AGENDA

Ordinary meeting of the

 

Planning and Regulatory Committee

 

Thursday 5 July 2018

Commencing at 9.00a.m.

Council Chamber

Civic House

110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

 

 

Membership: Councillor Brian McGurk (Residing Co-Chairperson), Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Bill Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Stuart Walker and Ms Glenice Paine

·      All councillors, whether or not they are members of the Committee, may attend Committee meetings

·      At the discretion of the Chair, councillors who are not Committee members may speak, or ask questions about a matter.

·      Only Committee members may vote on any matter before the Committee

It is good practice for both Committee members and non-Committee members to declare any interests in items on the agenda.  They should withdraw from the room for discussion and voting on any of these items.

 

5 July 2018

 

Page No.

 

1.       Apologies

Nil

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1      Updates to the Interests Register

3.2      Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1      29 May 2018                                                                               6 - 12

Document number M3522

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 29 May 2018, as a true and correct record.   

6.       Chairperson's Report  

7.       Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing                       13 - 18

Document number R8802

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing  (R8802) and its attachment (A1983465); and

Agrees that Officers only report further where there is any alteration to Central Government position on a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing.

 

8.       Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan                                 19 - 46

Document number R9296

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan (R9296) and its attachment (A1964502); and

Requests officers to prepare a report recommending which draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan targets Nelson City Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency.

 

9.       Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal 47 - 66

Document number R9311

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal (R9311) and its attachments (A1979547, A1986399 and A2000121); and

Endorses the Statement of Proposal Draft Fees and Charges for Environmental Monitoring and Science – Resource Consents Activity (A1979547) for final Council approval, and subsequent Special Consultative Procedure.

 

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the establishment of charges for its Environmental Monitoring and Science programme as provided for under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

Approves the Statement of Proposal Draft Fees and Charges for Environmental Monitoring and Science – Resource Consents Activity (A1979547) and commences a Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, for feedback on the proposed charges; and

Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not required.

 

10.     Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review                                                      67 - 70

Document number R9388

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review (R9388); and

Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to:

·   the Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and its release for public feedback; and

·    the Draft Nelson Resource Management Plan change for public feedback.

 

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Considers all matters relating to:

·   the Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and its release for public feedback; and

·   the Draft Nelson Resource Management Plan change for public feedback.

       

Note:

·               Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

·               Youth Councillors Alex Hunter and Cassie Hagan will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

  

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

On Tuesday 29 May 2018, commencing at 1.01pm

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

In Attendance:   Councillors P Matheson, T Skinner, M Rutledge, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Youth Councillors N Frizzell and J VandenBerg-Kaire and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

 

Apologies :          Nil

 

 

1.        Apologies

There was no apology.

2.        Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3.        Interests

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

4.        Public Forum 

There was no public forum.

5.        Confirmation of Minutes

5.1      5 April 2018

Document number M3394, agenda pages 8 - 13 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/028 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 5 April 2018, as a true and correct record. McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor                                                  Carried

  

 

6.        Chairperson's report  

The Chairperson updated the committee on relevant regulatory matters such as the engagement with the Ministry of the Environment and the upcoming Water Symposium in Wellington.

 

7.        Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 29 May 2018

Document number R9293, agenda pages 14 - 17 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/029 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - 29 May 2018 (R9293) and its attachment (A1736802). Walker/Paine                                                                              Carried

 

8.        Environmental Management Report for 1 January - 31 March 2018

Document number R9137, agenda pages 18 - 40 refer.

Manager Consents and Compliance Mandy Bishop made a correction to page 21, item 6.3 noting that compliance with statutory timeframes had slipped to 84% for the quarter, not 91%.

Manager Consents and Compliance Mandy Bishop, Manager Building Martin Brown and Manager Environment Matt Heale presented the report.

Environmental Programmes Adviser Leigh Marshall answered questions about the Battle for the Banded Rail as well as the discovery of another Back Beach Beetle population.

Officers further answered questions regarding legal proceedings, progress on Special Housing Accords, freedom campers and requests received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

Resolved PR/2018/030 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the Environmental Management Report for 1 January - 31 March 2018 (R9137) and its attachments (A1929343 and A1946662). Barker/McGurk                                                                           Carried

 

9.        Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Revision 2017/18

Document number R9161, agenda pages 41 - 74 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser Leigh Marshall presented the report and answered questions regarding the Biodiversity Forum and actions contained in the Strategy.

Resolved PR/2018/031 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Revision 2017/18 (R9161) and its attachments (A1957147 and A1964413). McGurk/Fulton                                                                           Carried

 

Recommendation to Council PR/2018/032 That the Council Adopts the revised Nelson Biodiversity Strategy 2017/18 (A1957147). McGurk/Fulton                                                                           Carried

 

10.      Section 36 State of the Environment monitoring and research charges

Document number R9236, agenda pages 75 - 82 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/033 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Section 36 State of the Environment monitoring and research charges (R9236) and its attachment (A1947433); and Approves the commencement of the preparation of a Statement of Proposal for annual State of the Environment monitoring and research charges; and Notes that a Statement of Proposal will be prepared and brought back to the Committee for recommendation to Council. McGurk/Dahlberg                                                                       Carried

 

11.      Nelson Plan Update

Document number R8994, agenda pages 83 - 130 refer.

