Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Held in Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday, 2 April 2015, commencing at 9.03am

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), I Barker, E Davy, K Fulton (Deputy Chairperson), M Lawrey, and M Ward, and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Manager Administration (P Langley), and Administration Adviser (G Brown)

Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese and Councillor R Copeland for attendance, and Councillor K Fulton for lateness

1. Apologies

Resolved

THAT apologies be received and accepted from Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Copeland for attendance, and Councillor Fulton for lateness.

McGurk/Lawrey Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There were no changes to the order of business.

Councillor Davy advised that in accordance with Standing Order 3.7.6 he wished to discuss election sign rules in the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) as part of the Chairperson’s Report.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton joined the meeting at 9.04am.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with agenda items were declared.

4. Public Forum

4.1 The dangers of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides on our health and environment

Carolyn Hughes from Nelson Environment Centre, Ami Kennedy from Permaculture Institute NZ and Nelson Permaculture Group, and Susie Lees from GE Free New Zealand, presented.

Ms Lees, spoke to the presentation (A1338643) and tabled documents (A1338502, A1338506, A1338507, and A1338509).

Ms Hughes spoke to a tabled document (A1338789). She added that the Bay of Plenty District Council had identified genetically engineered organisms as a threat.

In response to a question, Ms Lees said pesticide residue levels had increased in products such as corn and soy.

In response to a question, Ms Kennedy said that in Denmark steam weeders were being utilised instead of pesticides.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 12 March 2015

Document number A1327896, agenda pages 6-12 refer.

Resolved

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 12 March 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Barker Carried

5.2 19 February 2015

Document number A1316156, agenda page 13 refers.

Resolved

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 19 February 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Lawrey/Paine Carried

6. Status Report – Planning and Regulatory Committee 2 April 2015

Document number A1155974, agenda page 14 refers.

In response to a question, the Chairperson advised the reason for the delay in the draft Local Approved Products Policy was due to a change in legislation which had impacted the timelines.

Resolved

THAT the Status Report – Planning and Regulatory Committee 2 April 2015 (A1155974) be received.

Barker/Davy Carried

7. Chairperson’s Report

The Chairperson provided a verbal update in relation to de-sexing programmes for cats and dogs, which was funded by the National Office of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals. He said this year local SPCA’s had to partly fund the programme.

He informed the committee that Council management had agreed to contribute $9,000 to the local de-sexing programme offered by the Nelson SPCA.

It was suggested that this funding could potentially be considered for community assistance funding.

The Chairperson added that work was underway for a joint approach for cultural impact assessments from all local iwi.

In accordance with Standing Order 3.7.6, a minor item not on the agenda was discussed in relation to election signs. Councillor Davy advised that the rules in the NRMP around election signs needed to be reviewed.

There was general support for the rules regarding election signs to be reviewed.

REGULATORY

8. Fees and Charges: Consents and Compliance (non RMA) 2015 - 2016

Document number A1318731, agenda pages 15-25 refer.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, presented the report.

There was a discussion that Land Information Memorandum (LIM) applications should be supplied at no cost to the applicant with the Certificate of Compliance and resource consent. Ms Bishop advised that a LIM was not compulsory and was not a requirement during the building consent process.

It was noted that an individual would not be aware if the site was on contaminated land, if they did not purchase a LIM.

In response to a question, Ms Bishop advised that the increase in Environmental Health Licence and Other Activities Fees and Charges forecasts had been incorporated into the Funding Impact Statement which related to the Long Term Plan 2015-2025.

In response to a further question, Ms Bishop clarified that health licenses had not increased, the 20% penalty charge was being highlighted only.

Resolved

THAT the report Fees and Charges: Consents and Compliance (non RMA) (A1318731) and its attachments (A1324979, A1324986 and A1324990) be received.

Recommendation to Council

THAT the Dog Control Fees and Charges for 2015 - 2016 be adopted as detailed in
Attachment 1 to Report A1318731;

AND THAT the Environmental Health and other activities fees and charges for 2015-2016 be adopted as detailed in Attachment 2 to Report A1318731;

AND THAT the Provision of Property Information Fees and Charges for 2015-2016 be adopted as detailed in Attachment 3 to Report A1318731;

AND THAT the charges for Dog Control, Environmental Health and Provision of Property Information activities apply as from 1 July 2015 until such time as they are varied or amended by Council;

AND THAT the Dog Control charges be publicly advertised in accordance with Section 37(6) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

Barker/Ward Carried

9. Submission on Proposals for Regulations (Cost Recovery) under the Food Act 2014

Document number A1318785, agenda pages 26-47 refer.

Resolved

THAT the report Submission on Proposals for Regulations (Cost Recovery) under the Food Act 2014 (A1318785) and its attachments (A1317637 and A1319085) be received;

AND THAT the submission in Attachment 1 of this report (A1318785) be confirmed by the Committee as the position of the Council on the proposals for regulations (cost recovery) under the Food Act 2014.

Davy/Paine Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.49am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to deliberate on submissions to the draft Urban Environments Bylaw

Held in Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Thursday, 2 April 2015, commencing at 10.05am

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), I Barker, E Davy, K Fulton (Deputy Chairperson), M Lawrey, and M Ward, and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Planning (M Heale), Manager Administration (P Langley), and Administration Adviser (G Brown)

Apologies: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese and Council R Copeland

1. Apologies

Resolved

THAT apologies be received and accepted from Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Copeland.

Davy/McGurk Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There were no changes to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with agenda items were declared.

4. Confirmation of Minutes – 12 March 2015

Document number A1333233, agenda pages 5-8 refer.

Resolved

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, to hear submissions to the draft Urban Environments Bylaw, held on 12 March 2015, be confirmed as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

5. Analysis of Submissions on the draft Urban Environments Bylaw

Document number A1329982, agenda pages 9-77 refer.

Manager Planning, Matt Heale, contractor, Debra Bradley, and legal counsel, Mr Julian Ironside presented.

Mr Heale gave a presentation (A1339876).

In response to a question, Mr Heale advised the reference in the powerpoint presentation to ‘street frontage’ should actually read ‘shop frontage’.

In response to a further question, Mr Heale clarified that the status quo was being recommended in relation to sandwich boards for upstairs shops, which would be placed adjacent to the kerb. He said shops on the ground floor would continue to place the sandwich board adjacent to the shop frontage.

Mr Heale said there were provisions in the Nelson Resource Management Plan relating to size and height of promotional material for shops to hang from above.

In response to questions, Mr Heale said the Police noted in their submission that by extending the liquor ban boundary further, this would restrict the preloading and sideloading distance for those individuals walking to bars. He added that the Police provided supporting evidence in relation to preloading and sideloading areas.

In response to a question, Ms Bradley advised that the Invercargill City Council’s experience was that Section 33 of the Health Act 1956 would have been a better mechanism to deal with cat issues in relation to being a nuisance, rather than use of a bylaw, due to court costs and the length of time taken to resolve.

In response to a further question, Ms Bradley said Council had the right to seize sandwich boards if an offence was being committed, and the offender would get the opportunity to retrieve it.

The Chairperson advised that the recommendations would be taken in parts.

Resolved

THAT the report Analysis of Submissions on the Draft Urban Environments Bylaw (A1329982) and its attachments (A1329988, A1330114, A1329992, A1329999, A1330000, A1330003, A1334438, and A1334602) be received;

Barker/Davy Carried

There were some concerns around the wording of the bylaw in relation to ‘Obstruction of Enforcement Officer’ and ‘Breach of alcohol-related bylaw provisions and penalty’, however Mr Ironside advised that the wording only draws attention to the fact that these issues are an offence under the Local Government Act 2002.

It was suggested that increased publicity and information in relation to the changes in the Urban Environments Bylaw would assist in informing the public.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 10.52am and returned to the meeting at 10.55am.

Resolved

AND THAT the Draft Urban Environments Bylaw be amended to reflect the Committee’s decisions on submissions as follows:

AND THAT an overnight (9pm-7am) alcohol ban for the additional area bounded by Riverside Drive, Tasman Street, Hardy Street and Collingwood Street be added and clauses 6.12, 6.18 and 6.19 of the Bylaw be amended accordingly in accordance with map A1330114;

Barker/Davy Carried

AND THAT Council increase publicity and information about the provisions of the Bylaw and its enforcement;

Davy/Fulton Carried

Mr Ironside clarified that section 3.2 ‘Keeping of animals’ of the Urban Environment Bylaw was still relevant to the keeping of cats even though there would be no specific provision for cats within the Bylaw.

AND THAT the bylaw make no specific provisions regarding the keeping of cats;

Davy/Barker Carried

Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor Davy moved the following motion:

AND THAT the Bylaw be amended to require sandwich boards to be adjacent to the kerb and placed within the 600mm of the kerb;

There was a discussion about having sandwich boards on one side of the pavement to maintain consistency. Mr Heale said retaining the status quo was the preference in the submissions received.

It was highlighted that publicity along with a long term view would assist with the location of sandwich boards adjacent to the kerb.

Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 11.29am until 11.33am.

Resolved

AND THAT the Bylaw be amended to require sandwich boards to be adjacent to the kerb and placed within the 600mm of the kerb;

Fulton/Davy Carried

A division was called.

Councillor Barker	No
Councillor Copeland	Apology
Councillor Davy	Aye
Councillor Fulton	Aye
Councillor Lawrey	Aye
Councillor McGurk	No
External Appointee – Glenice Paine	Aye
Councillor Ward	Aye
Her Worship the Mayor	Apology

The motion was passed 5-2.

Mr Heale read through Attachment 1, Individual Submissions Analysis.

In response to a question, Mr Heale said the operational issue raised by Submitter 3 had been referred to the appropriate department of Council for consideration.

Attendance: Councillor Ward left the meeting at 11.35am, and Councillor Barker left the meeting at 11.37am. Councillor Ward returned to the meeting at 11.41am.

In response to a question, Mr Heale advised that a permit could still be obtained for events such as a wedding at Queens Gardens.

It was discussed that the wording ‘Reject the submission’ may discourage people from submitting in the future.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 11.52am and returned to the meeting at 11.55am.

In relation to submitter 15, it was suggested that the recommendation conflicted with the road user rules and the decision should be changed to reflect that the road user rules apply.

Resolved

AND THAT the Council officer’s recommendations in attachment 1 (A1329988) Individual Submissions Analysis be confirmed.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

Recommendation to Council

THAT the amended draft Urban Environments Bylaw, reflecting the Planning and Regulatory Committee’s decisions on submissions, be adopted.

McGurk/Davy Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.00pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Date of meeting/Item	Action Resolution	Officer	Status
18/02/14 P&R Committee Alteration to Resolution – Draft Local Approved Products Policy (Psychoactive Substances)	AND THAT hearing of submissions to the draft Local Approved Products Policy by the Planning and Regulatory Committee be delayed until further information is available from the Ministry of Health.	Nicky McDonald	14/5/2015 Hearings complete, deliberations to be scheduled. ONGOING
2 April 2014 P&R Analysis of Submissions on the draft Urban Environments Bylaw	AND THAT Council increase publicity and information about the provisions of the Bylaw and its enforcement	Matt Heale	14/5/2015 A Communications Plan has been developed and will be implemented ahead of the 2 June effective date with articles in Live Nelson and on social media, and updating signage for alcohol ban areas. Publicity includes – sending information to key stakeholder groups, and advertorials in the Nelson Leader. A brochure for CBD business owners may be produced depending on the decision regarding sandwich boards. Submitters on sandwich boards are being contacted separately to this.

Section 4 Food Control Plans and National Programmes

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
4.2.1	1. to 7.	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs However in regard to templated food control plans, yes, any process outside of the TFCP will require validation or more likely push the business towards a custom food control plan (question 3).
	8. Do you consider that it is practical to require food businesses subject to food control plans (FCP) to describe the physical boundaries of the site where they are operating? Do you consider such a requirement overly onerous, or do you agree that it is necessary to achieve the safety and suitability of food?	This could be helpful to include with their registration details and so inform of any significant changes occurring in-between verifications which may impact on their food safety outcomes. Premises that operate as off-site catering or prep food for a mobile stall could find some difficulty with this so the boundaries of the site should be limited to the registered base premises only and include related mobile food shops (i.e. food stalls that are permanent mobile physical structures such as ice cream vans).
	9. Do you agree with the proposal that businesses renew their registration annually? What impact would such an annual renewal have on your business?	Annual registration for low risk national programmes may be extended provided mechanism in place as discussed in Q10 to ensure registration details are correct. Suggest registration for NP3 every two years, for NP2 every three years and NP1 one time only. Support that FCP registrations occur annually.
	10. Do you consider that the objectives of these proposals could be met in another way?	It is important to keep registration details correct. If there was a reduced period of renewal of registration it will be important to have effective systems in place to require notification (and re-registration) where changes that may affect the food business occur (eg change of business owner, change of FCP manager, enlarged premises, additional/new premises etc). It would also be helpful to require any outgoing business owner to notify the registration authority and this could be a document required to be signed by both outgoing and incoming owners (like change of vehicle registration). Additional Comment It will be necessary to have some efficient and effective way for any new business or change of business owner to be initialised under the appropriate FCP/NP so that there is confidence that they are capable of operating the food business in conformance with the FCP/NP BEFORE they start trading. Something similar to a ‘Temporary Authority’ (under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012), could be issued where a change and/or new business is started where there is confidence that they understand and conform to the FCP/NP. Full registration occurs following a successful initial verification.
	11. To 15.	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	16. Do you consider that a performance-based verification system, whereby verification frequencies are increased for poor performers, is the best way to ensure that food businesses meet Food Act requirements?	This is strongly supported as it will influence trends towards conformance but is by itself only one tool that can be used to ensure businesses meet Food Act requirements. We consider that a range of options including grading, public notification of verification outcomes and also use of infringement offence fees plus prosecution are all valid in achieving food safety and suitability.
	17. Do you agree with the proposed frequencies for new and existing businesses subject to food control plans, and the minimum and maximum frequencies for performing and non-performing businesses?	The proposed initial verification for a new business within 1 month is NOT SUPPORTED. Referring to responses to question 10 it is considered that a ‘Temporary Authority’ occurs BEFORE the new business commences trading and that initial verification occurs within 3 months of the initial ‘Temporary Authority’. The minimum verification frequency could be extended to 2 years where a food business showed high level of continued performance. Non conforming food businesses may need a corrective action request (CAR) revisit. Such CAR revisits should be without time frequency imposition. For example a significant CAR issue may require a CAR revisit within the week following the initial verification visit.
	18. Do you consider any of the proposed frequencies should be changed? If so, why?	Included in 17 above
	19. Do you agree with the proposed frequencies for new and existing businesses subject to national programmes, and the minimum and maximum frequencies for performing and non-performing businesses?	The comment here is the same as that for Question 17. The 1 month initial verification is NOT SUPPORTED and should be within 3 months.
	20. Are there any aspects of the frequencies for national programmes which you don’t agree with?	Again CAR revisits should not be considered as verification but as incidental to the original verification and therefore not constrained by any maximum time interval prescribed by regulations. In regards to NP1 businesses there should be the option for a maximum frequency of some time (for example one year) but the minimum frequency not be stated as currently proposed.
	21. Do you agree with the differentiation of frequencies between food control plans and national programmes?	SUPPORTED –the new regime should focus attention relative to food safety risk both in terms of type of food business band and level of conformance.
	22. Do you agree with all aspects of the process for verification set out above?	There seems to be some confusion with non-conformance (with the FCP for e.g.) and non-compliance (with regulations). Blatant and/or continuing non-conformance however could be considered non-compliance. Otherwise the process seems sound.
	23. Is it clear in which circumstances the verifier will specify either an acceptable or unacceptable verification outcome? Do you agree with these proposals?	Yes - this has been helped with the promulgation of the VIP scheme.
	24. Do you agree with the proposals for the verifier to adjust the frequencies of verification for food businesses subject to food control plans and national programmes?	Yes however there needs to be a check and balance with say an option for review/appeal either within the recognised agency and/or up to the MPI Chief Executive Officer.
	25. Do you consider that adjusting the proposed frequencies as suggested in Table 5 will encourage businesses to comply with requirements?	Assuming less frequent verification is commensurate with lower risk/high conformance then perhaps instead of steps 1-5 the verification ‘grading’ could be A (step 5) thru to E (Step 1). This ‘grading’ has been used by a number of TLAs and is well understood by the public as people understand an “A” is the best. It is important that high risk safe and/or suitability issues are dealt with thru appropriate compliance action.
	26. Do you agree with the proposed verification frequencies for business subject to food control plans and national programmes?	SUPPORTED However it needs further consideration as within each type of FCP/NP there will be a wide variance of risk factors. An option may be to have the 5 steps in a matrix which considers weightings of actual and potential risk, conformance and compliance, rather than just FCP or NP level. The 5 steps could also be reduced to 3 verification intervals for simplicity. A FCP/NP that is a low risk high conformance food business has least verification intervals, a mid range verification interval for low risk and low conformance, a mid range verification interval for high risk high conformance and a high risk low conforming business would get the most regular verifications.
	27. Do you agree with the way in which this document proposes that verification frequencies are varied if businesses do not achieve acceptable verification outcomes?	SUPPORTED However, two caveats: 1 Ensure right of review if the business considers the verification outcome is not equitable (in this case the business would refuse to sign off the verification) 2 Ensure compliance issues are not confused with conformance issues.
	28. Are there any aspects of the proposals for verification that you consider should be amended?	SUPPORTED - This has already been addressed in previous topics.
4.2.2	29. Are these proposed requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to places, facilities, equipment and essential services? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	SUPPORTED Certainly much better than the current Food Hygiene Regulation regime. As the systems utilise HACCP based (Codex) principles, the answer of course has to be in the affirmative. However a regime of additional regulatory prescriptive standards (see page 40 of the proposal document) may be unwarranted if verification conformance is backed up with appropriate penalties for non-conformance. For new premises the Building Code should be the bench mark for the premises being ‘fit for purpose’.
	30. Are these proposed requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to supporting systems? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	As the use of the new provisions under the Act and Regulations evolves there may be some issues that become identified later. Some of these issues may be significant therefore a system to efficiently and effectively update the Regulations (or other relevant statutory instruments) needs to be in place.
	31. Are these proposed requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to people?	People pose the potential for the biggest risk both in knowledge and attitude. Knowledge can be addressed through the Food Control Plans, National Programmes and supporting regulations, but attitude requires a good balance of reward and penalty. Hence our support for some form of grading and public availability of verifications as well as use of infringement offence fees.
	32. What requirements are necessary for people working with food who are suffering from illnesses that are likely to be transmitted through food?	Both compliance offence issues and disciplinary issues (managed under other legislation) should apply where a worker knowingly continues to work with such a disease. Similarly the employer who insists a worker continues working at a food business such that the food safety is at risk should be subject to appropriate enforcement action which could include public exposure if verification grading identifies the reasons for any changes. Regulations requiring any person suspected of having illness that could result in food safety concerns could require that person to have a doctor’s certificate advising when they are safely able to return to working with food.
	33. Are these proposed requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to ingredients and other inputs? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	The regulations should require retention of invoices for all food purchased or a copy of a receipt for foods received (if food not purchased). Such documentation should be kept at least until after the assigned verification period has been undertaken so the food source is known and approved.
	34. What current traceability systems does your food business operate…	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	35. Are these proposed requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to production processing and handling? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	An additional tool could be to require the food business to pay for sampling and testing of products suspected of not conforming with appropriate food safety and/or suitability standards. The procurement and sampling could be done voluntarily by the food businesses to support their own systems or could be done by the verifier or compliance officer with the sampling and testing being a charge upon that verification undertaken.
	36. Are these requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to finished products? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	Refer to response to Question 35
	37. From your perspective are these requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to documents, records and reports? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	The period that records must be kept is stated as being four years. This seems overly long period, particularly for a small low risk food business. It is considered that a period of two years is sufficient for smaller, non-manufacturing businesses. It is important to have more than one copy of some information so that in the event of loss or deliberate destruction of any records that there is always a back-up available which is secure. For good conforming businesses the issue is not so critical but a low conforming/non-compliant business should have copies of relevant records submitted to the registration authority.
	38. From your perspective are these requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to corrective action? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	Recall procedures need to be commensurate with the degree of risk imposed by the food non-compliance issue. For example foods containing undisclosed allergens or unacceptable levels of pathogens need multi-media coverage as well as a focussed recall procedure. These procedures could be identified in the regulations so information gets to where it is needed rather than the ad hoc approach that currently exists.
	39. From your perspective are these requirements sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to sampling and testing? If not, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	Refer to comment made under topic 35
	40. Where or when do you think sampling and testing should be a requirement?	As well as to the matter referred to in topic 35, major food manufacturing businesses should include a specific testing regime and action plans for identified non-conformance and recall procedures as part of their FCP/NP.
	41. If these requirements are not sufficient to manage food safety and suitability as it applies to competency and training, please identify the additional requirements needed, and explain why.	Competency and training should be commensurate with the task and type of food process the person is involved with. The in-house training model provided by the Template FCP seems to work well. Avoid over thinking by requiring staff to undertake expensive (and often superfluous) external training.

Section 5 Recognised agencies, persons, and classes of persons

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
5.2.3	42. What else do you think should be included in the list of sectors or processes that may require specialist technical competencies? What are the reasons for your views?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	43. Do you think verifiers of food importing businesses should be required to meet the same core requirements as other verifiers? What are the reasons for your views?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	44. What information do you think should be in the public register of recognised agencies, persons and classes of persons that is not already required by Schedule 5 of the Food Act?	It would be appropriate to list the persons and their competencies for those undertaking verification functions of Food Control Plans so new food businesses can easily locate an appropriate verifier for their business. This also should include TLA staff and contractors.
	45. Do you agree that regulations are necessary to set out the core requirements for recognised agencies and persons, or do you think there is a better way to meet the identified objectives? What do you suggest instead and why?	Having a register for approved agencies and persons is the key. If an agency or person fails to meet prescribed core requirements then there should be the ability by MPI to strike such agency/verifier from the register. It is important that requirements can be amended easily and quickly as required. If amending regulations are too cumbersome then perhaps gazette notices may be an appropriate alternative.
5.2.7	46. Do you agree that accreditation to ISO 17020 should be mandatory for agencies wishing to be recognised to verify and/or evaluate food businesses operating under custom food control plans? What are the reasons for your view?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	47. Do you agree that agencies applying for recognition to verify food businesses operating under national programmes, or template food control plans (other than those described under section 137 of the Food Act) should be required to demonstrate that they meet the core requirements set out in this document? What are the reasons for your view?	ISO 17020 accreditation does not appear to apply to TLAs operating pursuant to Section 137 of the Act (templated FCP operating within its district). If ISO 17020 accreditation is required if the TLA wishes to undertake verification of food businesses operating under a National Programme it could impose unnecessary additional compliance costs on small low risk general food retailers such as dairies, service station and food stalls as non wholesale NPs should be lower risk businesses than those operating under a templated FCP. ISO 17020 is applicable for custom FCP and some kind of standardisation and checks is required for others but the nature of this should not involve unrealistic costs.
	48. Is it appropriate that the MPI should itself assess the competencies of some agencies and persons who apply for recognition? What are the reasons for your view?	SUPPORT Certainly for lower risk food businesses that are listed under National Programmes a simplified process for recognising competencies through core competencies prescribed by a relevant body such as MPI would seem appropriate. The matter of TLAs wishing to undertake NP verifications is a good example.
	49. Do you think that accreditations other than ISO 17020 should be able to be used to demonstrate full or partial compliance with the core requirements? What are these? Why do you think these alternatives should be considered?	SUPPORT Yes, but what alternate accreditations/competencies are appropriate are beyond this Council’s ability to comment on in depth however use of quality management systems such as ISO 9000 series together with core technical competencies (evaluated through MPI possibly) could be an option to consider.
5.2.8	50. Do you agree that these are appropriate requirements for renewal of recognition by an agency or person? What else do you think should be included? What are the reasons for your views?	Again consider the matter of TLAs ability to include verification function of National Programmes and that this should be based on their recognition under Section 137 being deemed adequate for lower risk food businesses as listed under a National Programme.
5.2.9	51. Do you agree that these are appropriate performance requirements for agencies and persons? What else do you think should be included? Should anything be excluded? What are the reasons for your views?	As a TLA is a recognised agency for templated FCPs pursuant to Section 137 of the Act, how will poor or badly performing TLAs be dealt with as they are immune from suspension as detailed under Sections 158-167 of the Act? Will they be subject to fines under Section 155 – Duties of Recognised Agencies?
	52. Do you agree that someone who has evaluated, or provided consultation or technical advice on the development of, a custom food control plan may not perform verification against that plan within a two year period? What are the reasons for your views? If you disagree, how can any potential conflicts of interest be managed?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs

Section 6 Approved documents, materials, facilities, or persons or classes of persons

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
6.2.1	53. Do you agree that it is necessary to set out criteria for approvals in a regulation? What are the reasons for your view?	It may be considered helpful but should not impose a limitation. Therefore perhaps a reference could be included such as “any other matter deemed appropriate by the Chief Executive Officer for achieving food safety and suitability”
	54. If you agree that a regulation is necessary, do the three proposed criteria cover the areas that should be considered before an approval is made? Should anything else be included? If so, what and why?	Having a ‘cover all’ clause as stated above could prove invaluable if new information or any matter not currently anticipated (e.g. innovative/novel technology and/or foods)
	55. Is there anything else that you think should only be used if it has been approved under the Food Act? What and why?	No further comment to that which is made in reference to topic 53, however, again the comment is made that the use of regulation to provide changes, particularly where expediency is required, could lead to problems and use of Gazette Notices may be more efficient and effective.

Section 8 Food standards

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
8.2.4	56. to 58.	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	59. Are there any other circumstances where a food containing a residue of a specified substance should be exempt from the conditions of sale proposed for inclusion in regulations?	Where the substance is marketed as a non-food product (e.g. skin cream) or is not intended for human or food animal consumption.

Section 9 Imported Food

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
9.2.1- 9.2.4	60. To 70.	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs

Section 10 Exemptions

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
10.2.1	71. Do you consider that there are any sound reasons, or instances worth investigating, to exclude any food, persons, or operations from the general exemption for businesses trading for charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or cultural purposes?	No – all food needs to be safe for consumption. As an alternative specified types of food service/foods could be included with any exemption (such as allowing sausage sizzles, cake stalls) provided guidelines to ensure food sold is “safe and suitable” and so complies with the primary duty under Section 14 of the Act.
10.2.2	72. Do you consider that there are any sound reasons, or instances worth investigating, to exclude any food, persons, or operations from any requirements of the Food Act? Identify whether you consider there are any specific instances to investigate.	Under normal circumstances no. But there may be circumstances/situations that compliance with the Food Act may be impracticable if not impossible. Probable example in New Zealand would be post natural disaster when food supplies and infrastructure are compromised.
10.2.3	73. Do you consider there are instances where exemptions for certain food exports should be considered?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
	74. How would any such exemptions fit in with the Minister’s discretion as provided for in the Food Act under section 345?	No Comment – Not applicable to TLAs
10.2.4	75. Do you agree with the circumstances proposed that would provide for the MPI chief executive or the chief executive of a territorial authority to grant exemptions, waivers or refunds of a fee charge or levy?	SUPPORT Certainly this could be an option, particularly for charitable organisations to have the fees waived/reduced but they still need to have a FCP or national programme.
	76. Do you consider that there are grounds for considering additional circumstances to be considered relating to certain services or activities? If so, what do you consider those grounds to be?	SUPPORT Yes, where there is a significant ‘public good’ as opposed to an individual benefit. Such examples could include public workshops and informative seminars aimed at promoting and/or enhancing food safety and suitability.

Section 11 Infringement Offences

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
11.2.1	77. Do you agree that sections 234 (1)(c) and 240(2) offences should be prescribed as infringement offences?	No comment in regards to section 234(1)(c) of the Act which relates to imported foods. Support for section 240(2) which relates to requirement for registration.
	78. Do you agree with the proposed infringement fees?	Infringement Offence Fees have for other legislation been capped at $1000 (refer for example the Resource Management (Infringement Offences) Regulations 1999); however with the creep of inflation perhaps the higher ceiling of $2000 - $5000 should now be considered? In the specific case of Section 240(2) of the Act an infringement offence fee of $1000 may be more appropriate to promote compliance.
11.2.2	79. Do you agree with the requirements identified and the associated infringement fee in the proposed infringement scheme for the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code?	The infringement offence fees proposed, for reasons given in topic 78 above, need to be increased to reflect more appropriate punitive and deterrent action. The option for scaled infringement fees based on the significance, and, or other matters that may be considered in the scale of the offence, could be set at 100%, 60% and 30% of the posted infringement offence fee to enable lesser penalties for lower end scale of offending.
11.2.3	80. Are there infringement offences that you consider should be in place for commencement of the Food Act that are not currently proposed?	Infringement Offence Fees are used widely (and successfully) to help achieve compliance (and act as a deterrent) under the Resource Management Act. Much wider use of Infringement Offence Fees is supported to include compliance issues involving continuing non-conformance in relation to either a Food Control Plan or National Programme (e.g. failure to have readily perishable foods stored at safe temperatures). Where a food business has become a recidivist non conformer then something similar to an Abatement Notice could be served to ensure future conformance. Breach of such notice would then attract a higher end Infringement Offence Fee (circa $2000).

Section 12 Transitional matters

Section	Questions:	Nelson City Council Comments
12.2.1	81. Do you agree with the proposed transition schedule in the table? Why or why not?	It is suggested that food businesses scheduled to transition in years 2 or 3 not be denied opportunity to transition earlier (years 1 or 2). Proactive businesses should be easier to make the changes and bringing these in earlier may leave more time for the recalcitrant food businesses that require greater ‘encouragement’ to effect transition.
	82. In your view, should businesses participating in the voluntary implementation programme transition with their sectors in the first and second authorised transition periods or the third period? What is the reason for your view?	VIP premises should be considered as effectively already transitioned. The changes required for such businesses should be slight and as commented in topic 81 above such premises could be transitioned earlier rather than within third period. However flexibility will be important to ensure that transitioning phases are smooth.
	83. Do you think a similar option should be offered to all businesses operating with an approved food programme? Why or why not?	SUPPORT For the reasons expressed already in responding to topic 82 above.
12.2.3	84. Do you support extending the introductory period to 30 June 2019 to align more closely with common financial and planning cycles?	SUPPORT
12.2.4	85. Do you support the proposed expiry dates for deemed recognition? If not, why not?	SUPPORT It is important to have at least 2 years for section 8ZV (Food Act 1981) approved auditors to re-apply if required for recognized status or transfer to the employ of a TLA.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

14 May 2015

REPORT R4114

Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a quarterly update on activity and performance for the Council’s planning, regulatory and environmental programmes functions.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide and perform duties relating to developing and monitoring policies, environmental monitoring and performance monitoring of Council’s regulatory activities.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015 (R4114) and its attachments (A1352532 and A1335080) be received.

4. Background

4.1 The report and attachments detail the performance monitoring of the Council’s activities and how these activities impact on or assist developments in our community, progress the Nelson Plan and deliver environmental programmes.

5. Discussion - Building

Summary of Issues

5.1 A key observation of the Building Consent Authority (BCA) this quarter is the low numbers of Building Consent applications and amendments being submitted. This is currently about 14% less than at this time last year.

5.2 BCA work flow is dependent on market and economic trends. The current trend from the BCAs review is slow but in the last few weeks is rising.

5.3 Indications from the building industry are there will be growth in the fourth quarter.

6. Challenges

6.1 The BCA is encountering a high number of property owners requesting Code Compliance Certificates, over four years after the issue of the building consent. This is a legacy issue which goes back to as early as 1991. The work involved is time consuming and challenging for staff and customers. The BCA is assessing options for how to manage requests for code compliance certificates for buildings that have been constructed some time ago.

6.2 The BCA still witnesses periodic ‘peak’ challenges to meeting Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) guidance to undertake inspections in 48 hours and 72 hours maximum. The new inspector joined in January and is building up competency. Contractors will be utilised to provide capacity where required to provide a timely response for the customer.

6.3 The date of the next International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) Accreditation Assessment will be 23 June 2015 to 25 June 2015. Preparations for the re-accreditation process have commenced and information is being collated and provided to IANZ.

Successes

6.4 The BCA has maintained zero breaches (20 day time limit) for Building Consents, Code Compliance Certificates and Certificates of Acceptance over the third quarter.

6.5 The BCA is statutorily not able to hold up the granting and issue of building consents when planning issues are unresolved. An integrated system between building and planning has resulted in a more streamlined process for the customer.

6.6 The ‘Lodgement of residential building consents pilot’ commenced on
30 March 2015. This pilot programme will run for three months to gauge whether:

· information quality improves;

· the customer/ agent experience changes; and

· assess if this will be sustainable (capacity of staff time) for the BCA.

7. Discussion - Consents and Compliance

Summary of Issues

7.1 Recent changes to the Resource Management Act have been incorporated into processes for applicants and staff.

Challenges

7.2 The harbourmaster patrols have involved four search and rescue missions and the removal of hazards to navigation from the harbour – mainly large logs washed into the harbour. A summary of incidents and warnings issued are:

· Speeding in the marina 12

· Speeding in the harbour 12

· No lifejackets or personal floatation devices 12

· Incorrect lights 2

· Kiteboards inside Tahunanui Beach 20

· Illegal bow riding 1

· Jetskis misbehaviour 3

Successes

7.3 The presentation offered to external professionals on RMA changes to the resource consent process that commenced on 3 March was well attended and received. It was a collaborative effort from Nelson City Council (NCC) and Tasman District Council (TDC) staff.

8. Discussion - Environmental Programmes

Summary of Issues

8.1 Key issues for the quarter include:

· Cyanobacteria (toxic algae) monitoring and the implementation of a Cyanobacteria communication plan developed with support from the Nelson-Marlborough Health Protection Team, Tasman and Marlborough Councils, Cawthron, Nelson Vets and Friends of the Maitai;

· Calwell Slipway remediation project; A Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund (CSRF) application has been lodged with the Ministry for the Environment. Funding is sought for planning and consents phase of this project.

· Managing applications for rates remission for heritage building maintenance.

Challenges

8.2 Nelson river flows entered a second drought over the summer with water restrictions imposed on 2 March 2015, requiring a cross organisational approach to manage the imposition of water restrictions.

8.3 Environmental monitoring and data management has stepped up a gear to meet national information requirements for example the National Objectives Framework and LAWA (water quality module).

Successes

Enviroschools

· Birchwood Kindergarten has attained the Bronze Enviroschools Award. Hira Kindergarten has attained the Silver Enviroschools Award.

· A second event, Moturoa Mission, took place on 11 March 2015 at Rabbit Island. This is a joint Councils event open to all Enviroschools across the region. Small teams of students navigate their way round a series of sustainability-based challenges to demonstrate teamwork, understanding of issues and solution-based thinking.

· Te Haku Rolleston, a well-known young poet from the Waikato region visited Nelson for two days in March and worked with Enviroschools to encourage greater understanding of how sustainability is linked to creativity.

Waste Minimisation

· A national campaign highlighting the issue of avoidable food waste was launched in Nelson on 12 March 2015. Research has shown that on average NZ families throw away $563 worth of uneaten food a year.

· Waste from construction and demolition sites make up to 50% of waste to landfill. Activities have been developed to support builders in the set up of on-site waste and recycling systems; liaising with local waste service providers; providing information on reducing waste to members of the public who are seeking a building consent; and working with building professionals including architects and builders to explain the savings and benefits of waste reduction.

Integrated Data Collection

· Work has started on a project to improve the management of resource consents data. The aim of the project is to allow regular reporting of regional consents (such as water takes, discharges to water, land and air, and gravel extraction) and development trends (residential land supply and demand). The initial stage of the project is to understand reporting requirements (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management) as well as to provide baseline information for the development of the Nelson Plan and other Council policies (Development Contributions, Housing Accord).

Project Maitai/Mahitahi

· Project Maitai/Mahitahi staff and external stakeholder workshops were held to prioritise new projects for 2015/16. Twenty-eight project ideas were put forward and business cases will be developed for the top ten projects identified by the process. Key updates for current projects include:

o Project Maitai/Mahitahi was the subject of a three minute video made for the LAWA website. The video was noticed and promoted by Australia’s International River Foundation. It can be viewed at www.lawa.org.nz.

o Earthworks to extend the inanga spawning area next to Shakespeare Walk were completed in time for the March king tide inanga spawning event. Iwi monitors blessed the event. Most of the residents from Shakespeare Walk were out to watch.

o A grant was made to Nelson College and Nelson College for Girls to purchase freshwater monitoring equipment.

o Project Maitai/Mahitahi contributed part funding towards five Cawthron Institute summer students whose research projects were all focused on aspects of Maitai river health. These included; investigating sources of nutrient and sediment input into the river, monitoring the new fish passage improvements at the South Branch weir, checking the impact of Maitai reservoir discharge water on macro-invertebrate communities and algal growth, further investigation into Cyanobacteria growth drivers and patterns.

Heritage

· 119 applications were received from heritage building owners for the Council’s rates remission for heritage maintenance for the 2015 - 2017 period. The Council offers these rates remissions in 3 yearly rounds to encourage the maintenance of heritage buildings in Nelson. All owners of heritage buildings listed as either Group A or B in the Nelson Resource Management Plan who register a commitment to maintaining their buildings are eligible.

9. Discussion - Planning

Summary of Issues

9.1 Planning officers have been involved in the development of sector and engagement for the Draft Development Contributions Policy.

9.2 Engagement with Nelson Plan key stakeholders and iwi partners has been ongoing.

Challenges

9.3 A number of concerns have been raised by developers about the implications of the Maitai Flood model on development potential in the Central City. Officers are currently developing a draft practice note to be discussed at an upcoming Nelson Plan Workshop.

Successes

General

9.4 The Planning and Regulatory Committee heard submissions and deliberated on the Urban Environments Bylaw on 12 March 2015 and
2 April 2015 respectively. Recommendations will be reported to Council on 30 April 2015. The most significant change recommended to the bylaw was the inclusion of an additional alcohol ban area in the east of the Central City. The Committee also reconfirmed the approach to have sandwich boards located by the kerb.

10. Discussion - Nelson Plan

10.1 The Nelson Plan is currently in the engagement phase. A range of meetings have been held with iwi partners and key stakeholders as follows:

· Biodiversity Forum update 23 February 2015;

· Heritage Nelson on 11 March 2015;

· Maitai Freshwater Advisory Group meeting on 11 March 2015;

· Woodburner Community Meeting 16 March 2015;

· Iwi Working Group 24 March 2015;

· Update to Kotahitanga 25 March 2015;

· Planning professionals and Local Branch of the New Zealand Planning Institute in March 2015 and on 9 April 2015 respectively;

· Central city and greenfield developers and landowners through March 2015 and April 2015 in preparation for the Nelson Plan Growth workshop on 28 April 2015;

· Preliminary discussions with Requiring Authorities as designations will be reviewed as part of the Nelson Plan.

11. Discussion - CBD Development

Commercial Development/Demolition

11.1 A Bridge St property gained resource consent for a residential unit on the first floor.

11.2 Also on Bridge St a building will soon be demolished (a second hand bookstore used to operate there).

Earthquake Prone Building Policy

11.3 A minor change has been approved, as an interim measure, on the NCC Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy, to reflect the reduce level from 67% to 34% of New Building Standard required.

11.4 The enactment of new legislation, Building (earthquake-prone buildings) Amendment Bill, will trigger the full review of the NCC Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy later this year.

11.5 The following properties have been issued section 124 Notices in respect of the Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy over the third quarter:

· Rattrays No 1 warehouse PNL#48 – 3 Low Street;

· Vulcan Steel and Steel and Tube Building PNL#34 – 23 Low Street;

· NMIT C Block NZ School Fisheries Building – 309 Hardy Street;

· NCC owned:

· ex Hunting and Fishing – 81 Achilles Ave;

· S124 for the State Advances Building has been lifted as the TA are in receipt of a Detailed Seismic Assessment Report which has advised a level of more than 33% of New Building Standard.

12. Discussion - Other Development

District

12.1 A couple of events required resource consent this quarter: the Celtic Pipe Band champs and the Monster Slide.

12.2 McCashin’s Brewery has applied to extend their building for their distillery process.

12.3 Chorus obtained consent to provide an ultra fast broadband cable through the Tahunanui slump area.

Regional

12.4 NZTA have applied to widen the State Highway at Gentle Annie.

12.5 NCC obtained consent to reroute 120m of the Dun Mountain track, this is not the section affected by the recent slip. The Council is also extending an Inanga spawning habitat in the Mahitahi River.

12.6 Manuka Street Hospital obtained permits for a new bore to test water quality and quantity.

Development Trends

12.7 Comparisons for building consent applications received year to date with the last three years are provided in Attachment 1.

12.8 191 Building consent applications (including amendments) were received over the third quarter. This brings the total building consent applications submitted to the end of third quarter to 558.

12.9 The projection for consents and amendments for this year has been adjusted to reflect the lower trending numbers witnessed. This year’s 2014/15 full year re-projection is 757 which is down 14% compared to 877 for the year 2013/14.

12.10 The ‘new development’ element of consent applications received for the third quarter included 27 applications for new dwellings, 2 applications for new offices, 1 application for new commercial accommodation buildings and 4 other new commercial buildings (i.e. not office or accommodation). All other consents were for building alterations.

12.11 Building Consent applications received in comparison with other Councils of similar size for the last three quarters - Napier City Council, TDC and Marlborough District Council (MDC):

· Nelson’s third quarter consent and amendment applications numbers (191) are considerably less in comparison with TDC but are trending similar to last quarter with Napier City Council (224). MDC overall applications have reduced to 287 for the third quarter.

· In the third quarter NCC’s estimated value of work is $23.9 million. Nelson is the third highest; $6 million higher than Napier $4 million lower than Marlborough. TDC had another very high quarter with $18 million more than Nelson in estimated value of work.

12.12 TDC had the highest number of consents, 343, and estimated values, $41.6 million, across all of the Councils reviewed.

13. Discussion - Legal Update

Proceedings

13.1 Two current claims are being worked through by the Building Unit for buildings which have leaked. The claimants are seeking compensation from Council as they claim the leaks have been as a result of negligence.

13.2 The first claim is still on track for a High Court hearing in Wellington in July 2015.

13.3 In relation to the second claim the parties have managed to settle out of court on the 10 April 2015.

13.4 The BCA are initiating court proceedings against an owner for failing to comply with a Notice to Fix for a retaining wall on their property. This is the last resort as several opportunities have been given to the owner, to meet and resolve this issue, but all have been rejected.

As a result NCC BCA has no alternative to take action as the owner, neighbour and Council are all at risk if the wall fails.

Legislation Changes

13.5 The Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill. The NZ Parliament website still indicates that this will be enacted by June 2015.

13.6 Consultation on the proposals for the Food Act 2014 Regulations closed at the end of March 2015. NCC, TDC and MDC have discussed the implications of the proposals and have made similar submissions. The Ministry for Primary Industries is likely to undertake a further round of consultation at the end of the year before the regulations take effect in March 2016.

Iwi Liaison

13.7 More hui have been held with Iwi to discuss how best to enable iwi input early in Council projects, how the Cultural Impact Assessment process captures all iwi views, ensuring iwi have sufficient involvement in the resource consent process and how Council engages with iwi for the Nelson Plan review.

14. Options

14.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the option of receiving and adopting the report or seek further information.

15. Assessment of Significance Against the Council’s Significance Policy

15.1 The decision is not a significant decision in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy as there are no impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural well-being of the community in providing this information on work already undertaken.

16. Alignment with Relevant Council Policy

16.1 The Council’s annual plan includes performance measures for various activities and this report enables the Council to monitor progress towards achieving these measures.

16.2 Progress towards setting the context to achieve identified goals in Nelson 2060 can also be tracked.

17. Consultation

17.1 Not applicable as the report summarises activities already undertaken.

18. Inclusion of Māori in the Decision Making Process

18.1 Not applicable as the report summarises activities already undertaken.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1352532 - Building Unit Statistics for Last Quarter and Year to Date

Attachment 2: A1335080 - Consents and Compliance statistics 1 January - 31 March 2015

Attachment 2

Consents and Compliance Statistics 1 January – 31 March 2015

1. Resource Consent Processing Times

Month	NON NOTIFIED				NOTIFIED AND LIMITED NOTIFIED
Month	% processed on time	Average process days	Median process days	Consent numbers	% processed on time	Average process days	Consent numbers
January	100	13	13	28	100	49	4
February	100	12	13	25	100	119	1
March	100	11	13	33	100	36	2
Average from 1 July 2014	100	13	13	29	83	59	2
Total from 1 July 2014				262			15
2013/14 average	98	13	13	26	100	54	1
2013/14 totals				316			11

2. Parking Performance

Activity	January	February	March
Enforcement
Safety	62	179	153
Licence labels /WOF	410	280	322
Licence labels/WOF (Warnings)	235	226	371
Central Business District meters	940	656	927
Time Restrictions	511	520	563
Total Infringement notices issued	2158	1861	2336
Service Requests
Abandoned Vehicles	25	14	22
Requests for Enforcement	41	54	49
Information /advice	26	56	52
Total service requests	92	124	123
Courts
Notices lodged for collection of fine	422	469	320
Explanations Received	216	155	208
Explanations declined	67	50	75
Explanations accepted (within guidelines)	64	46	63
Explanations accepted (outside guidelines)	83	58	68
Explanations accepted (warden error)	2	1	2
NOTE: Tickets are cancelled when explanation accepted

3. Environmental Health and Dog Control Activities

Activity	Responses			Year to Date
Activity	January	February	March	Year to Date
Dog Control	145	134	206	1551
Resource consent monitoring	40	108	107	1069
Noise nuisance	97	82	112	810
Bylaw / Building / Planning	114	65	76	667
Liquor applications	27	21	52	327
Liquor Inspections	5	8	21	133
Pollution	24	17	29	217
Stock	8	11	7	60

4. Summary of Hearing Panel Activities

Date	Matter	Location	Outcome
11/02/15	Applications for exemption under section 6(1) of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987	125 Parkers Road	Exemption granted subject to conditions
		5 Maire Street	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		435 Rocks Road	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		75 Toi Toi Street	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		50 Enner Glynn Rd	Exemption NOT granted
		9 Moncrieff Avenue	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		74 Chamberlain St	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		66 Fifeshire Cres	Deferred to the next hearing
		437 Main Road Stoke	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		14 Clovelly Street	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		41 The Cliffs	Exemption granted subject to conditions
		14 Mary Anne Muller Crescent	Exemption granted subject to conditions
		25 Highview Drive	Exemption granted subject to conditions
		139 Panorama Dr	Exemption granted subject to conditions
		18 Chamberlain St	Exemption granted subject to a condition
		28a Otterson Street	Exemption granted subject to a condition

5. Harbourmaster Patrol Hours

Month	Patrol Hours
January	88
February	80
March	TBC

6. Official Information Act Requests

Period	Number received	Number completed	Number outstanding
1 January – 31 March	21	16	5

7. Summary of Legal Proceedings

Party	Legislation	Matter & date of initial action	Status
McFadden Family Trust	RMA 1991 (ENV-2012-WLG-83)	Plan Change 18 Appeal – 9 August 2012	Matter resolved at mediation and Consent memorandum sent to Environment Court
Hamilton and Hardyman	RMA 1991 (ENV-2012-WLG-84)	Plan Change 18 Appeal – 9 August 2012	Matter resolved at mediation and Consent memorandum sent to Environment Court
Raine	RMA 1991 (ENV-2012-WLG-85)	Plan Change 18 Appeal - 10 August 2012	Matter resolved at mediation and Consent memorandum sent to Environment Court
RG Griffin Children's Trust	RMA 1991 (ENV-2012-WLG-87)	Plan Change 18 Appeal - 10 August 2012	Matter resolved at mediation and Consent memorandum sent to Environment Court
Jatco Holdings	WHRS Regulations 2007	Building defects, claim for negligence in NCC issuing building consent and Code Compliance Certificate in 2004/2005	Hearing has been deferred to July 2015 in Wellington High Court.
Partington	Building Regulations 1992	Leaking deck membrane causing damage to property. Property is less than 10 years old. Occupants have fixed the leaks but are claiming negligence by NCC has caused financial costs. As such damages are sought from NCC.	Out of court settlement reached 10 April 2015
Handforth	Building Act 2004, Building Regulations 1992	28 September 2014 Notice to Fix issued for Construction of a retaining wall without building consent. In addition the engineers information indicates the wall is not in compliance with the Building Regulations 1992.	Several attempts to settle this have been rejected. Instructed Fletcher Vautier Moore to issue proceedings under the Criminal Proceedings Act to the owner of the property for failing to comply with the Notice to Fix.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

14 May 2015

REPORT R4137

Ecofest 2015

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider options for the delivery of Council environmental outcomes and the future of Ecofest.

2. Delegations

2.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee is delegated authority to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to environmental matters.

3. Recommendation

THAT the report Ecofest 2015 (R4137) and its attachments (A915145, A1120552, A1137528 and A1329058) be received;

AND THAT the Nelson Ecofest event is cancelled;

AND THAT budget and resources from the Nelson Ecofest event be reallocated to support the delivery of targeted sustainability information and educational initiatives throughout the year.

4. Background

4.1 Ecofest has run as an annual joint Nelson City and Tasman District Councils environmental expo from 2000 to 2014.

4.2 The aim of the event is to raise awareness and promote environmental behaviour change by removing the barriers that hinder people making sustainable lifestyle choices; to provide fun and educational learning and engagement opportunities; to create measurable behaviour change and to provide a vehicle for Council outcomes around environmental change.

4.3 In 2011, Ecofest underwent a strategic review (Attachment 1), which concluded that the event continues to deliver these outputs in a cost-effective and efficient way, and that they remained consistent with supporting positive and measurable behaviour change in the community. It was decided to keep offering the event on an annual basis but to improve outreach to grassroots communities and increase the ‘how-to’ component. This resulted in ‘mini-expos’ being trialled in Golden Bay and the Victory community, as well as more business led how-to sessions. Turnout to the Victory ‘mini-Ecofest’ was disappointing with around 250 people in attendance. Officers did not recommend continuation of this model.

4.4 At the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 28 January 2014, Councillors were advised that due to the closure of the Trafalgar Centre and reduced availability of staff resources, changes in delivery of the event would be required. Recommendations were made as to how the event should run (Attachment 2) and focused on developing a road show combined with a week of ‘how to’ activities in partnership with local businesses and community groups. At the meeting, officers were asked to reconsider options for the delivery of Ecofest including reporting on Council venues for a Nelson event.

4.5 At the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 20 March 2014, Councillors were presented with four options on the delivery of Ecofest (Attachment 3). These were based on designing an event intended primarily for Nelson residents and funded solely by Council, as Tasman District Council intended to deliver a separate Motueka road show as its Ecofest events for 2014. At the meeting, Council agreed that officers request Expressions of Interest from interested parties for the delivery of Ecofest at Founders Heritage Park.

4.6 This resulted in the trial of a new format combining Ecofest with Nelson Growables. The event was rebranded as ‘Ecofest featuring Growables’, and delivered by an external contractor, Nelson Venues, with support from officers.

4.7 There were considerable operational challenges associated with combining Ecofest and Nelson Growables, exacerbated by a shortened lead time, change of format and the appointment of a new contractor. Results from the event were mixed with exhibitor and visitor numbers considerably lower than previous years. A summary report of the event is attached (Attachment 4).

5. Discussion

Review of Ecofest

5.1 Officers are recommending that Council review the environmental education programme delivered through Ecofest and specifically consider alignment with Council environmental outcomes and effective delivery. How Ecofest links to other established Council programmes needs to be considered as part of this.

5.2 Ecofest provides an opportunity for Nelson residents to find out about sustainable solutions to everyday living through a ‘one-stop shop’ approach. Over the years, it has grown significantly; attracting a wide range of exhibitors from local business and the community. As a platform to engage with audiences on a range of sustainability issues in a fun and educational way, Ecofest has fulfilled its purpose well. However, as a method to deliver effective behaviour change, it has been difficult to directly attribute environmental gains to it. This remains the weakness of the Ecofest model as a tool for environmental change.

5.3 One measure of the potential reach of the event is visitor numbers. Peak numbers were reached in 2009, with 8000 people attending the two-day event. Since then visitor numbers have fallen significantly. By 2013, visitor numbers were down to 4000, a drop of 50% and in 2014, 2000 people attended the event, a drop of 75% from 2009 levels. However, the decrease between 2013 and 2014 can be mainly attributed to the change to a one-day event. Had the event remained as a two-day it is likely that visitor numbers would have been higher.

5.4 Without Council funding, it is unlikely that Ecofest will continue. Local businesses promoting sustainable solutions are mostly small operations with limited capital for promotional activities. Most environmental community groups operate voluntarily or with very limited funds.

5.5 If Ecofest remains high on the list of Council priorities, the purpose, content, styling and format will need to be reconsidered to deliver enhanced engagement with a wider audience. This will require time and investment.

5.6 For Ecofest to become commercially viable, the focus of the event would need to change to attract a wider range of businesses and organisations. However, the Nelson Home and Garden Show already operates within this space and it is unlikely that the Nelson community has the appetite to support two events offering similar outcomes within a month of each other.

Council Contribution

5.7 In 2014, Council’s contribution to the overall costs of the one-day event was $26,300, including $20,000 management costs to an external contractor. This was 50% of the overall costs of running the event. Approximately 100 hours of staff time were required to support delivery of the event significantly less than in previous years due to the appointment of an external contractor. In 2013, Council’s contribution for the two-day event was $32,000 and on average one staff member committed 1.5 days a week over the year to the delivery of the event.

5.8 Engaging a contractor significantly reduced Council’s contribution in terms of staff participation, which released staff to allocate time to focus on other Council environmental priorities.

5.9 External Sponsorship

5.10 In 2014, sponsorship for Ecofest was much reduced largely due to the condensed time the external contractor had to develop relationships with potential sponsors. With more time, there may be the opportunity to consider one or more commercial partners for funding collaboration.

Partnership with Tasman District Council

5.11 In 2014, Tasman District Council withdrew funding from Nelson Ecofest, and organised a separate expo in Motueka. Following a Council workshop in December 2014, Tasman District Council is considering alternative options for delivery of its sustainability priorities. It is very unlikely that it will continue to make funding available for future Ecofest events.

Partnership with Nelson Growables Trust Board

5.12 Nelson Growables Trust Board has indicated that they will not be continuing with the Nelson Growables event due to falling visitor numbers and reduced internal capacity to deliver the event. The Nelson Growables brand remains the property of the Trust. Should Council wish to utilise this at future events, permission would need to be sought.

Alignment with Council Priorities

5.13 Council has historically supported Ecofest to encourage current and future environmental behaviour change.

5.14 The purpose of Ecofest aligns with the vision and goals of Nelson 2060 in particular:

· Goal 3: Our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected

· Goal 4: We produce more of our own food

· Goal 6: We move from using fossil fuels to renewable energy sources

· Goal 8: Nelson is a centre of learning and practice in Kaitiakitanga and sustainable development

· Goal 10: We reduce our consumption so that resources are shared fairly

6. Options

Option One: Ecofest continues to be delivered on an annual basis – status quo option

6.1 Should this option be considered, it is proposed that Ecofest 2015 reverts to a two-day standalone event without the addition of Nelson Growables, located at Founders Heritage Park, and delivered by an external contractor. A provisional date has been booked for 15 November.

6.2 Benefits

· Ecofest is a well recognised brand and has enjoyed much success over the years. Historically, it has been an annual event and its continuation in this format is expected.

· Feedback received from Ecofest 2014 indicates a level of ongoing engagement with some sections of the Nelson community. Of those who completed the survey, 63% of visitors said they had attended previous expos.

· Reverting to the previous two-day format will increase the cost-effectiveness of the event for potential exhibitors and should draw more crowds.

6.3 Risks

· A provisional date of November 2015 provides limited time for planning and delivery. Opportunities for restyling Ecofest to attract more visitors will be limited and it is likely that similar issues will arise with potential exhibitors.

· Competition from other events in November is high, which may impact on potential visitor numbers, in particular the Nelson Home and Garden Show which runs over 3 days in October and attracts over 8000 visitors.

· Opportunities to collaborate with potential sponsors and secure a commercial partner will be significantly reduced. This is of particular relevance if Tasman District Council chooses to withdraw funding for this event.

6.4 If Council choose to select this option, officers believe that the condensed timeframe will result in similar problems and issues to those experienced in 2014. This may result in low numbers of exhibitors and visitor numbers. Officers do not recommend this option.

Option Two: Ecofest becomes a two-day biennial event from September 2016

6.5 If Ecofest remains high on the list of Council priorities, it is recommended that Council considers changing it to a biennial event. Should Council choose to select this option, it is proposed that Ecofest 2015 be delayed until September 2016, with subsequent events organised every two years.

6.6 As with 2014, it is proposed that Ecofest be delivered by an external contractor.

6.7 Benefits

· Changing to a biennial event will provide time and opportunity to reconsider the purpose, format, content and style of Ecofest; and how it links with Council environmental outcomes.

· There will be space to identify potential sponsorship opportunities should Tasman District Council decide to withdraw funding on a permanent basis.

· Those years when Ecofest is not delivered, Council could consider reallocating staff resources and budgets to support delivery of measurable behaviour change programmes and new Council environmental priorities and objectives.

6.8 Risks

· Reinvigorating Ecofest will take considerable time and resources and it is difficult to be sure that further investment in the event will result in increased visitors or measurable behaviour change. Ecofest has already undergone numerous changes over the years yet visitor numbers continue to fall. This may indicate diminishing interest and event fatigue, which will be difficult to reverse.

· If insufficient sponsorship and a commercial partner cannot be secured to replace the potential loss of funding from Tasman District Council, Council’s contribution will necessarily increase.

· Other events such as the Nelson Home and Garden Show may move into the space left by an annual event, reducing the impact and draw of a biennial Ecofest unless it is significantly different.

6.9 Competition from similar events, coupled with the increased costs associated with running a biennial event may reduce the cost-effectiveness of this option. There are no guarantees that a revamped Ecofest will bring the results that Council are looking to achieve with regard to environmental gains and behaviour change. Officers do not recommend this option.

6.10 However, if Council determines that Ecofest should continue, officers believe this to be a more cost-effective option than an annual event.

Option Three: Cancelling Ecofest

6.11 The final option is for Council to consider if delivery of Ecofest continues to achieve the environmental outcomes and behaviour change that it wants to see, or whether community outcomes that meet the current and future needs of the Nelson community can be achieved more effectively through an alternative approach. Central to this discussion is whether delivery of the event and associated social outcomes is of higher priority than measurable environmental gains.

6.12 Should Council choose to withdraw their support for Ecofest and cancel future events, it is proposed that staff resources and budgets are reallocated to deliver targeted sustainability information and educational initiatives throughout the year that build on the messages of Ecofest and align with Council community outcomes and Nelson 2060. These could focus on encouraging behaviour change in specific areas aligned with seasonal priorities such as water efficiency, air quality, sustainable energy, minimising waste, pest control and food growing. Officers can consider options for initiatives as environmental and Council priorities arise.

6.13 Benefits

· Officers are being directed to focus more on demonstrable outcomes that support Council priorities. Cancelling Ecofest would support this refocusing of priorities without requiring additional budget.

· Delivering targeted messages and educational opportunities throughout the year using a variety of communication tools could potentially reach a wider audience than would attend a weekend of Ecofest. It provides Council with an opportunity to take Ecofest into the community rather than expecting the community to come to Ecofest.

· This would be an opportunity to demonstrate to the community Council’s commitment to effective environmental stewardship and sustainable behaviour change by moving to new activities that can have measurably better outcomes for Nelson residents and the local environment.

6.14 Risks

· It is very unlikely that Ecofest would be able to continue without Council support. This would be a loss to those businesses, community groups and members of the public who have supported the event over the years.

· Cancelling Ecofest may be interpreted as contrary to the vision and aims of Nelson 2060.

· There is a community expectation amongst visitors and exhibitors that Ecofest will continue as an event.

6.15 This option is recommended by officers providing resources are made available to support measurable behaviour change initiatives that specifically target activities that directly impact on Council community outcomes.

7. Alignment with relevant Council policy

7.1 The recommendation to cancel Ecofest is not in conflict with any Council policy or procedure.

7.2 The recommendation supports the following Council community outcomes and priorities:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost-effective and meets current and future needs

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient; and

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

7.3 It also supports the following Council priorities:

· The Nelson Edge – promoting Nelson natural advantage;

· The natural environment – Nelson is a city that takes seriously its guardianship of the environment

7.4 Funding for Ecofest is currently included in the Long Term Plan for 2015/16 and 2016/17.

7.5 Cancelling Ecofest and reallocating staff resources and budgets to alternative behaviour change activities and new environmental outcomes will not incur additional cost.

8. Assessment of Significance against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

8.1 This is not a significant decision for Council in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

9. Consultation

9.1 Informal discussions have been held with officers at Tasman District Council to consider any joint options for Ecofest. No joint options have been identified.

10. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

10.1 No specific consultation has taken place with Māori.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Historically, Ecofest has been a valuable platform to engage with the community on sustainability issues. However, declining visitor numbers, increasing costs and difficulties with measuring the environmental gains of the event, have called into question the ongoing cost-effectiveness and efficiency of delivering Council environmental priorities in this way.

11.2 It is therefore recommended that Council consider cancelling future Ecofest events and reallocating staff resources and budget to activities that have measurable environmental gains.

Mary Curnow

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A915415 - Ecofest Strategic Report

Attachment 2: A1120552 - Tasman Nelson Environment Awards and Ecofest

Attachment 3: A1137528 - Council Report - New options for Ecofest Feb 2014

Attachment 4: A1329058 - Report on Ecofest featuring Growables 2014

ECOFEST STRATEGIC REVIEW

Nelson City Council & Tasman District Council

Project Objective

Review to establish if Ecofest in its current format is still aligned to both Councils objectives, and is effective as a vehicle for community engagement

Project Outcomes:

· Both Councils will be satisfied that either the existing event supports sustainability objectives, or different activities will be identified to meet these objectives

· The final outcome of this report will be a recommendation to Council on the future of Ecofest for the next 3 years (2012/15)

1. BACKGROUND:

Ecofest has run as a joint Council environmental expo for 11 years. The following are the objectives for the event for the years 2008/11:

To raise community awareness and promote environmental behaviour change:

· Motivate community members to engage with the environment and take every day actions to effect change

· Showcase the Council’s commitment to sustainability

· Provide information on a wide range of sustainability issues in a one-stop-shop format

· Provide a national significant example of best practice for sustainable events and environmental expos

· To support community groups and businesses who highlight solutions to living sustainably

· To demonstrate that the environment can be positive and fun to be involved in

Throughout its history the coordination of the event has been contracted to JR Events, primarily through the project manager; Jo Reilly of JR Events. Jo reports after each event on the objectives.

Visitor numbers and venues:

2008: 6000 – Trafalgar Centre

2009: 8000 – Founders Park

2010: 6000 – Trafalgar Centre

2011: 6000 – Trafalgar Centre

It is worth noting that these numbers compare well to a ‘mainstream’ event such as the Home & Garden Show.

In order to complete this review, a range of research covering both the three events prior to 2011, and the 2011 event itself, has been carried out. A summary of the research conducted is available in Appendix A. A summary of Council Objectives is available in Appendix B, along with a breakdown of event finances for 2009 to 2011 in Appendix C.

2. OPTIONS FOR REVIEW IN THIS REPORT:

2.1 That Ecofest cease to continue as an event

2.2 That Ecofest continue as an annual event

2.3 That Ecofest be run as a bi-annual event

3. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCLUSIONS:

3.1 Measuring against objectives:

The event meets the objectives listed previously in ‘Background’, but it does need to broaden its appeal with regards to topics and accessibility across the region. See Appendix B for a list of relevant Council plans and strategies.

Comments from visitors survey about what is most valued at the event:

‘We are in a generation which needs to be continuously reminded of the impact we are having on our environment, and alternatives’

‘displays that weren’t selling particularly but had genuine interest in helping’

‘the range of options on show for doing things differently and the feel of a festival’

3.2 Event fatigue:

One of the primary concerns when conducting this review was to address some consistent comments about the event becoming boring and repetitive. Certainly this is a perception for those of us who have been involved in the event for several years.

However, whilst the event retains a similar feel each year, the research is not pointing towards overall evidence of event-fatigue. An interesting survey response was the visitor exit survey for 2011. 428 visitors were polled (approximately 9% of total numbers). Of these 426, when asked if they would come again, responded yes. These respondents broke down into an approximate split of 60% repeat visitors, and 40% first time visitors. Visitor numbers are holding steady and this year were comparable to the three day gate for the commercially run Home & Garden Show.

There are opportunities to further develop the interactive/engagement part of the event to continue its evolution as an event which effectively supports change in our community. Comments on this are included in staff recommendations.

Comments from visitors survey about what would encourage them to come back:

‘Good, practical, common-sense everyday living activities that I can do in harmony with our natural environment’

‘Promoting different themes as well as workshops and seminars’

‘If it stays the same, my family and I will continue to attend Ecofest. We thoroughly enjoy it’

‘Something different to the usual stands each year. Having a theme’

‘More new ideas on how to save money’

3.3 Financial background:

The event represents good value for money (see Appendix C for financials). The level of support from sponsors means that this is a cost effective way to engage large numbers in the community, and participation can still be offered to visitors and exhibitors alike at comparatively low rates, which makes the event much more accessible than many of its competitors. At a time when many events are struggling financially and many are no longer viable, Ecofest continues to hold its own.

3.4 Messaging:

Ecofest continues to provide a clear message from both Councils on values relating to the environment and sustainability, and provides an important platform for both community and Councils to ‘walk the talk’. The Ecofest ‘brand’ is well established throughout the community – enabling the promotion of sustainability in a positive and engaging way. The event is also an excellent example of partnership between the two Councils which in itself is a valuable message.

3.5 Themes and partnerships:

The 2011 trial of a partnership between Ecofest and Civil Defence had excellent outcomes for all stakeholders, with clear links between outcomes for sustainability and Civil Defence around building community resilience. Ecofest does present opportunities for strengthening/partnerships around Council priorities – another example being transport and the launch of the upgraded Nelson/Richmond bus service in 2012, which ties in well also with promotion and engagement around new and existing cycle trails around the region. This could form an important theme for a 2012 event. There are also opportunities to consult more with community stakeholders such as DOC.

3.6 Comparison to other events:

One key area for review was whether other events are now providing the same outcomes as Ecofest. Based on the research responses this would not appear to be the case, although some aspects of living sustainably are covered through events such as Nelson Growables and Festival of Opportunities. Overall, Ecofest appears to remain the only comprehensive platform for advice and support on how to live more sustainably.

Comments from sponsors/funders survey:

‘I see it as part of our business…like an extension to our daily activities’

3.7 Exhibitors:

On the whole exhibitors appear to be satisfied with the event. Whilst there is a tension between providing a community-oriented engagement event and a commercial expo, on the whole the event manages to meet the expectations of all stakeholders. However, there are opportunities to freshen the appeal of the commercial component and at the same time meet the needs of the commercial exhibitors. It is also important to ensure that community exhibitors are not marginalised to meet the needs of commercial participants.

Another important development has been the involvement of the Council Eco Design Adviser in ensuring that exhibitors and their products genuinely support the objectives of the expo (avoiding ‘greenwashing’).

Comments from this year’s standholder survey:

‘Great show - more mainstream folks attending’ (Mapua Country Trading)

‘Excellent. Great weather & plenty of kids participated’ (Bunnings)

‘Less numbers than last year, but good energy’ (Little Pig Building Co)

‘Loved our spot. Can you pencil us in for this one next year.’ (Plankville)

‘Seemed to be more product stands than in previous years. Danger of Ecofest being captured as retail trade expo.’ (DOC)

3.8 Event format:

Moving the focus from big ticket talks to a more varied range of short workshop opportunities is proving popular, continuing the intention of making hands-on experiential learning part of the Ecofest experience. Continuing to ensure that the event content is relevant to our community and every day choices is important for the future, and also that the event is more accessible across the community.

A few survey responses have suggested moving to a bi-annual event, but there has not been a huge amount of feedback suggesting this. At this stage there still appears to be sufficient interest in the event to warrant running it on an annual basis.

Comments from visitors survey on what people would like to see more of:

’easy ideas to make a start towards more sustainable living’

‘more good seminars and workshops. More interactive stuff for kids’

‘more community groups and what they are doing’

3.9 Venue:

The visitors survey contained a range of responses about wanting a more central location to both areas, such as Richmond. However, the Trafalgar Centre continues to be the only venue currently which offers sufficient space to run the indoor component of the event and accommodate visitor numbers. It also has good transport links and it is acknowledged that this is likely to remain the best venue option. The one year that the event took place at Founders Park saw a spike in visitor numbers and many positive comments about the atmosphere of the venue and it’s good fit with Ecofest, but as a venue it is even less accessible for those outside of Nelson than the Trafalgar Centre, as well as being weather-dependent and more expensive to set up. Whilst the event remains in Nelson, it is important to recognise that for some parts of the region Nelson is not an accessible option, and therefore making event-related activities more accessible is an important trend to continue.

The Saxton complex is not currently suitable for staging Ecofest due to fire safety limitations on numbers indoors in the main stadium, and conflict with sports codes use during winter weekends.

4 RECOMMENDATIONS:

‘Because it’s essential that people are provided with easily accessible opportunities …. To make sustainable choices in how they live their lives and conduct their businesses’

(visitors survey)

4.1 Staff recommend option 2.2:

That the event continues on an annual basis for the three year period 2012/15, after which it should be reviewed again. Ecofest remains a valuable platform for engaging our community and making sustainability accessible.

4.2 The event format should further develop both interactive/experiential learning at the expo, as well as further developing activities and programmes strongly linked to the event which can be offered across the region.

4.3 Continuation of a theme as trialled in the 2011 event through the partnership with Civil Defence is recommended. Potential themes/partnerships for 2012 could involve transport. The event should involve community partnerships as much as possible.

4.4 Further consultation to take place with exhibitors to ensure that the event is an effective vehicle in 2012 for their needs as well as Councils. Promoting a ‘sustainable shopping experience’ can be developed as an event draw-card – focusing on the reduce/re-use perspective through partnerships with Sunday second-hand market; clothes and product shwaps and farmers market. Monitoring of quality of exhibitors and products relating to Ecofest objectives to continue.

4.5 There is potential to develop Ecofest as a national event, including looking at synergies with other events and organisations, eg, conferences, environment centres, environment awards. This aspect to be explored further.

4.6 There is an opportunity to promote innovation and new technologies which support sustainability through a competition in this area. Consideration to be further given to whether this could be a joint Council/sponsor activity at a regional or national level. This activity could link to the region’s profile as the solar energy capital of New Zealand. Additional funding would be required.

Report Authors:

Karen Lee, Sustainability Adviser, Nelson City Council

Rob Francis, Environmental Education Officer, Tasman District Council

Assistance from:

Yvonne Gwyn, Policy Adviser, Nelson City Council

Charlene Dick, Cadet

APPENDIX A

Research conducted for review:

1. Expo’s prior to 2011

The following surveys have been conducted through Survey Monkey on the previous 3 expos:

· Visitors

· Exhibitors

· Sponsors/funders

· Others (including Council staff)

Copies of surveys available if required.

Summary of surveys:

1.1 Visitors

Responses: 40 (70% Nelson, 30% Tasman)

Commentary

A range of questions covered the visitor experience over the three previous years. These established that the majority of reasons for visiting were aligned with the event objectives in section 1. The majority of respondents reported that the event met their objectives. The previous programmes of seminars and talks resulted in a more mixed response, which is in line with changes made already to 2011 event moving the focus away to more practical workshops. Comments on what would improve Ecofest in the future ranged from more stands and opportunities to purchase eco-products; to less stands and more focus on the community – demonstrating the variability we often encounter in people’s perceptions of sustainability. Other suggestions included a careers information opportunity at the event and showcasing of new technology – which again demonstrates the varied interests of the respondents. Visitors did not identify many opportunities for other events which meet the same needs, but where they did, Nelson Growables was the key candidate.

1.2 Exhibitors

Responses: 9 (85% Nelson, 15% Tasman).

78% commercial sector, 11% public sector, 11% community sector.

Commentary

The majority of respondents see Ecofest as their primary vehicle for environmental messages – and as such their point of access to this market. In this capacity Ecofest meets their objectives. Comments include positive views on relaxed and friendly show; ethos and target value. Every respondent was supportive of Ecofest continuing.

1.3 Generic (including Council staff)

Responses: 19 (86% Nelson/14% Tasman).

76.5% from public (govt) sector and 23.5% from the community sector, with 85.7% from Nelson and 14.3% from Tasman.

Commentary:

Respondents quoted sustainability, platform for community engagement and education/awareness raising as outcomes, with 50% stating these objectives fully met, and 50% partially met. Event valued as only dedicated platform for these activities, and as a valuable forum for translating ideas into action and networking, and as a council vehicle for walking the talk. However, view of event as repetitive also noted, and awareness of the dangers of product endorsement perceptions. Value seen in attracting out of region visitors and broadening appeal of event. School children should be free. Overall full support for continuation of event as a one stop shop giving clear Council message on sustainability.

1.4 Sponsors

Responses: 3 (2 Nelson/0 Tasman/1 Other)

Commentary:

Ecofest meets objective of linking brand with environment – it is seen as a community rather than a commercial event.

2. Research conducted as part of 2011 event:

2.1 Visitor Exit Survey:

428 visitors surveyed (9% of visitors – 60% repeat visitors; 40% first time visitors). Response to question: would you come to Ecofest again: 422: Yes; 6: No

2.2 Standholders Exit Survey:

Responses: 80

Commentary:

Most exhibitors positive about event but less people-engagement was noted with sales interest down on previous years. Concern about numbers, but overall there was a positive view of event.

3. SWOT ANALYSIS:

A range of SWOT analysis were carried out:

· Event organisers, including project manager

· NCC staff debrief

· TDC staff debrief

· NCC/TDC Biosecurity team

· TOTSEE (Top of the South Environmental Educators)

The following is a summary:

Strengths:

· Showing leadership

· Unique platform for sustainability

· Sponsor support

· Community spirit

· Removes barriers

· Access to eco-savvy audience

· Established event

· How-to demos

· Relaxed event atmosphere

· Quality of exhibitors

· National role model

· Project Manager

Weaknesses:

· Promotion campaign doesn’t reach everybody

· Same old-same old

· Name (perceived as ‘hippy’) and associated language

· Not reaching some demographics

· Better Council stand presence/signage

· Better use of PA system

Opportunities:

· Council engagement with the community

· Practical themes

· Attract youth

· Grow event nationally/support regional development

· Internal and external partnerships to promote messages

· New technology

· Involve the arts/fashion show development

· Partnerships

· Solar links

· Visibility for Council leaders

· Better promotion, including signage

Threats:

· Liability for hands on activities

· Event fatigue

· Other events

· Weather

· Visitor numbers

· Perception of Council endorsement of products/services

· Loss of project manager

APPENDIX B

Relevant Council strategies and plans:

1. Nelson City Council:

1. Nelson Community Plan 2009-19:

Environmental Management/Fostering Change through non-regulatory means: Environmental advocacy, education and behaviour change programmes are a key part of non-regulatory methods to achieve environmental goals. Council works with other organisations and community groups to achieve good environmental outcomes in the community. Key initiatives include Ecofest.

Community Outcomes/Goals:

· Healthy land, sea, air and water – we protect the natural environment

· People-friendly places – we build healthy, accessible and attractive places and live in a sustainable region.

· A strong economy – we all benefit from a sustainable, innovative and diversified economy

1.1. Service level: sustainability advocacy – Ecofest

2. Sustainability Policy

Aims: Demonstrate leadership in sustainability across the region

· Achieve best practice standards

· Meet and strive to surpass requirements of environmental legislation targets

· Build partnerships and projects that create learning networks

· Take account of the impact on future generations when making decisions

· Provide decision makers with the information they need to deliver sustainable outcomes

2. Tasman District Council:

Community Outcome: Our diverse community enjoys access to a range of spiritual, cultural, social, educational and recreational services.

How the activity contributes: By promoting involvement in activities like Sea Week, Enviroschools, and Ecofest which allows different sections of the community to participate, learn and teach each other about matters relating to community well-being.

Activity Goal:

The Environmental Management activity goal is to:

Effectively promote the sustainable management of the District’s natural and physical resources by:

(1 -6 not relevant)

7. Educating communities and providing information to enable sustainable, resilient and productive communities within the District.

Principal Objectives:

The principal objectives of the Environmental Management activity to advance the goal of the activity are to:

· Work with, and disseminate to, the community, information about good environmental practices and behaviours.

APPENDIX C

Financial review of Ecofest:

Year	Income	Expenditure	Surplus/(Deficit)
2004	60,735	50,020	10,715
2005	45,257	42,156	3,101
2006	53,676	43,644	10,032
2007	49,453	36,791	12,662
2008	71,652	59,600	12,052
2009	93,018	89,380	3,638
2010	116,971**	135,759	(18,788)
	490,762	457,350	33,412
2011*	115,622**	112,742	2,880

* = Not Finalised yet ** = adjusted for carry forward surplus
Note: Ecofest commenced in 2001.

The above figures relate to the Ecofest event for that calendar year. These figures do not agree easily to Council’s general ledger as Council’s financial year runs from July to June each year. Ecofest is held in August and therefore, the income and expenditure falls over two financial years with most expenditure falling in the previous Council financial year, and income from the event being in the following financial year.

I have performed a comprehensive review of the above figures for the 2008 event onwards. I have split the transactions from the general ledger into the relevant Ecofest annual event. Over the four years I have a small discrepancy which I have not attempted to reconcile. This discrepancy would most likely be due to the coding of Ecofest costs into other Council departments. A greater emphasis has now been placed on correctly recording income and expenditure within the Ecofest Activity.

Ecofest is accounted for by Council as a ‘closed account’. This means that any surpluses/deficits each year are carried forward into the next year. From the beginning of the Ecofest event to the end of the 2010 event, Council’s Ecofest closed account balance is $24,186 (In funds). ($9,490 deficit pre 2004, $33,676 surplus post 2004).

Bryce Grammer

Financial Accountant (TDC)

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 January 2014

REPORT A1120552

Tasman Nelson Environment Awards and Ecofest Options

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider options for the delivery of the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards and Ecofest.

2. Recommendation

THAT the report Tasman Nelson Environment Awards and Ecofest Options (A1120552) and its attachments (A115950 and A1126202) be received;

AND THAT a roadshow-style Ecofest event be delivered in Stoke and Motueka combined with an ‘Ecofest Week’ of activities with a local focus, instead of the Expo event planned for the Trafalgar Centre;

AND THAT the Ecofest event will include a people’s choice environment award to replace the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards scheduled for March 2014;

AND THAT officers report back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on the trial, with recommendations for delivery of the Ecofest and Environment Awards events in future years.

3. Background

3.1 Council runs two flagship community environmental engagement events in partnership with Tasman District Council (TDC); the Nelson Tasman Environment Awards and Ecofest.

3.2 The aim of these events is to support environmental sustainability by providing information and best practice examples of household and community level sustainability actions, and to provide opportunities for creating change.

Tasman Nelson Environment Awards

3.3 The awards have been run since 1999 by TDC, and jointly by both Councils since 2009. The last awards were delivered in 2011, and a strategic review was completed in 2012 (Attachment 1). The findings of the review resulted in both Councils approving the delivery of the awards on a biennial basis, with the objective of achieving the following outcomes:

· Providing role models for good environmental outcomes visible throughout the community through promoting, recognising and celebrating local projects and activities;

· Directly rewarding those involved in local projects and activities.

3.4 As a result of this review, Council resolved:

THAT the recommendations of the Review be implemented:

· The Awards be held biennially from the 2013/14 year, in partnership with Tasman District Council;

· The number of categories are reduced to schools, primary production, business, individual, group, sustainable design, and people’s choice; with prizes for these categories to be provided by sponsors;

· The judging process is standardised and streamlined to involve a moderator, a councillor and a specialist for each category;

· An improved higher value sponsor package is developed;

· A marketing plan is developed to improve coverage about the Awards in the community subject to sponsorship;

AND THAT the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards be reviewed in 2018.

3.5 The 2013 awards were scheduled to be delivered in between July 2013 and November 2013. In the event, due to TDC staff illness, only the schools category award was delivered, as part of the Cawthron Science and Technology Fair in September 2013.

3.6 Sponsors of the awards were informed at the time that there would be a delay in the delivery of the other awards, and that a revised awards programme would be delivered in March 2014.

3.7 The Nelson City Council has budgeted $11,000 for costs associated with running the awards in their current format, in addition to the 1 day per fortnight (on average) that officers spend administering the awards.

Ecofest

3.8 Ecofest has run as a joint Councils’ environmental expo for 13 years. The event has the following objectives:

· Provide information, education and experiential learning in a one-stop shop format;

· Provide a showcase for products and activities which support sustainability;

· Provide a platform to showcase the Councils’ commitment to sustainability;

· Provide a national significant example of best practice for sustainable events and environmental expos;

· Support community groups and businesses who highlight solutions to living sustainably;

· Demonstrate that environmental engagement can be positive, rewarding and fun.

3.9 Ecofest underwent a strategic review in 2011 (Attachment 2), which concluded that the event continues to deliver these outputs in a cost effective and efficient way, and that these outputs remain consistent with supporting positive and measurable behaviour change in the community. It was decided to keep offering the event on an annual basis but to improve outreach to grassroots communities and increase the ‘how-to’ component. This resulted in ‘mini-expos’ being trialled in Golden Bay and the Victory community, as well as more business led how-to sessions.

3.10 The 2014 Ecofest event had been scheduled to take place in the Trafalgar Centre in August. This venue is no longer available. There are also question marks over the future funding of the event as TDC has committed to reducing its contribution, currently $18,000, towards a Nelson based Expo.

3.11 The Nelson City Council contribution to the cost of Ecofest is budgeted at $32,000. In addition officers spend, on average, 1½ days per fortnight working on the event.

4. Discussion

4.1 Both Councils have recently restructured the teams responsible for delivering both Ecofest and the Tasman Nelson Environment awards. As a result, there is less staff capacity to deliver these events. The closure of the Trafalgar Centre will also impact on delivery of Ecofest, scheduled for August 2014.

4.2 There is a need for direction in relation to how best to deliver the outcomes of these events, given the issues that have arisen.

Delivery of the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards

4.3 The options available to Council are:

· To proceed with delivery of the Environment Awards in March 2014. This would necessitate Nelson City Council officers taking on additional responsibilities in order to deliver the awards;

· To cancel the Environment Awards for 2013/14 year. This would free resource to concentrate on Ecofest (see 4.7) but may lead to a perception of a lack of commitment from Council on environmental issues;

· To combine the Environment Awards in a new format with a revised Ecofest event (see 4.10). This is the recommended option.

4.4 The Environment Awards continue to be useful as a means of acknowledging the good environmental work carried out by community groups and businesses in the community. However, it is not clear if the Environment Awards in themselves result in behaviour change or the development of new projects.

4.5 The majority of officer time is taken up by managing sponsor relationships. This is a key part of the delivery of the Environment Awards but does mean that officer time is taken from promoting the sustainability outcomes.

4.6 Officers recommend that Council does not continue to support the Environment Awards as a standalone event, but that a people’s choice award be supported and promoted as part of Ecofest. Officers will continue to work with the Cawthron to integrate the school awards with the Science Fair on a biennial basis.

Delivery of Ecofest

4.7 The closure of the Trafalgar Centre gives Council an opportunity to trial an alternative delivery model for Ecofest. This is also an opportunity to continue the work already commenced focusing on grassroots local communities.

4.8 Council officers recommend that, for this year, an Ecofest roadshow is organised consisting of an ‘Ecofest week’ (incorporating seminars and how-to sessions run by local business and community partners) sandwiched between two one-day Ecofest events to be held in Stoke and Motueka. TDC officers have agreed in principle to this approach, subject to approval by their Council.

4.9 This model would take Ecofest into the community, would enable links with existing sponsors to be maintained and links with new sponsors to be made.

4.10 Officers also propose to incorporate a ‘people’s choice’ environment award as part of Ecofest week. This single award category would replace the multiple categories currently present in the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards. The Award would be run on a digital platform with people in the community able to vote on their favourite using social media and electronic forms.

4.11 The alternative options are to either cancel Ecofest for 2014/15 or to run it in its current form as an Expo but in a new location.

4.12 Cancelling Ecofest may be justifiable given that the Trafalgar Centre is not available. However, it would mean that contact would be lost with regular sponsors of the event, and the community may be disappointed at the loss of a popular event. Ecofest continues to be well supported by individuals, groups and businesses and its cancellation would be seen as a significant loss.

4.13 Continuing with Ecofest in its current form, but at a different location would demonstrate Council’s commitment to the event and its aims. However, it is likely that the event would either require additional funding or that its size and scope would have to reduce as alternative suitable venues are more expensive.

5. Conclusion

5.1 A combination of staff changes and the closure of the Trafalgar Centre has given an opportunity to consider delivering Ecofest and the Environment Awards in a different way this year.

5.2 Officers recommend that, as a trial, Ecofest be delivered as a roadshow type event, to be delivered in Stoke and Motueka, and that as part of the event a ‘people’s choice’ environment award should take place.

5.3 The results of the trial would then be used to inform decisions on future delivery of Ecofest and the Environment Awards.

Chris Ward

Manager Environmental Programmes

Attachments

Attachment 1: Nelson Tasman Environment Awards Strategic Review 2012 (A115950)

Attachment 2: Ecofest Strategic Review 2011 (A1126202)

Note: The attachments to this report are circulated separately to the agenda. They are available to councillors on the google drive, or by contacting an Administration Adviser.

Supporting information follows.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

20 March 2014

REPORT A1137528

Ecofest 2014

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider additional options to those provided in the previous report (Attachment 1) for the delivery of Ecofest in 2014 in the Nelson region.

2. Recommendation

THAT the report Ecofest 2014 (A1137528) and its attachment (A1120552) be received.

Recommendation to Council

EITHER

THAT the Nelson Ecofest event proposed for 2014 be cancelled and that discussion on any further Ecofest events take place as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2015/25.

THAT officers request Expressions of Interest from interested parties for the delivery of Ecofest at Founders Heritage Park in 2014;

AND THAT officers request Expressions of Interest from interested parties for the delivery of Ecofest in subsequent years.

3. Background

3.1 Council runs Ecofest in partnership with Tasman District Council, along with the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards.

3.2 The objective of Ecofest has been to remove the barriers which hinder people in our community making sustainable choices; to provide fun and educational learning and engagement opportunities; to create measurable behaviour change and to provide a vehicle for Council outcomes around environmental change/people engagement.

3.3 At the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 28 January 2014 Councillors were advised that due to the lack of availability of the Trafalgar Centre and reduced availability of staff resources, changes were being recommended in how both events were delivered (Attachment 1).

3.4 Staff from both Councils recommended a local road show event combined with a week of ‘how to’ activities in partnership with local business and community groups. The road show trial format was proposed as a result of a strategic review carried out by staff from both Councils which identified a need to take the event to residents who are less likely to attend the main expo, and who would benefit from some of the core Ecofest messages.

3.5 The Committee agreed the recommendation that the Environment Awards be offered as a People’s Choice award as part of Ecofest in 2014 but officers were asked to reconsider options for the delivery of Ecofest, including reporting on Council venues for a Nelson event. Staff have also been asked for information on sponsor feedback on the new proposals.

3.6 A similar report went to Tasman District Council on 13 February 2014. The following resolution was adopted:

That the Community Development Committee:

receives the Ecofest and Environment Awards Options Report RCD14-02-08; and

agrees to a roadshow-style Ecofest event being delivered in Motueka and a Nelson location (still to be determined) combined with ‘Ecofest Weeks’ of activities with a local focus, instead of the Expo event planned for the Trafalgar Centre; and

agrees that the Ecofest event incorporates the Environment Awards; and

requests that officers report back to the Community Development Committee on the outcome of the trial by 4 December 2014, with recommendations for delivery of the Ecofest and Environment Awards events in future years.

4. Ecofest - Discussion

4.1 In addition to the Road Show option presented in the previous report, the following options have been reviewed by staff (based on designing an event intended primarily for Nelson residents and funded by Council, as Tasman District Council is intending to deliver a Motueka roadshow as its Ecofest event for 2014).

1. Option One - Saxton Stadium

4.2 Should this venue be considered, the proposal would be for a one day expo type event.

4.2.1 Pros:

· Saxton is a flagship Council venue and is well located for residents from both Council areas.

· Saxton is being provided as a major events venue in the absence of the Trafalgar Centre, and should have infrastructure suitable for expos.

4.2.2 Cons:

· The earliest the venue is likely to be available is in October (to be confirmed after fire reports have been approved). Ecofest usually takes place in August – once we move into October there is considerable competition with other events. Winter is also a much better time for Ecofest key messages around energy efficient warm homes, etc.

· Saxton does not lend itself to how-to seminars due to the acoustics of the stadium, which may present challenges

· The cost of a one day event at Saxton Stadium is on a par with a one day event at the Trafalgar Centre. As this year Tasman District Council are focusing on their Motueka Road Show, this means that there would be a considerable additional cost burden on Nelson City Council. There are cost efficiencies in the original road show proposal which don’t transfer to this event format.

· Considerable staff time is required to deliver the event under the existing arrangements. This reduces staff capacity to work on higher environmental priorities (e.g. Matai improvements, Tasman Bay).

4.3 For the reasons above officers are not recommending Saxton as a venue for Ecofest 2014. However, it does offer considerable potential in future years due to its location for a genuinely joint Nelson City/Tasman District Council expo.

2. Option Two: Founders Park

4.4 This proposal is for a one day expo including demos and a home tour, all targeted at Nelson residents. The cost of a two day expo would only be feasible if the Councils were returning to the previous model of a jointly-funded expo, or if Council were to make further resources available.

4.4.1 Pros:

· This venue is popular with Nelson event-goers, having attracted 8000 visitors over two days in 2008 when used for the joint Council Ecofest expo.

· The venue helps make this event feel more like a festival than a commercial expo which is supportive of existing objectives. This option also showcases the use of a Council facility

· Reasonably high footfall can be expected, with the projection for a one day expo for 2014 focusing on Nelson residents estimated at 2000 visitors.

4.4.2 Cons

· The cost of staging a one day expo is considerably higher than the road show options. On a projection of 2,000 visitors the event would meet the current budget allocated, including a higher event management contribution from Council than for the road show format previously proposed.

· The space for exhibitors is limited due to the high cost of bringing in additional marquee space, which in turn reduces income from exhibitors.

4.5 If this option is selected by Council then there will be consequential impacts on other work programmes, as considerable staff time will still be required. Officers believe that Council’s priorities for action in its environmental activities have changed and do not recommend this option.

