image001

 

AGENDA

Ordinary meeting of the

 

Nelson City Council

 

Thursday 8 June 2017

Commencing at 9.00am

Council Chamber

Civic House

110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

 

 

Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Mel Courtney, Bill Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson, Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Mike Rutledge, Tim Skinner and Stuart Walker

 


N-logotype-black-wideNelson City Council

8 June 2017

 

 

Page No.

Opening Prayer

1.       Apologies

Nil

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

The Public Forum speakers are scheduled to attend from 10.20am. Items 5 and 6 will be discussed following Public Forum.

3.       Interests

3.1       Updates to the Interests Register

3.2       Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

4.1       Jackie McNae - Staig and Smith

Jackie McNae, of Staig and Smith, will speak about a Special Housing Area (21 Cherry Avenue) request.

4.2       Mark Lile - Landmark Lile Limited

Mark Lile, of Landmark Lile Limited, will speak about Special Housing Areas (40 Van Diemen Street and 15 Quiet Woman Way) requests.

4.3       Vorstermans Architects

Vorstermans Architects will speak about the Special Housing Area (46-48 Trafalgar Street) request.

4.4       Biddy Myers

Biddy Myers will speak about Special Housing Area (12 Wakapuaka Road).

 

 

4.5       Gwenny Davis

Gwenny Davis will speak about Special Housing Area (12 Wakapuaka Road).

4.6       Camilla Owen

Camilla Owen will speak on behalf of Mr and Mrs Taylor about the Special Housing Area request, Atawhai Downs (12 Wakapuaka Road).

4.7       Mark Morris - Land Dimensions Limited

Mark Morris, of Land Dimensions Limited, will speak about Special Housing Area requests (Bayview, Wastney, Highview and Crown Terrace).         

5.       Public Feedback on Proposed Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road                     9 - 219

Document number R7618

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Public Feedback on Proposed Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road (R7618) and its attachments (A1710163 and A1755380); and

Accepts for consideration the late feedback; and

Considers the public feedback received in determining whether or not to recommend the Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road to the Minister of Building and Construction when making a decision on report R7619 ‘Proposed Special Housing Areas’, 8 June 2017.

 

6.       Proposed Special Housing Areas          220 - 261

Document number R7619

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Proposed Special Housing Areas (R7619) and its attachments (A1757456, A1757451, A1757452, A1757459, A1761074, A1762987, A1763038, A1763054 and A1710163); and

Approves 21 Cherry Avenue (A1757456) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 40 Van Diemen Street (A1757451) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 15 Quiet Woman Way (A1757452) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 46 & 48 Trafalgar Street (A1757459) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Atawhai Drive (Bayview Subdivisions Ltd) (A1761074) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 23 Wastney Terrace/19 Sunnybank Drive(A1762987) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Highview Drive (KB Quarries) (A1763038) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Crown Terrace (KB Quarries) (A1763054) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 12 Wakapuaka Road (A1710163) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves that Her Worship the Mayor recommend those potential areas <……………………………….> to the Minister of Building and Construction for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as amended by the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

 

7.       Mayor's Report                                      262 - 270

Document number R7702

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the Mayor's Report (R7702) and its attachment (A1766221); and

Updates Council’s Delegations Register (A1183061) with an additional bullet point under the Community Services Committee Areas of Responsibility, being ‘Heritage houses and their grounds’ and an additional bullet point under the Sports and Recreation Committee Areas of Responsibility, being ‘Note:  Heritage houses and their grounds are matters for the Community Services Committee’; and

Amends the Chair and Deputy Chair roles of the Works and Infrastructure Committee on a temporary basis, effective immediately and until further notice , as follows: 

Committee

Chair (temporary)

Deputy Chair (temporary)

Works and Infrastructure

Stuart Walker

Paul Matheson

and

Requests the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to provide feedback to the Remuneration Authority on behalf of elected members on the review of Local Government Elected Members Remuneration.

 

8.       Freedom Camping Bylaw proposed for Consultation                                          271 - 387

Document number R7719

Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Freedom Camping Bylaw proposed for Consultation (R7719) and its attachments (A1749074, A1729817, A1748801 and A1761592; and

Confirms that it is satisfied that the proposed Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw meets the requirements of section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011; and

Approves the attached Statement of Proposal (A1761592), which includes the full text of the proposed bylaw (A1749074 and A1729817 ) and the Site Assessment (A1748801), for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure between 14 June 2017 and 14 July 2017; and

Agrees that the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw (A1749074 ) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

Agrees that the full Council will hear and deliberate on submissions from the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw consultation.

  

Public Excluded Business

9.       Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

5

Civic Financial Services Ltd Directors' remuneration and appointments

 

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

     To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

 

10.     Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

That the Council

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

 

 Note:

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

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

 

 

   


 

Council

8 June 2017

 

 

REPORT R7618

Public Feedback on Proposed Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To receive the public feedback on a proposal to establish a Special Housing Area (SHA) at 12 Wakapuaka Road.  The public feedback will be used by Council when making a decision on whether to approve the SHA proposal for recommendation to the Minister of Building and Construction.

1.2       A separate report R7619 ‘Proposed Special Housing Areas’ seeking Council’s decision on the proposal for a SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road will be considered at this Council meeting (8 June 2017).

 

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Public Feedback on Proposed Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road (R7618) and its attachments (A1710163 and A1755380); and

Accepts for consideration the late feedback; and

Considers the public feedback received in determining whether or not to recommend the Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road to the Minister of Building and Construction when making a decision on report R7619 ‘Proposed Special Housing Areas’, 8 June 2017.

 

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1       Council entered into a Housing Accord with the Minister of Building and Housing on 11 June 2015 under HASHAA. 

3.2       In order to meet its obligations under the Housing Accord, especially in relation to targets, Council can consider using Special Housing Areas as a tool under HASHAA.  Under the Accord Council can recommend the creation of Special Housing Areas to the Minister of Building and Construction.

3.3       Officers received a request from the landowner and developer of 12 Wakapuaka Road that part of the property be considered as a SHA.  This SHA is located in the Rural Zone (Low Density Small Holdings) on the edge of the Residential Zone, just north of Clifton Terrace School.  The SHA summary sheet is provided in Attachment 1.

3.4       On the 23 March 2017 Officers reported the SHA request at 12 Wakapuaka Road to Council for consideration.  The advice was that the site is zoned for a type of rural development (albeit relatively high density rural development) and the community may not be anticipating intensive residential development of this site.  The Nelson Housing Accord has a particular focus on enhancing supply in existing residential areas. 

3.5       Officers further advised that approval of a SHA at this location departs from the intention of the Accord and there is a risk that the views of those affected by the decision to establish a SHA have not been considered.  An option to mitigate that risk was to defer consideration of this SHA until after a public feedback process had been undertaken.

3.6       On 23 March 2017 Council resolved to:

Defer approval of 12 Wakapuaka Road (A1710163) subject to a public feedback process to ascertain the views of the community on the proposed SHA with the results reported back to Council.

3.7       Council ran a public feedback process from the 19 April to the 3 May to seek the views of the community on the expression of interest for a SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road.  The public were able to view a map of the SHA and the qualifying development criteria proposed:

•    Buildings in the SHA may have a maximum of two storeys.

•    Buildings in the SHA must not exceed a height of 7.5m.

•    The minimum dwelling or residential capacity of the site is 70 residential lots.

4.       Discussion

          Feedback Received

4.1       Feedback was received from 123 respondents.  Of those, 10 were in support of the SHA, 37 opposed to the proposal, and a further 76 respondents raised issues and/or made comments but did not specify the decision they sought Council to make.

4.2       The feedback received is contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

4.3       One late feedback was received and this is appended to Attachment 2 for Council to consider whether it should be accepted.

5.       Options

5.1       In receiving the feedback Council should use it to inform decision making on the consideration of the proposed SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road.  A report seeking a decision on the proposed SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road will be considered at the 8 June Council meeting.

5.2       The feedback process is not a Special Consultative Procedure under the Local Government Act, and therefore there is no formal hearing.  Council seeks to provide the community with a reasonable opportunity to present their views in a manner appropriate to their preferences (section 82(1)(d) Local Government Act 2002).  Officers understand that some respondents and the applicant may choose to speak to their feedback through public forum.

 

6.       Conclusion

6.1       This report seeks that Council receive and consider the public feedback on the proposal to establish a SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road.  Council is giving consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in the matter.  The public feedback can be used by the Council when making a decision in relation to the proposed SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road.

 

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Infrastructure Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1710163 - SHA Proposal Summary Sheet at 12 Wakapuaka Road

Attachment 2:    A1755380 - Public Feedback on Proposed SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The information contained in this report is consistent with the purpose of local government and provides community feedback in relation to Council’s use of SHAs to seek to achieve an increase in housing supply to meet the current and future needs of the community in a cost effective manner.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report seeks that Council receives the public feedback on the SHA proposal at 12 Wakapuaka Road, no decisions in relation to the feedback are sought.  Receiving feedback aligns with Council’s community outcomes, in particular “Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement’.

3.   Risk

Public feedback on the proposed SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road located in the Rural Zone was sought to mitigate the risks associated with considering a SHA outside the urban area.

4.   Financial impact

There are no financial implications with receiving this report.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

        The proposed SHA in the Rural Zone was assessed under Councils Significance and Engagement Policy as a matter of greater than low significance to some residents, particularly those living near the site, and of more moderate interest to the community as a whole.  The appropriate level of engagement was therefore considered to be a request for public feedback, to seek the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the matter.  This process meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 sections 78 (community views in relation to decisions) and 82 (principles of consultation).

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter

7.   Delegations

No committee of Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and therefore the matter needs to be considered by full Council.

 



 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Council

8 June 2017

 

 

REPORT R7619

Proposed Special Housing Areas

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To consider proposed new Special Housing Areas (SHAs).

1.2       To agree that Her Worship the Mayor recommend to the Minister of Building and Construction, SHAs approved as suitable by Council for consideration under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) as amended by the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

2.       Summary

2.1       This report seeks approval of SHAs at:

·    21 Cherry Avenue

·    40 Van Diemen Street

·    15 Quiet Woman Way

·    46 & 48 Trafalgar Street

·    Atawhai Drive (Bayview Subdivisions Ltd)

·    23 Wastney Terrace/19 Sunnybank Rise

·    Highview Drive (KB Quarries)

·    Crown Terrace (KB Quarries)

·    12 Wakapuaka Road

2.2       The SHA request at 12 Wakapuaka Road was considered by Council at the 23 March Council meeting.  Council resolved to defer a decision until after a public feedback process with the community.  The feedback from that process is contained in report R7618 ‘Public feedback on proposed Special Housing Area at 12 Wakapuaka Road’ for consideration at this Council meeting, 8 June.

2.3       This report provides an analysis of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of all proposed SHAs to be considered, along with identification of the permitted baseline (i.e. what could currently be allowed through the Nelson Resource Management Plan) for each site.  For Wakapuaka SHA this report also provides a summary of the matters raised in public feedback in report R7618.  This information is provided to aid Council’s consideration of the SHAs.  Developers will present concepts for the proposed SHAs at the public forum.

 

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Proposed Special Housing Areas (R7619) and its attachments (A1757456, A1757451, A1757452, A1757459, A1761074, A1762987, A1763038, A1763054 and A1710163); and

Approves 21 Cherry Avenue (A1757456) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 40 Van Diemen Street (A1757451) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 15 Quiet Woman Way (A1757452) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 46 & 48 Trafalgar Street (A1757459) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Atawhai Drive (Bayview Subdivisions Ltd) (A1761074) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 23 Wastney Terrace/19 Sunnybank Drive(A1762987) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Highview Drive (KB Quarries) (A1763038) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves Crown Terrace (KB Quarries) (A1763054) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves 12 Wakapuaka Road (A1710163) as a potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and

Approves that Her Worship the Mayor recommend those potential areas <……………………………….> to the Minister of Building and Construction for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as amended by the Housing Legislation Amendment Act 2016.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       Council entered into a Housing Accord with the Minister of Building and Housing on 11 June 2015 under HASHAA. 

4.2       In order to meet its obligations under the Housing Accord, especially in relation to targets, Council can consider using Special Housing Areas as a tool under HASHAA.  Under the Accord Council can recommend the creation of Special Housing Areas to the Minister of Building and Construction.

4.3       The Nelson Housing Accord was extended until 31 December 2016 to allow the continued processing of resource consents received for the SHAs already gazetted. 

4.4       The Accord was extended a second time, until the 3 August 2017, as not all resource consents were processed by 31 December 2016.

4.5       In report R6937 dated 23 March the Council resolved that the Council:

Confirms that the existing Nelson Housing Accord is extended (with the recommended amendments below) by the Accord Steering Group, with any future amendments being brought back to Council for consideration; and

Confirms that the extended Accord should be drafted or amended to address the following:

·      That the Accord will cover the term that HAHSAA provides for SHA consents to be processed (termination date of 16 September 2021);

·      A preference for the consideration of Special Housing Areas (SHAs) in areas that are either zoned residential, city centre, suburban commercial, or located within the Saxton SHA area where Council has already made SHA recommendations;

·      A preference for the consideration of SHAs to areas where all infrastructure services either exist, or will exist in the short (3 years) or medium term (10 years) and are provided for in the Long Term Plan;

4.6       Officers are working on the amendments to the Accord for discussion by the Accord Steering Group.  The amendments will need to be signed off by the Mayor and Minister of Building and Construction before 3 August, when the current Accord terminates.

4.7       As long as Council is an Accord Authority then proposals for new SHAs can be considered and the processing of existing or future resource consents under HASHAA can occur.

4.8       The purpose of this report is to consider new SHA requests under the current Accord received by Council over the last quarter.

5.       Discussion

5.1       Officers have received requests for further SHAs.  Details of the SHA’s, proposed qualifying development criteria and infrastructure requirements are provided in Attachments 1 to 9.

5.2       The criteria used to evaluate SHA suitability and each sites assessment are also summarised in Attachments 1 to 9, along with a map identifying each area.  The criteria include the HASHAA requirements that need to be satisfied (infrastructure is likely to be provided and that there is demand for residential housing), consistency with the Accord, and alignment with the Nelson Resource Management Plan. 

5.3       A summary of advantages, disadvantages and risks for each proposal is provided in Table 1 below.  Matters for consideration common to all SHA proposals are discussed in the following sections 5.4 to 5.6.

5.4       Some sites already have sufficient infrastructure connections.  Other sites require additional connection and/or capacity to be provided.  Where this isn’t a project in the Long Term Plan (LTP) the necessary infrastructure will need to be provided by the developer at their cost.  Developers are able to seek that projects be included in the LTP and Council can choose to consult with the community on their inclusion via the LTP process.

5.5       Council can choose to require developers to enter into a Deed detailing the specifics of infrastructure requirements that need to be met by the Developer. Officers have evaluated the infrastructure requirements of each SHA and recommend that there is a need for Deeds for this group of SHAs to make clear to developers their responsibility in relation to ensuring sufficient infrastructure capacity/connection to support the development.  A disadvantage with entering into a Deed is that it adds officer time and administration to the SHA process and has legal costs associated with it.  However this is outweighed by the clarity the Deed provides in identifying who is responsible for costs to provide sufficient infrastructure to serve the SHAs.

5.6       Council’s standard Deed template also requires that the approval of the Urban Design Panel is submitted to Council with any resource consent sought under HASHAA.  The Deed specifies that the costs of the urban design panel approval process are passed on to the applicant.

 

Table 1:  SHA Advantages, Risks and Disadvantages and the Permitted Baseline that applies under the NRMP

21 Cherry Avenue

Advantages

The landowner is able to develop the site and increase housing supply based on the additional density and non-notification presumption provided for by the SHA.  Therefore enabling an economically viable development of the site to occur, and of a density more appropriate to the site than as currently developed.

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved a development proposal of this density on this site may not proceed under the RMA, and the community may not benefit from the additional residential supply in this location.

Permitted baseline

Nine residential dwellings can be erected on site with a minimum site area of 400m2, up to a maximum height of 7.5m with 40% coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.

40 Van Diemen Street

Advantages

The landowner is able to develop the site and increase housing supply based on the additional density and non-notification presumption provided for by the SHA.  Therefore enabling an economically viable development of the site to occur, and of a density more appropriate to the city location than what the NRMP currently provides for with its low density provisions.  Development of this site contributes to Council’s outcomes for residential living in and around the city centre.

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved a development proposal of this density on this site may not proceed under the RMA, and the community may not benefit from the provision of additional residential supply in this city location in the immediate future.

Permitted baseline

Two residential dwellings can be erected on site with a minimum site area of 600m2, up to a maximum height of 7.5m with 30% coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.

15 Quiet Woman Way

Advantages

The landowner is able to develop the site and increase housing supply and choice based on the additional density and non-notification presumption provided for by the SHA.  Therefore enabling an economically viable development of the site to occur, and of a density more appropriate to the site and its location close to shops, schools and services than that which the NRMP provides for with its low density provisions. 

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved a development proposal of this density on this site may not proceed under the RMA, and the community may not benefit from the additional residential supply in this location.

Permitted baseline

One residential dwelling can be erected on site with a minimum site area of 600m2, up to a maximum height of 7.5m with 30% coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.

46 & 48 Trafalgar Street

Advantages

The landowner is able to develop the site and increase housing supply based on the additional density and non-notification presumption provided for by the SHA.  Therefore enabling an economically viable development of the site to occur, and of a density appropriate to the city location and that provided for by its high density zoning in the NRMP.  Development of this site contributes to Council’s outcomes for residential living in and around the city centre.

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved a development proposal of this density on this site may not proceed under the RMA, and the community may not benefit from the provision of additional residential supply in this city location in the immediate future.

Permitted baseline

Five residential dwellings can be erected on site with a minimum site area of 300m2, up to a maximum height of 7.5m with 40% site coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries.

 

Atawhai Drive (Bayview Subdivisions Ltd)

Advantages

The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA. 

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved, the land is likely to be developed under the RMA process and the stand residential development provisions of the NRMP.

Permitted Baseline

One dwelling per 400m2 can be erected on this site (subject to geotechnical and landscape provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries. 

23 Wastney Terrace/19 Sunnybank Drive

Advantages

The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA.  Part of the site is zoned Rural Small Holdings, gazettal as a SHA will enable a greater density to be developed.

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved, the land is likely to be developed under the RMA process.

Permitted Baseline

One dwelling per 400m2 can be erected on this site (subject to geotechnical and landscape provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries. 

Highview Drive (KB Quarries)

Advantages

The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved, the land is likely to be developed under the RMA process and the standard residential development provisions of the NRMP.

Permitted Baseline

One dwelling per 400m2 can be erected on this site (subject to geotechnical and landscape provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries. 

Crown Terrace (KB Quarries)

Advantages

The developer is afforded the fast track consent process and non-notification presumption provided for by the HASHAA. 

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved, the land is likely to be developed under the RMA process and the standard residential development provisions of the NRMP.

Permitted Baseline

One dwelling per 400m2 can be erected on this site (subject to geotechnical, landscape and infrastructure provisions), up to a maximum of 7.5m in height with 40% site coverage.  Daylight controls are required from all adjoining residential zone boundaries. 

Summary of Public Feedback on 12 Wakapuaka Road

5.7       Council ran a public feedback process from 19 April 2017 to 3 May 2017 to seek the views of the community on the expression of interest for a SHA at 12 Wakapuaka Road.  Feedback was received from 123 respondents.  Of those, 10 were in support of the SHA, 37 opposed to the proposal, and a further 76 respondents raised issues and/or made comments but did not specify the decision they sought Council to make.

5.8       The bulk of the matters raised can be summarised into the following topics:

 

·          Process issues – concern over the HASHAA process versus the RMA plan change process and the role of public participation in decision making.

·          Affordability – concern over whether HASHAA or the proposal will assist with housing affordability.

·          Urban sprawl versus intensification of existing urban areas.

·          Concern regarding the ability of existing transport and network services to support the development of the site.

·          Vehicle, pedestrian and cycle safety in the area.

·          Flooding and drainage issues on the lower part of the site and proximity to the coastal environment.

·          Geotechnical issues with the site and stability of the area

·          Effects on Clifton Terrace School.

·          Effects on biodiversity, ecology and rural open space and amenity.

5.9       Matters in relation to transport and other infrastructure networks, and any need for any works to be undertaken to support the development of the site, are considered at the resource consent stage of the development.  Council’s standard Deed template sets out that the developer will be responsible for any costs associated with any upgrading or extension of the network required to achieve Council’s safety and engineering standards.  This will include any works required on Ellendale Street, Allisdair Street, Tresillian Avenue and the State Highway. The New Zealand Transport Agency will be involved in specifying requirements at the resource consent stage.

5.10     The resource consent process under HASHAA is also the time at which issues in relation to flooding, slope stability/geotechnical, ecological and coastal environment issues would be addressed.

5.11     The Ministry of Education has been consulted in regards to the SHAs proposed in this report.  They have advised that they would expect an increase of forty year 1 to 6 children at Clifton Terrace School if SHAs at Wakapuaka, Bayview and Wastney Terrace are approved.  The Ministry of Education would seek funding for government for additional capacity to accommodate this.  They have not raised any other issues in relation to the Wakapuaka SHA proposal.

5.12     Matters in relation to the planning process, affordability and the urban boundary or limit have been addressed by Parliament in introducing the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act.  It was provided specifically to streamline process, address affordability through housing supply, and override urban metropolitan limits.

5.13     There are no matters raised by the public feedback on Wakapuaka SHA that are fatal to its consideration by Council for recommendation as a SHA to the Minister of Building and Constriction.

 

Table 1 continued:  SHA Advantages, Risks and Disadvantages and the Permitted Baseline that applies under the NRMP

12 Wakapuaka Road

Advantages

The developer is able to develop this Lower Density Small Holdings Zoned site to a residential density based on the higher density and non-notification presumption provided for by HASHAA.  Therefore enabling the developer to bring the supply of 80 residential lots to the market more efficiently than pursuing a resource consent and/or plan change under the RMA.  The site is located on the edge of the existing urban area, close to schools and transport routes (including pedestrian and cycle links) and is part of a low density small holdings area that extends to the north, and around into Todds Bush Road and Little Todd Valley Road and is able to integrate with the existing residential zone.

Risks and Disadvantages

If the SHA is not approved a development proposal of this density on this site may take many years to proceed under the RMA, and the community will not benefit from the short term supply of 80 residential allotments. The Nelson Housing Accord has a particular focus on enhancing supply in existing residential areas, however this site is on the edge of the residential zone, is able to be serviced and is close to schools and transport networks.  Council has undertaken a public feedback process and is able to consider the views of the community in making a decision on this SHA request.

Permitted baseline

This site is located in the Lower Density Small Holdings Zone where the following is permitted:

•      One dwelling per 3ha (the site is 12ha)

•      10m setback from boundaries

•      Maximum building height of 12m

•      A maximum of 250m2 of impervious surfaces

•      Industrial or commercial activities less than 300m2

6.       Options

6.1       Council has the option of approving these SHA’s for recommendation to the Minister, or declining to recommend them to the Minister. 

6.2       If Council decides to approve any SHA proposals in this report, it is recommended that they all be subject to entering into a Deed to ensure that the developer acknowledges that the costs and responsibility of providing appropriate and sufficient infrastructure connection and capacity to the sites is to be borne by the developer, unless it is a project included in Council’s LTP.

6.3       If Council approves the SHAs in this report then they will yield approximately a further 332 residential units, on top of the already approved 469 residential units under HASHAA.  The March 2017 round of SHA’s have yet to be gazetted, their yield is estimated to be 107 residential units.

7.       Conclusion

7.1       Officers have received requests for SHAs to be approved at 21 Cherry Avenue, 40 Van Diemen Street, 15 Quiet Woman Way, 46 & 48 Trafalgar Street, Atawhai drive (Bayview Subdivisions Ltd), 23 Wastney Terrace/19 Sunnybank Drive, Highview drive (KB Quarries), Crown Terrace (KB Quarries) and 12 Wakapuaka Road.

7.2       Council as an Accord Territorial Authority is able to consider these requests for recommendation to the Minister of Building and Construction.

7.3       Officers have evaluated the requests in accordance with HASHAA and Nelson Housing Accord intentions and commitments, and provided recommendations accordingly.

 

Lisa Gibellini

Senior Infrastructure Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1757456 - SHA 21 Cherry Avenue

Attachment 2:    A1757451 - SHA 40 Van Diemen Street

Attachment 3:    A1757452 - SHA 15 Quiet Woman Way

Attachment 4:    A1757459 - SHA 46 & 48 Trafalgar Street

Attachment 5:    A1761074 - SHA Bayview

Attachment 6:    A1762987 - SHA Wastney Terrace 

Attachment 7:    A1763038 - SHA Highview 

Attachment 8:    A1763054 - SHA Crown Terrace 

Attachment 9:    A1710163 -  SHA 12 Wakapuaka Road

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in this report are consistent with the purpose of local government and directly seek to achieve an increase in housing supply to meet the current and future needs of the community in a cost effective manner.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations align with the direction set by Council for SHA’s at the 17 December 2015, 3 March 2016, 2 June 2016, 16 & 30 June 2016, 15 December 2016 and 23 March 2017 Council meetings and the Nelson Housing Accord.  The recommendations are also consistent with achieving greater housing choice goals sought through Council’s Strategic documents, especially the strategic outcomes driving the Nelson Plan review.

3.   Risk

HASHAA, SHAs and Nelson Housing Accord provide an opportunity for Council to facilitate residential development in urban areas that are otherwise not occurring due to economic viability and process issues.  If SHAs recommended in this report are not approved then there is a risk that development of those sites is not enabled, and the goal of furthering the supply of residential units as part of the Housing Accord is not met.  If SHAs recommended as suitable in this report are approved without the recommended Deed, then there is a risk that development occurs on an individual site basis requiring Council to fund and retrofit infrastructure and open space networks in the future.  The purpose of the Deed is to mitigate this risk.

4.   Financial impact

All infrastructure required to serve the SHAs is to be provided by the developer, unless it is a project that is scheduled in the Long Term Plan and funded via Development Contributions.  Deeds are recommended to be entered into for all SHAs to be approved so that the financial impact of infrastructure requirements not being met by Council is clear to developers.

There is also significant officer time involved in processing SHA approvals, liaising with developers and MBIE, and further assisting in investigating infrastructure requirements.  Additional staff resourcing has been sought through the Annual Plan.  All costs of the processing of SHA resource consent applications will be funded by the applicant.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance because it does not significantly impact the community. The SHAs recommended in this report are all located in existing zoned residential, city fringe where development of the site is anticipated by the community. For the SHA proposed at 12 Wakapuaka Road in the Rural Low Density Zone this has a higher level of significance than low to medium because the community would not necessarily anticipate development of that site under the intentions set out in the Nelson Housing Accord.  Council have sought public feedback on that proposal to provide those who may be affected with an opportunity to have their views heard prior to considering the SHA. 

The establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will result in subsequent resource consent applications under HASHAA for such development, and at that time engagement with adjacent landowners will occur if Council’s regulatory arm considers that they are affected.   Overall, the establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will assist with increasing housing supply in Nelson which will be of benefit to the wider community.  

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

7.   Delegations

No committee of Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and therefore the matter needs to be considered by full Council.

 

 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 

Council

8 June 2017

 

 

REPORT R7702

Mayor's Report

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To update Council on a number of matters.

 

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the Mayor's Report (R7702) and its attachment (A1766221); and

Updates Council’s Delegations Register (A1183061) with an additional bullet point under the Community Services Committee Areas of Responsibility, being ‘Heritage houses and their grounds’ and an additional bullet point under the Sports and Recreation Committee Areas of Responsibility, being ‘Note:  Heritage houses and their grounds are matters for the Community Services Committee’; and

Amends the Chair and Deputy Chair roles of the Works and Infrastructure Committee on a temporary basis, effective immediately and until further notice , as follows: 

Committee

Chair (temporary)

Deputy Chair (temporary)

Works and Infrastructure

Stuart Walker

Paul Matheson

and

Requests the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to provide feedback to the Remuneration Authority on behalf of elected members on the review of Local Government Elected Members Remuneration.

 

 

 

2.       Discussion

Mayor’s Discretionary Fund

2.1       The Mayor donated $1,000 from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund to Nayland College as a contribution towards supporting a youth event showcasing youth dance by students from Nayland College, Garin College, Waimea College and Motueka High School.  The event took place on Saturday 27 May.  The money was put towards the cost of sound and lighting.  This event took place in lieu of the Nelson Stage Challenge show which was cancelled by the Stage Challenge Foundation one month before the show was to take place.  It was an opportunity for those who prepared to participate at Stage Challenge to put their hard work into practice.  The Mayor of Tasman District Council also contributed $1,000 from his Mayoral Discretionary Fund to this event

2.2       The Mayor donated $1,000 from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund to Illuminate 2017 as a contribution towards three prizes to incentivise artists for their time and involvement in making window displays for the Illuminate 2017 Festival.  It is expected that the window displays will attract more people to the CBD to attend the Festival and view the artists’ work.  The Festival will run from 13 July to 17 August. Uniquely Nelson are also contributing towards the prizes. 

2.3       The Mayor donated $400 from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund to the Nelson Community Patrol as a contribution towards fuel running costs for the month of June 2017.

Congratulations to Nelson Airport Contractors

2.4       Congratulations to Fulton Hogan, Gibbons Construction and Naylor Love who have been awarded the contract to construct the impressive new Nelson Airport Facility.  As partners, the local divisions of these companies have been able to offer unrivalled expertise in the delivery of critical infrastructure projects.  In an outstanding example of collaborating to compete, they have won the work and their success is a great thing for the region.

3.       Decision

Update to Delegations Register

3.1       The Chairperson of the Community Services Committee has raised a request that all matters relating to heritage houses and their grounds be dealt with by the Community Services Committee.

3.2       Currently matters relating to heritage houses and their grounds sit across the Community Services Committee (heritage facilities) delegations and the Sports and Recreation Committee (parks and reserves) delegations.  This has resulted in matters relating to heritage houses requiring the involvement of two committee chairs or, in the case of officer reports, being considered by full Council.  This is not considered an efficient use of governance time, and is cumbersome for those in the community who manage these facilities.

3.3       It is proposed that Council’s Delegations Register be updated with additional bullet points as follows:

2.1.1    Under the Community Services Committee Areas of Responsibility, ‘Heritage houses and their grounds’; and

2.1.2    Under the Sports and Recreation Committee Areas of Responsibility, ‘Note:  Heritage houses and their grounds are matters for the Community Services Committee’.

Works and Infrastructure Committee Chair Temporary Position Change

3.4       There is a temporary need to assist the Deputy Mayor with workloads. 

3.5       One of the Deputy Mayor’s roles is that of Works and Infrastructure Committee Chair.  It proposed that Councillor Walker, Deputy Chair of the Works and Infrastructure Committee, step into the role of Chair on a temporary basis.  The Deputy Mayor will fill the role of Deputy Chair of the Committee. 

3.6       This will assist with the Deputy Mayor with his workload and provide a training opportunity for Councillor Walker, who has expressed interest in further developing his chairing skills. 

3.7       The change is proposed on a temporary basis, at the conclusion of which a further recommendation will be brought to Council. 

3.8       The Deputy Committee Chair position description includes the requirement to be able to deputise effectively for the Committee Chair, should that need arise.  As a temporary position change is in line with this requirement, it is not necessary to alter Council’s Delegations Register or other governing documents to reflect the change.

3.9       With the agreement of the parties involved, during the temporary change period there will be no change to remuneration.

Review of Local Government Elected Members Remuneration - Consultation Document

3.10     In early May, elected members were asked to provide feedback to the Mayor on a consultation document from the Remuneration Authority regarding Local Government Elected Members Remuneration.  The consultation document set out a number of proposed changes to the way elected members are remunerated, for implementation in the new determination on 1 July 2017.  Feedback to the Mayor was due by 8 June 2017.

3.11     It is proposed that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor consider elected members’ feedback and provide a response to the Remuneration Authority on behalf of all elected members.

Rachel Reese

Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1766221 - Proposed Update to Delegations Register - Community Services and Sports and Recreation Committees

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The decisions in this report assist Council to provide its infrastructure and public services, and perform its regulatory functions, in as efficient and effective a manner as possible.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decisions in this report assist Council to achieve its community outcomes and policy goals, by providing clear direction regarding how the decision and activities of Council are implemented and managed. 

3.   Risk

The decisions of this report are of low risk, and assists in ensuring that Council’s meeting Chairmanship and decisions are implemented in a clear and consistent manner. 

4.   Financial impact

There are no direct budgetary consequences related to the decisions in this report.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

These matters are of low significance.  They relate to the adoption of a procedural governance document, and a temporary change in committee structure, that support implementation of the activities and decisions of Council.  Therefore, no public engagement is required.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

There is no requirement to include Māori in this decision-making process.

7.   Delegations

The decisions in this report are the responsibility of Council.

 

 



 


 


 


 

Council

8 June 2017

 

 

REPORT R7719

Freedom Camping Bylaw proposed for Consultation

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1       To approve the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw for consultation.

2.       Summary

2.1       The Council has determined that Nelson requires a more specific regulatory regime to manage freedom camping in the City. Council determined on 23 March 2017 that a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was the most appropriate and proportionate regulatory method to complement other methods of management.

2.2       On 4 May 2017 Council confirmed the direction of the draft Site Assessment and Bylaw schedules with amendments, as the basis for developing a Bylaw.

2.3       The draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw and revised Site Assessment has been prepared.

2.4       Under section 11(5) of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, a proposed Bylaw must be consulted on using the special consultative procedure as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and as modified by section 86 of that Act.

2.5       It is recommended that the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw be approved for consultation with the community.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Freedom Camping Bylaw proposed for Consultation (R7719) and its attachments (A1749074, A1729817, A1748801 and A1761592; and

Confirms that it is satisfied that the proposed Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw meets the requirements of section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011; and

Approves the attached Statement of Proposal (A1761592), which includes the full text of the proposed bylaw (A1749074 and A1729817) and the Site Assessment (A1748801), for consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure between 14 June 2017 and 14 July 2017; and

Agrees that the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw (A1749074 and A1729817) is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

Agrees that the full Council will hear and deliberate on submissions from the draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw consultation.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1       Nelson has experienced significant growth in the numbers of freedom campers coming to the area over recent years.  This is putting pressure on community infrastructure and the environment.

4.2       In 2016 Council undertook a strategic review of issues and options for managing freedom camping and a report with recommendations was received by Council on 23 March 2017. The strategic review identified that the present regulatory regime (utilising the Nelson Resource Management Plan [NRMP], Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and the Reserves Act) was not sufficiently robust to manage the freedom camping issues facing the City. The development of a specific bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act was recommended to manage freedom camping issues such as:

·   Length of stay of motorhomes and campervans in the city at a site

·   Hours of overnighting

·   Locations for non-self-contained and self-contained vehicles

·   Prohibitions or restrictions of freedom camping on reserves

4.3       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act) requires Council to be satisfied that a bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area.  On 23 March 2017, Council received the Strategic Review and, having considered the issues and options, resolved:

That the Council:

Determines, in accordance with Section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing freedom camping issues to complement a range of other non-regulatory approaches; and

Instructs the Chief Executive to prepare a draft Freedom Camping Bylaw with a view to it being adopted before the 2017/18 summer season.

4.4       The Act also requires Council to be satisfied that the bylaw is necessary for 1 or more of the following purposes:

a)         To protect the area;
b)         To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area;
c)         To protect access to the area.

4.5       On 4 May 2017 Council considered a Site Assessment and draft Bylaw schedules to give guidance to the drafting of this proposed Bylaw. The draft Site Assessment evaluates potential freedom camping sites across the City in accordance with the three criteria above (section 4.4 of this report and section 11 of the Act). The methodology is considered current best practice within local government. It was resolved:

That the Council

Confirms the direction of the draft Site Assessment and accompanying schedules (as amended).

4.6       A draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw (Attachment 1) has now been prepared under the s.11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to provide the Council with powers to control freedom camping in the city.

4.7       In making any bylaw under the Act, Council must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) and as modified by section 86 of that Act. This report presents the information required to meet the requirements of sections 83 and 86 of the LGA.

4.8       The Freedom Camping Act 2011 also requires Council to be satisfied that any bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). This matter is covered in this report.

4.9       It is proposed that the new bylaw be named the Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw and that a special consultative procedure will be conducted on the draft bylaw between 14 June 2017 and 14 July 2017. It is intended that a bylaw will be confirmed by 21 September 2017, to allow time for implementation for the peak tourist season.

5.       Discussion

5.1       Council has already determined that a bylaw is appropriate and has considered the Site Assessment which forms the basis of the draft bylaw’s schedules.

5.2       Council now needs to confirm the draft bylaw for consultation.

          The Draft Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw

5.3       The underlying policy intent of the draft bylaw, which has been developed following the strategic review in 2016 and the Site Assessment, can be expressed as:

·   Freedom Camping in non-self-contained vehicles is prohibited throughout the City.

·   In the local authority areas identified in Schedule 1, all freedom camping (including self-contained vehicles) is prohibited. This includes a central city zone.

·   In the local authority areas identified in Schedule 2, freedom camping in self-contained vehicles and some tenting is permitted in accordance with the restrictions specified in the bylaw and that schedule.

·   In all other local authority areas including roads, freedom camping is permitted in self-contained vehicles only. The general provisions of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and all relevant provisions of other legislation and regulations still apply to these areas.

·   Council has the ability to open temporary sites or to temporarily close sites to freedom campers for stated reasons.

5.4       It is noted that State Highways are Crown owned and are not covered by any Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw. NZTA has been asked to clarify its approach and a verbal update will be given at the meeting.

          Legal Considerations

5.5       Under section 11 of the Act, the Council may only make a freedom camping bylaw if it is satisfied that:

·   the bylaw is necessary to protect the area, or to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, or to protect access to the area;

·   the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area;

·   the bylaw is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5.6       Each of these legal requirements is considered below.


Necessary for specified purpose

5.7       It is assessed that the prohibitions and restrictions in the proposed bylaw are necessary for the purposes identified in section 11 of the Act. 

5.8       The site assessment document (Attachment 2) includes the detailed assessment of why the proposed prohibitions or restrictions are considered necessary for one or more of the specified purposes for each area. Each site has been assessed under the criteria set out in the Act (reproduced in section 4.4 of this report). Council considered and amended these areas on 4 May 2017.

5.9       An additional central city area is recommended for inclusion in Schedule 1. This area is busy during the day and in evenings and the on street parking supports hospitality and retail businesses. If these areas were used for Freedom Camping, access to the area for locals and visitors would be compromised.
   

Appropriate and proportionate

5.10     It is assessed that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the problems associated with freedom camping in the Nelson City Council area for reasons including:

·   The current regulatory regime including the Resource Management Act 19916, the NRMP, Reserves Act 1977 and Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw is inadequate to effectively regulate freedom camping;

·   A bylaw under the Act enables the Council to specifically regulate freedom camping issues on an area by area basis;

·   A bylaw under the Act provides certainty and clear direction for visitors and residents;

·   The proposed bylaw strikes a reasonable balance between providing for freedom camping and protecting the environment, the health and safety of people and public access.

5.11     In determining that the prohibitions and restrictions under the proposed bylaw are the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the problems associated with freedom camping in the affected areas, it is noted that:

·   In relation to the areas identified as prohibited and restricted in Schedules 1 and 2, a range of options have been considered in accordance with the criteria in the Freedom Camping Act;

·   Council considered making some areas available for freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles. However, any site without ablutions poses risks to health and safety of people in that site and is also likely to negatively impact on the area where the camping is taking place.  Where public toilets are provided by Council, they have not been designed to support camping activities, particularly those associated with campers who have no on-board facilities. Council found no suitable location in its area other than campgrounds to support non self-contained freedom campers.  Other forms of freedom camping continue to be provided for. The proposed bylaw also enables Council to provide temporary sites for freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles associated with one-off events if appropriate;

·   Council considered the extent of the central city zone where any freedom camping is proposed to be prohibited. It believes that the zone identified strikes a reasonable balance between the protection of the central city area and accessibility to that area by campers in self-contained vehicles in some locations.


New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

5.12     The NZBORA affirms, protects and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand. These include rights in relation to life and security of the person, democratic and civil rights, and non-discrimination and minority rights.

5.13     The Council is satisfied that the proposed bylaw is consistent with the NZBORA.  The proposed bylaw only seeks to impose justifiable and reasonable limits on people in the interests of reducing the impacts of freedom camping on the natural environment, public health and public access. 

          Special Consultative Procedure

5.14     The proposed new bylaw must be consulted on using the Special Consultative Procedure. This requires Council to prepare a Statement of Proposal. Council can also prepare, if considered on reasonable grounds necessary for public understanding, a summary of information. This has not been deemed necessary in this case as the Statement of Proposal clearly sets out the relevant information.

5.15     The Statement of Proposal is attached (attachment 3) and contains a summary of the proposed bylaw, the full text of the proposed bylaw, the reasons for the proposed bylaw and Council determinations on legal requirements under section 11 of the Act. The Statement of Proposal also explains how interested parties may make their views known to Council (submissions); specifies the consultation period (not less than 1 month), and informs submitters that there is a right to be heard.

5.16     A public notice will be placed in the press, and information will also be placed on the Nelson City Council website.

          Enforcement

5.17     Council should only introduce a bylaw if it is prepared to enforce it. However the costs of enforcement of the bylaw are not accurately known. Queenstown’s expenditure was $80,000 gross in the 2015/16 financial year and is projected to be around $85,000 in 2016/17. If Council were to pass the bylaw, it would be prudent to include $100,000 in the final version of the 2017/18 Annual Plan, for implementation and enforcement costs. It is likely that the net cost to Council of enforcement will decrease in future years.

5.18     The success of fine recovery rates differ, there was a reported 40% recovery in Christchurch City in the 2016/17 year. However the recovery of fines was 77% in Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) in the period July 2016 to March 2017. Enforcement and payment systems seem to be significant in determining the success of fee recovery. TCDC recovered $113,863 over the same period. That council’s costs are not separated out for the Freedom Camping activity.

5.19     Once the bylaw is in force, Council will not be able to amend schedules (of areas where freedom camping is prohibited or restricted) without using the Special Consultative Procedure.

5.20     Adopting a bylaw does not mean that all breaches of a bylaw will cease. Most members of the public respect reasonable regulatory provisions, however sometimes the full force of the enforcement process is required. This can mean prosecution in the District Court. There is an infringement regime for breach of bylaws.

5.21     The bylaw needs to be accompanied by a range of information and signage approaches. Council has already signalled that it will also use non-regulatory approaches (e.g. signage and digital information) to manage freedom camping in the area.

          Proposed City Amenity Bylaw

5.22     The proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw differs from the proposed City Amenity Bylaw as that focusses on a wider suite of issues that are specific to the City Centre (Inner City, City Fringe and Suburban Commercial Zones) e.g. Managing risk of damage, ensuring space for pedestrians, controlling obstructions of window displays, and the installation of under veranda lighting.

6.       Options

6.1       The draft bylaw has been prepared to confirm the regulatory approach to managing freedom camping in Nelson City, in combination with other approaches including information and signage. A key consideration for Council is the degree of restrictions on non-self-contained vehicles. The public consultation process gives the opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to the issues raised.

6.2       The following represent the options available to the Council. Note that the status quo is not discussed. The reason is that the 2016 strategic review highlighted the lack of an effective regulatory framework to address issues which arise.

 

Option 1: Adopt the draft Bylaw (with any minor amendments) for consultation

Advantages

·   Confirms current Council direction on regulatory approach

·   Gives community the opportunity to have its say on the bylaw

·   If adopted, the bylaw will enable Council to better manage freedom camping issues.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   The consultation process will require staff resources and councillor time

·   The adoption of a new bylaw does not guarantee that the problems will cease and Council may be required to take further action in response to breaches of the bylaw.

Option 2: Request substantive changes to the draft Bylaw

Advantages

·    Allows Council to be clear in its direction

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Impact on timing and eventual adoption and implementation of the bylaw

·    Additional staff resource and governance time required to redraft the bylaw and its schedules

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1       The draft Bylaw has been prepared to explore the right regulatory approach to managing freedom camping in Nelson City, in combination with other approaches including information and signage. The public consultation process gives the opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to the issues raised.

Chris Ward

Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Attachment 1:    A1749074 - Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw - June 2017

Attachment 2:    A1729817 Schedule 3: Maps

Attachment 3:    A1748801 - Freedom Camping Bylaw - Site Assessment June 2017

Attachment 4:    A1761592 - Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw - Statement of Proposal June 2017   

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report is aimed at allowing the local community to engage in an issue which has generated considerable public interest for several years. It enables Council to build this public input into its decision-making.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Council seeks to arrive at a balanced strategy which deals with the negative effects of freedom camping whilst maintaining the City as a popular destination and embracing of visitors.  This contributes to the community outcomes: Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected; Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed; and Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

3.   Risk

The main risk of this Bylaw is in its approach to non-self-contained vehicles. This approach may open the Council to challenge. This may be further addressed through the consultation process.

4.   Financial impact

The impacts of implementing any Bylaw and managing the sites identified in the Site Assessment are not accurately known, but the costs for the Queenstown Freedom Camping Bylaw in the 2016/17 year are estimated to be $85,000 gross. Provision of $100,000 has been made within the draft Annual Plan for implementation and enforcement.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

The degree of significance to Nelson is medium, although the public concern at the issue continues to increase. Nelson will continue to grow as a tourist destination meaning that these pressures will not likely reduce. For the sustainability of community tolerance with tourism, the issue must be addressed. Due to the legal significance of this Bylaw, its engagement must be to the whole community and interested stakeholders, through a Special Consultative Procedure.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been consulted in the preparation of this report, however the Site Assessment notes the reserves of iwi significance and iwi history. The scoring regime took into this into account. Public consultation will welcome further input from Māori into the issue.

7.   Delegations

On 13 April 2017, the Planning and Regulatory Committee referred to Council all powers of that Committee relating to a Freedom Camping Bylaw. Therefore, this is a matter for full Council.