Manager Environment Matt Heale presented his report and answered questions regarding matters pertaining to the Nelson Plan timeline and statutory requirements.

It was noted that the City Vision was developed by the current Council, that the statements at the beginning of the draft Nelson Plan pre-dated the current Council, and that therefore further work was required to ensure the City Vision was reflected in the Nelson Plan in a Resource Management Act context. The recommendation wording was amended to address this matter.

It was noted that agenda pages 106 and 107 needed further work.

Resolved PR/2018/034 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Nelson Plan Update  (R8994) and its attachments (A1955071 and A1923677); and Approves the release of the Draft Nelson Plan in accordance with the Draft Nelson Plan Overview (A1955071) for statutory stakeholder and iwi partner feedback; and Delegates authority to approve the incorporation of the Council’s vision and any minor changes to the Draft Nelson Plan; based on feedback from this meeting, to the Group Manager Environmental Management, Her Worship the Mayor, and Cr McGurk; and Approves amending the indicative timeline for public notification of the Nelson Plan from May 2019 to July 2019. Fulton/Paine                                                                               Carried

 

12.      Submission on Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No.2)

Document number R9329, agenda pages 131 - 135 refer.

Acting Senior Strategic Adviser Mark Tregurtha presented his report.

Resolved PR/2018/035 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Submission on Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No.2) (R9329) and its attachments (A1970982 and A1955285); and Confirms the content of the submission (A1955285) as submitted to the Central Government Governance and Administration Committee.   Barker/Fulton                                                                             Carried

       

13.      Exclusion of the Public

Resolved PR/2018/036 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: Her Worship the Mayor/Walker                                                 Carried

 

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - Public Excluded - 29 May 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

The meeting went into public excluded session at 2.04pm and resumed in public session at 2.05pm. 

Please note that as the only business transacted in public excluded was to receive the status report, this business has been recorded in the public minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information Meetings Act 1987, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists.

14.      Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - Public Excluded - 29 May 2018

Document number R9294, agenda pages 3 - 4 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/037 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Status Report - Planning and Regulatory Committee - Public Excluded - 29 May 2018 (R9294) and its attachment (A1863070). Barker/Her Worship the Mayor                                                    Carried

15.      Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved PR/2018/038 That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Re-admits the public to the meeting.   Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk                                                  Carried

 

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.05pm.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                       Chairperson                                     Date

         

 

Item 7: Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing

 

Planning and Regulatory Committee 5 July 2018

 

REPORT R8802

Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide an update on the uptake of Warrant of Fitness programmes for rental housing by Central and Local Government; and

1.2      To seek agreement for officers to maintain a watching brief and only report if there is any change to the current approach by Central Government.

2.       Summary

2.1         Central Government’s focus is on directly improving insulation and heating in homes; rather than a Warrant of Fitness scheme. The scheme in Wellington has had limited uptake and is a cost to Council ratepayers. This report concludes no further action be taken until there is a change in Central Government approach.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing  (R8802) and its attachment (A1983465); and Agrees that Officers only report further where there is any alteration to Central Government position on a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      At the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting public forum on 18 February 2016, Voice Nelson Representative Mary Ellen O’Connor requested that Nelson City Council consider adopting a Warrant of Fitness scheme for rental housing.

4.2      Ms O’Connor provided information on a pilot Warrant of Fitness study undertaken in 2014 by Otago University. In this pilot 144 rental houses across Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Tauranga and Wellington were assessed.

4.3      During the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 21 April 2016, it was agreed the Committee would reassess the merits of a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing, once it had been undertaken for a period by Wellington and/or Dunedin City Councils.

4.4      The Planning and Regulatory Committee on 27 July 2017 (as neither Dunedin or Wellington City Councils had implemented a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing) resolved:

That the Committee

Requests a report be brought to the Committee in June 2018 providing any update on Central Government or Local Government adoption of a Warrant of Fitness Scheme for rental housing.

5.       Discussion

Central Government has not adopted a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing

5.1      To date Central Government has not advised of any work or indicated any support to develop a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing to be implemented by Local Government citing negative impacts of the cost of administering such a scheme.

5.2      Central Government have instead focussed on the development of legislation, namely the Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (no.2), to respond to poor heating and insulation provisions in rental housing stock.

5.3      The Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (2) was enacted in December 2017. From its commencement date, on 1 July 2019, it will require all landlords to guarantee that any new tenancy must either be properly insulated or contain a heating source able to make the home warm and dry.

Wellington City Council has implemented a scheme for Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing

5.4      In August 2017 Wellington City Council (WCC) commenced a voluntary scheme, whereby rental property owners can request a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing inspection (termed in WCC as a Rental WOF). 

