Agenda of Council - 18 May 2021

Karakia Timatanga

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

5. Confirmation of Minutes 11 - 42

5.1 4 May 2021 (reconvened 5 and 6 May 2021)

Document number M15411

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 4 May, and reconvened on 5 and 6 May 2021, as a true and correct record.

6. Mayor's Report

7. Recommendations from Committees

The following recommendations to Council are draft as the Council agenda is being produced prior to the 14 May 2021 meetings of the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit and the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit.

7.1 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Long Term Plan Feedback Submission Report

That the Nelson City Council

1. Notes that the fees and charges at the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit will increase by 20%; and

2. Notes that there are no changes to the 2021/2022 Council Business Plan (A2495934); and

3. Notes that there are no changes to the Council Activity Management Plan 2021-2031 (A2511191).

7.2 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Long Term Plan Submission Feedback Report

That the Nelson City Council

1. Notes that there are no changes to the 2021/2022 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Business Plan (A2588602) adopted to populate the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plans; and

2. Notes that there are no changes to the Council Activity Management Plan 2021-2031 (A2588684) adopted to populate the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plans.

8. Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation and Related Matters 52 - 101

Document number R24777

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation and Related Matters (R24777) and its attachments (A2634256, A2642025 and A2641877); and

Awatea Place wastewater pump station upgrade

2. Approves provision for up to an additional $1.2 million in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to meet potentially higher than expected costs for the upgrade of the Awatea pump station.

Saxton Creek Stage 4

3. Approves provision for up to an additional $4.3 million, being $2,520,000 in year 1 and $1,750,000 in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31, to meet potentially higher than expected costs for the completion of stage 4 of the Saxton Creek project.

Ariesdale Terrace

4. Approves bringing forward $40,000 from year 5 and $40,000 from year 6 for the Ariesdale Terrace project to year 1 and year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Community Compost

5. Approves support for Community Compost’s initiative to grow its organic collection operation through an interest free bridging loan of $45,000 and a grant of $32,000 (subject to conditions) as unbudgeted expenditure in the 2020/21 financial year.

Landfill fees and charges

6. Notes that no change is proposed to the 20% increase in Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit fees that was consulted on.

Whakatū Whakamahere Nelson Plan

7. Notes that funding for Resource Management Act reform related costs are not included in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and will be considered when the implications are known.

Science and Technology Precinct

8. Notes that the estimated $2.8 million capital funding for realigning Council’s stormwater pipe will be transferred into the stormwater activity and depreciated; and

9. Approves a carry forward from 2020/21 to year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 of the $1.5 million capital grant, payable to the Cawthron Institute (on the signing of the sale and purchase agreement between Port Nelson and the Cawthron Institute); and

10. Approves bringing forward $2 million for the Science and Technology Precinct project from year 2 to year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

11. Approves a loan funded capital grant of up to $1.2 million to Port Nelson as Council’s contribution towards the development at the Science and Technology Precinct, payable to Port Nelson on completion of the works; and

12. Approves a provision of $500,000 additional funding in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (bringing the total Council contribution to $5.5 million) towards the Science and Technology Precinct.

Housing

13. Approves provision of up to an extra $128,000 operating expenditure in each of years 1 to 3 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for additional resource to deliver housing outcomes required by Council.

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust

14. Allocates a provision of up to $9,400 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for resealing the 220m² of road leading to Sanctuary gates in conjunction with the reseal of roading within the campground; and

15. Further allocates a provision of up to $80,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to extend WiFi coverage for the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary, particularly to the visitor centre.

Climate Change

16. Approves a provision of $65,000 per annum for Businesses for Climate Action for years 1 and 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $45,000 for year 3; and

17. Approves a provision of $25,000 per annum for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum through the ten years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Arts Council location

18. Approves a provision of up to $12,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for the Nelson Arts Council as transition funding while it works to investigate income options to offset the increase in visitor numbers being experienced at its new city centre location; and

19. Notes that the request from the Arts Council to assist with acquiring a new permanent location in the central city will be considered as part of the work to review and update Nelson’s arts policy guidance documents.

Nelson Centre for Musical Arts

20. Approves provision for up to $25,000 operational expenditure in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for the development of a pocket park on Nelson Centre for Musical Arts land on the basis that the Nelson Centre for Musical Arts will fund the remainder required to implement the landscape plan and will maintain the park to an agreed standard.

Cemeteries

21. Directs staff to work with Tasman District Council on the option of a regional cemetery in Moutere or Wakefield.

Sportsfields

22. Approves provision of an additional $10,000 operating expenditure in year 1 and an additional $50,000 operating expenditure per year thereafter for additional maintenance to increase sportsfield capacity by increasing hours of use; and

23. Approves $50,000 additional capital expenditure in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for investigation into improved sportsfield lighting; and

24. Approves $380,000 additional capital expenditure in year 4 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for Neale Park lighting improvements and ground levelling; and

25. Approves provision of an additional $300,000 capital expenditure in year 7 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for Tahuna Reserve lighting improvements; and

26. Directs officers to hold further discussions with interested sports codes and Sport Tasman about future developments at Guppy Park and to report on options to the Community and Recreation Committee.

Mountain bike trails

27. Approves the carry forward of $37,000 to increase the year 1 Long Term Plan 2021-31 budget for mountain bike trails to $202,000.

Enduro World Series

28. Agrees to convert Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series from underwriting to a grant; and

29. Approves an increase in Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series from $200,000 to $250,000; and

30. Notes that Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series will be made through the Event Fund; and

31. Notes that the Nelson Mountain Bike Club will continue to pursue additional revenue sources; and

32. Agrees the Event Fund overdraft limit to be up to $50,000 for 2022/23.

Saxton Field

Hockey lighting

33. Approves reallocation of $37,500 within Saxton Field budgets in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to go towards upgrading lighting for hockey to meet television broadcasting standards.

Pole Vault Facility

34. Approves reallocation of $18,000 within Saxton Field budgets in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to go towards the cost of a pole vault facility; and

35. Notes that the Top of the South Athletics Trust will raise 40% of the cost of the pole vault facility.

Wakapuaka Cemetery

36. Allocates the following provisions for work at the Wakapuaka Cemetery in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 of up to:

a) $5,000 capital expenditure per year for years 1 to 3 for plantings

b) $3,500 capital expenditure in year 1 to make the garage more usable

c) $7,000 capital expenditure in years 1 and 3 for interpretation boards

d) $4,000 capital expenditure in year 1 for seating

e) $1,000 capital expenditure per year for blocks to identify denominations

f) $2,500 operating expenditure per year for slope mowing.

Sea Sports Building

37. Agrees that Council will make provision to fund 80% of the cost of the Sea Sports building with the expectation that users will raise a minimum of 20% of the total construction costs.

Surf Life Saving club rooms

38. Directs officers to liaise with the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club about the proposed hub at Tahunanui in order to prepare a report for further consideration of the project by the Community and Recreation Committee.

Lawn Tennis Club rooms

39. Notes that the establishment of a tennis club house in Rutherford Park would not require ratepayer funding; and

40. Directs officers to liaise with the Nelson Lawn Tennis Club about a potential site and lease conditions and bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee for further consideration.

Seafarers Memorial

41. Directs staff to have discussions with the Seafarers Memorial Trust about the request for Council to take ownership of the Seafarers Memorial and to bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee for consideration.

Economic

42. Approves provision of up to $350,000 per annum additional funding in years 1 to 3 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for implementation of Project Kōkiri 2.

Responses to submitters

43. Notes the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (A2634256) to Report R24777, as amended, to be used as the basis for specific responses to submitters on matters raised; and

44. Delegates authority to the Mayor and relevant Committee Chair to make amendments to final responses to submitters, as long as they are not material and are consistent with the decisions made by Council.

Regional Public Transport changes

45. Approves bringing funding of $670,000 per annum forward from year 6 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to year 3, to improve frequency and extend hours of operation of the public transport service (as outlined in 6.6.4 of report R24772 to the 21 April 2021 Regional Transport Committee) dependent on the Waka Kotahi and Tasman District Council share of funding being available; and

46. Approves provision for an additional $38,000 funding per annum over the ten years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to provide the Living Wage for bus drivers in our public transport service, dependent on the successful completion of national level discussions being led by Waka Kotahi; and

47. Supports any additional improvements on the basis that external additional funding is secured from non-rates sources, or that savings are made in other transport related activities.

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit

48. Notes that the Long Term Plan 2021-31 will be updated to reflect the revised budgets presented in the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2021/22 Business Plan and 2021-31 Activity Management Plan adopted by the Infrastructure Committee.

Campgrounds

49. Approves an additional $84,000 operational expenditure in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to cover costs related to allowing more time for completion of the compliance project before leasing of the Brook Valley Holiday Park commences.; and

50. Allocates an additional $510,000 capital expenditure (being $410,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $50,000 in each of years 2 and 3) for an improved toilet block at the Brook Valley Holiday Park, and to connect long-term occupants to water and wastewater services as well as undertake other work related to achieving compliance; and

51. Allocates an additional $980,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to upgrade the Maitai Valley Motor Camp wastewater system and to provide drinking water throughout the campground; and

52. Notes a funding application has been made to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund to cover 50% ($400,000) of the Maitai Valley Motor Camp wastewater system project costs.

Glen Cycleway

53. Approves an additional $20,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $100,000 capital expenditure in year 4 for investigation and construction of a connecting off-road route to the Glen.

Marina

54. Approves moving the funding from hardstand improvements in years 7 and 8 of $800,000 (uninflated) to Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31 to address health and safety projects prior to the Marina Masterplan being consulted on; and

55. Notes that additional funding and some redistribution of capital budget between years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 is likely to be required once the Marina Masterplan has been adopted.

Carry Forwards from 2020/21

56. Approves the 2020/21 capital carry forwards to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 capital expenditure budgets, as set out in Attachment 2 (A2642025) of Report R24777.

Final windup of Community Housing

57. Approves releasing the Depreciation Reserve of $391,000 and Pensioner Housing Reserve of $231,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021 - 31 to offset rates.

Other changes since the Draft Long Term Plan consultation

58. Approves that the Long Term Plan 2021-31 be amended to include the changes in the attached document listing corrections and timing changes in Attachment 3 (A2641877) of Report R24777.

9. Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2021 102 - 205

Document number R23764

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2021 (R23764) and its attachments (A2502141 and A2625782); and

2. Approves no changes being made to the proposed Nelson City Council Development Contributions Policy 2021 in response to the submissions received during the submission period as follows:

Delayed Payment

4. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy to provide for delayed payment until building consent issue.

Developers share of growth costs

5. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with respect to the portion of costs attributed to growth and included in the development contributions.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for greenfield areas

6. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the level of reserves development contribution for development within the built urban boundary.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for intensification areas

7. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the level of reserves development contribution for development within the built urban boundary.

City Centre waiver

8. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the City Centre waiver.

Retirement villages

9. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for retirement villages.

State integrated schools

10. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for state integrated schools.

Discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings

11. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings.

Brownfield reserves discount

12. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the reserves discount for brownfield development.

Load specific development contributions

13. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to custom calculations for each individual site.

Catchments

14. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to catchments.

Built Urban Boundary Alignment

15. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the Built Urban Boundary.

Library

16. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to inclusion of the library project as a growth project.

Amendment of reserves development contributions paid under the 2018 Policy

17. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to payment of reserves contributions under the 2018 Development Contributions Policy; and

18. Notes that as a consequence of decisions on the Long Term Plan, amendments may be required to the projects listed in the Development Contributions Policy and the overall quantum of the contributions sought; and

19. Approves that the proposed Nelson City Council Development Contributions Policy 2021 be taken to the Council meeting of 24 June 2021 for final adoption by Council.

10. Elma Turner Library - Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case 206 - 257

Document number R24785

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Elma Turner Library - Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case (R24785) and its attachment (A2630896); and

2. Reconfirms that, having considered submissions on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and having considered the business case, Council’s preferred option is to build a new library building on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, within the Riverside Precinct, subject to agreement with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange involving that site and the current library site; and

3. Confirms that, should negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange be unsuccessful, Council will proceed with Option Four – to construct a new high specification library on the current site.

5. Proposed new Company Model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson 258 - 269

Document number R24786

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Proposed new Company Model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson (R24786); and

2. Notes that a special consultative procedure has been carried out by Council, in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, covering the proposal to establish a new Council Controlled Trading Organisation; and

3. Agrees that Option Three, a new company, established as a funding vehicle only, is the most appropriate way of providing financial benefits for the Nelson Airport, Port Nelson and shareholders; and

4. Notes that shareholder agreement is required in order to proceed with any option other than the status quo; and

5. Subject to Tasman District Council passing similar resolutions:

i) Authorises the Mayor to vote the Council’s shareholding in the Nelson Airport Limited and Port Nelson Limited to give effect to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution (CL2021/xx); and

ii) Instructs the Chief Executive, in conjunction with Tasman District Council, to advise council staff and the boards of Nelson Airport Limited and Port Nelson Limited to develop a detailed plan for the establishment of the Funding Company; and

iii) Notes that subsequent amendments to Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and supporting policies will be required as part of the establishment of the Funding Company; and

6. Notes that updates on the establishment of the Funding Company will be reported back to Council.

CONFIDENTIAL Business

6. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Funding to support Nelson Slipway Redevelopment and Services Expansion	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Nelson City Council - Tasman District Council Engineering Services Agreement and Nelson City Council - Tasman District Council Waimea Community Dam Funding Agreement	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Funding to support Nelson Slipway Redevelopment and Services Expansion

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

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

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Nelson City Council - Tasman District Council Engineering Services Agreement and Nelson City Council - Tasman District Council Waimea Community Dam Funding Agreement

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(h)

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

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Karakia Whakamutunga

Council Minutes – 4, 5 and 6 May 2021

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

On Tuesday 4 May 2021, commencing at 9.05a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Advisers (E-J Ruthven and J Brandt) and Governance Support (P Boutle)

Karakia Timatanga

A karakia timatanga was given.

7. Apologies

There were no apologies.

Councillor Skinner joined the meeting at 9.06a.m.

The meeting was adjourned from 9.10a.m to 9.14a.m.

8. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

9. Interests

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

7. Mayor’s Report

Her Worship the Mayor acknowledged the contribution of all submitters to the draft Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 process and thanked submitters for their attendance at the hearing.

5. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 and to the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2021

Document number R24834, agenda pages 6 - 159 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor advised that the following late submissions had been received after the agenda had been published (A2630820) and that a resolution was required for Council to consider these.

An updated Hearings Schedule was tabled (A2634303).

CL/2021/039

That the Council

1. Accepts the late submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 and the 2021 Draft Development Contributions Policy from:

· Tony Stallard (Nelson Seafarer Memorial Trust) 29457

· Peter Lole 27553

· Nelson Greypower Inc 29465

· Bevan Woodward (Bicycle Nelson Bays) 29455

· Bryce Buckland 29456

· Ben Bushell (bEARTHA Composting Hub) 29466.

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

5.1 Nelson Youth Councillors – 27452

Nelson Youth Councillors Jaanvi Harrison, Maggie Goomes, Ruth Buckland and Isla Kennard, accompanied by fellow Nelson Youth Councillors, tabled additional information (A2630765) and presented the Nelson Youth Council submission. They emphasised points regarding a survey of Nelson Youth, Māori art and history in Whakatū Nelson and the proposed Elma Turner Library redevelopment, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.2 Laurel Hilton – Good Gold – 27311 – the submitter did not attend.

5.3 Dean Straker – 28623 – the submitter did not attend.

5.4 Tim Bayley – 27277

Tim Bayley tabled speaking notes (A2634776) and spoke to his submission. He emphasised points relating to transport and parking, Upper Trafalgar Street, proposed rate increases, the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment, and climate change, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.5 Pierre Gargiulo – JS Ewers Ltd – 28353

Pierre Gargiulo spoke to his submission. He emphasised the importance of water security to the region’s wellbeing and economy and encouraged Council to increase its contribution to the Waimea Community Dam project. Mr Gargiulo answered questions regarding the submission.

5.6 Stuart Walker – Alternative Power – 28864

Stuart Walker tabled a document (A2633621) and spoke to his submission. He emphasised points relating to risks of flooding, sea level rise and storm events, the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment, parking in the central city, cycleways, and the maintenance of the road network.

5.7 Nelson McEwan – 29438L

Nelson McEwan spoke to his submission and tabled speaking notes (A2630723). Mr McEwan emphasised points relating to proposed rates increases, the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment, and whether growth in Nelson was necessary or desired by the community.

5.8 Jane Murray and Rob Beaglehole – NMDHB – 27723

Jane Murray and Rob Beaglehole spoke to the submission. They emphasised the importance of reducing carbon emissions, increasing active and public transport, providing playgrounds, and improving drinking water standards and stormwater and wastewater networks.

They tabled a copy of the draft Good Food Cities Action Plan (A2633251), suggested ways in which Council could support this initiative over the short, medium and long term, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.9 Paul Matheson – Tahuna Business Association – 28732 – the submitter did not attend.

5.10 Lucinda Blackley-Jimson – Tasman Bays Heritage Trust – 28712

Tasman Bays Heritage Trust Chief Executive, Lucinda Blackley-Jimson, gave a presentation (A2630720) and spoke to the submission. She emphasised the importance of preserving the region’s history through a purpose-built storage facility to care for the Nelson Museum’s collection, and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.27a.m. until 10.51a.m, at which time Councillors Fulton and Skinner were not present.

5.11 Katharine Malcolm – 28064

Kate Malcolm spoke to her submission. She emphasised her concerns regarding climate change and sea level rise, and encouraged increased investment in community libraries rather than the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment. Ms Malcolm answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 10.55a.m.

5.12 Caroline Vine – 28606

Caroline Vine tabled speaking notes (A2634812) and spoke to her submission. She emphasised her concerns regarding the proposed Mahitahi-Bayview housing development and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.13 Richard Martin – Nelson Rowing Club – 28326

Richard Martin spoke to the Nelson Rowing Club submission. He emphasised the Nelson Rowing Club’s support of the proposed funding split to construct a Sea Sports building, and encouraged further Council investment in this area. Mr Martin answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 11.03a.m.

5.14 Dr Caroline Wheeler – 27608

Dr Caroline Wheeler spoke to her submission and emphasised the importance of taking urgent climate change action. She encouraged Council to consider intensified housing, better drainage, increased native planting and the use of non-toxic weed control, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.15 Dr Oliver Powell – 28636

Dr Olly Powell spoke to his submission regarding housing issues, including the importance of increasing the availability of rental housing, and residents living within walking or cycling distance of the urban centre. He encouraged the development of high-density multi-level housing in the inner city, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.16 Megan Birss and Maxine Noar – Nelson Gymsports Collective – 28477

Megan Birss and Maxine Noar presented the submission, accompanied by Richard Carruthers. They gave a PowerPoint presentation (A2630721) and tabled a document (A2633438). They outlined potential participants in a Gymsports Hub, the proposed next steps for the Hub, explained funding requests made to Council, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.17 Iain Sheves – Wakatū Incorporation – 28475

Iain Sheves presented the submission. He emphasised points relating to climate change action, the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment, the Riverside and Science and Technology precincts, Project Kōkiri, York Valley landfill fees and potential areas for further housing developments in Nelson.

Mr Sheves explained a correction to Wakatū Incorporation’s written submission, in that Wakatū Incorporation now supported Option Three, rather than Option One, in relation to the proposed arrangements for Port Nelson Limited and Nelson Airport Limited, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.18 Susan Ledingham – 28564

Susan Ledingham spoke to her submission. She emphasised her support for the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment as part of a Riverside Precinct, encouraged Council to develop a citizen-led forum to encourage innovation throughout the project, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.19 Alastair Cotterill – 29430L

Alastair Cotterill tabled additional information (A2633601) and spoke to his submission. He emphasised his concerns regarding proposed expenditure, debt levels and rates increases, the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment, the proposed science and technology precinct, the proposed Sea Sports building, environmental issues and weed control, and issues in the Tahunanui area.

5.20 Johny O’Donnell – 28470 – the submitter did not attend.

5.21 Christian Galbraith – 28445

Christian Galbraith spoke to his submission and tabled a document (A2634320). He emphasised his concerns regarding financial sustainability and the proposed rates increases and encouraged Council to prioritise spending on core infrastructure projects.

5.22 Richard Osmaston – Money Free Party NZ – 28438 (via Zoom)

Richard Osmaston spoke to the submission regarding his concerns about climate change, inequality, social issues and societal breakdown which he considered were a result of capitalism and the monetary system. He encouraged Council to engage extensively with youth, to embrace the concept of a money-free economy, and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.23 Les Edwards – Tasman Rugby Union Inc – 28400

Les Edwards spoke to the submission. He emphasised the Tasman Rugby Union Inc’s desire for a high-quality, full-sized rugby training pitch in reasonably close proximity to Trafalgar Park, with Guppy Park or Neale Park noted as potential locations.

Mr Edwards clarified that Tasman Rugby Union Inc’s priorities were for high-quality and well maintained surfaces (whether grass or artificial), lighting, and primary use by the rugby code. He offered the Tasman Rugby Union Inc’s cooperation with regards to funding, volunteer labour and sponsorship towards the project, and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 12.32p.m. until 1.26p.m.

5.24 Tilman Walk – 28530

Tilman Walk spoke to his submission regarding an experience with Council’s building consent team and suggested improvements. He answered questions regarding the submission.

5.25 Rick Herd – on behalf of Todd Fyfe & Melrose Terrace Residents - 28870

Rick Herd tabled an image (A2630726) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted his concerns regarding the zoning boundaries for the Melrose Terrace area.

5.26 Stacey Fellows – Businesses for Climate Change – 27204

Katrina Kidson and Claire Keeling spoke to the submission. They highlighted the group’s goals, businesses working in partnership, and providing resources for the business community in the region to transition. They asked for continued support and resources from Council and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.27 Natalie Gousmett – 27284

Natalie Gousmett spoke to her submission. She highlighted her vision for Nelson as a safe place to live, the need for climate change action, and active transport infrastructure. She spoke about her Facebook site entitled “A fantastic playground for Nelson” and the survey she had undertaken and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.28 Dr Fiona Ede – Tasman Environment Trust – 27734

Tasman Environment Trust Project Leader, Dr Fiona Ede, tabled additional information (A2630782) and spoke to the submission. She emphasised the potential of coastal eco-systems and blue carbon to help diminish the impacts of climate change. She asked for Council funding for a study of the Waimea Inlet to be undertaken and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.29 Richard (Ru) Collin – Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust – 27466

Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Chief Executive, Ru Collin, provided a presentation (A2630817) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted points relating to economic development, the need for a solution for the management of the Brook Valley Holiday Park camp area, and support for a fundraising role and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.30 John Higginbotham – Nelson Consulting Engineers – 27579

Nelson Consulting Engineers Director, John Higginbotham tabled additional information (A2633464) and spoke to the submission. He spoke about the shading effect in relation to housing intensification.

5.31 Leeson Baldey – Warmer Healthier Homes Te Tau Ihu Charitable Trust – 28061

Leeson Baldey spoke to the submission. He answered questions regarding the submission about the successes of the scheme, and that some funds were likely to be returned to Council as not needed, challenges with rental stocks, improvements in building standards and the positive impact on new houses.

5.32 Julie Nevin – Nelson Tasman Climate Forum – 28471

Julie Nevin, supported by Joanna Santa Barbara and Karen Driver, provided a presentation (A2630816) and spoke to the submission. Ms Nevin highlighted the importance of a low carbon society and the need for ongoing operational funding to achieve this. Ms Santa Barbara spoke about regional carbon emission measurement and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.33 Derek Shaw – The Top of the South Athletics Charitable Trust – 28664

Derek Shaw spoke to the submission about funding for pole vaulting equipment for Saxton Field. He made a correction to the amount needed to purchase the equipment, noting it was $65,000, not $60,000 and answered questions regarding the submission.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2021/040
	*That the Council* 1. *Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater Carried

5.34 Julian Raine – Waimea Irrigators – 28904

Julian Raine spoke to the submission. He highlighted the importance of the Waimea Dam for the region.

5.35 Jacquetta Bell – 28337

Jacquetta Bell spoke to her submission. She highlighted the need to manage the climate crisis over the next ten years and said that the Long Term Plan was not sufficient to achieve this. She spoke against the Maitai Valley plan change.

5.36 Maria Anderson – Arts Council Nelson – 28382

Maria Anderson, supported by Janja Heathfield, Lloyd Harwood and Sophie Kelly, spoke to the submission. Ms Anderson highlighted the Arts Council’s goal to purchase the Hardy Street site as the new Refinery Art Space. They asked for Council support. Ms Kelly emphasised the time pressure involved to confirm premises in order to deliver the arts programme and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.37 Lindsay Wood – Resilienz Ltd – 28431

Lindsay Wood, provided a presentation (A2630719) and spoke to the submission. He requested top priority be given to climate work and questioned the proposals in the Long Term Plan, such as the site chosen for the proposed library, the lack of urgency regarding the climate emergency, errors in the graphs contained in the Long Term Plan, and the lack of a sound climate strategy. He requested that Council take an integrated approach regarding transport, urban design and energy.

The meeting was adjourned from 3.33p.m. to 3.52p.m.

5.38 Ben Bushell – Community Compost Nelson – 29466L

Ben Bushell tabled additional information (A2633468) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted the request for financial support in form of a short-term loan to finance the expansion of the Nelson bEartha Hub composting machine and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.39 Suzanne Bateup – 28233 – the submitter did not attend.

5.40 Jack Collin – Social Credit NZ – 28532

Jack Collin spoke to the submission. He highlighted concerns about Nelson becoming an unaffordable place to live and the impact rates had on this.

5.41 Her Worship the Mayor took a break from hearing submissions and invited Elected Members to identify additional information they would require for deliberations in relation to the submissions they had already heard. Elected Members were encouraged to email any further requests or questions to Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald.

5.42 Gillian Bishop – Tasman Environmental Trust – 28488

Skye Davies spoke to the submission. Ms Davies highlighted core activities and focal points of the Trust and the financial support requested for core hub support services and project work and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.43 Barry Thompson – 28807

Barry Thompson tabled speaking notes (A2633465) and spoke to his submission. He highlighted concerns about the substantial level of rates required to fund various council projects. He requested Council reduce rates to reasonable levels. He noted concerns about the proposed library, spoke in support of the Link Road, in support of keeping Nelson Airport and Port Nelson separate and noted the need for an inner city multi storey carpark building.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 4.33p.m. and Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 4.35p.m. until 4.40p.m.

5.44 Tim Babbage – Nelson Sea Sports Alliance - 27976

Tim Babbage spoke to the submission. He answered questions regarding the submission about steps taken by the Nelson Sea Sports Alliance to ensure the building of the seasports facility would be ready to commence and answered questions regarding the submission about the amount of rent the Alliance would be able to pay, noting it amounted to 10% of the commercial rate.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 4.44p.m.

Hannah O’Malley – Good Food Group – 28492

5.45 Hannah O’Malley and Matt Robinson spoke to the submission. Mr Robinson highlighted the importance of food for human sustainability on earth. He spoke about securing food procurement for plant based food, promoting healthy foods, and banning the promotion of unhealthy foods to influence consumption and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 5.01p.m.

5.46 Dr Aaron Stallard – Zero Carbon Nelson – 28769

Dr Aaron Stallard provided a presentation (A2630713) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted the need for the rapid reduction of greenhouse gases and the opportunities to achieve change through education, industrial processes, pedestrianising the city centre, intensification of housing and active transport mode shift and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 5.17p.m.

5.47 Paul Lowry – Waimarama Organic Gardens – 28496

Paul Lowry, supported by committee member, Ben Bushell, spoke to the submission. He spoke about organic gardening, composting, minimising food waste and working in partnership with other community groups to achieve common goals. He highlighted the initiatives they needed support for, i.e. infrastructure and maintenance and weed management and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.48 Richard Brudvik-Lindner – WICK – 28706

WICK Convenor, Richard Brudvik-Lindner tabled additional information (A2633466) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted concerns regarding the library replacement project and answered questions regarding the submission about a way forward. He spoke about combining inner city living with car parking and alternative funding models for mixed use facilities.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 5.52p.m.

5.49 Philip Thompson – Nelson Bays Football/Tasman Rugby – 28319

Philip Thompson and Tania Billingsley tabled additional information (A2633467), provided a presentation (A2630724). Mr Thompson spoke to the submission highlighting the group’s plans for Guppy Park, i.e. the installation of artificial turf and a new facility to create a hub to bring communities together and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Edgar left the meeting at 5.59p.m.

5.50 Susan Drew – 28495

Susan Drew tabled additional information (A2633469) and spoke to her submission. She spoke against the Maitai Valley subdivision and highlighted environmental impacts of the project. Emphasising the concept of Tiaki, she asked Council to act as guardian of the environment.

5.51 Debs Martin – Forest and Bird – 28738 and 27917

Debs Martin spoke to her personal submission 27917. She highlighted the need for an improved public transport system and stressed that climate change needed to form part of every aspect of Council decision-making, ensuring that all of Council’s investments were appropriate for Nelson’s future.

Debs Martin, in her role as Regional Conservation Manager Forest and Bird, spoke to submission 28738, highlighting the importance of biodiversity and the threats to wildlife habitat posed by climate change and related infrastructure. Ms Martin spoke in support of Council’s investment in weed control to support biodiversity, and about the need to investigate alternative management of wastewater going forward and answered questions regarding the submission.

Tabled Documents and Presentations Day 1 Draft LTP Hearings (4 May 2021)

The following documents were provided in support of submissions on Day 1 of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 A2630820 late submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 accepted on 4 May 2021

2 A2634303 - Updated Hearing Schedule Day 1 4 May 2021

3 A2630765 - Nelson Youth Council 27452 tabled document

4 A2634776 Tim Bayley 27277 speaking notes

5 A2633621 - Stuart Walker 28864 tabled document

6 A2630723 - Nelson McEwan 29438L speaking notes

7 A2633251 - Nelson Marlborough DHB 27723 tabled document

8 A2630720 - Lucinda Blackley-Jimson - TB Heritage Trust 28712 presentation

9 A2634812 - Caroline Vine 28606 and 27300 speaking notes

10 A2630721 - Megan Birss - Nelson Gymsports Collective 28477 presentation

11 A2633438 - Megan Birss- Nelson Gymsports Collective 28477 tabled document

12 A2633601 - Alastair Cotterill 29430L tabled document

13 A2634320 - Christian Galbraith 28445 tabled document

14 A2630726 - Rick Herd 28870 tabled image

15 A2630782 - Fiona Ede - Tasman Environmental Trust 27734 speaking notes

16 A2630817 - Ru Collin 27466 presentation

17 A2633464 - John Higginbotham 27579 tabled document

18 A2630816 - Julie Nevin 28471 presentation

19 A2630719 - Lindsay Wood - Resilenz 38431 presentation

20 A2633468 - Ben Bushell - Community Composting 29466L speaking notes

21 A2633465 - Barry Thompson 28807 tabled document

22 A2630713 - Aaron Stallard Zero Carbon Nelson 28769 presentation

23 A2633466 - Richard Brudvik-Lindner - WICK 28706 tabled document

24 A2633467 - Philip Thompson - Nelson Bays Football 28319 tabled document

25 A2630724 - Philip Thompson - Nelson Bays Football-Tasman Rugby 28319 presentation

26 A2633469 - Susan Drew 28495 tabled document

The meeting was adjourned at 6.23p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday 5 May 2021.

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

Reconvened on Wednesday 5 May 2021, commencing at 9.05a.m.

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), , Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Advisers (E Stephenson and J Brandt) and Governance Support (K McLean and P Boutle)

5. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 and to the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 (continued)

An updated hearing schedule was tabled (A2631909).

Late submissions - 5 May 2021

The following late submission 29467 from Jo Dell (A2632075) was received and Her Worship the Mayor advised that the following resolution was required to accept it.
Resolved CL/2021/039
	*That the Council* *1. Accepts the late submission 29467 from Jo Dell (A2632075) to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

5.52 Milo Coldren – 27126 the submitter did not attend.

5.53 Roslyn Taylor – 28774

Roslyn Taylor spoke to her submission regarding commercial and residential rating, the proposed Library Precinct, the Waimea Dam and water issues in the future.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey entered the meeting at 9.12a.m.

5.54 Ludovic Romany – 27424 the submitter did not attend.

5.55 Elizabeth Dooley – 27256

Elizabeth Dooley spoke to her submission regarding the placement of the proposed Library Precinct, traffic and cycling safety, especially around parked cars, and the dangers of urban sprawl. She requested that dogs be allowed to travel on buses.

5.56 Tony Stallard – Seafarer Memorial Trust - 29457

Tony Stallard spoke to the submission regarding transferring ownership of the Trust to the city and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.57 Marianne H van Wanrooy – 27297

Marianne H van Wanrooy spoke to her submission regarding the Library and flooding issues and on what activities the Nelson CBD should be focused on. She suggested that the old H & J Smith building be considered for redevelopment as a new library.

5.58 Rose Michel von Dreger – 27291 the submitter did not attend.

5.59 William Stone – 27549 the submitter did not attend.

The meeting was adjourned from 9.34a.m. until 9.51a.m.

5.60 Susan Coleman – 28907

Susan Coleman tabled speaking notes (A2632618) and spoke to her submission regarding the importance of libraries and looking to the future for intergenerational projects. She discussed the options in the Draft Long Term Plan and the related costs and benefits to the community.

5.61 Daniel Jackson – 28012

Daniel Jackson spoke to his submission regarding the abolishment of library fines leading to increased library membership and borrowing and only a relatively small reduction in income and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.62 Sue Herd – 28883

Sue Herd spoke to her submission regarding Council’s use of debt, raising rates, use of the Emergency Fund, watermain failures, aged infrastructure and reuse of the current library for redevelopment.

5.63 Ali Boswijk – Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce - 29541

Ali Boswijk spoke to the submission, noting the tight timeframe involved in preparation of the submission. She highlighted the challenges of growth, both in a national and global context, encouraging Council to work in partnership with them, central government and the private sector on innovative development. Ms Boswijk noted support for continued investment in infrastructure for economic development. She felt the library precinct had been badly named and should focus on stimulating the economy in that area. She noted that growth prediction figures were low, and not reflective of the last ten years and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.64 Andrew Dunlop – 27677

Andrew Dunlop spoke to his submission regarding proposed increasing debt levels, noting the threat of sea rise to infrastructure and the proposed Library precinct, the collection of home waste for composting, the costs of landfill and of the need for the community to think outside the square.

Attendance: Councillor Brand left the meeting at 10.30a.m.

5.65 Brian McIntyre – Friends of Wakapuaka Cemetery – 28290

Brian McIntyre spoke to the submission regarding the history of the group, noting its headstone restoration accomplishments, equipment purchased through community support and awards received.

5.66 Carrie Mozena – Nelson Tasman Housing Trust - 28427

Carrie Mozena spoke to the submission regarding the Trust’s support for the Housing Reserve and future housing funding, possible investment from a future philanthropic donor and on land availability and demand and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.46a.m. until 11.11a.m., at which time Councillors Fulton and Skinner were not present.

5.67 Yachal Upson – 28912

Yachal Upson spoke to his submission, noting his support for the submissions of Lindsay Wood, and the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum. He felt that bravery was required on climate reduction. He encouraged Council to support its staff through personal empowerment programmes.

5.68 Pip Stark - 27200

Pip Stark spoke to her submission regarding sea level rise and floods and the proposed Library Precinct location and suggested a referendum on the project.

5.69 Ben Pointer and Belinda Crisp – Nelson MTB Club – 28390 and 29442L

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 11.25a.m.

Ben Pointer spoke to the submission highlighting the growth and economic benefits of mountain biking in recent years, noting the need for supporting infrastructure to the Mountain Bike Hub and future plans and funding to bring large scale events to Nelson.

Belinda Crisp spoke regarding the Enduro World Series Event (7 - 10 April 2022) and planned major events, noting the economic impact on Nelson and risk to the Mountain Bike Club and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 11.39a.m.

5.70 Adrian Parlane – 28312

Adrian Parlane spoke to his submission regarding the benefits of the Marina being established as a separate entity and against the funding of the Seasports Building from the Marina account. He questioned the appropriateness of the building’s location and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.71 Matthew Kidson – Kernohan Engineering – 28244

Matthew Kidson spoke to the submission regarding the proposed Library precinct, suggesting provision of the clear benefits to the community and clear communication. He suggested inclusion of residential properties in the precinct and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Brand returned to the meeting at 11.52a.m.

5.72 Alison Howard – 28523

Alison Howard spoke to her submission regarding the proposed Maitai subdivision and noted her concerns regarding the process followed, Future Development Strategy consultation and future population predictions.

5.73 Steven Gray – Friends of the Maitai – 28351

Steven Gray tabled additional information (A2629250) and speaking notes (A2634683) and spoke to the submission regarding the health of the Maitai and the need for fiscal investment, noting the historic pine planting. He highlighted the need for sustainable forestry management and for transparent accounting for Council’s forestry assets. He spoke of the lack of technical reports on stormwater for the proposed subdivision and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.74 Lloyd Harwood and Sophie Kelly– Arts Council Nelson – 29437

Sophie Kelly spoke to the submission regarding the relocation of the Refinery Arts space. She highlighted the growing support for arts in the region and the inclusive, positive, community arts projects it was able to support. Lloyd Harwood spoke to the rationale for the increase in the funding amount requested and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.75 Ren Kempthorne – 28855

Ren Kempthorne spoke to his submission regarding housing intensification and the Maitai development, noting that the site was not close to the CBD, requesting that Council say ‘no’ to developers. He suggested Buxton Square as a suitable area for development.

5.76 Matty Anderson – 28243 the submitter did not attend.

5.77 Maria Busching – 28237 the submitter did not attend.

5.78 Martin O’Connor – Federated Farmers - 28851

Martin O’Connor spoke to the submission regarding the rural differential, housing intensification and concerns regarding urban spread onto rural land. He noted support for the proposed Maitai subdivision and its close proximity to the CBD. He suggested that funding for climate change come for urban residents, noting that many farmers invest in climate change mitigation and suggested rates remission for natural disasters, droughts and declared national events and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 12.33p.m. until 1.26p.m. at which time Her Worship the Mayor Reese and Councillor Skinner were not present.

Deputy Mayor Councillor Edgar assumed the chair.

5.79 Monica Pausina – Save the Maitai – 29443

For a live recording please go to this link. The link is provided here as the Council livestreaming was experiencing technical difficulties at the time.

Monica Pausina, supported by Mark Hadlow and Rod Dickson and approximately 50 supporters, spoke to the submission opposing the proposed subdivision in the Maitai Valley. They highlighted the importance of preserving natural areas for the people of Nelson.

5.80 Mike Ward – 28790

Mike Ward spoke to the submission. He emphasised the need for a housing strategy and shared his vision for Nelson and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton entered the meeting at 1.44p.m.

5.81 Lewis Solomon – Hardy Partnership – 27299

Lewis Solomon tabled additional information (A2633800) and spoke to the submission. He highlighted his opposition to merging Nelson Airport with Port Nelson and stressed that he was in favour of maintaining the status quo.

5.82 Anne Rush – 28892

Anne Rush spoke to her submission. She emphasised the importance of the arts for the region, and the need for an arts policy and strategy.

Attendance: Councillor Bowater entered the meeting at 1.53p.m.

5.83 Steve Cross – Nelson Residents Association – 27157

Steve Cross, supported by Bernie Goldsmith, provided a presentation (A2631377) and spoke to the submission. He emphasised that the Association did not support the proposed new company model for the Nelson Airport and Port Nelson.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner entered the meeting at 2.10p.m.

5.84 Ian MacGregor – 28787

Ian MacGregor tabled additional information (A2632077) and spoke to his submission. He emphasised issues associated with the proposal for a new company model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson, and with the Stoke community centre.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 2.14p.m.

5.85 Ifor Ffowcs-Williams – Cluster Navigators Ltd – 28888

Cluster Navigations Ltd Chief Executive, Ifor Ffowcs-Williams, spoke to the submission. He highlighted matters pertinent to Nelson’s economic development and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor Reese returned to the meeting at 2.29p.m. and resumed the chair.

5.86 Ian Barker – 28875

Ian Barker provided an image (A2630718), tabled speaking notes (A2633797) and spoke to the submission. He spoke about transport matters, recycling, the library, and the Science and Technology precinct.

5.87 Frances Day speaking for Craig Mills – Marsden Funeral Services – 28808

Frances Day spoke to the submission regarding the cemeteries consultation and the history of plot funding. He asked that Council allocates sufficient financial support to regional cemeteries, looks at several locations and carefully considers the cost of plots and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.88 John Fitchett – 27925

John Fitchett spoke to his submission. He emphasised concerns about borrowing money from future generations and asked Council to be prudent.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.55p.m. until 3.13p.m.

5.89 Heather Thomas – Citizens Advice Bureau Nelson Tasman – 28447

Citizens Advice Bureau Life Member, Heather Thomas, spoke to the submission. She emphasised her support for the redevelopment of the library as a multi-purpose facility in the river precinct.

5.90 Gaire Thompson – Thompson Property Group – 29420

Gaire Thompson spoke to the submission. He emphasised his concerns about the level of expenditure proposed in the Long Term Plan and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 3.34p.m. until 3.37p.m.

5.91 Robert Stevenson – 28801- the submitter did not attend.

5.92 Andy Wotton and Paul Steere – Nelson Airport Ltd – 28802

Nelson Airport Board of Directors Chairperson, Paul Steere, provided a presentation (A2632094) and spoke to the submission. He emphasised the Board’s concerns about a merger with Port Nelson and its unanimous opposition to the proposal in the Statement of Proposal. However, he noted the Board’s support for a holding company to improve access to funding and the Board’s preference for Option 3. Nelson Airport Interim CEO, Andy Wotton, highlighted the Board’s reasonings for their position. Mr Steere answered questions regarding the submission.

5.93 Darryl Wehner, Geoff Dangerfield and Hugh Morrison – Port Nelson Ltd - 28018

Port Nelson Board of Directors Chairperson, Geoff Dangerfield, and Port Nelson CEO, Hugh Morrison, provided a presentation (A2633798), and spoke to the submission. Mr Dangerfield emphasised the Board’s preference for combining the Port and Airport into one operational holding company and highlighted benefits to shareholders. Mr Dangerfield answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 4.23p.m.

Tabled Documents and Presentations Day 2 Draft LTP Hearings (5 May 2021)

The following documents were provided in support of submissions on Day 2 of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 A2631909 - Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Updated Hearing Schedule - 5 May 2021

2 A2632075 Jo Dell 29467 late submission to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 accepted on 5 May 2021

3 A2632618 - Susan Coleman 28907 speaking notes

4 A2629250 - Steven Gray - Friends of the Maitai 28351 tabled document

5 A2634683 - Steven Gray - Friends of the Maitai 28351 speaking notes

6 A2633800 - Lewis Solomon 27299 tabled document

7 A2631377 - Steve Cross - Nelson Residents Association 27157 presentation

8 A2632077 - Ian MacGregor 28757 tabled document

9 A2630718 - Ian Barker 28875 tabled image

10 A2633797 - Ian Barker 28875 tabled document

11 A2632094 - Paul Steer - Nelson Airport 28802 presentation

12 A2633798 - Port Nelson Ltd 28018 presentation

The meeting was adjourned at 4.24p.m. to be reconvened on Thursday 6 May 2021.

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council

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

Reconvened on Thursday 6 May 2021, commencing at 9.04a.m.

In Attendance: Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Advisers (E Stephenson and E-J Ruthven) and Governance Support (K McLean and P Boutle)

8. Hearing of Submissions to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 and to the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 (continued)

An updated hearing schedule (A2633078) was tabled.

Late submission 6 May 2021

The following late submission 29469 from Youth Nelson (A2633081) was received and Her Worship the Mayor advised that the following resolution was required to accept it.
Resolved CL/2021/041
	*That the Council* *1. Accepts the late submission 29469 to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 from Youth Nelson.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

Development Contributions

5.94 John McLaughlin speaking for Graeme Thomas – Marsden Park Developments – 28066

Attendance: Councillor Skinner entered the meeting at 9.08a.m.

Mr McLaughlin tabled speaking notes (A2634043) and spoke to the submission. He answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey entered the meeting at 9.11a.m.

5.95 Dr Monika Clark-Grill – 28387

Dr Monika Clark-Grill spoke to her submission regarding Council’s vision, supporting prevention of urban sprawl resulting in increased traffic and opposing the removal of the 25% reserves contribution for brownfield intensification, which was preferable to greenfield development.

5.96 Jackie McNae and Stephen Clements – 28737

Jackie McNae tabled an image of the Clements’ development (A2634041) and spoke to the submission regarding brownfield development, the timing of contributions in the resource consent process and anomalies in the Development Contributions Policy. She answered questions regarding the submission. Mr Clements answered a question regarding the progress of the consent.

5.97 Jackie McNae – Stoke Valley Holdings Ltd – 28751

Ms McNae tabled a Ngawhatu site map (A2634045) and spoke to the submission regarding the site being a brownfield site rather than greenfield, the high level water reservoir, interim water storage, the increase in the community contributions and uncertainty regarding the proposed library precinct and effects on the payment/refund of contributions should the project not go ahead and answered questions regarding the submission.

5.98 Chris Fitchett – 27235

Chris Fitchett spoke to his submission regarding Council’s financial position, debt levels/limits, current interest rates, deficit budgeting, liability for operating costs and highlighted the closure of both cycleways into Nelson at the same time and answered a question regarding the submission.

5.99 Peter Taylor – 28397

Peter Taylor spoke to his submission regarding incentivisation for developing brownfield sites, which he supported in principle, and disincentivisation of greenfield development.

LTP Submissions (continued)

6.00 Dan McGuire – 27028

Dan McGuire spoke to his submission regarding depreciation and Council spending on non-essential projects for what he considered political purposes, for example, the Library precinct and the Climatorium; the effect of rate rises on low income families, he suggested shelving of the Long Term Plan and advocating for the abolishment of local government if this did not happen.

Sarah Holmes and Ian Kearny – Nelson Tasman Business Trust – 28262 -

6.01 Sarah Holmes provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2630727) and spoke to the submission regarding the Trust’s tight budget, increasing demand for business support and the cessation of COVID-19 funding, alignment with Project Kōkiri, and additional funding of $30,000 per year. It was noted that additional funding had also been requested from Tasman District Council (TDC) for district events and services. Ms Holmes answered questions regarding the submission.

6.02 Peter Taylor – 28374

Peter Taylor spoke to his submission regarding the lack of climate change initiatives in the LTP, sea level rise, planning for climate change mitigation, the viability of the Port and Airport, redirection of resources to a new Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to advise on these issues, the lack of cycleway funding and future planning based on current roading systems. He answered questions regarding the submission.

6.03 Dr Monika Clark-Grill – 27776

Dr Monika Clark-Grill spoke to her submission regarding climate change, reinforcing Mr Taylor’s submission, preservation of the Nelson area, the housing crisis, preservation of the Maitai Valley and cyclist and pedestrian safety.

6.04 Maria Busching – 28237

Maria Busching spoke to her submission regarding the effects of climate change, lack of commitment to reducing the community’s contribution to climate change in the LTP, housing development plans contradicting Council’s declaration of a climate emergency, congestion levels, uninhabited residential properties being used for rental homes and advocating for retention of the undeveloped Maitai Valley.

6.05 Nigel Muir and Andy Morris – Sport Tasman – 28316

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 10.24a.m.

Nigel Muir and Andy Morris provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2634495) and spoke to the submission, thanking Council for its support, highlighting areas where they felt Sport Tasman could work more closely with Council, its focus areas, challenges and achievements and its response to Council’s key priorities. They answered questions regarding the submission.

6.06 Lance Roozenburg – Kūmānu Environmental - 28792

Lance Roozenburg spoke to the submission regarding the Haven Precinct, the importance of the opportunity for recreation in the CBD, protection of Nelson’s unique environment, enhancement of ecological values, positive environmental outcomes and acknowledgement of the built heritage.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 10.35a.m.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 10.36a.m.

6.07 Gaire Thompson - 28734

Gaire Thompson spoke to his submission regarding building regulations and associated costs and answered a question regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 10.43a.m. until 10.56a.m., at which time Councillor Fulton was not present.

6.08 Penny Molnar – Nelson Women’s Centre – 28269

Penny Molnar spoke to the submission regarding innovation in the community sector, the reduction in the Community Investment Fund, struggling community organisations, affordable housing, the Housing Reserve having community and Māori representation and on the use of the Reserve.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 11.00a.m.

Ms Molnar answered questions regarding the submission regarding the reduction in Community Investment Funding, which had been diverted towards Healthier Homes funding, and the Kingsgate Motel contract.

6.09 Lucy Charlesworth – 28228 the submitter did not attend.

6.10 Dr Gwen Struik – 27094 and 29446

Dr Gwen Struik provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2630715) and tabled additional information (A2632584). She spoke to the submission regarding the importance of enlarging and creating new marine reserve areas, sustainable fishing practice and the reduction of carbon emissions. Ms Struik quoted from her tabled document, asking that no further development take place in the tidal zone and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 11.15a.m.

6.11 Brian Ramsay – Nelson Community Patrol – 28051

Brian Ramsay tabled a document (A2634040) and spoke to the submission, thanking Council for its previous support, noting the things that had been achieved with the funding. He noted that vandalism had decreased since the Patrol’s inception and spoke of the Patrol’s activities and sources of funding.

6.12 Karen Driver – 27488

Karen Driver spoke regarding strengthening waste minimisation and supporting communities and the work being done in this area. She answered questions regarding the submission regarding key waste minimisation initiatives and building infrastructure, noting that she would like the waste minimisation grant increased. She felt that the food waste trial was a good opportunity to get organic material out of landfill and that it was better for people to compost their own material but that was not happening.

6.13 Daniel Levy – 27658

Daniel Levy tabled speaking notes (A2634797) and spoke to his submission regarding the Maitai Valley, noting his support for the Save the Maitai movement. He spoke regarding the private plan change request proposal, which he felt was disingenuous, suggesting that a subdivision be allowed within current allowable parameters.

6.14 Georgina Pattullo – Tasman Bay Backpackers – 27592

Georgina Pattullo tabled speaking notes (A2634721) and spoke to the submission regarding unconsented Airbnbs and the effect on small accommodation businesses. She suggested making the rules for commercial accommodation available on Council’s website and that the rules be publicised and advocated for the appropriate use of houses built under special housing rules.

6.15 Eric Ingham – 27906

Eric Ingham spoke to his submission regarding reinstatement of access to the Delaware boat ramp, the environmental impact of allowing boats to drive down the estuary, cultural significance of the land, historical estuary access and recreational estuary use.

6.16 Myriam Goos – 28014 the submitter did not attend.

6.17 Roland Goos – 28010

Roland Goos spoke to his submission regarding the proposed Maitai Valley subdivision, he felt that affordable housing was the key to solving housing problems and requesting a full assessment of the impact of the proposal on both people and the environment. He spoke of the difficulties of trying to find a small property in Nelson, and of strict building covenants requiring larger houses and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey left the meeting at 12.01p.m.

6.18 Richard Sullivan – 27486 (via Zoom)

Richard Sullivan spoke to his submission regarding future housing affordability in Nelson, proposed rates increases, Nelson as a low wage region, the cost of the Trafalgar Street bike rack, Council issuing consents to itself to discharge into the Maitai River, Council’s performance, the effects of rates increases, the cost of the Library Precinct proposal, the need for better incentives for project delivery within initial budgets and the need for a real focus on wellbeing in the LTP.

6.19 Susan Macaskill – 28005

Susan Macaskill spoke to her submission regarding being a good ancestor (Tūpunu Pono). She encouraged Elected Members to think of people’s descendants accessing and enjoying the Maitai Valley and advocated for affordable urban housing and the Maitai Valley becoming a reserve in the future and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.20 Anne Dickinson – Maire Stream Guardians – 28013

Anne Dickinson tabled photographs (A2634044) and spoke to the submission regarding protection of the Maire Stream and its history. Ms Dickinson provided a video showing the state of the stream and spoke to the tabled photographs, asking why the mud and shingle could not be kept out of the stream. A further video was displayed showing the dam, which was the main feed for the stream, and the surrounding area, and referred to the final photograph which showed what the Guardians would like to happen.

6.21 Mayor Tim King – TDC – 278267

His Worship the Mayor of Tasman, Tim King, spoke to the submission regarding additional funding for the Waimea Dam and growth pressure. He provided a history and rationale for the Waimea Dam proposal. He questioned the assumptions for Nelson City Council’s low growth predictions and noted the attractiveness of the region remained as a good place to live. He answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 12.46p.m. until 1.35p.m., at which time Her Worship the Mayor and Councillors Fulton, Sanson and Skinner were not present.

Deputy Mayor Councillor Edgar assumed the chair.

6.22 Nelson Greypower Inc – 29454L – George Truman and Sue Sara

George Truman and Sue Sara tabled a map of Marsden Cemetry (A2634703) and presented the submission, suggesting potential areas for expansion of the Marsden Valley Cemetery.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton returned to the meeting at 1.27p.m, and Councillors Sanson and Skinner returned to the meeting at 1.28p.m.

Mr Truman and Ms Sara submitted against establishing a regional cemetery, emphasised the importance of considering those aged over 85 when considering Council activities, and answered questions regarding the submission.

Attendance: Councillor McGurk left the meeting at 1.32p.m.

6.23 Tim Raateland – Nelson Lawn Tennis Club Inc – 27084

Tim Raateland spoke to the Nelson Lawn Tennis Club Inc submission. He emphasised the benefits of developing a clubhouse at the Nelson Lawn Tennis Club, and answered questions.

Attendance: Councillor McGurk returned to the meeting at 1.39p.m.

6.24 Jo Coughlan – NZ Chinese Language Week Trust – 26996 (via Zoom)

Jo Coughlan presented the NZ Chinese Language Week submission via audio-visual link, and advised that a video link would be shared. She highlighted initiatives and the growth in activities in recent NZ Chinese Language Weeks, and encouraged Council to consider providing funding to ensure a more sustainable financial footing for future NZ Chinese Language Week events.

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 1.49p.m.

Ms Coughlan answered questions regarding the submission.

Her Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair, at 1.54p.m.

6.25 Belinda O’Donoghue – 27211

Belinda O’Donoghue gave a PowerPoint presentation (A2630714) and spoke to her submission. She emphasised the need to consider how to recalibrate and support the local economy as the Nelson region and New Zealand recovered from COVID-19. She encouraged Council to promote a ‘buy local’ campaign, including a hub for local and domestic-produced products, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.26 Gaire Thompson and Sue Garner – Nelson Residents’ Association – 27157

Gaire Thompson and Sue Garner presented the submission. They highlighted points against the proposed grant to the Cawthron Institute, the proposed contribution to the Waimea Community Dam, and the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment. They spoke further about rates increases, the costs of environmental and weed control, and increased carparking and recycling bins in the central city. They encouraged Council not to paint a Pride crossing, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.27 Tony Haddon – 27321

Tony Haddon spoke to his submission. He emphasised the negative effects the National Policy Statement on Urban Development had on Nelson against the Government’s Immigration Policy, and encouraged Council not to re-zone the Maitai Valley or allow intensive housing development there. He suggested that the Maitai Valley should be made into a Regional park and preserved for the community, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.28 Rt Hon Sir Don McKinnon – NZ Memorial Museum Trust – 26997

The Rt Hon Sir Don McKinnon spoke to the submission. He spoke about the actions of New Zealand soldiers at Le Quesnoy and emphasised the importance of New Zealand’s war history being preserved in a museum on the Western Front, as other Allied countries had. He explained the Trust’s fundraising goals, encouraged Council’s financial contribution, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.29 Caroline Vine – 27300 - The submitter had previously presented.

6.30 Diane Goodman – 27351

Diane Goodman spoke to her submission. She said the proposed Elma Turner library redevelopment was unwarranted, as the current library was adequate for Nelson’s needs. She highlighted points relating to proposed rates increases, encouraged Council to focus on core infrastructure, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.31 Mohun Krishnasamy – 27107

Mohun Krishnasamy displayed an image of Nile Street East (A2633121) and spoke to his submission. He emphasised the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Kaka Valley subdivision, including increased traffic movements on Nile Street East and related impacts on air quality. Mr Krishnasamy answered questions regarding the submission.

6.32 Eva Pick-Stone – 27156 - the submitter did not attend.

6.33 Gretchen Holland – 27194

Gretchen Holland tabled speaking notes (A2634696) and spoke to her submission. She emphasised the importance of quality green space, noted potential environmental effects of intensive housing in the Kaka valley, encouraged Council to protect the Kaka and Maitai Valleys as reserve land for the wider community, and answered questions regarding the submission.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.49p.m. until 3.03p.m.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2021/042
	*That the Council* *1. Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater Carried

6.34 Roger Gibbons – Nelson Marina Advisory Group - 27982

Roger Gibbons tabled additional documents (A2634134) and presented the Nelson Marina Advisory Group submission. He spoke about development at the marina, including the history of the proposed Sea Sports building project, and noted concerns with its proposed cost. He encouraged Council to consider the marina being run as a separate entity, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.35 Debbie Daniell-Smith – 27781

Debbie Daniell-Smith accompanied by Brett Daniell-Smith, spoke to her submission. She emphasised points against expansion of the Marsden Valley cemetery or a regional cemetery, against Council contributing to the Waimea Community Dam, and encouraged a redeveloped library on Council-owned land rather than dealing with iwi. She spoke about proposed rates increases, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.36 Aaron Stallard on behalf of Catherine Harper – 27262

Aaron Stallard presented the submission of Catherine Harper. He spoke against residential development in Kaka Valley, spoke about the importance of accessible green space to the community, and encouraged Council to protect the Kaka and Maitai Valleys from future urban development.

6.37 Emma Saunders – 27327

Emma Saunders, accompanied by her son Barnaby, spoke to her submission. She emphasised the importance of playgrounds and encouraged Council to include a greater range of challenging play equipment for a greater range of ages, increased shading and more drinking fountains in playgrounds.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan left the meeting at 3.31p.m.

Ms Saunders encouraged Council to prioritise a destination playground at Rutherford Park, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.38 Steve Cross – 27967

Steve Cross spoke to his submission. He emphasised points regarding Council’s operating budget and salary levels, Council communications, and Council’s Emergency Fund.

Attendance: Councillor Noonan returned to the meeting at 3.47p.m.

Mr Cross spoke further regarding environmental pest and weed control, the food waste collection proposal, the Nelson Marina, and answered questions regarding the submission.

6.39 Joanna Plows – 28764

Joanna Plows tabled additional information (A2634135), and spoke to her submission. She highlighted points regarding climate change adaptation, retaining Kaka Valley as a green space, restricting vehicle access at Delaware Bay, supporting the Nelson Womens’ Centre, incentivising vacant properties to be used for housing rather than Air-BnB-type accommodation, and limiting vehicle traffic in the central city. Ms Plows answered questions regarding the submission.

6.40 Naomi Solomon – Ngāti Toa – 28910 - the submitter did not attend.

The meeting was adjourned from 3.58p.m. until 4.08p.m.

6.41 Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald, provided information regarding the processes relating to the upcoming meetings to deliberate on the draft Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031.

6.42 Her Worship the Mayor thanked all of those involved in the LTP hearings and gave particular thanks to the Administration Team.

Tabled Documents and Presentations Day 3 Draft LTP Hearings (6 May 2021)

The following documents were provided in support of submissions on Day 3 of the hearing of submissions.

Attachments

1 A2633078 - Updated Hearing Schedule 6 May 2021

2 A2633081 Late submission 29469 - Youth Nelson to the Draft Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 accepted on 6 May 2021

3 A2634043 - Graeme Thomas - Marsden Park Developments 28066 tabled document

4 A2634041 - Stephen and Julie Clements 28737 tabled document

5 A2634045 - Jackie McNae - Stoke Valley Holdings Ltd 28751 tabled document

6 A2630727 - Sarah Holmes - NTBT 28262 presentation

7 A2634495 - Nigel Muir and Andy Morris - Sport Tasman 28316 presentation

8 A2630715 - Gwen Struik 27094 and 29446 presentation

9 A2632854 - Gwen Struik 27094 and 29446 tabled document

10 A2634040 - Brian Ramsay - Nelson Community Patrol 28051 tabled document

11 A2634797 - Daniel Levy 27658 speaking notes

12 A2634721 - Georgina Pattullo 27592 speaking notes

13 A2634044 - Anne Dickinson - Maire Stream Guardians 28013 tabled document

14 A2634703 - George Truman and Sue Sara - Greypower 29454L tabled document

15 A2634696 - Gretchen Holland 27194 speaking notes

16 A2630714 - Belinda O'Donoghue 27211 presentation

17 A2633121 - Mo Krishnasamy 27107 tabled document

18 A2634134 - Roger Gibbons - Nelson Marina Advisory Group 27982 tabled document

19 A2634135 - Joanna Plows 28764 - tabled document

Karakia Whakamutunga

A karakia whakamutunga was given.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.15p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 7: Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation and Related Matters

Council

18 May 2021

REPORT R24777

Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation and Related Matters

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information and recommendations to support deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 consultation and related matters.

2. Summary

2.1 Council is required to consult with the community on its 10 year plan, the Long Term Plan, through a Consultation Document. Council has heard submissions on the Consultation Document and must now consider feedback provided by submitters and new matters which have arisen which may impact on the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation and Related Matters (R24777) and its attachments (A2634256, A2642025 and A2641877).

4. Background

4.1 The consultation period for the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) was open for four and a half weeks between 22 March and 21 April. 649 submissions were received over that period, as well as 20 late submissions, with 136 people speaking to their submissions at hearings on 4, 5 and 6 May. (Submission counts in this report refer to submissions received within the consultation period.)

4.2 588 submissions were made by residents of Nelson, 41 from residents of Tasman and 19 were from people residing outside the Nelson/Tasman region. 79% of submissions were made online.

4.3 One anonymous submission was made and has not been included as it is not possible to verify that it is authentic nor to comply with section 83 of the Local Government Act which requires that Council provide opportunities for submitters to present directly to elected members and inform them how they can take up that opportunity.

4.4 In addition to the Consultation Document, Council also invited submissions on the Revenue and Financing Policy, an amended Rating Policy and fees for the York Valley Landfill. Three other reports on this agenda consider items consulted on either within the Consultation Document or concurrently: Development Contributions; a new company model for the airport and port and redevelopment of the Elma Turner Library.

Discussion

5. Transport

Active Transport Linkages

5.1 Many submissions (97) asked Council to invest in more cycleways including linkages and improved cycle safety. The most common reason given for supporting more cycling was the climate change benefits of removing cars from the road but health, social and transport congestion benefits were also seen as important. There were eight submissions opposed to spending on cycleways.

5.2 Planning of a connected cycle network is a focus for 2021-24; thereafter construction budgets will be sought. This may need a review of budgets in the next LTP once completed planning reveals work scope and any issues. This includes working with Waka Kotahi for facilities on the State Highway depending on the Nelson Future Access Study outcomes. This also includes planning of two significant active transport corridors in Washington Valley and in connecting the Railway Reserve in Nelson South/Victory across to key destinations on Waimea Road and linking to Nelson East. Safety is a key focus and options being considered include reducing vehicle speeds to enable cyclists to feel comfortable travelling on roads mixing with car traffic.

5.3 Council is encouraging the community to transition to more sustainable modes (cycling, walking, skateboarding, riding, scooters) and this includes cycleways. Placeholder funding ($30.2 million) has been included in the LTP and includes short/medium term activities targeted at making the best use of existing infrastructure and that will improve safety and increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling. Improvements to active transport networks will also be made as part of the new and renewed footpaths programme, and through the minor improvements (or low cost, low risk) funding allocation.

5.4 Extension of the Atawhai cycleway was of interest to a number of submitters. This project is included in the LTP in years 2027-31 and discussions are underway with Waka Kotahi to identify a location and method of achieving this connection for Nelson North residents.

Parking

5.5 Some submissions asked for parking provision to be reduced to encourage the public to move to more sustainable forms of transport. Submitters will be referred to the Regional Land Transport Plan and the Regional Public Transport Plan for more details on how Council intends to support this. In addition, the work underway on a Parking Strategy will be referenced, with its consideration of land use for parking and how parking can best be managed to achieve the outcomes sought.

5.6 Some submissions requested park and ride options. This is covered in the Regional Public Transport Plan as a regional issue and is being led by Tasman District Council which is considering parking facilities in the outlying areas connecting to public transport systems.

6. Utilities

Water Supply

Waimea Dam

6.1 Some 15 submissions requested Council increase its contribution to the Waimea Dam while 8 were opposed. Some of those opposed didn’t want Council to even continue with the, already approved, $5 million contribution. There is a report on the Waimea Dam on this agenda and submitters will be informed of the outcome in line with the that decision making.

Wastewater

Awatea Place wastewater pump station upgrade

6.2 The upgrade of the Awatea pump station is planned to be completed in the first two years of this LTP and $10 million has been set aside for this, including $1.44 million in the 2019/20 financial year. The work includes the recently completed Beach Road wastewater storage and also a new modern pump station that will replace two existing older pump stations and provide more storage capacity. Work is well advanced on the pump station with tenders advertised, now closed and prices currently being evaluated. Whilst Council has received approximately $3.8 million towards this work from the Three Waters stimulus package, early indications are that current LTP funding is insufficient and an additional $1.2 million will be required.

6.3 The increase in the project cost to $11.2 million (including government contribution) reflects the complexity of the work (which includes very deep excavation) and the current market as a result of COVID-19, particularly the supply of materials and the supply chain.

6.4 Tender negotiations are yet to be finalised and, whilst savings may eventuate, in order to allow award of a contract early in the 2021/22 financial year, approval for up to an additional $1.2million is sought in year 2 of the LTP. The award of the tender will go through the Tenders Subcommittee at the appropriate time.

6.5 This work plays an important part in contributing to two of Council’s priorities - Infrastructure and the Environment. This upgrade will ensure that Council is looking after its assets in a responsible manner for future generations and is an essential upgrade that will contribute towards reducing overflows into our environment. This upgrade will see the replacement of two very old existing pump stations (that have both capacity and odour issues on very constrained sites), with a modern fit-for-purpose pump station. This work follows the recent successful upgrading of the City’s Neale Park and Corder Park pump stations. Not continuing with this work would also place the much-welcomed government funding in jeopardy.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves provision for up to an additional $1.2 million in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to meet potentially higher than expected costs for the upgrade of the Awatea pump station.

Stormwater/Flooding

Saxton Creek Stage 4

6.6 Stage 4 of the Saxton Creek upgrade is the last stage in a multi-year, multi-million-dollar project to upgrade the creek from Champion Road to the sea. Without this last upgrade section (Main Road Stoke to the sea) the benefits of the previous stages will not be realised. Stage 4 of the project is well advanced and is planned to be completed in the first three years of this LTP with $19 million allocated (plus $900,000 in the 2019/20 financial year). This project has also received $7.5 million from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund.

6.7 The project has been fast tracked and Council has embarked on an early contractor involvement process and whilst the price from the preferred contractor has not been finalised, early indications are that current LTP funding (that was based on preliminary design) is insufficient and that an additional $4.3 million is required.

6.8 This work is taking place through private property; has very tight onsite constraints; is technically complex; involves dealing with working entities with complex daily operational requirements that must remain operational throughout the works; has to comply with strict ecological outcomes.

6.9 Tender negotiations are yet to be finalised and, whilst savings may eventuate, in order to allow award of a contract early in the 2021/22 financial year, approval for up to an additional $4.3 million is sought, spread as follows:

- year 1: $2,520,000

- year 2: $1,750,000.

6.10 The award of the tender will go through the Tenders Subcommittee at the appropriate time. This additional funding will increase the overall budget to $24.3 million (inclusive of $2.5 million contingency and government funding).

6.11 This work is the last stage of the Saxton Creek upgrade for an area that has experienced major flooding in recent years. Without this last stage the benefits of the work and funding put into the first three stages will not be realised. It will also place the much-welcomed government funding in jeopardy.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves provision for up to an additional $4.3 million, being $2,520,000 in year 1 and $1,750,000 in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31, to meet potentially higher than expected costs for the completion of stage 4 of the Saxton Creek project.

Ariesdale Terrace

6.12 Submission 27095 requests investigation of subsurface drainage issues in Ariesdale Terrace. The submission represents the concerns of residents of five properties. These residents are grateful for the support from Council officers in trying to find the cause of the runoff but so far all efforts have been unsuccessful.

6.13 Council remains committed to concluding the investigation into whether Council’s existing infrastructure is contributing to this issue and developing a business case for extending the public stormwater network to this area which would enable private properties to connect into it.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves bringing forward $40,000 from year 5 and $40,000 from year 6 for the Ariesdale Terrace project to year 1 and year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31;

7. Solid Waste

Community Compost (submission 29466)

7.1 Waste minimisation includes all forms of waste diversion, including organic material that would otherwise go to landfill. Council is currently undertaking a kitchen waste trial to determine the viability of diverting organic material from landfill that will have the benefit of reducing methane production and encouraging behavioural change.

7.2 The work currently being undertaken by Community Compost (CC) in relation to growing its organic waste collection in the private sector aligns with Council’s objectives.

7.3 CC has applied to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) for funding to assist in growing its private sector collection. However, this MfE funding is insufficient to realise the full benefits of the project and CC has requested support from Council by way of a bridging loan to cover timing of MfE funding and through a grant to cover the shortfall.

7.4 In principle officers support any initiative to divert material from landfill and recommend providing CC with:

7.4.1 Bridging funding (by way of an interest free loan) of $45,000 that will enable it to commence work on design and production of “bEarth2” pending MfE payment, which is only paid on the successful delivery of project milestones; and

7.4.2 A grant of $32,000.

7.5 Officers have been in discussion with CC which has offered its current processing plant (bEartha1) as security against the loan. This is presently located at the Nelson Environment Centre yard and valued above the amount of the loan.

7.6 Officers recommend that Council approve a bridging loan and grant subject to conditions and further discussion with CC that would include:

7.6.1 Prior to the release of funds from Council that CC demonstrates that it has the necessary approvals for its proposed site, all required consents, and public liability insurance.

7.6.2 Where bEartha2 is to be used for any part of the Council kitchen waste trial, that all conditions of the kitchen waste trial contract would have to be met.

7.6.3 The sharing with Council of all data on collection volumes and processing outcomes.

7.7 Officers note that while the installation of a second “bEartha” will demonstrate the upscaling of operational capacity by CC, that this does not indicate an assumed preference for this specific technology nor any preference/advantage in any future expression of interest for a potential city wide roll-out of kerbside kitchen waste service (should Council decide on this in the future).

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves support for Community Compost’s initiative to grow its organic collection operation through an interest free bridging loan of $45,000 and a grant of $32,000 (subject to conditions) as unbudgeted expenditure in the 2020/21 financial year.

Good Food City

7.8 There were 10 submissions encouraging Council’s support for the Good Food Cities programme. This is a programme run internationally by the C40 organisation and aims to deliver outcomes such as adoption of a sustainable diet with reduced meat and dairy consumption, 50% reduction in food waste (from 2015 volumes) and an increase in organic food sources.

7.9 Nelson Marlborough Health (NMH) has taken the lead on the Good Food Cities project, which is appropriate given the project’s focus on diet, organic food and food procurement. NMH is also developing a Food Resilience Strategy.

7.10 Council is committed to being an active partner supporting NMH in this work. Our most significant contribution at present is the trial of kitchen waste processing – a priority because of the potential of this project to cut Nelson’s CO2 and methane emissions. However, there are many other areas where Council does support the project including through planting of edibles in our reserves, encouraging home composting and our Rethink Waste campaign which includes a focus on better use of food. Submitters will be told that Council looks forward to partnering with individuals and agencies to bring about changes in our food system that will benefit not just the health of the Nelson community but also reduce emissions.

7.11 NMH made one specific suggestion during its presentation at hearings, which is for Council to consider a policy of banning advertising of unhealthy food/drink on public transport and Council facilities. NMH offered to develop such a policy for Council to consider. Officers will have further discussions with NMH and report to Council about options for this and other Good Food City initiatives raised in NMH’s draft Good Food declaration.

Landfill fees and charges

7.12 Fees and charges for the York Valley Regional landfill facility have been proposed to increase by 20%. 32 submissions were received on this matter and these were referred to the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) for consideration.

7.13 Of the 32 submissions received – 31 were in general support of landfill activities, with 1 submission opposing fee increases due to concerns with increasing fly tipping. Of the 31 submissions in support of landfill activities 14 stated support of increasing landfill fees as an incentive to divert waste from landfill; an additional seven stated support for landfill fee increases, and one supported user pays for landfill costs. The NTRLBU Board having considered this feedback endorsed an increase in York Valley Landfill fees and charges of 20%.

7.14 In addition, three submitters supported capturing and using landfill gas, which is a key initiative of NTRLBU, with the remaining submissions expressing support for emission reduction and/or waste diversion activities without specifically supporting increase in fees or charges.

That the Council

Notes that no change is proposed to the 20% increase in Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit fees that was consulted on.

8. Environmental Management

Whakatū Whakamahere Nelson Plan

8.1 10.1 The Whakatū Whakamahere Nelson Plan budget for the period 2021-2031 does not incorporate any costs associated with repeal of the Resource Management Act or implementation of the anticipated replacement acts (Natural and Built Environments Act; Strategic Planning Act; Climate Change Adaptation Act). At this point, and until the legislation is released, there is significant uncertainty as to the extent of change required to give effect to the new legislation. There is also no information about transition timeframes, or clarity on requirements for combined planning with Marlborough and Tasman Districts. Until there is greater certainty about the replacement legislation it is impossible to forecast budgets with any degree of accuracy.

8.2 10.2 For this reason, officers recommend the LTP budget does not include Resource Management Act reform related costs, but that these costs are managed when the implications are clearer.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that funding for Resource Management Act reform related costs are not included in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and will be considered when the implications are known.

Science and Technology Precinct

8.3 Those who commented on the Science and Technology Precinct generally supported it (32 submissions for, 7 opposed), though submission 27312 would prefer more funding from the private sector which will directly benefit from the project. Submission 27416 was concerned that development here might detract from work in other parts of the city (such as the Maitai River Precinct) and wanted Council to be sure all its initiatives supported each other and didn’t compete. Those in support saw it as an innovative project with benefits such as growing Nelson’s knowledge economy. The Chamber of Commerce (28541) suggested the development should include a regional conference centre facility.

8.4 Council has signalled its support for this project through a total funding contribution of $5 million over three financial years - $1.5 million in the current financial year as a contribution to the land purchase by Cawthron and $3.5 million in the LTP towards site improvement work ($1.5 million in year 1 and $2 million in year 2).

8.5 The $1.5 million contribution for the land purchase will be paid to Cawthron as a grant on the signing of the sale and purchase agreement between Port Nelson and Cawthron. As this is now expected to occur in October/November 2021, provision will need to be made to carry forward the $1.5 million funding to year 1 of the LTP.

8.6 The estimated $3.5 million proposed in the LTP towards this project was allocated to assist with site works necessary to enable the site footprint to be maximised and to make this hub a reality. At the time of writing the LTP, the extent of what this site work entailed had not been fully scoped by the Port or Cawthron. As part of the development scope two pieces of work were identified - ground improvement work and the need to realign an existing stormwater pipe, which currently runs through the site, to the south of the development discharging into Saltwater Creek.

8.7 The stormwater relocation work is estimated to cost $2.8 million. To provide Cawthron with a clean site by November 2021, design and consenting of the stormwater work has commenced with work expected to start in July/August 2021. Council will engage a contractor directly for this work as this is a Council asset.

8.8 The need to realign the stormwater was not anticipated and Council now has a better idea of the cost following commencement and progression of detailed design. As a result it is recommended that the total contribution paid by Council towards this project, to allow for this unexpected stormwater work, be capped at $5.5 million, with a contribution to Port Nelson for the development of the Science and Technology Precinct including ground improvements. The work to develop the site (including ground improvements) will be commissioned by Port Nelson and includes design and consenting costs, and Council will pay its contribution to Port Nelson on completion of the work. The final cost of the ground improvement work is not finalised by Port Nelson/Cawthron and Council is only providing a contribution towards this work irrespective of the final cost.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that the estimated $2.8 million capital funding for realigning Council’s stormwater pipe will be transferred into the stormwater activity and depreciated; and

Approves a carry forward from 2020/21 to year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 of the $1.5 million capital grant, payable to the Cawthron Institute (on the signing of the sale and purchase agreement between Port Nelson and the Cawthron Institute); and

Approves bringing forward $2 million for the Science and Technology Precinct project from year 2 to year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; and

Approves a loan funded capital grant of up to $1.2 million to Port Nelson as Council’s contribution towards the development at the Science and Technology Precinct, payable to Port Nelson on completion of the works; and

Approves a provision of $500,000 additional funding in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (bringing the total Council contribution to $5.5 million) towards the Science and Technology Precinct.

9. Housing

9.1 Approximately a third of all submissions received were in the category of housing affordability and intensification. Of those, about half commented on the proposed development in the Maitai Valley (see below). About a third urged Council to do more on intensification, particularly to increase density in the city centre in order to revitalise the city, and agreed affordability is a key issue. Responses will acknowledge that intensification of brownfield areas forms an important part of the city's growth planning, supported through the Council's Intensification Action Plan. However, as brownfield development generally involves the decisions of a large number of landholders (to add more than a second dwelling or to redevelop their site) it is a much slower process. To achieve the number of houses Nelson needs, greenfield development also plays a role to meet the city's growth.

9.2 Council will be looking at its property portfolio to see if any Council property can be used to leverage intensification, residential development and more affordable housing.

9.3 There was also support for the development of empty upper storeys in the city for residential, the use of Council property for housing, working with others to achieve housing goals and investment in supporting infrastructure (transport and wastewater).

9.4 Council has several work programmes to support housing. A package of initiatives was consulted on and received general support from the community.

9.5 Included in the LTP is funding for a new staff position to focus on intensification actions. This position will work with those seeking to intensify to assist them through the Council processes as well as deliver the City Centre Residential Conversion Fund. The role will essentially act as a navigator for Council processes and legislative requirements.

9.6 Officers have recently assessed the breadth of work to deliver the housing outcomes sought by the Council, and consider extra resourcing is required to implement Council’s wide housing objectives. This would include working with Kāinga Ora, administration and delivery of the Housing Reserve and effecting greater change by encouraging a range of housing developments. An estimate of an additional $128,000 in each of years 1 to 3 of the LTP is required.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves provision of up to an extra $128,000 operating expenditure in each of years 1 to 3 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for additional resource to deliver housing outcomes required by Council.

Transitional housing

9.7 Penny Molner presented on behalf of Community Action Nelson (submission 28269) at the LTP hearings. In her presentation, Ms Molner suggested that Council partner with the Nelson Women’s Centre to provide for the potential purchase of the Kings Gate Motel for transitional and longer term housing for women and children in Nelson. The submission from CAN covered a number of housing issues but Ms Molner spoke specifically about the Nelson Women’s Centre.

9.8 Accommodation would be provided for up to 12 households. The site, in Trafalgar Street, is close to the Women’s Centre and the motel units will be able to offer a range of accommodation: a four bedroom house, 4 - two bedroom, 4 - one bedroom and 2 studio units.

9.9 The Women’s Centre is seeking to access Council’s Housing Reserve for the development. At this stage however, the criteria for the Housing Reserve are still to be confirmed. Nelson Women’s Centre is approaching other funding providers but at this stage has no firm commitment for funding. It has a timetable for deliverables and seeks to have tenants move in by September 2021. Officers will keep CAN informed as the criteria for the Housing Reserve are confirmed.

Growth assumption

9.10 Submission 28267 from the Tasman Mayor questioned Council’s growth assumption, noting that it does not line up with what Tasman District Council is observing now or expecting in the future.

9.11 The first draft of the Council’s population projections was developed in late 2019. Not long after this, New Zealand went into lockdown in response to the threat of COVID-19. During the lockdown, it was decided that Council officers should look in more detail at the potential effects of COVID-19 on the growth that Nelson might expect over the next 30 years. As part of this review, data showing the effect of recessionary periods on the various components that make up population growth was analysed and used to develop a revised population projection.

9.12 The revised population projection shows very low growth for the next three years before growth increases over time and returns to the pre COVID-19 growth rate. This is primarily driven by the assumed effect of COVID-19 on net migration. A peer review of the population projections was also undertaken by Infometrics in June 2020. The revised population projection was adopted by Nelson City Council on 12 November 2020. Following stronger than expected economic performance, Infometrics undertook a further review in February 2021 and confirmed that the population projection adopted in November 2020 should be retained.

9.13 While the growth anticipated by the projections is only around 4.5% over the next ten years, the growth projected over the period 2021-2048 (consistent with the Statistics NZ projection periods) is around 19%, or roughly comparable to the 21% projected by Statistics NZ in its 2018 base high series projection. Therefore, over the long term, it is expected that the planning for growth will be appropriate to meet the needs of the wider Nelson and Tasman regions.

9.14 It is noted that building consent and resource consent application numbers currently remain relatively strong. However, most new subdivision resource consent applications received in the last 6-12 months are for variations to existing consents to allow developers more time in the rate at which they roll out stages. Relatively few of the resource consents have been for new subdivisions.

9.15 There is a risk in relying too much on building consents for assessing the actual impact of COVID-19 on growth. This is primarily because work requiring a building consent in the last 6-12 months is likely to have been financially committed to before COVID-19. Therefore, the continued high number of building consents is reflective of growth pre-COVID-19 and may mask a reduction in growth over the last 6-12 months or growth to come in the very near future.

9.16 One key difference between Nelson and Tasman is that all of Nelson City's residentially zoned greenfield land is already serviced with infrastructure. Therefore, regardless of pre or post COVID-19 projections, our greenfield infrastructure programme in the LTP remains the same and is not preventing growth.

9.17 With Nelson City looking to rely more on intensification to cater for growth, the level of investment in infrastructure needed for say the Statistics New Zealand medium series in the next ten years compared with that of the Council population projections is negligible. This LTP contains funding to service three major areas for intensification – the city centre, Victory area and Washington Valley. All areas of the existing urban environment are able to accommodate a portion of intensification currently. Adopting population projections that take into account anticipated lower migration in the short term as a result of COVID-19 has not affected the rate at which intensification can be accommodated within the city.

9.18 Initial modelling undertaken as part of the Nelson City housing capacity assessment (under the National Policy Statement Urban Development) indicates that, currently, the high property prices seen in the residential market are driven primarily by a lack of sections being brought to the market and not by a lack of infrastructure serviced land. This is expected to remain the case for the medium term and indicates that some other intervention is required in the housing market to bring more supply to the market in Nelson. To this end officers are currently working with Kainga Ora on housing supply market interventions.

Holiday rentals

9.19 Hospitality New Zealand (submission 27202) spoke of the difficulty of finding affordable accommodation for workers, particularly given competition with AirBnB and other holiday rentals. Responses to these submitters will acknowledge that short term tourist accommodation has had a negative effect on local housing supply. Council will be reviewing its regulatory options and the possible rating solutions that are available for whole-house AirBnB type accommodation providers later this year.

Maitahi/Bayview Development

9.20 Although the Consultation Document had noted that this development was not a matter for the LTP, the project attracted 128 submissions.

9.21 In responding to these submitters it will be explained that decisions about the Private Plan Change application for Maitahi/Bayview will be dealt with under a Resource Management Act process which will include community input through processes set out in the Resource Management Act. The notification process is an extensive and thorough process that involves a Section 32 (cost/benefit) analysis, public notification, submissions, further submission, hearings, decisions, and Environment Court appeal processes. This includes an analysis of the effects of that development on the environment. Submitters will be encouraged to check Council’s website for information on the Private Plan Change application.

9.22 Some submissions called for the removal of the Maitai Valley from all Council plans or documents, including on the basis of previous documents. In relation to potential for residential development, the Maitai Valley has been considered in two growth planning documents. First, the Nelson Urban Growth Strategy in 2006 (NUGS) and second, the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (FDS), which was adopted in 2019 and superseded NUGS.

9.23 In developing the FDS in 2018 and 2019, Council conducted a robust consultation process in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity and part 6 of the Local Government Act. Council engaged widely through a range of mediums and the public was given information on development options and the opportunity to provide feedback. All feedback received was considered by Council in making its decisions on the content and adoption of the FDS.

9.24 The FDS identifies the broad location of potential growth areas to meet expected demand. Under that document the expected process for areas not already residentially zoned is for them to then be subject to further investigation via a Resource Management Act process. This will occur in the case of the Maitahi/Bayview development through the process to assess the private plan change application received by Council on 16 April 2021.

9.25 Some submitters on this topic requested that the Maitai Valley be made into a regional park or otherwise set aside for recreation purposes. The response to these submitters will be that, even if the land could be purchased, this would need to be weighed up against other uses of that ratepayer funding. Council holds around a quarter of the land area in Nelson as parks and reserves space. The cost of maintaining this land is substantial and careful consideration needs to be given to acquisitions of additional reserve land. Furthermore, the Maitai Valley in particular, is already well served with reserve land as well as considerable privately-owned forestry land which the public can access for recreation by way of permit or registration.

9.26 Many submitters also requested that Council meet Nelson’s future housing needs through intensification and leave areas of green space undeveloped. Responses to these submitters will note that the Government's National Policy Statement on Urban Development directs councils to plan for growth in locations where people can easily access public transport, work, education and healthcare. The intensification of brownfield areas plays an important part in this growth planning, supported through the Council's Intensification Action Plan. However, as brownfield development is a much slower process, to achieve the number of houses Nelson needs greenfield development also has a key role in meeting the city's growth.

10. Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust (submission 27466)

10.1 The Brook Sanctuary (BWST) has submitted on a number of topics. Some requests were contained within its written submission, but others were raised at the annual Working Party with officers held during the submission period and reiterated at the hearings.

10.2 BWST has noted the Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA) destination management plan and its intention to develop a major new attraction near Nelson city and believes the Sanctuary can fulfil that role. The Trust would like funding for a regional economic impact.

10.3 Officers have discussed this possibility with NRDA and there are many objectives of the destination plan that BWST aligns with such as being low carbon, environmentally beneficial, close to the city centre. It is a key visitor destination but also important for talent attraction, community wellbeing and Nelson’s brand image.

10.4 However, the destination management plan is still at a very high level and will undergo further analysis and work before actions are agreed. It is probably better at this point to focus the conversation on the economic contribution BWST can make to the Nelson region. Officers will facilitate a closer working relationship between NRDA and BWST.

10.5 BWST has also asked that Council make adequate provision for infrastructure investment in the Brook Valley Holiday Park over the ten years, particularly for improved parking, improved roading, improved internet access and site beautification.

10.6 Its top priority out of these items would be an upgrade of the road surface in the campground of 220m2 leading to Sanctuary gates. Officers estimate this could be achieved at a cost of about $9,400. There is a reseal of roading within the campground planned and if this was done at the same time there could be some savings achieved.

10.7 There has already been discussion between officers and BWST over provision of WiFi. The Trust has been having problems with WiFi at its outdoor classroom but recently received a grant from Transpower to fund UFB fibre from the Visitor Centre to the classroom. It is now focussed on a short length from the Brook Camp gate to the Visitor Centre. Officers have been investigating getting a connection to the Brook Campground and possibly from there to the water treatment plant. So there is a possibility to assist BWST through Council’s project. The cost is likely to be in the order of $80,000.

10.8 BWST would like to employ one new staff member to implement a fundraising strategy to help put the Sanctuary’s funding on a more sustainable basis. This would require additional annual support of $30,000 per year from Council, starting in year 1 of the LTP.

10.9 As there are a number of requests from the Trust, officers recommend focussing on capex items where Council is undertaking works and can include the Trust with some gain in efficiency and less impact on rates than ongoing opex commitments.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates a provision of up to $9,400 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for resealing the 220m² of road leading to Sanctuary gates in conjunction with the reseal of roading within the campground; and

Further allocates a provision of up to $80,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to extend WiFi coverage for the Brook Waimarama Sanctuary, particularly to the visitor centre.

Tasman Environment Trust (TET)

10.10 TET (submission 27734) was established in 2000 by Tasman District Council and other partners to administer the Cobb Mitigation Fund. In 2020 it amended its Deed to include the Nelson region within its area of activity.

10.11 TET presented twice at hearings, requesting $50,000 funding support for its blue carbon research project and $40,000 funding per annum for the core work delivered by TET.

10.12 Council provided a grant of $20,000 to TET in the current financial year to support Nelson community conservation volunteer groups. There is an allocation in the draft LTP budgets for $10,000 in year 1 as core funding. Given Council budgetary constraints officers are not recommending more funding be added. However, if Council did want to contribute it could consider allocating $10,000 funding for years 2 and 3, and then reviewing the request for increased funding at the next LTP. By that time there will be more certainty about resource management reform, the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, the outcomes of Jobs for Nature applications and projects, and the value that TET can add in the Nelson-Tasman region as a community conservation hub.

10.13 With regard to the blue carbon project, it is true that knowledge of regional blue carbon stocks and sequestration rates may become increasingly important if a national blue carbon credit scheme is developed. Council has stated its desire for blue carbon and coastal vegetation to be considered as mitigation and adaptation initiatives in its submission to the Climate Change Commission report, and in keeping with that Council provided support for the recent (unsuccessful) application by TET to the Ministry for the Environment Freshwater Improvement Fund.

10.14 Restoration and enhancement of existing coastal wetlands and estuaries are currently being scoped, with a focus on saltmarsh and sea grass restoration, and these will be carried out over time through Council’s coastal and marine programme. Before providing funding for the TET project officers consider more needs to be known about what specific use Council could make of the information, support from other partners (such as Te Tauihu councils or iwi) and other opportunities in this space (there is work being done elsewhere in New Zealand and internationally). Officers will continue to develop the relationship with TET and consider opportunities to work together.

11. Climate Change

11.1 There were 147 submissions on climate change with most supporting Council being proactive on climate change. A number urged Council to progress as fast as possible and prioritise dealing with climate change over other spending. 10 submitters were opposed to work in this area.

11.2 Some submitters were concerned that Nelson needed to do more on the issue of retreat and two submitters would like to see consideration of wastewater treatment moving further from the coast (submissions 27388 and 27043). Council was also encouraged (submission 27388) to work with energy suppliers to see them develop a regional network of pay-to-use electric vehicle charging stations. Thirteen other submitters supported increased use of electric vehicles and/or the installation of electric vehicle charging stations.

11.3 The Youth Council (submission 27452) was looking for more urgency in Council’s approach to climate change. It asked Council to message the community with ideas and actions that individuals can take, emphasising the enormity of the climate crisis. The submission particularly supported making collection of food waste a permanent activity, and urged action on banning single use plastic items such as cutlery and straws.

11.4 Some submitters spoke of the importance of better data to track progress on Nelson’s emissions reductions. There was interest in an online dashboard that would track data by sector. Officers believe this would be a valuable tool for Council and the community and will investigate options.

11.5 There was support from submitters for both Council operations and the Nelson Region becoming carbon neutral as soon as possible, with 2030 as a goal for Council and 2045 for Nelson. Some submitters proposed that Council be carbon neutral by 2025.

11.6 There were a number of submissions that included consideration of nationwide issues, for example requesting that coal no longer be used as an energy source, and 16 which supported increasing the use of solar panels, by Council and the community.

11.7 There was some opposition to increased spending on climate change, including concern that Nelson’s contribution to global warming was so small as to make our efforts meaningless in the overall context.

11.8 One submitter (submission 27147) suggested improvements to how climate change is covered on Council’s website. A review of Council’s climate change content on the website is, in fact, currently underway. Officers will be working over the next few months, with input from the Chair of the Environment and Climate Committee, on implementing the improvements that are identified.

11.9 Several submitters commented on the importance of Council Controlled Organisations developing carbon neutral and adaptation policies. There was also good support for Council to develop a climate change adaptation framework, although some submitters proposed that Council wait until central government has enacted the Climate Adaptation and Managed Retreat Act before making overarching plans.

11.10 The Businesses for Climate Action (BCA) group (submission 27204) has requested Council support of $190,000 per year over the 10 years of the Plan for its work supporting our local business community to identify and action carbon reductions. Council has provided funding of $28,880 in the current financial year.

11.11 BCA’s vision is for Te Tauihu to become the first zero carbon region in New Zealand. The work of BCA has a leadership aspect as it appears to be the first group of its kind in the country. Support for BCA’s work would be entirely consistent with Council’s climate change objectives and the Chamber of Commerce also spoke in support of its work. However, the sum requested, which totals $1.9 million over 10 years, would be difficult to fund within the LTP’s budgetary constraints.

11.12 Given the funding needs of BCA and the importance of its work in supporting Council objectives, staff have been developing a joint application between Council and BCA to the Tindall Foundation for a one-off grant of $75,000.

11.13 The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum (submission 28471) has also submitted requesting financial support from Council. The Forum is another local approach that is leading the way for New Zealand. It has achieved a great deal in a little over a year since it was established with its Charter, Climate Action Book and many other initiatives. Council has funded the Forum since its inception ($62,500 in 2020/21 and $27,000 in 2019/20). Its work has recently been recognised through a grant from the Rātā Foundation for $20,000 per year over three years and the group has two other applications underway in an effort to widen its base of support. Council is also, this financial year, supporting the waste subgroup of the Forum to build regional capacity to run repair cafes, through a small grant of $2,000 from our waste reduction funding.

11.14 The Forum has requested $160,000 each from Nelson City and Tasman District Councils over the first three years of the LTP. The Forum is a key partner and provides a vehicle to encourage the reductions in community emissions that will be necessary to achieve targets for Nelson. However, as with the Businesses for Climate Action request, this amount will be difficult to fund given budget constraints.

11.15 As both groups helpfully made early indications that they would be looking for funding support, officers have endeavoured to make savings in the expenditure approved from the Climate Reserve, anticipating these groups would be a priority for Council support at a time when operational funding would be particularly constrained. $100,000 is available in the Reserve for Council to allocate to these community climate change projects if it so wishes. There is also $50,000 per year already included in the LTP to support community climate change projects.

11.16 Officers suggest that the $100,000 from the Climate Reserve be allocated to BCA over the first three years of the LTP to help in its drive to get 1,000 businesses to measure and report their carbon emissions (weighted towards years 1 and 2: $40,000 year 1, $40,000 year 2, $20,000 year 3). In addition, half of the available funding for community climate action i.e. $25,000, is recommended to be allocated to BCA in years 1 to 3 of the LTP.

11.17 This support should help BCA achieve the momentum and build the awareness amongst businesses necessary to achieve its goal of Te Tauihu being the first national zero-carbon region. It could be hoped that, over time, BCA could benefit from more sponsorship within the business community, and the Mayor has offered to advocate and make introductions to that end.

11.18 Officers recommend that $25,000 of funding for community climate action be allocated to the Climate Forum per annum for the 10 years of the LTP. The Forum is a valuable ally for Council in achieving carbon zero goals for the Nelson region and it will have a long-term role in behaviour change and awareness raising.

11.19 The net effect of these grants will mean that Council’s total contribution to BCA will be $203,880 and to the Climate Forum will be $341,500 (including funding over the current and previous financial years).

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a provision of $65,000 per annum for Businesses for Climate Action for years 1 and 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $45,000 for year 3; and

Approves a provision of $25,000 per annum for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum through the ten years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

12. Social

Arts Council location

12.1 Nelson was previously housed at the Refinery on Halifax Street, paying a community lease. An earlier option considered was to redevelop this site into a community arts centre and a feasibility study was carried out. In the meantime, the Arts Council had to move to temporary premises at 114 Hardy Street while earthquake strengthening was carried out.

12.2 The Arts Council reports that the move to Hardy Street has resulted in some unanticipated benefits, including higher visitation and community engagement from being in a more central location. Consequently, the Arts Council has submitted a request for funding to purchase and stay permanently in the Hardy Street building. Council has funding allocated in years 1 and 2 of the LTP to continue to fund the lease at Hardy Street while options are being considered. There is currently no allocation in the LTP for a grant to contribute towards the capital purchase of a CBD building for an arts centre, or to redevelop the existing Refinery once earthquake strengthening has been completed.

12.3 There is a piece of work to be done in collaboration with the Arts Council to consider options around a community arts facility including funding, location and services. An application is currently being developed for government funding (available through Creative New Zealand) to support a review and update of Council’s arts policy documents. This would be a good vehicle to have these discussions about a community arts facility with the Arts Council and the community more widely.

12.4 The Arts Council advises that the significant increase in visitors has put pressure on its resources. It advises it has managed the extra costs by drawing on reserves, but that this is not sustainable over a longer period.

12.5 The Arts Council currently receives $72,258 as an operational grant along with a Refinery Arts Space grant of $36,132. To meet the increased demand the Arts Council is requesting a further $22,490 per annum (comprising $6,240 to fund additional hours for the Arts Administrator and $16,250 to fund additional hours for the Refinery Manager).

12.6 The requested additional funding would add almost $250,000 additional opex across the life of the LTP. The services the Arts Council delivers to the community are highly valued but discussion at the hearings indicated that, with higher visitor numbers, there were income streams that hadn’t yet been investigated. Officers recommend allocating part-funding for year 1 of the LTP to give the Arts Council time to consider/implement options to increase its revenue. Once that work has been done officers will report back to the Community and Recreation Committee on the outcome and Council can consider if it wishes to increase the services delivered through the Arts Council contract.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a provision of up to $12,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for the Nelson Arts Council as transition funding while it works to investigate income options to offset the increase in visitor numbers being experienced at its new city centre location; and

Notes that the request from the Arts Council to assist with acquiring a new permanent location in the central city will be considered as part of the work to review and update Nelson’s arts policy guidance documents.

Nelson Centre for Musical Arts (NCMA)

12.7 Council is supportive of the proposal for a pocket park to be developed on NCMA land (submission 27451) and looks forward to working together on an agreement to enable the development and ensuing public access. It is proposed that Council include a $25,000 contribution to the development on the basis that the NCMA will fund the remainder required to implement the landscape plan, and the NCMA will maintain the park to an agreed standard.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves provision for up to $25,000 operational expenditure in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for the development of a pocket park on Nelson Centre for Musical Arts land on the basis that the Nelson Centre for Musical Arts will fund the remainder required to implement the landscape plan and will maintain the park to an agreed standard.

Cemeteries

12.8 There was a mixed response on the suggestion of exploring a regional cemetery site with Tasman District Council. 11 were in favour of this approach while 13 preferred a site within Nelson boundaries. Several of those preferring a Nelson site did so to on the basis of reduced travel-related carbon emissions or to help those who did not have their own transport. However, these benefits would be very much dependent on location and there are unlikely to be any affordable sites close to the city.

12.9 Some submitters (submissions 29035, 27452) suggested looking for more sustainable practices than burial, to save land for productive purposes such as housing. Submission 27338 would like consultation on families adding burials into existing family plots and encouraged the creation of a memorial garden for plaques as an efficient use of land.

12.10 Council does currently offer a natural burial area in Marsden Cemetery and cremation is used in Nelson about 75% of the time. There is also work at a national level to update the Burial and Cremations Act and investigate the use of alternatives such as resomation (low environmental impact water cremation) and innovative approaches used overseas where pressure for land is greater are also being monitored for suitability.

12.11 However, end of life choices are very personal and different cultures/religions have different preferences. Therefore, it is likely that for the foreseeable future Council will need to provide for ongoing demand for burials – forecast to be around 20% of interments. This is also important should there be a need for multiple burials in the case of events like pandemics or natural disasters.

12.12 Given the expected ongoing need for burials and the absence of locations near Nelson city for a cemetery officers recommend that a regional cemetery option be pursued with Tasman District Council as the most cost-effective and regionally efficient option.

Recommendation

That the Council

Directs staff to work with Tasman District Council on the option of a regional cemetery in Moutere or Wakefield.

Heritage

12.13 Submission 26988 from a group of Brook Sanctuary volunteers requested Council to prioritise protection of two water supply dams in the Brook Valley. They have observed the deterioration of both structures over the last 15 years and worry that this heritage will be lost to future generations.

12.14 Officers believe the next step would be a heritage conservation plan for these remnants of the municipal water supply, to determine what restoration is required and appropriate. This would inform future work and budget needs. As a first step officers propose to explore opportunities where grants could be applied for to support both a conservation plan and restoration.

Chinese Language Week

12.15 Submission 26996 requests funding of $5,000 for Chinese Language Week which will be held across New Zealand 26 September to 2 October 2021.The Chair of the NZ Chinese Language Week Trust, Jo Coughlan, spoke at the hearings.

12.16 Council currently commits $25,000 to strengthening economic and cultural ties with China through its biennial China Week festival. While supportive of national efforts to build awareness of China, it is recommended that Council continues to focus efforts on our local China Week and does not contribute extra funding to the national campaign.

Events

12.17 Submission 26989 proposes an annual edible garden/garden design festival in the Maitai with a public park established on the site of the Waahi Taakaro Golf Course. This is an ambitious proposal, the concept for which has been under development for some time. A number of elected members have been involved in discussions and the project has the endorsement of the then Chief Executive of the Nelson Regional Development Agency and support from the Manager of Uniquely Nelson. Next steps in the process outlined in the submission include forming a team to take the proposal forward and developing the concept at an estimated cost of $50,000.

12.18 Officers recommend that the submitter make an application for funding to the Nelson Events Fund. Issues that would need to be expanded on would include the impact on the golf course, budget requirements, timeline for delivery and commitments from identified partners. Council officers are identified as needing to provide input and details about the level of the commitment would need to be considered.

13. Parks and Active Recreation

Sportsfields

13.1 Several submissions were received on the topic of sportsfields. These covered points such as the need for an artificial turf, lighting and overall provision.

13.2 The Tasman Rugby Union Inc (TRU) has indicated it would now be happy with a quality grass surface in preference to an artificial pitch. The main focus is location (Guppy or Neale parks) and the quality of the grass pitch. TRU would be able to contribute funding, volunteer support and help with sponsorship.

13.3 FC Nelson requested support for new club rooms at Guppy Park. The building is proposed to be owned by FC Nelson with a ground lease from Council, and all ongoing operational expenses would be covered by FC Nelson. A $140,000 grant is requested from Council. FC Nelson continues to support an artificial turf located at Guppy Park.

13.4 In 2021, consultants Xyst Limited completed a review of sportsfield capacity and provided a report which addressed concerns relating to the demand for training areas, and the quantity and quality of sportsfields. (A copy of the report was circulated to elected members on 21 April and is available on Sharepoint).

13.5 Artificial surfaces are usually only contemplated as a last resort when the capacity of playing and training fields has been exhausted. Nelson City is not facing these issues and can meet demand using the existing grass fields. However, improvements to maintenance and lighting assets for these fields, as recommended by the Xyst report, would improve training capacity and reduce the burden on those clubs that currently provide lighting.

13.6 Officers recommend the following funding be added to the LTP to address sportsfield quality and useability:

13.6.1 $10,000 opex in year 1 and $50,000 opex per year following that for additional maintenance to increase capacity by increasing hours of use

13.6.2 $50,000 opex in year 2 for investigation into improved lighting

13.6.3 $380,000 capex in year 4 for Neale Park lighting improvements and ground levelling

13.6.4 $300,000 capex in year 7 for Tahuna Reserve lighting improvements

13.7 Officers also recommend that further discussions be held with interested codes about developments at Guppy Park.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves a provision of an additional $10,000 operating expenditure in year 1 and an additional $50,000 operating expenditure per year thereafter for additional maintenance to increase sportsfield capacity by increasing hours of use; and

Approves $50,000 additional capital expenditure in year 2 for investigation into improved sportsfield lighting; and

Approves $380,000 additional capital expenditure in year 4 for Neale Park lighting improvements and ground levelling; and

Approves a provision of an additional $300,000 capital expenditure in year 7 for Tahuna Reserve lighting improvements; and

Directs officers to hold further discussions with interested sports codes and Sport Tasman about future developments at Guppy Park and to report on options to the Community and Recreation Committee.

Mountain bike trails

13.8 The Nelson Mountain Bike Club (NMTBC) (submission 28390) submitted about its plans to construct lower grade trails for those new to mountain biking (and also runners and walkers); a skills park; new events trails. It sees more large scale events coming to Nelson as a result of the collaboration between the Club and Council to develop mountain biking resources. It would like to see more funding in the LTP to support this work.

13.9 Staff hold regular meetings on a six weekly cycle with the NMTBC where relevant matters are discussed including projects and proposed budgets. Discussions with NMTBC on new mountain biking trails have been ongoing in the context of the review of the Out and About - On Tracks Strategy, underway over the past year. A strong theme through this engagement, including from the NMTBC, has been the need to rebalance the network by shifting the focus away from expert trails to developing more easier grade trails.

13.10 Proposed LTP budgets were shared with the NMTBC in early March which included over $400,000 for new trails in the first three years, and $700,000 total over the 10 years. Initial feedback from the NMTBC was that our thinking was “quite close”, however the NMTBC subsequently felt that more was needed after it understood that much of the funding in the first year was a carry forward.

13.11 The NMTBC has requested a range of new trails be constructed. This relates to both additional linking trails on Koata owned land and a new trail every two years to align with major events (event trails). Officers have contacted Koata Ltd which has confirmed that it has seen the NMTBC’s proposed trail schedule but hasn’t agreed to it at this time. Meetings with all parties are currently being arranged to discuss these priorities, but as trails on private land would require an opex grant, it is suggested that this opex would be better directed to the additional funding sought for the 2022 Enduro World Series event (see below).

13.12 It is noted that the NMTBC still has the option to progress these trails on private land though its volunteer programme or other fundraising. With regard to the requested event trails, given the nature of such events any new trail would be technically difficult and serve to perpetuate the issue identified through the recent Out and About - On Tracks engagement and Trail Grade Audits. This found that the network is unbalanced and stacked towards higher grade trails. Budget for new mountain biking trails already included in the proposed LTP focuses on lower grade/entry trails and is considered sufficient at this stage. A review through the 2024 LTP is considered appropriate as it will be able to be better informed by the reviewed Out and About - On Tracks Strategy (the draft of which includes a proposal for a Trails Advisory Group be established to determine new trails).

13.13 A number of more advanced mountain biking trails have recently been developed and in the immediate future Council is proposing to focus on enhancing the existing network (with targeted development to fill gaps) and developing easier trails, particularly the Maitai Valley floor route. Funding is included in the LTP every three years for a more significant trail. Funding has been carried forward to develop the P28 trail, and if this is unable to proceed could potentially be able to be used for other trail(s). The proposed carry forward is recommended below.

13.14 The NMTBC submission includes lines for components of the Maitai Recreation Hub project (Maitai Hub trails, Maitai Hub Skills). This funding is in Council’s budgets for 2020/21 and is proposed to be carried forward. The work includes funding for a linking trail from the Hub across the golf course to the Maitai esplanade trail, and developments within the Maitai Hub including a pump track and skills area.

13.15 The budget for the Codgers maintenance contract with the NMTBC has been doubled from $30,000 to $60,000 per annum within the LTP budgets. The draft LTP budgets also include an additional renewals budget for key trails. The NMTBC’s submission requests a further increase to $95,000 per annum for years 1 and 2, and from year 3 to $140,000 per annum. Officers discussed this request with the NMTBC and it advised that the additional maintenance would be used for wider network and not just Council land. Staff propose any further increase be considered as part of the activity management plan development process for the Long Term Plan 2024-34, by which time a longer term agreement with Koata Ltd should be in place. This will enable an assessment to be undertaken whether further funding for maintenance is necessary.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the carry forward of $37,000 to increase the year 1 Long Term Plan 2021-31 budget for mountain bike trails to $202,000.

Enduro World Series

13.16 Council has previously agreed to support the mountain biking Enduro World Series (EWS) event in Nelson, with a grant of $20,000 and underwriting of $180,000. The support was agreed to in light of the expected economic benefits to the region during the event, and the ongoing benefits to Nelson from increasing its profile as a mountain biking destination. Provision was made in 2020/21 for $30,000 of the underwriting to be paid from the Event Fund in 2020/21 and this, and the $20,000 grant have been drawn down.

13.17 The event was previously planned for April 2020, but due to COVID-19 has been rescheduled for April 2022. COVID-19 and the closing of New Zealand’s borders has affected the planning and delivery of this event – as a result there is now a higher likelihood of the event being at a smaller scale than originally envisaged.

13.18 The NMTBC original budget for the EWS event included commercial sponsorship, central government funding via the Major Events Fund (which is now on hold until 2023), and gaming trust funds, all of which are now difficult to secure. The Club has accordingly requested that an additional $50,000 be added to the $180,000 underwrite in order to deliver the event. The NRDA and staff are working with NMTBC on updated budgets. However, as other funds will be difficult to source it is almost certain that the underwrite will need to be called upon.

13.19 Furthermore, a number of funding applications cannot be made until closer to the event but some expenditure will be required before other funds are received.

13.20 Therefore, staff are recommending that Council’s contribution be converted to a grant. The total contribution for the event would then become $250,000.

13.21 The NMTBC have worked for over three years to secure this event, and the organisers remain confident that, despite challenges, they can deliver a successful event that will meet Council and community expectations. NMTBC will need to remain flexible and work with the Enduro Series organisers on the running of the event.

13.22 The Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA) considers there are significant long-term benefits to Nelson if the event proceeds, even if travel restrictions are still in place next year. These include the promotion of Nelson as a destination for national and international mountain biking, with up to three million people being reached through social media.

13.23 Funding will be released as expenses are incurred and most of the funding will be drawn down close to or immediately after the event concludes. This will minimise the financial risks arising from possible further postponement or cancellation of the event due to COVID-19. The NRDA will continue to work with the organisers of the event to obtain sponsorship and other funding.

Event Fund Balance

13.24 In June 2019 Council agreed to an overdraft of up to $150,000 for the Event Fund as a contingency, in case the underwriting for the event was required to be drawn down. However, as the event has been delayed the account is projected to have a positive balance of $41,000 as at 30 June 2021.

13.25 If Council agrees with the recommendation that a further $50,000 be committed to the event then the overdraft of the Event Fund would be -$38,000 as at 30 June 2022. On this basis staff are recommending an overdraft for the Event Fund of $50,000 be approved for the 2022/23 year.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees to convert Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series from underwriting to a grant; and

Approves an increase in Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series from $200,000 to $250,000; and

Notes that Council’s contribution to the Enduro World Series will be made through the Event Fund; and

Notes that the Nelson Mountain Bike Club will continue to pursue additional revenue sources; and

Agrees the Event Fund overdraft limit to be up to $50,000 for 2022/23.

Saxton Field

13.26 The draft capital and operational figures relating to Saxton Field on which consultation was undertaken were those recommended by the Saxton Field Committee to each Council. Four submissions were received to the Tasman LTP in relation to Saxton Field and four submissions were also received to the Nelson LTP (28477, 28664, 28506,27501). The submissions and staff recommendations on the submissions were considered by the Saxton Field Committee on 13 May 2021.

13.27 The staff recommendations do not alter the total capital budget in any particular year or alter the total spend for the 10 years. $111,000 of changes are funded by deletion of the already completed Saxton Oval waste solution project and a reduction in the Champion Drive link – stage 2 construction budget to reflect savings in stage 1 construction works completed in 2020/21.

Hockey lighting

13.28 Nelson Hockey Association (submission 28506) submitted on the need for upgraded lighting at Saxton Hockey to meet television broadcasting standards. Staff understand that the cost of these lights would be around $150,000 installed, provided that an engineering report advises that the lighting can be installed on the existing poles. Providing Hockey can raise 50% of this amount, officers from both councils are confident the remainder will be able to be funded from within existing budgets. Officers will work with Hockey as information around the proposal is firmed up.

13.29 The Saxton Field Committee discussed the request at a meeting on 12 May 2021 and recommended reallocation of $75,000 ($50,000 from an already completed wastewater project and $25,000 from the saving in the Champion Drive construction project) to lighting in 2021/22.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves reallocation of $37,500 within Saxton Field budgets in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to go towards upgrading lighting for hockey to meet television broadcasting standards.

Pole Vault Facility

13.30 The Top of the South Athletics Trust (submission 28664) has requested a pole vault facility at Saxton Field, for a cost of $60,000. The Trust would fund 40% ($24,000) and requested funding for the remaining $36,000 from both Nelson and Tasman District Council ($18,000 from each) While acknowledging the number of users for such a facility would be small, the Trust believes it would allow Nelson to hold major meets such as the NZ Secondary School and the Athletics NZ Track and Field Championships.

13.31 The Saxton Field Committee discussed the request at a meeting on 12 May and recommended to reallocate $36k from the saving in the Champion Drive stage 2 construction to pole vault facility in 2021/22.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves reallocation of $18,000 within Saxton Field budgets in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to go towards the cost of a pole vault facility; and

Notes that the Top of the South Athletics Trust will raise 40% of the cost of the pole vault facility.

Gymsports Building

13.32 The Nelson Gymsports Collective submitted about its plans for a Nelson Move Hub. This would be a significant new facility and the Collective’s preferred location is Saxton Field.

13.33 A gym sports facility has been identified as a potential facility for development in Nelson within the Regional Sport & Active Recreation Spaces and Places Strategy for the Top of the South Island. This proposal is one of many competing priorities for space and resources on Council administered land and further work will need to be done to establish how it may fit within Council's wider goals for the community. There is certainly value in a better, purpose-built facility for gym sports participants, and it would have the potential to cater for a wider variety of users. As the preferred location is Saxton Field officers recommend the request be referred, in the first instance, to the Saxton Field Committee for consideration as a regional facility.

Wakapuaka Cemetery

13.34 Friends of Wakapuaka Cemetery have been working in the cemetery, cleaning and working on headstones, cutting grass, clearing areas and caring for the site. Council is looking to partner with the group by way of a memorandum of understanding which is currently being drafted.

13.35 The group has requested a range of Council support for improvements at the cemetery. Officers have prioritised the requests as follows:

13.35.1 Tree maintenance can be supported from existing budgets

13.35.2 Trees and shrub clearance would be costly and impractical to provide

13.35.3 Future plantings are supported at $5,000 capex per year for the next three years

13.35.4 Gate locking is already done

13.35.5 Doggy doo bags have been assessed but are not considered necessary

13.35.6 No entry sign can be provided in year 1 from existing budgets

13.35.7 The request for grave markers requires further officer investigation, as family input is potentially required

13.35.8 $3,500 capex is suggested in year 1 to make the garage more usable

13.35.9 Mowing slopes is recommended at $2,500 opex per year

13.35.10 Cemetery maps would require a significant investment of staff time and so are not supported at this time

13.35.11 Interpretation boards are supported at a cost of $7,000 capex in year 1 and 3

13.35.12 The current roading budget is considered sufficient for work needed

13.35.13 Work on the steps and wheelchair access is not recommended as a priority at this time

13.35.14 Officers support the request for seats at a cost of $4,000 capex in year 1

13.35.15 Officers support branded blocks identifying specific denominations at a cost of $1,000 capex per year

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates the following provisions for work at the Wakapuaka Cemetery in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 of up to:

a) $5,000 capital expenditure per year for years 1 to 3 for plantings

b) $3,500 capital expenditure in year 1 to make the garage more usable

c) $7,000 capital expenditure in years 1 and 3 for interpretation boards

d) $4,000 capital expenditure in year 1 for seating

e) $1,000 capital expenditure per year for blocks to identify denominations

f) $2,500 operating expenditure per year for slope mowing.

Pest plant control

13.36 There was a very good level of positive interest in this significant budget, with 77 submissions in support with none opposed (18 with no clear position). One submission (submission 27145) noted the need to also control long grass and gorse because of the fire risk to neighbouring properties. Council is aware of this risk and has commissioned a report to evaluate the current procedures and thresholds for closing reserves as well as a separate study looking at how to minimise risks in reserves and risks to adjoining properties.

13.37 A number of submissions also asked Council to end the use of glyphosate. Council has considered alternative methods of weed control including mulch, mechanical, steam/foam and plant-based herbicides but these options cost three to four times as much. There has been work to reduce use of glyphosate through increased mulching and grazing and resources are included in the LTP to develop a Glyphosate Policy in 2021/22.

13.38 A number of other submissions asked if the funding could be available to private landowners. These submitters will be advised that the Nelson Nature, Significant Natural Area and Biosecurity programmes provide opportunities for pest plant control for priority sites on private land, including bio-corridors sites.

Sea Sports Building

13.39 52 submissions supported Council’s proposal to fund 80% of the Sea Sports building with 10 against. Submission 27312 agrees it is a good project but would prefer Council support to be capped at 40% of the cost. The Youth Council (submission 27452) asks that youth in the affected sea sports groups be worked with closely through the project, noting that many youth belong to these groups, are impacted by the current overcrowding and need an outcome that ensures cohesiveness between the users of the new building.

13.40 Some submitters raised concern with the safety issues of the current location of the existing sea sports building. Safety issues relate to the use of the boat ramp with trailer boats launching by vehicle at the same ramp as waka ama and kayaks etc are launching by foot. In addition, the sea sport users need to navigate the marina channel, including travelling past commercial fishing wharves, in order to enter the Haven area. This is a particular hazard for coxless rowing boats, where the rowers are travelling backwards.

13.41 The draft Marina Masterplan acknowledges that this is an issue and alternative locations may need to be considered for the building.

13.42 Submission 27976, from the Nelson Sea Sports Alliance, supports Council’s proposal and has indicated it believes it could raise 20% of the project cost within 18 months, based on positive indications from potential funders.

13.43 Currently Council’s 80% contribution to costs is proposed to come from the Marina account which, being a closed account, means there would be no impact on rates. Some submitters opposed this and requested that this be funded from general rates as for sporting facilities at Saxton Field, for example.

13.44 Expenditure on the Sea Sports building is not proposed until year 2 of the LTP. By that time there will have been more work undertaken on Marina governance, management and the Masterplan, which will inform Council’s consideration of whether it is appropriate for the Marina activity to contribute to related community outcomes. Officers therefore recommend no change to the draft LTP at this stage.

Recommendation

That the Council

Agrees that Council will make provision to fund 80% of the cost of the Sea Sports building with the expectation that users will raise a minimum of 20% of the total construction costs.

Surf Life Saving club rooms

13.45 Nelson Surf Life Saving Club (Submission 26990) has requested Council assistance with a project to develop a base at Tahunanui beach. The proposal is for a two-stage development, which the club estimates would cost $300,000 for the initial building to house equipment and a further $500,000 to add a second storey for more storage and a meeting/training room. It estimates one third of the cost can be achieved by donations of time, material and fixtures from various trades. It plans for the remaining funds to be raised by the club and committed by Council.

13.46 The Tahunanui Reserve Management Plan states ‘No new permanent buildings will be erected in the Coastal Management Area’. The proposal provided in the Club’s submission is unlikely to be acceptable under the Plan.

13.47 However, staff had previously been working with the Club on the design of a small, modular, relocatable facility located on the back dune, with access to the beach. With careful design staff believe it would be compatible with the Plan. Recent discussions suggest the Club would be interested in modifying its submitted proposal to something more in keeping with these earlier discussions.

13.48 If Council sees merit in further consideration of the project officers will bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee explaining options in more detail. As the initial stage of the request to Council is around provision of land and assistance with assessment of engineering designs and with the consenting process, it is not recommended that any funding be included in the work programme at this stage.

Recommendation

That the Council

Directs officers to liaise with the Nelson Surf Life Saving Club about the proposed hub at Tahunanui in order to prepare a report for further consideration of the project by the Community and Recreation Committee.

Lawn Tennis Club rooms

13.49 The Nelson Lawn Tennis Club is requesting Council support to establish a club house in Rutherford Park adjacent to its eight astro turf courts. The building would include a storeroom/office, kitchenette, two toilets, shower and a meeting room/events space as well as a covered viewing deck. The Club advises it can, through fundraising and use of free services from supportive professionals, achieve this project with no financial input from ratepayers.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that the establishment of a tennis club house in Rutherford Park would not require ratepayer funding; and

Directs officers to liaise with the Nelson Lawn Tennis Club about a potential site and lease conditions and bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee for further consideration.

Seafarers Memorial

13.50 Submission 29457 on behalf of the Seafarers Memorial Trust requests that Council take over ownership of the Sunderland Memorial Pier and a sculpture. The memorial for seafarers consists of the Pier and a bronze sculpture of a seafarer commissioned from Grant Palliser in 2000 by the NZ Fishing Industry.

13.51 There would be a cost for future maintenance of the memorial. However the Trust or its nominated community groups still intend to run the popular “Blessing of the Fleet” and it is not intended that Council take responsibility for the event.

13.52 There are some issues to be explored with the Trust to fully understand the implications of its request. Officers will work with the Trust and bring a report so that Council can be fully informed in making a decision.

Recommendation

That the Council

Directs staff to have discussions with the Seafarers Memorial Trust about the request for Council to take ownership of the Seafarers Memorial and to bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee for consideration.

14. Economic

14.1 There were 37 submissions in support of the extra $350,000 for Project Kōkiri 2 and 11 opposing. Those opposing would have liked more detail on how the extra funding would be spent, felt the economic recovery was going better than expected or felt that economic development was not a role for local government.

14.2 Some submitters supported additional funding beyond the proposed increase eg submission 27202 from Hospitality New Zealand which described Project Kōkiri as a fantastic project and encouraged extra funding to support hard hit tourism and hospitality businesses struggling to survive post COVID-19.

14.3 Some submissions provided feedback on the areas of most importance for regeneration of the Nelson region and this feedback will be shared with the Nelson Regional Development Agency.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves provision of up to $350,000 per annum additional funding in years 1 to 3 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for implementation of Project Kōkiri 2.

Nelson Tasman Business Trust (NTBT)

14.4 NTBT provides business advice and mentoring services to small businesses and non-profit organisations and has long been supported by Council ($39,000 per year budgeted in the draft Plan). Its services have been in higher demand post-COVID from struggling existing businesses and also new enterprises arising out of necessity due to unemployment/redundancy.

14.5 NTBT has requested an additional $30,000 per annum to cope with this need and also to take advantage of an opportunity to extend its support by employing an additional staff member to facilitate extra networking and client advice services. This contribution from Council would cover half the cost of the new staff member and NTBT would find the remainder from other sources. The Trust advises that 90% of its service and events are based in Nelson and there is demand for more of a presence in Tahunanui and Stoke.

14.6 The NTBT Deed does not allow charging for services and officers asked if that might be looked at. However, trustees have considered this option in the past and concluded that for small businesses it is important to offer a free service. NTBT commented that charging would also change the nature of the service into more of a commercial operation, with a likely reduction in assistance from mentors and others who give their time for free. It also felt that a change now, in the stressful post-COVID environment, would not be advisable.

14.7 Officers believe this request for extra resources would be worth exploring with the Regional Skills Leadership Group as it delivers on outcomes that Group is pursuing to meet local skills and workforce needs. Support may be available from partners such as the Ministry of Social Development. Officers will work with NTBT on this approach.

15. Corporate

Rates/Debt

15.1 There was support for the debt/rates balance Council has proposed, including from the Youth Council (submission 27452) which wanted to see Council continue to invest in the futures of Nelson’s rangatahi and tamariki and, in particular, tackle climate change and the ongoing economic and social impacts of COVID-19. However more of those who submitted on the issue of rates and debt wished to see rates and debt kept to lower levels. Some were concerned about the pressure rising rates would place on residents whose employment had been affected by COVID-19 (submission 27379).

Commercial differential

15.2 The proposed reduction in the commercial differential seeks to re-balance general rate funding between commercial and residential ratepayers, with the 0.5% reduction in the commercial differential to be spread across all commercial ratepayers for the first three years of the Long Term Plan. There were limited views from submitters.

15.3 Since the commercial differential was introduced, the increase in residential rating units has far outstripped the proportional increase in commercial rating units. To address this, Council approved in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to reduce the commercial differential by 0.5% each year for five years, reviewed annually. While this has had a positive impact in reducing rates in the CBD and Stoke over the past three years, there is now a disparity in rates paid by other commercial ratepayers. Officers recommend proceeding with the proposal in the Consultation Document.

Reduction in Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

15.4 There was one submission directly commenting on UAGC and the concern with the ability to pay rates. The Consultation Document proposed that the UAGC be reduced from 14% of total rates to 13%. This is to reduce the fixed proportion of the rates so that the lowest value properties don’t see a steep increase relative to high value properties. Officers recommend proceeding with the proposal in the Consultation Document.

Funding Impact Statement

15.5 The consultation document proposed a range of changes to the dates where rates and water invoices are issued, the penalties on rates (reduced to 5%) and water (removed) and the removal of rates annual payment discount. There was no significant feedback on these changes.

15.6 The proposal to remove the rural rating differential for residentially zoned properties over 15ha was opposed by Federated Farmers (submission 28851) as it would like Council to encourage productive land use rather than housing development.

15.7 Officers recommend proceeding with the proposal in the Consultation Document.

16. Concurrent consultations

Rates Remission Policy

16.1 There were several submissions in favour of Rates Remission policies currently in place.

16.2 The Consultation Document proposed a range of wording changes to existing remission policies plus the new remissions for “other remissions deemed fair and equitable” and “social and community housing remission”. There was no significant feedback on these changes.

16.3 Officers recommend proceeding with the proposal in the Consultation Document.

Revenue and Financing Policy

16.4 There were no submissions specifically regarding the Revenue and Financing Policy.

16.5 Officers recommend proceeding with the proposal in the Consultation Document.

17. Spreadsheet of responses to submitters

17.1 All submitters will receive a response following the adoption of the LTP in June. Responses will be in accordance with matters resolved in this report, other Council decisions or as set out in the attached spreadsheet of responses (Attachment 1). A standard response will be attached to all replies to submitters and set out the decisions by Council on key matters of interest. The spreadsheet of responses covers any matters raised that are not covered by a recommendation in this report.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes the spreadsheet in Attachment 1 (A2634256) to Report 24777, as amended, to be used as the basis for specific responses to submitters on matters raised; and

Delegates authority to the Mayor and relevant Committee Chair to make amendments to final responses to submitters, as long as they are not material and are consistent with the decisions made by Council.

18. Additional Decisions

18.1 Council also needs to consider changes and new information since it approved the Consultation Document and initiated the consultation period.

Regional Public Transport changes

18.2 Through the consultation on the Regional Public Transport Plan (as part of the Regional Land Transport Plan) and subsequent deliberations by the Regional Transport Committee (RTC) there was a strong desire from submitters to bring proposed increases to bus frequency forward from 2026 to 2023 (when the new contract is to be let) and to support the move to the Living Wage for bus drivers from July 2021. The nett investment in years 3-6 of the LTP of $670,000 per year will be offset by anticipated income from patronage growth in years 6-10 of the LTP, assuming TDC contribution and Waka Kotahi subsidy. Some uncertainty exists about the public transport market rates which will be more fully understood when the contract is tendered in 2022. The RTC resolved on 21 April to lodge the RPTP with Council and for Council to consider these two changes as part of LTP deliberations as detailed below:

18.2.1 To bring forward elements of Stage 2 from 2026 to 2023, particularly frequency and extended hours of operation that will involve a shift of approximately $670,000 per year from year 6 into year 3 of the LTP. Tasman District Council supports this approach subject to funding. Increasing frequency is an effective measure that will align with local and national strategic goals to encourage mode shift and decrease carbon emissions.

18.2.2 To include support for a move to the Living Wage for bus drivers from July 2021 (at an estimated cost of $38,000 per year) subject to the successful completion of discussions being led by Waka Kotahi at a national level.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves bringing funding of $670,000 per annum forward from year 6 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to year 3, to improve frequency and extend hours of operation of the public transport service (as outlined in 6.6.4 of report R24772 to the 21 April 2021 Regional Transport Committee) dependent on the Waka Kotahi and Tasman District Council share of funding being available; and

Approves provision for an additional $38,000 funding per annum over the ten years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to provide the Living Wage for bus drivers in our public transport service, dependent on the successful completion of national level discussions being led by Waka Kotahi; and

Supports any additional improvements on the basis that external additional funding is secured from non-rates sources, or that savings are made in other transport related activities.

NRSBU

18.3 The draft LTP 2021-31, and the capital and operational figures on which consultation was undertaken, were based on the November 2020 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) draft Activity Management Plan (AMP) and Business Plan. Since then the Board of the NRSBU, as formally requested by both councils, has updated those documents and they have been adopted by the Infrastructure Committee at its meeting of 8 April 2021.

18.4 The adopted AMP and Business Plan have a revised capital works programme and associated operational cost reductions. The changes spread the capital/renewals programme, specifically deferring $5 million from the first five years to the last five years of the 10 year plan. The main capital items deferred include Best Island Irrigation, pump station storage and Best Island power supply upgrade. These changes will be reflected in the budgets included in the LTP.

Recommendation

That the Council

Notes that the Long Term Plan 2021-31 will be updated to reflect the revised budgets presented in the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2021/22 Business Plan and 2021-31 Activity Management Plan adopted by the Infrastructure Committee.

Campgrounds

18.5 The Brook Valley Holiday Park was proposed in the draft LTP to be leased in year 2. However, due to the compliance project taking longer than expected, the move to a leased model for the campground is proposed to be deferred to start in year 3. The lease approach is based on the Maitai Valley Motor Camp model and will be refined through the lease negotiation process. The budgets are proposed to be updated to reflect this changed start date. This represents an $84,000 increase to rates in year 2.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves an additional $84,000 operating expenditure in year 2 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to cover costs related to allowing more time for completion of the compliance project before leasing of the Brook Valley Holiday Park commences.

18.6 As part of the compliance work at the Brook Valley Holiday Park it has been identified that there are some building renewals required. These include an improved toilet block for the camp, which is estimated to cost $200,000. This involves a refurbishment of ‘F block’.

18.7 In addition, the compliance work requires engagement, consents, landscaping, cultural monitoring a, geotechnical assessment and utilities connections. The total cost is expected to be $310,000. A large portion of this cost relates to connecting the long-term occupant sites to the water and wastewater services. This is proposed to be included in year 1 of the LTP.

18.8 An additional $510,000 is requested split as follows: $410,000 in year 1, $50,000 in each of years 2 and 3.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates an additional $510,000 capital expenditure (being $410,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $50,000 in each of years 2 and 3) for an improved toilet block at the Brook Valley Holiday Park, and to connect long-term occupants to water and wastewater services as well as undertake other work related to achieving compliance.

18.9 A condition assessment has been recently carried out as part of the compliance project at the Maitai Valley Motor Camp, which has identified that an upgrade of the wastewater system is required. This is costed at $800,000. An application has been made to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF) to fund 50% of this project. $180,000 is also requested for drinking water to be provided throughout the camp to meet Camping Ground Regulations. This represents a $980,000 increase in year 1 of the LTP, reducing to $580,000 if the TIF application is successful.

Recommendation

That the Council

Allocates an additional $980,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to upgrade the Maitai Valley Motor Camp wastewater system and to provide drinking water throughout the campground; and

Notes a funding application has been made to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund to cover 50% ($400,000) of the wastewater system project costs.

Glen Cycleway

18.10 Funding for the Boulder Bank section of the cycleway is part of an off-road route from Clifton Terrace to The Glen. Part of the project is being funded under the roading activity and is already included in the LTP. The sections through the Wakapuaka Sandflats and adjacent to the Boulder Bank have more of a recreation focus and are included in the Out and About On Tracks Strategy 2016. Officers request an additional $20,000 capex in year 1 and $100,000 capex in year 4 for investigation and construction of a connecting off-road route to the Glen.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves an additional $20,000 capital expenditure in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and $100,000 capital expenditure in year 4 for investigation and construction of a connecting off-road route to the Glen

19. Marina

19.1 As earlier noted, there is a considerable body of work being undertaken on the Marina. When the draft LTP budgets were prepared, two key parts of this work, the Marina management transition and the Masterplan had not yet been completed to a stage where accurate budgets could be projected for them.

19.2 The draft LTP has $14.8 million allocated for the Marina across the 10 years. It is expected that when the Marina Masterplan has been completed and adopted by Council (scheduled to occur later in 2021) there will be a need for some reallocation of current planned capital expenditure as well as additional new capital expenditure. While the process of developing and adopting the Masterplan is completed the Marina will concentrate on health and safety and security priorities in year one of the LTP. Officers therefore recommend moving $800,000 from years 7 and 8 to year 1 of the LTP for this purpose. Once immediate health and safety issues are addressed, the Marina and Council will be in a good position to move ahead on the Masterplan in year 2, subject to it being adopted.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves moving the funding from hardstand improvements in years 7 and 8 of $800,000 (uninflated) to Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to address health and safety projects prior to the Marina Masterplan being consulted on; and

Notes that additional funding and some redistribution of capital budget between years of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 is likely to be required once the Marina Masterplan has been adopted.

20. Water fluoridation

20.1 The Chair of Nelson Marlborough Health has written to the Mayor noting the Associate Health Minister’s announcement of a proposed change to the Fluoridation Bill to shift decision-making from local authorities to the Director-General of Health. The Chair suggested that Council be informed that central government will make funding available to support local authorities’ capital and operational costs for fluoridation related infrastructure work. Officers will stay in touch with Nelson Marlborough Health as the Bill progresses through Parliament and provide further updates to Council as necessary.

21. Consultation on Annual Plan

21.1 Amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 in 2014 changed consultation requirements in a number of areas, including in relation to annual plans. Before the changes to the Act a special consultative procedure was required for each annual plan. Now that process is only required for long term plans. Local authorities, while still needing to adopt an annual plan in years 2 and 3 of the cycle, can choose not to undertake a community consultation if there are no significant or material departures from the financial statements/funding impact statement in the LTP; no significant new spends proposed; no decisions to delay or cancel significant projects. Immediately following the change to legislation 21 councils took the opportunity to not consult on their Annual Plan but Local Government New Zealand is not aware of any counts being done since then.

21.2 Officers recommend that Council have the intention of making use of this provision unless material changes are required to year 2 of the LTP. It would be a good reflection on Council’s planning processes if the work programme in the LTP was robust enough to not require re-consultation every year. Significant resources would be saved (within Council and the community) from not undertaking a formal consultation process. It is also worth noting that the next year will have a particularly heavy consultation load with the Three Waters and Resource Management Act reforms on top of an already busy consultation calendar.

22. Carry Forwards from 2020/21

22.1 Officers have reforecast the current year capital spend to 30 June 2021. The projected capital forecast is $49.7 million excluding staff time, joint business units and vested assets, with savings of $2.3 million. Capital carry forwards requested of $4.8 million are included in Attachment 2 and are spread across years 1-3, with capital income offsets of $634,000.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves the 2020/21 capital carry forwards to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 capital expenditure budgets, as set out in Attachment 2 (A2642025) of Report R24777.

23. Final windup of Community Housing

23.1 On the final windup of the Community Housing activity there are two residual reserves which are no longer required - a Depreciation Reserve of $391,000 and Pensioner Housing Reserve of $231,000. Officers recommend releasing the reserves of $622,000 on 1 July 2021 to offset rates in 2021/22 recognising that ratepayers have topped up the Community Housing activity in recent years and taken the financial risk.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves releasing the Depreciation Reserve of $391,000 and Pensioner Housing Reserve of $231,000 in year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to offset rates.

24. Other changes since the Draft Long Term Plan

24.1 Officers have identified some other changes required to the final Long Term Plan (Attachment 3) which result from corrections and timing changes.

Recommendation

That the Council

Approves that the Long Term Plan 2021-31 be amended to include the changes in the attached document listing corrections and timing changes in Attachment 3 (A2641877) of Report R24777.

25. Options

25.1 Council is required to adopt a Long Term Plan 2021-31 by 30 June 2021. It has options for each decision it makes in relation to submissions but it needs to determine the 10 year work programme in time for adoption by the end of the current financial year.

26. Conclusion

26.1 Submissions were sought over a four and a half week period between 22 March and 21 April. Council heard from submitters on 4, 5 and 6 May. At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the changes to be made in preparing the final Long Term Plan for 2021-31. The Long Term Plan 2021-31 will be updated accordingly before going to a Council meeting on 24 June for adoption.

Author: Nicky McDonald, Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2634256 - Responses to submitters LTP 2021-2031 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: A2642025 - 2020/21 Capital forecast and carry forwards - May2021 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 3: A2641877 - LTP 2021-31 other changes from draft (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The adoption of a Long Term Plan is required under the Local Government Act 2002 and deliberating on the submissions assists Council by determining the changes to make to the Plan following consultation.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Making decisions to respond to feedback from submissions supports all the community outcomes.

3. Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the community’s views on the services, projects, funding and policies contained within the Long Term Plan.

There is a risk that Council will make decisions as part of the deliberations that are not supported by some stakeholders however the thorough consultation and communication through letters to submitters will mitigate this.

4. Financial impact

Decisions on submissions will determine the financial impact of the Long Term Plan.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Long Term Plan is of high significance and a Special Consultative Procedure has been undertaken to seek community views.

6. Climate Impact

Council has prioritised consideration of the impact of climate change in the development of the Long Term Plan, including funding to promote emissions reduction and allocations to support adaptation projects.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

A number of iwi hui were held to provide feedback on the Activity Management Plans which has then fed into the Long Term Plan process.

8. Delegations

The Council has the responsibility for considering the development of the Long Term Plan and its related processes.

Item 8: Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2021

Council

18 May 2021

REPORT R23764

Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2021

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide supporting information and officer recommendations to assist Council in considering submissions and making decisions on the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021.

2. Summary

2.1 The report covers the main issues raised in the feedback received on the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021. The main issues that submitters raised are:

2.1.1 Delayed payment

2.1.2 Developers share of growth costs

2.1.3 Reduction in reserves development contributions for greenfield and intensification areas

2.1.4 City centre waiver

2.1.5 Retirement Villages

2.1.6 State integrated schools

2.1.7 Discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings

2.1.8 Brownfield reserves discount

2.1.9 Load specific development contributions

2.1.10 Catchments

2.1.11 Built Urban Boundary alignment

2.1.12 Library.

2.2 The part of the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 that attracted the most comments was developers share of growth costs. This report discusses the feedback on this, as well as other matters that were raised during the consultation period.

2.3 Council heard six submitters on the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 on 06 May 2021.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on the Development Contributions Policy 2021 (R23764) and its attachments (A2502141 and A2625782); and

2. Approves no changes being made to the proposed Nelson City Council Development Contributions Policy 2021 in response to the submissions received during the submission period as follows:

Delayed Payment

3. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy to provide for delayed payment until building consent issue.

Developers share of growth costs

4. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with respect to the portion of costs attributed to growth and included in the development contributions.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for greenfield areas

5. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the level of reserves development contribution for development within the built urban boundary.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for intensification areas

City Centre waiver

7. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the City Centre waiver.

Retirement villages

8. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for retirement villages.

State integrated schools

9. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for state integrated schools.

Discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings

10. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings.

Brownfield reserves discount

11. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the reserves discount for brownfield development.

Load specific development contributions

12. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to custom calculations for each individual site.

Catchments

13. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to catchments.

Built Urban Boundary Alignment

14. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the Built Urban Boundary.

Library

15. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to inclusion of the library project as a growth project.

Amendment of reserves development contributions paid under the 2018 Policy

16. Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to payment of reserves contributions under the 2018 Development Contributions Policy; and

17. Notes that as a consequence of decisions on the Long Term Plan, amendments may be required to the projects listed in the Development Contributions Policy and the overall quantum of the contributions sought; and

18. Approves that the proposed Nelson City Council Development Contributions Policy 2021 be taken to the Council meeting of 24 June 2021 for final adoption by Council.

4. Background

4.1 Under Section 102(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), every local authority must adopt a policy on development contributions. The purpose of development contributions is to enable territorial authorities to recover a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the capital costs necessary to service growth over the long term. The current 2018 Policy was adopted by Council on 15 May 2018 as part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28. Section 1.3 of the 2018 Policy provides:

“It is anticipated that this policy will be reviewed, and if necessary amended, at least every three years as part of the LTP process.”

4.2 A review of the 2018 Policy has been carried out by Council officers with the assistance of a consultant for financial analysis. As part of the review process, there was a workshop with development stakeholders on 28 September 2020 to discuss current issues and receive their preliminary feedback on policies which should be retained or changed.

4.3 Two Council workshops (16 June 2020 and 20 January 2021) were held with Councillors including presenting feedback received.

4.4 A Shape Nelson feedback process was run from 05 August 2020 to 02 September 2020. This included specifically seeking feedback from parties such as state integrated schools, housing providers, valuers, developers and other development professionals likely to be affected by the policy. These stakeholders were invited to discuss the draft Policy in person. Four stakeholders contacted Council officers to discuss the draft Policy and its implications for them or their clients.

4.5 The issues raised by the feedback processes and workshops were assessed and a new draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 prepared.

4.6 The Council report of 18 March 2021 (R22680) discussed each of the issues raised and considered the draft policy approving it for a public feedback process. The considerations made, and discussed in report R22680, in preparing the draft have been included in Attachment 2.

4.7 Council adopted the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 and consultation document on 18 March 2021. Public feedback was sought on the draft Policy, alongside the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31, between 22 March to 21 April 2021. Hearings were held on 06 May for those submitters wishing to speak to their submissions.

4.8 This report discusses the issues raised in submissions and recommends no changes to the draft Policy resulting from consideration of submissions. The Local Government Act requires that a Policy be adopted by 30 June 2021.

5. Discussion

5.1 Council received 25 submissions from people/organisations during the consultation period. Council heard from six submitters who spoke at the hearings on 06 May 2021.

5.2 This report covers the main issues raised in the feedback received in the following order:

5.2.1 Delayed payment

5.2.2 Developers share of growth costs

5.2.3 Reduction in reserves development contributions for greenfield areas

5.2.4 Reduction in reserves development contributions for intensification areas

5.2.5 City centre waiver

5.2.6 Retirement Villages

5.2.7 State integrated schools

5.2.8 Discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings

5.2.9 Brownfield reserves discount

5.2.10 Load specific development contributions

5.2.11 Catchments

5.2.12 Built Urban Boundary alignment

5.2.13 Library

5.2.14 Amendment of reserves development contributions paid under 2018 Policy.

5.3 At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the feedback, ensuring that reasons for any decisions are made clear so that this can be conveyed to submitters as required by the Local Government Act 2002, Section 82(1)(f): ‘that persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions...’.

5.4 To allow time in the process for officers to modify the Policy should Council make changes to the projects in the Long Term Plan, the Policy will be brought back to Council on 24 June 2021 for adoption.

5.5 Key issues raised by the submitters are detailed below and officers’ recommendations are provided below each submission topic.

Delayed Payment

5.6 Marsden Park (28066) submits that payment of development contributions should be at the building consent stage and not at subdivision (i.e. at the time of the issue of the certificate of compliance under s.224(c) of the Resource Management Act (RMA)). The submission argues that it is at the building consent stage that there is an increase in demand on Council infrastructure, and therefore it is at that time that a development contribution should be charged.

5.7 A submission was received from Summerset Village Ltd (28276) that seeks a similar change for developments that require both land use consent and building consent and are staged. The submission seeks to have payment currently required at building consent delayed until issue of a code compliance certificate, again saying that this is when there is in increase in demand on Council infrastructure.

5.8 The capital cost to Council occurs not when actual connections become live, but the point at which Council is required to expend capital to build the infrastructure in response to that demand. The timing of payment at the subdivision stage strikes a reasonable balance between the cost the Council carries as soon as the infrastructure is built and the financial risk that the developer carries between the subdivision stage and selling the lots.

5.9 A further risk with delaying payment until building consent stage is that, in the case of the developer selling bare sections, the eventual section owners would then be charged the development contributions when they are granted building consent for their new house. This is likely to be an unexpected cost for individual landowners who are not typically as knowledgeable of the development process. This in turn would greatly increase the administrative load on Council due to each individual lot needing to be processed on its own rather than larger subdivision developments being assessed in one stage.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy to provide for delayed payment until building consent issue.

Developers share of growth costs

5.10 Submissions have been received that expressed opposition to any reduction in development contributions for greenfield developments from Mr Jaimie Barber (27943), Ms Chrissie Ward (28035), Mrs Dianne Anyan (28044), Mr Gary Scott (28047), Miss Sallie Griffiths (28060), Mr Anthony Masters (28105), Ms Catherine Harper (28145), Mrs Lindsay Powdrell (28150), Mr Marek Guzinski (28154), Mrs Alli Jackson (28205), and Ms Jaine Cronin (28218).

5.11 The main thrust of these submissions is that private developers in greenfield areas should be required to pay for the full cost of providing infrastructure to support greenfield development.

5.12 As detailed in section 4.1 of this report, the LGA allows development contributions that are a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the total project cost. The draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 includes development contributions for all development, other than those listed in the exemptions, that recover the full cost of the growth portion of projects listed in the Nelson City Council Long Term Plan 2021-31. Development in greenfield areas is not subject to any discounts or waivers unless identified as a specific activity in the exemptions section of the Policy.

5.13 The only reduction in development contributions from the amount in the 2018 Policy are for the reserves development contributions. This reduction reflects the proposed change in the level of service in the reserves asset management plan for the provision of neighbourhood reserve land. This issue is covered in detail as the next issue in this report.

5.14 The final, total development contribution for greenfield development has been assessed by Council officers to be a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the costs of providing growth related infrastructure.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with respect to the portion of costs attributed to growth and included in the development contributions.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for greenfield areas

5.15 Submissions have been received on the proposal to reduce the reserves development contributions for greenfield development from the same people who submitted on the developers share of costs (above in section 5.9) and Mr Darren Meer (28247), and Dr Monika Clark-Grill (28387). All of these submissions oppose the reduction in the reserves development contribution for greenfield areas. These submitters do not comment on the greater reduction in the reserves development contribution for intensification areas.

5.16 The current level of service of 1.7Ha per 1000 people has been identified as unachievable for future development due to the requirement for larger reserves of a similar size to Miyazu Reserves, Corder Park, Branford Park. These larger reserves are included in the current calculation of the level of service but are not neighbourhood reserves in character due to their large area. Ongoing provision of these types of parks is unlikely to occur for the purposes of providing for growth.

5.17 In addition, Council Asset Managers have identified that the level of service for neighbourhood reserve land in greenfield areas is very high compared to the level of service adopted by most other councils. Therefore, a lower, more achievable level of service of 1.1Ha per 1000 people has been proposed for greenfield areas.

5.18 The calculation of the neighbourhood reserves land development contribution for greenfield areas is then calculated based on the proposed level of service, along with the median sales price of bare residential greenfield sections in the preceding calendar year.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the level of reserves development contribution for greenfield development.

Reduction in reserves development contribution for intensification areas

5.19 Submissions supporting the removal of the neighbourhood reserves land development contribution in the built urban boundary were received from Mr Mark Lile (28309) and Gaire Thompson (28734). Submissions opposing this aspect of the draft Policy were received from Mr Peter Olorenshaw (28672) and Mr Peter Taylor (28397). Mr Olorenshaw and Mr Taylor both state that the continued provision of neighbourhood reserves in intensification areas is necessary and Council should continue to collect development contributions to fund their purchase.

5.20 The reality of continuing to provide new neighbourhood reserves within the built urban boundary is that Council would, at some point, be required to purchase residential properties and demolish the dwellings located on them. This is counter to the goal of providing for greater housing capacity in Nelson City and indeed counter to the National Policy Statement – Urban Development.

5.21 Instead, the intention is to improve the existing neighbourhood reserves inside the built urban boundary with additional facilities so as to allow more people to use each of them. Development contributions are proposed to be collected for this purpose and this requires a lower level of contribution.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the level of reserves development contribution for development within the built urban boundary.

City Centre waiver

5.22 Submissions supporting the waiver of development contributions for residential development in the City Centre were received from Mr Peter Taylor (28397), Dr Monika Clark-Grill (28387), Mr Mark Lile (28309), Gaire Thompson (28734), Zero Carbon Nelson Tasman (28769) and Mr Granville Dunstan (27788). Mr Peter Olorenshaw (28672) also submitted in support of the waiver but supported extending the waiver to all properties within 1km of the City Centre. Piers Jalandoni (28872) submitted in opposition of the City Centre waiver.

5.23 The City Centre waiver, as it is currently proposed, carries with it a small risk that development will suddenly occur at such a high rate that Council will not be able to respond with infrastructure in time. The risk, given the relatively constrained area defined by the inner city and city fringe zones of the NRMP, has been assessed by Council officers as low. As the area that the waiver might apply to is increased the level of risk also increases and as a result a more complicated graduated partial waiver would be needed to mitigate this risk.

5.24 The full waiver for the smaller area, as contained in the proposed 2021 Policy is the most administratively simple method of assisting to incentivise residential development in the City Centre (Inner City and Fringe) while still mitigating the risks to infrastructure programmes.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the City Centre waiver.

Retirement villages

5.25 A submission was received from Summerset Village Ltd (28276) that seeks that all retirement village units should be assessed as per the table below irrespective of the number of bedrooms they contain, as they typically have a lower occupancy than other residential dwellings.

Development Type	Activity	Units of demand
Retirement unit	Transport	0.3 HUD per unit
	All others	0.1 HUD per unit
Aged care room	Transport	0.2 HUD per unit
	Community infrastructure	0.1 HUD per unit

5.26 The Policy already provides an element of fairness for all types of small residences on the same title by using bedroom numbers as a proxy for levels of occupation (i.e. 3 or more bedrooms = 1 HUD; 2 bedrooms = 0.75 HUD and 1 bedroom = 0.5 HUD). This reduction is available for retirement villages which contain many dwellings on one title, and subsequent minor units on the same title as the original house in standard residential areas.

5.27 One of the objectives of the draft Policy is consistency; i.e. that like developments should be treated in a like manner. It would be inconsistent with this objective to provide retirement villages a benefit (a lower development contribution) that is not accorded to other residential developments which may also have lower occupancy (e.g. a retired couple living in a 3 bedroom house that is not within a retirement village).

5.28 The policy cannot be based on the premise of whether any particular HUD makes use of the infrastructure created by developments, but rather that they have access to that service and may choose to use it at any time. Accordingly, Council has to develop its capital assets based on, and in proportion to, potential demand, and the cost of that asset must be proportionately shared amongst those creating that demand.

5.29 For the same reasons, the cost of creating any other asset, including roading, reserves or community infrastructure, must be shared proportionately to those who have access to that asset or service, irrespective of whether any development or any one HUD may actually use the service or asset.

5.30 By way of comparison, Auckland Council use the rates in the table above when assessing retirement villages. This reflects the much higher complexity of the Auckland Council development contributions policy reflective of a much larger territorial authority. For Nelson City to have a development contributions policy as complex would require additional staff resourcing dedicated solely to administering the Policy. This level of complexity is considered by Council officers to be unnecessary given the relatively small and compact nature of Nelson City.

5.31 Tasman District on the other hand provides for “Special Assessments” where a development requires a special level of service as the result of being of a type or scale not readily assessed in terms of an equivalent HUD.

5.32 The option of a Development Agreement where a retirement village builds public infrastructure to meet a special level of service is still provided for in the proposed 2021 Policy.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for retirement villages.

State integrated schools

5.33 Submissions were received from Mr Peter Taylor (28397) and Dr Monika Clark-Grill (28387) that oppose the waiver of development contributions for state integrated schools.

5.34 State Integrated Schools are identical to state schools in how they undertake education but with an identified special character and the land being privately owned. State schools are exempt from paying DCs as they are identified as an entity of the crown.

5.35 Over the term of the 2018 DC Policy, one request for an exemption to paying DCs was received from Nelson Christian Academy. In that case, Council approved the exemption.

5.36 The argument used against an exemption is that, because the land and buildings are not owned by the Crown, it could be sold at a profit after developing the land and not paying DCs. The risk of this happening is unlikely with all three of the Nelson state integrated schools being well established in the community.

5.37 Based on the direction provided by Council at the 23 April 2020 Council meeting, the draft 2021 DC Policy lists State Integrated Schools as exempt from DC costs.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for state integrated schools.

Discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings

5.38 Submissions were received from Mr Peter Taylor (28397), Dr Monika Clark-Grill (28387), Gaire Thompson (28734), and Mr Peter Olorenshaw (28672) in support of the discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings that share a title. An additional submission was received from Mr Dean Straker (28626) stating that no development contributions should be charged for any second dwelling on an existing residential title.

5.39 As detailed in section 4.1 of this report, the LGA allows development contributions that are a fair, equitable, and proportionate portion of the total project cost. The draft 2021 Policy seeks to do just that in order to fund the additional infrastructure needed for growth.

5.40 Any Development Contributions Policy, when discounts and waivers are included, needs to find a balance between collecting funds for investment in infrastructure required to service growth and incentivising the outcomes for housing that Council seeks. A discount of 50% for 1 bedroom dwellings and 25% for 2 bedroom dwellings where they share a title with a primary dwelling is considered by Council officers to strike an appropriate balance.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the discount for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings.

Brownfield reserves discount

5.41 Submissions were received from Mr Peter Taylor (28397) and Dr Monika Clark-Grill (28387) in opposition to the removal of the 25% discount of reserves development contributions for brownfield sites. Both submitters expressed concern that removal of the discount would remove any incentive for redevelopment of brownfield sites and in doing so slow the provision of additional housing.

5.42 The 25% discount in the 2018 Policy applies to reserves development contributions only. The built urban boundary identified in the draft 2021 Policy has been developed to include all sites that meet the criteria of “brownfield” in the 2018 Policy. Therefore, with the proposed removal of a neighbourhood reserves land development contribution for sites within the built urban boundary the overall reduction in development contributions for sites previously identified as “brownfield” is much greater than the 25% previously offered. Therefore, a further 25% discount is not needed to incentivise intensification.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy for the reserves discount for brownfield development.

Load specific development contributions

5.43 A submission from Mr Peter Olorenshaw (28672) suggests a change to the draft 2021 Policy to allow for custom development contribution calculations based on the specific load that a new household will put on the relevant infrastructure. The submission lists examples such as onsite rainwater detention, low flow water fittings and composting toilets as options within a new dwelling that would reduce the load on the infrastructure networks.

5.44 Council officers acknowledge that there are specific methods available for reducing the loads on infrastructure and these may, if adopted widely enough and committed to long term by residents, be a way to reduce the cost of providing growth related infrastructure. There are two aspects to this issue though that make it difficult for Council to reduce development contributions on the basis of the use of these tools.

5.45 The primary issue is that Council plans for growth infrastructure well in advance of the growth and cannot guarantee a proportion of uptake of these types of low use tools. As a result, Council plans for the highest demand when planning infrastructure upgrades and the cost of these upgrades needs to be recovered from development contributions. In addition, Council has no mechanism for ensuring that owners of dwellings with these types of low demand tools continue to use and maintain them and do not in time change back to using more traditional facilities.

5.46 Furthermore, the Local Government Act allows for a level of administrative simplicity when setting and administrating a development contributions policy. The level of customisation of a development contributions calculation suggested by the submitter would require significant additional Council officer time and expertise.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to custom calculations for each individual site.

Catchments

5.47 A submission from Mr Peter Olorenshaw (28672) suggests that having development in areas closer to the City Centre pay the same development contributions as developments further away is inappropriate as the length of network impacted by those closer is less.

5.48 As detailed earlier in this report, the Local Government Act allows for a level of administrative simplicity when setting and administrating a development contributions policy. With Nelson City being a relatively small and compact urban area, it is reasonable for the whole area to be treated as a single catchment.

5.49 Furthermore, the question of “which catchment?” becomes relevant as soon as multiple catchments are considered. In almost all cases, the water, stormwater, wastewater and transport catchments do not align with each other which would add significant complexity to the calculation of development contributions.

5.50 To further complicate this issue, use of the various network infrastructure types does not always relate to how far away from the City Centre a dwelling is. For example, users of the transport network that live close to the City Centre do not necessarily work in the City Centre and may commute to Stoke or even Richmond.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to catchments.

Built Urban Boundary alignment

5.51 A submission from Stoke Valley Holdings Limited (28751) has pointed out that the site of the old Ngawhatu Psychiatric Hospital is technically a brownfield site as far as it used to be developed and is now being redeveloped for residential use. The submitter asks that this site be included within the Built Urban Boundary defined in the maps in the draft 2021 Policy.

5.52 The purpose of the Built Urban Boundary as defined in the maps is only to delineate where Council would and would not expect to provide any further neighbourhood reserves. The boundary has been selected to skirt around the edge of the area of Nelson City that is already developed and does not include areas that are yet to be developed for full density residential use. The maps are not used for any other purpose in the draft 2021 Policy.

5.53 The submitter’s site in Ngawhatu Valley is a site yet to be developed into full density residential use and as such is outside the Built Urban Boundary. The submitters site is one in which additional neighbourhood reserves can and are expected to be developed within or very near, so it is appropriate that the site remain outside the Built Urban Boundary.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to the Built Urban Boundary.

Library

5.54 A submission from Stoke Valley Holdings Limited (28751) has requested that, due to uncertainty around the cost of the project and whether the project will go ahead the library project should be removed when calculating the development contribution for Community Infrastructure. If it is not removed, the submitter requests that provision be made in the 2021 Policy for a mechanism for returning this portion of the development contribution if the project does not go ahead.

5.55 The calculation of the development contributions for all infrastructure categories reflects the projects listed in the Long Term Plan 2021-31. To make any special provision specifically for the library would set a precedent where the inclusion of any project with a growth related portion could be challenged each time the Policy comes up for review.

5.56 If the project is removed as part of the Long Term Plan process it will be in turn removed from the final 2021 Development Contributions Policy.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to inclusion of the library project as a growth project.

Amendment of reserves development contributions paid under the 2018 Policy

5.57 A submission from Stephen and Julie Clements (28737) has requested that, due to large change in reserves development contributions between the 2018 Policy and the draft 2021 Policy for areas within the Built Urban Boundary, any reserves development contributions charged during the 2018 Policy should be waived or adjusted to the 2021 Policy amount.

5.58 Section 198(2A) of the Local Government Act 2002 relevantly provides:

For the purposes of subsection (2), a development contribution must be consistent with the content of the policy adopted under section 102(1) that was in force at the time that the application for a resource consent, building consent, or service connection was submitted, accompanied by all required information.

5.59 This means the operative date is the date of granting of the resource consent and the policy that was in place at that date. Council’s policy must be consistent with this statutory requirement.

Recommendation:

That the Council

Approves that no change is required to the provisions of the Draft Development Contributions 2021 Policy with regard to payment of reserves contributions under the 2018 Development Contributions Policy

6. Options

6.1 Council is required to adopt a Development Contributions Policy. The options available to Council relating to the Development Contributions Policy are:

· Resolve to finalise the Development Contributions Policy 2021 in line with the recommendations in this report for adoption on 24 June 2021; or

· Alter the recommended resolutions before making them or make additional resolutions, including requesting further changes to the Development Contributions Policy 2021 to be brought back for adoption on 24 June 2021

Option 1: Resolve to finalise the Development Contributions Policy 2021 in line with the recommendations in this report for adoption on 24 June 2021.
Advantages	· Addresses concerns of some submitters while maintaining consistency with the objectives of the policy. · Allows Council to fund infrastructure required to provide for growth in accordance with s.197AB that development contributions are “…determined according to, and be proportional to, the persons who will benefit from the assets to be provided (including the community as a whole) as well as those who create the need for those asset.” · Ensures compliance with the requirements of the LGA. · Provides a fairer and less complex system, for reserve contributions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not address the concerns of all submitters.
Option 2: Alter the recommended resolutions before making them or make additional resolutions, including requesting further changes to the Development Contributions Policy 2021 to be brought back for adoption on 24 June 2021.
Advantages	· Will allow elected members to make further amendments to the Development Contributions Policy 2021 in response to submitters.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May be inconsistent with the objectives of the policy and the requirements of the LGA in respect of Development Contributions.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Submissions were sought on the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2021 between 22 March and 21 April. Council heard from submitters on 6 May. At this meeting, Council will deliberate on the changes proposed to the Development Contributions Policy 2021. The Policy will be updated in accordance with Council’s resolutions before going to a Council meeting on 24 June 2021 for adoption.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Following this deliberations meeting, Council officers will make any changes to the Policy requested by Council in response to the submissions received.

8.2 The final Policy will then be brought to the Council meeting on 24 June 2021 for adoption.

8.3 On adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2021, the Policy will be placed on the Council website and stakeholders and the public notified via the Our Nelson newsletter.

Author: Chris Pawson, Senior Analyst Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: Nelson City Council Development Contributions Policy 2021 (A2502141) ⇩

Attachment 2: Discussion from DCs Council report approving consultation 2021 (A2625782) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The adoption of a Development Contributions Policy is required under the LGA 2002 s102.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommended Development Contributions Policy aligns with the following Community Outcome:

Our Region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

Consultation has been carried out to determine the level of support from the community of the proposed changes to development and financial contributions. Council is able to consider any risks highlighted in that consultation, and in making a decision on submissions.

4. Financial impact

The adoption of the Development Contributions Policy 2021 will ensure that those who benefit from Council’s investment in infrastructure to provide for growth fund it. This ensures a minimal impact on debt and rates levels.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Adopting this new policy has been assessed as having a medium-high degree of significance due to the level of impact of Council’s revenue and costs decisions on the community. Council is required to consult on the draft policy in accordance with section 82 of the LGA.

This consultation has taken place in stages, beginning with the stakeholder meeting on 28 September 2020 and ending with the month-long public submission period 22 March 2021 – 21 April 2021. Council has heard verbal submissions in the hearing on 6 May 2021.

Further engagement on this decision is not required as submissions have already been sought.

6. Climate Impact

The draft Policy supports the provision of intensification within the existing urban built environment in response to the community’s concerns regarding the effects of greenfield development on climate change.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The delegation for the Urban Development Subcommittee includes the following:

Areas of Responsibility

• Development Contributions and Financial Contributions

Powers to Decide

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

Powers to Recommend to Council

• Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

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

Therefore the delegations for this report sit with the Urban Development Subcommittee. The Chair of the Urban Development Committee and the Mayor have agreed that, in order to meet statutory timeframes due to the delays in finalising the LTP programme, this report shall be considered by Full Council directly.

Item 9: Elma Turner Library - Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case

Council

18 May 2021

REPORT R24785

Elma Turner Library - Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information and recommendations to support deliberations on submissions received through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 relating to the Elma Turner Library Redevelopment.

1.2 To approve the business case for the Elma Turner Library Redevelopment project.

1.3 To provide information in response to submissions received on the Climatorium proposal.

2. Summary

2.1 The Library Precinct Redevelopment was one of the key issues identified by Council in its Consultation Document for the Long Term Plan 2021-31. A total of 342 submissions were received on this issue. The majority of submitters (234, just over 68%) supported some form of redevelopment or refurbishment. Option One was supported by 101 submitters, while Option Two and Option Five were supported by 40 and 47 submitters respectively. Other options received far less support.

2.2 Of the 93 submissions against a library redevelopment, the key factors mentioned are cost, flood risk, that the library is adequate as it is, and that the Council should wait until after the Climate Change Adaptation Act has passed into law.

2.3 There are several other submission points that relate to facilities, programmes or community groups that could be housed within a new library.

2.4 A business case has been developed for the project. The four key investment objectives have been identified as:

· Knowledge economy and innovation;

· Culture and heritage;

· Connected and learning community;

· Sustainability and resiliency.

2.5 The business case sets out the current arrangements and the business needs identified under each investment objective. The option to construct a new library on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street best meets these needs. Approval of the business case will allow officers to commence preparatory work in the new financial year and to commence formal negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation in relation to a land exchange.

2.6 Council decided in February 2021 to support Wakatū Incorporation’s approach of developing a business case for the development of a Climatorium, and that Council will recognise the potential development of a Climatorium in library development planning (R20301). This report does not recommend any change to this decision.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Elma Turner Library - Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case (R24785) and its attachment (A2630896); and

4. Background – Long Term Plan Consultation

Library

4.1 One of the key issues identified in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation Document was the Library Precinct Redevelopment. The community was asked:

4.1.1 Do you support the redevelopment? Why or why not?;

4.1.2 Do you support us working towards a precinct with Wakatū Incorporation?; and

4.1.3 What do you think works about Council’s proposal and what doesn’t? If you prefer a different option, please let us know your reasons.

4.2 Five options were included within the consultation:

4.2.1 Option One: Construct a new library on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street (Council’s preferred option);

4.2.2 Option Two: Refurbish the existing library building;

4.2.3 Option Three: Construct a new, reduced specification library on the current site;

4.2.4 Option Four: Construct a new, high specification library on the current site;

4.2.5 Option Five: Construct a new library somewhere else in the City

4.3 A total of 342 submissions were received on this key issue. Ten submissions from different people have been made on a pro forma basis (28157, 28161, 28163, 28168, 28173, 28174, 28177, 28184, 28425 and 28505). These have all been counted as individual submissions.

Climatorium

4.4 On 18 February 2021, Council received the report ‘Options for a Climatorium’ (R20301). It provided some background on the concept of the Climatorium, with reference to the Lemvig (Denmark) example. After hearing a presentation by Wakatū Incorporation, and recognising the Principles of Collaboration agreement that Council has signed with Wakatū and Lemvig Climatorium, Council decided:

Resolved CL/2021/001

That the Council

1. Receives the report Options for a Climatorium (R20301) and its attachment (A2398703); and

2. Supports Wakatū Incorporation’s approach of developing a business case for the development of a Climatorium; and

3. Agrees that planning for any library redevelopment in the Mahitahi River Precinct should recognise the potential development of a Climatorium on Wakatū Incorporation land; and

4. Agrees to work with Wakatū Incorporation to convene a meeting with representatives from government, industry, research institutions, and the community to explore the opportunity for Nelson to become a centre for climate change mitigation, adaptation and resilience research and innovation; and

5. Requests that progress on the development of the Climatorium is reported to Council on a regular basis via the Mayor’s Report.

4.5 Council subsequently included a section in the Long Term Plan consultation document on ‘A Climatorium for Nelson’. There was no specific question asked within the consultation document; however, 39 submitters did specifically mention the Climatorium within their submission – some within the context of the library development and some in relation to Council’s proposed Climate Change activities.

5. Discussion - Long Term Plan Consultation - Library

5.1 Of the 342 submissions received on this topic, 234 supported some form of library redevelopment or refurbishment, 93 did not support any library development, and a further 15 did not indicate whether or not they supported the library being redeveloped.

5.2 Of those that indicated a preference for one of the options presented,

· 101 supported Option One;

· 40 supported Option Two;

· 5 supported Option Three;

· 4 supported Option Four;

· 47 supported Option Five;

· 11 supported more than one of these options.

5.3 Those that supported the Council’s preferred option spoke about the need for Council to be visionary, bold and innovative. They spoke of the opportunity to create a community hub that acts as a place for people to meet and which fosters ideas and learning. Its accessibility and location would be increasingly important as more and more people live in the city. Investment in the library was seen as investment in the whole community.

5.4 Of the 241 submitters that did not support Option One, the four key issues most frequently mentioned were:

· Cost (mentioned by 120 submitters);

· Flood risk (78);

· That there was no need to do anything as the current library is adequate (21);

· The need to defer a decision until the Climate Change Adaptation Act [CCAA] has been passed (17);

· No reason given (76).

Note: Some submitters mentioned more than one of these issues.

Key Issues

5.5 Cost was a key issue mentioned by around one third of submitters. Some felt that Council should not be spending such a large sum on a library in the current economic climate. Others suggested alternative uses for those funds, including improving infrastructure (wastewater/ roading), tackling housing affordability and homelessness, and spending more on climate change response.

5.6 Council has set out its approach to all of these activities within its Long Term Plan Consultation Document.

5.7 A few submitters sought for Council to take a lower cost option for the Elma Turner Library to enable it to spend more on Stoke Library and other community library facilities. Council has included $600,000 in years three and four of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for further remediation works on the Stoke Library, and has indicated that further development will be included in future Long Term Plans, with a 10-15 year timeframe.

5.8 Other significant capital projects that were suggested included a performing arts centre and a convention centre (separate submissions).

5.9 Some concerns were expressed that the Council would not be able to deliver the project within the budget indicated and that the final cost would be much higher.

5.10 Council has adopted a prudent and transparent approach to costs, which were presented in the Elma Turner Library Redevelopment Options Report (R21341) on 18 February 2021. All costed options have a significant contingency for uncertainty, given the early stage of the project. Having a clear project scope at the design phase, a strong project management structure, and regular governance oversight will be critical in managing the budget for the project.

5.11 Flood risk to the Riverside location was another key factor for people who opposed Option One. Whilst many acknowledged the building could be constructed to mitigate the risk, there were concerns about the impact of flooding/inundation on supporting infrastructure (roading access and services).

5.12 The Elma Turner Library Redevelopment Options report (R21341) provided analysis of the flooding/inundation risk and a series of mitigations. In summary:

5.12.1 There is an existing flood risk to the city centre, including the Riverside Precinct, that extends through The Wood and lower parts of the central city, including Halifax, St Vincent, Vanguard, Gloucester and Rutherford Streets.

5.12.2 A new build with a floor level of 4.00m would exceed the current standard in relation to minimum ground levels for 2130. The current floor level of the corner site is 3.50m, which compares with the 2.86m floor level of the existing library.

5.12.3 Design features that include the ability to raise the ground floor levels will provide additional protection – up to a 2m sea level rise – beyond 2130.

5.12.4 There is a range of responses available to Council that will further mitigate the risk to the site and adjacent access roads.

5.13 Council has invested significantly in flood mapping and modelling of the Maitai Catchment. Over the next three years, Council will be engaging with the Nelson community to discuss options for managing the future risk of flooding and coastal inundation affecting these areas. An initial budget of $10.6 million over the next 10 years has been included in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 to begin implementing the flood mitigation programme; full implementation will be a multi-decade project.

5.14 The Climate Change Adaptation Act (CCAA) is one of three pieces of legislation announced by the Government in February 2021, as part of the reform of the Resource Management Act. The other pieces are the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Strategic Planning Act.

5.15 There are limited details available on what the CCAA might contain, and the level of direction that it will give to councils. The Ministry for the Environment website states:

“This [the CCAA] Act would support New Zealand’s response to the effects of climate change. It would address the complex legal and technical issues associated with managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation.”

5.16 The Government has indicated that it aims to pass the CCAA into law in 2023. However, its initial focus is on the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Strategic Planning Act, which are both due to be introduced to Parliament in December 2021. Given the complexities of the legislation, and the uncertainty as to the specifics of what it will contain, deferring a decision on the library to wait for the release of the CCAA is likely to mean that no major work will be carried out on the library within the first three years of this Long Term Plan. There would be consequential impacts on other city centre projects and development from adopting this policy position.

5.17 The modelling work that Council has carried out to date gives Council a good understanding of the hazard associated with the Riverside site and to the wider city. Whilst there is still uncertainty over what will happen to sea level in 100 years’ time, there are several practicable options available to Council to mitigate its effects. As Council is actively considering its responses to these issues now, officers believe that general access to a new building in the Riverside Precinct can and will be maintained over the next 100 years and beyond.

5.18 Some submitters questioned the need for a new library, saying that the current library is adequate. As has been identified in previous Council reports, the current building is dated, too small and requires investment just to maintain it as it is. For people who just see libraries as places to borrow books, it may appear that the current facility is adequate. However, modern libraries provide a range of events, activities and programmes that cannot be delivered in the current facility. These are further explored by the business case and discussed below.

Other Feedback

5.19 A successful community facility is flexible and able to be used for diverse and changing activities. It is important to acknowledge this when considering requests for accommodation and use. Some submitters have requested specific accommodation or design in the proposed new library; these requests will be considered through the engagement and design phases of the project, in the context of shared, diverse, flexible and adaptable community spaces.

5.20 Several submitters asked for the library to include space for the Nelson Toy Library. An area of 80m² was indicated. Officers recommend that library staff engage with the Toy Library to better understand what its operational needs are, to determine whether they should be considered in the design phase, or alternative options be considered.

5.21 Similarly, there are two requests for Council to include the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) in a new facility. Officers recommend that Council continues to engage with the CAB to identify its requirements and consider those in the design phase, or alternative options be considered.

5.22 Other suggestions included: the provision of a film office, studios and a ‘black box’ theatre, and the possibility of constructing apartments above the library. There is an opportunity to explore these ideas further as the design scope is drawn up.

5.23 The availability of parking was raised. The preferred option sees the existing car parking retained, with additional mobility parking nearer the entrance to the new library. This issue will also be specifically addressed during land exchange negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation.

5.24 The Nelson Library Re-Imagined website (www.tales.co.nz/library/) was referred to by a number of submitters. The website, created by Whakatu Intellectual Capital Kohanga (WICK), asks people to:

“Imagine a library that plays a pivotal role in revitalising our CBD... In building our community... In enhancing our quality of life... And in driving our economy.”

5.25 It sets out a range of visionary ideas and opportunities that centre on the library being an ‘ideas factory’. It proposes a number of different funding mechanisms for consideration, and a range of outcomes that an idea factory could deliver, including: Supporting the knowledge economy; addressing social and economic issues; living spaces and central city revitalisation.

5.26 Officers recommend that, if Council proceeds with a new library, that it engages closely with WICK to identify those ideas which can be accommodated within the project at the scoping stage, and prior to detailed designs being commissioned.

5.27 Officers recognise that there needs to be significant ongoing community engagement around this project to better understand the opportunities and the community’s expectations, and to manage these in line with the approved budget. Should the project be approved, significant project resource will be invested in identifying, discussing and assessing aspirations and initiatives that exist within our community, in order to build a project scope that maximises benefits and strengthens community support for the project.

6. Background – Business Case - Library

6.1 On 18 February 2021, Council received the report ‘Elma Turner Library Redevelopment Options’ (R21341). The report sets out some of the background to the project and discusses the key issues. In summary:

6.1.1 The Elma Turner Library has occupied its current site since 1989, when the main part of the existing building was converted from its former use as a car showroom;

6.1.2 Council has included placeholder funding for some form of refurbishment/redevelopment of the library since 2009;

6.1.3 Progress was deferred to allow consultation with Wakatū Incorporation (the adjacent landowners) to better understand its plans for the wider Riverside Precinct development, and how the library could contribute to that;

6.1.4 Feedback from the community engagement undertaken in 2019 by Athfield Architects and Irving Smith Architects affirmed a range of components that members of the community would like to see in a redeveloped library;

6.2 The report presented a range of information with a focus on flood risk management within the Riverside Precinct and on the costs, with a comprehensive breakdown of the rough-estimate costs and associated contingencies.

6.3 Having considered its options, the Council decided:

Resolved CL/2021/002

That the Council:

Confirms that Council’s preferred option is to build a new library building on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, within the Riverside Precinct, subject to agreement with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange involving that site and the current library site; and

Directs officers to enter into preliminary negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation to develop a land exchange proposal and report back; and

Notes that a business case will be brought to Council for final approval of the project; and

Notes that any agreements negotiated with Wakatū Incorporation will be subject to approval of the business case and confirmation of the location and the budget for the Elma Turner Library through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

6.4 A draft business case for the library redevelopment has been developed and is attached (Attachment 1).

7. Discussion – Business Case - Library

7.1 The business case sets out the four key investment objectives that have been identified for this project. These are:

7.1.1 Knowledge economy and innovation – how libraries contribute to supporting social and economic development through the collection and utilisation of human knowledge and expertise;

7.1.2 Culture and heritage – how libraries support the community to learn and connect with our bicultural heritage in Nelson/Whakatū;

7.1.3 Connected and learning community – Libraries should be places where people from different parts of our community come together to share their ideas and interests and to learn from each other; and

7.1.4 Sustainability and resiliency – Modern libraries can act as a catalyst for communities to respond to climate change and other environmental issues.

7.2 For each of these objectives, the current arrangements are presented, along with the business needs and opportunities that should be delivered in the future. The current library delivers partly on objectives one and two and weakly against objectives three and four.

7.3 Size and functionality of the existing facilities are key issues. For example:

7.3.1 There is only one activity room and one smaller bookable room available for community use. Neither has out of hours access. Demand is strong and two to three bookings a week are declined;

7.3.2 The space used for performances is part of the main body of the library, and its use affects other users of the library;

7.3.3 Connectivity to the river and central city is poor. Frontage on Halifax Street does not contribute to city vibrancy;

7.3.4 There is no café or spaces that support the library as being the ‘living room of the city’; and

7.3.5 The ground floor level is susceptible to a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) present day flood.

7.4 The Elma Turner Library currently has less than 2,000m² of public space, out of a total of 2,455m².

7.5 Increasing the space available and creating an environment that encourages people to engage with library services, programmes and each other will deliver multiple benefits to the city. These include:

7.5.1 Ensuring equitable access to all members of our community to the latest digital and physical resources;

7.5.2 Providing exhibitions and performances and other ways of telling stories and promoting literacy and cultural activity;

7.5.3 Enabling the library to establish strong relationships and work in partnership with others, and provide facilities for community groups and organisations to share;

7.5.4 Providing places to display taonga safely and securely, and that attract whānau to encourage storytelling and cultural understanding;

7.5.5 Improving the connection to the city centre, street, river and on to the Haven, making the library and Riverside Precinct a visitor destination;

7.5.6 Demonstrating low-carbon, climate-resilient design and providing ongoing knowledge and support for people to take action on climate change.

7.6 The option that delivers best against the identified investment objectives is to negotiate a land exchange deal with Wakatū Incorporation and construct a high-specification library on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street. Rough order costs have been based on a 3,250m² building. However, the exact size will not be finalised until the scope for the detailed design brief has been confirmed.

8. Discussion - Long Term Plan Consultation - Climatorium

8.1 Just under half (19 out of 39) of the submitters did not support council involvement in the Climatorium project. Some thought there was not enough definition around what the Climatorium was, or how much it might cost, others felt that council should spend money on climate change projects rather than a building. Several submitters suggested that Climatorium-like activities could be delivered from existing facilities around the city. Two suggested that this was not a council responsibility.

8.2 Seventeen submitters supported the concept, either outright or with conditions. People saw Council’s involvement with the Climatorium as showing leadership and were excited at the opportunity and the linkages with the library and Science and Technology Precinct. Those providing conditional support generally questioned the need for Council to contribute financially to the project. One submitter questioned its location within the Riverside Precinct, give the flooding risk, and another suggested it should be located on the Burger King Site, instead of siting a new library there. Two submitters suggested it could be combined within the Science and Technology Precinct. There was also concern that the Climatorium might not achieve much if it was focussed on talking rather than action.

8.3 The remaining three submitters were either unsure or did not state a clear preference. They wanted to understand more about the concept and the likely costs before committing either way.

8.4 Council has indicated that it would continue to work with Wakatū Incorporation to explore the opportunity, which is still in an early stage of development. It is clear from the submissions that there is considerable interest in the idea, particularly if it leads to action to tackle climate change issues. There is a need for more definition in relation to what the Climatorium is, what it is trying to achieve and how it is different from other initiatives, both locally and nationally.

8.5 This report does not make a recommendation to change Council’s current position in respect to the Climatorium. Council will have further opportunities to consider the project, initially when Wakatū Incorporation shares its draft business case.

9. Options - Library

9.1 The options presented are the five options that Council consulted on in the Long Term Plan consultation document plus an option of ‘do nothing’ which was put forward by some submitters.

9.2 Given that there were no new significant issues raised during the consultation that have not previously been considered by Council (particularly flood risk and cost), and that over half of the submitters who supported some form of refurbishment or redevelopment supported option one, officers recommended that Council constructs a new library on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, subject to reaching a satisfactory agreement with Wakatū Incorporation.

9.3 Council may want to consider indicating a second preference if the negotiations are not successful. The business case includes the assessment of options that was presented to Council in February 2021. Option Four – Redevelop existing site with a new, high-specification 3,400m² library – scored second highest in that assessment. This option delivered several of the outcomes delivered by the Council’s preferred option, and does not require an additional land exchange or land purchase. For these reasons, it is likely that this option would be supported by most of the submitters who supported Option One. However, this option does not provide a gateway location to the river and central city and also limits Wakatū Incorporation’s ability to develop a cohesive precinct.

9.4 Options Two and Five received similar levels of support from submitters and reflect concerns about cost and flood risk. Option Two – refurbishment of the existing (2,455m²) library – is the lowest cost option consulted on, but delivers few benefits above a refresh of the existing building footprint. It will not meet future needs across all of the investment objectives.

9.5 Option Five – build a new library somewhere else in central Nelson – could deliver most of the benefits of option One, but comes with the greatest risks around location, community expectations and cost. These risks are likely to result in a significantly extended time-line for construction.

9.6 Officers believe it is important that the library services and facilities are updated and positioned for the future. Option Four delivers this outcome, and with greater certainty over costs and timing than Option Five. For these reasons, officers recommend that Option Four – construct a new high specification library on the current site – should be Council’s second preference.

Option One: Construct a new library on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street (recommended option)
Advantages	· Delivers a low-carbon, climate-resilient, modern library building · Consistent with previous Council decision · No additional cost of land purchase · Allows Council to deliver positive urban design outcomes including access to the Maitai River · Contributes to a cohesive Riverside Precinct · Provides adjacency to Civic House and Millers Acre as Council-owned assets · Avoids negative business continuity impacts · Contributes to the vitality of Trafalgar Street
Risks and Disadvantages	· Land exchange negotiations may take longer than anticipated or may not be successful · Risk of inundation of access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not progress flood/inundation management options within 80 years
Option Two: Refurbish the existing library building
Advantages	· Lowest cost option · Community has indicated that it prefers the Riverside location · Does not require new land purchase · Gives medium-term flexibility on location
Risks and Disadvantages	· Limited improvements in physical environment and ability to provide full range of library services · Does not contribute to a cohesive Riverside Precinct · Significant impact on business continuity during refurbishment · Relatively short increase in building life expectancy · Limited environmental benefits · Risk of building inundation/flooding · Does not contribute to the vitality of Trafalgar Street
Option Three: Construct new, reduced-specification library on current site
Advantages	· Lower cost option · Community has indicated that it prefers the Riverside location · Does not require new land purchase · Gives medium-term flexibility on location
Risks and Disadvantages	· Some improvements in physical environment and ability to provide full range of library services · Significant impact on business continuity during refurbishment · Limited environmental benefits · Impact on Wakatū Incorporation ability to develop a cohesive Riverside Precinct · Risk of inundation of access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not progress flood/inundation management options within 80 years · Compromises may not meet community expectations and will impact on ability to deliver full range of library services · Does not contribute to the vitality of Trafalgar Street
Option Four: Construct new, high-specification library on current site
Advantages	· Does not require new land to be purchased or a land exchange to take place · Community has indicated that it prefers the Riverside location · Likely to be the quickest new-build option
Risks and Disadvantages	· Significant impact on business continuity during construction · Impact on Wakatū Incorporation ability to develop a cohesive Riverside Precinct · Risk of inundation of access roads under RCP 8.5M scenario if Council does not progress flood/inundation management options within 80 years · Does not contribute to the vitality of Trafalgar Street
Option Five: Construct a new library somewhere else in the city
Advantages	· A site may be able to be acquired with less flooding and inundation risk · Existing site could be sold to help offset purchase cost of new site
Risks and Disadvantages	· Site requirements are yet to be determined · Cost of land purchase is likely to be significant · Loses connection between library and Maitai River · Will significantly delay the construction of a new library · Large part of the community expects library to be built in Riverside Precinct · May result in less foot traffic on Trafalgar Street · Impacts on landowner confidence in areas subject to the same risks as the Riverside Precinct · Construction risks associated with other sites are unknown
Option Six: Do nothing, apart from routine renewals and maintenance
Advantages	· Saves capital expenditure · Addresses concerns of submitters in relation to cost and need
Risks and Disadvantages	· Majority of submitters supported some form of upgrade – either refurbishment or redevelopment · Quality of library services will decline · Range of services cannot be expanded · Library does not contribute to city vibrancy · Does not deliver wider outcomes in relation to Riverside Precinct, climate resiliency · May impact on patronage · Will impact on staff satisfaction, recruitment, and retention · A decision on whether to replace or develop a new library will still need to be considered within the next 10 years.

10. Conclusion

10.1 Council has consulted with its community on the library redevelopment project and received a range of feedback. There has been no significant issue raised that Council has not previously considered. A business case has been developed that identifies Council’s strategic investment objectives and the scope of the project.

11. Next Steps - Library

11.1 A report will be brought to the Council detailing the project team, governance oversight arrangements, Council’s negotiating team and its brief, and the future procurement process for design and construction.

11.2 A community engagement plan will be prepared to ensure the community has opportunities throughout the project to provide feedback and to understand the scope and process.

11.3 Council officers will arrange meetings with representatives from WICK and to explore how WICK can best contribute to the development. In addition to developing and implementing a wider community engagement programme, officers will also request further discussions with the community groups identified in the report to ascertain their aspirations and fit within a redeveloped library.

11.4 A Council project team will prepare a full project plan and make recommendations to Council on the structure of the design and build phases of the project. Officers will present the results of the negotiations to Council for approval.

11.5 Regular progress reports will be provided to the Council.

12. Next Steps - Climatorium

12.1 A report will be brought to Council when Wakatū Incorporation has shared its draft business plan for the proposal.

Author: Andrew White, Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2630896 - Business Case - Elma Turner Library Redevelopment - May2021 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Libraries are a core function of Council and contribute to the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of the Nelson community in the present and for the future

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is consistent with Council’s preferred option in the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation Document.

3. Risk

Risks have previously been considered in detail in report R21341. A variety of differing views have been expressed through the submissions, which mean that any decision that Council makes is unlikely to be welcomed by all parts of the community. Council has been transparent with its decision making around flood hazards and with the expected costs.

4. Financial Impact

Budget for the recommended option is included in the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31

5. Degree of Significance and Level of Engagement

This matter is of high significance and was highlighted as a key issue within the Consultation Document. Further engagement will continue throughout any redevelopment project.

6. Climate Impact

Council has indicated that its preferred option is for a new, low-carbon, five-star, Greenstar building, which will demonstrate how the climate impacts of new buildings can be minimised. The recommended option delivers this and will be designed to have a ground floor level that can be raised in order to mitigate flood/inundation risk beyond that projected in 2130 under RCP 8.5H+ climate scenario.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the Decision Making Process

Iwi were consulted as part of the community engagement project, presented to Council in the previous report (R21341). The recommended option will incorporate the culture and heritage of tangata whenua iwi of Whakatū, and iwi will be engaged throughout the project.

8. Delegations

Council has retained all responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters for the Elma Turner Library redevelopment, and Riverside Precinct.

Item 10: Proposed new Company Model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson

Council

18 May 2021

REPORT R24786

Proposed new Company Model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide a summary and outline the key issues and themes raised by submitters to the proposed new company model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson as a basis for deliberation.

1.2 If, following deliberation on submissions, Council decides to proceed with one of the holding company options, this report also instructs staff and the Airport and Port companies to proceed with Option Three, a new company established as a funding vehicle.

2. Summary

2.1 At its meeting of 17 December 2020 Council instructed staff to prepare a joint proposal with staff of Tasman District Council for the restructuring of Port Nelson Limited (PNL) and Nelson Airport Limited (NAL) for inclusion in both council’s Long Term Plan Consultation Documents.

2.2 Four options were included in the proposal, with both councils supporting option one, the establishment of a new company to hold the investments in and oversee the operations of Nelson Airport and Port Nelson.

2.3 Consultation opened 22 March and closed 21 April 2021. Seventy five submissions were received on the Holding Company proposal. Council has heard submissions and must now consider matters raised by submitters before deciding whether to proceed with one of the proposed options.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Proposed new Company Model for Nelson Airport and Port Nelson (R24786); and

4. Notes that shareholder agreement is required in order to proceed with any option other than the status quo; and

5. Subject to Tasman District Council passing similar resolutions:

i) Authorises the Mayor to vote the Council’s shareholding in the Nelson Airport Limited and Port Nelson Limited to give effect to clauses 3 and 4 of this resolution (CL2021/xx); and

iii) Notes that subsequent amendments to Council’s Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and supporting policies will be required as part of the establishment of the Funding Company; and

6. Notes that updates on the establishment of the Funding Company will be reported back to Council.

4. Background

4.1 The proposal for restructuring the two councils’ shareholding in the Airport and Port companies was discussed at Council’s meeting of 17 December 2020.

4.2 The text for consultation was approved by Council for inclusion in the Long Term Plan Consultation Document on 18 March 2021. Four options were included in the proposal:

4.2.1 Option One:
To establish a new company for holding the investments in, and overseeing operations of, Nelson Airport and Port Nelson – with Council and Tasman District Council as equal shareholders (Nelson and Tasman Council’s and the Port Company Board’s preferred option)

4.2.2 Option Two:
Status quo

4.2.3 Option Three:
A new company established as a funding vehicle only
(Airport Company Board’s preferred option)

4.2.4 Option Four:
A new company established as a funding vehicle and shared services arrangement.

5. Discussion

Submissions

5.1 Public consultation using a special consultative procedure was undertaken from 22 March 2021 to 21 April 2021. Seventy five submissions were received on the proposal and elected members received a copy of submissions prior to the hearings held 4-6 May 2021.

5.2 The table below summaries the number of submitters in favour of each option: Note: In analysing the views of each submitter, those that opposed the proposal, but did not state support for one of the other options are counted as being in favour of the status quo (Option Two).

Option		Number
Option One	New Holding Company	14
Option Two	Status quo	38
Option Three	New company as funding vehicle only	9
Option Four	New company as funding vehicle and shared services arrangement	0
	Preference not specified	14
Total		75

Substantive analysis of submissions

Support for Option One

5.3 The main reasons set out by those who support establishing the holding company (Option One) included:

5.3.1 Reduction in costs. This was the main reason stated by submitters who supported Option One, many noted that merging the Airport and Port under a single operating model would create efficiencies, reduce costs, and provide better returns to the two councils.

5.3.2 Increased resilience to supply chain disruptions.

5.3.3 Promotion of the region as a trade hub.

5.3.4 That it would enabling the best management to be used for the new company (Submitter 28316 proposed that the new board include representatives from both existing boards to assist with decision-making).

5.3.5 A few submitters supported the proposal only if it included all transport under the operation i.e. buses, air and sea e.g. 28238.

5.3.6 The Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce (28541) supported Option One, but stressed the importance of the proposed change not impacting negatively on exporters or the tourism sector. The Chamber also requested that the future board include representation from both the Port and Airport, so that both businesses are understood and considered in decision-making.

5.3.7 Port Nelson Limited (20818) supported Option One and summarised the anticipated benefits as including “financial, non-financial, sustainable and timely – particularly given the current pressures on the community”. The company also presented in support of their submission at the hearings.

5.4 Several submitters supported Option One but did not specify reasons.

Opposition to Option One

5.5 The main reasons set out by those who oppose establishing the holding company included:

5.5.1 Lack of information: A few submitters considered that there was insufficient information made available to support the proposal and requested copies of the Deloitte’s report.

5.5.2 A summary of the Deloitte’s report was provided on Council’s website during the consultation process.

5.5.3 Increased debt: Some submitters (include 27553 and 28208) were concerned that the holding company might be used to increase the companies’ and/or the two council’s debt.

5.5.4 The holding company proposal does not increase Council or the companies’ debt. However, as noted in the Consultation Document, the new company would be able to access funding at lower interest rates through the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA). The existing debt held by the Port and Airport would be refinanced through the LGFA.

5.5.5 Increased risk: Nine submitters objected to the proposal as it would increase the risk to ratepayers. This included that borrowing by the Holding Company from the Local Government Funding Agency would be secured against the rating income of the two councils, and therefore make the councils accountable for this debt. Two submitters objected to the Holding Company as they were concerned that it would be used to fund the Waimea Dam.

5.5.6 Under the current structure, given that both the Port and Airport are key regional strategic assets, Council would not let either entity fail to meet its debt obligations and this is reflected in the Standard & Poor’s annual credit rating assessment which has the current and projected debt of the Port and Airport included as a contingent liability of the Councils.

5.5.7 Council would govern the level of borrowing in the Holding Company through the Statement of Intent and Annual Reporting process, in the same way it does currently for the Port and Airport. Key performance measures would include appropriate debt/equity limits and other financial measures. Council will be required by the LGFA to hold a level of uncalled capital (shares which have been issued but only partly paid) to cover Councils share of any outstanding borrowings. The uncalled capital will be recorded as a contingent liability in the Annual Report. The LGFA will also impose tailored borrowing rules or covenants on the Holding Company primarily around minimum levels of capital.

5.5.8 Nelson and Tasman Councils may be required to pay the uncalled capital if the Holding Company fails to meet its financial obligations in relation to the borrowings and all other avenues of recovery have been pursued. Staff consider the financial risk to Council of either Option 1 or Option 3 is no greater than the current structure of the companies.

5.5.9 Some submitters suggested that the debt of the Holding Company would be “off balance sheet” and therefore the councils’ debt would be understated.

5.5.10 The Port and Airport’s debt is currently “off balance sheet” for the Council although, as stated above, it forms part of the Standard & Poor’s credit rating of the Council due to the fact that Council is unlikely to allow the Port or Airport fail to meet its debt obligations.

5.5.11 Increased bureaucracy and/or decreased efficiency/ lack of transparency: Some submitters stated that the holding company would increase bureaucracy or add to management layers and administration. Other submitters considered that the two companies were efficient under the current structure (for example 28250).

5.5.12 Submitter 28706 requested that accountability by the two companies be strengthened. This submission included nine matters that it wished to see enacted before any change in structure proceed, including improving services and increasing the companies’ contribution to the community.

5.5.13 Synergies arising from the proposed structure are expected to result in efficiencies and reduce bureaucracy, including through development of common methodologies for procurement, and shared services.

5.5.14 Different objectives/businesses: Eleven submitters opposed the proposal on the basis that the companies undertake different activities. Comments included, that PNL is responsible for goods, but NAL’s business is about people and that airport safety considerations are very different to those of maritime safety. Submitter 28566 stated that “aviation has unique factors that would make a one company system unworkable”.

5.5.15 Although there are differences between some of the activities of the two companies, there are also many activities they have in common including cargo movement, property management, management and financing of assets, employment, and procurement. These similarities provide opportunities for savings and efficiencies.

5.6 Some submitters opposed Option One but did not specify reasons (these submissions have been classified as supporting Option Two – Status Quo. Two submitters (27468 and 27553) were of the view that both companies are performing well, therefore there is no need to change the model.

Support for Option Two – status quo

5.7 Thirty-eight submitters support this option. The main reasons set out by those who supported the status quo included:

5.8 Council/ratepayers exposure to additional liabilities: Some submitters submitted that all options apart from the status quo expose ratepayers to the liabilities of the two companies.

5.9 Staff response to this issue is covered in paragraphs 5.5.5 – 5.5.10.

5.10 Climate change: Eighteen submitters raised climate change concerns including, that the two companies are located on the coast, and carbon intensive sectors. These submitters generally supported Option Two as a means of not increasing the council’s risk to the effects of climate change.

5.11 The risks to the two councils associated with climate change and ownership of the two companies need to be managed for all options.

Support for Option Three – New company as a funding vehicle only

5.12 Nine submitters supported this option (including Nelson Airport Limited). The main reasons set out by those who supported establishing the new company as a funding vehicle only included:

5.12.1 That Option Three was the lowest risk option: One submitter (27103) stated that mergers of local authority organisations do not realise the operational savings or efficiencies that are originally predicted. Another submitter (28144) considered that it was important for the companies to have separate identities but, supported sharing of resources.

5.12.2 Submitter 28504 supported Option Three as they considered that the two companies had different everyday operations and therefore neither organisation would benefit from the merger.

5.12.3 Nelson Airport Limited (28802) supported Option Three, as it does not believe that the expected benefits would be realised under Option One. It is also concerned that the restructure would “risk distracting the focus and resources needed to maintain Nelson Airport at the forefront of regional airports”. NAL’s submission outlines an alternative view on the proposed savings and its view that more of the savings would flow through to key customers through lower landing charges.

Support of Option Four

5.13 No submitters indicated that this was their preferred option.

6. Options

6.1 The advantages and disadvantages of each option were included in the December report and the four options included in the consultation document are updated below.

Option One: Operational holding company
Advantages	· Funding benefits for PNL, noting that NAL is able to access LGFA funds in its own right if agreed by the shareholders · Direct operational synergies · Indirect operational synergies · Taxation efficiencies · Reduced shareholder administration costs · Potential for Shareholders to retire debt · Commercial and operational commonalities · Common strategic goal - a critical strategic play for PNL and NAL is for property development that supports cargo across the wharf and airport precinct · The attraction of higher-level talent and expertise due to scale. · Flexibility to introduce other commercial activity to the Group · Net Present Value of $18.9 million ($1.3 million average benefit per annum)
Risks and Disadvantages	· Potential for the identified efficiencies and synergies to flow to carriers through reduced landing charges · Loss of focus risk arises from the inability of a single Board, and executive to lead and manage the two businesses to the same degree/effectiveness as two Boards and Executives · CAA Accreditation · Pre-emptive rights under the MoT kiwi-share · NAL leased land · Realisation of direct operational synergies
Option Two: Status quo
Advantages	· Does not require further work by the companies or shareholders
Risks and Disadvantages	· Opportunity to realise funding, operational synergies, taxation, administration benefits is lost · Potential for shareholders to retire debt · No flexibility to introduce other commercial activity to the group · This would see the considerable investment in time and costs incurred to date being lost
Option Three: Holding company as a funding vehicle
Advantages	· Funding benefits for PNL, noting NAL is able to access LGFA funds in its own right if agreed by the shareholders · Taxation efficiencies · Potential for shareholders to retire debt · Further funding savings possible on $40 million credit line · Lower risk option which provides funding efficiencies · Governance, CEO and management team structure dedicated to each organisation · Leaves open additional benefits to NAL arising from contracted use of additional skills. · Flexibility to introduce other commercial activity to the Group · Net Present Value of $7.7 million ($0.6 million average benefit per annum)
Risks and Disadvantages	· Potential for the identified efficiencies and synergies to flow to the carrier through reduced landing charges · CAA Accreditation · Pre-emptive rights under the MoT kiwi-share · NAL leased land
Option Four: Holding company as a funding vehicle with shared services
Advantages	· Funding benefits for PNL, noting NAL is able to access LGFA funds in its own right if agreed by the shareholders · Taxation efficiencies · Potential for shareholders to retire debt · Further funding savings possible on $40 million credit line · Low-risk option still able to achieve the funding efficiencies · Governance, CEO and management team structure dedicated to each organisation · Leaves open additional benefits to NAL arising from contracted use of additional skills · Flexibility to introduce other commercial activity to the Group · Net Present Value of $10.3 million ($0.7 million average benefit per annum)
Risks and Disadvantages	· Potential for the identified efficiencies and synergies to flow to carriers through reduced landing charges · CAA Accreditation · Pre-emptive rights under the MoT kiwi-share · NAL leased land

7. Discussion on options

7.1 As outlined in Section Six, Option One (a new company for holding the investments in, and overseeing operations of, Nelson Airport and Port Nelson) requires the greatest level of organisational change by the two companies. These organisational changes are accompanied with the risk that the projected savings from synergies might not be achieved for example if there is a loss of organisational knowledge or cultural issues.

7.2 However, a number of other councils are proceeding with using Holding Company structures to access funding for port companies from the LGFA including Lyttleton Port through Christchurch City Holdings. This may provide those companies with a competitive advantage.

7.3 After reviewing the points raised by submitters including, that the risks were higher under Option One, and that the projected savings for Option One may not be realised, staff are recommending that Council proceed with Option Three.

7.4 Option Three provides between two thirds to a half of the financial benefits associated with Option One but with a lower level of risk. The projected interest savings under Option Three will provide real benefits to the two companies and shareholders and still allow for shared services between the two companies.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Staff recommend that Council proceeds with Option Three on the basis that it provides a more acceptable level of risk and benefits, and that Tasman District Council is likely to recommend this option as well.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Tasman District Council’s Long Term Plan deliberations meeting is scheduled between 17-21 May 2021. If both councils support the same option, then staff would work with the two companies to implement the councils’ resolutions noting that a transition period is likely to be 12 months.

9.2 Shareholder agreement is required in order to proceed with any option other than the status quo. Therefore, this report includes a resolution to authorise the Mayor to vote the Council’s shareholding in the Nelson Airport Limited and Port Nelson Limited to give effect to the resolution.

9.3 All submitters will receive a response to their submissions as part of the Long Term Plan response process.

9.4 A Statement of Intent will be required for the new funding company.

9.5 Subsequent amendments would include changes to Council’s Treasury Management Policy to allow the Holding Company to access LGFA funding and reflect the councils’ investment in the Holding Company.

9.6 If the councils decide to not proceed with one of the options, or do not agree on the same option, then the status quo would continue.

Author: Nikki Harrison, Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

A decision to implement Option Three, a new company established as a funding vehicle only, would support the economic wellbeing of communities by achieving cost savings by the two companies through lower borrowing costs. These savings increase returns to the companies’ shareholders.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This decision supports the Community Outcome that our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

3. Risk

The risks associated Option Three are covered in the discussion section of this report.

4. Financial impact

The Consultation Document outlined the financial impact of each option. Option Three information included that borrowing through the LGFA would reduce borrowing costs by the two companies by an estimated $900,000 per year.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The CCOs are classified as “strategic assets” in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and the transfer of more than 20% of a strategic asset is classified as higher significance. The high significance has been reflected in the consultation and engagement with the community through the Long Term Plan Consultation Document.

Nelson Airport Limited and Port Nelson Limited are directly affected by the proposal and made written submissions, as well as speaking to at the hearing.

Amendments to the Long Term Plan would also require a special consultative procedure.

6. Climate Impact

There are no climate impacts arising from the establishment of a funding holding company.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

This is a matter for full Council.