Agenda of Council - 22 September 2020

Karakia Timatanga

1. Apologies

1.1 No apologies have been received

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Save the Maitai Campaign - proposed re-zoning of Kaka Valley to allow a residential subdivision

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 13 August 2020 9 - 24

Document number M13049

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 13 August 2020, as a true and correct record.

6. Recommendations from Committees

6.1 Infrastructure Committee - 26 August 2020

6.1.1 Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves additional unbudgeted funding of $382,210 to cover the impact of delays from COVID-19 on the following capital projects:

a. $31,957 - Annesbrook Water Upgrade;

b. $83,373 – St Vincent Street sewer renewal;

c. $92,945 – Tahunanui Cycleway;

d. $97,617 – Saxton Creek Stage 3;

e. $14,318 - Poormans Stream Culvert;

f. $62,000 – Railway Reserve underpass; and

2. Approves additional unbudgeted funding of $425,000 to fund the Hardy/Vanguard watermain renewal work to be undertaken in the 2020/21 financial year; and

3. Approves funding of $480,000 be brought forward from the 2021/22 financial year into the 2020/21 financial year, and $273,000 from the 2022/23 financial year into the 2020/21 financial year to allow the Tosswill Road Stormwater Upgrade to be completed ahead of schedule; and

4. Approves funding of $1Million be brought forward from 2021/22 into the 2020/21 financial year to allow the Whakatu Drive (Storage World) Flood Protection upgrade to be completed in the 2020/21 financial year.

6.2 Governance and Finance Committee - 27 August 2020

6.2.1 Carry Forwards 2019/20

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the carry forward of $1.3 million unspent capital budget for use in 2020/21; and

2. Notes that this is in addition to the carry forward of $7.8 million approved during the 2020/21 Annual Plan, taking the total carry forward to $9.1 million; and

3. Approves the carry forward of $73,000 unspent capital budget to future years, for consideration in the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

4. Notes total savings and reallocations in 2019/20 capital expenditure of $1.0 million including staff time; and

5. Notes that the total 2020/21 capital budget (including staff costs and excluding consolidations and vested assets) will be adjusted by these resolutions from a total of $57.1 million to a total of $58.4 million; and

6. Approves the carry forward of $122,000 unspent operating budget for use in 2020/21.

7. Mayor's Report 25

Document number R20303

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R20303).

8. Māori Ward - Consideration 26 - 54

Document number R19260

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Māori Ward - Consideration (R19260) and its attachments (A2447790 and A2453130); and

2. Decides not to introduce a Māori Ward; and

3. Notes that there is no requirement to give public notice; and

4. Requests that officers report back to Council with alternative options for increasing Māori participation in decision-making; and

5. Notes that the Mayor will write to the Minister of Local Government and the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs urging an amendment to the Local Electoral Act 2001 to ensure the legal requirements to establish a Māori Ward are the same as for a general ward.

9. Allocation of Climate Change Reserve Funding 55 - 60

Document number R20265

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Allocation of Climate Change Reserve Funding (A20265); and

2. Allocates $139,620 of the remaining funds within the climate reserve for the purpose of undertaking priority climate change work in advance of the Long Term Plan, including preparation of an Emissions Reduction Action Plan; and

3. Agrees that a sum of $20,000 remain in the Climate Change Reserve for community initiatives and if not used by May 2021, this funding go towards the priority climate change work outlined in report R20265.

10. Intensification Action Plan 61 - 103

Document number R13749

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Intensification Action Plan (R13749) and its attachment (A2410696); and

2. Approves the Intensification Action Plan (A2410696); and

3. Directs that a provisional budget of $50,000 be included the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 (over years 1 to 3) for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

11. Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Delegation Resolution Amendment 104 - 109

Document number R20307

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Delegation Resolution Amendment (R20307); and

2. Delegates the Chairperson of the Environment Committee and the Group Manager Environment authority to approve minor technical wording amendments, or correction of errors to the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019.

12. Release of Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement 110 - 117

Document number R19195

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Release of Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement (R19195); and

2. Approves the release of the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement on 6 October 2020.

CONFIDENTIAL Business

13. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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	Council Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 13 August 2020	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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
2	Recommendations from Committees Governance and Finance Committee – 27 August 2020 Nelmac Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 Sports and Recreation Committee - 17 September 2020 Brook Reserve – Reserve Management Plan process	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) The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege
3	Nelmac - Utilities Maintenance and Operations Contract - Supplementary Information	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Nelson City Council Minutes - 13 August 2020

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Thursday 13 August 2020, commencing at 9.05a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Support (K McLean)

Apologies : Nil

Karakia Timatanga

Kaihautu Pania Lee gave the opening karakia.

1. Apologies

There were no apologies

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor Reese advised she would vacate the Chair at 9.30a.m. to attend a Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) briefing.

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 Save the Maitai Campaign - proposed re-zoning of Kaka Valley to allow a residential subdivision

As the public could only attend meetings via Zoom during COVID Level 2 the speakers, Annette Milligan and Peter Taylor, requested that their Public Forum be moved to the next Council meeting that the public could attend in person.

4.2 Hospitality New Zealand - Airbnb's - moved out

As the public could only attend meetings via Zoom during COVID Level 2 the speaker, Stacie Warren, requested that her Public Forum be moved to the next Council meeting that the public could attend in person.

4.3 Dr Aaron Stallard and Jenny Easton– Maitai Precinct

Dr Stallard , via Zoom, also spoke on behalf of Jenny Easton. He said they were calling for Council to reconsider the proposal to build Civic House in an area that they considered had an unacceptable risk to flooding in the context of climate change. Dr Stallard’s provided speaking notes (A2440992) and a Maitai river flood hazard map which outlined flooding in 2021 (A2440996), which are attached.

Her Worship the Mayor advised that the Chief Executive had discussed the updated flood model with Jenny Easton, and offered to arrange for Dr Stallard to have this opportunity if he wished.

Attachments

1 A2440992 NCC Meeting 13 August 2020 - StallardEaston

2 A2440996 - Maitai flood mapping 2100

The meeting adjourned at 9.25a.m. at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese vacated the Chair to Deputy Mayor Judene Edgar.

The meeting reconvened at 9.26a.m.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 25 June 2020

Document number M10966, agenda pages 11 - 27 refer.

A minor amendment was indicated in the Mayor’s Report.

Resolved CL/2020/109

That the Council

1. Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 25 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

Lawrey/Sanson Carried

5.2 30 June 2020

Document number M11978, agenda pages 28 - 43 refer.

A spelling mistake was indicated in the resolution for Item 9: Funding Request: Businesses for Climate Action.

Resolved CL/2020/110

That the Council

1. Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 30 June 2020, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Lawrey Carried

5.3 9 July 2020 - Extraordinary Meeting

Document number M11997, agenda pages 44 - 63 refer.

Resolved CL/2020/111

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council, held on 9 July 2020, as a true and correct record.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

6. Recommendations from Committees

6.1 Community Services Committee - 30 July 2020

6.1.1 Stoke Memorial Hall Strengthening

Resolved CL/2020/112

That the Council

1. Approves the total allocation of $1.2M in 2020/21 in capital expenditure for seismic strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall to 67% of the New Building Standard (Importance Level 3), with the project to commence in 2020/21, subject to the success of the Provincial Growth Fund application, as set out in the table below;

	Capex	Comment
2020/21	$120,000	Existing
	$458,000	Brought forward from 2024/25
	$500,000	Potential Provincial Growth Fund (to be confirmed)
	$120,000	Unbudgeted funding
	$1.2M	Total 2020/21

and

2. Agrees that, if the Provincial Growth Fund application for strengthening the Stoke Memorial Hall is unsuccessful, Council will still proceed with the design work for the project, with physical works timing to be confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Lawrey/Bowater Carried

7. Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road - Ngati Rarua St (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R15924, agenda pages 185 - 192 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, introduced Team Leader Capital Projects, Jasper Snyder, who presented the report. Mr Snyder answered questions on use of macrons for Māori names, using ‘Ara’ instead of Street and how this worked in search engines. Mr Louverdis noted this would be followed up with the Manager, Technology and Customer Experience.

Resolved CL/2020/113

That the Council

1. Receives this report Dedication of Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Legal Road - Ngati Rarua Street (R15924) and its attachments (A2412824 and A2422463); and

2. Resolves to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) at Lot 26 DP 487679 (RT 698929), Ngati Rarua Street, Nelson as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

McGurk/Fulton Carried

The meeting adjourned at 9.43a.m. and reconvened at 9.49a.m., at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese assumed the Chair.

8. Mayor's Report

Document number R18196, agenda pages 64 - 110 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor Reese presented her report and tabled a summary report on the allocation of the emergency fund (A2439373).

Mayor Reese updated Council on COVID-19 information, with day two of Auckland in Level 3 and the rest of New Zealand in Level 2. She advised that data was being compiled as quickly as possible to understand the level of impact of infection in the community. She confirmed that there was no evidence of COVID-19 in Nelson and reminded people to adhere to Level 2 restrictions.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, provided an updated on the steps put in place and the approach to Level 2. He discussed fatigue in the organisation, the expanded capital budget programme, and additional Government funding and signalled that staff would not be able to maintain business as usual if Nelson moved up the COVID levels.

Mayor Reese explained the process for voting at the Local Government New Zealand AGM and advised that she also held the Tasman District Council proxy. Council provided guidance on voting for the LGNZ Rule Change, with possible amendment, and Remits.

It was agreed that the rule change for the President’s term of office would not be supported, but an amendment may be foreshadowed.

Remits for consideration were:

1. Public transport support was supported

2. Housing affordability was supported

3. Returning GST on rates for councils to spend on infrastructure was supported

4. Natural hazards and climate change adaptation was supported

5. Annual regional balance transfers was not supported

6. Local government electoral cycle was supported

7. Water bottling was supported

8. Quorum when attending local authority meetings was supported but a judgement call on the day.

9. Use of macrons for local authorities was supported

10. Rates rebate for low income property owners was supported

11. Local Government’s CO2 emissions was supported

Resolved CL/2020/114
	*That the Council* *1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R18196) and its attachment (A2430907); and* 2. Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors support for the proposed change to Local Government New Zealand Constitution rule F15 to limit the President’s term of office to two terms. 3. Provides guidance to the Mayor on Councillors support for the proposed remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2020, as discussed; and 4. Receives the tabled Summary report - Allocation of the Emergency Fund August 2020 (A2439373)
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried
	Attachments 1 A2439373 Summary report - Allocation of the Emergency Fund August 2020.pdf

9. Three Waters Programme Investment Package

Document number R19214, agenda pages 124 - 174 refer.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, presented the report and noted that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would need to be signed by the end of August and Council would need to enter into a funding agreement by the end of September. He answered questions on Elected Members’ input into the delivery plan and good faith discussions on what the reform would look like.

Attendance: Councillor Brand left the meeting from 11.15a.m. to 11.51a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 11.50a.m. to 11.57a.m.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, answered questions on the availability of contractors to deliver on competing projects and timeframes and advised he had regular discussions with the Contractors Federation about future capacity.

Councillor O’Neill-Stevens, seconded by Councillor Sanson, moved and amended the officer recommendation adding that that the draft Delivery Plan be circulated to Elected Members before sign off and the Mayor, the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and the Chief Executive be delegated to sign this off.

Resolved CL/2020/115

That the Council

1. Receives the report Three Waters Programme Investment Package (R19214) and its attachments (A2436659, A2436658, A2436660, A2436656 and A2436662); and

2. Authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive sign the Memorandum of Understanding at Attachment One (A2436659) and Funding Agreement at Attachment Two (A2436658); and

3. Agrees to nominate the Mayor and Chief Executive as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the Memorandum of Understanding and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding (A2436659); and

4. Agrees to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and the Chief Executive, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Nelson, Tasman, and Marlborough region is required to access the regional allocation; and

5. Notes that the Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and doing so would void these documents; and

6. Notes that participation in this initial stage is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of the agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding); and

7. Notes that the Council has been allocated $2.86 million of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding). An additional $2.86 million will also be allocated to Nelson out of the Regional allocation if this is split in the way recommended by the Steering Committee; and

8. Notes that the draft Delivery Plan will be circulated to councillors for feedback prior to sign-off.

9. Agrees to delegate sign-off for the delivery plan to the Mayor, Chair of Infrastructure and the Chief Executive; and

10. Notes that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

· supports economic recovery through job creation; and

· maintains, increases, and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance.

O'Neill-Stevens/Sanson Carried

The meeting adjourned at 12.20p.m., at which time Councillor Courtney left, and reconvened at 1.10p.m.

10. Council Emission Reduction Targets (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R17034, agenda pages 111 - 123 refer.

Climate Change Champion, Chris Cameron, presented his report and advised that following discussion with Councillors Sanson and O’Neill-Stevens around interim targets and alignment with government, had provided agreed amended recommendations. The amended recommendation was provided to Elected Members.

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, advised that Climate Change was being included in Activity Management Plans, the Climate Change Framework was additional work, but manageable.

Mr Cameron answered questions on funding, delivery targets, working jointly with Tasman District Council, the foodwaste trial and long term funding in the Long Term Plan. He advised members that he was in the process of looking at how to report on embedded carbon in business case development.

Resolved CL/2020/116

That the Council

1. Receives the report Council Emission Reduction Targets (R17034); and

2. Commits to adopting the five-year emissions reductions budgets to be confirmed by government in 2021 as a way of ensuring Council takes early and substantive action towards achieving carbon neutral status with measurable positive changes by 2025;

3. Agrees that Nelson City Council adopts the Government targets for Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reductions (i.e., net zero emissions of all GHGs other than biogenic methane by 2050, and a 24 to 47 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030); and

4. Agrees that work is undertaken to develop specific emission reduction projects for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2021-31, along with development of a comprehensive Council “Emissions Reduction Action Plan” in line with timeframes to produce the upcoming Long Term Plan; and

5. Notes that a strategic framework, to bring together and provide high level guidance to all of the key elements of climate change work underway in Council, will be considered and scheduled through the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

6. Notes that work to set targets and reduce emissions in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit is critical to address Council’s entire emissions profile and that substantial work is already underway in the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit to measure and reduce emissions; and

7. Notes that the development of community emissions targets and actions will be undertaken as a separate piece of work, aligned with the strategic framework and the work currently being undertaken by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum; and

8. Advocates to central government for an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework to support the local government sector to achieve carbon zero status.

O'Neill-Stevens/Fulton Carried

11. Electoral System - Review

Document number R18153, agenda pages 175 - 184 refer.

Manager Governance and Support Services, Mary Birch presented the report and answered questions on councils moving to Single Transferrable Vote (STV) or remaining with First Past the Post (FPP), the District Health Board appointments review, voter error and agreed that diversity was a common rationale for choosing STV.

Resolved CL/2020/117

That the Council

1. Receives the report Electoral System - Review (R18153); and

2. Decides to change to the Single Transferable Vote electoral system; and

3. Notes that Council will give public notice by 19 September 2020 of the right for Nelson Council electors to petition for a poll on a change to the electoral system.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Brand

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Against

Cr Bowater

Cr Skinner

Absent

Cr Courtney

The motion was carried 10 - 2.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2020/118
	*That the Council* *1. Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.*
Edgar/Bowater Carried

12. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2020/119

That the Council

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

Edgar/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

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	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 25 June 2020	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)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Recommendations from Committees Sports and Recreation Committee - 6 August 2020 Urgent Funding Request – Tasman Rugby Union	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)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
3	Mayor's Report - Nominations for Local Government New Zealand President and Vice-President	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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
4	Council Status Report - Confidential	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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 25 June 2020

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)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Recommendations from Committees

Sports and Recreation Committee -

6 August 2020

Urgent Funding Request – Tasman Rugby Union

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)(b)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Mayor's Report - Nominations for Local Government New Zealand President and Vice-President

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)(a)

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Council Status Report - Confidential

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)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

The meeting went into confidential session at 3.00p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.25p.m. to move a motion to allow Chris Ward, of Policyworks, to be in attendance for Item 5 of the Confidential agenda to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution was required to be passed:

Resolved CL/2020/120
	*That the Council* 1. Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Chris Ward of Policyworks remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 5: Civic House Options of the Confidential agenda as he has knowledge relating to the Civic House that will assist the meeting.
Noonan/Edgar Carried
Exclusion of the Public
Resolved CL/2020/121
	That the Council 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.
Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater Carried
5	Civic House Options	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)

The meeting went into confidential session at 3.26p.m. and resumed in public session at 5.13p.m.

Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

Recommendations from Committees

CONFIDENTIAL: Recommendations from Committees –

Recommendation from Sports and Recreation Committee

Urgent Funding Request – Tasman Rugby Union

That the Council

1. Agrees that, if the Tasman Rugby Union is unsuccessful in obtaining funding from other sources, Council will provide the Tasman Rugby Union:

· a one off subsidy by way of a grant of a total of $8,600 for ground hire charges for Mako games in 2020 funded as unbudgeted expenditure; and

· if the Mako are successful in reaching the finals, hosted at Trafalgar Park, Council will provide the Tasman Rugby Union with a further one-off subsidy by way of a grant of a total of $2900 for the further Mako ground hire charge in 2020, funded as unbudgeted expenditure; and

2. Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available

4	CONFIDENTIAL: Council Status Report - Confidential
	1. Agrees the report R18194 and its attachment A1166633 remain confidential at this time.

CONFIDENTIAL: Civic House Options

That the Council

1. Receives the report Civic House Options (R18154) and its attachments (A2430651, A2420980, and A2421781); and

2. Confirms that, subject to final approval through the business case process, Council’s main office will remain in Civic House, at its current location; and

3. Notes that the preliminary version of the Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan 2021-2031 will include capital funding for the sequential upgrade of staff accommodation, the Council Chamber and councillor amenities in Civic House; and

4. Agrees that the decision, this report (R18154) and its attachments (A2420980 and A2421781) be released from public excluded with paragraphs 6.34 to 6.41 and attachment A2430651 redacted.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.13p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 8: Māori Ward - Consideration

Council

22 September 2020

REPORT R19260

Māori Ward - Consideration

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider whether to introduce a Māori Ward for the 2022 and 2025 Local Government elections.

2. Summary

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002 places obligations on councils to facilitate participation by Māori in decision-making processes. The key tool for local government to meet this legislative requirement is its ability to provide an environment (through systems, structures and services) that encourages and supports Māori to enter and participate in these processes.

2.2 The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) provides that a local authority may resolve to establish Māori wards for electoral purposes. If it does so prior to 23 November two years prior to a triennial election, the change takes effect for the next two triennial elections and then continues until it is changed again.

2.3 If a local authority passes such a resolution, it must give public notice, not later than 30 November two years prior to a triennial general election, of the right of five percent of electors to demand a poll to countermand the resolution. The result of the poll is binding for the following two triennial elections and associated by-elections.

2.4 Māori representation in Council was considered by the Iwi-Council Partnership Group in June 2020. The report included discussion on the establishment of a Māori Ward. Whilst Māori representation at Council, particularly through externally appointed members on committees, was fully supported, the establishment of Māori wards was not.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Māori Ward - Consideration (R19260) and its attachments (A2447790 and A2453130); and

2. Decides not to introduce a Māori Ward; and

3. Notes that there is no requirement to give public notice; and

4. Requests that officers report back to Council with alternative options for increasing Māori participation in decision-making; and

4. Background

4.1 Local authorities have the ability to establish Māori wards for electoral purposes. The establishment of a Māori Ward is one option for increasing Māori participation in Council decision making.

4.2 Over a number of years, the Council has worked to provided strong, open and transparent relationships which have assisted in the identification of further opportunities for iwi and Māori to participate in, as well as support the development of Māori capacity to contribute to Council decision-making. Council has already progressed Māori input into decision-making, endorsed by iwi, through:

· Iwi representation on the Nelson Regional Sewage Business Unit and the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit as well as an external representative on the Environment Committee who, in addition to her technical expertise, brings a te ao Māori view;

· The formalisation of the Iwi-Council Partnership Group, established in 2018, involving eight iwi Chairs, the Mayor and three elected members;

· The Mayor’s role as a member of the Whakatū Marae Kōmiti Whakahaere;

· The appointment of a kaumātua to provide cultural assistance to the Mayor and Council for official occasions;

· Establishment of Te Kāhui Whiria - A dedicated Māori Partnerships Team at Council who provide cultural leadership to the organisation. This team is led by the Kaihautū, who reports directly to the Chief Executive and sits on the executive team Senior Leadership Team;

· The Nelson City Council and Iwi Managers Forum; Te Ohu Toi Ahurea (Arts & Heritage group) and Te Ohu Taiao (Environmental group); and

· The Iwi Working Group which guides, informs and provides meaningful engagement in the development of Whakamahere Whakatū – the Nelson Plan.

Requirements of the Local Electoral Act 2001

Provisions

4.3 The statutory provisions for establishing Māori wards are set out in sections 19Z to 19ZH of the LEA.

4.4 There are two primary mechanisms for establishing Māori wards:

a) A Council resolution

b) A poll of electors. The poll may be:

· demanded by electors or

· the result of a local authority resolution

Public Notice

4.5 If the Council resolves to establish a Māori Ward, it must give public notice of the resolution. The public notice must include a statement that a poll is required to countermand Council’s resolution. A valid petition to demand a poll requires the support of five percent of the electorate.

Number of Members

4.6 The LEA prescribes how many members can be elected within a Māori ward, based on population data.

Timeframes

4.7 The LEA also prescribes the statutory timeframe for establishing and implementing a Māori ward within the three year electoral cycle. For a Māori ward to be introduced for the 2022 Local Government elections, the timeframes are detailed in the following table:

Timeframes for the Introduction of a Māori Ward in the 2022 Local Government Election
Action	LEA Section	Date
Council resolution to establish a Māori Ward	19Z	By 23 November 2020
Public notice or resolution to establish a Māori Ward, including statement that a poll is required to countermand that resolution	19ZA	By 30 November 2020
Five per cent of electors demand a poll to countermand Council’s decision. This date and reference also applies if Council resolves to hold a poll	19ZB	Prior to 21 February 2021
Poll held [result of the poll takes effect for the next two elections]	19ZB or 19ZD	No later than the 89 days after notification and not later than 21 May 2021

4.8 Any decision binds Council for the next two Local Government elections in 2022 and 2025.

Representation Review

4.9 Councils are required to undertake a review of their representation arrangements at least every six years.

4.10 Council will undertake a representation review in the current triennium, prior to the 2022 Local Government election. The Representation Review will be considered by Council in the coming months, so any decision relating to Māori ward arrangements would have implications for this review. For example, whether the establishment of a Māori Ward should trigger a change to the total number of members.

Previous Consideration of Māori Wards

4.11 Council recognises the value and benefits of having Māori input into Council decision making.

4.12 Council last considered this matter in November 2011. The creation of a Māori Ward was included in the submission to the Local Government Commission in August 2011, as part of the proposed amalgamation of Nelson City and Tasman District. As part of the submission, Council also supported Māori representation across the region in the form of a Māori Community Board.

4.13 On 3 November 2011, a report came to Council – Policy Planning and Governance. This report was to establish a Māori Ward in Nelson for the Local Government Election in 2013, in the event that an amalgamation of the Tasman and Nelson Councils did not proceed. No specific consultation was undertaken with iwi or the public on the establishment of a Māori Ward before the report came to Council for consideration.

4.14 Council resolved to establish a Māori ward for the 2013 Local Government Election and gave public notice of the right to demand a poll to countermand this resolution. The decision to establish a Māori Ward triggered a poll of electors.

4.15 The establishment of a Māori Ward for Nelson was not supported by voters in the poll. A total of 15,638 votes were received (43.8% return) with 12,387 votes (79.21%) against the proposal and 3192 votes (20.41%) for the proposal.

Consultation with iwi

4.16 The Local Government Commission, in its guidelines for local authorities undertaking representation reviews, states that local authorities need to consider appropriate consultation with iwi and hapū at an early stage.

4.17 A report (Attachment 1 - A2447790) on Māori Representation in Council was presented to the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 24 June 2020. The report included discussion on different options for increasing Māori participation in decision-making, including the establishment of a Māori Ward. Whilst Māori representation at Council, particularly through externally appointed members on committees, was fully supported, the establishment of Māori wards was not. This was primarily as a result of the high level of negative response from the community that was experienced in 2011 and 2012, which iwi did not want repeated.

4.18 Not all iwi Chairs were present at the Iwi-Council Partnership Group meeting held on 24 June 2020. Therefore, further consultation was undertaken and this confirmed that iwi do not support pursuing a Māori ward.

Alternative Models for Māori Representation and input into Council decision-making

4.19 The report to the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 24 June 2020 (Attachment 1 - A2447790), considered other models and opportunities for Māori to have input into Council decision making, to ensure that Council meets its obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 to “provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes”.

4.20 The Iwi-Council Partnership Group resolved the following:

That the Council

Receives the report Māori Ward - Consideration (R19260) and its attachment (A2403570); and

Supports the preference to increase Māori representation on Council Committees, Subcommittees and subordinate decision making bodies subject to voting rights,

Supports the development of a policy for Māori representation on Council Committees, Subcommittees and subordinate decision making bodies, noting the groups preference for such representation to have voting rights.

4.21 The importance of voting rights for Māori representatives at committee and subcommittee level was recognised to ensure that a valuable contribution was made to decision-making.

4.22 A policy for the selection and appointment of Māori representatives on committees and subcommittees would need to be developed. It was noted that as the policies covering the Selection, Appointment and Remuneration Policy for External Appointees on Council Committees and the Selection, Appointment and Remuneration Policy for External Appointees on Council Subcommittees were currently under review, there was scope for combining these so that one policy covered all external appointees, including Māori representatives.

4.23 A report providing an update on this issue will be presented to the Iwi-Council Partnership Group at its next meeting on 30 September 2020. Following further consideration and feedback from the Partnership Group, a report will be brought to Council.

5. Discussion

How does a Māori ward work?

5.1 If the Council implements a Māori Ward, candidates in future elections have an option to stand for the Māori Ward or the general ward (noting that as Nelson does not currently have any wards, the general electorate votes at large). Māori Ward candidates do not need to be on the Māori electoral roll and vice versa for candidates standing at large. However, all candidates must be registered parliamentary electors.

5.2 Electors on the Māori electoral roll are then eligible to vote for candidates in the Māori Ward. Electors on the general electoral roll are then eligible to vote for candidates at large. Regardless of which roll an elector is on, an elector only has one opportunity to vote (either for a Māori Ward or in Nelson, at large).

5.3 Every five years, electors have the opportunity to change from being on the general electoral roll to the Māori electoral roll and vice versa.

Calculating the number of Māori Ward members

5.4 The LEA prescribes a formula to calculate the number of members from a Māori ward.

5.5 For calculating the number of Māori Ward members, the following formula applies to territorial authorities:

mepd

nmm = ____________ x nm

mepd + gepd

Where:

nmm = number of Māori Ward members

mepd = Māori electoral population of the district

gepd = general electoral population of the district

nm = proposed number of members of the council (other than the Mayor)

5.6 Section 3 of the Electoral Act 1993 contains the following definitions for “general electoral population” and “Māori electoral population”:

General electoral population – the total ordinarily resident population at the last census less the Māori electoral population

Māori electoral population – a calculation based on the number of electors on the Māori electoral roll and proportions of those of Māori descent not registered and those under 18 years of age.

5.7 Statistics New Zealand calculate the Māori electoral population and the general electoral population. The Government Statistician, through the Local Government Commission, has provided data for calculation purposes. The data is based on the 2018 census, as follows:

Nelson City Council
Māori electoral population	3,057
General electoral population	47,823
Total Population	50,880
Total members (excluding Mayor)	12
Number of Māori ward members	0.72
Number of Māori ward members (rounded)	1

5.8 During the Representation Review in 2021, Council will determine the total number of councillors and whether those councillors will continue to be elected at large and/or from wards. The Council must ensure fair representation of electors to provide approximate population equality per member (i.e. an elected member in one ward “represents" the same number of people as another ward (+/- 10%)).

5.9 Given the likely single membership of a Māori Ward, Council would not need to consider ward boundaries for the member elected by those on the Māori roll during the subsequent representation review.

5.10 The legislation does not provide for Māori electoral subdivision to be constituted for community boards.

Conducting a Poll

5.11 Section 19ZD of the LEA allows for Council to resolve that a poll be held on a proposal to establish a Māori Ward.

5.12 Therefore, instead of making the decision to establish a Māori Ward, Council could decide to undertake a poll on whether to establish a Māori Ward. Council could decide to undertake a poll separately on this matter or in conjunction with the 2022 Local Government Election.

5.13 Should Council choose to conduct a poll or should a poll be demanded by the public, there would be costs associated with this in the order of $110,000. There is currently no budget to cover this cost.

5.14 Costs of a poll held in conjunction with the 2022 triennial election are likely to be significantly less, with a current estimate being approximately $10,000.

Māori Wards – situation across the sector

5.15 The current situation across the sector regarding Māori Wards is as follows:

· Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s three Māori wards were created by legislation in 2001 (Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001);

· Waikato Regional Council introduced Māori Wards in 2013, though Council resolution, which did not result in a request for a poll.

· Wairoa District Council introduced a Māori Ward in the Local Government election in 2019, as a result of a poll conducted in conjunction with the 2016 Local Government election (as shown in the table below, a previous attempt to introduce a Māori Ward was not supported by public poll in 2012).

· New Plymouth District Council resolved to introduce a Māori ward in July 2020. It is not yet known whether a poll will be requested by the public (as shown below, a previous attempt in 2015 was not supported by the public).

5.16 Recent poll results, where a council’s resolution has not been supported by the public are:

Date	Council	Results
2018	Western Bay of Plenty District Council	22% for, 78% against
2018	Palmeston North City Council	31% for, 69% against
2018	Whakatāne District Council	45% for, 55% against
2018	Manawatu District Council	23% for, 77% against
2018	Kaikoura District Council	20% for, 80% against
2015	Far North District Council	32% for, 68% against
2015	New Plymouth District Council	17% for, 83% against
2013	Hauraki District Council	19% for, 81% against
2012	Waikato District Council	20% for, 80% against
2012	Wairoa District Council	48% for, 52% against

Central Government Consideration

5.17 In 2017, Member of Parliament Marama Davidson, Green Party, introduced a Member's Bill to amend the LEA to ensure that the establishment of both Māori and general wards and constituencies on district and regional councils follow the same legal process. The bill was defeated during its first reading.

5.18 In May 2016, Andrew Mark Judd submitted a petition to Parliament “That the House of Representatives consider a law change to make the establishment of Māori wards on district councils follow the same legal framework as establishing other wards on district councils”. Parliament referred the petition to the Justice Committee (a Parliamentary Select Committee) for consideration alongside the Inquiry into the 2017 General Election and the 2016 Local Elections.

5.19 The Committee reported back to Parliament on 10 December 2019. The committee made no recommendations in relation to Māori wards.

5.20 In 2018, David Cull, President of Local Government New Zealand, wrote an open letter on behalf of the 78 local authorities of New Zealand (Attachment 2 - A2453130) to the Government requesting that the poll for Māori Wards and Constituencies be removed. This was on the basis that as the poll provisions only applied to Māori wards and constituencies and not other wards, the provision in the LEA was discriminatory to Māori and inconsistent with the principles of equal treatment in the Treaty of Waitangi.

5.21 It is not anticipated that there will be any legislative changes in the near future to the way in which Māori wards are established.

6. Risk

6.1 Council acknowledges the special place of tangata whenua within the region. Previous consideration of this matter generated wide public interest and the community expressed its strong opposition to the establishment of a Māori Ward through public forum speakers, media commentary and voting in the poll. Iwi have indicated that due to their experience in 2011 and 2012, their recommendation is to increase Māori participation in Council decision-making through other mechanisms.

6.2 Since that time, considerable progress has been made to enhance Council’s relationships with iwi. These relationships may be damaged if Council resolves to establish a Māori Ward which results in a public demand for a poll and/or a repeat of outspoken public negativity towards Māori.

6.3 There is a reputational risk for Council if a decision is made to establish a Māori Ward against the advice and input from iwi.

7. Engagement – Legislative Requirements

Local Government Act 2002

7.1 The purpose of local government specified in section 10(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 as being “to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities”, and the principle requiring the Council to conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner, is upheld by following the procedures set out in the LEA in respect of setting up a Māori Ward. There is no requirement to follow the special consultative procedure or consult with the community in any other manner, as the procedure set out in the LEA is sufficient to ascertain the views of the community. This procedure ensures that the decision on the Māori Ward is made in a clear, transparent and accountable manner, namely as the outcome of a binding poll.

Local Electoral Act 2001

7.2 There is no requirement under the LEA to undertake consultation or take steps to ascertain the views of the community ahead of a resolution to establish a Māori Ward. The LEA requires Council to give notice of the resolution and give voters the right to demand a poll on the question of whether Nelson should have a Māori Ward.

7.3 Therefore, the views of the community are obtained and acted upon when a poll is held. If the decision does not trigger the community to demand a poll, Council or the Community may, at any time require a poll to be held.

8. Options

Option 1: Establish a Māori Ward
Advantages	· Provides an opportunity for Māori participation in decision-making at Council level · Public have the opportunity for input in this decision through the right to demand a poll
Risks and Disadvantages	· Only one Māori Councillor elected · The decision would go against feedback received from iwi · Likelihood of outspoken public negativity directed against Māori · Risk of damage to Council’s relationships with iwi
Option 2: Decide not to establish a Māori Ward (recommended)
Advantages	· Council is able explore other opportunities which are supported by iwi, for greater Māori participation in Council decision making · Reduced risks of public negativity directed at Māori and damage to Council’s relationship with iwi.
Risks and Disadvantages	· No Māori representation at Council meetings

9. Conclusion

9.1 Establishment of a Māori ward is one means of further strengthening Council’s relationship with Māori to help meet the statutory obligations relating to participation in decision-making. Whether or not a ward is established, Council will continue to build on the relationships developed and will continue to ensure that Māori are involved in the Council’s decision-making processes for the benefit of the whole community.

Author: Mary Birch, Manager Governance and Support Services

Attachments

Attachment 1: (A2447790) Iwi-Council Partnership Group Report - Māori Representation in Council - June 2020 ⇩

Attachment 2: (A2453130) LGNZ Letter to Government - Maori Ward Polls - March 2018 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Considering the establishment of Māori Wards enables democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf or, communities.

The purpose of the LGA is to provide for democratic and effective local government that recognises the diversity of New Zealand communities (s3 LGA). By assessing the opportunities for the most effective mechanism for Māori to contribute to the decision making process, Council recognises the diversity of our community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

Council leaders are strongly connected to our people and mindful of the full range of community views and of the generations that follow. Residents have the opportunity to participate in major decisions and information is easy to access.”

Considering the establishment of Māori Wards, whilst giving the community an option to provide input on this through a poll, provides our voters with an opportunity to participate in this important decision.

3. Risk

As outlined in paragraph 6, it is likely that there would be adverse consequences from a Council decision to establish a Māori Ward:

· a repeat of the public backlash against Māori which occurred in 2011 and 2012, when this matter was last considered;

· damage to Council’s current relationships with iwi; and

· reputational risk that Council is making a decision against the advice of iwi

4. Financial impact

There are no immediate costs associated with considering whether to establish a Māori Ward.

