Agenda of Environment Committee

Item 7: Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access

Environment Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R10204

Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 Vehicles towing boats are crossing the estuarine flats at Delaware Bay to launch. This is not permitted under the rules in the Nelson Resource Management Plan. This report requests Council determine whether a resource consent application to provide for vehicles crossing the estuary at Delaware Bay should be prepared and lodged and confirming the process for seeking additional budget for either the resource consent or enforcement.

2. Summary

2.1 Driving vehicles on the foreshore at locations other than boat ramps requires resource consent as a discretionary activity under the Nelson Resource Management Plan. In preparing for the new Nelson Plan officers have been working with iwi, the fishing/boating community and the local community to work through various options. The potential preferred solution collectively discussed was to lodge a resource consent to provide for access for recreational fishers, using a defined route, for a two year trial period. And if that option was found workable that the route then be defined in the new Nelson Plan.

2.2 Iwi have decided not to support the proposed resource consent application. The drafting of the application has been put on hold. Iwi are asking that Council enforce the rule in the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) and prevent continued access. This was confirmed at a meeting with the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 19 November.

2.3 As usage will increase over the summer period a decision on whether to continue with the resource consent application is required. If the decision is made to continue then it needs to be noted there is no budget for that process or for the installation of a defined route. If the decision is made not to pursue a resource consent application then Council officers will undertake enforcement of the provisions of the current NRMP noting there will be costs associated with this which again are not budgeted.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee:

1. Receives the report Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access (R10204) and its attachments (A1174267 and A2285396); and

2. Confirms whether an application for resource consent to enable vehicle access over a defined route at Delaware Bay is progressed, then confirms the process for the additional required budget for either the resource consent or enforcement.

4. Background

History of vehicles on the estuary and Maori Land Court Claim

4.1 In 1999, Māori Pā Road was extended along the edge of the estuary, following a subdivision in the area. Anecdotally, some locals were crossing the estuary to launch boats prior to 1999. However, following the extension of the public road, the number of vehicles crossing the estuary increased. There are also a number of joyriders with some having become stuck and needing to be towed out. A number of those have not found help in time and their cars have been completely inundated in the estuary.

4.2 Delaware Bay/Wakapuaka was subject to a claim in the Māori Land Court, which awarded freehold title to the Huria Matenga Wakapuaka Trust in 1998. This decision was challenged by the Crown, and the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal. The issue was the source of widespread public debate.

4.3 Previous Council attempts at enforcement have met with opposition from locals and recreational fishers. When Council put up barricades to block the makeshift ramp around 2001, they were taken down again (without permission). The issue also featured in high profile news stories at the time, with some expressing the view this was an issue of public access to the coast.

4.4 Since 2001 there has been no further enforcement by the Council.

Stakeholder Engagement over the Last Two Years

4.5 For approximately the last two years, officers have been engaging with iwi and stakeholders regarding a possible solution to the issue.

4.6 The iwi that has had the most involvement to date is Ngāti Tama, through the two Trusts based in the area, Huria Matenga Wakapuaka Trust and Wakapuaka 1B Trust. In recent months, Ngāti Koata and Ngāti Kuia have joined the discussion. At the meeting with the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 19 November Ngāti Toa were also involved in discussions.

4.7 Other stakeholders that have been engaged with include the harbourmaster, recreational fishers and residents of Delaware Bay.

4.8 As part of the engagement, Cawthron Institute were contracted to perform a study on the effects of vehicles on the estuary. This included sediment cores, assessment of the extent of seagrass coverage, field observations of boat launches, a boat users’ survey and interviews with iwi representatives and local residents. The findings of the report are discussed further in section 5.

“Trespass notice” flyers

4.9 In September 2019, a number of flyers were put on car windshields, purporting to be “trespass notices”. The flyers included the car license plate numbers and included reference to the Huria Matenga Wakapuaka Trust and one of its trustees.

4.10 The matter will escalate and it is therefore critical that Council determines whether a resource consent application is pursued, what messages are to be communicated and notes that enforcement, which follows if no application is made, has the potential to be difficult.

5. Discussion

5.1 There are a number of competing considerations with regards to the future of access at Delaware Bay.

5.2 In simple terms there is a breach of the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP), where driving vehicles on the foreshore is not permitted and requires an application for a discretionary activity. In the absence of an application being made then officers have the delegations to enforce the rule in the NRMP. Enforcement will unlikely end the issues and may inflame matters for some and will require ongoing involvement of enforcement personnel including potential police support.

5.3 Recognising the complex issues, discussions commenced with iwi, recreational fishers and the local community. A number of issues surfaced including the need to understand what the potential ecological impacts are. The Cawthron Institute was engaged and the findings of their report are set out below.

The Cawthron Institute report

5.4 Attachment 1 contains the full report. The Cawthron study found that, over the period of monitoring, around 70% of boat launchings and retrievals were happening at the Delaware Bay site, compared to around 30% at Cable Bay.

5.5 The Cawthron report includes a table showing reasons why people launched at the two locations (see below):

Cawthron report 3015, p36.

5.6 The Cawthron report captured the views of local hapū members on the issue as including:

· This is an issue that goes to their status as mana whenua and kaitiaki of the estuary.

· They are concerned about the impacts on the ecology, particularly of shellfish and their habitat.

· The estuary was their “supermarket” and driving across it is culturally offensive.

· They have aspirations for a commercial venture in the area and they feel that the vehicle access jeopardises that possibility.

· They are advancing a claim to Customary Marine Title of the estuary.

· If there was to be vehicle access to a low tide launch point at Delaware Bay, then a long wooden ramp could be built with a charge to users to recover the cost.

5.7 The Cawthron report also included a table showing an assessment of potential options (see below):

Option	Pros	Cons
Status quo	Low financial cost (at least in short term).	Damage to estuary and associated cultural values continues. Rules in NCC coastal plan not being enforced.
No vehicle access to estuary at Delaware Inlet	No more damage to estuary (assuming rules can be enforced). Potential for seagrass rehabilitation.	Enforcement could be difficult and/or expensive. Safety issues for boat users. Renewed animosity between residents, iwi and boat users.
Marked route(s) at Delaware Inlet to limited number of launching points	Reduced damage to estuary. Potential for seagrass rehabilitation outside marked route(s).	Not all vehicles will stay on route. Some ongoing impacts to estuary. Some maintenance required of route markings.
Long wooden ramp at Delaware Inlet	Minimises on-going damage.	Cost. Structure would have visual effects, some shading effects and changes to currents. Possible damage to estuary during construction phase. On-going maintenance required.
Improve facilities at Delaware Inlet; booking system for parking	Improves experience for users.	Cost. Likely to lead to increased use and therefore more damage to estuary.
Improved signage about values of Delaware Inlet	Greater environmental awareness by boat users. With other measures, could help to reduce impact on estuary.	Unlikely to deter ‘joyriders’ and some boat users from inappropriate behaviour. Damage to estuary and associated values continues.
Restrictions on users of Delaware Inlet e.g. boat/trailer size limits; no jet skis	Reduced ecological and other impacts (depending on restrictions).	May be difficult to enforce.
Install concrete ramp and improve other facilities at Cable Bay	Safer and better experience for users. Some users diverted from Delaware Inlet so reduced impact to estuary.	Increased congestion at Cable Bay, conflict with beach users. Construction cost, with on-going maintenance. Cable Bay still not safe in some conditions.
Regular monitoring of Delaware Inlet	Provides basis for periodic review of approach.	Cost. May not provide definitive conclusions.

From Cawthron report 3015, p57.

5.8 Overall, the report found (page ii): “…there is good evidence, albeit inconclusive, that vehicle traffic has caused a reduction in the extent of seagrass beds over time. Similarly, we consider that higher vehicle usage is likely causing some impacts in the midshore on sediment structure and the associated benthic animal community, including cockles.”

Managed access trial proposed

5.9 After the Cawthron report was provided there was further discussion with hapū representatives and local stakeholders. And as a result a proposal was advanced to trial managed access at the estuary.

5.10 The proposal involved the establishment of a marked route to the low tide launch point using concrete markers (low profile, so that landscape values of the area were minimally affected) and that the area outside the marked route would be enforced by Council. A pou was also proposed to be erected recognising the cultural values of the area.

5.11 The draft resource consent application proposed a two-year trial period, with monitoring to show the level of compliance and enforcement and also to show the impact on the estuary both within and outside the marked area.

5.12 In preparing the resource consent all iwi were invited to further participate in discussions. To date, iwi/hapū bodies that have taken part in the draft resource consent application process are:

· Wakapuaka 1B Trust;

· Huria Matenga Trust;

· Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust;

· Ngāti Koata (through Ratapu Hippolite and Marlin Elkington);

· Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia;

· Ngāti Toa.

5.13 In June and July 2019, the iwi/Trusts rejected the proposal and would not support a resource application for managed access across the estuary. Reasons cited were the ecological impacts, including damage to seagrass beds and the crushing of sediment dwelling invertebrates – especially shellfish.

5.14 Ngāti Kuia stated:

Our stance remains the same. We advocate for the policies of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. We do not think it is appropriate for Council to provide for the community in this way as it is against the existing policy direction in the Plan and the adverse effects are more than minor. Alternative locations for this recreational activity should be explored.

5.15 After receiving this feedback the drafting of the resource consent application stopped. Parties have been informed the next steps, if any, about progressing the application will be considered by Council. A further meeting was held with the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 19 November and the iwi present made it clear they would not support an application being made for resource consent.

Legal Status

5.16 The area above mean high water springs (MHWS) is Council road reserve and below MHWS is the common marine and coastal area (or coastal marine area), which is subject to a “no-ownership” regime under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA) – in other words no-one owns the area.

5.17 Whakapuaka/Wakapuaka/Delaware Bay Estuary has a long association with several iwi, principally Ngāti Tama, and two associated Trusts who have land interests in the immediate area. Currently there are eight applications (seven of which are for customary marine title (CMT) and protected customary rights (PCR) and one is just for CMT) relevant to this area that have been lodged with the High Court/Crown under MACA. These are from Te Rūnanga o Rangitāne o Kaituna; Rangitāne o Wairau; Te Ātiawa o Te Waka a Māui; Ngati Tama ki Te Tau Ihu; Ngati Toa Rangatira; Te Huria Matenga Trust; Rihari Dargaville for New Zealand Māori Council (covers all of New Zealand); and Cletus Maanu Paul (covers all of New Zealand).

5.18 Groups that obtain CMT and/or PCRs orders or agreements under MACA have significant rights in terms of controlling the activities that may take place in the common marine and coastal area. This includes CMT holders having the right to grant or decline permission for certain activities to occur in the coastal marine area within a CMT. It will be some time before any of the above listed applicant groups will be able to secure the orders or agreements that give rise to CMTs or PCRs (the process is moving slowly through the Courts/Crown) but the Council should be aware that these rights may emerge in the future.

5.19 Until the matter of CMTs or PCRs have been settled, any applicant for resource consent in an area where decisions on CMT’s are pending must notify the group that has applied for the CMT and seek their views on the application.

Alternative Sites

5.20 There are a number of authorised launch sites in Nelson being:

a) Monaco – concrete ramp.

b) Tahunanui – beach launch and access ramp.

c) Wakefield Quay – 2 – yacht club and rescue centre (not public).

d) Nelson Marina – 3 – main public ramp, another ramp and a restricted ramp off Vickerman Street.

e) Rutherford Park – for small craft.

f) QEII Drive – 3 – just north of the Wakapuaka Cemetery, near Malvern Avenue and near Bayview Drive.

g) Atawhai Drive – 4 spots.

h) Cable Bay – 3 spots.

5.21 The recreational boating people have said that access at Cable Bay to the sea can be difficult often as it is an exposed coast and is not easy to launch from or return to. Improvements to the launch site have been discussed but fundamentally the comment from the fishers is it is unsafe at times. The access into the estuary at Cable Bay is above the water line for much of the time and is a long way to the Bay. They say Delaware Inlet provides a gradual descent to the water’s edge and is protected from tidal surges. The recreational boating people have said access at the marina involves travel distance and is very busy over the summer period.

Other Issues

Enforcement

5.22 If a resource consent application is not pursued then enforcement of the rule will be required. Enforcement will initially involve education over a few weekends. However, given the inability to be present at the site at all times and the likely push back from individuals consideration will need to be given to barriers, CCTV and the presence of the Police if they are available. Follow up with individual boaties will be time consuming. None of these items have been budgeted for.

Trust Aspirations

5.23 The two hapū Trusts in the area (Huria Matenga Trust and the Wakapuaka 1B Block Trust) have aspirations for commercial development in Delaware Bay. Hapū members have voiced concern for the viability of potential future ventures if vehicles have access onto the estuary.

Status of the Estuary as an Outstanding Natural Landscape

5.24 Technical work for the new Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan has identified the estuary as an outstanding natural landscape and an area of outstanding coastal natural character. While the Plan has not been notified and as such has no legal effect, the technical information would need to be considered as part of any resource consent application.

Resource Management Plan Development

5.25 It is an option to include the location as an official “launch ramp” in the draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan.

5.26 The Plan is not due to be notified before 2021 and even when it is there would be some considerable period where the current rules would still be in play. So a resource consent will still be required until such time as the new Plan is operative. The inclusion of a boat ramp at this location in the Plan needs to give effect to matters including the NZ Coastal Policy Statement. It is likely to be challenged in Plan Hearings and the Environment Court.

6. Options

6.1 The range of options associated with the resource consent application and defining a route are discussed in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Option 1: Status Quo
Advantages	· Low cost. · Continued safe access of recreational boat users to the estuary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continues the non-compliance with the Nelson Resource Management Plan. Council is not performing its functions. · Does not address iwi and ecological concerns regarding vehicles crossing the estuary; · Likely escalation by some parties who may look to take on an enforcement role.
Option 2: Wooden boat ramp across estuary
Advantages	· Would minimise damage to the estuary. · Would still provide boat access within the estuary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May not be acceptable to iwi (early discussions indicated there may be support but discussions have moved on). · Very high visual impact on the landscape (in an area recognised to be an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape and an area of Outstanding Coastal Natural Character). · This option would require resource consent, (and that consent may not be granted). As the application would likely be notified, the estimated cost would be around $20,000 and more if the decision is appealed to the Environment Court. · A preliminary estimate of construction costs is around $2 million. · Likely ongoing maintenance/replacement costs as subject to tidal movement.
Option 3: Improvements to Cable Bay ramps
Advantages	· Uses recognised boat ramps. · Will provide access points in the area without impact to the estuary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· In some sea conditions will still be dangerous to use. · The high energy environment will likely result in any future ramp breaking up. · Cost - a preliminary estimate was sought, but no figure could be given for an engineering solution that would withstand wave action at Cable Bay. · This option would also require a resource consent application, and due to the potential visual impact of a new ramp on other values of Cable Bay, this option would also likely involve a notified resource consent application – additional cost of at least $20,000, but much more if the decision is appealed to the Environment Court. · Increased boat traffic may conflict with other recreational users of a popular beach
Option 4: Continue resource consent application for managed access trial
Advantages	· If successful, would restrict potential impact to a narrower corridor across the estuary and will be monitored during the trial period. · Low level of physical works e.g. rocks defining route - Low cost. · Low visual impact.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Continuing to progress the application will negatively affect the relationship with iwi. · Without iwi support, the consent application will likely be notified (and may not be granted). An estimated cost of the notified consent is at least $20,000, but more if the decision is appealed to the Environment Court. · If it was successful, as the consent holder, Council would also be legally liable for non-compliance with the consent (e.g. members of the public going outside the marked route on the estuary and monitoring requirements).
Option 5: Add launch point as a recognised “boat ramp”
Advantages	· Would legitimise the current access but only after the Plan is operative which will be a number of years. · Would provide certainty to current recreational boat users of the launch point.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would damage the relationship with iwi. · Including this location as a boat ramp in the Nelson Plan would be subject to submissions and would likely be strongly opposed by iwi (and possibly other community groups) with associated costs. · Any decision to include the location as a legitimate boat ramp could be appealed to the Environment Court.

7. Conclusion

7.1 A complex matter, with many parts, requiring a decision as to whether to proceed in preparing and lodging a resource consent application for vehicular access via a defined route at Delaware Bay. There will be costs associated with the application process, the construction of a defined route as well as the enforcement of the current rule in the NRMP – none of which have been budgeted for.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1774267 - Cawthron Report 3015 - Impact of vehicle traffic - Delaware Inlet - June2017 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: A2285396 - Aerial photo showing Delaweare Estuary - 2017 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of LGA 2002 requires local government to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. This report traverses all of these matters.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Relevant excerpts of Councils Community Outcomes are:

“We recognise the kaitiakitanga (guardianship) role of tangata whenua iwi.

Good urban design and thoughtful planning create safe, accessible public spaces for people of all ages, abilities and interests.

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

Our leaders understand our community, are confident in our future, know how to drive success and to work with others to tackle the big issues facing Nelson.”

The issues are clearly understood. The option selected will determine which of the iwi or safe and accessible spaces outcomes can be achieved.

3. Risk

Whichever option is selected there will either be an adverse impact on Council’s relationship with some iwi and Trusts or alternatively some of the local boating community. This will be a long term impact.

4. Financial impact

Regardless of which option is selected there will be additional costs.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance given the interest of the community and iwi in the matter. As the issue is one that is subject to either enforcement, Plan change or resource consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 and subject to their own engagement processes, it is not considered necessary to seek feedback under the Local Government Act 2002 provisions.

6. Climate Impact

Any potential defined route will need to consider the potential impact of climate change and more coastal process issues. These will need to be covered in any application for resource consent.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Trusts and Iwi engaged during this process are aware this report will be presented to the Council.

8. Delegations

Areas of Responsibility:

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

· The Regional Policy Statement, District and Regional Plans, including the Nelson Plan

Delegations:

The committee has all of the responsibilities, powers, functions and duties of Council in relation to governance matters within its areas of responsibility, except where they have been retained by Council, or have been referred to other committees, subcommittees or subordinate decision-making bodies.

Item 8: Review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

Environment Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R12538

Review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To review both the Dog Control Bylaw 2013 (the Bylaw) and the Dog Control Policy 2013 (the Policy), adopt a Statement of Proposal proposing amendments to these documents and to approve commencement of the special consultative procedure.

2. Summary

2.1 In order to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002, a review of the Dog Control Bylaw was initiated in February 2018 and needs to be completed by 25 February 2020.

2.2 The review of the Bylaw entails consideration of four key questions:

· What is the perceived problem?

· Is a bylaw the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem?

· Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate and if not, how should it be amended to be the most appropriate?

· Will the Bylaw and any proposed amendments give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) implications?

2.3 Council will have completed the review when it considers this report and determines whether the Bylaw should continue without amendment, be amended, revoked or revoked and replaced. If the Council agrees amendments should be made, then it will need to adopt a Statement of Proposal and approve commencement of the Special Consultative Procedure.

2.4 Discussions with Environmental Inspections Limited (EIL) staff and informal consultation with key stakeholders was carried out in late 2018 to identify any issues with the Bylaw and any proposed improvements to the Policy and Bylaw. Recommendations relate to:

· The Railway Reserve — Retaining the off-leash status for dogs on the Railway Reserve along with signage and publicity on what dog owners can do to avoid conflicts between dogs and cyclists, pedestrians and other dogs

· Isel Park — Retaining the half on leash and half off leash approach

· Deleting the Good Dog Owner Policy

· Grazed Reserves — Now requiring dogs to be on a leash at all times in Council reserves where grazing occurs (except in the grazed part of Paremata Flats Reserve)

· Paremata Reserve and Delaware Inlet — Prohibiting dogs from the planted area at Paremata Flats and Delaware Estuary’s vegetated margin and islands

· Monaco Reserve — Changing from on-leash to off-leash status (other than in the playground)

· Boulder Bank — Identifying the area closest to the Glen as an on-leash area to align with the Department of Conservation (DOC) signage.

· Number of Dogs — Deleting Part 8 of the Policy (Number of Dogs) which requires Council permission to keep more than 2 dogs within the City and relying on Council’s ability to reduce the number of dogs if necessary, under clause 10.2 of the Bylaw.

· Enforcement provisions — Amending the enforcement provisions to align with current practice.

2.5 The public will also be able to make suggestions for changes to any other aspects of the Policy and Bylaw during the consultation process.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw (R12538) and its attachments (A2298783, A2145324, A2145327, A2298620, A2145304, A2145310 and A2122940); and

2. Determines that the Bylaw should continue, with amendments, and that the Policy is also amended to reflect those amendments; and

3. Agrees that a Bylaw (and updated Policy) is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems with the current Policy and Bylaw; and

4. Agrees the proposed amendments to the Dog Control Bylaw 2013 (221) 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

5. Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendments to the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2013 is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

6. Adopts the Statement of Proposal (A2145304) and the Summary of the Statement of Proposal (A2145310); and

7. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 27 January to 28 February 2020; and

8. Notes that a separate report will be prepared in 2020 to review fees and charges in light of Policy and Bylaw changes; and

9. Approves the approach set out in the Communications Plan (A2298620) and agrees:

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

4. Background

Review process to be completed by February 2020

4.1 Section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) requires Council to have a Policy and the necessary bylaws to give effect to it. Where the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires the Bylaw to be reviewed (as is the case here) then section 10AA of the DCA requires the Council to consider whether it is appropriate to also amend the Policy. Accordingly, the Council is undertaking the review of its Bylaw and Policy concurrently.

4.2 Section 10(2) of the DCA also requires that all registered dog owners receive notice of any proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy. This means all of the 4,836 dog owners (who have a total of 5,800 dogs) must receive notice of the proposed amendments by email or by post. Council also needs to advise people who do not own dogs but have an interest in any of the issues covered in the Policy and Bylaw about the consultation process so that they also have the opportunity to provide feedback.

4.3 A communications plan has been developed to achieve widespread awareness of the proposal, which includes: promoting the proposals through the news media, social media, Our Nelson and posters in public places, as well as directly contacting all of the stakeholders who were invited to provide informal feedback in late 2018, which includes cycling groups and schools located near the Railway Reserve.

4.4 By considering this report and the proposed amendments to the Bylaw, Council will complete the review process, and the current Bylaw (which came into effect on 25 February 2013) will continue to have effect beyond 25 February 2020. Public consultation on the proposed amendments can occur after this date.

Environment Committee to undertake the review process

4.5 The February 2018 report to the Planning and Regulatory Committee indicated that the Bylaw had been relatively non-controversial to implement. However, a number of issues were identified for further consideration. This included reconsideration of:

· off-leash areas on the Railway Reserve

· on-leash/off-leash areas at Isel Park

· off-leash areas where stock grazing occurs

· on-leash/off-leash status of Monaco Reserve.

4.6 The Planning and Regulatory Committee recommended that full Council considers the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. This was confirmed at the Council meeting on 20 March 2018. Given the new Council committee structure where committees are of the whole Council it was determined at the 14 November Council meeting that this matter would be considered by the Environment Committee.

Feedback including from stakeholders

4.7 Stakeholder engagement in late 2018 consisted of:

· letters to stakeholders (Attachment 1) to invite feedback on the most significant issues identified by EIL and Council staff

· an informal survey of Isel Park users on their on-leash or off-leash preferences for Isel Park.

Statement of Proposal includes issues and options analysis

4.11 Stakeholder engagement in 2018 informed the attached Statement of Proposal (Attachment 5). The Statement of Proposal (SOP) identifies a range of issues with the current Policy and Bylaw and includes an analysis of the options against key criteria. These criteria were derived from section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996 as well as Council’s reserve management objectives, and the Local Government Act 2002. The options relate to the following matters:

· the Railway Reserve

· Isel Park

· grazed reserves

· the Good Dog Owner Policy

· Monaco Reserve

· Paremata Flats Reserve and Delaware Estuary

· the Boulder Bank

· number of dogs

· enforcement provisions.

4.12 The public will be able to provide feedback on these options through a Special Consultative Procedure, to be carried out after Council has approved a Statement of Proposal.

Special Consultative Procedure outcomes could be more or less restrictive

4.13 Outcomes of the special consultative procedure could include:

· retaining the existing provisions in the Policy and the Bylaw

· adopting the proposed amendments outlined in the SOP, or a variation of these, based on community feedback

· adopting a different approach in the Bylaw and the Policy based on community feedback (see alternative options section on page 9 of the SOP).

4.14 A legal review of the SOP has been carried out to ensure it meets the requirements of the LGA, the NZBORA, and the DCA.

5. Discussion

Legal issues to consider

5.1 In deciding whether to make any changes to the Bylaw, consideration must be given to s155 of the Local Government Act (LGA) and s10(4) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA).

5.2 The LGA requires the identification of any perceived problem and a determination that the Bylaw is the most appropriate method of addressing the problem. If the Bylaw is identified as the most appropriate method, then further consideration needs to be given to whether the current form of the Bylaw is the most appropriate and whether there are implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

5.3 The DCA provides useful context for consideration of the above LGA matters. Section 10(4) emphasises:

(a) the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

5.4 To complete the review, Council needs to consider the following questions.

· What is the perceived problem?

· Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

· Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate?

· Will the Bylaw give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) implications?

What is the perceived problem?

5.6 Council’s records show there are approximately 6,000 registered dogs in Nelson (in 2019). With a population of 52,000 people, the challenge is how to accommodate the needs of both dogs and their owners, and the wider community. As outlined in section 10(4) of the DCA (shown above), there is a need to minimise danger, distress, fear and nuisance caused by dogs while managing access to public places where there might be a conflict between dogs and the community. This needs to be balanced with the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

5.7 The Policy and Bylaw seek to address these problems by prohibiting dogs from certain areas, and designating on and off-leash areas.

5.8 The key problems identified with the 2013 Bylaw, and the proposed changes to address them are outlined below.

Problem to be addressed	Proposed change
The Good Dog Owner Policy is not achieving the objectives for which it was developed due to the time and costs involved in administering it. It also unfairly disadvantages people who are unable to pay registration fees on time.	Delete the GDO Policy.
Stock grazing is a low cost way to control grass in Council reserves, in order to manage fire risk. However, graziers are reluctant to provide sheep or cattle for this purpose if there is a risk of attack or worrying of their stock by dogs.	Require dogs to be on a leash in Council’s grazed reserves (rather than being allowed to be off-leash).
Dogs have the potential to disturb rare, ground-nesting birds which live in Paremata Reserve and on the margins of Delaware Inlet.	Prohibit dogs from the planted area at Paremata Reserve and Delaware Inlet.
In 2014 Council received a petition signed by 66 people asking for dogs to be allowed off-leash in Monaco Reserve.	Allow dogs to be off-leash in Monaco Reserve (excluding the playground).
DOC is responsible for management of the Boulder Bank and has signage stating this is an on-leash area. However, this is currently an off-leash area in Council’s Bylaw.	Require dogs to be on-leash on the Boulder Bank (apart from the areas which are already prohibited) to align with DOC signage.
EIL have advised that the Number of Dogs policy is not achieving the desired outcome. Most people are unaware of the policy (of requiring permission to have more than two dogs per property).	Manage potential issues with multiple dogs on a property through the DCA rather than requiring a permit to have more than two dogs.
Minor inconsistencies between how the enforcement process is carried out by Council and the current text in the Bylaw.	Amend the Bylaw to more accurately reflect the enforcement process carried out by Council.

Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

5.9 The Bylaw has been in place since 2004 and has been an effective way to manage dogs. Section 10 of the DCA requires councils to develop a Dog Control Policy and to give effect to the policy through a bylaw. Therefore, unless no public places are listed in a dog control policy as areas where dogs are prohibited or required to be on a leash, there are limited other options for managing dogs under NZ legislation.

5.10 Alternative (and complementary) ways to minimise danger, distress, fear and nuisance caused by dogs while managing access to public places where there might be a conflict between dogs and the community are outlined below. Council uses these methods alongside implementation of its Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

Options for managing conflicts between dogs and the community

Assessment

Respond to complaints using the powers provided through the Dog Control Act.

This approach gives Council the power to charge registration fees and intervene when an issue occurs, such as a dog attack.

On its own, this approach does not comply with section 10 of the Dog Control Act, and would result in a reactive rather than a proactive approach to reducing conflicts between dogs and the wider community.

Rely on education and dog training.

This approach encourages people to take responsibility for their dog, and gives them skills to control their dog when it is off-leash in a public place.

On its own, this approach does not comply with section 10 of the Dog Control Act, and relies on all dog owners to manage any risks of conflict between their dogs and the community, which does not provide enough certainty for the wider community.

Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate?

5.11 The form of the Bylaw could be improved, and the recommended changes are outlined in section 6 of this report. The key changes proposed to the Bylaw are:

· to require dogs to be on a leash at all times in grazed reserves to avoid impacts on stock

· to require dogs to be on leash on the Boulder Bank (apart from the areas which are already prohibited) to align with DOC signage

· to prohibit dogs from Delaware Estuary and Paremata Flats Reserve to avoid disturbance to rare, ground-nesting birds

· to allow dogs to be off leash in Monaco Reserve, except for the playground, to reflect the preferences of the community.

What are the potential implications for NZBORA?

5.12 In reviewing bylaws the Council needs to consider whether the Bylaw is reasonable and demonstrably justified. The only human right listed in NZBORA which has some potential relevance to the Dog Control Bylaw is section 18(1) — ‘Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.’

5.13 The proposed changes to the Bylaw don’t impact on any movements by people alone. They do increase restrictions on people with responsibilities for exercising dogs (in grazed reserves, on the Boulder Bank and at Delaware Estuary). However, significant off-leash walking areas remain available to people in Nelson, including the off-leash area at Tahunanui Beach, most of the Maitai Walkway, and the Railway Reserve.

Consultation process to gain public feedback

5.14 The public consultation process will enable the community to consider the proposed amendments to the Policy and Bylaw, and to suggest any other changes to the Policy and Bylaw. A one month submission period will be followed by a hearing for those wanting to speak. The Environment Committee will then hold a deliberations meeting to consider all submissions and make decisions.

6. Options

Railway Reserve to be off leash

6.1 The Railway Reserve is currently identified as an off-leash area (refer maps 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Attachment 7).

6.2 EIL (which provides animal control services for Council) has received approximately 40 complaints about dog-related activity on the Railway Reserve over the past three years. This equates to almost one complaint per month. Anecdotally, many of these complaints relate to dogs running out of control and creating conflict with other users of the reserve such as walkers and cyclists.

6.3 Extendable leashes are problematic for cyclists because the dog could be on one side of the path and the owner on the other, creating a significant risk for cyclists. However, Police-reported crash data from 2000-2019 does not include any cycle versus dog incidents. It may be an unreported issue.

6.4 The 0800 Cycle Crash hotline is a way to gather data about cycle crashes in Nelson, and is supported by both Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency. The 0800 Cycle Crash data from 2011 to 2018 records one incident on the Railway Reserve with no injury in 2011, two incidences involving dogs in 2012 (one a near miss, and the other resulting in a cyclist falling on to the grass verge, causing a graze) and one incident in 2017 on the Railway Reserve leashing to a slight injury. The only other dog-related incident in Nelson (recorded in the Cycle Crash data) involved a dog running across the road at Paremata Drive, causing the cyclist to fall off their bike and fracture their foot.

6.5 For comparison, the total number of cycle crashes recorded in the 0800 Cycle Crash data during this period is shown in the following table.

Year	Reported crashes
2011	15
2012	34
2013	35
2014	3
2015	20
2016	13
2017	17
2018	12

Stakeholder feedback

6.6 Council received the following feedback during informal consultation in late 2018. (Note: feedback was provided by a health professional, animal experts and dog owners representatives. The Nayland schools and kindergarten, and cycling groups, were invited to provide feedback but did not do so. Schools, families and cyclists will have an opportunity to provide feedback during the Special Consultative Procedure.)

· Elderly people with dogs who can’t drive or walk to the beach may need other off-leash locations close to their homes.

· Off-leash areas for dogs are important for the exercise and socialisation of dogs and there needs to be enough off-leash areas to give easy access to all residents without the need to drive

· Forcing dogs into smaller areas will only increase anxiety reactions and aggressive reactions. Allowing the continued access is important (Halifax Vets).

· There are significant numbers of cyclists and pedestrians on the Railway Reserve, and bikes and dogs off leash aren’t a great mix.

· Controlling an off-leash dog in this environment requires a very well trained dog/owner team.

· Speeding cyclists are a concern.

· Cyclists need to slow down and be a little more courteous to dogs and dog walkers. Dog walkers need to understand how their dogs react and to control them appropriately. People who have good control of their dogs are not the issue, it’s the people who don’t really care that cause cyclists problems.

Options

6.7 A number of options have been assessed in the Statement of Proposal (SOP). These include:

· Option A — Status quo: Off leash for the whole of the Railway Reserve

· Option B — Status quo: Off leash for the whole of the Railway Reserve, plus signage and publicity about what dog owners can do to avoid conflicts with cyclists, pedestrians and other dogs

· Option C — On leash for the whole of the Railway Reserve

· Option D — On leash everywhere except the area between Quarantine Road and Songer Street

· Option E — On leash during specific hours (eg 7–9am and 3–6pm)

Recommendation and Reasons

6.8 Option B is the preferred option for the following reasons.

· Option B scores the highest in terms of minimising conflicts between people and dogs, providing dog owners with access to off-leash areas, and having clear and enforceable rules.

· While there have been a number of dog versus bike incidents over the past three years on the Railway Reserve, this equates to less than one complaint per month. This may increase with the increasing use of E-bikes which move at faster speeds.

· There are limited recreation areas in which to walk a dog off a leash in the Victory and Bishopdale areas.

· If the Railway Reserve is identified as an on-leash area, there is potential for dog versus bike issues to grow due to more use of extendable leashes.

· Safety concerns may be addressed through dog and cycle owner education, including signage that dog walking is encouraged outside peak commuter times, and updated user etiquette information.

· Costs for increased education (described above) are not significant (approximately $2,000 per annum) and can be accommodated within existing budgets.

Isel Park to retain on-leash and off-leash areas

6.9 Isel Park is currently partially on-leash (including the area around Isel House) and partially off-leash (the area closest to the Stoke shops, as well as the open space nearest the sportsfields). Refer to Map 3.

6.10 Environmental Inspections Ltd staff have advised that despite extensive signage at the Park’s entrances, the on-leash and off-leash areas are not well understood and are therefore difficult for Council to enforce in response to complaints.

6.11 It is also important to provide safe recreational areas for children and the elderly, including areas where people can picnic and children can play without the risk of dogs rushing up to them. The ‘front lawn’ area in front of Isel House is of particular importance because this is an area where parents, kindergartens and playgroups are encouraged to bring children.

Park User Survey Feedback

6.12 The majority of people spoken with in an informal November 2018 survey had no concerns about dogs being off leash in Isel Park (regardless of whether they owned a dog or not). Many of the dog walkers were older people, and one couple said they preferred their dog to be off leash because they were in their 80s and couldn’t walk fast enough for their dog to get sufficient exercise when on a leash.

6.13 However, some people preferred to keep the current 50:50 approach, recognising the Park is used by many elderly people and handicapped people as well as children. One woman with young children said she didn’t usually come to Isel Park because of the presence of off-leash dogs.

Options

6.14 A number of options have been assessed in the SOP. These include:

· Option A — Status quo: Part on leash and part off leash

· Option B — All off leash

· Option C — All on leash

Recommendations and Reasons

6.15 Option A is the preferred option because:

· Isel Park offers a high amenity recreation area for parents and children, and the elderly, as well as for dog owners of all ages

· parents need places to go where they can be confident their children can run around without being rushed at by dogs

· Areas can be better delineated

· Continuity with current arrangements.

Grazed Reserves to become on-leash areas

6.16 Grazing occurs in the following locations:

· part of the Grampians Reserve

· part of the Sir Stanley Whitehead Walkway

· part of the Tantragee Reserve (around the Tantragee Walkway which begins near the community gardens)

· part of the Maitai River esplanade reserve.

6.17 The extent of the grazed reserve areas is shown on Maps 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Attachment 7.

6.18 Council does not have the funding to manage these areas without grazing. Dog attacks are one of the main problems with stock welfare, and consequently attracting and keeping graziers. The Grampians isn’t a reserve that can be managed with weed wackers. The weeds have taken off in recent years. The grazier removed all sheep a few years ago because of dog attacks and has only recently agreed to bring them back. Without the sheep, Council will lose control of grass growth which may also impact new plantings.

6.19 Longer grass increases fire risk. Once a fire has started, the more grass there is, the more fuel there is for the fire.

6.20 A particular issue with sheep in the Grampians Reserve is that dog walkers may not be aware of the presence of sheep until they are directly in front of them, due to the vegetation and the hilly contour of the area.

Stakeholder Feedback

6.25 Council received a wide range of feedback regarding potential changes for grazed areas. This included the following points.

· Dog owners highly value the off-leash status of the Grampians.

· Having a dog provides extra security for solo women runners and walkers.

· Because of the convoluted nature of the contours and the tracks on the Grampians a sheep can appear out of nowhere with no warning which can agitate dogs.

· Dogs running free can be a problem for both young children and for ground-nesting birds.

· The grazier was asked about the extent of the problem and said the worst was 35 sheep killed in the middle of lambing, and another eight in one go during an Easter break.

· The grazier was supportive of the grazed areas at Paremata Flats Reserve remaining an off-leash exercise area as long as there is adequate signage indicating "stock grazing — keep dogs under control". He hasn’t had any issues with dogs in this reserve and is aware that off-leash dog exercise areas are very limited in Nelson North.

Options

6.26 A number of options have been assessed in the SOP.

· Option A — Status quo: dogs must be under control at all times

· Option B — Require dogs to be on a leash WHEN stock are present

· Option C — Require dogs to be on a leash in grazed areas at all times (excluding Paremata Flats Reserve)

· Option D — Require dogs to be on a leash in grazed areas at all times in the Grampians Reserve only

· Option E — Prohibit dogs from grazed areas (at all times)

Recommendations and Reasons

6.27 Option C is the preferred option (require dogs to be on a leash in all grazed reserves at all times excluding Paremata Flats Reserve) because:

· both weeds and fire risk increase if stock are not grazing these areas

· dog walkers can’t always know stock are in an area until they come across them, particularly on the steep, vegetated front-facing slopes of the Grampians

· grazing these areas is the most cost-effective way to manage weeds and fire risk on hillsides

· signage can be put in place to ensure off-leash and on-leash areas are easily distinguished.

Good Dog Owner Policy to be Deleted

6.28 The existing Good Dog Owner Policy is that a Good Dog Owner discount (which is currently $19.50) applies on an annual basis for meeting three conditions related to complaints, fencing and dog welfare, and paying registration fees on time. The two other elements of the policy are:

· an ongoing discount for neutered dogs, or for dogs registered as members of the New Zealand Kennel Club

· one voucher will be available per dog, for all dog owners towards attending a recognised training course or 1:1 training to address a behavioural issue (only payable by Council if it is redeemed with an approved provider).

6.29 EIL officers advised that implementation of the Good Dog Owner (GDO) Policy has not proven to be an effective way to achieve the outcomes for which it was designed (reducing non-compliance, promoting animal welfare and encouraging dog owners to pay registration fees on time). Currently the Policy is unclear as to whether an owner with a substantial complaint can regain their Good Dog Owner status the next year.

6.30 When people apply for GDO status, the discount does not apply until the next year of registration fees. Lots of people complain about this delay, which results in EIL staff having to spend a lot of time resolving these complaints.

6.31 In addition, one of the conditions of GDO status is paying registration fees on time. This is more difficult for people on lower incomes, who then miss out on the $19.50 GDO discount. Therefore the Policy is skewed in favour of people on higher incomes.

6.32 The GDO Policy also includes the following provision which has not yet been implemented: “One voucher will be available per dog, for all dog owners towards attending a recognised training course or 1:1 training to address a behavioural issue (only be payable by Council, if it is redeemed with an approved provider).”

6.33 Halifax Vets provided the following informal feedback in late 2018. “Unfortunately, in classes we only see the subset of the dog population that are keen to have the best start. We don’t see the puppies and owners we need — the ones that will socialise and raise their dogs in a way that is inappropriate and only encourage behavioural problems. Whatever the answer we need to get socialisation to the areas where the problems are more severe.”

6.34 Suggestions included:

· offering reduced registration fees for the first two years of a dog’s life if they have attended puppy class

· making it a bylaw requirement that all puppies must have been to a puppy class prior to being registered.

Options

6.35 A number of options have been assessed in the SOP. These include:

· Option A — Status quo: Retain existing GDO Policy

· Option B – Delete the GDO Policy.

Recommendations and Reasons

6.36 Option B is recommended because the GDO Policy:

· is costly to administer (approximately $16,500 per annum based on 300 requests at $55 per request)

· is costly to implement (currently there are 2,500 owners receiving the $19.50 subsidy, which costs $48,750, with the potential for another 3,701 applications at a cost of approximately $72,000) and easy to be classified as a good dog owner.

· does not achieve policy outcomes as it works on the basis that good dog owners need to prove they are good dog owners rather than assuming all dog owners are good dog owners and penalising those who are not.

· duplicates provisions in the Dog Control Act which requires owners to keep their dog under control generally (ss52 and 52A) and confined to their property (s52A).

6.37 It is likely that removing the GDO policy will not be popular with those who are already identified as Good Dog Owners or those that have the potential to be given their current status and fee reduction.

6.38 Changes to the GDO may require amendments to Councils fees and charges. This matter will be addressed in a future report to Council should this be necessary.

Monaco Reserve to be off leash

Stakeholder Feedback

6.39 A petition was presented to the Planning and Regulatory Committee meeting of 23 October 2014 by Mrs Chris Keay and Mrs Lois Morgan requesting that dogs be allowed to run on the Monaco Reserve without a leash. There were 66 supporting signatures with the majority of petitioners being local to the Monaco area, although some people from Richmond, Stoke and Tahunanui also signed it.

6.40 Council officers met with those who wrote the petition on Friday, 8 May 2015. The group said they had not seen or heard of any issues with dogs in the reserve. They did not want dogs in the playground (within the reserve) but did not think a fence around the playground was necessary.

Council Officers’ Feedback

6.41 Council officers advised that Monaco Reserve could be suitable as an off-leash area, although additional signage would be required to ensure that people are aware that dogs are not permitted in the playground area.

Options

· Option A — Status quo: on leash requirement in Monaco Reserve

· Option B — Dogs permitted to be off leash in Monaco Reserve (excluding the playground)

Recommendations and Reasons

6.42 Option B is recommended because there is strong community support for this approach.

6.43 There is a playground in Monaco Reserve, which will continue to be a dogs prohibited area. This combined approach within a park has proven workable in a number of other neighbourhood parks where dogs are allowed to be off leash except in the designated playground area. These include Wolfe Reserve, Poplar Reserve, Fairfield Park and Hanby Park.

Dogs to be prohibited in Paremata Flats planted area and in Delaware Estuary

6.51 ‘The fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats’ is included in Schedule One of the Bylaw (dogs prohibited areas) and ‘the sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary’ are listed in Schedule Two (dogs are permitted but must be kept on a leash). The proposed approach is shown on Map 10 of Attachment 7.

Stakeholder Feedback

6.52 During the late 2018 stakeholder engagement process, Ian Price (who leads the Paremata Flats Restoration Project) said there is an ongoing issue at Paremata with off-leash dogs entering the planted area, which poses a threat to rare ground-nesting birds such as fern birds. He noted that the present wording in the Dog Control Bylaw may be a little ambiguous and suggested revised wording to state ‘the dog exercise area at Paremata Flats applies only within the grazed paddocks. No dogs are to enter any of the planted areas of Paremata Flats Reserve’.

Options

· Option A — Status quo: dogs are prohibited within the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats

· Option B — Explicitly refer to the Paremata Flats planted area and Delaware Estuary’s vegetated margins and islands as dog prohibited areas. (Retain the ‘sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary’ in Schedule 2 as an on-leash area.)

Recommendations and Reasons

6.53 Option B is recommended because the extent of the area in which dogs are prohibited could be better clarified. Prohibiting dogs from these areas will avoid disturbance of rare, ground nesting birds such as fern birds. It also makes sense to include the estuary margins, and islands within the estuary, as areas where dogs are prohibited due to the bird nesting areas that are located there.

6.54 Retaining the sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary as an on-leash area avoids the risk of dogs running out of control and disturbing birds in the vegetated areas.

Boulder Bank rules to align with Department of Conservation signage

6.55 The Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve, from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4 kilometres, from October to February’ is listed in Schedule One (dog prohibited areas). There is no reference to the remainder of the Boulder Bank which means it is currently an off-leash area. The proposed approach is shown on Maps 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Attachment 7.

6.56 EIL recommended adding the Boulder Bank to Schedule 2 (on leash areas) because Council can’t currently act on complaints regarding non-compliance with DOC’s assigned on-leash status for the Boulder Bank, because this is not listed in the Bylaw.

Stakeholder Feedback

6.57 During the 2018 stakeholder engagement process, Lionel Solly (Acting Statutory Manager) advised that DOC has signage on the Boulder Bank which indicates that dogs are permitted if on a leash in this area. He also said that technically this is enforceable by DOC under the Reserves Act 1977, but in practical terms DOC does not have the resources to undertake compliance and enforcement work in relation to dogs being walked off leash at this site.

6.58 In further conversations, it has been noted that not all of the Boulder Bank is classified as a scenic reserve. Some parts (the baches) have a recreation reserve classification, and the part owned by Port Nelson (around the Lighthouse) doesn’t have a reserve classification. For this reason, it would be preferable to change the Bylaw’s existing references from ‘Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve’ to ‘Boulder Bank’.

Options

· Option A — Status quo — DOC has signs indicating dogs should be on a leash on the Boulder Bank but this is not listed as an on-leash area in the Bylaw. (However, the area from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4km from October to February is listed in the Bylaw as a prohibited area to protect nesting birds). Schedule A of the Policy and Bylaw refers to the “Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve”.

· Option B — Include the Boulder Bank in the Bylaw as an on-leash area (noting the prohibited status of part of the Boulder Bank from October to February), and change the ‘Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve’ references to the ‘Boulder Bank’.

Recommendations and Reasons

6.59 Option B is recommended because including the Boulder Bank in Schedule 2 of the Dog Control Bylaw would enable Council to enforce an on-leash requirement and ensure the protection of native birds during the breeding season. Council will contact Port Nelson and the Boulder Bank bach owners about the proposed change. However, it will not result in an actual change for the bach owners, because a condition of their concession is that they’re not allowed to take any cats, dogs or other household pets onto the land.

6.60 Council already includes a number of DOC sites in the Bylaw (including part of the Boulder Bank and Whakapuaka Raupo Swamp), and this enables Council to respond to complaints received regarding these areas.

Number of dogs to be managed differently

6.61 Section 8 of the Policy (Number of Dogs) states:

· “No more than two dogs can be kept on any property in the urban area without written permission from the Council. (The extent of Nelson’s urban area is shown on the map attached to both the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw 2013.) Puppies up to three months old are exempt from this limit.

· There will be a one-off additional charge for keeping more than two dogs on an urban property, to cover the costs of reviewing the suitability of the property for more than two dogs. Assessment, and any conditions imposed on the dog owner, will be focused on all reasonable steps being taken to ensure that the dogs will not cause a nuisance to any person or be likely to be injurious to the health of any person.

· Dog owners who have more than two dogs in February 2013 will have an ‘existing use right’ to continue to own their existing dogs, until the end of the dogs’ lives. Written permission will be required for ownership of any additional dogs after this date.

· This approach will increase the Council’s ability to control the effects of multiple dogs without generating high administration costs.

· There are no limits on the number of dogs that may be kept on a property which is not within the urban area.”

6.62 EIL has advised the Number of Dogs Policy is not achieving the desired outcome (to avoid impacts of too many dogs on a property) for practical reasons. The people who seek permission for more than two dogs are the ones whose dogs are not going to cause a problem. In addition, most people are unaware of the Policy prior to registering a puppy at three months of age, and it would be unacceptable to say at that stage (after a month of ownership) that they can no longer keep their puppy.

6.63 EIL noted that Part 8 of the Policy (number of dogs) could be removed entirely, because clause 10.2 of the Bylaw gives Dog Control Officers the authority to reduce the number of dogs on the premises if any dog has become, or is likely to become, a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person.

Options

· Option A — Status quo: no more than two dogs can be kept on any property in the urban area without written permission from the Council.

· Option B — Rely on Council’s ability to reduce the number of dogs if necessary, under clause 10.2 of the Bylaw. (Consequent amendments — delete the urban area definition from the Bylaw and the map of the Nelson Urban Area from both the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, as this relates to Part 8 of the Policy.)

Recommendations and Reasons

6.64 Option B is recommended because this provides Council with the authority it needs to manage nuisance and health issues associated with multiple dogs.

Enforcement provisions to be amended

6.65 The current provisions are shown below (with the proposed changes noted in tracking).

6.66 EIL officers identified some minor inconsistencies between how the enforcement process is carried out by Council and the current text in the Policy and Bylaw. They also recommended some changes to better reflect the Dog Control Act 1996. These changes are listed below and included in section 9 of the SOP (Attachment 5).

6.67 Amend the wording of the Policy as follows:

· Clause 4.1 of the Policy — change the last sentence of clause 4.1 to “Non compliance with this notice ~~will~~ may result in enforcement action.”

· Clause 7.5 of the Policy — Amend to “Where the offence relates to a failure to register a dog, Council will issue a notice that a dog is not registered. Then, if the registration fee is not paid within seven days, the owner will receive an Infringement Notice.”

6.68 Amend Clause 10.2 of the Bylaw to refer to both dog owners, and to owners and occupiers of premises, as follows.

If, in the opinion of a Dog Control Officer, any dog has become or is likely to become a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person, the Dog Control Officer may, by notice in writing, require the dog owner or the owners or occupiers of the premises at which the dog is kept, within a time specified in such notice to do all or any of the following:

a) reduce the number of dogs on the premises;

b) construct, alter, reconstruct or otherwise improve the kennels or other buildings or fences used to house or contain the dog;

c) tie up or otherwise confine the dog during specified periods;

d) take such other action as necessary to minimise or remove the likelihood of nuisance or injury to health.

Options

· Option A — Status quo — some inconsistencies remain between the Policy/Bylaw and Council’s enforcement approach.

· Option B — Consistency between the Policy/Bylaw and both Council’s enforcement approach.

Recommendations and Reasons

6.69 Option B is recommended because these changes will more accurately reflect the enforcement process carried out by Council.

All other aspects of the Policy and Bylaw to be open to review

6.70 All other aspects of the Policy and Bylaw will be open to review and potential amendment in response to public feedback. This is an opportunity for people to suggest other changes which have not yet been considered.

Dog Park to be investigated

6.71 During the previous consultation process on the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw in 2012, Council committed to investigating a number of sites that may be suitable for a fenced dog park. Provision of this park is outside of the scope of the Policy and Bylaw, but Council is likely to receive submissions on this topic.

6.72 Funding has been allocated in 2019/20 for investigation, engagement and consents related to a dog park, with construction programmed in 2020/21. The location of this park has not yet been determined.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Completing the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw by February 2020 will mean the Bylaw will not be due for its next review until February 2030. It will also ensure an enforceable bylaw continues to be in place after 25 February 2020.

7.2 Commencing a special consultation procedure on 27 January 2020 will enable Council to consider public feedback on the proposed changes, and any other changes suggested by submitters.

7.3 The next steps in the process are:

· public consultation period from 27 January to 28 February 2020

· hearing of submitters who wish to speak on 25-26 March 2020

· deliberations on 23 April 2020

· adoption of an amended Policy and Bylaw by Council to follow.

Author: Matt Heale, Manager Environment

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2298783 Stakeholder Engagement - Dog Control Bylaw ⇩

Attachment 2: A2145327 Dog Control Bylaw ⇩

Attachment 3: A2145324 Dog Control Policy ⇩

Attachment 4: A2298620 Communications Plan ⇩

Attachment 5: A2145304 - Statement of Proposal - Dog Control Bylaw ⇩

Attachment 6: A2145310 - Summary of Statement of Proposal - Dog Control Bylaw ⇩

Attachment 7: A2122940 Map - Proposed Dog Bylaw Changes and Grazing Changes ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report seeks to enable local decision making and action by and behalf of communities by seeking to commence community engagement on the review of the Dogs Policy and Bylaw. The proposed amendments to the Policy and Bylaw seek to promote environmental wellbeing by enhancing health and safety in relation to how dogs are managed.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected — our open spaces are valued for recreation and we welcome the many visitors who want to experience our extraordinary natural environment.

The role of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw is to ensure everyone has good access to open spaces for recreation.

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

The safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as the health benefits of exercise for dog owners and their dogs, are key criteria to be considered when weighing up the options for amending the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

3. Risk

One of the criteria which applies to the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw is to minimise conflicts (including dog attacks on dogs, stock and people) as well as crashes between dogs and cyclists.

4. Financial impact

Deleting the GDO Policy will mean savings in administration costs (approximately $16,500 per annum) and increased revenue from registration fees ($48,750 immediately and another $72,000 over time)

There are savings associated with completing the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review before February 2020 and having a 10 year review timetable in future.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because of its high importance to a relatively large proportion of the community — including dog owners and all users of reserves.

6. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability for the Council or district to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future and will have no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No specific consultation has been undertaken with iwi on the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

8. Delegations

On 22 February 2018 the Planning and Regulatory Committee resolved to refer to Council all powers of the Planning and Regulatory Committee relating to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. At the Council meeting on 14 November 2019 Council revoked the previous decision to refer this matter to Council.

The Environment Committee has the following areas of responsibility:

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

· Environmental regulatory matters including (but not limited to) animals and dogs

Delegations:

The exercise of Council’s responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes (but is not limited to):

· Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate

· Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

Item 10: Biosecurity Annual Review

Environment Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R12562

Biosecurity Annual Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To note the content of the Review of the 2018-19 Biosecurity Operational Plan and to approve the 2019-20 Biosecurity Operational Plan. This report will also be reported to Tasman District Council as our joint partner and management agency for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

2. Summary

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

2.2 The review of the 2018-19 Biosecurity Operational Plan (Attachment 1) summarises the activities undertaken during the 2018-19 financial year and comments on relevant biosecurity issues.

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

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

3. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review (R12562) and its attachments (A2288852 and A2262413); and

2. Approves the Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019/20 (A2262413), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

4. Background

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

4.2 The 2018-19 Biosecurity Operational Plan activity was undertaken under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012-2017 which ceased to have effect on 1 July 2019. That Strategy has now been superseded by the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-29 (RPMP). The RPMP carries forward many of the previous pest management programmes, however a small number of programmes have been dropped and a much larger number have been added.

4.3 The 2019-20 Biosecurity Operational Plan (Attachment 2) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken when implementing the RPMP in the Nelson region. The approved budget for delivery of the Operational Plan for the Nelson region is $207,000. This includes an increase on previous funding of $40,000, approved through the 2019-20 Annual Plan for control of Taiwan cherry and Sabella. The total annual cost for implementation of the RPMP across both Tasman and Nelson regions is $632,000.

4.4 The Operational Plan based on the pests and programmes contained in the new Plan along with the requirements of National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015. It is therefore a very different Operational Plan than in previous years.

4.5 There are five types of pest management programmes to be carried out under the RPMP. These are summarised below, along with a number of key projects which highlight the range of activities covered in the programme.

· Exclusion pest programme – preventing 12 high threat pests from establishing in the Tasman and Nelson regions.

· Eradication pest programme – eliminating 24 high threat pests from the regions (or parts of a region).

· Progressive containment pest programme – containing and reducing the extent of seven pest plants across the regions.

· Sustained control pest programme – ongoing control of 23 widespread pest plants and other organisms to reduce their impacts and spread to other properties.

· Site-led pest programmes – control of named pests to reduce their impacts on natural biodiversity values at specific places. There are three key sites or places covered by the RPMP, all of them are in Tasman District Council region.

5. Discussion

5.1 The joint Regional Pest Management Plan came into force in July 2019. This report and its associated documents are focused on the closing out of the existing Strategy and the transition to the new Regional Pest Management Plan and its associated Operational Plan.

5.2 The Review of the 2018-19 Operational Plan examines the results of Tasman District Council's work as the Management Agency for implementing the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy (now superseded).

Total Control pests

5.3 In the Strategy there are 13 Total Control pests, where the long-term aim is eradication. On all known sites, plant numbers have been reduced but for some pests, new sites have been found and this may extend the time required for eradication. All new, active and monitoring sites of Total Control Plant Pests (African feather grass, Bathurst bur, boxthorn, cathedral bells, climbing spindleberry, Egeria, entire marshwort, hornwort, Madeira vine, Phragmites, saffron thistle, Senegal tea and Spartina) were inspected during the year. All live plants found were destroyed, and/or control programmes initiated and plant numbers reduced.

5.4 Madeira vine sites are on Glen Road, Atawhai Drive and Haven Road.

5.5 Saffron thistle and African feather grass sites are on Council land in the Maitai Valley.

5.6 13 properties from the Glen to Todds Valley were inspected for cathedral bells. Only one property in Todds Valley had any active growth.

5.7 6 sites were checked for climbing spindleberry. Titoki Reserve has not had any active growth since 2013. A property in Dodson Valley continues to have small vine growths; and Founders, Grampians and the Brook (all Council sites) continue to be monitoring sites.

Progressive Control pests

5.8 In the Strategy there are 18 Progressive Control pests - 12 plants, five fish and one bird (rooks) – where the aim is to reduce the density and distribution. All reports of new infestations were investigated within thirty days of being reported. All sites classified as New, Active and Monitoring sites were inspected and occupiers advised of the required actions. The distribution and density of Progressive Control pests have been reduced at most sites.

5.9 Inspections were carried out at known sites of boneseed (North Nelson), variegated thistle (Marsden Valley/Wakapuaka/Panorama Drive), Nasella tussock (Barnicoat Range), and white-edged nightshade (Dodson Valley/Brook Valley), revealing a reduction in these plants. Disturbance/development at select sites created a significant increase in variegated thistle or white-edged nightshade and control was undertaken by property managers and consent holders.

Containment pests

5.10 There are fourteen Containment Pests - four plants (purple pampas, Lagarosiphon, and gorse and broom only in the Howard-St Arnaud area), seven mammals (feral cats, rabbits, hares, possums, mustelids), two insects (ants) and one bird (magpies). The aim with these pests is to stop their spread to properties that are not infested. Activity largely related to identifying and requiring control of isolated infestations and provision of advice.

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

Boundary Control pests

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

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

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

Surveillance

5.15 Biosecurity management requires extensive general surveillance in order to identify new or developing pest incursions. Most of these pests are outside the Regional Pest Management Strategy and many of the pest plants recorded during surveillance have now been included in the new RPMP programme (i.e. Taiwan cherry, yellow jasmine, kiwifruit wildings, pink ragwort, and Asian knotweed).

Biocontrol

5.16 The operational activity also includes support of the National Biological Control Collective and the introduction of the biological control agents developed. Biocontrol agents have also been collected from local sites once they have successfully established and released into new sites. The following biocontrol agents have been released in Nelson:

5.16.1 Broom gall mites are well established on a site in the Maitai Valley and have now colonised broom plants from the Whangamoa Ranges through the Richmond Hills. A significant impact on the health of broom plants in these areas have been observed

5.16.2 Gorse soft shoot moth is now widespread throughout Nelson.

5.16.3 Honshu white admiral butterfly (biocontrol for Japanese honeysuckle) site on the Grampians was visited – it will take a few years to become well established.

5.16.4 Two releases of privet lace bugs have been undertaken on the Railway Reserve.

5.16.5 Scotch thistle gall fly is widespread throughout the region.

5.16.6 Tradescantia leaf beetle was released at a site in Poorman’s Valley Stream and Tradescantia stem beetle was released onto a site on Tahunanui Hillside. Both beetles were released at a site adjacent to Fairfield House along with the Tradescantia tip beetle – agents at this site have expanded to 125 metres, and at the Moana Avenue site to 55 metres.

5.16.7 Tradescantia yellow spot leaf fungus infected plants were placed in the Murphy Street Reserve in April.

Advice and Education

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

5.18 Pet shops were visited to inform them of the new pest status of (Indian ring-necked parakeets and red-eared slider turtles) where section 52 and 53 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 applies. All listed pests, except those in site led programmes, are banned from sale, propagation or distribution.

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

5.19.1 Loan of possum and stoat traps.

5.19.2 Feral goats in Dodson Valley/Bayview Subdivision area – liaised with parties involved in this issue.

5.19.3 Control of ants, wasps, rats, cats, rabbits, magpies, rats, gorse, deer and old man’s beard.

5.19.4 Plant or plant disease identification.

Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership

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

5.21 An extensive summer vessel survey was undertaken during the summer of 2018/19. It included 521 vessels and 401 coastal structures (mainly swing moorings and jetties) as well as 47 seabed sites with seventeen days on the water with Top of the South Harbourmasters visiting vessels, inspecting their hulls and seeking travel and maintenance information from their operators. Within Tasman and Nelson waters 122 vessels and 41 structures (mainly swing moorings) were surveyed. The data from this work compliments that collected in previous years and comprises a total of 2683 survey records.

6. Options

6.1 The review of the 2018-19 Operational Plan details work completed in the last financial year. There are no options other than to receive the review.

6.2 The 2019-20 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been budgeted for and recently considered by both Nelson and Tasman Councils as part of preparation for the new Regional Pest Management Plan. The options are to accept or amend this Operational Plan.

Option 1: Approve 2019-20 Operational Plan (Preferred option)
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Plan. · Work is budgeted for.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minimal as meets the requirements of the Plan and is within budget.
Option 2: Amend 2019-20 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for changes if deemed inconsistent with the Regional Pest Management Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates delays/reprioritisation of work. · Potential additional costs. · Potential significant risk of not controlling pest plants and animals.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report details the implementation of the joint Regional Pest Management Strategy and associated biosecurity matters.

7.2 The 2018-19 annual Biosecurity Report outlines how Council has implemented the Strategy on biosecurity matters and associated obligations. The report confirms the actions are appropriate and meet all requirements.

7.3 The 2019-20 Operational Plan provides for a consistent and efficient approach to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. The Plan ensures the Council meets statutory obligations and activities are within budget.

8. Next Steps

8.1 This is the first year of the new Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan and the new style of operational plan. Reporting on deliverables under the new Plan will be provided in next year’s report and review of the Operational Plan.

Author: Richard Frizzell, Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2288852 Review of Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy 2018-19 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: A2262413 Operational Plan 2019-20 (NCC) for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2019/20 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Any changes would risk delaying ongoing implementation of the Plan.

4. Financial impact

The 2019/20 Operational Plan has a total budgeted allocation of $207,000. This funding has been approved in the Annual Plan 2019/20.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

Climate change has not been considered within this report. However it is acknowledged that it will have implications for future biosecurity risks and incursions and responding to these.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider the review of Operational Plans for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy/Plan:

5.4.1 Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental science matters including… biosecurity (marine, freshwater and terrestrial)…

5.4.2 Delegations:

The exercise of Council’s responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters includes (but is not limited to):

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans….

Item 11: Omnibus of Submissions to National Policy Statement and Environmental Standard Proposals

Environment Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R12542

Omnibus of Submissions to National Policy Statement and Environmental Standard Proposals

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present the Officer submissions on the following topics for retrospective approval by the Committee:

· Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

· Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

· Proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater.

· Draft Stock Exclusion Section 360 Regulations.

· New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy.

1.2 To note that a submission was not made on the proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land.

2. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Omnibus of Submissions to National Policy Statement and Environmental Standard Proposals (R12542) and its attachments (A2280520, A2275062, A2277745, A2270025); and

2. Approves retrospectively the attached Nelson City Council submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement Urban Development (A2280520 and A2280523); the Freshwater Proposals (A2277745); and the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (A2270025).

2. Background

Proposed National Policy Statement Urban Development

2.1 The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Ministry for the Environment sought views via a questionnaire on a number of aspects proposed in the National Policy Statement Urban Development. This proposed NPS will replace the current National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

2.2 As part of the Governments Urban Growth Agenda, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) gives national direction under the Resource Management Act (RMA). It intends to help local authorities make good decisions about making room for growth, both up and out, in suitable areas.

2.3 The NPS-UD focuses on the role of the planning system in enabling growth and regulating land use in urban areas.

2.4 The NPS-UD contains objectives and policies in four key areas:

2.4.1 Future Development Strategy – requires some councils to carry out long-term planning to accommodate growth and ensure well-functioning cities.

2.4.2 Making room for growth in RMA plans – requires councils to allow for growth ‘up’ and ‘out’ in a way that contributes to a quality urban environment, and to ensure rules do not unnecessarily constrain growth.

2.4.3 Evidence for good decision-making – requires councils to develop, monitor and maintain an evidence base about demand, supply and prices for housing and land, to inform planning decisions.

2.4.4 Processes for engaging on planning – ensures council planning is aligned and coordinated across urban areas, and issues of concern to iwi and hapū are taken into account.

2.5 Consultation on the proposed NPS-UD closed on 10 October and took the form of a questionnaire, which officers from Nelson City and Tasman District Councils made a joint submission on. A copy is provided in attachment 1 (A2280520). In addition, the Mayors of Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council wrote a joint cover submission letter, a copy of which is provided in Attachment 2 (A2280523). The key matters raised are:

2.5.1 The need to provide a more inclusive distinction between high growth urban environments in New Zealand, rather than one that focuses on large cities.

2.5.2 Strengthening the role of Future Development Strategies in the RMA Statutory framework.

2.5.3 The need to ensure that all current proposed National Policy Statements consider the requirements of and effects on each other, any hierarchy in priorities or statutory tools.

Freshwater Proposals

2.6 The Ministry for the Environment sought views on a range of freshwater proposals released in September 2019. These proposals are summarised in Action for healthy waterways: A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater and include:

2.6.1 Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

2.6.2 Proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater.

2.6.3 Draft Stock Exclusion Section 360 Regulations.

2.7 The Government wants to improve the current management of freshwater. It is proposing new requirements that would:

2.7.1 Strengthen Te Mana o Te Wai (integrated holistic health and wellbeing of waters from the mountains to the sea) as the framework for freshwater management.

2.7.2 Better provide for ecosystem health (water, fish and plant life).

2.7.3 Better protect wetlands and estuaries.

2.7.4 Better manage stormwater and wastewater, and protect sources of drinking water.

2.7.5 Control high-risk farming activities and limit agricultural intensification.

2.7.6 Improve farm management practices.

2.7.7 Streamline the plan change process for Freshwater Plans.

2.8 An analysis was undertaken to understand the implications of the proposals for the Draft Nelson Plan and Councils wider work programme. Consideration was also given to the content of the submission made by Local Government New Zealand.

2.9 Included in Attachment 3 (A2277745) is a copy of the submission. The submission generally seeks:

2.9.1 Additional Government support to implement the proposed requirements.

2.9.2 Confirmation that the work undertaken to date with iwi and the community will not be lost.

2.9.3 The broadest interpretation of “Freshwater Plan” where restricted appeal rights are concerned.

2.9.4 Improvements to the provisions in the Draft National Environmental Standards and Stock Exclusion regulations.

2.10 The Government’s Essential Freshwater Package proposals have implications for the Nelson Region in both the urban and rural catchments including stock exclusion rules, compulsory freshwater farm plans, improved management of stormwater and wastewater, and raising standards for freshwater eco-system health. A whole of catchment approach is required and discussions have been underway across Council teams to ensure the various responsibilities of a unitary Council are considered in the proposed new regulatory environment.

2.11 The proposed new attributes and requirements in the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management include monitoring, and maintaining or improving, freshwater in relation to nutrients, sediment, and fish and macroinvertebrate numbers. This is likely to result in a need for increased monitoring of the Region’s rivers and streams.

Proposed New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (NZBS)

2.12 The Department of Conservation (DOC) is leading the development of a New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (NZBS). The new strategy will set a vision and guide biodiversity work for the next 50 years. The discussion document on the proposed strategy is called Te Koiroa o te Koiora, and Nelson City Council staff provided input into the development of the document. Consultation on the discussion document closed on 22 September 2019 and the submission can be found in Attachment (A2270025).

2.13 The submission endorsed the goals of the NZBS; acknowledged the necessity for wide scale change in the way biodiversity protection is regulated; the need for collaboration between community, Iwi, industry and Government in order to achieve the greater vision; the need for extensive scientific research; and the role technology could play in achieving long range biodiversity targets.

2.15 It was noted that the proposed NZBS would benefit from more detail around the biggest obstacles to achieving the goals set out in the document, especially those related to the limitations of the current systems, consistent policy for protecting biodiversity, resourcing issues, and the importance of keeping up with technological advancements when time is of the essence.

Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL)

2.16 The NPS-HPL proposes 3 Objectives and 7 policies to improve how highly productive land is managed. The key focus of the NPS-HPL is on maintaining the availability of HPL and protecting HPL from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. The intent is not to provide absolute protection of HPL. As a summary, the potential implications/requirements of the 7 policies for Council can be summarised as follows:

2.16.1 Policy 1 – requires Council to identify and map HPL within 3 years of the NPS being gazetted.

2.16.2 Policy 2 – at a Regional Policy Statement and District Plan level Plans need to ensure the availability and productive capacity of HPL is maintained.

2.16.3 Policy 3 – directs urban expansion to not be on HPL. It is clear that this excludes areas identified in operative and proposed plans as future development areas, however it does not clarify whether it includes areas identified through other statutory processes such as the Future Development Strategy.

2.16.4 Policy 4 – requires District Councils to implement methods (i.e. min lot sizes, incentives) in their Plans to manage rural subdivision to avoid fragmentation and loss of productive capacity of HPL. The definition of rural areas in the NPS excludes rural lifestyle zones.

2.16.5 Policy 5 – relates to reverse sensitivity effects for sensitive or incompatible activities within or adjacent to HPL and requires methods in Plans to provide for this.

2.17 Before determining the implications and suitability of the proposed objectives and policies of the NPS-HPL for Council, and therefore the need to make a submission or not, Officers have considered how relevant this NPS is to Nelson. In the absence of Councils identifying and mapping the HPL the NPS relies on the Land Use Capability (LUC) as provided by NZ Land Resource Inventory and defines HPL as land with a LUC of 1, 2, or 3. From the Officer review of the LUC map for Nelson, LUC 2 or 3 land is located as follows:

• Raines Farm (predominantly where the FDS has identified this area for future growth).

• Mid-Maitai Valley between Sharland & Groom Creeks (rural zoning, largely Council reserves).

• Area north of Marybank (subject to Wakapuaka SHA).

• Heads of Dodson & Todd Valleys (zoned for small holdings/rural lifestyle).

• Wakapuaka Flats (zoned general rural).

• Lud & Hira Valley floors (largely zoned for small holdings/rural lifestyle).

• Wakapuaka at Delaware (largely conservation zoning).

• Wakapuaka 1B and Hollyman Farms at Delaware (zoned general rural).

• Whangamoa River Valley along SH6 near Graham Stream and Collins River, and Valley out to Kokorua (zoned general rural).

2.18 The highlighted areas above are the only areas where the NPS would be relevant to Council. Given the zoning of these areas it is considered the NPS outcomes are achieved.

2.19 The NPS as proposed has implications on Council through the requirements to map all HPL within the set timeframe (policy 10). It is noted that this has been raised by other organisations in submissions on the NPS, in particular the Land Monitoring Forum and Tasman District Council and therefore it would be duplicating concerns already raised. The Land Monitoring Forum is seeking that the mapping be undertaken at national level.

2.20 The only other potential issue is in Policy 3 where the direction to not have urban expansion on HPL omits other strategy documents such as the FDS in determining what urban expansion is excluded. Tasman District Council has raised this concern and have sought in their submission that recognition of future urban areas as identified in non-statutory strategies, as encouraged by other national planning instruments, is provided.

2.21 Submissions closed on the NPS HPL on 10 October. Officers will support Tasman District Council as necessary to ensure the points raised are considered.

Author: Lisa Gibellini, Team Leader City Development

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2280520 - Submission on Proposed National Statement Urban Development ⇩

Attachment 2: A2275062 - Mayoral Submission on Proposed National Policy Statement Urban Development ⇩

Attachment 3: A2277745 - Submission on Freshwater Proposals ⇩

Attachment 4: A2270025 - Submission on New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy ⇩

Item 12: Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2019

Environment Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R12534

Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2019

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a quarterly update on Environmental Management Group functions: Building, City Development, Consents and Compliance, Planning, and Science and Environment. The report also provides a legal proceedings update relating to the Environmental Management Group functions.

2. Recommendation

The Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2019 (R12534) and its attachments (A2281289, A2044411 and A2288730); and

2. Approves the establishment of a Governance Liaison Group for the Nelson Plan to include the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee; and

3. Approves amending the indicative timeline for the Draft Nelson Plan to provide a Council briefing ahead of release of the Draft in December 2019 with community engagement to run from February to May 2020.

3. Summary

Activity	Level of service	Achievement
Building	Compliance with statutory requirements.	Compliance with Building Consent timeframes are 89% overall for the quarter with September 2019 improving to 97%. Compliance with Code Compliance is 98% overall. Statistics are included in Attachment 1 (A2281289)
City Development	Coordinated growth with infrastructure. A well planned City that meets the community’s current and future needs.	The City Centre Programme Plan was adopted, and work has now begun on the Spatial and Delivery Plans. The Four Lanes Event was undertaken. Deliberations on Upper Trafalgar Street approved the Pedestrian Mall The scope of the Intensification Action Plan was agreed. The last Four Special Housing Areas were gazetted.
Consents and Compliance	Compliance with statutory requirements.	Compliance with resource consent timeframes averaged 97% for the quarter. Application numbers are on the rise leading up to Christmas. Statistics are included in Attachment 1 (A2281289).
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	Councillor and iwi briefings on the Draft Nelson Plan were completed in August 2019. The Nelson Plan and Coastal hazards work programmes have been reviewed. Plan Change 27 submissions have been resolved. Officers have reviewed the Draft National Policy Statement Highly Productive Land, Urban Development, and Freshwater Proposals.
Science and Environment	Compliance and reporting against relevant policy statements and standards. Delivery of all programmes.	There were no exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality in the quarter. The freshwater continuous water quality programme is expanding to include turbidity and suspended sediment monitoring in the Wakapuaka and Whangamoa Rivers. An estuarine monitoring programme was initiated with NMIT undergraduate students to assess benthic communities and sediment oxygenation layers in the Nelson Haven. Nelson Nature contractors completed the second of a multi-year control programme to reduce the impact of animal pests in the Maitai/Roding catchment. Over a two week period 160 deer, goats and pigs were removed. The first round of the Environmental Grant Scheme saw 24 applicants supported to improve Nelson’s natural environment. A total of $167,000, including 19,105 native plants, was awarded across the Sustainable Land Management, Healthy Streams and Nelson Nature programmes.

4. Discussion – Financial Results

· The “Total Operating Budget” differs from the “Total Annual Plan Budget” in that it includes carry forwards and reallocations made after the final approval of the Annual Plan.

· Base Expenditure is expenditure that happens year after year, for example yearly contracts or operating expenses.

· Programmed Expenditure is planned, or there is a specific programme of works. For example, painting a building.

· Unprogrammed Expenditure is reactive or unplanned in nature, for example responding to a weather event. Budgets are included as provisions for these expenses which are unknown.

4.1 Staff costs are overall ahead of budget by $155,000 across the Environmental Management Group. $60,000 for contractors in Building and $50,000 in the Planning Team for temporary staff to deal with a vacancy. Staff costs include all expenditure relating directly to the employment of staff, as well as some overheads which are allocated to cost centres on the same basis as staff time.

4.2 Individual variances in the cost centres are noted below where significant. In each case, these variances may be the result of actuals occurring in a different cost centre than budgeted, timing, or cost variances (overspends or underspends).

4.3 Monitoring the Environment income is less than budget by $140,000. Additional Section 36 Recovery income of $140,000 was budgeted in the first quarter in error. This budgeting error will be remedied in the second quarter. Total Section 36 Recovery income of $60,000 is expected in quarter four.

4.4 Monitoring the Environment expenditure is less than budget by $121,000. Staff costs are behind budget by $46,000. Tasman Bay monitoring and research expenditure is behind budget by $51,000 with no spend to date. This item relates to operational funding for the marine portfolio, and is awaiting the appointment of a new team leader. Other items are behind budget due to timing, including Air Quality Gasses study ($8,000) and air quality inventory ($19,000). These will be completed in quarter four.

4.5 Developing Resource Management Plan (Note: there are two GL’s and this one is for things other than the Nelson Plan) expenditure is greater than budget by $92,000. Staff costs are ahead of budget by $27,000. Urban Design Panel expenditure is over budget year to date by $35,000, and over budget for the full year by $18,000. This item occurs as requested by developers, and timing of legislation (the Special Housing Areas) in the current year meant that there was an influx of design panel sessions. It is anticipated that the Urban Design Panel overspend may be alleviated by offsetting income.

4.6 Nelson Plan expenditure is currently over budget by $30,000. This variance is the result of using consultants to complete work due to staff vacancies (the Principal Planner role has been unsuccessfully recruited for four times). It is anticipated that this trend will continue if vacancies are not filled. An additional overspend is forecast as engagement is focussed this financial year, rather than over two financial years. A more detailed forecast will be reported to the Governance and Finance Committee once the engagement phase is more fully scoped.

4.7 City Development expenditure is less than budget by $60,000. City development projects ($39,000) and consultants ($25,000) are behind budget.

4.8 Environmental Advocacy and Advice income is less than budget by $12,000. This is a timing variance, relating to the receipt of grants. Environmental Advocacy and Advice expenditure is less than budget by $79,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $75,000 which largely relates to paying contractors to cover a vacancy which has been unable to be filled. Expenditure is behind budget across several codes due to timing, including Nelson Nature waterways biodiversity ($22,000), Nelson Nature terrestrial biodiversity ($49,000), insulation program grant ($51,000) and air quality programme ($25,000).

4.9 Pest Management expenditure is less than budget by $81,000. This is a timing variance, including providing biosecurity ($42,000) and Top of the South marine biosecurity partnerships ($37,000).

4.10 Dog Control income is less than budget by $89,000. Dog registration fees are under budget by $86,000. Income budget was adjusted by approximately $100,000 for this year to match expenditure. The income is not able to be achieved. Fees will need to be adjusted but this cannot happen before next year. Registration fees to date are around $10,000 ahead of registration fees at the same time as last year but will not meet the total budget. Interest income is under by $2,000. These variances are expected to exacerbate over the remainder of the year, with full year variances of $100,000 and $6,000 respectively. Dog Control expenditure is greater than budget by $21,000. Staff operating expenditure is greater than budget by $10,000. The cost of providing dog control services are over budget by $5,000 and the provision of doggie doo bags are over budget by $3,000. SPCA grant expenditure is ahead of budget by $4,000 due to timing.

4.11 Public Counter Land and General expenditure is less than budget by $19,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $19,000. This is because of the timing in the Budget forecast as to when the swimming pool invoices are sent out.

4.12 Building Services income is less than budget by $47,000. Pre-paid simple building consent income and BCA Levy income are behind budget by $16,000 and $5,000 respectively due to timing. Building consent income is behind budget by $17,000 year to date. Consent dollar values are behind last year. If current trends continue, this income variance could increase with a larger deficit for the full year. Building Services expenditure is greater than budget by $100,000. Staff operating expenses are ahead of budget by $94,000. This variance includes the use of contractors and consultants within the Building Team. A possible shift in the building consenting system will enable the costs to be reduced. Unbudgeted costs of $8,000 have been incurred for the GoShift Central initiative contribution.

4.13 Harbour Safety expenditure is greater than budget by $12,000. Provision of harbour master services and harbour safety education are both over budget, due to additional hours required. This is expected to be offset by grant income.

4.14 Pollution Response income is greater than budget by $19,000. This is a timing variance.

4.15 Resource Consent income is greater than budget by $10,000. Fee income is ahead of budget. Resource Consent expenditure is greater than budget by $78,000. The cost of providing resource consent services is over budget by $37,000 to date, with a full year overspend of $113,000 currently forecast. This item includes contract and geotechnical costs. Resource consent fee expenditure is over budget by $43,000. This is due to the use of consultants to date. As the team is now fully staffed this variance should level out.

4.16 Building Claims expenditure is greater than budget by $17,000. Claim expenditure of $16,000 has been incurred against a nil budget. There are currently four claims that have not been budgeted including one Weathertight Housing Resolution Service (WHRS) claim.

4.17 Key Performance Indicators – Long Term Plan

4.18 Details of the status of the indicators are contained in Attachment 2 (A2044411). The two LTP indicators not on track are:

· 97% of non-notified resource consents were issued on time – the target is 100%; and

· Compliance with Building Consent timeframes are 89% overall for the quarter with September 2019 improving to 97%. Compliance with Code Compliance was 98% overall. The target for both is 100%. (IANZ audit substantive compliance is between 95 and 100%).

5. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

BUILDING

Achievements

5.1 Clearing the IANZ audit General Non-Compliance’s (GNC’s) is on track and there are 4 part GNC’s remaining to be cleared. Further evidence has been provided to IANZ who should reply shortly. The next IANZ audit is in June 2020.

Trends

5.2 Building consents and amendments being granted in this quarter were 285 compared to 288 in the same quarter last year. Code compliance certificates being granted in this quarter were 215 compared to 210 in the same quarter last year.

5.3 The total number of building inspections undertaken in this quarter were 1343 compared to 2137 in the same period last year.

5.4 Building Consent Trends. Graphs to show the Building consent trends are included in Attachment 1.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.5 The focus will be on making improvements for the next IANZ audit in June 2020. Bringing timeframes in line with expected levels is a critical focus area. A review of the fees and charges is proposed with background work being undertaken. The building control end to end digital system is also being reviewed as AlphaOne is continuing to cause some issues.

Risks and Challenges

5.6 The biggest challenge will be to ensure the remaining IANZ GNC’s are cleared.

CITY DEVELOPMENT

Achievements

5.7 Council officers are working on drafting spatial plan options and consulting with interested parties for land on Akersten Street to bring to Council in February 2020.

5.8 The City Development Team, together with the Events, Communications and GIS Teams and Uniquely Nelson held the Four Lanes Festival in the City Centre on 31 August. This local and family focused event to mark the end of winter brought activation to the city centre. The focus on the laneways provided the community with a different way of viewing the spaces in the City, and meant the festival could be organised at short notice avoiding the need for road closures. The Four Lanes Festival is proposed to be an annual event.

5.9 A report to provide the results of public feedback and assist Council to deliberate on the Pedestrian Mall Declaration for Upper Trafalgar Street was taken to Council on 27 August. Officers from the City Development Team, Property Team, and Roading and Utilities Teams have been working with the business owners at Upper Trafalgar Street on a ‘Light Touch’ design to be implemented over summer. Upper Trafalgar Street became a Pedestrian Mall on 18 October.

5.10 A Public Life Survey was undertaken on Saturday 24^th and Thursday 29^th August in the city centre. The survey captured evidence based data that reflects the relationships between people and the city centre and will be undertaken again in summer, and repeated every 3 years to show change. During the two days of the survey 98,532 pedestrian movements were recorded. The Public Life Survey results will soon be available and will be shared via the Councillors Newsletter and then on the website.

5.11 The last four Special Housing Areas (Haven Road, 3A Hill Street, 3D Hill Street, Suffolk Road) were gazetted on 30^th August. The Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act was in part repealed on 16 September marking the close off date for Council to receive applications for resource consent.

5.12 The City Centre Committee (Mayor Reese, Councillors Noonan and Lawrey) met on 2^nd September and the city centre focus group met on 17^th September. These meetings sought feedback ahead of the City Centre Programme Plan being reported to Council on 19^th September for adoption.

5.13 On the 17^th September the Team Leader City Development accompanied a group of Nelson developers to Auckland to see a range of different density housing developments and funding models. Officers are working with developers to explore how to bring appropriate new models to Nelson.

5.14 The City Development Team took three reports to Council on 19 September, the city centre programme plan which was adopted, the scoping of the Intensification Action plan which was approved, and the latest National Policy Statement Urban development Capacity Monitoring Report which was received. Over the last financial year there has been a 44% increase in the number of new residential titles issued (excludes retirement village developments).

5.15 A parking survey is being undertaken over the last half of October as an outcome of the parking workshops held earlier this year. The parking survey is a qualitative survey seeking information about the reasons why people choose to come to Nelson or Richmond, including questions in relation to whether parking affects that decision.

5.16 The City Development Team continue to engage with developers looking to develop sites in and around the city centre.

5.17 The City Development Team took over managing the Urban Design Panel and the Major Projects team (officers across Council who provide advice in a one stop shop approach for developers), in April 2019. Development proposals continue to be progressed through these advisory groups, albeit the pressure has slowed given the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA) was repealed in part on 16 September.

5.18 Officers have continued working and meeting with Makeshift Spaces Incorporated, and note that the grant Council provided to fund Makeshift as a pilot has been used to get the pilot off the ground. The Group now needs to gain additional funding from other sources in order to keep up momentum.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.19 One of the outcomes of the Future Development Strategy is the development of an Intensification Action Plan. This work will be undertaken in the 2019/20 year. It will include an assessment of levers for residential intensification.

5.20 With the City Centre Programme Plan adopted implementation is a key aspect of the work programme for the 2019/20 year. Business cases, the creation of a spatial plan and delivery plan are key focus areas.

5.21 Commissioning is underway for the permanent design for Upper Trafalgar Street from winter 2020.

5.22 The 2018 census base population projections have been delayed by Statistics NZ and as a result additional work is planned to understand the likely population and household growth over the term of the next Long Term Plan. It is proposed to work with Tasman District Council officers.

Risks and Challenges

5.23 Any change in priorities or additional work is likely to affect the delivery outcomes of the programmed work outlined above.

5.24 There are some risks that the team may not be able to deliver business cases in time to enable procurement of any significant city centre projects during the 2019/20 financial year, and that there will be a CAPEX underspend.

5.25 The virtual officer team to manage roll-out of the City Centre Programme Plan has not yet been fully established. This and governance oversight is required to achieve implementation of the Programme Plan.

5.26 The team will be losing the current Senior City Development Planner in December 2019. Recruitment will be undertaken prior to this, however with such a specialty role/skill set it is uncertain whether an appropriate staff member will be on board so as to avoid a gap in resourcing.

CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE

Achievements

5.27 Resource consent compliance with timeframes has improved from last quarter (89%) to averaging 97% for this quarter. The filling of vacancies and new staff becoming more efficient has contributed to this improvement.

5.28 The Navigation Safety Bylaw amendments were approved by Council on 19 September and the response from the boating community has largely been positive. Over 80 people have provided their boat registration details so far.

5.29 The harbourmasters have been involved in research, taking safety workshops, assisting with a beach clean-up of Haulashore Island, attending the regional council Special Interest Group meeting, Maritime NZ meetings, water sport club meetings, training with the Coastguard and being the support vessel for events.

5.30 Education in schools on being safe around dogs has been well received and there is continued strong demand for the presentations conducted by Vikki Pickering with Council support.

Trends

5.31 Resource consent application numbers are on the rise leading up to Christmas.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.32 Captain David Duncan will be retiring from his role with Port Nelson and as Council Harbourmaster on 27 December. Council has been liaising with Port Nelson Ltd on the appointment of a new harbourmaster.

Risks and Challenges

5.33 Increased information reporting requirements by Government and within the regional and unitary local government sector have highlighted difficulties with current data systems to capture and report on a range of regulatory activities. Audit NZ have also highlighted the level of evidence in performance measures needs improving for some activities. Staff will be reviewing how processes and systems can be adjusted to better capture this information.

PLANNING

Achievements

5.34 The focus has been on completing Elected Member Briefings on the Draft Nelson Plan and meeting with iwi to review the Iwi Working Group feedback. Officers are revising the Draft Plan based on the feedback and to achieve alignment with the National Planning Standards. Testing of the Draft Plan in Eplan format was also undertaken over this period.

5.35 An assessment was undertaken of the wide range of national policy changes relating to urban development, freshwater, and highly productive land when this was released in September. Officer submissions on these matters are included in a separate report on this agenda.

5.36 A review of the Nelson Plan work programme was also undertaken in September to consider improvements to project governance and planned engagement. The findings of this work are outlined below.

5.37 Plan Change 27, that updates the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) with the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM), was publically notified. Officers responded to numerous queries and worked with submitters to address their concerns resulting in the withdrawal of all submissions. This matter is separately reported in the Committee agenda.

Nelson Plan Work Programme Review

5.38 The Planning and Regulatory Committee resolved the following at the meeting on 28 May 2019:

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.

5.39 Following legal advice and a project management review changes have been made to the Nelson Plan Timeline, the Engagement Strategy, and Project Governance as outlined below. These changes have been made as the revised approach:

· Allows the new Council to be briefed on the Draft Nelson Plan ahead of public engagement.

· Allows the Plan to be updated with the National Planning Standards and the Intensification Action Plan.

· Allows sufficient time to integrate changes from Council workshops and iwi feedback.

· Engagement is timed for when stakeholders and the public are around rather than on summer vacation.

· A single engagement phase clarifies when stakeholders and the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback.

Nelson Plan Timeline

5.40 The Nelson Plan timeline has been updated to reflect recommended changes to the engagement strategy :

· A change phase following Council workshops (August/September 2019).

· Integration phase including Iwi Working Group feedback, Intensification Action Plan and National Planning Standards (October/November 2019)

· Council briefing and approval (December 2019)

· One phase stakeholder/community engagement (February-May 2020) rather than two.

5.41 A copy of the revised Nelson Plan timeline is in Attachment 3 (A2288730). A Council Briefing on the Nelson Plan is programmed for December 2019.

Engagement Strategy

5.42 A two-step engagement approach was originally planned spanning the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 financial years. This was on the basis that iwi, key stakeholder, and statutory stakeholder engagement would proceed ahead of wider community engagement.

5.43 This two-step engagement approach has been reviewed largely because legal advice has confirmed that it would be difficult to limit engagement to statutory stakeholders and key stakeholders ahead of the general public. A one-stage engagement process will allow communications to be better managed.

Project Governance

5.44 A project management review highlighted a number of improvements that could be made to Nelson Plan Governance to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Nelson Plan project and recommended that:

· A Political Liaison Group (PLG) is established including the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee, Chief Executive, Group Manager Environmental Management, Manager Environmental Planning, and the Nelson Plan Project Manager. The PLG will meet on a monthly basis to review project progress.

· A Project Steering Group (PSG) is established including the Group Manager Environmental Management, Manager Environmental Planning, Group Manager Infrastructure, Group Manager Corporate Services, and the Group Manager Strategy and Communications. The PSG will meet fortnightly to review progress, resolve issues, identify and manage risks and engage with the wider organisation.

· A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is established to enhance integration across Council work streams and would involve key officers from relevant teams.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.45 The focus for the remainder of 2019/2020 will be on making changes to the draft Nelson Plan and community engagement.

5.46 The Draft Nelson Plan still needs to be aligned with the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy and associated Intensification Action Plan along with anticipated Government policy change relating to freshwater, urban development, biodiversity, climate change, and air quality. This work is underway.

5.47 Additional coastal hazards technical work and engagement will be undertaken building on the community feedback provided to date.

Risks and Challenges

5.48 Ongoing staff vacancies at the Principal Planner and Planning Adviser level and in the Communication team have been challenging given the volume of work involved in preparing for the engagement phase while updating the Draft Nelson Plan.

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT

Achievements

Biosecurity

5.49 In June/July a large-scale eDNA (Environmental DNA) sampling campaign was conducted in 13 areas across Tasman Bay and Port Nelson to assess the presence and distribution of the Mediterranean fanworm, Sabella spallanzanii. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is DNA that accumulates in the environment as organisms interact with their surroundings.

5.50 In total, 250 plankton net tow samples were collected and analysed by Cawthron. No positive signals were detected. This is consistent with current diver surveys, which have not detected any established Sabella populations in the greater Tasman Bay area since 2018. As the survey sampled discrete areas over a relatively large area the presence of individual Sabella specimens within the study area cannot be completely excluded and annual surveillance efforts will be maintained.

5.51 Following popular workshops for boat owners in Nelson and Picton during May, the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership has produced anti-fouling guidelines about keeping hulls of recreational vessels clean. These have been distributed through the Council and Nelson Marina and will assist boat owners in cleaning vessels more effectively.

Carbon Measurement and Reduction

5.52 The greenhouse gas emission inventory of Council emissions for the baseline year 2017/18 was taken to Council in August, along with a preliminary carbon reduction plan. A final action plan including an emissions reduction target is now being developed.

State of the Environment Monitoring

5.53 Land and Water Aotearoa (LAWA) water quality data checks and analysis were successfully completed over a three-month period with the launch in September of the 2018 national water quality trends. The reporting of five-yearly water quality trends (sampled monthly) for Activity Management Plans and LAWA will be available in 2020.

5.54 Winter freshwater fish surveys confirmed Koaro spawning at new sites in the Brook and Poorman Valley Streams, and in tributaries of the Whangamoa and Maitai Rivers. Redfin, Upland, and Common Bully spawning has also been confirmed in the Maitai and Whangamoa Rivers and Saxton, Jenkins, Oldham and Hillwood Streams. A project is in progress with GIS and the Whakatu Nelson Plan teams to map fish spawning habitat across the region.

5.55 A collaborative estuarine monitoring programme was initiated with NMIT undergraduate students to assess benthic communities and sediment oxygenation layers in the Nelson Haven. The annual monitoring programme has been developed to complement the State of the Environment (SOE) monitoring undertaken every three years. SOE reporting across all estuaries is due in 2022 and 2027.

5.56 Marine sediment quality and benthic community trends in Port Nelson and the lower reaches of the Maitai River have been reviewed by Cawthron as part of the Port Nelson Long Term Monitoring Plan. The 10-year monitoring and reporting has provided useful insights into the contribution of contaminants to the Port from the Maitai-York catchments, and types of contaminants within the Port that can be targeted through stormwater management programmes.

Water Quality

5.57 The freshwater continuous water quality monitoring programme, including water temperature and dissolved oxygen, has been expanded to include turbidity and suspended sediment. A continuous turbidity sensor and sampler is being installed at Avon Terrace, with trials due in December 2019.

5.58 Maitai reservoir biomonitoring of dissolved oxygen, water temperature and plankton sampling was completed in collaboration with the Infrastructure team and Cawthron. Work is in progress to provide more ‘real-time’ monitoring data to assist in managing water quality in the reservoir.

5.59 Cawthron has completed trend analysis macroinvertebrate community index (MCI) data. This analysis describes shifts in communities over time and the likely water quality stressors that are causing declines in MCI. This analysis will be used to identify streams with declines, develop monitoring plans, and check trends reported on LAWA.

Healthy Streams Programme

5.60 A community workshop was held at the Maitai River on 20 July with an estimated attendance of 140 individuals.

5.61 A video of the Maire Stream Remediation project has been completed and is available on Council’s YouTube channel. Water quality sampling has also been undertaken with the community group.

5.62 A rain tank has been installed at Corder Park to harvest rainwater from the roof of the kindergarten. This will be used to water the adjacent community orchard, as well as providing an opportunity to educate the wider public about the process and benefits of capturing rainwater and conserving reticulated supply.

5.63 The first stages of a new wetland have been undertaken on Council grazing land in Hira. A restoration plan is being developed, and an initial planting was undertaken with the support of Hira School. This will be a longer term restoration project between Healthy Streams and the local community.

5.64 A number of initiatives are underway in relation to forestry in the region, driven by outcomes of reducing sediment. A “virtual forestry team” has now been established within Council to discuss and align work between teams and to identify needs for further support or investigation.

5.65 A second forestry group focused on the Maitai catchment and involving two forestry companies, iwi landowners, Cawthron, Friends of the Maitai, and Council representatives has met twice this quarter to discuss a range of issues including erosion mitigations and biodiversity outcomes in forestry blocks. This forum has proved a successful initiative in opening communication and developing a greater understanding of the perspectives of participants.

Nelson Nature

5.66 Nelson Nature’s native plant giveaways at the Nelson Market were successful in raising awareness of Nelson wildlife, with a 50% increase in participation of Nelson residents in the Great Kererū Count. As well as increasing habitat for native wildlife, the data from the count helps to build up a picture of how native birds are responding to predator control and habitat restoration in the Nelson Halo and beyond.

Environmental Education

5.67 The Enviroschools Facilitator for Primary and Secondary schools ended their contract early at the end of Term 3. A procurement process is underway to select a new contractor.

5.68 Several staff attended the Cawthron SciTech Expo to judge students’ work. Council awarded two prizes, jointly with Tasman District Council, for Youth Leadership in projects demonstrating sustainability and community. These were for an experiment looking at how fast types of vegetation burn in response to the Pigeon Valley fires (primary) and a technology project attempting to convert food waste into a biogas product (secondary).

Air Quality

5.69 There were no exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) in this quarter. Monitoring commenced in 2001, and 2019 was the first year since then where no winter exceedances occurred across all airsheds.

5.70 Winter smoke patrols ran from mid-May to end of August. This was nearly a month longer than previous years. There were 68 excessively smoky chimneys found with occupants receiving a follow-up visit focused on how to burn “smoke free”.

Waste Minimisation

5.71 Levels of service for waste minimisation are being reported through the Infrastructure quarterly report.

Strategic Direction and Focus

Sustainable Land Management

5.72 The Sustainable Land Management Programme is supported in part by the Ministry for Primary Industries’ Hill Country Erosion Fund ($1.2 million over four years). From this fund, 50,000 trees have been purchased for next season’s planting, a portion of which will be used on highly erodible land within the Council estate.

5.73 An external evaluation report on the 2018-2019 Sustainable Land Management Programme has been received which has identified the success of the programme in building community connectedness in the rural community, and developing a greater understanding of land management issues by owners of small land blocks. The report also identified a need to engage specifically with larger land owners.

5.74 This need is being addressed through a partnership between Council and the NZ Landcare Trust. A Sustainable Land Manager position is being recruited to work with both small and larger rural landowners to deliver the Hill Country Erosion Project, and to support landowners to implement the Government’s Essential Freshwater Package. This position has been made possible through the MPI funding.

Risks and Challenges

5.75 Proposed new and updated national environmental policy, such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality, are likely to result in increased environmental monitoring requirements which may require additional resourcing.

6. Legal Proceedings Update

6.1 Prosecutions are occurring for a dog on dog attack incident and for an owner failing to ensure their dog is muzzled in public.

6.2 Environment Court mediation reconvened in August for remediation following a slip caused by unauthorised earthworks in Farleigh Street. No agreement was reached. Geotechnical representatives for each neighbouring property and the Council were directed to caucus by the Court. The caucusing occurred on 23 October and agreement between the experts on a course of action was reached.

6.3 Marine and Coastal Area Applications – the Court has now issued its minutes following the second round of case management conferences held in June this year. The overall summary is that these applications are not progressing quickly.

6.4 There are currently two legal claims with the Building Team, these are being managed by Council’s appointed legal counsel.

6.5 The Building Team have been advised of a potential future claim for a residential property which will be monitored over the next quarter.

6.6 Carter Holt Harvey: Council has been made aware of a possible future claim, in the event a second class action is lodged for residential properties with the shadow clad product. As a result the Building Team are currently working on a strategy to prepare for this with the Legal Services Team.

6.7 The Determination in relation to a property owner’s challenge over his neighbour’s garden works is still being considered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

7. Other Notable Achievements, Issues or Matters of Interest

Workshop update

7.1 A total of 13 Elected Member briefings were held on the Draft Nelson Plan over May to August 2019 covering 30 topics. A high level summary of these briefings was provided as part of the Quarterly Reports to the 28 May and 22 August 2019 Planning and Regulatory Committees.

7.2 A further briefing which included the Iwi Working Group was held on 26 August 2019 relating to the iwi provisions of the Draft Nelson Plan. Discussion included the need to clarify the definition of Māori land and treaty settlement land, the management of sites of significance and recognition of cultural values including customary access and the triggers to involve iwi in the resource consent/development process.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2281289 Building and Consents and Compliance statistics ⇩

Attachment 2: A2044411 Q1 Environmental Management performance measures ⇩

Attachment 3: A2288730 Nelson Plan Indicative Timline October 2019 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of LGA 2002 requires local government to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future. This quarterly report identifies the performance levels of regulatory and non-regulatory functions that seek to provide for healthy and safe communities and natural environments.

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.

The Environmental Management work programme addresses a number of community outcomes by protecting our environment and our heritage, sustainably managing our urban and rural environments, co-ordinating our growth and infrastructure planning, keeping our community safe through statutory compliance and making people aware of hazard risk, engaging with iwi and our community and establishing key partnerships, and taking a business friendly approach while promoting environmental management best practice.

3. Risk

Staff vacancies have the potential to impact on work programmes and statutory timeframes. Recruitment for these roles is continuing.

The establishment of a Governance Liaison Group and proposal to undertake a combined engagement step for the Nelson Plan seeks to minimise risk by maximising opportunities for input into the Draft Plan and alignment with national direction ahead of public notification.

4. Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance.

6. Climate impact

Information gained through the provision of regulatory and non-

regulatory services will assist Council to take appropriate action or

advocate for others to take action to address the impacts of climate

change.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken regarding this report.

8. Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Building control matters

· Environmental regulatory matters

· Environmental science matters

· Environmental programmes

· The Nelson Plan

Delegations:

Option 1: Approve Plan Change 27
Advantages	· Provides for consistency and alignment between resource management plans in the Nelson and Tasman regions · Provides administrative effectiveness and efficiency · Completes a Council initiated Plan Change process
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Do not approve Plan Change 27
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will result in regional inconsistency · Will result in administrative ineffectiveness and inefficiency · Does not complete the Council initiated Plan Change process