Agenda of Environment and Climate Committee

Environment and Climate Committee Minutes - 1 December 2020

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Climate Committee

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

On Tuesday 1 December 2020, commencing at 9.08a.m.

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

In Attendance: Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Adviser (E Stephenson) and Governance Support (P Boutle and K McLean)

Apologies : Councillors J Edgar and P Rainey for absence

Karakia Timatanga

An opening karakia was given.

1 Apologies

Resolved EC/2020/039

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives and accepts the apologies for absence from Councillors Edgar and Rainey.

Sanson/Paine Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

Item 9 – Environmental Management Quarterly Report – 1 July – 30 September 2020 was considered prior to Item 9 – National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan.

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 Forest Committee - Lindy Kelly - Presenting a Petition

Ms Amy Shattock and Ms Lindy Kelly provided a PowerPoint presentation with supporting information (A2532470 and A2532647) and presented a petition from the Nelson Community titled – Nelsonians deserve a say as an affected party in the proposed non-complying development in Enner Glynn (A2537020).

Ms Shattock and Ms Kelly highlighted their concerns regarding the proposed development and its effects on neighbouring properties, including erosion caused by run-off, reverse sensitivities in a rural zoned area and the need to protect that taonga.

Te Atiawa Chief Executive, Harvey Ruru, noted that a Department of Conservation covenant was in place for Kelly’s Conservation Forest. Tangata Whenua had not been consulted.

Following a brief adjournment at 9.28a.m. to consider his request, Mr Murray Leaning, Marketing Manager Mitre 10 Mega Nelson, was granted permission to speak briefly in support of the petition.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, clarified that Elected Members had no opportunity to influence this Resource Management Act regulatory matter and that an Independent Commissioner was in the process of determining the resource consent. It was also clarified that this is not a prohibited activity and Council must process the resource consent.

Attachments

1 A2532470 - Lindy Kelly Public Forum PowerPoint presentation

2 A2532647 - Lindy Kelly Public Forum Tabled Information

3 A2537020 - Lindy Kelly Petition - Save Kellys Forest

4.2 Nayland College Science Class - Climate Change

Ms Gerd Banke, accompanied by Nayland College Year 9 students, Bob Foy, Josina Frisk, Maggie O’Hara and Zoe Butcher, provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2537052). The students spoke to the presentation which focused on the activities they had undertaken regarding climate change impact on New Zealand, including the effects on animals, ocean acidification, the carbon cycle, the water cycle, the Albedo effect, and the difference between weather and climate.

Ms Banke noted that the students had collaborated with a Danish School and that the Danish climatorium would be opened on 2 December.

In response to questions, the students said that they felt that a Nelson climatorium was a good idea and that educating people regarding climate change was the approach that should be taken for the future.

Attachments

1 2537052 - Nayland College Public Forum PowerPoint Presentation

4.3 Lindsay Wood – Resilienz Ltd - the Relationship Between Decarbonisation and Growth

Mr Wood provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2532631) regarding the increasing rates of decarbonisation required and what was necessary to achieve this and levels of growth and GDP. He answered questions regarding absolute emissions/relative emissions and methods of reducing Nelson’s emissions.

Attachments

1 A2532631 - Lindsay Wood Public Forum tabled information

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 22 October 2020

Document number M15214, agenda pages 6 - 10 refer.

Resolved EC/2020/040

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Committee, held on 22 October 2020, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Bowater Carried

6. Environment and Climate Committee Chairperson's Report

The Chair presented her report which was tabled (A2536999) She highlighted the importance of sustainable high quality lives, growing healthy food, a modal shift, CBD activation, urban greening, food production in parks and reserves and waste minimisation.

Questions were answered regarding Council’s vehicle fleet, next steps with the Coastal Inundation maps, carbon accounting for projects and access to a national carbon accounting portal.

Resolved EC/2020/041
	*That the Environment and Climate Committee* 1. Receives the report Environment and Climate Committee Chairperson's Report (A2536999).
Skinner/Bowater Carried
Attachments 1 A2536999 - Chairperson's Report

The meeting was adjourned from 10.26a.m. until 10.39a.m.

7. Port and Harbour Safety Management System

Document number R21423, agenda pages 11 - 92 refer.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, introduced Harbourmaster, Andrew Hogg. Mr Hogg provided background on the risk assessment being undertaken, noting that the last risk assessment had been over 13 years ago. He answered questions regarding safety management system delineation, significant changes since the previous assessment which had not been captured in the annual self-assessments, the quality of the marine environment and the Regional Council responsibilities of Council.

Concerns were raised regarding the risk to Council relating to gaps in the process and oversight of ensuring that correct processes were being followed and that documentation was up-to-date.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.09a.m. until 11.11a.m. to consider an additional recommendation to address the risk to Council.

It was noted that, whilst this committee was the correct place to consider navigation safety, that the matter should be referred to the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee to consider the risk aspect and an additional clause (3.) was added to the recommendation to this effect.

Resolved EC/2020/042

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Port and Harbour Safety Management System (R21423) and its attachments (A1418392 and A2474992); and

2. Notes further updates will be provided to the Environment and Climate Committee as actions are undertaken to address the identified gaps in the Port and Harbour Safety Management System; and

3. Refers this report (R21423) and resolutions to the Audit Risk and Finance Committee for consideration in the organisational Risk Register.

Her Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

8. Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July - 30 September 2020 (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R21402, agenda pages 100 - 167 refer.

Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Popenhagen, introduced Warmer Healthier Homes Nelson Tasman and Marlborough Chairperson, Leeson Baldey. Mr Baldey noted key highlights for the project including achievement of 2000 insulated homes. Mr Baldey and Mr Popenhagen answered questions regarding the Warmer Healthier Homes Project. It was agreed to put clause 2. of the recommendation first.
Resolved EC/2020/043 *That the Environment and Climate Committee* 2. Receives the report “Warmer Healthier Homes Nelson Tasman Marlborough Project – Year End Report 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020” (Attachment A2502472).
Skinner/Her Worship the Mayor Carried
The following officers summarised activities within their areas and answered questions relating to the Quarterly Report: · Principal Adviser Environmental Management, Jane Budge · Team Leader Science and Environment, Leigh Marshall · Team Leader Science and Environment, Stefan Beaumont · Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini · Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop · Project Manager Maitai Ecological Restoration, Susan Moore-Lavo Attendance: Councillor Sanson left the meeting at 11.52a.m.
Resolved EC/2020/044
	*That the Environment and Climate Committee* 1. Receives the report Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July - 30 September 2020 (R21402) and its Attachments (A2497007, A2508033, A2497431, A2379467, A2505060 and A2502472).
Fulton/McGurk Carried

The meeting was adjourned at 12.47p.m. and reconvened at 1.21p.m. at which time Councillors Lawrey, Sanson and Skinner and Ms Paine were not present.

9. National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R21447, agenda pages 93 - 99 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Clare Barton, and Principal Planner, Natasha Wilson, presented the report. Ms Barton explained the rationale to align the National Policy Statement (NPS) and Nelson Resource Management Plan(NRMP). An updated recommendation was tabled (A2531523).

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 1.24p.m.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 1.25p.m.

Manager Consents and Compliance, Mandy Bishop, Ms Barton and Ms Wilson answered questions regarding the process, and explained that the consequential amendments related to removal of cross references to parking rules.

Ms Barton reiterated that Council had no choice regarding the removal of parking requirements as it had to give effect to the NPS. She noted that leaving the requirements in the NRMP post-January would mean putting developers through a process to obtain a consent when they did not need to. Ms Wilson clarified that developers would still have a choice if they wanted to provide car parks.

Discussion took place regarding the need be clear that Council was not encouraging street permit parking, car park standard sizes and setbacks would remain. Appropriate communication of the removal for parking requirements will be required. Guidance may be required on implications for existing consent conditions.

Concerns were raised regarding effects on street parking.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor Reese left the meeting at 1.56p.m.

Councillor Skinner, seconded by Councillor Noonan, moved an alternative to the officer’s recommendation to extend the effective date from 1 January 2021 to 1 September 2021.

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan (R21447).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Agrees that the Nelson Resource Management Plan requirements for minimum on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment criteria, policies or objectives that have the effect of setting minimum parking rates, be treated as removed from the Nelson Resource Management Plan as from 1 September 2021 including consequential amendments in accordance with s.55 of the Resource Management Act.

2. Delegates to the Chair of the Environment and Climate Committee and the Group Manager Environmental Management, authority to approve the consequential amendments to the Nelson Resource Management Plan that flow from the removal of requirements for minimum on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment criteria, policies or objectives that have the effect of setting minimum parking rates, in accordance with s.55 of the Resource Management Act and to make those amendments as the Nelson Resource Management Plan work programme permits.

Councillor Fulton, seconded by Councillor McGurk, moved an amendment to change the effective date to 1 January, which was the officer’s recommendation.

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan (R21447).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Agrees that the Nelson Resource Management Plan requirements for minimum on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment criteria, policies or objectives that have the effect of setting minimum parking rates, be treated as removed from the Nelson Resource Management Plan as from 1 January 2021 including consequential amendments in accordance with s.55 of the Resource Management Act.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.03p.m. until 2.05p.m.

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Fulton (Chairperson)

Cr McGurk

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Sanson

Against

Cr Bowater

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Absent

Her Worship the Mayor Reese

Cr Sanson

Ms G Paine

The amendment was carried 7 - 3.

The substantive motion was put.

Resolved EC/2020/045

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan (R21447).

Fulton/McGurk Carried

Recommendation to Council EC/2020/046

That the Council

1. Agrees that the Nelson Resource Management Plan requirements for minimum on-site parking rates, including rules, assessment criteria, policies or objectives that have the effect of setting minimum parking rates, be treated as removed from the Nelson Resource Management Plan as from 1 January 2021 including consequential amendments in accordance with s.55 of the Resource Management Act.

Fulton/McGurk Carried

Attachments

1 A2531523 - Updated recommendations for the NPS on Urban Development: Removal of mimimum car parking rates from the NRMP

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.24p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 8: 2021 Environmental Management Fees and Charges review

Environment and Climate Committee

18 February 2021

REPORT R21403

2021 Environmental Management Fees and Charges review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek approval for statements of proposal for proposed fees and charges for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure for the following:

1.1.1 Resource Management including Housing Accord and Special Housing Area activities;

1.1.2 Food Act activities;

1.1.3 Building Unit activities; and

1.1.4 Environmental health activities (other than food).

2. Summary

2.1 Current regulatory fees and charges have been reviewed and changes proposed, where required, to:

· Better achieve Council’s Revenue and Financial Policy.

· More accurately reflect staff time to provide services.

· Ensure reasonable cost recovery goals are met and to meet increased national legislative and reporting requirements.

