

Publically advertise closures in news paper prior to the water race subcommittee. Send copy of notice to DOC, F&G and Ngai Tahu

Submissions deadline – 4 weeks after advertising

Any persons wishing to present their views to Council to notify Council prior to subcommittee.

Submissions collated and posted to website – 2 weeks prior to subcommittee No

Have any requests to present been received?

Have any requests to be heard been received?

Yes

No

Yes

Hearing to be organised immediately prior to WR subcommittee meeting Hearing – WR Sub Committee chairperson + independent Councillor

Public presentation at Water Race SubCommittee

Closure to be discussed and approved by WR Subcommittee

Closure to be discussed and approved by WR Subcommittee

Notify land owners and post resolution on website

No

Closure approved?

Yes

Invite DOC and F&G to undertake fish salvage Notify land owners and post resolution on website Water race operator to inspect soakhole during construction

Landowners

Closure to be undertaken by Council or land owners?

Council

SDC to invoice share of physical closure costs divided between all land owners GIS and AMS updated to show closure. Rates Dept informed if rates are impacted.

END

APPENDIX E – Submission tabled by Te Taumutu Rūnanga

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Selwyn District Council – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Environment Canterbury – Christina Robb – Programme Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Refresh of committee membership: Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee

1.

RECOMMENDATION ‘That the Council: 1. appoint community members of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee as follows: • Robert Wynn-Williams (to 31 Dec 2018) • Kevin Brown (to 31 Dec 2018) • Suzanne Furkert (to 31 Dec 2018) • Lance Kenyon (to 31 Dec 2018) 2. Extend the appointment of Chris Kelliher to December 2017 3. Confirm the appointment of Herewini Banks as representative for Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke on the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee.’

2.

PURPOSE To appoint new community members to the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and the matter is considered to be of low significance.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) refreshment processes for the zone and regional committee membership was approved by the mayoral forum at its meeting on 19 July 2013. Environment Canterbury runs an expression of interest process. Committee selection is made by a working group with

324 representatives from the relevant Territorial Authorities, Environment Canterbury and Rūnanga whose rohe are in the zone. The process must clearly state the interests of the remaining community members, and that maintaining “a balance of interests” and “collaborative ability” are the key selection criteria.

5.

PROPOSAL The Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee is comprised of the following membership: • • • •

One elected member or Commissioner appointed by Environment Canterbury.

One elected member appointed by each Territorial Authority operating within the Zone Boundary – Christchurch City Council; Selwyn District Council.

One member from each of the following Rūnanga: Tūāhuriri; Taumutu; Ngati Wheke.

Between 4-7 members appointed from the community and who come from a range of background and interests within the community.

In accordance with the refreshment process approved by the Mayoral Forum, the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee confirmed its refreshment schedule in September 2013, to provide for the replacement or renewal of two community members per year with adjustments to the number of community member appointees to compensate for membership attrition outside of the renewal cycle.

Members whose term was up for refreshment at the end of 2015 were Hugh Thorpe and Robert Wynn-Williams. Continuing community members are Chris Kelliher, Andrew Congalton and Islay McLeod.

As advised to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, the community refresh will now occur less often; a refresh of community members will occur twice in three years, rather than every year. This will reduce the administrative requirements and the disruption to the committees, while retaining the capacity for regular refreshment. In particular, we are seeking to avoid any selection process over the local body election period.

We recommend that Chris Kelliher be offered an extension from December 2016 to December 2017.

Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke have advised that Herewini Banks will replace Yvette Couch-Lewis as their representative on the committee.

Expressions of interest for new nominations to the Zone Committees were called by Environment Canterbury in mid-September 2015 and closed on 15 October 2015.

Fourteen applications were received.

The Selection Panel comprised Councillor David East (Christchurch City), Riki Lewis (Te Rūnanga o Koukourarata), Kelvin Coe and Sarah Walters (Selwyn District Council), and Wayne Holton-Jeffreys and Don Rule (Environment Canterbury). The Panel had the opportunity to meet and mix with applicants, and observe them during a four minute presentation and in two workshop exercises.

The Selection Panel recommended that Robert Wynn-Williams be reappointed.

Robert Wynn-Williams’ commitment to the work of the Committee was recognised by the Panel who believe he can provide the institutional knowledge the committee

325 will continue to need. Robert is a professional agriculturalist and agronomist and a former farm consultant. He is a Fellow and Life Member of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand and has sat on a number of industry advisory committees. Robert was a member of the Lincoln University Council for a number of years, is a keen angler, and is currently a small scale truffle farmer.

The Panel is recommending three new members join the committee – Kevin Brown, Suzanne Furkert and Lance Kenyon.

Kevin Brown is geochemist and has considerable work experience in geothermal industry. He lives on a life-style block. He has a keen interest in improving water management both in the urban and rural areas around Christchurch. His background will assist the committee as it grapples with water quality and sedimentation issues both in the urban and rural context.

Suzanne Furkert brings a technical background and passion to improve her community environment, particularly the health of the Heathcote River. She is a keen white water kayaker and enjoys family expeditions on the quieter rivers and estuaries around Christchurch. Her background and interests will assist the committee to consider the recreational values of the waterways around Christchurch.

Lance Kenyon has lived in St Martins since 2010 and has seen how the waterways around this area have been effected by the earthquakes and flooding over the last five years. He has a range of expertise and has recently completed a Diploma in Environment and Sustainability. Lance has been involved in various community groups and is a member of the white water kayak club.

The refreshment process for the community members has now been completed.

The membership and names of the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Christchurch City Council appointee SelwynDistrict Council appointee Environment Canterbury appointee Rūnanga appointees

5. Community Representatives

6.

Councillor Pauline Cotter Councillor Debra Hasson Commissioner Rex Williams Arapata Reuben (Ngāi Tūāhuriri) Les Wanhalla (Taumutu) Herewini Banks (Ngati Wheke) Chris Kelliher (to 31 Dec 2017) Andrew Congalton (to 31 Dec 2017) Islay McLeod (to 31 Dec 2017) Robert Wynn-Williams (to 31 Dec 2018) Kevin Brown (to 31 Dec 2018) Suzanne Furkert (to 31 Dec 2018) Lance Kenyon (to 31 Dec 2018)

OPTIONS The Council has three options available to it: Option 1 – adopt the recommendation as provided by staff;

326 Option 2 – adopt but with amendments; Option 3 – decline to adopt the recommendation.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION a) Views of those affected N/A b) Consultation The Zone Committee terms of reference and appointment process arose from a Canterbury-wide community consultation in 2009. The purpose and function of the Committee is to: “Facilitate community involvement in the development, implementation, review and updating of a Zone Implementation Programme that gives effect to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in their zone”. c)

Maori implications Ngāi Tahu are a partner in the CWMS. Kaitiakitanga is one of the ten target areas of the CWMS. Both Taumutu and Wairewa rūnanga were involved in the selection of the community members.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS Not applicable

9.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS The proposal will not negatively on the community or any of Council’s activities.

10.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal implications. The terms of reference for the CWMS Zone Committee’s explicitly state that: “The Committee does not have the authority to submit on proposed Resource Management or Local Government Plans. The Committee does not have the authority to submit on resource consent matters.”

11.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The costs of running the Zone Committee’s are shared between Environment Canterbury and the district/city councils. There is no increase in funding required because of the change in committee members.

327

12.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Not applicable

CHRISTINA ROBB – PROGRAMME MANAGER ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY

328 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Selwyn District Council – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Environment Canterbury – Christina Robb – Programme Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Refresh of committee membership: Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee

1.

RECOMMENDATION ‘That the Council appoints community members of the Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee as follows: • Maree Goldring (to 31 Dec 2018) • Victor Mthamo (to 31 Dec 2018) To extend the appointment of Bill Lambie and Allen Lim to December 2017.’

2.

PURPOSE To appoint new community members to the Selwyn Waihora Water Management Zone Committee.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and the matter is considered to be of low significance.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND The Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) refreshment processes for the zone and regional committee membership was approved by the mayoral forum at its meeting on 19 July 2013. Environment Canterbury runs an expression of interest process. Committee selection is made by a working group with representatives from the relevant Territorial Authorities, Environment Canterbury and Rūnanga whose rohe are in the zone. The process must clearly state the interests of the remaining community members, and that maintaining “a balance of interests” and “collaborative ability” are the key selection criteria.

329

5.

PROPOSAL The Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee is comprised of the following membership: • One elected member or Commissioner appointed by Environment Canterbury.

• One elected member appointed by each Territorial Authority operating within the Zone Boundary – Selwyn District Council; Christchurch City Council.

• One member from each of the following Rūnanga: Tūāhuriri; Taumutu; Ōnuku; Koukourarata; Ngati Wheke; Wairewa.

• Between 4-7 members appointed from the community and who come from a range of background and interests within the community.

In accordance with the refreshment process approved by the Mayoral Forum, the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee confirmed its refreshment schedule in September 2013, to provide for the replacement or renewal of two community members per year with adjustments to the number of community member appointees to compensate for membership attrition outside of the renewal cycle. Members whose term was up for refreshment at the end of 2015 were Stewart Miller and Maree Goldring. Continuing community members are Bill Lambie, Allen Lim, Ron Pellow, John Sunckell, and Hayley Moynihan.

As advised to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, the community refresh will now occur less often; a refresh of community members will occur twice in three years, rather than every year. This will reduce the administrative requirements and the disruption to the committees, while retaining the capacity for regular refreshment. In particular, we are seeking to avoid any selection process over the local body election period. We recommend that Bill Lambie and Allen Lim be offered an extension from December 2016 to December 2017.

Expressions of interest for new nominations to the Zone Committees were called by Environment Canterbury in mid-September 2015 and closed on 15 October 2015.

Seven applications were received, including that of Maree Goldring. The Selection Panel comprised Councillor David East (Christchurch City), Mayor Kelvin Coe and Deputy Mayor Sarah Walters (Selwyn District), Terrianna Smith (Taumutu Rūnanga), Riki Nicholas (Wairewa Rūnanga) and Don Rule (Environment Canterbury). The panel met with all applicants at Lincoln on Monday 02 November 2015.

The Selection Working Group recommends that Maree Goldring be reappointed and Victor Mthamo be appointed as community members to Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee. Maree’s contribution and commitment to the zone committee is acknowledged by other committee members and her interests are an important contribution to the balance of the committee. Victor brings strong technical expertise to the committee as well as a collaborative style.

Maree Goldring has been a member of Selwyn Waihora zone committee since 2011.

She lives at Castle Hill Village and is involved with community initiatives to control wilding pines and protect biodiversity. Maree has worked with Environment Canterbury staff to help farmers meet land management requirements to protect high country sensitive lakes. She is a stalwart of zone committee’s Biodiversity working group and provides strong support for the Biodiversity Officer.

330 Victor Mthamo has a strong technical background in environmental science, engineering and agricultural management (including having an advanced Overseer modelling qualification). He lives in Rolleston and works as an environmental engineer at a major consulting company.

The refreshment process for the community members has now been completed.

The membership and names of the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

SelwynDistrict Council appointee Christchurch City Council appointee Environment Canterbury appointee Rūnanga appointees

5. Community Representatives

6.

