Notice of the ordinary meeting of the

Environment Committee

Kōmiti Taiao

Date:		Thursday 28 May 2020, and reconvened on Thursday 4 June 2020
Time:		9.00a.m.
Location:		Council Chamber, Civic House
			110 Trafalgar Street
			Nelson

Agenda

Rārangi take

Chair               Cr Kate Fulton

Deputy Chair   Cr Brian McGurk

Members         Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese

                       Cr Yvonne Bowater

                       Cr Trudie Brand

                       Cr Mel Courtney

                       Cr Judene Edgar

                       Cr Matt Lawrey

Cr Gaile Noonan

                       Cr Rohan O’Neill-Stevens

Cr Pete Rainey

                       Cr Rachel Sanson

                       Cr Tim Skinner

                       Glenice Paine

Pat Dougherty

Quorum: 7                                                                           Chief Executive

Nelson City Council Disclaimer

Please note that the contents of these Council and Committee Agendas have yet to be considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision.

Environment Committee - Delegations

Areas of Responsibility:

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

·         Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

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

·         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

·         Maritime and Harbour Safety and Control

·         Pollution control

·         Hazardous substances and contaminated land

·         Environmental science matters including (but not limited to) air quality, water quality, water quantity, land management, biodiversity, biosecurity (marine, freshwater and terrestrial), and coastal and marine science

·         Environmental programmes including (but not limited to) warmer, healthier homes, energy efficiency, environmental education, and eco-building advice

·         Science monitoring and reporting

·         Climate change resilience overview (adaptation and mitigation)

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

·         Other planning documents or policies, including (but not limited to) the Land Development Manual

·         Policies and strategies related  to resource management matters

·         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. 

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

·         Approving submissions to external bodies or organisations, and on legislation and regulatory proposals

Powers to Recommend to Council:

In the following situations the committee may consider matters within the areas of responsibility but make recommendations to Council only (in accordance with sections 5.1.3 - 5.1.5 of the Delegations Register):

·         Matters that, under the Local Government Act 2002, the operation of law or other legislation, Council is unable to delegate

·         The purchase or disposal of land or property relating to the areas of responsibility, other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan

·         Unbudgeted expenditure relating to the areas of responsibility, not included in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan

·         Approval of notification of any statutory resource management plan, including the Nelson Plan or any Plan Changes

·         Decisions regarding significant assets

 


N-logotype-black-wideEnvironment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

Page No.

Karakia Timatanga

1.       Apologies

1.1      An apology has been received from Her Worship the Mayor.

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1      Updates to the Interests Register

3.2      Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1      5 March 2020                                               13 - 21

Document number M7734

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Committee, held on 5 March 2020, as a true and correct record.

5.2      21 April 2020                                               22 - 27

Document number M8820

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Committee, held on 21 April 2020, as a true and correct record.

  

6.       Chairperson's Report 

7.       Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations                             28 - 42

Document number R16967

Note:  the Statement of proposal and all submissions were circulated with the Agenda for the Hearing of Submissions – Review of the Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw.  This agenda (including all submissions) is available on Council’s website.

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations (R16967) and its attachment (A2376041); and

2.    Removes the Good Dog Owner Policy discount, but retains the $5 discount for neutered dogs.

 

8.       Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations                           43 - 147

Document number R17025

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations (R17025) and its attachments (A2390190, A2390192 A2380651, A2122940, A2380653, A2380699, A2381227, A2380700, A2380703); and

2.    Adopts the Dog Control Policy (A2390192), after having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act and subject to the key matters outlined below:

3.    Retains the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Policy; and

4.    Retains the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park in the Dog Control Policy; and

5.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to require dogs to be on-leash in grazed Council reserves excluding the Tantragee Reserve area grazed by cattle (shown on Map 8 in Attachment 4) which remains an off-leash area; and

6.    Approves improvements to the signage in the Grampians Reserve to clearly demarcate the areas where grazing does not occur, and where dogs can be exercised off-leash; and

7.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

8.    Retains Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Policy; and

9.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve to an on-leash area; and

10.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

11.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to require dogs to be kept on a leash on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

12.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to:

i.     retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive during the breeding season in Schedule One, but amend the prohibited period from October to February to 15 August to the last day in February; and

ii.    include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut as an on-leash area in Schedule Two; and

iii.   exclude the part of the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive in Schedule 2 (retaining this as an off-leash area); and

iv.   change the status of the Glen Neighbourhood Park (refer Map 14 of Attachment 4) to an off-leash area; and

13.  Deletes the Number of Dogs policy from the Council’s Dog Control Policy; and

14.  Amends the Dog Control Policy by:

i.     changing the last sentence of clause 4.1 to “Non compliance with this notice may result in enforcement action.”

ii.    changing clause 7.6 to “Where the offence relates to a failure to register a dog, Council will issue a notice that a dog is not registered. Then, if the registration fee is not paid within seven days, the owner will receive an Infringement Notice.”; and

15.  Amends Schedule 3 of the Dog Control Policy to rename Emano West Reserve as Te Manu Reserve and remove reference to Emano East Reserve and Hanby Park; and

16.  Amends Schedule 1 item 15 of the Policy by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used.

 

 

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1.    Adopts the Dog Control Bylaw (A2390190), after having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act and subject to the key matters outlined below:

2.    Retains the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

3.    Retains the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

4.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require dogs to be on-leash in grazed Council reserves excluding the Tantragee Reserve area grazed by cattle (shown on Map 8 in Attachment 4) which remains an off-leash area; and

5.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

6.    Retains Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

7.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve to an on-leash area; and

8.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

9.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require dogs to be kept on a lead on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

10.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to:

i.     retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive during the breeding season in Schedule One, but amend the prohibited period from October to February to 15 August to the last day in February; and

ii.    include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut as an on-leash area in Schedule Two; and

iii.   exclude the part of the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive in Schedule 2 (retaining this as an off-leash area); and

iv.   change the status of the Glen Neighbourhood Park (refer Map 14 of Attachment 4) to an off-leash area; and

11.  Deletes the Number of Dogs policy from the Council’s Dog Control Bylaw; and

12.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw by changing clause 10.2 of the Bylaw to: “If, in the opinion of a Dog Control Officer, any dog has become or is likely to become a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person, the Dog Control Officer may, by notice in writing, require the dog owner or the owners or occupiers of the premises at which the dog is kept, within a time specified in such notice to do all or any of the following:

a.    reduce the number of dogs on the premises;

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

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

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

13.  Amends Schedule 3 to rename Emano West Reserve as Te Manu Reserve and remove reference to Emano East Reserve and Hanby Park; and

14.   Amends Schedule 1 item 15 of the Bylaw by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used twice within item 15; and

15.  Agrees the amendments do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the amended Dog Control Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and

16.  Determines that the amended Dog Control Bylaw will take effect from 27 July 2020.

9.       Regulatory fees and charges deliberations                         148 - 179

Document number R17006

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Regulatory fees and charges deliberations (R17006) and its attachments (A2375608, A2374956, A2380674, A2375618 and A2337793); and

2.    Approves amendments to the charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2375608) to report R16978; and

3.    Approves the amendments to the charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2375608) to report R16978 to commence from 1 September 2020; and

4.    Approves amendments to the fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2374956) to report R16978; and

5.    Approves amendments to the fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2374956) to report R16978 to commence from 1 January 2021; and

6.    Approves amendments to the fees under the Dog Control Act 1996 as detailed in option () of Attachment 4 (A2375618) to report R16978; and

7.    Approves amendments to the fees under the Dog Control Act 1996 as detailed in option () of Attachment 4 (A2375618) to report R16978 to commence from 1 July 2020.

 

 

10.     Urban Environment Bylaw Review 180 - 186

Document number R16988

 

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Urban Environment Bylaw Review (R16988); and

2.    Agrees the process of reviewing the Urban Environments Bylaw will commence, and that it will be completed by 2 June 2022.

 

11.     COVID-19 Update Report - Impacts on Environmental Management Group Activities                     187 - 192

Document number R17001

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report COVID-19 Update Report - Impacts on Environmental Management Group Activities (R17001).

 

12.     Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management                          193 - 205

Document number R15865

Note:  Attachment Two to this report is circulated under separate cover.

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management (R15865) and its attachments (A2346450 and A2345470); and

2.    Approves retrospectively, the submission to the Department of Conservation on the proposed improvements to whitebait management (A2346450).

 

 

 

 

13.     Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw                          206 - 212

Document number R15919

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw (R15919); and

2.    Agrees the proposed amendment to clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) is a minor change that meets the requirements of section 156(2) of the Local Government 2002; and

3.    Agrees that public consultation on the proposed amendment is not required because the proposed amendment is a minor change.

 

 

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1.    Makes a minor change to  clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw, to state that the words “No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, and displaying the appropriate ticket, label, sticker or other proof of such payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle” be replaced, from 29 June 2020 with the words ”No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, the payment by casual users to be proved by the person submitting the registration number of the towing vehicle at the time of payment, and the payment by annual permit holders to be proved by displaying the proof of payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle”

 

 

14.     Nelson Plan: Additional Funding 213 - 223

Document number R14797

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Nelson Plan: Additional Funding (R14797) and its attachments Nelson Plan Cost vs Budget (A2384881); and

2.    Approves loan funding of $200,000 to progress the Draft Nelson Plan in 2019/2020.

 

CONFIDENTIAL Business

15.     Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

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

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

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Continuation of the transfer arrangement with Port Nelson Ltd for Harbourmaster responsibilities

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(i)

     To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

 

KK

 


Environment Committee Minutes - 5 March 2020

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment Committee

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

On Thursday 5 March 2020, commencing at 10.01a.m.

 

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

In Attendance:    Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), and Governance Adviser (J Brandt)

Apology:             Councillor Rainey

 

 

A karakia timatanga was given. Nelson City Council Kuia Mel McGregor and Tasman District Council Kuia Jane Du Feu were in attendance.

 

Her Worship the Mayor R Reese informed Elected Members of the passing of former Nelson and Tasman Mayor Kerry Marshall and acknowledged his long years of service and dedication to the Nelson Tasman communities.

 

A waiata was sung and Councillor Fulton assumed the chair.

 

1.       Apologies

Resolved EC/2020/001

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives and accepts an apology from Councillor Rainey.

Courtney/Brand                                                                        Carried

 

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chairperson noted that there would be an adjournment at lunch time to accommodate an Extraordinary Council meeting at 1.00p.m., and that the committee meeting would reconvene at the conclusion of the Extraordinary Council meeting.

3.       Interests

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

4         Public Forum

4.1      Friends of the Maitai

           Steven Gray gave a Powerpoint presentation (A2354339) on behalf of the group.

           He answered questions about additional plantings, regenerating native forests, the health of the Maitai river and membership of the Maitai Forestry Forum. 

 

 

 

Attachments

1    A2354339 - Friends of the Maitai presentation

4.2      Waterfront Association -  Earthquake Prone Buildings – Priority Building

           Mr Rob Stevenson did not attend.

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1      28 November 2019

Document number M6583, agenda pages 9 - 18 refer.

A correction to the minutes was made, noting the return of Cr Noonan to the meeting that had been omitted in the minutes.

In response to a question about the item left to lie at the previous meeting, Delaware Bay Access, officers noted that a report would come to a future meeting once meetings with stakeholders had been held.

 

Resolved EC/2020/002

 

That the Environment Committee

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

Courtney/Sanson                                                                      Carried

  

6.       Chairperson's Report

Document number R15873

The Chairperson tabled  her report (A2355550).

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 10.47a.m.

Resolved EC/2020/003

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the Chairperson's Report (R15873).

Fulton/Paine                                                                             Carried

Attachments

1    A2355550 - Chairperson's report

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

Document number R13587, agenda pages 19 - 49 refer.

Bruce Mutton, Structural Engineer, presented the report and tabled some corrections (A2353307).

The committee discussed the routes of strategic importance for emergency response and it was agreed that the map would be amended to reflect the purpose for which the transport routes are identified under the Building Act 2004.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 10.52a.m.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.03a.m. to 11.18a.m. during which time Councillor Lawrey left the meeting.


Resolved EC/2020/004

 

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) with amendments to be made to the map to reflect the purpose for which those transport routes are identified under the Building Act 2004.

McGurk/O'Neill-Stevens                                                             Carried

Attachments

1    A2353307 - Corrections to report R13587 - Earthquake Prone Buildings - Priority Buildings

 

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

Document number R13588, agenda pages 50 - 76 refer.

Bruce Mutton, Structural Engineer, presented the report.

Resolved EC/2020/005

 

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).

Noonan/Edgar                                                                          Carried

 

9.       Warmer Healthier Homes - Annual Report

Document number R13736, agenda pages 77 - 92 refer.

Richard Popenhagen, Environmental Programmes Officer, presented the report.

Attendance: Councillors O’Neill-Stevens and McGurk left the meeting at 11.27a.m. and Councillor Lawrey returned at 11.29a.m.

Leeson Baldey, Chairperson of the Warmer Healthier Homes Steering Group, answered questions about a charitable trust that was in the process of being established to assist with additional fund raising, criteria for the programme’s referral system and carry over funds, noting that funds were expected to be spent by the end of the financial year.

Resolved EC/2020/006

 

That the Environment Committee

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

Fulton/Her Worship the Mayor                                                    Carried

10.     Resource Management Act and Housing Accord and Special Areas Act charges

Document number R13744, agenda pages 93 - 121 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, explained that the reason for the fees and charges reports on the agenda was to bring recovery rates back in line with the range set out in the Revenue and Financial Policy.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, presented the report. She noted that since the agenda was published, 19 May 2020 had been set aside as Hearing date.

She answered questions about the different mechanisms available to charge, differences in recoverability, models applied by other councils, the way communication with applicants occurs, implications for long-term projects, and the promotion of estimates via council’s website. The committee requested the use of the term ‘charge out rate’ instead of ‘staff hourly rate’ as the former more accurately reflected the broader nature of the charge.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 11.58a.m.

Attendance: The meeting was adjourned from 12.31p.m. until 2.01p.m. during which time Councillor Lawrey left and Councillors McGurk and O’Neill-Stevens returned.

The committee discussed the Statement of Proposal. Clause 4 of the recommendation was amended to reduce the amount of deposits for subdivision lots to keep the process simple and encourage housing developments.

Resolved EC/2020/007

 

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 with minor editorial changes to be signed off by the Chairperson of the Environment Committee and Group Manager Environmental Management, including the replacement of ‘staff hourly rate’ with ‘hourly charge-out rate’, 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) subject to changing the initial fixed charge for subdivision 1-3 lots to $1,500 and 4 plus lots to $2,500; 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.

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan                                                  Carried

 

11.     Proposed Dog Control fees

Document number R14790, agenda pages 122 - 141 refer.

Attendance: Councillor Bowater left the meeting at 2.23p.m. and Ms Paine at 2.26p.m.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, presented the report.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor left the meeting from 2.30p.m. until 2.35p.m.

Ms Bishop answered questions regarding the good dog owner policy noting this was subject to a separate consultation process.

Attendance: Councillors Skinner and Bowater returned to the meeting at 2.37p.m.

Resolved EC/2020/008

 

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:

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; 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.

McGurk/Fulton                                                                         Carried

 

12.     Building Unit Fees and Charges Review 2020/21

Document number R13746, agenda pages 142 - 173 refer.

Attendance: Councillor Bowater left the meeting at 2.39p.m.

Manager Building, Mark Hunter, introduced himself to the committee and presented the report.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 2.41p.m.

The Committee requested that minor editorial changes be made to the Statement of Proposal for consistency purposes with the other fees and charges reports, including the preferred wording ‘charge out rate’ over ‘staff hourly rate’, and that these changes could be approved by the Chairperson and Group Manager Environmental Management. Clauses 3 and 4 of the recommendation were amended to reflect this.

 

Resolved EC/2020/009

 

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 hourly charge out 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 subject to minor editorial changes to be signed off by the Chairperson of the Environment Committee and the Group Manager Environmental Management; 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.

Courtney/Sanson                                                                      Carried

 

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

Document number R13729, agenda pages 174 - 250 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton noted that any references to the Nelson Plan feedback process having commenced should instead read that it would be commencing shortly. She made a further correction to page 179, under item 4.5, removing the following part-sentence: “an overspend for the Urban Design Panel due to Special Housing Area work”.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 3.01p.m.

Officers answered questions about the possibility of working with small landowners regarding carbon forest plantings, the building unit re-accreditation process, results of the parking survey, city centre activation plans, biodiversity corridors and dog control and environmental health activities, including the number of alcohol inspections undertaken.

Resolved EC/2020/010

 

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).

Fulton/Sanson                                                                          Carried

       

A karakia whakamutunga was given.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.29p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

                                                   Chairperson              Date

       


Environment Committee Minutes - 21 April 2020

 

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment Committee

Via Audio-Visual (Zoom)

On Tuesday 21 April 2020, commencing at 1.06p.m. - Hearing of Submissions to Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review

 

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

In Attendance:    Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies:          Her Worship the Mayor R Reese and Councillor J Edgar

 

Karakia Timatanga

Council’s Kaihautu, Pania Lee, gave the opening karakia.

 

 

1.       Apologies

Resolved EC/2020/011

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives and accepts the apologies from Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese and from Councillor Judene Edgar.

McGurk/Fulton                                                                         Carried

 

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3.       Interests

Her Worship the Mayor had declared an interest in this matter and was not present.

4.       Public Forum 

There was no public forum.    

5         Late Submission

Submissions closed on 28 February 2020.  One submission was received late (refer page 64-65 of the Agenda). The submission was received prior to the planned hearing and in time for full consideration by the Committee and officers. 

Resolved EC/2020/012

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Accepts the late submission from Denis Blomquist received on 12 March 2020.  

 

Fulton/McGurk                                                                         Carried

 

6         Hearing of Submissions – Review of Dog Control Policy and Bylaw

Document number R15910, agenda pages 5 - 87 refer.

