6 Business
6.1 Delegations
relating to the Resource Management Act 1991 and COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track
Consenting) Act 2020
File Number: A11803664
Author: Janine
Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning
Daniel Smith, Manager:
Environmental Planning
Authoriser: Barbara
Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance
Purpose of the Report
1. To
delegate some of Council’s functions, powers and duties relating to local
authority’s recognition of national planning standards under section
58(I) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the ability to nominate a
person to be part of the expert consenting panel to be set up as outlined under
the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 (COVID-19 Act) to
Council Staff.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Receive
the Report – Delegations relating to the Resource Management Act 1991
and COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020.
(b) Amends
the Resource Management Act 1991 delegations specified in Attachment 1.
(c) Make
the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 delegation specified
in Attachment 2.
|
Executive Summary
2. Amendments
to the RMA to introduce the National Planning Standards and the creation of the
COVID-19 Act require delegations to staff.
3. The
purpose of staff delegations is to provide appropriate authority to staff to
enable them to perform their job to ensure the organisation can function
effectively and efficiently.
4. Central
Government introduced the national planning standards, which were gazetted on 3rd
of May 2019.
5. Section
58(I) under the RMA provides for local authorities’ recognition of
national planning standards. In accordance with section 58(I), a local
authority must amend each of its documents to include specific provisions and
ensure consistency with the national planning standard. Under the mandatory
directions contained in Section 58(I), such amendments must be made without
using a Schedule 1 process under the RMA.
6. The
functions and powers of Council under Section 58(I) of the RMA rest with
Council’s governing body unless and until they are delegated. Existing delegations
do not cover section 58I) of the RMA. It is recommended that the functions and
powers under Section 58(I) of the RMA is delegated by Council to the Chief
Executive, which is included as Attachment 1.
7. Central
Government gazetted the COVID-19 Act on 9 July 2020. The COVID-19 Act
introduces a short-term alternative consenting pathway to that set out in the
Resource Management Act 1991 to fast track projects that can boost employment
and economic.
8. Schedule
5 of the Act provides details around the make-up and appointment of an expert
consenting panel to make decisions on projects that meet the criteria to be
assessed under the Act. Section 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 requires that the panel
must include one person nominated by the relevant local authorities. It is
recommended that the ability to nominate a person to be part of the expert
consenting panel is delegated by Council to the Chief Executive, which is
included as Attachment 2.
Background
National Planning Standards
9. Central
Government introduced national planning standards to make council plans and
policy statements easier to prepare, understand and comply with. The first set
of planning standards came into force on 3 May 2019.
10. The
National Planning Standards sets out implementation timeframes and mandatory
directions. The mandatory directions mean that local authorities must amend
their district plans to be consistent with the requirements of the planning
standards without going through a normal RMA Schedule 1 process (notification,
submission and hearings etc).
11. Local
authorities may also make consequential amendments, required as a result of
implementing the standards, without an RMA Schedule 1 process.
Consequential amendments (under RMA section 58I(3)(d)) are additional amendments
that are required to remove duplication, or conflict in policy
statements/plans. Where the proposed changes go beyond consequential amendments
an RMA Schedule 1 process (plan change process) must be used.
12. The
amendments required to implement mandatory directions in a planning standard
must be publicly notified once they have been made to inform the public that
this has been completed.
13. The
same level of delegation is already provided in Council’s Delegation
Manual for similar requirements under the RMA (where a Schedule 1 process is
not required). It is considered appropriate to include the same delegations
under section 58(I) of the RMA to the Chief Executive as included in Attachment
1.
COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020
14. The
COVID-19 Act came into effect on 9 July to introduce a short-term consenting
process. The COVID-19 Act is intended to:
(a) fast-track
resource consenting and designation processes for eligible projects that are
already planned and ready to go;
(b) accelerate
the beginning of work on a range of different sized and located projects;
(c) support
certainty of ongoing employment and investment across New Zealand;
(d) continue
to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
15. The
COVID-19 Act establishes three pathways for a project to access the fast-track
consenting and notice of requirement process. The criteria for eligibility are
set out in Section 18 of the Act and whether Section 19 includes criteria for
the Minister to consider on whether a project will help to achieve the purpose
of this Act.
16. Schedule
5 of the COVID-19 Act provides details around the make-up and appointment of
expert consenting panels which will make decision on projects that meet the
criteria to be considered under the Act. Section 3(2)(a) of Schedule 5 requires
that the panel must include one person nominated by the relevant local
authorities. That person may, but need not, be an elected member. Within the
same Schedule, Section 7 outlines requirements for the skills and members of
the panel. The panel must, collectively, have:
1.
(a) the knowledge, skills, and expertise relevant to resource
management issues; and
2.
(b) the technical expertise relevant to the project; and
3.
(c) expertise in tikanga Māori and mātauranga
Māori.
17. When
making decision under the COVID-19 Act, proposed and operative planning
documents (Regional Policy Statement and City Plan) are considered.
18. Persons
must be accredited under section 39A of the RMA (Making Good Decisions
Programme) to be eligible for appointment as a panel member unless appointed by
the panel convenor to meet the requirements of 16(a), (b), and (c) above.
19. The
same level of delegation is already provided in Council’s Delegation
Manual for similar requirements under the RMA to hear and determine resource
consent applications. It is recommended that the ability
to nominate a person to be part of the expert consenting panel is delegated by
Council to the Chief Executive as included in Attachment 2.
20. Staff
would then make a recommendation to the Chief Executive on whom should sit on
the panel based on the purpose of the Act and the eligibility criteria for
decision makers included above.
21. The
monitoring functions in relation to any consent granted under the COVID-19 Act
still sits with Council, as with resource consents granted under the RMA
process. It will be important that any consent granted is consistent with best
practice and has clear, enforceable conditions.
22. Staff
note that Council will have other opportunities (beyond nominating a panel
appointee) to input into the decision-making process under the Act. For
example, the panel must invite comments from (among others) the local
authorities as part of the decision-making process.
Strategic / Statutory Context
23. Necessary
to enable Council to operate efficiently.
Options Analysis
24. The
following options are considered:
25. Pass
the resolutions to make the delegations specified in Attachment 1
(recommended).
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· Enables staff to perform
their job in relation to new legislation and amendments to existing
legislation.
· Ensures that staff can
respond quickly to timeframes set out in the COVID-19 Act.
· The same level of delegation
already sits with the Chief Executive for mandatory requirements under the
RMA.
|
· None
|
26. Do
not pass the resolutions to make the delegations.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· None
|
· As timeframes for fast
tracking consents under the COVID-19 Act are extremely tight the ability for
Council to respond is unlikely.
· Meeting mandatory
requirements under the National Planning Standards will be delayed.
|
Financial Considerations
27. There
are no financial implications to this report.
Legal Implications / Risks
28. No
legal implications or risks are identified with the recommendations.
Consultation / Engagement
29. Council’s
decision to delegate its authority is an administrative/operational matter and
therefore does not require community consultation.
Significance
30. The
matters contained in this report have no significance under Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
Next Steps
31. Council
will consider and respond to any fast-track consents referred from the Minister
for comment.
32. Council
will progress necessary updates to the Tauranga City Plan to meet the mandatory
requirements within the National Planning Standards.
Attachments
1. Resource Management Act
1991 Delegations - Section 58(I) (proposed) - A11804064 ⇩ 
2. COVID-19 Recovery
(Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 Delegations - Schedule 5 (proposed) -
A11804925 ⇩
6.2 Progressing the Civic Precinct Master Plan
File
Number: A11742365
Author: Brigid
McDonald, Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. This report seeks Council
endorsement of a strategy to progress a Civic Precinct Master Plan that will
set the direction for the development of the city centre civic site over time,
for the betterment of the city centre and the wider Tauranga community. A
reframed advisory and decision-making structure and clarity of roles is a key
component in helping progress the setting of strategic direction and investment
in this part of the city.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Receives this report,
Progressing the Civic Precinct Master Plan;
(b) Approves the advisory and
decision-making framework and roles set out in this report for the purpose of
reviewing, confirming and implementing a master plan for the Civic Precinct,
specifically:
(i) Council’s role
being to receive advice from the project team (including recommendations of
the Project Advisory Board and feedback from the Reference Group), and make
decisions on strategic direction and redevelopment on a case-by-case basis,
limited to strategy, cost and timing;
(ii) A Project Advisory Board
who will consider information from the project team, test this against the strategic
direction set by Council, apply their expertise, and recommend complying
projects for approval;
(iii) A Reference Group who will
inform Council’s project team on matters of local / community
perspective and expertise.
(iv) The disestablishment of the
Technical Advisory Group; and
(v) Approves the steps outlined
in this report to progress the master plan for the Civic Precinct.
(c) Retain Attachment 3 of this
report in the confidential section to maintain legal professional privilege
and to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage,
commercial activities.
|
Executive Summary
2. In June 2018, Council
approved a master plan for the Civic Precinct (defined below) as
“indicative”; the intent being to revise the master plan in the
future in response to requirements of the Heart of the City Programme.
3. A masterplan provides a
clear blueprint for an area showing how space will be allocated to specific
facilities and activities. This provides a framework that guides the
future development of the site.
4. For the purposes of this
report, the “Civic Precinct” comprises the following properties:
(a) 21-41 Durham Street (also
known as the TV3 site);
(b) The block bounded by Willow,
Hamilton, Durham and Wharf Streets; and
(c) Masonic Park and adjacent car
park (between Willow Street and The Strand).
5. For various reasons,
little progress has been made to progress the master plan since June 2018.
However, this Council has indicated a willingness to progress and support the
revision and implementation of a master plan that meets the needs of our
growing and evolving community.
6. The key driver for a
revised master plan is the opportunity to maximise outcomes from development of
this area with coordinated delivery of identified community facilities. We have
an opportunity to develop the area, create a vibrant civic precinct, and
stimulate investment in and activate the city centre.
7. Relevant context for
endorsing this strategy includes the current dilapidated state of the existing
buildings, projected population growth, and the increasing need to accommodate
community facilities that meet the needs of our current and future community.
8. Alternatively, “no
decision” would be a strategy in its own right. This would mean
disregarding growth and the need to provide for the wellbeing of future
communities, and not taking this material option to stimulate activity in the
city centre.
Background
9. An overview of the recent
history to the Civic Precinct redevelopment concept was contained in Max
Pedersen’s report to the Council on 24 March 2020. That report noted the
concept of a redeveloped Tauranga civic centre on the site bordered by Willow,
Wharf, Durham and Hamilton Streets dates back some way. More recently it is
founded on the City Centre Strategy 2012. Within the Strategy, this site is
identified as the civic precinct which is to be the cultural and community
focus of the city centre.
10. Part of the Strategy focused on the
civic precinct and envisaged redevelopment to include new Council
administration buildings, a new library, flat floor space, an upgraded Baycourt
and the Art Gallery, and the creation of a new City Square. This was to be the
cultural heart of the region.
11. The intention to develop new civic
facilities on the site is continued in the Tauranga City Centre Spatial
Framework 2017.
12. From the above strategic direction
arose the Council’s previous Heart of the City (HOTC) Programme, which
included master planning the site as a new civic precinct on which new civic
facilities, including a civic administration building (CAB), library and other
civic facilities, would be developed.
13. In March-April 2017, Council
established a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to guide the delivery of the HOTC
Programme of work and advise on the Civic Centre, following a resolution of the
6 September 2016 Council Civic Space Options deliberation meeting.
14. The objective of the TAG was to
provide design advice that will maximise the delivery of more vibrant, safe and
successful city centre, improved value for money for the community, local and
regional economic development, and to encourage more people to visit the city
centre and stay longer. The TAG was to inform Council decision-making on all
public developments at framework and individual development level. It sat
within the HOTC Programme and reported directly to the former City
Transformation Committee and Council with recommendations.
15. The HOTC project team development
business cases for a library, museum and performance venue, and these were
approved by Council at the time.
16. Under the HOTC Programme, the
Council has also entered into a partnering agreement with Willis Bond (July
2018) which would apply to the redevelopment of the site.
17. The Partnering Agreement grants
Willis Bond priority negotiation rights in respect of a number of specified
developments within the city centre, including the CAB and a library in the
civic precinct. This means that Willis Bond holds the rights to engage with
Council in priority to, and to the exclusion of, any other third party for the
purpose of negotiating and endeavouring to reach an agreement about the
construction of those specified developments. The priority negotiation rights
also include the development of a hotel on the Durham Street site.
18. Much of the content of the following
table, which sets out the key decision points relating to the master planning
project and the potential development of the site, was produced in Mr
Pedersen’s March 2020 report:
|
Date
|
Decision
|
|
June 2015
|
The Council resolved to commence a strategic assessment of
the issues and opportunities associated with the future of the civic campus
buildings.
|
|
April 2016
|
The Council agreed that staff should prepare a business
case for civic space options based on the master plan (option 3) developed by
architects Warren and Mahoney and landscape architects LandLab.
|
|
June 2016
|
The Council considered the business case that had been
prepared and agreed to consult on a proposed change to the LTP based on the
business case which included the development of a new CAB on the site.
|
|
Sept 2016
|
The Council adopted an amendment to the LTP (2015 –
2025) to include a number of projects including: “Work with the private
sector to deliver a new Civic Administration Building for Council to lease on
the 91 Willow St land. $22.3m in capital costs plus an ongoing lease cost
($2.5m/annum)”
|
|
Sept 2016
|
The Council adopted the Warren and Mahoney / LandLab
developed master plan as proposed as a reference design that subsequent
phases and alternative proposals could be tested against on a merit basis to “meet
or better”. The master plan is attached as Appendix 2.
|
|
Feb 2018
|
The Council accepted in principle the master plan
developed by Willis Bond. This master plan is attached as Appendix
3.
|
|
June 2018
|
The Council approved the partnering agreement with Willis
Bond and approved the master plan “for the purpose of
the project, but on the basis that the master plan is
‘indicative’ and currently needs to be revised and in the future
amended as necessary in response to requirements of the Project during the
Term”.
The Council approved the following funding within the LTP
2018-2028:
CAB fit-out $19.7m
New central library: $40.5m
Civic plaza: $4.1m
|
|
Sept 2019
|
The Council considered a proposal to commission a
feasibility report to develop a CAB (and bus facility) at 21 Durham Street.
The proposal was left to lie on the table. The minutes do not explain why it
was left to lie on the table, but it is noted that the proposal was
inconsistent with both the Warren and Mahoney / LandLab and
“indicative” Willis Bond developed master plans.
The Council also considered a third-party development
consortium proposal to sell 21 Durham Street for the purpose of a hotel
development. This proposal was left to lie on the table.
|
19. As Mr Pedersen concluded, despite
the fact that the Council has entered into a partnering agreement with Willis
Bond and has provided funding within its LTP, the reality is that the master
planning of the Willow Street precinct is little further ahead than it was in
2015/16.
20. In relation to the civic precinct
and master planning, on 24 March 2020, Council resolved (Resolution CO4/20/8)
to proceed “to implement its resolution of 28 June 2018 (M18/56.14) to
revise the master plan for the Willow Street Precinct, commencing with a
Council workshop assisted by an independent facilitator to gain clarity about
the Council's aspirations for the site and to agree expected timeframes and the
governance structure for the review.”
21. On 30 June 2020, Council endorsed “Elected
Member participation in workshops to clarify Council’s aspirations for
the civic precinct area and ascertain any further engagement and planning work
needed” (Resolution CO14/20/12).
22. Two Executive Briefings occurred in
July and August 2020, involving Council’s Executive and Elected Members;
the discussions having guided the content of this report and a related report
regarding confirmation of one location for Council’s civic office
accommodation.
Proposed decision-making and advisory structures
23. To support progress, a refreshed
decision-making and advisory structure for the Civic Precinct is proposed.
Refer Attachment 1 for diagrams illustrating the proposed framework and
outline of roles.
24. Two new groups are proposed; a
project advisory board and a reference group, to inform staff work and Council
decision-making regarding the Civic Precinct, particularly the refresh of the
master plan. Council would retain its decision-making responsibilities for
matters of strategy, and the timing and extent of funding, and would receive
advice and recommendations from these groups via Council’s project team.
25. The advantage of this structure is
that it allows Council’s elected members to operate at a governance
level, whilst the operational detail is done by the project team and expert
advisors, thereby reducing the touch points for delay (for example, differences
of opinion as to precise location on site, design, and staging of the
developments).
26. A summary of the roles and
responsibilities of the key parties:
Council (Elected Members)
(a) It is proposed that Council
Elected Members’ roles regarding the Civic Precinct master plan and
implementation is to set strategic direction, and timing / nature / extent of
funding.
Council’s
Project Team (Council staff and consultants)
(b) This team would develop
business cases for civic facilities, undertake development agreement
negotiations, lead project feasibility testing, have responsibility for project
design and delivery (informed by Council strategy, PAB recommendations and
Reference Group advice), and ensuring effective and timely PAB engagement.
Project
Advisory Board
(c) The Project Advisory Board
would to provide independent overview, advice and direction to the Elected
Members and staff responsible for the management and administration of a programme
of master planning and redevelopment of Council-owned city centre properties
(Civic Precinct).
(d) A draft Terms of Reference is
included at Attachment 2. Proposed scope includes:
(i) Assisting Council to
develop the masterplan strategy (see item 31).
(ii) Identifying projects /
facilities for inclusion in the masterplan and recommending the order in which
they should be delivered;
(iii) Endorsing reviewed/refreshed
master plan;
(iv) Establishing / advising on criteria
for redevelopment – scope, scale, function of key components and their
interrelationships, staging/prioritisation;
(v) Providing direction or
approving master plan development activities as required, including gateway
approval to recommendations to Council;
(vi) Advising on staging of projects
within the programme to ensure practical and financially sustainable
implementation;
(vii) Supporting Council staff on the
project by providing specialist knowledge and expertise.
(e) The Chief Executive would
determine the appropriate number of members relative to expertise required and
administrative workability. Key areas of expertise for membership would include
urban planning knowledge, development (including developing scoping and
costing) knowledge, tangata whenua (hapu) representatives and other expertise
relative to the work being undertaken.
(f) The appointment process
would be delegated to the Chief Executive. This could be a closed process for
identifying suitable candidates for short-listing, interview and appointment.
(g) If Council approves the
recommendations of this report, a PAB could be in place as soon as suitable
candidates are selected, ideally within 4-6 weeks.
Reference
Group
(h) A Reference Group of local
stakeholders and community representatives is proposed, to provide an enhanced
community connection and allow input from a range of skillsets and perspectives
beyond the focus of the PAB. This Group could be loosely defined and called on
collectively or individually depending on the subject issues requiring
consideration.
(i) The Reference Group
would provide input to the PAB.
(j) Proposed representation
includes Priority One, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Tauranga Chamber of
Commerce / Downtown Tauranga, professional design / architectural
representation.
(k) It is proposed there is no
specified mandate for the Reference Group. Their role is one of feedback /
other key perspectives, communication and support.
27. It is for Council to determine the
scope of Elected Member roles in relation to these groups, including whether
one or more Elected Members sit as part of the PAB or Reference Group, for
example, as an observer/guide as to Council thinking and requirements for
decision-making.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
28. In light of the refreshed focus on
the Civic Precinct and the importance of progressing this master planning work
whilst ensuring prudent use of funds, it is recommended that the TAG be
disestablished, with the governance and advisory bodies proposed above
taking on the roles previously undertaken by TAG.
PROGRESSING THE master plan – STRATEGY
29. This report recommends Council
approval to proceed with the master planning process for the Civic Precinct.
Should Council agree to progressing the master plan, the next step will be for
Council to determine strategic priorities – what is required, what does a
successful civic precinct have in the future? (Noting Willis Bond’s job
to is to deliver facilities in accordance with the criteria established in the
Partnering Agreement.) This first step will be important to inform the LTP.
30. Setting the strategic direction will
also require other related decisions to guide successful delivery, such as
transport, car parking, order of project priorities. Consideration of the
future use of 40 Harington Street may also form part of these considerations,
once Council has full information regarding the state of the existing structure
and required works to ensure the site remains safe until a new use is approved.
31. Progressing the master plan strategy
will be led by the PAB – principally the Chair, who we expect will have
experience in master planning processes and urban planning. The PAB Chair will
work alongside the Council project team to prepare and facilitate a master plan
strategy session with Elected Members.
32. In advance of the master plan
strategy session, the PAB will work with Council staff to consider the previous
master plan, consider the previous business cases that informed the master plan
and develop a series of recommendations to help guide Elected Members through
to an agreed master plan strategy. It is intended not to ‘reinvent
the wheel’ but rather to build on, update and refresh the previous
investment that has already been made in planning this Civic site.
33. The facilitated master planning
strategy session will include:
(a) Setting objectives and
guidelines (including environmental)
(b) Recommended facilities to be
included
(c) Recommended order of priority
(d) Identifying indicative time
frames
(e) Status of associated projects
/ strategies (e.g. public transport, parking etc)
(f) Interim site use plan -
treatment of the site between developments
(g) Agreeing the decision-making
process (case by case)
34. The next stages of work for the
master planning process will include:
(a) Appoint the PAB
(b) The project team and PAB
prepare the master plan strategy session
(c) PAB facilitate the master plan
strategy session with Elected Members
(d) The master plan strategy is
documented and approved
(e) Present the master plan
strategy to Willis Bond
(f) Willis Bond refresh the master
plan
(g) PAB endorse the refreshed
master plan
(h) The project team present to Council
for approval
35. Appropriate consideration will need
to be given to community and stakeholder engagement and communications.
Considerable engagement was undertaken for the HOTC Programme, informing the
programme, initial master plan and business cases for the proposed facilities.
However, as that work was done several years ago, some level of re-engagement
will be vital to the success of this programme.
36. Work that would follow an approved
strategic direction from Council includes:
(a) Agreeing high level budgets
for inclusion in the LTP 2021-31 and what facilities would be deferred to the
next LTP;
(b) Business case
refresh/development for each facility;
(c) Feasibility study / commercial
framework;
(d) Approval.
Strategic / Statutory Context
37. Tauranga’s population is
projected to grow by over 50,000 new residents over the next 25 years.
38. We have recent feedback from our
community regarding aspirations for the city centre, from the Vital Update 2020
survey and direct comments from some local developers. This can be summarised
as a desire to revitalise and attract people to the city centre, and that
Council has a role in investing in city centre amenity and civic facilities.
39. It also is relevant to note the
significant previous community engagement that took place on the Civic Space
Options Project between December 2015 and March 2016 – a high level
summary of community feedback being:
· Council
offices within city centre
· Library
in city centre is a must
· Tauranga
needs a museum
· Yes,
to performance venue in city centre
· City
square – absolutely (waterfront or Masonic Park good options)
· Support
for conference centre and hotel
40. Council will be asked to make
decisions to prioritise significant investments in community facilities and
other Council-led/delivered projects in considering and approving the LTP
2021-31, regarding which, planning work has commenced. Other investment is
needed in the city’s community facilities; however, this need not halt
the master planning work itself, however, rather it will require decisions
regarding timing / prioritisation of funding.
41. Further, progressing the master plan
will enable more meaningful discussions between Council and Ngai Tamarawaho
regarding the hapu’s aspirations for this land (refer report to the Urban
Form and Transport Development Committee, 9 June 2020) and the parties’
expectations of each other through this process.
Options Analysis
42. Two key options are:
(a) Option 1: do nothing –
no planning or implementation; and
(b) Option 2: refresh and/or
further develop, and confirm, the civic precinct master plan.
43. Option 1 means little investment in
this area. It effectively disregards the community feedback as regards the role
of city centre civic facilities in activating the city, and the needs of our
growing community for facilities such as a central library and the role it
plays in housing the library’s heritage collection for the city, for
example, and a performance venue that can attract and house larger and more
diverse performance arts events. Option 1 would allow an unplanned approach to
development (if any were to occur) of the civic land. It could mean that this
land sits vacant for some time. It “ring fences” the civic precinct
as current, effectively saying that current facilities are adequate or do not
justify investment. Option 1 provides no framework or guidance for
investment through the upcoming 2021 – 2031 LTP.
44. Option 2 allows Council to take a
strategic approach to planning and investment in the city centre. Council can
then prioritise investment in redevelopment, case-by-case, but guided by a master
plan so that facilities are delivered relative to other investment
considerations. Option 2 recognises that Council cannot deliver all desired
civic facilities right now but enables a good plan for the delivery over time
of a vital civic heart, a place that attracts people to live, work and
play. Option 2 would provide guidance as to the priorities for investment
through the 2021-2031 LTP.
Financial Considerations
45. A refreshed budget would be fully
scoped as we plan for workshops to set the strategic direction for the master
plan. It is expected that the project would require external expertise in the
range of development planning (Willis Bond), architecture, and urban planning.
46. The current budget available for
Civic Precinct and Civic Administration Building investigations for the current
financial year 2020/21 is $170,000. If scoping work determines that additional
budget is required for the upcoming phases of work, staff would report this
back to Council as soon as possible, ahead of further commitment to such
work/cost.
Legal Implications / Risks
47. Refer Confidential Attachment.
Consultation / Engagement
48. As noted above, appropriate
consideration will need to be given to community and stakeholder engagement and
communications. The project team will report to Council on proposed engagement
as the project progresses.
Significance
49. Under the Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy this report is considered to be of low
significance as it proposes a framework to enable the continuation of previous
work.
50. Community engagement will be
important to inform future work and Council decision-making on the nature,
funding and timing of civic facilities to be delivered in this area and will
take place through the development of the master plan.
51. Subsequent decisions to be sought
from Council will relate to investment in strategic and other civic facilities,
requiring public consultation.
Next Steps
52. TAG contribution to date acknowledged
and TAG members advised on the decision to reset the approach and
decision making framework.
53. Project Advisory Board and Reference
Group are established.
54. The project team and PAB prepare the
master plan strategy session.
55. PAB facilitate the master plan
strategy session with Elected Members.
56. Council sets strategic direction for
master plan.
57. Document and approve the master plan
strategy, via PAB, Reference Group and Project Team.
58. Refresh the Willis Bond master plan
and endorse through the PAB to the project team and Council.
59. Council decision-making as to
funding and timing, preferably in time to inform LTP 2021-31.
Attachments
1. Terms of Reference -
Project Advisory Board - Civic Precinct Master Plan - A11775929
2. Advisory &
Decision-Making Framework - A11807333 ⇩
3. Confidential Attachment
- Progressing Civic Precinct Masterplan - A11808056 - Public Excluded
|
Extraordinary
Council Meeting Agenda
|
8 September
2020
|
Terms of Reference
Project Advisory Board – Civic
Precinct Redevelopment
Purpose
The purpose of the Project Advisory Board – Civic Precinct Redevelopment (PAB) is to provide independent overview, advice and
direction to the Mayor and Councillors and staff responsible for the management
and administration of a programme of master planning and redevelopment of
Council-owned city centre properties (Civic Precinct).
The Civic Precinct encompasses the
block bounded by Willow, Hamilton, Durham and Wharf Streets, 21-41 Durham
Street, Masonic Park and the adjoining Masonic car park, and potentially 40
Harington Street (the latter is subject to a separate process underway to
ascertain optimum strategic outcomes and value).
Background
In June 2018, Council adopted in
principle a master plan prepared by Willis Bond. Key components identified then
included a central library, civic administration building, civic square and
open space amenity and connections, museum, performing arts venue, and hotel
and conference facilities.
In September 2020, Council approved
the establishment of this PAB, with a focus on informing and endorsing a
refreshed master plan, and advising on master plan implementation, i.e. a
redevelopment programme.
It is intended that the governance
and advisory structures established to support the Civic Precinct Redevelopment
programme will address sufficient project detail to enable Council’s
Elected Members to work effectively and efficiently to make key decisions on
matters of strategy, timing and cost, thereby enabling projects to proceed with
the confidence, and meet the needs, of our community.
Role
and Scope
The PAB responsibilities are to:
· Assist Council develop the masterplan strategy (facilitated
master plan strategy session)
· Identify projects / facilities for inclusion in the
masterplan and recommend the order in which they should be delivered
· Endorse reviewed/refreshed master plan
· Establish / advise on criteria for redevelopment –
scope, scale, function of key components and their interrelationships,
staging/prioritisation
· Provide direction and/or approve master plan development
activities as required, including gateway approval to recommendations to
Council
· Advise on staging of projects within the programme to
ensure practical and financially sustainable implementation
· Support Council staff on the project by providing
specialist knowledge and expertise
· [Provide representative attendance at milestone Council
meetings]
Notwithstanding the role and scope set out above, Council
shall not be bound by any recommendations of the PAB.
The Chief Executive may appoint additional or substitute
members of PAB depending on expertise required.
Governance
and Advisory Structure
Council has agreed that
the role of the Elected Members with regards to the Civic Precinct master plan
is to set strategic direction and make decisions on matters of strategy, timing
and cost/funding.
The PAB’s role is
set out above.
The Reference
Group’s role is to provide local stakeholder and community input to
inform the advice of the PAB and Council’s decision-making. It is not
intended as a replacement for community engagement. Rather, it allows Council
and the wider project team to test and seek ideas in a more agile way, to
inform scope, reporting and decision-making.
The below diagram shows
the relationship of Council, the Project Team, the PAB, and the Reference
Group. Updated terms of reference will also show key personnel once
appointments are made. These will be revised as required.
[insert
diagram with relationship and reporting lines]
Membership
/ Expertise
It is envisaged that a PAB of up to [6-8] members is desirable for administration
purposes.
Key areas of expertise for membership of the PAB will include urban
planning knowledge, commercial/civic development (including developing scoping
and costing) knowledge, and tangata whenua representatives.
Administration
The Council Project Lead’s
responsibilities will ensure regular meetings are being held, and material for
each meeting is well prepared. They will also keep a record of key advice,
direction and decisions made by this group.
Meetings shall be held [monthly] or more frequently as needed.
Potential
conflicts of interest
PAB members must notify any actual
or potential conflicts of interests to Council’s Chief Executive as the
arise. The Chief Executive will determine the appropriate course for managing
the conflict, which may include requiring the member to step down from the PAB
(temporarily or permanently).
Establishment
and disestablishment of Board
The PAB is established by Council resolution
and may be disestablished at any time by further Council resolution. It is
expected that key milestones will be achieved before the PAB is disestablished,
including reviewing the existing master plan, informing the strategy for a
refreshed master plan, and endorsing a refreshed master plan; however, the
timing of disestablishment remains at Council’s discretion.