5.5      A third party trust is undertaking the inspection work on behalf of WCC when requests are made. There is a charge of $250.00 for this service.  Where the initial assessment fails the owner has six months to resolve failed items or they will have to re-apply and pay a further $250.00 to be re-assessed at a later stage.

5.6      The Rental WOF inspection has 63 questions and covers 29 criteria which are based on the initial pilot study and takes around one hour to complete. There is a self-assessment sheet (attached to this report A1983465) which can be downloaded and printed off or you can download the App, which is called Rental Housing WOF.

5.7      The App is free and available for anyone to use. It can be download from ITunes or Google Play. The Nelson City Council Website could include information to raise awareness of the availability of this third party App.

5.8      As at 28 March 2018 there were only two properties on the Wellington City Council website with the rental WOF. Further contact with Wellington City Council has confirmed this is still the case as at 1 June 2018, nine months post implementation, indicating a limited uptake of the system at this time.

5.9      The App has had more uptake as people can carry out a self-check. There had been 800 downloads of the App as at 28 March 2018. This has increased to 1200 as at 1 June 2018. It is believed tenants are downloading this and then raising the check list failed points with their landlords.

5.10    It should be noted that the policy team of WCC are undertaking this work and it sits outside any regulatory framework and the functions of the Building Consent Authority.

5.11    Nelson City Council does not have any budget or resources available to support any development or implementation of a scheme similar to the WCC Rental WOF scheme.

5.12    There is still a level of concern a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing may miss the mark. This concern is based on the following;

·    It is voluntary.

·    Poor stock of rental housing will likely remain unaffected as the tenants and landlords may not buy into it because to undertake works would likely increase rents to cover the improvements. This could have a negative impact on affordability for low income families.

6.       Options

6.1      Currently there is limited uptake of the WCC Rental WOF, no Central Government direction to undertake this type of service and no data collected to demonstrate any actual benefit being derived from this service.  In short there is no indication this will improve poor quality rental housing stock and the initiative remains untested and in its infancy.

 

6.2      Due to the situation outlined above the option at this stage is to defer indefinitely. In the event Warrant of Fitness for rental housing becomes common place for Local Government and Councils this position can be reviewed.

7.       Conclusion

7.1      The Warrant of Fitness for rental housing initiative is largely untested, there is no data at present on any real benefits or dis-benefits to tenants and landlords using a Warrant of Fitness for rental housing.

7.2      It is recommended no further action be taken unless Central Government alters its approach regarding Warrant of Fitness for rental housing.

 

Martin Brown

Manager Building

Attachments

Attachment 1:  A1983465 Warrant of Fitness for rental housing - Self assessment Checklist ⇩

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government To meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. This is an initiative which is aiming to improve rental housing stock but has yet to demonstrate proven results.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Environment work programme addresses a community outcome of 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 risk inherent with the Warrant of Fitness for rental housing is that it is untested and has not demonstrated benefits in its implementation by Wellington City Council at this time. Noting only two landlords have signed up, it is possible this could incur reasonable cost and resources to set up and run and not provide the desired benefit to the community.

4.   Financial impact If the Warrant of Fitness for rental housing were to be implemented this will incur costs to set up and run. Currently these costs and resources have not been allowed for to date as the success and benefits of such a system is not proven.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because no further action is proposed.

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 powers to recommend development or review of policies and strategies relating to the areas of responsibility.

 

Item 7: Warrant of Fitness for Rental Housing: Attachment 1

Item 8: Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan

 

Planning and Regulatory Committee 5 July 2018

 

REPORT R9296

Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To receive the draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 and agree a further report be prepared by officers recommending which draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan targets Nelson City Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency.

2.       Summary

2.1      The draft ‘Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018 to 2021’ (Action Plan) is designed to implement the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2010 (Strategy), which Council is a signatory to. Both the Plan and Strategy are non-statutory documents, aimed at maintaining and improving the health of the Inlet.

2.2      The Waimea Inlet Coordination Group (Group) is requesting each of the four signatories to the WIMS receive the draft Action Plan and identify specific actions their organisation would like to assist with or take a lead on, so that work can begin on its implementation. 

2.3      The Group proposes that signatories commit to specific actions for their organisation rather than adopt the Plan in its entirety.

2.4      A thorough analysis is required to identify which actions and targets in the draft Action Plan NCC should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency; and to fully scope the timeframes and resources that would be required from Council to achieve these targets. Officers will undertake the analysis and report back to the next Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan (R9296) and its attachment (A1964502); and   Requests officers to prepare a report recommending which draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan targets Nelson City Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency.

 

4.       Background

4.1      The Waimea Inlet is the largest semi-enclosed coastal inlet in the South Island, and has international and national importance as a site for migratory birds. 

4.2      The Waimea Inlet Management Strategy (WIMS) was developed in 2010 to coordinate a cross-regional approach for the care of the Inlet. The Waimea Inlet lies within both Nelson and Tasman Regions. 

