Agenda of Planning & Strategy Committee

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Planning & Strategy Committee MEETING

10 June 2020

Order of Business

NOTES:

· The Planning & Strategy Committee meeting coincides with the ordinary meeting of the Committee of Council and the Arts, Culture & Heritage Committee meeting. The Committees will conduct business in the following order:

- Planning & Strategy Committee (to hear submissions on the Amendment to Cemeteries & Crematorium Bylaw)

- Committee of Council

- Planning & Strategy Committee (continued)

- Arts, Culture & Heritage Committee

· Due to the changing situation in relation to COVID-19, this meeting will also be held via audio visual links. A recording of the meeting will be made available on our website shortly after the meeting has finished.

If you wish to attend this meeting via audio visual link then please contact the Democracy & Governance Administrator, Carly Chang, on carly.chang@pncc.govt.nz to request a link.

1. Apologies

2. Notification of Additional Items

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

3. Declarations of Interest (if any)

Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

4. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

(NOTE: If the Committee wishes to consider or discuss any issue raised that is not specified on the Agenda, other than to receive the comment made or refer it to the Chief Executive, then a resolution will need to be made in accordance with clause 2 above.)

5. Hearing of Submissions - Amendment to the Cemeteries & Crematorium Bylaw Page 7

6. Confirmation of Minutes Page 39

“That the minutes of the Planning & Strategy Committee meeting of 11 March 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.”

7. Consultation on Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy 2020 Page 45

Report, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager.

8. BPO Quarterly Report - 2019-3 Page 79

Memorandum, presented by Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure.

9. Council Commitment to Deliver Safe Drinking Water Page 89

Memorandum, presented by Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure.

10. Committee Work Schedule Page 99

11. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each 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	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

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 which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Planning & Strategy Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 11 March 2020, commencing at 9.00am

Members

Present:

Councillor Aleisha Rutherford (in the Chair), The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Zulfiqar Butt, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.

Non Members:

Councillors Susan Baty and Vaughan Dennison.

Apologies:

Councillors Rachel Bowen, Zulfiqar Butt (for early departure), Lew Findlay (for lateness), Billy Meehan and Karen Naylor.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) was not present when the meeting resumed at 3.20pm. He entered the meeting again at 3.30pm during consideration of clause 9. He left the meeting again at 4.17pm during consideration of clause 10. He entered the meeting again at 4.23pm during consideration of clause 11. He was not present for clauses 8 and 10.

Councillor Zulfiqar Butt was not present when the meeting resumed at 3.20pm. He was not present for clauses 8 to 12 inclusive.

Councillor Pat Handcock left the meeting at 4.19pm during consideration of clause 10. He was not present for clauses 10 to 12 inclusive.

Councillor Vaughan Dennison left the meeting at 4.22pm during consideration of clause 11. He was not present for clauses 11 and 12.

4-20

Apologies

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 4-20 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting adjourned at 9.01am.

The meeting resumed at 1.27pm.

5-20

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Planning & Strategy Committee meeting of 12 February 2020 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 5-20 above was carried 10 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Leonie Hapeta.

6-20

District Plan and School Travel

Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Brent Barrett.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the report titled “District Plan and School Travel” and presented to the 11 March 2020 Planning and Strategy Committee be received.

Clause 6-20 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

7-20	Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results Memorandum, presented by David Murphy, City Planning Manager; Dave Charnley, Senior Urban Designer. In discussion it was noted that the Elected Members were happy to receive the survey but did not want it to be used to inform future decision-making.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. The COMMITTEE RESOLVED 1. That the report titled ‘Creative Cities Index Palmerston North 2019 Survey Results’ prepared by Charles Landry be received.
	Clause 7-20 above was carried 12 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Tangi Utikere, seconded Lorna Johnson. On the motion that the words “and used to inform future decision-making, in-particular the processes associated with the preparation of the 2021 Long Term Plan.” be deleted, the motion was carried 9 votes to 3, the voting being as follows:
	For: Councillors Susan Baty, Zulfiqar Butt, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett and Leonie Hapeta.

8-20	Review of Water Supply Bylaw - s 155 Determinations Report, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager. The meeting adjourned at 3.05pm. The meeting resumed at 3.20pm. When the meeting resumed The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillor Zulfiqar Butt were not present.
	Moved Patrick Handcock ONZM, seconded Leonie Hapeta. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That pursuant to s 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment. 2. That pursuant to s 155(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council determines that a stand-alone bylaw is the most appropriate form for a water supply bylaw. 3. That pursuant to s 155(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council agrees that it is not anticipated that a revised bylaw would give rise to implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 4. That the Chief Executive is instructed to draft an amended Water Supply Bylaw which addresses the perceived problem of providing a reliable and efficient water supply system that maintains public health and safety and preserves the environment.
	Clauses 8.1 to 8.4 above were carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Tangi Utikere. 5. That the Chief Executive include water conservation in the scope when drafting the amended Water Supply bylaw. 6. That the Chief Executive report in 2020 on options to enhance water conservation in the city, including benefit cost analyses for rainwater storage, greywater recycling and universal water supply metering.
	Clause 8.5 and 8.6 above were carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Bruno Petrenas. On the motion that the words “needed to provide” be replaced with “the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem of providing”, the motion was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:
	For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

9-20	Draft Venues Policy for consultation Memorandum, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager. The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting again at 3.30pm.
	Moved Grant Smith, seconded Vaughan Dennison. The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 1. That Council does not proceed with a Venues Policy.
	Clause 9-20 above was carried 8 votes to 3, the voting being as follows: For: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere. Against: Councillors Brent Barrett, Renee Dingwall and Lorna Johnson.
	Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Patrick Handcock ONZM.
	Note: On a motion that: “1. That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 1 of the memorandum titled ‘Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 11 March 2020) is received. 2.That the Draft Venues Policy (attachment 2 of the memorandum titled ‘Draft Venues Policy for consultation’ dated 11 March 2020) is adopted for consultation. 3.That the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Planning and Strategy Committee be given delegated authority to approve minor amendments to the Draft Venues Policy prior to consultation.” The motion was lost 5 votes to 6, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Lorna Johnson and Aleisha Rutherford. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Leonie Hapeta, Bruno Petrenas and Tangi Utikere.
	Moved Renee Dingwall, seconded Brent Barrett.
	Note: On a motion that the words “subject to removing the word ‘main’ from clauses 1 and 2; and removing the word ‘controversial’ from clause 1a” be added, the motion was lost 2 votes to 9, the voting being as follows: For: Councillors Brent Barrett and Renee Dingwall. Against: The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

10-20

Summary of Submissions for the Proposed Amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018

Memorandum, presented by Julie Macdonald - Strategy & Policy Manager.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) left the meeting at 4.17pm.

Councillor Patrick Handcock left the meeting at 4.19pm.

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the memorandum titled “Summary of Submissions for the Proposed Amendment to the Cemeteries and Crematorium Bylaw 2018” and dated 11 March 2020 be received.

Clause 10-20 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Vaughan Dennison, Renee Dingwall, Patrick Handcock ONZM, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

11-20

Draft Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 - approval for consultation

Report, presented by Julie Macdonald - Strategy & Policy Manager.

Councillor Vaughan Dennison left the meeting at 4.22pm.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting again at 4.23pm.

Moved Leonie Hapeta, seconded Grant Smith.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Council approve the draft Palmerston North Speed Limits Bylaw 2020 Consultation Document (as attached as attachment one in the report titled “Draft Speed Limit Bylaw 2020 – approval for consultation, dated 11 March 2020) for consultation with the public.

2. That the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be authorised to approve minor amendments to the consultation document prior to publication.

3. That growth areas including Whakarongo, and the school, be included in stage 2 for consultation.

Clause 11-20 above was carried 9 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Renee Dingwall, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

12-20

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Aleisha Rutherford, seconded Leonie Hapeta.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Planning & Strategy Committee receive its Work Schedule dated March 2020.

Clause 12-20 above was carried 9 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Susan Baty, Renee Dingwall, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Bruno Petrenas, Aleisha Rutherford and Tangi Utikere.

The meeting finished at 4.40pm

Confirmed 10 June 2020

Chairperson

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Report

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 10 June 2020

TITLE: Consultation on Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy 2020

PRESENTED BY: Lili Kato, Policy Analyst and Julie Macdonald, Strategy & Policy Manager

APPROVED BY: Sheryl Bryant, General Manager - Strategy & Planning

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the proposed Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy 2020 be approved for consultation (included in attachment 1 of the report titled ‘Consultation on Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy 2020’).

Summary of options analysis for the SMokefree outdoor areas policy review

Problem or Opportunity	Council’s Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy is due for review. The review of the policy considered extending the policy to include encouraging people not to vape in outdoor areas and at facilities that are administered by Council. This widening of the policy scope is proposed due to the introduction and increased prevalence of vaping, and rising concern over the uptake of vaping by young people.
OPTION 1:	Approve the revised ‘Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy’ for consultation
Community Views	In a survey conducted in November 2019 titled ‘Attitudes towards smoking and vaping in outdoor areas in Palmerston North’, overall most respondents were positive towards having smokefree outdoor areas in Palmerston North. Most respondents disagreed with the logic that vaping is different from smoking and therefore should be treated differently. A lot of feedback was also received about the unpleasantness of being exposed to vapour in public.
Benefits	More people enjoying outdoor space, as well as improved health outcomes. The community will have an opportunity to contribute to the revision of the policy some seven years following its first adoption.
Risks	The policy is unenforceable; therefore, Council cannot stop a person from smoking and/or vaping in outdoor areas. There is a risk that highlighting the policy issue could raise expectations of Council’s ability to influence smoking behaviour.
Financial	The ongoing costs of the current policy are included in Council budgets. There are no unbudgeted costs associated with consulting on the revised policy.
OPTION 2:	Approve the revised ‘Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy’ for consultation, with the vaping content and name reference removed
Community Views	In a survey conducted in November 2019 titled ‘Attitudes towards smoking and vaping in outdoor areas in Palmerston North’, most respondents disagreed with the logic that vaping is different from smoking and therefore should be treated differently.
Benefits	This option would reinforce Council’s current position on smoking.
Risks	This option would exclude consideration of vaping and potentially miss the opportunity for Council to participate in health promotion efforts on this issue.
Financial	The ongoing costs of the current policy are included in Council budgets. There are no unbudgeted costs associated with consulting on the revised policy.
OPTION 3:	Do not approve the ‘Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy’ for consultation.
Community Views	In a survey conducted in November 2019 titled ‘Attitudes towards smoking and vaping in outdoor areas in Palmerston North’, overall the majority of respondents were positive towards having smokefree outdoor areas in Palmerston North.
Benefits	The current policy will remain in place and be implemented.
Risks	Policy is not updated to respond to current issues or have the opportunity to hear community views about Council actions. Council will not complete the scheduled policy review.
Financial	The ongoing costs of the current policy are included in Council budgets.

Rationale for the recommendations

1. Overview of the problem or opportunity

1.1 Council introduced the ‘Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy’ in 2013 and it was reviewed and amended in 2015 (attachment 2). It is due to be reviewed in the 2019/2020 year, and the review began in 2019.

1.2 According to the Ministry of Health, around 5,000 people die each year in New Zealand because of smoking or second-hand smoke exposure. Smoking is a preventable cause of cancer and cardiovascular disease in New Zealand and globally, and is known to exacerbate longstanding inequalities in health outcomes between different population groups – specifically between Māori and non-Māori, and between low-income and high-income New Zealanders.

1.3 Concerns about vaping have recently arisen in Palmerston North and throughout New Zealand. The main concerns stem from the effect it is having on young people, and the rate of uptake of vaping. The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill is currently progressing through Parliament and is at the subcommittee stage. The general policy statement on the bill mentions that one of the intentions of the amendment is to protect children and young people from the risks associated with vaping and smokeless tobacco products. The amendment will extend many of the existing provisions of the Smokefree Environments Act 2003 to vaping products and heated tobacco devices.

1.4 The policy relies on the voluntary compliance of the public, as its focus is on educating people to refrain from smoking in public places. It is not possible to enforce the policy, as smoking in public places is not an offence under general law.

1.5 Under the Signs and Public Places Bylaw, Council has set permit conditions for retailers who wish to use the public footpath for outdoor dining. The conditions require retailers to remove ashtrays from these outdoor areas and display visible smokefree signage. This bylaw does not ban smoking as smoking at these places is not an offence under the general law.

1.6 Council’s implementation of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy is done in partnership with the members of the Smokefree reference group, an advisory body established to further the city’s smokefree aims. The Smokefree reference group currently includes Council staff, Midcentral DHB, the Cancer Society, and Horizons Regional Council.

2. Background and previous council decisions

2.1 On 5 June 2019 the Planning and Strategy Committee resolved:

- “That the review of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy be put on hold until the amendments to the Smoke-Free Environment Regulations 2017 are adopted at the end of the 2019 year”

- “The officer report back to the planning and strategy committee in December 2019 about the next stage of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy review”.

2.2 It became clear towards the end of 2019 that the amendments to the Smoke-Free Environment Regulations 2017 were delayed. The consequent delay to the policy review was conveyed verbally to Councillors at the December 2019 Committee meeting. It was the intention of staff to bring the draft policy to the May Committee meeting, however the COVID-19 pandemic meant that, for various reasons, usual Committee work went on hold.

3. policy rationale

Census data

3.1 The harm caused by smoking remains a public health priority and Government’s commitment to be smokefree by 2025 (defined as less than 5% of the population regularly smoking) is still an active goal. According to ASH (Action for Smokefree 2025), New Zealand is not on track to meet this goal.

3.2 The graph below shows results from the 2018 census. The number of people who identify themselves as a regular smoker in Palmerston North has gradually dropped since the 2006 census. In 2018 regular smokers in Palmerston North had dropped to 12.6% of the population, compared with 20.4% in 2006. This is a significant decrease.

3.3 The graph below shows regular smokers, by ethnic group, in the Manawatū-Whanganui Region in the 2006, 2013 and 2018 census. Māori are still more likely to smoke than are non-Māori. While the number of regular Māori smokers in the region has declined since the 2006 census, in 2018 Māori still have the highest proportion of regular smokers at 29.8%, followed by Pacific peoples at 22.6%.

Palmerston North survey findings

3.4 Last year the Smokefree reference group ran a survey titled ‘Attitudes to smoking and vaping in outdoor areas in Palmerston North’. The purpose of the survey was to understand the attitudes of residents and visitors to Palmerston North towards smoking and vaping in the outdoors. This survey was mainly promoted through social media platforms which targeted Palmerston North residents and visitors to the city. The survey achieved an excellent reach with a total of 1,721 responses.

3.5 The chart below shows outdoor areas that respondents were asked to select if they thought they were smokefree. Around 82% of respondents thought that children’s playgrounds were smokefree, but only 42% of respondents thought the city centre was smokefree. Less than half of respondents thought that outdoor areas around council buildings were smokefree. Just over 40% of respondents though outdoor dining and drinking areas on a public footpath were smokefree.

3.6 Questions in the survey also asked what smoking status the respondents thought the stated places should have. Respondents had the choice of selecting ‘there should be no controls on smoking’, ‘should be smokefree’ or ‘not sure’. More than half of the respondents thought that all the outdoor areas should be smokefree. Out of the places identified, children’s playgrounds had the most respondents stating that they should be smokefree (98%), followed closely by the Central Energy Trust Arena (87%), outdoor areas at community centres (82%) and outdoor dining at cafes and restaurants (80%). The graphs below show these detailed responses.

3.7 A large majority of those who identified as being regular or occasional smokers stated they thought children’s playgrounds should be smokefree (93%), and more than half (57%) thought that the Central Energy Trust Arena should be.

3.8 Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with different statements. One of the statements was ‘I support Palmerston North becoming more and more smoke-free”. The scale was between 1-100, with 1 being “I strongly disagree” 50 being “I neither agree or disagree” and 100 being “I strongly agree”. The median rating was 98, showing a large majority agreed with this statement.

3.9 Survey respondents were asked to rate in the same way the statement ‘vaping is different to smoking and should not have the same controls placed on it’. The median rating on this was 13, with respondents showing overall disagreement with this statement.

3.10 Survey respondents were asked to rate in the same way the statement ‘having clearly visible smoke-free signs is enough to tell people not to smoke in a smoke-free area’. The median rating for this statement was 47, with overall responses closer to a neutral rating on this issue.

3.11 The survey also asked respondents to list any outdoor areas in Palmerston North that they think are not smokefree but should be. The Square was the most nominated place, alongside Victoria Esplanade and Palmerston North hospital.

3.12 Slightly more survey respondents identified exposure to smoke from someone smoking nearby (76%), compared to those who said they had been exposed to vapour from someone vaping nearby (65%) over the past month. When asked to identify the place where this happened, the places that were identified the most were the city centre and the Square.

3.13 Survey respondents were asked how likely they were to tell someone that that they do not know, who is smoking in a smokefree area with visible smokefree signs, that the area is smokefree. On a scale of 1-100 (with 1 being ‘highly unlikely’, 50 being ‘neither unlikely or likely’, and 100 being ‘highly likely’), the median rating was 38. It seems that respondents rated themselves as unlikely to act or neutral if they were in this situation.

4. summary of research and policy implementation

4.1 Smoking rates have decreased in Palmerston North and this is attributable to a wide range of factors, including excise tax, various quit-smoking campaigns, and changing social norms. However, rates for Māori remain disproportionately high compared to other ethnic groups.

4.2 The survey conducted by the reference group was generally positive towards smokefree measures in outdoor public spaces, suggesting that there is public support for Council’s current policy position.

4.3 The focus of the current Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy is raising awareness, mainly through signage. Since the policy was introduced the Smokefree reference group (established under the Policy) has produced several signage initiatives around the city. While producing smokefree signage may seem straightforward, there are some issues to be mindful of. The policy is not a ban on smoking, which is a common misconception, and certain types of signage may give this impression. The aim of the policy is to encourage cooperation from members of the public and with this principle in mind the reference group agreed to utilise the Health Promotion Agency’s signage template as depicted below.

Health Promotion Agency resource store | Smokefree Sign ...

Signage and information for premises with outdoor dining, regulated as smokefree under the Signs and Public Places Bylaw, have also been supported by the reference group.

4.4 The reference group identified that, when looking to promote the policy in the suburbs, a more personalised approach is needed. For example, when looking to introduce signage in the Highbury area, the reference group established relationships with community groups in the area. The idea to create a smokefree mural was developed together with the community groups. This mural faces Monrad Park and has inspired Public Health South in Dunedin to create its own smokefree mural.

4.5 Despite these efforts, there is still progress to be made in making people aware of the smokefree outdoor areas in Palmerston North. For example, the places that survey respondents were most likely to identify that they had been exposed to smoke from someone smoking near them in a public place within the past month (the city centre and the Square) are both designated smokefree under the current policy.

4.6 Designating public spaces as smokefree is a relatively new measure adopted by local authorities, and Palmerston North has been a leader in this policy area. The scope of smokefree policies by each local authority differs from one council to another. For example, neighbouring Manawatū District Council’s smokefree policy is limited to green spaces only (according to Midcentral District Health Board mapping of NZ councils’ smokefree outdoor policies and spaces). It is possible that the variance across local authorities could contribute to the lack of awareness of smokefree areas. It may also be that the lack of enforceability contributes to non-compliance.

5. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

Option 1

5.1 Option 1 (the recommended option) is to extend the current policy to include vaping. This means that, if adopted, all declared smokefree areas will also be vape-free under the policy.

5.2 This approach is in line with the current amendments that are proceeding through Parliament in the ‘Smokefree environments and regulated products (vaping) amendment bill’ which will prohibit vaping and heated tobacco products in legislated smokefree areas.

5.3 In the survey described in the report, most respondents reported that they had been exposed to vapour (65%) by someone vaping near them in a public place. The long-term effects of vaping are unclear and therefore it would be prudent for Council to follow the lead of central government and take a precautionary approach to ensure that it does not become normalised amongst young people. This measure will also make public places more accessible for all residents.

5.4 Whanganui District Council and Hauraki District Council are two examples of local councils that have extended their smokefree policies to include vaping, and so it seems there may be a general move amongst local authorities to expand current policies to be consistent with the Government’s approach.

5.5 Alongside the inclusion of vaping in Council’s policy, option 1 also proposes updating the current policy to be consistent with Councils current strategic direction. The proposed policy acknowledges the progress made since the policy was adopted by moving to confirm and strengthen the designated smokefree status of identified areas.

5.6 A last major change proposed in option 1 is the change of the policy’s name to reflect the matters discussed above, to become the Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy.

Option 2

5.7 The second option is to continue to exclude vaping from the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy and to consult only on the other proposed changes. This means that the policy would be updated to reflect Council’s current strategic direction and accurately reflect the smoking status of public outdoor areas that are controlled by Council.

5.8 Taking this approach may be out of step with the community, who have indicated through the survey that there is appetite to extend the current policy to include vaping. The policy would remain silent on vaping, which could be open to interpretation.

5.9 Proceeding to consult on a revised draft that excludes vaping from the proposed policy may limit’s Council’s ability to widen the policy after consultation, should there be a desire to support the inclusion of vaping in the policy. To propose widening the policy at that point would mean that it would be best practice to re-consult with the public.

Option 3

5.10 Option 3 would mean that the current policy will remain in place. Council’s planned policy review process would not be completed.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Draft Auahi Kore Smokefree and Vapefree Policy (revised Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy) (attachment 1) is proposed for consultation. Option 1 is the recommended option as it will give the public the opportunity to provide feedback to Council on whether this policy responds to the issues the community faces.

6.2 The proposed draft was developed in conjunction with the Smokefree reference group, and this process included an extensive survey process, as well as a review of current practices in this policy area.

7. Next actions

7.1 If the recommendation is adopted, the next step will be to develop a consultation process that is appropriate for the current COVID-19 alert level.

7.2 It is anticipated that hearing of submissions on the proposed policy will take place in September, and then a revised policy proposed for adoption in October.

8. Outline of community engagement process

8.1 Community engagement will proceed in an appropriate manner for the current COVID-19 alert level. Consultation will generally take place online through the usual social media channels and will also include around 400 respondents to the survey last year who asked to be kept informed and contacted about the policy review process. A variety of other stakeholders, including Rangitāne o Manawatū, businesses selling tobacco and vaping supplies, Midcentral DHB, and community health organisations, will also be invited to participate in the review.

8.2 The consultation will run from (at least) Saturday 4 July to Friday 31 July 2020.

Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		Yes
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 3: A Connected and Safe Community
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Connected Community Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Healthy Community Plan The action is: Review the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The public consultation on the review of the Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy is an important part of the policy process. This is an opportunity for Council to ask the wider community for their views on the proposed policy. The Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy contributes to the community wellbeing of Palmerston North by seeking to promote public health.

Attachments

1.	Consultation Document Draft Auahi Smokefree and Vapefree Policy ⇩
2.	Smokefree Outdoor Areas Policy 2013 ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 10 June 2020

TITLE: BPO Quarterly Report - 2019-3

Presented By: Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Planning & Strategy Committee

1. That the Committee receive the update for the Wastewater BPO Project as detailed in the report titled `BPO Quarterly Report 2019-3’ dated 10 June 2020.

1. REPORT PURPOSE

1.1 The purpose of the report is to provide an update to the Planning & Strategy Committee of Council on the achievements of the Wastewater BPO Project for the period ending 1 May 2020. This is the final update report for this financial year.

1.2 The quarterly reports are in addition to periodic project workshops with Council undertaken at key milestones and decision points within the Project.

2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL DECISIONS

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The Council is required to lodge an application for new resource consents for the Best Practicable Option (BPO) for the Totara Road Wastewater Treatment Plant, by 30 June 2022.

2.1.2 The BPO Project was initiated in 2017 and has progressed to date, in line with the Project Programme adopted by Council (refer Attachment 1). COVID-19 has impacted on the project programme primarily by delaying for two months the commencement of stakeholder and community engagement.

2.1.3 The 2018/28 Long Term Plan confirmed an annual budget of $1,120,800 for the 2019/20 Financial Year.

2.1.4 In late 2019, the 2019/20 FY budget was reviewed, and it was confirmed an increase in budget was required to complete the necessary technical work and communications tasks in order to develop the short list options and effectively communicate and engage with the community and stakeholders on the options. A formal request was made to Council’s Finance and Audit Committee in February 2020 for additional budget of $470,700, which was approved, bringing the total approved budget to $1,591,500.

2.2 Identification of BPO Options

2.2.1 The Project Team and Project Steering Group (PSG) are delivering the Project within the adopted methodology to determine the Best Practicable Option (BPO).

2.2.2 A Programme has been adopted for the delivery of the BPO and resource consent by June 2022 (Attachment 1).

2.2.3 After completing the various assessments, the shortlist was confirmed in a Council workshop on 17 June 2019. Council endorsed the shortlist on 24th June 2010 and the Project has proceeded into options development.

2.2.4 The shortlist options represent the full range of receiving environments and include the following:

Option Description

· R2(b) - All wastewater discharged to the Manawatū River, with increased TP and TN removal

· Dual R + L - Manawatū River discharge at Totara Road and below Opiki Bridge, with some land application

· L + R(a) and (b) - Approximately 97% of the treated wastewater applied to land

· L + R(d) and (e) - Treated wastewater applied to land below intermediate/high flows in the Manawatū River

· GW 2 - Base flow to land application, with remainder to high rate infiltration

· O + L - Most of the treated wastewater discharge to the ocean and some wastewater applied to land.

2.2.5 Technical investigations that cover environmental, archaeological, cultural, social and economic constraints are needed to confirm optimal locations for each of the shortlist options. To adequately complete an Alternatives Assessment under the Resource Management Act (RMA), these investigations need to be robust as they have the potential to be challenged in an Environment Court process.

2.2.6 Consultation with the stakeholders and the community is necessary to meet statutory obligations under the RMA and the Local Government Act (LGA). The main consultation phase for the project now scheduled for June 2020 is required to inform the development of technical assessments and evaluation of options in late 2020. It is also necessary to complete consultation prior to the LTP consultation phase, given the importance of the BPO in the Council’s programme of work for the next 10 years.

3. PROJECT PROGREss DURING CURRENT QUARTER

3.1 Technical Work Streams

3.1.1 Since June 2019, the Project Team have refined the scope of work necessary to complete technical assessments and consultation. This information is required to inform a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) now scheduled for September 2020 (refer Attachment 2). This technical work has commenced and is focused on the following:

· Determine treatment solutions for all shortlisted options, including updated costings and capital and operational costs;

· Identify potential sites for shortlisted options, including land, ocean, groundwater and river discharge locations;

· Determine the size of land areas necessary for land and groundwater discharges;

· Map constraints and report on sensitive receivers for the following criteria: natural environment, social and recreation, archaeological, property, cultural, planning and land use;

· Determine trade waste pre-treatment standards and solutions and model potential trade waste changes;

· Continue to complete river studies, including the completion of river modelling to refine option triggers for any river discharge option;

· Complete workshops with technical experts to determine potentially preferred site options for each shortlist option;

· Develop wetland objectives and principles that can be used to inform design of preferred wetland and land passages, site identification and associated costs; and

· Identify funding and procurement options for the shortlist options.

3.1.2 The Project Team has delivered several technical reports based on desktop studies to identify ocean, land and river discharge requirements. The team is continuing to refine the treatment options associated with the shortlist options, including understanding trade waste discharges and wetland/land passage solutions.

3.1.3 Originally the stakeholder engagement process was to commence in March 2020. However, the impact of COVID-19 has resulted in a significant delay. It is proposed to undertake the engagement process during June 2020, with an emphasis on virtual engagement methods. In the Covi-19 level restrictions allow provisions for face-to-face community engagement events such as “Town Hall” meetings will also be held. Details on the revised approach to engagement with the community and stakeholders is covered later in this report.

3.2 Statutory Planning Changes

3.2.1 On 22 July 2019, Horizons Regional Council publicly notified Proposed Plan Change 2 to One Plan. Council made a submission to PPC2 on the basis that the plan change has the potential to impact on the ability of PNCC to discharge treated wastewater to land (as proposed in five of the shortlisted options). The submission was considered necessary to safeguard Council’s position with respect to the future consenting of the BPO and was prepared using the technical expertise within the Project Team.

3.2.2 Council also took the lead on preparing and lodging a combined submission, together with Horowhenua, Manawatu, Rangitikei, Ruapehu and Tararua District Councils. Further submissions were received by Horizons Regional Council with some being supportive of support and others opposed to PNCC’s submission.

3.2.3 In February 2020, the combined TA’s met with HRC PPC2 processing team to discuss each submission. The meeting was called at the request of the Hearings Commissioners who are to hear submissions and ultimately decide on PPC2. This meeting was useful and allowed each Council to express more generally their concerns at how the One Plan makes provision for municipal infrastructure. However, there was resistance from HRC in including the more general infrastructure issues as being relevant to PPC2. The BPO Legal Advisors are working with the Project Team and the combined submitters to determine the best strategy moving forward with HRC on this matter.

3.2.4 Since this meeting, COVID19 has delayed processing of PPC2 and it is expected that the hearings will progress in October 2020, subject to COVID-19 restrictions easing. PNCC is awaiting confirmation of a date for formal mediation with HRC on its submission.

3.3 Stakeholder Engagement

3.3.1 Stakeholder Engagement was to commence in February 2020. However due to the impact of government enforced COVID-19 restrictions, this has meant that face to face engagement was not possible Level 4, 3 and 2 lockdown restrictions.

3.3.2 As the COVID restrictions have eased, the Project Team has been working with the Communications & Marketing team to develop virtual engagement options. This includes establishing project dedicated online tools available to the public to interface with project representatives e.g. social pin-point. Other options are also being developed, to allow project technical and PSG panels and technical experts to interface with various groups.

3.3.3 The aim is to complete the community and stakeholder engagement during June 2020. If the restrictions ease further, it is hoped that public interface through public meetings may be able to occur later in June. Once Council is able to engage face to face, the Project Steering Group and Councillors will be made aware of when, how and who is attending any engagement events.

3.3.4 The stakeholder management plan was approved by the PSG in late 2019 and has been updated to reflect the changes and response Council is having to COVID19. The Plan provides details of who, when and how we will engage with groups during this consultation and engagement phase.

3.4 Technical & Legal Review

3.4.1 Key technical deliverable documents, including assessments of the ocean discharge. land discharge options and short list options development, prepared by the Technical consultants (Stantec) to the Project, have been reviewed by Mott McDonald. The consultants have reviewed 3 out of 5 of the technical documents produced. The remaining documents comprising an assessment of wetland and land passage options and treatment options for each of the shortlist will be reviewed once completed in June 2020.

3.4.2 Simpson Grierson are continuing to be involved in the review of statutory planning related work, including PPC2 with Horizons Regional Council.

3.5 Financial Update

3.5.1 In February 2020 an additional $470,700 was approved by Council to complete further technical assessments, consultation and marketing and communications tasks this financial year.

3.5.2 The additional budget has been assigned to work packages developed within the project budget for this FY. There are several packages of work, such as marketing and communications, for which the scope has been significantly impacted by COVID-19. A review of the impact on the project programme and the final estimated expenditure for 2019-20 is currently underway.

3.5.3 If there is a projected underspend for the 2019-20 year, a request will be made to Council for an increase to the 2020-21 annual budget, to ensure there is no budgetary impediment to completing all the outstanding planned work in the 2020-21 financial year.

4. NEXT ACTIONS

4.1 The technical work that informs each of the shortlist options is due to be completed by the end of June. A formal report will be provided to Council in July that summarises the work completed during the financial year.

4.2 By the end of June 2020, the community and stakeholder engagement process will be completed. All information captured during this process will be recorded in an online database, which is to be analysed and summary feedback presented in a report.

4.3 Between July 2020 and September 2020, a review of all technical work will be completed to determine what (if any) investigations are necessary to inform the planned Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA). A Comparative Assessment of all shortlist options will be completed by late August to inform the MCA. This work will comprise a series of assessments by technical specialists, similar to that completed in the Traffic Light Assessment phase, however in greater detail and focused on each of the shortlisted options.

4.4 In September 2020, a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) will be undertaken to assist Council in its decision making to reach a BPO (preferred option).

4.5 The current programme will seek endorsement for the BPO (preferred option) by December 2020.

4.6 Briefings to Council will be scheduled prior to submitting formal reports to Council for approval of next steps in the project.

5. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		No
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Three Waters Plan The action is: A best practicable option (BPO) for the treatment and disposal of the city’s wastewater is identified for the renewal of the Wastewater Treatment Plant resource consent by June 2021.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	The BPO project is informing the Council’s decision about the future treatment and discharge of wastewater for the city for the next 35 to 50 years. It is the most significant investment decision the Council will make in the current LTP and is critical to ensuring the future sustainability of the city and its ability to provide for wastewater from future residential and industrial growth.

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 - Wastewater BPO Programme ⇩
2.	Attachment 2 - BPO Methodology ⇩

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

Memorandum

TO: Planning & Strategy Committee

MEETING DATE: 10 June 2020

TITLE: Council Commitment to Deliver Safe Drinking Water

Presented By: Robert van Bentum, Manager - Transport and Infrastructure

APPROVED BY: Tom Williams, Chief Infrastructure Officer

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council

1. That the Committee receive the report entitled “Council Commitment to Deliver Safe Drinking Water” and dated 10 June 2020.

2. That the Committee formally adopt the Commitment Statement included as an attachment to the report entitled “Council Commitment to Deliver Safe Drinking Water” and dated 10 June 2020.

3. That Council delegate the Chief Executive to sign the Commitment Statement to be included in all Water Safety Plans to be submitted to the Drinking Water Assessor.

1. report purpose

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek formal approval from Council to commit to the actions, resources and programmes of work required to satisfy the obligations of a Drinking Water Supplier under the Health Act.

1.2 As a result of the Havelock North water supply contamination event, central Government has progressively strengthened the obligations of drinking water suppliers to not only provide safe drinking water but also demonstrate that the systems, processes and resources are allocated to ensure the likelihood and consequence of any potential contamination event is very low. The government has chosen the vehicle of Water Safety Plans (WSPs) as the means of demonstrating effective risk management.

1.3 The most recent amendment to the Health Act 1956, (July 2019) relating to drinking water supplies has introduced significantly more prescriptive requirements for the provision and content of the WSPs. This includes a formal signed commitment from the Drinking Water Supplier to a core list of principles. This report seeks formal Council agreement to that commitment statement and approval for the CE to sign the statement as part of submitting future Water Supply Plans.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Council‘s role and obligation as the city’s drinking-water supplier is regulated by the Health Act 1956 (the Act). The Act uses the New Zealand Drinking Water Standards to set the standards that water suppliers are recommended to meet in the provision of community drinking-water supplies.

2.2 Various amendments have been made to the Act over recent years with the latest of these being the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2019. The amendments have led to a greater emphasis on water safety. The original approach to managing water safety through the preparation of Public Health Risk Management Plans (PHRMPs) has developed in a formal requirement for an approved Water Safety Plan with very specific content, action plans and commitments.

2.3 Some of the key changes implemented in 2019 which have changed include:

· removing the discretion of water suppliers around ‘taking all practicable steps’ to achieve the drinking water standards and replacing this with the requirement to ‘satisfy the drinking-water assessor’ or regulator

· strengthen the specific requirements for preparing a Water Safety Plan which includes actions and a timetable for addressing key water safety risks

· assigning the risk for non-compliance with the Act to ‘individuals’ rather than ‘person or agency’ with the aim of more directly assigning responsibility for non-compliance

2.4 Other regulatory changes which are impacting on Council’s management of drinking water supply include the establishment of a Water Services Regulator (Taumata Arowai) supported by a new Water Services Regulator Bill. The bill if passed would implement the Government’s decision to create a new regulatory body to oversee, administer, and enforce the drinking water regulatory system. The Bill would establish Taumata Arowai – the Water Services Regulator (Taumata Arowai) as a new Crown agent and provide for its objectives, functions, and operating principles. It would also provide for its governance arrangements, including the establishment of a board and Māori Advisory Group.

2.5 The Bill is part of a broader package of reforms to the regulatory system for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater (three waters). The Government has indicated a separate bill will be proposed at a later date to give effect to decisions to implement system-wide reforms to the regulation of drinking water and source water, and targeted reforms to improve the regulation and performance of wastewater and stormwater networks.

2.6 While the new Water Services Bill is not yet law, the changes and amendments to the Health Act have established new and more stringent requirements including that:

· Every drinking-water supplier must ensure that the drinking-water supplied by that supplier complies with the drinking-water standards

· Every drinking-water supplier must prepare a water safety plan in relation to that drinking-water supplier’s drinking-water supply

· A drinking-water supplier complies with the above if the supplier implements those provisions of the supplier’s approved water safety plan relating to the drinking-water standards to the satisfaction of a drinking-water assessor (Ministry of Health water assessor)

3. Water Safety Plans

3.1 Purpose of Water Safety Plans

3.1.1 The WSP has been chosen by the Ministry of Health (MoH) as the essential tool for ensuring the provision of safe drinking water. The WSP uses risk based assessment and management process to assess the likely risks and identify effective mitigation measures to ensure the risk and consequence of contamination is extremely low.

3.1.2 Changes in the approach to water safety planning strengthen the focus on preventative measures across the whole drinking water supply system, with a move away from a reliance on after-the-event end-point water quality testing. The focus is now on multi barrier approach to managing risks, which provides safeguards against the failure of any one barrier. Water safety planning also demand a commitment to continuous improvement for day-to-day operation now and into the future.

3.1.3 WSP’s are required to:

· identify the public health risks (if any) associated with the drinking-water supply

· identify critical control points in the drinking-water supply (potential entry points or triggers for contamination or failure of treatment required to eliminate contamination)

· identify mechanisms for preventing public health risks arising in the drinking-water supply and reducing and eliminating those risks if they do arise

· include information about the estimated costs and benefits of the mechanisms and measures required to mitigate the risk

· set out a timetable for managing the public health risks that have been identified as being associated with that drinking-water supply

· comply with any additional requirements imposed by the Director-General by notice in writing given to the supplier, as to the content and format of water safety plans

3.2 WSP Current Status

3.2.1 Following the requirement for WSP’s being legislated in 2007 Council prepared its first WSP for the Palmerston North Supply in 2008. This was updated in 2010 and replaced with the current WSP in 2015. As WSP’s are required to be reviewed and updated every 5 years, work is currently underway to prepare an updated 2020 WSP for submission to the MoH Drinking Water Assessor by 30 June 2020.

3.2.2 Following the Government inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water in 2017 the MoH developed a NZ Drinking-water Safety Plan Framework in 2018 and a Handbook for Preparing a Water Safety Plan in 2019. The inquiry resulted in the articulation of six fundamental principles for drinking-water safety in New Zealand which a WSP is required to acknowledge:

Principle 1: A high standard of care must be embraced

Principle 2: Protection of source water is of paramount importance

Principle 3: Maintain multiple barriers against contamination

Principle 4: Change (including changes to processes and hazardous events) precedes

contamination.

Principle 5: Suppliers must own the safety of drinking-water

Principle 6: Apply a preventive risk management approach

3.2.3 The proposed PNCC 2020 Water Safety Plan now needs to follow the Safety Plan Framework and Handbook addressing the following fundamental questions about providing safe and secure drinking-water:

· Commitment: Who is responsible for, and knows about, managing and operating the drinking-water supply to ensure safe and secure water continues to be provided?

· Assessment of the drinking-water supply system: What could happen to threaten the supply of safe and secure drinking-water? How likely is it that such events will occur and how severe might they be?

· Existing preventive measures: What good practices are already happening to stop things going wrong and how do we make sure such practices continue?

· Operational procedures: What needs to be done to make sure the water supply system is maintained?

· Verification monitoring and inspection programme: What needs to be checked regularly to make sure everything is OK?

· Improvement plan: What more should be done to prevent things going wrong or reduce their severity if they do go wrong?

· Management of incidents and emergencies: What will be done if things go wrong?

· Documentation and reporting: Have we recorded events appropriately to inform future efforts?

· Investigation: Are the appropriate equipment, processes and practices being used and followed?

· Review and continual improvement: How well is the WSP working?

4. formal council commitment

4.1 As already outlined Council is legally accountable for providing safe drinking-water. This obligation requires both organisational support and long-term commitment by Council and Officers to providing safe and secure drinking water.

4.2 Council has signalled in general terms a high-level commitment to providing safe and secure drinking-water through the Eco City Strategy and the Three Waters Plans. The Three Waters Plan includes specific reference to ‘where we want to be’ as including:

· All existing water supplies are secure, have approved safety plans in place and are fully compliant with NZ Drinking Water Standards

4.3 In addition, Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-28 includes compliance with the NZ Drinking Water Standards as a specific KPI. However, while there is general commitment to providing safe drinking water, there is no specific long-term commitment from Council to the principles, resourcing and programmes of work required to deliver on provision of safe drinking water by ensuring there are very low risks of contamination.

4.4 The Havelock North event has identified that in addition to understanding and committing to meeting legislative requirements, successful provision of safe drinking water supply at all times requires:

· an awareness and understanding of the importance of drinking-water quality management, and how decisions affect the protection of public health

· an organisational philosophy that fosters commitment to continual improvement and cultivates employee responsibility and motivation

· the ongoing and active involvement of senior leadership to maintain and reinforce the importance of drinking water-quality management to all employees, as well as those outside the organisation

· senior leadership to ensure its policies and actions support the effective management of drinking water-quality through appropriate staffing, employee training, adequate financial resources and active participation and reporting

4.5 The MoH has also recognised the need for consistent and explicit commitments to be made by all Drinking Water Suppliers and has accordingly set the following criteria for preparing WSP’s:

· The provision of safe and secure drinking-water is visible in the organisational policy and strategy

· Water safety planning is identified in the organisational strategy, plans and budgets

· Where the drinking-water supply management plans spans multiple organisations, the various roles of each party are recognised in appropriate policies and strategies across each organisation.

4.6 To provide further certainty that these provisions are met MoH requires the following elements to be included in the WSP:

· A statement regarding the organisation’s commitment to the provision of safe and secure drinking-water

· An explanation of how the organisation is putting this commitment into practice through policies, strategic plans, the adoption of water safety planning, budgets and relationships

4.7 The MoH have requested that Drinking Water Suppliers sign up to a Commitment Statement which embodies the 6 principles listed in paragraph 3.2.2, to be included in every WSP. A draft of the proposed commitment statement provided for Council approval follows.

4.8 If Council approve the statement it is requested that the Chief Executive be given delegation to sign this commitment statement for inclusion in the WSP documents.

4.9 The Drinking Water Quality Commitment Statement is attached.

5. Implications of Commitment Statement

5.1 While Council already has staff and resources dedicated to managing and delivering the water supply activity, there are capacity constraints and competing priorities for staff and funding which require trade-offs between various tasks and activities. The MoH, changes to the Health Act signal and the WSP as well as the establishment of the Water Regulator, signal a significant change in expectation around managing drinking water supplies.

5.2 Officers have identified that the current level of internal resourcing of staff and funding is not adequate to meet the changed expectations. Enhanced quality management systems, risk monitoring and over-sight of the day to day operation of the water supply activity will be required, if Council is to meet its obligations under law. Officers will be seeking enhanced levels of operational funding as part of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan process.

5.3 The MoH has also placed significant emphasis on ensuring appropriate levels of funding are being committed to implement the risk mitigations identified in the WSP Action Plan. Many of these actions related to enhanced management of contamination risks in the source areas, water treatment plant and water supply network.

5.4 While Council has provided funding for capital programmes of work focused on addressing water safety risks, much of the currently approved funding is focussed on age and condition related renewal of water supply pipes and upgrades to address capacity, level of service growth and resilience. The AMP development process has identified gaps in capital funding for renewal and upgrade of assets to address water quality and contamination risks.

5.5 Aside from a provisional capital programme to upgrade treatment to meet any new Drinking Water Standards requirements there are a range of other gaps which will need to be addressed in the new regulation environment including:

· dedicated programmes to renew and upgrade all residential and commercial connections to include effective backflow protection

· dedicated programme to renew valves, hydrants and other fittings within the water supply network to reduce failure and provide more effective isolation

· enhanced investment in water pipe renewals and pressure management to bring down the frequency of water network bursts and the contamination

· dedicated programme to continue upgrading hardware and software systems for real-time water quality monitoring, data capture, data transfer and reporting to enable staff to identify changes in water quality and respond rapidly to minimise contamination risk

· strengthening processes and policies around the issuing, construction and commissioning of all new water supply service connections

5.6 While the Infrastructure Unit is working through the process of scoping and budgeting for the new and enhanced programmes of work for inclusion in the 2021-2031 LTP process, significant additional operational and capital funding will be required to meet the obligations outlined in the Commitment Statement and the legal obligations expected under the new water regulation environment.

5.7 Whatever the financial cost of the WSP improvement plan, Council’s commitment statement is intended to signal to the MoH that Council is committed to supporting robust provision of safe drinking water through making available the required level of funding to effectively action the WSP. A further unknown at this point is the influence of the Water Regulator which may impact on how Council operates its water supply and personnel and financial resourcing.

6. next steps

6.1 Should Council approve the Commitment Statement, Officers will provide a copy of the updated WSP by the 30 June 2020 deadline together with a signed copy of the statement. Officers will also clarify to Council the additional operational and capital programme resourcing required through 2021-31 LTP process and any briefing on the 2020 Water Asset Management Plan.

7. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		No
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these actions?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to Goal 4: An Eco City
The recommendations contribute to the outcomes of the Eco City Strategy
The recommendations contribute to the achievement of action/actions in the Three Waters Plan The action is: All existing water supplies are secure, have approved safety plans in place and are fully compliant with NZ Drinking Water Standards
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Council approval of the Commitment Statement will enable Officers to provide a compliant updated Water Safety Plan providing the Drinking Water Assessor and future Water Regulator with the confidence that PNCC can deliver safe drinking water to its residents through ensuring its policies and strategies are alignment with the key principles and there are adequate resources to implement the WSP action plan.

Attachments

Drinking-Water Quality Commitment Statement ⇩

Aleisha Rutherford (Chairperson)
Patrick Handcock ONZM (Deputy Chairperson)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Brent Barrett	Lorna Johnson
Rachel Bowen	Billy Meehan
Zulfiqar Butt	Bruno Petrenas
Renee Dingwall	Tangi Utikere
Leonie Hapeta

1.	Procedure Sheet - Hearing of Submissions ⇩
2.	Submissions ⇩