1
AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Nelson City Council
Thursday 9 August 2018
Commencing at 9.00a.m.
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Mel Courtney, Bill Dahlberg, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson, Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Mike Rutledge, Tim Skinner and Stuart Walker
Nelson City Council
9 August 2018
Opening Prayer
1. Apologies
1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Rutledge
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Harry Morrison, Harrys Nelson Restaurant and Bar, and Nick Widley, Cod and Lobster Brasserie - Upper Trafalgar Street Closure for Summer
4.2 Amme Hiser - compostable materials disposal within Nelson for events
4.3 Michelle Hunt, Centre Manager for Cancer Society Nelson, and Miraka Norgate, Health Promoter Smokefree, Public Health - upper Trafalgar Street closure for Summer and to suggest making the Street Smoke Free, if possible, for the period of the closure.
Document number M3572
Recommendation
That the Council
Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 21 June 2018, as a true and correct record.
5.2 Extraordinary Meeting - 2 July 2018 35 - 37
Document number M3601
Recommendation
That the Council
Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 2 July 2018, as a true and correct record.
6. Recommendations from Committees
6.1 Works and Infrastructure Committee - 28 June 2018
6.1.1 Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the draft Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (A1987259 of report R8965) and the Statement of Proposal (A1987256 of report R8965) that will allow the Special Consultative Procedure to commence; and
Approves, following the decision by the Tasman District Council’s Engineering Services Committee on 21 June 2018 to add two additional Tasman councillors to the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Working Party to hear and deliberate on submissions to the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, that in addition to Nelson City Councillors Walker, Barker and Lawrey that Nelson City Councillors Matheson and Dahlberg be added to the Working Party; and
Approves that the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Working Party Terms of Reference (A1831374) be amended to reflect the additional Nelson City Councillors of Matheson and Dahlberg as well as the addition of Tasman District Councillors Ogilvie and Wensley.
6.1.2 Recycling - Effect of International Markets
Recommendation to Council
Approves the funding resulting from the global drop in commodity prices for the 2018/19 financial year at an estimated cost of between $88,500 and $94,500, funded from current reserves in th Solid Waste account.
6.2 Sports and Recreation Committee - 3 July 2018
6.2.1 Fees and Charges 2018/2019 - Parks and Facilities
Recommendation to Council
That the Council
Approves the revised fees and charges for Community Facilities and Parks for 2018/19 outlined in the report R9397 and its attachment (A1984651).
6.3 Planning and Regulatory Committee - 5 July 2018
6.3.1 Environmental Monitoring Charges - Statement of Proposal
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.
6.3.2 Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Authority to Complete Review
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.
6.4 Governance Committee - 26 July 2018
6.4.1 Nelson Regional Development Agency - Events Contestable Fund
Recommendation to Council
That the Council:
Approves an overdraft of the following amounts from the Events Contestable Fund by the Nelson Regional Development Agency:
2017/18 $47,296
2018/19 $206,838
2019/20 $66,467
with the result that the Events Contestable Fund reserve will be overdrawn until 2020/21; and
Requires the Nelson Regional Development Agency to ensure the Events Contestable Fund is operated within the yearly allocation by 2020/21.
This report was not available at the time of printing and will be distributed separately.
8. Brook Reserve - Classification and Road Stopping Processes 38 - 51
Document number R9522
Recommendation
Receives the report Brook Reserve - Classification and Road Stopping Processes (R9522) and its attachments (A1903135 and A1693973); and
Notes the Environment Court’s ruling that the road as marked purple on Attachment 1 (A1903135) can be stopped subject to Council resolving to declare the land reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 so as to amalgamate it into the Brook Recreation Reserve; and
Approves that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to proceed with public notification under section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977 of the intention to declare the stopped road land to be reserve to be held as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve, so as to amalgamate it into the adjoining reserve; and
Approves that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to proceed with public notification under section 24A of the Reserves Act 1977 to change the classification of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve as marked green on Attachment 1 (A1903135) to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve; and
Approves that the two public notification processes to declare stopped road land to be reserve and change the specific local purpose of Local Purpose Reserve run concurrently; and
Approves the appointment of the Brook Reserve Hearings Panel to hear, deliberate and make recommendations back to Council on any submissions received as part of the public notification processes; and
Approves the Brook Reserve Hearings Panel membership be comprised of three members from Councillors Fulton, McGurk, Noonan and, Deputy Mayor Matheson depending on availability; and
Approves the Terms of Reference for the Hearings Panel as set out in Attachment 2 (A1693973).
9. Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust: Memorandum of Understanding 52 - 62
Document number R9392
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (R9392) and its attachment (A1941842); and
Adopts the Memorandum of Understanding, delegating the Mayor to sign on behalf of Council; and
Delegates to the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to signing.
10. Upper Trafalgar Street - Summer Closure 2018/19 63 - 75
Document number R9197
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Upper Trafalgar Street - Summer Closure 2018/19 (R9197) and its attachments (A1935325, A1944077, A2008577); and
Approves the temporary closure of Upper Trafalgar Street (between Selwyn Place and Hardy Street) in accordance with section 342 and schedule 10 clause 11(d) of the Local Government Act 1974 with the following conditions:
- The closure will commence on 8 November 2018 and conclude on 30 April 2019; and
- From 09:00am every day to 7:00am on each following day, the street will be closed to all vehicles apart from emergency vehicles and other vehicles specifically authorised by Council’s network coordinator
Confirms that the capital ($20,000) and operational ($53,000) expenditure required for the 2018/19 closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will be funded through the CBD Enhancement budget and that all fees generated through Upper Trafalgar Street licences to occupy additional space during the closure, will be credited back to this budget; and
Notes that the summer 2018/19 closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will require net capital expenditure of $12,000, which will be funded from the CBD Enhancement budget.
11. Future Development Strategy 76 - 79
Document number R9508
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Future Development Strategy (R9508); and
Approves the preparation of a Future Development Strategy for the Nelson and Tasman Regions in partnership with Tasman District Council.
12. Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 80 - 218
Document number R9387
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (R9387) and its attachment/s (A2013438, A2013398, A2013457, A2013449, A1988205); and
Approves the draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (A2013438), draft practice notes (A2013398, A2013457, A2013449) and draft plan change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (A1988205) for release on 13 August 2018 for public feedback under the Local Government Act and public comment under clause 34 First Schedule Resource Management Act; and
Delegates the hearing of feedback under section 78 of the Local Government Act and comments under clause 34 First Schedule of the Resource Management Act to a joint hearing panel comprising Councillors Lawrey and McGurk as members of the Steering Group plus Councillor……………………. together with three Tasman District Council Councillors (Councillors King and Bryant plus one other).
Delegates to the hearing panel the power to make recommendations to the Nelson and Tasman Councils to adopt or amend the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and associated practice notes.
13. Notice of Motion from Cr Lawrey: Live-streaming Public Meetings and Workshops 219 - 221
Document number R9572
Recommendation
That the Council
Receives the report Notice of Motion from Cr Lawrey: Live-streaming Public Meetings and Workshops (R9572) and its attachment (A2018993); and
Confirms live-streaming of all Nelson City Council public meetings and workshops, including public meetings and public workshops held by all committees and sub-committees ; and
Confirms that Nelson City Council live-streams all Regional Transport Committee’s public meetings and public workshops.
Lawrey/Acland
Public Excluded Business
Recommendation
|
Confirms, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Kerry Anderson and Rachel Taylor from DLA Piper and Stuart Ritchie from Fletcher Vautier & Moore and Peter Dawson remain after the public has been excluded, for Items 4 and 5 of the Public Excluded agenda (Statement of Understanding – update and legal advice and 1 Kinsett Tce - lease), as they have knowledge that will assist the Council; Notes, in accordance with section 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the knowledge that Kerry Anderson, Rachel Taylor, Stuart Ritchie and Peter Dawson possess relates to legal advice and the lease. |
Recommendation
That the Council
Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 21 June 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 · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations |
|
2 |
Extraordinary Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 2 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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
|
|
3 |
Recommendations from Committees Chief Executive Employment Committee 10 July 2018 Recommendations: Chief Executive Performance to 30 June 2018 Chief Executive Performance Agreement 2018/19 Chief Executive Remuneration Review |
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 |
|
4 |
Statement of Understanding - update and legal advice
|
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 · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
5 |
1 Kinzett Terrace Lease
|
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities |
Note:
· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime.
· Lunch will be provided.
· Youth Councillors Alex Hunter and Nico Frizzell will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
Nelson City Council Minutes - 21 June 2018
Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Thursday 21 June 2018, commencing at 9.04a.m.
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner and S Walker
In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)
Apologies : Councillor M Lawrey for lateness and Councillor I Barker for early departure.
Opening Prayer
Councillor Dahlberg gave the opening prayer.
1. Apologies
|
Resolved CL/2018/137 That the Council Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Lawrey for lateness and Councillor Barker for early departure. Her Worship the Mayor/Walker Carried |
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There were no changes 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.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey joined the meeting at 9.09a.m.
4. Public Forum
4.1 The Farmers Market Committee - Location of the Farmers Market
Andrew Lowe, Chairperson of the Nelson Farmers’ Market and Dominic Ferretti spoke about the importance of the Nelson Farmers Market and its need to find a new location.
Mr Lowe thanked Council for its commitment in supporting the move to Maitai Boulevard. However there were two major factors that had caused a reduction in clientele - the impact of weather and distance from the Central Business District (CBD). Mr Lowe requested that Council consider a permanent move to Buxton carpark to enable the market to contribute to the vibrancy of the city centre. He noted retailers were supportive of this option and it would enable the market to rebuild its customer base and public profile.
Mr Lowe and Mr Ferretti answered questions on alternative locations and the option to return to Morrison Square.
4.2 Jim Cable – Iwi Representation
Mr Cable spoke about the amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and the amended Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit. He noted that Council held a referendum in 2012 to establish a Māori ward, the outcome was 79% against the proposal and the cost to Council to hold the referendum was considerable. He felt that there was nothing in the Treaty of Waitangi that endorsed including iwi on boards or committees with voting rights and remuneration and that external appointments should be made on expertise.
4.3 Jana McLaren- Funding for Natureland Wildlife Trust
Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting at 9.25a.m.
Jana McLaren, representing a group of parents who supported Natureland, advised they were concerned at the reduction in Natureland’s future funding. She said that Natureland was a great place to take their children, it provided a good mix of exotic and native species and that Natureland’s conservation work provided additional learning opportunities for young children. Ms McLaren asked that the funding be reviewed in the Annual Plan 2019/20.
Attendance: Councillor Rutledge returned to the meeting at 9.37a.m.
5. Confirmation of Minutes
5.1 3 May 2018
Document number M3459, agenda pages 22 - 34 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/138 That the Council Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 3 May 2018, as a true and correct record. Barker/Courtney Carried |
5.2 15 May 2018
Document number M3482, agenda pages 35 - 84 refer.
It was noted that Councillor Dahlberg was an apology on 17 May 2018 and that his name be removed from the attendance list.
|
Resolved CL/2018/139 That the Council Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 15 May 2018, as a true and correct record. Courtney/Walker Carried |
5.3 24 May 2018 - Extraordinary Meeting
Document number M3513, agenda pages 85 - 88 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/140 That the Council Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 24 May 2018, as a true and correct record. Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
6. Recommendations from Committees
6.1. Planning and Regulatory Committee - 29 May 2018
6.1.1 Nelson Biodiversity Strategy Revision 2017/18
|
Recommendation to Council |
|
Resolved CL/2018/141 That the Council Adopts the revised Nelson Biodiversity Strategy 2017/18 (A1957147). Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried |
6.2 Hearings Panel - Other - 5 June 2018
6.2.1 Network Tasman Easement - Annesbrook
|
Recommendation to Council |
|
Resolved CL/2018/142 That the Council Grants consent for the easement in gross in favour of Network Tasman Limited over the area of Recreation Reserve shown on Attachment 1 (A1933063) with all legal and survey costs associated with the easement to be met by Network Tasman Limited as the party benefitted by the easement. Dahlberg/Barker Carried |
6.3 Governance Committee - 7 June 2018
6.3.1 Rates Remission for Land Affected by the 1 February 2018 Weather Event
|
Recommendation to Council |
|
Resolved CL/2018/143 That the Council Approves that the 1 February 2018 weather event qualifies as a natural calamity for the purposes of applying the Rates Remission Policy for Land Affected by Natural Calamity; and Approves the criteria for assessing rates remission for affected properties and the application process; and Notes that a summary of approved applications and the total value of rates remitted will be provided to the Council later in 2018. Barker/Dahlberg Carried |
6.4 Regional Transport Committee – 19 June 2018
6.4.1 NZTA Proposed Projects for inclusion in the Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan
|
Recommendation to Council |
|
Resolved CL/2018/144 That the Council Approves the revised Nelson Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2021 (Mid-Term Review) and 2018 Regional Public Transport Plan (A1942674 as per Report R9325) for submission to the New Zealand Transport Agency prior to 30 June 2018. Rutledge/Noonan Carried |
7. Petition in favour of protecting wild deer population in Marsden Valley
Document number R9382, agenda pages 89 - 101 refer.
|
Resolved CL/2018/145 That the Council Receives the Petition in favour of protecting wild deer population in Marsden Valley (R9382) and its attachment (A1969247); and Requests that
a report on the options for the wild deer population in Marsden Valley be
presented to a future Sports and Her Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried |
8. Mayor's Report
Document number R9326, agenda pages 102 - 144 refer.
Her Worship the Mayor presented her report and asked members to provide feedback on the Remits to the Local Government New Zealand AGM by 6 July. It was noted that, along with Her Worship the Mayor and the Chief Executive, Councillors Dahlberg, Rutledge and Fulton were attending the LGNZ Conference.
|
Resolved CL/2018/146 That the Council Receives the report Mayor's Report (R9326) and its attachment (1989403); and Appoints Councillors Acland, Barker, Matheson, Noonan, Rutledge, Skinner and Walker to replace any member on the Conduct Review Panel in the event of a conflict of interest or unavailability of a member; and Nelson City Council Standing Orders section 14.1 Time Limits reference to speakers be amended as follows: 14.1 Time limits A period of up to 30
minutes, or such longer time as the
Individual speakers can speak for up to 5 minutes and representatives from organisations can speak for up to 10 minutes in total. No more than two speakers can speak on behalf of an organisation during a public forum. Where the number of speakers presenting in the public forum exceeds 6 in total, the Chairperson has discretion to restrict the speaking time permitted for all presenters.
Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried |
9. Special Housing Areas Requests May 2018
Document number R9171, agenda pages 145 - 156 refer.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 9.58a.m.
Senior City Development Planner, Alastair Upton presented the report and advised that Council had previously received Special Housing Area requests for 3B, C and D Hill Street.
Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 9.59a.m.
|
Resolved CL/2018/147 That the Council Receives the report Special Housing Areas Requests May 2018 (R9171) and its attachment (A1978943); and Approves 3A Hill Street North (A1978943), subject to the developer entering into a legal Deed with the Council which requires, amongst other matters, that the developer, at its sole cost: (i) shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Council’s infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA; and (ii) shall provide plans showing how the SHA development will integrate with the proposed development of the adjacent land at 3B and 3C Hill Street North, and the expected likely future development of adjacent residential zoned land including layout and connectivity of all infrastructure, for the approval by the Group Manager Infrastructure. The approval of the Group Manager Infrastructure shall be submitted with any application for resource consent under HASHAA; and (iii) shall provide to the Council an assessment of the impact of the development of the wider Saxton Growth Area on the Saxton Creek upgrade, for the purposes of determining the requirements for stormwater management as part of any development in the proposed SHA, for the approval of the Group Manager Infrastructure. The approval of the Group Manager Infrastructure shall be submitted with any application for resource consent under HASHAA; and (iv) shall submit the approval of the Urban Design Panel with any application for resource consent under HASHAA. Walker/Fulton Carried |
10. Adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2018
Document number R9335, agenda pages 157 - 219 refer.
Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report.
|
Resolved CL/2018/148 That the Council Receives the report Adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2018 (R9335) and its attachment A1964099; and Adopts the Development Contributions Policy 2018 (A1964099). Barker/McGurk Carried |
11. Adoption of Long Term Plan 2018-28
Document number R9334, agenda pages 220 - 233 refer.
Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald and Group Manager Corporate Services Nikki Harrison presented the report and tabled the unqualified audit from Audit New Zealand.
|
Resolved CL/2018/149 That the Council Receives the report Adoption of Long Term Plan 2018-28 (R9334) and its attachment (A1990404); and Adopts the Revenue and Financing Policy (pages 181 – 206 of A1990404) and the Rates Remission Policy (page 207 -218 of A1990404); and Adopts the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (A1990404) pursuant to Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002; Delegates the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to the release of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 to the public; and Sets and assesses the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on rating units in the district for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2018 and ending on 30 June 2019. The revenue approved below will be raised by the rates and charges that follow: Revenue approved: General Rate $38,889,490 Uniform Annual General Charge $8,544,542 Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge $5,804,518 Waste Water Charge $7,793,889 Water Annual Charge $3,628,673 Water Volumetric Charge $8,466,904 Clean Heat Warm Homes and Solar Saver $460,019 Rates and Charges (excluding GST) $73,588,035 Goods and Services Tax (at the current rate) $11,038,205 Total Rates and Charges $84,626,240 The rates and charges below are GST inclusive. (1) General Rate A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, assessed on a differential land value basis as described below: • a rate of 0.72712 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential – single unit” category. • a rate of 0.72712 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “residential empty section” category. • a rate of 0.79983 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “single residential unit forming part of a parent valuation, the remainder of which is non-rateable” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value. • a rate of 0.79983 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “multi residential” category. This represents a plus 10% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.83016 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 151.7% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.55458 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 113.8% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.27900 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 75.9% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.00270 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial – excluding inner city and Stoke commercial” subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 37.9% differential on land value. • a rate of 2.46057 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city” subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty) category. This represents a plus 238.4% differential on land value. • a rate of 2.02721 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 178.8% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.59384 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 119.2% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.16048 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “commercial inner city subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 59.6% differential on land value. • a rate of 2.36677 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 100% commercial and industrial (occupied and empty)” category. This represents a plus 225.5% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.95668 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 25% residential and 75% commercial” category. This represents a plus 169.1% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.54731 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 50% residential and 50% commercial” category. This represents a plus 112.8% differential on land value. • a rate of 1.13721 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “Stoke commercial subject to 75% residential and 25% commercial” category. This represents a plus 56.4% differential on land value. • a rate of 0.47263 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “rural” category. This represents a minus 35% differential on land value. • a rate of 0.65441 cents in the dollar of land value on every rating unit in the “small holding” category. This represents a minus 10% differential on land value. (2) Uniform Annual General Charge A uniform annual general charge under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $415.94 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit. (3) Stormwater and Flood Protection Charge A targeted rate under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of $317.59 per rating unit, this rate is assessed on all rating units excluding rural rating units, rating units east of the Gentle Annie saddle, Saxton’s Island and Council’s stormwater network. (4) Waste Water Charge A targeted rate for waste water disposal under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 of: • $432.30 per separately used or inhabited part of a residential, multi residential, rural and small holding rating units that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. • For commercial rating units, a waste water charge of $108.07 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that is connected either directly or through a private drain to a public waste water drain. Note: a “trade” waste charge will also be levied. (5) Water Annual Charge A targeted rate for water supply under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of: Water charge (per connection) $197.68 (6) Water Volumetric Rate A targeted rate for water provided under Section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, of: Price of water: Usage up to 10,000 cu.m/year $2.102 per m³ Usage from 10,001 – 100,000 cu.m/year $1.659 per m³ Usage over 100,000 cu.m/year $1.310 per m³ Summer irrigation usage over 10,000 cu.m/year $1.881 per m³ (7) Clean Heat Warm Homes A targeted rate per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit that has been provided with home insulation and/or a heater to replace a non-complying solid fuel burner under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of: • For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into after 1 July 2011, the targeted rate for each year for 10 years will be the total cost of the installed works excluding GST, divided by 10, plus GST. • For properties assessed the Clean Heat Warm Homes rate as a result of agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011 the targeted rate of:
(8) Solar Hot Water Systems A targeted rate for any separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit that has been provided with financial assistance to install a solar hot water system under Section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in accordance with agreement of the original ratepayer, of the following factors on the extent of provision of service (net cost of the work including GST after deducting EECA grant, plus funding cost): • 0.14964 (including GST) for agreements entered into prior to 1 July 2011, multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work adjusted for any increased GST. • 0.13847 (including GST) for agreements entered into after 1 July 2011 multiplied by the Net Cost of the Work. Due Dates for Payment of Rates The above rates (excluding water volumetric rates) are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable in four instalments on the following dates:
Rates instalments not paid on or by the Last Date for payment above will incur penalties as detailed in the section “Penalty on Rates”. Due Dates for Payment of Water Volumetric Rates Residential water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:
Special (final) water volumetric rates will be payable 14 days from the invoice date of the special (final) water reading as shown on the water invoice. Commercial water volumetric rates are payable at the Nelson City Council office, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson and shall be payable on the following dates:
Penalty on Rates Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid rates (excluding volumetric water rate accounts) and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them: • a charge of 10% of the amount of each rate instalment remaining unpaid after the last date for payment stated above, to be added on the penalty date as shown above. • a charge of 10% will be added on 6 July 2018 to any balance from a previous rating year (including penalties previously charged) remaining outstanding on 1 July 2018. • a further additional charge of 10% will be added on 8 January 2019 to rates (including penalties previously charged) to which a penalty has been added under the bullet point above and which remains unpaid on 7 January 2019. Penalty on Water Volumetric Rates Pursuant to Sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the council authorises the following penalties on unpaid volumetric water rates and delegates authority to the Group Manager Corporate Services to apply them: • a charge of 10% of the amount of each volumetric water rate account remaining unpaid after the last date for payment to be added on the penalty date as shown above. Penalty Remission In accordance with Council’s rate remission policy, the Council will approve the remission of the penalty added on instalment one due to late payment provided the total annual rates are paid in full by 20 November 2018. If full payment of the annual rates is not paid by 20 November 2018 the penalties relating to the first instalment outlined above will apply. The above penalties will not be charged where Council has agreed to a programme for payment of outstanding rates. The Group Manager Corporate Services is given discretion to remit rates penalties either in whole or part in accordance with Council’s approved rates remission policy, as may be amended from time to time. Discount on Rates Pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Council will allow a discount of 2.0 percent of the total rates (excluding volumetric water rates) where a ratepayer pays the year’s rates in full on or before the Last Date for Payment for instalment one being 20 August 2018. Payment of Rates The rates shall be payable at the Council offices, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson between the hours of 8.30am to 5.00pm Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 9.00am to 5.00pm Thursday. Where any payment is made by a ratepayer that is less than the amount now payable, the Council will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due. Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Her Worship the Mayor thanked members and the officers for the work involved in preparing the Long Term Plan. She noted that Committees would be preparing work programmes to pick up the direction of the Long Term Plan and work on forward planning.
12. Amended Memorandum of Understanding of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and amended Terms of Reference of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit
Document number R9353, agenda pages 234 - 259 refer.
Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, advised he had reviewed the recommendations to Council and proposed some amendments to ensure the relationship with iwi was clear. He noted that both the Units required expert view from iwi representatives, particularly as noted in the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act.
Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison and Executive Officer, Michelle Joubert, presented the report.
|
Recommendation That the Council Receives the report Amended Memorandum of Understanding of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and amended Terms of Reference of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (R9353) and its attachments (A1983272, A1983271); and Approves in principle, subject to support from iwi and equivalent approval by Tasman District Council, the amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) and the amended Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) to provide voting rights for the iwi representatives; and Approves in principle, subject to support from iwi and equivalent approval by Tasman District Council, the amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) and the amended Terms ofReference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) to provide that iwi representatives be remunerated in accordance with the joint policy for the remuneration of independent persons appointed to joint committees and business units; and Approves in principle, subject to support from iwi and equivalent approval by Tasman District Council, that the remuneration for iwi representatives be set at $8000 per annum for the first term of appointment; and
Approves in principle, subject to support from iwi and equivalent approval by Tasman District Council, that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) be amended to state that a quorum for a meeting shall be half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is an even number, or a majority if the number of members (including vacancies) is an uneven number; and
Approves in principle, subject to support from iwi and equivalent approval by Tasman District Council, the amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) and the amended Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) as set out in attachments A1983271 and A1983272; and
Notes that iwi will be consulted on the proposed remuneration and the amended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) and the amended Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) as set out in attachments A1983271 and A1983272; and
Notes that once it is completed, the draft joint policy for the remuneration of independent persons appointed to joint committees and business units, will be brought to Council for adoption.
|
13. Exclusion of the Public
|
Resolved CL/2018/150 That the Council Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: Barker/Dahlberg Carried |
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1.1 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 3 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
|
|
1.2 |
Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 15 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
1.3 |
Extraordinary Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 24 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) |
|
2.1 |
Recommendation from Sports and Recreation Committee - 24 May 2018 Daelyn Drive Reserve – Revocation and Sale |
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities |
|
2.2 |
Recommendation from Governance Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 7 June 2018 Nelson Cycle Lift Society – Pre-commercial business case phase two funding |
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) |
|
2.3 |
Chief Executive Employment Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 18 June 2018 Mayor’s Report – Chief Executive’s Key Performance Indicators |
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
|
|
3 |
State Advances - update
|
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) |
|
4 |
Farmers Market Licence for Maitai Walkway
|
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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 10.28a.m. and resumed in public session at 1.15p.m..
There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.15p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of the Nelson City Council
Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
On Monday 2 July 2018, commencing at 2.05 p.m.
Present: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, M Courtney, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, M Lawrey, P Matheson, B McGurk, G Noonan, M Rutledge, T Skinner and S Walker
In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), G Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) and Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Paul Bell (External Adviser)
Apologies : Nil
Opening Prayer
Councillor Dahlberg gave the opening prayer.
1. Apologies
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
There was no change to the order of business.
3. Interests
There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.
4. Public Forum
|
Jace Hobbs from Nelson Co-housing Group |
|
|
|
Mr Hobbs spoke about a co-housing initiative and why it was a good fit for the community. He tabled a document from Cohousing Nelson and explained this was a popular concept gaining attraction in Europe and US and was now in Christchurch and Dunedin. This was a dense housing structure with co-governance similar to condominium management, where people can buy and sell their properties however they do not own the land. He felt it was a big draw for childcare, children were secure in and around a village atmosphere. Mr Hobbs advised that the group were looking for land however this was difficult in Nelson, particularly as they wanted to find somewhere large enough but within walking and biking distance to the CBD. |
|
|
|
|
|
Attachments 1 A2000562 Jace Hobbs Co-housing Presentation Council 02Jul2018 |
5. Exclusion of the Public
Paul Bell, of Intepeople, will be in attendance for the Public Excluded agenda to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution is required to be passed:
|
Resolved CL/2018/161 That the Council Confirms, in accordance with section 48(5) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Paul Bell remain after the public has been excluded, for all of the Public Excluded agenda, as he has knowledge that will assist the Council; Notes, in accordance with section 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the knowledge that Paul Bell possesses relates to description. Courtney/Walker Carried |
|
Resolved CL/2018/162 That the Council Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows: Courtney/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 |
Chief Executive's Performance Report - six month update
|
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 |
|
2 |
Mayor's Report – Chief Executives Performance Plan 2018/19
|
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 |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 2.25pm and resumed in public session at 4.18p.m.
There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.18p.m.
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:
Chairperson
Date
Item 8: Brook Reserve - Classification and Road Stopping Processes
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9522
Brook Reserve - Classification and Road Stopping Processes
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To agree that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to commence the public notification process under section 24A of the Reserves Act 1977 (RA) to change the specific local purpose of the Brook Local Purpose Reserve from “recreation” to “outdoor leisure, conservation and education”.
1.2 To agree that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to commence the public notification process under section 14 of the RA to declare stopped road land to be reserve to be held as Local Purpose Reserve with the specific local purpose of “outdoor leisure, conservation and education”.
1.3 To agree that these two public notification processes be run concurrently.
1.4 To agree the Terms of Reference and composition of a Hearings Panel to hear, deliberate and make recommendations back to Council on any submissions received as part of the public notification processes.
2. Summary
2.1 Council has previously adopted in principle the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan (draft RMP). This draft RMP applies to the area known as the Brook Recreation Reserve. As a result of the draft RMP process, further statutory processes have been undertaken under the RA and the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA 74) in order to achieve integrated and appropriate management, consistent with the vision and intended uses, of the area.
2.2 Council has completed statutory processes under the RA to change the classification of reserve land from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve and declare fee simple land to be Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve.
2.3 Council has notified and heard objections on its proposal to stop legal road under schedule 10 of the LGA 74, with the intention that the land be amalgamated into the adjoining Reserve. The matter was referred to the Environment Court and it confirmed the road stopping, subject to Council resolving to declare the land reserve under the RA, so as to amalgamate it into the Brook Recreation Reserve.
2.4 The location and current status of the relevant land is shown in Attachment 1 to this report.
2.5 In order to complete the road stopping process, Council therefore now needs to resolve to declare the stopped road land to be reserve to be held for a specified purpose under the RA, so that it can be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve. This requires a public notification process.
2.6 In addition, Council officers have re-assessed the legal risk associated with the specific local purpose of “recreation” for the existing Local Purpose Reserve. Legal advice recommends that Council change the specific local purpose from “recreation” to “outdoor leisure, conservation and education”. This also requires a public notification process.
2.7 Council officers recommend that the two public notification processes run concurrently and that a hearing panel be appointed to hear, deliberate and make recommendations back to Council on any submissions that are received.
3. Recommendation
4. Background
4.1 On 24 November 2014, the Council gave public notice under section 41 of the RA and under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02) of its intention to prepare a management plan for the area known as the Brook Recreation Reserve. This area included land held by the Council under the RA as Recreation Reserve, fee simple land vested in Council and legal road. The area of land (albeit now with changed status under the RA) is shown in purple and green on Attachment 1 to this report.
4.2 Following this period of “pre-consultation”, on 11 June 2015, the Council gave public notice of the draft Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan and called for submissions.
4.3 The draft RMP as publicly notified contemplated taking steps so that all of the land would be administered under the RA as Recreation Reserve. In response to submissions and following the recommendations of a Hearings Panel, the Council decided that it would be more appropriate and consistent with the vision and intended uses for the area to be administered under the RA as a Local Purpose Reserve. On 15 October 2015 the Council resolved to adopt the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan (RMP) in principle and delegated powers to the Chief Executive to proceed with the further statutory processes to enable the whole of the area to be gazetted as Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve. The intention was that once the gazettal processes were complete a report would be brought back to Council to enable final approval of the Brook Recreation Reserve Management Plan.
4.4 Council then commenced the necessary statutory processes to:
4.4.1 Change the classification of reserve land from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve under section 24 of the RA;
4.4.2 Declare and gazette fee simple land to be Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve under section 14 of the RA; and
4.4.3 Stop legal road under schedule 10 of the LGA 74 with the intention that the land be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve.
4.5 These statutory processes all included public notification and hearing of submissions by a Hearings Panel.
4.6 The Brook Valley Community Group (BVCG) submitted that it had not been adequately consulted on the proposed change in classification of land from Recreation Reserve to Local Purpose Reserve and objected to the road stopping.
4.7 On 10 November 2016, Council resolved to seek further feedback on the proposed change of classification, including providing further information to the community on rationale and implications. Council also decided to proceed with the road stopping by referring the matter to the Environment Court.
4.8 Further feedback on the proposed change of classification included a submission that the proposed classification of Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve was ultra vires, as it duplicated the primary purpose of a Recreation Reserve. Legal advice confirmed that there was a risk that if challenged the proposed classification would be found ultra vires and recommended an alternative option of changing the specific local purpose to “education and recreation”. Making this change following the hearing of submissions introduced a risk to the consultation process, but legal advice was that this risk was preferable to proceeding with a potentially ultra vires classification. Council officers weighed the risks and recommended proceeding with no change to the proposed specific local purpose. The matter was debated by Council at a meeting on 23 March 2017 and it resolved to proceed with the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification.
4.9 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) initially refused to register the gazette notices on the titles based on their view that the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification was unlawful. LINZ ultimately agreed to register the gazette notices as its registration role was limited and any challenge to the classification would need to be by way of judicial review.
4.10 Meanwhile, the road stopping matter had been referred to the Environment Court. The only objection (by BVCG) was resolved by Court assisted mediation. On 30 November 2017 the Court confirmed Council’s decision to stop the road, subject to Council resolving to declare the stopped road land reserve to be amalgamated into the Brook Recreation Reserve.
4.11 In order to progress the road stopping Council now needs to go through the process of declaring the land to be reserve under section 14 of the RA so that it can be amalgamated with the adjoining reserve. This requires a further public notification and hearing process.
4.12 This provides Council with an opportunity to re-assess the legal risk and appropriateness of the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification. Council may change the specific local purpose of a Local Purpose Reserve at any time under section 24A of the RA. This also requires a public notification and hearing process.
5. Discussion
Change of specific local purpose from Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve.
5.1 Council has received legal advice that the current classification of Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve is ultra vires the RA, as it duplicates the primary purpose of a Recreation Reserve. This is an ongoing legal risk.
5.2 Council has the power under section 24A of the RA to change the specific local purpose of a Local Purpose Reserve at any time, subject to a public notification and hearing process, to address this risk.
5.3 Any alternative specific local purpose should be:
5.3.1 Consistent with the general purposes of the RA;
5.3.2 Not duplicate any of the other primary purposes of reserves under the RA;
5.3.3 Allow flexibility for community use as far as possible, noting that Council will be required to administer the reserve in accordance with its specific local purpose;
5.3.4 Be consistent with the vision and intended uses identified for the area as part of the draft RMP process.
5.4 The vision for the reserve, consulted on and adopted in principle by Council, is:
“The Brook Recreation Reserve serves as a centre for environmental education and conservation and as a destination for camping and outdoor recreation, including appropriately scaled and complementary commercial recreational and tourism development.”
5.5 Taking into account this vision and the intended uses set out in the draft RMP, Council officers recommend an alternative specific local purpose of “outdoor leisure, conservation and education”.
Declaring stopped road to be Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve
5.6 The Environment Court has confirmed the road stopping subject to the Council resolving to declare the land to be reserve so that it can be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve. This requires a public notification and hearing process under section 14 of the RA.
5.7 In order to progress the road stopping, Council officers recommend that Council notify its intention to declare the stopped road to be held as Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve, in line with the proposal to change the classification of the adjoining reserve discussed above. This would enable the road to be stopped and the land to be amalgamated into the adjoining reserve.
5.8 There is a low risk of legal challenge to a decision to declare the stopped road land to be Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve. It could be argued that Council is bound to retain the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification because that was the intended classification referred to in evidence and submissions to the Environment Court during the road stopping objection hearing. Legal advice is that any such argument has a very low chance of success because the Environment Court did not require the stopped road land to be any particular reserve classification in its condition and the particular reserve classification was not relevant to the Environment Court’s reasons for its decision. In any event the primary classification of the reserve (Local Purpose Reserve) is remaining the same.
Hearings Panel
5.9 Council officers recommend that Council delegate powers to a Hearings Panel to hear, deliberate on and make recommendations back to Council on any submissions that may be received as part of these public notification processes.
5.10 Legal advice is that the two processes can be run concurrently provided that Council is clear in its communications with the public and in its final decisions that it is undertaking two separate processes. For example, it would be important to ensure that Council makes two separate decisions that address the different legal tests for each decision.
5.11 The Deputy Mayor as well as Councillors Noonan, McGurk and Fulton have been members of previous Hearings Panels on this topic and have background knowledge on this issue. Officers recommend that the composition of the proposed Hearings Panel be selected from this same pool of Councillors, depending on availability at the time of scheduling the hearings.
5.12 The two previous Hearings Panels were chaired by an independent chair. Officers do not see the need to have an independent chair as part of this Hearings Panel.
5.13 Officers recommend that the proposed draft Terms of Reference included as Attachment 2 for the Brook Reserve Hearings Panel be approved.
6. Options
6.1 The options are set out below. Council Officers recommend Option 1.
|
Option 1: Publicly notify intention to change Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve to Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve and to declare stopped road to be Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve |
||
|
Advantages |
· Enables Council to address the ongoing legal risk associated with the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification. · Enables Council to finalise the road stopping and amalgamation of this land into the adjoining reserve. · Enables Council to progress final approval of the management plan. · Enables Council to achieve the objective of integrated and appropriate management under the RA, consistent with the vision and intended uses, for the area. |
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Low risk of legal challenge to any decision to declare the stopped road land to be Local Purpose (Outdoor Leisure, Conservation and Education) Reserve. |
|
|
Option 2: Do nothing to existing Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve and publicly notify intention to declare the stopped road land to be Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve |
||
|
Advantages |
· Enables Council to finalise the road stopping and amalgamation of this land into the adjoining reserve. · Enables Council to progress final approval of the management plan. |
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Ongoing legal risk associated with the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification. · Increases legal risk by making a further decision to proceed with a potentially ultra vires classification for the stopped road land. |
|
|
Option 3: Do nothing at all |
|
|
|
Advantages |
· None. |
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Ongoing legal risk associated with the current Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve classification. · Council unable to finalise the road stopping and amalgamation of this land into the adjoining reserve. · Council unable to progress final approval of the management plan. · Council unable to achieve the objective of integrated and appropriate management under the RA, consistent with the vision and intended uses, for the area. |
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Depending on the outcome of the further public notification processes to change the specific local purpose and declare the stopped road land to be reserve, it is proposed that Officers will come back to Council with a report on final approval of the draft RMP. This will include review of the draft RMP to assess whether any changes need to be made due to the passage of time and, if so, the significance of the changes.
Nicky McDonald
Group Manager Strategy and Communications
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1903135 - Brook Reserve and Road Stopping ⇩
Attachment 2: A1693973 - Brook Reserve Hearings Panel Terms of Reference ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The draft Reserve Management Plan and following statutory processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government 1974 contribute towards the purpose of local government in the Local Government Act 2002 “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” and to meeting the role of a local authority to “perform the duties, and exercise the rights, conferred on it by or under this Act and any other enactment”. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The draft Reserve Management Plan and following statutory processes under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Local Government Act 1974 to classify land and stop legal road support the following Community Outcome: “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected” and “Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities”. |
|
3. Risk There is a risk that members of the public who are not satisfied with the draft Reserve Management Plan could object to the proposed vesting of the stopped road land and renaming of the purpose of the reserve. This risk can be partly alleviated through clear communication that these steps are separate from the adoption of the final Reserve Management Plan. There is a low risk of legal challenge to any decision to change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve. |
|
4. Financial impact The costs of the process to consult and hear submitters can be met within existing budgets. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement While matters concerning the Brook Recreation Reserve generally raise a high level of public interest, it is considered that the decision to commence public notification processes under sections 14 and 24A of the Reserves Act 1977 are of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Engagement has already taken place on the draft Reserve Management Plan and decisions to classify land as Local Purpose (Recreation) Reserve and stop legal road with the intention of amalgamating it into the adjoining reserve. The decision to commence public notification of the intention to now change the specific local purpose of the Local Purpose Reserve and declare the stopped road to be held for that specific local purpose will enable full consultation before any final decisions are made. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process The Brook Stream and the Brook Reserve are located within a Statutory Acknowledgement Area for numerous iwi defined by the Maitai (Mahitahi) River and tributaries. Consultation with local iwi was carried out in 2014 as part of the draft Reserve Management Plan process. No iwi groups submitted on the draft reserve Management Plan. No iwi groups submitted on the following reserve classification and road stopping processes. No engagement with Māori has been undertaken for this report. |
|
7. Delegations This is a decision for Council. |
Item 9: Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust: Memorandum of Understanding
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9392
Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust: Memorandum of Understanding
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust (the Trust).
2. Recommendation
|
Receives the report Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (R9392) and its attachment (A1941842); and Adopts the Memorandum of Understanding, delegating the Mayor to sign on behalf of Council; and Delegates to the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to signing. |
3. Background
At its meeting on 18 October 2017 Council resolved:
That the Council
Approves the revised Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust’s Business Plan and agrees to release the remaining $150,000 for 2017/18 to the Trust contingent on:
a) The Trust supplying Council annually, by August each year, with respect to their Business Plan and six-monthly updates on cash flows in July and January of each year;
b) A Memorandum of Understanding be developed and agreed by full Council prior to any future funding commitments being made.
3.1 At the meeting on 15 May 2018 to deliberate on submissions to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Council approved funding for the Sanctuary, contingent on agreement of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
That the Council
Notes that the release of future funding to the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust is subject to successful completion of a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Trust.
3.2 On 23 May a Council workshop was held to discuss the content of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Members of the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust attended the workshop to deliver a presentation and answer questions. A good discussion was held focussing on the vision and desired outcomes for the Sanctuary, the role of and relationship with various partners, funding, risk management, public access, governance and reporting. The workshop discussed financial sustainability and the Sanctuary’s need for an ongoing funding commitment from the community. The importance of the public feeling a sense of ownership was also emphasised.
4. Discussion
4.1 Officers and the Trust have collaborated on the drafting of the MOU (see Attachment 1). Following two meetings and iterative drafts of the MOU all issues with the text have been resolved and a jointly supported draft is recommended to Council.
5. Options
5.1 Council has the option of approving the attached MOU, with amendments as necessary, or not approving it. It is recommended that the MOU be approved to provide a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the parties and to allow funding allocated for the Sanctuary to be released.
|
Option 1: Approve the MOU |
|
|
Advantages |
· The MOU provides clarity around roles and responsibilities of the parties and sets out common objectives · Agreement of an MOU will allow funding to be released in 2018/19 |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Commits Council to a high level of cooperation and collaboration with the Trust which brings resource implications |
|
Option 2: Do not approve the MOU |
|
|
Advantages |
· No obvious advantages |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Would suggest a lack of commitment from Council to the project · Would be a disappointment to the Trust and its many supporters in the community · Creates uncertainty for the Trust and will hamper ongoing activity at the Sanctuary · No funding can be released without an MOU |
Nicky McDonald
Group Manager Strategy and Communications
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1941842 Draft Memorandum of Understanding with the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government Collaboration with BWST supports provision of valued biodiversity services for the community and makes use of volunteer labour and a range of funding partners that help reduce costs that might otherwise be faced by ratepayers. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy Approving the MOU supports the community outcome “Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected” and “Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”. |
|
3. Risk Approval of the MOU is low risk as it is not binding on either party and can be expected to be regarded positively by most in the community given levels of support for the Sanctuary demonstrated through the Long Term Plan consultation process. |
|
4. Financial impact Approval of the MOU does not bring any additional financial implications. Operational funding for the Sanctuary is included in the draft Long Term Plan 2018-28 for adoption at this meeting. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low significance because it only aims to clarify the relationship between Council and BWST and is not legally binding on either party. Therefore no community consultation is planned. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted in the preparation of this report. |
|
7. Delegations Council decided at its meeting on 18 October 2017 that the Memorandum of Understanding with the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust should be agreed by full Council. |
Item 10: Upper Trafalgar Street - Summer Closure 2018/19
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9197
Upper Trafalgar Street - Summer Closure 2018/19
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve the temporary closure of Upper Trafalgar Street (between Selwyn Place and Hardy Street) from 8 November 2018 until 30 April 2019 (summer closure 2018/19).
2. Summary
2.1 Council needs to consider, based on the results of the trial closure of Upper Trafalgar Street which ran from 1 December 2017 until 31 March 2018, whether it wishes to close the area to traffic again in future.
3. Recommendation
|
Receives the report Upper Trafalgar Street - Summer Closure 2018/19 (R9197) and its attachments (A1935325, A1944077, A2008577); and Approves the temporary closure of Upper Trafalgar Street (between Selwyn Place and Hardy Street) in accordance with section 342 and schedule 10 clause 11(d) of the Local Government Act 1974 with the following conditions: - The closure will commence on 8 November 2018 and conclude on 30 April 2019; and - From 09:00am every day to 7:00am on each following day, the street will be closed to all vehicles apart from emergency vehicles and other vehicles specifically authorised by Council’s network coordinator Confirms that the capital ($20,000) and operational ($53,000) expenditure required for the 2018/19 closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will be funded through the CBD Enhancement budget and that all fees generated through Upper Trafalgar Street licences to occupy additional space during the closure, will be credited back to this budget; and Notes that the summer 2018/19 closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will require net capital expenditure of $12,000, which will be funded from the CBD Enhancement budget. |
4. Background
4.1 On 21 September 2017, Council approved the temporary closure of Upper Trafalgar Street (between Selwyn Place and Hardy Street) and noted that a further report would be brought to Council outlining the results of the trial closure and options for declaring Upper Trafalgar Street a pedestrian street.
4.2 Upper Trafalgar Street was closed to traffic from 1 December 2017 until 31 March 2018. Businesses extended their outdoor dining areas and Council provided chairs and shade umbrellas for community use. Council paid for resource consents on behalf of the businesses and also paid for businesses’ special liquor licence applications.
4.3 The results of the closure, which are set out below, include details on the public consultation, traffic and pedestrian counts and transactional information.
5. Discussion
Community Feedback
5.1 Public consultation on the closure was undertaken from 13 March 2018 until 27 March 2018 and a total of 321 submissions were received. Of these, 314 are positive about the closure and seven are not. A copy of the submissions is included in Attachment 1 and a breakdown of the submissions is in Attachment 2.
5.2 Of those who are positive, 132 would like the street to be closed permanently and 25 suggest the pedestrianised area should extended further down Trafalgar Street and along other streets such as Bridge Street, Hardy Street and Church Street.
5.3 One hundred and twenty seven submitters support the closure for one or more of the following reasons: the closure created a great atmosphere in the city, a place to gather, dine and socialise; the area brought life and a community feel to the city; it became the heart of Nelson, a point of difference for Nelson and a way to showcase Nelson.
5.4 Sixty submitters refer to transport matters and raise one or more of the following positive points: the closure had no negative impact on traffic, loss of parking was not an issue, and Upper Trafalgar Street was a pleasant place because it was safe, pedestrian-friendly and traffic-free.
5.5 A number of suggestions were received in relation to how the street scene could be improved. These include installing better street furniture and umbrellas or shade nets, heaters during winter, a giant chess set, activities for children, bean bags, market stalls, more events and live music, recycling bins and planters that can be moved more easily to accommodate events.
Issues raised
5.6 The issues raised by submitters and comments in relation to these issues are set out in the table below:
|
Issue |
Comment |
|
Traffic: Ten submitters raise concerns about traffic issues which include the following: · too many pedestrian crossings on Selwyn Place · speed limits in CBD are too high · traffic lights should be remodelled · increased traffic on side streets and intersections near Upper Trafalgar Street · no right turn into Hardy Street from Rutherford Street when travelling from Bishopdale · forced to travel via Collingwood Street to get into town · loss of parking |
General: Traffic counts were conducted while the street was open and while the street was closed in order to establish what effect the closure had on the traffic network. An assessment of the data has been completed and the effect of the closure on the traffic network is not considered to be unreasonable. The network has sufficient capacity to manage the effects caused by the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street. Pedestrian counts were conducted in Upper Trafalgar Street shortly prior to the closure on Wednesday 22 November 2017 and again during the closure on Tuesday 20 March 2018, and show an increase of 259 pedestrians on the day the street was closed compared to the day the street was open. A comparison of the 20 March 2018 (3,104) count against the count conducted on Thursday, 3 December 2015 shows an increase of 327 pedestrians on 20 March 2018 compared to the 2015 count (2,777). A comparison against the count conducted on Thursday 1 December 2016 shows an increase of 350 pedestrians on 20 March 2018 compared to the 2016 count (2,754). If a decision is made to close Upper Trafalgar Street again, further data will be collected in order to inform future decisions about the long term plans for the street and the CBD as a whole.
|
|
|
Pedestrian crossings: The pedestrian crossings on Selwyn Place allow pedestrians direct crossing access from the Cathedral steps either to the west or east side of Upper Trafalgar Street. If a decision is made in future to close the street permanently, removing one of the zebra crossings from the Cathedral steps would be considered as this would improve traffic flow and increase the safety of the remaining zebra crossing.
Speed limits: While there are some differences in the ‘street open’ and ‘street closed’ speed data sets, overall it is considered that there was no significant change in speeds due to the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street. Generally, there is no evidence that closing Upper Trafalgar Street resulted in higher speeds.
The data shows that operating speeds on Hardy Street with street open and street closed are low, with 85% of recorded speeds in the range of 25 – 27 km/h. Operating speeds on Selwyn Street are in the 43 – 46 km/h range with street open and street closed. This is fairly typical for a road with significant movement function and indicates that the ring route system is operating effectively.
The NZTA Speed Management Guide suggests that a safe and appropriate speed for a CBD with a high concentration of active road users is 30 km/h. A review of the speed limits is planned for 2018/19. Speed limits in the CBD are covered by the Speed Limits Bylaw which is due to be reviewed in 2021 and this would provide a good opportunity to amend the speed limit in the CBD, if considered necessary.
Remodelling traffic lights: The traffic signals use the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATs). SCATs is an intelligent transportation system that manages the dynamic timing of signal phases at traffic signals. This means the system tries to find the best phasing (i.e. cycle times, phase splits and offsets) for a particular traffic situation (for individual intersections as well as for the whole network) and the signal timings automatically adapt to the traffic volumes at any given time.
A review of available traffic signal data suggests that the signals around the ring route have sufficient capacity to handle and adapt to the change created by the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street.
Increased traffic on side streets and nearby intersections: Traffic counts were conducted before and during the Upper Trafalgar Street closure in order to quantify changes in traffic patterns. The counts indicate that 2044 vehicles per day (vpd) previously used Upper Trafalgar Street; 710 vpd transferred to adjacent CBD streets and the remainder (1334vpd) transferred to the ring route.
These increases are within the capacity of the relevant streets and intersections. No operational issues were recorded on streets adjacent or close to Upper Trafalgar Street during the closure. Trafalgar Street East was closed for construction work at the same time as the Upper Trafalgar Street closure. Increased traffic on Selwyn Place is considered likely to be as a result of the Trafalgar Street East closure rather than the Upper Trafalgar Street closure.
No right turn: There is no right turn into Hardy Street from Rutherford Street when travelling from Bishopdale. Prior to removing the right turn from this intersection, the site had the highest crash rate in Nelson.
Reintroducing a right turn phase to the Rutherford/Hardy intersection is expected to decrease the traffic signals’ performance and have a significant negative impact on safety.
Ring route: The closure of Upper Trafalgar Street reinforced the ring route function of Selwyn Place, Collingwood Street, Halifax Street and Rutherford Street.
Parking: The increased number of pedestrians counted on Upper Trafalgar Street during the closure suggests that access to the street was improved as a result of the closure. During the 2017/18 closure, two parking spaces in Hardy Street were temporarily designated mobility parking spaces and a P5 drop off/pick up space was created in Selwyn Place next to the Cathedral steps. It is proposed that this parking arrangement be repeated if summer closure 2018/19 is approved. There are two large carparks (Montgomery Square and Buxton Square) within a short walking distance from Upper Trafalgar Street as well as parking spaces close by on Selwyn Place and Hardy Street.
|
|
Smoke-free Four submitters would like the pedestrianised area to be made smoke-free. In addition, a recent request has been received from the Cancer Society that Council consider making the area smoke-free. |
Council supported a smoke-free outdoor dining trial over the 2017/18 summer and all Council events are smoke-free. To make the area smoke-free would require a new bylaw or an amendment to Council’s smoke-free policy. The policy was reviewed in 2017 and as part of the review, Council considered creating a new bylaw. A decision was made not to pursue a bylaw as enforcing such a bylaw would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Council could include as a condition of the closure that the area be smoke-free for the duration of the closure. This would then become part of Council’s smoke-free policy. The condition would be positively promoted through signage. However, compliance with the condition by business owners and the community would be voluntary and breaches would be unenforceable. Some of the businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street already have smoke-free outdoor dining areas and others are considering alternative smoking areas in order to make the street facing dining areas smoke-free. |
|
Other businesses were disadvantaged Eleven submitters are concerned that businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street benefitted at the expense of other hospitality businesses in the CBD. At a meeting held on 16 March 2018 with CBD hospitality business owners from other parts of the city, a number of the owners indicated that they felt their businesses had suffered as a result of the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street and felt that Council should do more to lift the rest of the central city area.
|
Marketview data which covers all card payments (credit and debit cards) in the New Zealand retail market, including international cards, shows that overall the hospitality sector in Nelson had a successful summer period in 2017/18 with spending up 17.6% compared to the same period last year. Spending in four hospitality areas (Upper Trafalgar Street, Collingwood-New Street, Hardy Street and rest of Nelson) was measured during the period October 2017 to March 2018 and compared to the same period a year prior. While all measured areas experienced spending growth on a year prior, the most significant increase was experienced by the hospitality businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street (40.5%). A diagram showing the overview is in Attachment 3. It is likely that the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will again benefit the hospitality businesses located in that area over hospitality businesses located in different parts of the city. During the four month trial closure, businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street were not charged for the use of the additional space. Should Council approve summer closure 2018/19, businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street will be charged licence fees to occupy the additional space for the duration of the closure. Businesses will also be required to apply and pay for extended liquor licences and resource consents. Council identified CBD Development as one of its four priorities in the Long Term Plan 2018 -28. The City Development Team will be developing a City Centre Programme Plan for focus areas within the city centre. This Plan will include a prioritised programme of work centred on development and improvement opportunities. The anticipated completion date for the City Centre Programme Plan is February 2019.
|
|
Increased use of alcohol Three submitters are concerned about the increased visibility of drinking and use of alcohol in Upper Trafalgar Street.
|
One hundred and twenty seven submitters (127) are positive about the closure because they feel it created a great atmosphere, a place to gather, dine and socialise and brought life and a community feel to the city. Submitters describe the area as inviting, safe for children, inclusive of all ages, and a place where friends and family can get together. Licence owners are responsible for managing the behaviour of their customers with regards to responsible drinking and alcohol leaving licenced areas.
|
|
Noise Two submitters who live on Nile Street are concerned about increased noise levels from Upper Trafalgar Street.
|
Two other submitters who also live on Nile Street but closer to Upper Trafalgar Street describe the closure as a success and state that the noise from the street was not loud enough to be annoying. Council obtained a resource consent for noise generating activities during the 2017/18 closure. If a decision is made to close the street again over summer 2018/19, each businesses will be required to apply for such a consent. |
Regulatory controls
5.7 Summer closure 2018/19, if approved, would be a temporary closure effected under section 342 and clause 11(d) of schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 (the Act).
5.8 Section 342 gives councils the power to close any road to vehicles on a temporary basis in accordance with schedule 10. Clause 11(d) of schedule 10 allows councils, after consultation with Police and the NZTA, to close part of a road to traffic ‘when for any reason it is considered desirable that traffic should be temporarily diverted to other roads’.
5.9 A closure period from 8 November 2018 to 30 April 2019 is suggested in order to include the Armistice Day centenary celebrations on 11 November 2018, Easter Monday 22 April 2019 and Anzac Day on Thursday 25 April 2019.
5.10 In accordance with clause 11, the Police and the NZTA have been consulted on the proposal to close Upper Trafalgar Street. Neither agency has concerns about the proposed closure. Fire and Emergency Services and St John Ambulance have also been advised of the proposed closure.
5.11 A special consultative procedure under section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 would be required to close the street permanently or automatically every summer. This process will take approximately six months to complete, assuming there are no appeals. There is inadequate time to undertake this process in time for a closure in summer 2018/19.