4.3      Nelson City Council (NCC) is a signatory to the WIMS. Tasman District Council (TDC), the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Fish & Game are the other three signatories to the Strategy.

4.4      In July 2017, the Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed to adopt the terms of reference for a Co-ordination Group for the Waimea Inlet and appointed Councillor Dahlberg as NCC’s representative on the Co-ordination Group.

4.5      The role of the Coordination Group is to “identify, prioritise and coordinate the actions needed to achieve implementation of the WIMS and collate these into a proposed Action Plan”. The full terms of reference for the Coordination Group are included as Appendix 1 in the draft Action Plan. Current members of the Coordination Group include representatives from TDC, NCC, DOC, Fish & Game, Waimea Inlet Forum (WIF) and Tasman Environmental Trust (TET).

4.6      Councillor Dahlberg, along with Council officers, has worked with the other members of the Group to develop the draft Action Plan.

4.7      Both the draft Action Plan and Strategy are non-statutory documents, aimed at maintaining and improving the health of the Inlet.

4.8      Te Tau Ihu iwi have an open invitation to become signatories to the WIMS, to appoint representatives to the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group and to participate in the development, implementation, review and monitoring of the draft Action Plan. They have been kept informed of progress throughout the Plan’s development. Representatives from Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa attended the most recent meeting of the Group in May.

4.9      An earlier version of the draft Action Plan was published on TDC’s website and distributed to iwi and interested parties and individuals in December 2017, requesting their feedback by 9 March 2018.  A workshop on the draft Action Plan was held on 2 March 2018, attended by approximately 50 people. The Group then further revised the draft Action Plan, to incorporate feedback received.

4.10    The resulting draft ‘Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018 to 2021’ represents the collective effort of a wide range of organisations, groups and individuals.  It is appended as Attachment 1 to this report.

5.       Discussion

5.1      The Action Plan is intended to be a living document that may be amended over time, in response to new knowledge and changing circumstances.

5.2      Signatories of the Action Plan will identify actions that their organisation will lead or support implementation of, and sign-off on those specific actions, rather the Action Plan in its entirety. 

5.3      Some of the actions and targets identified in the draft Action Plan relate to the responsibilities of other agencies (e.g. TDC, DOC). However, a number relate to NCC’s core business and some will require involvement of several Council Groups.

5.4      While many of the actions and targets identified in the draft Action Plan relate to tasks that Council has existing resources allocated, there are some that aren’t currently funded in Council’s existing work streams.

5.5      On 3 May 2018, TDC received the draft Plan and instructed officers to prepare a report with recommendations on the specific targets TDC should sign up to as either lead or supporting agency.

5.6      Other parties (e.g. the Waimea Inlet Forum, Tasman Environmental Trust) may also sign up to the draft Action Plan in the near future. One of the reasons for creating the Action Plan is to have an ‘investment ready’ document that external (i.e. non-Council) funders can refer to when considering funding applications from groups such as Tasman Environmental Trust. 

5.7      The intention of the Group is that all parties who adopt the Action Plan will work together to achieve the targets and, when unbudgeted funding is required, external funding will be sought.

5.8      A thorough analysis is required to identify which actions and targets in the draft Action Plan NCC should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency; and to fully scope the timeframes and resources that would be required from Council to achieve these targets.

5.9      It is recommended that Council use a two-step process to: (i) receive the draft Action Plan and (ii) approve that officers prepare a report on the draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan, recommending which targets NCC should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency.

5.10    Once adopted, the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group will regularly report on progress with implementing the Action Plan and review it every three years.

          Options

 

Option 1: Receive the draft Action Plan, and approve that officers prepare a report recommending which draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan targets Nelson City Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency (preferred option)
Advantages	·   Council demonstrates its commitment as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. ·   Final Action Plan will take into account issues that may not have been discussed by the Coordination Group in the development of the draft Action Plan. ·   A more effective and efficient achievement of environmental outcomes for Waimea Inlet through a collaborative strategic approach ·   Council uses the same approach to considering the Action Plan as Tasman District Council. ·   Council understands the resources (staff and funding) required to achieve the specific targets.
Risks and Disadvantages	·   Will delay the timeframe for completion of the final Action Plan.
Option 2: Receive and formally adopt the draft Action Plan without amendment
Advantages	·    Council demonstrates its commitment as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group.
Risks and Disadvantages	·   Action Plan may not take into account all relevant Council issues. ·   Resourcing implications are not properly understood. ·   Community expectations may be raised that Council can deliver on actions and targets that are unrealistic and/or not able to be resourced.
Option 3: Do not adopt the Action Plan
Advantages	·    None.
Risks and Disadvantages	·    Council is not seen as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. ·    Waimea Inlet Coordination Group continues to develop the Action Plan without Council’s involvement.

 

6.       Conclusion

6.1         This report recommends that the Planning and Regulatory Committee receives the draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan and requests officers to prepare a report recommending which targets Nelson City Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency.

