Strategic Capability Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Strategic Capability Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 10 October 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Raf Manji

 

 

5 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

Christopher.Turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

Strategic Capability Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Mayor Dalziel

Membership

Deputy Mayor Turner (Deputy Chair)

The Chairpersons of the following committees:

·         Finance and Performance Committee

·         Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

·         Social and Community Development Committee

·         Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

·         Regulatory Performance Committee

 

Independent Member to be appointed by the Council

 

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly.

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Strategic Capability Committee is to ensure alignment across Council committees, the organisation and Crown partners

 

The Strategic Capability Committee is responsible for:

·         Advising and supporting the Mayor to lead the development of the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan, including setting the overall parameters, strategic direction and priorities, and the development of a consultation document.

·         Leading and overseeing the Council’s strategic relationship with the Crown.

·         Leading and overseeing specific strategic projects of shared interest and interface with the Crown, including the Cost Share Agreement and matters under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.

·         Matters relating to the performance of the Chief Executive, including appointment and succession planning as may be necessary from time to time. 

·         Organisational capability, workforce planning and development

·         Council remuneration and employment policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 4

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 4

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4

STAFF REPORTS

A       6.       Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited ....................... 9   

 

 


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Strategic Capability Committee meeting held on Thursday, 14 September 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

 

 

Strategic Capability Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 14 September 2017

Time:                                    3.25pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Raf Manji

 

 

14 September 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brendan Anstiss

General Manager Strategy & Transformation

Tel: 941 8472

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

Christopher.Turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Noting Standing Order number 7.5, the meeting started later than within 10 minutes of the advertised time as members had alerted the meeting that they were delayed in their travel.

 

Apologies for lateness were received from the Mayor and Councillor Cotter.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SCCM/2017/00010

That the minutes of the Strategic Capability Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 be confirmed.

Mayor/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Committee Resolved SCCM/2017/00011

That the reports be received and considered at the Strategic Capability Committee meeting on Thursday, 14 September 2017.

Open Items

8.         Mayor's Report: Long Term Plan 2018/2028 Elected Member Expectations

Mayor/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

6.   Update on South New Brighton Regeneration Planning

 

Committee Resolved SCCM/2017/00012

Part C

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Receive the project update.

Councillor East/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

 

8.   Mayor's Report: Long Term Plan 2018/2028 Elected Member Expectations

 

Committee Resolved SCCM/2017/00013

Part C

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Note that the decision making associated with the Long Term Plan 2018-28 will require comprehensive advice from the organisation in order to balance the desirability of re-investing in the city post-earthquake with the need to reduce costs for ratepayers;

2.         Agree to provide to the Chief Executive the strategic guidance and set of expectations outlined at paragraphs 5.18 to 5.21 to support the development of comprehensive advice for Elected Members’ decision making on the Long Term Plan 2018-28;

3.         Note the importance of having consistency in the way that each Council Committee interrogates the Service Plans that fall within each Committee’s remit; and

4.         Agree the minimum considerations and questions, as outlined at paragraph 5.22 of the report, as amended by the Strategic Capability Committee, that each Committee should attend to during Service Plan reviews.

5.         Request staff to provide information in the draft long term plan on what measure is used for determining Council inflationary pressures.

Councillor Clearwater/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.58pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

   


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

 

6.        Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act - Canterbury Sports Limited

Reference:

17/1009146

Contact:

Richard Osborne

richard.osborne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8407

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to recommend to Council that staff progress work on a proposed Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal (either a ‘Section 71’ or a draft Outline for a Regeneration Plan), for the Canterbury Sports Limited site at 466-482 Yaldhurst Road (the subject site).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined because this report only seeks Council approval to undertake the necessary technical work needed to prepare a ‘proposal’ under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.  Further approval will be required by Council prior to submitting any Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act document to the Strategic Partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategic Capability Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Direct staff to undertake the necessary technical work to support a potential Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal for the Canterbury Sports Limited site at 466-482 Yaldhurst Road. 

2.         Direct staff to report back to Council once resolution 1 is complete.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Community Outcomes in Council’s proposed Strategic Framework around safe and healthy communities by potentially enabling further sports and recreation facilities at the subject site. 

4.2       Canterbury Sports Limited (CSL) are wanting to broaden the range and scale of sports facilities on the subject siteHowever, it is outside of the Projected Infrastructure Boundary on Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the proposal, being urban in nature, is unlikely to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.  If the Regional Policy Statement was amended, it would be possible to consider a change to the District Plan to enable further development potential on the subject site.

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered:

·          Option 1 – Direct staff to undertake the technical work needed to prepare a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal, and undertake initial engagement with strategic partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of DPMC, in support of a potential Regeneration Act process.  Officers expect the bulk of the work will be met by CSL.  (Preferred Option).

·          Option 2 – Do nothing

·          Option 3 – Direct staff to consider change the relevant statutory documents under the RMA, if the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 is revoked.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·          A Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process appears to be most efficient and timely process for changing the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Christchurch District Plan at the present time. 

·          A change to the key statutory documents would enable further development of the subject site for sports and recreational purposes.  This may result in the provision of a range of facilities that would not otherwise be available in Christchurch.

4.4.2   The potential disadvantages of this option include:

·          Potential for the proposal to compete with other existing and proposed facilities, such as Metro Sports and Nga Puna Wai.  This will depend on the scale and type of facilities enabled by any change to the statutory documents. 

·          The proposal will result in more peripheral urban development which could be inconsistent with the overall philosophy of urban consolidation outlined in the Urban Development Strategy and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1.1   The subject site is approximately 19.87 hectares in area, and resource consent is held for approximately 2.3 hectares (11.9% of the site) of building and impervious surfacing coverage on the site.  Of this, building footprints account for approximately 0.4 ha (2.1%) and impervious surfacing accounts for the balance of approximately 1.9 ha (9.7%).  The existing and consented development of the site provides for football activities including two full size artificial football pitches, four artificial mini-pitches, a full size natural turf pitch, clubroom facilities, café, administrative offices, and grandstand seating for approximately 1,000 people.  Parking for approximately 530 car plus tour coaches is provided on site. 

5.1.2   The site is located outside the projected infrastructure boundary in the CRPS and is zoned Open Space Community Park in the District Plan.  The site, however, is subject to bespoke site-specific rules permitting more intensive development on the site than what would normally be anticipated in the Open Space Community Park zone.  The rules permit all types of indoor and outdoor recreation activities, including outdoor playing fields/courts, indoor sports and recreation facilities, swimming pool complexes/aquatic centres; stadiums, athletic complexes; and accessory facilities (such as club rooms/clubhouses, spectator seating, and lighting).  Proposals for individual buildings greater than 1,000m2 in area, or total building site coverage exceeding 5% are discretionary activities under the District Plan.  The overall scale of development is restricted to better align with the character of the Open Space Community Park Zone. Development on the site is also subject to compliance with the Development Plan which requires setbacks from boundaries, areas of landscaping and restricts activities in certain areas of the site in order to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring rural properties.

5.1.3   CSL ultimately wish to develop, with joint venture partners and sporting bodies, a metropolitan recreational facility on the site which enables larger scale multiple sport and recreation codes to operate from a single site with shared resources and site infrastructure.  The primary facilities targeted by CSL include a gymnastics centre, an indoor sports stadium (catering for team sports such as netball, basketball, futsal etc.), a swimming facility (with diving facilities and catering for youth, triathletes etc. and outdoor fields or sports courts (e.g., athletics, hockey, tennis, rugby).  A description of the proposal and an assessment against the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act prepared by Novo Group forms Attachment A.

5.1.4   To facilitate these aspirations there would need to be amendments to both the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement and the Christchurch District Plan.  If the proposal is supported in principle there is a number of potential pathways for enabling a greater degree of development on the subject site.  These include the following:

 

·        Council initiated plan change;

·        Streamlined Process – Section 80C and Part 5 of Schedule of the RMA;

·        Settlement Pattern Review: Future Development Strategy and Capacity Assessment – National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC);

·        RMA, Schedule 1, clause 21 – Private Plan Change; and

·        Resource consent; and

·        Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

 

5.1.5   Under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 (OiC) continues until 2021.  The OiC prevents the Council from notifying any plan change under the normal Schedule 1 process until 2021, other than for coastal hazards.  Council considers that the OiC also limits our ability to use a streamlined process, and notwithstanding this, the proposal may not meet the criteria for initiating such a process. 

5.1.6   Considering the proposal as part of the Settlement Pattern Review is a possibility, but this is wider process which focuses on residential and business land supply and has longer timeframes than a possible Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal.  Furthermore, any change to the Christchurch District Plan as part of the Settlement Pattern Review process would also be limited by the OiC. 

5.1.7   These options are dependent on the Christchurch District Plan being made Operative and the OiC being revoked.  This is not a decision that can be made by Council and there is no certainty it will occur.  Even if it does occur, any subsequent process to change the District Plan via the RMA would start later and likely take longer than a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

5.1.8   A private plan change request could technically be prepared by CSL.  Such a request would be considered by the Independent Hearings Panel, however, it is Council staff view that the Panel are unlikely to entertain such a request since the matter has already being considered as part of the Replacement District Plan process, and the Christchurch District Plan is one appeal away from being made Operative.  Notwithstanding that, any private plan change request would be unlikely to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement because the subject site remains outside the ‘urban limits’.  Environment Canterbury have indicated they do not favour a stand-alone change to the Regional Policy Statement through the Resource Management Act for the subject site.

5.1.9   Given the site is currently located outside of the ‘urban limits’ outlined in the Regional Policy Statement and the current zoning does not enable the intensity of development sought by CSL, a resource consent pathway would be uncertain, and unlikely to succeed. 

