 I love the beginning of the year when everything seems possible. It feels like a clean slate to do things so much better than during that messy, overly busy year that's just finished! Back in 2014, councils had to scramble to get their first ever 30 year infrastructure strategies together. There was very little time between the Government adopting the legislative requirement in August 2014 and the main points having to be ready for inclusion in the 2015 LTP consultation documents. Councils were perfectly justified in deciding to take a ‘compliance only’ approach, given the tight time frames. In many cases the focus needed to be on getting the strategies over the line by ticking all the boxes of section 101B of the Local Government Act 2002, with a plan to do a much better job by 2018. This was especially the case for the long-term strategic issues and assumptions included in the strategies. So, now it's time to pick up those 2015 documents and decide how to go about updating and rewriting these strategies, to meet that commitment. Feedback from the Office of the Auditor-General Sarah Lineman (Acting Assistant Auditor-General, Local Government) made the following comments in the January 2017 Perspectives magazine (page 14): “Expect to see our auditors focusing slightly differently than they did in 2015, with an increased emphasis on the quality of, and explanation for, the assumptions used to build your strategies and forecasts. We will expect that highly uncertain assumptions — and their implications — will be clearly explained to your communities. “We encourage councils to also think carefully this year about what you’ve learnt from previous LTP cycles and bring all these learnings to the 2018 round. We hope to see a real consolidation and improvement in key areas, such as financial and infrastructure strategies, and the presentation of consultation documents.” Here are some suggestions for your review process.
0 Comments
 At first glance, councils and Facebook may not seem like a happy mix. That was certainly the view of the Taxpayers' Union, which recently criticised councils for their spending on Facebook and Linkedin advertising. So, is Facebook something to leave to family and friends, and small businesses? I don’t think so. There are lots of council topics that are very appealing to people. Appealing topics
Here are some great examples of council Facebook pages from around the country.
Auckland Council spends the most on social media advertising, at $187,870.
The Local Government Magazine (September 2016) reported they “developed a unique and humorous approach that delivered education and entertainment as well as official warnings and significantly increased its social media presence.” At the time of the award the following for its Facebook page had grown from 800 to 13,400. It now has 18,858 fans! Here’s a link to this page - https://www.facebook.com/WaikatoCivilDefence/
There are lots of videos on the Southland Facebook page profiling the 2016 Southland Community Environment Awards nominees. The most prominent one has 1,700 views, and many of the others have between 2000 and 5000 views. Here’s a link to the videos section of the Southland page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/environmentsouthland/videos Types of posts that work well on Facebook Some of the things that appeal to people on Facebook are:
 When Max first came into our lives in January 2014 I wanted to read all about dogs. While I didn't read this book aloud to him, I loved hearing that Waikato District Council has recently launched a 'Dogs in Libraries' programme.
Children can practise reading to a dog, who isn't going to be too critical about a few missed words! I'm sure the dogs will love this experience too. Whenever I'm talking on the phone Max turns up beside me - he seems to like listening in! Even though it's funny, there is serious intent behind this programme. "It’s been shown to increase a child’s relaxation while reading because it’s a lot less intimidating than reading to people and it allows children to proceed at their own pace,” says Animal Control Team Leader Megan May. It is also likely to help children who are not familiar with dogs to be more relaxed when encountering them in public places.  The five big trends could increase inequality here
We’ve been hearing a lot about inequality lately, as the fuel behind the referendum outcome in Britain and the election results in America. So it’s alarming to realise that many of the trends outlined in the LGNZ paper 'The 2050 challenge: future proofing our communities' have significant potential to increase inequality in New Zealand. The LGNZ paper identifies more urbanisation, changing demographics and employment, automation and climate change as the five big issues we are likely to be tackling over the next 30 years. Trend 1 - urbanisation Large cities will expand and populations in many regional centres and rural areas will contract. Trend 2 - changing demographics In just over 30 years, four out of every 10 people will be at least 65 years old - including almost everyone who is reading this article! If most of us stay in our existing homes there is likely to be even more pressure on housing. As well as being older, there will also be a much higher proportion of Maori, Asian and Pasifika people in New Zealand. Trend 3 - more flexible employment arrangements Our communities are increasingly moving away from ‘9 to 5’ permanent employment. One third of New Zealand’s working population now work in jobs that are not salaried full time employment For half of these people, this is a great outcome because it offers them freedom and flexibility. For the other half it’s just a big dose of uncertainty and financial stress. Trend 4 – automation of existing jobs Parents are even less likely to understand what their children do at work than is currently the case. Automation of up to 46 percent of existing jobs has been predicted by some, meaning people will need different skills in order to find work. The impact of these changes is likely to be felt much more severely by people in lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs. It will also have an uneven impact across the country, depending on the industries which become the most automated. Trend 5 - climate change Individuals and communities will be differently affected by climate change, particularly sea-level rise, changes in rainfall, and the occurrence of natural disasters. Council responses to these trends What roles will local government have in addressing these uneven impacts, and helping people to adapt to the new reality? Councils have a clear mandate to be involved in planning and infrastructure provision related to urbanisation, as well as adaption to climate change. They will need to decide whether communities as a whole contribute to managing these impacts or whether a direct user pays approach should apply. It is less clear what role councils could have in helping people to adapt to more flexible working conditions and automation of existing jobs. It may be that the main role for councils will be as a strong voice to central government on the impacts of the changing work environment on their communities. As demographics change, there’s even more risk that the interests of the 40% of people over 65 years’ old will carry more weight around council tables than the concerns of younger people. After all, older people have more time to make submissions, attend meetings, and will be a significant proportion of the home-owning ratepayers of an area. The LGNZ paper notes that conventional consultation models are unlikely to capture representative input and new engagement strategies are needed. I imagine social media will become increasingly important and provides an opportunity for councils to be more connected to people whose concerns would not otherwise be represented. What do you think?