 

Leigh Marshall

Environmental Programmes Advisor

Attachments

Attachment 1:  Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-21 (A1964502) ⇩

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government Participation in the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group fits with the role of Local Government as the collaborative approach aims to meet the current and future needs of the community at a local level; and enables Council to perform regulatory functions and service more effectively and efficiently.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The draft Action Plan aligns with all four themes within Nelson 2060, and with a number of Community Outcomes including: ·      Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected ·    Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient ·    Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement ·    Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

3.   Risk There is a minor risk to Nelson City Council’s reputation with the community represented by Waimea Inlet Forum for delaying the finalisation of a Waimea Inlet Action Plan. However, this is counterbalanced with reduced risk of raising community expectations that Council can deliver on actions and targets that are unrealistic and/or not able to be resourced.

4.   Financial impact There are no financial implications associated with this decision. Financial implications of adopting the draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan and signing up to specific actions will be reviewed and presented to the Committee as part of the recommended report on actions to the next Committee meeting.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is low significance because the Nelson City Council has been collaborating with the community sectors that are concerned with the matters in the draft Action Plan through the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group and Waimea Inlet Strategy for many years. No further consultation is proposed.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Te Tau Ihu iwi have an open invitation to become signatories to the Waimea Inlet Strategy to appoint representatives to the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group and to participate in the development, implementation, review and monitoring of the draft Action Plan. The process of engagement has been run by the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group.  Representatives from Ngati Tama and Te Atiawa attended the most recent meeting of the Group in May.

7.   Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for considering Biodiversity (6.3.1). The Committee is not adopting the Action Plan, only receiving it and adoption will be made at a later stage.

 

 

Item 8: Draft Waimea Inlet Action Plan: Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 9: Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal

 

Planning and Regulatory Committee 5 July 2018

 

REPORT R9311

Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To consider the proposed charges for regional environmental monitoring and recommend the Statement of Proposal to Council for approval.

2.       Summary

2.1      In recent years there has been a significant increase in the science and environmental monitoring programmes undertaken by regional and unitary authorities. Much of the additional work is a result of central government policy. Accordingly, most regional and unitary authorities have introduced user charges to recoup a proportion of these costs from resource consent holders. Nelson City Council does not currently charge for these services. The costs for 2018/19 for environmental monitoring and science activities is $545,750. The budget provides for recovering $100,000 of these costs. However the actual recovery will depend on the charges set and number of consents granted for each of the relevant activities. Given that the proposed charges would commence half way through the year there is expected to be a shortfall in this income for the 2018/19 year.

2.2      At the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting of 29 May 2018, the Committee instructed staff to prepare a Statement of Proposal (SOP) for establishing charges for environmental monitoring and science costs. These charges would be paid by resource consent holders.

2.3      The Committee has delegated authority to recommend to Council the Statement of Proposal. If adopted by Council, the Special Consultative Procedure will be undertaken to seek feedback on the proposed charges.

2.4      Consultation would be undertaken from 13 August – 13 September 2018, with a hearing on 4 October and adoption of fees (if agreed) 13 December 2018. Implementation would commence in January 2019. 

 

 

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal (R9311) and its attachments (A1979547, A1986399 and A2000121); and Endorses the Statement of Proposal Draft Fees and Charges for Environmental Monitoring and Science – Resource Consents Activity (A1979547) for final Council approval, and subsequent Special Consultative Procedure.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council Approves the establishment of charges for its Environmental Monitoring and Science programme as provided for under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and Approves the Statement of Proposal Draft Fees and Charges for Environmental Monitoring and Science – Resource Consents Activity (A1979547) and commences a Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, for feedback on the proposed charges; and Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not required.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      The Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 29 May 2018 approved the preparation of a Statement of Proposal for annual environmental monitoring and science charges. A draft Statement of Proposal is attached (Attachment 1). The charges are provided for by Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), which requires that the Special Consultative Procedure be undertaken prior to the introduction of the proposed charges.

5.       Discussion

5.1      The Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) requires regional councils and unitary authorities to undertake state of the environment monitoring. It also specifies that when setting charges, regard should be given to the additional monitoring that is required because of the activities undertaken by individuals, or because they receive an exclusive benefit from the monitoring. That is, the concept of ‘user pays’ is embodied within the legislation.

5.2      Section 36(c) of the Act gives local authorities the power to recover the ‘reasonable’ costs associated with environmental monitoring functions under Section 35 of the Act. The charges must be either specific amounts or be determined by reference to a scale of charges or formulae fixed by the Council. The Council already passes on some of the costs of monitoring resource consent compliance to resource consent holders. These costs generally involve monitoring the performance of consents against the conditions set in them and do not involve monitoring the state of the environment that may be impacted by the activity.  

          Basis of Proposed New Charges

5.3      Section 36(1)(c) of the Act provides for charges to be made to holders of resource consents to, amongst other things, cover the resource management function under section 35. That section includes monitoring requirements for the state of the whole or any part of the Region.

