Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

Page No.

1. Apologies

1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Luke Acland

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 1 December 2016 8 - 11

Document number M2239

Recommendation

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 1 December 2016, as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 23 February 2017 12 - 14

Document number R7161

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 February 2017 (R7161) and its attachment (A1155974).

7. Chairperson's Report 15 - 17

Document number R7216

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the Chairperson's Report (R7216); and

Appoints the Co-Chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, Councillor McGurk, and Councillors Kate Fulton and Stuart Walker to the Councillor Liaison roles for Nelson Biodiversity Forum for the 2016–2019 triennium.

Regulatory

8. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October to 31 December 2016 18 - 34

Document number R6887

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October to 31 December 2016 (R6887) and its attachment (A1673398).

9. Parking and vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 35 - 45

Document number R6973

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Parking and vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R6973) and its attachments (A1709307, A1709319, A1709346, A1709339, A1709357, A1709366, 1709368); and

Approves amendments detailed in report R6973 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

- Schedule 9: No stopping

- Schedule 14: Give Way Signs

Environment

10. Biosecurity Annual Report 46 - 94

Document number R6995

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Report (R6995) and its attachments (A1692237 and A1692242); and

Approves the 2016-17 Biosecurity Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson region (A1692242).

Policy and Planning

11. Progressive Implementation Programme for Freshwater 95 - 108

Document number R6960

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Progressive Implementation Programme for Freshwater (R6960) and its attachments (A1693613, A1693614, A1693618, and A1694507); and

Approves for public notification the revised progressive implementation programme (Attachment 2 (A1693614)) to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014; and

Approves the 2016 summary of implementation report (Attachment 3 (A1693618)) which details the extent to which the programme has been implemented during 2016 in Nelson, for publication on Council’s website; and

Approves the Freshwater Working Groups’ revised terms of reference including duration of establishment (Attachment 4 (A1694507)).

12. Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement 109 - 115

Document number R6958

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement (R6958); and

Notes that the next iteration of the draft Regional Policy Statement will be provided to the April 2017 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on the completion of a planning peer review.

13. Nelson Plan - Community Engagement during 2017 116 - 127

Document number R7080

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Community Engagement during 2017 (R7080) and its attachments (A1705193, A1702560, and A1702553); and

Approves Option 1, targeted engagement with specific parties, as detailed in report R7080, in advance of the draft Nelson Plan release.

14. Freedom Camping Strategy and Bylaw 128 - 130

Document number R7149

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Freedom Camping Strategy and Bylaw (R7149); and

Refers any decision on progressing a Freedom Camping Bylaw to the Council meeting scheduled for 23 March 2017.

15. National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity 131 - 141

Document number R7054

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (R7054); and

Notes that infrastructure projects needed to support residential and business growth in the Asset Management Plans, Long Term Plan and Infrastructure Strategy will be influenced by the capacity requirements undertaken under the NPS UDC with Tasman District Council.

16. Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 142 - 148

Document number R7162

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (R7162).

Note:

· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime. (delete as appropriate)

· Lunch will be provided at 12.30pm. (delete as appropriate)

· Youth Councillors Fynn Sawyer and Samantha Coronin will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

On Thursday 1 December 2016, commencing at 9.00am

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Co-Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, and S Walker

In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Consents and Compliance (M Bishop), Manager Environmental Programmes (D Evans), Manager Planning (M Heale), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste (M Parfitt), Technical Officer – Environment (P Fisher), and Administration Adviser (L Canton)

Apologies: Ms G Paine, and Her Worship the Mayor for lateness

1. Apologies

Resolved PR/2016/050

That the Committee

Receives and accepts the apologies from Ms G Paine, and Her Worship the Mayor for lateness.

Acland/Fulton Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 9.01am.

5. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 1 December 2016

Document number R6818, agenda pages 5 - 7 refer.

Resolved PR/2016/051

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 1 December 2016 (R6818) and its attachment (A1155974).

McGurk/Walker Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

The Chairperson tabled a report (A1672457).

Resolved PR/2016/052

That the Committee

Receives the Chairperson’s Report (A1672457).

McGurk/Fulton Carried

Attachments

1 Chairperson's Report, Planning and Regulatory Committee 1Dec2016

Regulatory

7. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July to 30 September 2016

Document number R6580, agenda pages 8 - 22 refer.

Manager Planning, Matt Heale, Manager Environmental Programmes, Dean Evans, and Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, presented the report.

Group Manager Strategy and Environment, Clare Barton tabled the final page of the report and explained that it had been omitted from the agenda (A1670954).

In response to questions, officers explained a number of terms used in the report, likely timeframes for various central government processes, and the implications of the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity for Nelson City Council.

Technical Officer – Environment, Paul Fisher, presented the LAWA website (https://www.lawa.org.nz/) and explained the website’s purpose as a portal for councils to report on air quality, water quality, water quantity, and the coastal environment.

Resolved PR/2016/053

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July to 30 September 2016 (R6580) and its attachments (A1631318 and A1664470).

Dahlberg/Barker Carried

Attachments

1 Strategy and Environment Report final page - tabled document

8. Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

Document number R6620, agenda pages 23 - 37 refer.

Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste, Margaret Parfitt, presented the report.

Resolved PR/2016/054

That the Committee

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R6620) and its attachments (A1643629, A1643649, A1652329, A1652334, A1652336, A1653039, A1653192, A1653689 A1653959 and A1665142); and

Approves amendments detailed in report R6620 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

- Schedule 8: Time Limited Parking Areas

- Schedule 9: No stopping

- Schedule 13: Stop Signs

- Schedule 14: Give Way Signs

Walker/Fulton Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 9.34am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R6887

Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October to 31 December 2016

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. Summary

ACTIVITY	SUMMARY COMMENT
Building	27% increase in applications since the start of the financial year compared to last year. Statutory timeframes have been achieved. Progress continues for GoShift.
Consents and Compliance	24% increase in resource consent application numbers since the start of the financial year. One consent processed outside statutory timeframes in this quarter (one day late). Seven Special Housing Area applications were approved in this quarter providing 234 housing units.
Environmental Programmes	Focus on water quality, native fish, community engagement and pest management. The Maitai River won a NZ River Award and a $32,000 grant was received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for environmental enhancement work. Changes to Government funding have impacted on the ratio of owner occupied to rental houses able to be insulated.
Planning	Nelson Plan technical work is progressing to inform Council workshops this year. There have been delays in the release of National Environmental Standards and the Resource Legislation Bill. Landowner engagement on heritage and hazards has been scoped.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October to 31 December 2016 (R6887) and its attachment (A1673398).

4. Background

4.1 The report and attachment detail the performance monitoring of the Council’s activities and how these activities deliver development in our community, progress the Nelson Plan and provide science monitoring and reporting and eco-design services.

5. Discussion – Building

Successes

5.1 Progress has been made on the national, industry led, initiative “GoShift”. The new GoShift application form has been adopted by the Building Unit along with other participating councils, which includes Tasman District Council. There have been good numbers of the new forms come through in our trial month during December.

6. Discussion – Consents and Compliance

Challenges

6.1 The first half of the financial year has seen a 24% increase in resource consent applications compared to last year. One consent was processed later than statutory timeframes in October having one day exceedance due to a number of challenges including the applicant had already having done the earthworks in an unstable area.

Successes

6.2 The harbourmaster’s replacement vessel arrived and was blessed by Kaumatua Andy Joseph. The inaugural harbourmaster’s invitational race day occurred in October with a variety of fun racing for water sports clubs. Prizes and messaging focused on water safety for the start of the season.

6.3 Warnings have been issued for boats speeding and no lifejackets for stand up paddle boarders but there is an observable decrease in warnings compared to last year. The fuel for safety campaign has also seen an improvement in vessels carrying the correct safety gear with an average of 87% compliance of 15 safety items or actions for over 200 checks.

7. Discussion – Environmental Programmes

Challenges

Warmer Healthier Homes Nelson- Marlborough Project

7.1 The Government funding model for the 2016-2017 year has been changed to restrict the eligibility for Government funding to rental houses with a qualifying tenant, meaning that the total cost of insulating owner-occupied houses must be borne by the third party funders (local authorities, trusts or other organisations willing to be a part of the scheme).

FUNDING MODEL 2015-2016
	Government	Third Party	Landlord
Owner-Occupied	50%	50%
Rental	50%	30%	20%

FUNDING MODEL 2016-2017
	Government	Third Party	Landlord
Owner-Occupied	0%	100%
Rental	25%	25%	50%

7.2 This will result in less owner-occupied houses being able to be insulated this year compared to last year. Last year 87 owner-occupied and 70 rentals were insulated in Nelson, this year to date there have been 2 owner-occupied and 88 rentals insulated.

7.3 The Government also now requires landlords with a qualifying tenant to contribute 50% of the cost of the insulation, compared to 20% last year. Despite a Government requirement that landlords upgrade their insulation by 2019, the required 50% contribution is proving a barrier to some landlords, resulting in a reduction in uptake of the programme around the country.

Air Quality monitoring

7.4 Monitoring equipment at St Vincent Street was damaged by water leaking into the Beta-Attenuation particulate Monitor (BAM) unit in early December – this is a telemetered monitor relaying continuous data to LAWA and the Council’s website. Daily sampling was continued using an alternative Partisol unit, and a replacement BAM has been loaned to Council from NIWA for a year as an interim measure until the of National Environmental Standards for Air Quality is complete.

Successes

Warmer Healthier Homes Nelson- Marlborough Project

7.5 An accountability report for the 2015-2016 year has been received from Nelson Tasman Housing Trust. For the 2015-2016 year 326 homes were insulated across Nelson, Marlborough and Tasman, an increase from 156 in 2014-2015. The report contains financial information concerning the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust, and therefore the accountability report has not been attached.

7.6 Stage three of the project (2016-2017) has commenced with third party funding confirmed from Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council, Nelson Marlborough District Heath Board, Rata Foundation and Port Nelson. The project continues to target low-income households (both owner-occupied and rentals) and 90 homes have been completed to date.

7.7 The steering group have been working on expanding funders and are in discussion with other groups to secure additional funding.

State of Environment Monitoring and Reporting

7.8 Weekly water quality monitoring at swimming holes and beaches commenced in December, and results up to December have been good. A new LAWA reporting module using live monitoring results called ‘Can I swim here?’ was made live in the week leading up to Christmas https://www.lawa.org.nz/explore-data/nelson-region/swimming/.

7.9 Weekly Phormidium cyanobacteria (toxic algae) monitoring and reporting started in October and results are updated every Wednesday on Council’s website http://nelson.govt.nz/environment/water-3/toxic-algae/toxic-algae-monitoring/. The NMDHB Health Protection team were notified on 9 November of moderate Phormidium levels (up to 28% cover) at Avon Terrace, in accordance with the national guidelines and management framework in place.

7.10 Inanga and banded kokopu whitebait have been sampled across the four Nelson estuaries and representative streams in collaboration with Jane Goodman (DoC, Freshwater Technical Advisor). The Nelson fish results will contribute to a national study to understand the demographics of whitebait stocks and whether juvenile fish favour streams with adult fish. This information is important for biodiversity restoration projects.

7.11 Repeat electro-fishing and spotlight fish surveys have been undertaken at Saxton Creek and Brook Stream. These streams have had channel works and instream habitat modification since the original surveys were undertaken. The survey information will contribute to a long term data set and will inform the Nelson Plan, Project Maitai/Mahitahi and Nelson Nature.

7.12 Fish passage improvement work at Council structures within the Brook Sanctuary has been assessed using bimonthly spotlight fish surveys. The surveys will provide an insight in to the seasonal distribution and habitat use of native fish within the Brook stream catchment.

Nelson Nature

7.13 Nelson Nature ran an online survey to give a baseline understanding of people's thoughts about Nelson's natural environment, and their appetite for involvement in conservation efforts. The survey had over 500 responses which will provide valuable information on which to base future decisions.

7.14 The Nelson Nature and the Parks and Recreation teams successfully applied to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) Maintaining the Quality of Great Rides Fund, receiving a grant of $67,000 for enhancement work along the Dun Mountain Trail. This includes a total of $32,000 for additional environmental enhancement work in the Tantragee Reserve and the Maitai Valley at Groom Creek.

7.15 Long term plans have been developed to guide Council’s management of the key weed threats to the unique ecosystem of the Dun Mountain mineral belt. The plans have been used to direct the control work for wilding conifer, Spanish heath and gorse, starting in March.

7.16 Stoke urban streams have been surveyed to identify native fish passage barriers, riparian planting gaps, and opportunities for enhancing spawning habitat for inanga. The highest prioritised work will be undertaken in the first half of 2017.

7.17 Nelson Nature has been supporting Marsden Valley community group and the Nelson Mountain Bike Club to do wasp control around the Marsden Valley and Dun Mountain trails. The control is connected with a regional project to raise awareness and generate public donations for wasp control being led by Fairfax Media.

7.18 Community involvement in the Nelson Nature urban streams project was celebrated, with Council bringing three schools and two community groups together recently to acknowledge their combined efforts on caring for Poorman Valley Stream.

Project Maitai/Mahitahi

7.19 The Maitai River won a New Zealand River Award in November for the second most improved river nationally, on the basis of improvement in macroinvertebrate index over ten years in the mid reach of the river. Macroinvertebrates are important indicators of river health, and only 62 of 820 sites nationally showed significant trend improvement in macroinvertebrate index.

7.20 NIWA scientists have collected river sediment and soil samples to undertake a sediment source tracking study for the Maitai catchment. There are high levels of fine sediment in the Maitai River which affect river health and maintenance works in the river, and which may contribute to silt build up in the Haven and Tasman Bay. The preliminary results of the study are due in March and will be used to inform Nelson Plan development.

7.21 Colourful murals were painted on nine Countdown Supermarket stormwater drains by Nelson school students in December to highlight the message that only rain should go down drains.

7.22 Fish passage improvements were made to the Brook Stream Nile St culvert and Alton St weir, and tenders went out for the removal of the Almond Tree Flats concrete ford in the Maitai River, with work planned for mid-February.

7.23 The Koha Shed at the Victory Community Centre was painted with an environmental mural depicting the York Stream as a result of a collaborative project involving the Victory Community Centre, Resene Paints, Nelson College for Girls, the Koha Shed, Victory Primary School and Project Maitai/Mahitahi.

7.24 The resource consent for the Groom Creek Wetland was granted and planting will start this winter with construction planned for September 2017.

Environmental Education

7.25 Three schools (Clifton Terrace, Birchwood and Grove Street Kindergarten) achieved Enviroschool awards.

8. Discussion – Planning

Challenges

8.1 There have been delays with the release of the National Environmental Standard (NES) Air Quality for consultation and final NES Plantation Forestry. It is not likely that these will be released until May 2017.

8.2 The Resource Legislation Amendment bill has also been delayed.

Successes

8.3 A number of technical reports have been completed to help inform the development of the Nelson Plan. Scoping of community engagement for heritage and hazards workstreams has been completed and are due to commence in February and April respectively.

8.4 The Housing Accord was extended to allow the processing of unconsented SHA consents.

9. Discussion – Draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan.

9.1 Technical work to support the development of the Nelson Plan provisions has progressed. These include marine water quality, marine indigenous biodiversity, coastal erosion, flooding, freshwater and landscape reports.

Development and Infrastructure

9.2 The joint Tasman District Council (TDC) and Nelson City Council (NCC) review of the Land Development Manual has progressed under the guidance of an Inter-Council Steering Group. A meeting of the LDM Steering Group was held on 12 December with one additional new Councillor from each Council being appointed. The timeline for the LDM review has been aligned with the new timeline of the Nelson Plan. A legal and structural review of the LDM draft is currently underway and further work is being carried out on the low impact stormwater requirements and options, and its relationship to asset management, Nelson Plan and Tasman Resource Management Plan discharge, freshwater, flood hazard and minimum ground and floor level provisions. A further stakeholder workshop on these topics will be held in April/May before finalising a draft for consultation and coming to Council for final signoff. The draft comes back to Council for sign off.

Freshwater

9.3 Work in the freshwater space has been busy over the last quarter, with a combined Freshwater Working Groups meeting held on 15 December 2016. The meeting was held in parallel with the Iwi Working Group meeting on 14 December. Joe Hay (Cawthron) discussed methodology to set surface water minimum flows and allocation limits and sought feedback from the groups. Kate McArthur (Catalyst Group) presented a verbal update on the surface water quality work programme.

9.4 A separate report is presented to the Committee at this meeting regarding the proposed freshwater implementation programme (Report R6960).

9.5 A number of technical reports are being prepared or finalised which will be used to form the evidence base of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan. Much of this work follows the national objectives framework process set out in the NPS for Freshwater Management, with the exception of groundwater. It is proposed that the Nelson Plan will take an interim holding position to groundwater until more information is known about this resource.

9.6 Freshwater reports include:

· Surface Water Quality Values and Attributes Report (Catalyst Group)

· Surface Water Quality Objectives and Limits Report (Catalyst Group)

· Surface Water Quality: An Analysis of State and Issues (Catalyst Group)

· Surface Water Quantity: Minimum Flows and Allocation Limits (Cawthron)

· Groundwater Report detailing the characterisation of Nelson’s groundwater resource and a proposed framework for management including proposed abstraction limitations, rules and measures to safeguard this largely unknown resource.

Landscape

9.7 Updated versions of two reports originally commissioned from Boffa Miskell in 2014 were received in November. The Coastal Study identifies the extent of the coastal environment and areas of high, very high and outstanding coastal natural character. The Landscape Evaluation report identifies outstanding natural features and landscapes. Provisional versions of both reports were shared with iwi and potentially affected landowners during 2016. Feedback from these sources has generally endorsed the findings of the reports, while some changes have been made to acknowledge the strong cultural association iwi and the general public hold, where the Maitai Valley, Tahunanui Beach and the Nelson Haven are concerned.

Coastal Environment

9.8 Two technical reports were received from the Cawthron Institute in October / November. The first recommends some changes to current marine water quality standards, for potential inclusion in the new Nelson Plan. Feedback on these recommendations have been sought from the District Health Board and the Iwi Working Group in the first instance. The other report recommends an approach to identifying marine indigenous biodiversity values in the Plan. Input on an earlier draft was provided by the Department of Conservation and feedback on the final version has also been sought from the Iwi Working Group.

9.9 Cawthron is surveying the use of Delaware Estuary and Cable Bay for boat launch and retrieval and the impacts of this use. As part of this work, interviews will be conducted with fishers, local residents and iwi. Surveying commenced over the busy Christmas / New Year break and will continue into March, with a report anticipated in April. The outcomes of this work will be shared and form the basis for further discussion with stakeholders with a view to achieving a balance between recreational, ecological and cultural values and interests in the Nelson Plan.

Natural Hazards

9.10 A report was received in November from Tonkin and Taylor, recommending an approach to completing a technical understanding of coastal erosion risks in the Region. Once we have a robust understanding of likely future erosion rates in identified high risk areas, we will be able to engage with potentially affected parties on appropriate responses in specific locations, over different timescales. We expect that the technical work will be completed by the middle of 2017. All technical work will align with emerging national guidance on hazard identification and risk assessment. Engagement will occur at that point, either as part of, or subsequent to, engagement on the Nelson Plan (depending on relative timing of both work streams).

9.11 Work on flood modelling for all of Nelson is complete. Alongside other technical work that has and is being undertaken, this information will be used to inform the risk based approach to hazards to be incorporated into the Nelson Plan. Planning staff are proposing community engagement on flooding, liquefaction and fault lines during April/May 2017.

10. Development

District

10.1 The airport’s parking redevelopment was approved in October. The extension of Manuka Street Hospital was approved in November.

10.2 The Special Housing Area developments approved to the end of 2016 were: Bett car park Trafalgar Square, two developments in Haven Road, Wakefield Quay, Arapiki Way, Toi Toi Grove and Farleigh Street. The Ocean Lodge and Paru Paru Road developments are expected to be issued in January 2017.

Regional

10.3 Nelson City Council obtained consents for the reinstatement of Days Track, the maintenance of mountain bike trails in the Codgers trail network and new tracks in the Fringed Hill area, the creation of a wetland for Groom Creek, and works in streams for bridge and culvert maintenance and repairs.

10.4 Port Nelson Ltd were granted consents after a publicly notified process for the dredging of contaminated sediment and reclamation in the Dixon Basin.

Development trends

10.5 Building applications for the second quarter have again exceeded projected numbers. Attachment 1 shows the comparison between this year to date against the past 3 years.

10.6 Overall, numbers of consents have trended up on the projected numbers for the first half of the year: 511 Building Consents (including amendments) were received in the first half of the financial year (to 22/12/16) compared to 401 for the previous first half year. The additional numbers were largely due to 94 solid fuel burners and the number of new dwellings almost doubled.

11. Discussion – Legal Update

Proceedings

11.1 The TDC hearing for Progressive Enterprise’s supermarket on Champion Road occurred on 10 October 2016. There was an adjournment for Progressive’s to provide further information on the social and economic flow on effects on Stoke and Richmond and for TDC to provide transport information. Further planning and economic expert conferencing was also sought by the Commissioner and this process has been concluded with joint witness statements filed on 20 December. Council also filed supplementary rebuttal evidence on the social and economic flow on effects on Stoke on 20 December. Further direction from the Commissioner or a decision is expected in early 2017.

11.2 A prosecution for a dog attack has commenced. The attack occurred on the owner’s property.

Legislation changes

11.3 The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has announced new swimming and spa pool safety laws commencing on 1 January 2017. The Building (Pools) Amendment Act 2016 will repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and add new provisions to the Building Act 2004.

Key changes include:

· residential swimming pools must be inspected every three years;

· safety covers will be able to be used as barriers for spa pools and hot tubs; and

· territorial authorities will have better tools to enforce pool barrier requirements, including notices to fix and infringement notices.

The changes will have no resource implications as these aspects are already in the work programme.

11.4 The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment continues consulting on proposals for regulations under the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016.

11.5 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity came into effect on 1 December 2016.

11.6 The new report back date from the Select Committee on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is now 10 May 2017.

12. Options

12.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the option of receiving the report or seeking further information.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1673398 Building and Consents and Compliance statistics ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of LGA 2002 requires local government to perform regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. This quarterly report identifies the performance levels of regulatory functions.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Council’s Long Term Plan includes performance measures for various activities and this report enables the Council to monitor progress towards achieving these measures.

3. Risk

The high level of consent application numbers may lead to some statutory timeframes not being met. Regular communications are occurring with agents and developers to minimise the impacts of this.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it reports on activities already occurred.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for performance monitoring of Council’s Regulatory activities.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R6973

Parking and vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt alterations to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No. 207, resulting from minor safety improvements, roading improvements carried out as part of the capital works programme and from the completion of new subdivisions.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Parking and vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R6973) and its attachments (A1709307, A1709319, A1709346, A1709339, A1709357, A1709366, 1709368); and

Approves amendments detailed in report R6973 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

- Schedule 9: No stopping

- Schedule 14: Give Way Signs

3. Background

3.1 The Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Committee, by resolution, to add or delete items to the Schedules. To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. The bylaw schedules require updating since the last update in December 2016.

3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 4, 9, and 14 of the bylaw to allow for parking and safety improvements.

4. Discussion

4.1 Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas

4.1.1 Loading Zone Hardy Street.

Residents and local business operators in lower Hardy Street have identified the need for a time limited loading zone to be installed to enable safe delivery of goods and services. The proposed zone is shown in attachment 1 and would operate from 8am – 5pm Monday – Saturday.

4.2 Schedule 9: No Stopping

4.2.1 Todd Bush Road

No stopping lines, as part of recently completed physical works, have been installed on the buildouts adjacent to the new subdivision to prevent parked vehicles from narrowing a sub-collector road to single lane width. See attachment 2.

4.2.2 Fifeshire Crescent

Safety concerns have been raised regarding parked vehicles obscuring sightlines on Fifeshire Crescent. The extent of No stopping lines proposed is shown in attachment 3.

4.2.3 Tahunanui Drive

Safety concerns raised with NZTA have resulted in a request from them to further extend the stopping restriction to the south of the Tahunanui pedestrian refuge opposite the Muritai street intersection as shown on attachment 4.

4.2.4 Curtis Street

The newly completed section of this subdivision requires the installation of yellow ‘no stopping’ lines within the cul-de-sac as shown in attachment 5.

4.2.5 Montebello Subdivision

The newly completed section of this subdivision requires the installation of yellow ‘no stopping’ lines within the cul-de-sac of Road B as shown in attachment 6

4.3 Schedule 14: Give Way Signs

4.3.1 Curtis Street

The extension of Curtis Street in this subdivision has required installation of a Give Way on the corner of Curtis Street and Ruth Taylor Avenue as shown in attachment 5.

4.3.2 Solitaire Subdivision

The opening of Quail Rise has required installation of a Give Way on the corner of Marsden Valley Road and Quail Rise as shown in attachment 7

4.3.3 Montebello Subdivision

The extension of Montebello subdivision has required installation of Give Way controls on the corners of Montebello Avenue and Road A, and Road A and Road B, as shown in attachment 6

5. Options

5.1 There are limited alternative options for the items presented in this report as the majority are procedural updates to the bylaw required for safety and efficient traffic movement.

Margaret Parfitt

Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1709307 - Proposed Loading Zone Hardy Street (west) ⇩

Attachment 2: A1709319 - Proposed No Stopping Todd Bush Road ⇩

Attachment 3: A1709346 - Proposed No Stopping Fifeshire Crescent ⇩

Attachment 4: A1709339 - Proposed No Stopping Tahunanui Drive ⇩

Attachment 5: A1709357 - Proposed No Stopping and Give Way Curtis Street ⇩

Attachment 6: A1709366 - Proposed No Stopping and Give Way Montebello subdivision ⇩

Attachment 7: A1709368 - Proposed Give Way at Solitaire subdivision ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report recommendation meets current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. This report is directly aligned to the requirements of the Parking Policy, the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and with Council’s strategic direction through the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

3. Risk

To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. Failure to update schedules will open enforcement to challenge.

4. Financial impact

Costs are within allocated annual budgets for road maintenance or capital projects.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance. Other than sub-divisions nearby business which could be affected have been consulted.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken

7. Delegations

Amendments to schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and the Parking Policy fall within the delegated authority of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R6995

Biosecurity Annual Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the Biosecurity Operational Plan for the 2016-17 financial year and the summary of the achievements of the 2015-16 Operational Plan. This report has been prepared for Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council as the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012-2017 is a joint strategy between the Councils.

1.2 Tasman District Council has been appointed as the pest management agency for Nelson City Council. Paul Sheldon, Coordinator – Biosecurity and Biodiversity for Tasman District Council will speak to this report. Robin van Zoelen, Tasman District Council Biosecurity Officer responsible for the Nelson City Council area will also attend.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 85(1) (b) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the management agency for every pest management strategy to annually review the Operational Plan and report on its implementation.

2.2 The Council is therefore required to report annually on activities undertaken under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy. The Review of the 2015-16 Operational Plan (Attachment 1) summarises and reviews the activities undertaken by the Tasman District Council in its role as the Pest Management Agency for Nelson City Council and comments on relevant biosecurity issues.

2.3 The annual report confirms Nelson City Council is meeting its biosecurity obligations and work undertaken was within budget.

2.4 The 2016-17 Operational Plan (Attachment 2) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken in implementing the 2012-2017 Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy within the approved budget of $545,000 total. Nelson City Council contributes $133,000 to this.

2.5 Priority actions in the Pest Management Strategy have been undertaken and these include:

2.5.1 There are 13 Total Control pests, where the long-term aim is eradication by 2022. On all known sites, plant numbers have been reduced but for some pests, new sites have been found and this may extend the time required for eradication.

2.5.2 For the 18 Progressive Control pests, where the aim is to reduce the density and distribution, this is being achieved at most sites. Their distribution is limited to parts of the region but in the absence of more effective methods of control, they are unlikely to be eradicated because of their biological characteristics, eg long-term viability.

2.5.3 14 Containment pests are widespread throughout the region and the aim is to stop the spread of these pests to properties that are not infested. A significant effort has gone into preventing the spread of these pests. However two species of pest ants (Argentine and Darwin’s) are continuing to spread slowly. In the longer term providing education and advice to occupiers rather than having a specific requirement on occupiers for these pests may prove more effective.

2.5.4 Boundary Control pests include pest plants (mostly common weeds such a blackberry, gorse and broom) and horticultural diseases (on apples and pears) that are widely distributed. The aim is to control their spread from adjacent properties or road reserve to land that is clear, or being cleared, of these plants. Staff have dealt effectively and deficiently with requests for intervention.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Report (R6995) and its attachments (A1692237 and A1692242); and

Approves the 2016-17 Biosecurity Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson region (A1692242).

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have operated a joint Regional Pest Management Strategy and an Operational Plan since the introduction of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

4.2 The Operational Plans were presented to Tasman District Council on 17 November 2016 as the Council’s joint partner in biosecurity management. Tasman District Council approved the 2016-17 Operational Plan for the Nelson Tasman Region at that meeting.

4.3 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. This forum provides for an integrated approach to preparing for and responding to marine pest incursions.

4.4 The Review of the 2015-16 Operational Plan examines the results of the Council’s work as the management agency for implementing the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

4.5 The review of the 2012-2017 Regional Pest Management Strategy commenced during mid‑2016. The 2012 amendments to the 1993 Biosecurity Act involve the replacement of the Strategy with a Regional Pest Management Plan and incorporate some significant changes, including the ability to bind the Crown to Good Neighbour Rules within a pest management plan, setting out additional requirements in the National Policy Direction and in the assessment of risk management through a more rigorous analysis of costs and benefits, and adding pathway management to the suite of pest management programmes. Biosecurity staff from the Councils have been working closely with the Ministry for Primary Industries on a coordinated approach to the structure, content and terminology of the Plan to ensure greater consistency.

4.6 A joint Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council Regional Pest Management Committee has been established to oversee this review. Nelson City Council is represented by Councillors Brian McGurk, Kate Fulton, and Matt Lawrey. Tasman District Council representatives are Councillors Stuart Bryant, Sue Brown, and Dean McNamara. Analysis and drafting work is underway. The Proposed Plan needs to be publicly notified for submissions before the existing Strategy expires in November this year.

5. Discussion

Total Control Pests

5.1 In the Strategy, there are 13 Total Control pests, where the long-term aim is eradication. On all known sites, plant numbers have been reduced but for some pests, new sites have been found and this may extend the time required for eradication.

5.2 African Feather Grass: All new, active and monitoring sites were inspected and all live plants found were destroyed and control programmes established.

5.3 Madeira vine: Over the past year over 20 sites for Madeira vine have been checked and treated.

5.4 Cathedral Bells: 3 sites in Todds Valley had seedlings or flowering vines removed.

5.5 Climbing Spindleberry: a new site in Dodson Valley has been treated.

Progressive Control Pests

5.6 For the 18 Progressive Control pests, where the aim is to reduce the density and distribution, this is being achieved at most sites.

5.7 Nasella Tussock: An annual inspection of one property found 11 plants.

5.8 White-edged Nightshade: Ongoing surveillance has been required after logging of the Sugarloaf block, and ground clearance on Bullocks Spur stirred up seed with 18 plants being removed, some with semi-mature fruit. Eight sites in Dodson Valley were checked, 4 sites remain active with a range of 5-15 plants found per property.

5.9 Taiwan Cherry: isolated plants in Dodson Valley were treated. At one property over 70 plants were removed.

5.10 Boneseed: sites from Cable Bay to Monaco were checked. Plant numbers continue to trend down.

5.11 There is a significant contribution from community groups dealing with aggressive vines such as Banana Passion Vine and Old Man’s Beard.

Containment Pests

5.12 The 14 Containment pests are widespread throughout the region and the aim is to stop the spread of these pests to properties that are not infested.

5.13 The continuing spread of Argentine and Darwin’s ants, despite a significant commitment of resources, highlights the challenges of dealing with highly-organised social insects and the limitations of existing tools. A wider range of pesticides is now available, although some can only be used by registered pest control companies. A synthetic pyrethroid spray is being applied in a narrow strip along the margins of footpaths and kerbs. This has helped in slowing the rate of spread in urban areas but its effect is relatively short‑term and needs to be re applied regularly during spring, summer and autumn. It does allow residents to prevent re-invasion from neighbouring properties.

5.14 Purple Pampas: Spraying was carried out at a quarry in Market Road; control carried out by the landowner on vacant land off Princes Drive; sites within Hancock Forest were identified for control and Nelson Forests was advised of the need to check out new sites in Rai Forest visible from State Highway 6. Nelson City Council were advised of plants in Market Road forest block, Pipers Park and a closed walkway off Grenville Terrace.

5.15 Possum and mustelid traps are loaned out and set up on request.

Boundary Control Pests

5.16 There are 13 Boundary Control pests, mostly common weeds or horticultural diseases, which have been included to stop the spread to land that is free from these pests. Staff have dealt effectively and efficiently with requests for intervention.

Biocontrol

5.17 Biocontrol agents are the only effective long-term control for widespread pests. For nearly twenty years, the two councils, along with other councils involved in the National Biocontrol Collective, have funded Landcare Research to develop biocontrol agents for a range of widespread plant pests. Recently, the Department of Conservation has contributed to the Collective to support research into pest plants that are invading natural areas. It has not been possible to fully predict the success of biocontrol agents in the field. Good results have been achieved with some agents (e.g. those introduced for ragwort), but the results for others (e.g. the agents for Old Man’s Beard and Banana Passion Vine) have been disappointing. The recently-introduced Buddleia Weevil shows good promise and continues to spread rapidly killing foliage.

National Plant Pest Accord

5.18 Biosecurity staff work closely with staff from the Ministry for Primary Industries by inspecting nurseries and plant retail businesses to ensure that none of the high‑risk plants identified in the National Plant Pest Accord (NPPA) are being sold. All plants in the Accord are classified as Unwanted Organisms and this prevents their sale, propagation and distribution. Occasional visits to householders have been required when NPPA pest plants have been advertised on TradeMe.

Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

5.19 Tasman and Nelson Councils participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. The funding contribution from the three councils is matched by the Ministry for Primary Industries and this has been used to fund a contractor to undertake liaison, education, monitoring, contingency planning and technical advice. The aim of the Partnership is to reduce the risk from marine pests and diseases. Reviews of threats have been undertaken, Strategic and Operational plans have been prepared, networks with marine organisations, stakeholder groups and businesses have been established, and a pest incursion simulation exercise has been run. There is regular consultation with marine industry groups and there is ongoing work to clarify the powers available to better manage the spread of marine pests and provide appropriate training.

5.20 One of the biggest challenges is dealing with vessels that may be carrying unwanted marine pests. Amendments to the Biosecurity Act in 2012 outlined the requirements for pathway management plans, which are designed to be used to deal with pathways that may carry pests into new areas. The potential for pathway management is being explored as part of the current Regional Pest Management Strategy review currently underway. During the summer of 2015-2016 contractors of the Top of the South Partnership undertook an extensive survey and education programme across the entire Top of the South. This work identified a number of issues including new areas of marine pest infestation, infested recreational vessels arriving from outside the region in particular Wellington, and a degree of apathy by some vessel operators. These findings have resulted in further survey work surveying risk sites, discussions with Wellington Councils and Marinas regarding co-operation and provision of information to assist the Regional Pest Management Strategy review.

6. Options

6.1 The 2016-2017 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been budgeted and the Review of the 2015-2016 Operational Plan details work completed in the last financial year. The options are to accept or amend either document.

Option 1: Approve 2016-17 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement Regional Pest Management Strategy · Work is budgeted for
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minimal as meets requirement of Strategy and within budget
Option 2: Amend Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for additional approach/review of work done
Risks and Disadvantages	· Tasman District Council have already approved the 2016-17 Operational Plan and having to reapprove would delay effective implementation of the Strategy · Potential additional costs

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Annual Biosecurity Report provides an opportunity for reporting to Council on implementation of its Strategy and associated biosecurity matters.

Richard Frizzell

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1692237 Review of Biosecurity Operational Plan 2015-16 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1692242 Biosecurity Operational Plan 2016-17 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report and recommendations achieve a consistent and cost-effective approach to pest management across the Nelson-Tasman reqion by working jointly with Tasman District Council. It also provides a valuable service for the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from pests are effectively addressed.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The report and recommendations detail implementation of the Regional Pest Management Strategy and align with the strategy vision of “Enhancing community wellbeing and quality of life” by providing a framework for efficient and effective pest management and making best use of the available resources. This contributes to the Council’s following Community Outcomes in particular:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

· Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2016-17 will effectively meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy. Any changes would risk delaying ongoing implementation of the Strategy.

4. Financial impact

The 2016-2017 Operational Plan has a budget allocation of $545,000, of which Nelson City Council contributes approximately $133,000.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it is essentially of a process nature. This annual report is a statement of accountability and while the activity affects a large number of landowners, it is not contentious. The Operational Plan identifies programmed work which falls within budgeted limits. The activity is important for those landowners who are involved with managing pests, but receiving the Operational Plan is not a significant decision.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering environmental matters and issues relating to resource management and environmental monitoring. It also has powers to decide on functions, powers and duties relating to the areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R6960

Progressive Implementation Programme for Freshwater

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is threefold:

1.1.1 To approve for public notification a revised progressive implementation programme for freshwater management in Nelson;

1.1.2 To approve a 2016 summary of implementation report for publication on Council’s website; as required by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM); and

1.1.3 To approve revised terms of reference for the Freshwater Working Groups which are established to help inform the development of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 Council is required to have an up to date progressive implementation programme and report on the implementation of this programme annually. This report seeks approval to update the programme to align with the wider Nelson Plan timeframes, and to report on work that was completed over 2016 to contribute to implementation of the NPS-FM via Council’s website. This is the preferred option as it will ensure that Council is meeting its statutory requirements under the NPS-FM. The Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference also needs to be updated to align with the Nelson Plan timeframes and will ensure that the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan develops in an integrated manner with the rest of the Plan.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Progressive Implementation Programme for Freshwater (R6960) and its attachments (A1693613, A1693614, A1693618, and A1694507); and

Approves the Freshwater Working Groups’ revised terms of reference including duration of establishment (Attachment 4 (A1694507)).

4. Background

4.1 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM) supports improved freshwater management in New Zealand. Policy E1 (Attachment 1) requires all regional councils to either fully implement the policy by December 2015, or to implement it in stages so that it is fully implemented by 31 December 2025. Where regional councils choose to implement the NPS-FM in stages, a programme outlining progressive implementation must be adopted by 31 December 2015 and publicly notified. Progress on the programme must be publically reported annually to the Ministry for the Environment.

4.2 Council publicly notified a freshwater progressive implementation programme in December 2015 as required by the NPS-FM. This programme is now outdated and requires revision as discussed below. Council is also required to report annually on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

4.3 During 2015, Council established three Freshwater Working Groups which cover North Nelson (Whangamoa/Wakapuaka), Maitai and Stoke freshwater management areas. The purpose of these stakeholder groups is to share knowledge and act as a ‘sounding board’ during the development of the freshwater section of the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan (Nelson Plan) following the NPS-FM process. The Groups’ terms of reference also requires minor revisions to primarily align with the revised progressive implementation programme.

5. Discussion

NPS-FM Requirement: Progressive Implementation Programme

5.1 The NPS-FM is made up of eight sections:

· Water quality

· Water quantity

· Integrated management

· National objectives framework

· Monitoring plans

· Accounting for freshwater takes and contaminants

· Tangata whenua roles and interests

· Progressive implementation programme

5.2 Implementation of the NPS-FM means that the national objectives framework is in place and that the quality and quantity limits are set for all water bodies by 2025, and that the direction for making improvements are in place. It does not mean that all quantity and quality targets are required to be met by 2025.

5.3 Council notified a progressive implementation programme in December 2015 (Report R5135) detailing steps to implement the NPS-FM through the development of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan. Targets in the programme have been met to date in relation to collaborative policy development and regional policy statement provisions.

5.4 At its meeting on 10 November 2016, Council approved a revised timeframe for development of the Nelson Plan (Report 6698) including the freshwater section. Committee approval is now sought for the revised progressive implementation programme (Attachment 2) for public notification which ensures ongoing alignment with wider Nelson Plan timeframes. The timeframes in the programme have been moved out to provide greater community engagement prior to public notification in early 2018.

NPS-FM Requirement: Report on Implementation

5.5 Section E of the NPS-FM requires that where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

5.6 Council has a range of regulatory and non-regulatory plans and programmes which aim to implement the NPS-FM within Nelson. A 2016 summary report of Council’s implementation of the NPS-FM (Attachment 3) has been prepared and is proposed to be published on Council’s website.

5.7 Key work completed during 2016 includes:

· Ongoing stakeholder engagement through the Freshwater Working Groups and partnership working with iwi through the Nelson Plan Iwi Working Group.

· Workshops held with the Iwi and Freshwater Working Groups to establish surface water values and work to determine relevant attributes and appropriate numeric objectives and limits following the NPS-FM national objectives framework. Both surface water quality and quantity have been discussed with the groups and the relevant reports are at various stages of finalisation. The freshwater section of the Strategy and Environment Report (Report R6887), also presented to this meeting, details this work further.

· Work is underway to characterise Nelson’s groundwater resource and develop a framework for the management of groundwater in the Nelson Plan including proposed abstraction limits.

· Community feedback sought on the draft Regional Policy Statement including the freshwater provisions which gives effect to the NPS-FM.

· Ongoing monitoring and improvements to water accounting including monthly state of the environment water quality monitoring.

· Non-regulatory programmes targeted to help improve biodiversity, waterways, riparian management and freshwater quality including Project Maitai/Mahitahi and Nelson Nature.

5.8 The wider community will be able to provide comment and feedback on the freshwater section as part of the wider Nelson Plan consultation during 2017.

Freshwater Working Groups’ Terms of Reference Extended

5.9 The three Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference also requires minor revisions primarily to align with the revised progressive implementation programme. This was discussed at the combined Groups’ meeting on 15 December 2016 and members were supportive of the duration of the Groups’ establishment being extended out to notification of a draft Plan (December 2017). Other minor amendments include quarterly meetings (previously listed as 5-6 weekly) and simplifying the Groups’ name to ‘Freshwater Working Group’. All three Groups have identical terms of reference and the North Nelson example is included as Attachment 4 to this report.

6. Options

6.1 The options are outlined below:

Option 1: Do nothing - Do not revise the progressive implementation programme, report on implementation of the NPS-FM, or revise the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference.
Advantages	· The freshwater section of the Nelson Plan continues on the current timeframe as detailed in the progressive implementation programme.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The progressive implementation programme and the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference is outdated; or · The freshwater section of the Nelson Plan is completed in advance of the rest of the Nelson Plan, with potential for wider plan integration issues. · NPS-FM requirements not met regarding annual implementation report. · High staff resourcing and costs to progress freshwater section in advance of rest of Nelson Plan (community consultation, plan notification and hearings for a separate freshwater process).
Option 2: Revise the progressive implementation programme, report on implementation of the NPS-FM, and revise the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference.
Advantages	· Up to date progressive implementation programme that aligns with wider Nelson Plan timeframes. · Staff resourcing and costs accounted for in wider Nelson Plan work programme. · NPS-FM requirements met.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Parts of the community may want the timeframe to remain unaltered.

6.2 This report outlines the staff recommendation to:

· Revise the progressive implementation programme for public notification.

· Publish a 2016 summary of implementation report on the Council’s website.

· Revise the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference to align with the revised progressive implementation programme.

6.3 This is the preferred option as it will ensure that work to develop the freshwater section is in alignment with the rest of the Nelson Plan, ensuring best use of staff resourcing and budget. It would also ensure that Council meets its NPS-FM requirements. The freshwater work programme, Nelson Plan timeframes and the Groups’ terms of reference were discussed with the Iwi and Freshwater Working Groups at the December 2016 meetings. The revised timeframes were acknowledged as appropriate. Planning staff have spent much time over the last 18 months building capacity and partnership working with these Groups and it remains important that this positive working relationship continues.

6.4 The alternative option would be to do nothing and this is not a desirable option in terms of meeting the requirements for reporting under the NPS-FM or staff resourcing and costs (in relation to undertaking community consultation, plan notification and hearings for a separate freshwater process).

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report outlines the proposed revised freshwater progressive implementation programme for public notification, and a 2016 summary of implementation report for publication on Council’s website, as required by the NPS-FM. It also seeks alignment of the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference with the revised progressive implementation programme.

Diana Worthy

Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: NPS-FM Policy E1 (A1693613) ⇩

Attachment 2: Progressive Implementation Programme (A1693614) ⇩

Attachment 3: Summary of Implementation Report for 2016 (A1693618) ⇩

Attachment 4: North Nelson Terms of Reference (A1694507) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Support for the revised freshwater progressive implementation programme, summary of implementation report for 2016 and establishment of the Freshwater Working Groups is in keeping with Council’s regulatory functions and meets the requirements of the NPS-FM. It is the most efficient and cost effective option.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with delivery of Council’s regulatory functions regarding freshwater (under the RMA 1991) and the ‘Environment’ activity as set out in the Long Term Plan. It also contributes to the implementation and reporting of the community outcome ‘our unique natural environment is healthy and protected’ and the Nelson 2060 goal of ‘our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy’.

3. Risk

The revised freshwater progressive implementation programme is aimed at indicating to stakeholders and the wider community the steps to be taken to implement the NPS-FM in alignment with the development of the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan. Implementation of the NPS-FM will ultimately contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Nelson’s freshwater bodies. If Council does not implement the NPS-FM there is risk regarding the state of Nelson’s freshwater and wider environment, Council’s reputation and relationship with iwi/community, and environmental/social/cultural/economic outcomes.

4. Financial impact

The progressive implementation programme, summary of implementation report for 2016, and the Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference will not incur any costs. However, the work programme that it represents, through the development of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan, forms part of a budget already allocated in relation to the Nelson Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the progressive implementation programme details the timeframe to implement the NPS-FM, and the summary of implementation report for 2016 details the work completed to date. The Freshwater Working Groups’ terms of reference details the establishment of these groups and how they will function.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Council is working in partnership with an Iwi Working Group on the preparation of the Nelson Plan including the freshwater section. The revised timeframes for the Nelson Plan (which forms the basis of the progressive implementation programme) has been discussed with the group. Staff have also worked in partnership with the Group to help inform the technical work which will be used as the evidence base for the freshwater section of the Plan and this collaborative partnership will continue as the plan’s rules are drafted. Wider consultation with Māori will occur during 2017.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering resource management issues and to perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation (for example in this instance the RMA 1991). The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R6958

Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a summary of feedback received on the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement (Draft RPS) and note that a further report will be presented in April to consider that feedback following a planning peer review.

2. Summary

2.1 Council released the Draft RPS for feedback in May/June 2016. Feedback was received from approximately 50 groups and individuals resulting in some 800 individual points of feedback. Further feedback was also sought from the Iwi Working Group in November 2016. Council officers provided a general overview of this feedback at workshops on 22 November and 1 December 2016.

2.2 It is proposed that feedback on the Draft RPS will be considered at the April committee meeting.

2.3 The RPS will then remain as a working draft throughout 2017 as the wider Nelson Plan is developed. The Draft RPS will be updated following Council workshops on the Nelson Plan (planned for February to September 2017) to ensure that the RPS and the Nelson Plan are fully integrated. The Draft RPS will then be released for wider community feedback as part of the Draft Nelson Plan at the end of 2017 ahead of formal notification in 2018.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement (R6958); and

4. Background

4.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to review the regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan every 10 years. The current Regional Policy Statement, Air Plan and Nelson Resource Management Plan (regional, coastal, and district plan) are overdue for review.

4.2 In late 2014 Council decided that it would undertake an integrated review of Nelson’s resource management plans called the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan. Officers have been undertaking technical work, working in partnership with iwi and engaging with a range of key stakeholders on the Nelson Plan since 2014.

4.3 Throughout 2015 officers ran a series of workshops with Council and Iwi to define Nelson’s significant resource management issues and how to respond to those issues - strategic outcomes. Community feedback was sought in November 2015 that informed the development of the Draft RPS http://nelson.govt.nz/feedback-overview-nrmp

4.4 In early 2016 Council workshopped the Draft Regional Policy Statement ahead of seeking community and stakeholder feedback in May/June. A summary of the feedback was provided to Councillors in September 2016 and can be found at http://nelson.govt.nz/rps-feedback

4.5 Officers then considered the feedback, briefed the new Council on the draft RPS and workshopped general responses to that feedback with councillors on 22 November and 1 December 2016.

5. Discussion

Wide range of feedback received on draft RPS

5.1 The RPS sets the strategic direction for the remainder of the Nelson Plan, which contain the regional, district and coastal provisions.

5.2 Feedback was received from approximately 50 groups and individuals including Iwi, Grey Power, Victory Community Centre, Federated Farmers, Friends of the Nelson Haven, Nelson Environment Centre, Brook Sanctuary, Southern Inshore fisheries, Forest and Bird, and Nelson Forests.

5.3 A number of National/government agencies also provided feedback incluging New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), Transpower, NZ Defence Force, Tasman District Council, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, and Heritage NZ.

5.4 Overall there were approximately 800 individual pieces of feedback.

Public feedback generally supportive with some gaps identified

5.5 Feedback received on the Draft RPS was generally supportive and largely sought minor changes to the existing text.

5.6 A number of changes sought were quite detailed and more relevant to District Plan matters. These changes will be further considered at the rule drafting stage of the Nelson Plan.

5.7 Some gaps in the RPS were identified in by the public that will require further consideration by the committee in April including:

· Plan approach to managing Council as a resource user and consent authority and the need to consider a precautionary approach in the absence of full information.

· The need to have a specific chapter on addressing climate change generally.

· The need to recognise the economic benefits of fisheries and the potential impacts of land use activities on the fishery resource.

· Site specific development issues such as the need to identify the importance of industrial areas, medical facilities and future residential areas, along with clarifying the role of different centres.

Additional changes proposed by officers following further advice and engagement

5.8 Officers have also recommended a number of additional changes as a result of further technical work that has been undertaken, national policy changes that have been signalled, and more recent discussions with key stakeholders such as Freshwater Working Groups and Iwi stakeholders. Councillors were briefed on these recommended changes at the 22 November and 1 December workshops. These include:

· Updating timelines for Nelson Plan and release of National Environmental Standard for Air Quality in Introduction and Air Chapters.

· Removal of introductory text in Freshwater and Coastal Chapter as this is duplicated elsewhere.

· A range of cross referencing and minor text changes throughout the document for improved readability.

· Include a reference to investigating rating for water use as a method and add measuring ground water take rates and quality changes as an Anticipated Environmental Result to Freshwater Chapter.

· Emphasise the link between funding and infrastructure rollout in the Infrastructure Chapter.

· Removal of off-setting policy provision in the Coastal and Marine Environment Chapter

· Relocation of policy reference to biodiversity corridor and riparian enhancement and removal of reference in Methods section to using narrative descriptions of acutely or chronically threatened ecosystems (in preference to mapping these areas) in the Biodiversity Chapter.

· Include reference in explanations to issue statements, policies and anticipated environmental results to areas exhibiting high and very high landscape and natural character values in the coastal environment, together with the associative and cultural values of the Maitai (Mahitahi) Valley in the Landscape and Coastal Natural Character Chapter.

· Changes to the Social and Economic chapter to better reflect the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity requirements to monitor residential business and land supply and other factors.

· Clarification in the Natural Hazards chapter that areas of coastal hazard need to be identified before we can develop an appropriate land management approach.

Feedback provided by Councillors

5.9 Feedback on the draft RPS was provided by Councillors at the 22 November and 1 December workshops.

Technical and legal peer review commissioned

5.10 Council officers have arranged for the Draft RPS and Nelson Plan to be planning peer review and later legal review. Keeping the RPS draft will allow changes to be made following this work.

Feedback to be considered at April Meeting

5.11 It is proposed that the following feedback will be considered at the April 2017 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting:

· Public feedback with officer recommendations

· Proposed officer changes following further advice

· Officer recommendations on Workshop feedback.

6. Options

6.1 It is recommended that this report be received, as full consideration of the options for the draft RPS will be provided to the Committee in April.

Matt Heale

Manager Planning

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The preparation of the Draft RPS and wider Nelson Plan meets the Council obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It is considered that this approach is the most efficient way to achieve the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft RPS process aligns with the delivery of the Council’s regulatory functions under the RMA, the Long Term Plan community outcome ‘our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’ and the Nelson 2060 goals of ‘we are all able to be involved in decisions’ and ‘our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy’.

3. Risk

To be successful as a planning document, the RPS and the wider Nelson Plan need to be well integrated and free of any conflicting or contradictory policy. Keeping the RPS draft while the wider Plan is developed will ensure that this objective is achieved, and reduce the potential for legal challenge and disintegrated consent decisions in the future.

4. Financial impact

There are no direct costs associated with keeping the RPS in draft while the wider Nelson Plan is developed.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because collectively the RPS and Nelson Plan will establish a planning framework for 10 to 20 years. It is therefore of considerable interest to residents, ratepayers, landowners, occupiers, business interests, resource users, other stakeholders and iwi alike. The extent to which the RPS and Nelson Plan are well-integrated will have a bearing on how the entire Plan is received by those parties.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Iwi Working Group (IWG) established by Council and representing Te Tau Ihu has guided the development of the draft RPS to date. IWG representatives have indicated a preference for reviewing the combined draft RPS and Nelson Plan as a whole, so that they are able to provide meaningful feedback. Keeping the RPS in draft will assist in this.

7. Delegations

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R7080

Nelson Plan - Community Engagement during 2017

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval for an approach to community engagement during 2017 that maximises buy-in in advance of the public notification of the Nelson Plan.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan - Community Engagement during 2017 (R7080) and its attachments (A1705193, A1702560, and A1702553); and

Approves Option 1, targeted engagement with specific parties, as detailed in report R7080, in advance of the draft Nelson Plan release.

3. Background

3.1 The draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan is being prepared and is a unitary plan which will incorporate a Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and regional and district plan provisions.

3.2 Work to date has been informed by: Council workshops in 2015 and 2016 on issues and options papers; workshops over the same period with the Iwi Working Group, representing all Te Tau Ihu; feedback from the broader community and resource management practitioners sought during two rounds of consultation in November 2015 and May/June 2016 respectively. R6958, which will also be considered at the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 23 February 2017, focuses on feedback relating to the draft RPS.

3.3 Council staff have also engaged on specific topics with three Freshwater Working Groups, the Biodiversity Forum, and the Developers Advisory Group. Targeted engagement on freshwater matters is also ongoing with the Freshwater Working Groups, Iwi Working Group and forestry and farming interests. Finally, all owners of land that is home to identified outstanding landscape and significant biodiversity values have been engaged with directly during 2016.

3.4 Planning and Regulatory Committee workshops have been scheduled throughout February – September 2017 to enable the content of the Plan to be refined and approved for release as a full draft. Throughout 2017 there will be further targeted engagement and broader public consultation.

4. Discussion

Value of Engagement

4.1 The objectives of engagement are to inform Council of the views and preferences of residents so that these can be taken into account in decision making, raise and resolve natural and physical resource issues and conflicts, and strengthen community buy-in and ownership of the Plan when the Plan is publicly notified.

Preferences of Stakeholders for On-going Targeted Engagement

4.2 Owners of land identified as having outstanding landscape and significant biodiversity values have indicated a desire for further engagement on draft Plan provisions.

4.3 Engagement with owners of land identified as having heritage values, or that is potentially subject to flooding, fault line or liquefaction hazard risks is also proposed.

4.4 Freshwater Working Groups have indicated a willingness to continue to be used as a sounding board to help inform the development of the freshwater provisions of the Plan, as detailed in R6960, which will also be considered at the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 23 February 2017, and which recommends the approval of a progressive implementation programme for freshwater.

4.5 Resource management practitioners (planners, surveyors, architects etc.) have indicated a preference for drop-in sessions and opportunities to provide informal feedback in the lead-up to the release of the draft Plan.

4.6 Feedback from some key stakeholders (such as Nelson Airport and Port Nelson) and members of the Biodiversity Forum and Developers Advisory Group will inform the development of specific topics, during the course of the year.

4.7 Feedback from Council staff in operational, assets and regulatory roles on Plan content is critical and will be sought in advance of its consideration at Committee workshops.

4.8 Members of the Iwi Working Group have collectively been asked to confirm a preference of some for continuing to be briefed on technical work supporting the development of the Plan, and subsequently having an opportunity to review and provide feedback on a draft of the full Plan.

4.9 A register of members of the general public interested in being kept informed about the development of the Plan has been built following previous engagement rounds.

4.10 Finally, the Council is obliged to consult with statutory consultees (such as Government Ministries) during the development of the Plan.

Options

4.11 The following options for engagement have been considered:

Option 1: Targeted engagement with specific parties, in advance of draft Plan release
Advantages	· Targeted engagement can occur in tandem with the development of Plan provisions · Ensures owners and resource users more impacted by provisions than others are acknowledged, have time to understand the implications of issues that the provisions seek to address, and have meaningful opportunities for input · Ensures Council meets its consultation obligations with respect to iwi and is seen by iwi to have taken a collaborative approach · Aligns with national best practice advice on community engagement in relation to natural hazards · Most effective in reducing the likelihood of significant opposition and litigation
Risks and Disadvantages	· Requires greatest staff and consultant resources although this is manageable within the current budget to the level anticipated · Requires greater engagement from councillors, in terms of considering feedback from both iwi and public · Preparing a full draft for iwi feedback does extend the timeframe for notification
Option 2: Release of draft Plan only (no targeted engagement with specific parties)
Advantages	· Somewhat effective in reducing the likelihood of significant opposition and litigation from owners, resource users and iwi · Reduces staff and consultancy costs prior to notification · Requires less engagement from councillors, in terms of considering feedback · Potentially reduces the timeframe to notification
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not align with the collaborative approach taken where iwi input has been sought to date · Does not align with national best practice advice on community engagement in relation to natural hazards · Requires additional staff resources although this is manageable within the current budget to the level anticipated · Preparing a full draft for public input does extend the timeframe to notification
Option 3: No targeted engagement or draft Plan release prior to public notification
Advantages	· Minimises timeframe to notification · Reduces staff and consultancy costs prior to notification to the greatest extent · Requires least engagement from councillors
Risks and Disadvantages	· Considerable reputational risk to Council · Least effective in reducing the likelihood of significant opposition and litigation from owners, resource users and iwi · Likely to significantly increase staff and consultancy costs subsequent to notification

Recommended Programme for Engagement

4.12 Option 1 is recommended over either Options 2 or 3. Targeted engagement with specific parties during the 2017 year would best achieve the objectives set out in 4.1. Staff experience shows upfront investment in pre-notification engagement is always rewarded in significant savings in expenditure and reputation, at later stages in the process.

4.13 A schematic programme for engagement is illustrated in Attachment 1. As indicated in Attachment 1, preliminary engagement with owners of land identified as having heritage values can occur in February / March 2017. Preliminary engagement with owners of land potentially subject to natural hazard risks can occur in April / May 2017. Detailed engagement plans for both topics are set out in Attachments 2 and 3.

4.14 Our Nelson will be used as a communications channel to provide general updates on the Council approach to engagement on the Plan’s development. Additional targeted consultation with parties including those that have commented on the RPS, can also be undertaken.

Mark Leggett

Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: Nelson Plan - Schematic Programme for Engagement (A1705193) ⇩

Attachment 2: Draft Nelson Heritage Community Engagement Plan (A1702560) ⇩

Attachment 3: Draft Nelson Natural Hazards Community Engagement Plan (A1702553) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The approach outlined in this paper is considered the most cost-effective means of achieving the purpose of the Local Government Act, which includes the promotion of ‘the accountability of local authorities to their communities’ (s3), the Act’s requirements in relation to decision-making, including giving consideration to community views (s78) and providing opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes (s81), and the Act’s principles of consultation (s82).

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with the delivery of the Council’s regulatory functions under the RMA, the Long Term Plan community outcome ‘our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’ and the Nelson 2060 goal of ‘we are all able to be involved in decisions’.

3. Risk

To be successful as a planning document, the combined RPS and Nelson Plan must be owned by the community that it serves. The targeted plan for engagement outlined in this paper will minimise, as far as practicable, the likelihood and consequences of significant opposition and litigation once the Plan is publicly notified. Those consequences would otherwise include risks to Council’s reputation and its relationship with iwi.

4. Financial impact

There are some immediate costs associated with targeted engagement, mainly around the extended involvement of staff, given that the Plan will take longer to ready for notification. However, these costs are very likely to be outweighed by additional staff and external costs associated with responding to a higher volume of submissions in opposition and legal challenges, were engagement prior to notification not to occur. Refer to options table in report (4.11).

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because the Nelson Plan’s content will be of considerable interest to residents, ratepayers, landowners, occupiers, business interests, resource users, other stakeholders and iwi alike. The way in which the Plan is received by those parties will to a considerable extent be influenced by the level of prior engagement.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Iwi Working Group (IWG) established by Council and representing Te Tau Ihu has guided the development of the draft RPS to date. Some IWG representatives have indicated a preference for providing input on all technical reports and reviewing the combined draft RPS and Nelson Plan as a whole, so that they are able to provide meaningful feedback. Outside Te Tau Ihu relationships, Māori generally will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Plan.

7. Delegations

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R7149

Freedom Camping Strategy and Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To refer decisions on a potential Freedom Camping Bylaw to Council.

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Freedom Camping Strategy and Bylaw (R7149); and

Refers any decision on progressing a Freedom Camping Bylaw to the Council meeting scheduled for 23 March 2017.

2. Discussion

2.1 As part of its 2016/17 Annual Plan decisions Council resolved to develop a Freedom Camping Strategy. Work was progressed and a workshop was held on 2 August 2016. The Strategy itself will be reported back to Council – freedom camping is a cross portfolio issue with a high level of interest to our community.

2.2 One of the key recommendations of the Strategy is likely to relate to an option for Council to develop a Freedom Camping Bylaw, under the Freedom Camping Act 2015.

2.3 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has delegated authority to consider matters relating to Bylaws.

2.4 Officers believe, in the interests of timeliness and best use of governance time, and because of the cross portfolio nature of freedom camping, that it would be most efficient for the Planning and Regulatory Committee to refer any immediate decision on a bylaw to Council.

2.5 The alternative is for Council to receive the draft Freedom Camping Strategy at its meeting on 23 March and then refer any decision about a freedom camping bylaw to Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 13 April 2017. This would mean it would be extremely difficult to complete the necessary statutory processes in time for a Bylaw to be in place for summer 2017/18.

3. Options

3.1 The Committee can either refer this matter to Council or not:

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Efficient use of governance time · Allows work on any Bylaw to commence, allowing any Bylaw to be in place by summer 2017/18 · Allows any Bylaw to be considered alongside other tools to manage freedom camping
Risks and Disadvantages	· Bylaws have been delegated to the committee – more governance time required by full Council
Option 2: Do not refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Decision rests with appropriate committee as per delegations register · Bylaw issue considered in isolation to other tools to manage freedom camping
Risks and Disadvantages	· Timing of decision on any Bylaw may mean Bylaw is not in place for 2017/18 summer season.

Chris Ward

Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Not applicable – this is an administrative matter.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This is not inconsistent with Council policy.

3. Risk

Nil

4. Financial impact

Nil

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance as it is an administrative matter and not a substantive decision.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been involved in the decision making process.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering bylaws. The Committee has the power to refer any delegated matter to Council.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R7054

National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To note the National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) came into effect on 1 December 2016. Its primary purpose is to ensure Councils provide enough land for new housing and business development in the short (3 years), medium (10 years), and long term (30 years).

1.2 There will be implications of the NPS-UDC on resource management and local government planning, particularly in relation to the timing and funding of infrastructure projects needed to support growth. This report signals what steps are required to align processes of growth planning and funding for infrastructure.

2. Summary

2.1 The NPS-UDC requires Council to:

(a) Work with Tasman District Council to provide sufficient business and housing capacity for the ‘Nelson Urban Area’ (the Glen to Hope).

(b) Ensure that sufficient business and housing capacity is plan enabled (i.e. match zoning with infrastructure roll out through the Nelson Plan and Long Term Plan).

(c) Consider the implications on making decisions regarding infrastructure project funding and timing in the Asset Management Plans and Long Term Plan on the ability of Council to provide sufficient business and housing capacity.

2.2 This requires Council to agree to officers working with officers from Tasman District Council and reporting back to Council in June 2017 with an assessment of business and housing capacity under the NPS-UDC and recommended actions for infrastructure planning. This work is required to be completed by June 2017 in order to feed into the Asset Management Plan and Long Term Plan cycle.

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (R7054); and

3. Background

3.1 A National Policy Statement is prepared under the Resource Management Act and local authorities are required to “give effect” to the objectives and policies contained within it in their plans and in the manner in which resource consents are granted.

3.2 The National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) came into effect on 1 December 2016. Its primary purpose is to ensure Councils provide enough land for new housing and business development. The NPS-UDC was developed by the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

3.3 The overarching theme of the NPS-UDC is that planning decisions must actively enable development in ‘urban environments’ and do so in a way ‘that maximises well-being now and in the future’. The NPS-UDC includes additional requirements for local authorities with jurisdiction over medium and high-growth urban areas (based on Statistics NZ urban area definitions and population projections).

3.4 Nelson and Tasman are local authorities that share jurisdiction over the ‘Nelson urban area’, which runs from the Glen to Hope. The Nelson urban area is currently defined as a medium growth urban area in the NPS-UDC as the population is projected to grow at a rate between 5 and 10% between 2013 and 2023. High growth areas are those projected to grow by over 10%.

3.5 The NPS-UDC was developed based on 2013 Statistics NZ projections. Statistics NZ released revised local authority population projections on 14 December 2016, with Urban Area projections to be released September 2017. These December 2016 latest growth projections are shown in the table below:

Projected growth rates over ten years
	Low projections		Medium projections		High projections
Ten year period	NCC	TDC	NCC	TDC	NCC	TDC
2013 to 2023	5.1%	3.5%	10.3%	8.6%	15.2%	13.3%
2018 to 2028	1.8%	1.0%	6.8%	5.8%	11.5%	10.7%

Notes: Growth above is for the NCC/TDC local authority areas, not the ‘Nelson urban area’.

The medium projections are those used by the NPS-UDC to define high growth areas.

3.6 These new figures mean that Nelson and Richmond may be classified as a ‘high growth’ urban area when urban area projections are revised in September 2017. The NPS-UDC is to be amended based on the 2017 urban area projections form Statistics NZ. However, the NPS-UDC also notes that the high, medium, low definitions are transitional and will also be reviewed and amended.

3.7 Under the NPS-UDC, having sufficient land for development also means Council has to provide an additional margin of 20% capacity (zoned and serviced) for the first 10 years and 15% for 10-30 years. The theory behind this is to ensure competition amongst land owners but recognising that land banking may occur.

3.8 The NPS-UDC stresses the need to integrate zoned land for development with the provision of infrastructure although ‘infrastructure’ is confined to local roads (NZTA are exempt) and the three waters. Community infrastructure such as parks and reserves, libraries, community facilities and other non-council infrastructure such as power supply and telecommunication services also need to be considered.

3.9 The NPS-UDC requires Council to have in place more robust monitoring systems. Council is required to carry out a housing and business development capacity assessment on at least a three-yearly basis. The capacity assessment also needs to take into account the commercial viability of development capacity.

3.10 The NPS-UDC includes a requirement to carry out quarterly monitoring of indicators which include:

a) Prices and rents for housing, residential land and business land by location and type; and changes in these prices and rents over time;

b) The number of resource consents and building consents granted for urban development relative to the growth in population; and

c) Indicators of housing affordability.

3.11 The information provided by indicators of price efficiency in our land and development market, such as price differentials between zones, is to be used to understand how well the market is functioning and how planning may affect this, and when additional development capacity might be needed.

3.12 Every three years, the NPS requires consultation for the housing and business capacity assessments with iwi authorities, significant landowners, the property development sector, social housing providers, requiring authorities and the providers of development infrastructure and other infrastructure.

3.13 A similar report to this is being reported to Tasman District Council full Council in March.

4. Discussion

4.1 The following sections outline the work that officers need to do to come back to Council with a capacity assessment in June 2017 in order to inform infrastructure projects scheduled in the Asset Management Plans and the Long Term Plan. Ongoing requirements are also highlighted.

Growth Modelling and Capacity Assessment

4.2 Growth modelling and capacity assessments are not new work for either of NCC or TDC. Both Councils have been undertaking this analysis to inform infrastructure project planning and rezoning, albeit using different approaches to modelling and different assumptions.

4.3 The NPS-UDC sets a challenge in that it seeks that both Council’s use one capacity assessment, or model, and therefore agree on one set of assumptions for input.

4.4 Irrespective of the classification as a medium or high growth area, Nelson and Tasman need to work together to manage the higher growth rates both Councils are experiencing and to provide future development opportunities.

4.5 The statutory requirement to commence quarterly monitoring commences 1 May 2017 and the first development capacity assessment has to be complete by 1 December 2018 (or by 30 June 2018 if Nelson gets reclassified as a high-growth area).

4.6 Officers from both Councils have formed a working group and aim to complete an initial Nelson-Richmond residential and business land capacity assessment, including identifying infrastructure requirements, by June 2017. This is earlier than required by the NPS-UDC and is necessary in order to feed into the AMP and LTP cycle, as required by the NPS. It is likely that there will be a need to complete the capacity assessment by August 2017.

4.7 Work has been completed by Property Economics to forecast business land demand for Nelson and Tasman. The key findings are that Nelson and Tasman operate as a single economic market and need to work together to ensure sufficient development capacity and efficient use of business land. There is enough zoned business land to meet projected growth but more work is needed to investigate the commercial viability and infrastructure requirements of current zoned land.

4.8 In the longer term the NPS-UDC seeks that NCC and TDC have a joint Future Development Strategy for the Nelson Urban Area. If the NPS-UDC recognises the Nelson Urban Area as a ‘high’ growth area, then a Future Development Strategy is required to be completed by December 2018. Officers will undertake further evaluation of what this means to Council and will provide a range of options in terms of a Future Development Strategy, once the initial capacity assessment has been undertaken.

Infrastructure Planning

4.9 The NPS-UDC provides a statutory requirement making infrastructure prioritisation to growth areas an important consideration.

4.10 Once the growth modelling and capacity assessment is complete, there may be a need to re-prioritise infrastructure projects across the Nelson and Richmond urban area. This is required to ensure it meets the requirements for capacity sufficient to provide for growth projections with a 20% buffer for the first 10 years and 15% thereafter as required by the NPS-UDC.

4.11 This includes reprioritising growth projects in the short (3 years in the Asset Management Plans), medium (10 years in the Long Term Plan) and long term (30 years in the Infrastructure Strategy).

4.12 When finalising these plans Council needs to ensure that the infrastructure projects contained within them, and the order that they are to be completed, enables Council to achieve the capacity requirements set out in the NPS-UDC. This also needs to be achieved across the Nelson and Richmond urban area and requires some consideration of projects and timing in each of the NCC and TDC Long Term Plans.

4.13 Potentially impacted by the capacity assessment and infrastructure requirements to service growth will be the Financial Strategy (including debt and rate limits) and the Development Contributions Policy.

Consultation

4.14 Every three years, the NPS-UDC requires consultation for the housing and business capacity assessments with iwi authorities, significant landowners, the property development sector, social housing providers, requiring authorities and the providers of development infrastructure and other infrastructure. Officers plan to undertake a first round of consultation with these parties between April and June 2017 to inform the initial capacity assessment and infrastructure prioritisation.

4.15 Feedback from developers to date is that they welcome the raised importance of matching infrastructure roll out with growth planning. Generally all parties are keen to gain a greater understanding about how Council evaluates growth, when infrastructure projects are scheduled to be complete, and how they can remain better informed.

Risks

4.16 There is a range of officer level and governance level decision making that is required across NCC and TDC in order to complete the capacity assessment and infrastructure prioritisation required by the NPS-UDC. At officer level the first step will be the agreement across Councils in terms of the model and assumptions to be used to assess capacity. At a governance level the first step will be the consideration of timing and funding of infrastructure projects across LTP’s in order to provide sufficient capacity.

4.17 The timeframe set out in the NPS-UDC does not align with the Long Term Plan timeframe, in that capacity assessments are not required to be completed until December 2018, after the Long Term Plan has been finalised. In order to inform the Long Term Plan the capacity assessment timeframe is proposed to be brought forward by officers, however this means that the first round will be under time pressure.

4.18 The ability of both officers and the Council to act in a timely manner to consider capacity assessments and infrastructure prioritisation will have a bearing on the ability to meet NPS-UDC requirements.

4.19 The provision of infrastructure to growth areas including a 20% capacity buffer also contains some risks for Council. Just because Council provides infrastructure to a growth area, doesn’t necessarily mean that a developer will choose to develop the land in a timely manner. While developer consultation can mitigate this risk, there is no guarantee that Council won’t invest in infrastructure that lies dormant until the developer is ready to develop. MBIE has been encouraging Councils implementing the statement to consider mechanisms that might reduce this risk and enable increased supply at the time and at a rate it is projected to be needed by the market.

4.20 Council should also note that providing sufficient infrastructure to enable development capacity over the short, medium and long term may also result in significant changes to the level of development contributions which may have associated market effects.

5. Options

5.1 Council has only two options, either comply with the NPS-UDC or not. Officers recommend compliance with the NPS-UDC is the preferred option. The advantages, disadvantages and risks of both options are summarised in the table below.

Option 1: Implement the NPS-UDC
Advantages	· Statutory compliance · Well managed growth planning and infrastructure provision across the Nelson Richmond urban area meets community expectations. · Potentially enhances housing and business supply, and potentially increases affordability. · Compliments the Housing Accord and HASHAA which may offer some tools to enhance certainty for Council to ensure development occurs with infrastructure investment. · Aligns with the direction of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill which proposes to make the provision of sufficient development capacity in plans a statutory requirement open to legal challenge. · MBIE and MfE are to provide information to councils on key modelling assumptions and estimates, and guidance to implement the NPS. · May enable Council to become eligible for application to the Housing Infrastructure Fund. · Additional resourcing and/or reprioritising of officer workloads/projects.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Data gaps and model limitations may affect the ability to implement the NPS-UDC in a cost effective manner. · The success of the NPS-UDC in ensuring that plans provide sufficient development capacity also depends on some factors that national policy statements cannot directly affect, including: - Local authority funding for infrastructure - Inconsistencies between the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) - Governance and incentives facing local decision-makers. · There are also other drivers of escalating house prices, such as global finance and migration trends, patterns of concentrated land ownership in some local areas, the scale and productivity of the construction sector, and the use of covenants which may reduce the effectiveness of such planning. · Council invests in infrastructure to areas that are not developed.
Option 2: Do not implement the NPS-UDC
Advantages	· Integration with TDC for growth planning and infrastructure provision is not required. · Cost and resource savings will occur.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Depends on the extent to which Government is prepared to intervene to address non-compliance. Options under the RMA available to the Minister for the Environment are to: - investigate the performance of local authorities in giving effect to the NPS-UDC - provide recommendations to local authorities on improving their performance - direct plan changes - residual powers to appoint someone to carry out the local authority’s functions and duties. · Residential and business capacity in Nelson constrains growth. · Developer and community aspirations in terms of housing and business supply may not be enabled. · Infrastructure planning is inefficient, costly and requires retrofit. · Council would not have the ability to make an application to the Housing Infrastructure fund.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPS-UDC) is about recognising the national significance of:

• urban environments and the need to enable such environments to develop and change, and

• providing sufficient development capacity to meet the needs of people and communities and future generations in urban environments.

6.2 The NPS-UDC formalises growth and infrastructure planning across both RMA1991 plans and polices and the range of implementation and funding tools Council has under the LGA2002 including the Asset Management Plans, Long Term Plan, Financial Statement and Infrastructure Strategy.

6.3 The NPS-UDC also considers the Nelson urban area to include Richmond, which is a natural conurbation.

6.4 Officers recommend Council commits to implementing the NPS-UDC, and

(a) Confirms that officers work with officers from Tasman District Council and report back in June 2017 with an assessment of business and housing capacity under the NPS-UDC and recommended actions for infrastructure planning.

(b) considers the implications of changes to timing and funding of infrastructure projects in the Long Term Plan on business and residential development capacity.

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Infrastructure Planner

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NPS-UDC allows Council to ensure there is sufficient business and housing capacity for growth in the short, medium and long terms. This will ensure Council does not hinder economic prosperity of the city through land and infrastructure provision, including working with Taman District Council in a complimentary rather than competitive manner for the Nelson urban area conurbation.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with the delivery of Council’s regulatory functions regarding the urban environment (under the RMA 1991) and the ‘Environment’ activity as set out in the Long Term Plan. It also contributes to the implementation of community outcomes “Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs” and the nelson 2060 goal of “Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson”.

3. Risk

Implementation of the NPS-UDC and comprehensive growth and infrastructure planning will reduce risks of growth and development in the city being under capacity, and it will also reduce risks associated with inefficient roll out and investment in infrastructure to growth areas. Risks associated with not achieving the intent of the NPS-UDC are outlined in section 4 of this report. If Council does not implement the NPS-UDC there is a risk that central government may step in and take governance over growth and infrastructure planning.

4. Financial impact

The NPS-UDC requires additional resourcing and either staff or consultant expertise in the modelling and market evaluation areas, particularly in the terms of assessing business capacity. The additional resourcing required will be considered through the Annual Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because it may impact on the level of service provided by Council and the way in which services are delivered, as well as affecting the economic prosperity of the city. Therefore the following consultation will occur in the form of developer, iwi authority and infrastructure provider involvement in the capacity assessments, and formal community feedback through the Long Term Plan and Nelson Plan processes where infrastructure projects (funding, timing and completion) and zone boundary changes are proposed. .

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter to date. The NPS UDC requires that Iwi are consulted as part of the capacity evaluation.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering resource management, the NPS-UDC is issued under the RMA1991. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on required plan changes and changes necessary to infrastructure projects in the AMPs to LTP.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

23 February 2017

REPORT R7162

Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a progress update on the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).

2. Summary

2.1 Officers from both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have made good progress with completing a draft of the Land Development Manual. There are a few matters left to resolve before a final draft of one set of engineering standards for the Nelson and Tasman regions can be completed.

2.2 The outstanding issues with the completion of the draft NTLDM are:

(a) The stormwater section, particularly the management of the quality and quantity of stormwater discharges from subdivision and development, and

(b) Minimum ground and floor levels required in order to meet statutory requirements in relation to sea level rise, and coastal and freshwater inundation and flooding.

2.3 Officers from both Nelson and Tasman Councils are continuing to work with stakeholders, planning and asset management teams to reach recommendations for appropriate standards in relation to these issues.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (R7162).

4. Background

4.1 The Nelson City Council Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM) provides minimum standards and guidance for work undertaken on Council assets, or subdivision and development that results in the vesting of assets in Council. These standards are reviewed every 3-5 years.

4.2 Over the last two years officers from both Councils have been working on a joint set of standards known as the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).

4.3 The current review of the NTLDM is required to go through the First Schedule process under the Resource Management Act 1991 which will align with the notification of the Nelson Plan.

4.4 As part of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement process for the LDM in 2009, stakeholders suggested to Council that an aligned LDM between the two Councils should be pursued.

4.5 The Planning and Regulatory Committee resolved on 12 March 2015 in report A1317664 to progress the joint Land Development Manual with Tasman District Council and align it with the notification of the Nelson Plan.

4.6 A Steering Group comprising two elected members from each Council and two industry representatives was established and has been providing direction to officers on issues raised in the review as well as alignment matters.

4.7 A similar progress report will also be presented to the Tasman District Council full Council meeting in March.

5. Discussion

5.1 To date a draft has been prepared of the NTLDM, with a structural rewrite currently also underway as a result of legal advice received on the format of the standards. A first draft was released to stakeholders for comment in mid 2016, and a stakeholder workshop on the significant changes to the LDM was well attended.

5.2 A second stakeholder workshop in August 2016 on the stormwater section and minimum ground and floor levels in response to sea level rise and flood hazards had a lower level of attendance.

5.3 The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on progress with the review and to highlight issues still requiring resolution before the draft standards can be finalised.

Feedback on the draft NTLDM

5.4 Feedback received to date has raised concern with a number of minor procedural requirements, definitions, and construction details which officers have been able to resolve.

5.5 Feedback has also been provided in relation to the Stormwater section of the NTLDM with the development industry unsupportive of the first draft of this section.

5.6 Related to the stormwater section, and not yet complete, are the requirements in relation to responding to sea level rise, and coastal and freshwater inundation and flooding and the impacts this may have on minimum ground and floor levels. These two unresolved matters are discussed in the following sections.

Stormwater Standards

5.7 The purpose of the stormwater section is to guide the design and construction of stormwater management network assets in the Nelson and Tasman Districts. Standards of stormwater management need to protect people and property, water health including freshwater habitats, amenity values, and whole-of-life affordability.

5.8 The draft chapter of the NTLDM contains a number of standards proposed to ensure the management of stormwater quality and quantity meets statutory requirements and best practice.

5.9 The proposed standards result in requirements for greater detention than currently required in the LDM, and the treatment of water quality from new development and subdivisions (roads and roofs) including ensuring the runoff temperature is at an acceptable level for the receiving environment.

5.10 Stakeholder feedback received on these requirements is summarised as follows:

· There is concern that all development must provide detention and developers question why Council is not upgrading the stormwater system to provide adequate capacity for stormwater to be discharged from new development.

· There is concern over the amount, and costs of, land lost to development by allocating it to detention and water treatment devices, and that this will mean that development becomes less affordable resulting in decreased returns to developers and higher section prices for home owners.

· The standards may render development in certain areas unfeasible. This is most relevant at the top of catchments on hillsides and in infill locations where on site detention is difficult to provide.

· There is a sense of unfairness as detention and stormwater quality treatment requirements on development appear to be designed to solve existing infrastructure faults and existing degraded stream water quality.

5.11 Officers have commissioned a high level cost, benefit and risk analysis in relation to the proposed stormwater standards for new subdivision and development. This has shown that for infill or brownfield development meeting these standards is unlikely to be cost effective and may constrain the ability for redevelopment.

5.12 For greenfield development the analysis indicates that the standards do place additional costs on development. Further work is required including the evaluation of an actual greenfield case study, and in documenting the other measures that Council is committed to in terms of raising water quality of Council discharges in urban areas. Further work is required to determine if some standards are more applicable in some catchments than others.

5.13 It is important to consider controls on new development and subdivision in an overall context or comprehensive plan of what Council intends to do to meet the NPS Freshwater requirements in the management of its own assets and existing urban areas (i.e. quality control on stormwater discharges from urban areas to waterways).

5.14 This work will involve further assessment by the Nelson Plan and Asset Management teams and those working on the provisions in the LDM. It will also involve a further Steering Group meeting and stakeholder consultation before the draft can be completed.

Coastal and Freshwater Inundation and Flooding

5.15 Currently the LDM provides a standard for minimum ground and floor levels based on the rules in the Nelson Resource Management Plan and the requirements for freeboard in the Building Act. The standard for minimum ground level is a one size fits all approach for the whole of the District and is based on the 2003 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) guidance on sea level rise (planning for a 0.3m rise).

5.16 This guidance has since been outdated by the MfE 2009 guidance of planning for a mean sea level rise of 0.8m up to 2100. MfE are currently working on further updated guidance which is to be released early 2017. The NZ Coastal Policy statement also requires that Council consider the impacts of sea level rise out 100 years, or to 2100.

5.17 Subdivision and development controls in relation to flood hazard are implemented through RMA 1991 (for natural hazards and subdivisions) and the Building Act 2004 (for floor levels). The requirements of these two Acts differ.

5.18 As a consequence of the updated guidance and statutory requirements a one size fits all approach can no longer be taken to minimum ground and floor levels. Officers have proposed a standardised methodology for calculating minimum ground and floor levels.

5.19 The methodology provides a consistent and transparent approach intended to guide surveyors, architects, and engineers in preparing building and resource/subdivision consent applications in areas potentially subject to coastal, tidal and freshwater inundation and flooding across the Nelson Tasman regions. The methodology does not identify where development can and cannot occur, but simply provides information to enable the calculation of a minimum ground and floor level required to meet statutory requirements.

5.20 Stakeholder feedback received on the proposed methodology is summarised as follows:

· The required minimum ground and floor levels will result in development not being feasible in some existing greenfield areas zoned for development.

· It will not be feasible or economically viable to fill some marginal land or areas of infill.

· There is a serious disconnect between the Building Act and the Resource Management Act which if development is not planned comprehensively can cause problems which are difficult and expensive to resolve.

· The methodology is complex and the implications are not yet fully understood.

5.21 Further work on the methodology will be undertaken to determine options for planning controls and those will be reported back through the Council Nelson Plan workshops. This work will also involve a further Steering Group meeting and stakeholder consultation before the draft methodology can be completed. It is proposed to do this at the same time as consulting on the Stormwater section as discussed above.

5.22 Final completion of the methodology is also dependent upon the release of the MfE updated guidance due early 2017.

Legal Review

5.23 Legal advice is being sought on a range of operational matters which may result in the need for amendments to the draft. Legal advice yet to be received is to cover:

· Use of delegations to approve engineering plans.

· Waterways, rivers and drains distinctions and duties for those as public versus private drains.

· Professional and public indemnity insurance.

5.24 The NTLDM may need to be revised as a result of receiving this legal advice.

Next Steps

5.25 The development of the NTLDM is aligned with the Nelson Plan timeframe. After the stormwater section, minimum ground and floor level methodology and legal review are complete, the draft NTLDM will be formally notified for public comment on the intention of both Councils to externally reference it as part of their plans. This is scheduled to occur in the second half of 2017. A report will be brought back to Council seeking approval prior to any notification process.

5.26 Following that process the NTLDM is scheduled to be formally publicly notified as part of the Nelson Plan in early 2018. A report will be brought to Council seeking approval for that notification. Tasman District Council also intend to undertake notification of a plan change at the same time and there may be a need for a joint hearing and decision in relation to the NTLDM.

6. Options

6.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council on progress with the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual. The options are to either receive the report or not.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report has provided an update on the development of the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual. There a two significant outstanding issues that require resolution before the draft can be completed which relate to Councils approach to stormwater quality and quantity, and hazard risks from coastal and freshwater inundation and flooding.

7.2 These issues are driven both by national standards and statutory requirements, and further work is required to address the issues in tandem with the hazard and freshwater provisions of the Nelson Plan.

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Infrastructure Planner

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NTLDM provides minimum standards for the creation of good quality infrastructure that ensures statutory compliance, health safety and wellbeing of the Nelson and Tasman community, and considers affordability over its life cycle.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report provides an update to council on progress with the NTLDM, no decisions are required.

3. Risk

This report highlights risks in terms of both statutory compliance and in relation to development industry acceptance of standards. These matters are highlighted in the report so that Council is aware that they require resolution prior to any formal decision making in relation to the notification of the NTLDM.

4. Financial impact

Costs, benefits and risks of decisions associated with the notification of the NTLDM will be considered as part of the Nelson Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The NTLDM is an externally referenced document t the Nelson Plan which will be subject to the public notification processes required in the RMA1991.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been specifically consulted in relation to the NTLDM. Preliminary discussions have occurred with Iwi through the Nelson Plan Iwi Working Group.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering the Land Development Manual.