|
22 November 2023 |
MINUTES
OF Western Bay of Plenty District
Council
Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub Committee
Meeting No. TPSP23-1
HELD IN THE Te Puke Library and Service
Centre (Boardroom),
Jellicoe Street, Te Puke ON Wednesday, 22 November 2023 AT 6.00pm
|
Whakatau mai te wairua Whakawātea mai te hinengaro Whakarite mai te tinana Kia ea ai ngā mahi
Āe |
Settle the spirit Clear the mind Prepare the body To achieve what needs to be achieved. Yes |
2 Present
Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour (Elected Chairperson), Cr G Dally, Mayor (Ex Officio) J Denyer, Cr A Wichers, Cr R Crawford (Elected Deputy Chairperson), Te Puke Community Board Chairperson K Ellis, Te Puke Community Board Member D Snell, Te Puke Community Board Member K Summerhays, Tangata Whenua Representative D Dinsdale (Ngāti Moko) and Tangata Whenua Representative H Biel (Tapuika Iwi Authority).
R Davie (Deputy CEO/General Manager Strategy and Community), E Watton (Strategic Policy and Planning Programme Director), A King (Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects), M Va’ai Matatia (Senior Environmental Planner), C Nepia (Planning Coordinator) and C Irvin (Senior Governance Advisor).
procedural matter
Mayor Denyer opened the meeting and chaired proceedings until Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour was elected as the new Chairperson (Item 8.1).
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.1 Moved: Cr R Crawford Seconded: Te Puke Community Board Member D Snell That the apology for lateness for Cr A Wichers and Tangata Whenua Representative H Biel (Tapuika Iwi Authority) and for absence from Member N Chauhan, be accepted. |
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
|
8.1 Appointment of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to the Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub Committee |
|
The Subcommittee considered a report dated 22 November 2023 from the Senior Governance Advisor. The report was taken as read.
· Mayor Denyer advised the Subcommittee to choose which voting system to use to elect a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson: System A or System B under Clause 25(4), Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002. |
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.2 Moved: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour Seconded: Cr G Dally 1. That the Senior Governance Advisor’s report dated 22 November 2023 titled ‘Appointment of Chairperson to the Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub Committee’ be received. 2. That the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. |
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.3 Moved: Mayor (Ex Officio) J Denyer Seconded: Cr G Dally 3. That in accordance with Clause 25(4), Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 the Te Puke Community Board adopts System B for the election of the Deputy Chairperson. |
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.4 Moved: Mayor (Ex Officio) J Denyer Seconded: Tangata Whenua Representative D Dinsdale 4. That, in accordance with Clause 26, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Deputy Mayor John Scrimgeour be appointed as Chairperson of the Te Puke Spatial Plan Subcommittee. |
|
6.04pm Cr Wichers entered the meeting.
|
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.5 Moved: Mayor (Ex Officio) J Denyer Seconded: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour 5. That, in accordance with Clause 26, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Councillor Richard Crawford be appointed as Deputy Chairperson of the Te Puke Spatial Plan Subcommittee. |
6.05pm Tangata Whenua Representative H Biel (Tapuika Iwi Authority) entered the
meeting.
Upon being elected as Chairperson, Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour assumed the role of Chairperson for the remainder of the meeting.
|
8.2 Te Puke Spatial Plan - Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Strategy |
|
· The Subcommittee considered a report dated 22 November 2023 from the Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects who provided the following points: · Creating a subcommittee for the Te Puke Spatial Plan was to give mana and create a space to collaborate. · This meeting was to go through the Project Plan and the Communication and Engagement Strategy, which a number of people had been involved in preparing, and which was part of understanding how the Te Puke Spatial Plan was to be prepared. · The Project Plan had the scope, background, objectives and intended outputs of the project, including the governance structure, key risks and key project phases. The key project phases were intended to match the Communication and Engagement Strategy. · Included in the scope was community aspirations and outcomes, housing delivery across the housing continuum, hard and social infrastructure needs, locations, direction for existing planned projects and direction for District Plan changes. · The geographical scope of the plan had not been confirmed because staff wanted to converse with the Subcommittee and the community around establishing whether there were some parts that should be left out and/or parts that should perhaps be included that had not been considered. · The intention was to connect Manoeka Road and Waitangi village areas to Te Puke in terms of infrastructure, and how to facilitate this. · Work had been undertaken by Waitaha and Tapuika Iwi Authority in terms of planning for the hapū with the intention of finding out how this could be aligned with the Spatial Plan to create a more action-based outcome.