5.4      The proposed new charges are to recover annual environmental monitoring and science costs for:

·    Low flow monitoring of rivers and streams with water takes.

·    Static water level monitoring for groundwater quantity.

·    Air quality monitoring.

·    Estuarine monitoring – including sediment quality, benthic community, sediment accumulation, broad scale habitat.

·    Coastal environment monitoring – recreation bathing water quality, stormwater and wastewater, Tahunanui beach erosion, faecal indicators bacteria in shellfish, biodiversity (e.g. shorebirds, wetland birds).

·    Installation and maintenance       and of telemetry systems and equipment to support river and groundwater flow monitoring and ambient air quality monitoring.

·    Biological and water quality monitoring of rivers and lakes (surface and groundwater) where significant land use activities, discharges and water takes are being undertaken, including suspended and deposited sediment, recreation bathing quality, freshwater fish, spawning habitat.

·    Riverbed level (gravel) monitoring.

·    Science and research into the impacts of water abstraction/water and air discharges/land disturbance/coastal and other activities to support the development of resource consent conditions and to set resource use limits where resources are under pressure.

5.5      The cost to Council of delivering these regional environmental monitoring and science activities is budgeted at $545,750 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

5.6      $100,000 cost recovery from the proposed charges is budgeted in the 2018/2019 financial year. However the actual recovery will depend on the charges set and number of consents granted for each of the relevant activities. Based on analysis of existing consents the proposed charges would affect an estimated 330 consent holders, with approximately $66,000 being recovered which is less than budgeted. Also given that the proposed charges would commence half way through the year there is expected to be a shortfall in this income for the 2018/19 year.

5.7      The charges recommended are fixed based on the scale and type of activity. The benefits of this approach are that it:

·    Is simple to understand and administer;

·    Creates certainty for resource consent holders; and

·    Allows cost recovery to align with actual costs – activities of greater scale are more complex and time consuming to monitor and require greater science input.

5.8      For example, larger water take consents have a greater potential environmental impact so are the major drivers of science related monitoring and compliance investigations.

5.9      Council has not previously considered charging users for the costs of environmental monitoring and science which supports resource consents. Currently Nelson is one of the few regional councils or unitary authorities which has none of these charges in place. Instead these costs have been borne by all ratepayers. It could be considered to be inequitable and unfair that the ongoing environmental monitoring required to ensure that consent holders activities are undertaken without causing significant effects on the environment should be funded by general ratepayers, when the need for this monitoring is driven in part by the consent holder’s activity. Therefore, it is appropriate that the private benefit of Council’s environmental monitoring and science programme is reflected by a contribution from consent holders.

5.10    In recent years the Government has increased requirements of councils to monitor and report on the environment through changes to the Resource Management Act 1991, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater, the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry and other regulatory documents. These changes have placed increased requirements on councils in relation to particular regional functions.

5.11    Most regional councils have recently reviewed their fees and charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and many are increasing their fees to reflect these increased costs. Because the type of activities which occur in different regions is different it is not easy to directly compare fees. However, the proposed charges are in line with Gisborne District Council, which has recently introduced them, but slightly lower than Tasman District Council where they have been well established. The proposed level of fees reflect that fees have not previously been charged, and that consent holders need to adjust to the proposed system (see Attachment 2).

5.12    The purpose and rating powers of local government are set out in the Local Government (Rating) Act (LGRA) 2002.  Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires specific consideration to be given to the following funding principles:

·   How the activity contributes to the community outcomes

·   The user/beneficiary pays principle – the distribution of benefit between the community, parts of the community, and individuals for funding and rating decisions.

·   Intergenerational equity – the period over which the benefits are expected to be accrued.

·   The extent to which actions or inactions of particular individuals or groups contribute to the need – referred to as the exacerbator principle.

·   The costs and benefits of funding the particular activity, including those for transparency and accountability.  

5.13    Attachment 3 provides an analysis of these principles and supports the proposed level of fees. 

          Proposed new charges

5.14    The proposed new annual environmental monitoring and science charges for the 2018-2019 year are set out in Table 1:

 

Table 1 : Proposed Environmental Monitoring and Science Fees and Charges 2018-2019 Financial Year
Activity	Annual science charge
Air discharge - small (eg abrasive blasting;  commercial wood-fired pizza ovens)	$60
Air discharge - medium (appliances <1000kW)	$400
Air discharge - large (appliances >1000kW)	$600
Discharge to land or water <20m3/day (excluding septic tanks)	$60
Discharge to land or water 20 -100m3/day	$400
Discharge to land or water >100m3/day	$600
Gravel/sand extraction <2000m3/annum	$60
Gravel/sand extraction 2000m-10,0003/annum	$300
Gravel/sand extraction >10,0003/annum	$400
Quarry/other earthworks	$150
Forestry/woodlot harvest <100ha	$60
Forestry harvest >100-200ha	$100
Forestry harvest >200ha	$200
Works in river/stream bed	$150
Water take surface water <5 l/s, or groundwater <100,000m3/year	$60
Water take surface water 5-25 l/s, or groundwater 100,000 - 200,000m3/year	$200
Water take surface water >25 l/s - <60 l/s, or groundwater > 200,000 m3 - <400,000m3/year	$700
Water take surface water >100 l/s, or groundwater > 1,000,000 m/3  year	$1,000
Coastal consents (other than takes or discharges)	$100
Dredging	$200

          Impacts on consent holders

5.15    These charges are new and they will impact on an estimated 330 existing consent holders. They will only be put in place for regional consents which require ongoing monitoring – not one off activities (which do still have a cost associated with checking compliance).

