MINUTES

Policy Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

 


Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

11 February 2020

 

Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5          Change to Order of Business. 3

6          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

7          Business. 4

7.1            2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust 4

7.2            Amendment of Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy. 4

7.3            Approval of Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy 2020. 5

7.4            Standing Orders. 6

7.5            Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy. 9

7.6            Hearing of submissions on the draft Coastal Structures Policy. 9

8          Discussion of Late Items. 13

 

 


Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

11 February 2020

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Policy Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Tuesday, 11 February 2020 AT 9am

 

PRESENT:              Cr Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger (by audio link), Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Steve Morris (by audio link), Cr John Robson and Cr Tina Salisbury.

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Anne Blakeway (Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance), Jane Barnett (Policy Analyst), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Emma Joyce (Policy Analyst), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor).

 

1            Apologies

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/1

Moved:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That apologies from Dr Wayne Beilby for the meeting and Mayor Tenby Powell for lateness be received and accepted.

Carried

Cr Larry Baldock advised the Chairperson of his possible early departure.

 

2            Public Forum 

Nil

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to Order of Business

 Nil

6            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

7            Business

7.1         2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

 

Key points

·         The report was taken as read.  Sought approval for the process to appoint two new trustees to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and to appoint the members of the Appointment Panel.

 

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/2

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the 2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust report and attachment.

(b)     Initiates the process to recruit two new trustees to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust Board for terms of three years, from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2023.

(c)     Appoints the following to the appointment panel:

(i)      Peter Anderson, Chair for Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, or his nominee.

(ii)     Councillor Kelvin Clout and Councillor Tina Salisbury for Tauranga City Council (TCC).

(d)     Approves the appointment of Jo Bond as the independent appointment panel member.

(e)     Confirms the skills, knowledge and experience required for the two new Tauranga Art Gallery Trust trustee positions.

Carried

 

7.2         Amendment of Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

 

Key points

·         Outlined the recommended changes to the Policy; were generally small changes to make the process more practicable.

 

In response to questions

·         Clarification was sought regarding the process of identification of a candidate amongst existing Board members for the position of Chairperson.  The process would be based on a recommendation from the Board to appoint a current Board member as Chairperson; would still come to Council for appointment but not through an appointment panel.

·         Clarification was sought around the delegation to the Chief Executive rather than the process being fully managed by the full governance body.  The delegation was more to allow an appointment process to be completed when Council was unavailable e.g. during an election interregnum or a civil defence incident.  Ultimate decision would still come to Council.

·         The delegated process would still be a robust process and provide rigour to the appointment.  The final decision still rested with Council.

 

 

 

Discussion points raised

·         Appointment of an existing Board member as Chairperson would need to be managed carefully in case the recommendation was rejected when it came to Council.

·         Any delegation transferred authority from the governance body to management; was a need to be clear about the limits of the delegation to ensure the organisation was not open to challenge.

·         Highlighted the need to ensure that policy and practice align.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/3

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the Amendment of Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy Report.

(b)     Adopts the revised Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy (Attachment 1), including amendments to clauses 4.4 and 4.7, with immediate effect.

(c)     Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to approve the skills, knowledge and experience sought for Council Organisation board appointments, along with the appointment panel composition, subject to consulting with the Mayor.

In Favour:       Cr Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Heidi Hughes, Steve Morris and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson.

carried 9/2

 

7.3         Approval of Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy 2020

Staff:         Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst  

 

Key points

·         A decision was required regarding the amount to include in the Policy for hearings panel member allowances.

·         There would be a further report to Council regarding the composition of the City Plan Hearings Committee.  Hearings would be in 2021. 

·         Hearings payment did not apply to regulatory hearings such as dog hearings; but only to resource management hearing processes.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Councillors were already paid for a full-time job; a councillor on a hearings panel might have to drop other council duties if the hearings workload became too heavy.

·         It was up to a Hearings Panel member whether a hearings allowance was claimed.

Committee Recommendation 

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Approves councillors who participate in hearings being entitled to claim an allowance at a rate of the minimum wage per hour for being a member of a hearings panel and the minimum wage per hour for Chair of the panel.

(b)     Adopt the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2020 to replace the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2016.

The following amendment was put.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/4

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That “to claim an allowance at a rate of the minimum wage per hour” be changed to “to claim an allowance at a rate of the current living wage per hour”.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Steve Morris, Kelvin Clout and Bill Grainger

8/3

Carried

The substantive motion was then put.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/5

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Approves councillors who participate in hearings being entitled to claim an allowance at a rate of the current living wage per hour for being a member of a hearings panel and the current living wage per hour for Chair of the panel.

carried

(b)     Adopts the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2020 to replace the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2016.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

Carried

 

7.4         Standing Orders

Staff:         Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services 

 

Key points

·         Summarised key conclusions from the Standing Orders training undertaken.

·         Noted areas of meeting process that were discussed and direction given by councillors.

·         Explained the concepts of collective responsibility and collaborative disagreement.

·         Noted key areas for decisions within the proposed Standing Orders before adoption.

·         Noted the differences between voting options.

·         Outlined the change to the definition of “Leave of absence” in the proposed Standing Orders, which aligned with Council’s Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy.

·         Leave of absence would be recorded as an apology in the meeting minutes.  Meeting minutes would record if a member’s apology for a meeting was due to being on other council business.

·         Noted the inclusion of the delegation to the Chief Executive during an election hiatus.

 

In response to questions

·         The words  “for clarification” in Standing Order 13.4 could be removed without impact.

·         Considered that a privacy issue was raised if reasons for leave of absence, such as sickness, were required to be recorded in meeting minutes; and advised that a leave of absence should be recorded simply as an apology with no reason needed or noted.

·         Clarification was sought regarding the reading of speeches in Chambers.  Members could read a pre-prepared speech if they wished to do so.

·         Clarification was provided around options available in a meeting to free up speaking restrictions; there was flexibility within Standing Orders to change rules for a debate.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Emphasised the importance of free speech and respect of the opinions of others.

·         Important to maintain privacy of elected members and to be cautious about publishing personal information.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the Standing Orders report;

carried

 

(b)     Recommends to the Council the adoption of the Standing Orders in Appendix 1 which includes:

(i)      Amended Principle 1.1 to include “Free speech: members will respect the diversity of thought and opinion that are part of a healthy democracy”.

carried

 

(ii)     Members’ and public deputations right to attend by audio- or audio-visual link (Standing Orders 13.7 to 13.16).

carried

 

(iii)     Casting vote provision for the Mayor or Chairperson, or any other person presiding at a meeting (Standing Order 19.3)

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Cr John Robson

carried 10/1

 

(iv)    Option B (medium) as the default provision for speaking and moving motions. (Standing Order 22.1).

carried

 

(v)     Delegating to the Mayor the power to grant a leave of absence for Councillors in order to protect a members’ privacy (Standing Order 13.3) and a new definition of leave of absence to read “Leave of absence is a period of time, approved by the Mayor, for which an elected member is on leave from the duties of being an elected member.”

carried

 

(vi)    Amend Standing Order 13.4 by deleting “For clarification, the acceptance of a member’s apology constitutes a grant of “leave of absence” for that meeting.

carried

 

(vii)   Amend Standing Order 13.5 to include:

              (i)       the minutes will record if a member is absent from the meeting on Council business.

carried

 

               (ii)      The minutes will record if the member is absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control.

 

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

lost 5/6

 

The wording of Recommendation (vii) (ii) was changed and, with the agreement of the mover and seconder, was then put as reworded:

               (ii)      The minutes may record at the member’s request if the member is absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control.

carried

 

(viii)   Delegating to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period the authority to make decisions on urgent matters that cannot wait until the first meeting of the new Council. (New Standing Order 6.6).

carried

 

(ix)    Time limit on movers of motions when speaking to the motion is reduced from 10 minutes to five minutes (Standing Order 21.2)

carried

 

(x)     Adding that a procedural motion to close or adjourn debate can be taken after two speakers have spoken for the motion and two against or, in the chairperson’s opinion, it is reasonable to accept the closure motion (Standing Order 25.1).

 

In Favour:       Cr Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Steve Morris and John Robson

carried 9/2

 


 

 

7.5         Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Staff:         Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Rob Wickman, Compliance Officer: Building and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms

 

Key points

·         Four submissions were received and chapter two of the report detailed the issues that had been identified in the submissions.

·         The costs of investigating dangerous and insanitary buildings were not available and were consequent on many factors such as staffing, resources, and funding.

·         There were no buildings in Tauranga City Council’s jurisdiction which fell into the category of dangerous and insanitary buildings.

·         Staff had advised that the issue of chronic hoarders was best dealt with under the Health Act 1956 and relevant bylaws.

 

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/7

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the written submissions to the draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (Attachment One).

(b)     Adopts the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy 2020 (Attachment Three) pursuant to section 131 of the Building Act 2004 and for the policy to take effect from 18 February 2020.

(c)     Rescinds the Dangerous, Earthquake-prone and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011, effective from 18 February 2020.

(d)     Authorises the Chief Executive, or their delegate, to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions that may be required before the policy is published.

Carried

 

1.08pm       Meeting adjourned.

 

2.00pm       Meeting reconvened.

 

At 2:00pm, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

 

7.6         Hearing of submissions on the draft Coastal Structures Policy

Staff:         Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

 

Key points

·         Submissions were received and heard in Chambers.

·         Report was taken as read and there was no further discussion on the report.

 

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/8

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the written and verbal submissions on the draft Coastal Structures Policy.

Carried

Hearings

1.            Sub ID: 13, 48 – Chris Doms

 

A copy of the PowerPoint for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

 

Key points

·         Discussed excessive encroachment by residents of Forrester Drive esplanade within reserve land.

·         Ratepayers had paid for seawalls which were being used exclusively by private residents because they had concerns about the security of their property; however, there were many houses that had boundaries over the reserves yet did not restrict access.

·         The motivation of those residents who attempted to build fences on reserve land was not known but such structures would contravene Tauranga City Council policies.

·         The submitter had received 295 responses to his post on Facebook on the issue.

·         The waterfront and esplanade would benefit with better usage of walkways and cycle lanes.

 

2.            Sub ID: 68 – Mike Olsen

 

A copy of the PowerPoint for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

 

Key points

·         Submitter had agreed to waive his legal privilege when presenting the legal opinion contained in the presentation.

·         There was a gap in the Council’s strategy and policy in protecting seaside reserves because seawall(s) were not included in the building consent process.

·         Structure consenting was a difficult process and had lost credibility because questions that were raised had not been answered effectively.  

·         There were concerns and issues specific to reserves which necessitated a policy to provide guidance.

·         The seawall was unconsented and an offer by residents to maintain it themselves was rejected.

·         There were serious concerns of slips in the area and Tauranga City Council was looking into these.

·         No decisions had been made on whether the walkway remained on the reserve or went across the water supported on pilings.

 

3.            Sub ID: 38 – Mark Apeldoorn

 

A copy of the PowerPoint and supporting document for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

 

Key points

·         The submitter had supported the policy and acknowledged challenges that Tauranga City Council faced.

·         The policy, in its current form, was not collaborative with residents’ wishes because it was defending the esplanade and not the properties.

·         In the observation of the submitter, there had been loss of approximately ten metres of the foreshore area in twenty years (the information was sourced from analysing Google Earth satellite time-lapse images).

·         Some areas of the esplanade in Matua had stone walls or other types of coastal structures while other areas did not because of land ownership limitations. 

·         Considered that a simple and inexpensive coastal structure known as sand sausages could help the harbour recover without causing damage to the natural habitat.

 

4.            Sub ID: 52 – John Little

 

·         Submitter had cancelled his appointment.

 

5.            Sub ID: 73 – Danielle Fong

 

A copy of the PowerPoint for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

 

Key points

·         The policy was confusing and complex; many landowners did not know what the policy meant for them and this had been further complicated due to mixed messages and information from different points of contact in Tauranga City Council (TCC).

·         The submitter had emphasised that sea level rise must be taken into consideration in any discussion regarding coastal structures.

·         For the landowners, the cost of maintaining the seawall including a walkway was untenable.

·         The submitter stated that TCC had to fund the maintenance of any coastal structures and look for innovative ways in doing so as well as provide guidance and support to landowners.

·         The seawall  was being breached during normal high tide with medium winds and this had caused erosion.

·         The submitter believed that constructing a 1.5metre wide walkway in the area would be dangerous due to the seawall breaches which would make the walkway slippery.

·         Considered there would be frequent storm events that would cause significant damage to any coastal structure and therefore the policy had to be futureproofed; otherwise TCC would end up spending money on remedial works regularly.

·         Landowners did not have the funds and knowledge to maintain a seawall or the engineering knowledge required to make resource or building consents for coastal structures.

·         Where an iwi had customary rights, they had the prerogative and right to deny any resource consents.

 

6.            Sub ID: 37 – Ray Lowe

 

Key points

·         Sea level rise and climate change were real concerns and the policy had to take these into consideration in order to mitigate any future damages to coastal structures.

·         A hundred years was not long; grandchildren would still be alive, and the decisions made today would have an impact on their future and the future of others.

·         Tidal movements were causing soil erosion and storm surges were breaching the current seawall which had undermined the integrity of the structure.

·         The sewer line and pumping station were important infrastructures and would face inundation damage due to sea level rise.  

·         The submitter offered mitigating options of either a steel sheet wall that could be rammed into the ground with fifty percent being above ground or a three-metre-high dike if 1.59 metres of sea level rise was predicted in a hundred years.

 

7.            Sub ID: 14 – Neville Nicholson

 

·         Submitter had cancelled his appointment.

 

 

3.09pm       Meeting adjourned.

3.25pm       Meeting reconvened.

 

8.            Sub ID: 59 – Kate (Cogito Trust)

 

Key points

·         Implications of the policy in terms of how it affected the landowners had been poorly communicated by Council.

·         Submitted that the cost analysis should have investigated targeted rates to fund Council’s plans for coastal structures.

·         The policy was a one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that required a tailored approach to multiple impacted areas and many landowners.

·         The central government, through the Resource Management Act 1991, outlined the statutory requirements to provide walkways, and local government policy had to operate within that.

·         The council should further investigate what other cities were doing to address similar issues and Tauranga had to take the lead in this area with innovative and collaborative solutions.

 

 

3.38pm       Meeting adjourned.

4.04pm       Meeting reconvened.

 

9.            Sub ID: 57 – Paul Hickson (on behalf of Malibu Hamilton)- Surfbreak Protection Society and Paul Shanks (President - Surfbreak Protection Society)

 

A copy of the Tabled documents for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

 

Key points

·         The Council had failed to adhere to the tenets of the Resource Management Act 1991 where areas of archaeological and cultural significance were concerned.

·         Surfbreak Protection Society had supported the need for public access and walkways in coastal areas.

·         The Society believed that hard coastal structures would impact on swell corridors and hydrological movements.

·         Hard coastal structures also had the potential to impact on the natural landscape of the area due to excavations and dredging.

·         Surf breaks were protected areas and their natural formation should not be tampered with by installing hard structures.

·         Shark Alley and the Kaituna groynes were examples of the dangers of installing unnatural structures, such as a swimming pool, and lessons could be learnt from these examples.

·         The success of the surf break at Wainui Beach in Gisborne was a good example of how surf break protection had been taken into policy consideration of coastal structures and made to work in the favour of everyone.

·         There had been several surf break impact assessments which Council could use as a resource during their deliberations on coastal structures.

 

Attachments

1        Chris Doms - Presentation

2        Mike Olsen - Presentation

3        Mike Olsen - Presentation Supporting Document

4        Mark Apeldoorn - Presentation

5        Danielle Fong - Presentation

6        Surfbreak Protection Society - Tabled item 1

7        Surfbreak Protection Society - Tabled item 2

 

8            Discussion of Late Items

Nil

 

The meeting closed at 4.20pm

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Policy Committee meeting held on 16 June 2020.

 

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON