Agenda of Environment Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Environment Committee

5 March 2020

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Friends of the Maitai - Introduce the group, what the group does and what their concerns are

4.2 Waterfront Association - Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Building

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 28 November 2019 9 - 18

Document number M6583

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Committee, held on 28 November 2019, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report

7. Building Act 2004 – Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Buildings - Deliberations 19 - 49

Document number R13587

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Building Act 2004 – Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Buildings - Deliberations (R13587) and its attachments (A2097637, A2077485, A2294719, A2317659); and

2. Adopts the proposed area for the identification of priority unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, and transport routes of strategic importance (A2077485).

8. Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Deliberations 50 - 76

Document number R13588

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Deliberations (R13588) and its attachments (A2053947, A2313611 and A2295646); and

2. Adopts the proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy as amended incorporating submitter feedback and editorial changes (A2313611).

9. Warmer Healthier Homes - Annual Report 77 - 92

Document number R13736

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Warmer Healthier Homes - Annual Report (R13736) and its attachment (A2322552).

10. Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges 93 - 121

Document number R13744

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges (R13744) and its attachment (A2334791); and

2. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

3. Agrees the preferred option is to increase charges to recover 48% of Council costs for the services; and

4. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Resource Consent charges, planning document charges, monitoring charges and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act charges as contained in Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1 of Report R13744 (A2334791); and

5. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 5 of this report) and agrees:

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

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

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

11. Proposed Dog Control fees 122 - 141

Document number R14790

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Proposed Dog Control fees (R14790) and its attachments (A2337793 and A2337794); and

2. Agrees the preferred option is to increase dog registration fees to recover 90% of the costs to Council in providing dog control services; and

3. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Dog Control fees is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

4. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.13 to 5.20 of this report) and agrees:

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

5. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Dog Control fees as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2337794) to Report R10037; and

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

12. Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21 142 - 173

Document number R13746

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21 (R13746) and its attachments (A2342140, A2341824, and A2341910); and

2. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

3. Agrees the preferred option is to increase Building Unit Fees and Charges by a total of 18% that includes increasing the staff hourly rate to $160, introducing a systems fee and increasing the insurance and quality assurance levies; and

4. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Fees and Charges under the Building Act 2004 contained in Attachment 1 (A2342140) of Report R13746; and

5. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 5 of this report) and agrees:

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

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

13. Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 October - 31 December 2019 174 - 250

Document number R13729

Recommendation

The Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 October - 31 December 2019 (R13729) and its attachments (A2326033, A2342072, A2331749, A2329142, A2334348, and A2328796); and

2. Approves retrospectively the proposed Resource Management Act 1991 Reform feedback (A2329142); and

3. Approves the proposed submission for lodging with the Ministry for the Environment on the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (A2334348); and

4. Approves retrospectively the proposed Future of Kingsland Forest submission to Tasman District Council (A2331749); and

5. Notes the range of current environmental management national direction initiatives that impacts on the Environmental Management Group (A2328796).

Note:

· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime.

· Lunch will be provided.

Environment Committee Minutes - 28 November 2019

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment Committee

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

On Thursday 28 November 2019, commencing at 10.03a.m.

Present: Councillor K Fulton (Chairperson) Her Worship the Mayor R Reese, Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar, M Lawrey, B McGurk, G Noonan, R O'Neill-Stevens, P Rainey, R Sanson and T Skinner, and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Acting Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Advisers (E-J Ruthven and J Brandt)

Apologies : Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (for lateness)

Ms Glenice Paine gave a karakia, and the committee sang a waiata.

1. Apologies

Resolved EC/2019/045

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship the Mayor for lateness.

Fulton/Courtney Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chair explained that there was an additional public forum.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register. Her Worship the Mayor subsequently declared an interest in item 8, Review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, and left the meeting during this item.

4. Public Forum

4.1 Claire Williams - Reducing plastic bags for dog waste

Claire Williams gave a Power Point presentation (A2308187) and highlighted her concerns regarding the use of plastic bags to dispose of dog waste. She suggested Council consider using cornstarch bags, composting stations or portable easy-clean devices to reduce the volume of dog waste in plastic bags sent to landfill, and answered questions.

Attachments

1 A2308187 - Claire Williams - Power Point presentation

4.2 Zane Mirfin, Markham Phillips and Peter Ruffell - Delaware Bay Access

Zane Mirfin, Markham Phillips and Peter Ruffell spoke on behalf of the Delaware Bay Access Working Group. They spoke about the value of Delaware Bay to recreational fishers both as an important food resource, and as a safe, all-weather, all-tide access point to Tasman Bay.

Mr Mirfin tabled documents including a pamphlet outlining a proposed option for basic enduring access to Delaware Bay (A2320759), and requested a regional approach to managing access points to Tasman Bay along with Tasman District and Marlborough District Councils.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor joined the meeting at 10.18a.m.

Mr Phillips spoke about the Cawthron Report, and showed a Power Point presentation (A2308203). He explained that the proposed limited access way rested on gravel substrate, chosen to limit environmental impacts as much as possible. Mr Ruffell explained the importance of fishing as a family activity, and having a safe access point to Tasman Bay. Together, they emphasised their wish to work with all parties to protect Delaware Bay.

Mr Mirfin, Mr Phillips and Mr Ruffell answered questions about high-tide access and the potential effects of the proposed access-way on the ecological footprint of the estuary.

Attachments

1 A2320759 - Zane Mirfin, Markham Phillips and Peter Ruffell - Tabled document

2 A2308203 - Zane Mirfin, Markham Phillips and Peter Ruffell - Power Point presentation

4.3 Waimea Inlet Coordination Group - Brief Summary Update on Action Plan

David Sissons gave a Power Point presentation (A2306577). He outlined the Waimea Inlet Action Plan and spoke about improvements in the ecology of the Waimea Inlet. He noted there were still issues to be addressed, particularly regarding contaminants and sediment entering the inlet via the stormwater system. He emphasised the importance of coastal planting and the continual support of projects promoting this, such as Nelson Nature.

Attachments

1 A2306577 - David Sissons, Waimea Inlet Coordination Group - Power Point presentation

4.4 Ngāti Tama - Delaware Bay Access; Huria Matenga Trust – Delaware Bay Access; and Ngāti Koata – Delaware Bay Access

Anaru Stephens, of Huria Matenga Trust, Ratapu Hippolite, of Ngāti Koata, and Kura Stafford, of Ngāti Tama, presented their public forum presentations regarding Delaware Bay access collectively.

Mr Stephens gave a Power Point presentation (A2308234). He spoke about the history of Delaware Bay, including the location of ancient pa sites and urupā (burial grounds), and land sales in the area. He noted that vehicle access onto Delaware Bay estuary had increased, including driving over urupā with consequential destruction and removal of taonga in the area, and this went beyond just launching or retrieving boats.

Mr Stephens emphasised the importance of the estuary ecology, and the potential for damage to the estuarine environment by vehicles accessing the estuary, compacting sand, and damaging cockle beds and sea grass. He added that Delaware Bay estuary could be an important research site to assist with the rehabilitation of other estuaries in Te Tauihu. Mr Stephens answered questions regarding the interference with wāhi tapu, and damage from vehicles to the estuary.

Mr Hippolite, representing Ngāti Koata, spoke about the importance of maintaining kaitiaki oversight of the estuary. He noted that, under the Nelson Resource Management Plan, resource consent was required for vehicle access onto the estuary, and he emphasised that Council should take enforcement action to prevent vehicle access.

Ms Stafford spoke on behalf of Ngāti Tama ki te Waipounamu Trust, deed holder of Delaware Bay estuary. She gave a Power Point presentation (A2309850), and spoke about Te Ao Maori and Maori-world values. She acknowledged the importance of applying the principles of kaitiakitanga over the entirety of the Delaware Bay environment, and the number of areas of cultural significance on and around the estuary. She outlined the values of whenua tūpuna, wāhi tapu and the protection of Te Taiao, and suggested a rahui to restrict access of vehicles onto the estuary.

Ms Stafford, Mr Stephens and Mr Hippolite answered further questions regarding the proposed limited accessway and how that would impact on providing kaitiakitanga over the estuary, and the consideration of other options prior to moving to a resource consent process.

Attachments

1 A2308234 - Anaru Stephens, Huria Matenga Trust - Power Point presentation

2 A2309850 - Kura Stafford, Ngāti Tama - Power Point presentation

5. Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust annual update (agenda item 6)

Document number R10245, agenda pages 9 - 30 refer. Property and Facilities Asset Planner, Paul Harrington, presented the report. Ru Collin, Chief Executive of the Brook Waimārama Sanctuary, gave a Power Point presentation (A2308227). Mr Collin answered questions regarding pest incursions into the Sanctuary, the planned re-introduction of species programme, the reasons for cancelling the reintroduction of rowi at this time, the Sanctuary’s education programme, and its proposed entry fees and operating hours. Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 11.57a.m. to 12.04p.m.
Resolved EC/2019/046
	*That the Environment Committee* *1. Receives the Report Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust annual update (R10245) and its attachment the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Annual Report 2018/19 (A2286565).*
Noonan/Sanson Carried
Attachments 1 A2308227 - Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust - Power Point presentation

6. Chairperson's Report (agenda item 5)

Document number R13601, agenda pages 8 - 8 refer.

The Chair presented her report and tabled further information about the Danish delegation visit (A2308567). She answered questions regarding the possibility of establishing a southern hemisphere climatorium in Nelson.

Resolved EC/2019/047

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R13601); and

2. Appoints Elected Members to a liaison role as follows:

Organisation/Group

Liaison

Nelson Biodiversity Forum

Brian McGurk

Kate Fulton

Rachel Sanson

Fulton/Skinner Carried

Attachments

1 A2308567 - Chairperson's Report - Tabled document

7. Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access

Document number R10204, agenda pages 31 - 44 refer.

The Chair explained that the committee would likely need further information to enable an informed decision regarding vehicle access at Delaware Bay, and suggested that the item be left to lie on the table at this point. She suggested wording for a motion directing this to occur. Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor and Councillor Rainey returned to the meeting at 12.57p.m., Councillor Bowater returned to the meeting at 12.58p.m, and Councillors McGurk and O’Neill-Stevens returned to the meeting at 1.00p.m. Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald, answered questions regarding the proposed wording of the motion, and confirmed there was no requirement that reports be received by the committee. During discussion, the Committee emphasised that Council wished to engage with all parties on this matter. It was noted that the proposed motion should not specify exactly how such engagement was undertaken, rather allow flexibility for Council to engage constructively and appropriately with iwi and other interested parties. Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 1.11p.m. to 1.13p.m. Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor Edgar, moved: That the Environment Committee: 1. Directs officers to seek further information, including specialist legal advice as required, to assist decision making on the options to address matters relating to Delaware Bay Estuary as raised in report R10204, including potential issues under the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011; and 2. Leaves the item Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access to lie until the Environment Committee meeting proposed to be held on 5 March 2020. During debate, and with the agreement of the mover and seconder, the words “and as raised in the public forum” were added to clause one of the motion. It was further noted that enforcement of the current Nelson Resource Management Plan in relation to vehicles accessing Delaware Bay estuary was not a matter for elected members to engage in, and it was for the Chief Executive to respond to this matter.
Resolved EC/2019/048
	*That the Environment Committee:* 1. Directs officers to seek further information, including specialist legal advice as required, to assist decision making on the options to address matters relating to Delaware Bay Estuary as raised in report R10204 and in the Public Forum, including potential issues under the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011; and 2. Leaves the item Delaware Bay Estuary - Vehicle Access to lie until the Environment Committee meeting proposed to be held on 5 March 2020.
Fulton/Edgar Carried

8. Review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

Document number R12538, agenda pages 45 - 161 refer.

Manager Environmental Planning, Matt Heale, presented the report, accompanied by Property and Facilities Asset Planner, Paul Harrington, Debra Bradley, consultant, Kerry Anderson, external legal adviser, and Brent Edwards, Environmental Inspections Limited. They answered questions regarding the management of grazed reserves and the proposal that these become on-lead areas; the proposed establishment of a dog exercise park; and the wording of the Statement of Proposal relating to the consideration of all submissions. Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor declared an interest and left the meeting at 1.41pm. Mr Heale answered further questions regarding the proposed removal of the Good Dog Owner Policy and the limit on dog numbers per property; education measures for all users of shared pathways; and the potential for protecting ecologically sensitive areas by making these on-lead areas. Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 1.47p.m, and Councillor Lawrey left the meeting from 1.53p.m to 1.58p.m. Attendance: The meeting adjourned from 2.03p.m. to 3.04p.m, to accommodate the start of the Community Services Meeting. During the adjournment, Ms Glenice Paine left the meeting. Councillor McGurk, seconded by Councillor O’Neill-Stevens, moved the recommendation in the officer report, with the inclusion of an additional clause: 10. Notes that further work will be undertaken to consider whether additional ecological areas are considered and included with restricted dog access, with any necessary decisions and any consequential changes to relevant documents be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee.
Resolved EC/2019/049
	*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 of Report R12538) and the Summary of the Statement of Proposal (A2145310 of Report 9973); 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 of Report R12538) 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; and* 10. Notes that further work will be undertaken to consider whether additional ecological areas are considered and included with restricted dog access, with any necessary decisions and any consequential changes to relevant documents be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee.
McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens Carried

9. Plan Change 27 Approval

Document number R9694, agenda pages 162 - 166 refer.

Manager Environmental Planning, Matt Heale, presented the report.
Resolved EC/2019/050
	*That the Environment Committee* *Receives the report Plan Change 27 Approval (R9694).*
McGurk/Edgar Carried
Recommendation to Council EC/2019/051
	*That the Council* *Approves* *Plan Change 27 to become operative*.
McGurk/Edgar Carried

10. Biosecurity Annual Review

Document number R12562, agenda pages 167 - 175 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizzell, presented the report. He answered questions regarding education tools for pests not included in the Pest Management Plan, ant control measures, and the management of marine pests. Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 3.26p.m.
Resolved EC/2019/052
	*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.
Rainey/Bowater Carried

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

Document number R12542, agenda pages 176 - 221 refer.

Manager Environmental Planning, Matt Heale, Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, and Senior City Development Planner, Alastair Upton, presented the report. Mr Upton answered questions regarding development proposals for high productivity land.
Resolved EC/2019/053
	*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).
Her Worship the Mayor/McGurk Carried

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

Document number R12534, agenda pages 222 - 253 refer.

Manager Environmental Planning, Matt Heale, Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, Manager Science and Environment, Jo Martin, Manager Building, Patrick Schofield, and Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report. They answered questions regarding the proposal to establish a Governance Liaison Group for the Nelson Plan, Dog Control income and the provision of bags for dog waste, air quality, freedom camping enforcement, Building Unit Code Compliance issues, and the integration of climate change into city centre planning. The meeting acknowledged Matt Heale’s input to and support of the committee during his time with Nelson City Council. Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor, and Councillors Noonan, Sanson and Courtney left the meeting at 4.05p.m.
Resolved EC/2019/054
	*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 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.
O'Neill-Stevens/Edgar Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.14p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Building Act 2004 – Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Buildings - Deliberations

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R13587

Building Act 2004 – Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Buildings - Deliberations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider feedback obtained as part of the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) Council undertook under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 on proposed areas for prioritisation of unreinforced masonry (URM) hazards, and on proposed routes of strategic importance for emergency response.

1.2 To decide whether to adopt the proposed areas for prioritisation of unreinforced masonry hazards and proposed routes of strategic importance for emergency response.

2. Summary

2.1 Council undertook a SCP consultation on its proposal to identify those areas with sufficient traffic (pedestrian and vehicular) to warrant prioritisation of unreinforced masonry hazards and to identify transport routes of strategic importance for emergency response. Public consultation was held during October 2019.

2.2 Four submissions were received, of which one submitter requested to be heard. Rob Stevenson from the Waterfront Association (21122) will be heard in the public forum of this meeting.

2.3 The submissions received were generally in agreement with the areas and routes proposed (A2077485). Some submitters’ feedback addressed topics outside of the scope of matters that can be considered under the earthquake prone buildings provisions of the Building Act 2004.

2.4 This report and its attachments are provided for the Committee to consider options for the identification of areas that warrant prioritisation of URM hazards, and the identification of transport routes of strategic importance for emergency response.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Building Act 2004 – Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Buildings - Deliberations (R13587) and its attachments (A2097637, A2077485, A2294719, A2317659); and

2. Adopts the proposed area for the identification of priority unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, and transport routes of strategic importance (A2077485).

4. Background

4.1 The Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 amended the Building Act 2004 and requires territorial authorities to identify priority buildings. Priority buildings include those buildings that either pose a high risk to safety (due to URM in high traffic areas) or have the potential to impede strategic transport routes likely to be needed in an emergency. Priority buildings are subject to shorter timeframes for identification and remediation.

4.2 Priority buildings must be identified by 30 June 2022. One to two years will be required for council officers to complete identification of priority buildings.

4.3 Under section 133AF of the Building Act, Council is required to use the SCP to identify areas with sufficient traffic to warrant prioritisation of URM hazards and has discretion as to whether to initiate the SCP to identify transport routes of strategic importance for emergency response. This is explained further in section 5 (Discussion) of this report.

4.4 While preparing the Statement of Proposal required for the SCP, feedback was sought from members of the Nelson Tasman Lifelines Group. Feedback received was considered in preparing the report presented to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 22 August 2019.

4.5 The Council approved the use of the SCP to obtain public feedback on the Statement of Proposal at its meeting on 19 September 2019. This included both the mandatory URM hazards and the discretionary transport routes of strategic importance for emergency response.

4.6 Public consultation was held during October 2019. Information was publicly advertised and was sent to building owners and community groups in the most affected areas in accordance with the consultation approach approved by Council. Two public meetings were held, with a total of nine members of the public attending. Four submissions were received.

4.7 Further background on this matter can be found in report Building Act 2004 - Earthquake Prone Buildings - Priority Buildings and Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy presented to the Planning and Regulatory Committee on 22 August 2019. Web link: http://meetings.nelson.govt.nz/Open/2019/08/PR_20190822_AGN_1877_AT_WEB.htm

5. Discussion

Unreinforced masonry buildings (whole or in part) that could fall on thoroughfares with sufficient traffic to warrant prioritisation

5.1 Section 133AF of the Building Act 2004 requires that public roads, footpaths and other thoroughfares with sufficient traffic to warrant prioritisation be identified by Council using the SCP (given the Nelson district includes areas of medium or high seismic risk). This is mandatory if there is any reasonable prospect that URM buildings may fall in an earthquake on a sufficiently busy thoroughfare.

5.2 None of the submissions disagreed with the area proposed as outlined in the Statement of Proposal.

5.3 Two submissions agreed that the Nelson city centre should be designated a high traffic area.

5.4 One submission agreed that URM is a potential risk to life but did not comment on the area proposed for prioritisation.

5.5 Officers recommend that the area set out in part one of the Statement of Proposal (A2097637) and the map (A2077485) be adopted without amendment. This will mean that public roads, footpaths and other thoroughfares in that area will be prioritised for the identification and remediation of URM hazards.

5.6 A decision to adopt this area will set the maximum timeframe for owners to complete remediation of buildings that have Earthquake Prone Building (EPB) Notices to 12.5 years from the date the Notice was issued.

5.7 There are currently 11 URM buildings with EPB Notices, or equivalent section 124 Notices issued under Council’s previous policy, that will become priority buildings as a result of adopting the recommended option. Three of these already have timeframes shorter than 12.5 years, and most timeframes expire within 5 years of today. All owners of these buildings were advised in writing of the effects of the legislative changes, and options that they have, specific to their building, late in 2017. Information was also sent to these owners as part of the SCP.

5.8 Officers consider that almost all URM buildings have already been identified, so council’s deadline of 30 June 2022 will be easily met for this category of priority building.

Buildings on a transport route of strategic importance (in terms of emergency response)

5.9 Section 133AF of the Building Act 2004 allows Council discretion as to whether to consult on transport routes of strategic importance. If it does, Council must meet the timeframe (30 June 2022) to identify all priority buildings on those routes. Council can only identify priority buildings for this purpose if it uses the SCP.

5.10 None of the submissions disagreed with any of the routes proposed.

5.11 Two submissions agreed that the two main routes from Annesbrook roundabout to the Nelson city centre (Waimea Road, Rutherford Street, Haven Road, Wakefield Quay, Rocks Road, Tahunanui Drive and back to Annesbrook roundabout) should be designated strategic routes for the purposes of emergency response.

5.12 These routes are proposed to be designated as strategic routes, with the exception of the stretch from Annesbrook roundabout along Whakatu Drive and Waimea Road to Boundary Road. This stretch has been excluded because officers consider there is no reasonable prospect that there are buildings that could collapse and impede this part of the route, due to their low height and distance from the road.

5.13 Officers recommend that the routes set out in part two of the statement of proposal and the map be adopted without amendment. This will mean that these routes will be prioritised for the identification and remediation of URM hazards.

5.14 A decision to adopt these routes will set the maximum timeframe for owners to complete remediation of buildings that have EPB Notices to 12.5 years from the date the Notice was issued.

5.15 There are currently 8 buildings with EPB Notices, or equivalent section 124 Notices issued under Council’s previous policy, that are likely to become priority buildings as a result of adopting the recommended option. Five of these already have timeframes shorter than 12.5 years, and most timeframes expire within 10 years of today. All owners of these buildings were advised in writing of the effects of the legislative changes, and options that they have, specific to their building, late in 2017. Information was also sent to these owners as part of the SCP.

5.16 Some potentially earthquake prone buildings have already been identified along these routes, although more work is needed. Numbers are not expected to be high. It is anticipated that the current time available (approximately two years) until council’s deadline of 30 June 2022 is sufficient to identify this category of priority building.

Topics raised by submitters that are outside of the scope of matters that can be considered

5.17 All submissions identified the sea-cliffs above Rocks Road as a (rockfall or landslide) hazard during or after an earthquake.

5.17.1 The earthquake prone building provisions of the Building Act 2004 do not apply to natural features, except in so much as they provide direct support to a building’s foundations (section 133AA(1) of the Building Act 2004). Therefore, the hazard posed by the sea-cliffs is not relevant to this consultation, unless there are non-residential or multi-residential buildings supported by the sea-cliff with the potential to impede Rocks Road should the building or the ground supporting it collapse. Officers are not aware of any such buildings along Rocks Road.

5.17.2 It is proposed that the entire length of Rocks Road and Wakefield Quay be designated strategic routes for emergency response. Therefore, any buildings identified as having the potential to impede these routes will be priority buildings under the current proposal.

5.18 Two submissions identified the sea-walls below Rocks Road and Wakefield Quay as being at risk.

5.18.1 As above, the earthquake prone building provisions of the Building Act 2004 do not apply to retaining walls that are not integral to the structure of a building (section 133AA(1)(c) of the Building Act 2004). Therefore, the hazard posed by the sea-walls is not relevant to this consultation, except where they may be integral with or provide direct foundation support to a building. The sea-walls alone cannot be considered under the earthquake prone building provisions of the Building Act 2004.

5.18.2 As the entire length of Rocks Road and Wakefield Quay are proposed to be designated a strategic route for emergency response, any buildings identified with the potential to impede these routes will be priority buildings under the current proposal.

5.19 Three submissions identified specific buildings that submitters deemed to be a risk, and that are on a proposed strategic route.

5.19.1 The purpose of this consultation was to seek feedback on high traffic areas on to which URM could fall in an earthquake, and to identify routes of strategic importance for emergency response. It is not focussed on the identification of specific buildings.

5.19.2 However, the buildings identified in the submissions have already been determined by council to be earthquake prone. If it is subsequently determined that they could impede a strategic route should they collapse in an earthquake, they will be subject to the requirements placed on priority earthquake prone buildings.

6. Options

The preferred officer recommendation is option 1. For further details refer to the table below.

Option 1: Adopt the area consulted on for the identification of priority URM buildings, and transport routes of strategic importance (preferred)
Advantages	· Council will meet its obligation under the Building Act 2004 to prioritise identification and remediation of URM building hazards by 30 June 2022 · Council will prioritise identification and remediation of earthquake prone buildings that may impede strategic transport routes (in terms of emergency response) by 30 June 2022 as required
Risks and Disadvantages	· None identified.
Option 2: Adopt the area consulted on for the identification of priority URM buildings, but do not adopt transport routes of strategic importance
Advantages	· Council will meet its obligation under the Building Act 2004 to prioritise identification and remediation of URM building hazards by 30 June 2022 · There will be fewer priority buildings to identify. Council will have longer to identify buildings that may impede strategic transport routes and they will not be identified as priority buildings
Risks and Disadvantages	· There is a potential risk to public safety as council will not be able to identify buildings as priority if they may impede strategic transport routes
Option 3: Do not adopt any area for the identification of priority URM buildings, or transport routes of strategic importance
Advantages	· None identified
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would not meet its obligation under the Building Act 2004 with regard to URM building hazards · There is a potential risk to public safety as council will not be able to prioritise identification and remediation of earthquake prone buildings that may impede transport routes · Reputational risk – having expended resources on the SCP and then not following through

7. Conclusion

7.1 In order to meet the requirements of section 133AF of the Building Act 2004:

7.1.1 with regard to URM buildings, Council is required to use the SCP to identify public roads, footpaths and other thoroughfares with sufficient traffic to warrant prioritisation, and

7.1.2 with regard to buildings on transport routes of strategic importance, Council has discretion whether to identify such routes, and if it decides to do so, must only do so using the SCP.

7.2 Council has consulted publicly using the SCP. The SCP undertaken included both the mandatory URM hazards and the discretionary transport routes of strategic importance for emergency response, as approved by Council on 19^th September 2019. None of the submissions disagreed with the proposal, and all generally agreed with the proposal.

7.3 Therefore officers recommend that Council adopts the preferred option 1 to adopt the area for the identification of priority URM buildings, and transport routes of strategic importance as consulted on.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Officers will make information describing the adopted option available on the council website, and will proceed to identify priority buildings in accordance with that option.

Author: Bruce Mutton, Structural Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2097637 - Statement of Proposal - Priority Buildings - Aug2019 as consulted on ⇩

Attachment 2: A2077485 - GIS - R9240 - Strategic Transport Routes For Emergency Response - Prioritisation of Unreinforced Masonry Hazards - InfoCouncilA3L - Maps - Jul-Aug2019 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2294719 - Priority Earthquake Prone Buildings - TOTAL SUBMISSIONS and Index Page - 05Nov2019 ⇩

Attachment 4: A2317659 - Consideration of Submissions - Earthquake Prone Priority Buildings - Dec2019 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of The Local Government Act 2002 requires local government to enable democratic decision making and actions to promote the well-being of communities.

The consultation process, feedback received and considered in this document aligns with this purpose and in addition is mandated by sections 133AE and 133AF of the Building Act 2004.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The work meets community outcomes:

“Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”,

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

3. Risk

A decision is required so that Council can meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004 to identify certain categories of potentially earthquake prone buildings, and to issue EPB Notices with appropriate deadlines for completion of seismic work. The main risk is ensuring any resultant earthquake strengthening/demolition works required by the Building Act 2004 are undertaken within the statutory timeframes. This risk can be managed by adoption of the recommended option.

The key location of the areas with sufficient traffic is central Nelson. It is acknowledged the amenity of the City Centre, in part because of the presence of heritage buildings, may be impacted.

4. Financial impact

Additional resource requirements are not anticipated. If the proposal is approved, Council obligations can be managed within existing budgets and staffing levels.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of moderate to high significance because it will impact on owners of potentially earthquake prone buildings and owners of earthquake prone buildings within the areas and on the routes specified.

Engagement by way of the Special Consultative Procedure has been carried out. Officers consider that the process followed has identified those likely to have an interest in or be affected by the decision, encouraged them to participate in the consultation and given appropriate consideration to their views and preferences.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change impact has not been explicitly considered in the preparation of the proposed policy amendment.

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future. It is unlikely to result in a change in greenhouse gas emissions

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Environment Committee has delegations to consider earthquake-prone building issues as following:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Building control matters, including earthquake-prone buildings and the fencing of swimming pools

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

· Policies and strategies related to compliance, monitoring and enforcement

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: Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Deliberations

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R13588

Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Deliberations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider feedback obtained as part of the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) Council undertook under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, on a proposed amendment to the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 (updated 2017).

1.2 To decide whether to adopt the proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy (Reviewed and Amended 2019).

2. Summary

2.1 Legislative requirements and a review by council officers has led to a proposal to amend and rename the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 (updated 2017). Public consultation was held during October 2019.

2.2 Consideration has been given by officers as to whether to amend the proposed Policy as a result of feedback received and to better match wording in the Building Act 2004.

2.3 This report and its attachments are provided for the Committee to consider and to decide on behalf of Council whether to adopt the amended Policy.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Deliberations (R13588) and its attachments (A2053947, A2313611 and A2295646); and

2. Adopts the proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy as amended incorporating submitter feedback and editorial changes (A2313611).

4. Background

4.1 Section 132 of the Building Act 2004 requires Council to review the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (the Policy) at least every five years. The Policy has not been formally reviewed since it was created in 2006, due to uncertainty that ensued following the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

4.2 Section 132A of the Building Act 2004 came into force on 28 November 2013 and requires Council to amend the Policy to take into account affected buildings within a reasonable period following the next review of its policy. Affected buildings are those that are adjacent to, adjoining or nearby to a dangerous building or dam.

4.3 The Council approved an amendment to the Earthquake Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 on 9 November 2017, removing references to earthquake prone buildings. This was required by clause 3 of Schedule 1AA to the Building Act 2004 and was permitted without recourse to the SCP as no material changes were made affecting dangerous or insanitary buildings.

4.4 On 22 August 2019 the Planning and Regulatory Committee approved the use of the SCP to consult on the proposal to update the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy. The Statement of Proposal consulted on is attached as Attachment 1.

4.5 Public consultation was held during October 2019. One submission (a late submission) was received proposing that additional information be taken into account. As there was no request to speak, no hearing is required.

5. Discussion

5.1 The proposed policy wording, as it went out to consultation, meets the requirements of the Building Act 2004; however, an option is proposed to make some minor changes to more closely align the Policy with legislative references (Attachment 2).

5.2 The Nelson Marlborough Health submission (Attachment 3) supports the proposed policy and agrees with its principles and overall approach. It also makes two suggested additions to the wording of the policy: reference to a Health Protection Officer; and reference to the Health Act 1956.

Proposed Editorial and Clarification Changes

5.3 The order of the words in the proposed policy title, and as used throughout the document differs from that used in section 124 of the Building Act 2004. It is proposed to change the order from dangerous, insanitary and affected to dangerous, affected and insanitary to match that used in the Act. Other minor amendments have been proposed for continuity with legislative references. These do not change the substance of the policy.

5.4 The introduction and background section of the draft Policy, as consulted on, did not refer to all relevant sections of the Act, and did not refer to the most recent update of the current Policy. For the sake of clarity it is proposed to add reference to section 132A of the Act and to Council’s 9 November 2017 update of the Policy.

Proposed Health Officer References

5.5 It is proposed to add Health Protection Officer and Environmental Health Officer to the officers that may be consulted with when identifying dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings. This will allow a graduated response and broadens the pool of experience that may be drawn on.

5.6 The proposal to consult with health officers in paragraph 1 d) was drafted to occur as ‘as required’. It is proposed to change this to ‘as appropriate’, given there is no clear definition of when this will be required.

5.7 Paragraph 1.2 on taking action on insanitary buildings is amended with the preface ‘If action is to be taken under the Building Act 2004’. This allows that a decision may be made not to take action, or that a decision may be made to take action under other legislation.

Proposed Health Act 1956 References

5.8 While the Health Act 1956 provides additional options to address insanitary conditions, administering that Act is not the focus of this policy. Sections 121 to 130 of the Building Act 2004 do not contemplate inclusion of other legislation in this policy. Nelson City Council has an Environmental Health Officer who manages Council's obligations under the Health Act. Therefore, this Policy need not duplicate those responsibilities.

5.9 Officers empowered by the Health Act 1956 (Medical Officer of Health, Health Protection Officer, and Environmental Health Officer) have various powers to require mitigation of nuisance and insanitary conditions. It is reasonable to acknowledge their expertise and document the option of seeking their advice prior to making decisions under the Building Act. Therefore it is proposed to include the option of consulting with the Environmental Health Officer and Health Protection Officer when identifying dangerous, affected or insanitary conditions.

6. Options

The preferred officer recommendation is option 1. For further details refer to the table below.

Option 1: Adopt amended Policy incorporating submitter feedback and editorial changes A2313611 (preferred)
Advantages	· Council will meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004 · Council officers and the public are reminded of resources and powers available via health organisations · Potential confusion due to differences in wording between the Policy and the Act are mitigated
Risks and Disadvantages	· None identified
Option 2: Adopt Policy as consulted on (A2053947)
Advantages	· Council will meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004
Risks and Disadvantages	· There is some potential for confusion given slight differences between the wording of the Policy and legislation · Council officers and the public are not reminded of resources and powers available via health organisations and the Health Act 1956 respectively
Option 3: Retain current Policy (A2060270)
Advantages	· None identified
Risks and Disadvantages	· Council would not meet its obligations under the Building Act 2004 · Reputational risk – having expended resources on the SCP and then not following through

7. Conclusion

7.1 In order to comply with the requirements of sections 132 and 132A of the Building Act 2004, Council is required to use the SCP to review the current Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 (updated 2017).

7.2 The changes proposed are for the purposes of improving clarity. It is not expected that they would bring about material changes to decisions made under the Policy. It is not expected that the proposed amendments will change the frequency of actions taken or impact on affected parties.

7.3 Officers suggest that the proposed changes do not amount to a significant change that would warrant further public consultation. Officers recommend that Council adopts the preferred option 1 to adopt the amended policy incorporating submitter feedback and editorial changes.

Author: Bruce Mutton, Structural Engineer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2053947 - Statement of Proposal Dangerous Insanitary and Affected Buildings Policy - Aug2019 as consulted on ⇩

Attachment 2: A2313611 - Proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy incorporating submitter feedback - Jan2020 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2295646 - Proposed Dangerous, Insanitary and Affected Building Policy - TOTAL LATE SUBMISSIONS - 06Nov2019 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of The Local Government Act 2002 requires local government to enable democratic decision making and actions to promote the well-being of communities.

The consultation process, feedback received and considered in this document aligns with this purpose by managing dangerous and insanitary conditions in buildings.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The work meets community outcomes:

“Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”,

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

3. Risk

This proposal will ensure that Council meets its statutory obligations under the Building Act 2004. There are no obvious risks associated with not adopting the policy as amended. There would be risk if Council does not adopt the policy as the current policy does not comply with the Building Act 2004.

4. Financial impact

Additional resource requirements are not anticipated.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it is regarding changes to an existing policy that are primarily editorial, or minor changes in response to legislative requirements. As Council receives few dangerous and insanitary inquiries, it can be assumed that few people will be impacted. As the changes to the policy are minor, the change in level of service is expected to be negligible. Engagement by way of the Special Consultative Procedure has been carried out. Officers consider that the process followed has identified those likely to have an interest in or be affected by the decision, encouraged them to participate in the consultation and given appropriate consideration to their views and preferences.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change impact has not been explicitly considered in the preparation of the proposed policy amendment.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider amendments to the Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Building control matters, including earthquake-prone buildings and the fencing of swimming pools

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

· Policies and strategies related to compliance, monitoring and enforcement

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, including activity management plans

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

Item 10: Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R13744

Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval of the statement of proposal for the proposed charges for resource consent activities (including processing, monitoring and administration), Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) planning documents and applications under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure (section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002). The draft Statement of Proposal is attached to this report (Attachment 1, A2334791).

2. Summary

2.1 Current charges under the RMA and HASHAA have been reviewed and changes proposed, where required to better reflect staff time to process applications, to ensure reasonable cost recovery goals are met and to meet increased national monitoring requirements. The criteria set out in section 36AA of the RMA and section 77 of HASHAA need to be considered and are assessed below. The current fees and charges came into effect on 21 March 2018.

3. Recommendations

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges (R13744) and its attachment (A2334791); and

2. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

3. Agrees the preferred option is to increase charges to recover 48% of Council costs for the services; and

5. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 5 of this report) and agrees:

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

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

4. Background

4.1 Current charges under the RMA and HASHAA have been in place since 21 March 2018. This report considers proposed changes to charges for the following:

• Resource Consents: processing, monitoring and administration; and

• HASHAA: resource consents for qualifying developments in special housing areas.

4.2 Section 36AAA of the RMA requires that the sole purpose for charges is to recover the reasonable costs incurred in respect of the activity to which the charge relates, with those gaining the benefit from the regulatory service paying a reasonable cost for that service.

4.3 Section 77 of HASHAA provides that an authorised agency, having regard to the criteria set out in section 36(4) of the RMA is able to fix various charges under HASHAA and that section 36(3) to (5) and (7) of the RMA applies to charges fixed under the section. Section 6(2) of HASHAA provides that every reference to the RMA in HASHAA is to be read as a reference to the RMA as in force on 4 September 2013. Section 36(4) of the RMA as in force on 4 September 2013 provides:

(4) When fixing charges referred to in this section, a local authority shall have regard to the following criteria:

(a) the sole purpose of a charge is to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the local authority in respect of the activity to which the charge relates:

(b) a particular person or persons should only be required to pay a charge—

(i) to the extent that the benefit of the local authority's actions to which the charge relates is obtained by those persons as distinct from the community of the local authority as a whole; or

(ii) where the need for the local authority's actions to which the charge relates is occasioned by the actions of those persons; or

(iii) in a case where the charge is in respect of the local authority's monitoring functions under section 35(2)(a) (which relates to monitoring the state of the whole or part of the environment), to the extent that the monitoring relates to the likely effects on the environment of those persons' activities, or to the extent that the likely benefit to those persons of the monitoring exceeds the likely benefit of the monitoring to the community of the local authority as a whole,—

and the local authority may fix different charges for different costs it incurs in the performance of its various functions, powers, and duties under this Act—

(c) in relation to different areas or different classes of applicant, consent holder, requiring authority, or heritage protection authority; or

(d) where any activity undertaken by the persons liable to pay any charge reduces the cost to the local authority of carrying out any of its functions, powers, and duties.

4.4 For the 2017/18 financial year resource consent charges recovered 52% of the Council’s costs relating to them. Last financial year it was 50% and this year it is tracking at 45% of costs being recovered. The current Revenue and Financial Policy in the Long Term Plan is to recover 40-60% of total costs.

4.5 The main factors influencing the level of income received from charges are the staff hourly charge out rate and the number and complexity of resource consent applications. Consent numbers decreased from 417 in 2017/18 to 348 in 2018/19 but income from fees and charges increased by 11% as the consents were generally more complex and took more time to process. Consent numbers are 197 for the first half of the financial year with income from fees and charges tracking 7% lower than last year.

4.6 The main factors influencing the costs of providing these services are staff levels, organisation support costs, the level of external expertise required and national monitoring and reporting requirements that increase the level of service to be provided. Since the last review of charges, increased monitoring requirements for National Environmental Standards has resulted in the increase of staffing for resource consent monitoring by one FTE. More staff time is required to report on the level of consent processing and monitoring activities. The level of external expertise needed has increased due to application complexity and/or staff vacancies.

5. Consultation

5.1 Section 36(3) of the RMA provides that charges may be fixed under section 36 only in the manner set out in s 150 of the LGA, using the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the LGA, and in accordance with s 36AAA.

5.2 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter. In undertaking a SCP the Local Government Act 2002 requires the territorial authority to make the statement of proposal publicly available, along with a description of how persons interested in the proposal will be provided with an opportunity to present their views and the period during which those views may be provided to the Council.

5.3 Under section 87(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 a Statement of Proposal must include:

a) the proposed changes;

b) the reasons for the changes;

c) what alternatives to the changes are reasonably available; and

d) any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

5.4 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed Statement of Proposal is not unduly complicated and therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

5.5 The public consultation process provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to any concerns that may be raised. The proposed timeframe is outlined below:

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	5 March
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	17 March
Consultation closes	17 April
Environment Committee – Hearing of Submissions	To be confirmed
Environment Committee – Deliberation of submissions and adoption of changes	4 June

5.6 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process and to encourage those who may be affected or have an interest in this proposal to present their views, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

a) Information and key dates advertised in Our Nelson and Share newsletters prior to, and near the end of the consultation period.

b) Nelson City Council website, web page and web app.

c) Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues.

d) Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available from the Customer Services Centre and Council libraries and also available on the Council website.

e) Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available for Councillors to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period.

6. Discussion

6.1 Council’s current charging structure for resource consent processing and monitoring and all other activities under the RMA and HASHHA is to charge a fixed sum of money for the tasks where the costs relating to staff time are known or charge a fixed initial sum of money (based on the nature of the task or category of consent or application) for tasks that require a varied amount of staff time. Where an initial charge is required it is credited to the applicant’s account and when the task is completed the final costs are debited against the applicant’s account. A refund is made if the cost is less than the initial fixed charge, or an account for further payment is sent if the costs exceed the amount of the initial fixed charge.

6.2 The charges are based on:

a) The time spent by Council staff and any specialist advisers to undertake the task; and

b) The staff hourly charge or the consultant hourly charges; and

c) Overhead costs.

6.3 At least 40% of staff time is not chargeable to resource consent applicants. Much of this time is spent answering public enquiries, training, reporting or responding to objections to conditions or costs. When there is time staff review procedures, systems, templates and practices to improve quality and efficiency.

6.4 It is reasonable therefore that at least 40% of overall resource consent costs are met by rates. To increase the income received from charges the staff hourly charge out rate needs to increase and the charge needs to reflect the actual time taken for the task. Reducing costs is mainly achieved through reducing consultant costs and having appropriate staff levels.

6.5 The total expenses for the resource consent activity for the 2020/21 financial year are expected to be $2,398,000 GST exclusive, an increase of around $60,000 from the actual expenses in the 2018/19 year. The increase is attributed to higher consultant and contracting costs and higher overheads for consent monitoring.

6.6 For the five years from 2010/11 to 2014/15 the average percentage of all consent applications being processed by consultants was 13%. In the last 5 years this average has increased to 23% of consents being processed by consultants with this financial year tracking at 36%. The higher level of processing by consultants is due to staff vacancies, new staff taking time to learn their roles and experienced staff not having capacity to process all the complex consents.

6.7 The difference in consultant charges to current staff hourly rates range from $5 to $50 per hour for a senior consultant. These differences are not on-charged to the applicant unless there was a conflict of interest or technical expertise issues creating the need for the application to be processed externally.

6.8 If the increase in expenses is not met by charges there will need to be more rate income for this activity.

Impacts of increasing charges

6.9 The current fees and charges are recovering 45% of costs. The main mechanism to increase the income from charges is to increase the staff hourly rate. To cover 50% of the costs the hourly charge out rate would need to increase from $150 to $166. It is proposed to increase the hourly rate to $160 to cover 48% of the anticipated costs as this is considered a more reasonable increase when compared to the current charge. The table below identifies the percentage cost recovery from charges for various hourly rates and identifies the impacts on rates for the different level of charges increases:

Staff hourly rate	Income from charges	% of 2020/21 costs from fees	Rates component
$150 (current)	$1,081,000	45	$1,318,000
$160 (proposed)	$1,153,000	48	$1,246,000
$166	$1,199,000	50	$1,199,000
$173	$1,246,000	53	$1,152,000
$180	$1,297,000	55	$1,101,000
$200	$1,439,000	60	$959,000

6.10 The proposed increase from $150 per hour to $160 is a 6.7% increase. To provide some comparison with the hourly rates other territorial authorities charge nearby Councils and Councils of similar sizes are provided in the table below. Tasman District Council’s current hourly rate is $157 and is proposed to increase to $160 per hour.

	Hourly rate	Cost recovery policy from fees and charges
Nelson	$150 (proposed to be $160)	40 – 60%
Tasman	$157 (proposed to be $160)	15 – 45% (includes other activities such as plan making and state of the environment)
Marlborough	$100 admin $150 planner $180 senior or manager	60%
Napier	$80 admin $160 planner $175 team leader	40-59%
New Plymouth	$139 admin $184 planner	60-80%
Palmerston North	$114 admin $184 planner $197 senior $215 manager	80-100% (excludes monitoring and advice)

Initial fixed charges (deposits)

6.11 These charges are designed to cover the average cost for processing various consent types and have largely remained unchanged since 1 July 2016 (no changes were made to these charges during the last review). The average cost for all non-notified resource consents in the 2018/19 financial year was $2,250 with subdivision applications typically involving the higher costs.

6.12 It is proposed to increase the initial fixed charges as follows:

a) All activities other than listed elsewhere from $1300 to $1500

b) Subdivision 1-3 lots from $1300 to $2000

c) Subdivision 4 or more lots from $2000 to $5000

d) Deemed permitted activities from $300 to $480 (no additional charges or refunds apply)

e) Remove the change of consent conditions activity type from the $500 initial charge category (which will result in the initial charge for this activity being $1500)

6.13 Increasing these initial charges better reflects the expected costs for processing applications resulting in more realistic cost expectations. Charges a) and b) are set below the average cost of all non-notified consents as these categories will still have a number of applications lower than the average. It is more expensive to part refund in these circumstances than it is to invoice the additional charges.

6.14 Larger subdivision applications typically incur higher costs than the average to process the resource consent, title plan and completion certificate applications. The $5000 charge is still set at the lower end of total anticipated processing costs.

6.15 Deemed permitted activities were introduced in 2018 and it was estimated at that time that processing these would take two hours of staff time. It actually takes at least three hours to undertake a full check, issue the notice and set up the documents in the database. The fixed fee is therefore proposed to increase to $480 based on three hours of staff time at the rate of $160 per hour.

6.16 The initial charge for change of consent conditions applications is proposed to change from $500 to $1500 to better reflect the average time to process these applications. While the scope of assessment is narrower for these types of applications the same amount of documentation is required as for all resource consent applications and the impact of the proposed change can still be complex to assess.

Monitoring charges

6.17 The current initial monitoring charge is added to consent invoices where monitoring is required. The initial charge is meant to cover the first hour of monitoring or the one-off monitoring requirements with additional monitoring charges invoiced at a later date. The current charge of $150 is proposed to increase to $160 to reflect the cost of the first hour of monitoring.

6.18 Some consent monitoring only requires up to half an hour staff time once a year such as receiving reports for domestic wastewater systems. It isn’t cost effective to issue an invoice each year for this small amount of time and may not be reasonable to invoice for a number of years given the activity occurred a long time prior. It is proposed to be able to charge a higher initial monitoring fixed fee up front or identify regular intervals when monitoring charges will be invoiced calculated on anticipated staff time multiplied by the stated number of years for these types of consents.

6.19 Permitted activity monitoring costs are able to be recovered from people carrying out the activity under legislation has been occurring at the staff hourly rate and no changes to this are proposed.

Fixed charges

6.20 The fixed or one-off charges have been reviewed to ensure they are set at the actual time it takes to complete the task. Increases are proposed where the current charge does not cover the time to undertake the activity at the proposed staff hourly rate as follows:

a) Increase the section 357 objection administration charge from $255 to $320

At least two hours of staff time is required to record these objections, correspondence and decisions in the database. At the proposed staff hourly rate of $160 per hour the charge equates to $320.

b) Increase the private right-of-way naming review charge from $225 to $320

At least two hours of staff time is required to receive these requests, report on the change to the Hearings Panel, issue the decision and record documents in the database. At the proposed staff hourly rate of $160 per hour the charge equates to $320.

c) Increase the authentication of burning appliances charge from $70 to $120

At least 45 minutes of staff time is required to complete this task. At the proposed staff hourly rate of $160 per hour the charge equates to $120.

d) Increase the transfer of consents to a new owner charge from $150 to $240

At least one and a half hours of staff time is required to complete the documentation and change database records. At the proposed staff hourly rate of $160 per hour the charge equates to $240.

Reducing costs

6.21 The main cost that could be reduced is the external consultant cost. Resource consents are processed externally where there is a conflict of interest or when workloads are too high for staff to process more consents. A high level of external assistance has been required in the last four financial years mainly due to various staff vacancies. On average 27% of consents have been processed by consultants in the last four years. Of these around a quarter were needed to be processed externally due to conflict of interest issues.

6.22 There is additional staff time required to manage the consultants. Additional staff resource would, at worst, be cost neutral to rates if the costs of staff are off-set by the savings made from reducing consultant costs and the management of them. This is being addressed but the challenge will be finding suitably qualified applicants.

7. Options

7.1 The Council must have regard to criteria listed in section 36AAA of the RMA and section 77 of HASHAA when fixing charges. The proposed changes as set out in section 6 above have met this criteria as follows:

a) The proposed charges recovers reasonable costs incurred by the Council to which the charge relates;

b) The proposed charges are proportionally better met by the applicant compared to the community. It is fair the applicant pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Council in processing and monitoring since the applicants and consent holders receive the majority of the benefits of the consented development;

c) The processing and monitoring actions directly relate to, and are as a result of, the actions of the applicant;

d) Monitoring charges reflect the degree of compliance of consent conditions or specific permitted standards. The consent holder or person undertaking the activity is in control of the level of compliance and are therefore required to meet the costs of the associated monitoring; and

e) Overall, the proposed increased charges have been set at levels that will recover approximately 48% of the reasonable anticipated costs incurred by the consent authority.

7.2 Of the options to retain the current charges or amend the charges as proposed or increase the charges to recover 55% of the costs, the preferred option is option 2 – amend the charges as proposed in Attachment 1 (A2334791).

Option 1: retain the current fees and charges
Advantages	· Applicants and consent holders do not face increased charges
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some current fixed charges do not reflect the average time taken to perform the task · The costs of the activity is not sufficiently covered by income from charges · The increase to charges may need to be bigger at a later date · There would be an additional rates burden of $60,000
Option 2: Increase the charges to recover 48% of the costs as proposed in Attachment 1
Advantages	· The proposed fixed charges better reflect the actual time taken to perform the function · The proportional cost of the services is better met by applicants and consent holders than ratepayers · Prevents a larger increase at a later date · Less rates requirement
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by applicants and consent holders for the increase in charges that could increase the occurrence of querying about or objecting to the charges
Option 3: Increase the charges to recover 55% of the costs
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the service will be met by applicants and consent holders · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by applicants and consent holders for the 20% increase in charges that could increase the occurrence of querying or objecting to the charges · The large increase is not considered reasonable · Higher charges could deter developments or achieve poorer environmental outcomes · The charges may not meet the criteria in section 36AAA of the RMA or section 77 of HASHAA

8. Conclusion

8.1 The proposal is that charges for resource consent and monitoring services need to increase to better meet the actual costs of providing the service.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Proceed to public consultation on the proposed changes then decide on any changes once public comments have been considered.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2334791 RMA and HASHAA proposed charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in the report provides for the cost effective delivery of services as required under the RMA and HASHAA, to achieve the well-being goals of the community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended charges assist with achieving the stated funding outcomes in the Long Term Plan.

3. Risk

The do nothing option will not be consistent with the criteria for fixing charges specified in the various legislation.

4. Financial impact

The proposed increases in charges will better enable costs for the services to be met in the medium to long-term at an appropriate proportion between applicants/consent holders and ratepayers.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because proposed increases while justified will impact on a number of applicants and consent holders. The RMA and HASHAA requires a special consultation process to occur when fixing charges.

6. Climate Impact

This matter has not been considered in the preparation of this report.

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 RMA and HASHAA fees and charges

Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental regulatory matters including (but not limited to) animals and dogs, amusement devices, alcohol licensing (except where delegated to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority), food premises, gambling and public health

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

Delegations:

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

· Monitoring Council’s performance for the committee’s areas of responsibility, including legislative responsibilities and compliance requirements

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans

· 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 11: Proposed Dog Control fees

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R14790

Proposed Dog Control fees

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the statement of proposal for the proposed Dog Control fees and that a special consultative procedure (SCP) commences for the proposed amendments.

2. Summary

2.1 The Dog Control fees increased by 1.8% last year. This increase did not cover the increase in costs and the reserve account has been depleted with an overspend of $92,594. The fees are proposed to increase to better cover the actual costs of providing the dog control services.

3. Recommendations

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Proposed Dog Control fees (R14790) and its attachments (A2337793 and A2337794); and

2. Agrees the preferred option is to increase dog registration fees to recover 90% of the costs to Council in providing dog control services; and

3. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Dog Control fees is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

4. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.13 to 5.20 of this report) and agrees:

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

5. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Dog Control fees as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2337794) to Report R10037; and

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure, with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

4. Background

4.1 Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) gives territorial authorities the power to set fees for the registration and control of dogs under the Act. Section 37(4) requires the territorial authority to have regard to the relative costs of the registration and control of dogs in the various categories set out in section 37(2). Section 37(8) states any increase in fees can only take effect at the commencement of that year (being 1 July 2020).

4.2 The dog control fees and charges were increased by 1.8% in 2019 and before that were increased by similar amounts reflecting the consumer price (CPI) index increases. For the 2015/16 financial year the fees met 98% of the costs and all costs were met by fees for 2016/17. In 2017/18 the fees met 85% of the costs or 91% of the costs when the extension to the pound is excluded. In 2018/19 the fees met 83% of costs and this year fees are tracking to meet 79% of the costs.

4.3 The shortfall has in part been off-set by the reserve account but since depletion the dog control activity is accruing debt (internal loans have been raised to cover costs).

4.4 The Long Term Plan Revenue and Financial Policy currently requires that 90-100% of dog control costs are met by fees and charges.

5. Discussion

Registration fees

5.1 Dog control services are funded mostly by registration fees, dog impounding fees and some minor income from infringement fees and Court awarded costs. The level of impounding activities has been decreasing resulting in approximately $11,000 less income than three years ago.

5.2 The costs of the dog control services have increased due to an increase in overheads, an increase in the contractor price and an increase in legal expenses compared to budgeted costs. The table below demonstrates the impacts on fees and rates in order to meet the costs for the services, with and without the good dog owner category:

5.3 Costs for dog control services are not easily reduced. There are currently three dog control officers, plus management and administration support. There are around 6,000 dogs to register each year, officers investigate approximately 1,700 complaints or service requests (some resulting in dog seizures), issue over 280 infringement notices, provide information for and appear at prosecution hearings and proactively patrol popular dog exercising areas (averaging 10 hours per week). The costs could be reduced by $16,500 per year if there were no good dog owner applications to process.

5.4 Nelson City Council is also supporting a dog education programme for schools and community groups that costs on average just over $4,000 per year to present the programme to 80 classes or groups. Knowing how to behave appropriately around dogs helps ensure members of the public are able to make use of public places without being intimidated by dogs also using those public places. Dog owners can more easily control their dog’s behaviour when other people act appropriately near them.

5.5 To provide some comparisons with what other territorial authority’s charge in relation to dog control services, Tasman District Council have 2.5 dog control FTEs, administration and management at similar levels, over 11,000 dogs, investigate over 1,400 complaints and issue around 190 infringement notices. They are required to recover 55-85% of costs. A lower level of dog control activity costs is able to be spread amongst nearly twice as many dog owners. This enables their registration fees to be lower than Nelson’s registration fees (currently $50 for a standard registration).

5.6 Marlborough District Council has four animal control officers (plus administration and management support), slightly higher standard registration fees to Nelson City Council, close to 11,000 dogs, they respond to over 2,000 complaints and issue nearly 200 infringement notices. Their fees are set to recover 80% of costs. They also have a dog education programme for schools or groups and made 82 presentations last year. Marlborough officers proactively patrol on average five hours per week. Their standard dog registration is $90.

5.7 Napier has a standard registration fee of $110, New Plymouth’s is $155 and Palmerston North’s standard registration fee is $142 compared to Nelson’s current standard registration fee of $86.00. See Attachment 1 (A2337793) for more comparisons of dog control fees between these Councils.

5.8 The removal of the good dog owner category has been proposed in the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw review that is out for public consultation with submissions closing 28 February. Decisions on this proposal may occur before the start of the 2020/21 financial year. There are around 2,500 owners currently registered in this category but it is likely that figure could double given how easy it is to be in this category.

5.9 The rural dog category (where a property is one hectare or more as defined in Council’s Dog Control Policy) is almost half the standard registration fee. Nelson has 457 dogs currently registered in this category. The fee for police, seeing-eye and hearing dogs essentially covers the cost of the registration tag on the basis that these dogs provide a community service, those owners do not pay the standard registration fees. There are currently 15 dogs in this category and it is proposed to add the words “Community working dog such as…” to this category so it is clearer that all types of disability assistance or other working dogs can be included and this is more consistent with the definition of working dog in the Act.

5.10 The registration of dogs takes the same amount of staff time regardless of whether the dog is a rural or police/working dog or belongs to a “good dog owner”. The Act enables (but does not require) reductions to certain categories of dog to reflect the likelihood that those categories of dogs will require less control services. However, officers respond to reports of rural dogs having attacked or worried stock and the good dog owner scheme takes more staff time than a standard registration to administer.

5.11 The actual average time taken to register a dog by updating details in the database, processing the payment and sending the registration tag is approximately half an hour of combined staff time. This does not include the substantial staff time required to respond to various queries relating to dog registration, preparing the system and letters for re-registrations and preparing public communications.

5.12 The after-hours call out fee is currently $75 and this is set to recover the after-hours response time of an officer which is at least half an hour. It is proposed to increase this to $80 to be consistent with the proposed staff hourly rate of $160 for regulatory services. Additional charges apply if the impounding of a dog is required.

Consultation

5.13 Section 37 of the Act gives territorial authorities the power to set fees for the registration and control of dogs without the need for public consultation. It simply requires a resolution, notified at least once during the month preceding the start of the registration year.

5.14 The impact from changes to dog registration fees will impact on approximately 6,000 dog owners. The proposed changes will result in either an 11% increase in dog registration fees or a 45% increase for good dog owners (currently 2,240 people). This change is considered to have a moderate significance.

5.15 Accordingly, there is no requirement to undertake the special consultative procedure (SCP) to change fees for the registration and control of dogs. However, in this case, the officers are recommending that the special consultative procedure is used because:

· For some regulatory fees and charges (eg Resource Management Act fees and charges and Food Act fees and charges), they are required to follow the SCP;

· Council is consulting on a variety of fee proposals at the same time this year, some of which require SCP and some which do not; and

· This year officers are recommending these proposals all follow the same consultation approach (ie, SCP) for consistency of timing and process and ease of understanding by the public.

5.16 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter. In undertaking a SCP the Local Government Act 2002 requires the territorial authority to make the statement of proposal publicly available, along with a description of how persons interested in the proposal will be provided with an opportunity to present their views and the period during which those views may be provided to the Council.

5.17 Under section 87(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (which applies when the Council chooses to use the SCP) a Statement of Proposal must include:

a) the proposed changes;

b) the reasons for the changes;

c) what alternatives to the changes are reasonably available; and

d) any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

5.18 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed Statement of Proposal is not unduly complicated and therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

5.19 The public consultation process provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to any concerns that may be raised. The proposed timeframe is outlined below:

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	5 March 2020
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	17 March 2020
Consultation closes	17 April 2020
Environment Committee – Hearing of Submissions	XX April 2020
Environment Committee – Deliberation of submissions and adoption of the changes	4 June 2020

5.20 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process and to encourage those who may be affected or have an interest in this proposal to present their views, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

· Information and key dates advertised in Our Nelson prior to, and near the end of the consultation period.

· Nelson City Council website web page and web app.

· Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues.

· Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available from the Customer Services Centre and Council libraries and also available on the Council website.

· Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available for Councillors to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period.

The Proposal

5.21 The proposal is to increase registration fees to meet 90% of the Council’s costs in providing registration and dog control services. There is a wider public good element in providing dog education services, patrols and responding to queries or complaints that have no resulting enforcement action so it is reasonable that some of the costs are funded from rates.

5.22 If the decision (being made through the separate Bylaw/Policy consultation process) is to keep the good dog owner category, the charges increase by 27%:

· The standard registration increases from $86 to $108.50

· The good dog owner registration increases from $66.20 to $84

· The rural dog registration increases from $48 to $61

5.23 If the decision (being made through the separate Bylaw/Policy consultation process) is to delete the good dog owner category, the charges increase by 11%:

· The standard registration increases from $86 to $95.80

· The rural dog registration increases from $48 to $53.50

The good dog owner registration becomes the standard registration (a 45% increase from $66.20 to $95.80).

5.24 It is proposed that the registration fee for disability assist dogs remains as it currently is at $5.00.

5.25 Increase the afterhours call out fee from $75 to $80. This reflects the minimum time of half an hour per call out at the proposed staff hourly rate of $160.

6. Options

6.1 The preferred option is option 2 – increase the fees as proposed. Fees can be reviewed at any time but can only come into force at the commencement of the registration year.

Option 1: Increase the fees by CPI (1.9% at December 2019)
Advantages	· Dog owners do not face large increases to fees
Risks and Disadvantages	· The cost of the dog control functions is not sufficiently covered by income from fees and charges (around 80% of costs are currently being met from fees and at least 90% of costs being met from fees is required to meet the Revenue and Financial Policy) · The fees do not reflect the actual time taken for the activity/costs to Council · The increase to fees may need to be larger at a later date · The dog control account stays in debt
Option 2: Increase fees to recover 90% of the costs of the service as proposed in Attachment 2
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the Dog Control services is better met by dog owners than ratepayers · The fees will better reflect the actual time taken to perform the functions · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by dog owners · The increase in costs could increase the occurrence of non-payment that requires more staff time to follow up
Option 3: Increase fees to meet all costs of the services
Advantages	· The cost of the services is met by dog owners not ratepayers · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some services have a wider public benefit so it is not reasonable to portion this to dog owners alone · Dissatisfaction by dog owners · The increase in costs could increase the occurrence of non-payment that requires more staff time to follow up

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal is that fees for Dog Control services are to increase to better meet the actual costs of providing the services.

Author: Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2337793 Comparison of dog control fees and charges ⇩

Attachment 2: A2337794 Dog Control proposed fees - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendation in the report provides for the cost-effective delivery of the services provided, to achieve the well-being goals of the community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended fees are consistent with the criteria for fixing fees specified in the Dog Control Act 1996 and assist with achieving the stated funding outcomes in the Long Term Plan.

3. Risk

The do nothing option will not be consistent with the Revenue and Financial Policy. Increases in fees are likely to cause dissatisfaction for some dog owners and potentially negatively impact on Council’s reputation.

4. Financial impact

The proposed increases in fees will better enable costs for the services to be met in the medium to long-term, at an appropriate proportion between dog owners and ratepayers.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Dog Control Act does not require the fixing of fees to occur by way of a special consultative procedure. The degree of significance is medium. However, officers have recommended the special consultative procedure.

6. Climate Impact

This matter has not been considered in the preparation of this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

Officers have delegation to set dog control fees and charges under the Officer Delegation Manual (F2) but seek approval from the Environment Committee for the draft Statement of Proposal for the SCP.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

Delegations

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

· Monitoring Council’s performance for the committee’s areas of responsibility, including legislative responsibilities and compliance requirements

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans

· 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 12: Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R13746

Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval of the statement of proposal for the proposed fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 for public consultation and notification using the Special Consultative Procedure (section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002). The draft Statement of Proposal is attached to this report (Attachment 1).

2. Summary

2.1 Current fees and charges Council imposed under the Building Act 2004 have been reviewed and changes are proposed where required to meet increased costs for national quality assurance requirements and to better reflect the actual and reasonable costs in providing these services.

3. Recommendations

That the Environment Committee

1. Receives the report Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21 (R13746) and its attachments (A2342140, A2341824, and A2341910); and

2. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

4. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Fees and Charges under the Building Act 2004 contained in Attachment 1 (A2342140) of Report R13746; and

5. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 5 of this report) and agrees:

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

6. Approves commencement of the Special Consultation Procedure with the consultation period to run from 17 March to 17 April 2020.

4. Background

4.1 Council's Building Unit is responsible for carrying out many of Council's functions as a Building Consent Authority (BCA) including issuing building consents, inspecting building work and issuing property information (e.g. project information memoranda).

4.2 Under section 219 of the Building Act 2004, Council is permitted to impose fees and charges for many of the services the Building Unit is responsible for - including in relation to building consents and for the performance of other functions and services under the Building Act 2004.

4.3 Under section 281A of the Building Act 2004, Council has a discretion as to how the fee or charge is charged or set and how it may be paid or collected.

4.4 Council must act reasonably when imposing fees and charges under the Building Act 2004. This means that Council should generally not make a profit out of performing its functions under the Building Act 2004.

4.5 The current fees and charges were implemented from 1 July 2019 with only minor changes occurring compared to the fees and charges at 1 July 2014.

4.6 BCAs are audited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) every two years. Nelson City Council’s last audit in June 2019 identified 32 general non-compliances. As a result Council as a BCA has been placed on an annual audit rotation. IANZ will return in June 2020 to complete another audit of the BCA.

4.7 While the Council is not required to carry out consultation before imposing fees and charges under the Building Act 2004, officers are recommending that the proposals outlined in this report be subject to a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) for the reasons outlined in section 6 below.

5. Discussion

Fees and charges

5.1 Under Council’s Revenue and Financial Policy, the Building Unit is required to recover 60% - 80% of the total costs of the Building Unit. Last year the recovery was 78%, however, the recovery this year is expected to be lower as a high level of staff time is required to address the findings of the IANZ audit.

5.2 Contractors have also been used more regularly since October 2018 (with the introduction of the AlphaOne consenting system) to assist with the processing of consents so that statutory timeframes are largely met. This has increased costs to the Building Unit.

5.3 Some of the Council's current fees and charges are lower than those imposed by other territorial authorities of similar size for the same work. For example, Council’s technical staff hourly rate (currently $135) is well below that of Napier ($165), New Plymouth ($168) and Palmerston North ($184) despite staff having the same levels of qualifications (see fee comparisons in Attachment 2).

5.4 The current time allowance and charge out rate for staff completing Project Information Memorandums (PIMs) does not reflect the actual time required to carry out this service nor the proposed staff hourly rate.

5.5 The Alpha One and GoGet processing systems charge Council $125 per consent. This charge is not currently being on-charged to the consent holder.

5.6 The earthquake prone building (EPB) assessments are ratepayer funded. However, it is proposed to charge for EPB applications for exemption, extension of time for a heritage building and assessment of information submitted relating to an EPB status as these activities are triggered by the individual owner for their benefit.

5.7 The current Quality Assurance levy is not recovering the costs of performing this function. The insurance levy needs to increase to better cover legal fees and claims. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) levy has decreased and this needs to be reflected in the schedule.

5.8 The current fees have a fixed fee amount and a deposit amount and there is no refund if the total costs are less than the fixed fee. The fixed fee is not a maximum as notes explain additional charges can apply where the time involved exceeded the assumed time that the fixed fee was based on. It is considered clearer and less confusing to just have deposits and staff hourly rates listed with an indication of estimated costs for a variety of building work categories provided on the website.

Consultation

5.9 The Building Act 2004 gives territorial authorities the power to impose fees and charges without the need for public consultation. Officers have delegated authority to set fees and charges (delegation F2). Accordingly, there is no requirement to undertake the special consultative procedure (SCP) to change fees and charges imposed under the Building Act. However, in this case, officers are recommending the SCP is used because:

a) For some regulatory fees and charges (e.g. Resource Management Act and the Food Act fees and charges), Council is required to follow the SCP.

b) Council is consulting on a variety of fees and charges proposals at the same time this year, some of which require SCP and some of which do not.

c) This year, officers are recommending these proposals all follow the same consultation approach (i.e. SCP) for consistency of timing and process and ease of understanding by the public.

5.10 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter. In undertaking an SCP, the Local Government Act 2002 requires the territorial authority to make the Statement of Proposal publicly available, along with a description of how persons interested in the proposal will be provided with an opportunity to present their views and the period during which those views may be provided to the Council.

5.11 Under section 87(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (which applies when the Council chooses to use the SCP) a Statement of Proposal must include:

a) the proposed changes;

b) the reasons for the changes;

c) what alternatives to the changes are reasonably available; and

d) any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

5.12 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed Statement of Proposal is not unduly complicated and therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

5.13 The public consultation process provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to any concerns that may be raised. The proposed timeframe is outlined below:

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	5 March
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	17 March
Consultation closes	17 April
Environment Committee – Hearing of Submissions	To be confirmed
Environment Committee – Deliberation of submissions and adoption of changes	4 June

5.14 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process and to encourage those who may be affected or have an interest in this proposal to present their views, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

a) Information and key dates advertised in Our Nelson and Share newsletters prior to, and near the end of the consultation period.

b) Nelson City Council website, web page and web app.

c) Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues.

d) Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available from the Customer Services Centre and Council libraries and also available on the Council website.

e) Copies of the Statement of Proposal will be available for Councillors to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period.

The proposal

5.15 The proposal is to increase most fees and charges imposed by the Building Unit. A full outline of the proposed amendments to these fees and charges is included in Attachment 1 to the Statement of Proposal. There are a number of reasons for the proposed changes. In summary:

a) Higher costs are anticipated to address feedback from IANZ and maintain Council's BCA accreditation;

b) Many fees and charges are below the actual cost to Council because they do not reflect realistic time allowances; and

c) Many fees and charges are out of step (being too low) when compared with those imposed by other territorial authorities of similar sizes.

5.16 The proposal includes:

a) Increasing the Building Unit staff hourly rates for administration and residential technical services from $135 per hour to $160 per hour to be more consistent with regulatory charge out rates within this Council and more consistent with other Councils charge out rates. Tasman District Council’s proposed charge out rate is $160 per hour for 2020/21. See Appendix 2 for comparisons with other councils.

b) Changing the fee for Project Information Memorandums from $150 to a staff hourly rate of $160.

c) Including a computer system fee per consent based on the estimated value of the works:

· A $75 fee for works up to $10,000 in value

· $125 for works between $10,001 and $800,000 in value and

· $250 for works over $800,000 in value

d) Including the earthquake prone building fees in the schedule (application for exemption, extension of time for a heritage building and assessment of information relating to a building’s status) with a $610 deposit.

e) Increasing the quality assurance levy from $1 per $1,000 of the estimated value of the works to $2.50 per $1,000. This applies to projects with a value of $20,000 or more and is capped at $10 million value of works. If the proposed increase in levies is approved, the additional quality assurance resourcing will be firmed up prior to the year end.

f) Increasing the insurance levy from $0.75 per $1,000 to $1.50 per $1,000. This applies to projects with a value of $20,000 or more and is capped at $10 million value of works.

g) Reducing the MBIE levy from $2.01 per $1,000 to $1.75 per $1,000. This applies to works valued at $20,444 and over.

h) Changing the current fixed fee/deposit combinations to deposits and final costs based on the actual number of hours taken to provide the service. Most of the deposits will increase to reflect the average time to complete the task.

5.17 A comparison of the current and proposed charges for some building consent types are in the table below. Attachment 3 includes further cost examples and an estimated comparison with proposed Tasman District Council charges.

		New rate $160 hr		New rate $150 hr
	Old fee	Estimated fee	Increase	Estimated fee	Increase
Residential $100,000 value	$3,556.00	$4,400.00	24%	$4,185.00	18%
Residential $432,000 value	$7,123.82	$8,561.00	20%	$8231.00	16%
Residential $650,000 value	$9,436.50	$11,790.00	25%	$11,350.00	20%
Commercial $190,000 value	$4,944.40	$6,127.50	24%	$5,842.50	18%
Commercial $900,000 value	$10,849.00	$14,114.00	30%	$13,654.00	26%

Table 1 Comparison of current building consent charges with proposed charges based on the same hours spent on the consent

5.18 Full details of the proposed changes to the Building Unit Fees and Charges are in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 1.

5.19 The proposed Building Unit fees are estimated to realise a $387,000 (excluding GST) increase in budgeted revenue for the financial year 2020/21. This is based on an hourly rate increase to $160 per hour and increases to the insurance levy, quality assurance levy and the introduction of a systems fee. Should the hourly rate be $150 the estimated increase in income is $257,000 (assuming the other changes occur).

5.20 The table below identifies the increases in costs and the changes to income from fees and rates based on fees remaining the same and three other increases in fees options for this service.

Account	Draft AP Budget 2020/21 – no fee change	Draft AP Budget 2020/21 – hourly rate $150	Draft AP Budget 2020/21 – hourly rate $160	Draft AP Budget 2020/21 – hourly rate $170
Hourly Rate (GST excl)	117	130	139	148
Hourly Rate (GST incl)	135	150	160	170
Hourly Rate Increase	0%	11%	19%	26%
Income increase %	0%	12%	18%	23%
% cost recovery from fees	62%	69%	72%	76%
Building Services
Income	(3,593,412)	(3,593,412)	(3,593,412)	(3,593,412)
Rates Income	(1,379,843)	(1,122,400)	(992,400)	(862,400)
Other Income	(2,213,569)	(2,471,012)	(2,601,012)	(2,731,012)
Expenses	3,593,412	3,593,412	3,593,412	3,593,412
Staff Operating Expenditure	3,202,096	3,202,096	3,202,096	3,202,096
Base Expenditure	338,782	338,782	338,782	338,782
Unprogrammed Expenses	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000
Programmed Expenses	33,684	33,684	33,684	33,684
Depreciation	8,850	8,850	8,850	8,850

Table 2 Building Unit income from fees and resulting rates component based on four different options

6. Options

The options are to increase the fees and charges by a total of 18% as proposed in Attachment 3, increase the fees and charges by CPI at 1.9%, or to increase the fees and charges by a total of 12%. The preferred option is to approve the fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 3 (option 1).

Option 1: Approve the proposed increases to fees and charges by a total of 18% under the Building Act 2004 (preferred option)
Advantages	· An increase in fees and charges will better ensure the budgeted recovery levels of the Building Unit are met · The increased charges will more ably cover the costs of attaining and meeting national quality assurance requirements · The new staff hourly rates of $160 per hour (inspection/processing/administration) and the other fees and charges increases, are more consistent with charges imposed by other territorial authorities · Prevents a larger increase at a later date · The proposed increase to fees and charges provides less dependence on rates subsidy of the Building Unit
Risks and Disadvantages	· The increase may result in customer dissatisfaction with the charges
Option 2: Increase the fees and charges by CPI at 1.9%
Advantages	· Users do not face large increased charges · Less potential for customer dissatisfaction with the charges
Risks and Disadvantages	· Fees and charges may not meet budgeted recovery levels · Reduced ability to cover the costs of meeting quality assurance requirements could put the accreditation at risk · Fees and charges will not provide for resourcing needs identified within the recent accreditation (IANZ) and MBIE audits. · Fees and charges are less consistent with local and national industry levels and the Council will need to fund the Building Unit more from rates income (estimated 38% in 2019/20) · A larger increase may be required at a later date
Option 3: Increase the fees and charges by a total of 12% with the hourly staff rate at $150
Advantages	· An increase in fees and charges will better ensure the budgeted recovery levels of the Building Unit are met compared to current fees and charges · The increased charges will cover some of the costs of attaining and meeting national quality assurance requirements · Prevents a larger increase at a later date · The proposed increase to fees and charges provides less dependence on rates subsidy of the Building Unit compared to current charges
Risks and Disadvantages	· Fees and charges would not align with local and national industry levels · Potential for customer dissatisfaction with the charges

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal is that fees and charges imposed under the Building Act 2004 need to increase to better enable costs of providing the services to be met.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Proceed to public consultation on the proposed changes then decide on any changes once public comments have been considered.

Author: Mark Hunter, Manager Building

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2342140 Building Unit proposed fees and charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Attachment 2: A2341824 Building Unit fees and charges comparisons ⇩

Attachment 3: A2341910 Proposed consent fees examples ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendation in the report provides for the cost-effective delivery of services to achieve the well-being goals of the community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended fees and charges assist with achieving the stated funding outcomes in the Long Term Plan.

3. Risk

The do nothing option will not assist the Territorial Authority and Building Consent Authority (BCA) meet its statutory obligations under the Building Act 2004 and Building Accreditation Regulations 2006 and Amendments 2017. The risk to councils BCA attaining more General Non Compliances within future IANZ audits is heightened, possibly threatening future accreditation.

4. Financial impact

The proposed increases in fees and charges will better enable the costs for the services to be met in the medium to long-term and are more likely to meet recovery levels anticipated by the Long Term Plan and the Revenue and Finance Policy.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because proposed changes while justified will impact on a number of applicants and consent holders. A SCP is recommended by officers given the concurrent processes Council is undertaking that require the SCP. However, the SCP is not required by the Building Act.

6. Climate Impact

This matter has not been considered in the preparation of this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

Officers have delegation to set Building Unit fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 but seek approval from the Environment Committee for the draft Statement of Proposal for the SCP.

Areas of Responsibility:

· Building Control matters, including earthquake-prone buildings and the fencing of swimming pools

Delegations:

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

· Monitoring Council’s performance for the committee’s areas of responsibility, including legislative responsibilities and compliance requirements

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans

· 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 13: Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 October - 31 December 2019

Environment Committee

5 March 2020

REPORT R13729

Environmental Management Group - Quarterly Report - 1 October - 31 December 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 where not reported to Audit and Risk.

2. Recommendation

The Environment Committee

2. Approves retrospectively the proposed Resource Management Act 1991 Reform feedback (A2329142); and

3. Approves the proposed submission for lodging with the Ministry for the Environment on the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (A2334348); and

4. Approves retrospectively the proposed Future of Kingsland Forest submission to Tasman District Council (A2331749); and

5. Notes the range of current environmental management national direction initiatives that impacts on the Environmental Management Group (A2328796).

3. Summary

Activity	Level of service	Achievement
Building	Compliance with statutory requirements.	Compliance with Building Consent timeframes are 96% overall for the quarter with October 2019 91%, November 97% and December 100%. Compliance with Code Compliance timeframes are 98% overall for the quarter with October 2019 94%, November 99% and December 100%. Statistics are included in Attachment 1 (A2326033)
City Development	Coordinated growth with infrastructure. A well planned City that meets the community’s current and future needs.	The Council approved additional funding from the Climate Change Reserve for the City Centre Spatial Plan to ensure the plan can be responsive to resilience issues. The plan is now underway and will be a focus for the next 6 months. The scope of the Intensification Action Plan was agreed and the draft is nearing completion with a Council workshop to be held on 18 February and actions informing cross Council work streams.
Consents and Compliance	Compliance with statutory requirements.	Compliance with resource consent timeframes averaged 94% for the quarter. Application numbers are at a similar level as the first quarter and slightly less than the same time period last year. Statistics are included in Attachment 1 (A2326033).
Planning	Resource management plans are current and meet all legislative requirements.	Plan Change 27 was notified as operative in December 2019. A new Project Management and Governance Structure was established for the Nelson Plan. Elected member briefings on the Draft Nelson Plan were held in December 2019. The Nelson Plan and Coastal hazards engagement has been planned throughout late 2019 and commenced with a meeting with the Iwi Working Group in January and public communications on 26 February 2020. The Dog Policy and Bylaw was approved by the Committee for public engagement which commenced on 27 January 2020. Delaware Bay discussions are to be undertaken with boaties and iwi representatives.
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. · Three freshwater bathing exceedances were reported for the Maitai at Collingwood Street Bridge and one exceedance at Wakapuaka at Paremata Flats Reserve over the month. · Routine cyanobacteria toxic algae monitoring detected emerging algae mats, which peaked at moderate levels (20% cover) in November. No incidents were reported to council. · The hydrology monitoring site on the Maitai River North Branch has been upgraded so that river levels can be monitored using real time data. · In late-December a low presence of Lindavia intermedia (Lake Snow) was confirmed in the Maitai Reservoir. · Ecological restoration plans are in progress for the Maitai River and Poorman Valley Stream catchments. · The November round of the Environmental Grants Scheme received 21 applications (further details will be provided in the newsletter) and a total of $66,158 was awarded to 18 projects.

4. Discussion

Financial Results

4.1 Staff costs are overall ahead of budget by $248,000 across the Environmental Management Group. 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 $292,000. This is a timing variance relating to the Ministry of Primary Industry contribution to hill country erosion work with payment expected in June 2020 once milestones are completed.

4.4 Monitoring the Environment expenditure is less than budget by $275,000. Staff costs are behind budget by $77,000 due to incorrect staff costs split between Monitoring the Environment and Environmental Advocacy and Advice cost centres (which has staff costs ahead of budget by $62,000). This will be remedied. Tasman Bay monitoring and research expenditure is behind budget by $51,000 with no spend to date. However $27,000 of this amount is committed for the estuarine monitoring programme and a marine biodiversity project. The remaining $24,000 relates to operational funding, which is expected to be managed in Q3. Other items are behind budget due to timing.

4.5 Developing Resource Management Plan expenditure is greater than budget by $197,000. Staff costs are ahead of budget by $66,000. Nelson Plan expenditure is greater than budget by $101,000. This variance is the result of a number of reasons including: carrying staff vacancies that have not been able to be recruited resulting in an increased use of consultants; an overspend for the Urban Design Panel due to Special Housing Area work; bringing forward engagement work; a re-write of draft Plan provisions to align with the national planning standards. As a result of these factor a full year overspend of $250,000 is currently forecast for the Nelson Plan. A report is being prepared for the 26 March 2020 Council meeting to discuss the details of the overspend and seek Governance direction and signalling costs for future years.

4.6 City Development expenditure is less than budget by $98,000. Staff costs are $20,000 ahead of budget. City development projects ($80,000) and consultants ($38,000) are behind budget.

4.7 Environmental Advocacy and Advice expenditure is less than budget by $102,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $62,000 which largely relates to the split of staff costs with Monitoring the Environment (which is behind budget by $77,000). Expenditure is behind budget across several codes due to timing.

4.8 Pest Management expenditure is less than budget by $87,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $10,000 due to staff timesheet coding errors (which will be remedied going forward). The remainder of the variance relates to invoice timing for providing the biosecurity activity ($71,000).

4.9 Dog Control income is less than budget by $89,000. Dog registration fees are under budget by $88,000. Fees to date are in line with the prior year. The variance is expected to exacerbate over the remainder of the year, with a full year variance expected of $100,000.

4.10 Dog Control expenditure is greater than budget by $25,000. Staff operating expenditure is greater than budget by $22,000. The cost of providing dog control services is over budget by $6,000 and the provision of doggie doo bags is behind budget by $5,000.

4.11 Public Counter Land and General expenditure is less than budget by $38,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $39,000.

4.12 Building Services expenditure is greater than budget by $193,000. Staff operating expenses are ahead of budget by $203,000. This variance includes the use of contractors, consultants within the building team and legal fees.

4.13 Resource Consent income is less than budget by $48,000. Fee income is behind budget. Resource Consent expenditure is greater than budget by $159,000. Staff costs are $27,000 behind budget. The cost of providing resource consent services is over budget by $9,000, and contract and geotechnical costs are $75,000 over budget to date. Resource consent fee expenditure is over budget by $105,000. This is due to the use of consultants who continue to assist with staff capacity constraints (workloads and complexity).

4.14 Building Claims expenditure is greater than budget by $37,000. Claim expenditure of $38,000 has been incurred against a nil budget.

Terms used

· Ahead/behind – this indicates that the variance is due to timing, or that it is not yet known whether the variance will continue for the full year. This should be clarified in the commentary.

· Over/under – this indicates that a budget has been overspent or underspent, and that it is likely there is an actual cost saving or overrun. This should be made clear by the commentary.

· Less/greater – these header terms are used to describe the total variance to budget for a cost centre and account type.

Key Performance Indicators – Long Term Plan (attachment 1: A2342072)

4.15 Dog and animal control, food safety and public health, alcohol licensing, and pollution response measures have not been measured yet because as described in the 2018/19 Annual Report, Council's reporting systems are not currently at a level that enables results for these performance measures to be 100% verified. Non-compliance with these measures was identified this year which means that the measures for the whole financial year are considered non-compliant. A review of how this information can be provided to substantiate performance in future years is being undertaken.

4.16 The ‘Natural water ways complying with National Policy Statement Freshwater requirements’ performance measure has not been measured yet because although the regular monitoring is occurring, the annual analysis will not be completed until June 2020.

4.17 The Resource Consents Statutory Timeframes and Building Unit Compliance measures have not been met due to a small number of consents not being processed within the statutory timeframes.

5. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

BUILDING

Achievements

5.1 The Building team have been busy clearing the IANZ audit General Non-Compliance’s (GNC’s). There is one part GNC remaining to be cleared. This needs to be cleared by 28 February 2020.

Trends

5.2 There were 230 building consents and amendments issued in this quarter compared to 305 in the last quarter. The code of compliance certificates issued in this quarter were 176 compared to 215 in the last quarter.

5.3 The total number of building inspections undertaken in this quarter were 1343 compared to 1711 in the same period last year.

5.4 Graphs showing the Building consent trends are included in Attachment 1 (A2326033).

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.5 The focus will be on making improvements for the next IANZ audit in June 2020. As a result of incurring a large number of General Non Compliances (GNC s) the team has been placed on a one year audit cycle, down from the two year standard rotation.

5.6 The June 2019 IANZ accreditation audit has highlighted areas within competency, training and quality assurance (regulations 10, 11, 17 of the Building Regulations 2006) which will be a focus for IANZ at the upcoming June 2020 accreditation. A recent MBIE audit in relation to compliance within the Building area (the Territorial Authority part of the business) has identified the need for additional compliance assistance. Interim assistance will be obtained to manage these areas with a longer term plan will be developed.

5.7 Ensuring timeframes comply with statutory requirements is a critical focus area. A review of the fees and charges is being undertaken. The building control digital system AlphaOne is being replaced with GoGet which went live on 13February 2020.

Risks and Challenges

5.8 The Building Unit’s accreditation is at risk if the remaining IANZ GNC is not cleared by 28 February 2020. A clear IANZ audit in June 2020 is required to be back on a two year accreditation audit cycle.

CITY DEVELOPMENT

Achievements

5.9 Upper Trafalgar Street pedestrian mall light touch and permanent designs are underway. Phase two of the summer light touch is currently being designed and manufactured and will be in place by the end of March. The permanent design for this financial year is currently being procured and will be completed by 30 June in time for the Light Nelson installations this winter.

5.10 Following the 17 December Council meeting and the allocation of $100K of funding for the spatial plan to include consideration of resilience to climate change, officers have engaged consultants to work part time in house over the next 6 months to assist with the preparation of the City Centre Spatial Plan. This work will include Marina Spatial Plan and library and surrounding area adjacent to the Maitai River, and will incorporate strategic property and climate change work streams, as well as work across a number of other Council teams to coordinate opportunities for the city centre across already funded LTP projects (e.g. bus interchange).

5.11 A lease will be entered into with Wakatu Incorporation to establish a children’s pop up park on the site at 29 Halifax Street adjoining the library. Wakatu are currently demolishing the existing buildings, and it is anticipated that the pop up park which is a temporary activation will be completed by mid-2020.

5.12 Following the approval of the scope of the Intensification Action Plan (IAP) officers have been working on a draft to workshop with councillors ahead of proposed adoption of the plan in mid-2020. While officers have been working with officers from Tasman District Council on the IAP, both Councils will have separate but aligned IAPs with one overall joined introductory document.

5.13 Officers have been working with the developers on Maitahi and Bayview proposed greenfield developments (previously called Kaka), following the Council workshop on 3 December 2019. Governance groups are in place to liaise and work with the developers. An additional resource has been appointed and officers have started formalising the proposed funding model with the developers. Officers from many groups of the organisation attended a design charrette on 22 January led by the developers, which included a site visit.

5.14 The raw data from the parking survey undertaken late last year has been received and officers are in the process of analysing the data which will be shared via the Councillors newsletter. 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.

5.15 The team has procured a number of consultant projects in the last quarter including the City Centre Streetscape Design Guide, the summer Public Life Survey, the establishment of a Tactical Urban Initiatives Supplier Panel, the light touch stage 2 and permanent designs for Upper Trafalgar Street.

5.16 The City Centre Working Group has met frequently before and after Christmas to assist with guiding the spatial plan, tactical projects and the Upper Trafalgar Street pedestrian mall.

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. No meetings of the urban design panel were required in the last quarter.

5.18 Officers have continued working and meeting with Makeshift Spaces Incorporated, and the two grants Council provided to fund Makeshift as a pilot has been used to get the pilot off the ground. The Group will be seeking 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. As well as developing the action plan officers are focusing on a number of key actions required to influence and enable intensification, and will be working across teams to ensure they are incorporated into Council work and funding programmes.

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

5.21 Work for the permanent design for Upper Trafalgar Street from winter 2020 and a number of tactical urban initiative are planned for the city centre.

Risks and Challenges

5.22 The team has been working closely with project managers allocated from the capital projects team to ensure that capacity risks around delivering city centre activations and long term projects are minimised.

5.23 The team has a vacancy for the Senior City Development Planner. One round of recruitment has been completed and was unsuccessful and a second is underway.

CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE

Achievements

5.24 Resource consent compliance with timeframes is slightly down from last quarter (97%) to averaging 94% for this quarter. The quarter included completing some complex applications such as the NPD service station in Tahunanui, the extension of the Manuka Street Hospital, two four storey residential and commercial buildings and more stages of larger subdivision developments.

5.25 The new harbourmaster, Andrew Hogg (ex Navy), commenced duties in December. The windy conditions for this quarter has meant fewer boaties have been out on the water but the deputy harbourmaster has already conducted around 450 safety checks. Some survey results are positive; 94% of boaties are wearing lifejackets, 97% had a form of waterproof communication and about half had registered their boat.

5.26 The harbourmasters have been involved in three “No Excuses” days with Maritime NZ officers, taking safety workshops, school visits and water sport club meetings.

Trends

5.27 Resource consent application numbers are steadying following the influx before Christmas.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.28 The agreement between Nelson City Council and Port Nelson Limited regarding the appointment of the harbourmaster and related activities will expire 30 June 2020. A separate report to Council on this is being prepared for a subsequent meeting.

5.29 Resourcing of planners is being reviewed as additional staff are likely to cost less than contracting external consultants. More staff will also be able to share the public enquiries received by email, phone or through duty planner appointments.

Risks and Challenges

5.30 After investigating difficulties with current data systems to capture and report on a range of regulatory activities with current providers there have been only minor changes. Further changes may not be easy or quick to occur meaning compliance with LTP measures and other reporting requirements may not be at an auditable standard through current systems.

PLANNING

Achievements

Draft Nelson Plan and Coastal Hazards Engagement Underway

5.31 The focus for the last quarter of 2019 was to finalise the Draft Nelson Plan, brief the Council, and prepare for public engagement. Engagement commenced on both the Draft Nelson Plan and coastal hazards with an Iwi Working Group meeting on 30 January 2020, followed by letters to directly affected landowners and key stakeholders ahead of a public communication launch.

5.32 Numerous public drop-in sessions are planned around the city. These drop in sessions will be supplemented by key stakeholder meetings and information drop in sessions for Councillors over the feedback period. The feedback period extends from February to 31 May 2020.

Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Engagement Underway

5.33 The Dog Control Policy and Bylaw changes and Statement of Proposal were approved for community engagement at the Environment Committee meeting on 28 November 2019. Submissions opened on 27 January 2020 and ran through until 28 February 2020. Officers are currently preparing for the hearing on 24 March 2020.

Delaware Bay Boat Ramp Education Programme and Discussions Progress.

5.34 An education programme for boaties was run at Delaware Bay over the 2019/2020 summer outlining the District Plan requirements and highlighting the values of the estuary. Meetings were also held with local iwi and boaties.

Plan Change 27 was Notified as Operative

5.35 PC27 sought to update engineering standard references within the Nelson Resource Management Plan from the 2010 Nelson Land Development Manual version to the jointly approved Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019 (NTLDM). Alterations were also made to the building over drain rule.

5.36 PC27 was approved to become operative at the Council meeting on 12 December 2019. PC27 was notified as being operative on 23 December 2019.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.37 The focus for the remainder of the financial year will be on completing the Draft Nelson Plan and coastal hazards engagement and completing the Dog Policy and Bylaw hearing and decision process.

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

Risks and Challenges

5.39 Vacancies at the Manager and Team Leader 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. Recruitment for the Manager position has been successful with the person starting 10 March 2020.

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT

Achievements

Air Quality

5.40 There were no exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) in this quarter. As reported in the 24 December 2019 Councillor’s Newsletter, westerly winds transported particulate matter from the Australian bush fires across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand. This had an adverse effect on air quality across New Zealand, causing exceedances of the NESAQ in some parts of the country. Although air quality monitoring stations have recorded higher readings than expected for this time of year, fortunately no exceedances have occurred in this area to date (end of Dec 2019).

Graph above: St Vincent Street – showing elevated pollution levels for time of year in Dec 2019

Graph above: Blackwood Street – showing elevated pollution levels for time of year in Dec 2019

5.41 A “Buy Your Firewood Now’ promotion was run during November/December 2019, encouraging people to buy their firewood early and get it stored away dry in preparation for winter. During the promotion, 151 loads of firewood were delivered to Nelson homes. This was slightly down on 2018, but still well above the 108 loads in 2017.

State of the Environment Monitoring

5.42 Routine cyanobacteria toxic algae monitoring detected emerging algae mats, which peaked at moderate levels (20% cover) in November. No incidents were reported to Council. Cawthron scientists undertook a project to measure cyanobacteria growth and water quality drivers in the lower Maitai, to be reported in March 2020.

5.43 Summer recreational bathing monitoring of bacterial risk commenced in December at eleven sites. Three exceedances were reported for the Maitai at Collingwood Street Bridge and one exceedance at Wakapuaka at Paremata Flats Reserve over the month. Additional warning signage is in place at both sites to inform the public of the potential health risk for contact recreation.

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

5.45 The hydrology monitoring site on the Maitai River North Branch has been upgraded so that real time data can be telemetered from this site back to the office. This will be particularly useful during summer low flows so that river levels can be monitored.

5.46 Winter freshwater fish surveys were extended into November with additional Upland Bully nests found in the lower Maitai River. A project is in progress with GIS and the Whakatū Nelson Plan teams to map fish spawning habitat.

5.47 Water temperature loggers have been deployed at State of the Environment (SOE) water quality sites to investigate impacts of nuisance algae, stream channel works, and riparian restoration programmes. Dissolved oxygen and pH sensors will be deployed later in the summer.

5.48 The Ministry for the Environment is running a national pilot study to review the current recreation swimming microbiological guidelines. Nelson is part of the pilot study and the sampling programme at Wakapuaka at Paremata Flats is commencing in February 2020.

5.49 Reports on the Nelson Haven and Delaware Bay habitat assessments were received and will be circulated via the Councillors Newsletter once finalised. Additional sediment plate monitoring is planned for Delaware Bay, and a broadscale survey of the Waimea Estuary (jointly with TDC) will commence in January and March 2020.

Healthy Streams Programme

5.50 Ecological restoration plan for the Maitai catchment is being undertaken, including the management of riparian areas and identifying opportunities for instream habitat enhancements. This work is being undertaken jointly with the Parks and Facilities Team, and is expected to be completed by June 2020.

5.51 In December, Council partnered with NZ Landcare Trust, and Tasman and Marlborough District Councils, to deliver a workshop for landowners and Council staff on E.coli mitigations and current research. The meeting was well attended by the Nelson rural community.

5.52 An Ecological Restoration Plan has been developed for the length of the Poorman Valley Stream from below the Marsden Valley Reserve to the coast. This plan will help guide both Council and private restoration efforts, and to help co-ordinate community volunteer efforts.

5.53 The Drains to Harbour schools programme was delivered to approximately 240 students in its first year (Jan-Dec 2019) and has been well received. A community stormwater workshop at the Bloom Festival at Isel Park in October was also delivered through the programme, reaching an estimated 85 people.

Biosecurity

5.54 The Taiwan cherry tree removal programme continued, and for the period of September to December 63 mature and 6 juvenile trees were controlled, including a major infestation of seedlings from a single property. The trees were centred in the Atawhai/Dodson Valley area where many were originally planted, creating dense areas of seedlings in some areas.

5.55 Taiwan Cherry is now an eradication pest in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan, which has strengthened the Council’s ability to undertake control. Generally people have accepted this, with a notable increase in owners reporting presence of this pest.

Nelson Nature Programme

5.56 A fifth year of bird monitoring was completed in the Nelson Halo, as part of a Nelson Nature project to enhance native bird populations in the area outside the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary. The bird count data will be analysed, alongside similar data collected by the Sanctuary, to see if there are any trends in Nelson bird populations over the last five years.

5.57 Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) are sites that have been identified as holding particularly high biodiversity values. Sites that reach strict significance criteria trigger protection under the RMA. There are 165 confirmed SNA sites in Nelson, with 90% of these occurring on private land. Landowners of SNAs are offered non regulatory support through the Nelson Nature Programme, to help prevent the degradation of the sites due to threats such as pest incursions. In total 21 sites are currently involved in the SNA programme, including 10 actively supported in the Oct-Dec quarter.

5.58 The November round of the Environmental Grants Scheme received 21 applications from groups and individuals requesting support for biodiversity and land management projects. From applications for $71,937, a total of $66,158 was awarded to 18 projects. Of this amount, 63% is funded through the Ministry for Primary Industries’ Hill Country Erosion fund and includes over 12,000 native plants. Alongside restoration projects, funding was provided for predator trapping and tools for community groups.

5.59 A new community trapping project was established on Haulashore Island with technical support from Nelson Nature. Port Nelson is sponsoring the group’s trapping and transport cost and the Nelson MenzShed provided labour and expertise to construct the traps. The project aims to reduce rat and stoat numbers to extremely low levels to allow the resident penguins, nesting coastal birds and lizards to flourish.

5.60 The Mayor hosted a Christmas morning tea in December to thank volunteers working to restore Nelson’s natural environment. The annual event is delivered through the Nelson Nature and Healthy Streams programmes and is an opportunity to network and thank Nelson’s conservation volunteers. Approximately 50 volunteers representing their community groups attended.

Sustainable Land Management

5.61 There is increasing interest from rural landowners to participate in the Hill Country Erosion project, in particular with native plantings on hill country. The November round of the Environmental Grants Programme has brought the total to date of plants for next season to landowners to 26,328.

5.62 A community get together for those landowners who planted trees in the last planting season was held at Cable Bay Adventure Park in November. This enabled landowners to connect with each other to offer support for similar projects and learn more about maintaining their plantings from expert advisors.

5.63 The Maitai Forestry Forum continues to meet, involving Council representatives, two forestry companies, Ngati Koata, Cawthron, and Friends of the Maitai. At the November meeting, Tasman Pine Forests and PF Olsen presented current erosion management practices.

Environmental Education

5.64 A new three year contract is in place for a new Enviroschools’ Facilitator for Primary and Secondary schools. Rick Field formerly held an education role with the Brook Sanctuary and is well known to students and teachers in Nelson schools.

5.65 Actions from the Drains to Harbour and Enviroschools programmes have included students taking part in the Litter Intelligence waste audits with Sustainable Coastlines, and installing Littatraps in their school grounds. Clifton Terrace School cleaned out their drain to ensure the new Littatrap would fit and found various items including hair ties, spoons, erasers, and marbles.

Strategic Direction and Focus

5.66 The position of Team Leader within the Science and Environment Team was advertised in December. This role will primarily lead the team working in the freshwater and air quality space, including State of the Environment Monitoring and the Healthy Streams programme.

5.67 A meeting was held in November between representatives from Ngati Koata, Ngati Tama, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Toa and the three Top of the South Councils to identify environmental and other opportunities in relation to iwi owned forestry land. This project is expected to progress to the next stages of developing a strategic plan during the course of this financial year. The meeting was part funded by the Ministry for Primary Industries Hill Country Erosion Fund.

5.68 Biodiversity priorities within the Nelson region have been identified by a study commissioned through Nelson Nature, using a methodology consistent with most Regional Councils (including Tasman District Council). The analysis shows that since human settlement, the Nelson region has lost approximately half of its native vegetation cover, with the greatest losses occurring in lowland forest ecosystems. The study identifies the best sites to manage in order to protect a full range of the regions’ terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. An analysis of priorities across the Nelson and Tasman Regions was also made, and showed a high number of Nelson sites being important pan-regionally. Staff are currently reviewing the analysis to determine how the results can be used in future planning.

Risks and Challenges

Biosecurity: Lindavia intermedia (Lake Snow) in Maitai Reservoir

5.69 In late-December a low presence of Lindavia intermedia (Lake Snow) was confirmed in the Maitai Reservoir. This creates potential biosecurity risks if spread to other catchments (it is already present in the Buller River), and possible implications to water supply infrastructure (i.e. blocking of treatment membranes). It is important to note that the density of Lake Snow detected in the Maitai Reservoir is currently lower than in any lake to date (where presence has been detected).

5.70 A monitoring plan has been developed to determine the full extent of this pest in the Maitai Reservoir and Maitai River, and this will inform management options and work by the Infrastructure team to manage downstream infrastructure. In the meantime the Council has increased promotion of the national Check Clean Dry programme encouraging people to ensure any equipment is thoroughly checked and cleaned after use in our waterways to avoid spread of any pests.

Biosecurity: Water Celery in Stoke Streams

5.71 Water celery, an invasive freshwater plant pest, has become a significant problem in Stoke streams, densely smothering some sections, especially in Orphanage Creek and Saxton Creek. Attempts have been made to remove it by hand, combined with trials of stream bank spraying to control its spread. A resource consent application is being developed to provide potential use of sprays in streams as this may be the only effective management option in the long-term. Envirolink funding has been granted for two projects related to managing this pest: An aquatic pest plant identification and management course for staff and contractors, and a feasibility study into a potential biocontrol agent.

Low Summer Rainfall

5.72 The reduced rainfall and hot weather is expected to bring a number of challenges, including the presence of Cyanobacteria partially resulting from low river flows, and the threat to plant survival as soil moisture levels reduce and rainfall is unpredictable. Fire risk also increases as landscapes become drier. Relevant and timely information and communications on these issues will be undertaken to advise and inform the public about action that can be taken by the community, and action that Council is taking.

SUBMISSIONS

The Future of Kingsland Forest, Richmond

5.73 Tasman District Council is undertaking a public consultation process on the future of Kingsland Forest. Kingsland Forest is a 103 ha plantation forest due for harvesting. The forest is located on the Barnicoat Range and connects to NCC owned reserves further north via recreational and biodiversity connections. The three water catchments which flow through Kingsland forest, feed into the Waimea Inlet.

5.74 It is proposed that NCC support the recommended option for the future of Kingsland Forest which is to retire the land from plantation forestry, and replant in a mix of native and exotic species.

5.75 The reasons for supporting this option are that the cost of converting this block to native forest, while a desirable long term outcome, is both financially prohibitive and less likely to achieve the management of erosion on these slopes in the short term. The use of exotic trees to achieve good erosion control, thereby reducing potential sediment depositing into the Waimea Inlet, and to assist in the regeneration of native forest for the longer term is a cost effective option which will also support the regions wider goals of reducing carbon emissions through fast growing exotic, non-invasive trees.

5.76 Retrospective approval is sought for the proposed submission which is attached to this report as attachment 3 (A2331749)

The National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

5.77 A draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) and discussion document was released by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) in November 2019 for public consultation. The draft NPSIB sets out the objectives and policies to identify, protect, manage and restore indigenous biodiversity under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5.78 An MfE roadshow was held for council staff in Nelson on 17 January 2020 and officers have prepared a draft submission. Approval for the NPSIB submission is sought as part of this quarterly report (attachment 5: A2334348). Consultation closes on 14 March 2020.

5.79 In summary the submission supports the broad direction of the NPSIB, while seeking the following relief:

§ Government funding and technical guidance to assist with the implementation of the proposed NPSIB.

§ A broader package of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to effectively manage biodiversity in New Zealand.

§ Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of central and local government in delivering biodiversity outcomes.

§ Tools and resources to support nationally consistent biodiversity monitoring methods, mapping and reporting.

§ Amendments to NPSIB policies, definitions and appendices to provide greater clarity and certainty.

Resource Management Act (RMA) Reform Feedback

5.80 The Government is undertaking a comprehensive review of the resource management system.

5.81 A Government-appointed Resource Management Review Panel published a report titled: Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change issues and options paper in November 2019.

5.82 Officers provided feedback on the issues and options paper to the Ministry for the Environment on 3 February 2020.

5.83 Retrospective approval is sought for officer’s feedback, which is attached to this report (attachment 4: A2329142). In summary the feedback included:

§ Support for RMA Reform in principle and amendments to Part 2 to recognise the concept of Te Mana o Te Wai (the integrated, holistic management of water) and improve integration and outcomes for the natural and built environments.

§ Support for amendments to the hierarchy of section 8 (recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi) to improve the recognition of the Treaty in resource management plans. Feedback on options to increase iwi capacity, capability and funding for RMA matters.

§ A request for regulatory and non-regulatory measures to provide support and direction for councils to undertake climate change adaptation planning.

§ Supporting the establishment of a range of new resource allocation tools at the national and local level.

§ Support for improved RMA system reporting.

§ Support for changes to improve compliance, monitoring and enforcement.

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.

6.3 The Marine and Coastal Area applications are not progressing quickly.

6.4 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 An elected member briefing was held in December 2019 to provide Councillors with an overview of the Draft Nelson Plan. A further briefing was provided to the Mayor, Councillor McGurk and Councillor Fulton covering the Intensification provisions in the Draft Nelson Plan in January 2020. A workshop briefing with Councillors on the engagement process took place in early February and a summary of the Plan provisions and process will be included in the Councillors newsletter on 24 February 2020.

National Direction

7.2 Attachment 6 (A2328796) outlines the range of national policy change currently out for feedback and the status of Councils response to this work.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2326033 - Building and Consents and Compliance Statistics ⇩

Attachment 2: A2342072 - Quarterly Reporting - Environmental Management Performance ⇩

Attachment 3: A2331749 - Submission on the Future of Kinglsand Forest, Richmond ⇩

Attachment 4: A2329142 - Proposed RMA reform submission ⇩

Attachment 5: A2334348 - NPS Indigenous Biodiversity submission ⇩

Attachment 6: A2328796 - Environmental Management National Direction ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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.

Approval of the feedback and submissions to national policy will enable Council’s policy position to be heard by Government and Tasman District Council.

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.

Increased national direction (National Policy Statements) has the potential to impact on work programmes and statutory timeframes.

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.