Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 23 August 2018 7 - 13

Document number M3701

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 23 August 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Kerr Street Walkway 14 - 19

Document number R9667

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Kerr Street Walkway (R9667); and

Approves completion of a user survey and informal consultation on the extent of alcohol-related issues occurring beside the Kerr Street Walkway.

8. Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders 20 - 24

Document number R9748

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders (R9748) and its attachment (A2051679); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Agrees to end the appointment of Stephen Lawrence as primary Regional On-Scene Commander under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 on 15 November 2018; and

Approves Brent Edwards to be the primary Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018; and

Approves Adrian Humphries to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018; and

Approves Luke Grogan to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018.

9. Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill 25 - 63

Document number R9732

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill (R9732) and its attachments (A2039395, A2012211 and A2039379); and

Approves in retrospect the Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill (A2012211).

10. Nelson Plan Update 64 - 76

Document number R9580

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan Update (R9580) and its attachment (A2048250); and

Delegates authority to review Draft Nelson Plan content ahead of reporting to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to an Elected Member Working Group comprising Her Worship the Mayor, Councillor McGurk, and two members of the Committee with Making Good Decisions certification, namely Councillor XX and Councillor XX; and

Approves amending the indicative timeline for release of the Draft Nelson Plan to statutory stakeholders and iwi to August 2019 following further internal testing, legal review, and Working Group review.

11. Adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 77 - 124

Document number R9499

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (R9499) and its attachment (A2051681).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (A2051681).

12. Amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard - Plantation Forestry 125 - 135

Document number R9645

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard - Plantation Forestry (R9645) and its attachment (A2001205).

Public Excluded Business

13. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Appointment of external District Licensing Committee Commissioner and members	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Appointment of external District Licensing Committee Commissioner and members

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

Note:

· Youth Councillors Jacob Mason and Nathanael Rais will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Planning and Regulatory Committee Minutes - 23 August 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

On Thursday 23 August 2018, commencing at 9.00a.m.

Present: Councillor B McGurk (Chairperson), Councillors L Acland, I Barker, B Dahlberg, K Fulton, S Walker and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt) and Youth Councillor (C Rollo)

Leave of absence: Her Worship the Mayor R Reese on Council business

Apologies: Councillor K Fulton for lateness

1. Apologies

An apology for lateness was tendered by Councillor K Fulton.

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

Jane Murray - Nelson Marlborough Health - Gambling Policy Review

Ms Murray spoke about the health and social impacts on families and deprived communities associated with gambling machines. She further noted that Nelson Marlborough Health was in support of Council consulting with the community about this policy and would like to make a submission.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton joined the meeting at 9.06a.m.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 5 July 2018

Document number M3610, agenda pages 6 - 10 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/046

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 5 July 2018, as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Walker Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

There was no Chairperson’s report.

7. Implementation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Document number R9512, agenda pages 11 - 34 refer.

Executive Officer, Michelle Joubert presented the report.

Brent Edwards, Manager Environmental Inspections (EIL) answered questions about enforcement of the Freedom Camping bylaw, i.e. the issue with the recovery of fines from non-NZ residents in cases of non-payment; interactions with homeless people, and challenges to EIL staff through abusive behaviour.

Resolved PR/2018/047

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Implementation of the Freedom Camping Bylaw (R9512) and its attachment (A1845805); and

Agrees that any potential review of the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017 will commence after the findings of the Government’s Freedom Camping Working Group have been published.

Acland/Dahlberg Carried

8. Review of Council's Gambling Policy

Document number R9358, agenda pages 35 - 87 refer.

Policy Adviser, Gabrielle Thorpe presented the report and supporting Powerpoint slides (attached A2035602).

Discussion took place whether a more open consultation process could be facilitated.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald noted that Council was required to use the special consultative procedure (SCP) as described under the Local Government Act 2002 (83) and that the SCP required Council to prepare a Statement of Proposal which identified a preferred option.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.21a.m. to 10.34a.m.

Councillor Dahlberg moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Ms Paine.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358) and its attachments (A1971833 and A2008367); and

Notes that a review of the Council’s Gambling Policy, which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Statement of Proposal to Amend the Gambling Policy (A2008367) for public consultation; and

Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal Gambling Policy Review is not required; and

Approves the proposed process and timeframes for consultation set out in the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358).

Discussion took place regarding option 2 of the report, i.e. the introduction of a sinking lid, which would result in no new gaming venues to be established, supporting harm minimisation.

Ms McDonald noted that the sinking lid had been proposed in the 2012 Gambling Policy review, and that this had not been favoured, with 52 submissions received against the sinking lid approach.

Councillor Acland, seconded by Councillor Fulton, moved an amendment to the motion.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358) and its attachments (A1971833 and A2008367); and

Notes that a review of the Council’s Gambling Policy, which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report; and

Amends the draft Statement of Proposal to reflect the Committee’s preferred option 2.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the amended Statement of Proposal to Amend the Gambling Policy (A2008367) for public consultation; and

Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal Gambling Policy Review is not required; and

Approves the proposed process and timeframes for consultation set out in the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358).

The motion was put and lost.

Further discussion took place regarding the number of gaming machines per new venue. It was suggested that option 3 of the report be considered along with options 1 and 4 in the Statement of Proposal, to help change the atmosphere of venues and make gaming less dominant.

Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor Acland, moved an amendment to the motion.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358) and its attachments (A1971833 and A2008367); and

Notes that a review of the Council’s Gambling Policy, which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report; and

Amends the draft Statement of Proposal to also include option 3, changing the number of gaming machines from nine to five for new venue applications within clause 1.2.2.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the amended Statement of Proposal to Amend the Gambling Policy (A2008367) for public consultation; and

Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal Gambling Policy Review is not required; and

Approves the proposed process and timeframes for consultation set out in the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358).

The amendment was carried and became the substantive motion.

The substantive motion was put.

Resolved PR/2018/048

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358) and its attachments (A1971833 and A2008367); and

Notes that a review of the Council’s Gambling Policy, which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Act 2003, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report; and

Amends the draft Statement of Proposal to also include option 3, changing the number of gaming machines from nine to five for new venue applications within clause 1.2.2.

Fulton/Acland Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2018/049

That the Council

Approves the amended Statement of Proposal to Amend the Gambling Policy (A2008367) for public consultation; and

Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal Gambling Policy Review is not required; and

Approves the proposed process and timeframes for consultation set out in the report Review of Council's Gambling Policy (R9358).

Fulton/Acland Carried

Attachments

1 A2035602 - Survey Results - Powerpoint presentation

9. National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to March 2018

Document number R9571, agenda pages 88 - 110 refer.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini presented the report.

Resolved PR/2018/050

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to March 2018 (R9571) and its attachment (A2019000); and

Agrees to the report being circulated to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and placed on Council’s website.

Dahlberg/Walker Carried

10. Environmental Management Report for 1 April - 30 June 2018

Document number R9348, agenda pages 111 - 151 refer.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, Manager Environment, Matt Heale, Manager Building, Martin Brown, Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini and Team Leader Science and Environment, Jo Martin presented the report.

A correction to agenda page 123, item 8.13, was noted. The adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 would be included in a future Planning and Regulatory Committee agenda, not the current one as stated.

A verbal update on legal proceedings was provided.

It was noted that the format of the Nelson District Licensing Committee annual report would change in future.

Resolved PR/2018/051

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the Environmental Management Report for 1 April - 30 June 2018 (R9348) and its attachments (A1985228, A2002980, A2002680, A1786147 and A2002639); and

Approves the Nelson City Council Dog Control Activity Report 2017-2018 in Attachment 2 to Report R9348 (A2002980); and

Approves the Nelson District Licensing Committee Annual Report 2017-2018 in Attachments 3 to 5 to Report R9348 (A2002680, A1786147 and A2002639).

Barker/Fulton Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 11.11a.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Kerr Street Walkway

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9667

Kerr Street Walkway

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide how to respond to concerns from local businesses and residents about alcohol consumption beside the Kerr Street Walkway.

2. Summary

2.1 Concerns have been raised about people drinking alcohol by the Kerr Street Walkway and the potential impact of this activity on people’s safe use of the area. However, drinking alcohol by the Kerr Street Walkway is not controlled through a Council bylaw and the Council lacks sufficient evidence of incidents of crime or disorder associated with drinking in the area. More information is needed to support decision making on whether any regulatory and/or non-regulatory actions should be taken to enhance safety in this area.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Kerr Street Walkway (R9667); and

Approves completion of a user survey and informal consultation on the extent of alcohol-related issues occurring beside the Kerr Street Walkway.

4. Background

Urban Environments Bylaw

4.1 Schedule A of the Urban Environments Bylaw No.225 lists a number of public places within Nelson where alcohol is prohibited at all times, and another group of public places where alcohol is prohibited overnight (from 9pm to 7am). The Kerr Street Walkway (identified in red below) is not included as a prohibited area.

4.2 The Police are primarily responsible for enforcement of the alcohol-related bylaw provisions (in Part Six of the Urban Environments Bylaw). In the public places listed in Schedule A of the bylaw the Police have powers to:

· Search containers and vehicles to ascertain whether alcohol is present

· Remove alcohol

· Arrest a person who is not complying with the bylaw provisions

· Arrest a person who refuses to comply with a request from the Police to either leave the public place, or to surrender their alcohol.

4.3 Anyone who acts in breach of the alcohol-related bylaw provisions can be issued with an infringement notice (and be required to pay a fine).

Local Government Act 2002

4.4 Councils are only able to use the bylaw powers to prohibit alcohol in areas where a high level of crime or disorder can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area. This is outlined in section 147B of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.5 This means Council can only add the Kerr Street Walkway to Schedule A if there is sound and objective evidence that a high level of crime or disorder is occurring as a result of alcohol consumption in that reserve.

5. Discussion

Changing the bylaw

5.1 The Urban Environments Bylaw includes the following clauses:

5.1.1 The Council may from time to time pass a resolution to amend the places listed in Schedule A to which this Bylaw applies, or amend the period during which drinking alcohol is prohibited in a specified place.

5.1.2 Every resolution made to change Schedule A shall be publicly notified at least 14 days before it shall take effect.

5.2 Therefore, if the Council gains sufficient evidence that a high level of crime or disorder is occurring as a result of drinking in Kerr Street Reserve, it is a simple process to amend the Bylaw.

Lack of evidence

5.3 Council became aware of a potential issue via a neighbour to the Walkway. The Mayor requested Police data on crime and disorder in the area at a regular briefing with the Police. No conclusive information has been provided. This means Council does not currently have sufficient evidence to support a change to Schedule A of the Urban Environments Bylaw.

6. Options

Option 1: Do nothing (status quo)

6.1 Do nothing now, but note Kerr Street Walkway as a potential area to include in Schedule A when the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 is next reviewed. (This review needs to be initiated in 2020 and completed by 2022).

Option 2: Complete a user survey and carry out informal consultation

6.2 Commission a user survey for Kerr Street Walkway; and carry out informal consultation with stakeholders to identify any safety concerns related to Kerr Street Walkway.

6.3 This informal consultation would include a request for further information from the Police and a request for feedback from neighbouring residents and businesses, as well as from relevant social service agencies (including the Men’s Shelter, Male Room, Salvation Army, Alcohol & Drug Treatment Services, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Health Action Trust) to see what can be done to address the issue.

Options analysis

Option 1: Status quo
Advantages	· It would be more efficient to carry out an investigation on alcohol-related crime and disorder for all public places during the review of the whole Urban Environments Bylaw. · There would be more opportunity for wider public feedback on a proposed change to the bylaw during the review of the whole bylaw.
Disadvantages	· Delayed response to a potential safety issue.
Option 2: Survey and Informal Consultation
Advantages	· If substantive evidence is provided that leads to a change to Schedule A, the Police will be better able to control alcohol use on the Walkway. · A user survey may identify potential physical changes to Kerr Street Walkway to improve safety.
Disadvantages	· Informal consultation may raise unrealistic expectations that Council will ban alcohol consumption by Kerr Street Walkway. · Cost and time to carry out user survey and informal consultation process.

Options assessment

6.4 Option 2 will provide useful information about the scale of the issue, which Council will be able to use to make an informed decision on the most appropriate regulatory and/or non-regulatory responses.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council needs more information before it can decide on the most effective response to concerns about alcohol consumption by Kerr Street Walkway. Therefore, Officers recommend option 2, the implementation of a user survey and an informal consultation process.

Author: Matt Heale, Manager Environment

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Completing a user survey and investigating potential issues in Kerr Street Walkway will enable better understanding of what action the community might need in this location to promote safety.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decision supports the community outcome:

Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed — Good urban design and thoughtful planning create safe, accessible public spaces for people of all ages, abilities and interests.

3. Risk

The proposed approach seeks to reduce public safety risks. There is a risk of ongoing disturbance and complaints if no action is taken.

4. Financial impact

The costs of a user survey and informal consultation process are minor and can be absorbed within existing budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter appears to be of low significance, but this assessment may change following the user survey and informal consultation process.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider Kerr Street Walkway.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Bylaws

Powers to Decide:

· To undertake community engagement other than Special Consultative Procedures for any projects or proposals falling within the areas of responsibility.

Item 8: Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9748

Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To appoint Brent Edwards as primary regional on-scene commander (ROSC) and Adrian Humphries (Tasman District Council) and Luke Grogan (Marlborough District Council) as the alternate ROSCs for the Nelson region.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders (R9748) and its attachment (A2051679); and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Receives the report Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders - (R9748) and its attachment (A2051679); and

Agrees to end the appointment of Stephen Lawrence as primary Regional On-Scene Commander under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 on 15 November 2018; and

Approves Brent Edwards to be the primary Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018; and

Approves Adrian Humphries to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018; and

Approves Luke Grogan to be an alternate Regional On-Scene Commander for the Nelson region under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 effective from 16 November 2018.

3. Background

3.1 Nelson City Council (NCC) has a responsibility under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (the MTA) to prepare for and manage marine oil spill events within the region. In addition to its regional responsibilities, NCC also forms a part of the national response capacity for large marine oil spill events.

3.2 A key role within the marine oil spill response function is that of the ROSC. The principal objective of the ROSC is to manage the prevention of further pollution from an oil spill and lead the containment and clean up the oil spill in accordance with marine oil spill contingency plans.

4. Discussion

4.1 ROSC’s are appointed by regional councils under section 318 of the MTA. A copy of section 318 is attached as Attachment 1. In accordance with section 318(5) of the MTA, as there are no existing prescribed qualifications, regional councils are only entitled to appoint persons to be a ROSC with the approval of the Director of Maritime New Zealand.

4.2 In order to gain the approval of the Director of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), a person must attend and pass the on-scene commander training course. In order to retain their qualification, a ROSC is required to revalidate their training by attendance at an on-scene commander course every six years.

4.3 Stephen Lawrence from Environmental Inspections Ltd (EIL) has been Nelson’s ROSC since 1992. He will retire from EIL on 2 November 2018.

4.4 Brent Edwards has attended and passed the ROSC course and has participated in the local oil spill training exercises with Tasman District Council and Maritime New Zealand as well as national training exercises.

4.5 Adrian Humphries and Luke Grogan are the ROSCs for Tasman and Marlborough District Council’s respectively. It is proposed they become the alternate ROSCs for Nelson in Brent’s absence given their experience and familiarity with the region.

5. Options

5.1 There is no other qualified candidate for the Nelson region. Another option would be to approach Tasman’s ROSC to see if he would consider being Nelson’s ROSC at the same time. This is not preferred as his priority would be to the Tasman region in the first instance. It is more suitable that both Tasman and Marlborough’s ROSCs become alternates to Nelson’s primary ROSC.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2051679 Maritime Transport Act 1994 s318 and s320 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The appointment of a ROSC is a regional council responsibility to ensure any marine pollution incidences are managed promptly to minimise harm to the environment.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with the Long Term Plan community outcome of protecting Nelson’s natural environment.

3. Risk

Without the appointment of a primary ROSC for the Nelson region any marine pollution incident responses may not be responded to effectively which could lead to greater environmental harm.

4. Financial impact

There is no additional cost for Council if the recommendation is approved. If a primary ROSC is not appointed there could be larger costs if any marine pollution response is not managed appropriately.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because if Council continues to have a primary ROSC there is a positive impact on the community. Council can review this decision at any time.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider the appointment of a ROSC

Areas of Responsibility:

· Marine pollution

Powers to Recommend:

· Any matters within the areas of responsibility.

The Maritime Transport Act 1994 does not state the regional council can delegate its power to appoint regional on-scene commanders therefore this is a decision for the Council pursuant to section 318 of that Act.

Item 9: Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9732

Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill

1. Purpose of Report

To retrospectively approve Nelson City Council’s submission on the Zero Carbon Bill.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill (R9732) and its attachments (A2039395, A2012211 and A2039379); and

Approves in retrospect the Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill (A2012211).

3. Background

3.1 Consultation was open on the Zero Carbon Bill (ZCB) through the Ministry for the Environment until 19 July 2018. The intent of the Bill is to provide a long term pathway, with clear emission targets, to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (refer to attachment 1 for the ZCB summary document).

3.2 The Bill seeks to achieve its target in four ways:

3.2.1 Setting in law a greenhouse gas emissions target for New Zealand, including which types of greenhouse gas we can emit over a period of time.

3.2.2 Putting in place ‘emissions budgets’ to set out how much greenhouse gas New Zealand can emit over a period of time.

3.2.3 Establishing institutions, specifically a politically independent Climate Change Commission.

3.2.4 Requiring Government to have a plan for how to adapt to climate change, including a national climate change risk assessment, a national adaptation plan, and potentially some powers to ensure key organisations are managing risks to the economy. This could include introducing an adaptation reporting power to improve reporting on adaptation risks and opportunities.

3.3 Council’s submission to the ZCB was prepared by the Group Manager Environmental Management in order to meet the submission timeframe (refer to attachment 2 for the Council submission). The Mayor was supportive of making a submission.

3.4 The submission is consistent with previous Council decision making. Council resolved on 3 May 2018 to agree in principle to several related climate change work streams and actions, including commitment to adopting and implementing a comprehensive plan to reduce carbon emissions.

4. Discussion

4.1 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has made a comprehensive submission on the ZCB (refer to attachment 3).

4.2 Council’s submission supports the overall content of the LGNZ submission, for example; the importance of setting an emissions reduction target in law to increase mitigation action, and the establishment of national risk assessment and national adaptation plans. Three additional areas were also raised in the Council’s submission:

4.2.1 The Government has clearly stated that adaptation and mitigation should go hand in hand. In addition to the focus on Government-led coordination around adaptation and risk assessment, the Bill could also consider providing common tools for Government, local government and the wider community alike to measure greenhouse gas emissions. Climate action plans to reduce emissions are a critical element of achieving the proposed target of net zero emissions by 2050, and these require emissions measurement tools which are accessible and cost-effective, and which provide consistent measurement across all sectors.

4.2.2 With regards to the sharing of information through a targeted adaptation reporting power, the tool should include reporting on ecological risk as well as impact on infrastructure and services. This is important because there are a high number of nationally-threatened plants and animals in coastal and waterway ecosystems vulnerable to climate change effects.

4.2.3 The LGNZ submission focuses on the role of local government in the development of tools to achieve carbon emission reduction goals. Nelson City Council considers that from the outset there needs to be explicit recognition that achieving these goals requires whole-community collaboration, including iwi.

5. Options

5.1 The options are to retrospectively approve, or to not approve. The submission may not now be amended, and once published it cannot be withdrawn. If the Committee declines to retrospectively approve the submission, officers will notify the Ministry for the Environment that the submission is not valid and ask for it to be excluded from consideration.

Option 1: Retrospectively approve Council submission to Zero Carbon Bill - Recommended
Advantages	· Nelson City Council’s submission to the Bill will be valid and can be considered alongside the LGNZ submission.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The submission may not fully reflect the views of the Elected Members.
Option 2: Do not approve the Council submission to the Zero Carbon Bill
Advantages	· The risk of a submission that does not fully represent the views of the Elected Members is avoided.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The opportunity to endorse the LGNZ submission and add additional comment from Nelson City Council is lost.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Officers recommend that the attached submission be retrospectively approved.

Author: Jo Martin, Team Leader Science and Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2039395 - Zero Carbon Bill Summary ⇩

Attachment 2: A2012211 - Nelson City Council submission on Zero Carbon Bill ⇩

Attachment 3: A2039379 - LGNZ submission on Zero Carbon Bill ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report supports Council’s ability to influence legislation that will impact on its ability to deliver services to the community and meet the purpose of local government to “meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses”.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The attached submission supports the following community outcomes:

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

3. Risk

Retrospective approval of the Council’s submission on the Zero Carbon Bill includes some risk that the views of the Elected Members are not fully and accurately represented, because they did not have the opportunity to input into the content or wording of the submission. However the risk of adverse consequences or reputational harm is low because the submission is primarily endorsing the Local Government New Zealand submission, which was made on behalf of local government.

4. Financial impact

The contents of this report do not result in any direct financial impact.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance and community engagement has not been undertaken. The community was invited and encouraged to make their own submissions to the Zero Carbon Bill to help ensure a wide range of views were represented.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not been consulted on this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider a Nelson City Council submission to the Zero Carbon Bill.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental Matters, including monitoring

· Council and/or Community projects or initiatives for enhanced environmental outcomes

Powers to Decide:

· Submissions to external bodies relevant to the areas of responsibilities

Item 10: Nelson Plan Update

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9580

Nelson Plan Update

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update on the progress of the Draft Nelson Plan and seek an amendment to the indicative timeline.

1.2 To confirm governance arrangements for the development of the Draft Nelson Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 The release of the Draft Nelson Plan (Draft Plan) to Statutory Stakeholders and iwi partners is proposed to be delayed to ensure greater alignment across a range of matters, remove inconsistencies, and provide for further testing by Council officers, selected planning consultants, elected members, and legal peer reviewers.

2.2 This proposed change in approach has consequential impacts on engagement relating to water quality primary contact targets and natural hazards along with project governance and notification timelines. Overall though it is crucial to improve the quality of the Draft Plan before release and this will have the overall benefit in the longer term of reducing costs incurred throughout the statutory legal process.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Nelson Plan Update (R9580) and its attachment (A2048250); and

4. Background

4.1 An overview of the Draft Plan was presented to an Elected Member workshop on 29 May 2018. The Planning and Regulatory Committee (the Committee) then considered a high level overview of the Draft Plan and resolved to release the Draft Plan for statutory stakeholder and iwi partner feedback at the 29 May 2018 meeting. This approval was conditional on any minor changes arising from the meeting being delegated to the Group Manager Environmental Management, Her Worship the Mayor Reese, and Councillor McGurk.

4.2 A number of changes were raised at the workshop and meeting including:

· Reviewing the use of “avoid” in policies given recent case law

· The need to better align the Nelson Plan Vision with Community Outcomes and the City Vision

· The need to provide for a higher residential density to enable a wider range of housing choice

· The need to reconsider the provision of additional wood burners in Airshed C following a peer review of technical work and in light of potential National Environmental Standard Air Quality Changes.

4.3 Officers reviewed the Draft Plan in light of recommended Committee changes. In discussion with Mayor Reese and Councillor McGurk it became evident there were alignment issues across a range of matters. A number of changes relating to open space, events, transport, and papakainga were discussed and it was acknowledged that changes are more than minor in nature. Therefore it is not appropriate that further changes be signed off without the approval of the Committee. Consequently, Officers are recommending further testing of the Draft Plan with internal stakeholders, some local planning professionals, DLA Piper, and elected members ahead of bringing a revised draft Plan back to the Committee.

4.4 There has always been an over-riding drive to achieve a high quality Plan. The changes that have been identified and further changes that might arise as a result of the testing are necessary to ensure a quality product. The desire of achieving notification of the Plan prior to October 2019 has the potential to compromise quality. Altering the notification timeframe for the Plan will allow a focus on quality. It has the added benefit of improving alignment with planned national policy changes such as climate change, air quality, and national planning standards.

4.5 Officers are now in the process of developing a range of development scenarios to test the Plan and are engaging with internal stakeholders and local planning professionals.

4.6 The Committee also approved a revised Nelson Plan notification date at the meeting on 29 May 2018 of July 2019.

4.7 On further interrogation and consideration officers consider a need for new and more rigorous testing is required before the release of the draft plan.

4.8 The May 2018 report highlighted that “any delays in releasing the Draft Nelson Plan will significantly compromise the notification date of July 2019”. The report also highlighted a number of pinch points around summarising feedback from statutory stakeholders and iwi and, later, the wider public.

5. Discussion

Project Governance

5.1 As noted, the Committee delegated authority to the Group Manager Environmental Management, Mayor Reese, and Councillor McGurk to authorise minor changes to the Draft Plan ahead of seeking feedback from statutory stakeholders and iwi partners. Given the scale of matters identified the Mayor and Councillor McGurk formed the view that the consequential changes are not of a minor nature. The Group Manager Environmental Management agreed with that view.

5.2 Given the scale of the Nelson Plan (approximately 290,000 words) it is difficult to cover the whole Plan with the whole of Council. This is why the May 2018 Workshop focussed on growth, hazards, freshwater, and air quality and included a comprehensive summary of previous workshops relating to Draft Regional Policy Statement and wider Nelson Plan content. It is important to ensure that adequate time is provided to allow more complete input from elected members. Feedback from staff and local professionals is that testing scenarios is a good way to get an understanding of the differences between the Nelson Resource Management Plan and the Nelson Plan and to identify any critical gaps in the Nelson Plan.

5.3 There are a number of options for improving elected member understanding of Nelson Plan content ranging from elected member Working Groups to full Council workshops. These options are considered in the options analysis below.

5.4 The approach to Nelson Plan Governance will have a direct impact on the Nelson Plan timeline.

Engagement

5.5 In order to keep the Draft Plan moving Council officers are currently engaging with Council teams and some local planning professionals to test the Plan ahead of release to statutory stakeholders and iwi.

5.6 Schedule 1 Clause 4A of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that a copy of the Draft Plan must be made available to iwi authorities, Council has particular regard to iwi advice, and sufficient time is given to iwi to provide advice. Iwi have indicated that they need three months to provide feedback on the Draft Plan. There is no requirement to provide a Draft Plan to statutory stakeholders ahead of the wider public.

5.7 Consequently, officers have also met with the Iwi Working Group (IWG) and cultural reviewers (James Whetu and Tracy Kingi) to understand which scenarios iwi would like officers to test in the short term. The IWG has indicated that the following matters should be considered in scenario testing: management of coastal disturbance and occupation, wastewater and freshwater, ecological impacts, and provision for papakainga, marae, and cultural practice and values.

5.8 As outlined in the May 2018 Committee report some “special areas” are not yet drafted as consultation is ongoing with stakeholders such as the Airport, the Port, the Hospital, quarries, Cawthron, and future urban area landowners.

5.9 Additional technical work has also been undertaken relating to coastal erosion/inundation and slope stability. This work had been decoupled from the Nelson Plan given the need for significant landowner engagement on these matters. This work may be able to catch up with the Nelson Plan if the timeframe is revised.

5.10 Landowners affected by potential flooding, liquefaction, and fault hazards will need to be advised by letter of any delays in the release of the Nelson Plan given that the review of LIM statements is tied to Nelson Plan notification.

5.11 The extent of engagement has a direct impact on the Nelson Plan timeline as outlined in section 5.18.

Water Quality Primary Contact Targets

5.12 The Planning and Regulatory Committee considered a report on Draft Water Quality Primary Contact Targets at the 5 April 2018 meeting. The Committee authorised officers to consult on water quality targets as part of stakeholder engagement on the Nelson Plan. The Committee also requested that a report be brought back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to finalise water quality targets so that the public and Minister for the Environment can be advised by 31 December 2018 in accordance with the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management requirements.

5.13 The timeframes for engagement outlined above were contingent on officers commencing statutory stakeholder and iwi engagement in July 2018. The Nelson Plan engagement with iwi and statutory stakeholders has not commenced. Given the delays in wider Nelson Plan engagement, bespoke engagement on Water Quality Primary Contact Targets has commenced.

5.14 Draft water quality primary contact targets for E-coli in Nelson’s fourth order rivers (Whangamoa, Wakapuaka, Maitai and upper reaches of the Roding) were set at 100% on the basis that this is largely being achieved now and programmes approved as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan would enable these standards to be maintained.

5.15 Given that there is little change needed to Ecoli levels in Nelson’s fourth order rivers to meet draft targets, engagement has been targeted to the IWG and Freshwater Management Unit (FMU) groups over September and October so that this can inform Committee reporting in November 2018.

Draft Nelson Plan Timelines

5.16 The timeline approved at the 29 May 2018 Committee meeting involved engaging with statutory stakeholders and iwi partners from June to September 2018 and the public from December 2018 to March 2019, and publically notifying the Nelson Plan in July 2019.

5.17 This timeframe is no longer achievable given that the release of the Draft Nelson Plan to Statutory Stakeholders and iwi partners is proposed to be delayed until after additional testing is undertaken.

5.18 Officers estimate that additional testing (by officers, local planning consultants, and elected members) and peer review (legal and planning) of the Draft Nelson Plan would take until June 2019. The results of this work could then be reported to 22 August 2019 Committee for final approval to release the Draft Plan to statutory stakeholders and iwi partners. This would mean a revised timeline attached (A2048250) and summarised below:

· August – October 2018 – Test scenarios with Council teams and local planning professionals and revise Draft Plan (contingency November 2018)

· November – February 2019 – Undertake Legal Review and make changes (contingency March 2019)

· March 2019 – Group Manager Signoff and changes (contingency April 2019)

· April – June 2019 - Elected Member Working Group Review and changes (contingency July 2019)

· 22 August 2019 – Committee Signoff (contingency February 2020)

· September - November 2019 – Engage with statutory stakeholders and iwi partners (contingency May 2020)

· December – February 2020 – Compile feedback and amend Draft Nelson Plan (contingency July 2020)

· March 2020 – Report Revised Draft Plan to Committee/Council seeking public release (contingency August 2020)

· July - September 2020 – Engage with the public on Draft Nelson Plan (contingency November 2020)

· September - November 2020 – Compile feedback and amend the Plan for notification (contingency March 2021)

· February 2021 – Report to Council ahead of public notification (contingency April 2021)

· March 2021 – Publicly notify Nelson Plan (contingency May 2021)

· March 2021 onwards – Undertake submission, hearing, and appeal process (contingency June 2021 onwards).

5.19 Timelines are dependent on the level of Governance input into the Plan before it is released for engagement and the time that is needed in assessing feedback (refer Paragraphs 6.5-6.11). Contingency has also been built into the timeline to cater for local body elections and to allow additional time where reporting/work periods fall over Christmas.

6. Options

Timelines

6.1 There are basically three broad options available to Council. Option 2 is the preferred option.

6.2 Option 1 is to release the Draft Nelson Plan to Statutory Stakeholders and Iwi in its current state (October to December 2018) ahead of the public (February - April 2019), resulting in an approximate notification date of September 2019(timeline similar to Option 3).

6.3 Option 2 is to undertake further testing of the Nelson Plan and release the Draft Plan to statutory stakeholders and iwi for three months from September 2019 to November 2019. This would mean a potential notification date of March 2021.

6.4 Option 3 would involve releasing the Draft Plan to iwi from October to December 2018 ahead of statutory stakeholders and the public over February – April 2019. This would result in an approximate notification date of September 2019.

Option 1: Release Draft Nelson Plan to Iwi and Statutory Stakeholders in Current state
Advantages	· Minimises timeline to notification · Meets iwi expectations for input of the Draft Plan · Meets Council’s commitment to releasing a Draft Plan for input · Plan can be notified within this term of Council · Less complete Draft Plan signals greater opportunity for change · Public version of the Draft Plan will still have been tested by iwi, Statutory Stakeholders, Legal and Planning peer reviewers
Risks and Disadvantages	· Untested Draft Plan may not be fit for purpose and is more likely to be criticised which may lead to delays · Iwi and Statutory Stakeholders time may be wasted · Public notification likely to fall close to the election period
Option 2: Release Draft Nelson Plan to Statutory Stakeholders and iwi in September 2019 following further testing
Advantages	· Further testing will ensure the Draft plan aligns with Council direction and is legally robust prior to release to statutory stakeholders and iwi · Delaying draft Nelson Plan release will allow alignment with National Planning Standards and National Environmental Standards Air Quality which are due to be gazetted in second quarter of 2019 · Meets iwi expectations for input of the Draft Plan · Meets Council’s commitment to releasing a Draft Plan for input
Risks and Disadvantages	· A Draft Plan would be out for statutory stakeholder and iwi partner feedback close to the 2019 local body election · Original notification date is missed
Option 3: Release Draft Nelson Plan to iwi partners now and statutory stakeholders with the Public in January 2019
Advantages	· Meets iwi expectations for input of the Draft Plan · Meets Council’s commitment to releasing a Draft Plan for input · Ensures the Plan is fit for purpose for draft release to statutory stakeholders and the public as well as notification · Plan can still be notified within this term of Council · The Draft Plan would be consulted on in early 2019 allowing sufficient time to make changes ahead of the election
Risks and Disadvantages	· Untested Draft Plan may not be fit for purpose and is more likely to be criticised which may lead to delays · Iwi and Statutory Stakeholders time may be wasted · Public notification is likely to fall close to the election period

Governance

6.5 There are three broad options for Elected Member input into the draft phase of the Nelson Plan. Option 2 is the preferred option.

6.6 Option 1 is the status quo which has been to workshop the whole Plan with full Council and report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at key milestones such as release of the Draft Plan for engagement and consideration of feedback.

6.7 Option 2 would be to delegate responsibility for review of the Plan to an Elected Member Working Group until the Draft Plan is released to the public and still report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee at key milestones.

6.8 Option 3 would be to only report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee ahead of key milestones.

6.9 It should be noted that all these options would involve regular reporting to the Planning and Regulatory Committee via the quarterly report and briefings to the Mayor and Councillor McGurk as part of the agenda briefings for the Committee.

Option 1: Workshop full Plan and report to P&R
Advantages	· All Council is engaged in the development of the Nelson Plan · Committee signs off content in accordance with delegations.
Risks and Disadvantages	· It is difficult to go into any depth with full Council workshops on the whole Nelson Plan.
Option 2: Elected Member Working Group and report to P&R
Advantages	· Key elected members are engaged in the development of the Nelson Plan · Committee signs off content in accordance with delegations
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some elected members are not engaged in the development of the Nelson Plan · Working Groups will require additional resources to facilitate
Option 3: Report to P&R only
Advantages	· Committee signs off content in accordance with delegations · Clear boundaries between regulatory functions and other committee functions
Risks and Disadvantages	· Elected members will not have the opportunity to engage in the Nelson Plan to any level of depth

6.10 Given the drive for further testing of the Draft Nelson Plan ahead of release to statutory stakeholders and iwi to ensure a quality product it is considered that the best mix of timeline and governance options would be a mix of Option 2 (timeline) and Option 2 (governance). This would mean that key elected members would be able to be involved in the detail of the Draft Nelson Plan ahead of release to statutory stakeholders and iwi and that the Draft Nelson Plan would be robustly tested prior to being considered by the wider community. The Council could then make a decision about whether the Draft is released ahead of October 2019 or whether this decision should be made by the new Council.

6.11 If Council is minded to progress the Draft Plan to notification within this term of Council, timeline option 1 or 3 should be pursued in conjunction with Option 2 Governance. However officers do not support either of these options given that releasing an untested Draft Plan may result in reputational damage, delays, and potential costs incurred throughout the statutory legal process.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report recommends altering the release of the Draft Plan for statutory stakeholder and iwi partner feedback to August 2019 to allow for additional testing.

7.2 An Elected Member Working Group is recommended to review Draft Plan content ahead of reporting to the Planning and Regulatory Committee in August 2019 and before release to iwi and statutory stakeholders.

7.3 It is also noted that engagement on water quality primary contact targets is being undertaken ahead of wider Nelson Plan engagement so that the December 2018 reporting requirements of the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management can be met.

Author: Matt Heale, Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2048250 - Nelson Plan Timeline October 2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposal will enable meaningful input into the Nelson Plan and is therefore the most efficient means of achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act and Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft Nelson Plan aligns with Community Outcomes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and Nelson 2060 goals by appropriately managing the natural environment and development of heritage sites, setting relevant health measures such as air and water quality standards, co-ordinating land use and infrastructure planning, having well planned urban and rural environments, adapting to natural hazards, and involving the community, key stakeholders, and iwi partners in the development of the Plan. The Nelson Plan development process is consistent with that provided for within the Annual Plan and Draft 2018-2028 LTP.

3. Risk

The Nelson Plan development has been undertaken with preliminary consultation with key stakeholders, iwi partners, and the community. A Planning peer review and preliminary consent testing has been carried out and a legal review and a cost benefit analysis is planned. Further feedback will be provided on the Draft Plan ahead of public notification. Officers have also worked closely with MfE to anticipate future national policy change. All of this will ensure a robust process and mitigate risk.

The revised timelines identified in this report all carry a level of risk given that the release of the Draft Plan or notification will all fall close to the Local body election scheduled for the end of 2019. There is a risk that the project will be delayed as this Council may not want to bind the decision making of the future Council.

4. Financial impact

The costs associated with Nelson Plan development are funded within the Annual Plan and the 2018-2028 LTP.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because the Nelson Plan will impact on the majority of the community. Key stakeholders, iwi partners, and the wider community will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Nelson Plan ahead of the formal submission and hearing process.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Members of Council’s Iwi Working Group have had input to the development of the Nelson Plan and will have three months to provide feedback on the Draft Nelson Plan as requested.

The wider Maori community will have an opportunity to provide feedback following public release of the Draft Nelson Plan.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide matters relating to resource management plans.

“6.3.2 - The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the power to decide:

· All functions…conferred on Council by relevant legislation not otherwise delegated to officers; and

· Undertake community engagement….for any proposals falling within the areas of responsibility.”

Note – Areas of responsibility include the Regional Policy Statement and District and Regional Plans (6.3.1).

Item 11: Adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9499

Adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Adoption of the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (R9499) and its attachment (A2051681).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-2028 (A2051681).

3. Background

3.1 Activity Management Plans are prepared and approved by Council to inform development of the Long Term Plan (LTP). Following consultation on the LTP and subsequent decisions, Activity Management Plans have been updated.

3.2 One workshop was held with the Planning and Regulatory Committee (25 May 2017) to review levels of service, discuss issues, confirm priorities for 2018-28 and seek direction from the Committee. A draft Environment Activity Management Plan was subsequently adopted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Environment Activity Management Plan 2018-28 (AMP) sets out the background to Council's environmental management programmes. The Plan includes:

· Levels of Service

· Focus areas for the activities during 2018-28

· The activity budgets for operations and capital expenditure.

Changes made through Long Term Plan deliberations

4.2 The Council considered submissions to the environmental section of the LTP at the deliberations meeting on 15 May 2018. No significant changes were made to the environment section of the LTP as a result.

4.3 Additional guidance was sought on how Council intends to respond to climate change. Officers confirmed that Council is currently researching carbon emissions measurement and reduction programmes for Council business and activities, and considering actions to support the community to adapt and respond to the effects of climate change. The baseline information will enable well informed and targeted emission reduction outcomes to be set by Council and for actions that will make a difference to be undertaken. No additional budget was requested to undertake this work.

Changes made since the Draft Activity Management Plan was Prepared

4.4 The draft Activity Management Plan was adopted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 3 October 2017, and at the time a number of Levels of Service had not been finalised recognising that a number of policy and legislative changes were underway. The newly formed City Development and Science and Environment team functions were also being clarified. Since the draft was adopted officers have made the following updates:

· Included additional areas of focus for climate change, waste minimisation, and air quality to reflect changes in national guidance and Council policy.

· Included Council’s Vision and Priorities from the LTP (Section 1).

· Made amendments to “How the Environment Activity is Delivered” (Section 2) and “Levels of Service” (Section 6) to align with the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management, national climate change guidance, Tasman Nelson Pest Management Strategy and Biodiversity Strategy reviews, made changes to the Nelson Plan timeframe, and made changes to the City Development work programme to include the Development Contributions reviews and the City Centre programme.

· Made amendments to the Financial Projections (Appendix 1) to align with the final LTP budget and the additional work taken on by the City Development team.

4.5 These changes have been highlighted in the attached AMP (highlights will be removed prior to publishing).

5. Conclusion

5.1 The Environment Activity Management Plan (AMP) brings the Building, City Development, Regulatory (Resource Consents, Compliance, and Enforcement), Planning and Science & Environment activities together. The AMP identifies Council’s programme for environmental management, and describes Council’s programmes for delivery against set priorities over the next 10 years, commencing 1 July 2018.

5.2 The AMP establishes levels of service, discusses focus areas for activities and sets activity budgets for operations and capital expenditure.

5.3 The AMP is prepared to inform development of the LTP. The Activity Management Plan has been amended to reflect decisions on the LTP.

Author: Matt Heale, Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2051681 - Environment AMP 2018 Final Draft ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Activity Management Plans set out the background to Council’s Environment programme and associated activities, and will support Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Activity Management Plan has been developed to support the delivery of Council’s Community Outcomes. The document has also assisted Council in developing the LTP.

3. Risk

Not adopting the Activity Management Plan will leave Council without a document to support the goal of developing and adopting the LTP. Adopting the AMP helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to establish levels of service, address relevant focus areas and set activity budgets for operations and capital expenditure.

4. Financial impact

There are no direct funding implications from the recommendation. Funding included in the Plan has been set out in the proposed LTP and was subject to a consultation process with the community.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Adoption of the final Activity Management Plan is of low significance. The draft document, which was approved by Council in October 2017, is of more importance and accordingly the public were provided with the opportunity to have input into the content of the Plan through the Long Term Plan consultation process.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The development and approval of the Activity Management Plan is part of the Long Term Plan process. This included consultation with Māori during the development of, and the formal submission process, for the Consultation Document. A hui for iwi was held on 20 October 2017 and there was subsequent sharing of further information.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegation:

Powers to Recommend:

· Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility.

Item 12: Amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry

Planning and Regulatory Committee

9 October 2018

REPORT R9645

Amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard - Plantation Forestry

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the additional proposed amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard - Plantation Forestry (R9645) and its attachment (A2001205).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the additional proposed amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan to implement the National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry.

3. Background

3.1 Amendments to the Nelson Regional Management Plan (NRMP) to align with National Environmental Standard – Plantation Forestry (NESPF) were approved by Council on 3 May 2018:

“Approves that changes be made to the Nelson Resource Management Plan in accordance with A1923819 of Report R9128 in order to implement the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.”

3.2 The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) published ‘Plan Alignment Guidance’ in May 2018. This guidance was published after the list of amendments to the NRMP were approved by Council.

3.3 The weblink for the ‘Plan Alignment Guidance’ is:

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/growing-and-harvesting/forestry/national-environmental-standards-for-plantation-forestry/nes-pf-guidance/

3.4 The amendments approved by Council have not yet been made to the NRMP as officers have been considering the implications of the ‘Plan Alignment Guidance’. As a consequence of that further assessment, this report includes revised amendments to Committee.

4. Discussion

Plan Alignment Guidance

4.1 The ‘Plan Alignment Guidance’ provided guidance on:

· Rules that may be more stringent than the NESPF

· Activities and effects not regulated under the NESPF

· Provided suggested wording for advisory notes and how and when to use advisory notes.

NRMP Changes

4.2 As a result of the ‘Plan Alignment Guidance’, an additional 10 advisory notes are proposed to the NRMP and changes to two existing advisory notes previously approved by Council.

4.3 The mix of new advisory notes and changes to existing advisory notes are a direct result of the clarification given in the ‘Plan Alignment Guidance.’

4.4 The following advisory note has been added to rules:

· Rur.24 Clearance of indigenous forest (not covered in the Conservation Overlay

· Rur.25 Vegetation clearance (other than indigenous forest)

· FWr.3 Planting in river beds and margins, and in wetlands

· FWr.3.4 For plantation forestry where it is a discretionary activity

o “Notwithstanding any other rules in this plan, all plantation forestry activities must comply with the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry Regulations 2018.”

4.5 This advisory note highlights where the NESPF provides for activities and effects over and above the NRMP. The following advisory note has been added to rules:

· Rur.52 Archaeological Overlay Earthworks

· Rur.53 Coastal Environment Overlay Earthworks

· RUr.56 Landscape Overlay Earthworks

· Rur.59 Archaeological Sites

· OSr.50 Landscape Overlay - Earthworks

· OSr.73 Archaeological sites

· REr.98 Archaeological sites

4.6 “This rule continues to apply to plantation forestry activities permitted by the NESPF because this rule deals with effects of plantation forestry activities that are different from those dealt with by the permitted activity conditions of the NESPF.”

4.7 This advisory note alerts the plan user where the NRMP provides for the activities and effects not anticipated in the NESPF.

4.8 A full list of changes previously approved by Council and the proposed changes are contained in Attachment 1.

5. Options

5.1 Council is required to makes changes to the NRMP to implement the NESPF as soon as practical after 1 May 2018. The Council has the option to make stricter provisions for matters relating to freshwater and biodiversity. The freshwater and biodiversity provisions of the NRMP are subject to significant changes as part of the Nelson Plan review. It is not considered efficient or effective to alter the NRMP biodiversity and freshwater standards when these provisions are subject to significant change and further community engagement throughout 2019/2020.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The proposed amendments will ensure that the NRMP aligns with the NESPF and meets the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991. The proposed amendments will provide for greater certainty and clarity for all Plan users.

Author: Jacqui Jones, Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2001205 - List of proposed amendments and amendments previously approved by Council ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The amended changes to the NRMP are required by the NESPF under the Resource Management Act so the proposal to make these changes now is appropriate. The further consideration of forestry provisions as part of the Nelson Plan engagement is the most efficient means of achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act and meets the efficiency and effectiveness requirements of the Local Government.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposal aligns with Community Outcomes and Nelson 2060 goals by appropriately managing our natural environment and involving the community, key stakeholders, and Iwi partners in the development of the future provisions. In particular the proposal aligns with Nelson 2060 Goal 2 and 3 and the following community outcome:

“Nelson’s unique natural environment is healthy and protected”

3. Risk

Implementing the amendments aligned the NRMP to recognise the NESPF in accordance with the requirements of the RMA and provides an increased efficiency and certainty of managing plantation forestry activities with Nelson Whakatu.

If the amended changes are not accepted there is a risk of uncertainty and inconsistency with regard to forestry activities in Nelson Whakatu. The advisory notes provide for greater clarification to plan users in relation to which activities and effects are provided for under the NESPF and which are provided for under the NRMP. The risk of not providing the amendments could result in forestry activities not gaining Resource Consent under the NRMP, where the potential for adverse effects of forestry activities are not provided for under the NESPF but are still provided for under the NRMP.

4. Financial impact

The costs associated with changes to the NRMP relate to staff time and have been factored into the Nelson Plan budget. The recommendations will not add to these anticipated costs. The NESPF allows for monitoring to be on charged to applicants as part of the resource consent process.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance given the number of people affected by the change. However, the NESPF requires Councils to make changes to the NRMP without going through the formal submission and hearing process. Key stakeholders are aware of this and will be involved in future changes considered in the development of the Nelson Plan.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi were involved in the development of the NESPF and the proposed changes align the NRMP to the NESPF and therefore specific consultation with Iwi was not proposed.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider:

Areas of Responsibility:

· District and Regional Plans

Powers to Decide:

· To perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation and not otherwise delegated to officers

Powers to Recommend:

· Any alterations necessary to the Land Development Manual, the Regional Policy Statement and Nelson Resource Management Plan