Councillor Pat McEvedy Councillor Tim Scandrett Commissioner Tom Lambie Clare Williams (Ngāi Tūāhuriri) Terrianna Smith (Taumutu) George Tikao (Ōnuku) Charles Crofts (Koukourarata) Te Whe Phillips (Ngati Wheke) Riki Nicholas (Wairewa) Bill Lambie (to 31 Dec 2017) Allen Lim (to 31 Dec 2017) Ron Pellow (to 31 Dec 2017) Hayley Moynihan (to 31 Dec 2017) John Sunckell (to 31 Dec 2018) Maree Goldring (to 31 Dec 2018) Victor Mthamo (to 31 Dec 2018)

OPTIONS The Council has three options available to it: Option 1 – adopt the recommendation as provided by staff; Option 2 – adopt but with amendments; Option 3 – decline to adopt the recommendation.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION a) Views of those affected N/A b) Consultation The Zone Committee terms of reference and appointment process arose from a Canterbury-wide community consultation in 2009. The purpose and function of the Committee is to: “Facilitate community involvement in the development, implementation, review and updating of a Zone Implementation Programme that gives effect to the

331 Canterbury Water Management Strategy in their zone”. c)

Maori implications Ngāi Tahu are a partner in the CWMS. Kaitiakitanga is one of the ten target areas of the CWMS. Both Taumutu and Wairewa rūnanga were involved in the selection of the community members.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS Not applicable

9.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS The proposal will not negatively on the community or any of Council’s activities.

10.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal implications. The terms of reference for the CWMS Zone Committee’s explicitly state that: “The Committee does not have the authority to submit on proposed Resource Management or Local Government Plans. The Committee does not have the authority to submit on resource consent matters.”

11.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The costs of running the Zone Committee’s are shared between Environment Canterbury and the district/city councils. There is no increase in funding required because of the change in committee members.

12.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Not applicable

CHRISTINA ROBB – PROGRAMME MANAGER ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY

332 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting– 25 November 2015

FROM:

Property and Commercial Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Approval of Central Plains Water Loan in principle subject to satisfactory loan terms

1.

RECOMMENDATION ‘That the Selwyn District Council agrees in principle to loan up to $8million to Central Plains Water Limited subject to a satisfactory loan agreement and terms being negotiated.’

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to formalise the Council decision making process on the recently completed submission and hearing process for the proposed Central Plains Water loan.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been the subject of a specific special consultation process and is being consulted as an amendment to the Long Term Plan 2015 - 2025.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND Council has previously provided loans to assist with the feasibility and design of the Central Plains water scheme. These loans were all repaid in March 2014 as part of the funding process by which Stage 1 construction was undertaken involving land owners contributing equity and a number of banks providing debt finance.

5.

PROPOSAL Council has been approached by Central Plains Water Limited to consider whether a loan could be provided for the Stage 2+ design for the Central Plains Water scheme.

The Council decided to seek public feedback on whether the loan should or should not be provided. In doing so, it followed a process by which it amended the 20152025 Long Term Plan. Council started the public consultation process on 25 September 2015. Submissions closed on 26 October 2015 and hearings were held on 2 November 2015. Deliberations were held 4 November 2015.

333 Attached to this report are the minutes of the submission hearings and the deliberations process.

Both sets of minutes cover the key points that were considered as part of the consultation and decision making processes.

One challenge for Council is the security available for the proposed loan is not the same as for previous loans.

A major advantage for supporting a design loan for Stage 2+ is that the recently completed Stage 1 construction was built on budget and built with support from landowners who provided equity and the bank provided debt finance to support the scheme. Accordingly, the Central Plains Water project now has a history of delivering on Stage 1 and water is now flowing. The promised benefits that were outlined when the scheme was a concept are now being realised.

One particular issue which has been highlighted in this particular consultation process are the environmental benefits. In reality, the environmental benefits to be produced

by Stage 2+ would be lost if the Central Plains Water Scheme Stage 2+ did not proceed.

The Council at its deliberations hearings adopted a resolution which is now to be formally put at this Council meeting.

Important to this resolution is the need to determine a satisfactory loan agreement and terms for the Council but also Central Plains Water Limited. The Audit and Risk Committee, Council staff and legal advisors have already met to further discuss what terms and conditions may be appropriate.

If the Council adopts the recommendation that is the subject of this report, then a further report will come to the Council for its meeting on 9 December 2015 to determine if loan terms and conditions can be agreed.

6.

OPTIONS The Council has three options available to it: Option 1 – adopt the recommendation to provide a loan to Central Plains Water Limited for Stage 2+ design of up to $8 million subject to a satisfactory loan terms and conditions being agreed; Option 2 – adopt the recommendation to provide a loan but with amended wording to be a smaller dollar value; Option 3 – decline to provide a loan.

Staff recommend option 1 and put that to the Council for their consideration.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION

334 Consultation has occurred separately on this matter and the decision that Council is making is the end of that consultation process.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS The decision to support the loan to Central Plains Water supports the broad principles of the Selwyn District Council Economic Development Strategy.

9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES One of the community outcomes for the District is a prosperous community. This can be achieved in a number of ways by on farm and off farm additional jobs and increased economic activity/business within the industry.

10.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS There is a risk with such a loan that it may not be repaid. Council staff and advisors will work carefully on the loan agreement, working out the detail by which it can mitigate as much risk as possible.

11.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Council has two legal advisors working on this matter with relation to any potential regarding resource management and Local Government issues as well as loan securities and documentation.

12.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS As noted in the consultation document, the loan funding would be provided to Central Plains Water Limited by a bank deposit being used to fund the loan. The loan will be provided by way of instalments.

13.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Corporate Services staff have been involved in discussions as well as Assets staff in terms of issues relating to water use.

DOUGLAS MARSHALL MANAGER PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL

335

336

MINUTES CENTRAL PLAINS WATER LIMITED â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PROPOSED LOAN HEARING - ROLLESTON MONDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2015 AT 0830 AM COUNCIL CHAMBERS In Attendance Mayor (K J Coe), Councillors, M A Alexander, N P Barnett, S T Broughton, J B Bland, S T Broughton, D Hasson, P S Hill, M B Lyall, D P McEvedy, G S Miller and S G Walters IN ATTENDANCE Messrs D Marshall (Property and Commercial Manager), G Bell (Manager Corporate Services), S Hill (Business Relationship Manager), C Moody (Corporate Accountant), Ms K Anderson (Council Secretary) and Ms N Smith (Executive Assistant) Apologies Apologies were received for absence from Councillor Morten.

Conflicts of Interest (if any) Councillor Hill clarified his position in relation to his role as being on the executive of the Green Party and in terms of the Green Party submission. He indicated that he was present at the meeting when the petition was discussed and voted against it.

Councillor Broughton indicated that his parents and brother own pre construction shares on CPW. He noted that he has disqualified himself from previous meetings and discussions held due to this connection. He noted that he has spoken with the Acting Chief Executive regarding his attendance at todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s hearings.

Members agreed that they did not see conflicts of interest. However they discussed the various matters raised.

Councillor Hasson arrived at 8:45am Councillor Alexander asked for discussion around the effects of environmental impacts and if they are in scope of what needs to be discussed in terms of the proposed loan.

Councillor Hasson noted that she believes that the environmental effects and risk factors need to be considered.

Members were reminded that they were receiving non speaking submissions Receive Non Speaking Submissions The Mayor summarised the submissions noting the main points of same.

337 The meeting discussed some submissions in detail making references to environmental impact, development of agriculture, economic and social benefits to the District.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121,122, 124, 125, 126, 127 Councillor Broughton indicated that he had concerns in attending the hearings. He sought approval from the Mayor to leave. The Mayor granted same.

Councillor Broughton left the meeting at 9:07am The meeting made reference to the Green Party submission of collecting signatures.

Some members indicated that they did not hold much weight with the submission.

Members were reminded that they were receiving submissions and not in deliberations.

Members continued to raise points around farming and environmental effects noting that irrigation will improve the economy. It was also noted that some submissions were recognising the benefits of increased value by attracting support industries and services.

Councillor Walters noted that a submission referred to the effect of drought on farmers.

Councillor McEvedy noted that a submission brought up climate change. Members then discussed the issue. Councillor Alexander then made reference to page 149 noting the point that Stage 1 shareholders have concerns about the rise in costs per hectare.

The Acting Chief Executive indicated that it is likely that people will buy into Stage 2.

Members discussed receiving the late submissions.

Moved - Councillor Walters /Seconded – Councillor McEvedy

‘That the Council agrees to accept the late submissions.’

CARRIED Councillor Walters asked if the various signatures on the Green Party submission was one submission or each signature a submission in its self.

The Mayor advised that the Green Party submission will be treated as one submission.

Councillor Alexander indicated that he is more interested in the quality of the argument and not the number of submissions received.

Councillor Hill disagreed with the signatures being treated as one submission indicating that the signatures were seemingly not worth much.

Councillor McEvedy indicated that the information at the top of the petition was not of great quality.

338 28 October 2015 late submissions Late submissions were reviewed and received.

A, B, C, D, E Councillor Walters made reference to page 28 of the 28 October 2015 submissions noting the comment regarding charges are payable by shareholders on a monthly basis where or not they use the water during the relevant month.

29 October 2015 late submissions Late submissions were received.

Submissions - Speakers 100039 – Doug Catherwood – He spoke to his submission noting that it is a personal one.

He made reference to the construction process is geared around farmers buying construction shares and wants Council to be proactive that the installation is more widely received. Most rural villages are on a piped water supply and are limited on a daily water supply and there is little water for domestic irrigation. They will be going past Hororata Township. Construction will never be cheaper and the pipes are built onsite. I have spoken to our staff and they are happy to include off shoots but Council would have to pay for them.

He noted that the turnouts cost $10,000 each and could supply a village or a street. Darfield is the largest rural town in New Zealand without a sewerage system and Rolleston is likely to continue to grow. Darfield will likely follow. The raw sewerage is not the problem it is the prescription medicines, dyes etc that contaminate the system.

Councillor Hasson – you have concentrated on the alternative use of the water as an assumption that if the company its self fails to the make the return, Council will then step in, is that where you are coming from in terms of other uses?

Doug Catherwood - No have indicative support from about 30,000hectares re irrigations. I’m interested in if Hororata, Coalgate or Darfield if able to access the irrigation water supply, it is not drinking water. Water races are going to go in a number of areas and farmers are not using them as they previously did.

Councillor Alexander – You have partly addressed my question. A number of submitters have noted the poor update of stage 2+ due to cost of water. You indicated not the case.

Doug Catherwood - There is about 60,000 hectares in the area not irrigated with a total of 90,000 hectares in the area and I think that over the next 4 months we are running a series of one on one shareholders to discuss it., Councillor Walters - re the laying of pipes going past towns, how would what you have suggested would fit in with your timing of completing your work. This would require consultation regarding the pipe laying.

Doug Catherwood - Hororata is about 60/70 houses equivalent of a 20/30 hectare block could be within realms of over build Councillor Walters - So would design with that extra capacity?

339 Doug Catherwood - Yes The Acting Chief Executive has taken notes of this and will follow up Councillor McEvedy - what is the reliability of Stage 2 + Doug Catherwood - Targeting 95% reliability. Not promoting 100% reliable domestic scheme but it will make domestic supplies go further if take irrigation water out of the situation.

Councillor Hill – this is the first I have heard of this proposal. Is the water in the canal and pipes drinking water?

Doug Catherwood - No 100038 – Michael Clark – Greetings to you all on a lovely day/morning. I just need to check that you have all read my submission. He asked if anyone had not read it. He wishes to state and make clear I’m not against all irrigation schemes but I’m against this one due to the massive scale of it. He wonders about the enormous financial risk. I have had a farming career on and off on the Plains and up at Windwhistle. Andrew Curtis recently said in the Press 5 September that Greens are anti change. I am a farmer and it is stupid words as there are many shades of green. Derek Crombie said to me at the public meeting in Dunsandel that there was very little opposition to the loan for this scheme. I don’t understand it. They are arrogant in this matter. I wish to speak on the financial risk. And I quote none other than your Chief Executive Mr David Ward said the proposed loan is for significant amount of money with limited security. Overall staking all matters into account the risk may be seen as high. He referred to page 33 of the report regarding risk.