 A new recycling system has begun in Nelson. Everyone received their bins back in August, with a booklet explaining the days of collection, and that this would be beginning in the second half of October. I must admit to feeling a bit smug when I saw the yellow lids out on the street weeks before the new system started. Didn't people read their booklets? But this week I've had my rubbish bag rejected, left with a 'wrong day' sticker. Not so well sorted, after all! This process of trial and error, as everyone gets used to the new system is a great example of the best kind of learning, as an adult. We do something wrong, nothing really bad happens, and we do it better next time. It must have taken Council staff and the recycling contractors (Nelmac) quite a lot of thinking about all the different ways to communicate the changes with residents, who will not have had their rubbish and recycling collections top of mind in the midst of their busy lives. Information needs to be on the bins, in the attached booklet, on both the Council and Nelmac website, and stickers printed for rubbish bags like mine left out on the wrong day. And those are just the communication avenues I've come across, I'm sure there are more. One thing's for certain, it makes us all appreciate the fact that our rubbish and recycling is eventually taken AWAY.  Friends are considering moving from Brisbane to New Zealand, and are weighing up Wellington and Christchurch as their future home. While it’s easy enough to look at job opportunities, house prices and weather reports from afar, there’s still a need to go to a place and ‘sniff the air’ to really know if it’s a place where you feel you can thrive.
Everyone has their own subjective response to a place, but a recent study by KPMG identifies seven principles cities can follow to be more appealing to people, specifically young wealth creators. KPMG describes these as ‘magnet cities’ and includes Christchurch as one of its success stories. 1. Magnet cities attract young wealth creators This involves choosing an authentic point of attraction. Cities that successfully target particular groups of wealth creators do so because there is a logical link to the city. One of the niches Christchurch is developing following the earthquakes is to foster expertise in construction methods, and natural hazards. This is one example of diversification of the city’s economy to become a centre for specific research, technical and professional services. 2. Magnet cities undergo constant physical renewal KPMG notes that many young professionals favour housing in urban cores, or in neighbourhoods that are linked to the urban core by quick and easy public transport. The design and sustainability features of housing is as important as its location – many prefer to live in mixed use neighbourhoods. Christchurch’s city centre is to be condensed to 40 hectares, with the aim of attracting new residential use as well as businesses. 3. Magnet cities have a definable city identity Without a clear city identity it is difficult for future residents to clearly understand what a city stands for and whether they are attracted to it. 4. Magnet cities are connected to other cities If a city is going to attract a new generation of residents, the city must be easy to get in and out of. In particular, young wealth creators who move into a city are likely to travel back and forth more frequently to other places or cities for work and to visit family and friends. 5. Magnet cities cultivate new ideas All of the case study cities leveraged their academic institutions to bring change to their cities. Here are some of the actions being taken by Christchurch:
6. Magnet cities are fundraisers The city councils have played an active role in providing capital and attracting private investment, research grants and public funds. Often the city’s existing assets have been used to attract further investment to transform the city. 7. Magnet cities have strong leaders The mayors of the cities studied by KPMG all had to cope with criticism and hostility when introducing a new vision for a city and making the necessary changes. They have been relatively inflexible about changes to the future vision for their city once it was agreed, but extremely flexible about the steps they took and who they involved to get there. More detail For more detail, please see KPMG's Magnet Cities document. The Christchurch Case Study is on pages 88 – 121.  Introduction
Opus Senior Planner David Jackson has worked in central and local government, as well as consultancy. He has a strong interest in urban planning and design, neighbourhood and centres development planning, as well as how to develop longer term plans that work and are useful. In this article he shares his thoughts on the potential for more joined up planning in New Zealand. Celebrated cities Melbourne, Curitiba, Vancouver and Singapore are all densely populated cities which are celebrated for their high quality urban environments. Something these cities all have in common is long term, consistent implementation of solutions to their challenges. The requirement for New Zealand councils to develop thirty year infrastructure strategies and the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity are promising first steps in enabling New Zealand cities to plan the creation of higher quality urban environments here,. However, lack of an integrated approach to this long term planning is a risk. Upcoming challenges Many of the issues identified in the 2015 NZ Thirty Year Infrastructure Plan will also need to be addressed at a local level:
All of these are good things to be considering, but whether they get translated into infrastructure plans will come back to the range of disciplines addressing them. For example, our large ageing population is a medium term issue, but we don’t want to permanently plan our cities around this somewhat temporary demographic issue. One solution could be to think about adaptive uses such as making it easy to live in half the home and convert the other half for renting out and getting some income from that. Or temporary granny flats, which can be taken away once it’s no longer needed on a property. I do worry that, notwithstanding the above list of issues, many thirty year infrastructure strategies will just be about roads, sewers, drains and the like. While they are important, and indeed critical, you cannot plan properly for them without considering the land uses that will drive the demand on infrastructure. It seems obvious to me that you cannot work out your infrastructure needs without considering the activities on the surrounding land. But this does not seem to be universally accepted – much asset management planning gets done in isolation from other planning or strategic visioning. Legislative backing is needed A lack of non-partisan buy in to a strategic direction can hold us back. This, and a three year election cycle, has led to a lot of unpicking of projects and longer term plans. Another challenge has been that the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act don’t talk to each other very well. There is still a lack of clarity on how everything relates. Most councils have interesting strategies gathering dust on shelves. This ends up devaluing public input, which can be given enthusiastically with an expectation that it will make a difference. However, if strategies aren’t mandatory they tend to be ignored over the longer term. This is an argument for urban development legislation. Medium to long term strategies that address neighbourhood development and sustainability need legislative backing. We should focus on refreshing these strategies over time rather than reinventing them on a regular basis. Higher density living increases the need for quality urban environmentsThe thirty year infrastructure strategies are only required to address one angle of longer term planning. Likewise, the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity focuses on providing more housing, but not on the experience of living in these places. We also need to think about the quality of the urban environments. The higher the density of housing, the more quality matters. For example, if there’s no outside yard, local parks become more important. Integrate infrastructure, zone rules and project fundingCouncils have a choice when developing their infrastructure strategies. They can be basic, only focusing on the roads and pipes we need. Or they can become the starting point for a long term growth plan/spatial plan. This would be just as useful for areas experiencing depopulation as for growth areas, for example to make decisions on abandoning a certain area of the town. An urban development