 

6.1      Hans Andersen speaking on behalf of Dinah Thomson – 21647

 

Mr Anderson spoke to Ms Thomson’s submission, he noted her concerns regarding the proposal for restricting dog access where stock grazed and the limitations on dogs. He noted the amount of exercise required by dogs, the need for off leash exercise.

           Attendance: Councillor Rainey entered the meeting at 1.20pm

 

Mr Anderson answered questions regarding signage and reliance on dog owners’ control.

 

6.2      Bryce Buckland – 21628

 

Mr Buckland spoke to his submission, noting that he was not unhappy to have dogs on the Grampians but wanted them better managed. He highlighted the need for better reserve management, reducing flammable weeds and grass and better dog control, with all dogs required to be on a lead. Mr Buckland answered questions regarding the number of birds and sheep he had seen killed or injured by dogs and the 80/20 trapping rule was explained.

 

 

 

 

6.3      Jude Tarr – 21600

 

Ms Tarr spoke to her submission, she clarified natural dog behaviour. She suggested different reserve management via intensive bursts of stock grazing, or with tractors that mow and, in the long-term, replacement with native plants which wouldn’t require stock grazing.

 

Ms Tarr pointed out that Map 5 was shown as an existing on-lead park, she suspected that nobody knew this, as there was no visible signage. She requested a doggy doo bag dispenser and supported the retention of off-lead dog exercise areas. She answered a question regarding off-lead areas, noting that clear signage was needed when sheep were present and suggested stock grazing for short periods in the short-term.

 

6.4      Mindy Silva – 21598

 

Ms Silva spoke to her submission, suggesting that those with good dog owner status should decide when it was safe to let their dogs off the lead. She said that Council shouldn’t punish law-abiding citizens, but should address the people causing the problems. In response to questions, Ms Silva said that her dogs did not chase wildlife or birds and that she was happy to put her dogs on the lead when sheep were present. She felt Council should allow different licences depending on owners’ capabilities and that people should look out for signage.

 

6.5      Natalie Gousmett -  21548

 

Ms Gousmett spoke to her submission, noting the importance of opportunities to enjoy the outdoors as a family and she was opposed to reducing off-lead areas. She felt that Council should be adding off-lead opportunities.  She noted that on-lead exercise was cumbersome for those with young children and felt that Council was punishing many because of the few. Ms Gousmett felt that on-lead should be required only when stock was present and grazing. She suggested that Council should offer additional reserve areas where families could swim with their dogs. Ms Gousmett was supportive of Railway Reserve and Isel Park remaining off-lead areas. She noted support for proposals 1,2 and 4 but not 3 and 10.

 

In response to questions, Ms Gousmett said that she would like a

larger dog area at the beach, with access to picnic tables and toilets whilst walking dogs and that there needed to be clear rules.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting from 2.07p.m. until 2.14p.m.


 

6.6      Claire Bywater – 21594

 

Ms Bywater spoke to her submission, requesting that Council allow dogs to travel on public transport. She noted that this was allowed in Europe and in Wellington and Auckland and she hoped Nelson would be the first Council in the South Island to consider this.

 

Officers confirmed that this suggestion could be considered as part of the appropriate bylaw review.

 

6.7      Denis Blomquist – 22831L

 

Mr Blomquist spoke to his submission, highlighting the need to protect and encourage nesting birds by keeping dogs (and people) off the beach at nesting time. Discussion took place on boundaries and officers were requested to confirm this for deliberations. It was clarified that fencing off areas for the protection of nesting birds was out of scope for this bylaw review.

 

6.8      Julie Malthus – 21432

 

Ms Malthus spoke to her submission, noting that she had protested against the removal of off-leash dog areas in 2012.  She felt that less freedom would make Nelson unattractive to professional families. She read a submission on behalf of her dogs, which was supportive of more off-leash areas. In response to a question, she said that owners would know if their dog was sheep friendly or not and would either put their dogs on a lead, or not enter the area.

 

6.9      John Gray – 21550

 

Mr Gray spoke to his submission, noting that dog fees should include something else for the money. He felt that fees were too high, especially for good dog-owners. He felt there should be a good dog-owner bonus, and a reduction in fees to encourage people to own dogs. Mr Gray answered a question regarding pensioner age, noting that after the COVID-19 emergency there would be a reduction in income for a lot of people.

 

6.10    David Melville – The Ornithological Society of NZ/Birds NZ – 22731

 

Mr Melville spoke to the submission and provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting Nelson coastal biodiversity and threatened, nationally critical and vulnerable, at-risk and declining and recovering species. He suggested an extension of the dog prohibition period for the southern part of Boulder Bank from 15 August to February, due to the early breeding period of the Banded Dotterel.

 

Mr Melville answered questions regarding nesting sites and numbers.

 

Ms Barton agreed to confirm whether review of the dog prohibition period would be an issue as it had not been consulted on, for the deliberations.

 

6.11    Ian Barker – 21662

 

Mr Barker spoke to his submission, noting that the existing situation at Isel Park was operating very well and that the market ran well under that process. He suggested improved signage at the front gate, noting that doggy doo bags would be useful and felt that Council should toughen up on dangerous dogs.

 

6.12

Brief statements supporting several submissions were tabled. A PowerPoint Presentation was provided by David Melville – The Ornithological Society of NZ/Birds NZ.

 

 

 

Attachments

1    A2371943 - Adrian Abraham - 22738

2    A2371733 - Helen Black - 21694

3    A2370963 - Erice Jackson - 21697

4    A2371714 - Hilary Burbidge and Ross Whitlock - 21689

5    A2372966 - Ferry van Mansum - 21483

6    A2362473 - PowerPoint Presentation - David Melville - 22731

 

7.       Timing of Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations

Document number R16959, agenda pages 88 - 101 refer.

Resolved EC/2020/013

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Timing of Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations (R16959) and its attachment (A2337794); and

2.    Commences the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations on 19 May 2020 in order to make a decision on the Good Dog Owner Policy; and

3.    Reconvenes the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations on 4 June 2020 to make decisions on all other aspects of the Dog Control Policy, and to make recommendations to Council on all aspects of the Dog Control Bylaw.

Noonan/Bowater                                                                       Carried

 

 

Karakia Whakmutunga

Council’s Kaihautu, Pania Lee, gave the closing karakia

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.13p.m.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

 

 

 

                                                   Chairperson              Date

       

 


 

Item 7: Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R16967

Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide a summary of the submissions on the Good Dog Owner (GDO) Policy and to provide a range of options to support the Committee’s deliberations on the GDO Policy.

2.       Summary

2.1         Council has consulted on the option of removing the GDO Policy in order to improve equity for all dog owners and to reduce the costs of administering and implementing the GDO discount. Almost all of the submissions received on this matter (87 out of 91) opposed Council’s proposal. Refer to Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Review — Total Submissions including Index (A2352812) that has been pre-circulated.

2.2         This report summarises the feedback and considers four options:

·       Retaining the current GDO Policy.

·       Removing the GDO Policy but retaining the $5 discount for neutered dogs.

·       Changing the eligibility criteria for the GDO to improve outcomes (by requiring proof of training course attendance), to take effect in the 2021/22 year.

·       Extending a smaller GDO discount to all dogs without a proven complaint or impounding over the past three years, to take effect in the 2021/22 year.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations (R16967) and its attachment (A2376041); and

2.    Removes the Good Dog Owner Policy discount, but retains the $5 discount for neutered dogs.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      On 21 April 2020 the Environment Committee resolved to commence the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations on 19 May 2020 in order to consider the submissions on the Good Dog Owner Policy. This enables the Committee to make a decision on whether to retain, amend or remove the Good Dog Owner Policy prior to deliberating on proposed amendments to the Council’s Dog Control Fees.

4.2      Deliberations on the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw will then resume in order to consider all other matters.

4.3      The following policy is included in the Dog Control Policy 2013.

A new Good Dog Owner (GDO) Policy takes effect from July 2013.

·    Substantial Good Dog Owner discount applies on an annual basis for meeting the following three conditions:

-   Having no more than one minor, proven complaint/impounding;

-   Having adequate fencing or other means of containing their dog on the property, and complying with standard welfare requirements for water, shelter and food (spot checks will apply); and

-   Paying registration fees on time.

·    Ongoing discount applies for any dog that is either neutered, or for dogs registered as members of the New Zealand Kennel Club.

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

4.4      Those on the current Good Dog Owner scheme will automatically transfer to the above Good Dog Owner discount.

4.5      The January 2020 Statement of Proposal includes a proposal to delete the GDO Policy because it:

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

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

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

•   duplicates provisions in the Dog Control Act which require owners to keep their dog under control generally (under sections 52 and 52A) and confined to their property (under section 52A).

           Summary of feedback

4.6      Most submitters (87) opposed the removal of the Good Dog Owner Policy, and four submitters supported it.  The majority of the submissions expressed the view that there should be a financial incentive for good dog ownership.

4.7      Key comments from submitters who opposed the removal of the Good Dog Owner Policy were as follows:

·   Already pay more than Tasman District Council dog owners.

·   Anyone who loses GDO status should have to pay the administration costs of reapplying after one year.

·   Without the GDO discount many families will struggle to afford the registration costs.

·   Change the GDO Policy to meet Council goals rather than removing it.

·   If it is about money, then Council needs to look very carefully at providing a fair and reasonable share of funding across all differing forms of recreation and activity.

·   Will you keep the $5 discount for neutering?

·   The GDO Policy is not skewed towards people with high incomes — just toward organised people who pay on time.

·   Other options (rather than deleting the policy) are: keep the same policy but advertise it better OR give everyone the GDO price unless they don’t pay on time or there are genuine complaints against their dog.

·   The registration fee is already high, particularly for people on fixed incomes.

·   Site visits are important to ensure the welfare of dogs, and the GDO is an important incentive for this.

·   It encourages fencing of properties.

·   Allow people who already have the GDO status to keep it until they die, or their dog dies.

·   If the admin cost of the GDO Policy is too high look at other options such as paying to attend a Council approved dog obedience course, using an online application form and require people to upload photographs of fenced sections.

·   In Manukau City dog rangers checked properties each year, and if not up to the required standard, people were charged a higher fee.

·   Remove the condition of fees being paid on time and make the policy applicable to the current year, to reduce the issues with the policy.

·   Good dog owners don’t cost the Council anything so why should they be punished?

4.8      Key comments from submitters who support the removal of the Good Dog Owner Policy were as follows:

·   Shouldn’t have to prove we are good dog owners — if problems occur, then the owners should pay more.

·   Use cost savings to lower the standard registration fee.

·   If the $19.50 discount was provided to all dog owners, and Council gained more income through infringement fines (say doubling the current income from fines) this would require a licence fee increase of $3 per owner to cover the shortfall. Having the offenders pay a greater share of the costs through enforcement is a better approach to user pays with the added benefit that it is likely to reduce the incidence of problems and nuisance.

·   An alternative, which entails little in the way of administrative costs, would be to charge a lower fee to owners with no proven complaint or impounding in the prior three years.

 

5.       Additional information

5.1      At the hearing Councillors asked for some additional information. The questions related to:

·   Discounts for people on pensions;

·   What dog control services are provided by Council;

·   The cost of the standard registration fee if the GDO discount is retained; and

·   The reasons for the recommendation to remove the GDO Policy.

5.2      Some follow up questions related to:

·   The number of registered dogs in Nelson,

·   The number of complaints, and

·   The responsibilities of both dog owners and territorial authorities under the Dog Control Act 1996.

5.3      Detailed answers to these questions are provided in Attachment 1 (A2376041).  In summary:

·   Offering a discounted rate for people on pensions would adversely impact other dog owners meaning fees for others would need to increase.

·   Dog control services include education and enforcement in response to breaches of the rules.

·   Regarding fees (and pending the Environment Committee decision on fees) the standard fees would be $108.50 and for those receiving the GDO discount it would be $84.

·   The key reason for recommending removal of the GDO Policy is to more equally share the costs of dog control services across all dog owners.

·   There are 5,800 registered dogs in Nelson.

·   Council responded to 1672 complaints in the 2018/19 financial year. Most of these related to relatively minor issues such as barking and wandering, but there were some related to more serious issues including dogs attacking humans (22), dogs attacking animals (64) and dog aggression (68).

·   Section 5 of the Dog Control Act outlines the responsibilities of dog owners and section 6 outlines the powers of territorial authorities under the Dog Control Act, as well as the additional actions they may take.

Scope

5.4      The scope of these deliberations is limited by the options considered in the Statement of Proposal and the scope of the Dog Control Policy itself.

5.5      The Statement of Proposal options included retaining the GDO Policy or delete it.  Therefore, anything within this spectrum is considered in the scope of Committee decision making.  For example, choosing to retain some elements of the GDO such as a neutered dog’s discount.

5.6      The level of fee for dog registration is being established via a separate report that has gone through a separate engagement process and is therefore out of scope. 

5.7      The share of ratepayer funding for dog control services is set by Council’s Revenue and Financial Policy as being between 90% and 100%.   

6.       Options

6.1      Four options are assessed in the following table.

Option 1: Retain the existing Good Dog Owner Policy

Option 2: Remove the Good Dog Owner Policy discount but retain the $5 discount for neutered dogs (under a separate heading within the Dog Control Policy).

Option 3: Change the Good Dog Owner eligibility criteria to provision of a certificate showing the dog and dog owner have attended some form of puppy or dog obedience training.

Option 4: Offer a Good Dog Owner discount but simplify the eligibility and reduce implementation costs by offering a smaller discount to all dogs for which there is “no proven complaint or impounding in the past three years”.

Financial implications of the options

6.2      The financial implications of the different options are outlined in the table below.  The following implications are based on the proposed approach to the dog control fees (to be considered in a separate report). Note: These are financial implications for dog owners rather than Council, as Council’s funding policy is that 90-100% of the costs of dog control services are to be paid by dog owners.

 

Options

Financial Implications

Option 1:

Status quo — Retain the existing Good Dog Owner Policy

If the current GDO Policy remains the standard fee would be $108.50 and $84 for people receiving the GDO discount (increased from $66.20).

 

Option 2:

Remove the Good Dog Owner Policy discount but retain the $5 discount for neutered dogs

Option 2 results in a dog registration increase from $86 to $95.80 for all dog owners.

A $5 discount continues to apply for neutered dogs, resulting in a $90.80 registration fee for these dog owners.

Option 3

Change the Good Dog Owner eligibility criteria to require proof of attendance at puppy or dog obedience training.

Specific costs are not yet known as this will depend on how many dog owners have completed training, and the size of the discount. However, a smaller number of dog owners are likely to be eligible for this discount than the current GDO Policy, making it a lower cost option to Council than options 1 and 4.

Option 4

Offer a smaller Good Dog Owner discount to all dogs for which there is no proven complaint or impounding in the past three years.

Specific costs are not yet known. However, the lost revenue and administration costs to Council associated with Option 4 are likely to be similar to Option 1.

Options Assessment

 

Option 1: Status quo — Retain the existing Good Dog Owner Policy

Advantages

·    This option is supported by submitters, and currently provides a substantial ($19.50) discount on the dog registration fees for some dog owners.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    The existing Good Dog Owner Policy discount does not achieve significant benefits because the conditions to be met to gain Good Dog Owner status duplicate requirements in the Dog Control Act to keep a dog under control (under sections 52 and 52A) and confined to their property (under section 52A).

·    Dog owners who are not aware of the option of applying for the Good Dog Owner Policy pay more than their fair share for dog control services through their full price registration fees.

·    The staff time required to ensure the criteria for Good Dog Owner status has been met which increases the costs of dog control services. While the primary impact is on dog owners who pay for 90% of dog control services through registration fees, this will also have a small effect on rate payers, due to the 10% of dog control services paid for by rates).


Option 2 (preferred): Remove the Good Dog Owner Policy discount but retain the $5 discount for neutered dogs

Advantages

·    This option avoids the cost of administering the discount scheme, and the lost revenue from providing the discount. It is fairer than the existing approach because it more evenly distributes the costs of dog control services across all dog owners.

·    Many aggression problems can be avoided by early neutering of male dogs, and neutering of female dogs reduces the risk of unplanned litters and increased demand for SPCA services.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    This option was opposed by most submitters (87 out of 91) who submitted on the Good Dog Owner Policy. These submitters consider the removal of the GDO discount fails to reward good dog owners.


Option 3: Change the Good Dog Owner eligibility criteria to require proof of attendance at puppy or dog obedience training.

Advantages

·    Incentivises training to increase owners’ ability to keep their dogs under control. Over the long term this option could reduce the risks of conflicts associated with poorly trained dogs.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    People who are currently receiving the Good Dog Owner discount would lose that discount.

·    This option disadvantages people who have attended puppy or dog training in the past but who are not able to provide a certificate to prove this.

·    Complications related to someone taking one dog to training and not another dog (resulting in different fees for different dogs owned by the same person).

·    Loss of income to pay for dog control services as a result of providing the Good Dog Owner discount to eligible dog owners.

·    The staff time required to check the criteria for Good Dog Owner status would need to be met which increases the costs of dog control services for all dog owners.


Option 4: Offer a smaller Good Dog Owner discount to all dogs for which there is no proven complaint or impounding in the past three years.

Advantages

·    Addresses some of the concerns raised by submitters that seek a higher registration fee for dog owners who create the most demand for dog control services.

·    Provides a fairer fee structure for all dog owners.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    This option is likely to have a similar financial outcome as Option 1 (but would spread a smaller discount across more dog owners).

·    Reduced discount for people currently receiving the substantial GDO discount ($19.50).

·    Loss of income to pay for dog control services associated with most dog owners receiving a GDO discount.

·    The staff time required to ensure the criteria for Good Dog Owner status has been met which would slightly increase the costs of dog control services for all dog owners.

7.       Officers’ Recommendation

7.1      Option 2 is preferred because it is the simplest, fairest, and lowest cost option to administer. However, if the Committee decides to adopt Option 3 or 4, the current GDO Policy should apply in the 2020/21 year with the new policy to take effect in the 2021/22 financial year. This approach will to allow time for staff to establish the new eligibility criteria, and for dog owners to apply for the new GDO discount.

7.2      If the Committee does prefer Options 3 or 4, the following resolutions are provided.

7.3      That the Environment Committee

For Option 3: Changes the eligibility criteria for the Good Dog Owner discount to improve outcomes (by requiring proof of training course attendance), to take effect in the 2021/22 year; OR

For Option 4: Extends a smaller GDO discount to all dogs without a proven complaint or impounding over the past three years, to take effect in the 2021/22 year.

8.       Conclusion

8.1      In the January 2020 Statement of Proposal, Council proposed to remove the Good Dog Owner Policy to improve equity for all dog owners and to reduce the costs of administering and implementing the Good Dog Owner discount. Most submitters who commented on this proposal were opposed to it. For this reason, two additional options have been outlined for consideration by the Committee. If either of these options are adopted, the new policy should take effect in the 2021/22 financial year to allow time for staff to implement the new eligibility criteria.

9.       Next Steps

9.1      The Committee’s decision on the Good Dog Owner Policy will inform the Committee’s deliberations on the proposed amendments to the Dog Control Fees.

 

Author:          Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2376041 - Additional Information

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report is enabling democratic decision making for the community while promoting the wellbeing of present and future communities by reflecting on community feedback and considering how best to meet the current and future needs of the community through the performance of its regulatory functions related to dog control.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Relevant Community Outcomes are as follows:

Our Communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

Our Communities have access to a range of social, educational, and recreational facilities and activities.

The safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as the health benefits of exercise and recreational opportunities for dog owners and their dogs, are key matters to be considered when considering submissions and making decisions on amendments to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.  The financial costs associated with these services is also another key matter for consideration.

3.   Risk

There may be public opposition to the option recommended and potential reputational damage if dog owners feel that Council is not responding to their views.

4.   Financial impact

Council’s Funding Policy is that dog control activities are to be 90-100% funded by dog owners and 0-10% funded by rates. That means any increases in the cost of dog control services associated with the Good Dog Owner Policy will have a much greater impact on dog owners than on ratepayers as a whole.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of the potential impact on the registration fees for all dog owners in Nelson. For this reason, special consultative procedures have been carried out on both the Good Dog Owner Policy and the proposed amendments to the Dog Control Fees.

6.   Climate Impact

Climate impact has not been considered in the preparation of this report.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Dog Control Policy and Bylaw review was discussed at two Iwi Working Group meetings. Council officers asked how Council should engage with iwi on this review and were advised to phone each iwi organisation. Subsequent discussions were held, and a submission was received from Ngāti Tama Ki Te Waipounamu Trust, which is supported by Te Atiawa Trust. (Neither of these submissions comment on the Good Dog Owner Policy)

8.   Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider dog control policies and fees.

              Environment Committee Areas of Responsibility:

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

              Environment Committee 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.

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

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

These powers have been referred from Council.

 

 


Item 7: Good Dog Owner Policy Deliberations: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R17025

Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To summarise the submissions on the January 2020 Dog Control Proposal and make recommendations to the Committee to aid in its deliberations on the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

2.       Summary

2.1      Council carried out consultation on the proposed changes to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw from 27 January to 28 February 2020, and received 259 submissions on the proposal. The Statement of Proposal (A2318971) and the submissions (A2352812) have been pre-circulated. The proposals that attracted the most comment related to Council’s grazed reserves, the Boulder Bank and the Good Dog Owner Policy.

2.2      Seventeen people asked to speak in support of their submissions at the hearing, which took place on 21 April 2020 by way of videoconference. Deliberations on the Good Dog Owner Policy are addressed in a separate report and all other matters are to be considered at this meeting and where necessary at the Environment Committee meeting on 4 June.

2.3      The Environment Committee has delegated authority to make decisions on changes to the Dog Control Policy, and to make recommendations to Council on changes to the Dog Control Bylaw.  Consequently, the recommendations below have been split to reflect this delegation.

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations (R17025) and its attachments (A2390190, A2390192 A2380651, A2122940, A2380653, A2380699, A2381227, A2380700, A2380703); and

2.    Adopts the Dog Control Policy (A2390192), after having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act and subject to the key matters outlined below:

3.    Retains the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Policy; and

4.    Retains the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park in the Dog Control Policy; and

5.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to require dogs to be on-leash in grazed Council reserves excluding the Tantragee Reserve area grazed by cattle (shown on Map 8 in Attachment 4) which remains an off-leash area; and

6.    Approves improvements to the signage in the Grampians Reserve to clearly demarcate the areas where grazing does not occur, and where dogs can be exercised off-leash; and

7.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

8.    Retains Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Policy; and

9.    Amends the Dog Control Policy to change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve to an on-leash area; and

10.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

11.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to require dogs to be kept on a leash on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

12.  Amends the Dog Control Policy to:

i.     retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive during the breeding season in Schedule One, but amend the prohibited period from October to February to 15 August to the last day in February; and

ii.    include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut as an on-leash area in Schedule Two; and

iii.   exclude the part of the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive in Schedule 2 (retaining this as an off-leash area); and

iv.   change the status of the Glen Neighbourhood Park (refer Map 14 of Attachment 4) to an off-leash area; and

13.  Deletes the Number of Dogs policy from the Council’s Dog Control Policy; and

14.  Amends the Dog Control Policy by:

i.     changing the last sentence of clause 4.1 to “Non compliance with this notice may result in enforcement action.”

ii.    changing clause 7.6 to “Where the offence relates to a failure to register a dog, Council will issue a notice that a dog is not registered. Then, if the registration fee is not paid within seven days, the owner will receive an Infringement Notice.”; and

15.  Amends Schedule 3 of the Dog Control Policy to rename Emano West Reserve as Te Manu Reserve and remove reference to Emano East Reserve and Hanby Park; and

16.  Amends Schedule 1 item 15 of the Policy by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used.


Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1.    Adopts the Dog Control Bylaw (A2390190), after having regard to the matters in section 10(4) of the Dog Control Act and subject to the key matters outlined below:

2.    Retains the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

3.    Retains the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

4.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require dogs to be on-leash in grazed Council reserves excluding the Tantragee Reserve area grazed by cattle (shown on Map 8 in Attachment 4) which remains an off-leash area; and

5.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area; and

6.    Retains Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area in the Dog Control Bylaw; and

7.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve to an on-leash area; and

8.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

9.    Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to require dogs to be kept on a lead on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary (shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4); and

10.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw to:

i.     retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive during the breeding season in Schedule One, but amend the prohibited period from October to February to 15 August to the last day in February; and

ii.    include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut as an on-leash area in Schedule Two; and

iii.   exclude the part of the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive in Schedule 2 (retaining this as an off-leash area); and

iv.   change the status of the Glen Neighbourhood Park (refer Map 14 of Attachment 4) to an off-leash area; and

11.  Deletes the Number of Dogs policy from the Council’s Dog Control Bylaw; and

12.  Amends the Dog Control Bylaw by changing clause 10.2 of the Bylaw to: “If, in the opinion of a Dog Control Officer, any dog has become or is likely to become a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person, the Dog Control Officer may, by notice in writing, require the dog owner or the owners or occupiers of the premises at which the dog is kept, within a time specified in such notice to do all or any of the following:

a.    reduce the number of dogs on the premises;

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

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

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

13.  Amends Schedule 3 to rename Emano West Reserve as Te Manu Reserve and remove reference to Emano East Reserve and Hanby Park; and

 

14.   Amends Schedule 1 item 15 of the Bylaw by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used twice within item 15; and

15.  Agrees the amendments do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the amended Dog Control Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and

16.  Determines that the amended Dog Control Bylaw will take effect from 27 July 2020.

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      On 14 November 2019, the Council made the following resolution:

4.1.1   Confirms in accordance with the Delegations Register, that the Environment Committee undertakes a review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

4.2      On 28 November 2019 the Environment Committee made the following resolutions:

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

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

4.2.3   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

4.2.4   Adopts the Statement of Proposal (A2145304 of Report R12538 and the Summary of the Statement of Proposal (A2145310); and

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

4.3      An additional clause was included, that the Environment Committee:

4.3.1   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 to be delegated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee.

4.4      Consequently, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Environment Committee approved two changes to the Statement of Proposal to include Titoki Reserve and Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve as on-leash areas. Both these areas were off-leash areas in the 2013 Policy and Bylaw.

4.5      Consultation on the January 2020 proposal was carried out from 27 January 2020 to 28 February 2020. As required by the Dog Control Act, all registered dog owners in Nelson were sent a summary of the proposal and invited to make a submission. Emails or letters were also sent to the stakeholders who were contacted during the development of the Statement of Proposal.  The wider community were notified by public notice and relevant documentation was made available on Councils website.

4.6      Council received 259 submissions, and 17 submitters requested to speak at the hearing which took place on 21 April. Twelve submitters spoke at the Environment Committee hearing via videoconference and five other submitters provided short written statements.

Proposed timeframe

4.7      The proposed process reflects:

·    The 14 November 2019 decision by Council to refer review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw to the Environment Committee

·    Clause 5.1.3 of the delegations register which states that making a bylaw is a decision that must be exercised by Council

·    Clause 5.4.2 that delegates power to the Environment Committee to develop and approve policies, review bylaws, and undertake community engagement

·    Clause 5.4.3 of the delegations register which states the Environment Committee has the power to recommend changes to the Bylaw to Council.

4.8      The Environment Committee will deliberate on proposed amendments to the Good Dog Owner part of the Policy on 28 May 2020. This will enable the Committee to make a decision on whether to retain, amend or remove the Good Dog Owner Policy prior to deliberating on proposed amendments to the Council’s Dog Control Fees.

4.9      Subsequently the Environment Committee will make decisions/recommendations on all other matters related to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. This will enable the Committee to make decisions on changes to the Dog Control Policy and make recommendations to Council on changes to the Dog Control Bylaw.

4.10    Council will consider Committee recommendations and the adoption of the amended Dog Control Bylaw at a subsequent meeting.  It is recommended that the Council determines that the Bylaw takes effect on 27 July 2020 following this meeting.  Having the Bylaw take effect from this date will allow Council Officers to prepare implementation materials and processes and ensure the Bylaw is enacted within 60 working days of the adoption of the Dog Control Policy in accordance of section 10(6) of the DCA.

5.       Discussion

Overview

5.1      The key changes recommended in this report, which are a departure from the January 2020 Statement of Proposal, are:

·   Not requiring dogs to be on-leash in the Tantragee grazed area.

·   Not requiring dogs to be on-leash in Titoki Reserve.

·   Changing the margins and islands of Delaware Estuary from dogs prohibited to on-leash areas.

·   Not requiring dogs to be on-leash along the Boulder Bank between the Glen and Boulder Bank Drive, or on the Glen Neighbourhood Park.

·   Extending the dogs prohibited period (currently October to February) for the area of the Boulder Bank from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4 kilometres, from 15 August to the last day in February.

5.2      A copy of the amended Bylaw and Policy are appended as Attachment 1(A2390190) and 2 (A2390192).

5.3      The specific reasons for each of these recommendations are outlined in this report. However, one over-riding key theme both in submissions and in the hearing was a feeling that more dog-walking areas were being taken away as part of the proposed bylaw.

5.4      Council officers have undertaken some analysis to provide some context to this matter. The maps in Attachment 3 (A2380651) identify prohibited areas, on-leash areas, and off-leash areas identified in the 2013 Bylaw, additional areas created between 2013 and 2020 and potential future areas to be created over the life of the Bylaw (2020-2030).  This map provides a geographical spread of dog walking areas to help identify areas that are better served than others for dog walking.

5.5      Council has recently purchased a 17 hectare area to be added to the Grampians Reserve on the Brook side. When developed, a substantial part of this land will be an off-leash area, providing new opportunities for dog exercise within the central city.

5.6      It is important to note that the map does not provide a comprehensive picture of all dog walking areas as all public places (including streets and reserves) are available for off-leash dog walking where the bylaw does not identify on-leash or prohibited areas.  The key findings from the map are that:

·   Additional neighbourhood reserves have been added in the southern part of the city at Saxton, Ngawhatu, and Marsden Valleys that are available for on-leash dog walking by default.

·   There will be additional dog walking areas added over the life of the Bylaw as the Marsden Valley Dog Park, Bayview and Saxton subdivisions and Maitai Future Development Areas are developed.

·   New areas will add different walking experiences particularly along stream corridors.

           Submission format

5.7      Most submitters followed the format of the submission form, which sought feedback on the following proposals. The Statement of Proposal (A2318971) has been pre-circulated and maps showing the proposed changes (A2122940) are provided in Attachment 4 to this report.

5.7.1   Proposal 1: Railway Reserve — off-leash for the whole Railway Reserve, with signage to support this approach.

5.7.2   Proposal 2: Isel Park — no change (part off-leash, part on-leash).

5.7.3   Proposal 3: Grazed reserves — on-leash at all times on grazed land owned by the Council, excluding the grazed area at Paremata Flats Reserve.

5.7.4   Proposal 4: Monaco Reserve — off-leash excluding the playground where dogs are prohibited.

5.7.5   Proposal 5: Titoki Reserve — on-leash.

5.7.6   Proposal 6: Whakatu Drive Foreshore Reserve — on-leash.

5.7.7   Proposal 7: Paremata Flats Reserve and Delaware Estuary — dogs prohibited in the Paremata Flats planted area and on Delaware Estuary margins and islands.

5.7.8   Proposal 8: Boulder Bank — on-leash at all times and dogs prohibited from The Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4km, from October to February each year.

5.7.9   Proposal 9: Multiple Dogs — to remove the policy stating that Council permission is required to keep more than two dogs on a property within the Nelson Urban Area and to instead rely on enforcement powers where necessary.

5.7.10  Proposal 10: Good Dog Owner Policy — remove the Good Dog Owner Policy (considered by the Committee on 19 May 2020).

5.7.11  Proposal 11: Enforcement Approach — amend the enforcement provisions to align with current practice.

5.7.12  Any other comments – any changes to other aspects of the Policy and/or Bylaw.

Railway Reserve

Background

5.8      No change is proposed to the current off-leash status of the Railway Reserve (Maps 2–5 in Attachment 4). Some signage to promote respect for all users is proposed to support this approach.

Summary of feedback

5.9      Eleven submitters supported and six submitters opposed keeping the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area.

Key comments from the submissions

5.10    Submitters in support of retaining the off-leash status of the Railway Reserve commented on the importance of the area for human and dog exercise, and so that whole families (including their dogs) can enjoy the area. One submitter supported signage for cyclists to slow down, but another submitter recommended minimising signage so that the important signs count.

5.11    Submitters who are opposed to the Railway Reserve being an off-leash area expressed concerns about dogs running up to them, dog owners not picking up after their dogs, and off-leash dogs being a hazard to both cyclists and elderly people on scooters.

Recommendation

5.12    Retain the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area.

Reasons

5.13    The benefits of meeting the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners are greater than the costs associated with a small number of complaints related to off-leash dogs on the Railway Reserve and those benefits outweigh the concerns regarding the nuisance/danger raised by submitters.

5.14    Maintaining the Railway Reserve as an off-leash area will also help offset some of the concerns expressed in submissions about Council’s proposed reductions in off-leash areas (particularly grazed reserves).

5.15    The number of dog versus cyclist injuries requiring ACC support are low, with less than three injury claims per year for the Nelson City area (and 40-50 occurring throughout New Zealand).

Isel Park

Background

5.16    No change was proposed to the existing approach to Isel Park (Map 3 in Attachment 4), which allows dogs to be off-leash in some areas of the Park including the area opposite Countdown supermarket and the open area alongside the sports fields, but requires them to be on a leash in other areas, including the internal pathways and the lawn in front of Isel House. A detailed map of Isel Park’s off-leash and on-leash areas is provided in Attachment 5 (A2380653).

Summary of feedback

5.17    Five submitters supported the current approach of part on-leash and part off-leash for Isel Park and one additional submitter commented on the need for more signage.

5.18    Six submitters would like to see all or more of Isel Park being an off-leash area (excluding when the market is on). One of these submitters requested a doggy do dispenser in this Park.

5.19    Five submitters would like all of Isel Park to be an on-leash area.

5.20    More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendation

5.21    Retain the existing half on-leash and half-off leash approach to Isel Park in the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

Reasons

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

5.23    Parents need on-leash spaces where they can be confident their children can run around without being rushed at by dogs.

5.24    Dogs are allowed off-leash around the adjacent playing fields when sports are not on.

5.25    Overall the recommended approach creates a good balance between the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners and minimising danger/nuisance that could be caused by allowing all of the area to be off-leash.

5.26    Council can undertake a review of the signage (when Covid-19 restrictions allow) to ensure there is clarity around the areas where dogs must be on-leash at Isel Park. However, additional signage would be contrary to Council’s efforts to limit signage in natural areas, so staff would identify opportunities to amend or relocate existing signage rather than adding new signs.

Grazed Reserves

Background

5.27    Council’s grazed reserves are currently off-leash areas (dogs must be under control). Council’s January 2020 proposal was that grazed reserves (or grazed parts of reserves) be on-leash areas at all times. These include part of the Grampians Reserve (Map 6), part of the Sir Stanley Whitehead Walkway (Map 7), part of the Tantragee Reserve (Map 8) and part of the Maitai River esplanade reserve (Map 9). In future, two new grazed areas on Bolwell Reserve (see Attachment 7) and the Grampians Reserve are proposed.

Summary of feedback

5.28    Most of the submissions (51) on this topic opposed the proposed change. The general proposal and the Grampians attracted the most comments, but quite a few submitters also commented on the Maitai esplanade, and Tantragee. Three submitters were partially in support, and five submitters fully supported the proposal for dogs to be required to be on a leash at all times in these areas.

5.29    The key reason for the opposition was a significant loss of off-leash areas. Submitters said the proposed change would impact on the health and wellbeing of both people and their dogs. Many people run or cycle with their dogs in these areas, and this would not be possible if dogs are required to be on a leash. Suggestions included:

·   Planting in trees rather than grass (including Brook catchment for water quality reasons and the Grampians).

