Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

Page No.

1. Apologies

1.1 An apology has been received from Ms Paine

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 9 October 2018 9 - 15

Document number M3815

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 9 October 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2018 16 - 46

Document number R9566

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2018 (R9566) and its attachments (A2077219, A2086289, A2077436 and A2068933).

8. National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to End June 2018 47 - 76

Document number R9819

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to End June 2018 (R9819) and its attachment (A2084377); and

Approves the recommendations contained in the attachment that the Price-Cost Ratio and Land Ownership Concentration indicators be reported on every quarter; and

Agrees that the Rural-Urban Land Value Differential and the Industrial Zone Differential indicators are not relevant in the context of the Nelson Urban Area and should not be reported on in the future; and

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

9. National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity Assessment 2018 77 - 79

Document number R9745

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity Assessment 2018 (R9745); and

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

· The receipt of the Urban Development Capacity Assessment, and

· The release of the Urban Development Capacity Assessment to the Ministry of Businesses Innovation and Employment and to the public, and

· The adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Development Capacity Assessment.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Considers all matters relating to the receipt and adoption of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity Assessment 2018.

10. Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018 80 - 85

Document number R9753

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018 (R9753) and its attachment (A2080678); and

Notes that the Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environment Management Plan 2018 (A2080678) must be kept and maintained by Council and be taken into account in preparing or changing policy statements or plans and may be taken into account by Council in consideration of applications under the Resource Management Act 1991; and

Notes that council officers will work with Ngāti Tama to identify any actions in the Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environment Management Plan 2018 (A2080678) that may be implemented by Council, including as part of the Nelson Plan review.

11. Final Water Quality Primary Contact Targets 86 - 91

Document number R9812

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Final Water Quality Primary Contact Targets(R9812); and

Approves that National Policy Statement Freshwater Management water quality primary contact standards for E-coli will continue to be met in 100% of Nelson’s fourth order rivers; and

Notes that Nelson City Council officers will continue to work with the Ministry for the Environment to ensure ongoing monitoring of Nelson’s fourth order rivers is sufficient to gauge compliance with primary contact targets.

12. Engagement on Coastal Hazards 92 - 108

Document number R9679

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Engagement on Coastal Hazards (R9679) and its attachments (A2081218, A2081234); and

Approves the proposed engagement approach regarding coastal hazards outlined in the report Engagement on Coastal Hazards (R9679).

13. Biosecurity Annual Review 109 - 157

Document number R9814

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review (R9814) and its attachments (A2081605, A2081603, and A2081604).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2018-19 (A2081604), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

Public Excluded Business

14. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Planning and Regulatory Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 9 October 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)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
2	Options for Regulatory Services	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Planning and Regulatory Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 9 October 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)(b)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Options for Regulatory Services

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

Note:

· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime. (delete as appropriate)

· Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

· Youth Councillors will not be in attendance at this meeting due to NCEA examinations. (delete as appropriate)

Planning and Regulatory Committee Minutes - 9 October 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

On Tuesday, 9 October 2018, commencing at 1.02p.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Acting Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Youth Councillors (N Rais and J Mason) and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

Apology: Councillor Acland (received at 1.07pm)

1. Apologies

No apologies were received.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 23 August 2018

Document number M3701, agenda pages 7 - 13 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/052

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.

McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

Her Worship the Mayor R Reese gave a verbal report covering the following matters:

· the freshwater announcement made by the Minister for the Environment, Hon David Parker about the development of a new national policy to stop the degradation of New Zealand’s Freshwater

· the new publication by the Ministry of Environment entitled ‘Shared Interests in Freshwater: A new Approach to the Crown/Maori Relationship for Freshwater’

· climate change advice received regarding the urgency to act now and Nelson City Council’s ongoing commitment to undertaking community engagement to achieve environmental outcomes

· the opening of the new Nelson Airport terminal and its exemplary environmental design

· the opening of Cawthron Institute’s new finfish research centre located at the Cawthron Aquaculture Park, and anticipated benefits for the salmon aquaculture in this region.

7. Kerr Street Walkway

Document number R9667, agenda pages 14 - 19 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald answered questions about the requirements for a consultation to take place in order to amend the Urban Environments Bylaw 225.

Resolved PR/2018/053

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.

Barker/Walker Carried

8. Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commanders

Document number R9748, agenda pages 20 - 24 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/054

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

Move a vote of thanks to Mr Stephen Lawrence for his outstanding service to the Nelson region as on-scene commander.

McGurk/Barker Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2018/055

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.

McGurk/Barker Carried

9. Nelson City Council submission on the Zero Carbon Bill

Document number R9732, agenda pages 25 - 63 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/056

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).

Fulton/Dahlberg Carried

10. Nelson Plan Update

Document number R9580, agenda pages 64 - 76 refer.

Team Leader Planning, Kirsten Gerrard noted a correction to page 70, option 2, which should read ‘August 2019’, not September. She answered questions regarding the proposed timeline, the envisaged tasks of the Working Group and the development of Terms of Reference for this Group.

Discussion took place regarding the relevance of the Making Good Decisions certification as a qualifying criteria for Working Group members. An objection to this requirement was raised by Councillor Dahlberg.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.01p.m. to 2.08p.m.

The Committee noted Ms Paine’s availability to provide a Māori perspective for the Draft Nelson Plan review.

Resolved PR/2018/057

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 Fulton and Councillor Barker; 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.

Barker/Paine Carried

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

Document number R9499, agenda pages 77 - 124 refer.

Team Leader Science and Environment, Jo Martin noted a correction to page 111, removing the measure ‘annual decrease per capita in waste from Nelson to Landfill’, as this activity is covered by the Solid Waste Asset Management Plan.

Resolved PR/2018/058

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

McGurk/Barker Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2018/059

That the Council

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

McGurk/Barker Carried

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

Document number R9645, agenda pages 125 - 135 refer.

Resolved PR/2018/060

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).

Fulton/McGurk Carried

Recommendation to Council PR/2018/061

That the Council

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

Fulton/McGurk Carried

13. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved PR/2018/062

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Dahlberg Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	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

The meeting went into public excluded session at 2.16p.m. and resumed in public session at 2.35p.m.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.35p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2018

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9566

Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a quarterly update on Environmental Management functions: Building, City Development, Consents and Compliance, Planning, and Science and Environment. In addition, the report discusses smokefree issues and the Strategy Team’s work on the Gambling Policy.

1.2 The quarterly report format has changed in line with the new corporate standards applying to all quarterly reports to each Committee. The report now includes greater financial reporting and continues to highlight achievements, trends, strategic direction, focus areas and risks and challenges.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee:

Receives the report Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2018 (R9566) and its attachments (A2077219, A2086289, A2077436 and A2068933).

3. Summary

Activity	Level of service	Achievement
Building	Compliance with statutory timeframes. Developing consistent working methodologies.	Statutory timeframes continue to be met. Statistics are included in Attachment 1. Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council implemented the Alpha One System on 1 October 2018.
City Development	Coordinated growth with infrastructure. A well planned city that meets the community’s current and future needs.	The urban development capacity assessment required by the National Policy Statement–Urban Development Capacity (NPS–UDC) has been completed. The role for City Centre Programme Lead has been filled and the successful candidate starts on 3 December. Feedback has closed on the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and draft Plan Change 27 and a hearing is scheduled for 14 November.
Consents and Compliance	Delivery of all statutory regulatory functions. Compliance with statutory timeframes.	84% compliance with resource consent timeframes was achieved. Timeframe breaches are in part because consent numbers are 61% higher than the same quarter last year. Statistics are included in Attachment 1.
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	The focus in this quarter was the development of scenarios that were used to road-test the Draft Nelson Plan with key internal teams and planning professionals. Isovist has been selected as the preferred supplier for the Eplan software. DLA Piper has been selected as the preferred supplier for the Nelson Plan legal review. Three council workshops were held to discuss coastal hazards technical work and proposed engagement.

Activity

Level of service

Achievement

Science and Environment

Delivery of all programmes.

Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards.

The new Healthy Streams Programme began implementation in July. The waste minimisation programme has re-started for the team. The Regional Pest Management Plan is progressing. Council has become a member of CEMARS. The Environmental Monitoring consent fees statement of proposal has been prepared.

Delivery of the State of the Environment monitoring and reporting for air quality, freshwater quality and quantity, biodiversity (terrestrial and freshwater), and estuarine health. The development of soil, marine, and additional biodiversity monitoring programmes.

Policy

Compliance with legislative requirements.

The submission period for the Gambling Policy consultation has closed and hearings and deliberations will take place in November.

4. Background

4.1 The report and attachments detail the performance monitoring of the Council’s regulatory and non-regulatory activities, how these activities have changed over time and identifies their strategic direction.

4.2 The financial reporting focuses on the three month performance compared with the year-to-date approved capital and operating budgets.

4.3 Unless otherwise indicated, all measures are against approved operating budget, which is 2018/19 Long Term Plan budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the Committee or Council.

5. Discussion – Financial Results

Revenue

5.1 Dog Control: Dog registration fees collected are $20k behind budget for Quarter 1 (Q1). Note that annual registrations are invoiced in July so the bulk of the budget sits in July. This variance may disappear over the remaining months.

5.2 Liquor Licensing: Regulatory income is ahead of YTD budget in licence application fees ($6.2k) and managers’ certificates ($5.8k).

5.3 Building Services: $97k ahead of YTD Budget. $67k of this is from fees and charges. There has been a total of 294 building consents processed in Q1 which is an increase on last year, and the value of the total consented work, on which the fees are levied, has also increased in comparison to this time last year.

5.4 Resource Consents: $125k behind budget YTD in fees and charges. The budget in 2018/19 was increased from 2017/18 by $486k, based on 2016/17 actuals. The 2017 full year result was 42% greater than any of the previous several years. There is a lag in invoicing and 62% more applications have been received year to date this year than last. The income in this area is demand driven.

Operating Expenditure

5.5 Developing Resource Management Plan is ahead of budget by $91k due to staff overhead changes and a doubling up of staff overhead costs. Staff costs have been included in both the corporate overhead and the Nelson Plan budget and should have only been included in the corporate budget. This will be corrected prior to the next report.

5.6 City Development is behind budget by $144k of which $129k relates to staff overhead and the position has now been filled with the person starting in December. This budget has actually been spent but has been miscoded and this will be resolved prior to the next report.

5.7 Dog Control is ahead of budget by $26k due to the EIL contract renewal. Overall the contract cost is less than budgeted. However, the costs are higher than budget in some cost centres such as this one, and lower in others.

5.8 Public Counter Land & General is $28k ahead of budget YTD in staff overhead charges particularly in respect of file scanning activity.

5.9 Resource Consents is ahead of budget by $102k YTD. $27k relates to services contracted out to EIL where the contract renewal has increased in this cost centre to $80k more than the full-year budget, including an additional EIL staff resource. $61k of the variance relates to the use of consultants to process high numbers of applications.

5.10 Building Claims: Two active building claims though no settlement payments made to date.

Capital Expenditure

5.11 Key Performance Indicators – Long Term Plan: Details of the status of the indicators are contained in Attachment 2. The resource consents non-compliance with statutory timeframes is the activity that is not on track to meet the LTP performance measures.

5.12 Key Performance Indicators – Environment Activity Management Plan: Details of the status of the indicators are contained in Attachment 3.

5.13 Project Reports – Operational: Operational Project/Programme reports by Business Unit are contained in Attachment 4.

6. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

BUILDING

Achievements

6.1 This quarter has focused on Project Go Live for the AlphaOne digital building control solution, which occurred on 1 October. Implementation work is under way to transition to the new workflow. The result is Nelson and Tasman now both have the same online end to end digital system which will result in better customer service and greater alignment.

Trends

6.2 The number of building consents and amendments received in the first quarter is:

· 297 with an estimated value of $51,060,356 in comparison to 237 with an estimated value of $35,535,149 in the same quarter last year.

6.3 The number of inspections undertaken in the first quarter is:

· 1,924 in comparison to 1,916 in the same quarter last year.

6.4 The increased number of consents continues the upward trending pattern that has been building through the last two quarters of 2017/18.

Strategic direction and focus

6.5 The Building Unit is focusing on greater alignment with Tasman on the back of the implementation of the AlphaOne digital building control solution.

Risks and challenges

6.6 The Building Unit has seen an increased number of building consent applications. Coupled with the activation of the AlphaOne digital building control solution, this means there is pressure on staff.

6.7 October and November are likely to see a further increase in applications which may mean some 20 day time limit breaches for Code Compliance Certificates and potentially for Building Consents as the new system beds in.

CITY DEVELOPMENT

Achievements

6.8 The City Centre Programme Lead position has been recruited and Alan Gray starts on 3 December. Alan is currently the City Centre Programme Leader from the Auckland Design Office of Auckland Council.

6.9 The team has been actively building relationships with the Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA), Uniquely Nelson, city centre developers, retailers and hospitality stakeholders to assist with the development of the City Centre Programme.

6.10 Preliminary work has started on the development of the City Centre Programme including working with NRDA to develop the economic positioning case for the city centre.

6.11 The Urban Development Capacity Assessment has been completed and is included in the Planning and Regulatory Committee 22 November agenda.

6.12 A contract is currently being negotiated for a consultant to assist with the preparation of a Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy which is to be completed by July 2019.

6.13 Consultation on the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual, draft plan changes and practice notes has closed. A total of 18 submissions were received. A hearing is scheduled for 14 November.

Trends

6.14 No expressions of interest were received for Special Housing Areas (SHAs) in the last round, and no new SHAs have been gazetted by Government despite being recommended in February.

Strategic direction and focus

6.15 Key strategic projects the team is working on over the next quarter include the Future Development Strategy, the City Centre Programme Plan and the annual review of the Development Contributions Policy.

6.16 The team is also involved in assisting the Strategic Property Advisor with the progression of a number of key strategic projects within the city centre.

Risks and challenges

6.17 There is a risk that the City Centre Programme Lead will find it difficult to spend the city centre capex fund of $200k without any internal project managers with capacity to deliver projects.

6.18 The Urban Development Capacity Assessment highlighted that there is insufficient residential development capacity in the long term (11 to 30 years) and provides recommendations to Council on Plan enablement and infrastructure provisions required to ensure that sufficient capacity is provided. The National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity (NPS UDC) requires that Council initiate a response within 12 months. The team is working with Asset Managers and the Planning Team in order to achieve this.

6.19 The Future Development Strategy contract is in negotiation.

6.20 Plan Change 27 to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) to incorporate by reference the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual will be handed to the Planning Team to progress.

CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE

Achievements

6.21 Four “Women on Water” workshops were conducted by the deputy harbourmaster providing basic safety at sea education and have been well received by attendees. The annual Harbourmaster’s challenge involving a variety of water sports clubs competing in Nelson or Tasman relay teams resulted in the broken paddle trophy being won by Nelson. Attendees and spectators were able to try out various water activities in a safe environment.

Trends

6.22 Resource consent application numbers for this quarter are 61% higher than the same period last year and numbers have increased from the March–June 2018 quarter by 25%. This is a large increase in consent applications to be managed and processed.

6.23 Freedom camping activity has increased in the last month and compliance officers are taking a proactive approach by undertaking patrols prior to 1 December in the popular areas when capacity allows.

Strategic direction and focus

6.24 The harbourmaster activity will focus on ensuring recreational boaties have correct navigation lights and two forms of communication this season. Over 1700 safety checks conducted last summer identified a low level of compliance in these areas.

Risks and challenges

6.25 High workloads (with a significant increase in consent numbers), staff vacancies and limited capacity from external consultants to assist with processing resource consents have resulted in non-compliance with statutory timeframes and this is likely to continue while these factors remain.

PLANNING

Achievements

6.26 The focus in this quarter was the development of scenarios and road-testing the Draft Nelson Plan with key internal teams and planning professionals.

6.27 Isovist has been selected as the preferred supplier for the Eplan software. This project will begin in October.

6.28 DLA Piper has been selected as the preferred supplier for the Nelson Plan legal review.

6.29 Three council workshops were held to discuss coastal hazards technical work and proposed engagement.

6.30 Council staff have been working to a resolution over conflicts over vehicle access to the foreshore in Delaware (Wakapuaka) Estuary. Boats are regularly launched and retrieved from the Maori Pa Road location. Vehicles are on occasion also accessing the foreshore for other reasons, including simply driving around.

6.31 Rules in the Nelson Resource Management Plan are being broken as a result, and these activities have ecological impacts and are of considerable cultural offence to local hapu. Nevertheless, the location does provide a safe launch point for smaller boats, particularly in comparison with Cable Bay.

6.32 Council staff commissioned an impact report from the Cawthron Institute and have shared this with boaties, fishers, local residents, hapu/iwi, the Department of Conservation (DOC) and others at public meetings and hui.

6.33 It appears that all parties are willing to accept a proposal which limits access for boat launching and retrieval to a marked route, located on a pebble bank, away from seagrass beds and other sensitive areas. Improvements to the lay-by are also proposed, including planting, re-grading and combined signage emphasising the values of the Estuary. Users would be able to make donations which would be used for restoration purposes in the Estuary. Ultimately, this could form the catalyst for a friends-kaitiaki type group. Council would take enforcement action outside the marked route.

6.34 A trial of the route is proposed, provided for through a resource consent, which staff are now preparing. If successful, a longer term consent would then be sought. In advance of consent being obtained, staff will be present on-site this summer, to update users on the proposal, raise awareness about the Estuary’s values, and encourage good behaviour.

Strategic direction and focus

6.35 The Planning Team is responding to feedback received from road-testing the Draft Nelson Plan with Council teams and planning professionals. The next version of the Draft Nelson Plan will be externally peer reviewed and undergo a first stage legal review in November.

6.36 Cost benefit analysis work continues, with analysis under way for the three priority Nelson Plan topics of growth, natural hazards and freshwater.

6.37 Preparation for coastal hazards community engagement will be a focus for the next quarter, dependant on Committee approval of the engagement approach in November.

Risks and challenges

6.38 It could take longer than expected to respond to the substantial volume of feedback received on the Draft Nelson Plan from key Council teams and planning professionals. Contingency has been allowed for in the recently approved amended Nelson Plan timeline.

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT

Achievements

6.39 A repeater station was installed at the Maitai Dam. This will enable near real-time data to be telemetered from the flow recording sites on the upper Maitai once site upgrades at these sites have been completed, enabling timely and better quality data to be collected.

6.40 Several Science and Environment Team members were judges at the Cawthron Scitech Expo. Council sponsors an award for Youth Leadership with Tasman District Council.

6.41 Staff contributed to the annual NZ Biosecurity Institute’s National Education and Training Seminar (NETS) held in Nelson in July. Nelson Nature was a keynote presentation, and marine biosecurity featured, with a Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership workshop. New science and technology were on display, highlighting updates on existing programmes and new research by NIWA and Cawthron.

6.42 Healthy Streams programme successes during the quarter have included: RSA Commemorative Planting on the Maitai Esplanade; gap analysis to inform work on sediment reduction in the Whangamoa Catchment; 6000 trees allocated to landowners for riparian planting in the Wakapuaka; completion and celebration of the Maitai Mahitahi Wetland at Groom Creek; and an Envirolink grant to support citizen science monitoring.

6.43 Nelson Nature completed an operation to reduce the number of pest animals impacting forest health and water quality in the Maitai/Roding catchment. Approximately 170 animals, mostly goats, were removed over a two week period.

6.44 A native-tree giveaway by Nelson Nature at the Nelson Market to promote the annual Great Kereru Count resulted in Nelson residents queueing to learn more about planting for native birds and receive their free native tree. Almost 400 kereru were counted in Nelson over the 10 day event with 198 observations - twice the number of observations from last year.

6.45 Bridge Street Early Learning has signed up to the Enviroschools programme. School planting involved approximately 2000 students with planting at Tahunanui Beach.

Strategic direction and focus

6.46 A draft report identifying priority sites and management actions for protecting coastal biodiversity was prepared by Nelson Nature. The report will be reviewed alongside recent climate change analysis commissioned for the Nelson Plan. This information will be used to discuss options with landowners.

Risks and challenges

6.47 In August the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) advised the Council that myrtle rust was found at four sites in Nelson, affecting ramarama and pōhutukawa plants. Soon after MPI declared Nelson/Tasman Bay as a known infected area. In practice this means that MPI will no longer be conducting surveillance and organism management in the area, but does require notification of any suspected infections. Properties with confirmed infections will be provided with self-management packs and associated waste permission enabling transport of infected material. This must be disposed of as general waste not green waste.

7. Attitudes

7.1 The following infographics have been taken from a Ministry for the Environment publication and synthesise community attitudes around three environmental issues: climate change, freshwater quality and waste minimisation. They make for interesting reading.

Source: Environmental Attitudes Baseline
Colmar Brunton Research for the Ministry for the Environment

http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Extra%20downloads/Other%20documents/new-zealanders-environmental-attitudes.pdf

8. Policy

8.1 The Council has a statutory requirement to review its Gambling Policy within three years of its previous review. The previous review was completed in March 2016, and a further review is required to be completed by March 2019.

8.2 A review has since been undertaken and was reported to the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting on 23 August 2018.

8.3 As a result of the review, Council is proposing some amendments to its Policy. A Statement of Proposal, setting out the proposed amendments, has been consulted on and closed for submissions on 24 October 2018.

8.4 Hearings and Deliberations are scheduled for November 2018, and it is expected that the final Policy will be adopted by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2018.

8.5 When approving the Upper Trafalgar Street closure on 9 August 2018 Council resolved (CL/2018/187) –

Requests officers to report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on options to make Upper Trafalgar Street smoke free via Council’s Smokefree Policy, following discussion with businesses and retailers in the area.

8.6 Advice on Council’s options was sought from Fletcher Vautier Moore but only a verbal update had been received as at 25 October 2018.

8.7 The advice is that, while new licences for the expanded summer closure area could include a smokefree requirement, existing licensed areas would not be covered without the licensee’s consent. This would create issues of practicality and enforcement with the potential for smokefree and smoking areas being immediately adjacent to each other.

8.8 Council could theoretically create a bylaw prohibiting smoking in outdoor dining areas but Council’s legal advisers believe that there would be a high legal risk of such a bylaw being struck down as unreasonable.

8.9 While many of the business operators in Upper Trafalgar Street are supportive of a smokefree vision, they were concerned about practicality and enforcement. They also raised the question of equity if customers at other outdoor dining areas across the city were still permitted to smoke.

9. Legal Proceedings Update

9.1 The decision on the Brook Valley Community Group appeal decision is due to be released in November.

9.2 The G&N Thompson appeal was settled by mediation and it is expected that mediation will also resolve an appeal in relation to works to remediate a slip (Smith).

10. Options

10.1 The Planning and Regulatory Committee can either receive the report or seek further information.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2077219 - Building and Consents and Compliance statistics ⇩

Attachment 2: A2086289 - Long Term Plan Performance Measure Summary - Jul-Sep2018 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2077436 - Environment Activity Management Plan Performance Measures Summary - Jul-Sep2018 ⇩

Attachment 4: A2068933 - Report on Operational Projects and Programmes ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of LGA 2002 requires local government to perform regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. This quarterly report identifies the performance levels of regulatory and non-regulatory functions.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Council’s Long Term Plan includes performance measures for various activities and this report enables the Council to monitor progress towards achieving these measures.

3. Risk

Staff vacancies have the potential to impact work programmes. Recruitment for these roles is well advanced.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken regarding this report.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Performance monitoring of Council’s Regulatory activities

· Resource Management

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

Item 8: National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to End June 2018

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9819

National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to End June 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To ensure decision-makers are well-informed about urban development activity in both Nelson and Tasman, as required by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) and to seek agreement to release the monitoring report.

2. Summary

2.1 The NPS-UDC requires Council to monitor property market indicators on a quarterly basis, including prices, rents, resource and building consents, and housing affordability. The attached report for the April to June 2018 quarter is the fifth of these reports.

2.2 The trends shown in the monitoring report are broadly consistent with those detailed in the previous two quarterly reports.

2.3 Broadly, the monitoring report shows

· there is an undersupply of residential housing across the Nelson Urban Area (Nelson and Richmond);

· house prices continue to increase although there has been a flattening off in house price growth; and

· affordability remains an issue with the Nelson/Tasman/ Marlborough region being the third least affordable in the country.

2.4 Residential building consents for new dwellings in Nelson over the last 12 months number around 50-75 new dwellings per quarter.

2.5 The new price-cost ratio indicator recently released by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for medium growth areas shows that land costs are just above the ‘acceptable’ level as a proportion of the total cost of new houses.

2.6 The land ownership concentration indicator shows that a high proportion of undeveloped residential zoned land in Nelson is held by just a few land owners.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity - Quarterly Monitoring Report to End June 2018 (R9819) and its attachment (A2084377); and

Approves the recommendations contained in the attachment that the Price-Cost Ratio and Land Ownership Concentration indicators be reported on every quarter; and

Agrees that the Rural-Urban Land Value Differential and the Industrial Zone Differential indicators are not relevant in the context of the Nelson Urban Area and should not be reported on in the future; and

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

4. Background

4.1 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC) came into effect in December 2016. The NPS-UDC includes a policy (PB6) that requires local authorities to monitor a range of indicators on a quarterly basis including:

· Prices and rents for housing, residential land and business land by location and type, and changes in these prices over time;

· The number of resource consents and building consents granted for urban development relative to the growth in the population; and

· Indicators of housing affordability.

4.2 The NPS-UDC aims to ensure that local authorities are well-informed about demand for housing and business development and applies to local authorities that have a medium or high growth urban area within their district or region. Nelson City has the Nelson Urban Area within its boundaries, and the Nelson Urban Area has been defined by the NPS-UDC as medium growth.

4.3 Local authorities are encouraged to publish the results of their monitoring.

4.4 The Ministry for the Environment has provided guidance on the monitoring requirements and, together with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), has provided an online dashboard of data on local housing markets. The online dashboard was publicly released on the MBIE website on 7 July 2017.

4.5 Further information has been provided from Nelson City Council resource and building consent data.

4.6 The report includes data for both Nelson and Tasman local authorities, recognising the connected, cross-boundary property market both Councils share. The NPS-UDC also strongly encourages both Councils to work together to implement the policies contained within it.

5. Discussion

5.1 Four new price efficiency indicators are presented in this latest monitoring report. These have been discussed with the Planning and Regulatory Committee in a previous meeting but this is the first quarter that they have been formally reported on. The four price efficiency indicators are:

· Price-Cost Ratio

· Rural-Urban land value differential

· Industrial zone land value differential

· Land ownership concentration

5.2 Of the four new indicators, only the price-cost ratio and land ownership concentration are meaningful in the context of the Nelson Urban Area.

5.3 Council officers have discussed with MBIE representatives the value of continuing to report on all of the indicators. MBIE have agreed that only the price-cost ratio and land ownership concentration indicators should be reported on for the Nelson Urban Area.

5.4 A summary of the discussion of these indicators in the monitoring report is included below.

Price-Cost Ratio indicator

5.5 The price-cost ratio is the gap between house prices and construction costs in the Nelson Main Urban Area for standalone dwellings i.e. the cost of the land. The indicator assumes that if the cost of land is significant and/or increasing, relative to buildings costs, there is a shortage of sections relative to demand.

5.6 The price-cost ratio is 1.5 when the cost of a section (land) comprises one third of the house price. Therefore, the 1.5 price-cost ratio is used as a benchmark for assessment as it signals that supply of land is relatively responsive to demand. If sufficient development opportunities exist, the ratio should be below 1.5 most of the time. It should be noted that the 25% construction cost buffer also allows for construction costs being undervalued on the Building Consent application form.

5.7 The latest 2017 ratio (1.55) puts the combined Nelson Urban Area just above the ‘acceptable’ threshold for supply of land being responsive to demand. However, it is also noted that the ratio has risen during a time which coincides with nationally high house prices, and demand for housing.

5.8 This indicator provides useful insight into the part land development plays in the overall cost of finished housing. It is recommended in the monitoring report that this indicator continues to be reported on every quarter.

Rural-Urban land value differential

5.9 The Rural-urban land value differential is intended to provide a measure of whether additional rural land should be rezoned for urban land use. The rationale is that if enough land is zoned urban then there will be a smooth transition in land value per square metre on the boundary between rural and urban land.

5.10 The MBIE analysis shows that there is a large differential in land value at the boundary between the urban and rural zones. This is not surprising given that typically, the urban boundary runs along the edge of a geographical feature that makes the rural land not feasible to develop. For example, almost the full eastern edge of the urban boundary sits close to the base of steep slopes and as a result, higher value development of the rural land is not likely regardless of any zoning.

5.11 The other unique aspect of this measure for the Nelson Urban Area is that it shows that the urban land closest to the centre of the area is of lower value than the areas closer to the rural/urban boundary. When the elongated shape of the Nelson Urban Area is taken into account, this is not surprising as the centre of the shape does not coincide with the highest value residential land. The measure would make more sense in a place like Christchurch or Hamilton where the centre of the urban area sits in the middle of a circle or square urban area.

5.12 This affordability measure is therefore not particularly useful in describing the issues that Nelson and Tasman face around housing affordability due to its simplistic logic. The monitoring report recommends that this measure is not reported on in the future as it is not fit for purpose in the context of the Nelson Urban Area.

Industrial zone land value differential

5.13 The Industrial Zone Differential indicator is intended to measure the differential in land values across the boundary between industrial land and land zoned for other uses. This is very similar to the urban/rural differential but with a much smaller dataset.

5.14 The analysis for this indicator shows a large amount of variability across all of the pockets of industrial land in the Nelson Urban Area. The results do not show any consistent pattern that is useful in informing future zoning or infrastructure investment decisions.

5.15 The very small dataset along with the widely distributed and relatively small industrial areas results in this indicator not being useful in the context of the Nelson Urban Area. Therefore, the monitoring report recommends that this indicator not be reported on in the future.

Land ownership concentration

5.16 The land ownership concentration measures the distribution of residentially zoned land that is undeveloped amongst the number of owners. This measure is an attempt to describe how close to a monopoly a particular area operates in with regard to the ownership of undeveloped land. For example, if all of the land was owned by one person, they could choose to release land slowly to the market to keep prices artificially high. At the other end of the scale, if undeveloped land is spread amongst a large number of owners, the market maybe more competitive with lower section prices.

5.17 The MBIE analysis for this indicator shows that that around 65% of the undeveloped residentially zoned land is owned by just ten people or companies with the largest land holding being 20.3%.

5.18 It is difficult to determine the level of ownership concentration that will begin to have an effect on section prices but for comparison, the Nelson Urban Area is in the top three worst areas for a large amount of land being held by a small number of owners along with Napier and Hamilton.

5.19 This indicator provides useful insight into the part ownership concentration plays in the release of land for development and the trends in land price. The monitoring report recommends that this indicator continues to be reported on every quarter to allow a long term trend to be established.

6. Options

6.1 Quarterly monitoring of property market indicators is a mandatory requirement under the NPS-UDC.

6.2 The Committee may choose to adopt the recommendations in this report or alternatively choose to instruct Council officers to report on all of the new price efficiency indicators. Reporting on all four of the new price efficiency indicators is a straightforward task so there is no risk to workloads. Reporting on the less relevant indicators on the other hand may introduce a lack of clarity in the reporting with the risk that readers of the monitoring report will give the same weight to these indicators as they do the more robust and relevant indicators.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The data presented in the June 2018 NPS-UDC Quarterly Monitoring report shows that the general long term trends observed in the previous monitoring reports remain the same. That is, there is an undersupply of residential housing across the Nelson Urban Area, house prices continue to increase and affordability remains an issue.

7.2 The new MBIE price efficiency indicators presented in the report vary in their relevance in the context of the Nelson Urban Area and as a result not all need to be reported on in the future.

7.3 Council’s website will be updated to include the quarterly monitoring report and the report will be provided to MBIE.

Author: Chris Pawson, Senior Analyst Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2084377 - National Policy Statement - Urban Development Strategy - Quarterly Monitoring Report to end of June 2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Monitoring property market indicators informs Long Term Plan decision-making on infrastructure projects to ensure sufficient development capacity is provided to meet future demand for housing and business land.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Monitoring joint indicators with Tasman demonstrates an understanding we need to collaborate to provide the best and most efficient service to our communities.

Being well-informed on property market indicators and urban growth helps achieve the community outcome of an urban environment that is well planned, including thinking and planning regionally and ensuring affordable housing. Monitoring the market for business land helps achieve the community outcome of a region which is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

The information contained in the report should inform Council about property market trends. There is some risk in using an experimental data series for housing affordability but other data sources, such as the Massey University affordability measure, also indicate the region is experiencing housing affordability pressures.

There is a risk that the business property market isn’t well understood at this stage and more work is planned to monitor prices for different types of business land.

4. Financial impact

MBIE data is provided at no cost. The purchase of other data is of minimal cost and is included in existing budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the recommendation is to receive the report and no other decisions are required.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following powers

Areas of Responsibility:

· District and Regional Plans (which must give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity)

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.

Item 10: Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9753

Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To formally receive the iwi management plan (IMP), the Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018 (R9753) and its attachment (A2080678); and

3. Background

3.1 Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust was established to administer the Deed of Settlement and implement the Te Tau Ihu Settlement Act 2014, as part of the Treaty settlement between Ngāti Tama and the Crown.

3.2 Part of the settlement process was an acknowledgement that Ngāti Tama, together with other iwi, had mana whenua in Te Tau Ihu.

3.3 An iwi management plan helps the Council and the public to understand issues of significance to Ngāti Tama and how those issues can be resolved in a manner consistent with cultural values and interests.

3.4 The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that Council must take into account, keep, and maintain a record of any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority.

3.5 To date, Council has received four iwi management plans (IMP): Te Tau Ihu Mahi Tuna (2000), Iwi Managament Plan (2002), Ngā Taonga Tuku Iho ki Whakatū Management Plan (2004) and the Pakohe Management Plan (2015).

4. Discussion

Relevance to the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991

4.1 The Environmental Management Plan 2018, prepared by Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust, is an iwi management plan (IMP) as described by the Resource Management Act 1991.

4.2 Under s35A(1)(b) of the RMA, each council must keep and maintain a record of planning documents that are recognised by each iwi authority and lodged with the council.

4.3 IMPs outline issues of significance to that iwi in relation to the management of natural and physical resources in their rohe. They are an important mechanism for recognising and providing for cultural values and interests. In particular they:

(i) assist to meet obligations under Part 2 of the RMA, by providing a general understanding of tangata whenua values and interests in the natural and physical resources in a particular area.

(ii) must be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans (sections 61, 66, 74).

(iii) provide a starting point for consultation with iwi and hapū on Council plans and policies (Schedule 1 clause 3(1)(d), clause 3B, and clause 3C), by providing information to understand key issues and the ways to resolve those issues.

(iv) provide a starting point for understanding potential effects of a proposed activity on Māori cultural values when making an application for resource consent (section 88 and Schedule 4).

(v) may be cited in submissions and/or evidence relating to applications for resource consent, and decision-makers may have regard to IMPs under section 104(1)(c) of the RMA.

Relevance to the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002

4.4 IMPs also provide useful insight and information for Council in carrying out its powers and functions under various statutes, including the Local Government Act 2002.

4.5 The LGA places specific responsibilities on Council to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi principles. It establishes baseline principles on how Council maintains and improves opportunities for Māori to contribute to local government decision-making processes. The receipt of the IMP is consistent with the LGA.

Ngāti Tama Environmental Management Plan content

4.6 The Ngāti Tama Environmental Management Plan is a wide-ranging plan that covers the broad interests of Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu (the South Island branch of Ngāti Tama). The Plan outlines issues of significance, actions to be undertaken and indicators against which progress should be made. These cover a number of areas, namely:

(i) Cultural heritage;

(ii) Whenua (Maunga and Hill Country);

(iii) Whenua (Valleys and Plains);

(iv) Wai Ora (Healthy waters);

(v) Hau Ora (Healthy air);

(vi) Coastal Marine Environment;

(vii) Biodiversity and Biosecurity Management.

Implementation

4.7 Each of the chapters in the IMP contain a number of actions (147 in total) relating to Ngāti Tama’s aspirations for resource management across Te Tau Ihu.

4.8 Of those 147 actions, 77 do not relate to current Nelson City Council (NCC) operations. These include matters not currently taking place within NCC boundaries (such as those relating to National Parks or coastal mining) or are to be undertaken by Ngāti Tama or other parties with no involvement by NCC necessary.

4.9 Of the remaining actions, 62 are currently part of NCC operations in full or in part, or will be considered as part of the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan review.

4.10 Ngāti Tama are proposing to undertake officer training on the content of the IMP.

4.11 Council is currently undertaking an iwi audit to understand how we can more effectively work with local iwi as well as a review of the Cultural Impact Assessment system. This work along with the development of the Nelson Plan will consider the IMP.

4.12 To date, there are eight actions listed in the IMP that relate to NCC operations which may not be a part of current operational practice. These relate to:

· Transfer of powers and joint management agreements;

· Best practice forestry operations;

· Forestry operations plans;

· Concessions in culturally sensitive areas;

· Recognising traditional associations with bird populations in management plans;

· Involvement in developing contingency plans for oil spills;

· Weed & pest control programmes; and

· Involvement in decisions relating to the use of biological control agents.

5. Options

5.1 Any iwi may lodge an IMP with any relevant Council. Those councils must keep a record of that IMP, make it available to the public if requested and are required to take it into account when preparing or changing council planning documents, and consider them in decision making processes.

Author: Mike Scott, Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan 2018 - A2080678 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Receiving the iwi management plan enables council to perform its duties under the Local Government Act by:

· providing for democratic local decision-making by communities; and

· meeting the current and future needs of communities for performance of regulatory functions (because consideration of IMPs is a requirement under the Resource Management Act).

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Receiving the IMP aligns with the following Community Outcomes set out in the Long Term Plan 2018-28:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected;

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

· Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity.

3. Risk

Receiving the iwi management plan is a requirement under the Resource Management Act 1991. There is no risk associated with receiving the document.

4. Financial impact

Receiving the iwi management plan is a requirement and does not lead to an obligation requiring increased staffing. Where council commits to undertaking additional actions set out in the IMP, an increased level of resource from council may be required.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance in terms of further engagement because it will have little or no impact on levels of service or cost to Council and receipt of an iwi planning document is an obligation. As both a regional council and a territorial authority, Council is also obliged to take the documents into account in exercising its functions under the RMA.

Further engagement will take place between council staff and Ngāti Tama to further understand how the iwi sees the actions being implemented in Nelson City.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

An iwi management plan is a starting point for engagement with an iwi authority regarding desired environmental outcomes. This document serves to further council engagement with Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to acknowledge the lodgement of the Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust Environmental Management Plan:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental Matters

· Resource Management

· 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:

· N/A

Item 11: Final Water Quality Primary Contact Targets

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9812

Final Water Quality Primary Contact Targets

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To confirm final water quality targets for Escherichia coli (E-coli) in Nelson’s fourth order rivers to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (NPSFM).

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Final Water Quality Primary Contact Targets(R9812); and

Approves that National Policy Statement Freshwater Management water quality primary contact standards for E-coli will continue to be met in 100% of Nelson’s fourth order rivers; and

3. Background

3.1 Amendments were made to the NPSFM on 7 September 2017 that require Regional Councils to set, and make public, draft water quality targets by 31 March 2018. Final targets are required by 31 December 2018(refer Policy A6 NPSFM).

3.2 The purpose of these targets is to increase the number of rivers and lakes that are suitable for primary contact (swimming), nationally. The NPSFM sets an interim national target of 80% compliance by 2030 and a final target of 90% by 2040.

3.3 These targets only apply to rivers and lakes meeting certain characteristics such as size. In Nelson the relevant fourth order rivers are Whangamoa, Wakapuaka, Maitai, and Roding. All relevant rivers in Nelson meet the national targets for primary contact (% exceedances over 540cfu/100ml). Consequently, at the 5 April 2018 meeting the Committee set a draft target of continuing to achieve water quality primary contact targets for E-coli in all of Nelson’s fourth order rivers. A letter was sent to the Minister for the Environment confirming this ahead of the 31 March 2018 deadline.

3.4 Running in parallel to the national primary contact target work, officers have been working with Freshwater Management Unit (FMU) and iwi working groups to develop water quality and quantity objectives, limits, and targets for the Nelson Plan. Accordingly, feedback from FMU’s and iwi has been sought on draft water quality primary contact targets.

4. Discussion

Target of 100% Swimmability for Nelson’s Fourth Order Rivers

4.1 Council has advised the Minister for the Environment that primary contact targets for E-coli will be met for 100% of Nelson’s fourth order rivers.

4.2 The Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) Clean Water Report states Nelson’s fourth order streams meet the primary contact targets for E-coli and are currently rated as follows:

· Whangamoa - Good

· Wakapuaka – Excellent in the upper reaches and Fair in the lower reaches

· Maitai - Excellent

· Roding (upper reaches) - Excellent

4.3 Council has included a number of projects in the Annual Plan and 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) that aim to maintain and enhance water quality in these rivers. This includes initiatives such as the Nelson Plan, Nelson Nature, the Maitai/Mahitahi project (for 2017/2018), Healthy Rivers, inflow and infiltration funding and “Wakapuaka:Bursting into Life”. Council has also included a Level of Service in the LTP stating that 100% of pristine water bodies are maintained at their current state as a minimum. These initiatives support Nelson continuing to meet primary contact targets for E-coli.

4.4 Council officers are also in the process of developing a draft State of the Environment Report that will, amongst other things, report on specific water quality matters. This work builds on regular water quality monitoring data that will help provide ongoing guidance about the swimmability of all of Nelson’s rivers. This work, along with MfE commissioned modelling will help provide a broader picture of the swimmability of Nelson’s rivers and streams. In order to gauge compliance with NPSFM primary contact targets officers will need to measure E-Coli levels for another two years. In the meantime Council will rely on modelling work commissioned by MfE.

Supportive Feedback on Draft Targets

4.5 Council officers have been engaging on freshwater matters with the Iwi Working Group (IWG) and FMU groups on the Nelson Plan freshwater provisions for the last three years. Letters were sent to all members of the IWG and FMU groups to seek feedback on the Draft Water quality primary contact targets. Feedback was received from representatives of Nelson Marlborough Fish and Game, Te Atiawa, and Ngati Koata.

4.6 All feedback is supportive of Council striving to meet E-coli targets in Nelson’s fourth order rivers. There is support for restorative management of the Wakapuaka river and the need to continue working with iwi to ensure ongoing monitoring and improvement across all waterways. It is also noted that E-coli is only one measure of swimmability in our rivers. Measures for sediment, clarity, nitrogen, or phosphorus should also be included.

4.7 Improvements to the Wakapuaka river are proposed as part of the Wakapuaka Bursting into life project. To date this has included initiatives such as Cultural Health Indicator monitoring, riparian planting, fencing and weed management, and intensive source testing of E-coli.

4.8 Council officers continue to work with iwi on monitoring and water quality improvement projects as part of Healthy Rivers and in the development of the Nelson Plan. Draft provisions for sediment, clarity, nitrogen and phosphorus have been discussed with the IWG and FMU groups and are being tested prior to engagement with statutory stakeholders and iwi and later the wider public as part of the development of the Nelson Plan.

Potential Freshwater Policy Changes

4.9 MfE are currently working on amendments to the NPSFM. It is likely that these will be available for public consultation in April 2019. This work may have an impact on freshwater targets. Accordingly officers will work closely with MfE to ensure that appropriate monitoring is undertaken to inform Council’s response to any proposed changes.

5. Options

5.1 At this stage Nelson is 100% compliant with national primary contact standards for E-coli. Feedback from key stakeholders and iwi support a target which continues to achieve compliance in all of Nelson’s fourth order rivers. Work is programmed in the LTP to ensure ongoing compliance with E-coli standards. The impacts of continuing to meet this target will be further tested as part of the Nelson Plan costs benefit analysis (section 32 assessment) as the Plan develops. Additional options will be tested as part of that process. At this stage the option of continuing to meet E-coli standards in 100% of Nelson’s fourth order rivers is considered the most appropriate. This option reinforces Council’s commitment to maintaining and enhancing water quality.

Author: Matt Heale, Manager Environment

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposal meets the Council obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and NPSFM. It is considered that this approach is the most efficient way to achieve the purpose of the Local Government Act.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposal is consistent with Council’s community outcomes and Nelson 2060 goals because the recommendation aids in protecting our natural environment and ensuring our rivers are safe for contact recreation.

Community Outcome - Our Unique Natural environment is healthy and protected.

Council Priority – Environment – “A healthy environment underpins the health of our community and the way people enjoy nelson…”

3. Risk

The proposal is low risk as the targets have been discussed with key stakeholders and iwi partners and projects are in place to ensure ongoing compliance with targets.

4. Financial impact

The costs associated with meeting targets are funded within the Annual Plan and anticipated within the 2018-2028 LTP. The recommendations will not add to these anticipated costs

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because a large portion of the community will be affected by how we manage freshwater but the draft targets are in line with existing levels of service so no significant change is proposed. Further engagement on targets will be undertaken as part of the Nelson Plan development.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement has been undertaken with members of the Iwi Working Group prior to finalising targets. Further engagement on water quality provisions will be undertaken via the Iwi Working Group as part of the Nelson Plan development along with a wider consultation programme with Māori.

· Delegations

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

Areas of Responsibility:

· Resource management

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

Item 12: Engagement on Coastal Hazards

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9679

Engagement on Coastal Hazards

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is twofold:

(a) To update the Committee about the work undertaken by officers in relation to climate change adaptation and coastal hazards; and

(b) To confirm the proposed public engagement approach for coastal hazards.

2. Summary

2.1 The report proposes engagement with the public to gather and share information, assess vulnerability and risk, and identify and evaluate options in order to develop an adaptive management strategy in response to coastal hazards in Whakatū Nelson.

2.2 Public engagement on coastal hazards is required to ensure any Draft Nelson Plan provisions reflect community concerns.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Engagement on Coastal Hazards (R9679) and its attachments (A2081218, A2081234); and

Approves the proposed engagement approach regarding coastal hazards outlined in the report Engagement on Coastal Hazards (R9679).

4. Background

4.1 In May 2018, Council was informed of issues associated with climate change and confirmed actions relating to climate change that Council will undertake, including adaptation to coastal hazards (Climate Change report (R9121)).

4.2 Progress has been made since then on the following confirmed actions, as listed in section 2.2 of the Climate Change report:

(f) Step up engagement with the community on coastal hazard risk commencing in the 2018/19 year

This report suggests an approach for public engagement on coastal hazard issues commencing in 2019.

(g) Complete the technical work on coastal erosion and inundation to assess current and future coastal hazard risk in the 2018/19 year

Draft technical assessments of coastal erosion and inundation have been completed by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd. These draft ‘1st pass’ assessments identify areas across Whakatū Nelson that may potentially be affected by these hazards now and at different points in the future. They also provide recommendations for areas or sites that require more detailed ‘2nd pass assessments’. The draft assessment results were presented to Elected Members at a workshop on 18 September 2018.

(i) De-couple the coastal erosion and inundation work streams from the main Nelson Plan work, but include interim provisions in the draft Nelson Plan so that exposure to risk will be a consideration for activities requiring resource consent in the intervening period. Obtain Council approval (by way of a separate report) to undertake extensive community consultation using the Ministry for the Environment’s pathways guidance approach on coastal hazards and initiate a variation/Plan change on completion of that work

Work on coastal hazard technical assessments and engagement is currently de-coupled from the Nelson Plan work. Interim provisions are currently being developed for the draft Nelson Plan to reduce risk exposure until the coastal hazards work is progressed enough to be able to formulate clear planning responses. The timing of re-coupling of these two work streams will depend on the outcome of public engagement and Nelson Plan timelines.

This report seeks Council approval to undertake extensive public consultation on coastal hazards work using the ‘adaptive pathways’ approach, as recommended by the Ministry for the Environment in its 2017 Coastal Hazards and Climate Change guidance (a summary of the guidance is provided as Attachment 2).

4.3 Three workshops were held with Elected Members on the topic of coastal hazards in September and October 2018 in preparation of this report:

(a) Opportunities and Challenges of Coastal Hazard Management (11 September) – led by consultant Jim Dahm;

(b) Coastal hazard assessments (18 September) – led by officers and Dr Tom Shand, Tonkin and Taylor Ltd;

4.4 Proposed engagement on coastal hazards is linked to other pieces of work that are currently undertaken by Council, including:

(a) Coastal works: several coastal works were undertaken or are proposed following recent storm events to reinstate Council owned roads, including along Martin St, Monaco (first stage completed, second stage proposed) and along Seafield Terrace, Glenduan (proposed revetment, see Seafield Terrace remediation report R9621).

(b) Draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM): Consultation recently closed on the draft NTLDM as well as the Inundation Practice Note, which provides guidance for calculating minimum ground and floor levels for subdivision and new buildings for officers and development industry professionals.

5. Discussion

Climate change and coastal hazards

5.1 Coastal hazards are physical phenomena that expose coastal areas to risk of property damage, loss of life, environmental degradation or threats for other things valued. They include:

(a) Coastal erosion – a natural process causing the shoreline to retreat, either temporarily or permanently. This may occur in long term natural cycles (e.g. migration of the Blind Channel) and is further influenced by sediment supply, climate and ocean conditions; and

(b) Coastal inundation (flooding) – a natural event that happens when extreme weather causes low-lying coastal land to be flooded with water. This may occur when high tides combine with a storm surge, larger than normal waves and/or swell or above average monthly mean sea levels caused by regular climate cycles and unpredictable variability. The extent of flooding depends on timing and the coast’s physical characteristics and topography.

5.2 Coastal communities are also affected by sea level rise. After at least a thousand years of little change, sea level around the world began to rise around the latter half of the 19th century, and continued at a rate of around 1.7mm/year during the 20th century. Since satellite measurements began in 1993, an average sea level rise of 3.3mm/year globally has been detected. The increase is due partly to natural climate variability, and partly to warming of the atmosphere and oceans. Local changes of sea level may differ due to local conditions such as wind, current and land movement (Ministry for the Environment (MfE), 2017. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change).

5.3 One of the primary influences on sea level rise and occurrence of coastal hazards in the future is surface temperature change, which is strongly influenced by global greenhouse gas emissions. Science predicts that sea level will continue to rise in the future, and that there will be increased precipitation, extreme weather events and coastal hazards. However, the exact likelihood and timing of these hazards, and the degree and level of their impact is uncertain due to the various factors involved. This includes the variability of natural processes and responses of ocean and ice environments to ongoing climate change, uncertainty on rate of global emission and socio-economic change (e.g. response to coastal hazard risks).

5.4 Four sea level rise projections have been developed for New Zealand (Figure 1), that are national directions for planning and decision-making, based on different emission scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report:

(a) a low to eventual net-zero emission scenario (NZ RCP2.6 M)

(b) an intermediate-low scenario (NZ RCP4.5 M)

(d) a higher H+ scenario (NZ RCP8.5 H+).

Figure 1: Four New Zealand sea level rise projections to 2150 (Source: MfE, 2017)

5.5 A significant proportion of urban development and infrastructure is situated along Whakatū Nelson’s coastline, and along the Haven, several estuaries, creeks and lowland rivers and on low lying land. Some of these areas are already exposed to coastal hazards (as the February 2018 storm events highlighted) and sea level rise. Records from tide gauges indicate that sea level has risen by an average of 1.78mm/year across all of New Zealand) and 1.52mm/year in Nelson over the last century (MfE, 2017).

5.6 Future risk for Whakatū Nelson will increase due to climate change, continued sea level rise and increased exposure to coastal hazards. The degree of future risk will depend on the community’s response to and ability to cope with the impacts of coastal hazards to our social, cultural and economic values.

Role of local government

5.7 Local authorities are at the front line of responding to climate change and coastal hazards, including by helping the community recognise and adapt to these hazards. This is reflected in various statutory responsibilities, including under the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 and subsequent National Policy Statements, such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) 2010.

5.8 Under the RMA, local authorities are charged with addressing natural hazard risk in carrying out their RMA planning and consenting functions, including by controlling the use of land for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards and their effects (sections 30 and 31).

5.9 The NZCPS 2010 specifies this task with regard to coastal hazards, directing councils, through their respective policy statements and plans, to:

(a) identify coastal hazard areas over at least the next 100 years and assess associated risks (Policy 24)

(b) avoid increasing the risk of social, environmental and economic harm and land-use changes that increase the risks of adverse effects (Policy 25)

(d) develop long-term strategic responses to protect significant existing development (Policy 27).

5.10 Further statutory requirements in response to climate change arise under other legislation. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that Council meets the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure and local public services. The Building Act 2004 requires that buildings comply with the Building Code. In addition, territorial authorities are required to include relevant natural hazard information in Property Information Memoranda (PIMs) and Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) (under the Building Act 2004 and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987). As part of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, Council is required to identify, assess and manage hazard risks, consult and communicate about them and identify and implement cost-effective risk reduction under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

5.11 Nelson City Council (NCC) and other local authorities have acknowledged their leadership role in adaptation as a signatory to the Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration and the Local Government Position Statement on Climate Change. Both documents emphasise the need to understand, prepare for and respond to the physical impacts of climate change together with the community and consider these matters in development and land use decision-making.

5.12 The New Zealand Government has signalled or is currently undertaking a range of work in relation to climate change and coastal hazard adaptation that is relevant to the role of local government. This includes:

(a) the development of a national policy response to the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group Recommendations report released in May 2018, and the introduction of new statutory requirements through the Zero Carbon Bill such as a National Climate Risk Assessment and an Adaptation Programme; and

(b) the release of guidance documents for local government, such as MfE’s 2017 Coastal Hazards and Climate Change guidance and the Department of Conservation’s (DoC) NZCPS 2010 guidance note: Coastal Hazards, in December 2017.

Responding to coastal hazards

5.13 Past responses to coastal hazards traditionally focused on ‘hard’ protection engineering measures such as seawalls and groynes. In several cases, these have led to increased exposure and vulnerability, and there are financial and engineering limits to their feasibility in the longer term. As a result, the NZCPS and updated national direction now emphasise more strategic and dynamic responses that ‘work with nature’ and provide ’soft’ protection such as restoration of natural dune systems as well as the avoidance of use and development in high risk areas.

5.14 In its 2017 Coastal Hazards and Climate Change guidance, MfE recommends councils and communities use the ‘adaptive pathways’ approach for making decisions about situations with changing and uncertain conditions, such as coastal hazards.

5.15 The adaptive pathways approach is a dynamic and flexible approach for long term decision making, based on the premise that policies and decisions will eventually fail to meet objectives and need to be revisited and adjusted or replaced as the operating conditions change. It is centred on ongoing public engagement, with the aim of partnering with the community in each aspect of the decision.

5.16 The ultimate objective of engagement is the development and implementation of an adaptive management strategy together with the community. Such a strategy will outline agreed objectives as well as a range of pathways and decision points (triggers) to guide when an approach or pathway is no longer acceptable and needs to be reviewed and/or readjusted. The strategy will also identify which frameworks and measures will be used to implement it, including through statutory planning provisions (e.g. the Nelson Plan).

5.17 The MfE Coastal Hazards and Climate Change guidance recommends a 10-step decision cycle structured around 5 key questions:

(a) What is happening?

(b) What matters most?

(d) How can we implement the strategy?

(e) How is it working?

Figure 2: The 10-step decision cycle, grouped around 5 questions (Source: MfE 2017)

5.18 The 10 steps are not necessarily followed in consecutive order, but might need to be revisited as new information arises or the environment changes.

5.19 Councils around the country have started to implement the adaptive pathways approach, including in the Hawke’s Bay and Waikato regions. ‘Plan Change 22’ in Mapua and Ruby Bay is seen as current good practice for coastal hazards in the MfE guidance.

5.20 NCC has embarked on the adaptive planning process by assigning resources to this work and commissioning first pass high level assessments of coastal erosion and inundation (Steps 1 and 2 of Figure 2). Draft reports of these assessments, including recommendations for more detailed site-specific assessments, were delivered by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd in July and October 2018.

5.21 The draft assessments need to be shared with the public, to meet Council’s obligations (as outlined above in sections 5.7-5.11) and to implement national policy and national guidance.

6. Options for public engagement

Options overview and assessment

6.1 NCC officers have identified and tested four options for public engagement on coastal hazards:

(a) Option 1: Status quo (do nothing) – release draft coastal hazard assessments on request and include information on PIM/LIM statements, without accompanying communications or ongoing engagement. Minimum input from the public on development of response options and implementation (incl. draft Nelson Plan provisions) (e.g. through statutory consultation processes).

(b) Option 2: Minimum engagement – release draft coastal hazard assessments, e.g. on website, accompanied by communications and presentation of information at one or two public events, and include information on PIM/LIM statements, without ongoing engagement. Minimum input from the public on development of response options and implementation (incl. draft Nelson Plan provisions) (e.g. through statutory consultation processes).

(c) Option 3: Intensive engagement (preferred option – see below for more detailed description) – undertake intensive engagement with affected land owners, iwi and wider community, following the adaptive pathways approach and the 10-step decision cycle. This includes a high level of community input on technical, risk and vulnerability assessments, co-design of objectives, response options and adaptation strategy, and joint ownership of implementation and monitoring.

(d) Option 4: Committee approach – an independent Committee (councillors, iwi, and community representatives) is established to lead discussion and recommend options about coastal and/or all natural hazards, supported by a Technical Advisory Group and council officers (following the Hawke’s Bay model).

Option 1: Status Quo (Do nothing)
Advantages	· No additional resources required
Risks and Disadvantages	· Release of assessments on request and on LIM/PIM statement without verification through the public and proactive NCC-led communications leaves community to interpret information by itself – high risk of misinterpretation and opposition (e.g. Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC)) · Lack of strategic response to coastal hazards means potential to create precedence cases through responding on a case-by-case basis and likely opposition to planning provisions, both of which might lead to litigation and could become very costly · Potential negative reputation for NCC and loss of trust · Does not follow national policy (in part. NZCPS) and best practice guidance · Does not align with approach taken by TDC
Option 2: Minimum engagement
Advantages	· Minimal additional costs and resources needed
Risks and Disadvantages	· Release of information and on LIM/PIM statements without verification through the public and only minimal NCC-led communications leaves community to interpret information by itself – high risk of misinterpretation and opposition (e.g. KCDC) · Lack of strategic response to coastal hazards means potential to create precedence cases through responding on a case-by-case basis and likely opposition to planning provisions, both of which might lead to litigation and could become very costly · Potential negative reputation for NCC and loss of trust · Does not follow national policy (in part. NZCPS) and best practice guidance · Does not align with approach taken by TDC
Option 3: Intensive engagement led by officers (preferred option)
Advantages	· Implements national policy (in part. NZCPS) and follows current guidance and best practice by implementing the adaptive pathways approach · Empowers community to be actively involved in decision making about coastal hazards throughout the whole process, including deciding on responses · Provides a strategic approach to respond to coastal hazards across different Council work streams · Increases community buy in and acceptance which is crucial for implementation (including through LIM/PIM statements and any Nelson Plan provisions) · Opportunity to lead a conversation with the whole of community about resilience, and to develop innovative approaches for engagement · Builds trust and improves the relationship between Council and community · Aligns with approach taken by TDC
Risks and Disadvantages	· Resource intensive for planning team, which can be managed with consultant support within existing budgets · Costs for preparing and running engagement and likely follow-up site specific technical assessments (included in proposed budget) · Time intensive (depending on community buy in, potentially a 2-3 year process)
Option 4: Committee approach
Advantages	· Community led approach – high level of buy-in and acceptance · May develop into best practice · Supra-regional approach by forming a Committee across NCC/TDC/MDC’s administrative boundaries (as done in Hawke’s Bay).
Risks and Disadvantages	· Highly resource intensive (other councils pay $300k/year plus officers to set up and support) · Long time frame (3-5 years process) · Outcomes unclear · Still in ‘trial’ phase (Hawke’s Bay Regional and District Councils)

Table 1: Options for public engagement on coastal hazards

Preferred Option 3

6.2 Council officers recommend the implementation of Option 3: Intensive engagement with the public, as this is the option that is most likely to achieve desired outcomes in response to coastal hazards, with least risks and resource requirements that can be met from existing budgets. No other option is considered to be able to achieve the desired outcomes under existing budget without significantly increasing risks of community opposition, misalignment with national guidance and reputational damage for NCC (see Table 1).

6.3 Public engagement on coastal hazards under Option 3 would take place in several stages, giving effect to the 10-step decision cycle (see Figure 2). These stages might not be followed in consecutive order and/or need to be adjusted or revisited depending on local circumstances, the emergence of new information, level of community buy in and discussion outcomes and need to adjust. The stages include:

(a) Preparation – Introduce the topic of coastal hazards and raise awareness about the upcoming engagement process.

(b) Stage 1 – Raise awareness and provide general information about coastal processes and hazard management. Hear from the community about what they know about coastal change, and create a platform for further engagement.

(c) Stage 2 – Report back with more holistic picture of ‘what is happening’, incl. results from draft reports and public input. Understand vulnerability and risk, and establish values and objectives. Agree on process for further decision-making.

(d) Stage 3 – Discuss response options and jointly develop a draft adaptive management strategy. Verify this with the wider community.

(e) Stage 4 – Implement adaptive management strategy, and undertake ongoing monitoring and adjust when needed.

6.4 Engagement aims to target the whole of the Nelson community as well as, to a lesser extent, also non-local stakeholders. Elected members and officers have identified the following subgroups to target engagement action:

(a) The general public

(b) Affected residents (e.g. in Monaco, Tahunanui, Glenduan)

(c) Other majorly affected landowners (e.g. Port, Airport, DoC, New Zealand Transport Agency, Cawthron Institute, Tahunanui campground, Golf Course)

(d) Iwi

(e) Youth Council and schools

(f) Neighbouring councils (Marlborough and Tasman District Councils)

(g) Local organisations and interest groups (e.g. schools, Grey Power, Generation Zero, Tasman Bay Guardians, Forest and Bird etc.)

(h) Non-local organisations (e.g. central government agencies, research institutes)

6.5 Engagement methods will be applied specifically to each of these subgroups. In summary, it is proposed that they include:

(a) NCC’s existing communication channels (e.g. OurNelson, Facebook, twitter, media release, letters and emails)

(b) A coastal hazards portal on the NCC website, incl. an interactive map and questionnaire

(d) Targeted workshops with residents in areas most likely to be affected in Monaco, Tahunanui, Glenduan

(e) Meetings with other major landowners likely to be affected (e.g. Port, Airport)

(f) Hui with the Iwi Working Group, and further targeted engagement with iwi as considered appropriate

(g) Informational portals at key locations (e.g. Customer Service Centre, Library, iSite…), incl. printed material and computer

(h) Presence at major public events (e.g. stand at Saturday market) and presentations at established fora (e.g. Biodiversity Forum)

(i) Link into schools (e.g. through the Envirolink programme)

6.6 Engagement will be prepared and led by officers with support of consultants where required. Feedback from the three workshops with Elected Members has been included in this approach, and it is crucial that Elected Members are involved in this process, in particular during public events and meetings. Elected Members will be invited to the public meetings and informed on a regular basis about progress and outcomes of engagement via the newsletter and/or reports.

6.7 Preparation of engagement could commence as soon as Council approval is obtained, with Stage 1 engagement starting in February 2019. A Draft Coastal Hazard Engagement roadmap, including an indicative timeline, is provided as Attachment 1. The timeline will be adaptable to consider local circumstances, the emergence of new information, level of community buy in and discussion outcomes.

6.8 NCC officers are working with Tasman District Council officers to ensure alignment of the two Councils’ approaches to coastal hazards, including with regard to technical assessment methodologies and engagement planning.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The Nelson community is already affected by coastal hazards such as coastal erosion and coastal inundation (flooding). Climate change and sea level rise are expected to increase the occurrence and impacts of coastal hazards further, increasing the risk for the Nelson community.

7.2 Nelson City Council has a key role to play in facilitating the adaptation of the community to existing and future coastal hazards.

7.3 Council confirmed actions relating to coastal hazards in May (Climate Change report (R9121)), including progressing technical assessments of coastal erosion and inundation hazards, and developing an approach to engage with the public on coastal hazards based on the ‘adaptive pathways’ approach recommended by national guidance.

7.4 Council officers seek approval for an intensive public engagement programme on coastal hazards. This would commence in early 2019 with the aim to gather and share information and build a platform for ongoing engagement on coastal hazards. The ultimate objective of engagement is the development and implementation of an adaptive management strategy together with the public by 2020. The strategy will state objectives, pathways and decision points and identify which frameworks and measures will be used to implement it, including through statutory planning provisions such as in the Nelson Plan.

Author: Lisa Marquardt, Planning Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2081218 - Draft Coastal Hazard Engagement roadmap ⇩

Attachment 2: A2081234 - Ministry for the Environment 2017 Preparing for Coastal Change - A summary of coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Adaptation actions by councils are closely linked to the purpose of local government to provide good quality infrastructure. Information about future impact of climate change and coastal hazards as well as community preferences for adaptation action will need to be included in any decision making about future infrastructure development or retreat.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed approach to climate change adaptation is actively supported by all policies, in particular:

· the Long Term Plan identifies responding to climate change and growing community’s resilience to the more extreme weather events as a top priority (as Part of 2. Environment).

· Community Outcomes include healthy, safe and resilient communities that work in partnership to understand, prepare for and respond to the impacts of natural hazards; efficient and resilient infrastructure; and a Council that provides community engagement, in particular with regard to major decisions.

Nelson 2060 identifies rising sea levels and a warmer, more unstable climate in Nelson as one of the key challenges; recognises the uncertainty around, and risk from, natural hazards and emphasises working as a community to better understand and minimise the impacts these might have on the things we value.

3. Risk

Implementing the preferred option (option 3) is likely to achieve the goal of adapting to climate change and coastal hazards together with the community using the dynamic adaptive planning approach. It is also the option with the overall least degree of risk, including financial, political, reputational and legal (risks associated with each option are described in section 6).

4. Financial impact

The proposed action can be met through existing budgets.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because decisions related to the adaptation to climate change and coastal hazards are likely to significantly impact on all strategic assets listed in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, on levels of service provided by Council and, depending on the outcomes of engagement, Council’s debt and rate charges. In addition, decisions will impact the whole community and future generations and might not be reversible.

Therefore intensive engagement (option 3) is suggested on this issue as outlined in the report.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. However, officers will be engaging with iwi on coastal hazards via the Iwi Working Group under the preferred option (option 3).

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider adaptation to climate change and coastal hazards

Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental Matters, including monitoring

· Resource Management

· Coastal Management

· Regional Policy Statement

· District and Regional Plans

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

Powers to Decide:

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

Powers to Recommend:

· Development or review of policies and strategies relating to the areas of responsibility

Item 13: Biosecurity Annual Review

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9814

Biosecurity Annual Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To note the content of the Review of the 2017-18 Biosecurity Operational Plan and to approve the 2018-19 Biosecurity Operational Plan. This report has been prepared for Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council as the Regional Pest Management Strategy is a joint strategy.

2. Summary

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

2.2 This report outlines progress against the existing Tasman Nelson Pest Management Strategy, pending the adoption of the new Regional Pest Management Plan currently in development.

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

2.4 Both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. This continues to be an effective forum through which to prepare for and respond to marine pest incursions.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review (R9814) and its attachments (A2081605, A2081603, and A2081604).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2018-19 (A2081604), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

4. Background

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

4.2 Both councils are in the process of jointly reviewing their Regional Pest Management Strategy to become a Regional Pest Management Plan under the revised provisions of the Biosecurity Act (2012) and its associated National Policy Direction (2015). This review will address all aspects of the current Strategy and therefore this report and its associated documents are primarily concerned with the continuation of closing out the existing Strategy in the expectation that at the end of this financial year (2018-2019) the current Strategy will be superseded by the new Regional Pest Management Plan and associated operational documents.

4.3 The review of the 2017-18 Operational Plan (Attachment 1) summarises and reviews the activities undertaken by Tasman District Council in its role as the pest management agency for Nelson City Council and comments on relevant biosecurity issues.

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

4.5 The 2018-19 Operational Plan (Attachment 3) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken in implementing the Strategy within the approved total budget of $540,000. Nelson City Council contributes $141,000 to this.

4.6 A breakdown of the budget is provided against programmes of work targeting each of the pest categories in the Strategy, i.e. Total Control, Progressive Control, Containment, Boundary Control, General and Regional Surveillance, and other biosecurity work undertaken, e.g. National Pest Plant Accord, biological control and provision of education and advice.

4.7 The Operational Plan will be presented to Tasman District Council on 29 November 2018.

5. Discussion

5.1 A summary of work undertaken in Nelson is provided in Attachment 2 and key points outlined below.

Total Control pests

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

5.3 Inspections and control were carried out at known sites of African Feather Grass, Madeira Vine, Cathedral Bells, Climbing Spindleberry, Saffron Thistle, and Bathurst Bur; with most sites showing reduced numbers of plants. A new area of Madeira Vine was discovered on Tahunanui Drive.

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

Progressive Control pests

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

5.6 Inspections were carried out at known sites of Boneseed, Variegated Thistle, Nasella Tussock, and White-edged Nightshade, revealing a reduction in these plants. Disturbance/development at select sites created a significant increase in Variegated Thistle or White-Edged Nightshade and control was undertaken by property managers and consent holders.

5.7 There is a significant contribution from community groups dealing with aggressive vines such as Banana Passion Vine and Old Man's Beard, particularly in Golden Bay but also throughout both Council areas. The 2017 – 2018 survey of community group activity recorded around 40,000 hours of effort by over 1000 individuals and this is an underestimate as not all groups responded to the survey.

Containment pests

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

5.9 The continuing spread of Argentine and Darwin's ants, despite a significant commitment of resources, highlights the challenges of dealing with highly-organised social insects and the limitations of existing tools. Monitoring of Argentine Ant populations show the various infestations within the Nelson and Richmond urban areas are joining up and over the next few years are likely to form a super-colony.

Boundary Control pests

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

5.11 Staff have dealt effectively and efficiently with requests for intervention largely resolving the matters through negotiation.

5.12 Advice has been given regarding setback control provisions for gorse.

Advice and Education

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

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

5.14.1 Moth plant control at Birchwood School.

5.14.2 Loan of possum and stoat traps.

5.14.3 Feral goats in Dodson Valley/Walters Bluff area – liaised with parties involved in this issue.

5.14.4 Control of ants, wasps, rats, cats, rabbits, magpies, rats, gorse and Old Man’s Beard.

5.14.5 Plant or plant disease identification.

5.15 Support was provided to the Council’s Taiwan Cherry control programme.

5.16 Broom sites created by road reconstructions were identified and reported to Council engineering staff.

5.17 Surveillance was undertaken around Bomaria site in Brook Valley and identified sites of Climbing Asparagus and Cretan brake.

5.18 A presentation on biological control was provided for Moturoa Mission, an environmental educational activity was provided at Rough Island with 160 pupils attending from Enviroschools throughout the Nelson and Tasman Regions.

Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

5.19 Tasman and Nelson Councils participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership (the Partnership) along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. The funding contribution from the three councils and the Ministry for Primary Industries has been used to fund a contractor group to undertake liaison, research, education, monitoring, contingency planning and technical advice. Work undertaken includes review of marine biosecurity threats, maintaining networks with marine organisations, stakeholder groups and businesses, surveys of the fouling status of vessel hulls both in the water and at service yards and questionnaire surveys of vessel operators to establish vessel travel movements and operator understanding regarding marine biosecurity. There is regular consultation with marine industry groups and ongoing work assisting with preparation of industry marine biosecurity plans associated with their operation.

5.20 An extensive vessel survey was undertaken during the summer of 2017/18. It included 544 Vessels and 546 coastal structures (mainly swing moorings and jetties) with seventeen days on the water with Top of the South Harbourmasters visiting vessels, inspecting their hulls and seeking travel and maintenance information from their operators. The survey of vessel hulls and the antifouling status of vessels has highlighted issues with the maintenance of some Nelson vessels and a need for increased understanding. The Council is working with the Partnership on education initiatives to address this.

5.21 During 2017-2018 the Partnership jointly purchased a quarantine “Fab-Dock” for sterilisation of vessels infested with marine pests of up to 20 metres long. The dock has a dedicated trailer which includes its own lifting hoist, generator plant, gear locker and all materials necessary for deployment. The unit is available for rapid response to vessels infested with marine pests across the Top of the South area (and further afield on request).

Operational Plan 2018-2019

5.22 The 2018-2019 Operational Plan outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken for the implementation of the Regional Pest Management Strategy within the approved budget of $540,000, with a contribution from Nelson City Council of $141,000.

Next Steps/Strategy Review Timeline

5.23 The review of the 2012-2017 Regional Pest Management Strategy commenced during mid-2016. The 2012 amendments to the 1993 Biosecurity Act involve the replacement of the Regional Pest Management Strategy with a Regional Pest Management Plan and incorporate some significant changes. The issue of National Policy Direction for Pest Management in 2015 limited the range of pest management programs able to be declared. It also introduced strict criteria regarding the assessment and distribution of costs and benefits.

5.24 The Regional Pest Management Plan Proposal 2017-2027 was publically notified for submissions in November 2017 with over 80 submissions received, many with multiple parts. Further submissions in support or opposition were called for in early 2018. The Joint Regional Pest Management Committee considered these submissions during mid-2018 and reached draft decisions to recommend back to the Councils.

5.25 As one of these draft decisions introduced an additional Site Led Programme covering private land between Abel Tasman National Park and the sea, the Joint Committee approved targeted consultation during October 2018 with affected landowners. All private landowners were written too and invited to submit on this additional Site Led Programme. Note: submissions were limited to affected landowners and this specific variation as the rest of the document had already been subject to full public notification.

5.26 A meeting of the Joint Regional Pest Management Committee is planned for 3 December 2018 to consider submissions received on the Abel Tasman Site Led Programme and to confirm or modify that proposal. It is proposed that meeting will also review the redrafted Regional Pest Management Plan which will include all of the Joint Committee recommendations.

5.27 The Joint Committee will also need to review the revised Cost Benefit Analysis report, the decisions report and the Plan Process reports which document compliance of the document and process with the Biosecurity Act requirements governing the making of a Regional Pest Management Plan.

5.28 If the Joint Committee is satisfied with the documentation at its 3 December 2018 meeting it will then be able to recommend it to both councils for approval. Provided any additional changes required are minimal it is anticipated that both councils will consider the Joint Committee’s recommendations in February/March 2019.

5.29 Decisions on submissions would be released following Council’s approval and subject to any appeals it is hoped that the new Plan would come into force on 1 July 2019. Note: If appeals are received, those parts of the Plan under appeal may be delayed but it would still possible to proceed with parts of the Plan not subject to appeal.

5.30 During the period March to June 2019 a fully revised operational plan would be prepared to give effect to the new Plan over the following financial year.

6. Options

6.1 The review of the 2017-18 Operational Plan details work completed in the last financial year. There are no options other than to receive the review.

6.2 The 2018-19 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been budgeted. The options are to accept or amend this Operational Plan.

Option 1: Approve 2018-19 Operational Plan (Preferred option)
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Strategy. · Work is budgeted for.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minimal as meets requirement of the Strategy and within budget.
Option 2: Amend 2018-19 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for changes if deemed inconsistent with the Regional Pest Management Strategy.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates delays/reprioritisation of work. · Potential additional costs.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report provides an opportunity for reporting to Council on the implementation of its Regional Pest Management Strategy and associated biosecurity matters.

7.2 The 2017-18 annual Biosecurity Report outlines how Council has implemented the Strategy on biosecurity matters and associated obligations. The Report confirms the actions are appropriate and meet all requirements.

7.3 The 2018-19 Operational Plan provides for a consistent and efficient approach across to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. The Plan ensures the Council meets statutory obligations and activities are within budget.

Author: Richard Frizzell, Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2081605 Review of Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2017-18 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2081603 Review of Biosecurity Operational Plan 2017-18 - Nelson City Council region ⇩

Attachment 3: A2081604 Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2018-19 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2018/19 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy. Any changes would risk delaying ongoing implementation of the Strategy.

4. Financial impact

The 2018/19 Operational Plan has a total budgeted allocation of $540,000 of which Nelson City Council contributes $141,000. This funding has been approved in the Annual Plan 2018/19.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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 review of Operational Plans for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Biosecurity

Powers to Decide:

· To perform all functions, powers and duties relating to the areas of responsibility conferred on Council by relevant legislation, falling within the areas of responsibility

Powers to Recommend:

· Development or review of policies or strategies relating to the areas of responsibility

· Any other matters within the areas of responsibility

Option 1: Refer matter to Council
Advantages	· This urban development capacity assessment is of high interest to central government, development stakeholders, housing providers and the public. It is therefore considered appropriate that full Council has knowledge of the capacity assessment, its conclusions and recommendations in order that decision making can be well informed. · This capacity assessment will be received by both Council’s on the same day ensuing both Councils are equally informed. · Reporting to the 13 December Council meeting will enable the capacity assessment to incorporate the effects of the decision on the Waimea Dam on urban development capacity.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The implementation of the NPSUDC has been delegated to the Committee – more governance time will be required by full Council to consider the assessment.
Option 2: Do not refer matter to Council
Advantages	· Potentially less governance time will be required by full Council as they will only consider a recommendation by the Committee.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The next Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting is 22 February which is after the MHUD reporting deadline of December 2018.