plan could bring together statutory plans with zone rules, infrastructure and the funding for actions. Only Auckland currently has a mandatory requirement to do a spatial plan (required as part of the development of the Unitary Plan). Dunedin has developed a spatial plan which is not too over the top, but addresses growth, hazards, neighbourhood centres and a range of other issues. I see it as a good example of a very useful plan – useful in the sense of providing the platform for their new district plan, and for a bunch of actions that get funded through the Long Term and Annual Plans. Examples of high quality cities These cities didn’t just accept the problems they faced, but instead did something about it. Melbourne has a development plan, and the council has paid a lot of attention to urban design. The city has great transit, with just one card needed to go on all transport, making it easy to move around. The combination of good accessibility, design flair and vibrancy means that Melbourne has to be up there as a world class city. Curitiba, in Brazil, solved its transport woes, which were significant in the 1950s and 60s. Its mayor (who incidentally, or perhaps significantly, was a planner) led a plan to create an integrated transit-based city. It was so successful that Curitiba’s council now has a whole department for hosting all the people from around the world who come to learn how to achieve similar outcomes. It is interesting to reflect on the different paths Curitiba and Auckland took over the last 50 years, with vastly different results. Vancouver has incorporated the concept of ‘gentle density’ in its spatial plan. I love this term, as it’s not threatening, and it works at various levels:
Portland created something different as a result of being steadfast in their approach rather than chopping and changing. Singapore doesn’t have many natural features, but has invested in design to create great public spaces and art, and gardens. It also has brilliant transit and free events. Paradoxically, for a place that depends on fossil fuels for its very survival, it is very green in many respects.  Introduction David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island. In this article (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. In part one David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners, and in part two he discusses the decision making process. What can council officers do to help independent hearing commissioners, to ensure a smooth hearing and decision making process? The most important things are early engagement and separation of functions. The sooner the Commissioner or panel is engaged, the sooner they can establish the pre-hearing process and timetable to be followed; for example pre-hearing meetings, expert conferencing/caucusing and further information requests. Providing sufficient time for those actions to occur, whilst potentially delaying the commencement of the hearing, can usefully serve to narrow the issues in contention and therefore shorten the actual hearing duration or even in some (albeit limited) cases can completely resolve issues without the need for a hearing. The written directions to parties that a Commissioner can provide once appointed can readily assist in providing the scope and space for such conferencing/resolutions. Although it is difficult for smaller councils without the luxury of large planning teams, it’s also essential that wherever possible a council maintains a separation between their administrative and reporting functions when dealing with hearing commissioners and panels. Quite often the reporting officer is handling administrative arrangements, including commissioner liaison, and this is not appropriate. A reporting officer is no different from a submitter or an applicant. It is not okay for the hearing panel to be liaising directly and individually with any individual party to the proceedings, whether submitter, applicant or reporting officer because there’s the risk of influence, or a perception of influence. What are some of the challenges independent hearing commissioners face?
Accommodating pre-circulation requirements into the time frames set down for limited and fully notified resource consent hearings is now mandatory but it does put pressure on all parties. Expert witnesses, whilst conscious of meeting the expectations of commissioners and working in the spirit of the code of practice, understandably have an eye on the ticking clock which means that they will still need to produce a brief of evidence following conferencing and have it circulated as per the due dates. Commissioners need to be cognisant of these tensions and pressures when setting their own timeframes. The quid pro quo for experts is that if they are successful in narrowing the issues during conferencing this will reduce the scope and length of their evidence. There is more opportunity for resolution of issues through a prehearing process for plan reviews and plan changes because the time frames are more liberal. So, whilst prehearing discussions enable a narrowing of the issues to be considered at the hearing, this can only effectively be done for plan changes and plans, unless in the case of resource consents the applicant agrees to put the application process on hold to accommodate pre-hearing conferencing. Otherwise, there isn’t much time for talking and everyone becomes locked into pre-circulation of evidence. Early engagement is critical for this to be successful. For example, I have been engaged to assist with the decision making on a plan change at Tasman District Council. I have known this for 18 months, which means I can make sure I have the time available to do it, and I can be across all aspects of the process as soon as the official delegation has been made by the Council. This usually occurs prior to notification. Once submissions close, I issue directions through a minute. This goes out to all parties involved in the hearing. It provides certainty about the process and gives a likely timeframe. In the minute, I outline the key issues raised in submissions and indicate I want parties to get together to resolve as much as possible before the hearing.
Concluding comment This is the final in this series of articles on decision making under the RMA. I’ve enjoyed contributing to it and hope it has been of interest to all participants in RMA hearings. Hopefully it has stimulated some discussion even if you don’t agree with all that has been canvased. Finally, I would like to thank Debra Bradley for initiating this series and getting me motivated to contribute under her editorial tutelage. Her grasp of these matters is impressive and I would commend her services to councils throughout the country.  In part three (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face.
Introduction David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island. In this article (which is part two of a three part series), David discusses the decision making process. In part one David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners, and in part three he identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. In part three (the final one of a three part series), David identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. What happens during the decision making process?
Firstly, we often do a follow up site and locality visit. In many instances there are particular properties or places we want to visit a second time based on material we have heard during the course of the hearing; usually from submitters. Secondly, an adjournment provides an ideal opportunity to collate the information in front of the Panel to ascertain whether there are any material gaps that should be plugged by one or more of the parties. Nine times out of ten I have usually flagged these information requirements to the parties during the hearing but the immediate post-hearing point is an ideal time to perform this form of 'stock take'. Actually there is a third reason for an adjournment; that is to give either (or both) the Reporting Officer and the Applicant some time to prepare their respective ‘closings’. For the Reporting Officer this is usually giving them adequate time to reflect on what they have heard (from the applicant and submitters) during the course of the hearing and to reduce that to a written update to their section 42A report. For the applicant this is an opportunity to provide their traditional right of reply in writing. I usually minute the above process so everyone knows what is expected and the timeframe involved. Normally we reconvene at another time to hear those ‘closings’, but sometimes it’s possible to just consider the papers without reconvening.
These things are not necessarily taught in the commissioner training – but they are what I can offer. Councillors are generally receptive to working through how we make a decision first, before arriving at the actual decision. We look at the issues and the context before reaching a decision. Sometimes councillors want to jump immediately to a decision; that is inevitable and what they are often used to in LGA forums. But my role is to promote a logical decision making process and ensure we have addressed all issues that are relevant to arriving at a decision. This is important as the reasons for the decision need to be clearly stated in the formal determination. I use two whiteboards to structure the decision making process. One for the decision outline and one to develop each section in that outline. The first is the broad structure of the decision and helps provide context for the decision-making process. The second represents the ‘skeleton’ of the write up of each section (topic or issue) of the decision. At each stage in the process the notes on the boards are photographed and this informs the creation of a decision report covering: Part 1 – Introduction – background and proposal Part 2 – Issue definition and a summary of what we heard Part 3 – Evaluation – what we make of what we heard Part 4 – Statutory considerations Part 5 – Recommendations.
Even though councils no longer have to make decisions on individual points on district and regional plan matters, I still use a table to record individual decisions on every submission and further submission point to make sure everything is covered. I encourage councils to adopt this table approach in the submission summary and in the section 42A report (usually as an appendix) as it allows the decision to focus on the issues in contention rather than become a prolonged narrative on submitter points.
What is the role of local knowledge in the decision making process? Local knowledge is both useful and a hindrance. In a hearing, you can only know what you’re told in the written/verbal material placed in front of you at the hearing (a bit like a jury). Commissioners are there to hear, to weigh and to balance the evidence. Whilst a Panel Member’s technical knowledge may assist them in testing certain evidence, it is not appropriate for Panel Members to substitute their own knowledge for the absence of evidence. Local knowledge can also be very useful, for example being able to advise the other Panel Members that a council has decided to address heritage issues through Long Term Plan funding and non-regulatory education rather than through the district plan. Local knowledge of the good spots for a decent coffee is also critical. What is your process for reaching a decision when the independent commissioners on a Panel don’t agree? I try and break down the issue – is it limited to a particular component of the decision or is it the total decision? I also attempt to isolate the reasons for the disagreement – are they valid; are they RMA related; and are they capable of being addressed through the addition or deletion of a particular provision (on a plan matter) or conditions (in the case of a resource consent)? Really, it’s a case of exploring all possible solutions to the disagreement, and if there’s still no consensus then accepting that a dissenting or alternate view/decision may be the outcome. In this case it’s important that Panels either have an uneven number of members, or if it is an even number, that the Chair has a casting vote. Will use of independent commissioners increase decision making consistency across New Zealand? I hope so. It can’t help but increase awareness of how best practice is evolving around the country. In this sense I really hope this series of articles generates some interest in the use of ICs around the traps and in particular the use of Mixed Panels, and also helps share some of my thoughts with other Commissioners. What do you like most about working as an independent hearing commissioner? Achieving an efficient and effective outcome is immensely satisfying, as is having opportunities to train others. I also enjoy meeting a diverse range of people with a variety of skills, and travelling to places like Ohakune in summer when it is very quiet (out of the ski season), and Alexandra in the middle of a very cold hoar frost. Every hearing is different.  Introduction David McMahon is an accredited Independent Hearing Commissioner and resource management consultant at RMG with particular expertise in statutory planning and process. He has been a Commissioner since 2001, and has worked on a large number of plan change, resource consent and designation hearings in Wellington, the lower North Island and across the South Island. In this article (which is part one of a three part series), David discusses the increasing trend for councils to use independent commissioners. In part two David talks about the decision making process, and in part three he identifies areas for improvement in how councils work with commissioners, and some of the challenges commissioners face. Have you noticed a trend towards councils using independent hearing panels more often? Yes. This is definitely a trend, which began in earnest around 2005 when the Making Good Decisions course commenced and independent commissioners needed to be officially accredited. It has been ramping up ever since, following law changes in 2009 requiring a proportion of all hearing panels to be accredited, and in 2013, requiring accredited Chairs of hearing panels. In particular, I’ve noticed a trend to use independent commissioners in a mixed panel arrangement, made up of some councillors with one or two independent commissioners. This reflects the need for panels to be made up of accredited commissioners and Chairs, as not all councillors are accredited. Another reason for this trend is general pressure on councillors to focus on other Council responsibilities under the LGA and portfolios. It can be difficult for councillors to commit significant amounts of time to long hearings. Are hearings becoming longer? As a general rule yes. There has been a noticeable increase in the complexity of hearings, which require a diverse range of technical knowledge. This has particularly been the case with regional consent applications (and joint regional/district hearings such as quarry/landfill applications) where scientific evidence often predominates. Also, now that second generation district plans are being developed, with resource consent hearings we are returning to the situation of having to consider the relative weightings of provisions in existing and proposed plans. Small hearing reports are a thing of the past. There is often a requirement for multiple technical assessments by reporting officers and applicants. For example, in addition to the typical traffic, noise, and landscape assessments, the rise of the geotechnical assessment has occurred since the Christchurch earthquakes. So there is more technical information for panels to absorb. The counterbalance to this – and a recent trend since the 2013 amendment – is the increase in pre-circulation of hearing reports and expert evidence. Avoiding the need to have evidence read verbatim at hearings is helping to keep hearings to manageable lengths. Even though hearings are longer and more complex, there are fewer resource consent hearings because the vast majority of resource consent applications are non-notified following legislation changes to speed up resource consent processes. This change means there is more reason for people to get involved in plan hearings, which means these hearings are likely to be longer, and involve more people. In what circumstances are councils most likely to use an independent hearing panel? Independent commissioners (ICs) are used in both resource consent and District/Regional Plan hearings. However, in my experience, ICs are most likely to be involved in resource consent applications, either exclusively or as part of a panel. Councils use independent hearing panels where the council is the applicant, for example, applications related to a roading designation, a community centre or a waste water treatment plant. They are also used for resource consents where there is potential for conflict due to lobbying of councillors, or if councillors know the applicant. Another factor leading to the use of ICs – and a more recent trend under the RMA – is that both applicants and submitters can now request independent decision makers on resource consent applications. In what circumstances do you think it is better for councillors to hear submissions and make decisions? It’s good for councillors to be involved at a plan making level. That’s because if they get the policy right, the “right” decisions will be made on resource consent applications. However, mixed panels of independent commissioners and councillors are even better, and are now the accepted norm. Mixed panels can be very effective because they combine councillors’ local knowledge and governance role with the technical expertise and legislative know-how of the independent commissioners. Queenstown District Council is using a pool of commissioners in the decision making process for its Proposed District Plan. The same Chair is involved in all the hearings, alongside one councillor per hearing and two other commissioners (from the pool). Kapiti Coast District Council is using a mixed panel of two ICs, two councillors and one Iwi commissioner for its Proposed District Plan hearings. Next year the Wellington Regional Council’s Proposed Natural Resources Plan hearings will be heard by a panel of three independent commissioners. How do councils find out about the independent commissioners available to assist them? There are a variety of ways to select independent hearing commissioners. There is a centralised list on the Ministry for the Environment’s Making Good Decisions web page. Many councils are now either calling for nominations from independent commissioners for their register of accredited decision makers (usually for resource consent hearings) or requesting specific registrations for plan reviews (from which either a pool or a panel is constituted). Word of mouth plays an important part too. Commissioners can also advise on the best mix of skills and personnel for a particular hearing panel. When I am asked to be a commissioner on a hearing panel I ask who I will be sitting with. I take into account skills and personalities, and whether it will be a strong team. I’m a generalist who understands process and policy. Technical experts are often needed, and involvement of a councillor with local knowledge can also be important. It is a great privilege when councils approach me and ask who I would recommend including on the panel, giving me the opportunity to choose a strong team.  The Government will soon provide more national direction on managing risks associated with natural hazards through a National Disaster Resilience Strategy.
This strategy will be influenced by the international Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction. This is a United Nations agreement which New Zealand signed in 2015. It has four priorities for action: 1. Understanding disaster risk. 2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk. 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience. 4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. New Zealand’s National Disaster Resilience Strategy The National Disaster Resilience Strategy is being developed by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM), and will replace the current National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. The MCDEM website states the Ministry will consider where efforts could be better targeted to yield the greatest benefit across the four priority areas of the Sendai Framework (listed above). Strategy development processCouncils are key stakeholders in the National Disaster Resilience Strategy, alongside property managers and owners, lifeline utilities, insurers and reinsurers, and the NZ Insurance Council. There are multiple opportunities for local government to take part in the MCDEM’s development of the National Disaster Resililence Strategy, which is due for completion in 2017 – the timeline for that process is available here. National Policy Statement or National Environmental Standard?At a recent Resource Management Law Association meeting, Tonkin + Taylor Director Marje Russ said one of the outcomes of the Strategy is likely to be national guidance on resilience for councils in the form of a National Policy Statement (NPS) or a National Environmental Standard (NES). Marje is currently working on a report for the Government on this topic. Marje said the resilience NPS or NES is unlikely to be developed until after the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 has taken effect, so the upcoming changes related to national instruments can apply to that process. The natural hazards page of the Ministry for the Environment website states: “Managing significant risks from natural hazards is a Government priority. The Minister has stated a preference for a National Policy Statement (NPS) with an indicative date for completion of 2018. Consultation on the development of a NPS would commence following the enactment of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill.” NPS or NES? At the Resource Management Law Association meeting I attended in Nelson (on 28 April 2016), the indication from participants was that a National Environmental Standard for managing natural hazards would be more welcome than a National Policy Statement. The general view was that a NES would more effectively and efficiently overcome many of the difficulties many councils have faced when the community has opposed natural hazard mapping and rules in resource management plans. Do you agree? Or do you think a National Policy Statement would provide what councils need to manage natural hazards in New Zealand?  Here are Anne Churcher's responses to questions about the change from a hazard to a risk management focus in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and the implications for councils and council-funded organisations. Anne Churcher (www.acaudit.co.nz) has over 20 years’ experience as an internal auditor and risk manager. She provides risk management and health and safety advice to the health and local government sectors.
1. What is the difference between a hazard and a risk? There is a subtle difference between the two concepts. A hazard is a source of harm, whereas risks refer to the chance of something happening. For example, an uneven footpath is a hazard. However, the risk related to an uneven surface would be of someone tripping and breaking their leg. A risk assessment would consider the likelihood and impact of this happening, and this will be different on a footpath than on a staircase. All hazards can be viewed as risks but not all risks are hazards. 2. Why do you think the concept of risk management has been included in the new Act? I don’t know what was in the mind of the legislators and I’m certainly not a lawyer. Risk management provides the framework to go beyond identification of a physical hazard to consideration of what might happen and how likely it is. This may vary greatly in different organisations. Not all risks are created equal – so it allows the organisation to focus on those with the greatest likelihood of occurrence and/or those with the potential to cause the greatest harm. 3. Are hazards mentioned at all in the Act? Yes, the wording throughout the Act talks about “hazards and risks”. Notably the definition of a hazard in the Act narrowly defines a hazard as including “a person’s behaviour where that behaviour has the potential to cause death, injury, or illness to a person…” 4. What should organisations be thinking about? An organisation needs to have a systematic, ongoing risk management programme. Risks must be identified, assessed and where necessary managed to an acceptable level. Processes need to be in place to monitor the key controls that ensure risks are kept at a tolerable level. An organisation may wish to independently audit their existing health and safety or risk management programmes to identify any necessary improvements. Many guidance and information resources are available online, including those on the WorkSafe and ACC websites. 5. What are the implications of these changes for local government generally? Chief executives and senior managers with decision making roles have more personal responsibility for health and safety, with the potential for large personal fines, which can’t be insured against. Councillors are exempt from personal liability, but chief executives are not. I expect most councils will have a risk management function in place that may already work closely with their Health and Safety team. These may need some minor adjustments to ensure the council is meeting its health and safety obligations. There is a requirement for organisations to work together to manage health and safety. Council officers will need to work closely with their contractors, volunteers and funded community groups to ensure health and safety is managed. 6. What are the implications for small-medium sized organisations owned or funded by councils? The management team will need to check their policies and procedures meet the requirements of the new Act. It should just be a matter of tweaking what they already have, but the council which funds the organisation will want more assurance that health and safety risks are being well managed. Small organisations with fewer than 20 workers, and which are not in a high risk sector or industry (as defined by the Act), don’t have to have health and safety representatives or a health and safety committee, but can choose to do so voluntarily. Museums, art galleries, and council funded events often involve a lot of volunteers. Most volunteers are also considered workers, within the context of the Act. See section 19 (3) for more details. Councils will need to work together with organisations they fund to be sure that health and safety compliance is in place. This will include looking at their risk assessments and their policies. This responsibility will also apply when Council contracts out the running of an event. The general principle is that responsibility goes up to the chief executive. However, this has not yet been tested through the courts. 7. What steps can senior management teams and chief executives take to make sure their organisation is meeting the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015?