5.16    One of the benefits of the charges is that it assists in creating the right signals to support other environmental goals, priorities and policies of Council. For example the scale of fees increases with the size of water take.

5.17    Affected consent holders will also benefit from the Council’s environmental monitoring programme in various ways. It provides the evidence base needed for sound management of natural resources and the information can be used by consent holders to:

·   Prepare monitoring reports;

·   Help with future consent applications;

·   Meet conditions on their resource consents.

6.          Options

6.1      The options are either to retain the status quo, delay or amend the Statement of Proposal with a different mix or level of charges, or to recommend to Council that the statement of proposal be approved for consultation.

 

Option 1: Recommend the proposed Statement of Proposal be approved by Council
Advantages	·   Consultation will be undertaken on establishing charges that will balance the Council cost of environmental monitoring more fairly according to public and private benefit. ·   Enables use of tools available to recover costs and adopt best practice in line with other councils.
Risks and Disadvantages	·   Requires time, Councillor and staff resources to work through the Special Consultative Procedure. ·   There will be additional ongoing administrative costs to implement, but these will be absorbed within existing budgets. ·   Potential opposition from affected consent holders.
Option 2: Amend Statement of Proposal with different mix of charges
Advantages	·    Enable further consideration/development of the Statement of Proposal
Risks and Disadvantages	·    Will delay the implementation/commencement of charges
Option 3: Amend Statement of Proposal with higher level of charges
Advantages	·    Higher income and level of recovery ·    Less ratepayer funding required
Risks and Disadvantages	·    An increased level of dissatisfaction from affected consent holders
Option 4: Amend Statement of Proposal with lower level of charges
Advantages	·    Lower level of dissatisfaction from affected consent holders
Risks and Disadvantages	·    Less income and level of recovery ·    Higher level of ratepayer funding required
Option 5: Business as usual – no charge
Advantages	·    Time, Councillor and staff resources spent on the Special Consultative Procedure and ongoing implementation is not required.
Risks and Disadvantages	·    Ongoing and potentially increasing costs of environmental monitoring and science is borne completely by the public through rates. ·    Opportunity for consultation on this matter lost.

 

7.       Consultation and Next steps

7.1      If the Statement of Proposal is adopted, a Special Consultative Procedure, as set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, will be followed to seek feedback on the establishment of an appropriate level of fees and charges. The proposed timeframe for this process is:

Date	Action
Planning & Regulatory Committee 5 July 2018	Consider draft Statement of Proposal
Council 9 August 2018	Statement of Proposal approval
13 August 2018	Start public consultation
13 September 2018	Close public consultation
21 September 2018	Submissions to Councillors
4 October 2018 Planning & Regulatory Committee	Submission hearing
22 November 2018 Planning & Regulatory Committee	Deliberations
Council meeting 13 December 2018	Council adopts
1 January 2109	Fees start to accrue
16 February 2019*	Invoice to consent holders for 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019.
20 March 2019	First payment due

*Note: The next invoice would be for 12 month period and dated 1 July 2019 and due 20 August 2019.

7.2      Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed SOP is five pages long and a summary would require at least two pages. Therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with public understanding of the SOP. A letter will be sent to identify consent holders advising of the proposed charges.

8.       Conclusion

8.1      This report presents a Statement of Proposal to establish charges for part of the Council’s environmental monitoring and science programme for the Committee to recommend to the Council for approval. If approved by Council, the Special Consultative Procedure process will be followed.

 

Richard Frizzell

Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1:  A1979547 Statement of Proposal - Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges ⇩

Attachment 2:  A1986399 Annual Monitoring and Science Charges of Other Regional Councils ⇩

Attachment 3:  A2000121 Section 101(3) of LGA 2002 for Environmental Monitoring ⇩

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government  Section 10 of LGA 2002 states the purpose of local government includes ”performance of regulatory functions in a way that is cost-effective for households and businesses.” The proposed new charges enable the Council to do this by introducing a contribution from consent holders for the private benefit from its environmental monitoring programme and reducing the contribution from ratepayers. Section 150 of LGA 2002 provides for charges to be set by Council after using the Special Consultative Procedure set out in section 83 of that Act.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The Council’s Long Term Plan includes levels of service for State of the Environment monitoring. This report aligns with Council delivery on the following Community Outcomes: ·    Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected ·      Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.