·   Better fencing and temporary signs indicating when stock are present.

·   Better signage in the Grampians regarding which parts of the Grampians are grazed.

·   Reconsidering the on-leash requirement for the Tantragee track — as this is stocked with cattle rather than sheep, which are less bothered by dogs.

·   Better enforcement, with a number to call if sheep are being worried/attacked.

·   Specific months of the year when sheep are present and not present (with dogs permitted off leash in the months when sheep are not present).

·   More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

5.30    Following the consultation process Parks officers have indicated that grazing is occurring further to the west than identified on Map 6.

Recommendations

5.31    Require dogs to be on-leash in Council reserve areas excluding the Tantragee Reserve area grazed by cattle (shown on Map 8 in Attachment 4).

5.32    Make improvements to the signage in the Grampians Reserve to clearly demarcate the areas where grazing does not occur, and where dogs can be exercised off-leash.

5.33    Reasons

5.34    This change is necessary to prioritise animal welfare of grazing animals on Council land, and to allow for the efficient land management practice of grazing to continue where it is deemed to be the most suitable and cost effective option to meet the objectives of Council reserves. The key reason for requiring dogs to be on-leash where sheep are grazing is to avoid dog attacks. If further dog attacks occur, sheep will not be supplied for grazing of Council land, and the fire risk would increase significantly.

5.35    An assessment of the potential fire risk of Nelson City Council Reserves (outlined in report R10442 to the Sports and Recreation Committee in 2019) identified the Grampians Reserve and Sir Stanley Whitehead Park are reserves with extreme fire risk, and the Maitai Esplanade Reserve and Bolwell Reserve as having high fire risk. (These are all grazed reserves.)

5.36    Submitters have expressed concern about the loss of off-leash exercise on Council reserves which are grazed by sheep and cattle. Council has recently purchased a 17 hectare area to be added to the Grampians Reserve on the Brook side. When developed, a substantial part of this land will be an off-leash area by default, providing new opportunities for dog exercise within the central city.  At this time Council will review the grazing areas of the Grampians and Bolwell reserve to confirm which additional areas should be on-leash and off-leash.

5.37    Council is developing ecological restoration plans for all landscape and conservation reserves, which will include opportunities for staged re-vegetation projects in some areas which are currently grazed.

5.38    An Ecological Restoration Plan has recently been finalised for the Grampians. This Plan recommends the continuation of under-grazing on the north-west slopes, which is working well as a low-cost effective means of weed control and fuel reduction. Recommendations for re-vegetation plantings in the short to medium term are outside of the north-west slopes that are currently grazed.

5.39    Re-vegetation projects are costly and take time, so there needs to be an interim solution to help control weeds and reduce fire risk while staged re-vegetation is rolled out in the most suitable areas.

5.40    Officers have discussed a range of options with Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ).  FENZ supports under-grazing the exotic tree land, which is a low-cost way of keeping the fuel load (of long grasses) down, and maintaining space under the trees for recreation.  FENZ also support under-planting the exotic tree land areas with soft, leafy natives as an alternative to grazing to help reduce fire risk. This would require a high capital investment for three to five years in each planted area to ensure establishment of the plantings, and would reduce recreational opportunities by closing in the spaces that are currently available to reserve users.

5.41    More fencing is not supported in terms of creating smaller paddocks in existing grazed areas because Council’s lease arrangement involves the sheep being in large blocks, in order to have a low maintenance, cost-effective approach so that the sheep don’t need to be moved all the time. In addition, there is no practical way of creating smaller grazed areas on the Grampians slopes.

5.42    The use of temporary signs to indicate when sheep are present (and when they are not) is also not supported by officers for the following reasons:

·   members of the public might change the signs

·   someone managing the sheep might forget to change the sign

·   a changeable message is more difficult to manage.

5.43    Clearer signage in the Grampians Reserve indicating the areas where grazing does not occur at any time will be useful for people wishing to continue taking their dogs for off-leash walks within the Grampians Reserve. This can be done through an upgrade to the existing signage at all entrances to the Grampians Reserve, and small permanent signage on each paddock gate that indicates if it is an on-leash or off-leash area.

5.44    People should call Council’s main phone number if they see dogs worrying sheep — 546 0200.

5.45    The grazed area of the Water Treatment Plant settlement and treatment ponds in the Tantragee is only grazed by cattle. The Council officers’ and the graziers’ preference would be to have cattle paddocks as on-leash areas, but it is more important to have the sheep areas in other reserves as an on-leash areas. Given that dogs pose a lower risk for cattle than for sheep, and the concerns expressed by submitters about loss of off-leash exercise opportunities, this area could be retained as an off-leash area.

5.46    Overall the recommended approach strikes an appropriate balance between minimising danger to the community with the recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Monaco Reserve

Background

5.47    Monaco Reserve is a neighbourhood reserve, and is listed in the 2013 Dog Control Bylaw and Policy as an on-leash area. The Council’s January 2020 proposal was to change this to an off-leash reserve (excluding the playground which remains a dog prohibited area).

Summary of feedback

5.48    Of the seven submissions on this topic, six supported and one opposed the proposed off-leash status for Monaco Reserve. The submission in opposition said this is a multi-user area so should be an on-leash reserve.

Recommendation

5.49    Include Monaco Reserve as an off-leash neighbourhood park (listed in Schedule 3 of the Policy and Bylaw) excluding the playground which will continue to be a dog prohibited area.

Reasons

5.50    In 2015 Council received a letter and supporting petition (with 66 signatories) seeking that Monaco Reserve become an off-leash area.

5.51    Signs can indicate that the playground in Monaco Reserve remains a dog prohibited area. This approach is consistent with several other multi-use neighbourhood parks in Nelson which include a playground, including Wolfe Reserve, Poplar Reserve, Fairfield Park and Hanby Park.

5.52    Overall the recommended approach strikes an appropriate balance between minimising danger to the community and areas frequented by children with the recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Titoki Reserve

Background

5.53    Titoki Reserve (refer Map 16 in Attachment 4) is currently an off-leash area. Council’s January 2020 proposal was to change to on-leash status for this reserve.

Summary of feedback

5.54    Ten submissions opposed the proposed change to on-leash status for Titoki Reserve. No submissions supported this proposed change. Key comments made in the submissions were that there are not enough off-leash areas in Nelson North, and dogs have had limited influence on bird life in this area.

5.55    More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendation

5.56    Retain Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area.

Reasons

5.57    The submissions relating to Titoki Reserve were all in opposition, with none in support, of the proposal to change this to an on-leash area. The submitters included people who have been involved in volunteer trapping activities and monitoring of bird numbers and types.

5.58    Many of the submitters pointed out that this is one of very few off-leash areas in Nelson North.  The only off-leash areas in the vicinity of Titoki Reserve are Corder Park and the adjacent cycleway, and Ngapua Reserve (items 218 and 203 in Attachment 3).  This means that it is currently very important for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.  Any concerns about dogs in this area are outweighed by this benefit.

5.59    The off-leash status of this reserve could be considered further in 10 years’ time, during the next review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. By then, additional recreation reserves and walkway connections proposed as part of the Bayview subdivision may be in place, providing extensive additional off-leash dog walking opportunities in the vicinity.

Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve

Background

5.60    Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve (see Map 15 in Attachment 4) is currently an off-leash area. The January 2020 proposal was to change this to an on-leash area.

Summary of feedback

5.61    Six submissions were in support of the proposed change, three were opposed, and one was in partial support. The Ornithological Society, the Waimea Inlet Forum Working Group and an ecologist (Michael North) supported this change. Three submissions opposed it, with one person noting there are some areas which are close to the road but other areas are fine for off-leash exercise.

More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendation

5.62    Change Whakatū Drive Foreshore Reserve to an on-leash area.

Reasons

5.63    Requiring dogs to be on-leash in this area will reduce the risk of conflicts between wildlife and dogs around Waimea Inlet. This approach is supported by key groups including the Waimea Inlet Forum Working Group and the Ornithological Society of New Zealand.

5.64    As submitters noted, there are areas within the reserve which are safe for off-leash exercise, particularly at the Honest Lawyer end of the shared pathway. However, dog owners do have a number of other safe, off-leash exercise options in Stoke and Monaco. These include Monaco Reserve and the Monaco peninsula, the walkway between the Airport and Monaco peninsula, and the Railway Reserve.

5.65    Additional areas will be provided in the vicinity as the Saxton Creek connection is extended as a result of future subdivision.

5.66    Overall the recommended approach strikes an appropriate balance between minimising danger to the community and wildlife with the recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Paremata Flats Reserve and Delaware Estuary

Background

5.67    The existing Bylaw and Policy (2013) includes the following provisions:

5.68    Dogs are prohibited in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats.

5.69    Dogs are permitted but must be kept on a lead on the sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary.

5.70    The January 2020 proposal included the following provisions (refer Map 10 in Attachment 4):

·   Dogs are prohibited in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve.

·   Dogs are prohibited in the Delaware Estuary margins, and islands within the estuary.

·   Dogs are permitted but must be kept on a lead on the sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary.




Summary of feedback

5.71    Council received 11 submissions in support of the proposal and 15 in opposition to it. No change was proposed to the existing requirement for dogs to be on-leash on the sand and mudflats, but most of the opposition to the 2020 proposal related to this requirement.

5.72    However, the Ngāti Tama Ki Te Waipounamu Trust submission (which is supported by Te Atiawa Trust) requested enforcement of the existing on-leash requirements for dogs on the sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary. Key reasons for their concerns are “the urupa Haua is located on the sandspit and is a waahi tapu area. The burial and reinternment of koiwi is to be protected. Access to this waahi tapu area is therefore restricted and controlled.”

5.73    The Trust also stated in its submission that “if dogs are not on a leash, then there is the potential for dogs to disturb and destroy koiwi. The estuary must be protected and dogs not on a leash, have the potential to disturb and destroy significant cultural and ecological areas.”

5.74    More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendations

5.75    Prohibit dogs in the fenced area of the foreshore and esplanade reserve at Paremata Flats, including the planted area of the Paremata Flats Reserve (as shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4).

5.76    Require dogs to be on a leash on the margins, islands, sand and mudflats of Delaware Estuary (as shown on Map 10 of Attachment 4).

5.77    Carry out dog patrols to monitor and enforce the on-leash requirements within Delaware Estuary.

Reasons

5.78    The Ngāti Tama Ki Te Waipounamu Trust is seeking better enforcement of the existing provisions related to Delaware Estuary, rather than an increase from on-leash to prohibited.

5.79    As noted by submitters, it is not possible to access the estuary mudflats and sand without passing through the margins. For this reason, an on-leash requirement for the estuary margins is preferred over a dogs prohibited status (as included in the January 2020 proposal).

5.80    The natural estuary wetlands and vegetation covered islands are as important as the planted areas of Paremata Flats as a habitat for ground nesting birds. Ideally these would be dog prohibited areas. However, the number of people taking their dogs into this muddy environment is very limited. Therefore, an on-leash approach is recommended, alongside ongoing monitoring of any increases in the number of dogs in this area and the effects on ground nesting birds.

5.81    The wording for Paremata Flats clarifies the existing prohibition of dogs in an area with significant plantings and pest control to protect the habitat of rare birds.

5.82    Overall the recommended approach strikes an appropriate balance between minimising danger to the community and wildlife with the recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Boulder Bank and Glenduan Reserve

Background

5.83    The current Bylaw and Policy (2013) includes the following provisions:

·   Dogs are prohibited on the beaches and estuary flat of Nelson Haven bounded by the Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve (to the west) and Boulder Bank Drive (to the east) for a distance of 500 metres along each of those boundaries

·   Dogs are prohibited on the Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve, from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4 kilometres, from October to February.

·   Dogs are permitted but must be on a lead in Glenduan Neighbourhood Reserve.

5.84    The January 2020 proposal included the following provisions (refer Maps 11–14 in Attachment 4):

·   Dogs are prohibited on the beaches and estuary flat of Nelson Haven bounded by the Boulder Bank Scenic Reserve (to the west) and Boulder Bank Drive (to the east) for a distance of 500 metres along each of those boundaries.

·   Dogs are prohibited on the Boulder Bank, from the Cut towards Boulder Bank Drive for 4 kilometres, from October to February.

·   Dogs are permitted but must be on a lead on the Boulder Bank. (Note: the Boulder Bank from the Cut toward Boulder Bank Drive for four kilometres is a dogs prohibited area from October to February.)

·   Dogs are permitted but must be on a lead in Glenduan Neighbourhood Reserve.

Summary of feedback

5.85    Council received 65 submitters in opposition and 12 in support of the January 2020 proposal. There has been strong opposition to the proposed requirement for dogs to be on a leash between The Glen and Boulder Bank Drive, with 57 submissions seeking the ability to walk off-leash in this area. Many of the submitters pointed out that the Boulder Bank is one of very few off-leash dog exercise areas in Nelson North. 

5.86    Submitters noted the path from the parking area at the Glen is one of the most popular dog walking areas in North Nelson. If this area is made an on-leash area, dog walkers will need to travel by car to off-leash areas, which is in conflict with Council’s climate emergency declaration and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

5.87    However, amongst all of the submissions both in support and in opposition, there is a high level of support for the existing provisions from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut (dogs prohibited during the bird-nesting period and an on-leash requirement at other times). The exceptions are two submissions from boat owners seeking dog access to the other end of the Boulder Bank (towards the Cut).

5.88    The submission from the Department of Conservation (DoC) strongly supports on-leash status from the Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut (and retaining the seasonal dogs prohibited area for 4km from the Cut during the breeding season). However, the DoC submission also acknowledges the importance of the area from The Glen to Boulder Bank Drive as an off-leash dog exercise area and has fewer concerns about dogs being off-leash in this area.

Recommendation

5.89    Retain the dogs prohibited status for the 4km from the Cut during the breeding season, and change the start date to 15 August each year (instead of October).

5.90    Include the part of the Boulder Bank from Boulder Bank Drive to the Cut as an on-leash area.

5.91    Retain the Boulder Bank northwards from Boulder Bank Drive as an off-leash area and change the status of the Glenduan Reserve to off-leash.

Reasons

5.92    Allowing dogs to be off-leash in the area between Boulder Bank Drive and the Glen, as well as on the Glenduan Reserve, balances the needs of dog owners and their dogs for local recreation opportunities and minimising danger to the community and protection of the Boulder Bank’s ecological values, including rare, nesting birds.

5.93    Retaining the remainder of the Boulder Bank as on-leash/prohibited and extending the prohibition period into August also balances the needs of dog owners and the safety of the community and the Boulder Bank’s ecological values.

Number of Dogs

Background

5.94    The existing Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2013 includes a section on the number of dogs, with Council approval required to keep more than two dogs on a property in Nelson.

5.95    The Council’s January 2020 proposal was to remove this requirement for approval and instead rely on the powers under the Dog Control Act to reduce the number of dogs on a property if they have proven to be a nuisance, and if the owners are unwilling or unable to resolve the problem.

Summary of submissions

5.96    Five submissions supported and eight submissions opposed this proposal. Those in support considered it reasonable to remove the requirement if any issues can be managed in other ways. The submitters who opposed the proposal preferred the certainty of the two dog limit, with the onus of proof being on dog owners to prove that having more than two dogs will not create a problem.

5.97    More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendation

5.98    Delete the Number of Dogs policy.

Reasons

5.99    Council’s experience has been that people do not generally apply for permission to have more than two dogs. The ownership of more than two dogs only comes to Council’s attention at the time of registration, as the Dog Control Act requires all dogs older than three months old need to be registered with their local council. However, puppies are usually rehomed at eight weeks’ old, and it would be extremely harsh to say that people cannot continue to own their dog at the time of registration particularly if there are no nuisance effects.

5.100   Council can deal with nuisance through the Dog Control Act, and can require reduction in numbers. Potential nuisances are noise from barking, and smell. Council’s approach to complaints related to multiple dogs is to give the dog owner an opportunity to do something about the nuisance being caused. Then, if they are unwilling, or the actions are ineffective, Council can require a reduction in numbers.

Enforcement Approach

Background

5.101   The January 2020 proposed change was to make minor amendments to the 2013 Policy and Bylaw to align with current enforcement practices.

Submitter feedback

5.102   Three submitters supported this approach and nobody opposed it. One submitter suggested more signage to remind people of the rules and another suggested use of mediation rather than taking people to court.

5.103   More submission details are provided in Attachment 6 (A2380699).

Recommendation

5.104   Amend the January 2020 Dog Control Policy by:

·   Changing the last sentence of clause 4.1 to “Non-compliance with this notice may result in enforcement action.”

·   Changing clause 7.6 to “Where the offence relates to a failure to register a dog, Council will issue a notice that a dog is not registered. Then, if the registration fee is not paid within seven days, the owner will receive an Infringement Notice.”

5.105   Amend the January 2020 Dog Control Bylaw by changing clause 10.2 of the Bylaw to: “If, in the opinion of a Dog Control Officer, any dog has become or is likely to become a nuisance to any person or injurious to the health of any person, the Dog Control Officer may, by notice in writing, require the dog owner or the owners or occupiers of the premises at which the dog is kept, within a time specified in such notice to do all or any of the following:

a) reduce the number of dogs on the premises;

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

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

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

Reasons

5.106   The recommended changes align the Policy and Bylaw with Council’s current enforcement practices.

5.107   Council’s enforcement approach is education first. If that does not achieve compliance, then give a warning. Prosecutions are generally only taken in the case of serious issues or repeat offending, where that is the appropriate approach.

5.108   Regarding the submitter comments on mediation, Council carries out mediation in some situations, for example if one dog injures another dog, to seek cooperation with payment of vet bills. It depends on the willingness of the parties involved.

5.109   In the case of menacing or dangerous dog classifications, if there is a disagreement about the classification the issue will be considered by a hearings panel. In the case of dangerous dog classifications (which require better fencing, and a higher registration fee) this decision can be appealed to a district court.

 

Other comments

5.110   The public was invited to comment on all aspects of the Policy and Bylaw, including any related topics. Council received a broad range of submissions on the topics headings listed below.

A. Changes to the Schedules

B. Enforcement practices

C. Keeping dogs under control

D. Protection of wildlife

E. Reserve management

F. Community engagement

G. Dogs in other areas

H. Dog registrations

TOPIC A — CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULES

Requests for new off-leash areas including neighbourhood parks

5.111   Many submitters expressed disappointment with the proposed reduction in off-leash dog walking areas (which are the Boulder Bank, Titoki Reserve, grazed reserves and Whakatū Foreshore Reserve) and pointed out that off-leash exercise is the most enjoyable for dogs and dog owners. They requested that other areas be made available to compensate for these losses.

5.112   Suggested new off-leash areas included:

·   all neighbourhood reserves should be off-leash.

·   the Dun Mountain Trail (if the Brook Valley Waterworks Reserve is not in fact a waterworks reserve)

·   playing fields, which are in use so little of the time.

5.113   There have been some changes to Neighbourhood Parks identified in Schedule 3:

·   Emano West Reserve has been renamed as Te Manu Reserve,

·   Emano East reserve has been absorbed into Pipers Park, and

·   Hanby Park has changed classification to a Landscape Reserve so is therefore no longer a Neighbourhood Park and will automatically be off-leash.

 

Requests for increased on-leash areas

5.114   Conversely, some submitters suggested new areas be included in Schedule Two (on-leash areas) including: Hanby Park, Branford Park, the Botanics Sportsfield, Botanical Hill and Olive Hill, the Maitai Walkway between the Collingwood St bridge and Sunday Hole, and the walkways around the Centre of New Zealand.

5.115   Several new Neighbourhood Parks have been established in the southern part of the city since the 2013 Bylaw was developed.  These include Kingfisher Reserve, Mako Reserve, Montebello Reserve, Plumtree Reserve and Sanctuary Reserve.  These are identified as on-leash areas by default as they are not included in Schedule 3.

Requests for new dogs prohibited areas

5.116   Council received a submission requesting that dogs be banned from the Central Business Area, and another requesting that dogs not be allowed in Queens Gardens.

Existing dog prohibited areas

5.117   Three submissions discussed areas where dogs are currently prohibited.

·   One opposed Whakapuaka Swamp being a dogs prohibited area, as the access pathway from the north side through the swamp to Boulder Bank Drive has the only safe bridge to cross the tidal stream.

·   One opposed the prohibited status of the waterworks reserves.

·   The Ornithological Society of New Zealand/Birds New Zealand requested that Sand Island continue to be listed as a dogs prohibited area. The Society noted that Sand Island has undergone considerable change since 2012, initially growing in area with a substantial Spinifex dune at the northern side, but subsequently being eroded by severe weather such that it is barely above water on spring tides. It does, however, still support roosting shorebirds. This is not the first time that Sand Island has risen from the deep only to disappear some years later and then reappear. As such, it should continue to be included as a ‘dog prohibited area’.

Tahunanui front beach (dogs prohibited)

5.118   Three submitters requested more enforcement of dogs being on the front beach, while one submitter requested that the Tahunanui front beach be accessible for dogs prior to 8am and after 7.30pm.

Tahunanui back beach (dog exercise area)

5.119   One submitter thanked Council for the hose at the kite surfing car park, which provides drinking water for dogs. Two submitters requested more facilities in this area for families with dogs (such as a bench, table or barbeque).

5.120   One submitter asked Council to require dogs to be on a leash at the dog beach at Tahunanui, and another submitter noted the dog access at the western end of Tahunanui beach is extremely valuable for dogs and dog owners.

Maitai swimming holes

5.121   Four submissions requested more access for dogs to Maitai swimming holes, one requested more restrictions and one requested more enforcement of the existing restrictions.

Airport area

5.122   One submitter said dogs should be allowed on the walks around the airport area.

Haven Holes

5.123   One submitter requested a dog ban for Haven Hole Reserve.

5.124   More submission details are provided in Attachment 5 (A2380653).

Recommendation

5.125   Schedule 3 should reflect that Emano West Reserve has been renamed as Te Manu Reserve, Emano East has been absorbed into Pipers Park, and Hanby Park is now a Landscape Reserve.

Reasons

5.126   Regarding the general requests to offset the loss of existing off-leash areas, Council officers consider that this concern can better be met by retaining the Tantragee as an off-leash area, changing the approach at the Boulder Bank to retain an off-leash area from the Glen to Boulder Bank Drive, and retaining Titoki Reserve as an off-leash area.

5.127   There are also new off-leash areas being developed, and some additional neighbourhood reserves will be created as part of future subdivisions. Additional walkway areas at Saxton, Marsden Valley, Maitai, Bayview, and the Grampians in the future will also offset some short term losses in off-leash areas.

5.128   While neighbourhood reserves are not considered a direct replacement for large off-leash areas due to the limited scope for walking along a track with their dogs, they do provide some benefits.  New neighbourhood reserves have also been developed since 2013 in the southern part of Nelson in particular.  However, the list of neighbourhood reserves should be updated to reflect the changes in reserve status since 2013.

5.129   A number of the tracks and trails that start in the Brook Conservation Reserve (including the Dun Mountain Trail) pass over into either the Roding or Maitai Waterworks Reserve. Having the Brook Conservation Reserve as a dogs prohibited area safeguards the water catchment reserves, as the public are unlikely to turn around midway through their walk when they reach the boundary of one of the water catchment reserves. Prohibiting dogs within the Brook Conservation Reserve also supports the ecological values within this reserve.

5.130   Health risks associated with dog faeces on playing fields is the reason dogs are prohibited from playing field surfaces, as people playing sports can fall over, coming into direct contact with the faeces.  There is also a high likelihood of the presence of children in these areas.

5.131   A small proportion of submissions have requested changes to new off leash and on-leash areas, and dogs prohibited areas, including those relating to Tahunanui beach and the Maitai swimming holes.  The 2013 Policy and Bylaw has been operating effectively in these areas therefore no further changes are recommended.

5.132   Dogs are tightly restricted on land surrounding the airport for safety reasons.

5.133   No change is recommended to the Council’s approach to Haven Holes Reserve, as this is already included in Schedule One as an area where dogs are prohibited at all times, in order to protect wading bird habitat (refer to the Haven Holes map in Attachment 6). The Regional Coastal Adaptation Strategy (mentioned by a submitter at the hearing) is currently being developed, and will help inform the next round of development/protection measures for the Haven.

TOPIC B — ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

5.134   Council received 11 submissions related to enforcement. Nine of these requested more enforcement, including of barking dogs (two submissions), on-leash requirements, picking up dog poop and the Isel Park restrictions. One submitter suggested that neutering of dogs should be carried out when a dog comes to the attention of Council, and another raised an issue of people using fake service dog vests.

Recommendation

5.135   No changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

Reasons

5.136   A low proportion of submissions raised issues about enforcement levels. In addition, the level of enforcement carried out is not reliant on provisions in the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. Increasing enforcement activity is an operational matter (with financial implications).  However changes will need to be made to how the Bylaw is enforced to reflect the final on-leash, off-leash, and prohibited areas.

 

 

TOPIC C — KEEPING DOGS UNDER CONTROL

Definition of ‘under control

5.137   The bylaw should define ‘under control’.

More control of dogs is needed

5.138   Some submitters wanted more controls, such as pet owners having to sit a licence on basic animal care, establishing a courtesy rule to always put a dog on a lead when approaching another dog on a leash, compulsory training for dog owners, and requiring all dogs off-leash in public places to be muzzled.

Recommendation

5.139   No changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

Reasons

5.140   A new definition of “under control” is not required as the Bylaw already includes a definition for ‘under control’. This “means that at all times a dog is able to be restrained or to obey commands”.

5.141   No additional controls are proposed to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw because section 5 of the Dog Control Act specifies the obligations of dog owners.

TOPIC D — Protection of Wildlife

5.142   Waimea Inlet Forum Working Group sought the following:

·   Add to section 5 of the proposed bylaw: “5.1: Every dog shall be kept under continuous leash control on any occasions that it is likely to injure, endanger, or cause distress to any protected wildlife.”

·   Add the above as a new clause 5.4 in the policy.

·   Add a fifth bullet point to Clause 15.3 of the Policy: “Requiring owners to ensure their dog does not cause a nuisance or injury to any person or protected wildlife”.

·   In the bylaw’s Definitions, protected wildlife should be defined as “Protected Wildlife — means any animal that is absolutely or partially protected in accordance with the Wildlife Act 1953 and any marine mammal within the meaning of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978.”

The Waimea Inlet Forum Working Group also noted that in Schedule 1 item 15, the phrase “foreshore and sea bed”, a term in the repealed Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, should be replaced by the term “common marine and coastal area”, by which it was replaced in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Recommendation

5.143   Amend Schedule 1 item 15 (in both the Policy and the Bylaw) by replacing the phrase “foreshore and sea bed” with the term “common marine and coastal area” in both cases in which it is used twice within item 15.

Reasons

5.144   The recommended change updates the Policy and Bylaw to reflect that the terms “foreshore and seabed” were replaced with “common marine and coastal area” in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

5.145   Section 5 of the Dog Control Act sets out the obligations of dog owners which includes “to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the dog does not injure, endanger, or cause distress to any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife”.

5.146   One of the key reasons for Schedules One and Two are to ensure dogs are on a leash in areas where wildlife are at risk of being disturbed by dogs. The proposed additions proposed by the Waimea Forum Inlet Working Group would not increase protection of wildlife in Nelson.

5.147   It is not necessary to include a definition for “protected wildlife” because the definition in the Dog Control Act applies to the Bylaw. The Bylaw explicitly states: “Terms and expressions defined in the Dog Control Act 1996 shall, when used in the Bylaw, have the meanings defined in the Act.”

TOPIC E — RESERVE MANAGEMENT

Doggy do dispensers/rubbish bins/drinking water

5.148   Some submitters requested more doggy do dispensers, and more frequent clearance of the associated rubbish bins. In particular, submitters requested a doggy do bag station at Saxton Field and at Wigzell Park, and a waste bin in Marsden Valley. A submitter also requested more dog drinking water facilities such as the one in Isel Park.

Signs

5.149   Some submitters requested more signage — at the Maitai cricket ground (dogs prohibited), Tahunanui Beach (dogs prohibited), Saxton Field (on-leash and prohibited areas) and Wigzell Park (an on-leash area) and a notice at Wakapuaka Cemetery (to pick up after their dogs).

Dog Park

5.150   Nine submitters requested a large, fully fenced dog exercise park.

 

Smaller dogs

5.151   One submitter requested an area be allocated for smaller dogs to be exercised without having to cope with big dogs around, which can be intimidating for the smaller dogs and their owners.

Recommendation

5.152   No changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

5.153   Signage is an operational matter, which does not require changes to the Policy or Bylaw. As mentioned earlier in this report (in relation to Isel Park) Council officers can undertake a review of the signage in the areas of concern, with a view to updating or altering existing signage where necessary to help clarify the areas where dogs are prohibited, must be on-leash and can be off-leash. Additional signage would only be provided in areas where there is no information about the Dog Control Bylaw requirements, such as the need for an on-leash pictogram at Wigzell Park and other neighbourhood parks.

5.154   A site for the proposed dog park (a fenced, off-leash exercise area) in Marsden Valley has been confirmed by the Sports and Recreation Committee (see item 233 in Attachment 3). This project is separate from the review of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

5.155   Providing an area which is solely available for small dogs is an operational decision, and would not require a change to the Policy or Bylaw. This matter is being considered in the design of the proposed Dog Park.

TOPIC F — COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

5.156   One submitter requested more education to teach people, especially children, how to behave around dogs. Another submitter suggested Council could publish more advice on caring for dogs, in collaboration with the SPCA and schools.

5.157   One submitter said more discussion is needed early on with dog owners before Council makes new rules. As a recent example, dog owners were told by Council that they and their dogs couldn’t swim at the back beach because of the kite surfers. Later dog owners were told the dogs could swim there but not their owners.

5.158   One submitter encouraged Council to take a community approach by getting good dog owners to voluntarily monitor the owners who are being careless.

5.159   The Ornithological Society of New Zealand/Birds New Zealand said the provisions in the Bylaw to protect wildlife will only be effective if supported by dog owners (supported by relevant awareness raising activities) and, where necessary, appropriately enforced.

 

Recommendation

5.160   No changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

Reasons

5.161   Communications and education initiatives are operational matters, which do not require changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

TOPIC G — DOGS IN OTHER AREAS

5.162   One submitter requested Council to permit dogs on public transport, as they are in other regions.

5.163   Several submissions covered the dogs in cafes, whether SPCA should be able to remove dogs from cars when owners are not present (a legislative decision), and opposed dogs not being allowed on DoC land (a Department of Conservation decision).

Recommendation

5.164   No Changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

Reason

5.165   Council is currently carrying out a public survey to inform the public transport review.  Allowing dogs on public transport needs further investigation and this matter is more appropriately considered under the public transport review being carried out in 2020 which will inform the next public transport contract.  This submission has been passed on to the Transport team for consideration.

5.166   The other matters are decisions for others: café owners, central government (legislative ability of the SPCA to remove dogs from cars when owners are not present, and the Department of Conservation regarding the general approach that dogs are not allowed on most of the land managed by the Department).

TOPIC G - DOG REGISTRATIONS

5.167   One submitter requested a small round dog registration tag as both current sizes offered by Council are too big for their dog’s collar.

5.168   Another submitter recommended that Council collect an ‘emergency number for contact’ in dog registration records so that if an owner is not available (and their dog is found) there is a back-up emergency contact. This would save a lot of money in administration and stop dogs having to go to the Pound.

5.169   Another submitter said Council should reduce dog registration fees because Council doesn’t dose for hydatids, pensioners have dogs for companionship, watch dogs provide a degree of security, stock dogs assist with earning a living, and to encourage children to have pet dogs as it develops their sense of responsibility.

Recommendation

5.170   No changes to the Policy or Bylaw.

Reasons

5.171   Registration tags and record keeping are both operational matters, which do not require changes to the Policy or Bylaw. Dog registration fees are being considered through a separate consultation process.

6.       Additional Information

6.1      At the hearing Councillors asked for some additional information. The questions related to signage (particularly at Isel Park, Grampians, Tahunanui Beach and Sunday Hole), and whether a doggy do dispenser could be provided at Isel Park. Committee members also asked what happens if dogs are caught worrying sheep, how many attacks have occurred, and whether people can know if their dogs are sheep friendly or not.

6.2      Detailed answers to these questions are provided in Attachment 9 (A2380703). As noted previously in this report, Council officers can undertake a review of dog-related signage. Display boards at ISel Park show aerial photographs of the area clearly showing where dogs are allowed off-leash. There are currently 10 doggy do dispensers which cost $90/month each to service. One could be relocated to Isel Park from Fairfield Park, but this may be unpopular with Fairfield Park visitors. All dog owners are responsible for taking bags (or other suitable receptacles) with them when dog walking and to pick up after their dogs. There is a risk that setting up more doggy do dispensers will increase people’s reliance on Council to provide bags for them.

6.3      Decisions on enforcement related to dogs worrying sheep are made on a case by case basis. Enforcement actions range from education and warnings through to classifications and prosecutions. The response needs to be appropriate and proportionate, and this involves matters such as how serious the incident is, any history of previous issues, and the dog owner’s attitude.

6.4      Sheep attacks are not usually witnessed by others, and therefore official reporting of incidents does not occur (and is not reflected in enforcement statistics). Therefore, the exact number of attacks are not known. However, they have occurred in the past, and have led to the grazier deciding not to provide a grazing service for Council. Some owners will have dogs which have been trained to be ‘sheep friendly’, but the bylaw provision is in place to manage the situations where dogs are not ‘sheep friendly’ and are not under control.

7.       Statutory Tests

7.1      In undertaking its review of the Bylaw and Policy the Council determined that a Bylaw (and the associated Policy) were the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems (as required by  s155 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and s10AA of the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA)).

7.2      Before adopting any amendments to the Bylaw, the LGA requires  the Council to determine that the Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and whether there are any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

7.3      The Environment Committee confirmed at its meeting on 28 November 2019 that the Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem - controlling dogs.  The form of the bylaw has been tested through the submission and hearings process and recommendations are made above relating to how the proposed bylaw needs to change to improve its effectiveness and appropriateness.

7.4      The only right listed in NZBORA which has some potential relevance to the Bylaw is section 18(1) — ‘Everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.’

7.5      The proposed changes to the Bylaw do not impact on any movements by people alone. They do increase restrictions on people with responsibilities for exercising dogs (in grazed reserves, along Whakatu Drive, on parts of the Boulder Bank and at Delaware Estuary). However, significant off-leash walking areas remain available to people in Nelson, including the off-leash area at Tahunanui Beach, most of the Maitai Walkway, the Railway Reserve and numerous neighbourhood parks identified in schedule 3. Additional consideration has also been given to future areas where, over the life of the bylaw, additional off-leash areas are likely to be provided including in Saxton, on the Grampians, in the Maitai and in Bayview.  Accordingly, it is not considered there are any implications under NZBORA that prevent the proposed changes to the Bylaw.

7.6      In adopting any amendments to the Policy, the Committee must have regard to the following matters set out in section 10(4) of the DCA:

·   the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

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

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

·   the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

 

7.7      The reasons paragraphs in section 5 above directly address the matters in Section 10(4) of the DCA.

8.       Conclusion

8.1      In the January 2020 Statement of Proposal, Council proposed a number of changes to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. This report considers feedback on those proposed changes and makes recommendations for consideration by the Committee.  The recommendations proposed meet the statutory tests under the LGA and DCA.

 

Author:          Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2390190 - Dog Control Bylaw May 2020

Attachment 2:   A2390192 - Dog Control Policy May 2020

Attachment 3:   A2380651 - Updated map showing Dog Control Bylaw recreation areas

Attachment 4:   A2122940 - GIS - Proposed Dog Bylaw Changes and Grazing Changes - Map - Jan 2019

Attachment 5:   A2380653 - Isel Park map

Attachment 6:   A2380699 - Submission Details

Attachment 7:   A2381277 - GIS External Data Supply - 052020 - Contractor - Bolwell and Poplar Rese

Attachment 8:   A2380700 - Haven Holes map

Attachment 9:   A2380703 - Additional Information

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report is enabling democratic decision making for the community while promoting the wellbeing of present and future communities by reflecting on community feedback and considering how best to meet the current and future needs of the community through the performance of its regulatory functions related to dog control.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

The role of the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw is to ensure everyone has good access to open spaces for recreation, and that our natural environment is respected.

 

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

The safety of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as the health benefits of exercise for dog owners and their dogs, are key matters to be considered when considering submissions and making decisions on amendments to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw.

3.   Risk

 The Dog Control Policy and Bylaw implement the Dog Control Act 1996, which has the objectives of ensuring that:

-   dogs do not cause a nuisance to any person and do not injure, endanger, or cause distress to any person

-   dogs do not injure, endanger, or cause distress to any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.

 

In addition, there may be public opposition to the options recommended and potential reputational damage if dog owners feel that Council is not responding to their views.

4.   Financial impact

Council’s Funding Policy is that dog control activities are to be 90-100% funded by dog owners and 0-10% funded by rates. That means any increases in the cost of dog control services will have a much greater impact on dog owners than on ratepayers as a whole.  The changes recommended in this report are not likely to increase the cost of dog control services.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6.   Climate Impact

Submitters in the Nelson North area opposed the loss of off-leash dog walking exercise areas north of the city centre, which would require them to drive longer distances in order to be able to exercise their dogs. Many of them pointed out that this seemed to be counter to Nelson’s City Council’s declaration of a climate emergency. These concerns were taken into consideration when making recommendations related to Delaware Inlet, the Boulder Bank and Titoki Reserve.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Dog Control Policy and Bylaw review was discussed at two Iwi Working Group meetings. Council officers asked how Council should engage with iwi on this review and were advised to phone each iwi organisation. Subsequent discussions were held, and a submission was received from Ngāti Tama Ki Te Waipounamu Trust, which is supported by Te Atiawa Trust

8.   Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider

Areas of Responsibility:

·     Bylaws, within the area of responsibility

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

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.

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

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

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

Powers to Recommend (if applicable):

·     Matters that, under the Local Government Act 2002, the operation of law or other legislation, Council is unable to delegate.

Council

Council will also make all decisions on matters that must be exercised by Council or unable to be delegated by law. This includes, but is not limited to:

·     The power to make a bylaw.

The power to consider changes to the Dog Control Policy sit with the Environment Committee, the powers to consider submissions on the Dog Control Bylaw have been referred from Council, and the powers to approve the Dog Control Bylaw sit with Council.

 

 

 


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 4

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 5

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 6

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 7

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 8


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations: Attachment 9

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R17006

Regulatory fees and charges deliberations

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide options to support the Committee’s decisions on proposed fees and charges for regulatory activities under the Resource Management Act (RMA) and Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA), Building Act and Dog Control Act.

2.       Summary

2.1      Council has consulted on the proposals to increase fees for resource consent and planning activities, building and dog control services. No submissions were received.

2.2      Submitters on the review of the Dog Control Bylaw and Policy raised the matter of consequential impacts on dog control fees.

2.3      Options for Council to consider are:

·    Change fees and charges as proposed (but the commencement of the changes can be staggered)

·    Decide not to change fees and charges

·    Decide to change fees and charges at a lower level than proposed.

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Regulatory fees and charges deliberations (R17006) and its attachments (A2375608, A2374956, A2380674, A2375618 and A2337793); and

2.    Approves amendments to the charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2375608) to report R16978; and

3.    Approves the amendments to the charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2375608) to report R16978 to commence from 1 September 2020; and

4.    Approves amendments to the fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2374956) to report R16978; and

5.    Approves amendments to the fees and charges under the Building Act 2004 as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2374956) to report R16978 to commence from 1 January 2021; and

6.    Approves amendments to the fees under the Dog Control Act 1996 as detailed in option () of Attachment 4 (A2375618) to report R16978; and

7.    Approves amendments to the fees under the Dog Control Act 1996 as detailed in option () of Attachment 4 (A2375618) to report R16978 to commence from 1 July 2020.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      On 5 March 2020 the Environment Committee approved three statements of proposals (A2334791, A2337794 and A2342140), for a special consultative procedure.

4.2      The consultation period commenced 17 March and ran to 17 April 2020. No submissions were received. Council can decide on the level of fees and charges within the range of the options provided in the statement of proposal, that is, between no change and the change proposed (but not higher).

4.3      Some submitters to the Dog Control Bylaw and Policy review (that was open for consultation earlier), raised the matter of the cost of registration in relation to the proposal to delete the Good Dog Owner Policy.

5.       Discussion

5.1      The special consultative procedure is only statutorily required for charges under the RMA and HASHAA. In the past the number of submissions for proposed changes to these charges has also been very low or none at all. Consultation was open for six working days prior to the COVID 19 lockdown.

5.2      The local economic context has changed greatly since the fees and charges proposals were presented to the Environment Committee on 5 March 2020. Officers have reviewed the proposals in light of the current circumstances.

           RMA and HASHAA charges

5.3      The financial impact of the COVID-19 emergency on our community is yet to be fully understood and increases to fees and charges may adversely affect some people more than in previous years. The charge out rates are based on the anticipated 2019/20 income and income from previous years. However the income level is likely to be reduced going forward with fewer applications likely to be lodged from the private sector. There may be increased demand for infrastructure related work which may keep consent numbers higher.

5.4      The income for the 2020/21 annual plan has been reduced by 20%. With a zero rates increase for the next financial year increasing fees and charges will have less requirement for rates funding.

5.5      Recruitment is underway for two additional staff in the resource consents area to allow a shift away from the use of consultants.  The use of more expensive consultants is expected to drop in the second quarter of the next financial year once staff are operating at expected performance levels. This is expected to result in a net decrease in expenses by $30,000.

5.6      The main proposed change of increasing the hourly charge out rate from $150 to $160 per hour was projected to cover 48% of the total costs incurred by Council in providing this service (the Revenue and Financial Policy requires 40-60% of costs are met by charges). With the predicted lower income levels the increase in charges will not cover as much as 48% of costs. If the increase in charges does not occur the funding policy recovery rate is unlikely to be achieved and the ratepayer will need to cover even more of the costs as demonstrated in the table below.

Hourly charge out 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

Lower income due to economic recession from COVID-19:

$150

$864,800

37

$1,503,200

$160 (from 1 July 2020)

$922,400

39

$1,445,600

$160 (from 1 September 2020)

$908,000

38

$1,460,000

5.7      The proposed increases to charges (as detailed in Attachment 1) are considered reasonable as the charges recover the reasonable costs incurred with those gaining the benefit from the regulatory service paying a better proportion of the reasonable cost of that service (or those whose actions result in the need for Council actions pay the cost of that action). This is consistent with section 36AAA of the RMA. The proposed charge out rate of $160 is also comparable to other nearby Councils and Councils of similar sizes as shown in the table below.

 

 

Hourly charge out 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%

 

5.8      The statement of proposal identified the charges to commence on 1 July 2020 but the commencement date could be delayed to enable the economy more time to recover after the lockdown. There is no requirement for the charges to commence at the start of the financial year.

5.9      The construction and forestry industries returned to work on 28 April. If the increase in fees takes effect on 1 July this only gives those industries two months to have some level of recovery.  Officers recommend the increase in fees be delayed to commence on 1 September 2020 to help soften the impact on our customers while the economic activity rebuilds. This three month delay will also minimise the pressure on rates.

5.10    A decision to not increase charges for the 2020/21 financial year at all results in the ratepayer covering around 64% of the costs of this activity.

           Building Unit fees and charges

5.11    The construction industry environment has changed considerably since the COVID 19 lockdown and the forecasts for the sector vary. Nelson has traditionally been relatively stable during past downturns but consent numbers are expected to drop in the short term.

5.12    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 and there has been an increased use of contractor services to meet statutory timeframes. The use of consultants will be reduced post COVID-19 however, if a fees increase is not adopted a greater proportion of rates will be required to cover operational costs.

5.13    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 as illustrated in the table below:

 

 

Hourly charge out rate 2019/20

Cost recovery policy from fees and charges

Nelson

$135 (proposed to be $160 for all staff)

60 – 80%

Tasman

$157 (proposed to be $160 for all staff)

55 – 80%

Napier

 

$80    Admin

$165  Building officers     

60 – 79%

New Plymouth

 

$143   Admin

$168   Building officer 

$189   Per Building Inspection

80 – 100%

Palmerston North

 

$114   Admin

$184   Building officers

$202   Team leader & Snr Building Officer

$193   each building inspection

60 – 79%

 

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

5.15    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.  These activities are triggered by the individual owner and are for their benefit.

5.16    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.

5.17    The current fees have a fixed fee amount and a deposit amount. There is no refund if the total costs are less than the fixed fee. It is considered clearer and less confusing to have deposits and hourly charge out rates listed with an indication of estimated costs for a variety of building work categories provided on the website (see Attachment 2 for all proposed charges and Attachment 3 for current charges).

5.18    As stated in 5.8 above the construction industry will only have two months to return to work if the proposed fees and charges take effect on 1 July. The proposed changes to these fees and charges are a greater increase than changes proposed for RMA and HASHAA charges. It is proposed to delay the increase in fees to commence on 1 January 2021 to provide more time for the construction industry to return to operating and to stagger the fee increases for RMA and building activities as both sets of fees and charges would apply to some developments. There is no requirement for the charges to commence at the start of the financial year.

5.19    It is estimated that Building Consent numbers will decrease by 20% for the next financial year due to the effects of Covid 19, these figures are reflected in the table below:

   

Hourly charge out rate

2021 Predicted Fee income

2021 Predicted Expenditure

% of 2020/21 costs from fees

Rates component

$135 (current)

$2,213,569

$3,593,412

62

$1,379,843

$160 (proposed)

$2,601,012

$3,593,412

72

$992,400

Lower income and expenditure due to economic recession from COVID-19:

$135

$1,770,855

$3,318,596

53

$1,547,741

$160 (from 1 July 2020)

$2,080,809

$3,318,596

63

$1,237,787

$160 (from 1 January 2021)

$1,924,810

$3,318,596

58

$1,393,786

 

Dog Control fees

5.20    Increases to registration fees are proposed to cover the increased costs of providing the service. Public consultation is not required to make changes to fees. The fixing of fees is to be in accordance with section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

5.21    Section 37 enables a territorial authority to fix fees (by resolution), that can include the following categories at a lower fee than the standard fee as long as the territorial authority has regard to the relative costs of the registration and control of dogs in those categories:

a)  Neutered dogs

b)  Working dogs

c)  Dogs that are 12 months or younger

d)  Dogs owned by a responsible dog owner – a specified level of competency has to be demonstrated

e)  Penalty for late registration (not exceeding 50% of the fee)

f)  Replacement registration tag

5.22    Decisions on the fees are required to be made prior to the start of the financial year so that invoices can be sent to dog owners in time for them to pay by 1 July. Penalties for non-payment (set by statute) commence from 1 August.

5.23    The Environment Committee will decide on 28 May whether to:

1.  retain the Good Dog Owner Policy

2.  remove the Good Dog Owner Policy discount but retain the $5 discount for neutered dogs

3.  change the Good Dog Owner eligibility criteria to proof of attendance at obedience training or

4.  offer a smaller discount for those with no compliance problems in the last three years.

5.24    This decision affects the level of proposed increases to registration fees for all dog owners (apart from owners of community working dogs). Option 1 results in an annual registration increase of $22 for the standard category and an $18 increase for the Good Dog Owner category. Option 2 results in an increase of $10 for standard registration and nearly $30 for those who were on the Good Dog Owner rate. Option 3 requires some administration cost that was removed in calculating fees for option 2 but fees will be lower than option 1. Option 4 requires similar time to administer as the current Good Dog Owner category so the fees will be the same as option 1. Details of the fees for the different options are found in Attachment 4.

5.25    Submitters on the Bylaw and Policy changes included the following reasons to oppose the removal of the Good Dog Owner category:

·    affordability of registration fees

·    having some form of incentive or recognition of good dog owners

·    apply the category automatically with those not meeting standards paying a higher rate

·    change the criteria to a less costly one to administer

5.26    The issue raised by submitters most relevant to the deliberations on the Dog Control fees is the affordability of registration fees. The proposed increases in registration fees (with or without the Good Dog Owner category) will result in higher registration fees than Tasman District Council, similar fees to Marlborough District Council and Napier City Council and cheaper fees than New Plymouth and Palmerston North City Councils registration fees (see Attachment 5 for comparisons).

5.27    The proposed fees include a ratepayer contribution of 10% of the costs. The proportion of ratepayer contribution is the maximum contribution in accordance with Council’s Revenue and Financial Policy set in the Long Term Plan (LTP).

5.28    Any long term changes to the ratepayer contribution would need to be consulted on through the LTP process. Furthermore, increasing the level of ratepayer contribution was not identified in the fees and charges Statement of Proposal as an option. The proposed options were variations on increasing the level of fees or retaining the status quo rather than decreasing the fees and offsetting this through a greater ratepayer contribution.

5.29    The proposed standard registration fee paid annually equates to 36 or 41 minutes of staff time at a charge out rate of $160 per hour. This is considered a reasonable fee for registration services, recovery of wandering dogs, attending incidents and patrolling popular dog walking areas.

5.30    Should the Council delay increasing the fees, the activity will go further into debt. Registration fees have not increased by more than CPI in five years but recently the costs of overheads, legal expenses and the contract price have increased by a larger amount. Income from impounding activities has also been decreasing as there is less need to impound dogs.

5.31    The shortfall has in part been offset by the reserve account but since depletion the dog control activity is overspent by more than $92,000. Increasing the registration fees as proposed would prevent the account going further into debt and prevents a higher increase in fees at a later date. The changes to dog control fees are therefore proposed to take effect from 1 July 2020.

6.       Options

 

6.1      The options are to:

1. Change the fees and charges as proposed in the public consultation      documents but delay and stagger some of the commencement dates.

2. Decide not to make any changes to fees and charges for the 2020/21   financial year and keep the current fees and charges.

3. Change the fees and charges at a lower level than proposed.

Options considered were variations on increasing the level of fees and the preferred option is option 1.

 

Option 1: change fees and charges as proposed commencing 1 July 2020 for dog control, 1 September 2020 for RMA and 1 January 2021 for Building Unit fees (the preferred option)

Advantages

·   the increase in fees and charges will ensure those gaining the benefit from the service pay a fair proportion of the costs of that service so there is less need for ratepayer funding

·   is consistent with what was proposed in the consultation

·   prevents a higher increase in fees and charges at a later date

·   minimises pressure on rates

Risks and Disadvantages

·   dissatisfaction from customers that the increase in fees is unreasonable given the current economic context

Option 2: status quo – no changes to the fees and charges

Advantages

·    high level of customer satisfaction

Risks and Disadvantages

·    ratepayers will need to contribute a higher proportion of the costs of the services or provide more funding

·    the account gets further into debt

·    likely to require a higher increase in fees and charges at a later date

·    the fees may no longer be at an appropriate level that meets the criteria for setting fees in the relevant legislation if the customer does not pay for actual costs of the service they receive

Option 3: change fees and charges at a lower level than proposed

Advantages

·    those receiving the service will pay a better proportion of the costs of providing the service than ratepayers compared to the current charges

·    prevents a higher increase in fees and charges at a later date

·    decreases the pressure on rates

Risks and Disadvantages

·    some level of customer dissatisfaction from customers given the current economic context

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1      The proposed changes to fees and charges are compliant with relevant legislation and will achieve a better proportionality between those receiving the benefit of that service and ratepayers. However the economic context has changed greatly since the proposed increases to fees and charges went out for public consultation.

7.2      The recommendations delay and stagger the commencement of the amended fees and charges to enable more time for customers to return and adapt to different working environments and prepare for the fee changes.

 

Author:          Mandy Bishop, Manager Consents and Compliance

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2375608 Proposed RMA and HASHAA charges

Attachment 2:   A2374956 Proposed Building Unit fees and charges

Attachment 3:   A2380674 Current Building Unit charges

Attachment 4:   A2375618 Proposed Dog Control fees

Attachment 5:   A2337793 Comparison of Dog Control fees

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report considers how best to meet the current and future needs of the community through the cost effective delivery of regulatory services.

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 recommendations minimise the risk of negative impacts on Council’s reputation by:

a)  identifying fair and reasonable fee changes that provide a better balance between ratepayer and customer contributions to the costs of the service

b)  identifying the level of fees are comparable with other similar sized Councils

c)  delaying and staggering the commencement of the amended fees to enable people to recover economically after the lockdown

Keeping the current fees and charges 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, dog owners and ratepayers.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of the potential impact of the fees on customers. Special consultation procedures have been carried out and no submissions were received.

6.   Climate Impact

Climate impact 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 amendments to regulatory fees and charges

Areas of Responsibility:

·     Building Control matters

·     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 fixing of fees and charges (this is not a power retained by Council)

 

 


Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations: Attachment 4

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Regulatory fees and charges deliberations: Attachment 5

PDF Creator


 

Item 10: Urban Environment Bylaw Review

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R16988

Urban Environment Bylaw Review

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To decide the timing of the review of the Urban Environments Bylaw - Bylaw 225 (the Bylaw). 

2.       Summary

2.1      The Bylaw review is required to be completed by 2 June 2022.  If the review is not completed in this time the bylaw will be automatically revoked.  If the review is completed by 2 June 2022, the next mandatory review will be within 10 years rather than five years i.e. it provides an additional five years of use of the Bylaw than if the current Bylaw is revoked and a new Bylaw made.