2.2 The main changes proposed are as follows:

Activity	2019/20 charge	2020/21 charge (current charge)	2021/22 proposed charge	% increase (CPI 1.4)
Resource consents - hourly rate	$150	$160	$162	1.3
Food registration – national programme/ food control plan	$148/$222	$148/$222	$162/$243	9.5
Building - hourly rate (other changes see attachment 3)	$100/$135	$160	$164	2.5
LIMS -residential -commercial -multiple titles	$285 $440 N/A	$285 $440 N/A	$300 $460 $164 hourly rate	5.3 4.5
Hairdressers	$155	$155	$162	4.5
Offensive trades	$236	$236	$243	3.8
Camping grounds	$270	$270	$270 (no change)	0
Funeral directors	$170	$170	$170 (no change)	0
Animal Control (other than dogs) - hourly charge out rate	$125	$125	$162	29.6
Processing Site Marine Contingency Plans – hourly charge out rate	Not identified	Not identified	$162
Pollution response – hourly charge out rate	Not identified	Not identified	$162
Dog control - urban registration	$66.20/$86	$95.80	$97	1.3
Alcohol licensing - set by statute, can use discretion to lower activity rating and fees	No change	No change	No change	0

3. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report 2021 Environmental Management Fees and Charges review (R21403) and its attachments (A2551172, A2554483, A2565321, A2563976, A2554765 and A2564096); and

2. Agrees the preferred option is to increase Resource consent fees and charges to recover 45% of Council costs for these services; and

3. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Amendments to the Charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 commencing 1 July 2021 as detailed in Attachment 1 (A2551172) to Report R21403; and

4. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal Amendments to the Charges under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

5. Agrees the preferred option is to increase Food Act fees and charges to recover 48% of Council costs for these services; and

6. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Food Act 2014 fees and charges as detailed in Attachment 2 (A2554483) to Report R21403; and

7. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Food Act 2014 fees and charges is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

8. Agrees the preferred option is to increase Building Act fees and charges to recover 71% of Council costs for these services; and

9. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Building Act 2014 and Property Information fees and charges as detailed in Attachment 3 (A2565321) to Report R21403; and

10. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal for the Building Act 2014 and Property Information fees and charges is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

11. Agrees the preferred option is to increase Environmental Health fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 4 (A2563976); and

12. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Environmental Health fees and charges as detailed in Attachment 4 (A2563976) to Report R21403; and

13. Agrees a summary of information contained in the Statement of Proposal for the Proposed Environmental Health fees and charges is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

14. Notes the increases for the Dog Control fees and charges, that do not require public consultation, identified in Attachment 5 of Report R21403 (A2554765) will take effect from 1 July 2021; and

15. Notes no change will be made to the discretion to lower the rating of particular activities under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act; and

16. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 7 of this report) and agrees:

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

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

17. Approves commencement of the Special Consultative Procedures, with the consultation period running from 16 March to 16 April 2021.

4. Background

4.1 The Environmental Management Group fees and charges cover:

4.1.1 Resource consents including Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HASHAA).

4.1.2 Food businesses.

4.1.3 Building unit related fees and charges.

4.1.4 Environmental health licensing - including animal control, hairdressers, mortuaries and maritime activities.

4.1.5 Dog control.

4.1.6 Alcohol licensing.

4.2 Fees and charges contribute towards Council’s costs and administration of its regulatory functions. Section 101(3) of the LGA requires funding to be from those sources determined to be appropriate following consideration of factors including the distribution of benefits between the community as a whole and those individuals undertaking the activity, the period of when those benefits are expected to occur and contributions to community outcomes by the activity.

4.3 The private benefit gained from regulatory services is often greater than the public benefit. The costs of providing the service then need to be met by individuals, owners or operators to a greater degree than the general rate.

4.4 The current Revenue and Financial policy requires:

4.4.1 40-60% of resource consent activity costs are to be recovered from charges. The activities include consent processing, monitoring, enforcement and responding to public enquiries;

4.4.2 30-50% of public health costs are to be met by fees and charges. Public health includes alcohol licensing, food and health licencing activities, animal control, enforcing bylaws and navigation safety activities. There are no fees and charges associated with the enforcing of bylaws and navigation safety activities other than the fines set through the Bylaw process;

4.4.3 60-80% of Building Unit costs are to be met by charges; and

4.4.4 Dog control activities are to recover 90-100% of costs through registration and other charges.

4.5 Council resolved to increase fees and charges at the Environment Committee meeting held on 28 May 2020 (R17006) for the activities under the following legislation:

4.5.1 Resource Management Act 1991 and Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013;

4.5.2 Building Act 2004; and

4.5.3 Dog Control Act 1996.

4.6 The public health fees and charges have not changed since 2016 to provide certainty while food activity businesses transitioned to the new Food Act requirements, the transition spanned a three year timeframe. In addition, the Revenue and Finance policy for the bundled public health, food, maritime and other activities was being met by existing charges due to some activities effectively subsidising others within the bundled revenue and finance category.

4.7 The current and proposed fees and charges are contained in the statements of proposals in attachments 1 to 4 for Resource Management, Food, Building and Environmental Health activities. The current and proposed Dog Control fees are contained in attachment 5.

5. Discussion

Resource consents

5.1 This section considers proposed changes to charges for the following:

5.1.1 Resource Consents: processing, monitoring and administration; and

5.1.2 HASHAA: resource consents for qualifying developments in special housing areas. The process for establishing special housing areas ceased on 16 September 2019 and HASHAA will be fully repealed on 16 September 2021. Resource consent applications for developments within special housing areas that were lodged before 16 September 2019 will continue to be processed through the permissive resource consent process provided by the Act, until 16 September 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.4 In the 2017/18 financial year, resource consent charges recovered 52% of the Council’s costs. In 2018/19, 46% of costs were recovered from charges and the last financial year 43%. This year it is tracking at 45% of costs being recovered. The Revenue and Financial Policy in the Long Term Plan (LTP) is to recover 40-60% of total costs.

5.5 The fees and charges increase for 2019/20 expected to recover 48% of costs. Part of the reason this was not realised was less complexity/value consents during Covid-19 and the reduction in the use of external consultants was still being transitioned.

5.6 The main factors influencing the level of income received from charges are the hourly charge out rate and the number of complex resource consent applications. Consent numbers have remained the same for the last two years but income from fees and charges decreased slightly from 2018/19 to 2019/20. The income for 2020/21 is on track to be similar to last year.

5.7 The total expenses for the resource consent activity for the 2021/22 financial year are expected to be $2,399,000 GST exclusive. These expenses include costs that cannot be on charged to customers such as staff time responding to public enquiries and consent holder objections and appeals. Current charges at current levels of activity will recover approximately 44% of total costs.

5.8 It is proposed to increase the hourly charge out rate by the Consumer Price Index (and rounded to the nearest dollar), to $162 which will cover 45% of the costs and match the anticipated income from fees and charges in year one of the LTP.

5.9 To provide some comparison the hourly rates of other neighbouring councils and councils of similar sizes are included in the table below. Tasman District Council’s current hourly rate is $160 and is proposed to increase to $164 per hour.

	Hourly rate	Cost recovery policy from fees and charges
Nelson	$160 (proposed to be $162)	40 – 60%
Tasman	$160 (proposed to be $164)	15 – 45% (includes other activities such as plan making and state of the environment)
Marlborough	$153 planner $182 senior	60%
Napier	$160 planner $180 senior	40-59%
New Plymouth	$188 planner	60-80%
Palmerston North	$190 planner $203 senior	80-100% consent processing 0-19% public advice, monitoring and enforcement

Options

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

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

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

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

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

5.10.5 Overall, the proposed increased charges have been set at levels that will recover approximately 45% of the reasonable anticipated costs incurred by the consent authority.

5.11 Of the options to retain the current charges or amend the charges to recover 45% of the costs or increase the charges to recover 48% of the costs, the preferred option is option 2 – amend the charges as proposed in Attachment 1 (A2551172).

Option 1: Retain the current fees and charges
Advantages	· Applicants and consent holders do not face increased charges · Would not receive any criticism for increasing fees
Risks and Disadvantages	· The costs of the activity is not sufficiently covered by income from charges · The increase to charges may need to be bigger at a later date · There would be an additional rates burden of $13,000
Option 2: Increase the charges to recover 45% of the costs as proposed in Attachment 1 – RECOMMENDED OPTION
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the services is better met by applicants and consent holders than ratepayers · Prevents a larger increase at a later date · Less rates requirement
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by applicants and consent holders for the increase in charges that could increase the occurrence of querying about or objecting to the charges
Option 3: Increase the charges to recover 48% of the costs
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the service will be met by applicants and consent holders · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by applicants and consent holders for the 5% increase in charges following last year’s 7% increase that could increase the occurrence of querying or objecting to the charges · The large increase is not considered reasonable · Higher charges could deter developments or achieve poorer environmental outcomes · The charges may not meet the criteria in section 36AAA of the RMA or section 77 of HASHAA

Food businesses

5.12 The Food Act 2014 (the new Act) came into force on 1 March 2016 and brought with it an entirely new regime for food management. Food businesses are categorised by their risk profile depending on the type of operation. Food businesses were given a three year period commencing 1 March 2016 to transition to the new regime. All premises in Nelson transitioned within this timeframe with considerable assistance from officers.

5.13 Prior to the introduction of the new Act costs to administer the public health licensing activities were around $86,000 which equated to approximately 1348 staff hours. For the 2019/20 financial year a total of 3272 staff hours was required to administer food and public health licences with the vast majority of these hours administering the Food Act. An additional 1924 hours per year have been required since the introduction of the Food Act 2014:

Health Licencing activity	Prior to 2015	Post Food Act Introduction – 2019/20
Hours	1348 officer hours	3272 officer hours (an additional 1924 hours)
Costs for officer time	$86,000	$172,500
Income received	$101,700 2014/15	$100,000

Setting Food fees

5.14 Section 205 of the Food Act 2014 enables Council to set its fees to recover the direct and indirect costs of any registration, verification, compliance and monitoring functions. The territorial authority must use the special consultative procedure when setting its fees (section 205(2)) and the new fees are to take effect at the commencement of the financial year. The current fee structure was based on the estimates of officers at the time and advice received from the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI).

5.15 When fixing fees Council must not provide for the recovery of more than the reasonable costs incurred by it in performing the function and it must take into account the matters outlined in section 198(2) of the Food Act, which are:

5.15.1 Equity – funding for services should generally, and to the extent practicable be sourced from the users or beneficiaries of those services at a level commensurate with their use; and

5.15.2 Efficiency – costs should generally be allocated and recovered to ensure maximum benefits are delivered at minimum cost; and

5.15.3 Justifiability – cost should be collected only to meet the actual and reasonable costs (including indirect costs) of the service; and

5.15.4 Transparency – costs are identified and allocated as closely as practicable to tangible service provisions.

Current fees

5.16 The fees under the Food Act 2014 have been in place since 1 July 2016. The statement of proposal for the proposed initial fees under the new Act included a clause that the proposed fees remain without change for the period of the transition. The fees are a mixture of an initial fee for registrations and suspensions and an hourly charge for other functions.

5.17 The current initial fees for new and renewing registrations are based on an estimated time to undertake the activity at an hourly charge out rate of $148. On average, the actual staff time required is more than estimated for each registration.

5.18 Verifications involve visiting the site, determining compliance and reporting. The time to complete this task ranges greatly depending on the complexity of the business and level of compliance. Charging at an hourly rate for verifications and compliance activities is considered a fair method to accommodate the variability.

5.19 The Revenue and Financial funding target for the food and public health activity for 2021/22 is 40-60% of costs recovered from fees and charges. This recognises the public benefits from healthy premises to the general community. The community is assured minimum health standards apply to food businesses through verification and enforcement.

5.20 However, there is a significant private benefit arising from individual licences that certify individuals and owners of premises. These businesses create the need for inspections and enforcement activity. Ensuring businesses meet minimum standards is by user pays through fees and charges.

5.21 In 2018/19, 56% of costs were met by fees and charges and 45% of costs were recovered in 2019/20. Income for this financial year is tracking 14% lower than last year due to lower levels of activity as a result of Covid-19 impacts on food businesses.

5.22 At least a third of officers’ time is not chargeable to food businesses. Much of this time is spent answering public enquiries or completing the training and reporting requirements for the Ministry of Primary Industries.

5.23 MPI has introduced an on-line tool to assist food operators to better understand the registration and verification requirements. In theory this could reduce the time Council officers spend assisting operators understand these requirements (and therefore reduce the costs of providing the service) but the tool itself is complex and MPI envisages officers assisting operators as they work through the tool together.

