Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

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

4.1 Kerry Neal

Kerry Neal will speak about the confusion attached to the Nelson Plan - Natural Hazards and the financial implications of this plan, and the urgent need to look at certain construction methods in Nelson City, due to an urgent message from Wellington engineers to encourage other localities to look at this problem.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 13 April 2017 8 - 11

Document number M2503

Recommendation

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 13 April 2017, as a true and correct record.

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee 25 May 2017 12 - 15

Document number R7689

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 25 May 2017 (R7689) and its attachment (A1736802).

7. Chairperson's Report

Regulatory

8. Timing of the Navigation Safety Bylaw review 16 - 20

Document number R7331

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Timing of the Navigation Safety Bylaw review (R7331); and

Decides to commence the review of Navigation Safety Bylaw 218, noting it will be completed by 1 December 2019.

9. Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment - Main Road Stoke 21 - 24

Document number R7710

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment - Main Road Stoke (R7710); and its attachment (A1758273); and

Approves amendments detailed in report R7710 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 210, Speed Limits (2011):

- Schedule I: 80km/h

- Schedule G: 60km/h

- Schedule A: Urban Traffic Areas Map 6.

10. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January - 31 March 2017 25 - 40

Document number R7433

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January - 31 March 2017 (R7433) and its attachment (A1737726).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves that the following amounts in the Nelson Nature budget are being carried forward to the 2017/18 Financial Year:

- $60,000 for Dun Mountain wilding conifer

control

- $20,000 for the Department of Conservation

animal and plant pest advisor

- $10,000 for the Taiwan Cherry feasibility

study.

Environment

11. Marine Biosecurity 41 - 87

Document number R7408

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives and notes the report Marine Biosecurity (R7408) and its attachment (A1735275).

12. Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm 88 - 120

Document number R7409

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm (R7409) and its attachment (A1753714); and

Approves the notification of a Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) within the entire coastal area of Nelson City and coming into force on 1 July 2017.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves $36,000 per year for a three year period, commencing 2017/18 to fund the operational implementation of a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella.

Policy and Planning

13. Options for Extending Smokefree Policy 121 - 131

Document number R7725

Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Options for Extending Smokefree Policy (R7725) and its attachment (A1741198).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves extending its smokefree policy to include Council-funded events, and working with partners to promote a smokefree message; and

Approves an allocation of $3,500 unbudgeted operational funding in 2017/18 to the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre in support of a trial of smokefree outdoor dining in the city centre.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Emily Rais and Cassie Hagan 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 13 April 2017, commencing at 9.29am

Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillor B McGurk (Co-Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, P Matheson, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner and S Walker

In Attendance: Chief Executive (C Hadley), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Senior Strategic Adviser (N McDonald), Manager Administration (P Langley), Manager Communications (P Shattock), Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste (M Parfitt), Team Leader Administration Advisers (R Byrne), Administration Adviser (S Burgess), and Nelson Youth Councillors (L Ly and E Edwards)

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.

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: The meeting was adjourned from 9.29am to 1.15pm, during which time a Council workshop was held.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 23 February 2017

Document number M2353, agenda pages 6 - 14 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/014

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 23 February 2017, as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Barker Carried

5.2 23 March 2017 - Extraordinary Meeting

Document number M2438, agenda pages 15 - 16 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/015

That the Committee

Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 23 March 2017, as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Barker Carried

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee -13 April 2017

Document number R7466, agenda pages 17 - 20 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/016

That the Committee

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 13 April 2017 (R7466) and its attachment (A1736802).

McGurk/Fulton Carried

7. Chairperson's Report

Councillor McGurk updated the Committee on the Freshwater Management Unit’s recent workshops on fresh water, terrestrial, coastal and plants that would feed into the next biodiversity forum.

Regulatory

8. Freedom Camping Bylaw - Refer Powers to Council

Document number R7385, agenda pages 21 - 24 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/017

That the Committee

Receives the report Freedom Camping Bylaw - Refer Powers to Council (R7385) ; and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to a Freedom Camping Bylaw.

Barker/McGurk Carried

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

Document number R7218, agenda pages 25 - 38 refer.

Team Leader Roading and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt presented the report. She advised of a change to item 4.1.1 – Greenhill Road whereby as a result of consultation, work-related vehicles would no longer park on the road and an amended proposal allows parking outside number 4 Greenhill Road.

Resolved PR/2017/018

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R7218) and its attachment (A1730339); and

Approves amendments detailed in report R7218, including further amendments made at the Committee meeting on 13 April 2017, to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011):

- Schedule 9: No stopping

- Schedule 14: Give Way Signs

Walker/Dahlberg Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.29pm

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

REPORT R7331

Timing of the Navigation Safety Bylaw review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider delaying the review of Navigation Safety Bylaw 218 (the Bylaw) by two years to enable better alignment with the draft Nelson Plan coastal provisions.

2. Summary

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002 requires bylaws are reviewed five years from the date on which the bylaw was made. The Navigation Safety Bylaw is due for review by 1 December 2017 but can remain in force until a review is completed by 1 December 2019. The later date for the review is considered beneficial to better align the Bylaw with the draft Nelson Plan coastal provisions and to enable consultation with stakeholders to occur for both instruments at the same time.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Timing of the Navigation Safety Bylaw review (R7331); and

Decides to commence the review of Navigation Safety Bylaw 218, noting it will be completed by 1 December 2019.

4. Background

4.1 The Navigation Safety Bylaw 218 came into effect on 1 December 2012. Section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that bylaws are reviewed no later than five years after the date on which the bylaw was made.

4.2 Section 159 requires that any second or subsequent review occurs no later than ten years after the last review.

4.3 Section 160A states that if a review under s158 or s159 did not occur then the bylaw is revoked two years after the bylaw should have been reviewed (as long as the local authority had not already revoked the bylaw).

4.4 In effect a bylaw can remain in force up to two years past the date it should have been reviewed. If the review is not commenced within the first five years the following review is within five years. If the review is commenced within five years (and completed within seven years) the next review is due within ten years.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Nelson Plan is likely to have specific provisions to control swing moorings in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). It is considered that the Nelson Plan is potentially the better instrument to control the effects of swing moorings rather than the Bylaw. The Bylaw is focussed on the navigation of vessels and identifies activity priority areas to minimise potential conflicts between the various users of the CMA.

5.2 The Bylaw already refers to resource management instruments by stating that a coastal permit is required to be obtained under the Resource Management Act prior to placing a mooring. To reduce duplication it is proposed the swing mooring activity could be entirely controlled by the Nelson Plan and be removed from the Bylaw.

5.3 The swing mooring priority activity areas identified in the Bylaw are full. A Bylaw review would involve as a minimum the identification of potential new areas for swing moorings as well as some wording changes to update the Bylaw and to be more consistent with the Maritime Transport (Infringement Fees for Offences - Nelson–City Council Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012) Regulations 2015. Instead of undertaking separate consultation with the same stakeholders for both the Bylaw review and the draft Nelson Plan coastal provisions it is considered more efficient to delay the review of the Bylaw so that consultation can occur together and any potential Bylaw changes are aligned with the draft Nelson Plan coastal provisions.

6. Options

6.1 The preferred option, Option 2, enables the Bylaw to be aligned with draft provisions of the Nelson Plan and stakeholder consultation to occur once for both the Plan and the Bylaw. There are no aspects of the Bylaw requiring more urgent changes.

Option 1: review the Bylaw by 1 December 2017
Advantages	· Meets the timeframe described in section 158 of the Local Government Act 2002
Risks and Disadvantages	· May be inconsistent with Nelson Plan provisions · Consultation with stakeholders will likely need to commence before Nelson Plan consultation occurs resulting in inefficient use of staff and stakeholder’s time
Option 2: review the Bylaw by 1 December 2019
Advantages	· Meets the timeframe described in section 160A of the Local Government Act 2002 so the Bylaw remains in force · Enables the Bylaw to be altered to be more aligned with the Nelson Plan draft provisions · Enables consultation with stakeholders to occur for both Bylaw and coastal Nelson Plan provisions to better inform the drafts for both instruments, avoiding any confusing duplication.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Bylaw provisions are not updated sooner

7. Conclusion

7.1 Proceed to undertake the review of Navigation Safety Bylaw 218 by 1 December 2019 to ensure alignment with the Nelson Plan provisions can be achieved.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendation is the most cost-effective option to perform the regulatory review of this Bylaw as it combines consultation requirements and reduces staff resource costs.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with a number of community:

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

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities;

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

· Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

Delaying the Bylaw review will achieve better alignment and less duplication between two instruments (the Bylaw and the Nelson Plan) that each have a role in controlling activities in the CMA. There are no urgent matters that need to be addressed in a Bylaw review so it is unlikely there will be an adverse consequence arising from the delay.

4. Financial impact

The recommendation will align two processes that will potentially save staff and stakeholder time. No unbudgeted costs will occur as a result of the recommendation.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the community will benefit from better alignment between these instruments. Both instruments will still follow formal public consultation procedures but will have been drafted based on a single engagement of stakeholders rather than the engagement occurring twice.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has occurred in the drafting of this report. Māori are considered to be stakeholders for activities in the coastal marine area and will be engaged prior to the draft documents going out for public consultation.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering maritime and harbour safety and control matters and a responsibility for Bylaws. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a decision on its areas of responsibility that are not delegated to Council officers.

For the Bylaw review Special Consultative Procedure the Committee has the power to hear and deliberate on submissions to the proposed changes to the Bylaw, the power to recommend the statement of proposal for Bylaw consultation and the power to recommend final decisions on any Bylaw changes.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

REPORT R7710

Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment - Main Road Stoke

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt alterations to the Speed Limit Bylaw (2011), No. 210, resulting from work completed and reported through Works and Infrastructure Committee.

2. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Speed Limit Bylaw Amendment - Main Road Stoke (R7710); and its attachment (A1758273): and

Approves amendments detailed in report R7710 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 210, Speed Limits (2011):

- Schedule I: 80km/h

- Schedule G: 60km/h

- Schedule A: Urban Traffic Areas Map 6.

3. Background

3.1 The Speed Limit 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 maintained and current.

3.2 The bylaw schedules require updating for the speed limit change at Main Road Stoke and subsequent to alterations to the Elm Street intersection.

3.3 This is a procedural report. The speed limit change and associated works have been previously consulted on and agreed through Works and Infrastructure Committee, May 2016 (Resolution WI 2016/034).

3.4 The Elms Street/Main Road Stoke intersection safety improvements and associated speed reduction measures were completed in April 2017.

4. Discussion

4.1 Schedule I – 80km/h. DELETE: Main Road Stoke from 100m southwest of Orphanage Creek to 100m north of the Salisbury Rd / Main Road Stoke intersection.

4.2 Schedule G – 60km/h. ADD: Main Road Stoke from 100m southwest of Orphanage Creek to 100m north of the Salisbury Rd / Main Road Stoke intersection.

4.3 Speed Restriction Bylaw (210) Schedule A Map 6 is amended as shown in Attachment 1.

Options

4.4 There are limited alternative options as the majority are procedural updates to the bylaw required for safety and efficient traffic movement.

Kayleen Goldthorpe

Asset Engineer Transport

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1758273 - Speed Limit Bylaw (210) Amendment Main Road Stoke Map 6 ⇩

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 road 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.

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 because consultation has already been completed and reported to the Works and Infrastructure Committee in 2016 (R5622).

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

7. Delegations

Amendments to schedules of the Speeds Limit Bylaw fall within the delegated authority of the Planning and Regulatory Committee.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

REPORT R7433

Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January - 31 March 2017

1. Purpose of Report

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

2. Summary

2.1

Activity	Level of service needed	Achievement
Building	Achieve and maintain International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) accreditation. Compliance with statutory timeframes.	Work in progress to ensure the Building Control Authority’s (BCA) accreditation is maintained for the IANZ audit scheduled in June 2017. Statutory time limits continue to be achieved. The alignment of the BCA to industry standards continues through the GoShift initiative.
Consents and Compliance	Delivery of all statutory regulatory functions. Compliance with statutory timeframes.	The delivery of regulatory services continues to meet requirements.
Science and Environment	Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards. Delivery of all non-regulatory programmes.	Environmental monitoring programmes are on track, including recruitment of a water quantity scientist. Non-regulatory programmes have been successfully delivered to date, including cover for three team vacancies.
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	The Nelson Plan review is on track with three of the 11 workshops completed to date.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 January - 31 March 2017 (R7433) and its attachment (A1737726).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves that the following amounts in the Nelson Nature budget are being carried forward to the 2017/18 Financial Year:

- $60,000 for Dun Mountain wilding conifer control

- $20,000 for the Department of Conservation animal and plant pest advisor

- $10,000 for the Taiwan Cherry feasibility study.

4. Background

4.1 The report and attachment detail the performance monitoring of the Council’s regulatory and non-regulatory activities, how these activities have changed over time and identifies their strategic direction.

5. Discussion - Building

Achievements

5.1 The Nelson City Council BCA is working with the Tasman District Council to align processes.

5.2 Both Councils are collaborating on ‘Let’s Get it Right’ seminars with local designers, architects and builders.

5.3 The pilot for the GoShift online building consents submission portal is due to commence on the 28^th of April. This pilot includes Tasman District Council and four selected design companies.

5.4 The BCA has worked closely with designers and contractors to issue the building consents for the Nelson Airport Terminal building, the Port Company Warehouse (largest building in Nelson) and issuing the Code Compliance Certificate for the Suter Art Gallery redevelopment.

5.5 The successful implementation of the electronic inspections module is allowing for real-time reporting and feedback to builders, contractors, customers and project managers.

Trends

5.6 Building Consent applications are up by 30.85% (Attachment 1), with 89 domestic alterations and 49 new domestic structures. Building consent inspections have increased by 131 over the last quarter.

Strategic direction and focus

5.7 Continued focus on aligning with the GoShift initiative.

5.8 Work is in progress in collaboration with Tasman District Council to review and procure a complete digital solution for building consent processing and inspecting.

5.9 Works to align with the Ministry of Building Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) 2017 ‘regulatory guidance on the BCA accreditation scheme’.

Risks

5.10 The BCA continues to manage its risks daily through processing, inspecting and issuing Code Compliance Certificates on building consents.

5.11 Should building consent activity levels remain high resources will need to be reviewed.

6. Discussion – Consents and Compliance

Achievements

6.1 In addition to application processing and monitoring, the engagement and education aspects of regulatory activities have been very successful over summer.

6.2 The harbourmaster duties were helped by the Coastguard undertaking safety checks of vessels at boat ramps and on the water. Over 500 checks have been conducted resulting in noticeable improvements in carrying and using safety equipment and behaviour on the water. The information obtained will help inform which areas to focus education programmes on for future campaigns.

6.3 Maritime New Zealand were present at an oil spill exercise held at Port Tarakohe in conjunction with Tasman District Council. Maritime New Zealand gave a positive report.

6.4 Fire hazard letters or notices were sent to 58 properties with only one property requiring further action by the Council.

6.5 Nineteen licensed premises were visited in a controlled purchase operation with two failing.

6.6 All premises that have to transition to a Food Control Plan in year one of a three year transition have done so.

6.7 Progress is being made to enable dog owners to register their dogs online. A campaign to neuter high risk dogs has commenced in conjunction with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

6.8 A variety of development will soon commence with consents being granted for the waka prow sculpture, Big Save operating a furniture store in the old motorcycle museum building on Haven Road, the trampoline park at Tahunanui Beach and the redevelopment of the Green Gables retirement village.

6.9 The Council obtained consents to upgrade Neale Park pump station and the Cawthron Institute obtained consent to research how nutrients and sedimentation affects estuaries.

Trends

6.10 Resource consent application numbers are still averaging higher than last year with larger consents resulting in more limited or publicly notified consents. Reliance on external consultants is still needed but at a lower level than last quarter (22% of decisions were processed externally this quarter compared to 30% last quarter).

Strategic direction and focus

6.11 The navigation safety campaigns will finish on ANZAC weekend and will commence again at Labour weekend in October.

6.12 The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is gazetted and some procedures will need adapting to these changes.

Risks

6.13 Should activity levels remain high staff resources will need to be reviewed for consent processing and monitoring.

7. Discussion – Science and Environment

Achievements

7.1 The Almond Tree Flat ford was removed to support the ecosystem health of the Maitai River. A rare Lamprey Eel was found near the ford attempting to migrate upstream. This is the first record of a Lamprey in the Maitai River since fish monitoring began.

7.2 The public were invited to learn more about their local streams and participate in projects to improve freshwater health through stands at Race Unity Day and the Isel Night Market for World Water Day. Thirty people registered for projects to improve the health of York Stream (Te Wairepo).

7.3 Monitoring for shorebirds through Nelson Nature took place in the first quarter of this year. Fernbird were found at all sites with suitable habitat, but Banded Rail were absent from some potential sites.

7.4 Nelson Nature, together with Parks and Reserves, supported the Nelson Mountain Bike Club and the Marsden Valley Trapping Group to control wasps in areas with high visitor numbers including the Marsden Valley and the Dun Mountain and Codgers Bike Trails. This was part of a successful wasp wipeout programme throughout the Region.

7.5 A strategic long term plan to guide the control of wilding conifers to protect the fragile, and nationally important, mineral belt ecosystem of Dun Mountain was completed for Nelson Nature by Department of Conservation (DOC) technical experts. The plan recommends the control of coning trees in the area as soon as possible as this will save considerable costs for future control.

7.6 Window blinds were installed in the customer services centre Halifax Street windows highlighting Nelson Nature and Project Maitai/Mahitahi. These blinds can be used when the windows are not booked for other window displays. Both of these projects contribute to the Clean and Accessible Water level of service in the Long Term Plan.

7.7 An animation promoting the ‘Only Rain Down Drains’ message was developed by an NMIT student and is playing at the State Cinema for the next 6 months.

7.8 There were no known toxic algae incidents over the summer and toxic algae levels remained below the alert level. Four Dog’s Breakfast events were held to raise public awareness and teach dog owners to recognise the toxic algae so that they feel comfortable about using the river.

7.9 A fish ladder and baffles were installed in the lower Brook Stream and Nile Street culvert. This work will complement the fish passage alterations to the Brook concrete channel scheduled for the 2017/18 year.

7.10 Approximately 160 primary school students and their teachers took part in the Enviroschools Moturoa Mission Environmental Challenge at Rough Island. Activities included a Clean Air Good Wood challenge designed and delivered by Council, as well as topics such as estuarine environments, biosecurity and coastal care. The Challenge is a collaborative exercise supported by organisations such as the Cawthron Institute, Forest and Bird, and Department of Conservation.

7.11 Second-hand Sunday was delivered on 11 March, with 30 plus households participating across the Nelson/Tasman region.

7.12 The Big Beach Clean, coordinated by DOC with support from Nelson City Council, Tasman District Council and Nelmac, was delivered on 4 March with excellent community participation. Approximately 4.7 tonnes of waste was collected.

7.13 Support for zero waste events has been provided to schools to reduce waste to landfill. An example is the recent gala at Clifton Terrace School, where students were closely involved in reducing waste to landfill from 10kg in 2016 to 5.5kg in 2017. The story about this created by the students and their teacher can be found here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wsbwWgDPnSXiSA8XGmDzkw3MRF9VR0tFQdkMjJtaRa0

7.14 Applications for the 2017/18 round of the Heritage Project Fund closed on 31 March. 20 applications were received seeking a total of $355,000. The Fund allocated in the draft Annual Plan for 2017/18 is $100,000. Decisions on the applications will be made by the end of June.

Strategic direction and focus

7.15 A science roadmap is to be developed to provide strategic direction to the science and monitoring programme, and ensure all upcoming and future monitoring and reporting obligations are met.

7.16 A review of Environmental Education Service delivery has been completed.

7.17 The focus for non-regulatory programmes for the next quarter will be completion of 2016/17 project delivery, annual reporting, and project planning for the 2017/18 year.

7.18 The Environmental Programmes team will become the Science and Environment team with a team leader reporting to a business unit manager.

Nelson Nature: Budget Transfers

7.19 The Nelson Nature programme has 11 separate budget lines relating to 11 project areas. Two of these project areas are: Dun Mountain and Significant Natural Areas (SNAs). Approval is sought for an additional $60,000 to be targeted at wilding conifer removal, which would be taken from the budget for SNAs and moved to the next financial year to enable contractors to complete work effectively.

7.20 The reason for this is that it will enable a greater number of wilding conifers to be controlled earlier, thus saving significantly in the longer term as the cost of removal grows exponentially the longer wildings are left to grow.

7.21 In addition to points 7.19 and 7.20 above, approval is sought to carry over $20,000 from the budget line allocated to DOC for Project Management and Technical Advice to the 17/18 financial year. This amount is forecast to be unspent in 16/17 due to the DOC Ranger 0.5 FTE position being vacant since January. The transfer into the next financial year would enable significant headway to be made on the animal pest and weed control aspects of Nelson Nature in the 17/18 financial year.

7.22 Approval is sought to carry over $10,000 from the Nelson Nature General Biodiversity budget line into the next financial year to enable a Taiwan Cherry eradication feasibility study to be completed in August, when the cherry are flowering. Taiwan Cherry have been controlled for a number of years and the study will review the control work and current location data to determine feasibility and long term costs of eradicating the pest from the Nelson Region.

Risks

7.1 On 20 March the air quality monitor at Blackwood Street recorded a 24 hour PM₁₀ concentration of 116 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m3), the highest ever recorded at the site and breaching the National Air Quality Standards for air quality (NES) of no more than 50µg/m³. Under the NES Council can have no more than one breach per year in any airshed. It is difficult to determine the cause of this exceedance as there were no noticeable industrial discharges. Dust is the most likely contributor, due to relatively dry, sunny conditions and the SW winds of 25km per hour which were blowing for most of the time when readings were high. Council enforcement staff have been working with contractors working in the areas to ensure dust is being managed well, dampening down and sweeping when work is completed.

7.2 The Environmental Programmes team has had three key vacancies for the January to March quarter. This has been a risk for full programme delivery, and has meant a reduction in scope for some projects over this period.

7.3 Environmental monitoring and reporting requirements have grown, driven by national policy statements and environmental standards. Consideration is being given to the implications of this.

8. Discussion - Planning

Achievements

8.1 Three Nelson Plan workshops have been held with Councillors in the quarter.

8.2 The first workshop on 23 February considered Plan structure and biodiversity provisions.

8.3 The second workshop on 14 March included an update on natural hazards and designations and considered draft landscape and noise provisions.

8.4 A workshop was held with Councillors on the 14 March giving an overview of Nelson’s natural hazards. A key focus was to present the new flood modelling data for all of Nelson’s key rivers and streams. Community engagement will occur in April and May on the new flood modelling, and liquefaction and fault hazards within the community. Letters have been sent to 7710 ratepayers/owners of properties. Further information can be found on Council’s website: http://nelson.govt.nz/environment/nelson-plan/natural-hazards/

8.5 Staff are continuing to work with iwi and the three freshwater working groups in the development of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan. Meetings were held with these groups in mid-March and one of the key focuses was a discussion on the Ministry for the Environment’s (MFE) Clean Water Package and regional councils’ requirements to ensure that 90% of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes are ‘swimmable’ by 2040. The technical work is ongoing and will inform Plan drafting, and will be presented at a Councillor workshop in mid-September.

8.6 Letters were sent out to approximately 400 heritage building owners and around 150 notable tree owners. To date around 150 responses related to buildings and trees have been collected, with a number of themes emerging. Responses are currently being processed. Council will be given a summary of the feedback prior to the Heritage Workshop in August.

Risks

8.7 Recruitment for key positions is occurring.

8.8 The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill includes a national plan standard officers are considering any impact of this.

8.9 The timing of Proposed National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry and changes to the NES Air Quality will impact the Nelson Plan.

9. Other Matters

9.1 The Government recently called for submissions on the “Clean Water Package 2017” The package includes four main elements:

1) Swimability and recreational values

2) Te Mana o Te Wai

3) A national staged approach for excluding stock from waterways

4) Further changes to the National policy Statement for Freshwater.

9.2 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has made a comprehensive submission. Consideration will be given to these potential future directions as part of the Nelson Plan work.

10. Options

10.1 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: Building and Consents and Compliance Statistics 1 Jan - 31 Mar2017 (A1737726) ⇩

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 and non-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 building and resource consent application numbers continues to put pressure on meeting statutory timeframes. Team vacancies have the potential to impact work programmes.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance.

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

25 May 2017

REPORT R7408

Marine Biosecurity

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 At the request of the Planning and Regulatory Committee this report sets out for information purposes the Council’s responsibilities for marine biosecurity and how these are being met.

2. Summary

2.1 This report outlines the Council’s responsibilities for marine biosecurity and actions taken to meet them.

2.2 There is a separate report to be considered by this Committee which proposes a Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzii.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives and notes the report Marine Biosecurity (R7408) and its attachment (A1735275).

4. Background

4.1 In considering an annual report on Biosecurity (R6995) at its meeting on 23 February 2017 the Planning and Regulatory Committee requested further information on the Council’s legal requirements for marine biosecurity, relevant issues and how they are being managed. This report provides this information.

4.2 Once introduced, marine pests have the potential to impact on the region's natural environment, human health and Māori values and cause serious harm to Nelson’s and the Top of the South’s economy; in particular aquaculture, fishing, and tourism industries. Marine pests can be difficult to detect (more so than pests on land) and can easily spread through a fluid environment. Both this difficulty in detection, and the limited number of management tools available make effective marine pest management challenging.

Legislative context

4.3 The legal responsibilities of Council stem from both its role as a regional council, where it must manage biosecurity matters, and as a city council as owner or manager of public assets.

4.4 The legislative regime governing the management of pests in New Zealand is primarily regulated by the Biosecurity Act 1993 (BSA), Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS), Local Government Act 2002, and Maritime Transport Act 1994. The Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, and Import Health Standard for Ships’ Ballast Water, and Craft Risk Management Standard 2016 also provide direction to the management of marine pests within New Zealand regions.

Biosecurity Act 1993

4.5 The Biosecurity Act (1993) is New Zealand’s main piece of biosecurity legislation and provides a legal basis for excluding, eradicating and managing pests. The Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 requires regional councils to provide biosecurity leadership regionally, and they are encouraged to coordinate pest management between regions. In the marine environment, regional councils are generally responsible for managing “existing and established” pests, with the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) responsible for “new” unwanted organisms.

4.6 The enabling regime of the Biosecurity Act gives Councils a wide range of tools, including the Regional Pest Management Plan, Pathways Plans, Small-Scale Management Programmes, and enforcement powers to go with these. In all cases, the Council can choose to act or not to act, depending on how regional interests may be affected.

4.7 The Biosecurity Act also imposes obligations on the owners, occupiers, and managers of places to manage pests recognised in regional or national pest management plans, or notified as “unwanted organisms” by a Chief Technical Officer. For marine pests, this means that it is an offence to knowingly transport unwanted organisms. These include three harmful organisms established in the Nelson region (the edible seaweed wakame, the clubbed tunicate and the Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzanii). Whether these pests should also be controlled at places is a matter for the Regional Pest Management Strategy/Plan. At present the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy does not impose any obligations to do this although the Council has resolved to do so for assets within its management (see below in relation to the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Strategy).

Resource Management Act 1991

4.8 The general duties of councils to manage marine biosecurity conferred by the Resource Management Act are articulated further in the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010, and include:

4.9 Policy 12 Harmful aquatic organisms:

1) Provide in regional policy statements and in plans, as far as practicable, for the control of activities in or near the coastal marine area that could have adverse effects on the coastal environment by causing harmful aquatic organisms to be released or otherwise spread, and include conditions in resource consents, where relevant, to assist with managing the risk of such effects occurring.

2) Recognise that activities relevant to (1) include:

· (a) the introduction of structures likely to be contaminated with harmful aquatic organisms;

· (b) the discharge or disposal of organic material from dredging, or from vessels and structures, whether during maintenance, cleaning or otherwise; and whether in the coastal marine area or on land;

· (c) the provision and ongoing maintenance of moorings, marina berths, jetties and wharves; and

· (d) the establishment and relocation of equipment and stock required for or associated with aquaculture.

4.10 The Council has not yet revised its Coastal Resource Management Plan to respond to these requirements, but has included marine biosecurity provisions in recent resource consents.

Local Government Act 2002

4.11 The Council, in October 2012, made the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No 218) under the Local Government Act 2002 that includes a marine biosecurity provision: No person shall anchor, berth or moor, or allow to remain anchored, berthed or moored, within the Harbour (including within any marina) any vessel which is subject to significant fouling with marine growth.

5. Discussion

How Council manages marine biosecurity risks

5.1 The Council has been engaged in managing marine biosecurity risks since at least 2008. The principal ways it does this are:

· Participation in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

· Responding to incidents and incursions

· Enforcing the Navigation and Safety Bylaw

· Supporting education and awareness

· Creating rules for users of moorings and marina berths

· Providing facilities for cleaning boats

· Commissioning supporting research

Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

5.2 The Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership (Partnership) is a regional partnership, consisting of the Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough regions. In 2009, the Partnership produced a Strategic Plan (attached) which “provides guidance and principles for better coordination of marine biosecurity action in the region”. This is a non-statutory plan that aligns policy commitment by the three councils, Ministry for Primary Industries and other parties such as the Port companies and marine farming industry. It states that the purpose of the Partnership is to:

Prevent the introduction, and minimise the spread of damaging marine species throughout the Top of the South region by coordinating the action of all partners committed to its implementation.

5.3 The Strategic Plan says that the relevant regional partners will:

· Use regional powers of regulation under the Resource Management Act, Biosecurity Act and Local Government Act to support regional marine biosecurity.

· Use the role of partners as owners and managers of local ports, marinas and other areas of intense marine activity to enhance marine biosecurity.

· Provide funding according to legal responsibility, capacity to pay and agreed priorities.

· Use such other powers and resources (e.g. Harbour Master roles) as appropriate to support regional marine biosecurity.

5.4 The Nelson City Council has been active in implementing these policies and has conformed to the principles set out below. The principles in the Strategic Plan are:

1. Acting constructively and promptly in the face of uncertainty.

2. Taking a cautionary approach in making decisions to allow for the limits to our understanding of environmental complexity.

3. Taking action by those best placed to act with the resources that are available.

4. Acknowledging the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua iwi and Crown commitments under the Treaty of Waitangi relevant to this strategic plan in so far as these commitments are consistent with partner’s obligations under their relevant legislation.

5. Rigorously assessing costs, benefits and risks, including social, economic, cultural and environmental effects to enable best use of limited resources.

6. Apportioning costs equitably taking into consideration legal obligations, roles and responsibilities, contribution to risk, and benefit received.

7. Encouraging community involvement, individual responsibility and full participation.

5.5 The primary way the Council implements the Strategic Plan is by co-funding the work of a regional marine biosecurity coordinator, for the last six years. The Council’s commitment to this work is $20,000 per year with that funding being matched by Tasman District Council, Marlborough District Council, and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). No provision has been made for cost increases since the initial allocation was made eight years ago, while the funding from MPI has been reduced from $60,000 per year to $20,000 per year. The contract provides for coordination services, communications including industry networks, a website and bimonthly newsletters, science advice, policy advice, marine surveillance and initial incident response. The contract has been tendered three times and the current contract that expires in June 2017 and has a right of renewal for a further two years. It is intended to renew this contract for the next two years.

5.6 The Partnership meets once a year with the next meeting planned for 26 May 2017.

Responding to incidents and incursions

5.7 Over the eight years since the Partnership was formed Nelson has had between one and four significant marine biosecurity incidents each year that involved the Council and one new incursion by a harmful organism. These incidents all involved vessels that were highly fouled or were found to have a harmful organism on the hull.

5.8 The contract Coordinator maintains an incident response manual for all three councils that is approved by MPI. This conforms to both the national Coordinated Incident Management Systems (CIMS) model and MPI practice.

5.9 The additional incursion was the establishment of the Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzanii. This cannot be eradicated, but the Council contracts divers to remove it twice a year to suppress a breeding population developing to a level where vessels are becoming infected. This diving cost the Council $11,000 each year.

5.10 Where an incident involves the national border, the response is led by MPI. Such responses usually involve the Council, but direct costs are met by MPI.

Enforcing navigation and safety bylaws

5.11 The navigation and safety bylaws are enforced by the Harbour Master. In this role, the Harbour Master has had highly fouled abandoned vessels removed from the harbour with the costs of removal and storage being met by the Council. The Harbour Master has also refused entry to the harbour by some larger risk vessels.

Supporting education and awareness

5.12 The primary activity of raising public awareness is delivered through the coordination contract and Council communications capability is also involved in publications, website information and press releases.

Creating rules for users of moorings and marina berths

5.13 As owner of the Nelson marina the Council has included marine biosecurity provisions in the standard berth agreement for marina berths. This requires marina users to keep vessels free of conspicuous fouling and of harmful marine organisms. Regular enforcement of these provisions is required by Nelmac.

Providing facilities for cleaning boats

5.14 The Council owns the travel lift and hard stand where most recreational vessels in Nelson are cleaned of fouling organisms. It also shares ownership of Port Nelson which provides services for larger vessels. These services are vital to keeping vessels free of unwanted organisms and treating risk vessels when they arrive.

Commissioning supporting research

5.15 The Council has supported marine biosecurity capability by using its access to Envirolink grants to commission research on marine pests and treatment methods.

Complementary activity

5.16 The Council’s efforts are complemented by marine biosecurity risk reduction from other Partners to the TOS Marine Biosecurity Partnership which are outlined below.

5.17 The Ministry for Primary Industries:

· Co-funded the preparation of the Strategy and the operation of the Partnership

· Manages the risk at the border and pre-border

· Takes the lead on new to NZ pests and for diseases

· Provides guidance on the application of the National Policy Direction

· Provides public awareness materials including pest identification guides, signs and web resources including the marine biosecurity portal

· Operates a hotline for reporting issues and a Marine Taxonomic Service through NIWA to identify suspect organisms

· Funds the NIWA port surveys that come to Port Nelson twice a year.

5.18 Other Councils

· Marlborough District Council and Tasman District also fund the Partnership and contribute policy advice

· Northland, Bay of Plenty and Southland Regional Councils have all provided resources to Nelson free of charge.

5.19 The Department of Conservation has assisted in responses with divers and with surveillance boats and skippers.

What else could the Council do?

5.20 Until the Regional Pest Management Plan process is completed no change is suggested except for consideration of a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella, which is dealt with in a separate report (R7409).

6. Conclusion

6.1 It is recommended that this report be received.

Richard Frizzell

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Strategic Plan (A1735275) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report and recommendation informs the Council about how marine biosecurity responsibilities are being managed in a cost-effective way. The service is a valuable one for the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from marine pests are effectively addressed.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The report details responsibilities the Council has for marine biosecurity and what is being done to meet them, including the principles in the Strategic Plan for and aligns with the following Community Outcomes:

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected;

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

Our communities are healthy, safe , inclusive and resilient;

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

3. Risk

The report outlines how Council addresses biosecurity risks to the marine environment and economy of the Top of the South Island and to other locations.

4. Financial impact

As the report is to inform Council only there are no immediate or long term costs associated with the recommendation.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi are represented on the Tops of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership Management Committee. There has been no consultation with Maori in relation to this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering Biosecurity. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

REPORT R7409

Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the implications of the presence of Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzii) in Nelson Haven. Sabella is both a nationally unwanted and notifiable organism.

1.2 To decide to declare a Small-Scale Management Programme (SSMP) for Sabella under Section 100V of the Biosecurity Act 1993 within the Nelson City Council area. This declaration will both complement and support similar declarations being considered by Tasman District Council and Marlborough District Council.

1.3 To recommend to Council that it approve additional funding of $36,000 per year over a three year period for operational activity related to the Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella.

2. Summary

2.1 Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) is present in very low numbers in Nelson Haven. Nationally Sabella is both an unwanted and notifiable organism and is of concern to the marine farming industry. Sabella can grow up to 800mm long and in very dense infestations of up to 1000 worms per square metre. It is able to outcompete and smother mussels.

2.2 Sabella is also present (in low numbers) and being controlled in both Shakespeare Bay (Marlborough) and Tarakohe Harbour (Tasman). As there is no national Pest Management Plan for Sabella (and it is widespread in Auckland and Lyttleton harbours), councils currently lack any powers under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to inspect and enforce control on the owners of vessels and other structures infested with Sabella.

2.3 In order for the Top of the South councils to access powers under the Biosecurity Act, Sabella must either be within a Regional Pest Management Plan or a Small-Scale Management Programme must be declared.

2.4 A Small-Scale Management Programme is an immediate response to the issue as the Regional Pest Management Plan process or establishing a Pathways Management Plan takes significant time.

2.5 This report recommends that Council declares a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella (SSMP) within the Nelson area. Tasman District Council considered and approved a parallel recommendation on 27 April 2017 and Marlborough District Council will consider it within the next month.

2.6 If declaration is approved a combined Operational Plan covering all three council areas will be developed so that management activity is coordinated.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Small-Scale Management Programme for Mediterranean fanworm (R7409) and its attachment (A1753714); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves $36,000 per year for a three year period, commencing 2017/18 to fund the operational implementation of a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella.

4. Background

4.1 Sabella is an introduced, tube-dwelling fanworm that attaches itself to natural and artificial surfaces (eg rocks, vessels and structures) in sub-tidal marine environments. Since 2008 it has become well established in many parts of the country (Whangarei, Waitemata, Lyttleton and Tauranga Harbours and on the Coromandel Peninsula). Surrveillance in the Top of the South (TOS) area from 2013 onwards has found small numbers of Sabella on commercial and recreational vessels and marine structures. Coordinated and timely responses are required to slow and contain the spread.

4.2 Within the Top of the South Sabella has been found at Picton/Waikawa (Marlborough), Tarakohe (Tasman) and Nelson Haven and could occur undetected in other locations. Known infestations have been suppressed to date, by physical removal of fanworms and some vessels have been treated. This involves divers searching the marina and Port area and removing all pests found. When the worms are small they are hard to find and visibility in Nelson Haven is seldom good. This means that removal rates can never be expected to be better than 90%. This removal has cost the Council $11,000 per year with the Ministry for Primary Industries matching this each year over the last three years.

4.3 Responses have been led by the Top of the South councils with both financial and technical support from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and administrative assistance from the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership (TOSMBP) of which all TOS councils and MPI are partners.

4.4 Port Nelson and the Nelson Marina are important transportation nodes. Both commercial and recreational vessels travel to Nelson from ports with known pest infestations. Recreation vessels also regularly travel from Nelson to the Abel Tasman coastal area and to the Marlborough Sounds. If pests establish in Nelson, then they are more likely to become established in other areas across the Top of the South.

4.5 Active management at Port Nelson involves surveillance by the Port Manager and Harbour Master with reporting of suspect vessels, and active intervention by the Council or Ministry for Primary Industries when risks are found. Border biosecurity for hull fouling and ballast water is dealt with by the Ministry for Primary Industries rather than by the Council or Port Nelson.

4.6 In 2016 the Council acted to reduce risk by bringing in a new berth agreement for the Nelson marina that requires berth holders to keep their hulls from becoming highly fouled and to keep them free of unwanted organisms. The biosecurity requirements of the berth agreement are being enforced, with recent letters and inspections taking place, to address low compliance to date (with more than 30% of vessels being non-compliant).

4.7 Some of the resource consents for moorings in Nelson Haven also have marine biosecurity provisions and these moorings were inspected and last cleaned in 2016.

4.8 During 2014 Marlborough District Council commissioned Cawthron Institute to prepare a review of background information on Sabella. That work was undertaken to support the development of a potential SSMP. It found that effective Sabella management poses many questions and concerns, due to the following factors:

· Rapid rates of growth and ability to regenerate damaged body structures;

· Wide environmental tolerances and a lack of predators;

· Ability to live on most artificial and natural habitats, including shell debris in soft sediments;

· High reproductive rates and long spawning season (May to September);

· High potential for natural dispersal as well as human-induced spread (through hull biofouling, ballast water and movement of aquaculture equipment).

4.9 The Cawthron report reviewed the potential impacts of Sabella. It found the biggest threat was to the economic values in the TOS principally on the marine farming/aquaculture industry. Sabella can quickly become established in a wide range of habitats and can attach directly to shellfish. It will readily settle on mussel grow-out lines and may reduce growth by altering water flow around the lines and competing with mussels from suspended food. The mussel industry is currently worth approximately $193M per year and is a significant and growing contributor to the TOS economy. Mussel farmer representatives consider that there would be a direct correlation between increasing Sabellla density and distribution and lower mussel production (and corresponding increased costs of mussel farming through having to control Sabella).

4.10 Sabella also has the potential to incur costs to the commercial fishing and shipping industries as more frequent hull cleaning may be necessary when vessels are docked in an infested area. If uncontrolled, it could become the dominant fouling species in a marina, weighing down structures and spreading to moored vessels, thereby incurring costs to owners.

4.11 The Cawthron report also considered that there were potential impacts on natural values, particularly where high densities of Sabella occurred. Sabella efficiently filter food from the water column which could affect natural shellfish beds and could modify natural ecosystems through the exclusion of native species. Sabella can also out-compete native suspension feeders.

5. Discussion

5.1 Currently Sabella is not within the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) although it is declared as both an “unwanted organism” and “notifiable organism” by the Ministry for Primary Industries. This results in the situation where Nelson City Council does not have any ability to compel vessel and structure owners to maintain them free of Sabella. Lack of the ability to direct and control increases the risk of ongoing spread and increasing population densities.

5.2 Small-scale management programmes are the primary response tools available to regional councils managing incursions of unwanted organisms that are not declared pests in a regional pest management plan (and are not managed wholly by the Ministry for Primary Industries). Sections 100V and 100W of the Act outline the process to be followed, including pre-requisites to meet around the subject organism causing serious and unintended effects (s.100V) and the exercise of Biosecurity Act powers that are proposed to be used under an SSMP (s.100W).

5.3 Analysis of the Biosecurity Act 1993 prerequisites indicates that a Small-scale Management Programme for Sabella meets the legal requirements; in that

· an unwanted organism is present in the region which could cause serious adverse and unintended effects unless early action is taken to control it.

· the organism can be eradicated or controlled effectively by small-scale measures within three years of the measures starting, because of its limited distribution and the technical means available to control it.

· the programme is not inconsistent with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management.

· the process requirements in the National Policy Direction for declaring the programme were complied with.

· the taking of the measures and, if necessary, payment of compensation is likely to cost less than an amount prescribed for the purposes of this section by the Governor-General by Order in Council ($500,000).

· the taking of the measures is unlikely to result in significant monetary loss to any person, other than a person who has contributed to the presence or spread of the organism by failing to comply with biosecurity law.

5.4 The objectives of the Small-Scale Management Programme would be to provide for the control of Sabella in Nelson City over the next three years to:

· Reduce the adverse effects on economic wellbeing; the environment; enjoyment of the natural environment and the relationship between Maori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, waahi tapu, and taonga; and

· Reduce spread within the region and to other areas.

5.5 Measures to be adopted to achieve these objectives are:

· Intelligence and information gathering mainly concerning vessel and gear movements using sources such as trip reports, harbour masters and industry sources.

· Responses to Sabella on vessels and structures or in the natural environment through requiring vessels or gear to be cleaned and acting on default.

· Surveillance, both active and passive including dive surveys, industry lead and private reporting.

· Direct control including harbour clearances, cleaning vessels and equipment such as floats, buoys and ropes.

· Advocacy with the general public and industry raising awareness and encouraging reporting of sightings

· Spread risk mitigation such as working with industry to ensure spat and equipment is sourced from Sabella free areas.

5.6 An Operational Plan is being developed to give effect to the Small-scale Management Programme but is difficult to fully cost at this stage as insufficient surveillance information is currently available to confirm the full extent of the infestation except in the areas that have already been surveyed. Indicative costs suggest that:

· In the first year (2017-2018) the cost to Nelson City Council will be approximately $36,000. This includes set up cost, additional surveillance and reporting systems, increased advocacy and information gathering, dive surveys and a contribution towards a floating/inflatable dock to provide rapid treatment of any Sabella fouled vessels found. It is anticipated that the floating dock would be funded by the three TOS councils with a dollar for dollar contribution from MPI as has occurred in some other regions.

· During the second and third years of the SSMP (2018-2020) it is anticipated that the annual cost of the programme will be approximately $36,000 per year. The majority of which would fund surveillance and response.

· Tasman District Council have approved the allocation of an additional $110,000 for three years for a SSMP for Tasman; and Marlborough District Council will consider a proposal to allocate an additional $82,500 per annum (total $247,500) for the same period for a SSMP for Marlborough.

5.7 If initial surveillance work shows that the current Sabella infestation in Nelson City is substantially greater than is known (and hence the cost of control is significantly greater) the Council has the option of declaring that the SSMP has failed and to cease any operational activity.

6. Options

Option 1: Small Scale Management Programme (SSMP) for Sabella (preferred option)
Advantages	· A SSMP is quick to put in place as it can be done by declaration. Therefore the risk that Sabella numbers will further increase to the point that control is too costly or not possible will be minimised. · A SSMP provides Council with immediate access to the powers under the Biosecurity Act including powers of inspection, direction and enforcement so that the movement of risk goods and vessels can be controlled thus minimising the risk of ongoing Sabella establishment. · If unsuccessful a SSMP can be simply declared to have failed and will be at an end. · If the SSMP is successful any residual management or control of Sabella can be provided for under a Regional Pest Management Plan or a Pathway Management Plan and the SSMP can fall away.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Compared to the do nothing option the implementation of a SSMP will cost approximately an additional $110,000 over three years of unbudgeted expenditure.
Option 2: Do nothing; undertake no specific control of Sabella
Advantages	· The advantage of this option is that there is no additional direct cost to Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Sabella will continue to spread fouling harbours, marine farms and natural substrates resulting in both economic and amenity costs for Council, the marine farming industry and the public at large. · Lack of action by Nelson City Council will likely compromise the efforts of Marlborough District Council and Tasman District Council regarding Sabella control and will likely result in additional cost to them. · Maintenance costs will increase for vessel and facility owners and operators as fouling levels increase. · Vessels and gear leaving Nelson City may have to be cleaned and certified before it can enter other parts of New Zealand or some overseas jurisdictions · Impact on recreational and amenity values (e.g. by affecting recreational fishing or by colonising the Boulder Bank and Horoirangi Marine Reserve).
Option 3: Undertake clearance of Council facilities only
Advantages	· The advantage of this option is that it saves the costs of surveillance, response and advocacy outside Council controlled assets.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continued re infestation will occur as vessels and gear bring new Sabella infestations into the Council facilities. · Natural and environmental areas outside the Council facilities will not be managed and are likely to become infested with Sabella. · The costs to all parties will increase over time as Sabella numbers increase.
Option 4: Manage Sabella via the Regional Pest Management Plan or via a Regional Pathways Management plan
Advantages	· It avoids a duplication of documents and involves a full public consultation process · It allows access to Biosecurity Act 1993 powers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· It will take much longer to prepare and implement than a declaration of a SSMP. · The delay involved will likely allow Sabella numbers to expand to the level that exclusion or control will be much more difficult or not achievable.

Recommended approach

6.1 Officers recommend that Council adopt a formal Small Scale Management Programme for Sabella spallanzii under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

6.2 This approach entails additional costs for Council and for recreational vessel owners. It will require co-operation from Port Nelson. It will also only be fully successful if a similar approach is adopted by Tasman and Marlborough District Councils towards marine biosecurity in their marinas and ports. Tasman District Council has already approved the notification of a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella within Tasman coming into action on 1 July 2017.

6.3 The next steps if Council approves the recommendations are to:

· Place a public notice declaring a Small-Scale Management Programme within Nelson City commencing 1 July 2017.

· Appoint authorised persons (staff and/or contractors) for the purpose of the Small-Scale Management Programme with powers including those of entry, inspection, direction and enforcement.

· Arrange contracts for any external delivery of operational activity including dive surveys, advocacy, and liaison with key stakeholders.

· Costs for the above actions would be within the proposed additional $36,000 budget.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Nelson Port and marina are key entry points for marine pests into the wider Top of the South region. Leaving Sabella spallanzii uncontrolled in these nodes poses risks to the environment and economy of the Top of the South Island.

7.2 Implementing a formal Small-Scale Management Programme preserves options for the future and allows marine biosecurity planning to become integrated with other biosecurity priorities as part of the Regional Pest Management process.

Richard Frizzell

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: Draft Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella (A1753714) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report and recommendations achieve a consistent and cost-effective approach to managing a serious marine biosecurity threat by working across the Top of the South region with Marlborough and Tasman District Councils. This service is valuable for the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from a marine pest are effectively addressed.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The eradication and effective management of harmful organisms helps ensure our unique natural environment is healthy and protected, which is one of the Community Outcomes.

This report is consistent with the Regional Pest Management Strategy and Nelson 2060. The recommendations contribute to Goal Three: Our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy.

3. Risk

The proposal addresses a pressing and significant biosecurity risk to the marine environment and economy of the Top of the South Island and to other locations.

If Nelson City Council declares a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella three main risks exist:

· A fully effective response requires a co-ordinated effort. If not all TOS councils declare a Small-Scale Management Programme for Sabella then the response is likely to be less effective.

· Survey information related to Sabella distribution is limited and there may be other unknown infestations of Sabella present that will make Sabella management either more expensive or impossible.

· The Council may not be able to fully manage Sabella arriving in the Top of the South from other national or international sources. Ongoing re-infestation, particularly if it occurs outside surveillance areas may make Sabella management more expensive or impossible to manage.

The strategy for management of these risks will be to review information as it becomes available and if the situation changes to either seek additional resources for Sabella management work or to recommend to Council that it notifies that the Small-Scale Management Programme has failed and stops further Sabella management activity.

4. Financial impact

This is an unbudgeted item and requires approval of a special budget allocation to proceed. Biosecurity responses outside those covered by Council’s Plans and Strategies generally fall into this category as they are unexpected events which usually require a rapid response sooner than can be allocated via Council’s long term and annual financial cycles.

The additional funding sought for the first year (2017-2018) is approximately $36,000. This includes set up cost.

For the second and third years of the Small-scale Management Plan (2018-2020) the funding sought is approximately $36,000 per year ($72,000 for the two years). This will be considered as part of the review of Long Term Plan for 2018-28 period.

The total additional funding sought over the three year life of the Small-scale Management Programme is $110,000. The Council contribution will leverage funds from other parties.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decision to declare a Small-Scale Management Programme has not been done before in Nelson so does have a level of significance in terms of breaking new ground. However in relation to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the level of significance is low-medium in terms of scale and audience.

This decision is one that is made under the Biosecurity Act and responds to a biosecuirity risk that will have economic impacts. Consultation with affected parties is not required should the Council decide to exercise this legal prerogative.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi are represented on the Top of The South Marine Biosecurity Partnership Management Committee. Consultation with Maori has not been undertaken.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering Biosecurity. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.

Planning and Regulatory Committee

25 May 2017

REPORT R7725

Options for Extending Smokefree Policy

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the extension of Council’s smokefree policy.

2. Summary

2.1 During deliberations on the 2016/17 Annual Plan Council resolved to extend its smokefree policy using education and encouragement rather than a regulatory approach. At a supplementary workshop in August 2016 Council asked for a report detailing options for consideration, and focussing on the city centre.

2.2 The current policy, introduced in 2009, provides coverage over Council’s sports fields and playgrounds through signage. This report outlines ways Council can extend its smokefree policy.

3. Recommendation

That the Committee

Receives the report Options for Extending Smokefree Policy (R7725) and its attachment (A1741198).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves extending its smokefree policy to include Council-funded events, and working with partners to promote a smokefree message; and

4. Background

4.1 In 2009, Council resolved to make its sportsgrounds and playgrounds smokefree with smokefree signage rolled out as budgets permitted.

4.2 More recently, through the 2016/17 Annual Plan deliberations Council resolved;

THAT Nelson City Council supports an extension of its Smokefree policy and that Council officers investigate options for expanding Council’s smokefree policy, using education rather than regulatory approaches, and assessing this work against other policy priorities.

4.3 This report has been developed based on guidance provided at the Council workshop in August 2016.

4.4 Further information, including local smoking statistics and legislative obligations, can be found in Attachment 1.

5. Discussion

Bylaws

5.1 At the Council workshop in August, a request was made for further information on bylaw regulation to be presented with the report, to determine whether a bylaw would help improve the effectiveness of Council’s smokefree approach. Key points are noted below.

5.2 Although smokefree bylaws are common overseas, few have been adopted within New Zealand, with councils mainly relying on non-regulatory measures such as public education, and signage.

5.3 A smokefree bylaw would be allowable under the Local Government Act (LGA) which allows councils to make bylaws to: protect the public from nuisance; and protect, promote and maintain public health and safety (section 145). A bylaw would also be allowable under the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, Health Act 1956 and Litter Act 1979.

5.4 However as smoking remains a legal activity in New Zealand, a smokefree bylaw that extends across a broad area or wide range of locations would be difficult to justify, vulnerable to legal challenge and expensive to implement.

5.5 A smokefree bylaw may be warranted in specific areas where there is robust evidence of a problem, for example; second hand smoke inhalation in high density areas such as outdoor dining or areas where children might be in close proximity. However pursuit of smokefree objectives in designated areas could also be achieved through policy or a stand-alone decision.

5.6 Current legislation does not allow a smokefree bylaw to be enforced through the issuing of a fine, but through prosecution of an offender, a legal process which could be considered disproportionate to the breach.

5.7 In summary, a smokefree bylaw may be considered for high density areas, such as outdoor dining if it was determined that this was the most appropriate way of addressing the problem. However enforcement may call into question consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and its principle of reasonableness.

A non-regulatory approach

5.8 Adopting a non-regulatory approach is in alignment with both national and international public health advice which recognises smoking as an addiction requiring a combination of medical and counselling support. This approach is supported by central government’s Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal (see Attachment 1) which emphasises encouragement and support for people to quit.

5.9 Use of a non-regulatory approach relies on the public being well informed and supportive of Council’s smokefree objectives as compliance is voluntary with no enforcement or regulatory measures.

Outdoor dining spaces

5.10 As part of the repealing of the moratorium on the use of public car parking spaces for outdoor dining in June 2016, Council resolved;

AND THAT licensees of outdoor dining spaces be encouraged to make these spaces smokefree.

5.11 Smokefree outdoor dining areas have been introduced across a number of other local authorities, using voluntary (table signage and removal of ashtrays), regulatory (bylaw) or licencing (licences to occupy) approach.

5.12 A licensing approach would see the introduction of a mandatory clause to all new licences, and those upon renewal, to ensure that sites were smokefree. Whereas a voluntary approach would provide businesses with the choice to adopt smokefree outdoor dining.

5.13 The New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre, with support from the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board (NMDHB), is currently leading a smokefree outdoor dining project which draws strongly from the Fresh Air project and has proved to be very successful in Christchurch.

5.14 The project has involved conducting a survey of local cafés in the Nelson and Tasman central business districts on their views on smokefree outdoor dining with the survey’s initial findings reporting that the majority of businesses support the principle of smokefree outdoor dining and a voluntary approach to smokefree policy.

5.15 In response to the survey’s findings, the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre has indicated it would like to facilitate a voluntary smokefree outdoor dining trial in the Nelson city centre and has recently applied to Council’s Community Investment Fund seeking funding support of $3,500 for operational costs for this.

5.16 Decisions on the Community Investment fund will be made by the panel in early July, however the funding round has been significantly oversubscribed by applicants, and as the application does not easily fit with the focus of the fund towards social development, the application is unlikely to be successful.

5.17 As this project is in alignment with Council’s objectives for a smokefree city centre, and Council has expressed an interest in smokefree outdoor dining, officers have brought the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre’s request to Council seeking support for $3,500 unbudgeted funding to ensure the trial goes ahead. This would be a cost effective way to achieve smokefree outdoor dining objectives. If this were approved the project would no longer be considered through the Community Investment Fund.

6. Options for smokefree sites and activity

6.1 Council action can:

6.1.1 Support the goals of Smokefree Aotearoa 2025.

6.1.2 Reduce risk to residents of exposure to second-hand smoke.

6.1.3 Reduce the visibility of smoking and its links to the uptake of smoking among young people.

6.2 In preparation of this report, officers have concentrated on measures that are likely to achieve the greatest outcomes for the resources available.

6.3 A voluntary smokefree approach to events has been informally adopted by Council’s events team. Given the high attendance of families at Council run events and the potential for second-hand smoke inhalation, formalising a consistent smokefree approach at events would progress Council’s objectives.

6.4 The suggestion of smokefree signage options in the centre city was also looked at. This focussed on areas where people gather, and thus are more at risk of second hand smoke, and smoking visibility. These could include bus stops/shelters, and entrance ways of buildings. However the increase in signage to cover all these areas would not be consistent with the principles of the Nelson Resource Management Plan signage policy for a ‘low sign’ environment in the centre city and, on its own, is unlikely to lead to behaviour change.

6.5 Given that events and outdoor dining are high profile activities that consistently attract large numbers of people and where people are gathered over a longer period of time the greatest gains are likely to be made in these areas.

6.6 Options to extend the policy are considered below:

Option 1: Introduction of smokefree at Council funded events and working with partners to support smokefree spaces in the city centre. This is the recommended option.
Advantages	· Low level resourcing required to achieve outcomes · In line with the approach taken by most councils across New Zealand and Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 · Formalises the current (informal) approach to events · Supports behaviour change in a non-threatening way · Continues the approach which has been well received to date in Council sportsfields and playgrounds · Accommodates those wishing to smoke, or in the process of giving up smoking · Includes working with partners to promote the smokefree message · Provide a cost effective approach to smokefree outdoor dining
Risks and Disadvantages	· Signage options would need to meet the principles of the city centre low signage policy · May not satisfy those who want a mandatory approach to smokefree spaces
Option 2: Consideration of a bylaw to support designated smokefree spaces in the centre city
Advantages	· Council’s position on smokefree areas is clear · Council is seen as taking a proactive approach towards the reduction of smoking and protecting the health of residents and visitors · May meet bylaw criteria for high density areas such as alfresco outdoor dining areas and areas frequented by children
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will require a legal opinion to advance · Universal bylaw covering significant parts of the city centre would be hard to justify · May be vulnerable to challenge as a breach of the Bill of Rights Act · Requires a Special Consultative Procedure and all the community and Council resources that involves · In practice, if not enforced, may not provide any more benefits than a voluntary approach
Option 3: Introduction of a mandatory smokefree clause in any combination of Licences to Occupy: outdoor dining on car parking spaces; footpath dining; street stalls
Advantages	· Would provide for smokefree eating in high density areas
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would require a legal opinion to advance · May be unpopular with business owners who anticipate a resulting decline in business · Would require a staged process to implement e.g. to all new licensees and then across existing licence holders upon renewal · May be seen to pre-empt and undermine the smokefree project currently being initiated by the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre and the NMDHB · Would be contrary to the initial views of businesses with outdoor dining who indicated support for a voluntary policy through the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre survey · Would require significant staff resources to develop and implement
Option 4: No changes - maintain the status quo
Advantages	· No further resourcing required
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would not be supported by those who wish to see a reduction in smoking and second hand smoke exposure

7. Conclusion

7.1 Officers recommend option one, which would see the extension of Council smokefree policy to Council funded events and the city centre approach to be non-regulatory and in collaboration with partners.

7.2 Officers recommend that Council approve the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre’s request for $3,500 unbudgeted operational funding to enable a trial of smokefree outdoor dining to be undertaken across the city centre in 2017/18.

Gabrielle Thorpe

Policy Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1741198 - Additional information Smokefree ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

A decision to adopt a non-regulatory approach towards the extension of Council’s smokefree policy would contribute to meeting the needs of current and future communities for safe, healthy public spaces in a low cost manner.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Council’s existing smokefree policy uses an educative approach and the recommendations in this report are consistent with this approach.

They also meet the following Council Community Outcomes;

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

- Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

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

3. Risk

A non-regulatory approach is low risk as it preserves individual choice but pursuing the adoption of a bylaw may expose Council to legal challenge.

4. Financial impact

Resourcing would be required in most of the options noted in the option table. The most expensive option is pursuit of a bylaw which would involve a special consultative procedure, significant staff time and legal advice. Extension of a voluntary approach would be the most cost effective method.

The $3,500 requested from the New Zealand Cancer Society Nelson Centre is currently unbudgeted expenditure and would need to be funded from under-expenditure elsewhere.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations in this report are of low significance because they do not compel behaviour change and are low cost and therefore public engagement has not been undertaken. A view from the Chamber of Commerce and Uniquely Nelson has been sought and they supported an extension of smokefree initiatives across the city centre.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not specifically been consulted in preparation of this report.

7. Delegations

Public health is a delegation of the Planning and Regulatory Committee. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to recommend to Council on the development or review of policies.