2.2      Once a decision is made on the timing of the process to review the Bylaw, officers will commence the review process and seek decisions from the Committee and Council as required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) statutory requirements.

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Urban Environment Bylaw Review (R16988); and

2.    Agrees the process of reviewing the Urban Environments Bylaw will commence, and that it will be completed by 2 June 2022.

 

 

 

4.       Background

Urban Environments Bylaw Content

4.1      The Bylaw covers a broad range of topics including:

·   Keeping of Animals – The management of noise, odours and sanitary conditions for stock, poultry and pets

·   Urban Amenity – Controls on caravans, slaughter of animals, storage of carcasses, barbed wire and electric fences, public rubbish bins, and a requirement for numbering of buildings.

·   Trading in Public Places – Manages a range of commercial services, soliciting donations and selling lottery tickets, begging and busking, retail displays, advertising, sandwich boards, and washing of vehicles.

·   Control of Alcohol in Public Places – Includes prohibiting alcohol in public areas such as the City Centre and Stoke, reserves and walkways.

·   Reserves – Control of motor vehicles, golf and a range of other activities.

·   Burial and Cremation – Manages a range of operations and activities from commercial operations to burials.

4.2      The full copy of the Bylaw can be accessed online: http://www.nelson.govt.nz/council/bylaws/urban-environments-bylaw-225/ (Document A1350799).

4.3      Since adoption in 2015 the Bylaw has been operating effectively with only limited changes suggested or made to date. 

4.4      A minor amendment was made to the Alcohol Ban area to include the Kerr Street area to the west of the Central City in 2019.

4.5      A significant amount of work is underway to look at how to better activate the central city.  This includes the development of a City Centre Spatial Plan.  Consideration will be given to any changes to the Bylaw as a result of the content of the Spatial Pan when it is completed in June.

 

Review Timing

4.6      Council resolved to consolidate several area based bylaws into one new bylaw on 19 June 2014.  This was on the basis that consolidating the bylaws would lead to a more integrated permit and enforcement system.  That consolidated bylaw became the new Urban Environments Bylaw that took effect from 2 June 2015.  The bylaw is required to be reviewed by June 2020.  It has not been possible to complete the review by June 2020 due to other work priorities.  The review process will therefore extend into the two-year grace period, which is permitted under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).  The review must be completed within this grace period or the bylaw will be revoked.  Consequently, the review of the Urban Environments Bylaw must be completed by June 2022.

5.       Discussion

Legal context

5.1      The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires new bylaws to be reviewed within five years.

5.2      The LGA provides that if this review is not completed within 5 years (the review date), the bylaw must be reviewed no later than 2 years after the review date or the bylaw will be revoked. This allows the two year grace period referred to in paragraph 4.5 above.

5.3      There are particular statutory requirements that apply to the process of reviewing a Bylaw, and that will require determinations both by this Committee and Council.  At this stage, the Committee is being asked to consider initiation, timing and process for the required review.  The statutory determinations, along with the content of the Bylaw, will be the subject of later reports as indicated in the timeline at paragraph 5.5 below.

 

Review Timing

5.4      As noted, the Bylaw must be reviewed by 2 June 2022 to avoid it being revoked. It is envisaged that the entire Bylaw process, including making any amendments following the review, can be completed within 16-18 months as outlined below:

Stage 1

·   Months 1-3 – Discussions with Council staff with a focus on biosecurity, city centre, property, accessibility, and alcohol.

·   Months 4-5 – Prepare paper and workshop options with Councillors.

·   Months 6-7 – Undertake stakeholder consultation

·   Months 8-9 – Prepare Environment Committee Report; Environment Committee meeting to make determinations under s 155(1) LGA (that amending the bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the identified perceived problem) and 156 LGA (the method of consultation and draft consultation - if, as currently envisaged, SCP is recommended, a draft SOP would be prepared and included). 

·   Month 10 – Prepare consultation materials and notify proposal

Stage 2

·   Months 11-12 – Undertake Formal consultation.

·   Months 12-13 – Report overview of submissions and conduct a hearing for those wanting to speak.  Deliberations meeting to consider submissions and officer recommendations.

·   Month 14 - Council meeting to formally consider recommendations and to make the required determinations under 155(2) and 160 LGA (either to amend, revoke, revoke and replace, or not to amend the bylaw.)

·   Months 15-16 – Put implementation steps in place – signage, communications, mapping, officer briefings.

5.5      As the focus of the Planning Team has been the Nelson Plan there has been no staff resource available to undertake the Bylaw review.  If the Committee agrees the review will now be commenced, all statutory timeframes can be met should financial resource signalled in the Draft Annual Plan be approved.

6.       Options

 

The Bylaw review should be commenced so that it can be completed by 2 June 2022.

6.1      The preferred option, Option 1, enables the Bylaw to be reviewed within statutory timeframes and when there is resource available, allows enough time for appropriate engagement, and means the future review will not coincide with other significant work scheduled.  There are no aspects of the Bylaw requiring more urgent changes given the absence of any particular implementation issues with the current Bylaw.

 

Option 1: Commence the Bylaw review and be completed by 2 June 2022

Advantages

·     Allows enough time to complete review of the bylaw before it is automatically revoked under section 160A of the Local Government Act 2002.

·    The next review of the Bylaw will be due in ten years (approximately 2032) rather than five years (which would be the case if this bylaw was revoked under s160A and a new bylaw made).

·    Avoids consequences of revocation of the Bylaw including: resource implications of making a new bylaw; time when no bylaw is in place - no regulation or enforcement of matters covered in current Bylaw at that time.

·    Stakeholder engagement period (late 2020) is sufficient.

·    Allows for new financial resource to be in place (If approved via the Annual Plan process).

Risks and Disadvantages

·     No significant risks or disadvantages from this option

Option 2: Commence Bylaw Review at a later date

Advantages

·     No significant advantages from commencing at a later date.

Risks and Disadvantages

·     Risk that Bylaw Review will not be completed in time and the current Bylaw will be revoked.

·     A new bylaw would be required to be made to deal with all matters currently covered in the Bylaw, and that would have to be reviewed in five years rather than ten years.

·     There would be a period of time between revocation and a new bylaw – during this time, there would be no regulation and enforcement of matters currently covered in the Bylaw.

 

7.       Conclusion

7.1      It is recommended that the process of reviewing the Urban Environments Bylaw (225) is commenced now and completed by 2 June 2022.  This approach will ensure an efficient use of Council resources in the short and longer term, and allow enough time for appropriate consultation.

8.       Next Steps

8.1      The next step is for Council officers to consider options and changes that should be made to the existing Bylaw ahead of work-shopping the proposed changes with Council.

 

Author:          Maxine Day, Manager Environmental Planning

Attachments

Nil

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This report seeks to enable local decision making and action on behalf of the community by seeking to commence the review of the Urban Environments Bylaw.  The Bylaw promotes the community’s social and environmental wellbeing by protecting and maintaining public health and safety and amenity in the urban area.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The relevant community outcomes are as follows:

·     Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

·     Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

The recommendation seeks to commence a review of the urban Environments Bylaw.  The Bylaw seeks to manage a wide range of activities within the urban area to protect and maintain public health and safety and amenity as well as minimise the potential for disorder associated with consumption and possession of alcohol in public places.

3.   Risk

 This bylaw seeks to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety in Nelson’s urban environments.  The review of the bylaw will ensure that the bylaw is fit for purpose and that risks to health and safety and urban amenity will be appropriately addressed.

If the review is not completed within the statutory timeframe, it will be automatically revoked.

4.   Financial impact

Funding for Bylaw work is provided for in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and the Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because of the high importance to a large proportion of the community. Therefore a Special Consultative Procedure is planned, and will be the subject of a later report.

6.   Climate Impact

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

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with iwi has been undertaken in preparing this early Bylaw report. Iwi will be consulted as part of the Special Consultative Process.

8.   Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations to consider

Delegations:

·    Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

Areas of Responsibility:

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. 

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

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

 

 


 

Item 11: COVID-19 Update Report - Impacts on Environmental Management Group Activities

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R17001

COVID-19 Update Report - Impacts on Environmental Management Group Activities

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide an update on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on activities within the Environmental Management Group.

 

 

 

2.       Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report COVID-19 Update Report - Impacts on Environmental Management Group Activities (R17001).

 

 

3.       Discussion

Building

3.1      The Building Unit continued to process building consents remotely during the alert level 4 lockdown period and this will continue through alert levels 3 and 2.  The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has provided direction on time frames, allowing some flexibility and MBIE will monitor the situation.

3.2      Physical inspections were not able to be undertaken during the lockdown period except for essential services.  Physical inspections resumed at Alert Level 3 and follow strict health and safety protocols.  The Team fielded a high level of inspection requests with the move to level 3; 155 in the first week, starting as soon as the announcement was made – on top of the 40 final inspections already waiting.

3.3      Post COVID-19 it is assumed there will be a reduction in activity in the construction sector.  For planning purposes there is an assumption there will be a reduction of 20% in revenue for the 2020/21 financial year given a drop in consent applications.  To counter this potential loss in revenue there has been a reduction in the use of contractors.  The details of the financial implications are being reported to the Audit and Risk Sub-Committee.

3.4      Building warrant of fitness audits and other work within the Team has continued remotely.  During the level 4 period there has been opportunity for officers to get ahead of their required competency requirements which has been positive.  This competency work is critical given there is an IANZ audit in June 2020.

City Development

3.5      The City Development work programme has had a large shift given COVID-19 with a focus over the last few weeks on delivering outcomes for the City Centre to assist a return to functionality for retailers and the hospitality sectors.  This shift has impacted business as usual and things such as the Spatial Plan will now be delayed by about a month. 

3.6      The footpath widening street programme is seeking funding from the NZTA under the Innovative Streets Fund.  Consultation on options for widening pedestrian footpaths on Trafalgar, Hardy and Bridge Streets is underway.

Planning

3.7      During this period work on two bylaws, required to be reviewed, has continued.  Both the Dog Control Bylaw/Policy and the Urban Environments Bylaw are being reported to the Environment Committee in late May or early June. 

3.8      Work on the Whakamahaere Whakatū Nelson Plan has continued.  There has been an impact on the planned community engagement as physical interaction with the public has not been possible.  As a result there has been a change to allow for a period of targeted consultation with key stakeholders which can be done remotely.  This additional step will overall add about 3 to 5 months to the project timeline.  It is considered however, that the step will allow for further refinement of the Plan before going out to the public and should assist in ensuring the content is workable for those using it. 

3.9      Work has also continued with the Maitahi/Bayview Development Consortium.  Specifically work on understanding how the proposed Resource Management Act changes for fast track consent processing may impact.  

Consents and Compliance

3.10    The Resource Consents Team has continued to work remotely and process consent applications.  Similar to the Building activity there is an assumption there will be a reduction of 20% in revenue for the 2020/21 financial year given a drop in consent applications.  To counter this potential loss in revenue there has been a reduction in the use of contractors.  The details of the financial implications are being reported to the Audit and Risk Sub-Committee.  The number of resource consent applications lodged in April was 24 which is the lowest month for the financial year but similar to March (28) and February (25).

3.11    Parking patrols were not undertaken during Levels 4 or 3.  Patrols will resume at Level 2 with an initial focus on monitoring car park occupation.  There continues to be a response to cars blocking access or in dangerous positions through all levels. 

3.12    Dog control has continued as an essential service.  Animal control and barking dog matters have been handled by telephone and resumed fully at level 3.

3.13    Food services have continued remotely e.g. contact is made if there is a plan to provide services or products not offered before - for example deliveries, takeaways or selling food to other businesses (wholesaling).  Any changes to scope need to be notified to, and reviewed by the Council, which may place conditions for the temporary change during Covid-19 Level 3. Environmental health officers are providing tailored advice and support to individual businesses on operating during changing alert levels.

3.14    Noise control has experienced double the amount of complaints during levels 4 and 3. Responses continue to occur ensuring safe distancing. Responses to pollution in streams have also increased due to people washing paint brushes and the water entering the stormwater system. Targeted communications have occurred to address these issues.

3.15    Under alert levels 4 and 3 recreational power and sail boating was prohibited.  The Harbour Master has been supporting the Police enforcing the recreational boating ban.

Science and Environment

3.16    Air quality monitoring and hydrology gauging have continued during the lockdown period.

·    Rural rivers reached trigger flows for stage 1 restrictions on 12th March, but did not drop to cease take levels.

·    Air quality monitoring in Airshed A at St Vincent St during lockdown (25th March-27th April) showed the same average PM10 levels as the 4 weeks prior, and a 31% improvement against the average for the same period over the previous 5 years (2015-2019). There were also improvements against the previous 5 year average for the 4 weeks prior to lockdown and the level 3 period after lockdown.

·    Monitoring in Airshed B at Blackwood St during lockdown (25th March-27th April) showed a reduction in PM10 levels compared to the 4 weeks prior, and a 50% improvement against the average for the same period over the previous 5 years (2015-2019). There were also improvements against the previous 5 year average for the 4 weeks prior to lockdown and the level 3 period after lockdown.

·    It is important to be cautious in interpreting these data, especially for short time periods, because there is variability in PM10 levels year to year due to varying metrological conditions.

(1)This included an unexplained high of 43 ug/m3 on the 19th March, which is the third highest reading for the last 12 months. This has raised the average for the period.

3.17    Work that requires site visits has not taken place during level 4 e.g. Significant Natural Areas (SNA) surveys. However delivery has continued through virtual and phone meetings with landowners, and the April environmental grants round was able to continue.  Work has re-commenced during level 3 subject to health and safety plans being in place.

3.18    Environmental community engagement and education activities were postponed during lockdown, however workshops and seminars are taking place over Zoom instead. Community plantings and site based events were either cancelled or postponed. School based environmental education activities were delivered through on-line activities for students (eg iNaturalist Bioblitz), and planning and resource creation with teachers.

3.19    The eco-building design and energy efficiency home visits service was cancelled and home visits have not been occurring through AL3. A slightly reduced version of the service has instead been delivered by phone, through the use of video calling to look at the home virtually, and the provision of on-line resources.

3.20    Many Science and Environment contracts such as laboratory services, estuarine monitoring, possum monitoring, and weed control were postponed during lockdown, but all recommenced during AL3. Any postponed work will be caught up by the end of the financial year. Desktop contracts were able to continue throughout the lockdown.

3.21    Engagement with the wider regional sector (eg the Land Managers Special Interest Group) has continued through regular Zoom meetings. The benefits of this have been enabling alignment and understanding of responses to both government and community during this time, and taking advantage of opportunities to work together.

3.22    Five green shovel ready projects were included in a bid to seek funding from the Government. These projects were chosen for job creation, accessibility, and potential for multiple benefits (environmental, amenity, recreation etc) in mind. The total bid amounted to $6,370,000 over 10 years, with roughly half in the first 3 years to make a step change, followed by a lower amount in the next 7 years for follow up and maintenance. The projects were:

·    Hira Reserve wetland restoration project – mainly planting and fencing and then maintenance - $170,000 over 3 years.

·    Grampians Reserve restoration project – mainly pest plant control followed by planting and maintenance - $2,000,000 over 10 years, half in first 3 years.

·    Maitai River catchment ecological restoration – 10 year restoration plan from Dam to Haven – planting, weeding, habitat enhancement, native fauna management, amenity, recreational and cultural considerations - $2,000,000 over 10 years, half in first 3 years.

·    Restoration of Significant Natural Areas and biodiversity corridors on private and iwi owned land – fencing, pest animal and plant control, planting, surveys - $2,000,000 over 10 years, half in first 3 years.

·    Fast-tracked Taiwan Cherry eradication – reduce 10yr programme to 3 years - $200,000 over 3 years.

3.1      Some savings for the 2019/20 year will be identified due to reduced service delivery, however the majority of the work programme was able to continue through lockdown. A request will be made to carry some funding over into the 2020/21 year for contracts which were briefly delayed due to lockdown, but which will still be delivered in July/August.

 

Author:          Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Nil


 

Item 12: Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R15865

Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To seek retrospective approval for a submission to the Department of Conservation (DOC) on proposed improvements to whitebait management practices (A2346450).

2.       Summary

2.1      DOC has been seeking submissions on proposed improvements to whitebait management. The deadline for submissions was Monday 16 March.

2.2      Officers recommended that a submission on this proposal was appropriate to clarify and update the information contained in the proposal relating to Nelson.

2.3      The submission was completed by officers and approved by the Senior Leadership Team and supported by the Chair of the Environment Committee.  The submission was then made with the proviso that “due to scheduling issues this submission has not yet been approved by Council and may be withdrawn”. The submission is included as attachment 1 (A2346450)

2.4      Retrospective approval for this submission is sought from the Environment Committee.

 

 

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management (R15865) and its attachments (A2346450 and A2345470); and

2.    Approves retrospectively, the submission to the Department of Conservation on the proposed improvements to whitebait management (A2346450).

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      The Department of Conservation discussion paper (https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/getting-involved/consultations/2019/whitebait-consultation/whitebait-discussion-document-2020.pdf) sets out options for improvements to whitebait fisheries management and protection, including establishing fish refuges for whitebait.

4.2      Nelson City Council seeks to:

·    update the information in the proposal relating to the Nelson region, including the occurrence of whitebait fish species and proposed percentage of protected refuges in Nelson;

·    broadly support proposed options that will assist with the management of threatened species and maintain the recreational fishery values; and

·    comment on issues not fully addressed by the proposal.

5.       Discussion

5.1      The submission (attachment 1) supports the proposal to allow for protected whitebait refuges, and the proposed option to have a shorter and earlier nationwide fishery season, to provide more protection to the threatened Shortjaw Kokopu.

5.2      Nelson whitebait values for the proposed DOC catchment management units are updated and summarised in the Appendix 11 section of the submission, including more accurate data on the occurrence of whitebait fish species and the percentage area of protected refuges in the Nelson region.

5.3      The submission also comments on four areas that were not fully addressed in the proposal:

·    the importance of protecting migratory pathways to existing protected public conservation areas, by reducing threats and pressures to whitebait in coastal waterways;

·    the integration of the proposed management practices with the existing planning legislation underpinning the protection and assessment of effects for whitebait species, namely the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2017);

·    the need for guidance notes for any changes in management that may affect unitary/regional councils; and

·    the need to consider the implications of climate change on the whitebait species and their habitat requirements, in terms of coastal inundation, increasing water temperatures and extreme storm events and sedimentation to waterways.

5.4      Matters outside of Council’s jurisdiction have not been commented on.

5.5      The offer has been made for a partnership approach with DOC for the proposed national monitoring and restoration programmes, through existing Nelson Nature, Healthy Streams and other Council programmes, to encourage greater collaboration and sharing of knowledge and expertise.

6.       Options

 

Option 1: Approve submission (preferred option)

Advantages

·   Nelson data is accurately reflected in the proposal.

·   Nelson City Council is able to provide its perspective on DOC’s proposal for improving whitebait management.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   The submission made may not fully reflect the opinion of the Environment Committee.

Option 2: Decline submission

Advantages

·    If the submission does not accurately reflect the opinion of the Environment Committee it would be an advantage to decline the submission and staff would then notify DOC to disregard it.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Incorrect data for Nelson will be included in any implementation of the proposal.

·    Council comments and amendments will not be fully considered in the submission process, which could result in lost opportunities for a collaborative approach.

 

             

Author:          Dr Paul Fisher, Water Quality Scientist

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2346450 - Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management

Attachment 2:   A2345470 - Department of Conservation discussion document on whitebait managment https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2020-consultations/consultation-on-changes-to-whitebait-management/ (Circulated separately)

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This submission is consistent with the Local Government requirements under the NZCPS (2010) and NPS-FM (2017) to monitor, report and protect threatened species and habitat. It also provides information specifically related to Nelson to a national agency, on behalf of the Nelson community.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Inanga and other whitebait species have been identified as significant freshwater values by the Iwi Freshwater Management and Stoke, Mahitahi, Whangamoa and Wakapuaka Freshwater Management Groups. This submission addresses a number of community outcomes by recognising the need to protect our environment and heritage, and avoid further biodiversity loss.

3.   Risk

 The risk associated with approving the submission is if the submission does not accurately reflect the thoughts of the Environment Committee. This risk has been mitigated by the inclusion of a caveat in the submission that the submission may be withdrawn if not approved.

4.   Financial impact

No additional resources have been requested.  Any proposed changes to monitoring and habitat restoration would occur through existing Council monitoring, Nelson Nature, Healthy Stream programmes.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

The submission process is of low significance with opportunity to address any perceived council issues or feedback through ongoing discussion with DOC and regional council Special Interest Groups.

6.   Climate Impact

The decision to provide a submission to DOC will have no impact on climate change. The submission itself does raise the consideration of climate change impacts in the management of whitebait species.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

·    Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegation: 

Areas of Responsibility:

·    Environmental science matters

·    Environmental programmes

·    The Nelson Plan

 

Delegations:

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

 

 


Item 12: Submission to DOC on the proposed improvements for whitebait management: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R15919

Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To adopt a proposed minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw to allow the boat ramp parking meters to be included in the citywide meter upgrade.

2.       Summary

2.1      The meters at the Nelson Marina boat ramp take payment for vehicles and trailers using the ramp for boat launch and adjacent parking. These meters need to be upgraded alongside the citywide paperless parking meter upgrade.

2.2      Section 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw (NSB) states that a ticket must be displayed on the trailer or the towing vehicle. This is for the purpose of proving payment. The meter upgrade to paperless would mean there is no longer a need for casual users to display a ticket to prove they have paid, and it would not be possible for them to do so. Retaining this requirement in the bylaw would mean the meters at the Nelson Marina boat ramp could not be upgraded.

 

3.       Recommendation

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Minor amendment to the Navigation Safety Bylaw (R15919); and

2.    Agrees the proposed amendment to clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw 2012 (No. 218) is a minor change that meets the requirements of section 156(2) of the Local Government 2002; and

3.    Agrees that public consultation on the proposed amendment is not required because the proposed amendment is a minor change.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1.    Makes a minor change to  clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw, to state that the words “No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, and displaying the appropriate ticket, label, sticker or other proof of such payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle” be replaced, from 29 June 2020 with the words ”No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, the payment by casual users to be proved by the person submitting the registration number of the towing vehicle at the time of payment, and the payment by annual permit holders to be proved by displaying the proof of payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle”

 

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      The meters at the Nelson Marina boat ramp take payment for using the ramp for boat launch and using the parking for trailers and towing vehicles.

4.1.1   These meters are an older style on the same network as the city parking meters that print a ticket which must be displayed on the trailer or the towing vehicle. The ticket printer is often the cause of faults due to the humidity of the marina environment. The meters accept cash (notes and coins) and credit card payment, but not Paywave.

4.1.2   Both Council officers and Marina office staff receive regular complaints regarding meter faults and the Marina Advisory Group is concerned with potential income loss each time the meters fault.

4.1.3   Budget has been allocated in 20/21 for replacing these two meters in conjunction with the citywide parking meter upgrade, however the current bylaw requires printed tickets to be displayed in the trailer or towing vehicle.

5.       Discussion

5.1      The Marina boat ramp meters cannot be upgraded in conjunction with the citywide parking meter upgrade unless the Navigation Safety Bylaw is amended.

5.2      The citywide parking meter upgrade is scheduled for July 2020 and this will eliminate paper tickets and allow ease of payment with Paywave included.

5.3      Upgrading the machines will provide a better service to the recreational boating community through ease of use and consistency with city parking meters.

5.4      A change to the bylaw that would change the requirements only as to proof of payment is considered the most appropriate way to address the meter issue as it will allow the meters to be upgraded and future-proofed for any future meter changes.

5.5      The proposed change to clause 3.21(b) of the Navigation Safety Bylaw amounts to a minor change that does not affect an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty of any person to whom the bylaw applies; or (ii) an existing status or capacity of any person to whom the bylaw applies.  This is because the proposed change would alter only the way in which a casual boat ramp user proves they have paid. 

5.6      For that reason s 156(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 applies. This means that Council does not need to consult on the proposed change – either by Special Consultative Process or to give effect to s82 LGA requirements.

5.7      Clause 3.21b currently reads “No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, and displaying the appropriate ticket, label, sticker or other proof of such payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle”.

5.8      The proposed change to clause 3.21b reads “No person shall use any boat ramp for the launching of any trailer boat without having first paid any fees or charges which may be fixed by the Council from time to time in respect of such use, the payment by casual users to be proved by the person submitting the registration number of the towing vehicle at the time of payment, and the payment by annual permit holders to be proved by displaying the proof of payment in a prominent and easily seen position on the trailer or in or on the towing vehicle.”

5.9      The proposed change covers removal of the wording relating to displaying a ticket for casual use, as well as providing clarity around the display of an annual launch pass where this has been purchased by users.

5.10    The minor change will need to come into effect following installation of the new parking machines and before enforcement of bylaw requirements commences.  New machines go live 29 June 2020.

5.11    The current Navigation Safety Bylaw can be accessed via the link: Bylaw 218 Navigation Safety effective 10 October 2019 (6.1MB PDF)

6.       Options

 

 

 

Option 1: Amend Navigation Safety Bylaw as proposed (recommended)

Advantages

·   Meters can be upgraded consistent with the central business district

·   Future meter upgrades will be permitted without further Bylaw changes

·   Customers have an easier meter to operate and make payment

·   Meter income is stable due to less faults

·   Fewer complaints regarding meters

·   Less operational staff time used dealing with complaints regarding these meters

·   Enforcement will be possible as the meters align with the Bylaw

·   Reduced expenditure on maintaining ageing meters

·   More eco-friendly with less rubbish (tickets) being produced

Risks and Disadvantages

·   None

Option 2: Do not amend the Navigation Safety Bylaw as proposed

Advantages

·    None

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Meters cannot be upgraded to be consistent with city parking meters

·    Ageing machines cost more to keep in operation

·    Less income due to meter downtime

·    Customer frustration as meters fail more regularly with age

·    Increase in complaints and operational staff time due to meter failure

·    When meters reach end of life and are replaced with paperless they will not comply with the Bylaw in its present form

 

             

7.       Conclusion

7.1      A minor change to the Navigation Safety Bylaw is required to allow Marina launch ramp meters to be upgraded in conjunction with the city-wide parking meter upgrade.

7.2      The upgrade is needed to provide a better service to our recreational boating community and ensure consistency across all Nelson city meters.

8.       Next Steps

8.1      Complete statutory requirements following minor change to bylaw and make changes to bylaw publications.

8.2      Replace launch ramp meters in conjunction with city-wide parking meter upgrade project.

 

Author:          Emily Fairhall, Contract Supervisor Facilities

Attachments

Nil

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Making a minor change to the Navigation Safety Bylaw and allowing the boat ramp meters to be upgraded along with the city parking meters enables Council to provide an efficient and consistent meter service across all areas, as well as providing what the recreational boat community are requesting.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This recommendation aligns with Council Policy and Community Outcomes by,

·    providing cost-effective, consistent, and efficient infrastructure (meters); and

·    providing ease of access to recreational boat launching facilities; and

·     protecting our natural marine environment by providing a ticketless meters.

3.   Risk

 There is low risk that this amendment will have any adverse consequences and the change will likely reduce non-compliance with the Navigation Safety Bylaw in relation to launch ramp use.

4.   Financial impact

·    Budget has already been set aside for boat ramp meter replacement in 20/21.

·     No budget has been allocated for increased maintenance of existing machines.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance as feedback already received from boat ramp users and the Marina Advisory Group is that the existing meters are a cause of frustration for them. Further consultation is not planned.

6.   Climate Impact

The proposed minor change is taking climate change into consideration by enabling elimination of paper tickets for each boat ramp launch and reduction of waste.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

·    Delegations

The Environment Committee has delegation to consider

Areas of Responsibility:

·     Bylaws, within the area of responsibility

·     Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

·     Maritime and harbour safety and control

Delegations:

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

Powers to Recommend (if applicable):

·     Matters that, under the Local Government Act 2002, the operation of law or other legislation, Council is unable to delegate

 

 


 

Item 14: Nelson Plan: Additional Funding

 

Environment Committee

28 May 2020

 

 

REPORT R14797

Nelson Plan: Additional Funding

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To approve additional funding for the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan to allow work to progress this financial year.  To also note additional funding is sought as part of next years 2020/21 Annual Plan and the 2021/31 Long Term Plan process.

 

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Environment Committee

1.    Receives the report Nelson Plan: Additional Funding (R14797) and its attachments Nelson Plan Cost vs Budget (A2384881); and

2.    Approves loan funding of $200,000 to progress the Draft Nelson Plan in 2019/2020.

 

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      The Nelson Plan timeline was amended and a new governance structure was established at the 28 November 2019 Environment Committee.  The report to the Committee also signalled that the Nelson Plan budget had a forecast overspend.  The extent of this forecast overspend for 2019/2020 and out years was outlined at the Annual Plan workshop on 4 December 2019.  It was signalled that the anticipated spend of $5m, shown in the 2018/28 LTP was likely to significantly increase over the 10 year development life of the Plan.  Discussion at the workshop included loan funding the Nelson Plan project.  This approach is proposed given the long term value of the Plan (10 to 15 years) and the need to ensure equity by spreading the cost over all the ratepayers that would benefit. 

3.2      The Environmental Management Group Quarterly report to the 5 March 2020 Environment Committee indicated that a full year overspend of $250,000 was forecast for the Nelson Plan.  The amount set out in the report has been revised to $200,000.

4.       Discussion

2019/2020

4.1      For 2019/2020 the following table sets out the breakdown of the shortfall of $200,000 funding.  The main drivers for this shortfall are:

a)  Changes in new regulatory requirements.  Including:

(i)          The application of the National Planning Standards.

(ii)          National Policy / Environmental Standards on:

·      Plantation forestry;

·      Freshwater;

·      Urban Development;

(iii)         Anticipation and preparation for changes to the NES for Air Quality; NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity; NPS on Highly Productive Soil and Resource Management Act amendments on Climate change, among others.

b)  Change in project scope.  This includes: additional peer reviews; COVID 19 altering scope and timing with an increased focus on engagement during this financial year; and more detailed one on one engagement generally.

c)  Additional workforce and skill expertise including: carrying staff vacancies that have not been able to be recruited for resulting in an increase in the use of consultants; external specialists required to deal with an increased complexity of issues; and a larger volume of work than anticipated.

d)  E-Plan costs. 

 

NELSON PLAN COSTS 2019/20

Costs

Total Nelson Plan Cost 2019/20

(Refer attached memo for further detail)

$1,175,845

Approved budget 2019/20

$712,845

Total additional funding of plan external costs

$463,000

Less savings from staff vacancies (used in part to cover consultants)

-$200,000

Recovered expertise costs from Infrastructure relating to their projects

-$50,000

Recovered expertise costs from Environment & Science for related areas

-$13,000

Nett Budget Shortfall 2019/20

$200,000

2020 and subsequent years

4.2      A summary of the ten year budget for the Nelson Plan is appended to the attached memo (A2384881).  This memo sets out in more detail the increased costs for the Nelson Plan project overall.

4.3      The main reason for changes in the forecast spend for the Nelson Plan project over the next few years relates to hearing costs.  The budget amounts in particular for hearing costs were, in hindsight inadequate having been based on the approach of utilising Councillors as the panel. Now, external commissioners and panel members are required by legislation for at least parts of the Plan hearing process.  Recent experience from other councils has shown expenditure of between $1.6 and $3 million for this phase.  The lower end cost in the range was for a District Plan alone rather than an integrated Regional and District Planning document.  More detail is provided in the attached memo.  Current budget allocation is $600k.

In the lead up to the Hearings there is a need for increased depth for technical and planning evidence which further increases costs. 

Loan funding vs Rates funding

4.4      Currently the Nelson Plan is being funded through Operational Budget in the Annual Plan and the Long Term Plan. 

4.5      The Nelson Plan has multiple year benefits, and therefore it is proposed to loan fund the remaining spend over 10 to 15 years.  This is in line with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

4.6      As the Nelson Plan has a 10 to 15 year life, loan funding spreads the costs for current and future ratepayers.

5.       Options

5.1      In preparing this report all costs have been pared back for the 2nd six months of this financial year reflecting the impact of COVID 19 with the movement of engagement into the following financial year.  Work instead has moved to testing the Draft Nelson Plan with key stakeholders and technical work required for the Nelson Plan to proceed in a timely way.  All other work that can be moved into the following year has been.

Option 1: Recommended

5.2      To continue delivering on the re calibrated plan due to COVID 19 with Proposed Plan notification in February 2022.

Option 2:

5.3      To consider a plan that delivers the Nelson Plan over a longer period either by pausing the Plan or notifying it in phases.

Option 3:

5.4      Cease work on the Plan until some future date.

 


Option 1: Continue with re calibrated delivery plan

Advantages

·   The Plan timeline stays generally on track to a Proposed Notification date of February 2022.

·   Meets statutory requirements and public expectation.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   The Nelson Plan project will continue to be funded during a time of potential austerity. 

Option 2: Pause or Phase Notification

Advantages

·    Spread the costs over a longer period providing an ability to reduce pressure on rates increases or provide an ability to reduce costs.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Not meeting statutory requirements for Plan review.

·    Costs will increase further overall to deliver a Proposed Plan

·    Normal turnover of staff during this period will leave gaps in built up knowledge.

·    Public expectations not met to have new and current Nelson Plan.

·    Out of step with new statutory requirements e.g. the National Planning Standards. 

Option 3: Cease work on the Nelson Plan

Advantages

·    Expenditure ceases.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Nelson City Council’s statutory requirements are not met.  Council’s ability to deliver its functions will be questioned.

·    A Plan framework that is highly out dated will continue to apply to development proposals.

6.       Conclusion

6.1      The additional funding is needed to deliver the Nelson Plan to meet Council’s statutory requirements and meet public expectations for delivery.  The cost increases are driven by a number of factors including external Government requirements and the need for increased consultant use in a difficult recruitment market.  These were not adequately anticipated in setting the budgets up some time ago. 

 

Author:          Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2384881 - Nelson Plan Costs vs Budget -  May 20

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Democratic decision making seeking meaningful input on a Draft Plan will not be achieved if the work does not continue.  The Plan is a key means by which council performs its regulatory functions. Input on a draft Plan will help ensure overall a cost effective means of achieving the purpose of the Local Government Act through assisting to reduce submissions during the statutory process.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Long Term Plan signals the delivery of the Nelson Plan and the funding is required to enable its delivery.

The Nelson Plan will enable many of the community outcomes to be achieved, particularly:

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

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

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

- Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy 

3.   Risk

If there is no additional funding then the Nelson Plan will be unable to be completed leading to reputational risk amongst the public, key stakeholders and iwi partners as well as not delivering on a statutory Government requirement. 

4.   Financial impact

The 2019/20 financial impact is to increase the budget by approximately $200,000.

The transition to loan-funding the Nelson Plan better distributes the costs over the life of the Plan, as the provisions and regulations of it affect current and future generations.  Loan-funding the Plan enables the costs to be more evenly and fairly distributed across current and future rate-payers.

Loan funding reduces the short-term rating impact, but does increase total costs once interest costs are accounted for.  

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

Developing the Nelson Plan is of high significance to the community which has been recognised in the consultation planned.  The decision in this report relating to 2019/20 is of low significance and no engagement has been undertaken on this.

6.   Climate Impact

The additional funding will enable the continuation of engagement with the community for future strategies for flooding and coastal inundation and mitigation.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

An Iwi Working Group has been engaged throughout the development of the Plan to date and will continue to be included.  No specific engagement has occurred regarding the costs.

8.   Delegations

The Environment Committee has the following delegations.

5.4.1 Areas of Responsibility:

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

5.4.2 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 14: Nelson Plan: Additional Funding: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator