Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

Item 5: Deliberations on Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges

Planning and Regulatory Committee

22 November 2018

REPORT R9800

Deliberations on Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider submissions to the Environmental Monitoring Charges Statement of Proposal, agree to amendments and recommend to the Council the adoption of the final charges.

2. Summary

2.1 The report covers the issues raised in the submissions received on the Statement of Proposal for Draft Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges under the Resource Management Act 1991. The issues raised are:

· Exclusion of septic tanks

· Charging for permitted activities

· Existing monitoring charges

· Charges for short-term water takes, e.g. for construction dewatering

· Stormwater discharges

· Rationale for the charges

2.2 Officer’s comments and recommendations are provided on the issues raised in the submissions.

2.3 The Committee has the option to recommend the proposed charges to Council or not.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

Receives the report Deliberations on Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges (R9800) and its attachments (A1979547, A2080680, A2079588, and A2080700); and

Endorses the Schedule of Annual Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges for final Council approval (A2080700).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the Schedule of Annual Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges (A2080700).

4. Background

4.1 New charges are proposed to recover some of the costs of the Council’s environmental monitoring and science programme from resource consent holders. The charges are provided for by Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991, which requires that a Special Consultative Procedure be undertaken prior to introduction of the proposed charges.

4.2 Council approved the Statement of Proposal for the Draft Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges (see Attachment 1 – A1979547) at its meeting on the 9 August 2018.

5. Discussion

Public Consultation process

5.1 Public consultation on the proposed charges ran from 13 August – 14 September 2018. The Statement of Proposal was advertised in the Nelson Mail on 12 August 2018, in Our Nelson dated 22 August 2018, and on the Council’s website. Letters were sent on 14 August 2018 to 246 identified consent holders advising them of the proposed charges.

5.2 A total of five submissions were received, all from current consent holders. A copy of all submissions has been attached (Attachment 2 - A2080680).

5.3 Hearings were not required as none of the submitters wanted to be heard.

5.4 At this meeting, the Committee will deliberate on the feedback ensuring that reasons for any decisions are made clear so that this can be conveyed to submitters as per the Local Government Act 2002, Section 82(1)(f): ‘that persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions….’

5.5 A summary of issues raised by each submitter and officers’ comments on them is attached (Attachment 3 – A2079588).

5.6 These are grouped into topics below with officers’ comments and recommendations.

Summary of Submissions

Septic tanks

5.7 Submitter 19526 Dave Malone seeks to exclude septic tanks from charges for discharges to land or water less than 20m³/day.

5.8 The submitter holds an existing discharge permit to discharge waste water to land from a primary treated system (septic tank) (RM145023). The consent holder is charged a monitoring fee for monitoring compliance with the conditions of consent.

5.9 It is standard practice to require ongoing maintenance and monitoring of these systems as it is a requirement of the AS/NZ 1547: 2000 standards (see s6.3.2). A condition on this discharge permit requires the system to be serviced every two years (this is typical of most discharge permits) to help achieve sustainable and long-term performance from the system and so that it continues to comply with public health and environmental requirements.

5.10 The submitter asks that the Council focus on existing / older septic tanks and discharge treatment systems which may be a source of contamination. Rule FWr.29.1 of the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) permits discharges to existing on-site effluent disposal fields that were lawfully established prior to the freshwater plan change being operative, subject to the on-site wastewater system being maintained in an efficient operating condition at all times in accordance with manufacturer specifications and providing the discharge does not adversely affect coastal water, freshwater, or ground water. Extensive permitted monitoring would need to be undertaken to confirm these standards are being met.

5.11 New disposal systems (up to 2000 litres per day) can be permitted (and not require resource consent or monitoring) providing the allotment sizes are at least 15ha in area and certain set-backs to boundaries, water takes and water sources are achieved.

5.12 Officer’s support excluding septic tanks from the charges as suggested. It is accepted that for low level discharges (<20m³/day) charges should not apply to consent holders with septic tanks that are fit for purpose for domestic waste, providing they are installed by an accredited drainlayer and 6 monthly checks are carried out as per consent conditions. This exemption was included and supported in Report 9311 when the Committee considered the Statement of Proposal at its meeting on 5 July 2018, but was inadvertently left off the schedule in the Statement of Proposal.

5.13 Recommendation: Amend Schedule for Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges to exclude septic tanks for discharges to land or water <20m³/day.

Permitted activities

5.14 Submitters 19265 Amy Shattock and 19266 Lindy Kelly seek clarification on whether the proposed charges apply to permitted activities, given that rule FWr.12 of the NRMP provides for water takes less than 5 litres per second as a permitted activity yet a charge is proposed for this level of take.

5.15 Officers confirm the charges will not apply to permitted activities as it is through the resource consent process that the charges will be triggered. There are conditions associated with the permitted water take limits in rule FWr.12 which require a consent if they are not met. The proposed charge will apply to consents required in this situation.

5.16 Recommendation: No change to schedule of charges for surface water takes less than 5 litres per second or groundwater takes less than 100,000 cubic metres a year.

Existing monitoring charges

5.17 Submitter 19265 Amy Shattock seeks justification for additional monitoring charges when the Council already charges a monitoring fee for consents.

5.18 In response, existing monitoring costs are applied to resource consents for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the conditions of consent. They do not involve monitoring the performance of those consents on the overall environment, or to provide critical information required to determine the state or capacity of the environment.

5.19 This submitter holds a discharge permit for a discharge to land from an Advanced Environmental Septic system. It is not clear what is meant by ‘septic tank systems are no longer accepted under standards for new development’ as staff are not aware of this. The submitters waste water design engineer will have helped choose the design and type of system that was most appropriate based on the site, topography, soil type and number of bedrooms (occupancy) and toilets (volume of discharge). Section C5.4.1 of the AS/NZ 1547: 2012 standards outlines the requirements for septic tanks. They can be an accepted as an appropriate treatment system.

5.20 In relation to the ongoing monitoring conditions of their discharge permit, this is a standard requirement.

5.21 Officers do not agree that adding a monitoring charge to discharge permits will result in an increased loading demand to the reticulated system, because people typically apply for discharge permits because they are unable to connect to the reticulated system (as it isn’t available in rural areas). Section 6.2.1 of the Land Development Manual 2010 requires wastewater disposal to be provided to every allotment by means of a connection to a reticulated wastewater system where possible. Alternative on-site wastewater systems are acceptable if they comply with the AS/NZS in the rural zone (as the reticulated services aren’t available in the rural zone).

5.22 Recommendation: No change to the proposed environmental monitoring charges.

Charges for short-term water takes, eg for construction dewatering

5.23 Submitter 19280 Mark Laurenson from Burton Planning Consultants on behalf of oil companies (Z Energy Ltd, BP Oil Ltd, and Mobil Oil NZ Ltd) opposes ongoing annual charges for water takes that relate to temporary construction dewatering.

5.24 Any application to take surface water or groundwater (i.e. for de-watering) will have an expiry that reflects the duration of the activity. So for any ongoing take the maximum permitted duration would be 35 years, and the environmental monitoring charges would be applied for the life of that consent. Comparatively a temporary take will be limited in duration. Once a consent expires the monitoring charges would cease. The charges should be commensurate to the duration of the activity and not necessarily the life of the consent.

5.25 The submitter explains that longer duration consents are sought despite the activity happening only once and for a limited number of days. They also apply for consent well in advance. This approach should not be discouraged. As a consequence of the charges applicants would benefit from being more specific in the duration of the consent required. It would be fair to apply the charges once the consent is given effect to (and not from the date of decision) until it expires for the temporary dewatering activities the submitter refers to. A temporary dewatering consent could state, ‘once given effect to the consent shall expire within x weeks’ and the monitoring could be captured for that period of time.

5.26 Typically consents for temporary construction dewatering require notification to Council of commencement and provision of monitoring data relating to volumes of water taken.

5.27 A consent that is no longer required can also be withdrawn (and then the monitoring charges would cease). This applies to any associated discharge of the groundwater to land.

5.28 In relation to dewatering, the NRMP is currently quite permissive of the volume of water that can be abstracted for construction/dewatering purposes. Rule FWr.14 allows groundwater to be taken for dewatering a site down to 8m below ground level of the site providing the take does not create a significant risk of subsidence. Consequently very few resource consent applications are received for de-watering. The submitter explains that a typical depth of between 4.5m – 5.5m is required.

5.29 Recommendation: For consents involving temporary or short term activities the charges should be applied once the consent is given effect to rather than for the duration of the consent. Amend Schedule of charges to include an explanatory note to this effect.

Stormwater discharges

5.30 Submitter 19280 Mark Laurenson from Burton Planning Consultants on behalf of oil companies (Z Energy Ltd, BP Oil Ltd, and Mobil Oil NZ Ltd) seeks clarification of whether the proposed charges relate to stormwater discharges to the reticulated network.

5.31 Officers comment that stormwater discharges to the reticulated network can be undertaken as of right, without needing resource consent approval and as such the proposed charges would not apply.

5.32 Recommendation: No change to the proposed charges.

Rationale for the charges

5.33 Submitter 19285 Barbara Stuart generally opposes the introduction of new charges, stating they should only apply if there is monitoring.

5.34 Officers reiterate the rationale and justification for the charges that have previously been considered by the Council and stated in the Statement of Proposal. They are to be applied to resource consents that benefit from the Council’s environmental monitoring and science programme which includes:

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

· Static water level monitoring for groundwater quantity.

· Air quality monitoring.

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

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

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

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

· Riverbed level (gravel) monitoring.

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

5.35 Recommendation: No change to the proposed charges.

5.36 An amended Schedule of Annual Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges incorporating the above recommendations with changes tracked is attached for the Committee’s consideration (Attachment 4 – A20807700).

6. Options

6.1 The Committee can decide to recommend the endorsement of the draft Charges, or reject the draft Charges. Option one is the preferred option.

Option 1: Adopt the amended draft Charges (Preferred option)
Advantages	· Costs partially recovered to balance public and private benefit of Council’s environmental monitoring programme. · Addresses some of the concerns raised by submitters. · Adopts best practice in line with other councils.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional ongoing administrative costs to implement, but significantly less than the revenue produced. · Potential opposition from affected consent holders, however opportunity has been made for them to submit.
Option 2: Reject the draft Charges
Advantages	· Higher level of consent holder satisfaction.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Ongoing and potentially increasing costs of environmental monitoring and science is borne completely by the public through rates. · Many aspects of the proposed charges that were not challenged/opposed by submissions.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Submissions were sought on the Statement of Proposal – Draft Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges between 13 August and 14 September 2018. At this meeting, the Committee will deliberate on the changes proposed to the Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges. The Schedule of Charges will be updated in accordance with the Committee’s resolutions before going to a Council meeting on 13 December 2018.

Author: Richard Frizzell, Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

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

Attachment 2: A2080680 - Statement of proposal - Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges - Submissions ⇩

Attachment 3: A2079588 - Proposed responses to feedback on Statement of Proposal - Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges ⇩

Attachment 4: A2080700 - Recommended Schedule of Annual Environmental Monitoring and Science Charges ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The proposed new charges enable the Council to carry out its regulatory functions by introducing a contribution from consent holders for the private benefit from its environmental monitoring programme and reducing the contribution from ratepayers.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Council’s Long Term Plan includes levels of service for State of the Environment monitoring. This report aligns with Council delivery on the following Community Outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

3. Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the level of support from the community of the proposed charges. Council is able to consider any risks highlighted in that consultation, and in making a decision on submissions.

4. Financial impact

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

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decisions or matters in this report are considered to be of low significance to the majority of residents and ratepayers.

However, a decision to introduce fees would have a medium degree of significance to consent holders.

Consultation on the proposed charges has been undertaken through the Special Consultative Procedure as required by Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori have not specifically been consulted on this report. Māori business owners with consents would have received a letter as part of the consultation process.

· Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider the proposed charges for environmental monitoring (paragraph 6.3 Delegations Register):

Areas of responsibility:

· Environmental Matters, including monitoring.

· Resource Management.

Powers to decide:

· To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility.

Powers to recommend:

· Final decisions on Special Consultative Procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility.

The power to approve fees and charges remain with the full Council. Therefore this report contains recommendations to Council.