5.12 It is recommended that the long term plans for Upper Trafalgar Street and associated costs be considered as part of the overall strategy for the CBD. As part of this work, a City Centre Programme Plan for focus areas within the city centre will be developed. This plan will include a prioritised programme of work centred on development and improvement opportunities. The anticipated completion date for the City Centre Programme Plan is February 2019.
Estimated costs
5.13 The estimated project cost for summer closure 2018/19 is $73,000 (capital cost $20,000 and operational $53,000).
5.14 The estimated capital cost relates to enhancing the space reserved for community use and includes tables, a game/activity for example, a giant chess set and four new umbrellas. The pots and chairs purchased last year are being reused. Tables are being added and replacement umbrellas are required as most of the umbrellas purchased last year were damaged by strong winds.
5.15 Operational costs relate to closing and reopening the street, maintaining planters and plants, installing signs, relocating parking spaces, securing Council furniture every evening and moving items for events.
5.16 The project costs will be funded temporarily from the CBD Enhancement budget which is budgeted at $270,000 in 2018/19 ($200,000 capital and 70,000 operational). All the income generated through Upper Trafalgar Street licences to occupy additional space during the closure will be credited back to the CBD Enhancement budget.
5.17 Previous advice to Council was that summer closure 2018/19 would be cost neutral as all expenditure would be offset by the income from licence fees. However, a recent valuation report sets out a charging methodology which results in a shortfall of approximately $12,000 in capital cost (assuming all the hospitality businesses choose to participate in the closure). It is proposed that the $12,000 be funded through the CBD Enhancement budget.
6. Options
The recommended option is that Council approve summer closure 2018/19.
|
Option 1: Approve summer closure 2018/19 |
|
|
Advantages |
· Enhance the CBD by recreating a traffic-free, pedestrian-friendly social space in the heart of the city for Nelsonians and visitors to enjoy; · Opportunity to collect further information which could assist future decision-making on the long term plans for the street and the CBD as a whole. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Requires Council investment; · Some in the community are likely to be dissatisfied; · Hospitality business owners in other parts of the city are likely to feel that their businesses will be disadvantaged. |
|
Option 2: Status quo – street remains open to traffic |
|
|
Advantages |
· No costs would be incurred; · Some in the community, including some hospitality business owners outside the closure area, are likely to be pleased. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Missed opportunity to enhance the CBD; · Missed opportunity to collect further information which could assist future decision-making on the long term plans for the street and the CBD as a whole; · Business owners in Upper Trafalgar Street will be disappointed; · Many in the community who enjoyed the 2017/18 closure are likely to be disappointed. |
7. Conclusion
7.1 The 2017/18 temporary closure of Upper Trafalgar Street was a success; it is recommended that Council approve the temporary closure of the street for the summer period 2018/19.
Michelle Joubert
Executive Officer
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1935325 - Submissions (Circulated separately) ⇨
Attachment 2: A1944077 - Analysis of submissions (Circulated separately) ⇨
Attachment 3: A2008577 - Marketview - Overview hospitality spend ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government A decision to close Upper Trafalgar Street is a discretionary activity which is expected to enhance Nelson’s CBD and contribute to the economic prosperity of businesses. Summer closure 2018/19 is also a cost-effective manner in which to further test the feasibility of closing the street every summer. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy A decision to close Upper Trafalgar Street aligns with the following Community Outcomes: - Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity; and - Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well-planned and sustainably managed. |
|
3. Risk It is likely that the closure of Upper Trafalgar Street will again benefit the hospitality businesses located in that area over hospitality businesses in different parts of the city. Hospitality business owners in other parts of the city are likely to be unhappy about this. |
|
4. Financial impact Summer closure 2018/19 will require net capital expenditure of $12,000 which will be funded through the CBD Enhancement budget. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This decision to close Upper Trafalgar Street temporarily is a matter of low significance to the community as a whole but of high significance to hospitality businesses in Upper Trafalgar Street and other parts of the city. Community views were sought on the 2017/18 closure and a total of 321 submissions were received. Of these, 314 are positive about the closure and seven are not. Of those who are positive, 132 would like the street to be closed permanently. Further community consultation in relation to summer closure 2018/19 is not considered necessary. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process No consultation with Māori was undertaken for this report. |
|
7. Delegations The decision relates to CBD enhancement, business, economic development and tourism, a temporary road closure, and temporary unavailability of parking. Responsibility for these areas does not fall clearly to a single Council committee. Therefore, the decision is referred to the Council. |
Item 11: Future Development Strategy
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9508
Future Development Strategy
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To confirm the preparation of a Future Development Strategy for the Nelson and Tasman Regions in partnership with the Tasman District Council.
2. Recommendation
|
Receives the report Future Development Strategy (R9508); and Approves the preparation of a Future Development Strategy for the Nelson and Tasman Regions in partnership with Tasman District Council. |
2. Background
Justification for a Future Development Strategy
2.1 The Government introduced The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) in 2016 with the aim of ensuring that Councils plan for, and enable the supply of sufficient housing and business land needed to meet demand.
2.2 The NPS–UDC applies to all local authorities, but particularly those that have part, or all, of either a medium or high growth urban area within their district or region.
2.3 The Nelson and Tasman Main Urban Area is defined in the NPS-UDC and includes both Richmond and Nelson. The area is classified as a medium growth urban area, falling just below the ten percent threshold (9.95%) that defines a high growth urban area.
2.4 The NPS-UDC encourages (but does not require) that local authorities that have part or all of a medium growth urban area within their district or region to prepare a future development strategy (FDS).
2.5 A recent Statistics New Zealand update of population projections concluded that the 10-year population growth forecast for the Nelson and Tasman Main Urban Area has risen to 9.95%, up from 8.5% in 2016. House prices continue to increase and the Massey University Aggregate Home Affordability Index shows that the Nelson-Tasman-Marlborough regional cluster is now the fourth least affordable region in the country behind Central Otago Lakes, Auckland and Waikato/Bay of Plenty.
2.6 At recent joint Council workshops there was broad support for the preparation of a FDS for the Nelson and Tasman Regions.
Purpose of a FDS
2.7 The purpose of a FDS is to demonstrate there will be sufficient, feasible development capacity (residential and business) in the medium and long terms and that minimum targets will be met.
2.8 The preparation of a FDS presents an opportunity for both Councils to take a strategic look at where and how growth can be managed over the next 30 to 50 years. It provides the opportunity for both Councils to work together to confirm a vision to sequence growth including infrastructure investment, servicing and release of land in a coordinated way.
2.9 Councillors from both Councils concluded that the preparation of a FDS must involve consultation with stakeholders and the wider community and should be informed by work already undertaken by both Councils and other relevant parties.
Contents of a FDS
2.10 A FDS would:
2.10.1 Be a non-statutory document, apply to both the Nelson and Tasman Regions and be signed off by both Councils;
2.10.2 Be governed by a working party comprised of Mayors, the chairs of the respective Planning and Regulatory and Environment and Engineering/Infrastructure Committees, with attendance by other Councillors at meetings being optional;
2.10.3 Provide a clear vision which provides both Councils with a decision making framework going forward that would enable both Councils to make consistent and aligned decisions;
2.10.4 Identify the location, timing and sequencing of future development capacity for the long-term, including both future greenfield areas and intensification opportunities in existing urban environments;
2.10.5 Be informed by the growth planning of other organisations, including but not limited to iwi, the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, Port Nelson Ltd, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry of Education.
2.10.6 Be linked to the regional development programme and economic development strategy of the Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA);
2.10.7 Balance certainty about future urban development with responsiveness to demand;
2.10.8 Inform Councils’ asset management plans and long term plans 2021-2031;
2.10.9 Include recommendations for changes to Regional Policy Statements and combined regional and district plans;
2.10.10 Be used as a platform to support infrastructure funding applications and other economic development bids;
2.10.11 Include a spatial map and/or an online interface;
2.10.12 Be produced using existing data and resources and where possible be based on work already planned and underway;
2.10.13 Be finalised prior to July 2019 in order to be available to the community to inform their feedback on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (LTP).
Resourcing requirements and timing
2.11 The proposed timeframes and staff resourcing constraints mean that delivery of the FDS is best achieved through Council staff jointly leading the project supported by some external resourcing.
2.12 The joint project will require funding of up to $150,000 which will be split equally between Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council. The Councils have each allocated $75,000 for this.
2.13 There are no specific consultation requirements in the NPS-UDC for consultation during the development of a FDS. However, any consultation that is undertaken would be done in accordance with Local Government Act requirements.
3. Conclusion
3.1 There is broad support from both Councils for the preparation of a FDS for the Nelson and Tasman Regions. It was acknowledged that both Councils need to work collaboratively to manage growth.
3.2 The intention is for the FDS to be a non-statutory document that would in turn inform the 2021 LTP, asset management plans, infrastructure and Resource Management Act planning processes.
3.3 The FDS would need to be informed by the growth planning of other organisations and also requires a link with the regional development programme and economic development strategy of the NRDA.
3.4 The development of the FDS would be in the context of the requirements set out in the NPS-UDC and also associated guidance produced by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Lisa Gibellini
Team Leader City Development
Attachments
Item 12: Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9387
Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To seek approval for the draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM) and associated draft Plan Change 27 to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) be provided to the public, statutory stakeholders and iwi partners for feedback under the Local Government Act 2002(LGA) and clause 34 First Schedule Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
1.2 To seek delegations for a joint Nelson and Tasman Council Hearing Panel to hear feedback, provide direction to the working group on any amendments required as a result of that feedback, and make recommendations to Council.
1.3 A similar report with the same recommendation is being presented to Tasman District Council on 9 August 2018 as alignment in decision making is required to support the consultation, consideration and adoption process across both Councils.
2. Summary
2.1 The review of the Nelson City Council Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM) has been an extensive across team and across local authority project with significant stakeholder engagement. A Steering Group comprising Councillors from both Nelson and Tasman Councils as well as survey and contract industry stakeholders has guided the review.
2.2 This has resulted in the production of a draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM) for the Nelson and Tasman regions providing consistency and alignment for the construction and vesting of, and works on, Council assets. The NTLDM contains both mandatory standards and good practice. Associated guidance notes for Bio-retention (rain gardens), Wetlands, and Coastal and Freshwater Inundation have also been developed.
2.3 This report seeks Council approval to undertake two consultation processes concurrently under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991.
2.4 The NTLDM is a Council policy document which is sought to be adopted under the LGA. To commence that process, the draft NTLDM is proposed to be released for public feedback from 13 August to 28 September 2018 under the Local Government Act 2002. It is accompanied by three draft practice notes to assist in the implementation of the standards and good practice, on which public feedback is also sought.
2.5 The LDM is also an externally referenced document to the NRMP which means it has legal effect as if it is part of the Plan. The reference to the LDM 2010 needs to be updated to refer to the NTLDM once adopted, and draft Plan Change 27 has been prepared to update that reference. This report seeks that the intention to change the LDM reference in the NRMP from the 2010 LDM to the proposed Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2018 be consulted on under clause 34 of the First Schedule RMA. This provides for the public to provide comments on the intention to externally reference the new mandatory standards which will have legal effect as if they are part of the Plan.
2.6 Following the receipt and hearing of public feedback under the LGA, recommendations for changes will be made to the Council prior to seeking adoption of the NTLDM under the LGA. Following the receipt of comments on plan change 27, recommendations will be made to Council to commence public notification of the change under the RMA. Both processes will occur concurrently and with Tasman District Council to ensure alignment is achieved.
3. Recommendation
|
Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (R9387) and its attachment/s (A2013438, A2013398, A2013457, A2013449, A1988205); and Approves the draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (A2013438), draft practice notes (A2013398, A2013457, A2013449) and draft plan change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (A1988205) for release on 13 August 2018 for public feedback under the Local Government Act and public comment under clause 34 First Schedule Resource Management Act; and Delegates the hearing of feedback under section 78 of the Local Government Act and comments under clause 34 First Schedule of the Resource Management Act to a joint hearing panel comprising Councillors Lawrey and McGurk as members of the Steering Group plus Councillor……………………. together with three Tasman District Council Councillors (Councillors King and Bryant plus one other). Delegates to the hearing panel the power to make recommendations to the Nelson and Tasman Councils to adopt or amend the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and associated practice notes. |
4. Background
4.1 The Nelson City Council Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM) provides minimum standards and guidance for work undertaken on Council assets, or subdivision and development that results in the vesting of assets in Council. These standards are incorporated into the Nelson Resource Management Plan and reviewed every 3-5 years.
4.2 As part of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement process for the LDM in 2009, stakeholders suggested to Council that an aligned LDM between the two Councils should be pursued.
4.3 Over the last three years officers from both Nelson and Tasman Councils have been working on a joint set of standards known as the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).
4.4 The Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed on 12 March 2015, in response to report A1317664, to progress the joint Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual with Tasman District Council, making the following resolutions:
Resolved PR/2015/015
THAT the report Land Development Manual Review (R4261) and its attachments (A1365598) be received;
AND THAT the Committee nominate Councillors Ward and McGurk to be members of the Land Development Manual Steering Group;
AND THAT the attached draft Terms of Reference are adopted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee for finalisation at the first Steering Group meeting after which they will be confirmed by the Mayor and the Chair of Planning and Regulatory;
AND THAT those nominated Councillors provide regular reports back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on progress with the Land Development Manual alignment and review;
AND THAT where possible both Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council use the same Hearing Commissioners to hear and make recommendations on submissions;
AND THAT a draft aligned Land Development Manual be brought back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee for consideration by December 2015.
4.5 A Steering Group comprising two elected members from each Council and two industry representatives was established and has been providing direction to officers on issues raised in the review as well as alignment matters.
5. Discussion
5.1 The NTLDM is one tool or method which assists the community in achieving the vision of a Smart Little City and the mission to leverage resources to shape an exceptional place to live, work and play. As such the NTLDM:
· Takes a regional approach to the design of residential and business areas which provides consistency and certainty to the Nelson and Tasman communities and the developers and contractors that operate within the Regions, creating a more efficient process and lifting Council performance; and
· Ensures the quality of assets that vest in Council are of a standard that the community can depend on and that the community can benefit from critical infrastructure providing safe and smart transport, water, wastewater, stormwater, flood protection and reserves and open space; and
· Provides a means to give effect to our resource management plans to ensure that development results in a healthy environment and resilient community.
5.2 The current LDM 2010 lifted the bar significantly from the previous 2003 Engineering Standards. The current LDM represents best practice in terms of low speed high amenity neighbourhoods, and was ahead of its time in this respect. Since then there has been greater national emphasis on freshwater and the effects of assets that vest as part of development on freshwater. The NTLDM provides greater emphasis on stormwater quality, quantity and habitat protection and enhancement.
5.3 The NTLDM is a method, or rather a collection of methods, to give effect to the rules in Nelson and Tasman’s resource management plans. The LDM itself does not require particular outcomes, the “stick” or rules that require developers to ensure their designs represent best practice urban design, and give effect to the requirements of the NPS Freshwater are in the resource management plans. For example, it is the Nelson Plan that will specify what water quality and quantity requirements are. The NTLDM provides a range of approved methods that are able to be used by developers to achieve them. The NTLDM is a means of compliance with the rules in the Plan.
5.4 The Draft NTLDM has been the subject of an extensive collaborative effort across several teams within the two Council’s, and with stakeholder representatives. The process has resulted in the completion of a draft that has aligned minimum standards, good practice, as well as a number of procedures and administration processes across the two Council’s.
5.5 This has been necessary to achieve alignment of practice between the two Council’s for the benefit of customers. For example, along the way the NTLDM has resulted in the alignment of both Council’s datum’s, where previously there were three completely different approaches across the Region. A single consistent nationally recognised datum has been adopted.
5.6 A first draft NTLDM was released to stakeholders for comment in mid-2016, and a stakeholder workshop on the significant changes to the LDM was well attended. Stakeholders provided feedback that there was a need for a greater understanding of the implications of the proposed stormwater chapter.
5.7 A second stakeholder workshop was held in August 2016 on the stormwater section and minimum ground and floor levels in response to sea level rise and flood hazards. This resulted in officers receiving feedback from stakeholders that the expectations of the draft section were too high, and would impose costs on development that would affect feasibility. Stakeholders were also concerned that a response to these issues should be Council wide, starting with resource management plans and Council’s own asset management plans.
5.8 Under the direction of the Steering Group, the officer working group from Nelson and Tasman Councils have been reworking the stormwater section, along with the practice notes and the general format/usability of the NTLDM over the last year to address these issues. The NTLDM now provides a good balance between the need to ensure cost effective development and making available the means to achieve the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater. Industry representatives are now supportive of the draft NTLDM and practice notes as being ready for public consultation.
5.9 Iwi feedback has been sought and considered during the drafting process. Formal Iwi consultation under the Frist Schedule Resource Management Act (RMA) will be sought at the same time as the release of the draft under the LGA.
5.10 Officers now recommend that the draft NTLDM, associated draft plan changes and practice notes are consulted on with the community and this next step is supported by the NTLDM Steering Group.
Council Workshop
5.11 Both Nelson and Tasman Councils have had a separate Council workshop on the draft NTLDM, Tasman on 13 June 2018 and Nelson on 26 June 2018. The purpose of the workshops was to ensure that both Councils were familiar with the draft NTLDM, practice notes and plan changes before report R9387 formally seeks approval to release the drafts for public comment on 13 August 2018.
5.12 The Nelson Council Workshop raised the following matters that officers, together with officers from Tasman District Council, have considered and provide a response as follows:
5.12.1 Alignment of the LDM with Nelson’s Smart Little City Vision, key priority areas and outcomes sought.
The purpose of the NTLDM is set out in section 1.1, as follows:
The purpose of the NTLDM is to provide standards and guidance for the design, construction, maintenance, repair and replacement of:
· network assets and infrastructure that are or will be owned by the Councils; and
· some private assets that connect to public assets.
The standards aim to ensure the effective and efficient provision of infrastructure and environmental requirements.
The performance outcomes that the Councils seek to achieve are:
a) A standard of service that ensures the health, safety and wellbeing of people and communities;
b) Network assets and infrastructure that are designed to avoid or minimise risks associated with natural hazards and climate change effects, with particular regard for lifeline networks;
c) The delivery of services to levels set out in the Long Term Plan (LTP);
d) Assets and infrastructure that meet obligations for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources;
e) The delivery of environmental outcomes that are consistent with the objectives of the RMPs;
f) The effective and efficient provision of network utilities and infrastructure, with Network Utility providers responsible for telecommunications, electricity and transportation;
g) Network infrastructure that is affordable over the whole-of-life of the asset; and
h) Innovative water sensitive design and good urban design solutions, where network performance and cost effectiveness goals can be met.
This purpose permeates throughout the chapters in the NTLDM. For example Chapter 5 Stormwater requires as a mandatory matter that:
The design of stormwater management systems shall be consistent with water sensitive design (WSD), using natural processes and soil media to provide sustainable stormwater management. The design shall aim to:
a) protect and enhance the values and functions of the natural ecosystems;
b) address stormwater effects as close as possible to the source;
c) mimic natural systems and processes for stormwater management;
d) support interdisciplinary planning and design where practical; and
e) WSD practises shall be considered during the initial design and planning.
5.12.2 Berm Planting
Officers have made changes to the Streetscaping section 4.15 of the NTLDM to make it clear that berms can be vested in Council with either a grass or planted cover. Wording has also been added to make it clear that Council considers planting is desirable in section 4.15.3.1 as follows:
Planting of berms and service strips is encouraged where it can meet the requirements in 4.15.3.2 below, and is for the purpose of achieving a high amenity low speed environment, enhancing amenity and streetscape in higher density developments and/or accommodating low impact stormwater devices.
Section 4.15.7.2 which restricted the amount of berm planting to 25%, has been deleted in favour of the existing requirement for a planting plan to be approved by the Engineering Manager prior to vesting planted berms in Council.
5.12.3 Alignment with the GPS
While the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) is very recent in comparison to the NTLDM review process, the basic principles of the GPS are fundamental to the NTLDM thinking. These being safety, active transport, connectivity, and design led urban structure. Section 4.2 of the NTLDM contains performance outcomes consistent with the GPS and section 4.2.2 details the design led approach to transportation.
5.12.4 Shared paths
The use of footpaths is determined nationally by the NZ Road Rules not the NTLDM. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 prohibits the riding of cycles on a footpath or on a lawn, garden, or other cultivation forming part of a road (11.11). Mobility scooters and wheeled recreation devices are permitted on a footpath. The definition of a wheeled recreation device excludes a bicycle.
There has been a petition that has gone through the Select Committee process to change the rules to “allow children up to and including 12 years of age or year 8 (with accompanying adults), seniors over 65, and vulnerable users (such as those with mental of physical disabilities)” to use the footpath. To date, whilst the Select Committee recommended Government adopt this rule, it has not yet been adopted.
The NTLDM applies to new roads in greenfield areas. Council does not generally use the NTLDM standards for the creation of ‘shared’ or ‘home’ zones (roads where all users share the lane), or for upgrading existing hillside roads in Nelson which are all designed on a site specific basis. The NTLDM requires that new greenfield subdivisions and the local roads that they create be designed to provide for on road cycling in a slow speed high amenity environment.
5.12.5 Parks levels of service
Parks levels of service between Nelson and Tasman are expressed in a different manner in 10.3.3.6 and 10.3.3.7 as per the asset management plans, but after further investigation by officers are actually similar. Nelson City Neighbourhood Parks are to be provided within 800m walking distance (approximately 10 minutes walk). Tasman District Council’s Urban Open Space Amenity Reserves are to be located within 500 metres or 10 minutes walking distance of properties in the residential zone.
Draft NTLDM
5.13 The draft NTLDM updates the LDM, and is more of a significant change for Tasman District Council than it is for Nelson City Council. The NTLDM is based on the Nelson City Council LDM and generally the majority of the changes to achieve alignment have been made by Tasman District Council.
5.14 There are minimal areas where alignment between the two Councils was unable to be achieved due to differences in asset management levels of service. For instance, the minimum requirements for stormwater system design capacity of primary systems in Nelson City Council is a Q15, whereas Tasman District Council requires design to a Q10, both allowing for climate change.
5.15 The draft NTLDM has been structured so as to separate mandatory requirements from good practice. Mandatory requirements are the minimum standards that are required to be achieved for different development activities, and are referenced in rules in the NRMP. Good practice contains design advice and considerations that the applicant can consider during the development design process. Much of the good practice advice is needed to assist with achieving the design outcomes contained in the NTLDM and to assist the applicant in selecting mandatory standards relevant to the situation, site, speed environment or freshwater environment.
Draft Plan Change 27
5.16 The LDM 2010 is an externally referenced document in the NRMP. Replacing it with the NTLDM requires a plan change. Draft plan change 27 seeks to replace all references to the LDM with the NTLDM. Some consequential changes are also required which are the removal of access crossing specifications from the Appendices in the NRMP as they are now included in the NTLDM, and redrafting the building over drains rule in all zones so it functions without NTLDM standards.
Draft Bioretention and Wetlands Practice notes
5.16 The purpose of the stormwater section is to guide the design and construction of stormwater management network assets in the Nelson and Tasman Districts. Standards of stormwater management need to protect people and property, water health including freshwater habitats, amenity values, and provide whole-of-life affordability.
5.17 New mandatory standards to address stormwater quality and quantity include a first flush of stormwater discharge required for large sites (over 5000m2) and groundwater recharge is required where supported by soil quality. Good practice sections and Practice Notes are also provided to assist with the design and use of natural stormwater treatment devices. These solutions may be required in areas of water and habitat sensitivity, and/or areas where there are capacity restrictions within the existing network and as a result of NPS Freshwater requirements in both Nelson and Tasman Plans. This approach is supported by the stakeholder representatives on the Steering Group.
Draft Inundation Practice Note
5.18 Currently the LDM provides a standard for minimum ground and floor levels based on the controlled activity rules in the Nelson Resource Management Plan and the requirements for freeboard in the Building Act. The current standard for minimum ground level is a one size fits all approach for the whole of the City and is based on the 2003 Ministry for the Environment (MfE) guidance on sea level rise (planning for a 0.3m rise).
5.19 This guidance has since been updated by the MfE 2009 guidance of planning for a mean sea level rise of 0.8m up to 2100, and now the 2017 MfE Guidance. The NZ Coastal Policy statement also requires that Council consider the impacts of sea level rise out 100 years, or to 2100.
5.20 Subdivision and development controls in relation to flood and inundation hazard are implemented through the RMA 1991 (for natural hazards and subdivisions) and the Building Act 2004 (for floor levels). The requirements of these two Acts differ.
5.21 As a consequence of the updated guidance and statutory requirements a one size fits all minimum standards approach is no longer able to be taken to minimum ground and floor levels. Until now there has been no guidance (other than MfE national guidance) for building and resource consent applicants to assess what an appropriate ground and/or floor level might be for any development proposed.
5.22 Currently officers advise applicants that they need to engage their own specialist consultant to determine an appropriate ground and/or floor level to include with their application which Council offers assess on its merits. All subdivision and development in a flood or inundation overlay is discretionary, and officers have full discretion to assess whether or not a particular application mitigates the effects of flooding or inundation to an appropriate degree. This results in a range of approaches as determined by the applicants appetite for risk, the intended use of the development (for habitation or not), the physical characteristics of the site, insurance requirements, and whether a subdivision is involved.
5.23 This process is both time intensive for the applicant and Council officers, and results in applicants incurring significant costs, before they can even determine if development of a site is feasible. The process also offers no transparency. It also requires applicants to engage an expert to obtain readily available national guidance and modelling data and to interpret that advice, when that information is held by Council and is able to be provided by officers.
5.24 The Inundation Practice note codifies national guidance and local modelling to provide a consistent and transparent methodology intended to guide surveyors, architects, and engineers in preparing building and resource/subdivision consent applications in areas potentially subject to coastal, tidal and freshwater inundation and flooding across the Nelson Tasman regions.
5.25 The practice note does not identify where development can and cannot occur, nor does it provide solutions in terms of how to respond to hazards. It simply provides information to enable the calculation of a minimum ground and floor level for a range of scenarios to meet statutory requirements and guidance. In every situation there are a number of local area factors that mean a one size all approach cannot be applied. Applicants will still need to engage an expert to assist in determining a suitable hazard response, however all available data, modelling and advice is now provided for them in a step by step practice note. This will reduce costs for the applicant, reduce time assessing applications by officers and provide transparency in terms of how each solution has been derived.
5.26 Applicants are not required to use the practice note, it is there to provide guidance and transparency about how Council evaluates ground and floor levels in response to national guidance, the Building Act and RMA. Officers can consider any other evaluation or methods proposed by an Applicant just as is current process.
6. Options
6.1 Council has the option of seeking public feedback and comment on the draft NTLDM, draft plan change and draft practice notes as the next step in the process to formalising the adoption of the NTLDM as Council’s engineering standards and as an externally referenced document in the NRMP. Officers recommend Option 1, to seek feedback on the draft prior to entering into a formal plan change process under the RMA as the best option.
|
Option 1: Seek public feedback and comment on draft NTLDM, plan change and practice notes and signal intention to adopt the NTLDM as Council policy and as an externally referenced document. Delegate the hearing of feedback and direction to officers for amendments to a hearing panel comprised of Nelson and Tasman Councillor’s. |
|
|
Advantages |
Provides the public with an informal opportunity to provide feedback and have it considered by Council outside the RMA process. Provides the public with the opportunity to read and understand the package of NTLDM, draft plan change and practice notes together in an integrated manner. Generally considered good practice, while not a special consultative procedure Council has obligations under section 78 of the Local Government Act to seek and consider feedback on policies and standards to be adopted. Required under clause 34 Frist Schedule RMA to seek public comments on any document intended to be externally referenced as part of the Plan. Provides an opportunity for the community to present their feedback to Councils delegated hearings panel. Provides opportunity for officer to respond to feedback and make amendments under the direction of delegated Councillors. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
Providing a draft for feedback, considering that feedback and making appropriate amendments reduces risks that the community does not support the proposed NTLDM. Adds time to the adoption process. |
|
Option 2: Notify Plan Change and adopt LDM |
|
|
Advantages |
May reduce the time it takes to adopt the NTLDM |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
Does not meet the requirements of section 78 of the Local Government Act creating a risk of legal challenge. The community may not support all or part of the NTLDM and their feedback is unable to be responded to in an administratively efficient manner once the plan change is notified and the LDM adopted.
|
|
Option 3: Do nothing – abandon the draft NTLDM process |
|
|
Advantages |
Frees up officer resource |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
The LDM 2010 is overdue for its 5 yearly review, not updating minimum standards and best practice means that the land development industry is restricted in its ability to be innovative and respond to environmental requirements. The process of reviewing and aligning the LDM with Tasman District Council has strong support from stakeholders. Abandoning the review is unlikely to be supported by stakeholders and undermines confidence in the organisations ability to work together to address development issues. Could add costs and time constraints to development and housing supply, if standards become outdated and applicants seek case by case assessment for alternate design and technology. A review and update of standards would be required in the near future. |
7. Conclusion
7.1 The draft NTLDM is proposed to be released for public feedback from 13 August to 28 September 2018 under the Local Government Act 2002. It is accompanied by three draft practice notes to assist in the implementation of the standards and good practice, on which public feedback is also sought.
7.2 The LDM is an externally referenced document to the NRMP, and draft Plan Change 27 has been prepared to update that reference. The intention to change the LDM reference in the NRMP from the 2010 LDM to the proposed Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2018 is proposed to be consulted on under clause 34 of the First Schedule RMA. This provides for the public to provide comments on the intention to externally reference the new mandatory standards which will have legal effect as if they are part of the Plan.
7.3 Delegations are sought for a joint Nelson and Tasman Council Hearing Panel to hear feedback, provide direction to the working group on any amendments required as a result of that feedback, and make recommendations to Council.
7.4 Following the receipt and hearing of public feedback under the LGA, recommendations for changes will be made to the Council prior to seeking adoption of the NTLDM under the LGA. Following the receipt of comments on plan change 27, recommendations will be made to Council to commence public notification of the change under the RMA. Both processes will occur concurrently and with Tasman District Council to ensure alignment is achieved.
Lisa Gibellini
Team Leader City Development
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2013438 Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (Circulated separately) ⇨
Attachment 2: A2013398 Draft Nelson Tasman Inundation Practice Note ⇩
Attachment 3: A2013449 Draft Biotretention Practice Note ⇩
Attachment 4: A2013457 Draft Wetland Practice Note ⇩
Attachment 5: A1988205 Draft Plan Change 27 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The NTLDM provides minimum standards for the creation of good quality infrastructure that ensures statutory compliance, health safety and wellbeing of the Nelson and Tasman community, and considers affordability over its life cycle. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The LDM is consistent with the community outcomes and will assist Council to achieve them, particularly “Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”. |
|
3. Risk The recommendation seek to release a draft NTLDM and associated practice notes and draft plan change for public feedback. This process reduces risk by ensuring the Council gives consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter as required under the Local Government Act 2002. |
|
4. Financial impact There is no financial impact of release a draft for public feedback, all costs are covered within existing budgets. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low to medium significance because the NTLDM does not significantly change levels of service but it does result in alignment of standards across the region and the implementation of best practice standards for land development. Officers consider that releasing a draft NTLDM and associated plan change and practice notes for public feedback is commensurate with the nature and scale and likely interest level of updating the standards. In addition the NTLDM is an externally referenced document to the Nelson Resource Management Plan and as such will be subject to the formal public notification processes required in the RMA1991. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been specifically consulted in relation to the NTLDM. Preliminary consultation has been undertaken with Iwi during the development of the draft firstly as part of the Nelson Plan Iwi working Group, then a draft NTLDM was circulated to all Iwi in November 2017 and feedback from some Iwi was received in February and March 2018. The working group and Steering Group considered the feedback and made a series of changes to the NTLDM to address concerns raised. Formal consultation with iwi authorities under section 3B of the First Schedule will occur concurrently with the release of the draft for public feedback. |
|
7. Delegations The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the responsibility for reviewing the Land Development Manual and making a recommendation to Council. Report R9388 referred all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee in relation to seeking public feedback on the draft NTLDM and plan change to Council for consideration. |
Item 13: Notice of Motion from Cr Lawrey: Live-streaming Public Meetings and Workshops
|
|
Council 9 August 2018 |
REPORT R9572
Notice of Motion from Cr Lawrey: Live-streaming Public Meetings and Workshops
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the notice of motion from Councillor Matt Lawrey requesting that all Council public meetings and workshops be live-streamed.
2. Recommendation from Councillor Lawrey
|
Receives the report Notice of Motion from Cr Lawrey: Live-streaming Public Meetings and Workshops (R9572) and its attachment (A2018993); and Confirms live-streaming of all Nelson City Council public meetings and workshops, including public meetings and public workshops held by all committees and sub-committees ; and Confirms that Nelson City Council live-streams all Regional Transport Committee’s public meetings and public workshops. Lawrey/Acland |
2. Background
2.1 The procedure for a Notice of Motion is dealt with in Council’s Standing Orders. The relevant portions of the Standing Orders relating to this Notice of Motion are set out below:
“Standing Order 25.1 Notices of Intended Motion to be in writing
2.2 Notices of motion must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the notice of motion be considered, and must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days before such meeting.”
2.3 A copy of the Notice of Motion received by the Chief Executive from Councillor Lawrey is attached.
Robyn Byrne
Team Leader Governance
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2018993 Notice of Motion Cr Lawry Council meeting 09Aug2018.pdf ⇩