I wish to comment on this as you will have read in my written submissions that Doug Catherwood said on 12 October that not one single farmer shareholder has committed themselves in writing to this stage 2 scheme and from a ratepayer’s view that is alarming.

They don’t know the price of water. I wouldn’t commit myself either and the price won’t come down and gradually go up. I happen to know that at least one irate shareholder farmer has jumped the fence and now opposes the scheme and this is a recent development who told someone who told me. I bet there are a few others.

Doug Catherwood has just mentioned that he thought there was a positive vibe coming from the meetings. I would counteract that. A friend in Sheffield was at a meeting in Darfield and I take the opposite view. He indicated that she witnessed a negative vibe. I think it’s wrong.

I feel sorry for the farmers and I think that some of them don’t realize what they are up against in the debt sense. I will come to that in a moment.

This is the dairy industry and the debt has increased. In Canterbury the debt has increased…. Common sense would tell you that that there is steep mountain to keep climbing. A farm consultant in the Waikato talks about debt. Farmers are being forced to work the lander harder to support ever larger of farm network of financial? She goes on to question the logic. Just to add to that, off farm miles from the paddock where the work is done he is the ….

So that my argument you are adding to a huge debt problem in the long term that feeds a vicious cycle and the security comes back on the ratepayer. A lot of the ratepayers are on

340 the other side of the fence. They see the issues as very difference from the 350 shareholders. They don’t see this risk.

Environmental issues: he calls it the rape of the landscape. North islanders are coming here and they can’t believe the rape of the landscape. Shelter is being cut down to the ground, animal welfare. You are perpetuating this to continue.

Some of you people are so far down country, you would not have a clue of the up country mood of opposition against this scheme. If the farmers market in Darfield Saturday morning he thought he would ask a few and canvas opinion. He asked if happy with this loan. ¾ responses were no. The SDC is not a bank. If irrigation happens to default or partially it would be incredibly serious for ratepayers and our rates will increase significantly.

I rest my case and I say from my heart and if this $8 million loan goes ahead, Councillors in this room, some of them I presume and the mayor, I lose much respect for your wisdom and integrity over the decision you might make.

Councillor Hill – you have studied the documents, there was opposition and support for the loan and if the supports are right and the loan is official, do you think if we didn’t give the $8,million that someone else would rather than have the scheme fail?

Michael Clark – Difficult to answer. Who has deeper pockets? Do you mean the 350 shareholders? Do you want my personal answer – it’s not really my business or decision.

Doug Catherwood told me this.

Councillor McEvedy - do you have a good relationship with Doug Catherwood?

Mayor – carry on please Michael Councillor Miller – another submission similar to yours. Do you not want stage 2 to go ahead or someone else to pay for it to go ahead?

Michael Clark – I cannot answer that. I believe for the sake of farmers that stage 2 needs to proceed.

Councillor Lyall left the meeting at 10:31am 100040 – Ann Jarman – Mrs Jarman read her submission.

CPW has a track record of paying back loans. It would be unfair for council not to offer the same terms for this loan. The Council frequently in developing water schemes has involvement. Stage 2 shareholders have invested in the scheme when asked too. In order to obtain bank funding shareholders have to present a case to their bank. Shareholders cannot fund work until prospectus and design in place to make to their own banks.

It is a risk worth taking Councillor Walters – there has been a couple of main themes through submissions.

Environmental and ratepayers being asked to underrate the scheme. Do you think it is a fair thing to ask the CPW scheme?

341 Ann Jarman - I think that the effects of CPW are not just the upper plains they include the middle and lower Plains –the whole District.

Councillor Hasson – page 11 you made a comment please expand on this.

Ann Jarman - When you do a scheme and it falls over, the shareholders won’t get their money back.

Councillor Hasson - wants to expand on that. What are the odds re regard to risk, with people putting up the money, is this a risk of costs being too high?

Ann Jarman - There is always a risk and this is a big step for a lot of people to make. When people signed up nearly 20 years ago some have died there has been a generational change. People are hungry for it and ready for it.

Councillor Alexander – form your involvement in your community and as a shareholder that there will be uptake?

Ann Jarman - Very confident. I visited many businesses in Darfield and there is a lot more support out there than people realize.

Councillor Hill – alpine water you are aware that alpine water is a new development?

Ann Jarman - Yes Councillor Hill – if your family would continue to apply?

Ann Jarman - There is always that risk Councillor McEvedy – you have recently developed the property. How do you see the environmental effects around CPW? Ann Jarman - We made the changes as the children have said the children don’t want the farm sold. We are committed to the environment.

100047 – Gavin King – I farm in the Glenroy Hororata area. We are in favour of the loan.

Stage 1 is complete and working well. Stage 2 needs to be built with support from shareholders. The employment, he referred to Heatherlea Farm being able to employ more staff. The tax collected in the past was about $15,000 and is now $60,000 in PAYE collected.

The use of alpine water is a renewable resource and makes more sense to use than dragging water out of the ground.

I see in the submissions the Green people were against it and want money spent on other matters. He noted that the 10% interest is high but would generate money for such items as s cycle way as suggested by the Greens. The Council have made good decisions. And the interest rate is a good way of Council making some money. He urges the Council to lend this money.

Councillor Alexander – your son is converting to dairy. What is your expectation in the stage 2 area regarding dairy or a mix?

Gavin King - Not all will be dairy there will be more irrigated crop.

342 Councillor Hasson – just trying to work out some economics. If you looked at all the stage shareholders that have put into the scheme. What is the balance?

Gavin King - The CPW? For the whole area I don’t know. Stage 1 was about $170million.

The on farm expenditure is also high. For Heatherlea disregarding the Fonterra shares and cows will spend about $5.5million for 360hectares.

Mayor – why do you think this is low risk?

Gavin King - Because they have repaid the first loan. All the shareholders would lose the money they have put in and they wouldn’t let that happen. I think 10% is too high.

100123 – Fred Bull – non attendance Late Submission E – Brian Thompson – I oppose the loan. It contravenes the SDC policy on democracy. We have been disadvantaged by CPW. They put a notice of requirement on our property that prevented us from going about our business. They refused to buy our property. They were forced to take legal action against them by going to the Environment Court. The night before the hearing, the notice was withdrawn. He noted that the Judge was critical of CPW and gave us full costs as a result.

They took us to the High Court and appealed the decision. He claims they lost a further $12,000 and the High Court dismissed the appeal brought by CPW. We are out of pocket by $100,000 and will get nothing for it. CPW are required by law to be responsible under the Act. I don’t believe they have the requirements or the money to act. They need regard to take the interests of the people they represent and the Council has let them. The Council needs to take some responsibility and keep them in order. I have asked to be recompensed the $12,000 but Doug has refused. They are not worthy recipients of the loan. My personal circumstances are important to this. Will Council put up money to help us? I don’t think so.

I believe they (CPW) have acted beyond the law and I am unable to afford to continue to fight. These people should be supporting themselves and they are not.

CPW have abused their powers granted by the Government and deliberately have cost us money. I don’t see why we should be paying for CPW. Did you see the article in the paper? He summarized the article claiming that there is a significant loss for the Hororata farmer. He questioned why the price of water has gone up 25% though stage 1 came in on budget.

We have suffered, have nothing to do with the scheme and I’m not against irrigation or CPW but I am against how they have treated us.

Councillor Barnett – What is the reason for going into the scheme so running a loss of $400.

Brian Thompson - They are CPW shareholders and they believe in replacing groundwater with alpine water. It is costing them. They have 205hecatares irrigated. At $400 that s $82,000 a year. I don’t trust it won’t get better.

Councillor Hill – in the interests of the company’s integrity what are the criteria for a requiring authority and do CPW fulfill that criteria?

343 Brian Thompson - No. They get the power of government to take our land from us.

We are trying to do renovations but can’t afford too. It’s all because CPW have come into the district Councillor Miller – I read further on in the article that some people were going to save significant monies due to irrigation?

Brian Thompson - I’m not saying that these figures are right it might be an average.

Councillor McEvedy – the reliability do you think that groundwater is over allocated and will need some rebalancing. Do you think that would have some influence for security to help with resilience?

Brian Thompson - I’m not against using alpine water for irrigation just do it in a decent way.

100056 – Ian Duff – Good morning all. He read from his submission. I am strongly opposed and strongly reject the proposal. Loaning of ratepayer money is not a core activity or appropriate function of the council. Under the LG Act, it can be an appropriate activity. He put a hypothetical case to Councillors The CPW loan is not an appropriate use of monies. He was of the opinion that there is too much emphasis on farmers. The scale and spread claimed in the document is disingenuous.

The employment benefits are not what you claim.

The environment benefit of substantial improvement to Lake Ellesmere is very dubious. He referred to the nitrate equation by the Danes and Dutch noting that they removed land from intensive farming.

Security for this loan is junk security. I am not against the existence of objectives of CPW. They should be financing their own business. I believe that CPW are mad to pay 10% interest and consider that it is very high. They should pause and get stage 1 up and running.

Councillor Hill – can you justify that he is being used as soft touch by this company.

Ian Duff - That is actually what is happening. It is not appropriate at all.

Councillor Walters – Not sure if you were here for Mrs Jarman’s presentation about hearing cats in reference to your environment comments. Do you believe that the FPE’s will be sufficient?

Ian Duff - It will depend on the usage. I share the views of Michael Clark in removing shelter belts. I’m not against dairying just the intensive dairying.

Councillor Alexander – you start that it’s not Council business to lend to private business.

However we have previously have lent money as part of the investment portfolio.

Ian Duff - I don’t think it is prudent. Izone is different. There is tangible assets called land which can be sold if needed. There is no tangible assets for Council. It is the same as putting $8million into a black hole in the galaxy. Izone is a prudent investment, the previous loan to CPW as good luck and this one, has no real security.

344 Councillor Alexander – how do you contrast the environmental effects from other submissions i.e. ECan who support he scheme on the basis it will lead to better environmental effects?

Ian Duff – I’m not on the Ecan’s Christmas card list. It depends on who is giving direction Councillor Hasson – I want to question you on point 4 regarding where ratepayers will be unsecured lenders. SDC could step into the shoes of CPW, I guess Council could take it over as a CCO. How do you view that?

Ian Duff – I prefer normal commercial processes apply. If not credit worthy at the banks as ratepayers shouldn’t support it.

Councillor McEvedy and Hill left the meeting at 11:30am Councillor McEvedy, Lyall and Hill returned to the meeting at 11:36am 100116 – Franco Luporini – I am not against irrigation. I am against the lending to CPW on this basis of what is being proposed. CPW is not reliable. Every day in the last week we get a text message of water restrictions from CPW and it is one of the most expensive schemes in the country. For many farmers it is not economic. It is only reliable if you purchase extra water from Trustpower which is an additional cost. For many farmers this is not economic.

He made various references to the Treasury Report 2010 regarding potential of irrigation and the costs of same. You should wonder why the banks are not lending money to them now because it is highly unsecure. If it was viable at 10% everyone would do it. It is amoral.

He referred to an article by Irrigation NZ noting eligible for Crown funding. He wants the funding to be refused and send CPW to Wellington for funding.

Councillor McEvedy – Please expand on what your involvement is with CPW. I have shares with Stage 1 and stage 2 I have no water from them at the moment. 50 hectares from stage 1 and have groundwater allocation under stage 1.

Councillor McEvedy – Is that groundwater sufficient for the next 10-15years?

Franco Luporini – Yes for stage 1 if we drill the wells. We don’t use the well as water is too deep Councillor Hasson – looking at the risk you have noted under Warren Maslin in your submission that there were surplus shares in stage 1 and that these may have been taken up by Fonterra. Were they taken up by Fonterra? Don’t you have to be a wet shareholder or a landowner under the prospectus?

Franco Luporini – Derek Crombie said in the Press that have to extend the offer as the farmers checks were still in the mail. In that week Fonterra were asked to subscribe to the pre-construction shares for stage 1.

Councillor Barnett – wants clarification you want them to go to the Government for funding but it has to be matched $ for $? Isn’t it subjected for matching?

Councillor Walters – On page 28 you mention the fixed and variable charges of $600 per hectare is that you have to pay to get the reliable water?

345 Franco Luporini – Yes. Do you want to lend money to a scheme that charges 60% more for the water?

100100 – Rosalie Snoynik – She paraphrased her submission on behalf of Malvern Hills Protection Society. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I agreed with almost everything that Mr Duff said. She indicated that she wants to expand on points including economic viability and benefits, claimed environmental benefits and no security.

She noted that the previous submitter referred to the 2010 Treasury Report and a geographical magazine from 2014. She summarized the article to the meeting. And noted that she appendixed that report to her submission.

As far as we are aware Council has not completed any independent cost benefit analysis or robust investigation. She believes that Council is making a big mistake if relying on CPW figures only and take into consideration true costs. The CPW commissioners did not have much store on the economic benefits.

The first loan had to be repaid to release the consents to the bank.

Her second point is around claimed environmental benefits used to justify the loan. We cannot continue to dump in and onto soils that leaching into our water in the hope that they will dilute into nothing. The other assumption is that CPW will take the pressure off groundwater. We can’t find any evidence to support this. No doubt Council will have information that we don’t have. It is uncertain how large tracts of the Rakaia River will effect groundwater. It is all a huge experiment and guesswork.

Her third point is around the lack of security. There is a lack of any meaningful security.

Comments were made about people not wanting to have to deal with CPW. The most stounding submissions are from Australian banks who are asking Council to support the loan. This is corporate bulging and the money would be better spent on Council infrastructure.

We ask the Council to show responsibility to its ratepayers. Any councilors who have shares should not vote on the loan.

Councillor Walters – Thank you for your submission. Using more alpine water will give us a better understanding of what is happening with the water in your opinion Rosalie Snoynik – It is all ahead of us. The Rakia River is losing water due to irrigation. We don’t know where water is going. We need to look at what the evidence is on the river.

Councillor Hasson – Question regarding risk. You referred to the banks’ submission but are surprised wont loan the money to them. Do you see the Regional Council in the same camp?

Who’s going to benefit. Local residents, regional or Government.

Rosalie Snoynik – Your question isn’t clear. We are not surprised that Ecan made a submission. We think their role has been to facilitate irrigation. We can vote you out we can’t do that with Regional Council.

Councillor Alexander - if Council spends that money it will lose rates income and if councils spend this money it still loses that income and rates will still have to rise.

346 Rosalie Snoynik – Rates will rise if they default on the loan. It’s more your core function to make good infrastructure like sewerage systems.

Councillor Alexander - As a loan to those communities? Are you saying that we should take money from an investment and spend on infrastructure with no income?

Rosalie Snoynik – you have a business that you are not running properly.

100077 – Victor Maffey – cancelled 100113 – Trevor Owen – cancelled 100114 – Eugenie Sage – Green Party List MP – Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I want to refer to the collected signatures from Leeston, Rolleston and Lincoln. It was to give a feeling for what residential ratepayers thought who the money should be spent. I note that people want monies spend elsewhere for their communities and not a private company. I am very surprised that Council want to subsidize a rural area. She indicated that there are equality issues in the District.

There is nothing about the cost to the Council and people regarding the water pollution. The scale of land use conversion to dairying is going to increase water pollution. There is a substantial risk here, lack of security and the potential cost to the Council and community and the cost of water pollution. I like Mr Duff’s comments of money going into a black hole.

It is preposterous to consider a loan to CPW when it will cause more water pollution and Darfield has no sewerage system. The town is growing and still have no sewerage system.

The Council is all wrong. She referred to the levels of nitrates in the water.

In conclusion, given the Districts growth looking at your reports looking at the number of road accidents surely it is a higher requirement to invest in roading and cycle ways to improve community safety. This is core business for Council. It is very high risk due to lack of security of the loan.

Please consider the interests of the whole community. You have other options to spend the money on.

Councillor Alexander – There seems to be confusion between $8million investment and capital expenditure. This is not a capital expenditure item. This is council considering an investment taking money out of the bank. Council is not proposing to spend $8million anywhere we are talking about loaning the money at a high rate of return to give benefit across the district.

Eugenie Sage – This is public money. Council should not be taking risks with that money.

The CEO has said that this is a high risk return. Dairy prices are falling and not all shares have been subscribed. It is a risky proposition. Council’s core business is not loaning to CPW Councillor McEvedy – are you aware that the report refer too was prior to CPW and would change the leakage.

347 Eugenie Sage – We haven’t seen stage 1 in full operation yet. Darfield till doesn’t have a sewerage system.

Councillor McEvedy – Are you aware that Ecan still issue discharge consents for Darfield?

He noted that council staff will not say if consents should be stopped Eugenie Sage – I wasn’t there at that hearing.

Councillor McEvedy – Staff won’t say that it is needed.

Eugenie Sage – it’s the priorities for spending Councillor Barnett – stage 2 and detemintal effects from that - will the status quo be of more benefit to the environment.

Eugenie Sage – It is not what the trend has been.

Councillor Barnett – Would the status quo be more beneficial?

Eugenie Sage – Yes Councillor McEvedy – You and Rosalie have mentioned the same thing. Are you aware they are not transferrable?

Eugenie Sage – My understanding is that the consents would be surrendered. We have concerns around groundwater and not being used this season. The future of farming in the catchment is mixed and not 100% dairy.

Councillor Walters – it has been alluded to this morning that if the Council did not lend the money that the shareholders would step in, can you see a better way of doing this?

Eugenie Sage – If the company wants to go ahead they should do it on their own two feet.

100076 – Susan Goodfellow – General Manager - Environment– Central Plains Water Waslin Maslin financial manager, Doug Catherwood and Susan Goodfellow Councillor Hasson – Question around uptake of shares in Stage 1 – have Fonterra taken up the balance of wet shares? She made reference to the prospectus. Are Fonterra wet or dry shareholders?

Warren Maslin - in terms of shareholdings - 18,200 construction shareholders, of that 17,000 are irrigating farmers. Fonterra have a relatively small holding of 1200 shares of 18,200 and this is a temporary holding that we are gradually selling down to new irrigators as people joint the scheme.

Councillor Hasson – mike not on Warren Maslin – There isn’t an inconsistency here. The company’s responsibility is to supply irrigation to shareholders on a cost recovery basis under the prospectus.

Councillor Miller – Would you explain how the fixed storage charges work.

Susan Goodfellow – The River is only 60-70% reliable and farmers know that. We have a contract with Trustpower for that water top up.

348 Councillor Miller – Should there be plenty of water?

Susan Goodfellow – No the river water is only 60-70% reliability especially when the river is on restrictions. This is why we have the agreement with Trust power and the water stored at Lake Coleridge Councillor Alexander – We have feedback about the lack of update of stage 2 within the farming community.

Susan Goodfellow - we are in the middle of our uptake programme which started 3 weeks ago. The first target securing uptake for Sheffield. We are nearly at 4000 hectares.

Mayor – is there no written contracts for stage 2+?

Susan Goodfellow – we rolled out this as a pre prospectus to ask farmers if interested so could do design. We received about 75% interest/uptake.

Councillor Alexander – Paragraph 6 in submission - replacing water races - would Council be paying for that?

Susan Goodfellow - we are in the process of discussing that with Council and the stock water race committee Councillor Walters – What is your opinion regarding the Forest and Bird appeal?

Susan Goodfellow - There are two parts to their appeal, firstly the amendments to Variation 1 changes and secondly around the discharge consent going forward which is a non CPW farmer issue.

Councillor Walters – I believe that those discharge consents will they impact on shareholders to make viable farming for shareholders.

Susan Goodfellow – we undertook studies 40 farms underground water irrigation and dryland and what they are losing. That formed the basis of the modelling we undertook or dryland conversion. Farms will be limited through the matrix of GMP. Councillor Barnett – a lot of comments about why CPW can’t fund themselves and the banks won’t fund. Can you give a better understanding of this?

Warren Maslin – Firstly to understand is the challenge in raising funds for large projects. In terms of not being bank funded – they are good at funding hard assets. They do not want to fund pre construction.

Councillor Lyall – I see that CPW once completed will contribute $300,000. What are you planning to fund?

Susan Goodfellow – she made reference to the 2 funds that CPW have set up and have set up independent committees to manage these funds. They will submit proposals to them on how we think the funds could be spent.

Councillor Bland – you are asking the ratepayers to help fund your venture. How are you helping the Selwyn District?

Susan Goodfellow – a lot of the local businesses support the on and off farm suppliers. We supported the Hororata highland Games and have worked with the local school regarding health and safety.

349 Councillor Hill – referred to a comment made by your chairman, Mr Catherwood referencing the drop in dairy prices and the cost of water. Whether it’s given that the dairy prices have dropped is it still affordable and do arable farmers have to change to intensive farming to make it cost effective?

Susan Goodfellow – The economics we have in farm conversions always use the long term options. There will always be up and downs. This is a long term solution to their sustainable farming approach. More of our farmers are talking about a mixed arable system. We have had field days at shareholders meeting. It is the future of farming in this catchment not 100% dairying.

Councillor Hill – My concern is then, with the level of debt that we have heard about regarding agriculture in Canterbury at the moment. Does the level of debt scare you in relation to the price of water?

Susan Goodfellow – Intensive arable coming on the table since diary drop. That isn’t correct we have had quite strong interest from our farmers for some time now. Level of debt –One of the key questions from farmers around update is I would rather pay 50% upfront to reduce the charge.

Warren Maslin – In addition to that the feedback from agribanks in general the levels of debt aren’t high across stage 2. We have long established farming families in the area with balance sheet strength Councillor Miller – question around the licenses being offered as security when provide this information to us? For surplus water. Banks are not convinced that here is not enough water for stage 2.

Warren Maslin – I’m not sure that there is an issue with the banks. They have signed off in principal and are comfortable with releasing the securities required. My understanding is that there is no issue with the banks. There is a significant amount of water available for stage 2 between Rakaia River and Waimakariri River. We have spent $30-40million on oversizing the canal and nutrient consents in place for the whole scheme. There is value there.

Councillor Hasson – mini is following on from Councillor Miller - with regards to the Treasury report – are you aware of this report?

Warren Maslin – no I’m not aware of the report that you are speaking too.

Councillor Hasson – could you look at the viability of Sheffield Irrigators with their scheme as being more secure than the rest of the land owners within the stage 2 + area?

Warren Maslin – the only real difference between Sheffield and stage 2 scheme is that they are sourcing water from different sources. We are planning to build some small storage units as part of the Sheffield scheme. Reliability should be equal.

Councillor Hasson – with regards to stage 1 we are noting the beneficiaries were a lot of corporate farmers and now looking at stage 2 of family farms with lower economic value. Do you see issue with them coming up with the same rate?

Warren Maslin – we are using agricultural advisors to assess farming methods across the area. They are indicating that people can make it work with different farming methods. It is considered viable. We have benchmarked our costs in Canterbury and NZ. We believe we

350 are in the region of affordability. We wouldn’t go ahead with the scheme if we didn’t believe it wasn’t affordable.

Councillor Hasson – What will you do if people come to you and tell you that they can no longer afford the scheme? What is your backstop? I’m looking at this from a risk perspective that we could look at stepping into your shoes.

Warren Maslin – we believe that we have done enough work that it won’t happen. We have had quantity surveyors independent of us prepare plans. We would stop the project and work through the work programme and your loan for instance would not be drawn in full. We have a board of directors and our shareholders don’t want us to spend money unless we deliver the scheme and not take any risk.