However, additional unbudgeted costs would be incurred if Council resolved or the public initiated a poll. These costs would be in the region of $110,000.

If a poll was to be conducted in conjunction with the Local Government Election in 2022, additional costs would be approximately $10,000.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because the outcome affects all electors and residents of Nelson City, in terms of their elected member representation.

There is likely to be national interest in this topic.

The community has previously expressed its views on this matter, with a large majority being opposed to the establishment of a Māori Ward.

There is no requirement under legislation to consult with the community on this matter before making this decision as the provisions of the LEA allow for public input through the demand of a poll. However if a Māori Ward is to be further pursued it is recommended that community engagement is undertaken.

6. Climate Impact

This decision will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Engagement with Māori has been undertaken through a report presented to the Iwi-Council Partnership Group on 24 June 2020. This report sought iwi views on Māori representation at Council, including the establishment of a Māori Ward. The Iwi-Council Partnership Group did not support the establishment of a Māori Ward. Further engagement with iwi has confirmed that view.

8. Delegations

This is a decision of Council.

Item 9: Allocation of Climate Change Reserve Funding

Council

22 September 2020

REPORT R20265

Allocation of Climate Change Reserve Funding

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide funding from the climate reserve to undertake work that is critical to achieving Council’s climate change priorities.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Allocation of Climate Change Reserve Funding (A20265); and

3. Background

Climate change work required

3.1 At the Council meeting on 13 August 2020, emission reduction targets for Council’s own activities were adopted (report R17034):

Resolved CL/2020/001

Commits to adopting the five-year emissions reductions budgets to be confirmed by government in 2021 as a way of ensuring Council takes early and substantive action towards achieving carbon neutral status with measurable positive changes by 2025;

Agrees that Nelson City Council adopts targets for Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are in line with the Government targets (i.e., all GHGs other than biogenic methane achieve net zero emissions by 2050); and

Agrees that Nelson City Council adopts the Government targets for Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions reductions (i.e., net zero emissions of all GHGs other than biogenic methane by 2050, and a 24 to 47 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2050, including 10 per cent reduction below 2017 biogenic methane emissions by 2030); and

Agrees that work is undertaken to develop specific emission reduction projects for inclusion in the Long Term Plan 2021-31, along with development of a comprehensive Council “Emissions Reduction Action Plan” in line with timeframes to produce the upcoming Long Term Plan; and

3.2 This report seeks approval to allocate $139,620 from the Climate Change Reserve to progress these resolutions and other priority work, acknowledging that there is no other single source of funding available explicitly for climate change work within the Council.

4. Discussion

The Climate Change Reserve

4.1 To date a number of community-led and Council-led projects have accessed funding from the climate reserve fund, as shown in the following table:

Total fund value	$500,000
Allocated funding	$340,380
Preparation for Danish delegation visit	$20,000
City centre spatial plan development	$100,000
E-bike for food waste collection	$9,000
Food waste trial	$120,000
Nelson Tasman Climate Forum	$62,500
Businesses for Climate Action	$28,880
Remaining funds	$159,620

Use of remaining funds

4.2 This report proposes that $139,620 of the remaining funds in the climate reserve would be used internally (i.e., providing for temporary staff/contractors and expert advice) to assist in the delivery of the following projects and activities:

· Development of the initial ERAP, including the development of specific emission reduction projects for consideration within the LTP;

· Exploring the scope of climate adaptation work required by Council (including the expectations arising from the National Climate Change Risk Assessment and the upcoming National Adaptation Plan) and development of an initial project plan for that workstream;

· Accessing expert advice and other analysis to support development of climate change initiatives in the LTP;

· Undertaking an assessment of the financial risk/liability that Council may face with respect to climate impacts, including requirements for reporting to central government.

4.3 The last bullet is a new area of work related to the need for councils to provide climate change related information to government under the Climate Change Response Act. The Ministry for the Environment has signalled that the first request will be made very soon, seeking information on how councils are preparing for the impacts of climate change. It is expected that an increasing number of such requests for information will be forthcoming, including on the level of risk exposure or liability that councils face. There is therefore a need for Council to prepare appropriately, and have the systems in place to effectively respond to those requests.

4.4 Officers consider that leaving a sum in the climate reserve available for community initiatives is important. The amount remaining under this proposal for such purposes is $20,000. Access to this funding would require agreement from Council, consistent with the current process. During development of the LTP the concept of making a similar type of fund available for community climate initiatives could be considered.

5. Options

Option 1: Allocate Climate Change Reserve funding for priority climate change work (recommended)
Advantages	· Allows progress to be made on the ERAP in time to feed into the LTP · Work on climate adaptation can be progressed in a timely way · Council can be prepared for information requests required under the Climate Change Response Act
Risks and Disadvantages	· With most of the funding allocated to priority work there will be limited funds to respond to other climate change matters as they arise · Funding for community initiatives would be limited to $20,000
Option 2: Retain funding in Climate Change Reserve
Advantages	· Council has funding available should new workstreams or more significant community proposals emerge
Risks and Disadvantages	· Work on climate change priorities cannot progress at pace · Council lacks good information on which to base climate change related funding in the LTP

6. Conclusion

6.1 There are a number of important climate change workstreams that need extra resource to progress. Officers recommend that funding be allocated from the Climate Change Reserve to allow work to continue at pace.

Author: Chris Cameron, Climate Change Champion

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Allocating funding to allow priority climate change work to proceed contributes to the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the Nelson community by progressing readiness for adaptation responses and planning for emissions reductions.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The decisions requested in this report contribute to the following community outcomes:

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

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

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

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

3. Risk

Approving use of this funding reduces risk by helping climate change preparedness and advancing work in priority areas. If the funding is not approved there is a risk that appropriate allocations in the LTP will be more difficult without good information on climate change project requirements.

4. Financial impact

The funding requested is from an existing allocation.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance as it is using an existing budget and progressing work which will be considered further by Council, including through the LTP development process.

6. Climate Impact

This report directly impacts on Council’s ability to adequately address the impacts of climate change by progressing priority workstreams.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

Allocation of the Climate Change Reserve is a decision for Council.

Item 10: Intensification Action Plan

Council

22 September 2020

REPORT R13749

Intensification Action Plan

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the draft Intensification Action Plan to assist in delivery of Nelson’s objectives under the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy.

1.2 Directs that a provisional budget of $50,000 be included the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 (over years 1 to 3) for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund, noting that officers will report back on its criteria.

2. Summary

2.1 The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (FDS) was adopted by the Nelson and Tasman Joint Committee on 26 July 2019. It is a high level strategy to guide how the two areas intend to grow over the next thirty years and sets out the role that both greenfield (expansion and intensification) and brownfield (intensification) have to play in accommodating Nelson's future growth.

2.2 Recognising that intensification is harder to achieve, the FDS recommended development of an Intensification Action Plan (IAP) to support its intensification objectives. The intention behind the IAP is to accelerate a change in housing supply towards intensification through a number of levers that are within Council’s control. This includes facilitating a coordinated response across different business units in Council.

2.3 The IAP is a whole of Council action plan for Nelson, and once approved will sit alongside other guiding documents that inform Council’s Activity Management Plans, Long Term Plans, draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan, Infrastructure Strategy, Regional Land Transport Plan and other guiding documents of Council. Delivery of its actions will be dependent on Council’s priorities over time, with timings and actions adjusted accordingly.

2.4 To achieve the Government’s growth agenda Council may wish to consider taking a more direct role in addressing housing capacity. Officers will report back on options for Council to consider on how it might take a more direct role at the meeting 12 November 2020.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Intensification Action Plan (R13749) and its attachment (A2410696); and

2. Approves the Intensification Action Plan (A2410696); and

3. Directs that a provisional budget of $50,000 be included the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 (over years 1 to 3) for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

4. Background

4.1 The FDS seeks to accommodate 60 percent of its projected growth over the next thirty years by intensification in the Nelson Urban Area (that being Nelson, Richmond and Hope). Intensification helps to achieve many of Council’s broader goals, such as modal shift and carbon reduction.

4.2 At its meeting on 26 July 2019 to adopt the FDS Council resolved;

“Requests officers to prepare an Intensification Action

Plan to enable and incentivise intensification.”

4.3 The resolution came from the FDS’s recommendation to develop an IAP that is to include at least the following initiatives:

· Identify, research and collate information on housing preferences.

• Develop a strategy for improvements to transport, reserves and community facilities in areas subject to intensification.

• Review of Development Contributions policies to ensure that they better reflect costs associated with different types and locations of growth (intensification versus expansion).

• Explore acquisition of key sites to help catalyse development and/or achieve strategic public realm outcomes.

• Consideration of partnerships with Community Housing Providers, Housing New Zealand and potential Urban Development Authorities to facilitate redevelopment of public land holdings.

• Collaboration with private sector housing providers on possible ‘pilot’ projects to demonstrate high-quality, feasible intensification projects in appropriate locations.

• Development of educational and guidance material for applicants to facilitate good quality design outcomes.

• Identify intensification areas that could be progressed (up zoned) in the short to medium term.

5. Discussion

5.1 The draft IAP has taken into consideration the initiatives noted in 4.3 above, Council’s feedback following approval of the IAP scope (R10376) at a meeting 19 September 2019 and from a Council workshop on potential actions held on 18 February 2020. It has also been prepared with input from different Council business units.

5.2 The Tasman District Council has developed a separate action plan for its district and this was approved at its meeting 20 August 2020. A link to its action plan can be found here: TDC's Intensification Action Plan. Although the Action Plans are different, reflecting that each district has specific actions to focus on relevant to the identified impediments to intensification, they are aligned to achieve the objectives of the FDS across both districts. They are also set out in a similar manner to make it easier for the public to follow.

5.3 The draft IAP is also designed to form a strong foundation for future actions to occur. With housing supply controlled by developers, central government, community housing providers and iwi, establishing and building relationships to see a wider diversity of housing provided in the future also forms a key function of the IAP.

5.4 The scope that was approved by Council identified the following four work streams; Perception, Regulation, Infrastructure and Cost. Since then the ‘Perception’ work stream has been renamed ‘Housing Preference’ to reflect a wider range of actions and to align it with the approach taken by the Tasman District Council.

5.5 The draft IAP, once adopted, will be reviewed and updated alongside the FDS. Officers propose that an update on actions from the IAP is reported to Council annually in conjunction with National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) monitoring reports.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development

5.6 The Government released its updated NPS-UD in July 2020. The statement replaces the previous 2016 statement on urban development capacity and imposes a number of new requirements for Council, which has been assessed as a Tier 2 Urban Environment. The updated NPS-UD can be found here: NPS-UD. A summary of the new requirements can be found here: NPS-UD Guide.

5.7 Where possible, actions to support the new requirements have been included in this draft IAP in preparation for the objectives that will be required in the next FDS and its subsequent implementation / action plan.

5.8 Officers are awaiting further Government guidance on the requirements of the implementation plan under policy 3.18 of the NPS-UD, noting that in future it will be a requirement that the implementation plan for the urban environment be jointly prepared as a single document with Tasman District Council.

Workstreams in the IAP

5.9 The four workstreams that are outlined below have been designed to:

5.9.1 Provide a coherent and coordinated work programme across different parts of the Council and in key documents.

5.9.2 Support development including development by private landowners, social housing providers and/or large developers.

5.9.3 Add to urban amenity through quality design.

5.9.4 Provide certainty of intensification capacity in agreed areas.

5.9.5 Provide designated funding in support of specific projects.

Housing preference

5.10 The housing preference workstream aims to support high-quality and well-functioning intensification projects including those by other parties. In practice this means:

· Officers will actively seek to maintain and build relationships, and assist those with an interest in intensified housing development including developers, private landowners and social housing providers as well as Te Tau Ihu iwi, reporting back on partnership opportunities as they arise.

· Continuing to provide support and advice on high quality and well-functioning urban design of intensification projects.

· Extending Council’s assessment, monitoring and reporting of housing capacity and demand in the city.

· Leading and promoting successful projects to raise awareness of the benefits intensification can provide.

5.11 The Housing Preference actions propose exploration of the use of one or more Council owned assets for an exemplar development. The benefit of a project of this type is to demonstrate the positive market perception of what intensification can provide and use it to build developer and buyer confidence while promoting intensified housing. It is also a means for Council to increase market supply and uptake rates. The next step will involve officers preparing a report to Council on options to progress this action.

5.12 Meanwhile, officers have increased the proposed budget for the Urban Design Panel through the draft LTP 2021-31 (from $30,000 to $50,000 per year) to accommodate the increase in advice on quality intensification that is expected.

Regulation

5.13 Regulation actions focus on ensuring the regulatory environment enables intensification. In practice this means:

· The draft Nelson Plan enables intensification as well as provides for a range of housing types in a range of locations.

· Developing educational and guidance material to assist applicants understand what is involved in, and how to navigate resource consent and building requirements e.g. for backyard infill and commercial to residential conversions in the city centre.

· Ensuring Council responds to national direction on urban development.

5.14 A range of planning methods are proposed in the draft NP in support of medium density housing intensification and to align the Plan with the NPS-UD.

Infrastructure

5.15 Infrastructure (including reserves) actions focus on ensuring that capacity is available to provide for intensification at the rate required. In practice this means:

· Development of cross business unit Neighbourhood Asset Upgrade Plans. These will be developed over the life of the Long Term Plan and programmed in advance of major infrastructure upgrades of intensification areas to ensure infrastructure planning is integrated to achieve desired outcomes.

· Bulk programming of infrastructure investment through the Long Term Plan for the short to medium term that provides sufficient capacity relative to uptake rates achieved.

· Ensure that infrastructure policies provide for future intensification.

· A new level of service for the upgrade of existing urban reserves.

· That where possible, other public realm improvements support intensification objectives e.g. the city centre programme strengthens the city as an attractive place to live.

5.16 Currently the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 has infrastructure programming for two of the six decade one intensification areas (cream of the crop). These are for the City Centre to be completed in year 2031/32 and Victory to be completed in year 2031/32. Washington Valley has also been programmed for an upgrade to be completed in year 2026/27 and will therefore have infrastructure capacity for greater intensification.

5.17 The areas identified in the FDS that have not be catered for in the next ten years include:

· Hospital/Nelson South

· Waimea Road

· Stoke School

· The Brook.

5.18 The reason for the timing reprioritisation of infrastructure capacity across all six areas is due to the significant cost to provide these services, estimated at $81 million, and the ability of Council officers to deliver a larger work programme.

5.19 The key to achieving residential intensification in Nelson is not simply down to enabling zoning and infrastructure provision. Council needs to achieve an uptake rate (rate of conversion of standard development densities to medium density) in order to obtain meaningful intensification. Currently uptake rates are very low. The additional $56 million to provide infrastructure to six intensification areas instead of two is expected to only yield a small number of additional dwellings, estimated at approximately 250, under current uptake rates. Council could consider options to improve the uptake rate of intensification and a report on this will be brought back to Council, and on the establishment of a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

5.20 It would be more reasonable to programme infrastructure roll out to intensification areas once uptake rates have begun to increase. Some intensification can be accommodated within the infrastructure capacity of existing areas before significant upgrades are required, therefore the current programme is considered to be an efficient use of resources and will be reviewed through a variety of mechanisms including the updated FDS and future LTPs.

Cost

5.21 The Cost actions focus on ensuring that Council’s financing and funding tools are targeted to enable intensification. In practice this means:

· Updating the Development Contributions Policy to better align with intensification objectives.

· Programming of infrastructure improvements at the right time by asset managers.

· Continuing to offer private developer agreements to assist with overcoming lags in infrastructure capacity programing.

· Housing Reserve: The cost actions include Council’s intention that a Housing Reserve, using proceeds from any sale of Council’s housing divestment, is established and criteria for its disbursement set.

· City Centre Residential Conversion Fund: As an incentive to repurpose city centre buildings into residential it is also proposed that funding of $50,000 be made for consideration in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 (over years 1 to 3), to subsidise the regulatory costs of conversion of upstairs commercial to residential in existing city centre buildings. This will be administered by the City Development Team.

6. Options

6.1 Officers are recommending option 1, that the Intensification Action Plan be adopted, to provide direction on the means by which Council will incentivise and support housing intensification in Nelson. This includes bringing back a report for decision on several actions proposed for the short term as discussed in this report.

Option 1: Adopt the draft Intensification Action Plan as attached. This is the recommended option.
Advantages	· Enables officers to progress actions that support enabling the uptake rate of intensified housing · Signals to the developers and the community the direction that Council is taking · Aligns with Council’s housing affordability and intensification goals · Aligns with the city centre liveability key move · Positions the Council in preparation of future requirements under the NPS-UD
Risks and Disadvantages	· Requires additional funding be provided for consideration in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund
Option 2: Make amendments to the draft Intensification Action Plan.
Advantages	· Provides Council the opportunity to make more significant changes if necessary
Risks and Disadvantages	· Likely to require further time and delay the intensification work programme · Has the potential to not align with the draft LTP 2021-31
Option 3: Do not adopt the draft Intensification Action Plan
Advantages	· No known advantages
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not provide officers with direction on how to give effect to the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy · Does not achieve Council’s goals of housing affordability and intensification

7. Conclusion

7.1 The FDS identifies residential intensification as a means to provide capacity for housing growth in Nelson and the IAP provides the means by which intensification can be enabled through the levers and tools available to Council.

8. Next Steps

8.1 If the action plan is adopted as recommended the next steps are for:

8.1.1 Business Unit Managers to use the IAP to assist with the setting of priorities.

8.1.2 Allocation of a provisional budget of $50,000 be included in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 (over years 1 to 3) for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

8.1.3 Reports be brought back to Council; on the potential use of council property for housing development including identifying sites and options for achieving increased intensification, and on the establishment of a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund, its criteria and any resource implications for delivery.

8.1.4 Inform the community of the action plan via a media release and make the Intensification Action Plan available to the public via Council’s website once a final copy has been received from the designer.

Author: Gabrielle Thorpe, Senior City Development Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2410696 - Draft Intensifaction Action Plan ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The draft IAP includes actions that support Council’s role to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future through considered planning for growth. It also gives effect to Government direction as set out in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Development of an Intensification Action Plan supports the following community outcomes:

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

Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets our current and future needs

The IAP will assist in the delivery of the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy and along with other priorities, will inform the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and the draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan, and other guiding documents of Council. It is also consistent with housing affordability / intensification and liveable city outcomes for more residential housing sought in the Annual Plan 2020/21.

3. Risk

There is a risk that the intensification objectives of the FDS will not be able to be realised over time, given dependency on its uptake by others, including landowner’s, developers and social housing providers. The draft IAP helps mitigate that risk by focusing Council’s attention on actions it can take to incentivise intensification and through regular monitoring and reporting of intensification uptake.

4. Financial impact

Planned intensification investment to enable capacity in key areas will be programmed in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 following adoption of this IAP. The IAP also seeks a provisional budget of $50,000 to be included for consideration in the draft LTP 2021-31 for a City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low-medium significance and consequently there has been early engagement on draft actions with the Te Tau Ihu Maori Housing Forum and the Community Action Nelson. Officers have also liaised with staff from the Tasman District Council. Community consultation of the long-term impacts on the community of implementing a more compact urban form will occur though the draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan and draft Long Term Plan 2021-31 and in the future, on any revisions of the Future Development Strategy.

6. Climate Impact

The Future Development Strategy identified potential areas for housing intensification in Nelson City. Some of those areas were identified as being potentially vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise. Council will be engaging with the community on these and other climate change adaption issues, initially through the Nelson Plan consultation.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No formal engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report except for high level aims that have been socialised with members of the Te Tau Ihu Maori Housing Forum.

8. Delegations

The Council has the delegation to consider Future Development Strategy and Intensification Action Plan.

Item 11: Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Delegation Resolution Amendment

Council

22 September 2020

REPORT R20307

Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Delegation Resolution Amendment

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To amend a resolution of the Planning and Regulatory Committee from the 28 May 2019.

2. Summary

2.1 In May 2019, Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council adopted the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).

2.2 A resolution of the Planning and Regulatory Committee delegated to the Group Manager Environment and Chair of the Planning and Regulatory Committee the ability to make minor technical corrections or limited amendments, prior to 1 July 2019.

2.3 This report seeks an amended resolution to remove the time limit on making minor technical corrections. The amended resolution would then correspond to Tasman District Council’s resolution, and enable delegated decision-makers to review and approve minor technical corrections.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual - Delegation Resolution Amendment (R20307); and

2. Delegates the Chairperson of the Environment Committee and the Group Manager Environment authority to approve minor technical wording amendments, or correction of errors to the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual 2019.

4. Background

4.1 In May 2019, Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council adopted the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM).

4.2 A resolution of the Planning and Regulatory Committee delegated the Group Manager Environment and Chair of the Planning and Regulatory Committee to make minor technical corrections and amendments, prior to 1 July 2019 – when the document took effect.

4.3 Since 1 July 2019, a series of minor errors with the NTLDM have been identified by Council staff and external users of the document. Corrections are limited to those that improve readability, correct errors, or clarify interpretation. The delegation does not extend to increasing requirements on developers or making substantive changes to the NTLDM.

4.4 An amendment to the resolution is sought to remove the time limit imposed in the resolution from 28 May 2019 and update the resolution to reflect the new title of the Chair of the Environment Committee.

4.5 The amendment allows efficient administration of the NTLDM, and enables future errors to be corrected.

4.6 The resolution of the Planning and Regulatory Committee was:

Recommendation to Council PR/2019/025

That the Council

…

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

4.7 Council resolved to adopt the recommendation on 20 June 2019 (Resolved CL/2019/101).

5. Discussion

5.1 An amendment to the resolution of the Planning and Regulatory Committee would enable the Chair of the Environment Committee and Group Manager Environmental Management to review and consider minor technical wording amendment or correct errors, before approving such changes.

5.2 A list of the potential changes has been circulated between Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council staff, to NTLDM users via the local surveying and engineering institutes and included on Council’s website for feedback. Further minor errors were identified through this process and included in the list of items that the delegated decision-makers will consider.

5.3 More substantive items have also been proposed for change, but these changes cannot be made via the delegated authority for minor technical corrections. A separate process for these changes will be proposed.

5.4 The decision sought is not inconsistent with previous decisions, but does seek an amendment to a prior resolution, as outlined above.

5.5 The reference in the delegation to making corrections to the Nelson Resource Management Plan Change documents is no longer relevant, and does not need to be carried over.

NTLDM Versions

5.6 If the minor corrections are approved, an updated version of the NTLDM will be issued (NTLDM 2020).

5.7 Due to legal complexity with the NTLDM being an ‘externally referenced document’ in the Nelson Resource Management Plan, the 2019 version remains valid for application in resource consenting decisions. Updated standards may be applied with the agreement of the applicant, or where relevant to Discretionary or Non-Complying Activity consent applications. A practice note will be issued to assist resource consent applicants and processing officers.

Options

Option 1: Amend Resolution to remove timeframe and update titles of parties with delegations.
Advantages	· Efficient administrative process · Consistent with process with the Tasman District Council · Enables checks and balance of process without undue delay to make corrections that are affecting users of the NTLDM.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Limits public involvement in the process of making minor corrections to the NTLDM.
Option 2: Council sign-off for all changes to NTLDM
Advantages	· Full public process options available, with consideration of Significance and Engagement Policy.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Level of “process” exceeds extent of changes, reducing Council responsiveness to minor issues. · Resolutions inconsistent across Nelson/Tasman Boundary on a joint document. Risk that decisions and processes may differ, causing confusion for NTLDM users.

6. Next Steps

6.1 The Chair of the Environment Committee and Group Manager Environmental Management to review list of proposed minor corrections; and if approved, these changes will be updated into a NTLDM 2020 version. A schedule of changes will accompany the new version; and a practice note will be issued to explain the application of the 2019 version in resource consents.

Author: Maxine Day, Manager Environmental Planning

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Delegation of powers and duties is a function set up by the Local Government Act to assist with the efficient administration of decision-making. This report seeks to amend a delegation previously granted by the Planning and Regulatory Committee.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report enables efficient administration of the NTLDM which helps deliver the following community outcomes:

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

Nelson is a well-planned district with a carefully managed urban intensification and a clear urban/rural boundary. The buoyant city centre is celebrated for its distinctive boutique character. Our easy city to sea access provides locals and visitors with a world-class waterfront experience. We work with our partners to support the development of a range of affordable, healthy and energy-efficient housing in our residential areas. Good urban design and thoughtful planning create safe, accessible public spaces for people of all ages, abilities and interests.

Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs

Nelson City relies on its good quality, sustainable, affordable and resilient infrastructure network which supports a growing population and strong regional economy. The community is proud of the many active transport options available and the effective public transport system. We invest in waste water, storm water, solid waste and flood protection networks to keep our people safe and healthy, the environment protected and the economy flourishing

3. Risk

This report represents a low risk decision for Council, as it seeks to enable constrained delegation to decision-makers for minor changes.

4. Financial impact

No additional financial impacts arise from this decision.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to the public generally, but does enable efficient administration that will improve the interaction of NTLDM users with council processes.

Prior to seeking approval by the delegated decision-makers the list of potential changes to the NTLDM has been advertised for feedback to key user groups. The feedback resulted in a small number of suggested changes.

More substantive changes will be required to undergo a more rigorous process, and will be the subject of a subsequent report to Council.

6. Climate Impact

No consideration of climate impacts has been undertaken for this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

On the recommendation of the Chief Executive, and with the agreement of the Chair of the relevant committee, subcommittee or subordinate decision-making body and Mayor, matters within the area of responsibility of a particular committee, subcommittee or subordinate decision-making body may be considered directly by Council instead. If this occurs, the Chair of the relevant committee, subcommittee or subordinate decision-making body will report to the following meeting of the committee, subcommittee or subordinate decision-making body regarding the reason for doing so, and the outcome of the matter at the Council meeting.

Item 12: Release of Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement

Council

22 September 2020

REPORT R19195

Release of Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the release of the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for public engagement from 6 October to 6 December 2020.

2. Summary

2.1 A draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan (draft Plan) has been prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2.2 Public engagement on the draft Plan is proposed so the community can provide feedback on the content and direction of it. The feedback will inform Council about any changes that may be required prior to the formal notification process under the RMA.

2.3 The draft Plan has no statutory role until it is formally notified. Once the Plan is notified in 2022, it will begin to replace the Nelson Resource Management Plan, Nelson Regional Policy Statement and Nelson Air Plan.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Release of Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement (R19195); and

2. Approves the release of the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan for Public Engagement on 6 October 2020.

4. Background

4.1 The Resource Management Act 1991 requires the Plan to be reviewed 10 years after it becomes operative. Consequently, a full review of the Nelson Resource Management Plan was initiated in November 2013.

4.2 The Plan review has involved the analysis of issues, trends, data, new legislation and public views on the goals for, and management of a very wide range of topics, including such things as land use, population growth, water management, subdivision, heritage, landscapes, biodiversity, transportation, climate change, coasts, rivers, discharges, natural hazards etc.

4.3 The review involves Te Tau Ihu iwi. In 2014 an iwi working group was established with representation from the eight iwi authorities. The working group has met regularly throughout the process to discuss, inform, review, draft and shape the draft Plan.

4.4 In 2014 and 2015 a draft Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was developed. Feedback from the public was sought on the draft RPS in 2016.

4.5 In 2017 the Draft Nelson Plan was workshopped with elected members, iwi and freshwater working groups, and an initial peer review was carried out. There was public engagement on fault, liquefaction, and river flooding hazards. Engagement continued with landowners who have significant natural areas or heritage values on their properties. Nelson’s business and development community were also engaged with.

4.6 In 2018 the Draft Nelson Plan was completed and compiled as one document for the first time, including web map overlays. Internal testing of the Draft Plan was carried out with key Council teams, and a revised version was prepared in December 2018.

4.7 In 2019, the Draft Nelson Plan was tested by external planning peer reviewers and a first stage legal review of the Draft Plan was carried out. The Draft Plan was reviewed by NCC elected members and iwi through a series of topic-based workshops. The introduction of the Government driven National Planning Standards in mid-2019 meant a complete re-organisation of the Plan was required. The National Planning Standards also required the Plan to be available in an electronic format (an E-Plan).

4.8 In early 2020, Council postponed planned engagement on the Draft Plan as the Covid-19 pandemic curtailed public engagement opportunities. Instead, Council undertook testing with key stakeholders (frequent users of the Nelson Resource Management Plan, statutory agencies, neighbouring councils and the like). The purpose of the testing was to identify errors, omissions and clarify interpretation – those matters have largely been incorporated in a revised Draft Plan. More substantive matters raised by key stakeholders will be addressed along with feedback from the community engagement. The key stakeholders will be informed of this process.

4.9 The release of the draft Plan in October 2020 allows the wider public to see the content and direction of the Nelson Plan. The Draft Plan and Maps are extensive and are available on the Nelson Plan page of Council’s Shape Nelson website (https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/nelson-plan).

4.10 As the Draft Plan does not yet contain all of the anticipated provisions, it is being released in two phases. The first engagement phase includes the majority of the provisions, while the second phase will cover coastal and river flooding; provisions for an airport zone; education/research zone/s (NMIT, Cawthron sites); Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori (Schedule and mapping); Haven and Marina Precincts; new Air Plan provisions once the National Environmental Standards for Air are released by Central Government; implement changes to the NPS on Freshwater Management and any new directions from National Policy statements that may be released before early 2021.

4.11 The Draft Plan identifies where sections are incomplete, awaiting national direction, further technical input or community feedback on options.

4.12 The second phase also allow time to respond to recently released changes to the Healthy Waterways Action Policy; National Environmental Standards on Marine Aquaculture; and any other legislative directions that may affect the Nelson Plan prior to notification. The NPS on Urban Development has partially been given effect to in the Draft Nelson Plan, but has not yet been fully incorporated given the NPS has only recently been released.

4.13 It is noted that Government has signalled the delayed release of three further national directions that the Nelson Plan will need to give effect to: NPS Indigenous Biodiversity; NPS Highly Productive Land; and NES Air Quality.

4.14 Following public and stakeholder engagement, Council and the iwi working group will consider requests for substantive changes, prior to formal notification of the Proposed Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan in 2022.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Council can use the opportunity to engage with the public on the Draft Plan to help understand issues; to assess potential impacts; and to inform the need for changes or for further work.

5.2 The timeframe for the Nelson Plan project enables the feedback to be considered prior to finalising the formal ‘Proposed’ version.

5.3 Engagement prior to formal notification potentially reduces the extent of submissions, hearings and appeals; which in turn can reduce costs for all parties and minimises timeframes.

Options

Option 1: Release the Draft Plan for public feedback
Advantages	· The document is at a stage where it would benefit from receiving public feedback to refine or re-direct content. · The Council has been signalling for some time that the Plan would be available for public feedback · Efficient use of resources · Two phases of engagement may mean that ‘information overload’ is reduced, and people have a better ability to participate on topics that affect them. · Two phases of consultation allows for a more manageable workload for officers.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The Plan is not a complete document. Two phases of consultation creates risk of disengagement and can increase costs associated with publishing material and officer time. · Resource Management Act Reform and ongoing changes may affect the content and timing of the Plan.
Option 2: Delay the Draft Plan due to RMA uncertainty
Advantages	· Further legislation changes to the RMA are signalled that could be incorporated to produce a Plan to meet the requirements of the new legislation. This reduces the risks of re-doing work and associated costs.
Risks and Disadvantages	· High uncertainty as to timing and scope of RMA changes. · Additional time delays and loss of public confidence in process · Increased costs as currency of processes and information declines over time. · Need for resource management provisions to reflect current national directions and local issues – these would be further delayed if the Plan was not released.
Option 3: Withhold Draft and Only Produce Notified Version
Advantages	· Potentially speed up notification timeframe · Reduce pre-notification costs
Risks and Disadvantages	· Likely to result in a larger number of submissions · Reduces the ability of the public to influence content of the Plan and gives Council less flexibility to respond to public interest · Public and Council costs likely to increase after notification due to formal process requirements (e.g. the need for technical evidence for hearings, and/or longer hearings).

6. Conclusion

6.1 Release of the Draft Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan enables Council to test the directions and provisions contained within it; and for the community, stakeholders and interest groups to help shape the direction of resource management in Nelson.

7. Next Steps

1. Finalise the E-Plan to enable basic property-level search functionality (with higher functionality planned for the Proposed Plan).

2. Release the Draft Plan on 6October for engagement purposes until 6 December 2020.

3. Review feedback prior to finalising the Proposed Nelson Plan.

Author: Maxine Day, Manager Environmental Planning

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The development of resource management plans is function of local government under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The purpose of the Resource Management Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In the RMA, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety, while fulfilling other duties.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The development of the Draft Nelson Plan enables Council to deliver a number of the community outcomes set out in the Long Term Plan; and Nelson 2060. In addition, the Nelson Plan is being developed to inform and integrate with the Infrastructure Strategy and Future Development Strategy, among others.

Specifically, the following outcomes are relevant:

- 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

3. Risk

There is low risk of adverse consequences arising from releasing the Plan for informal feedback. The early engagement process enables Council to consider the views of the community prior to formal processes and regulations take effect.

The development of the Plan has involved a series of previous engagement phases; and partnership with iwi, as described in the report.

Issues that arise as a consequence of the feedback will be reported back to Council before decisions are made.

4. Financial impact

The financial impact of the decision to engage on a draft Plan has been incorporated into the Annual Plan 2020/2021. No additional financial impacts are anticipated with this decision.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The decision contained in this report is of high significance under the LGA because there is a reasonable expectation of the issues contained within the Draft Nelson Plan generating wide public interest within the District.

Therefore the report seeks approval to release a draft version of the Nelson Plan to enable early engagement and feedback prior to entering the formal stages of notification and hearings. The process for engagement does not require a Special Consultative Procedure as decisions on the content of the Nelson Plan will be made under the Resource Management Act.

The process for engaging with iwi will continue via the Environmental Planning iwi working group, as a minimum.

The decision contained in this report does not relate to a strategic asset; does not impact on levels of service, rates, or debt; and the decision does not create irreversible decisions.

6. Climate Impact

The Draft Nelson Plan contains provisions relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Those provisions are contained within the Regional Policy Statement (Part 2) and dispersed across the Draft Plan. Further work and engagement on climate change adaptation and mitigation is planned for Phase 2 Engagement.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report, however, representatives from Te Tau Ihu iwi have been involved in the development of the Draft Nelson Plan since 2014. The involvement is ongoing.

The last meeting with the working group occurred on 27 August 2020, where feedback from Stakeholder engagement was shared; and a programme of next steps outlined, including public engagement.

8. Delegations

The reason for this report being considered by Council rather than the Environment Committee is due to the following factors:

- Stakeholder feedback closed on 31 July 2020

- Staff needed 4 weeks to consider feedback from stakeholders and where appropriate, incorporate that feedback into the Draft Nelson Plan.

- The meeting dates for the Environment Committee fell either too early (3 Sept) or too late (22 October) to approve the release of the Draft for engagement for 8 weeks from 6 October.

The Chair of the Environment Committee, the Mayor and the Chief Executive agreed that the matter be considered at the Council meeting. Outcomes from this meeting of Council, and reasons, will be reported to the Environment Committee on 22 October 2020.