3. Option Three: Calling for Expressions of Interest from interested parties to run Ecofest.

4.6 Tasman District Council has previously signalled its desire to see Ecofest become an independent self-funding event, whereas Nelson City Council historically has seen Ecofest as a Council platform for key messages and environmental engagement activities. Tasman is already in the process of reducing its annual event contributions on a sinking lid basis to encourage greater commercial independence.

4.7 There are several events companies locally that could take on the running of the event. Whilst the timing is not ideal, if Council were to choose this option, officers would seek to run a process that enabled an event to take place this year. Officers recommend that, if this approach is taken, potential contractors be directed to run the event at Founders for this year.

4.8 The history of shared ownership of the Ecofest brand between the councils should also be considered if the event is to be offered to external organisers, given that Tasman District Council is currently planning to run an Ecofest event in 2014 (financial year 14/15). There would also need to be further discussions on how the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards might be delivered.

4.8.1 Pros

· Allowing new organisations outside of council to take a fresh approach to the expo and related activities could build some strong local momentum.

· Handing over ownership of the event to the community would release Council officers for other key Council objectives (e.g. Maitai River and Tasman Bay).

4.8.2 Cons

· If passing ownership of brand to another organisation, Council will lose some control of what has been a valuable and reasonably cost effective platform to engage with the community on key messages such as the Air Quality campaign. It has also been an effective vehicle for demonstrating Council ‘walking the talk’.

· If a suitable contractor does not come forward, or the negotiations become protracted, there may not be time to deliver Ecofest in 2014.

4.9 Officers recommend this option if Council determines that Ecofest should go ahead in 2014.

4. Option Four: Cancelling Ecofest

4.10 The final option is for Council to reconsider whether Ecofest continues to sit high within Council priorities. Officers have been given direction to focus more on demonstrable outcomes (for example, improving fresh water quality, improving the health of Tasman Bay). It has been difficult to directly attribute environmental gains to the Ecofest and Environment Awards events. For this option the same considerations with regards to the shared ownership of the brand with Tasman District Council as expressed in above (4.8) are applicable.

4.10.1 Pros

· Staff resources and funding can be reallocated to meet new Council priorities and environmental objectives, including Maitai River improvements, taking a lead on Tasman Bay issues and waste minimisation projects.

· An opportunity to demonstrate to the community that moving to new activities and projects can have better outcomes for Nelson residents

4.10.2 Cons

· Cancelling Ecofest permanently would be a loss of a potentially valuable brand asset.

· There is a community expectation amongst visitors and exhibitors that Ecofest will continue as a regional event.

4.11 This option is supported by officers providing that resources saved can be put to higher priority environmental outcomes – including work on freshwater quality improvements (Maitai River) and Tasman Bay.

4.12 Council could also decide to cancel the Nelson event for this year only, given venue and timing issues, and reconsider the issue as part of the Long Term Plan 2015/25 process. This would also allow time for further discussions with Tasman District Council to take place.

5. Sponsors

5.1 Feedback has been sought from three key sponsors with regards to both the Founders one day expo and the road show format – with confirmation that both options would be of interest. It should be noted that there are a variety of sponsors involved, ranging from exhibitors through to contributors of major in-kind services and products as incentives for the event.

5.2 This feedback suggests that should another organisation take on Ecofest that there would be continued support from sponsors.

6. Tasman Nelson Environment Awards

6.1 The awards are a Tasman District Council driven activity, with Nelson participating in the last three events.

6.2 The current proposal is to streamline the Tasman Nelson Environment Awards from their previous format to an electronic voting platform and combine this with Ecofest.

6.3 It is likely that the delivery of the awards in this new format will need to be delayed pending consideration of the options in this report. If the decision is made to deliver Ecofest in any form in 2014, officers propose to work with colleagues in Tasman District Council to deliver the Environment Awards in the new format previously agreed. This, again, impacts on staff ability to work on other priorities.

6.4 If Ecofest is cancelled due to the need to focus on higher priority environmental projects, then officers recommend, by the same rationale, that Council’s contribution of staff time to the Environment Awards be withdrawn.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Officers have been asked to consider options for delivery of Ecofest. The event currently delivers against some environmental outcomes and some social wellbeing outcomes.

7.2 Several options have been considered and it is still feasible, although challenging, for an event to be held this year. However, there are other uses of staff time and Council resources that could deliver more explicitly against Council’s desired environmental outcomes. Officers therefore recommend that the event be cancelled for 2014.

7.3 If Council does decide that the Nelson Ecofest event goes ahead, officers recommend that the whole event be put out to contract for delivery of the event at Founders Park in this calendar year.

Chris Ward

Manager Environmental Programmes

Attachments

Attachment 1: Tasman Nelson Environment Awards and Ecofest Options (A1120552)

No supporting information follows.

Report on Ecofest featuring Growables 2014

1. Background

1.1 Ecofest has run as an annual joint Nelson City and Tasman District Councils environmental expo since 2000.

1.2 The purpose of the event is to remove the barriers that hinder people in our community making sustainable choices about how they live.

1.3 In 2014, significant changes were made to the event due to the closure of the Trafalgar Centre and the reduced availability of staff resources. These changes included:

· Combining with Nelson Growables, an independent community-run event organised by volunteers from the Nelson Growables Trust Board

· Rebranding the event as ‘Ecofest featuring Growables’ with Ecofest as the primary driver

· Moving it from winter (August) to late spring (November)

· Relocating the event from the Trafalgar Centre to Founders Heritage Park

· Restructuring the event from two days to one day

· The appointment of Nelson Venues as contractor to deliver the event with support from a designated member of Council staff as required. Previously coordination of the event had been contracted to JR Events, primarily through the project manager Jo Reilly.

1.4 In addition to these changes, Tasman District Council made the decision to run a separate Ecofest event at Motueka two months prior to the Nelson event.

1.5 The event took place on Sunday 16 November 2014.

2. Event Summary

Visitor Attendance and Public Feedback

2.1 Approximately 2000 people attended the event and engaged with exhibitors on a wide range of sustainability issues during the day. Whilst visitor numbers were considerably lower than previous years, much of this can be attributed to the change from a two-day to one-day event, and the change to a late spring event when competition from other events was high. In 2013 it was estimated that 4000 people attended over two days. Peak visitor numbers were reached in 2009 with 8000 people in attendance.

2.2 22% of visitors completed a public feedback questionnaire on the day. The results of this survey showed,

· 37% were first-time visitors to Ecofest

· 50% rated the event 7 out of 10 or higher compared to previous Ecofest events including strong support for the change of venue from Trafalgar Park which gave the event a more festival feel

· Of those who commented on the overall event, 40% indicated they were happy with it as it was and that it needed no improvement.

· Of those who thought improvement could be made, 35% said it would be good to have new/additional exhibitors, demonstrations and speakers, and more food stalls. Other suggestions for improvement included more activities for kids; more rest areas; cheaper entry fees; and a return to the two-day format.

Exhibitors and Stallholders

2.3 78 exhibitors and stallholders attended the event, down from 104 in 2013. Of these, 45 identified themselves as ‘Ecofest Exhibitors’ while 23 identified themselves as ‘Nelson Growables Exhibitors’. 10 were food and drink stalls.

2.4 In terms of Ecofest exhibitors only, this shows a marked decrease in the number of stallholders attending the event, just 43% of those attending in 2013.

2.5 As with previous Ecofest events, talks and workshops took place throughout the day at various locations within the park. These were well received by those who attended but attendance on the whole was quite low.

2.6 Exhibitors were asked to complete a survey following the event to understand how well the event worked for them. Feedback was received from 45% of exhibitors, considerably higher than the feedback received in 2013 from just 8% of stallholders.

2.7 The results showed that of those who completed the survey,

· 87% had exhibited at a previous Ecofest or Nelson Growables event

· 82% of exhibitors represented businesses and less than 6% identified themselves as representing not-for-profit or community groups

· 97% rated the venue and facilities as good or very good

· 56% liked that the Ecofest and Nelson Growables events were combined

· 84% thought the event should be held in spring in preference to any other time of year

· 58% rated the success of the event as poor or very poor. Particular concerns were raised about the cost of the stands, with 61% feeling that the stands were too expensive for a one day event and 44% rating communication with Nelson Venues before and during the event as poor or very poor

· 58% said they were likely or very likely to attend the event in the future

Home Tour

2.7 As with previous Ecofest events, a home tour was organised a week prior to the actual event. This provided the first ever opportunity for members of the public to visit Braemar Eco-Village located on the edge of the Grampians overlooking Victory. The tour was led by Richard Poppenhagen with 26 people in attendance. Feedback from the tour was very positive.

Pre-event Talks

2.8 Three events took place during the week leading up to the main event. These were poorly attended due to limited time for planning, organisation and promotion.

3. Budget

3.1 The event was delivered within the allocated budget of $30,000 including a contingency fund of $10,000 to cover additional expenses beyond the $20,000 contract management fee.

3.2 The total cost of the event was just over $52,000 excl GST. The contribution from Council was $26,300 excl GST plus $1500 for the Council stand and related activities, a total of $27,800. The remaining costs were covered by income generated through entry fees, sale of exhibitor stands, a small grant from the Canterbury Community Trust, sponsorship and an eco home tour run the weekend before the main event.

3.3 The level of Council expenditure was similar to Ecofest 2013.

3.4 It was agreed that as Ecofest was the primary driver of the event, Nelson City Council would cover 100% of the liability for any losses from the event on the understanding that it would also receive 100% of any surpluses. Budgets for Ecofest and Growables were recorded separately to better understand where costs were incurred, and where any losses or surpluses were made. The event made a loss of $6,300 which was covered by the Council’s contingency fund.

3.5 Revenue from ticket sales and exhibitor stands was lower than expected and sponsorship was lower than previous years. This resulted in reduced income to offset expenses.

4. Successes

4.1 The event was delivered on time and within the allocated budget which included a contingency fund.

4.2 The change of venue was well received by members of the public and exhibitors alike who felt Founders Heritage Park was better suited to an event of this nature and had a more festival ‘vibe’.

4.3 The addition of specific stands such as Bikewise at the entrance to the windmill was very well received by members of the public. Over 140 people rode to the event on the day, and were able to take advantage of the free bike service on offer. Bikes were stored safely at the entrance, which was greatly appreciated by those who rode to the event. The Op Shop stands and second-hand stands were also seen as good additions to the event.

4.4 The change to a spring event was in general met with approval although a number of Nelson Growables exhibitors felt the event was too late in the season for selling plants and seeds.

4.5 With a limited marketing budget available, different marketing approaches were used to promote the event and attract attention. These included increased use of Facebook and online social media; sponsorship of a car from Bowater Toyota; printed fliers promoting the event going out with the November rates letters; and an updated website. The social media was particularly successful with the number of followers increasing from 70 in 2013 to over 1000 over the course of the planning and delivery of the event in 2014. This proved to be a very cost-effective promotional activity.

5. Challenges

5.1 Following discussions about the new format and change of date, the timeline to deliver the event was tight, with contracts being agreed with the new contractor less than 5 months prior to the delivery date. This is in contrast to previous Ecofest events, which have had a lead-in time of 12 months. The short timeline impacted considerably on attracting exhibitors to the event with many having already committed to other events before promotion of the event could start. For many exhibitors they had already fixed their marketing budgets and scheduled events, which left little additional spend for this event. Competing events included Ecofest Motueka, which was perceived as an alternative rather than an additional option; the Christchurch A & P Show, which featured a Nelson exhibitor area; Marlborough Garden Show; and the Nelson Home and Garden Show.

5.2 Initial evidence suggested that the compatibility of the two events would be high. However, while there was some cross-over in desired outcomes, combining the events presented some real challenges particularly with regard to managing expectations of Council and the Nelson Growables Trust Board.

5.3 Combining a community-run event (Nelson Growables) with a council-run event (Ecofest) also presented some significant challenges. These included the availability of funds, resources and decision-makers, and effective management of different expectations and desired outcomes.

5.4 Combining the event also highlighted the considerable disparity in terms of how the two separate events have run in previous years including the one day/two day format, exhibitor fees, site layout and promotion.

5.5 Switching to a one-day format resulted in exhibitor fixed costs being higher than previous. This was not well received by exhibitors, particularly those associated with Nelson Growables and many of the small independent owner-operated plant businesses chose not to attend because of this. This was identified early on in the organisational phase and the price was dropped, which did attract more participants. However, this was at the expense of revenue.

5.6 The lower exhibitor uptake and the resultant loss of revenue put significant pressure on the marketing budget, which resulted in limited promotion of the event using traditional tools.

5.7 Following discussions with the Nelson Growables Trust Board it became apparent that there had been considerable reluctance from them to run a Nelson Growables event in 2014. This was due to falling visitor numbers in recent years and a heavy reliance on volunteers to support the event. These volunteers were no longer available and the Nelson Growables Trust Board had limited capacity to be involved in the planning and organisation of the event. They also had very limited funds approximately $5,000, which meant Council was required to contribute the bulk of the funding.

6. Summary

6.1 While successful in many areas, there were some key learning points to come out of the event that should be given further consideration if the event is to be repeated in the future.