Councillor Hill – Just wondering if for some reason we decide not to loan the $8million and the scheme is viable as stated what are the chances that other companies wouldn’t stump up the money?

Warren Maslin – The major with that would be if the loan didn’t happen that would mean that we wouldn’t get the IPM grant. We would be looking for $16/17million to go ahead. It is significant amount of money to raise and it would take a large amount of time. Biggest challenge at the moment the scheme is affordable we are up near the top of what farmers are willing to pay. Delaying the scheme costs about $15million a year. We are looking at $30million increase in costs due to delays. It would be a major concern if can’t go ahead with the loan.

Councillor Hasson – Just given you talked about time delays there are a group of shareholders have step in rights and while they have been paid out they have until 2022 to actually still have a say in those shares. Just wondering 2022 is a long way away from 2016 with regards to the timeframe of the scheme r getting one in place if they dig toes in.

Warren Maslin – I don’t know what the 2022 reference is. You are right that all ordinary shareholders have has part of rights attached to ordinary shares have rights to volume of water and voting rights in the company. If the scheme doesn’t go into their area those shares would loss some significant value.

Break for lunch at 1:17pm Resume hearing submissions at 1:50pm 100082 – Tony Watson – He read his submission out to the meeting.

He noted that Farmers are good at investing in long term opportunities. I believe that farmers will use resources wisely.

Councillor Walters – one of things you referred to is risk to ratepayers should it not be repaid.

Are you comfortable with the risk?

Tony Watson – Yes the organisation has a good history of repaying loans. They have honoured their commitments and is a well-run organization

351 100089 – Nicole Reid – Rolleston Residents Association (RRA) – She read the submission. The RRA supports the CPW scheme in its entirety but opposes the loan as currently detailed in the SDC consultation document and objects to the poor value of security offered for the proposed loan. She raised concerns around collateral, capacity and character. Reference was made to the salaries of 14 staff being over $100,000p.a. It was also noted that there was no direct benefit to urban ratepayers of the District. They considered that the interest rate is too low and should be around 19%. The RRA considered that this is gambling and not high risk lending. They do not agree that the loan should go forward. For the RRA to change their position that hard security would need to be ascertained.

Councillor Walters – proposed staging. Has the association discussed proposed staging?

Nicole Reid – We haven’t been able to discuss this due to time constraints.

Councilor Alexander – Would the RRA opinion change if Council asked for the interest rate as specified in your submission?

Nicole Reid – We haven’t discussed this.

Councillor Barnett – there is no direct benefit to urban ratepayers – that is a bold statement how to you ascertain that?

Nicole Reid – As we have presented this is the Associations submission so we cannot give out our own opinions.

Councillor Barnett – No I’m asking why you haven’t provided an answer regarding urban ratepayers.

Nicole Reid – As we have presented this is the Associations submission so we cannot give our own opinions.

Councillor McEvedy – would your opinion/did you take into account the loan and also security is assessed differently by different people. What would you call security?

Nicole Reid – Our meeting is tonight so we can discuss these questions tonight.

100089 – Nicole Reid - I am in support but I would like Council to have a much higher interest rate. It is important for the area that this progress. The Council needs to undertake further negotiation n to get a better return or better security.

Councillor Alexander – so if no more security or interest you would recommend that we decline the loan.

Nicole Reid - I hope that all avenues would be researched first. It wouldn’t be good for the District if it didn’t go ahead. I don’t want the scheme to fail.

Councillor Hill – if we decide not to loan the money do you think they have enough steam to get eh $8million from somewhere else?

Nicole Reid - I have no idea. But I would hope that they have discussed all the options before requesting a loan from us.

352 Councillor Walters – farmers can’t go and get finance from the bank until they have a detailed plan to take to the bank. Have you any other ideas to get around that? Any comments?

Nicole Reid - With the scheme stage 2+ has always been in the pipeline. I am questioning if it has been costed properly.

100109 – Murray Rodgers – Rosalie Snoynik is speaking instead. -Late appearanceShe summarized the role of the Water Rights Trust (WRT) – being a group of businessmen.

She indicated that they too are raising similar issues to the Malvern Hills Protection Society.

She read the submission out from WRT. One of their big issues is nitrogen in the water and ground. She drew members attached to the article in Saturday’s Press.

Councillor Barnett – can you read on and tell us the Ecan response.

Rosalie Snoynik - She read points from the article.

Councillor Barnett and Rosalie entered into a debate.

Councillor McEvedy – do you know the difference between minor and significant noncompliance?

Rosalie Snoynik - No why don’t you tell us Councillor McEvedy – summarized same to the meeting Rosalie Snoynik – Thank you 100104 – Andrew Curtis – Irrigation New Zealand - is in strong support of the loan. The reasons are that CPW supply resilience to the District. He referred to the North Otago Irrigation Scheme and the benefits that brought to the District. In terms of environmental benefits, is that there is Variation 1 to produce environmental outcomes and to replace groundwater with alpine water through CPW. The individuals are audited and CPW has a positive benefit to the District. Without CPW we would have to make cut backs to land use activities. They will also draw down the loan in staging. If the criteria to make the investment and make sure it goes ahead. In terms of security, take into account the value of consents and the discharge consents and what it could potentially be worth. CPW have shown that they can deliver.

Mayor – you talked about discharge consents and Variation 1, nitrate allocation.

Andrew Curtis – Variation 1 sets out the development load for CPW. Had to wait for Variation 1 to become operative. Forest and Bird has been settled as of last Friday without having to go to the High Court.

Councillor Hasson – Question about the proven track record of CPW repaying loan. CPW had to pay back the loan for their loan from the banks. The banks took up all security that

353 was available. As I understand it we don’t have tangible security like we did previously.

Where will CPW get the money to pay back the loan within a certain timeframe?

Andrew Curtis – It is hard for people to get finance for pre-construction design process.

You do have some security. They have a value – license to occupy.

Councillor Walters – question around equity of who has been asked to underwrite this scheme. What are your views on equity of asking ratepayers to underwrite the loan and benefits a small number?

Andrew Curtis – They are wider. It is the on flow impact of what this scheme will do for the district. There is flow through to the urban areas as well. You are using this out of reserves not rating people. There is a much wider benefit area so to speak. If you didn’t proceed you would have to look at cutbacks around water use and nutrient effects.

Councillor Miller – in your analysis what is the tipping point between viable and non-viable scheme cost per hectare Andrew Curtis – It depends on a number of variables. Factors include the price of land, what equity is involved, the climate. The price point to where CPW is more than achievable.

Councillor Alexander – What is the value that you perceive in the licences to use the water.

Andrew Curtis – Purely from what water trades happen. Look at the hydro trader website.

There is also the discharge side of things. Those two there have considerable value.

Councillor McEvedy – we have had discussion around the water balance in our area. Can you explain how the groundwater maybe retired?

Andrew Curtis – My understanding is there is about 20,000 groundwater intakes that can be retired over time from the water balance. What is happening to replace that is surface water is coming in initially from intakes from Rakaia River and Lake Coleridge. This will have an impact on the water balance in terms of not taking water out of the system. Over time CPW will turn the water balance back to its natural state through the system.

Councillor Bland – what are legacy environmental issues?

Andrew Curtis – Technically we have over allocation on groundwater at the moment. This has arisen from political issue; this is a legacy issue. There is also nutrient loading with nutrients going into the lake. This is also a legacy issue.

Councillor Hill – how does the environmental issue relate to the water balance?

Andrew Curtis – There is a water balance issue at the moment as there is too much water being taken that is impacting the water into the lake being less through the low streams and increases the nutrient issues. CPW will help to reduce this.

100101 – John Summers - John read his submission out to the meeting. He then indicated that he read the consultation documents yesterday. He also noted that he read the same newspaper article from the weekend. The rules are there for a reason and I have no faith that CPW will audit themselves. I don’t believe it. Are you councilors in touch with

354 those who live on a small fixed income? I don’t think that there is anyone in here that is poor. Increases are significant for poor people. I agree with all the comments made about security. I oppose on principle and practicalities.

Councillor Walters – if you are growing flowers do you have access to irrigation and does it have impact on you? What is your water situation?

John Summers - The water table at Southbridge is high. Our irrigation system is on a timer and irrigate for 6hrs. Yes I have to irrigate.

Councillor Walters – You are making a living off irrigation and with the over allocation of ground water John Summers - Those farmers are already over allocated and using bores. I’ve heard people say that they are not going to stop using bores.

Councillor McEvedy – Are you aware that the bore levels have dropped in the last 12months?

John Summers - No I wasn’t aware.

100105 – David Cooper/Frank Brenmuhl- Federated Farmers – Mr Brenmuhl spoke to the submission. We have two objectives. That the council is consulting with ratepayers.

We have a vested interest that the loan proceeds. Secondly that it is economically viable and proceeds. Irrigation provides roughly 3 times compared to dry farming. This adds to more jobs. This expansion will provide environmental effects s well and will address over allocation of groundwater. The potential adverse effects will be addresses through resource consents. Additional security and employment is what CPW will provide. The question arises of why Council should be involved. We are keen for CPW to proceed but have concerns about council putting pressure on ratepayers if it fell over.

We note the interest rate is 10% and default at 14%. We think that the Council has taken all reasonable steps to protect the ratepayers. We think the Council should go ahead with the loan.

Councillor Alexander – made reference to 3.2 and 3.3 of submission regarding Federated Farmers definition of core services Mr Brenmuhl - We look at all proposals on merit.

Councillor Walters – many submitters have opposed on environmental reasons. Do you believe that farmers that they are able to manage environmental factors including water quality and quantity.

Mr Brenmuhl - I believe we can do both. This scheme is designed to augment existing systems. We have an issue of over allocation and that needs to be addressed and CPW is the only thing that offers a solution for that issue. Farmers want to leave their land in better condition than they found it in.

Councillor Hasson – Speaker is not on. Environmental benefits. Monitoring of the springs have an increased nitrogen component in the lowland area where I farm. I have to undertake costs to work towards remedying this. How do you expect farmers to manage the cost in the different areas?

355 Mr Brenmuhl - Everyone works with the information that they have.

100094 – Ewan Frew - My points have already been covered from other submissions.

SDC have already given support to CPW and the loan has been repaid. At item 4 regarding security; in my view, if stage 2 didn’t go ahead and we ended up defaulting it would be a bargain price. It is a good investment and necessary. The economic development and employment have been mentioned today. I think the number of jobs mentioned is a best guess and that it will likely increase over time. I to read the article in Saturday’s Press. Council has a duty to be catalyst for change. When they brought Izone they acted as a catalyst. Think ahead and think about what CPW will do for the District.

Think back to the beginnings of Izone. Good luck to you.

Darfield is located in the centre of the catchment area and that some economic development needs to be retained in this area. Darfield is only a short distance from Izone for trans-shipment. I believe that CPW will manage the nitrate discharge.

Councillor Alexander – how confident are you that there will be farmer uptake to make this scheme work?

Ewan Frew - I’m sure the scheme uptake will occur.

Councillor Walters – interested in point 9 of submission about we need to give thought to how things could happen in Darfield. I don’t know if we can tell people where to live and work.

Ewan Frew - I am saying if goes ahead that Darfield will be one township that will be better off.

Councillor Hill – we have been told that we should stick to knitting. Darfield is the biggest town without sewerage system. You are advocating that Council should give the loan.

Ewan Frew - Council owns land south of Darfield designated for sewerage farm. To date no decision made by council or community to investigate.

LATE SUBMISSION - John McKim and Gary Doyle – Weedons Residents Association John McKim – He thanked Mr Marshall for providing the information they requested.

Gary Doyle– Weedons Residents Association – the people we have spoken to are concerned about lack of information. He noted that there are more urban people moving in.

He asked is SIL is involved.

The Mayor advised SIL has been disbanded.

Gary Doyle – The matter comes down to due diligence. How will inflation effect figures?

There seems to be a lack of security and at the bottom of the food change if it goes belly up.

Not a great deal of security on paper for SDC ratepayers and seem to be at the bottom of the ladder if it goes belly up.

356 John McKim – advised that they have taken legal advice from a number of people. The security touted in terms of Council to get losses back is not worth the paper it’s written on.

We are deeply concerned as to where we are on the food change.

The potential benefits have no quantified advice. I am concerned. He made reference to Dr Saunders report and considers that the report maybe biased. He referenced the migrant labour force, he thinks the gain to the economy will be minimal as most money migrants get goes home to their families.

Technical obstacles. – None of the preparation work has been undertaken. There is a scarcity of relevant information and would be asking for it to be forthcoming. He perceives that there is a lack of information.

Gary Doyle referred to water races. It looks like heading for dry weather and we stop taking groundwater it will mean that groundwater will increase their levels which may mean that springs may replenish themselves and could cause some potential for flooding. He made reference to a spring that is located under where the bypass will go. Reference was made to the risk assessment and take up by people. I know that farmers with irrigators are being approached by ECan for monitors to be added to wells. He indicated that there is potential for issues with ponding in the areas he mentioned with the location of springs. He believes that they haven’t been addressed. He believes that no work has been done on this issue.

John McKim raised Council’s position in terms of recovering loan costs if defaults. He made reference to that Council is basically an unsecured creditor. He considers it an unfair disadvantage to ratepayers and should stick to its knitting. Why are the major players not investing in it? He referred to a Council report noting the high risk.

We have been approached by Ecan to drop our level take and we are not going too. It adds value to our property should we want to sell. He referred to China gearing up to implement this industry and regarding regulations of what goes into their milk powder. It only needs the USA or China to up their production and that will have detrimental effect on NZ. The crystal ball doesn’t work.

Gary Doyle – Council has used the crystal ball in Darfield before. He asked if councillors have been to China. He asked Douglas about figures $557,000 payment is that a one off payment or annually. He referred to the Long Term Plan.

The acting Chief Executive indicated it was a disclosure matter. It is the annual payment over a 20 or 25 year calculation John McKim - personal submission - This is my personal submission. I believe if this Council agrees to this proposal in view of the risk involved it is my belief that the people of Selwyn deserve protection. He suggested that Councillors should use their properties as security.

Councillor McEvedy – Are you aware that CPW have a groundwater committee to monitor the groundwater?

Gary Doyle - I hope that a certain gentlemen isn’t on the committee. His knowledge is limited.

Councillor Alexander – In terms of consultation with your community, how much consultation did you undertake with your Weedons community before making these comments?

357 Gary Doyle - Did the Council contact everyone in the District?

Mayor – Answer the question please Gary Doyle - We got around those we could. Same as you. You can’t represent everyone in the District Councillor Hill – I appreciate going around the houses with you guys. Are you aware that Trustpower is the consenting body that owns or uses the water of the top 3m of Lake Coleridge in the event that the rivers are too low?

John McKim - I am aware but I haven’t read the documents. I am not aware of any out clauses for them to change their mind. We are not against the project but are more concerned about the financial position. We are concerned that Council might find themselves in a position if the project falls over. The Council has a moral and legal obligation to the ratepayers of the District to look after their money.

The Mayor thanked those in attendance.

Councillor Alexander noted that there were 3 submissions where speakers cancelled their attendance and he noted that they had not been considered. The mayor summarized the following submissions 100123, 100116, 100113, 100070 to the meeting.

The submissions were received and summarised.

Hearings concluded at 4:00pm

358

MINUTES CENTRAL PLAINS WATER LIMITED – PROPOSED LOAN DELIBERATIONS – ROLLESTON, WEDNESDAY, 4 NOVEMBER 2015 AT 4PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS In Attendance Mayor (K J Coe), Councillors, M A Alexander, N P Barnett, J B Bland, D Hasson, P S Hill, M B Lyall, D P McEvedy, G S Miller and S G Walters IN ATTENDANCE Messrs D D Marshall (Property and Commercial Manager), G Bell (Manager Corporate Services), C Moody (Corporate Accountant), S Hill (Business Relationship Manager), Ms K Anderson (Council Secretary) and Ms N Smith (Executive Assistant) Apologies An apology was received for absence from Councillor Morten. Councillor Broughton was absent.

Welcome The Mayor provided a written summary of for and against arguments raised during respect of Monday’s hearings.

He referred to the ‘against’ arguments line by line.

Councillor Alexander said that we had arguments indicating that it wouldn’t be just dairying. He referred to the ZIP and Zone Committee processes. He noted that CPW went through a large RMA process and has been granted consent which leant itself to a far greater process than the loan process.

Councillors generally in favour of Councillor Alexander’s comments Councillor Hasson arrived at 4:11pm Councillor Lyall – not solely a dairying issue Councillors discussed arable farming in terms of seed and some of the cropping farmers may only take up half of the water shares.

The Mayor referred members to his third point. Councillor Hasson sent an email to Councillors with a series of questions that she wishes for answers to, to make an informed decision. One of the issues is, what would the Companies Office think of Council spending $8million to bale out a private company that may or may not go

359

into liquidation. Under the Local Government Act a Council cannot lead money to a CCO/CCTO at a more favourable rate. She understands that an unsecured loan is at a higher interest rate.

She made reference to the prospectus and has an understanding that there isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t enough water. She would like to know what are the arrangements for Sheffield Irrigation and other listed companies as approved lenders.

The CPW annual report came out two weeks after consultation closed and council held its workshops and meetings in August. She indicated that the financials were not provided at these times and how many people have actually read the documents.

Her main issues is that each individual councillor making decision needs to be aware that they have enough information to make an informed decision. She believes that there has not been enough information provided.

Councillor McEvedy made mention that her email of questions was sent at 3:52pm when the meeting started at 4pm. He suggested that Councillor Hasson needed to complete further homework. He also indicated that there is enough water. He considers that he has received enough information to make a decision.

The Acting Chief Executive indicated that the Central Plains Water Limited annual report was released within the required timeframes.

Councillor Barnett - indicated that a significant amount of money is to be released. It is the job of councillors and council staff to make sure that Councillors and the public are fully informed. The issue is if the amount of security is reasonable and to determine what is the likelihood of this money being repaid. We have invested in medical centres leased to businesses. Is there sufficient benefit to the community that we are here to make?

Councillor Alexander - I would say that it would be noted that Council has lent money to private companies on appropriate terms. We have been burnt once but that is the risk we take. I view it as portfolio of investments. We do lend money as part of our investment portfolio Councillor Miller - Councillor McEvedy described his own rates as secured by property. We are requesting above his rates. We are to determine the security and if we do not think 10% is satisfactorily then it may need adjustment. Currently the money is earning 3.8% on term deposit. The difference is 6%.

Councillor Walters commented on the wording in Councillorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hassonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s email regarding lending to a company that may go into liquidation.

Councillor Hasson said her questions come from the publically released information to John McKim and Gary Doyle. She made references to the document. And what she believes they need to decide on.

The Acting Chief Executive indicated that the information was sent to everyone at the end of July. This not information from left field.

360

Councillor Miller – it was telling that ECan support the loan. Strong indicator of how they viewed environmental effects. He indicated that the nature of the company is not to make a profit. It is more a cooperative Councillor Bland – suggested that we debate if we should loan the $8million. He indicated that there is nothing the list that we haven’t been through already. Not hear to debate merits of intensive farming. I’m here to debate lending the money.

Mayor –we need to consider what the submitters have stated in submissions.

Councillor Barnett -I agree with Councillor Bland. I take umbrage at some of the submitters that farmers have no empathy for the environment. The nature of farming relies on taking care of the environment. He made reference to the rape of the land and noted that a centre pivot is the most efficient water method. If looking at what ruins the environment is a grouping of people by putting all their effluent in one place.

Councillor Hasson – looking at the way you have written your list I have to admit that the question to me is that do the ratepayers take the risk or another entity. Whoever does the issues will remain and this is a red herring. Do the ratepayers take the risk of losing the $8million or someone else i.e. shareholders, government.

Councillor Alexander agreed to with Bland. I read the submissions and listened to the submitters. We should just deal with the issues.

The Mayor summarised the remaining ‘against’ arguments.

Councillor Alexander made reference to the Green Party submission. We are talking about investment and not capital expenditure. He was disappointed with the Green Party in relation to this. He agreed that it was considered high risk as mentioned by the Green Party. They are worth debating. I only agree with the first 2 points and not the others.

Councillor Hill – I don’t understand. This is not our core business.

Councillor McEvedy - the one thing that keeps coming up re the reduction of water quality. We all want clean water. We are regulatory body and we put rules in place just like ECan. We acknowledge those thing are there. I agree with Councillor Bland.

Whether this is a high risk loan is up to each Councillor. Recognition of the risk comes after if we agreed to the loan.

The Mayor provided a summary.

Councillor Walters – indicated that we are not doing things very well at the moment and we are going to face increasing pollution. If there are ways to use the scheme to improve pollution we need to look at it.

Councillor Bland – took notes and summarised these to the meeting. In favour I appreciate that Councillor Broughton has stepped down form discussions. CPW wish to harness and sell a product to us. People look at this differently. I asked 2 questions on the day. Are or is CPW a good corporate citizen and I don’t know. If

361

asking for a loan have limited themselves and consider that they are not currently a good corporate citizen.

Another point made was the risk and privatising the gain. Do we need the risk? They pay the loan back, naturally they had too. Gavin Kings submission was open and honest. He was pro and laid his cards on the table. If you don’t loan we will have to do it ourselves. That is in favour of CPW if they have that mind set. The problem they have is timing. I understand why they want the loan they can’t get it from the banks.

I’m not convinced that the anti CPW has a good argument.

Sceptical that more intensive farming will improve the environment. This loan is going to help the farming community. Gavin King, Andrew Curtis, Doug Catherwood and Rosalie Snoynik all provided very good arguments. I hope that CPW will raise their corporate profile for the whole District. I would like to see the community getting something more out of the loan. Such examples maybe - fishing at the moment we are getting nothing. Thinks we will get paid back and good for community but not convinced on some of the arguments put forward.

Councillors McEvedy summarised the environmental funds totalling $300,000 run by independent committees.

Councillor Lyall also provided a summary of the funds. He thinks it is more environmental and agreed with Bland about not being able to use the canals for fishing etc.

Councillor McEvedy - we recognise that the communities up there do need some future proofing. If we give $8million the central government will give $8million from their own funding as a grant. I agree about the good corporate citizen. I think the loan will be repaid and the interest rate is adequate.

Councillor Walters - listening to Councillor Bland speak followed a lot of the thinking that I have had for the need for CPW to lift their game as a corporate citizen. Sticks out making things available for community use. I see from the viewpoint of farmers will put their assets at risk. There is really 2 options to approve or decline. Whatever we do we will have unhappy people. Lack of funding shouldn’t be a reason for being unable to complete design work. We need a detailed design to help us to determine the situation. Until we see these we just don’t know the effects of this. But in saying that if the loan proceeds I would like the shareholders of CPW to recognise that the community is backing them. They need to lift their game. Based on all of that I don’t think that lack of funding should be a reason to decline the design. We can afford to have some risk in our portfolio.

Councillor Alexander I have always acknowledged the risk of non repayment to be balanced out against the benefit to the district. If loan is made and the design is completed and they move to construction. The question is the viability of stage 2. He referred to Sheffield recent uptake. We have heard varying statements. When Izone started we just got on with it. We didn’t have to go out to the community. It comes down to if the construction goes ahead.

362

Councillor Barnett was taken with Councillor Bland. He referred to a submission that talked about farming and dealing with drought. That submitter talked about the increasing cost of the scheme noting the cost but decided she needed to do it for her children. These people are making a calculated decision. He raised concerns around potable water disappearing in some of our communities. We are too consumed about what farmers are going to do. He believes that water will become a valuable commodity. I don’t see that he canals being used for recreational use as going through private properties unless there are some sections that are available. We need to explore the value of water to the wider community.

Councillor Lyall- I have been looking through the sheet and referr to various comments made by submitters. Dairy is shown as the bogey man at the moment. He made reference to Te Pirirta. He made reference to various planting and lack of on the plains. He considered risk and referred members to Izone from 20 years ago. He noted conversations with Mr Cherry.

The Acting Chief Executive – have kicked around community use. It is a good point to raise.

Councillor Hasson what a lot of money wasted to get to this point. The private company has done well out of ratepayers. It will be the ratepayers that will have to pay for the pipes in the ground regarding the suggested piping to smaller communities. She aired her concerns in detail noting that they are on the back of the ratepayers. To make stage 2 viable, the ratepayers across the district will be subsiding this scheme. We need to be upfront with our communities. Why wasn’t this a CCTO? We have yet to see the water was a comment raised. When the prospectus went out it was indicated that water would be available. Councillor Hasson continued to raise her concerns. She wants her questions answered to satisfy her personal risk.

The Acting Chief Executive will make comment as appropriate in respect of the questions from Councillor Hasson. Stage 1 farmers have funded the intake for stage 1 and 2 and the headrace. He noted that he had answers to the majority of her questions.

Councillor Miller as councillors we act in the best interests of the district but not personally liable?

The Acting Chief Executive provided a response. If Council did make a loan and if there was an event by which the loan could not be repaid, Councillors would not be personally liable.

Mayor advised the Acting Chief Executive will provide written answers Councillor Hill - The staff have put together a consultation document that absolves them if anything goes wrong. I’m speaking on behalf of urban ratepayers who will in his opinion not get much from this loan so won’t take the risk. I have questions.

There is confidence in the room of repayment of the loan. Will water be affordable for stage 2 farmers? Are the stage 1 shareholders going to be able to repay if the scheme fails? We have no security really. He made reference to Brian Thompson’s

363

submission and one person here has written it off. He is showing what the company (CPW) is like. He thinks the Mr Thompson has been shafted. We are amateurs in dealing with this. They paid back the loan because they need to free up the consents to use for another loan from a bank. Do we have the ability to insist that they become good corporate citizens? Izone is different, we brought the land cheap and did something with it.

Mayor commented that the Trust can influence the company to some degree. Not sure how strong it is as we haven’t tested it as yet.

Councillor Miller wanted to discuss farming in general. Farming is not about dairying or cropping. It is converting a plant to a protein source and sell on the world market. I enjoyed Councillor Blands’ comments. Didn’t agree with all of them. They are generating service industries that creates GST and PAYE etc. Let’s consider where our development comes from. Westland, Synlait wouldn’t have set up in Selwyn without a source of water. They save the small schools from going into recess. We touched on stage 1 and it was supported. Are we prepared to support ratepayers?

Do we pick and choose who we support amongst the ratepayers?

The security is an issue and will we get out money back? What will Selwyn look like in the future? He referred to industry, science, quality infrastructure. And we have money in the bank. This is the risker end of the portfolio but suggest still within where we should be. I support this loan there are some risks involved and we are all aware of this.

Councillor McEvedy I agree with Councillor Miller. I spoke with the Acting Chief Executive yesterday around water quantity. He also covered the ability to farm with the use of the water. There is more than enough security with the amount of water available. Communities change and it is amazing the differences in cultures and immigrants coming in now. Councillor Bland has rightly pointed out that they are not a good corporate citizen but we can facilitate that CPW become so in our communities. I think that there is potential. I support the loan.

Councillor Hill asked if extra clauses can be added.

Councillor Hasson wants it costed out for the long term plan.

The Acting Chief Executive indicated that the canals are to be designed and there may well be concern for community use under health and safety and where the canals are on private land. There is risk in everything and it is how it is managed. He provided a financial summary around stage 1 and how shareholders can obtain loans from banks.

Councillor Alexander wants to decouple the loan from benefits to the community.

Councillor Walters - the environment can’t afford to pay for bad investment by the Council. We are settlors of CPWT. The website information is out of date. I don’t think they are meeting their obligations to the community.

364

Mayor advised that they sent a letter to CCC to see if they want to continue their involvement. Went to CCC two months ago and still awaiting a response. Will follow up.

The matter was voted upon and Councillor Hasson asked for a division. All Councillors present and the Mayor agreed to the proposed loan to CPW apart from Councillors Hill and Hasson. Councillors Broughton and Morton were absent from the meeting.

Moved: Councillor Barnett /Seconded: Councillor Bland

â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;That the Selwyn District Council agrees in principle to loan up to $8million to Central Plains Water Limited subject to a satisfactory loan agreement and terms being negotiated.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

CARRIED

It was noted that the Audit & Risk Committee will work with council staff and advisors on the negotiations.

Deliberations closed at 5:55pm

365 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting– 25 November 2015

FROM:

Property and Commercial Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Update on proposed Dunsandel Community Centre Progress

1.

RECOMMENDATION ‘That the Council receives the update report on proposed Dunsandel Community Centre and request staff to undertake the following: a) b) c) d)

Continue with the detailed design process Lodge the building consent when appropriate Support the steering committee with their external fund raising Issue an information package to the community outlining the design, cost and funding e) Report back to the council in February 2016 on progress.’

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress with proposed Dunsandel Community Centre project.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and is considered a significance. It is assessed as a low to medium significance.

This project has already been consulted on within the Long Term Plan for 20122022 and 2015-2025 and regular communication with the community on progress.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND A new community centre at Dunsandel was first identified in the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan to replace the existing hall. Since that time, a design and feasibility process has occurred.

Consultation has occurred on a number of occasions with letters and drop sessions for the public to provide their feedback.

366

Central to the design process has been the project steering committee whose membership has been as follows: • Council • Community hall • Domain • Community Committee • Sports Centre • Rugby (and touch rugby) • Netball • Tennis • Community members This steering committee has been chaired by Russell Dalzell who is chairman of the community committee and a Dunsandel resident.

5.

PROPOSAL The proposed new community centre consists of: • • • • • • • •

Foyer and entrance Main hall that will seat 250 including an area where a stage could be installed in the future Kitchen(food preparation area) 2 community meeting rooms plus archive area Toilets Storage Administration office Provision of 65 carparks. (Including the current 29 formed carparks. There are also the carparks at the reserve.

The size and layout of the facility has been the subject of numerous discussions.

Council staff believe that the proposed main hall area is too large and that a smaller seated area is all that is need. The steering committee are of a view that they need an area this large to allow for future growth and the ability to attract major events.

Staff would suggest that this could be a stage 2.

With any new build that will be undertake within the District, a key consideration is to ensure that each build links in with existing facilities or compliments future facilities.

This building is to be built next to the combined sports club facility on the domain.

This building includes a meeting room/clubroom, changing sheds, toilets and rifle range (which has the ability to be converted into changing rooms). Accordingly the proposed facility compliments the existing facility which has recently been given an upgrade.

The project is now working towards completed drawings so that tenders can be released and building consents can be lodged.

367

The steering committee has a strong view that a community based tender will be lodged which will deliver an attractive price thus providing a solution to the possible funding issues that potentially face the project.

Council staff acknowledge that such an approach can be seen as attractive but staff and the committee both agree that any such approach must be lodged as part of the formal tender process with the main contractor being responsible for working in with any community based individuals who wish to price in an attractive manner to reduce project costs.

To make this community based approach work, a strong community coordination role will be required by someone in the Dunsandel community. An alternate option being considered to allow for a transparent procurement approach is the providing of a list of community based subcontractors which a main contractor could decide to use in their tender price. There would be no compulsory requirement to use these subcontractors.

The building consent team are already engaged with the architect and the project leaders to ensure that the building consent process runs as smoothly as possible.

A key issue for the council to therefore sign off on is the funding of this facility which is discussed below.

6.

OPTIONS The Council has three options available to it: Option 1 – adopt the recommendation as provided by staff; Option 2 – adopt but with amendments; Option 3 – decline to adopt the recommendation.

Staff support option one and therefore put forward the recommendation for adoption.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION Consultation has been undertaken regularly as stated above under the significance paragraph.

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS This proposed community centre is defined as a “hub” for the Rolleston Community Centre which is the keystone facility for this part of the District as determined in the halls and community centre strategy adopted in June 2013.

368 9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES A healthy community with recreational opportunities are being directly achieved by this project.

10.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS There are no major negative impacts and the Council has worked closely with community groups on the design of this particular project. Costs and funding issues are noted below.

11.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are none that have been identified.

12.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The project costing below was prepared as of August 2015 based on the preliminary design and has been subject to a QS. The costing includes a 10% construction contingency.

A breakdown of the project costs are as follows: Summary of project costs Main Building Contract Cost: Professional Services: Resource & Building Consent Fees Connections to power, water & phone New electrical supply New waste water system allowance Landscaping Car parking + stormwater + lighting Contingency

$1,978,000 $304,000 $50,000 $40,403 $69,263 $115,438 $123,807 $213,089 $289,000 $3,183,000

Note â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the balance of the 10% contingency is spread amongst other items.

369 The budget in the Long term Plan was $2.9 million so the project estimated cost is slightly higher than anticipated but is as per the steering committees brief.

The funding for this project can be summarised as follows: Funding Required Project cost Total

$3,183,000 $3,183,000

Funding is anticipated to be provided as follows: Surplus funds held in reserve account

$193,744

Reserve development contribution fund

$130,000

SDC grant - being 10% of total project cost

$318,300

Community Trust - granted

$150,000

Applications to organisations such as Lottery Grants Bd etc

$500,000

Insurance payout (held in cash - an interest credit to be applied yet)

$300,000

Ex Ellesmere Reserve funds (held in cash)

$244,000

Ellesmere Reserve Board grants (held in cash)

$75,000

Local Fundraising

$350,955

Loan for balance

$921,001 $3,183,000

Notes Loan term interest rate Dunsandel/Mead Community Centre rating units as at 1 July 2015 Loan for balance

20 6.0% 652 $921,001

Loan rate

$142

Annual Operating/Maintenance rate

$143

Total rate GST Inclusive

$285

Rate as per 2015-2025 Long Term Plan - at year 2024/2025

$261

The key points to note that with the project cost being $300,000 over budget, the rate per annum needs to increase from $261 in the 2024/2025 LTP to $285.

370 It should be noted that the LTP allows a gradual lift in rating levels per annum over a 10 year period to reach the level of $261, or the required $285.

Previous information on this build though focused on a total rate (i.e. loan and operating costs) of $161 so the above rates are well above the previous consultation.

One further point to note is that the local fundraising and expectation of grants from Lottery and Community Trust totals $1,000,955 or 31.4% of total project cost. Of this $228,955 is held in cash or granted/committed.

To date $78,955 of local fundraising (target $350,000) is either held in cash ($58,955) or committed being on an instalment payment of $20,000. A further $28,000 has identified donors who are yet to be formally signed up.

An application to Lottery Grants for $500,000 has been lodged with a reply on success expected in December. A previous application was declined and the new application has addressed the previous applications deficiencies. $150,000 from Community Trust has been granted.

A question arises as to what level of the local fundraising or grants needs to be confirmed before a tender could be accepted assuming the tender comes in on price.

If only $250,000 was received from Lottery and the loan lifted by $250,000 then the total rate lifts from $285 to $323. The committee are trying hard to fund raise but their targets are high and challenging.

The committee is passionate about their project.

Council staff have recognised this passion by allowing the project to continue through working drawings, building consent and to tender as the committee believe in simple terms that the pricing and fund raising will all come together.

The tender documentation though will recognise the funding challenges and thus acceptance, like any project, will be able to proceed if funding is in place.

13.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Other divisions of Council have been involved in the various aspects of design and consideration of this project.

DOUGLAS MARSHALL MANAGER PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL

371

372

373

374 REPORT TO:

Chief Executive

FOR:

Council Meeting– 25 November 2015

FROM:

Property and Commercial Manager

DATE:

16 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Update on West Melton Community Centre Progress

1.

RECOMMENDATION ‘That the Council receives the update report on West Melton Community Centre and request staff to undertake the following: a) b) c) d)

Continue with the detailed design process Lodge the building consent when appropriate Support the steering committee with their external fund raising Issue an information package to the community outlining the design, cost and funding e) Report back to the council in February 2016 on progress’ 2.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress with West Melton Community centre project.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT This matter has been assessed against the Significance and Engagement Policy and is considered a significance. It is assessed as a low to medium significance.

This project has already been consulted on within the Long Term Plan for 20122022 and 2015-2025 and regular communication with the community on progress.

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND A new community centre at West Melton was first identified in the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan to replace the existing hall. Since that time, a design and feasibility process has occurred.

Consulation has occurred on a number of occasions with letters and drop sessions for the public to provide their feedback.

375

Centra to the design process has been the project steering committee whose membership has been as follows: • Council • Community Board • Community hall • Reserve • Residents Association • Rugby • Scouts • Netball • Tennis • Gymnastics • Plunket • Playcentre • Football • Community members This steering committee has been charied by Bruce Russell who is currently a member of the Selwyn Central Community Board, Community Hall committee and long time West Melton resident.

The 2015-2025 Long Term Plan consultation resulted in submissions about how the scouts were to be accommodated within the new community centre but these issues have been overcome.

Most recently, the site has been moved from near the rugby clubrooms to a site behind the existing hall. This change has been able to be achieved with the recent purchase of land adjacent to the reserve and the hall.

This relocation also links in with the recently announced commercial development on SH73 which will be opposite the new community hall site, thus giving a building profile on both sides at the western end of West Melton signifying an urban area and thus encouraging traffic to slow to the proposed 60km/hour area through the middle of West Melton.

5.

PROPOSAL The proposed new community centre consists of: • • • • • • •

Foyer and entrance Stadium which is large enough to have a full basketball court with run off at each end. This includes bleacher type permanent seating for 200. This type of seating will be similar in form to that at the Selwyn Aquatic Centre 2 formal meeting rooms Youth/scout area Playcentre/plunket Kitchen 2 changing rooms which can be accessed from internally and externally

376 • • •

3 community/clubroom spaces Administration office Extension of existing carparking at hall (50 parks) to a total extended area of 130 carparks. There are also the carparks at the reserve.

Detailed designincluding a review process with staff involved with the Lincoln Events Centre and the development of Foster Park is currently underway.

There is some question about the number of planned meeting rooms is to many but with West Melton being a growing community, and the need to allow for some future proofing for growth, the planned number of meeting rooms is acceptable.

A question coulde also be raised about whether a full court verses a ¾ court for basketball is required but asgain the growing west Melton community would support this future proofing need.

With any new build that will be undertake within the District, a key consideration is to ensure that each build links in with existing facilities or compliments future facilities. The proposed community centre achieves both requriements.

The project is now working towards completed drawings so that tenders can be released and building consents can be lodged.

The building consent team are already engaged with the architect and the project leaders to ensure that the building consent process runs as smoothly as possible.

It should be noted that the existing community hall located on SH73 will remain in existence until this facility is open and then it will be demolished and removed.

A key issue for the council to therefore sign off on is the funding of this facility which is discussed below.

6.

OPTIONS The Council has three options available to it: Option 1 – adopt the recommendation as provided by staff; Option 2 – adopt but with amendments; Option 3 – decline to adopt the recommendation.

Staff support option one and therefore put forward the recommendation for adoption.

7.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION Consultation has been undertaken regularly as stated above under the significance paragraph.

377

8.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS This facility is part of the Hub and Spoke strategy of the Council and the halls and community centre strategy adopted in June 2013.

9.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES A healthy community with recreational opportunities are being directly achieved by this project.

10.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS There are no major negative impacts and the Council has worked closely with community groups on the design of this particular project. Costs and funding issues are noted below.

11.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are none that have been identified. One issue that is not legal but should be noted for the record is that of contamination on the recently purchased land which was identified during that land purchase and that contamination will be dealt with as part of this project during construction.

12.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The build costing below was prepared as of May 2015 based on the preliminary design and has been subject to a QS. They include 15% construction contingency.

A breakdown of the project costs are as follows:They also include staff estimates for:

378 Summary of project costs Main Building Contract Cost: Professional Services: Site Contamination Remediation (Est.) Resource & Building Consent Fees Kitchens fit out (light commercial) Curtains & Tracks CCTV IT Active Components Outdoor lighting over car park areas New electrical supply Connection to sewer Landscaping Car parking + stormwater Contingency / Additional Rebuild Tennis / Netball Courts x 6 (@$60k each)

$5,025,000 $622,896 $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $17,500 $10,000 $60,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $230,000 $6,645,396

The budget in the Long term Plan was $5.5 million so the build is much higher than anticipated but is as per the steering committees brief. The reason for the differenece relate to the larger than anticpated stadium and additional meetin g rooms.

The funding for this project can be summarised as follows: Funding Required Project cost Total

$6,645,396 $6,645,396

Funding is anticpated to be provided as follows: Surplus funds held in reserve account Reserve development contribution fund

$76,800 $2,500,000

SDC grant - being 10% of total project cost

$664,540

Contributions from Clubs - Grants etc

$100,000

Applications to organisations such as Community Trust/Lottery Grants Bd etc

$550,000

Ex Paparua special fund Loan for balance

$32,300 $2,721,756 $6,645,396

379 Notes Loan term

20 6.0% 1870

interest rate West Melton Community Centre rating units as at 1 July 2015 Loan for balance

$2,721,756

Loan rate Annual Operating/Maintenance rate

$146 $75

Total rate GST Inclusive

$221

Rate as per 2015-2025 Long Term Plan - at year 2024/2025

$222

The key points to note that although the project cost is $1.1 million over budget, the increase in rating base has meant that the rate to fund this project is effectively the same as per the LTP. The only difference is the timing with the LTP allowing a gradual lift in rating levels per annum over a 10 year period to reach the level of $222 whereas the calculation above is based on the rate of $221 being applied on opening day.

Accordingly a process of lifting the rates over a period of years could be used for this project although lifting the rate to the actual level required is more sensible.

Further more the rate of $221 per annum is calculated on 1,870 rateable untis whereas the Long Term Plan forecast by 2024/2025 is for 2,257 rating units or an additional $75,00 per annum to be used to fund the operating costs or debt repayment sooner.

One further point to note is that the clubs funding of $100,000 and Community Trust etc application estimated of $550,000 have not been applied for as yet and are the equivalent of approx 10% of the funding. If the funds were not received then the targeted rate would need to lift by $35 to fund the higher loan but obviously applications will be lodged when they are open.

13.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Other divisions of Council have been involved in the various aspects of design and consideration of this project.

DOUGLAS MARSHALL MANAGER PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL

380

381

382

383 REPORT

TO:

Chief Executive Officer

FOR:

Council Meeting, 25 November, 2015

FROM:

Lesley Symington, Community Services Manager

DATE:

18 November, 2015

SUBJECT:

Selwyn Sister Cities Committee: Report on the Inaugural Exchange With Sister City Coventry, Rhode Island, United States of America

1.

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Council accepts for information the report on the inaugural exchange with Sister City, Coventry, Rhode Island, United States of America, prepared and presented by the Chairperson of the Selwyn Sister Cities Committee, Mrs Allison Rosanowski.

2.

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide information and highlights of the recent trip to Coventry, Rhode Island, United States of America in October, by a party of seven Selwyn residents. The Chairperson of the Committee, Mrs Allison Rosanowski, will speak to the report.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT/COMPLIANCE STATEMENT Not significant

4.

HISTORY/BACKGROUND Selwyn District Council has Sister Cities relationships with Akitakata and Yubetsu, Japan; Shandan, China; Coventry, Rhode Island, USA and Toraja, Indonesia.

The Malvern Community Board manages the relationship with Yubetsu, Japan, and liaises with Darfield High School which undertakes student exchanges with two junior high schools in Yubetsu.

The Selwyn Sister City relationships are primarily for friendship and cultural exchange, and provide opportunities for Selwyn residents to experience another culture and broaden their experience of the world.

384

5.

INAUGURAL EXCHANGE VISIT The inaugural trip to Coventry was undertaken in October, 2015 by a party of seven Selwyn residents, including the Selwyn Mayor, Kelvin Coe and Mayoress Gem Coe, Councillor Nigel Barnett (who provided a report on the exchange at the 28 October Council meeting), and Nicola Barnett, Bill Woods and the Selwyn Sister Cities Chairperson, Mrs Allison Rosanowski and Paul Rosanowski.

Mrs Rosanowski’s report which outlines the highlights and outcomes of the exchange. This will be forwarded prior to today's meeting.

6.

VIEWS OF THOSE AFFECTED/CONSULTATION Selwyn members of the exchange group which made the trip to Coventry have been consulted as part of the preparation of the Selwyn Sister Cities Chairperson’s report.

7.

RELEVANT POLICY/PLANS Sister Cities Policy

8.

COMMUNITY OUTCOMES The Selwyn Sister Cities Committee and its work contributes to the following Council Community Outcomes: • A community which values its culture and heritage • A prosperous community • An educated community

9.

NEGATIVE IMPACTS Nil

10.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Nil

11.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The Council provides an annual amount of $5,000 for this activity. This used in the main for gifts, hosting Mayoral functions and some travel and hosting costs for visiting delegations. Larger delegations to Selwyn contribute significantly towards travel and hosting costs.

385

Selwyn residents who undertake trips to any of the Sister Cities are responsible for meeting all their own costs.

12.

HAS THE INPUT/IMPACT FROM/ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS BEEN CONSIDERED? Not applicable.

ENDORSED FOR AGENDA

LESLEY SYMINGTON MANAGER, COMMUNITY SERVICES

386 REPORT

TO:

Council

FOR:

Council Meeting – 25 November 2015

FROM:

Personal Assistant to Mayor

DATE:

12 November 2015

SUBJECT:

Register of Documents Signed & Sealed

1.

Documents Signed and Sealed Recommended: That the following transactions and the fixing of the Common Seal under authorised signatures be approved: Client Authority & Instruction Form 1.

Encumbrance of development contributions, 155 Brookside Road, Rolleston RC 135470 2.

Easement in Gross to drain water and convey sewage – Broadfield Estate, Liffey Springs, Lincoln RC 145482 3.

Easement in Gross for SDC to drain sewage over Lot 188 RC 125211 Stage 5 Newman Park 4.

Purchase Lot 1 DP 490851 550 Birchs Road, Lincoln – Claridge to SDC – Purchase is to accommodate a road linkage in ODP4 from Birchs Road into the balance of ODP4 Deed of Licence 5.

John James Van Nus & Hayley Louise Saunders – Reserve 3048 and Reserve 4349 3.4ha Hut Settlement 6.

Southern Pastures (Kenburn Farm) L.P. – Reserve 4625 North Rakaia Road, Mead 2.0234 ha 7.

D W & J I Syme – Gazetted Water Race Reserve 1329 cnr Kimberley & Tramway Road 0.4148 ha Fencing Covenant 8.

Newman Incorporation Ltd – RC 125211. To indemnify council from any responsibility towards fencing on reserves.

Bernadette Ryan PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO MAYOR