Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 February 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 23 November 2017 9 - 16

Document number M3148

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 22 February 2018 17 - 19

Document number R8985

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 22 February 2018 (R8985) and its attachment (A1736802).

7. Chairperson's Report

8. Nelson Tasman Hospice - Authority to Consider Development Contributions 20 - 22

Document number R8895

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Hospice - Authority to Consider Development Contributions (R8895); and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to development contributions associated with the Nelson Tasman Hospice.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Considers the matter of the Nelson Tasman Hospice Development Contributions.

9. Authority to Review the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 23 - 25

Document number R8922

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Authority to Review the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015 (R8922); and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to the review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Undertakes the review of the Development and Financial Contributions Policy 2015.

10. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October - 31 December 2017 26 - 70

Document number R8786

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October - 31 December 2017 (R8786) and its attachments (A1875041 and A1898960).

11. Resource Management and Special Housing Areas charges 71 - 81

Document number R8852

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Resource Management and Special Housing Areas charges (R8852) and its attachment (A1822386).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Approves the charges as under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (A1822386) to commence from 21 March 2018.

12. Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules 82 - 99

Document number R8801

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R8801) and its attachments (A1902961 and A1897288); and

Approves amendments detailed in the report R8801 to the following schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011) No 207;

· Schedule 4: Time limited parking

· Schedule 8: Special parking areas

· Schedule 9: No stopping

As per Option 1 in report R8801 without changes.

13. Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review 100 - 142

Document number R8633

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review (R8633) and its attachments (A1903755, A1903757, and A1903747); and

Commences the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, noting that the review will be completed by 25 February 2020; and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Undertakes the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

14. Biosecurity Annual Review 143 - 190

Document number R8870

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review 2016-17 (R8870) and its attachments (A1895116, A1902534 and A1895113); and

Approves the 2017-18 Biosecurity Operational Plan for the Tasman and Nelson Regions, specifically as it relates to Nelson (A1895113).

Public Excluded Business

15. Exclusion of the Public

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 - 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)(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
2	Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee Public Excluded - 22 February 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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Planning and Regulatory Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 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)(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

Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee Public Excluded - 22 February 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)(a)

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

16. Re-admittance of the public

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Jenna Stallard and Latai Funaki will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Planning and Regulatory Committee Minutes - 23 November 2017

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

On Thursday 23 November 2017, commencing at 9.00am

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

In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Environment (C Barton), Manager Roading and Utilities (M Parfitt), Manager Building (M Brown), Team Leader City Development (L Gibellini), Manager Environment (M Heale), Manager Consents and Compliance (M Bishop), Team Leader Science & Environment (J Martin), Environmental Programmes Adviser (R Frizzell), Environmental Programmes Adviser (L Marshall) and Governance Adviser (P White)

Apologies: Councillor Barker for early departure.

1. Apologies

Resolved PR/2017/060

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Accepts the apology from Councillor Barker for early departure.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the Order of Business.

3. Interests

Chairperson B McGurk noted his interest in Item 13 on the agenda Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pests Management Plan, and signalled his intent to vacate the Chair for that item.

4. Public Forum

4.1 Jill Kearns

Jill spoke about the Urban Environments Bylaw No 225 in relation to her property at Champion Road. The zoning had been changed about five years previously to urban. Her property is a lifestyle block and she had been visited by compliance officers in relation to complaints about her roster, which was not permitted in an urban zone. She believed that the bylaw needed to be modified to take into account lifestyle blocks in an urban area.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 3 October 2017

Document number M2976, agenda pages 9 - 18 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/061

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.

Walker/Dahlberg Carried

6. Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 23 November 2017

Document number R8713, agenda pages 19 - 23 refer.

Resolved PR/2017/062

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the Status Report Planning and Regulatory Committee 23 November 2017 (R8713) and its attachment (A1736802).

Walker/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

7. Co-Chairperson's Report

There was no report.

8. Strategy and Environment Report for 1 July - 30 September 2017

Document number R8196, agenda pages 24 - 58 refer.

The meeting adjourned at 9.15am and recommenced at 9.25am due to technological issues.

Manager Building, Martin Brown, Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, Manager Environment Matt Heale, Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizzell and Team Leader Science & Environment, Jo Martin joined the table to speak to the report.

Mr Frizzell tabled a paper detailing a recent air quality exceedance in Airshed B1(A1870652). Members discussed the possible reasons for the exceedance, which had not been identified.

Ms Gibillini spoke about Special Housing Areas (SHAs). She said that since the general election there was concern about a possible change in policy direction on SHAs. After writing to the Minister of Housing Urban Development, the Mayor had received a response confirming the Ministry’s commitment to all SHAs already in progress.

Attendance: Councillor Barker left the meeting at 9.37am.

Resolved PR/2017/063

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).

Paine/Walker Carried

Attachments

1 A1870652 Air Quality Exceedance Airshed B1

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

Document number R8600, agenda pages 59 - 70 refer.

Manager Roading and Utilities, Margaret Parfitt, spoke to the report.

Resolved PR/2017/064

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.

Fulton/Walker Carried

10. Compliance Strategy

Document number R8673, agenda pages 71 - 89 refer.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop spoke to the report.

Resolved PR/2017/065

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Compliance Strategy (R8673) and its attachment (A1855717)

Dahlberg/Fulton Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2017/066

That the Council:

Approves the Compliance Strategy 2017 to guide staff and contractors in the exercise of enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council.

Dahlberg/Fulton Carried

11. National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Report

Document number R8477, agenda pages 90 - 111 refer.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibillini spoke to the report and answered a question on non-residential consents.

Resolved PR/2017/067

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.

Dahlberg/Fulton Carried

12. Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act

Document number R8668, agenda pages 112 - 115 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Environment, Clare Barton presented the report.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (R8668).

Paine/Her Worship the Mayor

13. Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan

Councillor McGurk vacated the Chair at 10.01am due to a conflict of interest, and took no part in the debate. Her Worship, Mayor R Reese took the Chair.

Councillor Fulton declared an interest in this item and withdrew from the meeting.

Document number R8696, agenda pages 116 - 119 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizzell spoke to the report.

Resolved PR/2017/068

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Submission on Proposed Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (R8696); and

Agrees a submission be prepared on behalf of Council so that pest management issues for Nelson City are fully considered.

Dahlberg/Walker Carried

Her Worship, Mayor R Reese vacated the Chair, and Councillor McGurk returned to the meeting and the Chair at 10.03am.

Councillor Fulton rejoined the meeting.

14. Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Draft

Document number R8704, agenda pages 120 - 146 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Leigh Marshall, spoke to the report.

Resolved PR/2017/069

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.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

15. Nelson Plan Resourcing

Document number R8520, agenda pages 147 - 155 refer.

Manager Environment, Matt Heale spoke to the report.

Resolved PR/2017/070

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Nelson Plan Resourcing (R8520) and its attachment (A1858783).

Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton Carried

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.

Her Worship the Mayor/Fulton

16. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved PR/2017/071

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

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

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

Walker/Paine Carried

The meeting went into public excluded session at 10.14am and resumed in public session at 10.52am.

17. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved PR/2017/072

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Paine/Acland Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 10.52am.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 February 2018

REPORT R8786

Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October - 31 December 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. There have been five breaches for issuing code of compliance certificates. Target timeframes for inspections have settled in the last quarter but on average are still out past the three days preferred due to a considerable up trend in inspection numbers. Further resources have been acquired to provide the desired level of service. Collaboration continues with Tasman District Council, and both Councils are seeking the same end-to-end digital building control services solution to drive efficiency and standardisation across both Councils.
Consents and Compliance	Delivery of all statutory regulatory functions. Compliance with statutory timeframes.	91% compliance with resource consent timeframes. 8 of the 9 late consents (out of 112 issued) were 1 or 2 days over time.
Science and Environment	Delivery of all programmes. Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards.	Recruitment undertaken for two vacant Environmental Programmes Adviser roles focused on urban ecology and waste minimisation/carbon reduction. Summer recreational bathing monitoring programmes begun. Programme delivery taking place.
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	Following the completion of initial Council workshops on Nelson Plan topics, the focus in this quarter was on compiling a draft of the Plan for peer review, proofing and consent testing. Those quality control processes commenced in December.
City Development	Coordinated growth with infrastructure. A well planned city that meets the community’s current and future needs.	5 Special Housing Areas (SHAs) were recommended to the Minister for Housing and Urban Development in this last quarter. These are waiting to be considered by Cabinet. The second quarterly monitoring report required by the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity (NPS –UDC) was completed.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Strategy and Environment Report for 1 October - 31 December 2017 (R8786) and its attachments (A1875041 and A1898960).

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 Building Consent Authority (BCA) continues to process building consents and certificates of acceptance within the statutory time limit.

5.2 The transition work, for Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 (1 July 2017), continues to track to the timeframes for identification of Priority Buildings and special consultative process planned for the last quarter of this financial year. This process was outlined to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at the 3 October 2017 meeting.

Trends

5.3 Building consent applications have stabilised but are still 15% higher than 2015/16 first and second quarters, indicating the general increased trend from prior years continues.

5.4 Granted building consents are marginally lower than first and second quarter 2016/17 but are still an 8% increase from 2014/15 and 2015/16 years.

5.5 The first and second quarter building inspections are up 15% and increasing steadily on the last two years. The unit has adjusted the projection and it is likely that over 7100 inspections could be undertaken this year which would be the second highest in the last five years.

Strategic direction and focus

5.6 Work continues on the alignment of quality management systems across the 21 GoShift member councils. GoShift aims to develop a single set of quality procedures to drive more consistent industry practice in the quality management space.

5.7 Work continues to achieve greater collaboration with Tasman District Council with progress in procuring the same digital building control service solution for building consent processing and inspecting across both Councils.

5.8 The Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 were amended and commenced on 1 July 2017. The changes arising from this amendment continue to be implemented. These changes were reported to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at the 25 May 2017 meeting.

Risks and challenges

5.9 The BCA continues to manage its risks daily through processing building consents, inspecting building work and issuing Code Compliance Certificates in accordance with the BCA’s agreed procedures.

5.10 There have been five breaches of the 20 day time limit for issuing of Code Compliance Certificates over the last quarter. This has been due to a change in the way the statutory time limit has been managed and lack of staff familiarity with the new process. One breach was caused by a lack of staff resource to check the documents received.

5.11 Recruitment of an additional Building Officer (Inspector) resource in December will assist going forward with the Inspections team capacity (noting the reported increase in inspection numbers over the last two quarters). The team is meeting more of the customer demand for inspections within 48 hours and the 72 hour target but there is still a higher number than desirable falling outside of this time frame. This will continue until the new recruit obtains a competency level, which is expected in the next quarter.

5.12 Generally building application numbers have remained at the higher level experienced over the last 12 months. The BCA is getting signals from the market this is to remain and there is still the likelihood of an increase in workload over the next 6 to 12 months.

6. Discussion – Consents and Compliance

Achievements

6.1 The first month of the Freedom Camping Bylaw enforcement went smoothly with most restricted areas not being full although numbers increased at the end of December. Officers educate and inform during evening patrols and issue infringement notices on morning patrols. In total 176 verbal warnings were given and 53 infringements issued, all for non-self-contained vehicles. Five infringements were cancelled on appeal and seventeen infringements have been paid although most are not yet due.

6.2 Council obtained consent to replace the Saltwater Creek footbridge near the Maitai walkway.

6.3 A 43 lot subdivision was granted for Suffolk Road adjacent to the new hospice site with associated stream works and stormwater discharge consents.

Trends

6.4 Reliance on external consultants has reduced from 25% of all consents to 12% for the first half of the year.

Strategic direction and focus

6.5 Once staff are in place the focus of the resource consents team will be re-connecting with our regular customers to ensure they are familiar with the new processes and to find ways to ensure their interactions with Council are as smooth as possible including confirming a dedicated staff contact for each large consent application or regular stakeholder.

6.6 For the first time the harbourmaster functions will be covered full time over summer instead of 20 hours a week thanks to funding received from Maritime NZ. The newly appointed deputy harbourmaster, Amanda Kerr, will have a greater presence on the water and build on existing education campaigns. There have already been some accidents that could have had fatal outcomes with two boats sinking, a kayaker and a waka rower unable to get back into their swamped boats. All were rescued. On Boxing Day the deputy harbourmaster rescued four stand up paddle boarders unable to return to shore in the wind. None were wearing life jackets.

6.7 A recent search and rescue exercise between the NCC and TDC harbourmasters, Police, LandSAR, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving focussed on clear communications, protocols and better co-ordination between the organisations.

Risks

6.8 The senior planner position is proving difficult to recruit for. Staff have been stretched to cover vacancies but we are hopeful two of the three vacancies will be filled by the next quarterly report.

7. Discussion – Science and Environment

Achievements

7.1 Approximately 150 people attended the Top of the South Community Trapping workshop in December, co-hosted by NCC, Department of Conservation (DOC) and Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust. The purpose of the day was to inspire, enable and connect community groups and individuals working to protect wildlife by trapping pests. Feedback from attendees was very positive and Nelson Nature will be continuing to support and encourage community trapping programmes in Nelson as part of the Halo project.

7.2 Nelson Nature has partnered with Landcare Trust to improve water quality outcomes in the Wakapuaka catchment through a project branded ‘Wakapuaka: Bursting into Life!’ The majority of land in the catchment is in private ownership, so the focus is on working with rural landowners on riparian planting, weed control, stock exclusion, septic tank use, encouraging the use of rainwater collection and awareness of water quality issues. A programme to increase monitoring for E.coli, and a cultural indicator monitoring programme with iwi, are underway to provide good data to guide the programme.

7.3 Forest and Bird were successful in their bid for $60,000 from the national DOC Community Fund to help support Nelson Nature’s wilding conifer control programme on Dun Mountain. The funds will be spent across three years and will increase the rate that wilding conifers are being removed from the area, reducing the long term costs of this control programme. Approximately 600 ha of the mineral belt has been controlled for wilding conifers in 2017.

7.4 Funding was received in this year from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for the Dun Mountain Trail, and $32,000 of this was in relation to enhancement works at Groom Creek and the Tantragee Reserve. These works are now complete, and the final project report has been submitted to MBIE.

7.5 Groom Creek Wetland is well on the way to completion, with phase one of construction finished in December. The next steps are realigning of the Creek into the wetland and planting.

7.6 The York Stream/Te Wairepo Project continued to encourage the participation of Victory residents in caring for the York Stream, through the use of behavioural based approaches. A second Team Up to Clean Up was held in November which focused on weeds along the stream. Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) media students assisted in this project by incorporating elements into their project brief and producing posters for events, and a booklet which outlines progress in this project to date (see Attachment 2).

7.7 Remediation of fish barriers was completed in York Stream and Arapiki Stream in December. The fixing of over 200 baffles and 60 tunnel houses will enable native fish and eels to negotiate their way along the length of these streams. This work adds to the remediation already completed in five other urban streams, as well as in the Maitai River.

7.8 An afternoon tea with the Mayor for environmental volunteers was held in December, and over 40 volunteers from different groups attended. The purpose of the event was to acknowledge those who have spent many hours giving their time to improving our environment.

7.9 NCC and TDC sponsored a trial in partnership with Nelson Venues and Ideal Cups, with the objective of supporting coffee cart vendors to reduce their use of non-recyclable disposable cups. Re-usable cups were trialled at the Ciderfest and the one day cricket at Saxton Oval, using a returnable bond or reduced purchase price approach. Further trials are planned.

7.10 A successful application was made to The Packaging Forum for a small grant to assist staff in establishing better systems to reduce waste generated at Kaifest in February.

7.11 The e-waste subsidy provided by Nelson City Council to Nelson Environment Centre (NEC) has been gaining traction since its introduction in November. NEC provide a pay-as-you-go e-waste recycling service, and they are now able to offer up to a maximum of $20 subsidy per household or organisation, with staff monitoring the uptake in order to report in more detail at a later date.

7.12 The National Enviroschools census was run during Term 4 with 91% of Nelson Enviroschools participating. Data from the census will be available in the next quarter. Stoke Kindergarten, Nelson College for Girls and Hampden Street School progressed to Silver, and Nelson Central progressed to Bronze status.

7.13 The summer recreational bathing monitoring programme began again in November. E.coli levels are monitored once or twice a week at popular marine and freshwater recreational spots. Cyanobacteria levels are also monitored weekly and reported on the Council website.

7.14 Elevated E.coli levels at Girlies Hole in mid-December were tested for source and found to be from wildfowl, with no human E.coli present.

7.15 A new Land Air Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website module called ‘Can I swim here” was launched nationwide on 20 December. ‘Can I swim here?' shows the most up-to-date E.coli and cyanobacteria information for 11 sites across our region and is freely available on LAWA.org.nz/swim. The LAWA website contains valuable information for swimmers including advice on checking if the water is clean and clear, avoiding swimming for two days after heavy rainfall, and looking out for other possible hazards.

7.16 The annual project update report for the Warmer Healthier Homes scheme for the period to 30 September 2017 has been received. During stage 3, 175 Nelson homes were insulated. Since the schemes inception 445 Nelson homes have been insulated. The combined total across Nelson/Tasman & Marlborough is 783.

7.17 The water level sensor and data logger at Avon Terrace were upgraded in November. The site now has modern equipment with the potential to add sensors for other parameters in the future.

7.18 In mid-December, flows at Wakapuaka at Hira reached the first low flow trigger. Residents not on the reticulated network were advised of the potential for water restrictions and low flow gaugings were carried out in the affected streams.

7.19 Submissions on the proposed joint Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan closed on 15 December. A submission from the Council seeks to extend provisions for Taiwan cherry and include the Nelson Nature Wilding Conifer Operational Area in a site led programme. A study to determine the feasibility of eradication for Taiwan Cherry from the Nelson region recommended that in order to be cost-effective, the control programme needs to be an eradication programme throughout both the Nelson and Tasman regions.

Strategic direction and focus

7.20 A Science and Monitoring programme gap analysis was completed in December. A key focus for the next quarter is to use the analysis to develop a science and monitoring strategy to ensure the science programme is up to date.

7.21 Planning will begin for delivery of new programmes of work anticipated through the 2018 LTP, in particular the ’Healthy Streams’, estuarine monitoring and waste minimisation work streams.

7.22 Hearings of submissions on the proposed joint Regional Pest Management Plan are scheduled for March 2018, and the plan is expected to be operational by the end of June 2018.

Risks

7.23 As reported to the 23 November Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting there was an exceedance of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES) limit of 50µg/m³ for PM₁₀in Airshed B1 (Tahunanui) at the Blackwood Street monitoring site, where a level of 54µg/m³ was measured on 12 September. That brings the total exceedances to three in that airshed which exceeds the one provided for under the National Environment Standard for Air Quality. Officers are investigating but all appear to be dust related. There have been no other exceedances in any of Nelson’s airsheds in this reporting period.

8. Discussion - Planning

Achievements

8.1 Following the completion of all Council workshops on Nelson Plan content in September, the focus in this quarter turned to the compilation of a draft of the Plan, web map and associated s32 documentation. This is the first time that the entire Plan (including the Regional Policy Statement component) has been brought together for the purposes of peer review, proofing and consent testing. Those quality control processes are now underway.

8.2 A revised timeline for the Nelson Plan was approved on 3 October 2017. This signals that a draft of the Plan will be released for community feedback in August 2018 following quality control tasks, and stakeholder and iwi feedback. The Nelson Plan will then be publicly notified in May 2019.

8.3 The results of targeted engagement during the quarter are outlined below:

· Landowners potentially affected by flooding, liquefaction and faulting hazards were provided with a summary of feedback received during the course of the year, together with actions arising from this feedback

· The area affected by liquefaction was revised and affected owners were advised about ‘interim’ Land Information Memorandum (LIM) notations.

· Owners of land with outstanding natural landscapes and features and significant natural areas were consulted with in relation to draft Plan provisions.

· Letters were sent out to notable tree owners with a summary of feedback received. Owners were informed they would be given another update prior to release of the draft plan.

8.4 A working group of residents and fishers has finalised a proposal for managed vehicle access for the purposes of boat launching and retrieval at Delaware Bay. The group has been supported in its work by Council officers. Feedback on the proposal is now being sought from the wider community. A refined version of the proposal will then be provided to tangata whenua and the Council for consideration.

Natural hazards

8.5 In response to feedback and meetings with affected landowners, Council is seeking further advice from consulting Geologist Dr Mike Johnston regarding properties that have had remedial work carried out as a result of subdivision and/or building consents issues.

Freshwater

8.6 Work continues on the freshwater content of the Nelson Plan. In parallel, a draft code of practice for Council works in the beds of rivers and streams has been prepared and workshopped with Infrastructure staff. The code of practice is intended to provide best practice methods for Council officers and contractors while aligning and ensuring compliance with the expectations of the National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management, and the draft Plan provisions.

Forestry

8.7 The Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) held a workshop for Marlborough, Tasman and Nelson Council’s providing support on Plan alignment and implementation of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) in early November attended by NCC Planning Policy, resource consent and Environmental Inspections officers.

Heritage

8.8 Elected members were given a tour of the WWII radio bunker on Arapiki Road. Currently it is listed on one property in Arapiki Road, despite most of the structure being on another Arapiki Road property. Talks are ongoing with the owners of the property without the listing regarding the inclusion of their property in the listing for the radio bunker.

Biodiversity and landscape

8.9 Approximately 115 owners have been contacted regarding options for Significant Natural Areas. Feedback has been received from 33 to date (a 29% response rate, similar to previous engagement rounds). Feedback has been mixed, with approximately two thirds of respondents supportive of the approach, and around one third opposed. A series of meetings with specific owners have been held to address and potentially resolve matters in contention, ahead of the public release of a full Plan draft for further feedback.

Growth, Development and Urban Form

8.10 Feedback from landowners of 18 ‘Scheduled Sites’ in the current NRMP was sought to inform what approach should be taken in Draft Nelson Plan in relation to these areas. Most of these scheduled sites were legacy plan changes or Environment Court decisions. The opportunity to rationalise the number of scheduled sites and incorporate them into the main structure of the Draft Nelson Plan was considered worthwhile.

Strategic direction and focus

8.11 The focus at this point is in bringing the Plan together for the purposes of ‘road testing’ or quality control prior to its external release. This work will ensure that the Plan is properly integrated at all levels (e.g. between topics, and between layers).

At the same time that the Plan has been drafted, initial work to document the directions taken and the rationale for considering (and discounting) other approaches has been undertaken. This consideration of alternatives is required by s32 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Risks

8.12 There were 3.5 vacancies in the Planning Team (Planning Adviser, Team leader, Administrator (0.5), and Senior Planning Adviser), in the quarter. Recruitment means there is now only one remaining vacancy (Senior Planning Adviser).

8.13 Any risks to the timeframe will be reported as necessary.

8.14 Draft National Planning Standards dictating the structure, form of expression, mapping and definitions used in plans are expected to be released in April 2018. The Planning Team will do its best to align the Plan with these standards before a draft Plan is released in August

9. Discussion –City Development

Achievements

9.1 Five Special Housing Areas (SHAs) have been recommended to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development in the last quarter. These included Summerset Retirement Village (Saxton and 1A Hill Street SHA’s), Bayview (Atawhai Drive), 381 Nayland Road, 40 Tasman Street and 23 Wastney Terrace. They are waiting to go to Cabinet for consideration.

9.2 A further four SHA’s (Brookside Village, Quail Rise, 3B & 3C Hill Street North and Tasman Heights) are working with officers to meet Council’s deed and resolution requirements in order that they can be recommended to the Minister.

9.3 A joint Nelson and Tasman Council workshop was held on 1 November 2017 to provide officers with direction on the form of a Future Development Strategy, a tool required for high growth urban areas by the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC). This was followed by a meeting of the Mayoral Liaison Team which further refined direction for officers.

9.4 City Development officers continue to be involved in Long Term Plan and Development Contribution reviews and analysis to ensure that Council’s investment in infrastructure required to support growth areas is programmed to meet capacity requirements of the NPS-UDC.

9.5 The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has been working with officers to finalise the next group of monitoring indicators on the Urban Development Capacity Dashboard.

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. An LDM Steering Group meeting was held on 20 November where a final draft was considered. The draft will be workshopped at a Joint Council workshop on 6 March.

9.7 Officers have been working with Galen King landowner of the Bridge Street Collective who seeks to develop his vacant site adjoining the Collective to include a public park. The project being worked on has yet to be finalised but includes a pocket park/play area for younger children integrated with some pop up commercial 10m² containers, and walk through access from Bridge Street to New Street.

Strategic Direction and Focus

9.8 The City Development Team was recently established and recruitment has just been completed for a Strategy and Environment Senior Analyst and a Senior City Development Planner. Development of a program plan for the three Full Time Equivalent (FTE) team has been drafted which will define the strategic direction and focus of the team.

9.9 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.

9.10 The NPS UDC strongly encourages Council to undertake a Future Development Strategy. Officers will bring a scoping report setting out the direction, focus and timelines for a future development strategy at the 6 March Joint Council workshop.

Risks

9.11 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 impacted by other work e.g. SHAs and National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity.

9.12 The establishment of the City Development Team will address this risk and the effectiveness of the team will be fully realised once the team is up and running. Both new team members will have started by the time this report is received.

9.13 The receipt of feedback on the Land Development Manual from the round of internal Council review has highlighted some challenges with the format of the transport section. There is a risk that this section may require rewriting, which may require the movement of timeframes. Officers are currently evaluating the feedback and determining a recommended course of action.

Mandy Bishop

Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1875041 Building and Consents and Compliance stats ⇩

Attachment 2: A1898960 Project Maitai/Mahitahi Te Wairepo booklet - NMIT - 17Jan2018 ⇩

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 level of building and resource consent application numbers continues to put pressure on meeting statutory timeframes. Vacancies have the potential to impact work programmes.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken.

7. Delegations

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

Item 12: Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 February 2018

REPORT R8801

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

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve proposed alterations to schedules of the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No. 207, to give effect to minor safety and parking improvements, roading improvements carried out as part of the capital works programme and changes arising from new subdivisions.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw (2011), No 207 Amendments to Schedules (R8801) and its attachments (A1902961 and A1897288); and

Approves amendments detailed in the report R8801 to the following schedules of the Bylaw, Parking and Vehicle Control (2011) No 207;

· Schedule 4: Time limited parking

· Schedule 8: Special parking areas

· Schedule 9: No stopping

3. Background

3.1 The Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw 2011 allows for the Council by resolution, to add, amend or delete specifications contained in the Schedules. The Council has delegated this power to the Planning and Regulatory Committee. To ensure that the Bylaw is enforceable it is important to ensure that the Schedules are updated on a regular basis. The Bylaw Schedules were last updated in November 2017.

3.2 Minor alterations and additions are proposed to Schedules 4, 8 and 9 of the Bylaw as detailed in section 4.

3.3 The proposed alterations and additions are shown for indicative purposes only by plans attached to this report. The purpose of these plans is to assist the Committee to easily and quickly understand the nature of the changes proposed. These plans will not form part of the final Bylaw. The actual changes as they will be incorporated into the final Bylaw, and with the level of detail required for enforcement purposes, will be set out in the amended Schedules.

4. Discussion

4.1 Schedule 4 Time limited parking

4.1.1 Trafalgar Centre carparks time limited for Farmers Market

In October 2017 relocation of the Farmers Market to the Maitai Boulevard occurred. Market management have requested that some of the Trafalgar Centre carparks are time limited in order to free them up for customers on market day. This carpark is heavily used by central city workers for all day parking. Three hour time limited parking is proposed for the area shown indicatively in attachment 1.1 which contains 14 parks (including an accessible carpark). This time limited period would only apply on Farmers Market days and hours of operation which are Wednesday 7am – 3pm. The balance of over 120 carparks in the area would remain unlimited.

4.1.2 Haven Road

A request has been received from the Haven Road Store owner to alter the current P10 time limited park outside the premise to P5 because cars parked there for longer are impacting on his business. This is consistent with some other dairy time limits. Council parking enforcement officers advise they are often called by the dairy owner to infringe parked vehicles who have overstayed in the carparks while spending time at the coffee outlet adjacent. They support the time limit reduction but acknowledge it will not completely eliminate the problem and they are likely to continue to be called out to enforce. Both businesses have been consulted and support the change. The location is shown indicatively in attachment 1.2.

4.1.3 A request has been received from the Theatre Royal to install a P10 time limited park at the theatre entry on Rutherford Street. This addresses the need for taxis and other vehicles to be able to drop less physically abled people at the door and move off to park elsewhere. The current carpark is P180 pay and display during business hours. This proposed change would apply to out of business hours and is shown indicatively in yellow in attachment 1.3. Officers support this request.

4.1.4 Main Road Stoke

Completion of the new Greenmeadows Centre has necessitated changes to the parking and bus stop layout on the Main Road Stoke frontage. Existing P120 carparks will be moved 22 metres south as shown indicatively in attachment 1.8.

4.2 Schedule 8: Special parking areas

4.2.1 Relocation of Bus stop Main Road Stoke

Completion of the new Greenmeadows Centre has necessitated changes in the parking and bus stop layout on the Main Road Stoke frontage. The existing bus stop will be moved 45 metres north as shown indicatively in attachment 1.8

4.2.2 Accessible carpark Theatre Royal

A request has been received to install an accessible carpark at the front of the Theatre Royal as shown indicatively in blue in attachment 1.3. Theatre management and CCS Disability Action have been consulted and are in support of the proposal.

4.2.3 Small Passenger Vehicles Stands (previously Taxi stands)

4.2.3.1 The small passenger service industry underwent several changes on October 1 2017, when the Land Transport Amendment Act 2017 came into effect. Under the new legislation, taxi stands were renamed small passenger service vehicle stands (PSV’s). Any driver in any vehicle with the correct passenger endorsements is now able to use the stands while they wait for jobs.

4.2.3.2 In the past, only taxi vehicles with external signage – including the company name, phone number, address and fleet number could use taxi stands, and Council invoiced the local taxi providers for the privilege. Income of approximately $1,600 per year was received and included lease of “exclusive stands.” This invoicing ceased with the law change. Invoicing all Small Passenger Vehicle license holders is not appropriate nor cost effective.

4.2.3.3 In the Nelson Central City there are 14 reserved locations for stands which contain a total of 20 parks. Some have operated only as taxi stands at night time and as carparks or loading zones during the day. The law change has provided an opportunity to review locations so that parking space is most efficiently used at different times of the day and night. Taxi companies have been involved in this review. The revised schedule is attached as attachment 2.

4.2.3.4 It is proposed that existing signage will be replaced with new nationally approved PSV signage as shown in indicatively in attachment 2. Some public communications will be carried out to explain what a PSV sign means.

4.3 Schedule 9: No Stopping

4.3.1 Ridgeway South

Following several reports of near misses and inconsiderate parking at the location it is proposed to install No Stopping on the Ridgeway South as shown indicatively in attachment 1.4. Feedback from directly affected residents was overwhelmingly in support of this safety improvement.

4.3.2 Shelbourne Street

Unsafe and inconsiderate parking is frequently reported at the location shown indicatively in attachment 1.5. On advice from parking enforcement officers last year a trial white line was painted but has not deterred the parking and yellow No Stopping lines are now required for enforcement purposes.

4.3.3 Putaitai Street – left turn lane

Reinstatement of the right hand turn out of Putaitai Street onto Main Road Stoke for all traffic has resulted in some queuing in the right turn lane. To ensure left hand turners can exit Putaitai Street efficiently, removal of two carparks is required as shown indicatively in attachment 1.6. Positive feedback was received from businesses in the area.

4.3.4 Wakefield Quay

The resource consents team is currently reviewing the process for imposing conditions which relate to parking arrangements that involve a third party. A historical resource consent has been granted for apartments at number 371 Wakefield Quay. Road markings requiring changes are shown indicatively in attachment 1.7. The changes are required to ensure safe site access during construction and safe use of a changed vehicle entry point. Directly affected residents were asked for feedback and an objection has been received from owners of number 369. No specific reasons for the objection other to the loss of parking was given. The current Resource Consent application would result in the loss of two public on street car parks at the frontage of 371. The “Residents only” carpark for number 369 is retained but moved approximately 7 metres north but is still outside the address.

4.3.5 Main Road Stoke

The pedestrian demand to cross Main Road Stoke mid-block between Songer Street traffic lights and the Putaitai Street traffic lights (approx. 130m apart), is expected to increase with the completion of the new Greenmeadows Centre on the east side of the road, while shopping facilities and Strawbridge Square are on the west side of the road. Construction of a pedestrian refuge on Main Road Stoke to cater for this need necessitates removal of 2 carparks and installation if 3 metres on No Stopping restriction as shown indicatively in attachment 1.8.

5. Options

5.1 There are limited alternative options for the items presented in this report as the majority in schedules 8 and 9 are proposed changes to improve safe and efficient traffic movement. The proposed changes to Schedule 4 are requested for commercial reasons and have 2 options, to approve or decline. Option 1 is the preferred option.

Option 1: Adopt changes as attached for Schedules 4, 8 and 9 without changes
Advantages	Changes to schedules are designed to improve safety and efficiency.
Risks and disadvantages	Ignores any negative public feedback to some or all proposed changes
Option 2: Adopt specific changes as discussed in meeting
Advantages	Recognises any 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, 8 and 9
Advantages	There are no identified advantages
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: A1902961 Proposed changes shown indicatively on aerials ⇩

Attachment 2: A1897288 Proposed changes from taxi stands to PSV stands. ⇩

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. Nearby business or residents which could be affected have been consulted.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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.

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 13: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 February 2018

REPORT R8633

Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide the timing of the review of the Dog Control Policy (the Policy) and Bylaw 221 (the Bylaw) and whether Council or the Planning and Regulatory Committee should progress the review.

2. Summary

2.1 The Dog Control Bylaw review is required to be commenced by 25 February 2018 pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). If the Bylaw review is not completed by 25 February 2020 it is automatically revoked. If the review is completed by 25 February 2020 any future subsequent review is required within 10 years rather than five years i.e. it provides an additional 5 years of use of the Bylaw.

2.2 The review of the Bylaw entails consideration of four key matters:

· Identification of the perceived problem.

· Is the Bylaw the most appropriate and proportionate way to address the perceived problem?

· Is the Bylaw the most appropriate form (content)?

· Will the Bylaw give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Right Act (NZBORA) implications?

2.3 Once the Council has completed this review, if it decides to continue with a bylaw, it would then commence the formal consultation and hearing process required to adopt the Bylaw.

2.4 There are approximately 6000 registered dog owners in Nelson. The Bylaw and Policy both manage dog access to a number of public areas in Nelson. Previous bylaws have generated a significant amount of public interest.

2.5 Given the likely scale of public interest, potential impact, and the resources required to review the Bylaw it is recommended that Committee agrees to commence the review but that the Bylaw review be progressed by Council. In addition, stakeholder engagement is scheduled to start in late 2018 in order to ensure that the review can be completed by 25 February 2020 and that adequate staff resources are in place to manage the review.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review (R8633) and its attachments (A1903755, A1903757, and A1903747); and

Commences the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, noting that the review will be completed by 25 February 2020; and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

Undertakes the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

4. Background

Review Timing

4.1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that bylaws are reviewed every five years and allows a two year grace period for the review to be completed (seven years all together).

4.2 The review of the Control of Dogs Bylaw (Bylaw 209) and Dog Control Policy 2004 was not completed within the seven year timeframe. The Bylaw was then revoked by operation of the law and the Council was required to make a new Bylaw which must now be reviewed within seven years.

4.3 The current version of Nelson’s Dog Control Policy and Bylaw came into effect on 25 February 2013.

4.4 At the Council meeting on 23 March 2017 Council adopted the “Nelson City Council Governance Statement 2016-2019” (A1708727) which confirmed that the review of the Bylaw should commence by 25 February 2018.

Dog Control Policy Content

4.5 The Dog Control Policy, February 2013 (Attachment 1) outlines where dogs are prohibited, required to be on lead, and where dogs can go off lead under control of their owners. The Policy also stipulates:

· A registration fee structure for different types of dogs (rural, urban, good dog owner scheme, dangerous dogs, and safety dogs such as Police search and rescue and disability assist dogs).

· How barking dogs, dangerous and menacing dogs are to be managed.

· An enforcement approach based on education first followed by enforcement for repeat offenders.

· The types of owner education including the Doggy Do Project, Good Dog Owner policy, publicity material, and Dog Control Officers approach.

· Dog Number Limits (two in the urban area).

· The need to co-operate with other organisations such as the Ministry of Agriculture (now called the Ministry of Primary Industries), Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and other interest groups.

· Links to the Bylaw.

Dog Control Bylaw Content

4.6 The Dog Control Bylaw - Bylaw 221- (Attachment 2) mirrors the policy in terms of prohibition, on lead and off lead areas, and the restrictions on the numbers of dogs. The Bylaw provides further guidance on seizure of roaming dogs, manged or diseased dogs, nuisances or injury to health, dogs defecating, and penalties. Exemptions for training and working dogs and wildlife management dogs are provided for in the Bylaw.

Issues Identified to Date

4.7 The 2013 Bylaw and Policy took some time to develop and generated a high level of public concern and involvement. The Policy and Bylaw have been fairly non-controversial since they came into effect. Discussion with Environmental Inspections Limited have indicated the following potential issues:

· The need to consider whether some off lead areas should be repealed where stock are grazing, such as the Grampians where there has been a history of dogs attacking sheep.

· Reconsider on/off lead areas in Isel Park due to confusion.

· Consider making the Railway Reserve an on lead area due to number of complaints about dogs out of control.

4.8 There have also been issues raised with the status of Monaco Reserve as an on-lead area. On 25 June 2015 the Planning and Regulatory Committee considered a report regarding the classification of the Monaco Reserve following a community petition seeking that the reserve should be identified as an off-leash dog area.

4.9 The Committee resolved:

“THAT the report Dogs off the leash on Monaco Reserve (R4134) and its attachments (A1374151, A1261310 and A1374167) be received;

AND THAT the response provided to petitioners convey that the Dog Control Bylaw would be reviewed in 2018, and they are invited to submit at that time.”

5. Discussion

Legal context

5.1 In deciding whether to review the Bylaw consideration must be given to s155 (LGA) and s10 (4) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

5.2 The LGA requires the identification of any perceived problem and a determination that the bylaw is the most appropriate method of addressing the problem. If the bylaw is identified as the most appropriate method, then further consideration needs to be given to whether the current form of the bylaw is the most appropriate and whether there are implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5.3 The DCA provides useful context for consideration of the above LGA matters. Section 10(4) emphasises:

(a) The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

5.4 At this stage, the Committee is being asked to consider initiation, timing and process for the required review. However to provide context for these initial decisions, some preliminary work is outlined below to assess the current Bylaw against the legal matters that will be required:

· What is the perceived problem?

· Is change to the bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

· Is the form of the bylaw appropriate?

· What are the potential implications of NZBORA?

5.5 These matters will be further considered and reported on as part of any substantive review, including taking account of stake holder engagement and feedback.

6. The Perceived Problem – Providing for the needs of dogs and their owners while keeping the community safe and minimising nuisance

6.1 There are approximately 6,000 registered dogs in Nelson with a population of 52,000 people. The challenge is how to accommodate the needs of dogs and the community. As outlined in paragraph 5.3 above, there is a need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance caused by dogs while managing access to public places where there might be a conflict between dogs and the community. This needs to be balanced with the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

6.2 Between 2012 and 2017 there have been approximately 9,000 dog related complaints ranging from nuisance matters such as barking and fouling to attacks on people and animals (Attachment 3).

6.3 The Policy and Bylaw seek to address these problems by prohibiting dogs from certain areas, designating on and off lead areas, and restricting the numbers of dogs that can be owned. The Bylaw also provides guidance on the management of roaming and diseased dogs, nuisances or injury to health and amenity issues. Specific exemptions are also provided for special purpose dogs.

6.4 As mentioned in paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 a number of issues with the current Bylaw have been identified to date.

The Bylaw is the Best Approach to Addressing the Perceived Problem

6.5 The Bylaw has been in place since 2004 and has been an effective way to manage dogs.

6.6 Under clause 10A of the DCA it is mandatory for Council to report on a range of dog control policy and practice matters. The summary of reporting over the last five years indicates that while the number of dogs registered has gone up over that time, the percentage of complaints and number of impounded dogs has decreased slightly. This would suggest that the Policy and Bylaw have been relatively effective to date.

6.7 There are limited options for managing dogs under NZ legislation. Given that there is specific provision for a dog control bylaw in the LGA and DCA along with appropriate compliance and enforcement mechanisms it is considered at this early stage that the Bylaw remains the most appropriate method for managing dogs.

6.8 While the Bylaw was relatively controversial at the time it was introduced there have been limited issues raised by the community since its introduction. Issues that have been raised are largely limited to the form of the Bylaw.

The Form of the Bylaw could be improved and will be further considered as the review commences

6.9 A limited number of issues with the bylaw have been identified by the community and EIL to date as outlined in paragraphs 4.6-4.8. These issues relate to the location of on and off lead areas and will be further considered including via stakeholder engagement as the Bylaw review proceeds.

NZBORA will be considered once the form of any changes to the Bylaw are confirmed

6.10 In reviewing bylaws the Council needs to consider whether the Bylaw would be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This consideration will be undertaken once the form of any changes to the bylaw has been established following stakeholder engagement in late 2018. A particular focus would be on whether the Bylaw impacts on the freedom of movement of people.

Review Timing

6.11 As noted, the review (stage 1) of the Bylaw should be completed prior to 25 February 2020 to avoid the Bylaw being revoked. The review will then be followed by the formal consultation and hearing process (stage 2). It is envisaged that the entire Bylaw process can be completed within 12-14 months as outlined below:

Stage 1

· Month 1 – Committee decision to review bylaw followed by officer review.

· Month 2 – Informal feedback on existing Policy and Bylaw from key stakeholders.

· Months 3-4 – Consider feedback, seek approval from Council to finalise form of Policy and Bylaw, and undertake stage 2.

Stage 2

· Months 5-6 – Undertake Formal consultation.

· Months 7-8 – Report overview of submissions and conduct a hearing for those wanting to speak. Deliberations meeting to consider submissions and officer recommendations.

· Month 9 - Council meeting to formally consider recommendations and adopt new dog control policy and bylaw.

· Months 10-12 – Put implementation steps in place – signage, communications, mapping, officer briefings.

6.12 As the focus of the Planning Team is the Nelson Plan there has been no staff resource available to undertake the Bylaw review. If the Committee agrees now to commence the review, all statutory timeframes can be met should additional staff resource signalled in the Long term Plan be approved.

6.13 The Dog Control Policy should be reviewed at the same time as the Bylaw as the Bylaw and Policy are linked. For example the Policy and Bylaw both identify areas where it is appropriate to have dogs on and off lead. Consultation is best managed at the same time for efficiency and effectiveness reasons.

7. Options

7.1 There are a number of options that need to be considered in the development of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. The first matter for consideration is who will manage the process, Council or the Planning and Regulatory Committee. The second matter is the timing of the review.

The Council Should Manage the Bylaw Review

7.2 The Planning and Regulatory Committee has delegated authority to consider matters relating to bylaws and dogs but not to make final decisions on bylaws.

7.3 The Planning and Regulatory Committee could refer the management of the Bylaw review to Council (Option 1).

7.4 The alternative (Option 2) is for the Planning and Regulatory Committee to consider all parts of the potential bylaw process that are covered by its delegations, before making the appropriate recommendations to Council for a final decision.

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Engagement with entire process by full Council. · Allows Bylaw to be completed quicker given no need for reporting to Committee and then to Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· More Governance time required by full Council.
Option 2: Do not refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Relevant aspects of a potential Bylaw rest with appropriate committee as per delegations register. · Less Governance time required for full Council as Committee will undertake review.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Risk that Council may re-litigate Committee decision causing delays. · More staff time required as reports will need to go through Committee and then Council.

7.5 Option 1 is the favoured option as the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw covers issues of considerable interest to the public of Nelson. This approach would minimise reporting, and reduce the risk of reconsideration of issues following the review.

The Bylaw review should commence before 25 February 2018 and be completed by 25 February 2020.

7.6 The preferred option, Option 2, enables the Bylaw to be reviewed when there is staff resource available, allows enough time for appropriate engagement, and means the future review will not coincide with other significant work scheduled. There are no aspects of the Bylaw requiring more urgent changes given the lack of implementation issues with the current Bylaw.

Option 1: Commence the Bylaw review by 25 February 2018 and be completed by 25 February 2020
Advantages	· Meets the timeframe described in section 160A of the Local Government Act 2002 so the Bylaw remains in force. · The next review of the Bylaw will be due in ten years (approximately 2030) rather than five years. · Stakeholder engagement period (late 2018) is sufficient and would be after Draft Nelson Plan engagement. · Allows for new staff resource to be in place (If approved via the LTP process).
Risks and Disadvantages	· If the Bylaw is not adopted within a seven year timeframe there is a small risk that infringements can be challenged.
Option 2: Commence Bylaw Review at a later date
Advantages	· May have more time for engagement.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Risk that Bylaw Review will not be completed in time and the current Bylaw will be revoked. · The next review of the Bylaw will be due in five years rather than ten years.

8. Conclusion

8.1 It is recommended that the review of the Dog Control Bylaw (221) and Policy be commenced by 25 February 2018 and completed by 25 February 2020. It is also recommended that the Planning and Regulatory Committee refer the development of the Policy and Bylaw to the Council due to the significance of this matter. This approach will ensure an efficient use of Council resources in the short and longer term, and allow enough time for appropriate consultation.

Matt Heale

Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1903755 Dog Control Policy 2013 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1803757 Dog Control Bylaw 2013 ⇩

Attachment 3: A1903747 Dog Bylaw Complaints 2012-2017 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendation is the most cost-effective option to perform the regulatory review of this Bylaw as the proposed timing will reduce staff resource and costs in future years by having the Bylaw on a 10 year review timetable.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with all statutory legislation and the following community outcome:

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

3. Risk

The proposed timing of the Bylaw and Policy review engagement will achieve better alignment with the timing of Nelson Plan engagement. There are no urgent matters that need to be addressed in the Bylaw and Policy review so it is unlikely there will be an adverse consequence arising from the timing of the review.

4. Financial impact

The recommendation will enable staff resources to be used efficiently and allow adequate community engagement. Additional Staff budget has been requested via the Draft LTP to undertake the Bylaw review.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decision to commence the Bylaw and Policy review is of low significance however the content of the review will be of high significance. The content of the review will be considered in a future report.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has occurred in the drafting of this report. Iwi will be engaged prior to the draft Bylaw going out for public consultation.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for animals and dogs and responsibility for Bylaws. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to make a decision on its areas of responsibility that are not delegated to Council officers.

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

Item 14: Biosecurity Annual Review

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 February 2018

REPORT R8870

Biosecurity Annual Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To note the content of the Review of the 2016-17 Biosecurity Operational Plan and to approve the 2017-18 Biosecurity Operational Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the management agency for every pest management strategy to annually review the Operational Plan and report on its implementation.

2.2 The Council is therefore required to report annually on activities undertaken under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy (the Strategy). The review of the 2016-17 Operational Plan (Attachment 1) summarises and reviews the activities undertaken by Tasman District Council in its role as the pest management agency for Nelson City Council and comments on relevant biosecurity issues.

2.3 Activities specifically undertaken by Tasman District Council biosecurity staff in the Nelson City Council area are detailed in Attachment 2.

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

2.5 The 2017-18 Operational Plan (Attachment 3) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken in implementing the Strategy within the approved total budget of $520,000. Nelson City Council contributes $131,000 to this. A breakdown of the budget is provided against programmes of work targeting each of the pest categories in the Strategy, i.e. Total Control, Progressive Control, Containment, Boundary Control, General and Regional Surveillance, and other biosecurity work undertaken, e.g. National Pest Plant Accord, biological control and provision of education and advice.

2.6 Both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. This continues to be a good forum through which to prepare for and respond to marine pest incursions and has received a highly commended award at the 2017 National Biosecurity Awards.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review 2016-17 (R8870) and its attachments (A1895116, A1902534 and A1895113); and

Approves the 2017-18 Biosecurity Operational Plan for the Tasman and Nelson Regions, specifically as it relates to Nelson (A1895113).

4. Background

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

4.2 Both Councils are in the process of jointly reviewing their Regional Pest Management Strategy to become a Regional Pest Management Plan under the revised provisions of the Biosecurity Act (2012) and its associated National Policy Direction (2015). This review will address all aspects of the current Strategy and therefore this report and its associated documents are primarily concerned with the continuation of closing out the existing Strategy in the expectation that at the end of this financial year the current Strategy will be superseded by the new Regional Pest Management Plan and associated operational documents.

4.3 The Review of the 2016-17 Operational Plan examines the results of the Council’s work as the Management Agency for implementing the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

4.4 The Operational Plan was presented to Tasman District Council on 9 November 2017. Tasman District Council approved the 2017-18 Operational Plan for the Tasman and Nelson Regions at that meeting.

5. Discussion

5.1 A summary of work undertaken in Nelson by Tasman District Council as the Council’s Biosecurity Management Agency is provided in Attachment 2.

Total Control pests

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

5.3 Inspections were carried out of known sites of African Feather Grass, Madeira Vine, Cathedral Bells, Climbing Spindleberry, Saffron Thistle, and Bathurst Bur; with most sites showing reduced numbers of plants. One Cathedral Bells site in Todd Valley revealed new activity (one sizable plant) in an area thought to be previously free of this pest.

5.4 Assistance was provided to the Department of Conservation with its Spartina programme in the Waimea Estuary.

Progressive Control pests

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

5.6 Inspections were carried out of known sites of Variegated Thistle, Nasella Tussock, and White-edged Nightshade, revealing a reduction in these plants.

Containment pests

5.7 The 14 Containment pests are widespread throughout the Nelson and Tasman Regions and the aim is to stop the spread of these pests to properties that are not infested.

5.8 Argentine Ants continue to spread throughout Nelson and the control of pampas and magpie pests was undertaken at a number of sites.

Boundary Control pests

5.9 The Strategy has 11 Boundary Control pests which are generally widespread throughout Nelson and Tasman. The aim is to control the spread of these pests to land that is clear, or being cleared, of them.

5.10 Advice has been given regarding setback control provisions for gorse, broom and blackberry.

Biological Control

5.11 Biocontrol agents are an effective long-term control for some widespread pests. For nearly twenty years, the two Councils, along with other Councils involved in the National Biocontrol Collective, have funded Landcare Research to develop biocontrol agents for a range of widespread pests. Good results have been achieved with some agents (e.g. those introduced for ragwort), but the results for others (e.g. the agents for Old Man’s Beard and Banana Passion Vine) have been disappointing. The recently introduced Buddleia Weevil shows promise and continues to spread, killing foliage as do some agents for Broom.

5.12 New releases of Broom Gall Mites were made within Nelson City from Omakau Forest near the boundary with Marlborough through to the Tantragee area. Releases of this biocontrol agent in 2015 have become established at Collins Valley and in the Groom Creek area.

Advice and Education

5.13 Advice was provided on the following range of pest issues:

5.13.1 National Pest Plant Accord species Blue Passion Flower growing on the fence of the Nelson Transfer Station. The manager was asked to arrange control and a follow-up visit to confirm control was undertaken.

5.13.2 Old Man’s Beard at Tui Glen and Dodson Valley.

5.13.3 Loan of possum and stoat traps.

5.13.4 Control of bamboo, rats, wasps, goats, pigs, and climbing asparagus.

5.13.5 Plant identification in a Stoke garden.

5.13.6 Beetle identification in Norwich Street and insects at Cable Bay.

5.14 An animal predator trapping exercise was provided at Moturoa Mission, an environmental educational activity was provided at Rough Island with pupils attending from Enviroschools throughout the Nelson and Tasman Regions.

Other Activities

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

5.16 Rough Horsetail was discovered spreading from adjoining private land onto State Highway 6 road reserve by Poorman Valley Stream. This species is listed as an Unwanted Organism and is very difficult to control. Approval was gained from the property owner to treat the site with a spray application and some stem treatment.

5.17 Vietnamese Parsley was confirmed by Landcare Research in Poorman Valley Stream from a sample submitted for identification. Advice is being sought on how to best manage this pest.

Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

5.18 Nelson and Tasman Councils participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. The funding contribution from the three Councils and the Ministry has been used to fund a contractor to undertake liaison, research, education, monitoring, contingency planning and technical advice.

5.19 Work undertaken included:

a) a review of marine biosecurity threats, maintaining networks with marine organisations, stakeholder groups and businesses;

b) surveys of fouling status of vessel hulls both in the water and at service yards;

c) questionnaire surveys of vessel operators to establish vessel travel movements and operator understanding regarding marine biosecurity; and

d) there is regular consultation with marine industry groups and ongoing work assisting with preparation of industry marine biosecurity plans associated with their operation.

5.20 During the summer of 2016-17 contractors of the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership undertook an extensive survey and education programme across the entire Top of the South. This work identified a number of issues including new areas of marine pest infestation, infested recreational vessels arriving from outside the Region, in particular Wellington, and a degree of apathy by some vessel operators. Survey of vessel hulls and the antifouling status of vessels has highlighted a need for better targeted advice regarding different antifouling products, their application and maintenance to minimise vessel fouling and hence marine biosecurity risk.

6. Options

6.1 The 2017-18 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been budgeted and the Review of the 2016-17 Operational Plan details work completed in the last financial year. The options are to accept or amend either document.

Option 1: Approve 2017-18 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Strategy. · Work is budgeted for.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minimal as meets requirement of Strategy and within budget.
Option 2: Amend 2017-18 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for additional approach/review of work done.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Tasman District Council has already approved the 2017-18 Operational Plan and having to reapprove would delay effective implementation of the Strategy. · Potential additional costs.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The 2016-17 annual Biosecurity Report outlines how Council has implemented the Strategy on biosecurity matters and associated obligations. The Report reports actions are appropriate and meet all requirements.

7.2 The 2017-18 Operational Plan provides for a consistent and efficient approach across to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. The Plan ensures the Council meets statutory obligations and activities are within budget.

Richard Frizzell

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1895116 Review of Biosecurity Operational Plan 2016-17 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1902534 Review of Biosecurity Operational Plan 2016-17 - Nelson City Council region ⇩

Attachment 3: A1895113 Biosecurity Operational Plan 2017-18 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2017/18 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy. Any changes would risk delaying ongoing implementation of the Strategy.

4. Financial impact

The 2017/18 Operational Plan has a total budgeted allocation of $520,000 of which Nelson City Council contributes $131,000. This funding has been approved in the Annual Plan 2017/18.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been consulted on this report.

7. Delegations

Biosecurity is an Area of Responsibility for the Planning and Regulatory Committee. It also has the power to decide on functions, powers and duties relating to areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation. The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide this matter.

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Consideration of a significant financial decision and risks associated with departure from a policy by full Council. · Full Council is currently considering the review of the Development Contributions Policy including the criteria for exemptions and the matters are inter-related.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Development contributions have been delegated to the Committee – more governance time will be required by full Council.
Option 2: Do not refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Potentially less governance time will be required by full Council if only considering a recommendation by the Committee.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Timing of a decision will be delayed as there will be an extra step through the Committee.

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Consideration of a significant policy that is part of the Long Term Plan by full Council. · The policy has high development stakeholder interest and is complex. It will be consulted on with the Long Term Plan and submissions heard and deliberated on by full Council. It is therefore considered appropriate that full Council has knowledge of the policy content and its approval for consultation release. · The consultation, submissions, deliberations and decisions on the Policy is able to occur at the same time as the Long Term Plan making it efficient for Council and the public.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Development contributions have been delegated to the Committee – more governance time will be required by full Council.
Option 2: Do not refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Potentially less governance time will be required by full Council as they will only consider a recommendation by the Committee.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Timing of a decision will be delayed and may miss Long Term Plan consultation deadlines.