5.24 MPI has also introduced a compulsory Continued Professional Development (CPD) requirement for each officer to complete annually. This requires officers to develop a training plan that contains minimum hours in different categories. MPI will certify the plan and also receive reports from officers demonstrating how the learning has been applied. With the CPD requirements and assisting food operators with general enquiries or other requirements, it is expected the level of resourcing required will not reduce. There will continue to be a need to have about a third of an officer’s time that is not cost recoverable through registration or verification functions.

Food Act fee comparison

5.25 The Ministry of Primary Industry (MPI) undertakes registration and verification activities at the national level and have set registration fees based on an hourly rate of $155.25. It requires a fee based on the expected time it would take to register the various programmes or plans. There is a smaller charge for National Programme registrations compared to Food Control Plans.

5.26 MPI has indicated on its website that verifications for medium sized businesses (up to 50 people) can take up to six or eight hours to verify depending on the complexity and any non-compliance issues. Verifiers typically charge between $115 and $210 per hour.

5.27 The following current rates for various councils have been used to assist with the review of the registration and verification charges:

Fees and charges	NCC	Napier	New Plymouth	Tasman	MDC
New National Programme registration	$148	$234	$300^*	$146	$254
New Food Control Plan registration	$222	$234	$300^*	$242	$254
Renewals/Amendments/Suspensions	$74	$102	$150	$98	$108
Hourly rate	$148	$160	$150	$160	$145
Specific disbursement fees, including travel time, boat fees etc				yes	yes

*NPDC includes two hours within a new registration (all the others were an hour)

5.28 Although New Plymouth District Council appears to have the highest fees above it is similar to many of the Upper North Island councils which are not listed. It has also recognised that a new registration takes more than an hour to complete and have incorporated two hours into the new registration fee. Recognising the difficulties businesses have faced this year it has also implemented a Covid-19 recovery package where it has reduced its fees to $1 for this financial year.

5.29 Nelson, unlike most other councils, has different new registration fees with a fee of $148 for a new National Programmes registration and $222 for a new Food Control Plan. There are usually fewer new National Programmes registration fees received compared to new Food Control Plan registrations. In 2019/20, 17 were received and 26 in the 2018/19 financial year, compared to 42 new Food Control Plan registrations (in 2019/20) and 70 in 2018/19.

Proposed fees

5.30 The total expenses for the food and public health activity for the 2021/22 financial year are expected to be $229,500 GST exclusive. Current charges and level of activity will recover approximately 40% of these costs. It is proposed to increase the initial fees and the hourly charge out rate to be consistent with most other regulatory hourly charge out rates ($162) and to meet at least 48% of the costs of providing the services.

5.31 The proposed charges in Option 2 in the table below result in the least increase per category and are aligned with the charge out rate for most other regulatory activities. The charges in Option 3 are more aligned with other council charging and would meet the income budget for 2021/22. Many fees would increase by a larger amount if they were set at the actual average time to process the application at the current hourly charge out rate ($148, option 4). This change would be significant compared to the level of current charges and there could be some criticism received for such a significant increase in the current economic context. The options and fee changes are identified in the table below:

Food premises	Status Quo Option 1 - Current charge (40% recovery)	Proposed charge Option 2 - 48% recovery (recommended option based on increasing the hourly charge out rate)	Proposed charge Option 3 – 51% recovery (increasing charges to being similar to other councils’ charges)	Proposed charge Option 4 – 56% recovery (increasing charges to cover the actual time to process at the current charge out rate)
New Registration Food control plan	$222 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first 1½ hours	$243 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first 1½ hours	$250 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first 1½ hours	$259 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first 1.75 hours
New Registration National programme	$148 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first hour	$162 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first hour	$250 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first hour	$259 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first 1.75 hours
Renewal	$74 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first ½ hour	$81 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	$100 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	$148 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first hour
Amendment to Registration	$74 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first ½ hour	Simple name or contact detail change $40 or Other changes $81 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	Simple name or contact detail change $40 or Other changes $100 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	Simple name or contact detail change $37 or Other changes $148 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first hour
Voluntary suspension	$74 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first ½ hour	$81 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	$100 initial fee Plus $162 per hour after the first ½ hour	$74 initial fee Plus $148 per hour after the first ½ hour
Verification	$148 per hour	$162 per hour	$162 per hour	$148 per hour
Compliance	$148 per hour	$162 per hour	$162 per hour	$148 per hour
Monitoring (where there is compliance)	No charge	No charge	No charge	No charge

Food premises

Status Quo Option 1 -

Current charge (40% recovery)

Proposed charge

Option 2 - 48% recovery (recommended option based on increasing the hourly charge out rate)

Proposed charge

Option 3 – 51% recovery (increasing charges to being similar to other councils’ charges)

Proposed charge

Option 4 – 56% recovery (increasing charges to cover the actual time to process at the current charge out rate)

New Registration
Food control plan

$222 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first 1½ hours

$243 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first 1½ hours

$250 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first 1½ hours

$259 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first 1.75 hours

New Registration
National programme

$148 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first hour

$162 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first hour

$250 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first hour

$259 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first 1.75 hours

Renewal

$74 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first ½ hour

$81 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

$100 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

$148 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first hour

Amendment to Registration

$74 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first ½ hour

Simple name or contact detail change

$40 or

Other changes

$81 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

Simple name or contact detail change

$40 or

Other changes $100 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

Simple name or contact detail change

$37 or

Other changes

$148 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first hour

Voluntary suspension

$74 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour after the first ½ hour

$81 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

$100 initial fee

Plus

$162 per hour after the first ½ hour

$74 initial fee

Plus

$148 per hour

after the first ½ hour

Verification

$148 per hour

$162 per hour

$162 per hour

$148 per hour

Compliance

$148 per hour

$162 per hour

$162 per hour

$148 per hour

Monitoring
(where there is compliance)

No charge

No charge

No charge

5.32 The table below identifies the percentage cost recovery from charges for various hourly rates and identifies the impacts on rates for the different level of charges increases:

Option	Income from charges	% of 2021/22 costs from fees	Rates component	% increase in charges
Option 1 $148 (current)	$92,000	40	$129,500	0
Option 2 (preferred option, increase charge out rate)	$109,500	48	$120,000	9.5 – 9.9
Option	Income from charges	% of 2021/22 costs from fees	Rates component	% increase in charges
Option 3 (increase to levels similar to other Councils)	$118,000	51	$111,500	9.5 – 68.9
Option 4 (charge actual time at current hourly rate)	$129,500	56	$100,000	0 – 100

Options

5.33 The recommended option is option 2 – increase the fees and charges as proposed to recover 48% of the costs. These fees and charges will better reflect the cost recovery requirement of the Food Act than retaining the current fees.

Option 1: Retain the current fees and charges
Advantages	· Operators do not face increased fees · Would not receive criticism
Risks and Disadvantages	· The cost of the food registration, verification and compliance functions is not sufficiently covered by income from fees and charges · Some fees do not reflect the actual time for the activity · Does not meet the cost recovery requirements of the Food Act 2014 · Increases to fees and charges will be required at a later date and potentially greater. · The hourly rate continues to be inconsistent with other regulatory services · No rates savings are realised for these activities · Food operators have not received an increase since the fees and charges were set in 2016
Option 2: Increase fees and charges to recover 48% of the costs as proposed in Attachment 2 (RECOMMENDED OPTION)
Advantages	· The proportional cost of services is better met by food operators than ratepayers · Better meets the cost recovery requirements of the Food Act 2014 · Prevents a significantly larger increase at a later date · Hourly rates are more consistent with other regulatory functions and are more transparent · The rates component is reduced · Recognises food operators have not received an increase since the fees and charges were introduced in 2016
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some dissatisfaction by operators for the increase in costs · Could increase costs following non-payments requiring more staff follow up time · Could receive criticism from food businesses for increasing fees in the current economic context
Option 3: Increase fees and charges to recover 51% to 56% of the costs
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the services are better met by operators than ratepayers compared to the existing rate and increases over time · The registration costs will better reflect the actual time taken to perform the function · The rates component is reduced · Prevents a significantly larger increase at a later date · Recognises food operators have not received an increase since the fees and charges were introduced in 2016 · More in line with other councils
Risks and Disadvantages	· Likely to receive criticism from operators (particularly those under the National programme regime) for increasing fees in the current economic context · Could increase costs following non-payments requiring more staff follow up time

Building consents

5.34 Building consent fees and charges are based on applications and their processing costs. A comprehensive review was undertaken in early 2020 and new fees and charges set. These applied from 1 July 2020.

5.35 Under section 219 of the Building Act 2004, Council is permitted to impose fees and charges for many of the services the Building Unit is responsible for as a Building Consent Authority (BCA) including issuing building consents, inspecting building work and issuing property information (e.g. project information memoranda). Under section 281A of the Building Act 2004, Council has a discretion as to how the fee or charge is set and how it may be paid or collected.

5.36 Council must act reasonably when imposing fees and charges under the Building Act 2004. This means that Council should generally not make a profit out of performing its functions under the Building Act 2004. Council is not required to carry out consultation before imposing fees and charges.

5.37 Under Council’s Revenue and Financial Policy, the Building Unit is required to recover 60-80% of the total costs. For the 2018/19 financial year the recovery was 78% and in 2019/20 the recovery was 65%. This financial year is tracking at 71% to date. The level of building activity has remained steady over the last couple of years but costs to provide the service to meet audit standards are escalating.

5.38 It is proposed to incorporate the systems fee into the consent deposit fees to help minimise customer confusion with the layout of the fee schedule. A new deposit level is proposed for consents between $400,001 to $600,000 value of works, to better reflect the actual costs in processing consents in this category.

5.39 Increased costs for meeting audit requirements and officer costs e.g. training has resulted in a recommendation to raise the hourly rate for commercial processing and inspections to $200 per hour, aligning with other similar sized councils around the country.

5.40 The hourly rate for all other building unit staff is proposed to be raised from $160 to $164, which aligns with Tasman District Council’s proposed increase for 2021/22. A higher hourly rate compared to the other regulatory hourly charge out rate of $162 is required to better meet the higher increase in costs. A comparison of current hourly rates with other similar sized councils is shown in the table below:

Council	Residential	Commercial
Tasman	164	164
New Plymouth	172	193
Napier	172	172
Hastings	205	225
Invercargill	160	160
Whangarei	219	283
Palmerston North	190	208
average	183	201
NCC current	160	160
NCC proposed	164	200

5.41 An increase to the QA levy by 50c per $1,000 over $20,000 value of work is also proposed. This fee targets the higher value work where extra training and higher competency resource is required. These higher commercial competencies are now required due to the increase in multi-level apartment construction and larger commercial projects.

5.42 The Certificate of Acceptance fee is proposed to be raised to $1000 per application from $800 that will incorporate a new systems fee for this category. This fee is intended to help discourage illegal building works within the region. The proposed fee also aligns with Tasman District Council’s fee of $1,000.

5.43 Bathroom alterations, swimming pools and proprietary garage applications are proposed to be added to minor works. This ensures more consistency across projects. The swimming pool fencing consent deposit (minor works) is proposed to be raised to $450 from $325, which better reflects the actual costs, including hourly inspection rates and administration.

5.44 An express service timeframe is proposed for commercial marquees.

5.45 In 2020, the notification of exempt works and unauthorised building work applications were set at $315 but this has been shown to be too high. It is proposed to reduce these fees to $250 and this will better reflect the actual costs associated with this work. See Attachment 3 for the full proposed building fee and property information charges and Attachment 6 for differences in fees between current and proposed for a sample of activities.

5.46 The total expenses for the building activity for the 2021/22 financial year are estimated to be $3,700,000 GST exclusive. Current charges will recover approximately 66% of these costs, with the proposed fee increases adopted, approximately 71% will be recovered. The increase will also meet the budgeted income for 2021/22. The table below identifies the percentage cost increases for a sample of activity types for the proposed increase in the hourly rates:

		New rate $164 hr		New rate $200 hr (commercial)
Activity	Old fee	Estimated fee	Increase	Estimated fee	Increase
Residential $100,000 value	$4,000.00	$4,139.00	3.4%
Residential $432,000 value	$7,888.00	$8,256.50	4.6%
Residential $650,000 value	$9,640.00	$10,139.00	4.9%
Commercial $190,000 value	$5,560.00			$6,818.00	18.5%
Commercial $900,000 value	$11,280.00			$13,576.00	16.9%
Commercial $16,800,000	$90,560.00			$104,726.00	13.5%

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

LIMs

5.47 Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) application fees have not changed since 2016. The following rates for various councils have been used to help review the LIM application fees:

LIMs	NCC	Tasman	MDC	PNCC	New Plymouth^*		Napier
Residential	$285	$272	$322	$455	Standard	$280	$305
					Urgent	$400
Commercial/ Industrial	$440	$409	$557	$455	Standard	$380	$455
					Urgent	$530
Properties involving multiple titles	N/A	Quote for work	N/A		$150		$102

*NPDC all applications have an allowance of 2.5 hours, any additional processing time are calculated at $120.00 per hour

5.48 An increase is proposed to $300 for a residential application and $460 for a commercial/industrial property. The new fees incorporate CPI increases over the last five years and better reflects the costs of providing the service. Generally up to four LIM applications can be processed per day, with a mixture of both residential and commercial applications.

5.49 There has been an increase in applications for commercial consents on multiple titles. This increases the workload associated with an application and it is recommended that an additional charge be introduced for large commercial applications.

5.50 An application with multiple titles can take a significant amount of time and resources and it is recommended that Council adopt an hourly rate approach charged for all time taken above the minimum fee. This aligns with the time and cost approach for all building unit activities.

5.51 For example an application was received last year which included one parent title and nine smaller titles within the overall title. Each individual title was required to be searched for additional information. This particular LIM application took two days to process.

Options

5.52 The options are to retain the current fees and charges, increase the fees and charges in line with CPI at 1.4% or increase the charges at a higher rate to better cover foreseeable increase in costs. The recommended option is Option 3 to approve the fees and charges at the higher rate as proposed in Attachment 3. Building fees and charges can be reviewed at any time.

Option 1: Retain the current fees and charges
Advantages	· Applicants and consent holders do not face increased charges · Would not receive any criticism from increasing fees
Risks and Disadvantages	· The fees do not reflect the actual time taken for the activity/costs to Council · Fees and charges continue to not align with local and national industry levels · Increases to charges may need to be bigger at a later date · Continue to collect too much from some fees
Option 2: Increase the fees and charges by CPI at 1.4%
Advantages	· The fees better reflect the actual time taken to perform functions · The increased charges will cover some of the costs of attaining and meeting national quality assurance requirements · Increases provide less dependence on rates
Risks and Disadvantages	· Fees and charges may not meet budgeted recovery levels · May not sufficiently cover the costs of meeting quality assurance requirements could put the accreditation at risk · Fees and charges will not provide for resourcing needs identified within the recent accreditation (IANZ) and MBIE audits. · Fees and charges continue to be less consistent with local and national industry levels and the Council will need to fund the Building Unit more from rates income · A larger increase may be required at a later date
Option 3: Increase the fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 3 (RECOMMENDED OPTION)
Advantages	· The fees better reflect the actual time taken to perform functions · The increased charges will cover most of the costs of attaining and meeting national quality assurance requirements · Increases provide less dependence on rates subsidy of the Building Unit · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· May receive criticism from applicants for increasing fees in the current economic context · Could increase cost challenges or queries requiring more officer time to follow up

Environmental health

5.53 Environmental Health fees and charges for activities such as animal control, registration of hairdressers, offensive trades, and oil spill contingency plan approval costs are authorised under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), Health Act 1956 (and associated Regulations), Impounding Act 1955 and the Maritime Transport Act 1994. Criteria for fixing these fees and charges is not set in this legislation but the charges should be appropriate, reasonable and relate to the costs for providing the service.

5.54 The environmental health fees and charges have not changed since 1 July 2016. Officers have reviewed the charges in previous years but due to the bundling of a number of activities in the revenue and finance policy, the income target for the fees and charges had been met by current charges. These activities have now been separated with more appropriate revenue and finance targets identified for each activity.

5.55 The fees and charges have been reviewed to reflect the actual time taken for officers to complete the service. The current hourly charge out rate for animal control, which includes wandering stock, is $125. An hourly rate is used rather than a fixed fee as the investigations (for wandering stock) and/or non-compliance follow ups can take a range of time depending on the issues.

5.56 The animal control services including wandering stock are seldom required. The approximate $20,000 cost per year for providing this service is currently met by rates. It is proposed to increase the hourly charge out rate to $162 for the situations when an owner of the stock can be charged the cost of responding to the incident. This charge out rate is consistent with most other regulatory activities hourly rates and is comparable with other council charges as identified in the table in 5.64 below.

5.57 The activities under the Health Act are not large in numbers, or incomes and costs. The income and costs have recently been separated from the Food Act activity with the current public health activity income recovering approximately 55% of costs. An increase of 4.5% for the hairdressers annual licence fee is proposed (from $155 per year to $162 per year for the 50 businesses) to cover the one hour to process the application. The hourly charge out rate of $162 is consistent with most other proposed regulatory hourly rates.

5.58 The offensive trades annual licence fee is proposed to increase by 3% (from $236 per year to $243 per year) reflecting 1.5 hours to process at the hourly charge out rate of $162. The proposed increases in fees will result in income levels within the Revenue and Finance policy targets and are also comparable with other councils’ fees.

5.59 Section 33R of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 allows for regional councils to prescribe fees and charges for any function, duty, power, or service performed, exercised, or provided by Council in respect of any ship, maritime facility, offshore installation, pipeline, oil transfer site, navigational aid, or marine farm and any maritime-related activities it undertakes. It allows for such fees and charges on any differential basis (for example, based on the size of a ship, or on the basis of the nature, the location, and use of a facility).

5.60 Under the Maritime Protection Rules, Rule 130B.4, no person may operate an oil transfer site without the Director's written approval of a site marine oil spill contingency plan that complies with the requirements of the Schedule. The Council has been delegated the power to approve a site marine oil spill contingency plan by the Director pursuant to sections 270 and 444 of the Maritime Transport Act and Part 130B of the Marine Protection Rules.

5.61 Processing marine contingency plans and responding to pollution incidents takes a range of time depending on the complexity and nature and scale of the incident. An hourly charge out rate is appropriate plus on-charging any disbursements such as replacing materials used in an oil spill clean-up. This ensures those receiving the benefit of Council services pays the reasonable cost for that service.

5.62 The current hourly charge out rate is not identified in the licence and activity fees table. The charge out rate needs to be identified to transparently recover the reasonable costs of providing the services.

5.63 A charge out rate of $162 per hour is proposed and is consistent with other regulatory services hourly rates. This ensures coverage of all overheads associated with providing the service. Similarly, the proposed hourly charge out rate will apply to processing Site Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plans and maritime oil spill responses. Disbursement charges will remain at cost. Other councils do not specifically list their fees for these services but their general charge out rates are often higher.

5.64 No changes are proposed for the campgrounds ($270) and funeral director registrations ($170). These sufficiently reflect the actual time to process the applications at the hourly charge out rate of $162 and are comparable to other councils’ fees. The proposed environmental health licence fees and charges compared to other councils’ fees are contained in the table below:

Licence and Activity Fees	NCC current	NCC proposed	TDC	MDC	PNCC	NPDC	Napier
Hairdressers	$155	$162	$183	$178	$167	$155	$188
Offensive trades	$236	$243	$264	$108	$422	$156	$183-$336
Camping grounds	$270	$270	$285 +	$262	$422	$310	$336
Funeral directors	$170	$170	$285	$200	$422	$155	$239
Animal Control - hourly charge out rate	$125	$162	$164	$100 +	$124 +	$167 +	$110 +
Processing Site Marine Contingency Plans – hourly charge out rate	Not listed	$162	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed
Licence and Activity Fees	NCC current	NCC proposed	TDC	MDC	PNCC	NPDC	Napier
Pollution response - hourly charge out rate - disbursements	Not listed	$162 cost	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed

Options

5.65 The recommended option is option 2 – increase the fees and charges as proposed. Fees and charges better reflect the costs incurred and can be reviewed at any time.

Option 1: Retain the current fees and charges
Advantages	· Operators do not face increased fees · Unlikely to receive any criticism from operators
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some fees do not reflect the actual time for the activity · Increases to fees and charges will be required at a later date and potentially be greater. · The hourly rate continues to be inconsistent across regulatory services · No rates savings are realised for these activities
Option 2: Increase fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 4 (RECOMMENDED OPTION)
Advantages	· The proportional cost of services is better met by operators than ratepayers · The registration costs will better reflect the actual time taken to perform the function · Restricts a larger increase at a later date · Hourly rates are consistent with most other regulatory functions and are more transparent · The rates component is reduced
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by operators · Could increase costs following non-payments requiring more staff follow up time · Could receive criticism from the business community given the effects of Covid-19

Alcohol licensing

5.66 Alcohol licensing fees and charges are set by the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013. Local authorities can only use discretion to lower the rating of particular activities by one rating which will in turn lower those charges. Reductions are only applied if there has been no enforcement actions.

5.67 Council has applied lower ratings to specified activities since 2014. The specified activities were expanded in 2016 as income was exceeding costs at that time. In the last three financial years the costs have slightly exceeded the income therefore no change to the current list of discretions is proposed.

Dog control

5.68 Dog control fees and charges underwent a comprehensive review in 2020 in tandem with the review of the Dog Control Bylaw and Policy. Increases and changes were set from 1 July 2020 after public consultation. Council received approximately 80 complaints from dog owners after the fee increase with many not happy with the large increase and did not believe they were getting any benefit from paying this registration fee.

5.69 Income from current registrations and other charges are on track to recover 90% of costs. No significant changes to the dog control fees are proposed with only a CPI increase recommended for the 2021/22 financial year given there were larger increases last year. See Attachment 5 for details of the proposed changes.

Options

5.70 The recommended option is option 2 – increase the fees by CPI. Fees can be reviewed at any time but can only come into force at the commencement of the registration year.

Option 1: Retain the current fees
Advantages	· Dog owners do not face another increase to fees following last year’s increases
Risks and Disadvantages	· The cost of the dog control functions may not be sufficiently covered by income from fees and charges · The fees do not reflect the actual time taken for the activity/costs to Council · The increase to fees may need to be larger at a later date · The dog control account stays in debt
Option 2: Increase fees by CPI (1.4% at December 2020) as proposed in Attachment 5 (RECOMMENDED OPTION)
Advantages	· The proportional cost of the Dog Control services is better met by dog owners than ratepayers · The fees better reflect the actual time taken to perform functions · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Dissatisfaction by dog owners · Criticism levelled at Council for again increasing fees following the increase last year · Could increase costs following non-payments requiring more staff follow up time
Option 3: Increase fees by a higher level
Advantages	· The cost of the services is met by dog owners and any surplus contributes to paying back the internal loan raised · Prevents a larger increase at a later date
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some services have a wider public benefit so it is not reasonable to portion this to dog owners alone · Dissatisfaction by dog owners · Criticism levelled at Council for again increasing fees following the increase last year · Could increase costs following non-payments requiring more staff follow up time

6. Consultation

6.1 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making processes give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter. Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy identifies criteria to assess proposals for their degree of significance and therefore the appropriate form of community engagement.

6.2 The most relevant criteria for this proposal is e) impacting a significant number of the community. Any potential changes are also likely to affect the Revenue and Financing policy and any rates contribution.

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

6.4 Section 205 of the Food Act 2014 gives territorial authorities the power to set fees for registration, verification and compliance and monitoring activities under this Act. The territorial authority must use the SCP when setting its fees (section 205(2)) and the new fees are to take effect at the commencement of the financial year.

6.5 The other Environmental Management regulatory fees and charges that can be set by Council do not require a SCP under their legislation. However the proposed changes to the fees and charges for building, food and environmental health activities are above CPI so a SCP is recommended for these activities. The dog control fee increase is recommended to increase only by CPI so a SCP is not proposed for these changes. No change is proposed for the lowering of ratings for alcohol licensing.

6.6 In undertaking a SCP the Local Government Act 2002 requires the territorial authority to make the statement of proposal publicly available, along with a description of how persons interested in the proposal will be provided with an opportunity to present their views and the period during which those views may be provided to the Council.

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

6.7.1 the proposed changes;

6.7.2 the reasons for the changes;

6.7.3 what alternatives to the changes are reasonably available; and

6.7.4 any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

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

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

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	18 February
Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	16 March
Consultation closes	16 April
Environment Committee – Hearing of Submissions	11 May
Environment Committee – Deliberation of submissions and adoption of changes	10 June

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

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

6.10.2 Nelson City Council website, web page and web app.

6.10.3 Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues also to be sent to relevant industry associations.

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

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

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal is that Environmental Management fees and charges increase to better meet the actual costs of providing the services.

7.2 Only two activities require public consultation by legislation, Resource Management and Food Act activities. The proposed changes to the dog control fees are a CPI increase only and public consultation is not required or proposed given the minor impact of the changes on a limited number of people.

7.3 The building, food and environmental health activity charges are proposed to increase by more than CPI. Public consultation is considered warranted for these activities to provide transparency for the number of people potentially impacted by the proposed changes.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Proceed to public consultation on the proposed changes for the Resource Management, Building, Food Act and Environmental Health activities and follow a special consultative procedure. Once public comments have been received and considered then Council will confirm the changes to the fees and charges.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2551172 Proposed Resource Management fees and charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Attachment 2: A2554483 Proposed Food Act charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Attachment 3: A2565321 Proposed Building Unit fees and charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Attachment 4: A2563976 Proposed Environmental Health charges - Statement of Proposal ⇩

Attachment 5: A2554765 Proposed Dog Control fees ⇩

Attachment 6: A2564096 Building activity examples comparing current and proposed fees ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in the report provides for the cost effective delivery of regulatory services that protect the environmental, cultural and social well-being of the community.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended charges assist with achieving the stated funding outcomes in the Long Term Plan. The fully resourced regulatory activities also contribute to our natural environment being healthy and protected, ensuring our communities are healthy and safe and communities have access to social and recreational activities.

3. Risk

The do nothing option will not be consistent with the criteria for fixing charges specified in the various legislation. It will also likely to lead to far greater increases in the future. Increasing fees and charges by too high a level however could result in dissatisfaction by those impacted by the increase even if that increase is potentially justified. Proposed increases minimise the risk of dissatisfaction by increasing fees at a reasonable rate compared to current fees.

4. Financial impact

The proposed increases in charges will better enable costs for the services to be met in the medium to long-term at an appropriate proportion between applicants/consent holders and ratepayers. The changes outlined are likely to require an amendment to the Revenue and Financing policy.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because proposed increases while justified will impact on a number of applicants and consent holders. The Food Act, RMA and HASHAA require a special consultative procedure to occur when fixing charges.

6. Climate Impact

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

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Environment and Climate Committee has the following delegations to consider the regulatory fees and charges:

Areas of Responsibility:

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

· Environmental regulatory and non-regulatory matters including (but not limited to) animals and dogs, amusement devices, alcohol licensing (except where delegated to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority), food premises, gambling, sugar-sweetened beverages and smokefree environments, and other public health issues

· Maritime and Harbour Safety and Control

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

Delegations:

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

· Approval of increases in fees and charges over the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

Item 9: Biosecurity Annual Review

Environment and Climate Committee

18 February 2021

REPORT R21465

Biosecurity Annual Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present a summary of the achievements of the 2019-20 Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP), and to present the Operational Plan for the 2020-21 financial year.

2. Summary

2.1 The Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (RPMP) provides a framework for the efficient and effective management of eradication of specified organisms (declared ‘pests’) across the Tasman and Nelson regions. Tasman District Council is the management agency for the joint RPMP. Section 100B (2(a)) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the management agency to prepare an Operational Plan for the RPMP and then review that plan annually and report on its implementation.

2.2 Because each Council is responsible for reporting pest management activities against its own Annual Plan targets, the 2019-20 Operational Plan was prepared for each region in the form of two volumes – the Nelson region volume (Attachment 1) was approved by the Environment Committee at its meeting on 28 November 2019.

2.3 The review of the 2019-20 Operational Plan summarises the activities undertaken and is in two parts (Attachments 2 and 3). Attachment 2 summarises the activities against the objectives of the Operational Plan, and Attachment 3 provides a more extensive analysis against specific targets for each pest.

2.4 The review confirms Nelson City Council is meeting its biosecurity obligations and work undertaken was within budget.

2.5 The 2020-21 Operational Plan (Attachment 4) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken in implementing the RPMP. The total approved budget is $745,000 across both Tasman and Nelson regions and the budget for implementing the Operational Plan for the Nelson region is $262,000.

2.6 The Operational Plans and review have also been reported to Tasman District Council as a joint partner and the management agency for the RPMP.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Review (R21465) and its attachments (A2262413, A2504242, A2504241, and A2486628).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the Operational Plan 2020-21 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (A2486628), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council have operated a joint Regional Pest Management Strategy/Plan, and provided an annual Operational Plan, as required by the Biosecurity Act since its introduction in 1993.

4.2 This report presents activity undertaken over 2019-20 to implement the RPMP which came into effect on 1 July 2019.

4.3 The 2019-20 Operational Plan (Attachment 1) was the first year of the new RPMP under the Biosecurity Act revisions in 2015 which established the National Policy Direction for Pest Management. The new format sets out objectives and targets to be achieved in that period. Progress on the objectives is outlined in Attachment 2. For additional detail on targets and explanation, reference should be made to the annual review report in Attachment 3.

4.4 The 2020-21 Operational Plan (Attachment 4) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken when implementing the RPMP in 2020-21. There have been a number of learnings related to the provisions of the new RPMP and the practical application of the performance indicators in the Operational Plan. Metrics in the 2020-21 Operational Plan have been streamlined and simplified to enable better monitoring of performance with the RPMP.

4.5 The Operational Plans are based on the pests and programmes contained in the RPMP along with the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.7 The following classifications are used for RPMP pest inspections: new site; active property; monitoring property; and historic property. A new site is a property with a pest first recorded within the current financial year. An active property has live material (plants, seedlings, tubers, etc) present. A monitoring property has no live material up to a specific period for each pest (e.g. Taiwan cherry five years; saffron thistle 20 years). An historic property has no live material for more than the period specified for each pest.

4.8 The 2019-20 Operational Plan achieved the objectives and was delivered within budget.

4.9 In addition to meeting its obligations under the RPMP, the Council undertakes extensive control of plant and animal pests that are not included in the RPMP but which threaten ecological values on Council land or important areas for biodiversity. The details of this plant and animal pest control are reported by staff in the Parks and Science and Environment teams in relevant Quarterly Reports.

4.10 To address marine biosecurity responsibilities, and enhance eradication of the RPMP listed marine pest Sabella, both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. This continues to be an effective forum through which to prepare for, and respond to, marine pest incursions.

5. Discussion

Exclusion pests

5.1 Surveillance monitoring and investigations continued to check and prevent the following exclusion pests becoming established in the region: Cape tulip, Chilean needle grass, hornwort, Indian myna, Johnson grass, Koi carp; Phragmites; rooks; Senegal tea; velvet leaf; wallabies; and water hyacinth.

Eradication pests

5.2 Twelve of the 24 eradication pests occur in Nelson. With the exception of saffron thistle and Taiwan cherry, these are on track to be eradicated over the duration of the RPMP (i.e. by 2029). All new, active and monitoring sites were inspected during the year. All live plants found were destroyed, and/or control programmes initiated and plant numbers reduced.

5.3 There are two African feather grass sites of concern, both in Nelson. One is presently active and one shifted from active to monitoring status over 2019-2020 because the site is clear of the pest. There have been no new sites since 2011-2012.

5.4 The Nelson region remains free of Bathurst bur, however a dump site that received soil from a potentially contaminated site is being actively monitored and presently remains clear of the pest.

5.5 There are presently no active sites of boxthorn in the Nelson region, and two sites are being monitored.

5.6 Cathedral bells is very close to being eradicated, with three remaining active sites in Nelson checked during the year and two of them moving to monitoring status and the other site greatly reduced.

5.7 Infestations at the two active sites of climbing spindleberry in Nelson are slowly reducing.

5.8 There are no active infestations of Egeria or entire marshwort in Nelson and indications are that these pests are no longer present in the Tasman and Nelson regions.

5.9 There are no known active or monitored infestations of Indian ring-necked parakeet, knotweed, or red-eared slider turtles in the Nelson region.

5.10 There are presently 15 active sites of Madeira vine in the Nelson region; and eight monitoring sites which are presently clear of the pest.

5.11 There was a spike in new infestations of saffron thistle due to seasonal conditions, longevity of the seed in the soil and its ability to re-erupt after disturbance following long periods of dormancy. There is one active site in the Nelson region and four monitoring sites. There are five historic sites which are also checked occasionally as the records for these sites have yet to reach beyond the 20-year viability of the seedbank. Control of saffron thistle towards eradication continues.

5.12 The focus for 2019-2020 Taiwan cherry activity was to work with Tasman District Council to delimit infestation extent and prepare a joint 15-year eradication plan. Work has progressed well to control Taiwan cherry in the Nelson region, removing 63 mature and six juvenile plants and many seedlings mainly in the Atawhai/Dodson Valley sites of original plantings. However, delimitation in the Tasman region has revealed that the area of spread and level of infestation is far wider than that originally assumed with 548 (and increasing) active sites. The cost of maintaining this plant as an eradication pest in the Tasman region is significantly higher than originally forecast. Tasman District Council is reconsidering the eradication classification of Taiwan cherry across the region to reduce operational costs and conflict with landowners with this plant located in areas where there is a low risk of spread. Any change in status will require a review of the relevant provisions in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan and consideration of implications for successful eradication in the Nelson region.

5.13 Regular surveillance for Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) in Nelson Haven continued. As part of scheduled delimitation/ elimination work, three single Sabella specimens were found between June and November 2019 on marina structures, and the discovery of approximately 20 small specimens were discovered on a catamaran in the marina in June 2020. Two further Sabella were found on a yacht on a mooring in Nelson Haven during the annual Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Summer Survey in March 2020. All Sabella found were treated and removed.

5.14 Progress towards eradication of wild kiwifruit appears to be slow with the number of infestations reported as eradicated in 2019-2020 being fewer than the number of new sites found over the same period. There are three new sites, two active sites, one monitoring site and one historic site in Nelson.

5.15 The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the lead organisation for the eradication of introduced pest fish species in the Tasman and Nelson regions (ie Gambusia, rudd, tench and perch). There have been no new incursions of rudd, tench and perch and DOC continues to keep these pests in check. A programme of active surveillance of Gambusia by DOC in recent years culminated in a report in June 2020 that identifies 53 known active sub-sites which can be grouped into four main infestation regions in Nelson and Tasman, including Waimea Inlet. The report identifies that further trial work is needed to determine the feasibility of Gambusia eradication.

5.16 DOC is also the lead management organisation for the eradication of Spartina. The infestation is now limited to five active sites (four in Tasman and one in Nelson) concentrated around Waimea Estuary. An additional benefit of the Spartina surveillance programme has been the identification and treatment of non-RPMP but highly invasive pest plants in Waimea Inlet, in particular Jelly bean ice plant.

Progressive Containment pests

5.17 The Progressive Containment Pest programmes for bomarea, Chinese pennisetum, nassella tussock, variegated thistle and white-edged nightshade have been effective and indications are that these pests are well on the way to being contained within their respective containment zones. There has also been some reduction of infestation inside the containment zones.

5.18 The Nelson region remains free of bomarea, Chinese pennistenum, and purple loosestrife.

5.19 Five new sites of variegated thistle were recorded and treated in the Nelson region, all within the containment zone.

5.20 18 new sites of white-edged nightshade were identified in Nelson, all within the containment zone. All sites were treated.

5.21 A lack of occupier reporting on reed sweet grass makes it difficult to assess progress on this species. Further work is noted in the Operational Plan 2020/21 to determine the extent of this pest in Nelson.

Sustained Control pests

5.22 The ongoing control of 23 widespread pests to reduce their impacts and spread to other properties continued under the Sustained Control Programme, with many of the sustained control areas located in Tasman District.

5.23 Targets in the Operational Plan 2020-21 include collaboration with Tasman District Council staff to identify priority sites for management of chocolate vine, Gunnera species, Lagarosiphon, Queensland poplar, yellow flag, and yellow jasmine.

5.24 In most cases, progress toward RPMP outcomes for sustained control pests are not able to be reliably audited. Measuring success, particularly with pest plants that affect natural values, comes down to checking that priority sites remain clear of the pest. Further work is needed to identify priorities and to set annual performance targets on those.

Site-led pests

5.25 There are no site-led pest programmes under the RPMP in the Nelson region.

Pest control in addition to RPMP

5.26 In addition to controlling pests in the RPMP, the Council also has extensive programmes directed at organisms not listed in the RPMP but which threaten ecological values on Council land or important areas for biodiversity.

5.27 In Conservation Reserves pest control is focussed on feral ungulates, wilding conifers and a range of vine, ground cover, shrub and tree weeds.

5.28 Weed management in Landscape and Esplanade Reserves is increasingly being directed by Ecological Restoration Plans, which are complete or being developed.

5.29 Nelson Nature also provides support for animal and plant pest control for groups and landowners on private land. This support ranges from technical advice for lower priority sites to funding for contractors and herbicide at high value biodiversity sites. Most funding is provided through the Council’s Environmental Grant scheme.

2020-21 Operational Plan

5.30 The 2020-21 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been committed to via the RPMP and is budgeted. It builds on learnings from implementing the RPMP in 2019-20 outlined above. Targets have been updated, and metrics have been streamlined and simplified to enable better monitoring of performance with the RPMP. This includes:

· clarifying assessment, delimitation, and control requirements following discovery of new sites of some eradication pests (eg African feather grass, Cathedral Bells);

· new targets for control of active sites of climbing spindleberry and Madeira vine; and

· further work to identify priority sites for managing sustained control pests.

6. Options

Option 1: Approve 2020-21 Operational Plan (Preferred option)
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Plan. · Meets Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements. · Work is budgeted for.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Minimal as meets the requirement of the Plan and is within budget.
Option 2: Amend 2020-21 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for changes if deemed inconsistent with the Regional Pest Management Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates delays/reprioritisation of work. · Potential additional costs. · Potential significant risk of not controlling pest plants and animals. · May not meet Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements.

7. Conclusion

7.1 This report details the implementation of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan in Nelson and associated biosecurity matters.

7.2 The 2019-20 Operational Plan was the first year of an all new RPMP under the revised Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015. As such, it was significantly different than previous ones. There have been a number of learnings related to the provisions of the new RPMP and the practical application of the performance indicators in the Operational Plan.

7.3 In particular, Tasman District Council has reported that due to costs being significantly higher than expected, it is reconsidering the eradication classification of Taiwan cherry across the Tasman region. Any change would require a review of the relevant provisions in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management.

7.4 The 2020-21 Operational Plan provides for a consistent and efficient approach to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. The plan ensures the Council meets statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and activities are within budget.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Continue to implement the Operational Plan 2020-21 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

8.2 Consider potential changes to the RPMP related to Taiwan cherry should this be initiated during the year by Tasman District Council or delayed until further information is available.

8.3 If a change to the RPMP related to Taiwan cherry is considered, it may be appropriate to also consider other timely changes, such as introducing wilding confer control requirements and alignment of Sabella rules similar to those in Marlborough District Council RPMP at the same time in order to improve consistency across the Top of the South.

Author: Richard Frizzell, Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2262413 - Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan Operational Plan 2019-2020 Vol 2 (NCC) (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: A2504242 - Report on Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2019-2020 Objectives (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 3: A2504241 - Report on and review of Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2019-2020 Targets (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 4: A2486628 - Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2020-2021 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report and recommendations achieve a consistent and cost-effective approach to pest management across the Nelson-Tasman regions by working jointly with the Tasman District Council to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993. It also provides a valuable service to the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from pests are effectively addressed.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2020/21 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Any changes would risk delaying the ongoing implementation of the Plan.

4. Financial impact

This activity is already funded within the Council’s Long Term Plan and no additional funding is sought.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

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

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

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

5.4.1 Areas of Responsibility:

· Environmental science monitoring and reporting including… biosecurity (marine, freshwater and terrestrial), pest and weed management….

5.4.2 Delegations:

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

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

· Developing, monitoring and reviewing strategies, policies and plans, with final versions to be recommended to Council for approval

5.4.3 Powers to Recommend to Council:

· Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

Item 11: Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 October 2020 - 31 December 2020

Environment and Climate Committee

18 February 2021

REPORT R22560

Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 October 2020 - 31 December 2020

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To report on financial and non-financial performance measure results for the second quarter of the 2020/2021 financial year for the Environmental Management Group activities. The activities included are: Building, City Development, Resource Consents and Compliance, Planning, and Science and Environment.

2. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 October 2020 - 31 December 2020 (R22560) and its Attachments (A2563404, A2548631, A2559930, A2553113, and A2497431).

3. Discussion

Financial Results

3.1 Monitoring the Environment expenditure is less than budget by $162,000. Expenditure relating to Hill Country Erosion is behind budget by $86,000 with programme spend occurring differently to budget phasing. Other programmes behind budget include; healthy streams ($35,000), hydrology monitoring ($20,000) and sustainable land management ($17,000). All are anticipated to be spent by end of financial year.

3.2 Developing the Resource Management Plan expenditure is less than budget by $339,000. This is the expenditure relating to the Nelson Plan. It is anticipated that further technical work will be undertaken in during Q3 and Q4.

3.3 City Development expenditure is less than budget by $92,000. City development project and consultant costs are behind budget by $51,000 and $28,000 respectively, with work now anticipated to occur in last quarter of the year.

3.4 Environmental Advocacy/Advice expenditure is less than budget by $83,000. Nelson Nature expenditure is behind budget by $123,000, with work expected to occur in the second half of the year. Maitai ERP Expenditure is $38,000 behind budget and is a timing variance, meanwhile expenditure for Kaimahi for Nature is $57,000 ahead of budget.

3.5 Building Services income is more than budget by $278,000. Building consent fees are ahead of budget by $192,000, BCA QA levy income is ahead of budget by $71,000 and Insurance Levy income is $33,000 ahead of budget. This is due to a combination of higher fees, and higher consent numbers in November and December compared with prior years, as well as reduced budgets for an expected decrease in income due to COVID-19.

3.6 Resource Consents income is more than budget by $99,000. Resource Consent Income is $96,000 ahead of budget.

3.7 Resource Consents expenditure is greater than budget by $67,000. Consultancy costs are over budget by $127,000. Consultant use is reducing, with consultants no longer being used once they have finished with a consent. Consultants use: 21 – July, 10 – August, 8 – September, 7 – October, 4 – November, and zero in December. Staff costs are $46,000 behind budget, due to vacancies within the Resource Consent team.

Key Performance Indicators

3.8 The Environment Management Group is on track to meet all except two performance measures. Refer to Attachment 1: Environmental Management Group Performance Measures Levels of Service for more information.

3.9 Building consents are slightly behind target for processing within the statutory timeframes of 20 working days at 99.4% rather than 100%. Consent numbers are continuing to increase, with the highest number received in three years.

3.10 The technical issues with the food and alcohol performance measures reporting have been resolved. Food premises receiving an inspection is on track to be achieved.

3.11 Alcohol premises receiving two inspections per year is not on track. With changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act the focus is on high risk premises as required by the changes to the Act.

3.12 Refer to Attachment 1 for a complete list of the current performance measures.

Summary of activities

3.13 Building consent numbers are continuing to rise and the highest number of applications numbers have been received over the last 3 years. This has led to six breaches of the statutory timeframes occurring, however, all instances have been reviewed to mitigate these from occurring again. A significant number of LIM applications (205) were also received with no breaches of the statutory timeframes despite some large applications.

3.14 The City Development team has been working on various activities, including the City Centre Spatial Plan, population projections, the Housing Capacity Assessment, the Development Contributions Policy and the Future Development Strategy. These will help formulate decisions through the Long Term Plan (LTP) and other planning documents.

3.15 The Draft Nelson Plan was released to the public in early October 2020 to seek early feedback on various issues. Officers are currently reviewing the early engagement and will bring a paper to Council for its consideration in early 2021.

3.16 The Coastal Inundation maps were also released for public consultation between 18 November and 18 December 2020. The feedback is being reviewed and will help formulate developing various options for further discussion with the Council and the community.

3.17 The minimum parking rates contained in the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) have been removed and took effect on 1 January 2021. Work is also being undertaken on the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) in collaboration with stakeholders, iwi and Tasman and Marlborough District Councils.

3.18 The Science and Environment team has been undertaking a significant amount of monitoring and surveys, including: cyanobacteria at Avon Terrace; recreation bathing monitoring which commenced 30 November 2020; and sediment core and diatom samples from the reservoir. A survey of the Nelson coastline for coastal birds was completed in December and a highlight was the discovery of King Shag roosting near Cape Souci, the first record within the Nelson region.

3.19 Another highlight has been recognition of Council’s Sustainable Land Programme and Hill Country Erosion work. The NZ Herald has written an article highlighting the Sustainable Land programme and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has added the Hill Country Erosion work to its website.

3.20 Of the new 54 FTE roles to be created over the next five years for Project Mahitahi, 30 are already in place. These newly established roles have been placed at Nelmac and the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary, with the remaining likely to be in place by February 2021.

Risks and Challenges

Building

3.21 Due to COVID-19, building consent numbers were projected to be down by approximately 20-30%. As a consequence, the service contractor was released for both processing and inspections. To date there is only a 3.5% reduction on formally received consents in relation to this time last year.

3.22 Recruitment in specialist building roles is a challenge with a shortage of skilled experienced Building Control officers nationwide.

City Development

3.23 Officers are working closely to align the City Centre Spatial Plan and the Parking Strategy. This will inform the Streets for People place making and the Long Term Plan.

3.24 The NPS-UD requires cross territorial authority boundary work to develop the Housing and Business Capacity Assessment and review of the Future Development Strategy. This work contains risks and challenges as the two Councils have different levels of resourcing and budget, deadlines and priorities.

Planning

3.25 There is a significant risk the Nelson Plan programme will be delayed as a consequence of the proposed Resource Management Act reforms. The Minister for the Environment announced in late 2020 that the reforms would be a priority for this term of Government. The proposed major changes announced in the Randerson Report include:

· planning for positive outcomes not just managing adverse effects

· a more effective role for Māori and improved recognition of Te Tiriti

· more integrated and strategic long-term planning

· a move to equitable and efficient resource allocation within environmental limits

· effective partnering of central and local government and iwi/Māori in planning and delivery

· improved evidence, monitoring, feedback and oversight.

3.26 Cabinet announcements on the scope, process and approach are anticipated in early 2021.

3.27 The Nelson Plan programme has also been affected by Central Government delays to the release of further National Policy documents (e.g. NES Air Quality; Highly Productive Land; and Indigenous Biodiversity). Officers are awaiting an updated work programme and timeframes from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). Anticipating changes, officers are preparing an alternative programme for the delivery of the Nelson Plan for the Council to consider in early 2021.

Resource Consents and Compliance

3.28 The alcohol licensing measure is not achieved as the Alcohol Legislation now requires a focus on targeting all high risk premises. The work programme has been changed to align with the changed legislation to achieve 100% inspections of high risk premises twice per year.

Science and Environment

3.29 The recreation bathing monitoring commenced on 30 November with exceedances at Maitai Camp, Paremata Flats and Collingwood Street Bridge due to contaminants from stormwater runoff over land. The programme included additional sampling at Paremata Flats to assess bacteria and pathogen levels as part of a national programme coordinated by Institute of Environmental Science (ESR), funded by MfE.

4. Legal Proceedings Update

4.1 The Building team currently has four legal proceedings in progress. These are being reported to the Audit, Risk and Finance Committee.

4.2 A Financial Assessment Hearing for the payment of costs associated with court proceedings for a dog attack resulted in a decision that the monthly payments were to increase. This has not occurred by the date it was due to commence.

4.3 A prosecution for another dog attack is taking a similar approach to proceedings with the appeal abandoned due to a lack of security of costs. The hearing of the incident occurred on 2 December 2020 and the Judge’s decision to euthanise was made on the 18 December 2020. This decision has been appealed.

4.4 A recommendation has also been made to progress a prosecution of a disqualified dog owner that continued to have two dogs. Another dog that attacked a policeman has been seized and neutered, along with an additional dog from the same litter. This case is also recommended for prosecution.

5. Climate Change

5.1 Climate Reserve funding has been used to assist in the development of a draft Emissions Reduction Action Plan, which is yet to be completed. Climate Reserve funding has also supported an assessment of the suitability of solar panels on the roof of Civic House.

5.2 The coastal and flood hazard risk maps were consulted on alongside the Nelson Plan in November 2020, representing a key step in public engagement on climate adaptation. Council has established a new Climate Adaptation Advisor position, with recruitment carried out during the quarter. Work continues on strengthening cross-council collaboration on climate change, with an increasing number of councils and MfE expressing an interest in accelerating work on climate adaptation.

5.3 Council has commenced reviewing the strategic, engagement and action plan documents developed by the Nelson-Tasman Climate Forum, and providing feedback to the Forum co-ordination group.

6. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

Building

Achievements

6.1 Building consent numbers are increasing with the end of the second quarter having the highest application numbers for the same quarter for the last 3 years.

6.2 There were six breaches where the statutory timeframes were not met during this quarter. Breaches were due to:

· confusion encountered by processing contractor over local land and wind zone features;

· a breakdown in communication between an inspector and the administration team resulting in three non-compliances; and

· workload pressures due to significant numbers.

6.3 All instances have been reviewed and steps implemented to mitigate these from occurring again.

Trends

	2020-21 2^nd Quarter	2019-20 2^nd Quarter
Building Consents and amendments	218	230
Code Compliance Certificates	204	190
Inspections	1940	1187
LIMs	205	148

6.4 Building Consent applications and inspections numbers are continuing to increase as the industry remains positive and buoyant. Refer to Attachment 2 for a complete list of the numbers.

6.5 Land Information Memorandum’s (LIMs) applications have also continued to be high. However, they are returning to a more usual levels this quarter. There were no breaches of the 10-day statutory timeframes.

Strategic Direction and Focus

6.6 The construction sector is operating well locally, despite the COVID-19 economic forecasts with reports of good workflows and property sales to new subdivisions. A number of larger construction projects are underway including the Malthouse Lane and Ocean View apartment buildings, and the retirement villages at Summerset and Coastal View. New subdivisions are continuing to be developed and housing demand remains strong.

6.7 In 2021, both the Building Consent Authority (BCA) and the Territorial Authority (TA) will be audited by IANZ and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) respectively. Focus is being given to these areas in preparation for the auditor visits.

6.8 There is currently a severe skill shortage in the Building Control sector. A cadet position is being considered in the 2021/22 financial year. This will help bring new young people into the sector and build resilience.

6.9 The current consenting system provider has assisted with developing and streamlining the building processes and technology. This will gain some building unit efficiencies. A further update to the system is due for release which will again bring further efficiencies and testing will begin shortly.

City Development

Achievements

6.10 The Pop Up Park was opened in mid-September and the library door and CCTV cameras have since been installed. The design and installation is underway for shade sails for summer comfort. Council appeared on an episode of Stuff’s Kea Kids regarding the initiative. The park has proven very popular and it has been great to see increased numbers of tamariki in the city centre.

6.11 Work is continuing on the City Centre Spatial Plan and community engagement will occur shortly. Alignment will occur with the Parking Strategy once started. Officers are now working on project planning and will be bringing an update to Council’s Urban Development Subcommittee in March 2021.

6.12 Upper Trafalgar Street multi-function pole fabrication and catenary lights received additional budget from Council for fabrication and installation. Project delivery will take place starting in April 2021. (Refer to Attachment 4 for the project sheet).

6.13 Custom population projections have been developed to take into account the impacts of COVID-19. These were adopted by Council on 12 November 2020 for use in the LTP and other Council planning.

6.14 The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) was gazetted on 20 August 2020. Officers have been planning the work programme going forward, noting the Housing Capacity Assessment is due to be adopted by 31 July 2021.

6.15 In June 2020, the annual housing and business capacity monitoring report under the National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity 2016 was reported to Council on 12 November 2020.

6.16 The Mayoral Liaison team for the Future Development Strategy met on 16 October 2020. Officers from both Nelson and Tasman Councils took a report to the Joint Committee on 10 November 2020 providing an update and decision on the urban environment for the review of the Future Development Strategy.

6.17 Officers are currently preparing the Development Contributions Policy review and schedules to be included with the LTP consultation document.

6.18 The Urban Design Panel met in mid-December 2020 (Zoom) as a follow up review of one of the three recent intensification projects. The original review occurred in October 2020.

Strategic Direction and Focus

6.19 The key strategic focus areas are:

· the City Centre Spatial Plan by mid-2021 alongside the Parking Strategy. This will inform Streets for People place making and the LTP

· the review of the Development Contributions Policy so it can be updated with the LTP

· the Housing and Business Capacity Assessment required under the NPS-UD ready for adoption by 31 July 2021.

6.20 Officers are continuing to work on implementing the Intensification Action plan and build developer relationships to leverage greater investment in housing.

PLANNING

Achievements

Draft Nelson Public Engagement

6.21 The Draft Nelson Plan (the Plan) and its associated E-plan were released to the public in early October 2020. The purpose of releasing the Draft Plan was to seek early feedback on the direction and content of a range of issues. (Refer to Attachment 3 for the project sheet)

6.22 The engagement phase included a series of drop-in sessions across the City along with on-line interactions, direct mailing and contact with a range of landowners. The engagement phase was completed on 6 December 2020. Feedback from the engagement has begun to be processed and will be presented to Council for consideration in early 2021.

Coastal Inundation

6.23 Officers across Council have worked on releasing Coastal Inundation maps showing up to 2m of sea level rise. Approximately, 4500 letters were sent to properties potentially vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise. Approximately 100 people attended the drop-in sessions, whilst others contacted officers directly or provided written feedback. Feedback was sought between 18 November and 18 December 2020.

6.24 The Coastal Inundation mapping was a continuation of the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) approach, recommended by MfE. Subsequent steps will include reviewing feedback, undertaking risk and vulnerability assessments and developing options for further discussions with the community, prior to making decisions via the Nelson Plan and Long Term Plan.

6.25 Land Information Memorandum (LIM) notations for properties potentially affected by up to 2m sea level rise were updated in November 2020.

6.26 A subsequent review of the LIM notations has resulted in some changes. The changes include revision of out-dated mapping information for a small number of properties where works on a site had occurred subsequent to LIDAR data being taken; and a revision of the timeframe for applying LIM notations. Only properties affected by sea level rise for up to 100-110 years (1.5m sea level rise under the RCP 8.5H⁺ model) will now be notated on a LIM. The change to timeframe reflects:

· higher degrees of uncertainty about sea level rise projections beyond 100 years

· greater alignment with national planning practice that generally applies a 100 year timeframe for consideration of coastal hazards for most developments

· greater consistency with Tasman District Council LIM statements.

6.27 This approach is consistent with the obligation to include information in a LIM where there is a reasonable possibility objectively determined of the coastal inundation hazard occurring in the future. The LIM statements will be reviewed as and when Council receives further reports or guidance about projected sea level rise; and when planning decisions have been made through the Nelson Plan.

Nelson Plan Development

6.28 Officers have continued to prepare technical work needed to support the development of the Draft Nelson Plan. The work has covered freshwater management, including:

· re-establishing the Technical Working Groups across Nelson catchments; and meeting with Te Tau-Ihu iwi;

· meeting with iwi over identification of Sites of Significance to Maori;

· completing Significant Tree assessments;

· progressing coastal margin and structures work; and

· further development of natural hazard information.

Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM)

6.29 The NTLDM was issued as a revised version in November 2020. This followed minor and technical corrections to a small number of provisions.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)

6.30 Following requirements of the NPS-UD, Council resolved to remove the Nelson Resource Management Plan provisions relating to minimum parking rates. The NRMP provisions no longer have effect (from 1 January 2021). The necessary changes to the NRMP will be progressed in the first quarter of 2021.

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPS-FM)

6.31 As part of the work programme to implement the NPS-FM, officers coordinated the re-establishment of a catchment-based community freshwater working group in December 2020, the Freshwater Working Group (FWG). Residents, farmers, agency and organisation representatives and technical staff met to input and review NPS-FM implementation via Nelson Plan provisions. This work will continue into 2021, and potentially beyond.

6.32 Officers across Nelson City, Tasman and Marlborough Districts have continued to meet with iwi representatives to progress implementation of the NPS-FM provisions relating to te mana o te wai (among others). The aim has been to enable an efficient framework for iwi to contribute to the plan-making processes of the three councils of Te Tau Ihu; and to have a consistent framework within the Councils. This work will continue into 2021.

6.33 In December 2020, MfE issued a report outlining the Implementation of National Freshwater Policies and Regulations. The report provides a high level, theme based summary of the reviews undertaken for each regional council or unitary authority regarding the extent of implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM (as amended 2017)) and consistency with new requirements of the draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 (NPS-FM as notified 2019) and proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (proposed NES-FW).

6.34 The work builds on the previous implementation review undertaken by MfE which was published in 2017. The review was undertaken on a ‘traffic light’ system, scoring each provision as red, amber or green with respect to the extent of implementation.

6.35 The review considered the Draft Nelson Plan (as at March 2020) – prior to the release of the revised NPSFM in August 2020. The report identifies five areas of the Draft Plan as ‘green’; one as amber; and six as ‘red’. The amber and red areas generally reflect new requirements of the 2020 NPSFM and have been (and continue to be) the subject of further work by officers; and input from the Freshwater Working Group and Iwi Working Group. A link to the Review report can be found here: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/fresh-water/national-freshwater-policies-and-regulations-review

Strategic Direction and Focus

6.36 The focus for 2021 will be on:

· responding to feedback gathered through Engagement on the Draft Nelson Plan

· finalising technical work and undertaking targeted and wider public engagement on specific issues and the Draft Plan

· continuing with the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning approach for coastal hazards

· implementing Central Government freshwater reforms

· anticipating and responding to Central Government Resource Management Act reforms and other legislative changes.

RESOURCE CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE

Achievements

6.37 Resource consent compliance timeframes are 100% for this quarter (refer to Attachment 2 for a complete list of numbers). Consents issued in this period include:

· a bundle of eight consents for the Special Housing Area subdivision (and related activities) of rural zoned land into 74 residential-sized lots;

· a consent for an additional building on The Male Room site; and

· installing up to 10 temporary classrooms at Nayland College

6.38 A MagiQ consultant was onsite in November 2020to assist with the reports associated with the LTP measures covering dog and animal control, food safety and public health, and pollution response. These can now all be reported on and most are on track to be achieved.

6.39 Due to Bay Dreams being held on 5 January 2021, a significant amount of work was undertaken preparing for the event. Officers processed the various licences, consents and exemptions required.

6.40 The deputy harbourmaster held two successful marine safety expos at the boat ramp with support from other agencies, and was featured on the AM Show and One News for boat safety messaging. Stand up paddleboard safety courses were also held and assistance was given with the Haulashore Island clean up.

Trends

6.41 Freedom Camping patrols (morning and evening) commenced on 1 December 2020. As expected due to COVID-19 the numbers of campers are well down on previous years.

6.42 Educational patrols have commenced at the Delaware Bay boat launching area. The numbers of boat trailers parked nearby are at similar levels to last summer.

6.43 Pre-Christmas shopping in the city centre increased the demand for parking enforcement. An additional Parking Officer has been engaged to assist with an increased enforcement presence over the summer period.

Strategic Direction and Focus

6.44 Officers are participating in regional and national forums to provide consistency in how the new Policy Statements and Environmental Standards are implemented.

SCIENCE and ENVIRONMENT

Achievements

6.45 Refer to Attachment 5 for a list of the science and environment projects.

Air Quality

6.46 There were no exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) during this quarter.

Warmer Healthier Homes

6.47 Total programme installations year to date (December 2020) has been 331. This represents the highest number of homes completed in any six month period since the inception of the programme.

Healthy Streams

6.48 Cyanobacteria levels increased in November to moderate levels at Avon Terrace with additional warning signage and media communications undertaken to manage the public risk. Rainfall through December has flushed the majority of the established cyanobacteria mats away, though monitoring for further blooms will continue.

6.49 Sediment core and diatom samples have been taken from the reservoir to investigate the occurrence of the Lindavia diatom (known to form the nuisance mucilage 'lake snow'). The surveys are in preparation for aerating the reservoir to promote mixing and maintaining excellent water quality year-round.

6.50 A green infrastructure project was completed in the Lud Valley to trial an alternative method to the use of rock armour for bank erosion. Prior to works being undertaken, there were a surprising 24 longfin eels, 158 elvers, 11 bullies and 15 koura salvaged.

6.51 The project involved the use of logs, salvaged from an infrastructure project, to use as natural timber groynes to deflect water over a flood plain that had been reformed. Extensive planting in autumn 2021 will further enhance habitat and stabilise the bank, to eventually replace the logs as they rot down over time. The work will be monitored over time for both ecological and engineering outcomes.

6.52 The first community art project for the Poorman Valley Stream community engagement project was completed and is currently on display at the Greenmeadows Centre. This features over 250 original artworks completed during a range of workshops with schools, the general community and Stoke Seniors, combined into a larger piece.

6.53 The annual volunteer Christmas celebration afternoon tea was held on 14 December 2020, where volunteers working in restoration, water quality and trapping across Nelson are thanked for their hard work during the year and are able to network with each other.

Coastal and Marine

6.54 The draft coastal and marine programme has been reviewed by Cawthron. After consideration of their feedback, implementation of the water quality sampling and a range of restoration, community engagement, and citizen science projects will commence.

Nelson Nature Programme

6.55 Field work to measure changes in pest plants and animals in the Maitai and Roding Water Reserves and Nelson Halo was completed by officers and contractors. The five-yearly monitoring programme measures the change in presence of target pest plants and animals since the Nelson Nature programme began. Results of the monitoring will be analysed and reported in the final quarter.

6.56 Nelson Nature has been supporting trapping groups with technical advice, funding for traps, and recording the location of their traps and pest captures in the national trapping database trap.nz. This helps build a picture of trapping efforts in the Nelson Halo as well as providing information to the national Predator Free programme. There are currently 20 groups in Nelson logging their projects in trap.nz, and over 2,100 traps targeting rats, mice, possums or mustelids (stoats and weasels) deployed in Council parks and reserves. In the 2020 calendar year, more than 2,800 predators were caught by Halo groups on Council land, including almost 1000 rats and more than 200 possums.

6.57 A survey of the Nelson coastline for coastal birds was completed in December, as part of a wider survey of the entire Nelson and Tasman coastline. The survey focused on breeding locations of banded dotterel and variable oystercatcher, but also recorded locations of other coastal birds. A highlight of the survey was the discovery of King Shag roosting near Cape Souci, the first record within the Nelson region. King Shag are a highly endangered species, previously only known from the Marlborough Sounds. A full report of the survey will be produced by May 2021 and will improve Council's understanding of important habitat for coastal birds.

Sustainable Land Management Programme

Envirolink Grants

6.58 Officers were successful in applying to the Envirolink Fund to undertake two projects. The first will be delivered by Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, working with all regional councils through the Land SIGs (Special Interest Groups) to understand more about Matauranga Maori in relation to land science ($50,000). The second grant involves working with a forest ecologist, through Canterbury University, to develop guidelines for transitioning plantation forestry to native forestry taking into account a number of variables such as climate, soil type, and context ($40,000).

Sustainable Land Management Programme Media Coverage

6.59 The work Council has been delivering through the Sustainable Land Programme was highlighted during this quarter through the New Zealand Herald article and MPI website. These are two examples of where Nelson, as a smaller region, can design and deliver unique programmes which cater to the needs of its rural community. Larger councils can then base similar approaches on these models. More information on the Sustainable Land Programme can be found here http://www.nelson.govt.nz/environment/sustainable-land-management/. The articles can be found here:

· The New Zealand Herald article, as part of a series on freshwater initiatives called "The Vision is clear", focused on Wakapuaka Bursting with Life https://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-vision-is-clear/news/community-comes-together-to-protect-river/Q4M73D5L5EBLBT3LNFPS6QQMWQ/

· The Ministry for Primary Industries highlighted the Hill Country Erosion Funded work to develop land environment plans for lifestyle blocks as a case study https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/sustainable-land-management-and-hill-country-erosion-programme/

Project Mahitahi

6.60 Project Mahitahi was formally launched on 3 December 2020 with guests from a range of organisations and community groups there in support https://our.nelson.govt.nz/stories/collaborative-project-mahitahi-restoration-project-launched/. The project is a co-governed, co-designed, and co-delivered project with iwi, the Department of Conservation, MfE, and Council. It has a total external funding over five years of $3.7 million to restore the terrestrial environment of the Maitai / Mahitahi Valley.

6.61 MPI - Te Uru Rākau - has also granted $62,610 to fund trees for planting projects at Shakespeare Walk, Nile Street, and the Mahitahi Wetland.

6.62 A total of 54 FTE roles are to be delivered over the 5 years of the Project, and to date, 30 of these are in place at either Nelmac or at the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary. The remaining are likely to be agreed to with prospective employers by February 2020.

Biosecurity

6.63 A successful trial removal of the pest Mosquito fish Gambusia has been undertaken with the Department of Conservation in the intertidal reaches of Maire stream at Nelson Golf course. Over 180 Gambusia were removed over two months. The trial will inform a collaborative strategy for managing Gambusia within the Moutere-Waimea estuaries.

6.64 A resource consent has been granted enabling the use of aquatic herbicides that will help provide effective control of water celery in Stoke steams. Staff are developing an operational plan to begin spray applications in Orphanage Stream, including consultation with the Department of Conservation and iwi and notification to nearby residents.

Strategic Direction and Focus

6.65 There was a strong focus this quarter on developing the Science and Environment budget requirements for the Long Term Plan. Particular focus has been given to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater (NPS-FM), the National Environment Standard for Freshwater (Freshwater NES), and the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) requirements.

6.66 The quarter was also busy with the Government 'Jobs for Nature' initiative and the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance, and opportunities for Council to be involved. Several new projects are being explored in addition to Project Mahitahi.

6.67 The Regional Sector has been collaborating on projects to guide and support the implementation of the NPS-FW and NES freshwater. Officers are looped into these projects and looking for opportunities to leverage off existing resources and government funding streams to support our implementation programme.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2563404 Environmental Management Group Performance Measures Levels of Service ⇩

Attachment 2: A2548631 Building and Consents and Compliance statistics 1 Oct - 31 Dec 2020 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2559930 Nelson Plan Project sheet update for Dec 2020 for Quarterly report ⇩

Attachment 4: A2553113 Upper Trafalgar St Improvements Project Sheet December 2020 for Quarterly Report ⇩

Attachment 5: A2497431 2020-21 Environment Committee Quarterly Report - Project data and health - Environmental Management ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Section 10 of LGA 2002 requires local government to perform regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. This quarterly report identifies the performance levels of regulatory and non-regulatory functions.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Council’s Long Term Plan includes performance measures for various activities and this report enables the Council to monitor progress towards achieving these measures.

The Environmental Management work programme addresses the following community outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

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

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

· Our communities have opportunities to celebrate and explore their heritage, identity and creativity.

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

· Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

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

4. Financial impact

Currently behind budget on all of our activities. No further financial implications.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance and no engagement has been undertaken.

6. Climate Impact

The provision of regulatory and non-regulatory services directly assists Council to take appropriate action or advocate for others to take action to address the impacts of climate change.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No consultation with Māori has been undertaken regarding this report.

8. Delegations

The Environment and Climate Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

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

· Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

· Climate Change policy, monitoring and review

· Climate change impact and strategy overview - mitigation, adaptation and resiliency

· Climate change reserve fund use

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

· Environmental regulatory and non-regulatory matters including (but not limited to) animals and dogs, amusement devices, alcohol licensing (except where delegated to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority), food premises, gambling, sugar-sweetened beverages and smokefree environments, and other public health issues

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

· Environmental Science programmes including (but not limited to) Nelson Nature and Healthy Streams

· Hazardous substances and contaminated land

· Maritime and Harbour Safety and Control

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

· Policies and strategies relating to compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· Policies and strategies related to resource management matters

· Pollution control

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

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

· Urban Greening Plan

Delegations:

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

Option 1: Adopt the LOS as part of the Environmental Management AMP
Advantages	· Meets the Local Government Act 2002 requirements. · Delivers on Council’s statutory requirements under various pieces of legislation including the Resource Management Act 1991 and Building Act 2004. · Meets the Long Term Plan consultation requirements.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Not adopt the LOS as part of the Environmental Management AMP
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not meet the Local Government Act 2002 requirements. · Does not deliver on Councils statutory requirements under various pieces of legislation including the Resource Management Act 1991 and Building Act 2004.