AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Planning and Regulatory Committee
Thursday 23 November 2017
Commencing at 9.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillor Brian McGurk (Co-Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Bill Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Stuart Walker and Ms Glenice Paine
Guidelines for councillors attending the meeting, who are not members of the Committee, as set out in Standing Order 12.1:
· All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings
· At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.
· Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee
It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda. They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.
Planning and Regulatory
Committee
23 November 2017
Nil
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
Document number M2976
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 3 October 2017, as a true and correct record.
6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 23 November 2017 19 - 23
Document number R8713
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 (R8713) and its attachment (A1736802).
8. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July - 30 September 2017 24 - 58
Document number R8196
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July - 30 September 2017 (R8196) and its attachments (A1809078, A1849355); and
Accepts the Nelson Plan Overview of Workshop Recommendations and Direction in Attachment 2 to Report R7917 (A1849355).
9. Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 59 - 70
Document number R8600
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R8600) and its attachment (A1848805); and
Approves amendments detailed in the report R8600 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, parking and Vehicle Control (2011) :
· Schedule 4: Time limited parking
· Schedule 9: No Stopping.
10. Compliance Strategy 71 - 89
Document number R8673
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Compliance Strategy (R8673) and its attachment (A1855717)
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the Compliance Strategy 2017 to guide staff and contractors in the exercise of enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council.
11. National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Report 90 - 111
Document number R8477
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Report June 2017 (R8477) and its attachment A1852986; and
Agrees to the report being circulated to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and placed on Council’s website.
12. Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 112 - 115
Document number R8668
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (R8668).
13. Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pests Management Plan 116 - 119
Document number R8696
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pests Management Plan (R8696); and
Agrees a submission be prepared on behalf of Council so that pest management issues for Nelson City are fully considered.
14. Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft 120 - 146
Document number R8704
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:
Receives the report Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft (R8704) and its attachment (A1861351); and
Approves the draft Nelson Biodiversity Strategy 2017-2020 in principle.
15. Nelson Plan Resourcing 147 - 155
Document number R8520
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Receives the report Nelson Plan Resourcing (R8520) and its attachment (A1858783).
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Allocates an additional unbudgeted $600,000 for the development of the Nelson Plan in the 2017/2018 financial year; and
Notes that some increases in the 2017/2018 financial year will be offset by reducing budget projections for 2018/2019 by $300,000 and savings in consultant costs by employing an additional staff member and as recruitment of vacancies is achieved.
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
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) |
|
1 |
Planning and Regulatory Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 3 October 2017 |
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
2 |
Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - Public Excluded - 23 November 2017
|
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
3 |
Options for Regulatory Services from 1 July 2018
|
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)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(j) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage |
17. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Re-admits the public to the meeting.
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Tuesday 3 October 2017, commencing at 9.03am
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillor B McGurk (Co-Chairperson), Councillors I Barker, B Dahlberg, K Fulton and S Walker
In Attendance: Councillor M Rutledge, Strategy and Environment Group Manager (C Barton), and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)
Apologies: Councillor L Acland and Ms G Paine
1. Apologies
|
Resolved PR/2017/043 That the Committee Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Acland and Ms G Paine for attendance. Her Worship the Mayor/Walker Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
Her Worship the Mayor advised of one late item for the public part of the meeting, and that the following resolution needed to be passed for the item to be considered:
2.1
|
Resolved PR/2017/044 That the Committee Considers the item regarding Co-Chairperson’s Report at this meeting as a major item not on the agenda, pursuant to Section 46A(7)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to enable planning documents currently in preparation to be informed by the Biodiversity Challenge Report. Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton Carried |
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.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 27 July 2017
Document number M2772, agenda pages 9 - 14 refer.
|
Resolved PR/2017/045 That the Committee Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 27 July 2017, as a true and correct record. McGurk/Walker Carried |
6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 3 October 2017
Document number R8447, agenda pages 15 - 18 refer.
The importance of keeping elected members up to date with all issues was noted and Councillor Barker requested that Marine and Coastal Act matters be included in the status report or appropriate report.
|
Resolved PR/2017/046 That the Committee Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 3 October 2017 (R8447) and its attachment (A1736802). Barker/Walker Carried |
|
Resolved PR/2017/047 That the Committee Directs the Group Manager Strategy and Environment to provide regular updates to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on the Marine and Coastal Areas Act process via the status report or appropriate report. Barker/Walker Carried |
7. Co-Chairperson's Report
Document number R8504, late items agenda pages 2 - 8 refer.
|
Resolved PR/2017/048 That the Committee Receives the Co-Chairperson's Report (R8504) and its attachment (A1840306) and notes its contents; and Notes the Biodiversity Challenge Report highlights five required shifts in biodiversity management to support regional council efforts in maintaining biodiversity – stronger leadership and clearer lines of accountability, building on existing programmes, better information, better collaboration and a coherent legislative framework; and Supports the Biodiversity Challenge Report as a useful starting point for discussion with Government on steps that might be taken to halt biodiversity decline; and Notes the Council is already giving effect to many of the actions identified in the Biodiversity Challenge Report through the review of the Biodiversity Strategy and Nelson Nature. Fulton/Her Worship the Mayor Carried |
8. Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules
Document number R7548, agenda pages 19 - 38 refer.
Team Leader Roading and Waste, Margaret Parfitt, answered questions and provided visuals of suggested designated parking spaces for self-contained vehicles.
It was agreed that amendments to Schedule 9 of the Bylaw be approved, with the exception of Putaitai Street, which would be brought back for consideration to a future committee meeting, following consultation on the matter.
|
Resolved PR/2017/049 That the Committee Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R7548) ; and its attachment (A1837990): and Approves amendments detailed in report R7548 to the following schedules of the Bylaw No 207, Parking and Vehicle control (2011): - Schedule 4: Special Parking Areas - Schedule 8: Time Limited Parking Areas - Schedule 9: No Stopping – except Putaitai Street, which will be brought back to a future Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting - Schedule 13: Stop Signs McGurk/Dahlberg Carried |
|
Attachments 1 A1843555 - tabled documents - car parking visuals |
9. Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations
Document number R8331, agenda pages 39 - 62 refer.
Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, answered questions.
|
Resolved PR/2017/050 That the Committee Receives the report Resource Management (and Special Housing Area) charges and delegations (R8331) and its attachments (A1826805) and (A1825487). Dahlberg/McGurk Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council PR/2017/051 That the Council Approves the draft resource consent charges, planning document charges, monitoring charges and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act charges contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 of report R8331 (A1826805) for public consultation and notification using the Special Consultative Procedure as set out in the Local Government Act 2002; Approves the delegation of powers contained in Attachment 2 of report R8331 (A1825487) to the Chief Executive under the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017. Dahlberg/McGurk Carried |
10. Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016
Document number R8457, agenda pages 63 - 86 refer.
Manager Building, Martin Brown, answered questions.
Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 10.25am until 10.28am.
|
Resolved PR/2017/052 That the Committee Receives the report Changes arising from the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (R8457) and its attachments (A1823395 and A1823406); and Confirms that the identification of priority buildings, required under the amendment Act, be conducted in 2018; and McGurk/Barker Carried |
|
Recommendation to Council PR/2017/053 That the Council Approves the amended Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy, to remove the specific references to earthquake prone buildings, noting that a full review of the policy will take place in 2018 McGurk/Barker Carried |
The meeting was adjourned at 10.30am and reconvened at 10.47am.
11. Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification
Document number R8275, agenda pages 87 - 94 refer.
Team Leader Planning, Mark Leggett, answered questions and noted updates to the timeline.
|
Resolved PR/2017/054 That the Committee Receives the report Nelson Plan - Timelines to Draft Release and Notification (R8275) and its attachments (A1821033 and A1821035); and Approves the proposed timelines to draft release and notification of the Nelson Plan; and Approves that consequential changes to the Progressive Implementation Programme for freshwater management will be made and the Ministry for the Environment informed. Barker/Fulton Carried |
Her Worship the Mayor advised that Item 12 of the agenda - Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement would be considered at this point; that the public would then be excluded for consideration of Item 1 of the Public Excluded agenda – Re-contracting Regulatory Services from 1 July 2018, after which, the public would be re-admitted and the meeting would adjourn for a short workshop on the Draft Environment Activity Management Plan and then reconvene to consider that item.
12. Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement
Document number R7279, agenda pages 141 - 157 refer.
Manager Environment, Matt Heale and Team Leader Planning, Mark Leggett, answered questions.
Attendance: Councillor McGurk left the meeting at 11.31am until 11.33am
Attendance: Councillor Dahlberg left the meeting at 11.38am until 11.41am
The need to consider the NZTA Southern Link Investigation was highlighted and it was agreed to add this to the motion regarding further changes.
|
Resolved PR/2017/055 That the Committee Receives the report Nelson Plan - Draft Regional Policy Statement (R7279) and its attachments (A1743457, A1829598, and A1743456); and Agrees that the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement will incorporate the changes identified in report R7279 and its attachment (A1829598); and Agrees that further changes/refinement will be made to the Draft Regional Policy Statement throughout 2018 relating to how issues, objectives, policies, and methods are framed to ensure integration with the rest of the Nelson Plan, to recognise any further national policy or environmental standard changes, to consider the NZTA Nelson Southern Link Investigation and to reflect the City vision once it has been adopted by Council. Agrees the Nelson Plan Draft Regional Policy Statement can remain as a working draft until it is updated and incorporated into the wider Nelson Plan for further community feedback in mid-2018. Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton Carried |
13. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved PR/2017/056 That the Committee 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: Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried |
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Re-contracting Regulatory Services from 1 July 2018 The report and attachments includes private contract price information that should not be available to the public as this may disadvantage affect future contract negotiations. |
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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.55am and resumed in public session at 12.18pm.
14. Re-admittance of the Public
|
Resolved PR/2017/058 That the Committee Re-admits the public to the meeting.
Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
The meeting was adjourned at 12.18pm for a workshop session. The meeting reconvened at 1.02pm.
15. Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28
Document number R8276, agenda pages 95 - 140 refer.
It was agreed to add a clause to the recommendation to Council regarding increased levels of service driven by the level of community expectation and statutory requirements.
|
Resolved PR/2017/059 That the Committee Receives the report Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28 (R8276) and its attachment (A1787292). Fulton/Her Worship the Mayor Carried |
|
Resolved PR/2017/059 That the Council Approves the Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (A1787292) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028 noting the decisions regarding resourcing will be subject to the LTP process; and Agrees in principle to an increased level of service, noting that it is to meet community expectations and demand, and statutory requirements. Fulton/Her Worship the Mayor Carried |
There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.15pm.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8713
Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 23 November 2017
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide an update on the status of actions requested and pending.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 (R8713) and its attachment (A1736802). |
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1736802 Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee ⇩
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8196
Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July - 30 September 2017
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide a quarterly update on activity and performance for the Council’s planning, regulatory, science, city development and environment functions.
2. Summary
|
Activity |
Level of service needed |
Achievement |
|
Building |
Compliance with statutory timeframes. |
Statutory time limits continue to be met for processing building consents. Target timeframes for inspections have met some challenges due to leave and sickness in the team coupled with high numbers of inspection requests from July to September. The alignment of the BCA to industry standards continues currently through the Goshift initiative and collaboration with Tasman District Council. |
|
Consents and Compliance |
Delivery of all statutory regulatory functions. Compliance with statutory timeframes. |
98% compliance with resource consent timeframes. |
|
Science and Environment |
Delivery of all non-regulatory programmes. Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards.
|
Non-regulatory programme delivery is on track. The focus for the Jul-Sept quarter has been on planning, project initiation and getting delivery underway. Environmental monitoring programmes are on track, and are reported on Land and Water Aotearoa (LAWA). There were two exceedances of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality in this quarter. |
Planning |
Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements. |
The Nelson Plan review is on track with 11 of the 11 Council workshops completed. Revised timeline for Nelson Plan and in principle Working Draft Regional Policy Statement approved at 3 October 2017 Committee meeting. Community consultation continues. Iwi Working Group and Freshwater Management Group meetings continue. Focus now on compiling Draft Nelson Plan for peer review and consent testing. Staff resourcing given vacancies is a key issue. |
|
City Development |
Coordinated growth with infrastructure.
A well planned city that meets the community’s current and future needs. |
12 SHAs were gazetted on 17 August and 7 additional (plus two with amendments) were approved by Council on 21 September.
The second iteration of residential capacity assessments for the Nelson Urban Area are underway. |
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The report and attachments 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 continues to achieve timeframe requirements.
5.2 There has been a successful commencement of the transition in response to the changes from the enactment of the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 on 1 July 2017.
5.3 The Goshift electronic building consents submission portal was opened up to all customers on 1 July and customers are now submitting building consent applications online.
Trends
5.4 Building consent applications have stabilised but whilst lower than last year’s first quarter they are 10% higher on 2015/16 first quarter, indicating the general increase from prior years continues.
5.5 Granted building consents are marginally lower than first quarter 2016/17 but are still a 10% increase from 2014 to 2016 years. This will continue to impact the Inspections Team and the team will expect inspection numbers to stay high to service the level of work in progress.
5.6 The first quarter building inspections are up 15% on the last two years which is a lag indicator to the increased level of granted consents witnessed over the last 12 months and specifically the last two quarters of 2016/17.
5.7 Ultra Low Emission Burner (ULEB) wood burner consents have reduced slightly based on prior months and the last quarter and have not seen the peak experienced when these were released in September 2016.
Strategic direction and focus
5.8 Continued participation with the GoShift initiative to align practice with 21 other BCAs. This year’s work will focus on procedures alignment across the 21 member councils to drive for more consistent industry practice.
5.9 Work continues to achieve greater collaboration with Tasman District Council with progress in procuring Digital Building Control Services for building consent processing and inspecting across both Councils.
5.10 The Building Control Authority Accreditation regulations were amended and enacted on 1 July 2017. The changes arising from this amendment are being implemented over the next six months though key priority items have already been put in place to align with the changes.
Risks
5.11 The BCA continues to manage its risks daily through processing, inspecting and issuing Code Compliance Certificates on building consents.
5.12 Recent extended leave and sickness have impacted the Building Consent Administration and Inspection Teams. The result has been a reduction in staff capacity to meet customer demand for inspections within 48 hours and the 72 hour target has not been possible in some cases.
5.13 Whilst the anticipated Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHA) increased level of building consent activity has not fully manifested over the last 6 months, there is still the likelihood of an increase in workload over the next 12 months as these are Gazetted.
6. Discussion – Consents and Compliance
Achievements
6.1 The first of a number of Urban Design Panel meetings has occurred for the newly approved Special Housing Areas.
6.2 The Rutherford Street Kindergarten obtained consent through a limited notified process to relocate to a new location but still in Rutherford Street. The Nelson Tasman Region Hospice also obtained consent for a new facility in Suffolk Road following a limited notification process.
6.3 A 220 lot subdivision was granted for Marsden Park with associated stream works and stormwater discharge consents.
6.4 Nelson Airport obtained consent for signage during the construction works associated with the new terminal.
Trends
6.5 Reliance on external consultants is still needed to cover vacant positions in the consents team but application numbers have been managable for the first quarter. An increase in application numbers is expected prior to Christmas.
Strategic direction and focus
6.6 The Resource Legislation Amendment Act has resulted in three new processes. Information about these processes has been communicated to local professionals through the SHARE newsletter and a presentation on the 16th October. Information has also been added to our website.
Risks
6.7 The senior planner position is proving difficult to recruit for. Staff have been stretched to cover vacancies.
7. Discussion – Science and Environment
Achievements
7.1 Nelmac has been engaged to locate Taiwan Cherry trees and remove them with property owners’ permission. 139 mature trees and 715 seedlings of this invasive pest plant have been controlled on 24 properties in the Dodsons Valley area since July this year.
7.2 Nelson Nature held a planting day with Forest and Bird at the Orphanage Stream delta and planted 600 plants to begin restoration of this valuable estuarine habitat. Council has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Forest and Bird to work together for the long term restoration of this area and planning is underway to plant another 2500 native trees and shrubs in autumn 2018. Planting days were also held to plant the stream margins of Orchard Stream with staff from Z Fuel, Poorman Valley Steam with the Nelson Christian Academy, and the confluence of the Brook Stream and Tantragee Tributary with the Friends of the Maitai and the public.
7.3 A photo competition was held by Nelson Nature to raise awareness of native birds and profile the national Great Kereru Count (22 Sept-1 Oct), NZ’s biggest citizen science project. There was an enthusiastic response to the competition with 100 entries received and over 15,000 reach on facebook. As a result of the success, a larger scale photo competition is planned to coincide with next year’s Kereru Count.
7.4 A five year draft strategic plan for the Nelson Nature programme has been developed, with input of technical advice from the department of Conservation (DOC) and the Nelson Biodiversity Forum. The plan identifies six key focus projects and identifies clear objectives and actions for each project. Four projects protect and enhance Nelson’s key ecosystems from the mountains to the sea: Dun Mountain and inland hill country; waterways; coastal habitats; and Significant Natural Areas on private land. The remaining two projects aim to restore and connect fragmented ecosystems and increase birdlife in the region: biodiversity corridors and the Nelson Wildlife Halo. This will be reported to council at the next committee meeting.
7.5 Applications for heritage rates remissions were assessed and 154 heritage building owners will receive a total of $68,000 in rates remission for maintenance of their buildings this financial year.
7.6 The Warmer Healthier Homes scheme is on track to have insulated approximately 200 Nelson homes in current stage three phase of the project.
7.7 During July and August Environmental Officers worked evenings and early mornings to identify fires which were smoking excessively. 88 smoky fires were identified and followed up. The main issues identified were people burning wet wood, operator error, and lack of maintenance.
7.8 The Orphanage @ Ngawhatu hydrometric site which measures water level / flow and rainfall, has been upgraded. It had old equipment that was due for renewal. This is part of ongoing work to upgrade and standardise equipment at sites across our hydrometric network.
7.9 A Project Maitai/Mahitahi community event called Team Up 2 Clean Up was organised as part of the Keep New Zealand Beautiful week programme. Approximately 60 people collectively removed a high-sided trailer and ute tray full of rubbish and recycling from Victory streets on 16 September. The event was organised by Victory Community Centre and Project Maitai/Mahitahi with support from New World and members of the public who donated food to feed the workers. The event rounded up with a karakia and tree planting ceremony.
7.10 The tender for construction of the Project Maitai/Mahitahi Groom Creek wetland was awarded to Nelmac who will be starting work early November this year. The first stage of site clearing and earthworks construction will be finished prior to Christmas 2017 in order to give Maitai Motor Camp a break over their busy period of January & February. Final stages of work will recommence early March with the area opening to the public late April 2018. This work is primarily to restore what was a natural wetland area to filter out nutrients and sediment from the Groom Creek catchment to stop it entering the Maitai River but will also enhance biodiversity in the Maitai Valley.
7.11 The Nelson Enviroschools programme has run a pilot transport project in two schools to help support travel demand management levels of service. Hands up surveys have been completed to identify current modes of transport to school, and the programme is now supporting students and teachers to design actions to encourage active travel to school.
7.12 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council sponsored the Youth Leadership Awards at the Cawthron SciTec Expo (science fair) for the fourth year in a row. The winning investigations clearly demonstrated student awareness of the need for environmental sustainability and action. The Science and Environment team also provided a judge for the Science Communication category. The event organisers appreciated Council support and science staff will be invited to judge again next year.
7.13 The annual Land and Water Aotearoa (LAWA) data refresh was completed and focused on air quality, water quality and ecology and recreation bathing datasets. Checks have also been made of water quantity live feeds, water takes and general site content. The Land module is new and at this stage relatively high level content for Nelson. More changes to the ‘Can I Swim Here’ module are afoot with work to align this with the National Police Statement Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) reporting.
Strategic direction and focus
7.14 The Science and Environment team strategic direction for the next quarter includes continuing work on the development of a science strategy to guide the Environmental monitoring and research programme in the light of national level changes and new information; and continuing to build capacity within the team to respond to demand for increased levels of service, especially in the freshwater, land management, coastal/marine, climate change and waste minimisation domains.
7.15 The key focus for this quarter will be on project delivery of the 2017/18 non-regulatory and science work programmes. There will also be an increased focus on participation in regional council Special Interest Groups (SIGs) to ensure that Nelson City Council is represented at a national level across the full range of regional council functions.
7.16 This year there will be a focus on collaborating with the NZ Landcare Trust, iwi and the local community to restore the health of the Wakapuaka catchment through restoring riparian margins and engaging landowners and the surrounding community in caring for their river. A community meeting will be held in November to formally launch the project.
7.17 A large project to survey and control scattered wilding conifers, gorse and heath throughout 720 ha of the Dun Mountain mineral belt area will begin this summer. These three species are the key weed threats to the nationally recognised Dun Mountain mineral belt ecosystem because of their risk of shading out or replacing the rare and/or vulnerable native plant communities present. The survey will extend our understanding of the distribution and density of these species at this vulnerable site and how to manage them in the future.
7.18 A community predator control trapping workshop is planned for Sunday 3rd December in partnership with DOC, TDC, MDC, Tasman Environmental Trust, Brook Waimarama Sanctuary and Predator Free Trust. The workshop will bring together predator control trapping groups from the Top of the South to connect, enable and inspire both local wildlife recovery goals and the aspirations Predator Free 2050 vision.
7.19 A feasibility study to eradicate Taiwan Cherry from Nelson has been commissioned by Nelson Nature. The report recommends eradication is technically feasible, but will require the inclusion of this species in the Regional Pest Management Plan and the establishment of a multi-stakeholder working group to build consensus regarding eradication. The operational cost to eradicate the species is currently being estimated.
7.20 Following a review of the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy which expires in November 2017, a proposed joint Regional Pest Management Plan (including Taiwan Cherry provisions) has been approved by both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council to be notified for public submissions in late October, with submissions closing before Christmas.
Risks
7.21 Two exceedances of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES) limit of 50µg/m3 for PM10 were measured in this reporting period. One in Airshed A at the St Vincent Street monitoring site (53µg/m3) on 15 July; and the other in Airshed B1 (Tahunanui) at the Blackwood Street monitoring site (54µg/m3) on 12 September. Our annual target, and the requirement of the NES, is no more than three exceedances for Airshed A until 2020, and no more than one exceedance for Airshed B1 – unfortunately this is the second breach in the last 12 months for Airshed B1.
8. Discussion - Planning
Achievements
8.1 Four Nelson Plan workshops have been held with Councillors in the quarter covering the following topics:
· Heritage and Works and Services,
· Fault rupture and Liquefaction,
· Flooding and an update on other hazards, and
· Freshwater, Forestry, Riparian and Coastal Margins, Earthworks and Vegetation removal.
8.2 Officers ran a workshop with developers and professionals in early August on option for planning requirements (residential, rural, industrial, inner city, air, noise, biodiversity and landscape provisions. This workshop was well received and further workshops are planned.
8.3 A number of public meetings have been undertaken to share the technical information gathered in relation to vehicle access issues at Delaware Bay. A working group of residents and boaties has now been set up to look at potential solutions. Discussions with local hapu are also on-going.
Natural hazards – modelling and technical work
8.4 As a result of Community feedback in April/June 2017 further technical work is underway on flood hazards.
8.5 Technical work is ongoing in relation to coastal erosion and slope instability.
8.6 A report has been completed by Dr Mike Johnston (Geologist) which defines the extent of the Tahunanui liquefaction hazard area, based on further desktop assessment and community feedback. The extent of the area has been reduced and this will form the ‘liquefaction overlay’ in the draft Nelson Plan. Staff will notify and discuss with affected landowners and finalise the LIM notation for properties that remain within the liquefaction area.
Freshwater
8.7 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was amended in early September which introduces a number of requirements for the improvement to freshwater quality (including regional swimmability targets), economic well-being and monitoring. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is providing support to regional council staff to understand the implications and how the new requirements are to be implemented at the local level.
8.8 Officers are continuing to work with iwi and freshwater working groups in the development of the freshwater section of the Nelson Plan. Meetings were held in mid-July and mid-August to discuss the emerging freshwater planning framework. A sub-catchment summary report is also being prepared which pulls all the technical information together in one place and provides the rationale for the plan drafting framework. This information was presented to the Councillor workshop on 19 September.
Forestry
8.9 The National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) was gazetted in early August with an implementation date of 1 May 2018. Council will need to make changes to the Operative Plan and work with key stakeholders to establish processes to implement the NES. Officers facilitated a workshop with forestry industry representatives on 29 August to discuss the NES-PF and implications for industry and Council alike. It is anticipated that The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) will be providing additional support on implementation of the NES-PF between now and May 2018.
Heritage engagement
8.10 The listing for Fountain Place heritage precinct is to be reviewed by an independent heritage consultant, which will either confirm that the listing should be removed or provide support for its continued listing.
8.11 After a number of discussions with owners of the former state houses of Wolfe Street, owners have decided against establishing a Wolfe Street heritage precinct.
8.12 Letters have been sent out updating the owners of heritage buildings and archaeological sites regarding feedback and next steps. A similar letter will be sent out regarding notable trees in the next week or so.
Strategic direction and focus
8.13 Nelson Plan Council workshops have now been completed. Attached at Attachment 2 (A1849355) is an overview of key changes that Officers have recommended on the topics workshopped to date and general direction provided at the workshops. Overview and direction for workshops 1-6 was accepted at the Planning and Regulatory meeting on 27 July. This paper seeks acceptance of overview and direction for workshops 7-11.
8.14 A revised timeline for the Nelson Plan was approved on 3 October 2017. The timeline indicates that a Draft Nelson Plan will be released for community feedback in August 2018 following peer review, statutory stakeholder, wider stakeholder and iwi feedback. The Nelson Plan will then be publically notified in May 2019 once feedback on the draft Plan has been considered by Council and a legal review has been undertaken. The immediate focus between October 2017 and February 2018 will be integrating the Nelson Plan provisions into a first draft for peer review and consent testing.
8.15 Further landowner engagement is planned in relation to Flood modelling work, Significant Natural Areas, Outstanding Landscapes, and Scheduled sites.
Risks
8.16 There are currently 3.5 vacancies in the Planning team. Recruitment to fill these roles is underway.
8.17 There is a significant shortfall in the Nelson Plan budget for 2017/2018 given the need for peer review of the Plan prior to release of the draft in August 2018. This is separately reported in this agenda.
8.18 The implementation date of 1 May 2018 for the NES-PF was unknown at the time the timeline was prepared and work to implement the requirements needs to be factored into the work programme.
9. Discussion –City Development
Achievements
9.1 Twelve Special Housing Areas (SHAs) have been gazetted by Cabinet in the last quarter. The developers of these are now working with the resource consents and infrastructure teams to prepare applications for consent, including obtaining the approval of the Urban Design Panel.
9.2 Summerset Retirement Village has entered into a Private Developers Agreement and Deed with Council which enabled the recommendation of the Saxton SHA to the Minister. This did not make it to Cabinet prior to the elections and is scheduled to go to one of the first Cabinet meetings following the formation of Government.
9.3 On 21 September Council approved a further seven new SHAs, and amendments to two existing SHAs. Officers are working with applicants on getting Deeds signed before these can be recommended to the Minister for Building and Construction.
9.4 Council workshop on growth projections for the Long Term Plan was held on 27 July where the link between growth projections, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity requirements and the investment in infrastructure required to support growth areas was discussed.
9.5 Feasibility analysis as required by the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity (NPS UDC) has been undertaken on all existing large residential growth areas. The results showed that, according to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Feasibility Tool, all large residential greenfield areas are able to yield feasible residential development, often with a range of densities and development scenarios. Feedback from developers will be sought on the analysis over the next few months.
9.6 Work on the draft aligned Land Development Manual (LDM) continues with Tasman District Council. The Nelson Plan timeline adjustments have meant that the LDM will now proceed ahead of the Nelson Plan, requiring an administrative plan change to the NRMP. The next LDM Steering Group meeting is to be held on 20 November where a final draft will be discussed prior to seeking public feedback early next year.f
Strategic Direction and Focus
9.7 The City Development Team was recently established and recruitment is underway for a Strategy and Environment Analyst and a City Development Planner. Development of a program plan for the 3 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) team is also underway which will define the strategic direction and focus of the team.
9.8 Expressions of Interest for SHAs are accepted on a quarterly basis, the next round closes on 31 January 2018 and will be reported to Council on 20 March 2018. There continues to be strong interest from developers in pursuing SHAs.
9.9 The NPS UDC requires that Council undertake a Future development Strategy. Direction was provided at the Joint NCC and TDC Workshop on 20 June that both Councils wish to meet biannually and that the next topic for the workshop is Future Development Strategies. Officers are currently working with TDC on this workshop programme. Gary Webber (Mayor of Western Bay of Plenty) and Bill Wasley (Chair of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee) will present on governance and implementation perspectives of growth strategies.
Risks
9.10 Progress on growth and infrastructure prioritisation and planning input into key Council work streams such as the Nelson Plan, Land Development Manual, Asset Management Plans, Infrastructure Strategy, Development Contributions Policy and Long Term Plan have been affected by the significant amount of resourcing required to work with developers seeking Special Housing Areas (SHAs) and to administer documentation required under Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA). Overall SHAs have provided benefit to Nelson and enhanced relationships with developers. The focus on outcomes rather than process has increased certainty and reduced risks which are key factors in enhancing housing supply. In addition, SHAs are resulting in infrastructure investment by developers, enabling servicing of areas in a more timely manner.
9.11 The establishment of the City Development Team will address this risk and the effectiveness of the team will be fully realised when recruitment has been completed.
9.12 The continued high demand for Special Housing Areas also has other flow on effects within the organisation, with the development proposals consuming resourcing in the Resource Consents and Roading and Utilities Teams.
10. Options
10.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the option of receiving the report or seeking further information.
Martin Brown
Manager Building
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1809078 Building and Consents and Compliance statistics 1 Jul - 30 Sep2017 ⇩
Attachment 2: A1849355 Summary of Nelson Plan Workshop Recommendations ⇩
|
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. The Environment work programme addresses a number of community outcomes by protecting our environment and our heritage, sustainably managing our urban and rural environments, co-ordinating our growth and infrastructure planning, keeping our community safe through statutory compliance and making people aware of hazard risk, engaging with iwi and our community and establishing key partnerships, and taking a business friendly approach while promoting environmental management best practice. |
|
3. Risk The high level of building and resource consent application numbers continues to put pressure on meeting statutory timeframes. Vacancies in these teams and in the Science and Environment Team 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. |
Item 9: Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8600
Parking and Vehicle Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt alterations to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No. 207, resulting from minor safety and parking improvements, roading improvements carried out as part of the capital works programme and from the completion of new subdivisions.
2. Recommendation
3. Background
3.1 The Parking and Traffic Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Committee, by resolution, to add or delete items to the Schedules. To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. The bylaw schedules require updating since the last update in October 2017.
3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 4 and 9 of the bylaw to allow for parking and safety improvements.
4. Discussion
4.1 Schedule 4: Time limited parking
4.1.1 Brook Street
Council officers have been asked to consider creation of a P10 time limited park on the outside 21 Brook Street, opposite the convenience dairy as shown in attachment 1.1. Time restricted parking is common outside other convenience stores and does already exist on the same side of the road as the dairy. It is reported that is difficult for customers heading up the valley to find suitable parking due to some long term use of the existing roadside parks and high occupancy by residents and visitors nearby without off street parking. Directly affected parties were written to and feedback sought. Two objections from residents living in nearby flats was received. A covering letter and petition with 77 signatures was also received from the Brook Street dairy supporting the proposal.
4.2 Schedule 9: No Stopping
4.2.1 Valley Heights
Residents and rubbish contractors report difficulty turning in this cul-de-sac due to some long term parking in the turning head. Installation of no stopping lines are requested as shown in attachment 1.2 and are consistent with other markings in small cul-de-sac streets. Adjoining property owners were consulted. One objection received. Council officers support the request.
4.2.2 Akersten Street
Health and Safety committees of Talley’s and Plant & Food Research approached Port Nelson with concerns about vehicle movements in the area at the far end of Akersten Street. Council and Port Nelson have investigated the issues and Port Nelson has already taken some steps on port owned and operated roads to address them. Damage to kerbs show evidence that truck movements are severely limited by cars parked in the cul-de-sac. Council officers support the request to install no stopping in the turning head as shown in attachment 1.3. Nearby businesses have all been consulted and also support the request.
4.2.3 Haven Road
The Health and Safety Committee of Auckland Point Campus has raised safety concerns about the stretch of Haven Road outside the school. Since Council removed one vehicle lane outside the school to slow traffic and improve safety on approach to the pedestrian crossing some parents have started parking on the right hand side of the road. This behaviour is currently legal but not considered safe. It increases the risk of children moving out from between parked cars, children entering and exiting cars from the live lane side of the vehicle, and cars exiting and entering the car parks on both sides of the one way lane which creates congestion and confusion.
The school, kindergarten and teen parent unit based at Auckland Point are addressing some internal car parking issues and are working with Council to encourage more active travel to school and more use of the “park and walk option” at the Trafalgar Centre carpark. Council officers recommend installation of no stopping on the right hand side of the lane as shown in attachment 1.4. Police have been consulted and support the proposal.
4.2.4 Wildman Avenue
Z Energy operates a bulk liquid storage facility located on 55 Wildman Avenue, Nelson. Aurecon New Zealand has been engaged by Z Energy for the design of the fire protection systems for the facility. As part of the new fire protection system, two points of connection for the local fire emergency services will be installed. These points of connection will allow fire services to draw water from the new system for emergency responses in the area or input water to bolster the capacity of the system during a site-specific emergency. Council has received a written request to install 12 metres of No Stopping on Wildman Ave as shown in Attachment 1.5 to ensure access to these connection points in an emergency situation. There are no other directly affected parties to be consulted with and officers support this request.
4.2.5 Washington Valley Road
A new private Right Of Way opposite Wolfe Street has created additional vehicle movement in the area and nearby residents have raised safety concerns. Washington Road is a collector road so intersection congestion control and clear visibility lines are important. Cars are parking in the location between the ROW and the fire hydrant narrow the intersection and officers support installation of no stopping as shown in attachment 1.6. Adjoining property owners were consulted and no objections received.
4.2.6 Atawhai Crescent
Construction of a replacement bridge and slight road realignment at Oldham Creek has necessitated additional No Stopping lines on the southern approach to the bridge as shown in attachment 1.7. These lines were installed as part of the construction project and require retrospective approval for enforcement purposes.
5. Options
5.1 There are limited alternative options for the items presented in this report under Schedule 9 as the majority are procedural updates to the bylaw required for safety and efficient traffic movement. The proposed change to Schedule 4 is required for convenience and has 2 options, to approve or decline.
|
Option 1: Adopt changes as attached for Schedules 4 and 9 without changes |
|
|
Advantages |
Changes to schedules are designed to improve safety and efficiency. |
|
Risks and disadvantages |
Ignores public feedback to some or all proposed changes |
|
Option 2: Do not adopt changes as attached for Schedule 4 |
|
|
Advantages |
Recognises feedback from directly affected residents. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
Does not recognise public support for convenience parking. |
|
Option 3: Do not adopt changes as attached for Schedule 4 and 9 |
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Failure to approve changes could result in unsafe and inefficient use of the roading network. · Failure to update schedules will open enforcement to challenge. |
Margaret Parfitt
Manager Roading and Utilities
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1848805 Combined aerial plans of proposed changes ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The report recommendation meets current and future needs of communities in contributing to safe use of the roading and parking network in the City. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The content and recommendation of this report is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes – “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. In particular that we have good quality, affordable and effective infrastructure and transport networks. This report is directly aligned to the requirements of the Parking Policy, the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and with Council’s strategic direction through the Regional Land Transport Strategy. |
|
3. Risk To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. Failure to update schedules will open enforcement to challenge. |
|
4. Financial impact Costs are within allocated annual budgets for road maintenance or capital projects. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance. Subdivision development requirements are dictated by the Land Development Manual. Other than sub-divisions nearby business or residents which could be affected have been consulted. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process No consultation with Māori has been undertaken |
|
7. Delegations Amendments to schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw and the Parking Policy fall within the delegated authority of the Planning and Regulatory Committee |
Item 10: Compliance Strategy
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8673
Compliance Strategy
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To adopt the Compliance Strategy 2017 as the overarching guide for staff and contractors in exercising enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council.
2. Summary
2.1 As a Unitary authority there are a broad range of Acts, Bylaws, Resource Management provisions and Policies seeking to ensure our community is healthy and safe and our environment is protected. There is a growing number of consented activities and growing cultural and community expectations that activities are monitored in a consistent and fiscally prudent manner.
2.2 While the legislative framework provides the ability for Council to enforce the rules and regulations, how Council chooses to enforce remains at its discretion. A strategic approach to monitoring and enforcement is considered best practice to ensure Council resources are focussed to achieve the best possible outcome for our community.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Compliance Strategy (R8673) and its attachment (A1855717) |
Recommendation to Council
|
Approves the Compliance Strategy 2017 to guide staff and contractors in the exercise of enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council. |
4. Background
4.1 Many councils have developed enforcement policies that provide a strategic approach to select from the range of informal and formal enforcement tools available to encourage and achieve a high level of compliance. There has been a recognised inconsistency between councils however in the way they collectively approach compliance and enforcement. This lack of cohesion and inconsistency can limit the perceived effectiveness of the wider local government sector as a regulator.
4.2 The Regional Sector Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG) with support from regional council executives developed a sector consistent compliance framework designed to give councils a comprehensive set of principles and guidelines to assist in their own development of monitoring and enforcement strategies. The draft Compliance Strategy in attachment one to this report is consistent with the Regional Sector Strategic Compliance Framework 2016-2018.
5. Discussion
5.1 Current enforcement practices and processes are consistent with the proposed Compliance Strategy principles but there is no overarching Council approved approach to the discretional elements of enforcement. Adoption of a Compliance Strategy will set clear expectations and provide the basis for refinements to existing processes to be followed consistently by all officers.
5.2 It is important the Council encourages a high level of compliance with the legislative framework to ensure the outcomes expected by the various statutes and provisions are achieved. Should activities be identified as non-compliant the responsible party and the community should have a clear understanding of what to expect from enforcement action. A compliance strategy guides Council’s monitoring and enforcement duties so these outcomes are achieved.
5.3 The body of the draft Compliance Strategy includes guidelines and principles that are applied to all types of enforcement – resource management, bylaw, dog control and parking etc. In the Appendix is an example of further detail that will be captured in Promapp processes for each activity type once the Strategy has been adopted.
6. Options
6.1 The preferred option is the Committee recommends the Council adopts the draft Compliance Strategy as it has been developed to be consistent with the Regional Sector Strategic Compliance Framework 2016-2018.
6.2 Alternatively the Committee could seek further information or changes to the draft Strategy.
Mandy Bishop
Manager Consents and Compliance
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1855717 draft Compliance Strategy 2017 ⇩
|
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. A Compliance Strategy helps to achieve this purpose by focussing Council monitoring and enforcement resources in a fiscally prudent manner. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Council’s Long Term Plan includes performance measures for various activities. This Compliance Strategy guides the approach of officers in monitoring progress towards achieving these measures and in deciding to require actions be taken to achieve the performance measures. |
|
3. Risk The key risks are in the delivery of our enforcement responsibilities rather than deciding to adopt this Strategy. Enforcement delivery risks are reduced by having a Compliance Strategy that eliminates the perception of uneven or inconsistent practice in enforcement decision making. A clear strategy provides confidence for the community and users that processes and decisions are robust and transparent. |
|
4. Financial impact No additional resources have been requested. Staff time is required to update processes. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because current practices are aligned with the Strategy. The Strategy once finalised will be publicly available through the Council website. |
|
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 Council’s Regulatory activities and has the power to recommend to the Council the development of policies or strategies relating to the areas of responsibility. |
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8477
National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Report
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To ensure decision-makers are well-informed about urban development activity in both Nelson and Tasman, as required by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC).
2. Summary
2.1 The NPS-UDC requires Council to monitor property market indicators on a quarterly basis, including prices, rents, resource and building consents, and housing affordability. The attached report for the June 2017 quarter is the second of these reports.
2.2 The monitoring report shows that there is an undersupply of residential housing across the Nelson Urban Area (Nelson and Richmond), that house process and rents continue to increase, and affordability is still relatively poor. Residential building consents in Nelson have started to increase, but not enough to satisfy projected demand.
2.3 Further investigation is required of the other factors affecting the supply of affordable homes. These barriers include land banking, lending rules, construction industry capacity constraints, the markets limited provision of smaller houses, and rising building costs.
2.4 Commercial and industrial building activity in the Nelson Urban Area has been relatively stable since 2010.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) came into effect in December 2016. The NPS-UDC includes a policy (PB6) that requires local authorities to monitor a range of indicators on a quarterly basis including:
· Prices and rents for housing, residential land and business land by location and type; and changes in these prices over time;
· The number of resource consents and building consents granted for urban development relative to the growth in population; and
· Indicators of housing affordability.
4.2 This policy is to ensure that local authorities are well-informed about demand for housing and business development and applies to local authorities that have a medium or high growth urban area within their district or region. Nelson City has the Nelson Urban Area within its boundaries, and the Nelson Urban Area has been defined by the NPS-UDC as medium growth.
4.3 Local authorities are encouraged to publish the results of their monitoring.
4.4 The Ministry for the Environment has provided guidance on the monitoring requirements and, together with the Ministry of Business, innovation and Employment (MBIE), have provided an online dashboard of data on local housing markets. The online dashboard was publicly released on the MBIE website on 7 July 2017.
4.5 Further information has been provided from Nelson City Council resource and building consent data.
4.6 The report includes data for both Nelson and Tasman local authorities, recognising the connected, cross-boundary property market both Councils share. The NPS-UDC also strongly encourages both Councils to work together to implement the policies.
5. Discussion
Housing Market
5.1 Since mid-2014, consents for new dwellings have declined while estimated household numbers have increased, indicating an apparent under-supply of housing in Nelson. Although new dwellings have exceeded growth in Tasman households, an overall under-supply in the combined Nelson-Tasman market could be contributing to an increase in house prices in both areas. This trend has continued over the last quarter, although on an annual basis building consents for new dwellings in Nelson have increased.
5.2 Across the combined Nelson City - Tasman District area, prices increased 13% during the year ended June 2017, compared with a 12% increase in the year ended June 2016, and a 1% decrease in prices in the year ended June 2015. Nelson and Tasman experienced similar trends in house prices.
5.3 The shortage of new housing is despite Nelson having an estimated eight years’ worth of dwelling capacity on land which is zoned, serviced or planned to be serviced, and feasible for residential development. Other factors that can influence house and section prices include:
· land development and construction costs (especially on hillsides)
· size and quality of new dwellings
· timing of release by developers
· ability for developers to obtain financing
· land banking
· increasing demand for visitor/non-resident accommodation.
5.4 The MBIE HAM Buy measure for Nelson and Tasman Districts suggests that housing affordability was at its worse in 2007/2008, with around 88% of first home buyer households below the 2013 national benchmark of affordability. Since then, the measure has been at least 80% for both areas. The measure indicates that at March 2016, 81% of first-home buyer households in Nelson, and 83% for Tasman, could not comfortably afford a typical ‘first-home’ priced house.
5.5 The MBIE HAM Rent measure for Nelson City and Tasman District suggests that rental affordability worsened between 2004 and 2014 but has improved in both regions since then. The measure indicates that at March 2016, 67% of rental households in Nelson, and 66% for Tasman, cannot comfortably afford typical rents.
Commercial and Industrial Property Market
5.6 There is limited information at this stage on prices and rents for business land.
5.7 Commercial and industrial building activity in the Nelson Urban Area has been relatively stable since 2010 but has increased recently in Nelson due to consents for two new large buildings.
6. Options
6.1 Quarterly monitoring of property market indicators is a mandatory requirement under the NPS-UDC. Council may like to give feedback on the data and level of detail that this report has included, and whether additional information could be included.
6.2 Council’s website will be updated to include the quarterly monitoring report.
Lisa Gibellini
Team Leader City Development
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1852986 NPS UDC Monitoring Report Nelson Urban Area June 2017 Quarter ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Monitoring property market indicators informs Long Term Plan decision-making on infrastructure projects to ensure sufficient development capacity is provided to meet future demand for housing and business land. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy Monitoring joint indicators with Tasman demonstrates an understanding we need to collaborate to provide the best and most efficient service to our communities. Being well-informed on property market indicators and urban growth helps achieve the community outcome of an urban environment that is well planned, including thinking and planning regionally and ensuring affordable housing. Monitoring the market for business land helps achieve the community outcome of a region which is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy. |
|
3. Risk The information contained in the report should inform Council about property market trends. There is some risk in using an experimental data series for housing affordability but other data sources, such as the Massey University affordability measure, also indicate the region is experiencing housing affordability pressures. There is a risk that the business property market isn’t well understood at this stage and more work is planned to monitor prices for different types of business land. |
|
4. Financial impact MBIE data is provided at no cost. The purchase of other data is of minimal cost and is included in existing budgets. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because the recommendation is to receive the report and no other decisions are required. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Māori have not been specifically included in the preparation of this report. |
|
7. Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering the District and Regional Plan, which must give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. |
Item 12: Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8668
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 Councillors received a briefing on 29 September 2017 from Paul Beverley, Partner with Buddle Findlay, in relation to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA). Councillors have requested a short report outlining the provisions of MACA, implications for the Council and next steps in proceedings.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (R8668). |
3. Discussion
3.1 The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA) replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. MACA provides for applications to be made for customary marine title and protected customary rights. These applications can either be made to the High Court or the Crown. The applications had to be made by 3 April 2017.
3.2 If confirmed the rights conferred by customary marine title include:
3.2.1 A Resource Management Act 1991 permission right;
3.2.2 A conservation permission right;
3.2.3 A right to protect wahi tapu;
3.2.4 Rights in relation to marine mammal watching permits;
3.2.5 Ownership of minerals other than minerals covered by section 10 the Crown Minerals Act 1991 or pounamu to which section 3 of the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act 1997;
3.2.6 The right to create a planning document and rights in relation to a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
3.3 In relation to Nelson there have been five applications made by the following parties:
3.3.1 Trustees of Te Rῡnanga a Rangitāne o Wairau Trust on behalf of Rangitāne o Wairau in te Tau Ihu o Te Waka (Clarence River to Nelson);
3.3.2 Te Ᾱtiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust (Westport on the West Coast to the mouth of the Clarence River on the East Coast);
3.3.3 Te Runanga a Rangitane o Kaituna (Blenheim to Nelson);
3.3.4 Rihari Dargaville on behalf of the New Zealand Māori Council members (all of New Zealand including all off-shore islands); and
3.3.5 Cletus Maanu Paul on behalf of all Māori (all of New Zealand). (This application has since been declined).
3.4 Once an application for customary marine title has been granted, if any resource consent applications are made within the customary marine title area then the iwi that have made application must be consulted and their approval obtained by the applicant. In the meantime, an applicant for a resource consent within an area that is the subject of a customary marine title application must notify and seek the views of the iwi applicant group before the resource consent application may be lodged.
3.5 Once confirmed the Council must then initiate a process to determine whether to alter regional plan documents. This can be included as part of the Nelson Plan process.
3.6 Nelson City Council along with most other Regional Councils have joined the proceedings as an interested party. This allows the Councils to be informed of the proceedings and participate as required.
3.7 Before 18 December 2017 applicants will:
3.7.1 Advise the Court if they disagree with the list of priority claims;
3.7.2 Advise the Court of any overlapping claims that should be heard;
3.7.3 File any amendments they wish to make to their claims.
3.8 By 2 March 2018 the Crown will file and serve:
3.8.1 An amended notice of appearance for each application;
3.8.2 A memorandum identifying what applications should be heard together and priority.
3.9 The Crown is also reviewing which of the applicants for direct engagement it wishes to engage with (noting the Crown has received approximately 381 such applications).
3.10 As an interested party, the Council is not required to take any further action until February 2018, when it may need to take some procedural steps in response to amendments made by applicants.
3.11 Throughout the proceedings, the Council will have the ability to choose its level of involvement at every stage, and may wish to be more involved in some proceedings than others as further information emerges. In general the preliminary applications were drafted to be very broad, however more specific information will be provided by the applicants over the next few months as the applications are amended. This will allow the Council to get a clearer picture of how it may be affected.
4. Conclusion
4.1 The report is provided for information. As matters progress further updates will be provided to the Committee.
Clare Barton
Group Manager Strategy and Environment
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government · The report ensures the Committee remains informed in relation to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA). The report provides information only and requires no decision. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The matter aligns with the following community outcomes: Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected; Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships. A regional perspective and community engagement. |
|
3. Risk The report provides information only and requires no decision. There is no risk. |
|
4. Financial impact The report provides information only and requires no decision. There is no financial impact. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement The report provides information only. The matter is of low significance |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process The report provides information only. Māori have not been consulted on this report. |
|
7. Delegations This matter falls within the delegation of the Planning and Regulation Committee. |
Item 13: Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pests Management Plan
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8696
Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pests Management Plan
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To agree to lodging a submission on the Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan to ensure pest management issues facing the Council are adequately addressed.
2. Recommendation
3. Background
3.1 After a process of review established by the Joint Regional Pest Management Committee, and managed by Tasman District Council as the Council’s pest management agency, the proposed Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2017-2027 (Proposed Plan) has been notified for public submissions from 4 November to 15 December.
3.2 The purpose of the Proposed Plan is to provide a framework for efficient and effective management or eradication of specified organisms in the Nelson and Tasman Regions. It identifies the organisms to be classified as pests and managed on a regional basis.
3.3 At a late stage in the Proposed Plan preparation process questions were asked regarding wilding conifer, goats and Taiwan Cherry and whether what was in the Proposed Plan adequately addressed these matters in the Nelson context. In order to ensure the Plan appropriately reflects the Nelson context it is proposed to lodge a submission on behalf of Council.
4. Discussion
4.1 The Proposed Plan provides an excellent opportunity to ensure the Council’s pest management objectives are aligned with its biodiversity programme, such as Nelson Nature. In particular, the management of a number of pests require further consideration than currently covered by the Proposed Plan, namely:
4.1.1 Taiwan Cherry – the Proposed Plan provides for controlling this invasive pest to the north-east of the city only. Further consideration is needed to determine whether this is sufficient to address the risk, such as eradication across a larger area or whole region.
4.1.2 Wilding conifers – the Proposed Plan provides for control of 4 species (Douglas fir, Lodgepole pine, Radiata pine, and Scots pine) in areas of Mt Richmond Forest Park, Abel Tasman National Park and Nelson Lakes National Park. Consideration should be given to whether the Dun Mountain Mineral Belt be included alongside these areas.
4.1.3 Goat control is not included at all in the Proposed Plan and further consideration is required as to whether a site led approach is an appropriate mechanism to deal with the issue of goats destroying plants on private or Council land.
4.2 As the Proposed Plan has just been notified and submissions close on 15 December there has not been adequate time to prepare a draft submission for consideration by the Committee. The next Committee meeting is in February 2018 meaning the submission date will have passed. It is proposed a submission be prepared by Officers before the closing date addressing the issues identified in paragraph 4.1 above.
4.3 Costs of preparing a submission will be covered within existing budgets.
5. Options
5.1 There are two options considered below.
|
Option 1: Submit on the Proposed Plan |
|
|
Advantages |
· Enables Council to ensure Plan process will explore and consider the most effective ways of managing pests of concern |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Some time and resource required to prepare a submission although this is minimal.
|
|
Option 2: Do not submit on the Proposed plan |
|
|
Advantages |
· Saves time and resource. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Opportunity to rigorously consider the above issues and explore best pest management options would be lost. |
5.2 It is recommended that a submission is made. As these are Council issues it would be helpful if the submission is made by Council.
6. Conclusion
6.1 It is recommended that a submission be prepared on behalf of Council.
Richard Frizzell
Environmental Programmes Officer
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government This report and recommendation achieve consideration of rigorous management and control of pests that threaten the region, ensuring environmental and economic risks 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. The report is consistent with Nelson 2060. The recommendations contribute to Goal three: our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy. |
|
3. Risk The report seeks to reduce risk posed by pests to Nelson by ensuring full consideration of effective control measures. |
|
4. Financial impact Costs will be covered within existing budgets. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance. It ensures Council takes the opportunity to improve consideration of pest management issues and options as available to it. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Consultation with Maori has not been undertaken or considered necessary. |
|
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 |
Item 14: Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8704
Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the draft Nelson Biodiversity Strategy (the Strategy) and to approve the Strategy in principle.
2. Discussion
2.1 The Nelson Biodiversity Forum (the Forum) is a 31 member organisation working together to identify and align actions to improve biodiversity in the Nelson area.
2.2 Council is a member of the Forum and is represented on the Forum by three Councillors and several Council officers.
2.3 The Forum develops and works toward a strategy, the Nelson Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to align existing actions under a common vision and introduce new actions to address priority issues related to biodiversity management in Nelson.
2.4 The Forum is undertaking the third review of the Strategy and has developed a draft Strategy (Nelson Biodiversity Strategy) for the next three years. Workshops have been held since January 2017 compromising Forum members, including Councillors and officers.
2.5 The draft Strategy sets out the goals, objectives and outcomes agreed by the Forum and sets out actions to achieve intermediate objectives.
2.6 The Forum has identified a “lead” for each action. Being a “lead” commits the agency representative on the Forum to act as a focal point for initiating action and update the Forum on progress, however it does not mean that an agency will be the primary provider of resources to complete an action.
2.7 The draft Strategy identifies Council as a lead for a number of actions, most of which are already part of Council’s existing funded targeted biodiversity programmes, e.g. Nelson Nature and Project Maitai, and/or are consistent with Council’s responsibilities as a unitary authority.
2.8 The Forum plans to agree on a final draft version of the Strategy, including assignment of ‘leads’ to all actions, at its next meeting on Monday 27th November. Following this, the agency representatives will take the final draft Strategy, including responsibilities for ‘leading’ actions, back to their agency for formal approval.
2.9 Note the track changes in the attached document will be provided to the Biodiversity Forum for consideration and inclusion.
3. Recommendation
4. Options
|
Option 1: Approve Strategy in principle (preferred option) |
|
|
Advantages |
· Council demonstrates its support of the Nelson Biodiversity Forum |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· There are no risks |
|
Option 2: Do not approve Strategy in principle |
|
|
Advantages |
· There are no advantages |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Council is not seen to support the process of the Nelson Biodiversity Forum · Nelson Biodiversity Forum continues to develop the Strategy without Council’s involvement |
|
Option 3: Recommend changes to Strategy |
|
|
Advantages |
· Strategy takes into account issues that may not have been discussed by the Forum in the development of the Strategy to date |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· May delay the timeframe for completion of the final Strategy |
Leigh Marshall
Environmental Programmes Advisor
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1861351 Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Participation in the Nelson Biodiversity Forum fits with the role of Local Government as the partnership approach, focused on better environmental outcomes for the region, aims to meet the current and future needs of the community at a local level. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Nelson Biodiversity Strategy/Forum aligns with all four themes within Nelson 2060, and with a number of Community Outcomes including: · Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected · Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient · Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement · Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy |
|
3. Risk There are no risks associated with this decision. |
|
4. Financial impact There are no financial implications associated with this decision. Agreeing to the Strategy “in principle” does not commit the Council to any specific course of action. Actions within the Strategy are the responsibility of all 31 Partners to the Strategy. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is low significance because many of those organisations within the community that are concerned with the matters in the Strategy (and which themselves have a broad outreach into the community) have been part of its development. Therefore there is no further consultation required on the document at this stage. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process There are iwi partners that attend the Forum, and the Strategy has been discussed at a Nelson City Council Iwi Working Group (Nelson Plan) meeting, and circulated subsequent to that meeting. |
|
7. Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee/ has the responsibility for considering matters relating to the environment, and to biodiversity specifically. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter. |
|
|
Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 |
REPORT R8520
Nelson Plan Resourcing
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To seek additional resourcing in 2017/2018 to support the development of the Nelson Plan.
2. Summary
2.1 An increase of $600,000 in Nelson Plan budget is sought for the 2017/2018 financial year to enable the release of a draft Nelson Plan, bring the peer/legal review and cost benefit analysis forward to this financial year, and the need to engage consultants to cover significant staff vacancies.
2.2 This $600,000 increase in funding for 2017/2018 will be partially offset by $300,000 by reducing the 2018/2019 projections for the cost of the peer/legal review and cost benefit analysis. Further savings may also be achieved by utilising staff vacancy budget from 2017/2018 and moving towards a staff model (increasing staff numbers and reducing consultant numbers) in 2018/2019.
2.3 While the 2017/2018 budget is proposed to increase by $600,000 it is projected that the overall budget for the Nelson Plan will increased by $400,000 over years 2015/2016 to 2020/2021. This is largely due to a reduction in litigation costs anticipated in 2019-2021 by increasing the budget this financial year to ensure that the Nelson Plan is more technically robust and supported by iwi partners and key stakeholders.
2.4 It is recommended that Council continue with the Nelson Plan timeline reported to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017. It is also recommended that while a consultant model is used for 2017/2018 that increasingly as staff are recruited into vacancies the work is undertaken to a greater degree in-house. It is also recommended the proposed Planning Adviser role be brought forward to 2017/2018.
2.5 The approach summarised above will ensure that the Nelson Plan meets statutory requirements, is fit for purpose, and increases the likelihood of broad support for the Plan by iwi partners, the wider community, and key stakeholders.
3. Recommendation
|
That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Nelson Plan Resourcing (R8520) and its attachment (A1858783). |
Recommendation to Council
|
Allocates an additional unbudgeted $600,000 for the development of the Nelson Plan in the 2017/2018 financial year; and Notes that some increases in the 2017/2018 financial year will be offset by reducing budget projections for 2018/2019 by $300,000 and savings in consultant costs by employing an additional staff member and as recruitment of vacancies is achieved. |
4. Background
4.1 Council decided to undertake an integrated review of Nelson’s resource management plans at the end of 2013. Approximately $3.6million was allocated for the development of the Nelson Plan in years one (2015/16) to six (2020/21) of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan. This funding was based on an ambitious timeframe resulting in notification in 2016/2017 and decisions in 2018/2019 as outlined Attachment 1.
4.2 The original Nelson Plan programme did not include the release of a draft plan ahead of public notification.
4.3 The Nelson Plan programme (time, cost, scope) has been adjusted as the development of the Plan has developed. For example the Council deferred the development of the Nelson Plan in 2015/16 for six months so that the Woodburner Plan Change (Plan Change A3) could be prioritised at a cost of approximately $200,000.
4.4 Attachment 1 summarises the key timeline and budget changes to the Nelson Plan programme from 2015/2016-2020/2021.
4.5 There have also been a range of other factors that have influenced the Nelson Plan programme. These factors were most recently outlined to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017 when the Committee considered whether the timeline of the Nelson Plan should be adjusted to provide for notification in late May 2019 rather than January 2018.
4.6 The timeline has been adjusted for a number of reasons including:
· The need to extend workshop timeframes so that the Council can meaningfully engage on the draft Plan content
· The need to incorporate additional changes resulting from national policy changes such as National Environment Standard Plantation Forestry, National Policy Statement for Freshwater and the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity.
· The need for additional engagement with potentially affected landowners and stakeholders
· New statutory obligations to provide a draft of the Plan to iwi prior to public release
· There has been a desire for greater quality control to ensure a robust Plan including independent legal and peer reviews, consent testing, and cost benefit analysis of the draft Plan provisions.
4.7 A summary of the Nelson Plan timeline options considered in the 3 October 2017 report is included in the options section of this report below.
4.8 Further work has now been undertaken to more carefully consider the financial implications of changing the timeline and scope of the Nelson Plan.
5. Discussion
5.1 The timeline of the Nelson Plan has been set so that a good quality plan can be notified ahead of the Local Body Elections in late 2019. The focus of this report is on the financial implications of delivery of the Nelson Plan as a result of change in approach over time.
Budget Adjustments Recommended
5.2 The overall budget for the Nelson Plan is projected to increase from approximately $3.6 million to $4.0 million between 2015/16-2020/21 (refer attachment 1 for year by year costings/projections).
5.3 Approximately $250,000 of the $603,000 2017/18 budget for the development of the Nelson Plan has been spent to date. It is now estimated that a total of $1.2 million will be needed in 2017/2018 due to phasing changes associated with the Nelson Plan timeline, national policy changes, a need for increased engagement, and staff vacancies.
5.4 While the financial impact of scope changes means that there is a significant increase in projections for the current financial year (2017/2018), some of this increase can be offset by bringing budget ($300,000) forward from 2018/2019 and by relying on the staff vacancy account to fund additional consultant costs in the short term and moving towards a staff model in 2018/2019.
5.5 The Draft Environment Activity Management Plan 2018/2028 budget envisaged that the peer/legal review and cost benefit analysis, estimated at approximately $300,000, would be undertaken following the release of the draft Nelson Plan in 2018/2019. The revised timeline identifies that this will be brought forward to 2017/2018 so that the community has an opportunity to see a more polished plan with a robust economic analysis.
5.6 It is anticipated that approximately $120,000 can be offset by salary savings due to ongoing staff vacancy issues in 2017/18.
5.7 There is also an opportunity to reduce overall costs by employing additional staff and relying less on consultants for community engagement in the 2018/19 financial year. This is contingent on being able to fill current vacancies in the short term.
5.8 The main cause of overall projection increases relates to scope changes that have occurred such as:
· the Woodburner Plan change in 2016;
· national policy changes;
· the desire to release a draft Nelson Plan that has had a peer/legal review ahead of public notification;
· A desire for greater iwi partner and community engagement to increase buy-in and potentially reduce opposition following notification;
· Staff vacancies (currently 3.5FTEs out of a team of 7FTEs) have required engagement of additional consultants to keep the Nelson Plan process on track.
Staff Resource Increase
5.9 The Planning team currently has a staff resource of 0.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Manager, 1.0 FTE Team Leader, 1.5 FTE Administrator, 2.0 FTE Senior Planning Advisers and 2.0 FTE Planning Advisers. There is currently a vacancy of one Senior Planning Adviser, One Planning Adviser, One half time Administrator, and One Team Leader. Officers are seeking additional funding for a full time Planning Adviser ($80,000) as part of the Long Term Plan to help with Bylaws in the medium term but Plan review in the short term. This has been signalled in the Draft Environment Activity Management Plan approved by the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017.
5.10 The addition of a Planning Adviser would bring staff resourcing to 8.0FTE’s which would be more consistent with staff resourcing of other comparable Council Plan review teams (Environment Waikato and Northland Regional Council 9 FTE’s and Tasman District Council 10.5FTE’s). Due to current staff vacancies there is a need to bring the Planning Adviser position forward to the 2017/2018 financial year as part of the recruitment drive to replace the Team Leader Planning, Senior Planning Adviser, and Planning Adviser. This recognises that it will take time to bring new staff up to speed in a team that currently has a diminishing staff resource due to vacancies.
5.11 It should also be noted that other Councils are taking a different approach to plan development where a larger portion of work is being delivered by staff, some are doing a rolling plan review, and the scope of reviews is narrower.
Options
5.12 The options for the timeline of the Nelson Plan were considered in report R8275 at the 3 October 2017 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting. The revised timeline resulting in notification by May 2019 was favoured over a notification deadline of January 2018 because this:
· Meets iwi expectations;
· Fulfils Council’s commitment to releasing a draft Plan;
· Ensures the Plan is fit for purpose; and
· Increases the likelihood of broad support for the Plan.
5.13 The disadvantages of this approach are:
· Delay in notifying the Nelson Plan; and
· Increase in overall cost as outlined in the “Budget Adjustment” section of this report above.
5.14 A number of other broad options could be considered such as deferring the peer/legal review and cost benefit analysis of the Plan until next financial year; avoid the release of a draft Plan and go straight to public notification; move to a rolling review model; and extend the timeline of the Nelson Plan. These options are likely to either increase the time and cost of the development of the Nelson Plan and are likely to impact on the quality and ultimately community buy in of the Plan. Given the significant progress that has been made with delivering an integrated Nelson Plan to date (first cut draft due end of November 2017) and the current staff vacancy issue it is not feasible to change tack.
5.15 2018/2019 (Year 1 LTP) will involve engagement on the Draft Nelson Plan, revision of the Plan following community feedback and final peer/legal review ahead of notification.
5.16 While it is not feasible to alter course this current financial year it may be possible to move to more of a staff model in 2018/2019. This would then free up some limited budget in 2018/2019 that would help off-set the projected overspend in 2017/2018. There are a number of issues with this approach as it has been difficult to attract Plan writing staff to Nelson given the shortage of available experienced staff nationally. It would also not be feasible to bring peer and legal review tasks in house.
5.17 It is therefore recommended that Council continue with the Nelson Plan timeline reported to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017 and agree to additional budget this financial year which will be partially off-set by reduced costs of approximately $300,000 next financial year.
Matt Heale
Manager Environment
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1858783 Nelson Plan resourcing and Timelines 2015 to 2020 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Additional funding sought will ensure that the community is able to provide meaningful input to the development of a quality Nelson Plan, which is a key means by which Council performs it regulatory functions. That input will ensure that the Plan represents the most cost effective means of achieving the purpose of the Local Government Act. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy This decision will help deliver the Nelson Plan to achieve the following community outcomes: · Nelson’s unique natural environment is healthy and protected · Nelson’s urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed. · Nelson’s infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs · Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive, and resilient. · Nelson’s communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity. · Nelson’s communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities · The Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement And Nelson 2060 goals: · Goal 1 – We support and encourage leaders across our community; · Goal 2 – We are all able to be involved in decisions; · Goal 3 – Our natural environment – air, land, rivers and sea – is protected and healthy; · Goal 4 – We produce more if our own food; · Goal 5 – We are able to rapidly adapt to change; · Goal 6 – We move from using fossil fuels to renewable energy sources; · Goal 7 – Our economy thrives and contributes to a vibrant and sustainable Nelson; · Goal 8 - Nelson is the centre of learning and practice in Kaitiakitanga and sustainable development; · Goal 9 – Everyone in our community has their essential needs met; · Goal 10 – We reduce our consumption so that resources are shared more fairly. |
|
3. Risk The additional resources sought will ensure that the Nelson Plan can be delivered to an appropriate quality and reasonable timeframe to ensure that key stakeholders and iwi partners are fully engaged and Nelson’s natural and built environment is appropriately managed. There is a risk that staff vacancies cannot be filled which may impact further on the 2017/2018 budget projections. |
|
4. Financial impact The 2017/2018 financial impact is to increase the budget by approximately $600,000. Reducing the 2018/2019 budget by $300,000 and employing more staff will off-set some of these costs. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of medium significance because of the financial impact and the change in service levels for the development of the Nelson Plan. The revised timeframe will allow the community to be engaged in the development of the Nelson Plan. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Members of Council’s Iwi Working Group have sought provision for additional input into the Nelson Plan which has been factored into the adjusted timeline. |
|
7. Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee/Council has the responsibility for considering Resource Management Act matters. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a recommendation to Council on this matter. |