Mayor Denyer: · Council had decided it was important to involve the Te Puke Community Board and Tangata Whenua in this process to work closely together in partnership, noting that Waitaha and Waitangi would be integral parts of the Spatial Plan. · Mayor Denyer welcomed everyone, stating that would be good to be working alongside them.
PROJECT PLAN Staff and Committee Member’s Responses and Comments:
Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · Council had received some feedback from Waitaha and Tapuika Iwi Authority as part of the Tō Wāhi engagement, as well as some other work and feedback expected in terms of key actions from Waitaha. Other information was expected to come through. · COLAB was only working on the community-led engagement and had worked on Tō Wāhi. It was anticipated that they would help with the second phase of engagement because of the connections they had. There would also be some targeted engagement with particular stakeholder groups, as well as consultation on the draft Spatial Plan.
Deputy CEO/General Manager Strategy and Community: · In the lead into the Te Puke Spatial Plan, there had always been an assumption that Council would work with Mana Whenua to define how hapū/iwi wished to engage with their whānau during this process. There was never an assumption that COLAB was undertaking engagement with or on behalf of Tangata Whenua. This was a fundamental reason why a partnership approach was being taken, and to gain an understanding of how hapū/iwi may wish to be engaged in this process and be guided by this.
Tangata Whenua Representative D Dinsdale (Ngāti Moko): · To gain an understanding of how hapū/iwi wished to be engaged in the process, Ngāti Moko needed to provide a report. The suggestion was to try to get this on their agenda after the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · Part of the reason hard deadlines had not been put against the plan was that Council wanted to ensure that all processes had been worked through and all voices heard before phases of the plan had been finished. Te Puke Community Board Member K Summerhays: · The impact of other communities on the Te Puke area needed to be taken into consideration, in particular their impact on Te Puke’s infrastructure. This couldn’t be a ring fenced activity, but should be expanded and more targeted to show the impact of the green fields around us. Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · ‘Grey Field’ areas were commercial and retail environments that were old areas no longer functioning as intended. ‘Brown Field’ were areas for development (some thought contaminated land or land for reusing an area that had already been developed on), and ‘Green Field’ was not being used but could be. · The relationship to SmartGrowth and Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) was not in the report, but was being considered in terms of how they could be applied, what the SmartGrowth strategy was proposing, and how this was relevant to the Te Puke Spatial Plan. Strategic Policy and Planning Programme Director: · At this point in time, the SmartGrowth strategy, based on the UFTI program completed in 2020, did not envisage a huge amount of growth or progress in Te Puke. Staff had not had an opportunity to have Te Puke Spatial Plan process talks, in order to build a picture of what this looked like going forward. The timelines were awkward, but both parties needed to be talking to each other. Deputy CEO/General Manager Strategy and Community: · Staff across the partner councils and Tangata Whenua were well aware that the Te Puke Spatial Plan was progressing. This was reflected in a number of documents that fed into the SmartGrowth strategy. One of the biggest possibilities recognised was the potential for unlocking Māori land and having a connected marae spatial plan processes. This was being looked at quite closely, particularly how it might work for Tangata Whenua Spatial Planning. Te Puke Community Board Member K Summerhayes: · Ideally, Central Government should be at this table, working very closely with the Subcommittee, to avoid creating plans that did not align each other and could be years apart. A more up front and closer relationship was needed. Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · The intention was to have working groups with these stakeholders. Staff had already met with the Minister of Education to start having these conversations early on, to avoid planning something that would then not be able to be facilitated. The best option would be to create a ‘Government Working Group’. · When starting the project, some dates were added, however, as more work was put into the Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Strategy, it became apparent that dates/deadlines could not be clarified. It became more important to ensure the project ‘phases’ were correct in terms of the steps needed to be taken. This was also important in terms of obtaining funding. Strategic Policy and Planning Programme Director: · This was not a project or process where legislation dictated that it needed to be finished at a certain date. It was more important to work through the correct process and have meaningful conversations at an appropriate pace, all the while keeping in mind that there was a common goal to be reached. Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · The language around transport modelling could be moved and put in ‘Scope’ so it was more of a priority.
Deputy CEO/General Manager Strategy and Community: · It was important to note there was always an intention that there would be traffic modelling within the Te Puke boundary/the Spatial Plan area. It was believed there was budget for transport modelling but this needed to be confirmed. This would be seen as a critical input into the spatial plan process. Staff would look into this. Strategic Policy and Planning Programme Director: · Council had operational budgets that could be used for spatial planning, within a reasonable mindset, within the current financial year. Deputy CEO/General Manager Strategy and Community: · There were provisions and a separate budget in place for Hapū Management Development plans. Tangata Whenua Representative D Dinsdale (Ngāti Moko) · Ngāti Moko, and possibly other marae, would need to start developing Hapū Management Plans. Strategic Policy and Planning Programme Director: · The idea was that this subcommittee would provide a strong steer on how it went about the community engagement and what it would look like. COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects provided the following points: · At this stage, this was a high level, over-arching strategy of how staff want to manage the Spatial Plan. Following this meeting, more work would be done which would involve the Subcommittee and COLAB. · It was not intended to deliver key messages now, as these would be delivered as the program was worked through. However, there were some over-arching ones that had been developed based on knowledge and previous engagement which had shown what was important to the Te Puke community. · The project phases were meant to align but items/steps could be changed around if needed. · Phase One was information gathering, where work in Tō Wāhi was carried out. Phase Two was pre-engagement /project introduction which aimed to gather all information needed and develop options for Phase Three. · It was unknown what Phase Three options would look like at this time, but this would be shaped by Phase Two. Targeted engagement would be used to then inform the draft spatial plan itself and then full community engagement would commence.
Staff and Committee Member’s Responses and Comments:
Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects: · One of the main things that staff were working on at the moment was the baseline report, which set out what was happening in Te Puke now. The expectation was to be able to bring this back to the Subcommittee once other key staff members had included their input.
Te Puke Community Board Member K Summerhayes: · Schools had been included in the stakeholder group but not youth. There was a gap between 18 to 24 year olds as well as disabled groups and accessibility groups.
Other groups suggested to be added to the stakeholder group: · Kabaddi (an Indian sport), Churches, Disk Golf groups, and engaging with Recognised Seasonal Employers and/or the entities that manage the workers. |
|
Resolution TPSP23-1.6 Moved: Mayor (Ex Officio) J Denyer Seconded: Cr G Dally 1. That the Strategic Advisor: Legislative Reform and Special Projects’ report dated 22 November 2023, titled ‘Te Puke Spatial Plan - Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Strategy’, be received. 2. That the subcommittee endorse the Te Puke Spatial Plan Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Strategy (Attachment 1 and 2 of this report). 3. That any amendments to the Te Puke Spatial Plan Project Plan and Communication and Engagement Strategy agreed at the meeting are completed and final versions of the documents provided to the subcommittee. |
The Meeting closed at 6.57pm.
Confirmed as a true and correct record by Te Puke Spatial Plan Sub
Committee on 18 April 2024.
………………………………………………..
CHAIRPERSON
DEPUTY MAYOR J SCRIMGEOUR