8. How can councils assist the organisations they own or fund to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act?
 New animal welfare regulations are being proposed for New Zealand, which would enable instant fines to apply for actions adversely impacting on animals. This is a great step forward, as it means immediate action can be taken, rather than requiring costly prosecutions.
Fines would apply for causing heat stress in dogs by leaving them in hot cars, or failing to provide fully shaded and dry areas for resting and sleeping in areas where dogs are confined. Infringement fines would also apply for:
In addition, dogs on moving vehicles on public roads would have to be secured in a way that prevents them from falling off, except for working dogs which could be unsecured on a vehicle while working. The regulations related to dogs are to be enforced by the SPCA’s animal welfare inspectors, while Ministry of Primary Industries will be responsible for animal welfare enforcement for farm animals (see page 20 of the consultation document). The police will also be deemed to be animal welfare inspectors. However, the consultation document notes their involvement is usually limited to where animal welfare offending is connected to other crimes. Given dog control officers employed by councils are often at the sharp end of dog-related issues, why not deem them to be animal welfare inspectors, with the power to impose infringement fines directly, rather than by contacting the SPCA? More details about the proposed regulations are available here. Submissions close on 19 May 2016, and can be provided by email to Animal.WelfareSubmissions@mpi.govt.nz.  Councils rely on a wide range of skilled labour to function, so the Productivity Commission's issues paper on new models of tertiary education has important implications for the local government sector. The trends in employment and education will also affect communities around New Zealand. The full paper is available here and initial submissions are due by 4 May 2016. Here's a summary of some key points.
There is a need for an increasingly educated workforceTechnological advances could make a large proportion of existing jobs obsolescent in the coming decades. Based on current expectations of technological trends, the jobs most at risk are those with lower wages and requiring low levels of educational attainment. Analysis suggests 46% of New Zealand’s workforce faces a high risk of computerisation, which is similar to estimations for the United States. Historically, routine and manual jobs (which tend to be low-wage and low-skilled, and which a computer can more readily undertake) are more at risk of decline than non-routine or interpersonal roles that require contextual judgement and emotional input. This skills-biased technological change may mean that a large proportion of working adults will need to upskill and, in some cases, gain new qualifications to stay employed – including those who already hold qualifications. This proportion of students re-entering tertiary education could therefore be much larger in the future. Nearly half of New Zealand businesses have difficult-to-fill vacanciesA 2013 survey of businesses reported 41% with difficult-to-fill vacancies. Half of those businesses identified applicants lacking the necessary “qualifications or skills” as a reason. Other common explanations included applicants lacking the desired attitude, motivation or personality; that they lacked work experience; and that there were not enough applicants (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). New Zealand’s economy has a growing services sector and shrinking goods-producing and primary sectors. This trend increases the importance of skills development, the availability of skills in the labour market, and their effective use by employers. This is because performance improvement in the services sector relies on the acquisition, manipulation and application of information – and this is strongly influenced by worker skills. How might tertiary education be delivered in future?Technological change is improving quality and reducing costs in tertiary education in many countries, and has further potential to do so. For example, computer programmes are increasingly able to personalise content or customise learning based on individualised assessments and some argue that massive online open courses (MOOCs) offer the potential to radically increase the output of education without compromising quality. The Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission consider there are a number of implications of MOOCs in New Zealand:
A particular challenge for online delivery of education is that while it has the potential to improve productivity and improve access for students, there is also good evidence that establishing positive peer and student-teacher relationships are important elements of success for some population groups who experience worse tertiary education outcomes than other groups. Impact on international student numbers International education is one of New Zealand’s largest exports. In 2014, more than 54,000 international students were enrolled at tertiary providers. Commentators have identified a number of risks that New Zealand providers face in serving the international student market, including:
Issues paper The full ‘New Models of Tertiary Education’ issues paper is available here. It considers five major trends:
Initial submissions on the issues paper are due by 4 May 2016. The submissions will help shape the nature and focus of the Productivity Commission's inquiry. Anyone can make a submission. It may be in written, electronic or audio format. A submission can range from a short letter on a single issue to a more substantial document covering many issues. Supporting facts, figures, data, examples and documentation should be provided, where possible. Submissions may be lodged at www.productivity.govt.nz or emailed to info@productivity.govt.nz. Word or searchable PDF format is preferred. Submissions may also be posted, but an electronic copy should be emailed as well, if possible. Next steps
 Like many local authorities, Tasman District Council has prepared a Digital Enablement Plan as part of its application to the Government for extended broadband internet access and mobile coverage. One of the aims is to make it possible for people to enjoy visiting or living in the beauty of remote locations while continuing to make a living. Better broadband and mobile access is critical to making it easier for people to move away from the big centres to rural locations, by ensuring people can continue to telecommute, or find new ways to sell services and products via the Internet. Tasman's Digital Enablement Plan includes examples of the many ways councils can actively enhance the community’s use of digital infrastructure for social and economic benefits, including:
The Government’s guide to developing a digital enhancement plan is available here.  Two of the proposals in the Government's ‘Next Steps for Freshwater’ consultation document are to:
Here's a link to the full consultation document, which covers a much broader range of proposals including technical changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, Iwi participation in freshwater decision-making and changes to the Freshwater Improvement Fund criteria. Submissions close at 5.00pm on Friday 22 April 2016. 1. EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER TAKES (see pages 22 - 26) Water is currently allocated on a ‘first in, first served’ basis, meaning applications for water are assessed in the order they are received. This approach works when available water can meet the needs of all users. However, once water becomes scarce, higher value or more efficient uses can’t be prioritised. New users cannot always obtain the resources they need to establish high value enterprises, because all the available water has been allocated or no new discharges are allowed. However, if users become more efficient in their water use and reduce discharges it will create room for new users. Proposal: Require councils to apply technical efficiency standards in catchments that are at, or approaching, full allocation of water. Technical efficiency standards will define the amount of water that would be used by an efficient user in different climates, soils, and end uses, for example, urban, hydro, irrigation. Questions:
2. STOCK EXCLUSION FROM WATER BODIES (see pages 19 - 20) Proposal: To regulate to exclude dairy cattle on milking platforms from water bodies by 1 July 2017, and to extend this to land used for dairy support, beef cattle and deer at a later date (see table 2) to give these farmers time to comply. Sheep and goats will not be covered by this proposal as they do less damage to our streams and rivers. Stock will only be nationally required to be excluded from water bodies on flat land and lowlands and rolling hills (< 15˚ slope) due to the practicality of fencing on steep country and the high costs relative to the environmental benefits. This would not override more stringent council rules and councils will still have the ability to apply stock exclusion rules more widely where they see this as necessary or desirable. See Table 2 on page 20 of the consultation document for more details about the proposed deadlines for stock exclusion. In summary,
How stock will be excluded Farmers will need to put up permanent fences unless there is a natural barrier preventing stock from getting to the water. Temporary fencing will be allowed where this is more appropriate, for example, for short-term grazing or where flooding is a problem. Water bodies where stock will be required to be excluded The national stock exclusion regulation would apply to:
Enforcement Some councils already have some degree of stock exclusion requirement in their regional plans. There are problems with practical enforcement because the expense to councils and ratepayers of taking a Court prosecution can seem excessive. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill currently before Parliament provides explicit provision for these proposed national regulations. It also introduces a nationally standardised infringement regime with instant fines. Will riparian buffers be required? It is not proposed to require a riparian buffer between a fence and the waterway. If managed well, riparian buffers can benefit water quality, bank stability, and biodiversity. However, the optimum buffer width and how it should be managed depends on the circumstances and aims. The high cost of managing riparian buffers (eg, planting, weed control) is not justified by the environmental benefits in all cases. Some councils are already working with farmers to promote riparian management in high value and at-risk areas. Question: Do you agree with the proposed requirements and deadlines for excluding livestock from water bodies? Why or why not? MAKING A SUBMISSION Details on how to make a submission are provided on pages 38-39 of the consultation document.  The Productivity Commission is considering whether New Zealand needs to have so many different Acts influencing urban planning. The Acts under scrutiny in the Better Urban Planning issues paper are:
Looking at this list, it's not surprising the Commission found (in 2015) that the current planning system is complex, and suffers from poor integration. Issues are:
From my experience, this lack of legislative integration creates real challenges for local government even when staff have the best intentions to work together across RMA, asset management and long term planning disciplines. What do you think? Could your council deliver better urban planning outcomes if the legislation was changed? Submissions on the issues paper are due by 9 March 2016 and they will be made available on the Commission’s website soon afterwards, at www.productivity.govt.nz. Next steps in the process
 It's nearly that time of year again, when councils will be seeking feedback from the public on a wide range of plans, policies and bylaws. I've read thousands of submissions. In my experience, the most effective submissions:
 If ever there was a bylaw type that could benefit from informal consultation, its the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.
Both Ashburton District Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council are carrying out thorough processes prior to formally notifying their policies and bylaws. Ashburton District Council has posted a survey to all the district's registered dog owners, encouraging them to share their views. The Council will also be holding focus groups specifically for dog owners in the next few months. Western Bay of Plenty District Council has identified the following key issues to consult on:
There's a great website page where people can join discussions and leave feedback. Staff and elected members will also be engaging with people at three relevant events - two A&P shows and a Doggy Day Out.  The Government's Thirty Year New Zealand Infrastructure Strategy makes the following predictions for three waters management by 2045:
Do you agree with these predictions? What are the implications for local government, as the managers of all these services?  It was wonderful to hear on 12 December 2015 that the participating 195 countries had agreed, by consensus, to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. In the 12-page document, the members agreed to reduce their carbon output "as soon as possible" and to do their best to keep global warming "to well below 2 degrees C". It wasn't possible for news agencies to delve into the detail of the agreement, but this 12 page agreement packs a lot of punches. If it is implemented, it will be an amazing global collaboration. You can read the complete Paris Agreement is on pages 21 - 32 (Annex) of this document: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. In addition to the nationally determined commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are commitments to share information, technology, climate data and money. AdaptationThe commitments related to adaptation may have implications for New Zealand councils, particularly as all parties to the agreement will be required to prepare and submit national adaptation plans. Article 7, point 11 (on page 26 of the attached document) states that: "The adaptation communication referred to in paragraph 10 of this Article shall be, as appropriate, submitted and updated periodically, as a component of or in conjunction with other communications or documents, including a national adaptation plan, a nationally determined contribution as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 2, and/or a national communication." Ratification of the AgreementThe Paris Agreement will not become binding on its member states until 55 parties who produce over 55% of the world's greenhouse gas have ratified the Agreement. The ratification process is scheduled to occur between April 2016 and April 2017. Global StocktakeThe implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every five years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done. Anyone who has prepared a carbon inventory for a council will know that this is a huge task for the United Nations!  Time management techniques can help to make the transition back to work less stressful. In 2015 I went to a talk by Angela Cheruseo where she recommended having a plan for each day. List everything you want to get done, then give it a label: A = must do today B = should do today C = good to do today, but not important D = don't need to do today. Then take the A list, and number these actions in the order of priority, and then do the same for the B list. Possibly don't even bother with the C and D lists - just accept that there will always be more things to do than can be done today. She says "single-minded completion of a task is the greatest time management technique. It will double your productivity, you will be more successful, and your work will be under control." If there's something that's important to do, that you are resisting for some reason, prioritise it for the start of the day. If you leave it until later, you will have less energy to overcome your resistance.  The three options being considered for limiting the global temperature rise are:
Radio New Zealand reports that the United Nations-set deadline for the deal to be settled is 6pm Friday, 11 December (Paris time), but it is widely expected the conference will run over time. For more information go to http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/291746/new-climate-pact-draft-released  The latest report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) provides useful guidance on how to break the news to home owners that they may be affected by sea level rise. The PCE website also provides regional land elevation maps which could be valuable to councils. The full report is available at http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/preparing-new-zealand-for-rising-seas-certainty-and-uncertainty, and some of the key messages for councils are summarised below. Process for informing home owners of riskPlanning in the face of uncertainty is never easy, but is particularly difficult when choices will affect people’s homes. Yet Councils could be found negligent if they hold relevant information and fail to provide it clearly, fairly, and accurately. Accurate measurement of land elevation above sea level is an essential first step in considering the potential impacts of sea level rise. These maps provide a starting point for councils beginning to engage with their communities on this challenging issue. The PCE recommends taking time to discuss this before introducing hazard zones, or including information on LIMs. Assessment of the vulnerability of a particular area generally requires information about a range of local characteristics, which is a follow up step. A clearer separation between scientific assessment and decision-making would increase clarity around risk levels and assumptions. Judgments, such as those involved in adding safety margins or setting restrictions on development, should be made transparently by decision-makers, rather than rolled into technical assessments. Clear communication Clear communication is a vital component of a good process. One particular need is to avoid referring to ‘one-in-50 year’ or ‘one-in-100 year’ flood events. Not only is this terminology difficult to understand, it is not a stable measure over time. For example, after a rise in sea level of 30 centimetres, an extreme high water level (which has previously been a 1 in 100 year event) would be expected to occur about:
The report includes a number of other useful descriptions of complex concepts, including the following. Flood issues Areas close to river mouths can experience the ‘double whammy’ of river flooding coinciding with the sea pushing its way upriver at high tide. As high tides become higher because of sea level rise, such floods will become more likely. Groundwater In some coastal areas, the water table is not far below the ground and is connected to the sea. As the level of the sea rises, the water table will rise in these areas. High groundwater causes a number of problems:
Areas of land reclaimed from the sea are especially likely to experience problems caused by high groundwater. LidAR and RiskScape LiDAR technology - pulses of light from a laser on an aeroplane are bounced off the ground, and the time taken for the reflected pulse to return is used to measure the elevation of the ground. Topographic surveys using LiDAR are typically accurate to 10 to 15 centimetres, so can be used as a basis for analysing the impacts of sea level rise. RiskScape – this software programme has been used to find how many buildings, and which roads, railways, and airports are located within the different elevation bands. Elevation maps availableThe PCE commissioned NIWA to convert the available LiDAR data into a standardised form. Once this was done, NIWA used RiskScape software to estimate how much of the built environment is at risk from sea level rise. The report contains maps showing low lying coastal land in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. The impact of sea level rise will be felt in many other areas outside of these four major cities. Maps of these and other coastal areas have also been prepared in the course of this investigation, and are available at www.pce.parliament.nz Five other cities and towns that have significant areas of low-lying coastal land – Napier, Whakatane, Tauranga, Motueka, and Nelson. The situation in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin Auckland Vulnerable transport links include the Northern Motorway just north of the Harbour Bridge and the causeway on the Northwestern Motorway where it crosses the mud flats at Waterview. Wellington Most low-lying areas in Wellington are on the floodplain of the Hutt River – in Petone, Seaview, and Waiwhetū. The more pressing issue for this area is river and stream flooding. However, rising sea level will exacerbate such river floods by reducing the fall to the sea. Much of Wellington city’s shoreline is protected by concrete seawalls and/or rock armouring. Such hard defences will require increasingly expensive maintenance as the sea rises. Christchurch A considerable amount of low-lying land shown on the map is in the Residential Red Zone and so has been largely cleared of buildings. Dunedin Dunedin is notable for the large built-up area in the city’s south that is very low-lying. Of the nearly 2,700 homes that lie less than 50 centimetres above the spring high tide mark, over 70% are lower than half that elevation. The low elevation of South Dunedin along with its high water table makes it prone to flooding after heavy rain. The water table also rises and falls with the tides, so these problems will increase as high tides become higher. National direction and guidanceThe Ministry for the Environment began work on a national environmental standard in 2009. However, this work has now stopped. The Minister for the Environment’s view is that there is “too much uncertainty for a rigid standard to be applied”. The Ministry is now working on an update of the 2008 MfE Guidance Manual. This provides an opportunity to address matters that emerged during the PCE's investigation. The revised guidance should be a ‘living document’, so it can be readily updated. Recommendations to the Minister for the Environment include:
 It's no wonder New Zealand has significant infrastructure challenges, when its population is so sparse in many regions. The Thirty Year New Zealand Infrastructure Plan 2015 includes the following statistics: 2013 population as percentage of national total Northland - 4% Auckland - 34% Waikato - 10% Bay of Plenty - 6% Gisborne - 1% Hawkes Bay - 4% Taranaki - 3% Manawatu-Wanganui - 5% Wellington - 11% Tasman - 1% Nelson - 1% Marlborough - 1% West Coast - 1% Canterbury - 13% Otago - 5% Southland - 2% |
