Agenda of Planning and Regulatory Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

Page No.

1. Apologies

1.1 An apology has been received from Councillor Walker

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 4 April 2019 10 - 14

Document number M4131

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Regulatory Committee, held on 4 April 2019, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report 15 - 16

Document number R10212

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R10212).

7. Waimea Inlet Action Plan 17 - 54

Document number R9513

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Waimea Inlet Action Plan (R9513) and its attachments (A2099296 and A2178524).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves Nelson City Council as lead or support agency to the specific targets identified in Report R9513 (highlighted in green in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

2. Approves that Nelson City Council supports, in principle, specific targets identified in Report R9513, subject to future funding decisions (highlighted in yellow in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

3. Adopts the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 (A2099296).

8. Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27 55 - 633

Document number R9875

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27 (R9875) and its attachments (A2184910), (A2184905), (A2184907), (A2185147), (A2184908), (A2184906), and (A2184904); and

2. Receives the recommendation from the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual hearing panel (A2184910); and

3. Approves the public notification of proposed Plan Change 27 (A2184907) and Section 32 (A2185147) under the Resource Management Act 1991 on 1 July 2019; and

4. Delegates to Councillors ………………, ……………. and ……………… to hear submissions on Proposed Plan Change 27 and make recommendations to the Planning and Regulatory Committee.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 (A2184905) under the Local Government Act 2002, noting that it will take effect on 1 July 2019; and

2. Adopts the practice notes on Coastal and Freshwater Inundation (A2184904), Bioretention (A2184908) and Wetlands (A2184906) as guidance documents; and

3. Delegates the Chairperson of the Planning and Regulatory Committee and the Group Manager Environment authority to approve minor technical wording amendments, or correction of errors to the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 and proposed Plan Change documents to improve readability and/or consistency prior to 1 July 2019.

9. Review of Building Unit fees and charges 634 - 654

Document number R10231

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Review of Building Unit fees and charges (R10231) and its attachments (A2145308, A2183274, and A2183512).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 1 (A2145308) of Report R10231 to be effective from 1 July 2019.

10. Navigation Safety Bylaw review 655 - 739

Document number R10159

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Navigation Safety Bylaw review (R10159) and its attachments (R10026 and A2178235).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Notes the review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218); and

2. Determines amendments to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) are the most appropriate way of addressing the navigation safety problems identified by the review; and

3. Determines the proposed amendments to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) are the most appropriate form of bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

4. Determines a summary of the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) is not required; and

5. Adopts the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No.218) (A2178235); and

6. Approves the commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2178235), with the consultation period to run from 21 June to 24 July 2019; and

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of Report R10026) and agrees:

(a) the approach includes sufficient steps to ensure the Statement of Proposal will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

(b) the approach will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

11. Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 January-31 March 2019 740 - 833

Document number R10019

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 January-31 March 2019 (R10019) and its attachments (A2151814, A2181696, A2181967, A2181946, A2184278, A2182016, and A2159046); and

2. Approves the City Centre Programme six key moves (A2184278), and

3. Approves the Nelson Plan Vision (A2182016); and

4. Amends the October 2018 Planning and Regulatory Committee Resolution PR/2018/057 as follows:

~~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 the release of the Draft Nelson Plan to statutory and key stakeholders ~~and iwi~~ to August 2019 following ~~further internal testing, legal review, and Working Group~~ Planning and Regulatory Committee workshops, and Iwi Working Group review.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (A2159046)

Note:

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

· Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

· Youth Councillors Adam Burton and Hamish Smith will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Item 7: Waimea Inlet Action Plan

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

REPORT R9513

Waimea Inlet Action Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the recommendations of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group, adopt the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 and agree to lead or support implementation of specific targets from the Action Plan.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Waimea Inlet Action Plan (R9513) and its attachments (A2099296 and A2178524).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves Nelson City Council as lead or support agency to the specific targets identified in Report R9513 (highlighted in green in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

2. Approves that Nelson City Council supports, in principle, specific targets identified in Report R9513, subject to future funding decisions (highlighted in yellow in Attachment 2 A2178524); and

3. Adopts the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 (A2099296).

3. Background

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

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

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

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

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

3.6 The Group has requested that each of the four signatories to the WIMS identify specific actions in the Action Plan their organisation can assist with or take a lead on, so that work can begin on its implementation. They proposed that signatories commit to specific actions for their organisation rather than adopt the Plan in its entirety.

3.7 Councillor Dahlberg and Council officers have worked with the other members of the Group to develop the draft Action Plan. Both the draft Action Plan and WIMS are non-statutory documents, aimed at maintaining and improving the health of the Inlet.

3.8 Te Tau Ihu iwi have an open invitation to become signatories to the WIMS, to appoint representatives to the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group and to participate in the development, implementation, review and monitoring of the draft Action Plan. They have been informed of progress throughout the Plan’s development. Representatives from three iwi have attended hui held since mid-2018.

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

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

3.11 In July 2018, the Planning and Regulatory Committee received the draft Action Plan, and instructed a further report be prepared by officers recommending which targets NCC should commit to, either as lead or supporting agency; and to fully scope the timeframes and resources that would be required from Council to achieve these targets.

3.12 TDC adopted the draft Action Plan on 28 March 2019, and agreed to lead, support, or support in principle the implementation of specific targets following a similar process to that recommended here.

4. Discussion

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

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

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

4.4 While many of the actions and targets identified in the Action Plan relate to tasks for which Council already has existing resources allocated, others are not funded in Council’s present work programme.

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

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

4.7 Officers have identified which actions and targets in the Action Plan it is recommended that Council should sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency. This information was requested by the Planning and Regulatory Committee (report 9296) and is appended as Attachment 2 to this report.

4.8 Attachment 2 lists each of the action and targets from the Action Plan. The table sets out whether this is an existing or future task for Council, whether funding is included in the LTP 2018-2028 budget, whether any additional funding is required, and who the proposed lead and support organisations are.

4.9 Action and targets highlighted green (see Attachment 2) are recommended for immediate adoption and implementation. These relate to work streams currently undertaken by Council, which can be implemented within existing funding allocations.

4.10 Actions and targets highlighted yellow (see Attachment 2) represent actions that require funding that is currently unbudgeted. It is recommended that Council agrees to support these targets in principle, subject to the outcome of future funding decisions. Funding of these actions and targets can then be considered as part of future annual plan or long term plan processes. Estimated costs to Council for implementing these actions are identified where possible.

4.11 Minor amendments that are required to actions and targets to ensure alignment with existing Council work programmes (e.g. updating target dates or wording) are also shown in Attachment 2. Approval for Council to lead or support these actions and targets will be dependent on these amendments being incorporated into an updated version of the Action Plan.

4.12 Actions and targets that are relevant only to TDC (i.e. relate exclusively to areas outside of NCC’s boundaries) are also shown in Attachment 2, but are not highlighted.

4.13 Once adopted, the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group will regularly report on progress with implementing the Action Plan and review it every three years. The first report will be prepared in early 2020.

5. Options

5.1 There are three options for consideration. Option 2 is the preferred option by Officers.

Option 1: receive and formally adopt the Action Plan in its entirety
Advantages	· Council demonstrates its commitment as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. · A more effective and efficient achievement of environmental outcomes for Waimea Inlet through a collaborative strategic approach.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Resourcing is inadequate to implement the Action Plan in full. · There is a risk that signing up to the Action Plan in its entirety may raise unrealistic community expectations. For example, some people may expect Council to take all the responsibility for achieving targets and/or have unrealistic expectations about how quickly targets can be achieved.
Option 2 (preferred): receive and formally adopt the Action Plan based on a division of actions/targets into two categories: (i) those Council agrees to sign up to as lead/support agency effective immediately; and (ii) those Council supports in principle, subject to future funding decisions.
Advantages	· Council demonstrates its commitment as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. · Council uses the same approach to considering the Action Plan as Tasman District Council. · Council understands the resources (staff and funding) required to achieve the specific targets. Where unbudgeted additional funding is identified, Council can support these targets in principle, subject to future funding decisions. · A more effective and efficient achievement of environmental outcomes for Waimea Inlet through a collaborative strategic approach. A benefit of supporting the Action Plan, endorsing specific actions/targets and taking responsibility for them, is that the desired outcomes identified can be realised in a timely manner.
Risks and Disadvantages	· There is a slight risk that other members of the Group may be frustrated that Council does not commit to achieving all targets identified in the Action Plan, specifically those with additional funding requirements. However, the appropriate process for making decisions on this matter are future annual/long term plans.
Option 3: do not formally adopt the Action Plan
Advantages	· No adjustments to current work programmes would be necessary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council is not seen as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. · Targets in the Action Plan are not achieved or take longer for others to achieve.

6. Conclusion

6.1 This report recommends that the Planning and Regulatory Committee recommends the Council adopts the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2018-2021 (Attachment 1) and agrees to lead or support implementation, or support in principle subject to future funding decisions, specific targets from the Action Plan (as described in Attachment 2).

Author: Leigh Marshall, Environmental Programmes Advisor

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2099296 Waimea Inlet Action Plan - Final - April2019 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2178524 Waimea Inlet Action Plan - Table of Actions and Targets - Apr2019 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Waimea Inlet Action Plan aligns with all four themes within Nelson 2060, and with a number of Community Outcomes including:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

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

· Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

3. Risk

If Council choses to not adopt the recommended Actions and Targets in the Action Plan there is high level of risk the potential of major environmental damage with long-term recovery requiring significant investment, and medium level of risk of medium negative public reaction.

If Council choses to adopt the recommended Actions and Targets in the Action Plan there is low risk of overspend to achieve Actions and Targets not currently funded in the LTP and supported in principle. However, Council’s commitment to these actions are subject to funding being confirmed through to future LTP or Annual Planning processes.

4. Financial impact

If Council chooses to adopt the Action Plan, it is effectively indicating that it supports implementation of all actions and targets of relevance to Council activities. Some of these relate to existing work streams with funding already allocated (see Attachment 2). Where additional funds are required, they could be allocated via future LTP or Annual Planning processes.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Te Tau Ihu iwi have an open invitation to become signatories to the Waimea Inlet Strategy, to appoint representatives to the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group and to participate in the development, implementation, review and monitoring of the Action Plan. They have been informed of progress throughout the Plan’s development by the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua and Te Ātiawa have attended hui held since mid-2018.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee has the following delegations to consider Biodiversity (6.3.1)

Powers to Recommend:

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

Item 8: Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

REPORT R9875

Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the Hearing Panel’s recommendation on the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019.

1.2 To approve adoption of the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 and associated practice notes. The Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual will replace the Nelson Land Development Manual 2010 on 1 July 2019.

1.3 To approve the public notification of Proposed Plan Change 27 to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) on 1 July 2019.

2. Summary

2.1 The review of the Nelson City Council Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM) has been an extensive across team and across local authority project with significant stakeholder engagement. A Steering Group comprising Councillors from both Nelson and Tasman Councils as well as survey and contract industry stakeholders has guided the review, consideration of public feedback and made deliberations.

2.2 This has resulted in the production of a draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM) for the Nelson and Tasman regions providing consistency and alignment for the construction and vesting of, and works on, Council assets. The NTLDM contains both mandatory standards and good practice. Associated guidance notes for Bio-retention (rain gardens), Wetlands, and Coastal and Freshwater Inundation have also been developed.

2.3 This report seeks Council approval to adopt the NTLDM under the Local Government Act 2002 and approval for the notification of Plan Change 27 to externally reference the NTLDM to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) under the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.4 Tasman District Council received a similar report on 9 May 2019, and its decision will be provided to Nelson Council by officers presenting this report on 28 May 2019.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

2. Receives the recommendation from the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual hearing panel (A2184910); and

3. Approves the public notification of proposed Plan Change 27 (A2184907) and Section 32 (A2185147) under the Resource Management Act 1991 on 1 July 2019; and

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 (A2184905) under the Local Government Act 2002, noting that it will take effect on 1 July 2019; and

2. Adopts the practice notes on Coastal and Freshwater Inundation (A2184904), Bioretention (A2184908) and Wetlands (A2184906) as guidance documents; and

3. Background

3.1 The Nelson City Council Land Development Manual 2010 (LDM) provides minimum standards and guidance for work undertaken on Council assets, or subdivision and development that results in the vesting of assets in Council. These standards are incorporated into the Nelson Resource Management Plan and reviewed every 3-5 years.

3.2 As part of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement process for the LDM in 2009, stakeholders suggested to Council that an aligned LDM between the two Councils should be pursued.

3.3 Over the last four years officers from both Nelson and Tasman Councils have been working on a joint set of standards known as the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).

3.4 The Planning and Regulatory Committee agreed on 12 March 2015, in response to report A1317664, to progress the joint Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual with Tasman District Council, making the following resolutions:

Resolved PR/2015/015

THAT the report Land Development Manual Review (R4261) and its attachments (A1365598) be received;

AND THAT the Committee nominate Councillors Ward and McGurk to be members of the Land Development Manual Steering Group;

AND THAT the attached draft Terms of Reference are adopted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee for finalisation at the first Steering Group meeting after which they will be confirmed by the Mayor and the Chair of Planning and Regulatory;

AND THAT those nominated Councillors provide regular reports back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on progress with the Land Development Manual alignment and review;

AND THAT where possible both Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council use the same Hearing Commissioners to hear and make recommendations on submissions;

AND THAT a draft aligned Land Development Manual be brought back to the Planning and Regulatory Committee for consideration by December 2015.

3.5 A Steering Group comprising two elected members from each Council and two industry representatives was established and provided direction to officers on issues raised in the review as well as alignment matters. Councillor Lawrey was nominated by the Committee to take Councillor Wards place after the last term of Council.

3.6 A first draft NTLDM was released to stakeholders for comment in mid-2016, and a stakeholder workshop on the significant changes to the LDM was well attended. Stakeholders provided feedback that there was a need for a greater understanding of the implications of the proposed stormwater chapter.

3.7 A second stakeholder workshop was held in August 2016 on the stormwater section and minimum ground and floor levels in response to sea level rise and flood hazards. This resulted in officers receiving feedback from stakeholders that the expectations of the draft section were too high, and would impose costs on development that would affect feasibility. Stakeholders were also concerned that a response to these issues should be Council wide, starting with resource management plans and Council’s own asset management plans.

3.8 Under the direction of the Steering Group, the officer working group from Nelson and Tasman Councils have reworked the stormwater section, along with the practice notes and the general format/usability of the NTLDM to address these issues.

3.9 On the 9 August 2018 the Council resolved to:

Approves the draft Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (A2013438), draft practice notes (A2013398, A2013457, A2013449) and draft plan change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (A1988205) for release on 13 August 2018 for public feedback under the Local Government Act and public comment under clause 34 First Schedule Resource Management Act; and

Delegates the hearing of feedback under section 78 of the Local Government Act and comments under clause 34 First Schedule of the Resource Management Act to a joint hearing panel comprising Councillors Lawrey and McGurk as members of the Steering Group plus Councillor Fulton together with three Tasman District Council Councillors (Councillors King and Bryant plus one other).

Delegates to the hearing panel the power to make recommendations to the Nelson and Tasman Councils to adopt or amend the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and associated practice notes.

3.10 Iwi feedback has been sought and considered during the drafting process. Formal Iwi consultation under the Frist Schedule Resource Management Act (RMA) was sought at the same time as the release of the draft under the LGA.

4. Discussion

4.1 The NTLDM is one tool or method which assists the community in achieving the vision of a Smart Little City and the mission to leverage resources to shape an exceptional place to live, work and play. As such the NTLDM:

4.1.1 Takes a regional approach to the design of residential and business areas which provides consistency and certainty to the Nelson and Tasman communities and the developers and contractors that operate within the Regions, creating a more efficient process and lifting Council performance; and

4.1.2 Ensures the quality of assets that vest in Council are of a standard that the community can depend on and that the community can benefit from critical infrastructure providing safe and smart transport, water, wastewater, stormwater, flood protection and reserves and open space; and

4.1.3 Provides a means to give effect to the resource management plan to ensure that development results in a sustainable environment and resilient community.

4.2 A Local Government Act consultation process was carried out from 13 August to 5 October 2018 jointly with Tasman District Council. The revised draft manual was largely well received by the surveying and contracting community who have acknowledged both Councils work to produce a single document for the Regions. Nineteen organisations or individuals submitted on the changes and seven presented their submissions to the Hearing Panel on 14 November 2018. From the submissions, staff provided better clarity within the document and, in some cases, changed the required technical specifications in consultation with the submitters.

4.3 The Hearing Panel resolved to recommend the amended NTLDM and associated Practice Notes to Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.

4.4 One submission was received on the draft Proposed Plan Change 27 in relation to the amendments to the Building Over or Alongside Drains rules. Officers considered that the submission resulted in an improvement to the rule as drafted and this change as recommended by the Hearing Panel has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan Change.

4.5 Tasman District Council received a similar report to this on 9 May 2019,their decision on adopting the NTLDM, which is post writing of this report, will be tabled at the meeting on 28 May.

Options

4.6 The Committee has three main options in considering the recommendations made in this report:

4.6.1 Option 1 – recommend to Council adoption of the Hearing Panels’ recommendations and the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and associated practice notes, to take effect from 1 July 2019. Recommend notification of Proposed Plan Change 27 to the Nelson Resource Management Plan required to externally reference the NTLDM.

4.6.2 Option 2 – decline to adopt the Hearing Panels’ recommendations and reconsider the overall direction of the NTLDM and restarting the review process. This would require a full re-write of the NTLDM.

4.6.3 Option 3 – not approve the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual and associated practice notes. Withdraw the NTLDM and practice notes and rely on existing standards and manuals.

Option 1: Recommend adoption of the NTLDM and associated practice notes and plan change
Advantages	· Provides consistency and alignment for the construction and vesting of, and works on, Council assets in the two Regions. · Provides for a higher standard of stormwater management and better alignment with the National Policy Statement on Freshwater. · Provides for a wider range of transport-related outcomes in the design of roads in new subdivisions. · No further changes provides certainty of outcomes and administration efficiency.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will require all practitioners associated with development to become familiar with the revised manual, including within the two Councils. · A plan change to the NRMP is required.
Option 2: Decline to recommend to adopt the NTLDM and associated practice notes and restart review process
Advantages	· May allow more (or less) aspirational goals to be set. · Plan change is no longer necessary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increased cost and delayed completion of the review process. · Might result in a significantly modified document that no longer has the support of the majority of submitters and stakeholders and might require a second engagement and consultation process. · Delay in implementation by the Councils. · Risk that goals are not achievable. · Risk that alignment between the two Councils is unachievable.
Option 3: Withdraw NTLDM and practice notes and rely on existing LDM 2010
Advantages	· No particular advantages of withdrawing at this stage, except that the status quo does provide an element of consistency and certainty for developers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Inefficient use of time and resources. · Does not deliver integration across the Councils. · Does not meet expectations for timely review of standards to maintain current best practice in land development. · There is a risk that best practice, national standards and or Central Government policy relating to land development will continue to change and our policies and practices do not respond appropriately

5. Conclusion

5.1 The NTLDM provides a consistent approach to the construction and vesting of, and works on, Council assets for both Nelson City and Tasman District.

5.2 Production of the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual has been a thorough process involving both Councils and the surveying and civil contracting sectors across the Regions. Public feedback has been sought, heard and deliberated on by a Joint Council Hearing Panel. It is now ready for adoption by both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.

5.3 Proposed Plan Change 27 to externally reference the NTLDM in the NRMP is also ready to be publicly notified under the First Schedule Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

6. Next Steps

6.1 If approved by the two Councils, the NTLDM will come into effect on 1 July 2019. Proposed Plan Change 27 will go through the RMA consultation process.

6.2 Tasman District Council considered a similar report to adopt the NTLDM on 9 May 2019. A TRMP plan change for notification will be proposed to the Environment and Planning Committee on 30 May 2019.

Author: Lisa Gibellini, Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2184190 LDM Hearing Panel Recommendation ⇩

Attachment 2: A2184905 Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2184908 Bioretention Practice Note ⇩

Attachment 4: A2184906 Wetland Practice Note ⇩

Attachment 5: A2184904 Inundation Practice Note ⇩

Attachment 6: A2184907 Proposed Plan Change 27 ⇩

Attachment 7: A2184906 Proposed Plan Change 27 Section 32 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NTLDM provides minimum standards for the creation of good quality infrastructure that ensures statutory compliance, health safety and wellbeing of the Nelson and Tasman community, and considers affordability over its life cycle.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The LDM is consistent with the community outcomes and will assist Council to achieve them, particularly “Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned and sustainably managed” and “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”.

3. Risk

The recommendation seeks that the Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the NTLDM, associated practices notes and the public notification of Proposed Plan Change 27. The NTLDM has been through an LGA feedback process which included a hearing and the Joint Council Hearing Panel has deliberated and recommended that the NTLDM is ready for adoption. This process has reduced risk by ensuring the Council gives consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter as required under the Local Government Act 2002. It has also ensured that the final NTLDM takes into account the views of the community and balances infrastructural and environmental aspirations.

4. Financial impact

There will be some financial impact to Council and developers as a result of changed, new or higher standards required by the NTLDM. This is part of a business as usual approach to complying with national legislation, new technologies and better practice as a result of reviewing the LDM every 5 years.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance because the NTLDM does not significantly change levels of service but it does result in alignment of standards across the region and the implementation of best practice standards for land development.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been specifically consulted in relation to the NTLDM. Preliminary consultation has been undertaken with Iwi during the development of the draft firstly as part of the Nelson Plan Iwi working Group, then a draft NTLDM was circulated to all Iwi in November 2017 and feedback from some Iwi was received in February and March 2018. The working group and Steering Group considered the feedback and made a series of changes to the NTLDM to address concerns raised.

7. Delegations

Areas of Responsibility: Land Development Manual

Powers to Decide:

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

· To hear and deliberate on submissions for Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation requirements arising from legislation, falling within the areas of responsibility.

Powers to Recommend:

· Final decisions on Special Consultative Procedures, or other formal consultation legislative consultation procedures, falling within the areas of responsibility

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

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

Item 8: Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Hearing Panel Recommendation and Proposed Plan Change 27: Attachment 2

PDF Creator

Item 9: Review of Building Unit fees and charges

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

REPORT R10231

Review of Building Unit fees and charges

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval for Building Unit fees and charges to commence from 1 July 2019.

2. Summary

2.1 A review of Building Unit fees and charges has identified an increase in the staff hourly rates is warranted to cover CPI increases since 2016 when fees and charges were last changed.

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Review of Building Unit fees and charges (R10231) and its attachments (A2145308, A2183274, and A2183512).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 1 (A2145308) of Report R10231 to be effective from 1 July 2019.

4. Background

4.1 The Building Unit provides revenue for Nelson City Council through the fees and charges levied for the regulatory service work the Building Unit undertakes. The current fees and charges were implemented on 1 July 2016 on an ‘until further notice’ basis as at that time annual reviews were encountering minimal changes.

4.2 The setting of the fees and charges for building consents and other related services is covered under section 240 of the Building Act 2004:

Building consent authority may impose fee or charge and must collect levy

(1) A building consent authority—

(a) may impose a fee or charge (or both) payable by a member of the public—

(i) in relation to a building consent; and

(ii) for the performance of any other function or service under this Act; and

(b) must collect the levy for which an applicant is liable to pay to the chief executive under section 53.

(2) If a fee, charge, or levy is payable to a building consent authority for the performance of a function or service under this Act, the building consent authority may refuse to perform the function or service, unless the fee, charge, or levy is paid.

4.3 The Building Act 2004 delegates the setting of fees and charges to the Building Consent Authority and does not require consultation with the public. Additionally the Council Officer Delegations Register states the following;

Fees and charges

Setting of fees and charges, including for permits and licences, within the respective areas of responsibility for each officer position, within the parameters of the policies set by Council.

CM Corporate Services

GM Environmental Management

GM Community Services

GM Infrastructure

GM Strategy and Communications

Manager Consents and Compliance

Manager Building

4.4 Council officers have delegated authority to set fees and charges however officers are seeking approval from Council via the relevant Committee as the proposed increases to fees and charges are above the annual CPI level.

5. Discussion

5.1 The 2016 Building Unit fees and charges have provided sufficient financial recovery, based on the Revenue and Financial Policy, that requires the Building Unit to achieve 60% to 80% user pays recovery and 20% to 40% rates funded. Since 2016 this was:

a. 2016/2017 (76% recovery achieved); and

b. 2017/2018 (78% recovery achieved).

Please note the levels of recovery have been elevated due to a number of high value building consents (Nelson Airport, Cawthron, Port Nelson), Building Unit vacancies and a one-off transfer of accrual funds from prior years’ consent deposits. Removing the effects of these items, the recovery is nearer to 70% on average.

5.2 Work undertaken to align the customer service experience with Tasman District Council and a review of other Council fees has highlighted that Nelson Building Unit fees and charges are low in some areas compared to the industry. In addition, with the adoption of the AlphaOne system there is an annual cost of that service of approximately $125,000 which needs to be recovered. The benefits of the AlphaOne system largely sit with the user as it is an end to end system designed to work for the client and therefore the costs should, in terms of fairness, sit with the user. To fully cover this cost as well as meeting the forecasted Annual Plan income for 2019/20 the increase in fees and charges would need to be 9%.

5.3 The hourly charge out rate for staff time has not changed since 2016. The combined CPI increase since then results in a 5.1% increase. The current per hour rates are:

a. $95 for Building Control Admin (BC Admin); and

b. $125 for all Building Control Officers (BCOs).

5.4 The table below provides comparative hourly rates for Building Control Officers and Building Control Administration Officers across other similar Building Consent Authorities:

Council	Hourly Rate Advised (Website)
Palmerston North	$178 Building Control Officer	$111 Admin Officer
New Plymouth	$165 Building Control Officer	$149 Admin Officer
Christchurch	$210 Building Control Officer	$120 Admin Officer
Napier	$160 Building Control Officer	$ 75 Admin Officer
Selwyn	$150 Building Control Officer	$ 85 Admin Officer
Tasman	$157 All Officers	$157 All Officers

5.5 Applying the 5.1% increase will result in a proposed increased hourly rate from:

a. $95 to $100 ($4.84 rounded up) for BC Admin;

b. $125 to $133 ($6.37 rounded up) for BCOs.

5.6 This is a reasonable increase when compared to a flat $157 per hour rate levied by Tasman District Council on all officer time, as shown in the table above, and local and national industry rates. In addition, and of significance is that with accounting for the AlphaOne costs and what has been forecast for recovery in the Annual Plan the actual increase should be in the order of 9%. In that context a 5.1% increase is reasonable.

5.7 Attachments 1, 2 and 3 provide background information on the new fee levels, information on the Tasman District Council’s fees, and a summary of the changes from the current to proposed fees.

6. Options

6.1 The options are to approve the proposed changes (the preferred option) or to keep the status quo and not approve the proposed changes.

Option 1: Approve the proposed changes to Building Unit fees and charges (preferred option)
Advantages	· An increase in charges will better ensure the Revenue and Finance Policy and budgeted income levels are met · The new staff hourly rate is more consistent with other Council charges
Risks and Disadvantages	· The increase may result in customer dissatisfaction with the charges
Option 2: Do not approve changes to the fees and charges (status quo)
Advantages	· Less potential for customer dissatisfaction with the costs
Risks and Disadvantages	· Income from fees and charges may not meet budget or the Revenue and Finance Policy levels · Fees and charges are less consistent with local and national industry levels

7. Conclusion

7.1 In response to the findings of the review, the fees and charges have been updated to reflect national industry rates.

7.2 The proposed new fees and charges will increase the recovery of costs from the user.

7.3 The new fees and charges are planned to be implemented on 1 July 2019.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Should the proposed fees and charges be approved staff will communicate the changes and reasons to the public and building professionals and update the Council website when the charges take effect.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2145308 Proposed Building Unit fees and charges ⇩

Attachment 2: A2183274 Tasman District Council draft schedule of charges 2019/20 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2183512 Nelson City Council proposed charges 2019 compared to 2016 charges ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The review of fees and charges ensures the delivery of regulatory functions are cost-effective for households and businesses. Those who receive the benefit of the service pay also largely meet the costs of that service.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The efficient provision of regulatory services supports the Community Outcome that our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

3. Risk

There is some risk that customers may object to the increased charges which may have reputational consequences. Communicating reasons and comparisons for changes to charges reduces the level of risk in adopting the proposed fees and charges to minor. Council also has the ability to revisit fees and charges at any time.

4. Financial impact

Proposed changes to fees and charges is more likely to meet income levels anticipated by the Long Term Plan and the Revenue and Finance Policy.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because the Revenue and Finance Policy which provides guidelines for fees and charges has been set through the Long Term Plan. Therefore no engagement, feedback or consultation is proposed for this report.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

7. Delegations

Officers have delegation to set Building Unit fees and charges but seek approval from the Planning and Regulatory Committee

6.3.1 Areas of Responsibility:

· Building Control

6.2.3 Powers to Recommend:

· Any other matters within the areas of responsibility noted above or such other matters referred to it by the Council

Item 10: Navigation Safety Bylaw review

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

REPORT R10159

Navigation Safety Bylaw review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 Following a review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218), (the Bylaw), the report recommends the Bylaw be amended and a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) commence for the proposed amendments.

2. Summary

2.1 This report was considered by the Planning and Regulatory Committee at its meeting on 4 April 2019. Officers were requested to amend the Statement of Proposal (SOP) to better clarify:

· Exemptions for the wearing of lifejackets

· Exemptions for the two forms of communication

· Vessel registration process and exemptions

· The meaning of some terms

The SOP has been amended to address these matters.

2.2 Officers were also asked to compare the proposed Bylaw with neighbouring bylaws to achieve consistency where possible. The results of this comparison is provided in sections 5.5 to 5.9 of this report.

2.3 Taking into account the feedback of the Committee, officers consider that the resulting changes is the most appropriate form of a bylaw and are reasonable and justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

3. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

1. Receives the report Navigation Safety Bylaw review (R10159) and its attachments (R10026 and A2178235).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Notes the review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218); and

2. Determines amendments to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) are the most appropriate way of addressing the navigation safety problems identified by the review; and

4. Determines a summary of the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) is not required; and

5. Adopts the Statement of Proposal Proposed Changes to the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No.218) (A2178235); and

6. Approves the commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure (A2178235), with the consultation period to run from 21 June to 24 July 2019; and

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of Report R10026) and agrees:

(b) the approach will result in the Statement of Proposal being as widely publicised as is reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

4. Background

4.1 The previous report on this matter presented to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 4 April 2019, is Attachment one (R10026) to this report.

4.2 Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires Council to determine whether amendment, revocation or replacement of the bylaw is the most appropriate way to address any perceived problems arising from the review and, if so, whether the proposed changes are the most appropriate form of the bylaw and gives rise to any implications under the NZBORA.

4.3 The Committee requested some matters be clarified prior to the Committee receiving the report at the next meeting.

5. Discussion

5.1 The original assessment of any implication under section 155 of the LGA and the NZBORA in sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the previous report (R10026) is not changed by the additional considerations contained in this report. A bylaw is considered an appropriate way of managing a range of water based activities to minimise harm to people and property. The limitations in the Bylaw are designed to restrict people’s movement and behaviour as little as is reasonably required to protect life and property. The proposed limitations are therefore considered reasonable and justified under the NZBORA.

5.2 The key matters requiring clarification were:

· Exemptions for the wearing of lifejackets

· Exemptions for the two forms of communication

· Vessel registration process and exemptions

· The meaning of some terms

· Consistency with neighbouring Council Navigation Safety Bylaws

5.3 Amended maps have now been added to the SOP document including an update to Map 4 to identify all of the marina area. Changes made to the SOP since the Committee meeting on 4 April in relation to the first four bullet points are as follows:

SOP Clause	Add, amend or delete	Reason
2 b) and 3 b)	Added reference to exemptions for registration and there is no fee for registration	To clarify vessels with a Yachting NZ registration do not need to separately register their yacht and that registration does not have an associated cost.
2 e) and 3 e)	Added reference to exemptions for communications	To clarify non-powered vessels less than six metres in length only need to carry at least one form of distress signal as these vessels are unlikely to travel long distances and it would be impractical for some small vessels to carry two forms of communication
2	Delete the reference “to fishing”	The Harbourmaster may need to close areas for other sorts of activities to avoid clashes
3 a)	Added to the exemptions for the wearing of lifejackets	Paddle craft riding waves or paddling between Tahunanui beach and the black buoys are in shallow water and have the same risk as swimmers or surfers
3 d)	Amended the word “nominating” to identifying	The word nominate suggests a process is involved in appointing a person to be in charge of a vessel. The outcome required is simply for people to identify who is in charge and responsible for the safety of everyone on board
Bylaw Clause	Add, amend or delete	Reason
Definition for surf board	Delete “stand up paddle board”	The paddle craft definition includes stand up paddle boards
Definition for vessel	Delete “used in navigation”	The term can be confusing and is not necessary
2.7 f) i)	Amend the reference from a stand up paddle boarder to paddle craft. Include the Tahunanui beach to black buoys area as exempt from wearing lifejackets	The reference change is to match the definitions. The area between the black buoys and the beach is shallow waters and has the same level of risk as swimmers so paddle craft in this area can be exempt from wearing lifejackets.
2.19	Transfer the reference of the Harbourmaster being able to close areas of the harbour from clause 3.14	This clause was under the fishing activity previously but closing areas of the harbour can be for various reasons to prevent activities clashing or colliding
2.26 c)	Add a clause to exempt Yachting NZ registered vessels. Amend the registration from with the Harbourmaster to Nelson City Council	Yachting NZ vessels are already registered and do not need to be separately registered. The process of registration is to be administered by Council to keep the harbourmasters time dedicated to patrols rather than administration as much as possible.
2.27 a)	Amend the word “nominated” to identified	The word nominated suggests a process is involved in appointing a person to be in charge of a vessel. The outcome required is simply for people to identify who is in charge and responsible for the safety of everyone on board
2.28 d)	Add a clause exempting non-powered vessels less than six meters in length from carrying two forms of communication	Small vessels need to carry at least one form of distress signal to attract attention should people need help. These vessels are unlikely to travel long distances and it would be impractical for some small vessels to carry two forms of communication
6.9 e)	Add an advisory function to the Navigation Safety Officer position	Currently this role is proposed to assist with land based safety checks but there could be other advisory or education tasks also

Registration of vessels

5.4 The purpose of having a register for vessels is:

a) to more quickly identify the owner in search and rescue situations; and

b) to warn or infringe the owner at a later date when approaching the vessel at the time of breaching rules was not safe or possible.

5.5 Registration is free for boat owners and the register will be a simple spreadsheet. There is capacity in the resource consents administration team to set this up. Capturing the details online will be investigated to make the registration as easy as possible for boat owners. As a minimum there will be an email address on the Council’s website to provide vessel registration details. Costs to the Council will therefore be minimal and mainly staff time to establish and maintain the register.

Consistency with neighbouring bylaws

5.6 Tasman District Council reviewed its Bylaw in 2015 and does not need to review the Bylaw for another ten years. Tasman does not require the wearing of lifejackets only that they be carried. Tasman also does not require the registration of vessels.

5.7 Marlborough District Council reviewed its Bylaw in 2017 and proposed lifejackets to be worn in vessels less than six metres in length and the registration of jet skis. Consultation and a hearing has occurred but final decisions have not been made.

5.8 It is acknowledged vessels travel between Nelson and Tasman waters frequently and while it would be preferable to have similar bylaw provisions, national safety campaigns promote the wearing of lifejackets on smaller vessels no matter where they are. Wearing a lifejacket rather than just having them on board will prevent the loss of life when accidents occur.

5.9 Safety checks conducted over the summer shows that over 80% of people in vessels less than six metres in length are already wearing lifejackets. Many of these people would also journey into Tasman waters. While the proposed requirement to wear lifejackets is different to Tasman it will only affect approximately 20% of the small vessel population.

5.10 The Harbourmasters Special Interest Group has been urging central government to change national regulations requiring lifejackets be worn on smaller vessels. In the interim Environment Canterbury, Waikato, Hawkes Bay, Otago and Southland Navigation Safety Bylaws are examples of other bylaws requiring the wearing of lifejackets on small vessels (with some exemptions).

6. Options

6.1 The main options are to either:

· Determine that the Bylaw should not be changed (option 1);

· Adopt the Navigation Safety Bylaw statement of proposal in Attachment 2 for the special consultation procedure (option 2); or

· Direct officers to amend the statement of proposal (option 3).

6.2 The preferred option is option 2.

Option 1: Determine the Bylaw should not be changed
Advantages	· No additional requirements for vessel owners · No staff time required to administer changes
Risks and Disadvantages	· The Bylaw remains inconsistent with national regulations and safety campaigns · The Council will carry the risk of potentially not having done everything it could to prevent water activity accidents
Option 2: Adopt the statement of proposal for consultation
Advantages	· Consultation can commence earlier to meet the timeframes required for reviewing bylaws · Proposed amendments are based on recommendations from officers administering and enforcing the Bylaw and have been further clarified following the Committee meeting on 4 April 2019
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some vessel owners may oppose the proposed changes · The administration of the registering of the vessel may not be welcomed by vessel owners and will take staff time to establish and maintain
Option 2: Direct officers to amend the statement of proposal
Advantages	· Amendments may reduce the potential level of opposition from vessel owners
Risks and Disadvantages	· Amendments may not be consistent with national safety campaigns or regulations · Delayed consultation may result in not meeting Bylaw review timeframes

7. Conclusion

7.1 Since the Planning and Regulatory meeting on 4 April 2019 the proposed changes to the Bylaw have been clarified and amended to ensure all exemptions are captured and the wording of clauses is clear. Proposed changes to the Bylaw seek to better align Bylaw provisions with Maritime Rules and national safety campaigns to enhance the safety of people involved in water activities.

8. Next Steps

8.1 A Special Consultative Procedure on the proposed changes will commence following Council approval of the SOP to enable public feedback to be received on the proposed changes. This feedback will help inform decision making on changes to the Bylaw at a later Council meeting.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: R10026 Previous report ⇩

Attachment 2: A2178235 Navigation Safety Bylaw - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Navigation safety is the responsibility of regional councils and the recommendations in this report support the performance of the Harbourmaster duties to ensure public safety.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Enhancing navigation safety ensures the Community Outcome of having access to a range of social, education and recreational facilities and activities namely high quality water sport activities. It also ensures the safe operation of Port activities that support our region having an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

Council is responsible for ensuring navigation safety on our navigable waters. There is a moderate risk in not updating and amending the Navigation Bylaw in accordance with current national provisions and safety advice. The recommendations seek to enhance safety and reduce risk to people involved in water activities. Reducing the potential for accidents also reduces the risk to the environment from pollution. The risk in amending the Navigation Bylaw as proposed is some people may resent the changes even though they are designed for their own safety.

4. Financial impact

The recommendations will require staff time to administer the proposed changes but this is expected to be accommodated within existing resources.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because proposed changes will impact on a number of recreational sea and river activities. Therefore consultation will occur in the form of a special consultative procedure.

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

Areas of Responsibility:

· Considering maritime and harbour safety control matters

· Bylaws

Powers to:

· Hear and deliberate on submissions to proposed changes to the Bylaw

Powers to Recommend:

· The statement of proposal for Bylaw consultation

· Final decisions on any Bylaw changes

Item 11: Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 January-31 March 2019

Planning and Regulatory Committee

28 May 2019

REPORT R10019

Planning and Regulatory Committee - Quarterly Report - 1 January-31 March 2019

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 provides a legal proceedings update.

2. Recommendation

That the Planning and Regulatory Committee

2. Approves the City Centre Programme six key moves (A2184278), and

3. Approves the Nelson Plan Vision (A2182016); and

4. Amends the October 2018 Planning and Regulatory Committee Resolution PR/2018/057 as follows:

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

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Adopts the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (A2159046)

3. Summary

Activity	Level of service	Achievement
Building	Compliance with statutory requirements.	The Alpha One System is continuing to have bedding in issues. As a result, there have been building consents not completed within the 20 day time limit (12 in the third quarter, down from 29 over the second quarter). Discussions with Alpha One are under way to get changes made to the system.
City Development	Coordinated growth with infrastructure. A well planned City that meets the community’s current and future needs.	The Future Development Strategy project is well under way with two rounds of stakeholder engagement completed and public consultation occurring. Development of the City Centre Programme is progressing. City Centre Development Programme Lead (Alan Gray) is meeting with various central city stakeholders on a weekly basis. Six key moves are proposed for the endorsement of the Committee.
Consents and Compliance	Compliance with statutory requirements.	Compliance with resource consent timeframes is improving, rising from 58% in January to 94% in March, an average of 80% for the quarter. Applications being lodged have slowed but staff vacancies are still having an impact. Statistics are included in Attachment 1 (A2151814).
Activity	Level of service	Achievement
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	Briefing dates have been finalised for the Draft Nelson Plan over May-July 2019. An Inner City Flooding staff workshop was held in mid-April, with a Councillor workshop planned for June 2019. Officers have commenced uploading the Draft Nelson Plan into Eplan. A joint TDC/NCC workshop on the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy was held on 26 March 2019 and the adoption of the Strategy is included in this report. The National Planning Standards were gazetted on 5 April 2019 and have effect on 3 May 2019.
Science and Environment	Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards. Delivery of all programmes.	The Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019–2029 was adopted by Nelson City and Tasman District Councils. Rural water restrictions were enforced for all stream takes from mid-January through to the beginning of April. The Nelson City Council State of the Environment report was completed and approved for distribution. The greenhouse gas emissions inventory report for Nelson City Council operations has been completed, and progress is under way on an emissions reduction plan. All schools in Nelson are now connected to the Enviroschools programme.

4. Discussion – Financial Results

Other Operating Revenue

Operating Expenditure

Capital Expenditure (including capital staff costs)

4.1 A new contract with Environmental Inspections Limited (EIL) was signed on 1 July 2018. The over-spend and under-spend commentary below in relation to EIL roles for dog control, regulatory services and enforcing bylaws reflects the fact the budget lines have not yet been changed to align with the contracted services. These have been adjusted for the 2019/20 year. Whilst there are overs and unders, the overall cost for these services is under budget.

4.2 Dog Control income is less than budget by $37,000. Proposed fee increases will come into effect in the next financial year. Dog Control expenditure is greater than budget by $73,000. For the 2019/20 financial year the budget will be altered to reflect the cost of the contract and the increase in fees approved by the Council on 2 May will enable this activity to be cost neutral.

4.3 Enforcing Bylaws expenditure is less than budget by $89,000.

4.4 Food Premise expenditure is greater than budget by $42,000. The allocation of staff costs is $17,000 ahead of budget. The cost of providing advice and services is $42,000 ahead of budget due to the new EIL Contract price. Fees for this activity are to be reviewed.

4.5 Resource Consents income is less than budget by $225,000. Resource consent fees are $222,000 behind budget year to date, and are currently forecast to be $250,000 behind budget for the full financial year. Resource consent income has increased 12% compared to last year actuals, however was budgeted to increase 21%. This budget increase set through the LTP process was overly optimistic. Resource Consents expenditure is greater than budget by $234,000. The allocation of staff costs is $174,000 behind budget. Job costs are ahead of budget $245,000, which is due to the use of consultants and is partially offset by staff costs. The costs of providing advice and services are $127,000 ahead of budget due to the new EIL contract price.

4.6 Building Services income is greater than budget by $86,000. Building Warrant of Fitness Fees are $61,000 ahead of budget due to the timing of invoicing. Building Control Authority QA Levy Fees are $31,000 ahead of budget due to a high number and value of consents. Building Consent fees are $41,000 behind budget, which is demand driven. Building Services expenditure is less than budget by $107,000. The allocation of staff costs is $114,000 behind budget. Alpha One service costs of $41,000 have been incurred against a nil budget. These should be offset by higher fee income. Building Claims expenditure is less than budget by $156,000. There are currently three claims in progress. At this stage it is difficult to forecast whether there will be an underspend at year end.

4.7 Developing Resource Management Plan expenditure is less than budget by $185,000. The full budget is anticipated to be spent by the year end given peer review costs (legal and technical) are being incurred now.

4.8 Environmental Advocacy and Advice expenditure is less than budget by $92,000. Of this, $81,000 is due to allocation of staff costs being behind budget. This relates to the Coastal/Marine Scientist position budgeted for but currently vacant in the Science and Environment team. Recruitment for the role is expected to begin before the end of the financial year.

4.9 Public Counter Land & General income is less than budget by $19,000. Land Information Memoranda (LIM) revenue is $19,000 behind budget due to a low number of LIMs compared to projections. LIM income is currently forecast to be $50,000 behind budget for the full year. Public Counter Land & General expenditure is greater than budget by $49,000. The allocation of staff costs is $51,000 ahead of budget, due to time coded to Public Counter Land & General Scanning and Resource Consents. The coding of time to this budget will be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate and altered if needed.

4.10 Monitoring the Environment capital expenditure is less than budget by $68,734. Monitoring equipment renewals is under budget by $28,000 and is forecast to be underspent by $34,000 at the end of the financial year. It is proposed to carry forward to allow the purchase of a new air quality monitor in 2019/20 to meet new national environmental standards. Plant and equipment is under budget by $36,000. This is due to timing of invoices and is expected to be fully spent by year end.

Key Performance Indicators – Long Term Plan and Environment Activity Management Plan

4.11 Details of the status of the indicators are contained in Attachments 2 and 3 (A2181696 and A2181967). The indicators not achieved are:

· 80% of non-notified resource consents were issued on time – the target is 100%; and

· 93.4% of building consents and code compliance certificates were issued within 20 working days – the target is 100%; and

· There were two air quality breaches in Tahunanui (one was dust related and one an aberration with a one hour spike at around 9.30 pm). The target is zero breaches.

4.12 The Environment AMP Key Performance Indicators that have not been measured yet include water quality, animal and pest control and IANZ accreditation. These have not been reported on yet as they are annual measures and will be reported in the fourth quarter.

Project Reports – Operational

4.13 Operational Project/Programme reports by Business Unit are contained in Attachment 4 (A2181946). These projects are all on track.

5. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

BUILDING

Risks and Challenges

5.1 The Administration and Inspection teams are having to work in both Alpha One and GoGet systems, which causes complexity. Under the Alpha One system, processors are not getting the visibility of where a consent may be sitting on processing days, which is leading to ongoing breaches.

5.2 The market is still trending up. Whilst there was a slight lull during December, the expectation is for 1,000 or more consent applications to be processed this financial year.

5.3 There is an ongoing small risk there may be some breaches of the 20 day time limit over the next few months.

5.4 Compounding the system change challenges are the number of building consent and amendment applications received (as follows).

Trends

	Third Quarter 2018/2019	Third Quarter 2017/2018
Building consents and amendments received	236	183
Estimated value	$61,350,010	$17,001,424

5.5 There has been an increase in the complexity, number (27%) and value (approximately $40m) of building consents compared to the same quarter last year.

YTD BC+ Amendments	Total to End of Third Quarter 2018/2019	Total to End of Third Quarter 2017/2018
Building consent applications received	755	646

5.6 This represents an increase of 16.88% in applications for the year to date compared to last year and is in line with the numbers during the 2012-2013 flood event.

	Third Quarter 2018/2019	Third Quarter 2017/2018
Number of inspections	954	1576

5.7 The decrease in inspections undertaken in the third quarter is due to reduced inspections capability over the transition period to Alpha One and time taken to check documents, as well as staff leave and statutory holidays.

5.8 With the high number of consents and staff adapting to the change, there were 12 building consents that failed to be processed in the 20 day statutory time frame during the third quarter. This has reduced from 29 breaches last quarter.

5.9 Three code compliance certificates were issued outside of the 20 day time limit. One in February was due to development contributions not being done and two occurred with the transition to the new system.

5.10 Recruitment of a Building Officer (Inspections) to fill the position left by the promotion of another member of the team was successful and the officer joined the team in late January. This provides ongoing support and resilience for the Inspections team.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.11 The next three months will focus on a review of benefits realised through the change of system and eliciting feedback from customers on their experience of the new system.

5.12 In June 2019 the Building Unit will be undertaking its IANZ reassessment for Building Control Accreditation. The planning for the reassessment is well advanced.

5.13 The special consultative procedure report for priority buildings and routes of strategic importance will come to the 4 July 2019 Planning and Regulatory Committee. This will be reported to Council on 8 August 2019. Subject to approval, the public consultation period will be planned to commence after the Local Body Elections.

CITY DEVELOPMENT

Achievements

5.14 The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (NTFDS) project has progressed and growth scenarios have been developed after input from stakeholders and Councillors. These are out for public feedback until 6 May.

5.15 The City Centre Programme has progressed with a workshop with Council on 28 February. The six key moves for the city centre were presented and discussed and are attached (Attachment 5 A2184278) for the Committee to approve. The six key moves will form the basis for the City Centre Programme Plan and set the direction for strategic focus in the city centre.

5.16 The team continues to actively build 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. These relationships have resulted in a collaboration to bring a proposed winter festival to Nelson for the 2020 year. Bespoke lighting will be purchased that can be used for the festival and at other times throughout the year (e.g. Christmas).

5.17 Officers have been working with local artist Anne Rush and an incorporated society on Meanwhile Spaces, a concept where the society will match interested people/groups with vacant buildings in the city centre to enable activation of those spaces on a temporary lease basis. The activations will include art projects as well as interactive activities and small business start-ups. Seed funding of $50,000 has been provided to get the trial of the Meanwhile Spaces up and running for this winter.

5.18 A final Special Housing Area was considered and approved by Council on 29 April for 71 Haven Road. Officers are continuing to work with the applicant to meet Deed requirements and ensure a consent application is submitted prior to 16 September 2019 which marks the partial repeal of the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area Act.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.19 Officers are seeking to contract work on city centre investment cases before the end of the financial year. The investment cases aim to understand the factors that influence developers and investors when making decisions on central city investments such as residential and mixed use development and redevelopment.

5.20 The team is preparing the required report to commence a Special Consultative Procedure for the closing of Upper Trafalgar Street. This will come to the 20 June Council meeting.

5.21 The annual update of the schedules within the Development Contributions Policy to provide for CPI adjustment is under way.

5.22 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.

5.23 The NTFDS is on track and feedback from the public will be workshopped with Council on 11 June, followed by reporting of the final strategy on 26 July.

Risks and Challenges

5.24 There is a risk that the City Centre Programme will find it difficult to spend the city centre capex fund of $200,000 without any internal project managers with capacity to deliver projects, and with such a short time between now and the end of the financial year. Officers have developed a programme to mitigate this risk which is a mix of moving on the “easy wins” and undertaking additional planning work in this financial year to enable more to be spent in the 2019/20 financial year.

5.25 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.

5.26 The NTFDS has an intensive project timeline. Any slippage in any of the consultation, stakeholder or Joint Council workshops and meetings will mean this project may not be delivered on time.

CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE

Achievements

5.27 Over 650 safety checks were carried out by the Deputy Harbourmaster over summer including five “No Excuses” campaigns in conjunction with Maritime New Zealand. School visits and the Women on Water workshops focusing on safety on the water have been well received. Search and rescue operations with other organisations over summer have been successful.

Trends

5.28 Resource consent applications to the end of March at 374 is similar to the same period last year (378). Compliance with timeframes is 81% for the year to date compared to 91% for the same period last year. Consequently the discounts for late processing total around $5300 for the year to date which is double the level of last year’s discounts. Approximately half of the discount total this year can be attributed to a former member of staff.

5.29 The freedom camping patrols ended with fewer infringements than last year. An assault has prompted a review on how the patrols are carried out.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.30 The Resource Consents team has a new Team Leader Resource Consents, Adrian Ramage. Recruitment continues for a Principal Planner and a Planner.

Risks and Challenges

5.31 Senior 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

Nelson Plan - Changes in Workshop Schedule and Iwi Input

5.32 A workshop was held on 12 March to discuss the terms of reference for the Elected Member Working Group and provide an overview of the Draft Plan and process. There was wider interest from Councillors in the Plan and as a result it is proposed that workshops now include the wider Committee and all other Councillors rather than a Working Group.

5.33 A schedule of Draft Plan workshop dates is confirmed and has been circulated. The workshops will be run throughout May-July 2019.

5.34 It is proposed to release a copy of the Draft Plan to the Iwi Working Group at the same time as it is provided to Council. Providing a copy of the Draft Plan to the Iwi Working Group aligns with the Council’s partnership approach with iwi and Resource Management Act 1991 obligations (clause 3 of schedule 1).

5.35 Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the October 2018 “Nelson Plan Update” resolution below as outlined in the recommendations in this report.

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.

5.36 Officers have had discussions with some local developers and professionals about the implications of flood projections and have had an officer workshop to consider these matters. The outcome of this work will be discussed at the Draft Plan natural hazards workshops.

Nelson Plan Vision for Adoption

5.37 The 7 May 2019 workshop on the Draft Plan included an outline of the workshop schedule and approach and a review of the Draft Plan vision. A copy of the vision is attached (Attachment 6 A2182016) for adoption by the Committee so that this can be used to inform future workshop discussions. The Vision has been updated to reflect the outcomes of the workshop which were to:

· Rely on the LTP Smart Little City Vision but to include the remaining text as a narrative of how the Nelson Plan would deliver the vision

· Incorporate reference to net Carbon zero aspirations

· Reference to the Iwi Vision

· Indicate that Nelson is also a premier destination for events and the importance of the School of Music, Theatre Royal, Suter, and the Museum.

· Acknowledge the importance of forestry to the regional economy and carbon reduction

· Include reference to housing affordability

· Include coastal erosion and inundation with reference to natural hazards

National Planning Standards will require minor changes to Nelson Plan

5.38 Officers have been working with the Ministry for the Environment to provide input into the National Planning Standards (PS) over the last year. The PS seek to achieve national consistency in resource management plan form and structure so it is easier for people to navigate plans wherever they are in New Zealand.

5.39 The implications for Nelson are relatively minor as officers have already anticipated key changes although some structural change will be required. The main changes are the need to group the coastal area and subdivision provisions in their own chapters rather than across domains and zones. This will not have a significant impact on content. National mapping standards and definitions are also introduced which means some zone colours and some definitions will need to change.

5.40 While the PS have effect from 3 May 2019, the timeframe to align with the standards is 10 years or notification of the Nelson Plan (scheduled for 2021). There is also a requirement for Councils to have their plans available in an Eplan format within five years. It is proposed that the required structural changes will be made prior to the release of the Draft Plan to the community. In the meantime, officers have developed a structural map that indicates how the Plan will need to change to align with the PS. Migration to an Eplan format is already under way.

First Round Coastal Erosion and Inundation Engagement Almost Complete

5.41 Officers have been engaging with the community about coastal erosion and inundation throughout February and March 2019. Drop in sessions were held in the city centre and Stoke, and workshops were held in Monaco, Tahunanui, Wakapuaka, the city centre, and Cable Bay to share and gather information. A number of individual meetings have been held and are planned with stakeholders that are potentially impacted by coastal erosion and inundation. A hui was held with iwi on 25 May 2019. The feedback from the community, iwi and stakeholders will be used to inform technical work to identify areas affected by coastal inundation and erosion planned for later this year.

Dog Policy and Bylaw in Development

5.42 Preliminary engagement commenced on the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw in November 2018. Officers have been working through this feedback and propose to bring a paper the new Council in late 2019. The Bylaw is due to expire in February 2020 so the new Council will need to decide on the form of the proposed Bylaw and Statement of Proposal before then.

Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy for Adoption

5.43 Council joined the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (the Alliance) in September 2017. The Alliance is made up of all the Councils and iwi in the top half of the South Island, led by the Department of Conservation. The focus of the Alliance is on landscape-scale conservation projects that also have social, economic and cultural benefits. The Alliance has supported a number of conservation projects throughout 2018 and has developed the draft Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy (Draft Strategy) to help align efforts. Updates on the Draft Strategy have been provided to the Committee and the Draft Strategy was jointly workshopped with Tasman District Council (TDC) on 26 March 2019.

5.44 A copy of the Draft Strategy is attached for adoption (Attachment 7 A2159046). The Draft Strategy is being presented to Alliance members for adoption throughout April and May 2019. At the time of writing this report, the Draft Strategy had been adopted by TDC, Marlborough District Council (MDC), West Coast Regional Council, Kaikoura District Council, Buller District Council, Ngati Kuia, and Ngati Waewae.

Vehicle Access at Delaware Estuary

5.45 Council officers have been working to resolve conflicts over vehicle access to the foreshore in Delaware (Wakapuaka) Estuary. This matter will be reported on separately to a future Committee meeting.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.46 The focus for the next quarter will be Council workshops and iwi liaison on the Draft Plan along with responding to proposed national policy changes.

Risks and Challenges

5.47 The Planning team is recruiting for a Principal Planning Adviser and a Planning Adviser, and the Principal Planning role is proving difficult to fill.

5.48 There is a significant amount of national policy change in the coming months. Council approval may have to be sought retrospectively given the volume of work and tight timeframes involved. The release of the National Environment Standard for Air Quality for public feedback has been delayed until the end of 2019.

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT

Achievements

Biosecurity

5.49 Council decisions on the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019–2029 were publicly notified on 30 March 2019 after the Plan was adopted by Nelson City and Tasman District Councils. There have been no appeals and the next step is for the Council seal to be affixed and the Plan then becomes operative.

Carbon Measurement and Reduction

5.50 The Nelson City Council emissions inventory for CEMARS (Certified Emissions Management and Reduction Scheme) has been completed and work is now under way on the emissions management and reduction plan in preparation for the certification audit on 9 and 10 May 2019.

State of the Environment Monitoring

5.51 The Nelson City Council State of the Environment report 2018 was approved in March 2019.

5.52 A new Estuarine Water Quality monitoring programme has been developed to feed into existing estuarine health monitoring. The programme is tailored to link in with upstream water quality sites and report on regional catchment and coastal issues such as sediment deposition, seagrass distribution and loss of coastal saltmarsh.

Recreational Bathing Monitoring

5.53 Most recreational bathing monitoring sites had their best results compared to previous years. There was one unexplained ‘Red Action’ exceedance at Nelson Haven and Tahunanui. Maitai at Collingwood Street Bridge, Wakapuaka at Hira Reserve and Paremata Flats had exceedances requiring further investigation.

5.54 Cyanobacteria (toxic algae) was present at low levels over the summer at the Wakapuaka and Maitai monitoring sites. Moderate levels of cyanobacteria occurred in Poorman Valley Stream near Nayland College and Isel Park. Cawthron undertook Council research at three Maitai sites over the summer to assess growth conditions and sediment-phosphorous inputs. The results of the research are due in May and will help to inform the Cyanobacteria Action Plan.

Water Quantity

5.55 In January and February the monthly rainfall totals were 79% and 89% lower than average at Hira. Rural water restrictions were enforced for all stream takes from mid-January through to the beginning of April. The restrictions allowed essential water use only for around 500 properties for the majority of the drought period. During this period more than 80 low flow gaugings were carried out.

Healthy Streams

5.56 Inanga spawning on the Maitai this March was the most productive recorded to date, with inanga eggs found in the Shakespeare Walk channel created for inanga spawning in March 2015.

5.57 Spotlight and electrofish surveys in the upper Brook catchment have yielded double the eel numbers previously recorded above the top dam and whitebait koaro above the 1906 dam, confirming active fish passage through the Sanctuary dam fence and waterworks structures. Further work is under way to improve fish passage and habitat in the Brook concrete channel.

5.58 A new Whangamoa River Action Plan has been developed under the Healthy Streams programme. The plan sets out a series of projects for the remainder of 2018/19 and beyond to improve and protect the health of the river, with an initial focus on fish passage remediation and riparian planting.

5.59 Wakapuaka Bursting with Life programme has various initiatives including community workshops on sustainable land management, maintenance of septic tanks and fencing and riparian planting with a focus on Ecoli.

5.60 Two field guides have been produced for the Wakapuaka River and Te Wairepo/York Stream. This community engagement tool encourages people to explore their local waterway through activities and information in the guides. The Te Wairepo/York Stream guidebook was launched at Race Unity Day; the Wakapuaka guidebook will be launched at the Birds Hikoi event on 12 May at Hira.

5.61 Sediment and erosion control guideline resources are under development in collaboration with TDC. The resources will include a comprehensive joint best practice guideline document; a small site guide; a tools resource and some targeted on-site training for key focus groups.

5.62 A drone survey has been undertaken in the piping network of Maire Stream to identify barriers to fish passage. This process is of interest to other Councils as a cost effective, and safe, means of assessing underground pipe systems.

Nelson Nature

5.63 A review of coastal birds in the Nelson and Tasman Regions has compiled available data on the number and distribution of gulls, terns, rails, shags and herons and provides a brief review of threats and management issues for these species. Seventeen of the 28 coastal bird species identified in the report are threatened or at risk and 15 of these are found in the Nelson region.

5.64 Further surveys were undertaken for the threatened Back Beach Beetle after a second population was found at Delaware Inlet in 2018. This year’s survey found a third population of the beetles at Bell Island. A management plan for the species is being prepared in collaboration with the Department of Conservation.

5.65 An operational plan has been completed for the Nelson Halo to enhance native bird populations in Nelson. The plan identifies key focus areas for Council and community trapping and restoration efforts.

5.66 The Nelson Biodiversity Forum confirmed its preference for the current level of Council involvement in the Forum at its March meeting. The question was raised by Council officers in response to a national hui on regional biodiversity fora which found many were community-led and largely independent from Council.

Land Management

5.67 A series of workshops with the rural community, focused on sustainable land management practice, has begun with the first two workshops attracting around 60 residents. Land Environment Plans are being developed by landowners, with a particular emphasis on water quality and erosion management. This project is funded through the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) Hill Country Erosion Fund which is being administered by Council and is in partnership with NZ Landcare Trust. Landowners attending the workshops have shown a high level of interest in converting pasture or plantation forestry back into native forest.

Environmental Education

5.68 A focus on engaging schools with Council’s education programmes took place in February with the result that all schools in Nelson are now connected to the Enviroschools programme, either as a full Enviroschool or a Friend of Enviroschools. Two Nelson-specific newsletters have replaced the Ecobuzz publication that was previously produced jointly with Tasman.

Eco-building Design

5.69 The six month report of the Warmer Healthier Homes (WHH) Project covering the period 1 July to 31 December 2018 has been received (A2177541). 144 homes were insulated during that six months, with a total of 1,348 properties completed to date. The goal is to reach 1,500 homes by financial year end 31 June 2019.

Air Quality

5.70 The Best Little Wood Shed competition was run during February and March promoting the correct ways of storing firewood. A number of innovative entries were submitted, with the top three receiving prizes of fire wood and the people’s choice award receiving a free flue clean and burner check.

Waste Minimisation

5.71 Delivery of the waste minimisation programme included projects focusing on reducing textile waste; increasing home composting; reducing events waste and promoting the recycling of e-waste. Delivery of further projects is pending the completion of the review of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Strategic Direction and Focus

Biosecurity

5.72 A number of submissions were received seeking more responsibility around cat management (domestic, stray/unowned and feral) within the Tasman/Nelson regions during the development of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. The Joint Committee agreed there was a case for intervention. However, it resolved that management of domestic cats was outside the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 1993. A report has been commissioned by TDC and will be presented to Council when complete. It will:

a. Provide a background to the nuisance cat problem at national and local levels; and

b. Set out issues and options regarding the development of bylaws, and other approaches, for both Nelson City Council and TDC to consider.

Land Management

5.73 Planning is under way, along with TDC and MDC, for the delivery of the 2019/2023 MPI-funded (through the Hill Country Erosion Fund) forestry retirement project. Along with funding for each Council for a range of projects, MPI is to fund one FTE to work across all three Councils, to identify risks and opportunities in the forestry sector. The focus is on improving environmental practice, while also reducing environmental risk.

Carbon Measurement and Reduction

5.74 There will be an ongoing focus on measurement and reduction of Nelson City Council greenhouse gas emissions for the remainder of the financial year, including identification of reduction targets for the next five years. Planning will concentrate on delivering the reduction target through projects and initiatives identified in the Emissions Reduction and Management Plan (which is under development). There will also be a strategic focus on investigating options for measuring and reducing Nelson Region greenhouse gas emissions.

Marine and Coastal Science

5.75 Science and monitoring programmes are in place for most environmental domains. However, there will be an extra focus in the next quarter on the development of a marine and coastal science and monitoring programme, pending the appointment of a coastal/marine scientist.

Biodiversity

5.76 Two items of new national biodiversity policy are anticipated in the second half of 2019; the NZ biodiversity strategy and National Policy statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. Officers have attended pre-consultation workshops and briefings for these policy items and will focus on ensuring Nelson City Council is well placed to respond when these are finalised.

Risks and Challenges

Air Quality

5.77 Two exceedances of the National Environmental Standard Air Quality (NESAQ) were recorded in Airshed B1, Tahunanui this quarter, 65ug/m3 on 15 February and 84ug/m3 on 7 March. This is over the one permitted exceedance per year for this Airshed. One was caused by dust from work on a construction site and the soil not being dampened during the period of the drought. The other was an aberration over an hour period at around 9.30pm and it is impossible to know the cause.

5.78 Many of Council’s air quality monitors are due for replacement. The Ministry for the Environment is proposing changes to the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality, but has advised officers that public consultation has been further delayed and is now not likely until the end of 2019. Purchase of new machines has been held off pending the changes, because they may influence the type of machine purchased. In the meantime, officers are managing the monitoring network closely.

Water Quantity

5.79 The rural low flow response and rural water restrictions processes are being reviewed following the recent drought, to ensure the rural restriction and provisions align well with the urban water restrictions and provisions and the approach taken by TDC.

6. Legal Proceedings Update

6.1 The Court of Appeal dismissed the Brook Valley Community Group (BVCG) appeals. The Court found that the Exemption Regulations (for the brodifacoum drop behind a predator proof fence) are lawful and the Court did not agree with the approach of the BVCG and Forest and Bird that the same action would require to be consented twice under section 15 of the Resource Management Act (discharge of contaminants) and section 13 (deposit any substance on a river bed). The BVCG are applying for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. An oral hearing on the application was set for 2 May 2019.

6.2 Jenny Walker appealed against Court decisions supporting Council action taken under the Dog Control Act. These proceedings were struck out by the High Court. Her subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal is deemed abandoned. A subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Cost awards have been made.

6.3 A separate dog attack prosecution will be heard on 15 May.

6.4 An appeal against consent conditions for a slip remediation is on track to be resolved at mediation.

6.5 There are three building-related proceedings which have been reported to the Audit Risk and Finance Subcommittee on 21 May. These are:

a. Orr, Stringer and Pessione – 5 City Heights.

b. Paine and Bowers and Others - 39 Valley Heights Road.

c. Risner v Aurecon – 9 Cullen Place.

6.5 The Marine and Customary Areas Act (MACA) applications have case management dates set for June. There are over 200 applications nationally in the High Court and 5 relate to Nelson.

7. Status Reports

7.1 The report on the options for regulatory services and the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual is included in the agenda for the Planning and Regulatory meeting on 28 May 2019.

7.2 An update on the Nelson Plan is provided in this report in the Planning section.

7.3 The Future Development Strategy public consultation results will be brought to a Joint Council Workshop on 11 June followed by the final strategy to be received by Council on 26 July.

8. Other Notable Achievements, Issues or Matters of Interest

Fire Emergency

8.1 There has been an impact on business as usual with staff being away at the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) during the fire emergency.

a. Building: Two staff worked for 66 hours.

b. City Development: The Team Leader City Development worked a total of 82 hours.

c. Consents and Compliance: Two staff worked in the EOC for four days in total. Compliance officers assisted with the clarification of the wording of the direction from the EOC, which took approximately five hours.

d. Environment: The Manager Environment covered for the Group Manager who was operating as Recovery Manager at the EOC.

e. Science and Environment: Three officers in the Science and Environment team were involved in the fire emergency response, working at the EOC for a total of 125 hours (63, 46, 16).

Workshop Update

8.2 21 February: Climate Change: follow up re CEMARS. The purpose of the workshop was to provide Elected Members with an update on the current work programme related to climate change, and to explore the next steps including whether there is a need for governance principles to guide priorities for the future work programme.

8.3 21 February: City Development ran a workshop on Options for Housing Choice and Affordability.

8.4 28 February: The City Centre Programme Lead ran a workshop with Council on the 6 key moves for the city centre. These are included in this report as attachment 5 A2184278.

8.5 5 March: City Development held a Joint Council workshop with Tasman District Council on the Future Development Strategy multi assessment criteria for evaluating growth options.

8.6 12 March: Nelson Plan: Officers provided an overview of the Draft Plan and process. There was a conversation about potential flooding issues in the city.

8.7 19 March: City Development held a Joint Council workshop with Tasman District Council on the Future Development Strategy draft consultation documents and interactive web map.

8.8 26 March: Joint NCC/TDC Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy: A joint presentation was provided by representatives from NCC, TDC, the Department of Conservation, iwi and the Next Foundation. The presentation covered the national conservation context, an overview of the strategy and proposed implementation, and a funders and iwi perspective on the Draft Strategy.

8.9 27 March: Smart Little City: The purpose of this workshop was to refine areas where Council might want to develop business cases to deliver a smart little city.

8.10 7 May: Nelson Plan: This workshop provided an overview of the Nelson Plan work and considered the Draft Plan Vision. The Workshop also covered the Draft Nelson Plan provisions relating to Noise, Temporary Events, and Signs. Further consideration was required of:

· Port, airport, traffic and motorway noise

· The hours for construction noise

· Inner City acoustic insulation standards

· Allowing for additional events to enable the city to be more welcoming of events

· Improved guidance and processes for event organisers

· The cumulative impacts of temporary events

· Directional, airport, trailer, digital, and electoral sign standards

· Enabling community signage

8.11 9 May: Nelson Plan : This workshop covered Air Quality and the Coastal Environment.

8.12 An update on the proposed National Environment Standard Air Quality (NESAQ) and potential changes to airshed boundaries was considered at the start of the workshop. Councillors endorsed the general approach of retaining the operative plan content until the NESAQ draft is released at the end of 2019 subject to the further consideration of the following matters:

· Implications of NTFDS future growth areas for airshed boundaries

· Eco flue and coal burning approaches at Environment Canterbury and Westland

· Ministry for the Environment approach to shipping emissions and Warrant of Fitness for woodburners

8.13 The remainder of the workshop focussed on the Coastal Environment provisions. The following matters were identified for further consideration:

· The impacts of permanent Port occupation (rather than through permit) on future recreational and other users

· How refuelling of ships or transfer of fuels away from the Port is managed

· Clarification of ‘functional need to be located in CMA’ and the definition of scientific research structure

· The potential duplication in the discharges of water rule (C.7.R.26)

· The need for more detailed scenarios at future workshops

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2151814 Building and Consents and Compliance statistics ⇩

Attachment 2: A2181696 Annual Report - Quarterly Reporting - Performance Measures - 2018/19 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2176723 Environment AMP KPIs ⇩

Attachment 4: A2181946 Planning and Regulatory Committee Report on Operational Projects ⇩

Attachment 5: A2184278 City Centre Programme Six Key Moves ⇩

Attachment 6: A2182016 Vision for Whakatu Nelson Plan - May 2019 ⇩

Attachment 7: A2159046 Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Strategy ⇩

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 on work programmes and statutory timeframes. Recruitment for these roles is continuing.

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:

· Biodiversity

· 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

Powers to Recommend:

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

Water Quality Scientist, Dr Paul Fisher, and Manager Environment, Matt Heale, answered questions on the report. It was noted that the MCI score for the ‘fair’ grade for measuring ecological health using the macroinvertebrates community index on page 73 of the State of the Environment Report 2018, should read 80 – 100, not 80 – 90. Councillors acknowledged the hard work of staff from across Council and reinforced the comprehensive, thorough, and readable nature of the report.
Resolved PR/2019/013
	*That the Planning and Regulatory Committee* 1. *Receives* *the report State of the Environment Report 2018 (R9813) and its attachment (A2111722); and* 2. *Approves* *the State of the Environment Report 2018 for distribution as a Council document*.
Dahlberg/Walker Carried

Manager Environmental Inspections Limited, Brent Edwards, answered questions regarding the provision of parking for jurors. It was noted that section 3.3.1 of the Parking Policy did not include the Mayor of Nelson and a clause was added to the recommendation to change the words ‘Nelson City Council Councillors’ to ‘Nelson City Elected and Appointed Members’.
Resolved PR/2019/014
	*That the Planning and Regulatory Committee* 1. *Receives* *the report Amendment to Parking Policy - Parking Permits (R9946) and its attachment (A2147652).*
McGurk/Fulton Carried
Recommendation to Council PR/2019/015
	*That the Council* 1. *Approves* *Part 3.3 of the Parking Policy be amended to include Jurors attending trials at the Nelson Courthouse as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2147652) to Report R9946; and* 2. *Approves* *amendments to the Parking Policy that update references to Council officer positions where required as included in Attachment 1 (A2147652) to Report R9946; and* 3. Approves an amendment to the first bullet point in section 3.3.1 of the Parking Policy from ‘Nelson City Councillors’ to ‘Nelson City Council Elected and Appointed Members’; and 4. *Delegates* the Chief Executive the authority to amend the criteria in Part 3.3 of the Parking Policy when required to minimise any negative impacts of the parking permits on the users of the parking resource.
McGurk/Fulton Carried

Team Leader Resource Consents, Adrian Ramage introduced Harbourmaster Dave Duncan, and Deputy Harbourmaster Amanda Kerr, and tabled a draft map of Nelson Harbour Priority Activity Areas. Mr Ramage answered questions regarding proposed changes to the bylaw. Following discussion on definitions, clarification, enforcement, exemptions, TDC/NCC boundary ambiguities and the need for full legal review and an assessment of costs of implementation to users of major changes proposed prior to release for consultation, it was agreed that the matter be deferred until the 28 May 2019 Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting.
Defer item to another meeting PR/2019/016
	*That the Planning and Regulatory Committee* 1. Defers the item Navigation Safety Bylaw Review to be considered at the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting to be held on 28 May 2019.
McGurk/Her Worship the Mayor
Attachments 1 A Draft Nelson Harbour Priority Activity Areas

Manager Environmental Inspections Limited, Brent Edwards, answered questions regarding impounding fees and processes.
Recommendation PR/2019/017
	*That the Planning and Regulatory Committee* 1. *Receives* *the report Proposed Dog Control fees and charges (R10031) and its attachment (A2145361).*
Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried
Recommendation to Council PR/2019/018
	*That the Council* 1. *Approves* *the Dog Control fees and charges as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2145361) to report R10031 to take effect from 1 July 2019.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Barker Carried