3.   Risk There might be wide disagreement by consent holders on paying the new charges, as they might consider the fees too high, or that the costs should be borne by ratepayers. This risk will be mitigated by providing undertaking thorough consultation and having clear messaging on the need for charging.

4.   Financial impact The proposed new charges are consistent with Council’s direction in the Long Term Plan 2018/28, increasing revenue from sources other than rates funding. $100,000 cost recovery from the proposed charges is budgeted in the 2018/19 financial year, however the income is likely to be less than this.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of low significance to the majority of residents and ratepayers. However, a decision to introduce fees would have a medium degree of significance to consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that the Special Consultative Procedure be undertaken prior to the introduction of the proposed charges. Staff propose that the Statement of Proposal be advertised in Our Nelson dated 22 August, Council’s website and the Nelson Mail dated 13 August. A letter will also be sent to identified consent holders advising of the proposed charges.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Staff are not aware of any consents that iwi or Māori organisations hold that would be affected by these charges. Māori business owners with consents will receive a letter as part of the consultation process.

7.    Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider a Statement of Proposal for the proposed charges for environmental monitoring (paragraph 6.3 Delegations Register): Areas of responsibility: ·    Environmental Matters, including monitoring. ·    Resource Management. Powers to decide: ·    To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility. Powers to recommend: ·    Statements of proposals for Special Consultative Procedures, falling within the powers of responsibility.   The power to approve the Statement of Proposal and fees and charges remain with the full Council. Therefore this report contains recommendations to Council.

 

Item 9: Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal: Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 9: Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal: Attachment 2

Item 9: Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal: Attachment 3

Item 10: Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review

 

Planning and Regulatory Committee 5 July 2018

 

REPORT R9388

Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To refer to Council all matters relating to the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual.

 

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review (R9388); and Refers to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to: ·    the Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and its release for public feedback; and ·      the Draft Nelson Resource Management Plan change for public feedback.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council Considers all matters relating to: ·    the Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and its release for public feedback; and ·    the Draft Nelson Resource Management Plan change for public feedback.

 

 

 

3.       Discussion

3.1      The Planning and Regulatory Committee has delegated authority to consider matters in relation to the review of the Land Development Manual.

3.2      The review of the Land Development Manual is a matter that requires Council to seek public feedback and comment on the draft under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).  It will become a policy adopted by Council in addition to being an externally referenced document under clause 34, First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).  This consultation process is then followed by a plan change under the First Schedule of the RMA.

3.3      The draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual has been completed by a working group comprising officers from both Nelson and Tasman Councils.  Direction was provided to the working group by a Steering Group comprising two Councillors from each Council, and surveyor and construction industry representatives. 

3.4      There is a need to ensure that feedback and comments sought on the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual are undertaken and considered across the Nelson and Tasman Regions at the same time.  Hearings and formal RMA consultation and the Nelson Resource Management Plan change process, required to externally reference the Land Development Manual, will also need to be undertaken either jointly and/or concurrently by each Council.

3.5      Nelson and Tasman Councils both have a Council meeting on 9 August 2018.  Given the need to coordinate feedback and formal plan change processes across the two Councils, it is considered appropriate that this matter is considered by full Council on the same day as Tasman District Council considers it.  This will enable aligned consultation timeframes and decisions in regards to the hearing of feedback, delegations to hearing panels and direction to make changes to the draft.

          Options

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

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	·   This policy is of high interest to development stake-holders.  It is therefore considered appropriate that full Council has knowledge of the policy content and approval for consultation release and that the time-frames can be aligned with Tasman District Council. ·   It can be consulted on in a coordinated manner with Tasman District Council and enables administrative efficiencies between the two Councils and also for those who wish to comment on the draft.
Risks and Disadvantages	·   The Land Development Manual review has 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	·    Consultation and feedback process may not be able to be aligned causing administrative inefficiencies and potentially resulting in a separation of alignment between the draft and final documents and the two Council’s decisions.

 

 

 

Lisa Gibellini

Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Nil

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government Not applicable – this is an administrative matter.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy This decision is not inconsistent with any Council policy.

3.   Risk The recommendation to refer this matter to Council does not include any risks.  If Council chose not to accept the recommendation then it will be very difficult to align the release of the draft Land Development Manual and plan change with Tasman district council.  Consequently it will be difficult to ensure amendments resulting from public feedback are coordinated between the documents.

4.   Financial impact This decision does not involve any financial impact.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance as it is an administrative matter and not a substantive decision and therefore no consultation has been undertaken.

6.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on this report.

7.   Delegations Areas of Responsibility: Land Development Manual Powers to Decide: ·        To undertake community engagement other than Special Consultative Procedures for any projects or proposals falling within the areas of responsibility; ·        To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation requirements arising from legislation, falling within the areas of responsibility. Powers to Recommend: ·        Final decisions on Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation legislative consultation procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility ·        Any alterations necessary to the Land Development Manual, the Regional Policy Statement and Nelson Resource Management Plan; ·        Development or review of policies and strategies relating to the areas of responsibility.