5.1.10 Therefore, if Council were supportive in principle of the proposal by CSL, there are currently very limited statutory means by which it could enable the development to occur, other than through an amendment to the Regional Policy Statement and the District Plan via a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process, such as a the use of ‘Section 71’, or a Regeneration Plan. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act Proposal (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Staff prepare the necessary technical information and supporting documents in support of a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal.

Significance

6.2       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6.3       The level of significance was determined because further approval will be required by Council prior to submitting any Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal to the Strategic Partners, Regenerate Christchurch and the Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  However, it is noted that TRoNT is a strategic partner for a possible Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.  

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       As no approval has been sought as part of this report to proceed with a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal it is not considered appropriate to seek the community’s views and preferences.  However, it is noted that should a Regeneration Act process proceed that adjacent properties are potentially affected by this option as a greater degree of development would be enabled by the proposal.  Sports bodies are also potentially affected by this option as it would enable future sports facilities on the periphery of Christchurch.  The site also sits within the 50-55 airport noise contour, consideration will need to be given to CIAL’s operations. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option will not lead to any immediate conflict with Council’s Plans and Policies.  This report does not seek Council approval to proceed with a Regeneration Act process that will alter current land use patterns.  However, should there be subsequent approvals, then it will raise potential issues around consistency with the Urban Development Strategy, the Land Use Recovery Plan and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, which all encourage urban consolidation.  One of the key mechanisms for implementing this is the projected infrastructure boundary which is outlined in Map A of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement.  There would therefore need to be a change to the Regional Policy Statement, but this would need to be assessed against the overarching direction around urban consolidation.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – there is currently no budget for undertaking the necessary technical work. 

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

6.9       Funding source – Discussions would need to occur with CSL around potential funding. 

Legal Implications

6.10    There would be legal implications associated with a Regeneration Act proposal, but any decision to proceed on such a process would be subject to a separate Council approval. 

Risks and Mitigations   

6.11    There is limited risk around this stage of the process because it doesn’t commit Council to a particular course of action.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

6.13    Implementation timeframe – 3 months to complete the investigations.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   This report does not bind Council to a particular path and there will be another opportunity for the organisation to decide whether to proceed with a Regeneration Act proposal when the draft proposal and technical information is complete. 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Additional work and costs that do not form part of the current work programme.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing (status quo)

Option Description

7.1       The Council could choose to do nothing.  CSL could seek to realise their development ambitions via a resource consent pathway.  Alternatively, they may choose not to develop the site further.     

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium.  There would be an impact on the proposed developer and those who may use such facilities.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       CSL would be specifically affected by this, as may other sports organisations who are generally supportive of the proposal. 

7.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – There would not be any costs associated with this option. 

Legal Implications

7.8       Nil.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.9       There would be limited risk associated with this option, aside from the risk for the community of not having further sports and recreational facilities in this location. 

Implementation

7.10    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.11    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   It does not involve additional Council resource and potential costs associated with preparing a potential Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act proposal. 

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Leaves the issue unresolved.

8.   Option 3 – Use an RMA process

Option Description

8.1       As noted in sections 5.1.4 - 5.1.10 of this report the Christchurch District Plan cannot currently be changed using a Resource Management Act process because of the OiC.  This significantly limits the currently available options for enabling a greater degree of development to occur on the subject site.  Therefore, this option is largely dependent on the Christchurch District Plan being made Operative and the OiC being revoked.  This is not a decision that can be made by Council and there is no certainty it will occur.  Even if it does occur, any subsequent process would likely start later and take longer than a Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act process.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  However, as part of any RMA process, TRoNT would be consulted with. 

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Sports and recreational organisations are specifically affected by this option due to the uncertainty around the District Plan being made operative and the potential revocation of the OiC, as well as any subsequent RMA process taking longer than a Regeneration Act process. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option would not alter Council’s Plans and Policies in the short term, and would enable an integrated assessment of future land use options, including for this proposal.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – There would be costs associated with preparing changes to RMA documents. 

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

8.9       Funding source – A public plan change, or a change via the Settlement Pattern Review process, would be publicly funded.  A private plan change would be charged back to the proponent.   

Legal Implications

8.10    None at this stage. 

Risks and Mitigations    

8.11    There is a risk that delaying decisions under this option could result in the project not proceeding either because of a loss of interest by the developer, or not falling within a future policy framework.

8.12    This will result in a lost opportunity for the City.

8.12.1 Mitigation treatment is limited to not proceeding this option.

8.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Medium.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies - Work for the SPR is scoped and the process undertaken within current anticipated timeframes.

8.14    Implementation timeframe – 2020-21.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Decision on the proposal made in the context of the review of the settlement pattern/future RMA process.

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The uncertainty around the OiC and potential timeframes involved continues the current uncertainty for the project.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

CSL section 71 summary Novo group

17

b

RSU Commentary on CSL Memo

106

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Strategic Capability Committee

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator