Notice of the Ordinary meeting of

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

 

Date:                      Thursday 23 September 2021

Time:                      9.00a.m.

Location:                 Via Zoom

Agenda

Rārangi take

Chairperson                    Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese

Deputy Mayor                 Cr Judene Edgar

Members                        Cr Yvonne Bowater

        Cr Trudie Brand

        Cr Mel Courtney

        Cr Kate Fulton

        Cr Matt Lawrey

        Cr Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

        Cr Brian McGurk

        Cr Gaile Noonan

        Cr Pete Rainey

        Cr Rachel Sanson

        Cr Tim Skinner

Quorum:   7                                                                                 Pat Dougherty

Chief Executive

Nelson City Council Disclaimer

Please note that the contents of these Council and Committee agendas have yet to be considered by Council and officer recommendations may be altered or changed by the Council in the process of making the formal Council decision. For enquiries call (03) 5460436.


Council Values

 

Following are the values agreed during the 2019 – 2022 term:

 

A. Whakautetanga: respect

B. Kōrero Pono: integrity

C. Māiatanga: courage

D. Whakamanatanga: effectiveness

E. Whakamōwaitanga: humility

F. Kaitiakitanga: stewardship

G. Manaakitanga: generosity of spirit

 

 


Nelson City Council

23 September 2021

 

 

Page No.

 

Karakia and Mihi 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

4.1      Steve Cross - 3 Waters Reform

Steve Cross will speak about the 3 Waters Reform.

 

4.2      Tony Haddon - Request for a Private Plan Change

Tony Haddon will speak about the request for a private plan change.

 

4.3      Susan MacAskill - Request for a Private Plan Change

Susan MacAskill will speak about the request for a private plan change.

 

4.4      Neville Male - Nelson Citizens Alliance - 3 Waters Reform

Neville Male will speak on behalf of The Nelson Citizens Alliance regarding the 3 Waters Reform.

 

 


 

5.       Confirmation of Minutes

5.1      12 August 2021                                                                          15 - 35

Document number M18862

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 12 August 2021, as a true and correct record.

5.2      26 August 2021                                                                          36 - 41

Document number M18883

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 26 August 2021, as a true and correct record.

5.3      2 September 2021                                                                     42 - 52

Document number M18892

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 2 September 2021, as a true and correct record.

   

6.       Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview  53 - 82

Document number R26202

           This matter has been included as the first substantive item on the Agenda in order for external representatives to be present.

           John Maassen, on behalf of CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Ltd, and Hemi Toia, on behalf of Ngāti Koata Ltd, will speak about the Private Plan Change Request.

Kerry Anderson from DLA Piper, Gina Sweetman from Sweetman Plannning and Group Manager Clare Barton will be in attendance to speak to the Private Plan Change process and answer questions.

 


 

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview (R26202) and its attachment (A2737849); and

2.    Accepts the Request for the Private Plan Change for Maitahi/Bayview as Private Plan Change 28; and

3.    Agrees independent accredited commissioners will be appointed to consider Private Plan Change 28 and to make recommendations to Council; and

4.    Agrees that the decision-making options are set out in clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and that this clause 25 decision is a process decision in Council's capacity as regulator; and

5.    Agrees the significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the Private Plan Change that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA.  Accordingly, consultation under the Local Government Act on this clause 25 process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

 

 

7.       Recommendations from Committees                                   

7.1     Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 14 September 2021

7.1.1   Bad Debts Writeoff - Year Ending 30 June 2021

 

Recommendation to Council

 

 

That the Council

1.    Approves the balance of $41,990.31 owed by the Brook Valley Community Group Inc be written off as at 30 June 2021.

 

 

7.1.2   Carry Forwards 2020/21

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Approves the carry forward of $2.6 million unspent capital budget for use in 2021/22: and

2.    Notes that this is in addition to the carry forward of $4.8 million approved during the Long Term Plan 2021-31, taking the total carry forward to $7.4 million of which $827,000 is for the 2022/23 year, $349,000 is for the 2023/24 year and the balance of $6.2 million is for the 2021/22 year; and

3.    Notes that the total savings and reallocations in 2020/21 capital expenditure of $1.7 million including staff time which is in addition to the $2.3 million savings and reallocations already recognised in the May 2021 deliberations; and

4.    Notes that the total 2021/22 capital budget (including staff costs and excluding consolidations and vested assets) will be adjusted by these resolutions from a total of $67.1 million to a total of $69.7 million; and

5.    Approves the carry forward of $567,000 unspent operating budget for use in 2021/22.

 

7.2     Community and Recreation Committee - 16 September 2021

7.2.1   Adoption of the Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Recommendation to Council

 

 

That the Council

1.   Adopts the Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2021-2031 (A2654351).

 

 

 

7.2.2   Adoption of the Arts, Heritage and Events Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.   Adopts the Arts, Heritage and Events Activity Management Plan 2021-2031 to reflect the Long Term Plan 2021 – 31 (A2657126).

 

 

7.2.3   Adoption of the Parks and Reserves Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.    Adopts the revised Parks and Reserves Activity Management Plan 2021-31 to reflect the Long Term Plan 2021  -31 (A2414207).

 

 

7.2.5   Community and Recreation Quarterly Report to 30 June 2021

Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council

1.        Notes the unbudgeted grant income of $460,000 from the successful Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment application towards the Montgomery Toilet Upgrade (paragraphs 8.21 to 8.26); and

2.        Agrees to bring forward $100,000 budgeted for 2024/25 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for the Montgomery Toilet Upgrade, to enable design, consents and consultation to occur in 2021/22.

 


 

8.       Mayor's Report                                                          83 - 87

Document number R26217

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R26217) and its attachment (A2724500); and

2.    Approves, retrospectively, Council’s submission to the Department of Internal Affairs - Māori ward process alignment phase 2 (A2724500).

 

 

9.       Council - Status Report - September 2021                88 - 100

Document number R26080

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Council - Status Report - September 2021 (R26080) and its attachment (A1168168).

 

 

10.     Nelson Central Library - Flood Mitigation Plan        101 - 135

Document number R26048

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Flood Mitigation Plan (R26048) and its attachment (A2733041); and

2.    Agrees that the flood modelling presented in the Nelson Central Library Redevelopment - Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041) demonstrates that the proposed Nelson Central Library development (corner of Trafalgar/Halifax Streets) has negligible effect on adjacent properties if design and landscape features are incorporated into the design brief; and

3.    Approves the Nelson Central Library Development Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041); and

4.    Notes that further community consultation is programmed to be carried out in relation to the wider issue of central city flood risk and possible mitigation options.

 

 

11.     Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline    136 - 141

Document number R26167

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline  (R26167); and

2.    Amends clause 4 of resolution CL/2021/090 made during the 18-20 May 2021 Council meeting:

Confirms that, on completion of negotiations:

·   Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication strategy and engagement plan), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping, noting that this work will run in parallel with land exchange negotiations; and

 

 

12.     Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21              142 - 173

Document number R23760

        Simon Duffy, Manager Uniquely Nelson, and Chris Butler, Chair of the Uniquely Nelson Board will be present at 1.00pm to speak to the Annual Report.

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21 (R23760) and its attachment (A2739506); and

2.    Approves the Uniquely Nelson Annual Report as sufficient to provide Council with an overview of its activities during the 2020/21 year.

 

 

13.     Three Waters Reform Update                                 174 - 231

Document number R26075

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Three Waters Reform Update (R26075) and its attachments (A2734504, A2734513, A2734630, A2736353, A2734616, A2745775, A2745300, A2748814, and A2748820); and

2.    Notes the Government’s 30 June and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements; and

3.    Notes Morrison Low’s advice on the accuracy of the information provided to Council in June and July 2021 as a result of the Request for Information and Water Industry Commission for Scotland modelling processes; and

4.    Notes the analysis of three water service delivery options available to Council at this time; and

5.    Notes that a decision to support, or not support, the Government’s preferred three waters service delivery option is not lawful (would be ultra vires) at present due to section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002, which prohibits Council from divesting its ownership or interest in a water service except to another local government organisation, and what Council currently know (and doesn’t know) about the Government’s preferred option; and

6.    Notes that Council cannot make a formal decision on a regional option for three waters service delivery without doing a Long Term Plan amendment and ensuring it meets section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

7.    Notes that Council intends to make further decisions about the three waters service delivery model after 30 September 2021; and

8.    Notes that it would be desirable to gain an understanding of the community’s views once Council has further information from the Government on the next steps in the reform process; and

9.    Approves the draft letter (A2745300) to the Government outlining where Council seeks guidance and gives feedback on the proposed Three Waters Reform programme; and

10.  Agrees that the Mayor, Infrastructure Committee Chair and Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve minor editorial amendments to the Government response letter; and

11.  Notes that the Chief Executive will report back once staff have received further information and guidance from Government, Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā on what the next steps look like and how these should be managed; and

12.  Notes that Council has considered the decision-making requirements of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 and determined that they have been adequately complied with for the purposes of this report, taking into account that a) no decisions are being made at this stage to agree to the Government’s proposal and b) the low to medium significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy of the decision to request the Chief Executive to seek further information from and give feedback to the Government on the reform proposal.

 

 

14.     Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June 232 - 247

Document number R25980

Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June  (R25980) and its attachments (A2711975, A2712692).

 

  

Confidential Business

15.     Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes -  12 August 2021

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

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes -  2 September 2021

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·    Section 7(2)(a)

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

·   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)

3

Confidential Recommendations from Committees

Audit Risk and Finance Subcommittee – 14 seoptember 2021

IT Funding Request

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

4

Mayor's Report - Confidential

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

5

Council - Status Report - Confidential - September 2021

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(i)

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

6

Nelson Central Library Development Land Exchange Negotiating Team

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

7

Directors remuneration 2021 - Nelmac Limited

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(i)

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

8

Release of Nelson Marina - Land Development Plan

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(i)

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

 

 

Karakia Whakamutanga

 

  

 


Nelson City Council Minutes – 12 August 2021

 

,

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 12 August 2021, commencing at 9.03a.m.

 

Present:              Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, 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 Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies :          Nil

 

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1.       Apologies

There were no apologies.

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

Her Worship the Mayor advised that Item 9 – Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: Developer-led Expressions of Interest would be considered following Public Forum. She noted that the Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association’s public forum request had been cancelled and would come to a later Council meeting, and that she would speak briefly to the Mayor’s Report prior to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund for her introductory comments on housing.

 

3.       Interests

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

4.       Petition - Delaware Bay Boat Access Group

Document number R26129

Peter Ruffell spoke to the Group’s petition (A2720699), which was presented to her Worship the Mayor by Mr Ruffell’s grandchildren, Shakana and James. Mr Ruffell tabled supporting information (A2727998).

Mr Ruffell thanked the petition signatories and introduced Marine Scientist, Rod Asher, to talk about the environmental effects on the estuary. Mr Asher spoke about mapping and surveying of the estuary since 1976, and said that, over that time there had been no appreciable effect on the estuary due to the type of sediment. He felt the Delaware inlet was still in the good condition it was 40 years ago and that it was the only calm safe spot for boat launching in the area; an ideal safe permanent channel and deep enough for modern boats, providing it was used respectfully. He felt the estuary should be available to every New Zealand citizen, with no favour to any one group and that there was room for everybody to use it safely.

Mr Ruffell spoke of the history of the boat launching spot, noting that it was Crown-owned land and he felt that there should be total access to the foreshore and seabed. He said that the Group was happy to work with iwi.

Her Worship the Mayor noted that the matter was the subject of legal proceedings and thanked the presenters.

Attachments

1    A2720699 - Delaware Bay Boat Access Group Petition

2    A2727998 - Delaware Bay Boat Access Group tabled supporting information

 

5.       Public Forum

5.1.     Tahunanui Business and Citizens Association Inc - Waka Kotahi Proposals for Tahunanui Drive and the Effects of those Proposals

This public forum request was withdrawn.

 

5.2.     Neville Male - The Actions of Councillors and NCC Staff associated with the Extinction Rebellion Protest.

Document number R26085

Neville Male, on behalf of the Nelson Citizens Alliance, spoke about the action of Councillors and Council staff relating to the Extinction Rebellion protest. He questioned how the protest was managed and felt that Council should be well prepared for and learn lessons from each occasion. He questioned security, building surveillance, procedures implemented and Police action on the day. Mr Male felt that a review of Council’s Code of Conduct was required. 

Councillor Lawrey raised a Point of Order that a statement made by Mr Male that he knew in advance about the protest was misrepresentation. The Point of Order was upheld as it was not possible to determine whether that was the case at this meeting. Mr Male advised that he would lodge a formal letter voicing his concerns.

Her Worship the Mayor noted that the handling of the protest would be included in a future Audit, Risk and Finance agenda for discussion and that a review of the Code of Conduct was in hand.

 

5.3.     Save the Maitai - Update on Campaign

Document number R26131

Dan Levy and Mic Dover, from Save the Maitai, provided an update on the campaign.

Mr Dover spoke of continued support for the campaign, ongoing media coverage, submissions, letters to Council and fund raising. He felt that the proposal of a developer-led project threatened Nelson, which needed smart growth. He felt that future housing demands could be met without developing the Maitai Valley. He felt that any acceleration of the project was of extreme concern, and that this was the only opportunity to provide views on the project being included in the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) application. He asked Elected Members to reject the recommendation or abstain from voting as he felt the Fund’s criteria were not being met. He questioned the degree of significance and level of engagement of the IAF item and tabled speaking notes (A2727971).

Attachments

1    A2727971 - Save the Maitai tabled speaking notes

  

6.       Mayor’s report (Agenda Item 8)

 

Her Worship the Mayor framed the housing situation for the Nelson Tasman region, which had been classed as Tier 2 in the National Policy Statement for Urban Development but she felt that the region should be Tier 1. She noted an 88% increase in house prices, with 38% of income being spent on rent or mortgages, which was higher, as a percentage, than Auckland. The effect of those statistics meant that the region’s businesses wanted to grow but could not attract and retain skilled staff and essential workers because of housing cost issues.

 

The Mayor acknowledged the need for change and thanked Elected Members for prioritising housing in the Long Term Plan. She noted that intensification alone was not enough, and a combination of smart thinking, ensuring supply and affordability and fostering relationships to deliver affordable housing as a number one priority was required.

 

She noted that the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund proposals were at the Expressions of Interest (EOI) stage and highlighted the need to ensure that opportunities were not lost. She felt that the region not been visible at central government level as far as securing investment. The Mayor had spoken with Mayor King, and both wanted to secure funding to deal with the housing crisis in the region, which was consistent with housing being the top priority for Council and the community.

 

The Mayor’s report was adjourned, to be revisited later in the meeting.

 

6.       Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: Developer-led Expressions of Interest (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R26027, agenda pages 64 - 136 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, noted a correction to agenda page 68, paragraph 5.2.4, which incorrectly stated 750 dwellings, this should be 350.

Mr Louverdis provided a precis of the process, and advised that officers now proposed Council support for all four proposals, rather than the three indicated in the agenda report.

The developers in attendance were invited to speak to their proposals:

•  Iain Sheves – Wakatū Inc, provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2730288). Mr Sheves clarified the area of the development, noted the challenges and opportunities, the intergenerational outcomes, the vision and that the affordable housing leasehold models were unattractive to speculators or investors.

    Mr Sheaves answered questions regarding stormwater management, the need for a plan change, environmental impacts, timeframes, delivery methods and intergenerational outcomes.

•  Hemi Toia – Ngāti Koata Trust, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation (A2726547). Mr Toia spoke of the importance of the people, how successful IAF projects would provide a housing solution for Nelson, the Trust proposal’s supporters, the challenges of access and the cost of land. He noted that IAF funding would provide the opportunity for early access and reduced cost to approximately 100 of the planned  sections. He spoke of the aspirations of the Maitahi Development, noting that it would still proceed without funding however, with funding, it could also deliver a housing solution that would be life changing for people.

    A waiata was given in support of the presentation.

    Mr Toia answered questions regarding climate change design elements, the number of houses and the affordable housing component and the inclusion of funding in the full application if the proposal was successful in the first stage.

    The meeting was adjourned from 10.42am until 11.01am.

    Mr Toia answered further questions regarding the enablement of access to affordable homes, the project timeframe, water quality and traffic effects and reliance on the IAF funding for provision of the affordable homes.

•  Scott and Simon Gibbons – Gibbons, provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2726725). Scott Gibbons spoke of the history and location of the Bishopdale land, noting that a consent had been granted for over 100 sections, the company had applied for a special housing area (HASHA) in 2017 and was advanced in negotiations with a community housing provider, with 60% of the sections targeted for affordable homes. He noted the connection to Waimea Road, and believed the proposal met the criteria for the IAF funding, which he felt was critical to reduce the cost of supplying affordable housing.

Mr Gibbons answered questions regarding the cost of affordable homes, connections with Waimea Road, connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists to get to the Railway Reserve and the upper end of Vista Heights, climate change mitigation and geotechnical constraints. 

Her Worship the Mayor reiterated the focus of today’s decision and noted that there would need to be a change to the recommendations to reflect support for the Bishopdale proposal and the fact that Council would lead the application to the IAF.

Mr Louverdis clarified that he had met with the Gibbons team and discussed the previous rating and, in light of the fact that Gibbons was partnering with housing providers, connections with Waimea Road, and alignment with Council priorities, officers were now comfortable with supporting the proposal for inclusion in the IAF application.

Mr Louverdis, together with Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, Manager Utilities, David Light and Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, answered questions regarding the IAF application, including:

·   Council taking the lead in the application

·   Contributions to proposals

·   The Kāinga Ora process

·   Staff resourcing and capacity

·   Possible reprioritisation of existing projects

·   Timeframes

·   Reporting back on implications regarding delivery of projects if the application was successful

·   Ensuring the final EOIs were consistent with today’s discussions

·   Triggering of the Significance and Engagement Policy

Councillor Skinner raised a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for disrespectful/offensive comments suggesting that Council officers were biased. The Point of Order was upheld and Mayor Reese asked the Chief Executive for his comments.

The Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty advised that officers had been working under a lot of pressure to get the report to Council. He felt the suggestion that officers were favouring one developer over another was unacceptable and equated to impugning staff. It was noted that the change to the officer recommendations reflected the pace of the challenge.

Councillor Sanson raised a Point of Order against Her Worship the Mayor for misinterpreting her questions. The Point of Order was not upheld. 

The meeting was adjourned from 12.08pm until 12.15pm, at which time, Councillor Skinner was not present.

A question was answered regarding the benefits/risks of the inclusion of multiple proposals.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 12.17pm.

Questions were answered regarding the impact on Nelson’s transport system, which would be an ongoing piece of work, the possibility of out of town buyers of the affordable housing and the benefits of improved infrastructure capacity to future developments. 

The officers’ recommendation, amended to reflect Council’s lead in the application and support for the Bishopdale EOI, was moved by Councillor Edgar and seconded by Councillor Skinner.

Further questions were answered regarding staff resourcing, regional balance affecting Kāinga Ora weighting of applications, ownership of the land between the proposed site and the sewage treatment plant in the Whakatū proposal, engagement, climate change mitigation and sustainable transport as part of the affordable housing thinking, assurance that the final EOIs would reflect what had been presented to Council today and that if not, further conversations would be necessary and the expectation of the need for minor editorial changes.

The motion was taken in parts.

 

Resolved CL/2021/132

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Developer-led Expressions of Interest (R26027) and its attachments (A2704700, A2714336, A3904008, A2711258, A2716113, A2720023, A2713299 and A2719661).

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/133

That the Council

2.    Includes the following developer Expressions of Interest as part of the Council’s application to the Kainga Ora administered Infrastructure Development Fund, noting that this decision is in no way intended to fetter any future Council decision-making in relation to the proposals, including in its regulatory capacity:

a.     Wakatū Incorporation (Horoirangi, A2711258).

 

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Lawrey

Cr Rainey

Abstained/Interest

 

motion was carried 11 - 2.

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/134

That the Council

2.    Includes the following developer Expression of Interest as part of the Council’s application to the Kainga Ora administered Infrastructure Development Fund, noting that this decision is in no way intended to fetter any future Council decision-making in relation to the proposals, including in its regulatory capacity:

b.    Maitai Development Co “Maitahi” (Kaka Valley, A2716113).

 

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Lawrey

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Abstained/Interest

 

The motion was carried 10 - 3.

 

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/135

That the Council

2.    Includes the following developer Expression of Interest as part of the Council’s application to the Kainga Ora administered Infrastructure Development Fund, noting that this decision is in no way intended to fetter any future Council decision-making in relation to the proposals, including in its regulatory capacity:

c.     Stoke Valley Holdings Limited/Solitaire Investments Limited/Marsden Park Limited (Ngawhatu Valley/Marsden Valley, A2720023).

 

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Lawrey

Abstained/Interest

 

The motion was carried 12 - 1.

 

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/136

That the Council

2.    Includes the following developer Expression of Interest as part of the Council’s application to the Kainga Ora administered Infrastructure Development Fund, noting that this decision is in no way intended to fetter any future Council decision-making in relation to the proposals, including in its regulatory capacity:

d.    Gibbons (Bishopdale, A2713299).

 

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Skinner

Against

Nil

Abstained/Interest

Nil

The motion was carried 13 - 0.

 

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/137

3.    Notes that a further report will be brought to Council once Kāinga Ora has decided which, if any, of these Expressions of Interest will be invited to respond to a Request for Proposals process detailing:

·    The required level of Council investment in infrastructure to support each qualifying development; and

·    Whether or not this funding is included in the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 and which year(s); and

·    The impact of prioritising any capital projects that support qualifying development on the phasing of other capital projects within the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 work programme; and

·   The capacity of Council to deliver multiple additional infrastructure projects within the required timeframe.

 

Attachments

1    A2730288 - Wakatū Inc Powerpoint presentation

2    A2726547 - Ngāti Toia PowerPoint presentation

3    A2726725 - Gibbons PowerPoint Presentation

Edgar/Skinner                                                                              Carried

 

 

The meeting was adjourned from 1.04pm until 2.03pm. at which time Councillor Skinner was not present.

 

It was agreed that Confidential Agenda Item 6 – Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: Council-led Expression of Interest would be considered next.

 

Exclusion of the Public

 

Resolved CL/2021/138

 

 

That the Council

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

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

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater                                                    Carried

 

6.

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund:
Council-led Expression of Interest

 

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)

The meeting went into confidential session at 2.03pm and resumed in public session at 2.40pm.

It was agreed that Agenda Item 10 – Representation Review Initial Proposal would be considered next.

7.       Representation Review Initial Proposal (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R25896, agenda pages 137 - 196 refer.

Manager Governance and Support Services, Devorah Nicuarta-Smith spoke to the report, highlighting the primary focus of the initial proposal. She noted that Council was obliged to follow mesh blocks managed by Statistics New Zealand and that a number of options had been put through a viability assessment, with several not meeting the fairness rule. She answered questions regarding next steps, public notification and resources to ensure the information was promoted widely. Ms Nicuarta-Smith clarified the process and answered questions on models and the rationale being cognisant of the fairness rule. The potential for confusion relating to ward candidates campaigning in the same areas as ‘at large’ candidates was noted and Ms Nicuarta-Smith confirmed that the public would be provided with all of the permutations on which to provide feedback.

Attendance: Councillor O'Neill-Stevens left the meeting at 2.56pm.  

 

It was requested that the minutes note that on 11 May 2021 Council had made a unanimous decision to create a Nelson Māori ward, and also note the suggestion that the wards be given Māori names in recognition of that landmark decision.

Resolved CL/2021/141

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Representation Review Initial Proposal  (R25896) and its attachments (A2712103 [survey feedback], A2719650 [Ward Option assessments], A2715296 [Two Ward boundary outline], A2712591 [Three Ward boundary outline]) and A2720247 [Four Ward boundary outline]; and

2.    Adopts the following initial representation proposal (Option 4a):

a.     That the Nelson City Council consist of a mayor and 12 councillors; and

b.    That two General Wards be established as follows:

Name

Boundaries

Central Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

Stoke-Tahuna Ward

As outlined in attachment A2715296

i.     Noting that the Whakatū Māori ward was established for the 2022 and 2025 local government elections on 13 May 2021, a decision which cannot be appealed to the Local Government Commission; and

c.     That a mixed system of voting be established, as follows:

 

Members

Popn. per Ward councillor

At large (all voters)

Mayor

Three councillors

N/A

N/A

Central Ward (General roll)

Four councillors

6,458

Stoke-Tahuna Ward (General roll)

Four councillors

6,370

Whakatū Māori Ward (Māori roll)

One councillor

3,320

and

d.    That no community boards be established; and

3.    Agrees that public notification of the initial proposal and opportunity to submit on the proposal will be undertaken in line with the statutory requirements of section 19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

McGurk/Courtney                                                                           Carried

 

 

Extension of Meeting Time

Resolved CL/2021/142

 

That the Council

1.     Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.

Her Worship the Mayor/Rainey                                                      Carried

8.       Confirmation of Minutes (Agenda Item 6)

8.1      24 June 2021

Document number M18738, agenda pages 12 - 45 refer.

It was requested that the 24 June 2021 minutes be amended on agenda page 17 to say …Councillor Sanson had described clear fell forestry as ‘strip mining’ in her debate.

Resolved CL/2021/143

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms the amended minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 24 June 2021, as a true and correct record.

Edgar/Courtney                                                                            Carried

8.2      1 July 2021

Document number M18768, agenda pages 46 - 58 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/144

 

That the Council

1.    Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 1 July 2021, as a true and correct record.

Edgar/Courtney                                                                            Carried

  

9.       Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 7)

9.1     25 May 2021 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee

9.1.1  Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan for year to 30 June 2022

Resolved CL/2021/145

 

That the Council

1.    Approves the Draft Annual Internal Audit Plan for the year to 30 June 2022 (A2601457).

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

 

9.2     Urban Development Subcommittee - 29 July 2021

9.2.1   Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson City and Nelson-Tasman's urban environment

           Councillor Edgar spoke to the recommendation and explained the changes that had been made at the Urban Development Subcommittee  meeting and that an additional officer’s recommendation had been tabled to reflect work that had already been done.

Senior City Development Adviser, Gabrielle Thorpe, and Strategy and Environment Senior Analyst, Chris Pawson, answered questions regarding the Housing and Business Capacity Assessments.

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting from 3.40pm until 3.46pm, Councillor Skinner left the meeting at 3.41pm, and Councillor O'Neill-Stevens returned to the meeting at 3.42pm.

Questions were answered regarding overlays and residential development capacity and it was noted that the National Policy Statement for Urban Development required Council to use its current plan and the information was a point in time.

Recommendation to Council CL/2021/146

 

That the Council

1.    Approves the housing bottom lines be adopted for inclusion into Nelson City Council’s district plan/regional policy statement as set out in this report Housing and Business Capacity Assessments for Nelson City and Nelson-Tasman's urban environment (R24829); and

2.    Notes that the Minister of the Environment will be notified of the insufficiency of development capacity for housing for the Nelson part of the urban environment as set out in this report (R24829); and

3.    Delegates to the Mayor and Chief Executive the authority to confer with the Tasman District Council regarding any minor editorial amendments to the Nelson-Tasman Housing and Business Capacity Assessment report (A2688455); and 

4.    Notes the recommendations from the Housing and Business Capacity Assessments as set out in this report (R24829); and

5.    Notes an amendment to section 6 paragraph 1.1.4 on page 15 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development: Nelson and Tasman Tier 2 Urban Environment: Housing and Business Assessment as per tabled document (A2726827).

Edgar/McGurk                                                                               Carried

 

10.     Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 8 (revisited))

Document number R26067, agenda pages 59 - 63 refer.

A copy of the Nelson City Council and Kāinga Ora’s Relationship Agreement (A2696065) was tabled.

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report, noting that a Three Waters Workshop would take place and that this was a complex matter. She noted that work was being undertaken on the Housing Reserve and that she would be speaking at an affordable housing investment summit in Auckland on Tuesday 17 August.

The Mayor noted that a submission on the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Discussion document would be included in the 26 August Mayor’s Report. She congratulated Nelson College for Girls, as a finalist in the Education Excellence Awards.

The Mayor advised that advocacy work was being undertaken for a more regular opportunity to change between the general and Māori electoral rolls, which was a complementary part to the Māori ward decision.

Discussion took place on the proposed Standing Orders changes.

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 4.14pm.

Concerns were raised regarding the change to Standing Order 15.3 and Councillor Lawrey foreshadowed an amendment to delete the change to Standing Order 15.3, should the motion be lost.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/147

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R26067).

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/148

That the Council

2.    Amends the following clause of Nelson City Council Standing Orders, section to state:

Minutes

26.1 “The local authority, its committees, subcommittees and any local and community boards must keep minutes of their proceedings. When confirmed by resolution at a subsequent meeting, or in the case of a meeting with rotating membership, by the electronic signature of the Chairperson, will be prima facie evidence of the proceedings they relate to.”

 

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

It was suggested that the removal of the word “Council,” would clarify that petitioners could present either to the Council, or the delegated committee, but not choose which committee they would like to present to. The change was agreed to by the mover and the seconder.

 

Resolved CL/2021/149

3.    Adds the following clause to Nelson City Council Standing Orders, to state:

Petitions

15.3 “In the case of presenting a petition to a committee, subcommittee, local or community board, the subject of the petition must fall within the terms of reference of that meeting.”

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

 

Attachments

1    A2696065 NCC and Kāinga Ora Relationship Agreement

 

         

11.     Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2021/150

 

That the Council

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

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater                                                    Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes -  24 June 2021

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)(c)(i) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

·   Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege.  

2

Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes -  1 July 2021

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

·      Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

·   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)·  

3

Recommendations from Committees (Confidential)

3 August 2021 Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee

Tahuna Beach Camp – Community Engagement on the Proposed Lease of the Campground

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)

4

Nelmac Limited Director Appointment

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

5

Nelmac Limited Director Reappointment

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

6

Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(i)

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

The meeting went into confidential session at 4.35pm and resumed in public session at 4.51pm.

 

Karakia Whakamutunga

There being no further business the meeting ended at 5.02pm.

 

Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

 

1

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: Council-led Expression of Interest (Agenda Item 6)

 

That the Council

5.     Agrees that the Report (R26027), attachments (A2714336, A2716458, A2721398 and A2716315) and the decision remain confidential at this time. 

 

 

 

3

Tahuna Beach Camp - Community Engagement on the Proposed Lease of the Campground (Agenda Item 2)

 

That the Council

2.     Agrees that Report (R22722), Attachment (A2710240) and the decision be made publicly available once negotiations are concluded.

 

4

Nelmac Limited Director Appointment

 

That the Council

3.     Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available once the 2021 Nelmac Limited Annual General Meeting has taken place.

 

5

Nelmac Limited Director Reappointment

 

That the Council

3.     Agrees that the decisions only be made publicly available once the 2021 Nelmac Limited Annual General Meeting has taken place.

 

6

Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22

 

That the Council

1.     Receives the report Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22 (R25991) and its attachment (A2692697); and

2.     Notes the delivery of the Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2021/22 (A2692697) as required under the Local Government Act 2002; and

3.     Adopts the final Nelmac Limited Statement of Intent (A2692697); and

4.     Notes that the final Nelmac Limited Statement of Intent (A2692697) will be made publicly available on Council’s website within one month of adoption as per legislation; and

5.     Agrees that the decision be made publicly available; and

6.     Notes that the Report (R25991) requires redacting, and once redacted, will be made publicly available.

 

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

 

Resolved

 

 

     


Nelson City Council Minutes – 26 August 2021

 

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held via Zoom on Thursday 26 August 2021, commencing at 9.05a.m.

 

Present:              Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, 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 Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Governance Adviser (E Stephenson)

Apologies :          Nil

 

 

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

Her Worship the Mayor opened the meeting with a karakia. The Mayor acknowledged the work of the health sector, the Police, community organisations, emergency management, iwi and the public in keeping everyone safe and the benefits of the Trafalgar Centre as a COVID-19 vaccination centre.

The Mayor acknowledged the situation in Afghanistan and expressed support for fellow New Zealanders in Afghanistan and those serving in the New Zealand Defence Force, past and present.

 

1.       Apologies

There were no apologies

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

Agenda Item 7 - Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan was considered before Item 6 - Community Engagement on the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora.

 

3.       Interests

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

4.       Public Forum (via Zoom)

4.1.     Nelson Citizens Alliance - The 3 Waters Concept

Document number R26170

Lindsay Hay and Dr Henry Hudson, on behalf of the Nelson Citizens Alliance, spoke about the 3 Waters concept and gave opinions on the way forward. Points included the need for more information to make an informed decision, the 3 Waters proposal not being relevant to Nelson and a suggestion that a binding referendum was required. A supporting document was provided (A2734760).

Her Worship the Mayor noted that she would address this issue in the Mayor’s report.

Attachments

1    A2734760 - Nelson Citizens Alliance supporting information

  

 5.      Mayor's Report

Document number R26175, agenda pages 6 - 59 refer.

Her Worship the Mayor spoke to her report. She acknowledged the need for more information on the 3 Waters proposal and clarified that the financial component was not compensation for assets, which would still remain in Councils’ ownership and that there was nothing in the financial analysis to indicate rates rises.  She noted discussions were underway regarding setting up mechanisms to support the sharing of information with the public.

The Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, outlined planned 3 Waters public meetings and Elected Member workshops, noting that COVID-19 restrictions may affect plans and that no decision regarding transfer of assets would be made in the next couple of months. He advised that a formal report on the national case for change and effects of the proposals on Nelson would be presented to the 23 September Council meeting.

 

Her Worship the Mayor answered questions regarding communication of the 3 Waters proposal to the public, noting that Council’s role was to analyse and test the policy rather than promote it, and that material specific to Nelson would be presented to Elected Members and discussed at workshops prior to being communicated to the public.

Discussion took place on Council’s submission to the Governance Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Discussion Document and it was noted that a more comprehensive submission had not been possible due to the lack of staff resources.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/158

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R26175) and its attachments (A2713175 and A2704583,); and

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

Resolved CL/2021/159

That the Council

2.    Approves, retrospectively, Council’s submission to the Governance Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development Discussion Document (AA2713175).

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar                                                        Carried

 

The meeting was adjourned from 10.10am until 10.32am.

 

6.       Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan (Agenda Item 7)

Document number R26117, agenda pages 95 - 208 refer.

City Centre Development Programme Lead, Alan Gray, presented the report and answered questions regarding the document’s graphics being visual impressions, modal shift, car parking and the plan’s forewords.

It was noted that the climate change ‘Look out for’ solutions on agenda page 194 were not consistent with the solutions for the growing population and economic shift, and would be changed.

Mr Gray answered questions regarding climate change considerations, inundation, shared spaces, encouraging diversity and the plan for wider engagement.

It was noted that the forewords to the plan would be approved by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive, and an additional clause was added to reflect this.

 

Resolved CL/2021/160

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan  (R26117); and its attachments (A2719965 and A2729194); and

2.    Notes the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan forewords will be approved by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive; and

3.    Agrees to seek public feedback on the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan (A2719965); and

4.    Agrees that Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan engagement process and public feedback opportunities meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 including the principles of consultation in section 82; and

5.    Approves the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū - Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan  (A2719965) for public feedback; and

6.    Approves the public feedback document (A2729194), amended as necessary; and

7.    Agrees that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the supporting information or public feedback materials prior to the start of the consultation process; and

8.    Approves the consultation approach (set out in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 of this report (R26117) and agrees:

(a)    The approach includes sufficient steps to ensure the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū- Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

(b)    The approach will result in the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū- Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan being as widely publicised as reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

Edgar/Courtney                                                        Carried unanimously

      

 

The meeting was adjourned from 11.32am until 11.48am.

7.       Community Engagement on the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora (Agenda Item 6)

Document number R26028, agenda pages 60 - 94 refer.

Team Leader City Development, Lisa Gibellini, presented the report, giving a brief background of the process so far and next steps. She noted a numbering issue in the agenda report, which required a change to recommendation 6, changing the relevant sections of the report from 3.15 to 3.19, to sections 4.7 – 4.11.

Ms Gibellini also noted that due to COVID-19 alert levels, there were several communication methods listed in paragraph 4.7, agenda page 63, that would not be able to occur. She answered questions regarding finished design, investment into Nelson, the construction budget, hard copies of the plan, the feedback period, responses from tenants and maximum building heights. In response to a question, Ms Gibellini confirmed that it would be Council’s decision to consider the public’s feedback against the outcomes it wanted to achieve.

Resolved CL/2021/161

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Community Engagement on the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora (R26028) and its attachment (A2704161); and

2.    Agrees to seek public feedback on a proposal to divest Council property located at 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments; and

3.    Agrees that the public feedback document meets the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 including the principles of consultation in section 82; and

4.    Approves the public feedback document (A2704161), amended as necessary; and

5.    Agrees that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the supporting information or public feedback document prior to the start of the consultation process; and

6.    Approves the consultation approach (set out in paragraph 4.7 – 4.11 of this report (R26028)) and agrees the approach:

(a)    includes sufficient steps to ensure the public feedback document will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to its purpose and significance; and

(b)    will result in the public feedback document being as widely publicised as reasonably practicable as a basis for consultation.

 

Edgar/Her Worship the Mayor                                    Carried unanimously

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga

Councillor Rainey gave the closing karakia.

 

There being no further business the meeting ended at 12.41pm.

 

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

 

Resolved

 

 

 

    


Nelson City Council Minutes - 2 September 2021

 

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held via Zoom on Thursday 2 September 2021, commencing at 9.03a.m.

 

Present:              Her Worship the Mayor R Reese (Co-Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, K Fulton, M Lawrey, R O'Neill-Stevens, B McGurk (Co-Chairperson), 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 Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne), Governance Adviser (E Stephenson) and Youth Councillors (W Irvine and S Herath)

Apologies :          Nil

 

 

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

Her Worship the Mayor opened the meeting with a karakia.

1.       Apologies

There were no apologies.

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business. Her Worship the Mayor noted that following the Mayor’s Report, she would vacate the Chair in favour of Councillor McGurk, in his capacity as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, apart from for consideration of the two bylaws.

 

3.       Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared. Her Worship the Mayor requested that the Interests Register be circulated to Elected Members for any updates.

4.       Public Forum

4.1.     Jane Murray - Public Health Service - Submission #27676 to Water Supply Bylaw Review

Her Worship the Mayor recognised the work of the Public Health Service in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jane Murray, representing the Public Health Service, spoke to the submission (27676). She noted strong support for the bylaw, particularly principle 2, the protection of source water, as this was the most significant barrier against contamination and illness. Ms Murray highlighted the benefit of good raw water quality prior to treatment, and referred to a number of contamination events in New Zealand.

In addition to the bylaw, she encouraged Council to think of a line in the sand approach regarding future developments, noting that the cumulative effects of incremental development may lead to irreversible contamination. She asked that the bylaw be considered the minimum standard for future catchment development proposals. Ms Murray answered questions regarding water quality.

  

 5.      Mayor's Report

Her Worship the Mayor expressed pride in the community response to COVID-19. She acknowledged the level of resilience in lockdown, but said that human reserves were stretched, people were tired and there was a lot of pressure on businesses unable to operate at these levels. The Mayor recognised the people working at this time under pressure and working punishing hours. Referring to Jehan Casinader’s article on the Stuff website on 29 August (During Covid, spare a thought for our leaders’ mental health) she acknowledged public servants, including all of the Council staff, working on the COVID response, highlighting the importance of messages of support. The Mayor said that she was impressed with the cohesion across the region. She highlighted the challenge of people not having food security, resulting in an increasing demand for food parcels and food banks. This had been relayed to central government, but the situation would not ease for a while, supply chain disruption would mean expensive groceries. She noted that some businesses been open in part, but that the hospitality sector been really affected again, and encouraged everyone to get out and support local businesses.

 

Her Worship the Mayor vacated the Chair and Councillor McGurk assumed the Chair.

6.       Infrastructure Committee Chairperson's Report

Document number R26189, agenda pages 9 - 10 refer.

Councillor McGurk spoke to his report, acknowledging the Infrastructure team for achieving an infrastructure spend close to the $40million budget, under trying circumstances.

Resolved CL/2021/162

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Infrastructure Committee Chairperson's Report (R26189).

McGurk/Edgar                                                                               Carried

 

7.       Transport Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Document number R22594, agenda pages 11 - 20 refer.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, presented the report. She noted minor typographical errors in the Activity Management Plan (AMP) and the inclusion of an additional recommendation delegating approval of minor amendments. She answered questions regarding Waka Kotahi funding for public transport and Railway Reserve lighting improvements.

Resolved CL/2021/163

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Transport Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (R22594) and its attachment (A2720012); and

2.    Agrees that the Infrastructure Committee Chairperson and Group Manager Infrastructure be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the Transport Activity Management Plan; and

2.    Adopts the revised Transport Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A2437268).

Edgar/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                   Carried

 


 

8.       Solid Waste Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Document number R22597, agenda pages 21 - 44 refer.

Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt, presented the report, noting that it was the final step in the process, with no material changes as a result of the Long Term Plan decisions. She answered questions regarding recycling bins, the kitchen waste trial, funding for the battery facility adjustment in year 1, building materials contributing to an increase in waste to landfill, deconstruction for secondary markets, emissions reduction and soft plastic recycling.

An additional clause was added delegating minor amendments to the Activity Management Plan.

A change was noted to the processing methods for kitchen waste (agenda page 76) from what was included in the Long Term Plan Consultation Document, which specified the creation of compost as a product of food waste. The AMP now included other options as well as composting and it was agreed that the Councillor McGurk would look at the wording for consistency and work with officers via the minor amendments clause that had been added.

Resolved CL/2021/164

 

That the Council                      

1.    Receives the report Solid Waste Activity Management Plan 2021-31  (R22597) and its attachment (A2462529); and

2.    Agrees that the Infrastructure Committee Chairperson and Group Manager Infrastructure be delegated to approve any minor amendments required to the Solid Waste Activity Management Plan 2021-31; and

3.    Adopts the revised Solid Waste Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A24686119).

Edgar/Courtney                                                                            Carried

 

The meeting was adjourned from 10.05am until 10.18am, at which time Councillor McGurk vacated the Chair and Her Worship the Mayor resumed the Chair.

9.       Water Supply Bylaw (228) - Deliberations Report

Document number R23720, agenda pages 45 - 58 refer.

Activity Engineer - Water Supply and Stormwater, Phil Ruffell, spoke to the report and questions were answered regarding the use of four wheel drive vehicles on the Maungatapu Track, dog walking via permits, approved tracks, forestry activities, sediment levels, contamination due to sheep faeces, water filtration and removal of chemicals. An additional clause to delegate authority for minor amendments was added to the recommendation.

Mr Ruffell clarified that the bylaw would form the basis of what Council does in future years and reiterated that Council undertakes rigorous water testing of both water source and treated water.

Resolved CL/2021/165

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Water Supply Bylaw (228) - Deliberations Report (R23720) and its attachments (A2385695, A2723242, A2646901, A2717283, A1323825); and

2.    Approves the following changes to the Water Supply Bylaw (228) 2021 (A2385695) of Report R23720:

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.2(i) to read ‘Walking/jogging on Council approved tracks’; and

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.2(ii) to read ‘Mountain biking on Council approved tracks’; and

·    Add new clauses 8.2 (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) to reflect specific existing activities currently being undertaken within the catchment. Clauses to read:

(iii) Subject to 8.3 (ix) hereunder, driving a motor vehicle (including a motor cycle) on the Maungatapu Track. (Note: This track is generally only suitable for four wheel drive vehicles.)

(iv) Iwi carrying out activities in the reserves which are provided for in any legislation enacting Deeds of Settlement between Iwi and the Crown.

(v) Activities required for the undertaking of Council water supply, road, track and facility maintenance, regulatory or scientific functions - not covered by (i), (ii) or (iii) above, where these have been authorised by Council, any regulatory consents granted and the caretaker has been consulted as to timing and location.

(vi) Motor vehicle access on formed public roads.

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.3(viii) to read ‘Walking/jogging/mountain biking off Council approved tracks’; and

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.3(ix) to read ‘Driving a four wheeled motor vehicle or any organised motor sport on the Maungatapu Track. (Note: This track is generally only suitable for four wheel drive vehicles and a $100 bond is required for the permit for four wheeled motor vehicles)’; and

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.3(x) to read ‘Subject to 8.2(v) construction or maintenance activities not associated with the Nelson City Water Supply (Source Protection Zones 2 and 3 only)’; and

·    Amend the wording of clause 8.5(ii) to read ‘Depositing any contaminant (subject to 8.3(vi)), refuse or waste material of any kind, including defecating, other than in an authorised facility’.

3.    Delegates authority to approve any further minor technical amendments to the Water Supply Bylaw (228) 2021 to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and the Chief Executive; and

4.   Adopts the Water Supply Bylaw (228) 2021 (A2385695) of Report R23720.

Skinner/Brand                                                                              Carried

 

10.     Wastewater Bylaw (229) - Deliberations Report

Document number R23721, agenda pages 59 - 64 refer.

Activity Engineer – Wastewater, Warren Biggs, presented the report providing a background of the process. An additional clause to delegate authority for minor amendments was added to the recommendation.

Resolved CL/2021/166

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Wastewater Bylaw (229) - Deliberations Report (R23721) and its attachments (A2575490, A2723952, A2720764, A2720763, A1584235); and

2.    Delegates authority to approve any further minor technical amendments to the Wastewater Bylaw (229) to the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and the Chief Executive; and

3.    Adopts the Wastewater Bylaw (229) 2021 (A2575490) of Report R23721.

 

McGurk/Skinner                                                                            Carried

 

Her Worship the Mayor vacated the Chair and Councillor McGurk resumed the Chair. The meeting was adjourned from 10.56am until 11.07am., at which time Her Worship the Mayor was not present.

11.     Infrastructure Quarterly Report

Document number R25907, agenda pages 65 - 146 refer.

Manager Capital Projects, Lois Plum, spoke to the report, noting a busy final quarter with a record level of projects finalised despite a lot of rain and storms. She highlighted that there were a number of requests for additional funding, and a high risk that more would be needed for upcoming work as a result of COVID-19. She said that officers were unable to accurately predict costs relating to supply and delivery delays, resourcing issues and increased resource costs.

In light of the requests for unbudgeted expenditure, and the effects of COVID-19, an additional clause was added to the recommendation to review the entire capital works programme.

Questions were answered by Ms Plum, Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, Manager Transport and Solid Waste, Marg Parfitt and Manager Utilities, David Light, including:

·    Seymour Avenue improvements

·    Increased availability of Bee cards

·    Responsibility for vegetation and cut downs

·    Unbudgeted additional expenditure

·    Housing numbers in the Washington Reserve

·    The streamlined procurement process

·    City centre parking and infringement fees

·    Aeration of the Maitai Dam and water quality

·    Wastewater figures

·    Revaluation of assets

·    Consultation on the Airlie Street upgrade

·    The litter baskets trial

·    Solid waste minimisation and construction demolition secondary markets

·    The kitchen waste trial

·    Uses of recycled plastic (it was reiterated that no plastic was exported)

Attendance: Her Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 12.01pm.

Question topics (continued)

·    Non achievement of the solid waste measure (due to the effects of COVID-19 and inability to travel increasing the amount of home renovations)

·    Climate impact

·    Safety of cyclists when infrastructure work was undertaken at night

·    Innovative streets and the drop in speed and effect on other areas

·    Konini Street as a possible speed reduction trial site

In response to a questions regarding the feasibility of staff being able to complete a review of the work programme, Mr Louverdis confirmed that he was in support of the additional recommendation to review the entire capital works programme, however it would add to the workload but staff would do their best to get a report to the next committee meeting.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/167

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Infrastructure Quarterly Report (R25907) and its attachments (A2708002 and A2482475); and

Edgar/Brand                                                                              Carried

Resolved CL/2021/168

 

That the Council

2.    Approves changes to the funding for the Airlie Street stormwater upgrade, to allow construction to be undertaken in the 2021/22 financial year as planned:     

-   unbudgeted additional capital funding of $300,000; and

-   to bring forward $50,000 from 2022/23 into 2021/22; and  

Edgar/Brand                                                                                 Carried

Resolved CL/2021/169

 

That the Council

3.    Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $250,000 for the Wastney Terrace stormwater upgrade to allow construction works to be undertaken in the 2021/22 financial year as planned; and

 

Edgar/Brand                                                                                 Carried

Resolved CL/2021/170

 

That the Council

4.    Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $226,000 for the relocation of the stormwater reticulation across the proposed Science and Technology Precinct, that will allow commencement of works to achieve completion by December 2021, noting that this will increase Council’s overall contribution to this project to $5.726M but that this could be offset from possible savings from the Wakatu Storage World stormwater project; and 

 

Edgar/Brand                                                                                 Carried

Resolved CL/2021/171

 

That the Council

5.    Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $1.383M for stage 1 of the Washington Valley upgrade project, that will allow the award and commencement of stage 1 of the project (being Hastings Street) to be phased over two financial years – 2021/22 ($3.9M) and 2022/23 ($2.4M), noting that estimates for stages 2 and 3 will be refined as part of the Annual Plan processes; and

 

Edgar/Brand                                                                                 Carried

 

Resolved CL/2021/172

That the Council

6.    Requests staff to undertake a review of the financial viability and deliverability of the 2021-22 to 2023-24 capital works programme due to the impact of COVID-19 on supplier costs and product delays and to report back to the next Infrastructure Committee meeting.

Edgar/Brand                                                                                 Carried

      

12.     Exclusion of the Public

 

Resolved CL/2021/173

 

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:  

Noonan/O'Neill-Stevens                                                                Carried

 

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

1

Land Purchase - Stoke

 

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

·   Section 7(2)(a)

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

·   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)

The meeting went into confidential session at 12.32pm and resumed in public session at 12.32pm.

 

Restatements

 

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

 

1

Land Purchase - Stoke

 

That the Council

5.     Agrees that report R26169 and the decision be made publicly available once a sale and purchase agreement becomes unconditional.

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga

Her Worship the Mayor gave a closing karakia.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 1.08pm.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on (date)

 

Resolved

 

     


Item 6: Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26202

Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To seek a resolution from the Council as to how to proceed with the private plan change (PPC) request received from CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited, given the four options available under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

1.2      To summarise the content of the PPC request for the Council. 

1.3      Gina Sweetman, Planning Practice Leader at Sweetman Planning and Kerry Anderson, Partner with DLA Piper (lawyers) will be present at the meeting. Both Ms Sweetman and Ms Anderson have been engaged by the Council. 

2.       Summary

2.1      CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited have applied to the Council for a PPC request to change the Operative Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP). The PPC request was lodged on 16 April 2021. Following agreed extensions of time, the Council issued a Further Information Request on 3 August 2021. The further information which now forms part of the PPC request was received on 24 August 2021.

2.2      The PPC seeks to rezone approximately 287 hectares of land located within Kaka Valley, along Botanical Hill and Malvern Hill from Rural and Rural-Higher Density Small Holdings Area to:

2.2.1   Residential (Higher, Standard and Lower Density Areas);

2.2.2   Rural-Higher Density Small Holdings Area;

2.2.3   Open Space Recreation; and

2.2.4   Suburban Commercial.

2.3      The PPC would introduce a new Schedule X to the NRMP with an accompanying structure plan and involves a number of integrated changes to associated provisions of the NRMP.

2.4      There are four options under the RMA available to the Council on how to deal with the request:

2.4.1   To adopt the PPC request as a Council plan change.

2.4.2   To accept the PPC request to continue as a private plan change pursued by a private party (CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited).

2.4.3   To reject the PPC request.

2.4.4   To convert the PPC request into a resource consent

2.5      Of these four options, it is recommended the Council accepts the PPC request for the following reasons (which are addressed in more detail later in this report) and provide for the PPC to move through the statutory RMA process:

2.5.1   Accepting the PPC request does not pre-empt the final outcome of the PPC through the formal Schedule 1 RMA process and the decision of the Hearings Panel.

2.5.2   Accepting the PPC allows the Council to maintain its regulatory position, as well as providing the Council the opportunity to submit on it, so that it can seek changes as appropriate. 

2.5.3   Accepting (as opposed to adopting) the request would allow the Council to recover its costs in processing it through the Schedule 1 RMA process.

2.5.4   Accepting the PPC means it will follow the Schedule 1 RMA process, including public notification, submissions and further submissions and a hearing and recommended decision by commissioners.  The recommendation then comes back to Council for a decision.

2.5.5   Accepting the request would allow the Council to continue with its Nelson Plan review process, without needing to divert resources to a Council-led plan change which would occur if it was adopted.

2.5.6   The applicant has requested that the request be accepted and not adopted.

2.5.7   Converting the request to a resource consent would not be appropriate resource management practice as the NRMP zone provisions would not support the outcome sought by the PPC.  Further, the applicant would not support that approach and indeed it provides no benefit to either the applicant or community.

2.5.8   There is no reason for the request to be adopted by the Council as its own. 

2.5.9   There are no grounds under the RMA to reject the request.

 

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview (R26202) and its attachment (A2737849); and

2.    Accepts the Request for the Private Plan Change for Maitahi/Bayview as Private Plan Change 28; and

3.    Agrees independent accredited commissioners will be appointed to consider Private Plan Change 28 and to make recommendations to Council; and

4.    Agrees that the decision-making options are set out in clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and that this clause 25 decision is a process decision in Council's capacity as regulator; and

5.    Agrees the significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the Private Plan Change that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA.  Accordingly, consultation under the Local Government Act on this clause 25 process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

 

 

4.       Background

Private Plan Change Requests

4.1      The process for a private plan change (PPC) is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA. Any person may request a change to a district plan (or regional plan) and the Council must consider how that request will be dealt with, once it is satisfied it has all the information it needs.

4.2      A PPC follows the same statutory process as a Council-initiated plan change, with one important additional step.  Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the Council at the start of the process to either:

4.2.1   Adopt the request (or part of it) as if it were a plan change made by the Council itself.

4.2.2   Accept the request (in whole or part) which enables it to proceed as a PPC through the normal submission and decision process.

4.2.3   Reject the request (in whole or part) on the grounds set out in clause 25(4)(a)-(e) of Schedule 1 of the RMA (and only on those grounds).

4.2.4   Decide to deal with the request (convert) as if it were an application for resource consent.

4.3      In terms of the rejection option, this is constrained by the RMA and decision by the Council to reject a private plan change is only available where one of five specific grounds in Clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are met: 

4.3.1   the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

4.3.2   within the last 2 years, the substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

4.3.3   the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

4.3.4   the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

4.3.5   in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

4.4      If there are no grounds for rejection then the Council must decide to adopt it, accept it or convert it to a resource consent application.  Officers consider there are no grounds under the RMA to reject the request. 

4.5      The Council's decision under Clause 25 is made in advance of public notification of the PPC, and therefore does not have the benefit of public submissions, evidence and a full analysis from the Council officers or experts engaged by the Council.  It is accordingly described by the High Court as a 'coarse filter'[1] of the PPC - in effect, a screening exercise.  It is not the Council’s full merits decision based on all relevant submissions and information.  That comes later, after a full RMA process and opportunity for public involvement.

 

4.6      At this stage, the Council's decision is only whether the PPC should be able to continue being processed as a plan change and if so, whether it is treated as a Council initiated plan change (the adopt option) or whether it continues as a PPC request (the accept option).

Private Plan Change Proposal

4.7      The requested PPC, including a s32 evaluation report, is linked as Appendix 1[2]. The PPC relates to the site shown in the aerial photograph[3] below:

4.8      In brief, the PPC seeks to:

4.8.1   Rezone approximately 287 hectares of land located within Kaka Valley, along Botanical Hill and Malvern Hill from Rural and Rural-Higher Density Small Holdings Area to:

·    Residential (Higher, Standard and Lower Density Areas);

·    Rural-Higher Density Small Holdings Area;

·    Open Space Recreation; and

·    Suburban Commercial.

4.8.2   Introduce a new Schedule X to the NRMP with an accompanying Structure Plan. Particular aspects of the Schedule would include:

·    Comprehensive Housing Developments in the Residential Zone - Higher Density Area as a non-notified restricted discretionary activity.

·    Subdivision in the Residential Zone as a non-notified restricted discretionary activity.

·    Vesting of a 40m total width esplanade reserve along the Maitai River and Kaka Stream, in stages as subdivision progresses.

·    Building in the Backdrop Area and Skyline Area as a controlled activity, subject to conditions.

·    Buildings on specifically identified parts of the Kaka Hill backdrop and skyline area and within the Significant Natural Area being prohibited activities meaning they cannot occur.

·    The requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment with any resource consent application.

·    The application of ecological and freshwater best practice principles in the subdivision and development design process.

·    Amendments to Chapter 7 – Residential Zone to:

Refer to the Schedule in the Introduction and Issues;

Add to Policy RE3.9 and its methods;

Introduce new Objective RE6 and Policy RE6.1 (Maitahi Bayview Area), Policy RE6.2 (Cultural Values) and Policy RE6.3 (Sensitive Environmental Design);

Introduce new rule RE2.106D – Maitahi Bayview Structure Plan (Schedule X);

Add to REr109.5 (Landscape Overlays – Subdivision).

·    Amendments to Chapter 9 – Suburban Commercial Zone to:

Refer to the Kaka Valley in the Introduction and Issues;

Reference the Schedule X;

Introduce new Rule SCr.69C – Maitahi Bayview Structure Plan (Schedule X); 

Add to SCr71.2 to refer to the Schedule and Structure Plan.

·    Amendments to Chapter 12 – Rural Zone to:

Reference the Schedule in the Introduction and Issues;

Introduce new Rule RUr.77C– Maitahi Bayview Structure Plan (Schedule X);

4.8.3   The potential realignment of the lower Kaka Stream tributary is proposed but would be the subject of a separate and subsequent resource consent process. 

4.8.3   Amendments to the Road Hierarchy Planning Maps to include a Proposed Sub Collector Road from the end of Bayview Road and Frenchay Drive, through the site and following the alignment of the proposed indicative road, through Ralphine Way and down the Maitai Valley Road as far as Nile Street East.

4.8.4   Amendments to the Planning Overlay Maps to apply the Services Overlay to the land.

4.9      The following table[4] sets out the proposed zoning, minimum lot size and area proposed:

4.10    The applicant has provided the following information within the PPC request.

4.10.1 The Plan Change Request document itself.[5]

4.10.2 The Structure Plan.[6]

4.10.3 Amendments to the NRMP Planning Maps.

4.10.4 Technical assessment documents as follows:

·      Iwi engagement summary;

·      Historical and archaeological assessment;

·      Productive values report;

·      Geotechnical report;

·      Ecological opportunities and constraints assessment report;

·      Morphum Environmental Consultants environmental review, covering stormwater management and ecological effects management. The report also identifies and assesses waterways across the site;

·      Infrastructure report, covering wastewater, water supply, dry services[7], flooding and stormwater, including an addendum;

·      Transportation impact report, including an addendum;

·      Landscape visual assessment and urban design assessment report, including an addendum;

·      Preliminary landscape design document;

·      Economic cost and benefit assessment report.

4.10.5 Consultation feedback undertaken by the applicant.

4.10.6 A section 32 evaluation report.

4.10.7 A response to the further information request including updated provisions.

4.11    The PPC does not seek to amend any of the regional planning provisions in the NRMP.

4.12    There are some areas where officers considered that the applicant has not provided all the further information sought in the Council’s request, with either the stated intent by the applicant that it will be provided at a later date, or that it is a matter to be addressed at the resource consent stage, should the plan change be approved.

4.13    Clause 23(5) of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides that an applicant may decline in writing to provide further information and may require the Council to proceed with considering the request. The applicant’s position is that they have provided sufficient information and have asked that the Council proceed to make a decision. Clause 23(6) provides that the Council may reject a request at any time if it considers it has insufficient information to enable it to consider or approve the request.  For the reasons set out in para 8.4 there is sufficient information to consider the request under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy July 2019

4.14    The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy July 2019 (the FDS) sets out how Nelson City and Tasman District Councils will provide sufficient development capacity over the next 30 years to meet the needs of their growing communities.  A new FDS is currently being prepared under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPSUD) and will be subject to a Special Consultative Procedure in March 2022.

4.15    In summary, the FDS supports intensification of current urban settlements, but acknowledges that in a high growth scenario it is unlikely to provide sufficient housing capacity or housing choices. The FDS identifies that a range of intensification and greenfield areas are necessary, while minimising the use of high quality rural land. Expansion in the Nelson Urban Area is provided for in the Kaka Valley, Saxton and Richmond South. Kaka Valley, which is the area that this PPC relates to, is phased as an expansion area that may be made available in decade 2 (2028-2038) of the lifetime of the FDS. The FDS estimates a yield of 614 households from Kaka Valley.

4.16    This PPC would bring forward the phasing in the FDS by making it available earlier than decade 2 (2028-2038).

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD)

4.17    The NPSUD came into force on 20 August 2020.

4.18    The NPSUD contains eight objectives and 11 policies, supported by implementation methods, for planning for well-functioning urban environments under the RMA.

4.19    The key policies relevant to this PPC are:

Policy 8: Local authority decisions affecting urban environments are responsive to plan changes that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments, even if the development capacity is:

(a)     unanticipated by RMA planning documents; or

(b)     out-of-sequence with planned land release.

Policy 1: Planning decisions contribute to well-functioning urban environments, which are urban environments that, as a minimum:

(a)     have or enable a variety of homes that:

(i) meet the needs, in terms of type, price, and location, of different households; and

(ii) enable Māori to express their cultural traditions and norms; and

(b)     have or enable a variety of sites that are suitable for different business sectors in terms of location and site size; and

(c)     have good accessibility for all people between housing, jobs, community services, natural spaces, and open spaces, including by way of public or active transport; and

(d)     support, and limit as much as possible adverse impacts on, the competitive operation of land and development markets; and

(e)     support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and

(f)      are resilient to the likely current and future effects of climate change.

4.20    Clause 3.8 in Subpart 2 – Responsive Planning sets out matters that the Council must have particular regard to if it receives a plan change covered by Policy 8.

4.21    Clauses 3.8(2) and (3) state:

(2)      Every local authority must have particular regard to the development capacity provided by the plan change if that development capacity:

(a)   would contribute to a well-functioning urban environment; and

(b)   is well-connected along transport corridors; and

(c)   meets the criteria set under subclause (3); and

(3)      Every regional council must include criteria in its regional policy statement for determining what plan changes will be treated, for the purpose of implementing Policy 8, as adding significantly to development capacity.

4.22    These policies direct that councils are responsive to PPCs that would add significantly to development capacity, where they also contribute to well-functioning urban environments, regardless of whether they are planned for or not.

4.23    In this instance, the proposal is anticipated as a ‘Development Area’ in the Draft Nelson Plan, meaning it requires a subsequent plan change to rezone and enable development; and is already included in the FDS.  It is out-of-sequence with the planned land release and would bring this forward. It would contribute an additional 750[8] (approx.) household unit development capacity.

Housing and Business Capacity Assessment Report 2021

4.24    The Council adopted the Nelson City Council Housing and Business Capacity Assessment Report 2021 (the HBA) on 12 August 2021. Table 1 of that report sets out projected demand for housing by household for each of the short, medium, and long term periods in comparison to the City’s capacity to provide for future dwellings in Nelson to 2051.

Table 1: Housing demand and capacity to 2051

 

Period

Demand (household) per period

Sufficient capacity (dwellings) for period

Difference for period

Short-term (1-3 years)

521

1,876

1,355

Medium-term (4-10 years)

2,554

1,894

-660

Long-term (11-30 years)

4,950

3,391

-1,559

Total

8,025

7,161

Deficit of -864

4.25    The executive summary of the report explains that there is sufficient housing capacity in Nelson in the short term. In the medium term, while there is a projected shortfall of 660 dwellings, this is accommodated by a surplus of capacity in the short term. In the long term, there is a projected shortfall of 864 dwellings, taking surplus and deficits of the previous periods into account.

4.26    The summary also notes that should this PPC be approved, demand is expected to exceed supply in around 2043, instead of 2039 (based on the PPC supplying an additional 300 dwellings rather than more). Although 2039 has been identified as the pinch point where demand will start to exceed supply the demand-supply margin becomes constrained some years earlier.

National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management

4.27    The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) came into force on 3 September 2020. The NPSFM contains one objective and 15 policies. The objective states:

(1) The objective of this National Policy Statement is to ensure  that natural and physical resources are managed in a way that prioritises:

(a)     first, the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems

(b)     second, the health needs of people (such as drinking water)

(c)     third, the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, now and in the future.

4.28    The policies are listed below:

Policy 1:        Freshwater is managed in a way that gives effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

Policy 2:        Tangata whenua are actively involved in freshwater management (including decision-making processes), and Māori freshwater values are identified and provided for.

Policy 3:        Freshwater is managed in an integrated way that considers the effects of the use and development of land on a whole-of-catchment basis, including the effects on receiving environments.

Policy 4:        Freshwater is managed as part of New Zealand’s integrated response to climate change.

Policy 5:        Freshwater is managed through a National Objectives Framework to ensure that the health and well-being of degraded water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is improved, and the health and well-being of all other water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is maintained and (if communities choose) improved.

Policy 6:        There is no further loss of extent of natural inland wetlands, their values are protected, and their restoration is promoted.

Policy 7:        The loss of river extent and values is avoided to the extent practicable.

Policy 8:        The significant values of outstanding water bodies are protected.

Policy 9:        The habitats of indigenous freshwater species are protected.

Policy 10:      The habitat of trout and salmon is protected, insofar as this is consistent with Policy 9.

Policy 11:      Freshwater is allocated and used efficiently, all existing over-allocation is phased out, and future over-allocation is avoided.

Policy 12:      The national target (as set out in Appendix 3) for water quality improvement is achieved.

Policy 13:      The condition of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems is systematically monitored over time, and action is taken where freshwater is degraded, and to reverse deteriorating trends.

Policy 14:      Information (including monitoring data) about the state of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems, and the challenges to their health and well-being, is regularly reported on and published.

Policy 15:      Communities are enabled to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being in a way that is consistent with this National Policy Statement.

4.29    The Council is required to give effect to the NPSFM by way of preparing a freshwater planning instrument and publicly notifying no later than 31 December 2024. Part 3 of the NPSFM sets out how local authorities must implement it. The applicant has addressed the NPSFM in the PPC request, while noting that the PPC request is to change the District Plan component of the NRMP. The NPSFM will still need to be considered through the regional consenting process.


 

National Environmental Standards

4.30    There are two National Environmental Standards that are relevant to the PPC request:

4.30.1 National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES-CS); and

4.30.2 National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-FW).

4.31    The NES-CS will require the applicant to obtain resource consent for any disturbance to contaminated land and does not impact on the PPC request itself.

4.32    The NES-FW specifically applies to Council’s functions under s30 of the RMA and as such are not as relevant to this PPC request to the District Plan components of the NRMP. The review of the application has confirmed that the applicant has taken the NES-FW into consideration in preparing the request.

Nelson Resource Management Plan and Regional Policy Statement

4.33    The Nelson Regional Policy Statement 1997 (RPS) and Nelson Resource Management Plan 2012 (NRMP) are primary RMA planning documents.

4.34    Chapter 6, Development and Hazards, of the RPS sets out the relevant objective and policies relating to urban expansion. Objective DH1.2.1 sits at a high level:

To avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of urban expansion on the sustainable management of natural and physical resources including rural land uses.

4.35    Policies DH1.3.1 to DH1.3.4, which are set out in full in Appendix 2, provide more direction and guidance on how to achieve the objective. In summary, these require:

4.35.1 the identification of features and values of significance and ensure that these are appropriately protected;

4.35.2 that community expectations are had regard to when determining the extent and location of urban expansion;

4.35.3 that when expansion is determined to have greater net benefit than intensification, that the most appropriate form of urban expansions is provided for, taking into account a list of 17 different matters; and

4.35.4 that any proposals have adequate and appropriate provision for infrastructure.

4.36    As such, the RPS anticipates plan changes to rezone land for urban development.

4.37    In terms of the NRMP, the part of the site located closest to the Maitai River is zoned Rural Small Holdings, with the balance of the site zoned Rural. The Rural Small Holdings Zone provides for a minimum lot size of 5,000m2 and an average lot size of 1ha. The Rural Zone provides for a 15ha minimum lot size. Overall, it is estimated that approximately 50 lots could be created on the site under the existing zoning.

5.       Section 32 evaluation

5.1      Clause 25(1A) requires that the local authority must have particular regard to the evaluation report prepared for the PPC in accordance with clause 22(1) when determining whether to adopt, accept, reject or convert the request.

5.2      The applicant has provided a section 32 evaluation report with the request, as Attachment D. Officers consider that the evaluation report addresses the relevant tests under section 32 of the RMA in terms of the appropriateness of the objective(s) to achieve the purpose of the Act and whether the proposed provisions are the most appropriate means to achieve the objective(s). The applicant has undertaken an analysis of the different options available to pursuing a PPC request in order to achieve the stated issues of house prices and reduced affordability, caused by sustained and recent population growth and forecast population growth.[9] 

5.3      Having reviewed the section 32 evaluation report, officers consider that it demonstrates at a coarse level, that the PPC request is an appropriate RMA response and can achieve the purpose of the RMA. A more substantive evaluation of the section 32 report would occur through the formal RMA process, should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

6.       Discussion

Commissioners

6.1      Recommendation 3 proposes that independent accredited commissioners are appointed to consider the PPC and to make recommendations to the Council.  This is a complex RMA matter and a highly technical PPC requiring sound understanding of legislation and Government policies.  There is a high level of public interest in this matter which will attract scrutiny on the RMA process.  For these reasons it is considered appropriate that independent accredited commissioners are appointed. 


 

Private Plan Change Request

6.2      Section 73 of the RMA provides that any person may request a change to a district plan and the plan may be changed in the manner set out in the First Schedule of the RMA. The first step in the process is that the Council must consider the request and how it will be dealt with.  This is the clause 25 decision.

6.3      Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the Council to do one of four things with this PPC:

6.3.1   Adopt it in whole or in part as if it were a plan change by Council itself, and notify it as a Council initiated plan change; or

6.3.2   Accept it in whole or in part, which allows it to proceed as a PPC through the normal submission and decision process (it is notified as a PPC); or

6.3.3   Decide to deal with it as a resource consent (convert to a resource consent); or

6.3.4   Reject it in whole or in part on the grounds set out in clause 25(4)(a)-(e) of Schedule 1 of the RMA (and only on those grounds).

6.4      If the Council decides to adopt the plan change, it is treated as if it is a plan change made by the Council itself. The plan change must be publicly notified within four months of adoption and follow the process set out in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the RMA. All costs associated with the plan change would be borne by Council and not CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited, unless agreed otherwise.  For the reasons set out in paragraphs 9.5 and 9.6, officers recommend the PPC should not be adopted.

6.5      If the Council decides to accept the plan change (as opposed to adopt) then Council agrees that the plan change can proceed to notification. As the clause 25 decision is made prior to public notification of the PPC there are no submissions, evidence or full analysis from the Council officers or experts engaged by Council.  It is accordingly described by the High Court as a 'coarse filter'[10] of the PPC - in effect, a screening exercise.  It is not the Council’s full merits decision based on all relevant submissions and information.  This consideration occurs at the Commissioner Hearing on the plan change.

6.6      If accepted under clause 25, the process then follows the PPC decision-making procedures set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule of the RMA. The request must be publicly notified within four months of Council agreeing to accept the request. The plan change remains a PPC. Under this option, all costs associated with the plan change are borne by the person who made the request, in this case CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 9.5 to 9.9, officers recommend the PPC should be accepted.

6.7      Irrespective of whether a decision to accept or adopt is made (i.e. what path the request takes) the proposed plan change will be considered fully by the Council as to whether it is necessary and appropriate ((in this case delegated to Hearing Commissioners) and (if appealed) the Environment Court.  The fact that the request was adopted or accepted under clause 25 is irrelevant to the substantive assessment.

6.8      The third option the Council has under clause 25 is to convert the PPC request into a resource consent application. This means that the application goes through the usual resource consent procedures of notification, submissions, hearing, decision, and appeal. This option would not change the current zoning of the site and the proposal would have to be considered under the existing provisions of the NRMP.  For the reasons set out in paragraph 9.4, officers recommend that there are no reasons to support converting the request to a resource consent.

6.9      The final option under clause 25 is for Council to reject the plan change request. The only grounds for rejection are listed in Clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA. They are limited to:

6.9.1   The request is in whole or in part, frivolous or vexatious; or

6.9.2   The substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the local authority or Environment Court within the last two years or has been given effect to by Regulations; or

6.9.3   The request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

6.9.4   The request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA; or

6.9.5   The plan has been operative for less than two years.

6.10    These narrow grounds for rejecting a plan change reflect that this stage of the process is simply to determine whether a request should proceed to full consideration, through the process of notification, submissions and determination of the merits, but it is not determinative of the outcome (i.e., whether the plan change is ultimately approved or not).  Officers recommend that there are no legally defensible grounds for rejecting the PPC and this is discussed further at paragraphs 9.1 to 9.3. 

6.11    If the Council decides to reject the PPC request the applicant can appeal that decision to the Environment Court or challenge Council’s decision on procedural grounds by way of High Court judicial review.

6.12    Accepting the PPC will allow the community the opportunity to submit on the request through a formal RMA process. The Council would also retain the right to lodge submissions or further submissions to ensure there is sufficient scope to support amendments to the PPC.

6.13    Finally, the applicant has formally sought that the PPC request be accepted, and not adopted, by Council. They have also provided their views that there are no valid grounds for it to be rejected in whole or in part and it is not a proposal that could be processed as an application for resource consent, as it has not been designed to the standard required for that to occur.

           Views of those affected / consultation

6.14    If the recommendation to accept the request for notification is agreed by Council, the content of the PPC will be subject to statutory consultative provisions of the RMA where the opportunity for public involvement is mandatory. There is a requirement to publicly notify the PPC and serve notice on all directly affected parties, who will then have the opportunity to lodge submissions, further submissions and be heard at a hearing.

6.15    The PPC request identifies that the applicant has consulted with the Council in preparing the PPC. Section 2.4, Consultation, of the PPC sets out who the applicant has consulted with, and it includes Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui iwi[11], Department of Conservation, Waka Kotahi - New Zealand Transport Agency, Heritage Pouhere Taonga New Zealand,  Residents of Ralphine Way, Community Housing Organisations, Community Action Nelson, Network Tasman Ltd, Friends of the Maitai and Commerce Nelson.

6.16    Prior to receiving the PPC, the Council received a petition from Save the Maitai Inc. Received in November 2020, the petition outlined opposition to the Development Area contained in the Draft Nelson Plan and anticipated development in Kaka Valley. The petition contained 9,636 signatures at the time it was presented.

7.       Local Government Act decision making principles

7.1      The Council is required to apply the decision-making principles in Part 6 of the LGA02 to every decision made by it, unless they are inconsistent with specific requirements in the relevant Act under which it is making a decision (in this case, the RMA). 

7.2      Section 79(2)(c) of the LGA02 requires that when Council is making a judgement about how to achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78 of the LGA02, it must have regard to the nature and circumstances in which a decision is taken.  Section 79(3) provides that:

3.    The nature and circumstances of a decision referred to in subsection 2(c) include the extent to which the requirements for such decision-making are prescribed in or under any other enactment (for example, the Resource Management Act 1991).

7.3      This clause 25 decision is a process decision only in Council's capacity as regulator and the decision-making options are set out in clause 25 itself.  The significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the PPC that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA.  On that basis, officers recommend that consultation under the LGA on this process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

8.       Options

8.1      The available options for deciding how this PPC request is processed, and their respective advantages and disadvantages, are summarised below:

 

Option 1: Adopt the PPC

Advantages

·   Council controls what is notified and its scope and the process.

·   Aligned with Council’s FDS, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes.

·   Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD.

·    Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Council has to take the position that it supports the plan change at a policy level as it adopts it as “if it were its own”.

·   Council bears the cost and potential legal challenges.

·   The decision could be challenged through the Courts and Council would be vulnerable if it rejected the PPC on unreasonable grounds that do not accord with the criteria in the RMA.

Option 2: Accept the PPC

Advantages

·    The applicant bears the cost of the complete plan change process (including costs for hearings, experts and costs associated with the resolution of any appeals).

·   Council would be supporting the implementation of its FDS, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes.

·   Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD.

·   Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    The decision could be challenged through the Courts and Council would be vulnerable if it rejected the PPC on unreasonable grounds that are not in accordance with the criteria in the RMA.

 

Option 3: Reject the PPC

Advantages

·    Limited impact on Council resources and capacity to process the PPC.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    The decision could be challenged through the Courts and Council would be vulnerable if it rejected the PPC on unreasonable grounds that are not in the accordance with the criteria in the RMA.

·    The Council could be seen as not implementing or supporting its own FDS Strategy.

·    May affect long term housing supply/capacity and out of alignment with NPSUD requirements.

Option 4: Convert the PPC to a resource consent

Advantages

·    This removes the need for a PPC and could achieve a faster decision for the applicant (if there are no appeals).

·    Capacity may be delivered to the market faster.

Risks and Disadvantages

·    This may not be the most appropriate vehicle to achieve the outcome sought by the applicant, as the application may not sit comfortably with the current Plan provisions.

·    This is not the option sought by the applicant, and they may choose to appeal.

·    The decision could be challenged through the Courts.

9.       Recommendation

9.1      In respect of the five grounds on which a request can be rejected, as set out in paragraphs 6.8 to 6.10, neither (2) or (5) apply (relating to the substance of the request being previously considered within the last 2 years or the NRMP being operative less than 2 years). In terms of the other three grounds:

9.1.1   The request is frivolous or vexatious. In this case, the request is not frivolous. The applicant provided supporting technical information and the PPC has a resource management purpose. The request is not vexatious. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a PPC request.

9.1.2   The request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice.  The 'coarse grain' assessment of the request (as required at this stage of the PPC process) does not indicate that the PPC is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. Whether the PPC request’s objectives are the most appropriate way of achieving the promotion of sustainable management will be tested through the submission and hearing processes. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out in sections 6 to 8. In respect of these Part 2 matters, the PPC proposes to rezone private property to enable its development for additional housing to provide for the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the community. The initial review of the PPC has at a coarse level identified that any adverse effects will be able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated, either through the PPC itself or subsequent resource consents. At a coarse level, the PPC demonstrates that it generally responds to the principles in sections 6 to 8, which will be able to be evaluated through a subsequent process.  Having reviewed the applicant's expert reports, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the PPC request, and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, officers consider the PPC request is in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c), Schedule 1.

9.1.3   The request would not make the Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. District plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents and not be inconsistent with any regional plan. The relevant sections in Part 5 are determined by the nature of the PPC: The PPC only proposes to amend district plan provisions.

9.1.4   The objective of the PPC is to rezone the properties to enable residential housing and to take advantage of the location of the site. The proposed zoning at a coarse level appears to give effect to both the RPS and NPSUD in this regard.

9.2      In respect to Clause 23 and the provision of further information, there are some areas where officers consider that the applicant has not provided all the further information sought in the Council’s request (with the applicant stating that it will be provided at a later date).  However, these elements can be addressed at a later stage, if the request progresses. Officers consider there is sufficient information to enable a clause 25 decision to be made.  Some of the elements, such as the description of landscape effects on the proposed Residential Zone Lower Density Area above Walter’s Bluff, the likely level of visual effects on private views and managing areas identified as having high geotechnical risk, would assist in assessing the extent of effects associated with the request. However, it is considered that these are not of a substantive nature that would warrant the request being rejected, and an effects assessment is part of the substantive decision on the PPC and any resource consents that follow.  Officers consider these are matters that can either be addressed before public notification, should it be accepted, or through the formal Schedule 1 process.

9.3      For these reasons, officers recommend that there are no grounds under the RMA to reject the PPC.

9.4      Officers consider that converting the request to a resource consent is not appropriate resource management practice as the NRMP zone provisions would not support the outcome sought by the PPC and the proposal is not in a form that would enable it to proceed through a resource consent process.  Further, the applicant would not support that approach and indeed it provides no benefit to either the applicant or community.

9.5      In respect of whether the Council should consider adoption or accepting the PPC:

9.5.1   Officer's consider that the proposal is generally aligned with the NRMP’s approach to sustainable management, in that it follows the same approach to other new development areas that have been included in the NRMP and it would be subject to the NRMP provisions.

9.5.2   It generally aligns with the ambitions of the FDS and higher order documents.

9.5.3   The applicant’s technical documents show that the PPC area would be able to be serviced by infrastructure.

9.5.4   There is a high level of public interest in the PPC request.

9.5.5   The request itself is not complex.

9.5.6   The applicant would not necessarily benefit from Council co-ordinating the PPC process.

9.5.7   The applicant has requested that the PPC be accepted and not adopted.

9.5.8   Council meets all the costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted.  If accepted, the applicant bears those costs.

9.6      Officer's do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the Council to adopt the PPC request as its own. Adopting the PPC would mean that the Council would attract all costs associated with its resourcing and associated costs and Council would need to be satisfied that it supports the plan change at a policy level. Adoption would also place the Planning Policy Team under additional pressure given the current Nelson Plan review process. Accepting the PPC request allows the applicant the ability to have the request tested and considered against the RMA requirements, it also allows the community, iwi and relevant stakeholders to participate in that process and for Council to on-charge its costs to the applicant.

9.7      As outlined earlier, accepting the PPC request does not pre-empt the final outcome of the PPC through the formal Schedule 1 RMA process and the decision of the Hearings Panel.

9.8      Accepting a PPC also allows the Council to maintain its regulatory position, as well as providing the Council the opportunity to submit on it, so that it can seek changes as appropriate.  If it chooses to do so, the purpose of the Council submitting on the PPC would ensure jurisdiction (scope) for seeking any necessary changes to be made at the substantive hearing.

9.9      Overall, it is recommended that the PPC be accepted for processing under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

10.     Conclusion

10.1    CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited has applied to the Council for a PPC request to the NRMP and seek that it be accepted by the Council for processing under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

10.2    Of the four options available to the Council under Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, it is recommended that there are no grounds for rejecting the request or converting it to a resource consent and that PPC request be accepted for processing rather than adopted as a Council initiated plan change.

11.     Next Steps

11.1    If the Council accepts the PPC request, Officers will prepare it for public notification and publicly notify it within four months of the date of acceptance.

 


 

Author:          Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2737849 - Appendix 2 - PPC28 - Relevant RPS objective, policies and methods - 31Aug21  

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Council has duties and obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 to make decisions on private plan change applications. The decision recommended in this report fits with the purpose of the Local Government Act as it will enable the community to be consulted on this plan change, which will allow the Council to make decisions on behalf of the community to promote its social, environmental, economic and cultural well-being.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The relevant community outcome is:

Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed.  Nelson is a well-planned district with a carefully managed urban intensification and a clear urban/rural boundary.  …We work with our partners to support the development of a range of affordable, healthy and energy-efficient housing in our residential areas. Good urban design and thoughtful planning create safe, accessible public spaces for people of all ages, abilities and interests.

Enabling the matter to proceed through the RMA process will meet this outcome.

Consistent with Council meeting relevant Government legislation including the RMA and LGA. 

3.   Risk

The decision to accept, adopt, reject or convert the Private Plan Change request involves a risk of potential judicial review of the decision by any interested party and appeal by the PPC applicant.  Other risks associated with the environment, culture and heritage, and health & safety will be assessed in the substantive decision in the Plan Change, if accepted or adopted.

4.   Financial impact

If the PPC is accepted, then the costs associated with processing the Plan Change are borne by the applicant.  No additional funding is sought as a consequence of this decision.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This decision is of low- medium significance according to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because:

·    it does not involve the sale of a strategic asset;

·    does not impact on levels of service or the way services are delivered

·    does not impact on council’s debt or the level or rates it charges

·    the impact on the community from this decision is minimal. It is the substantive decision on the Plan Change that will consider the effects of the development on the environment, including communities

·    the decision furthers Council’s Future Development Strategy identification of this location as potential area for growth.

·    While the substantive issues in the Plan Change are expected to generate wide public interest, the decision to accept or adopt enables the community to make submissions under Schedule 1 of the RMA.

The decision to accept, adopt, reject or convert can be considered irreversible, except by way of judicial review.

Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the substantive content of the Plan Change to be consulted on, including receiving and hearing submissions from the public.

The significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the PPC that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA.  On that basis, officers recommend that consultation under the LGA on this process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

6.   Climate Impact

The decision to accept, adopt, reject or convert the Private Plan Change request does not have a specific climate impact.

The substantive content of the plan change includes considerations of climate change impacts and will be considered as part of the RMA Schedule 1 process.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

The application sets out pre-engagement with iwi on the content of the Plan Change.

8.   Delegations

5.2.2 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. 

The Chair of the Environment and Climate Committee will report to the following meeting of the committee regarding the reason for doing so, and the outcome of the matter at the Council meeting.

Environment and Climate Committee

Areas of Responsibility:

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

Delegations:

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

 

 

 


Item 6: Request for a Private Plan Change: Maitahi/Bayview: Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 8: Mayor’s Report

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26217

Mayor's Report

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To update Council on current matters

 

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Mayor's Report (R26217) and its attachment (A2724500); and

2.    Approves, retrospectively, Council’s submission to the Department of Internal Affairs - Māori ward process alignment phase 2 (A2724500).

 

 

3.       Changes to Māori Ward and constituency processes – Stage 2 consultation

3.1      In February 2021 the Minister of Local Government announced that the Government would take a two-stage approach to improving the legislative framework for Māori wards.

3.2      In Stage 1, the Government introduced legislation to remove all mechanisms for holding binding polls on Māori wards. The Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act came into effect on 2 March 2021.

3.3      The Stage 2 work will further align the process for establishing Māori wards with the process for establishing general wards. Six primary areas of remaining misalignment have been identified by the Department of Internal Affairs, and submissions sought on each topic. This consultation provides a further opportunity for Nelson City Council to continue its advocacy to government on Māori representation issues. Due to the timing of the consultation period in relation to Councils’ meetings, a pro forma submission was lodged on the closing date of 27 August 2021, pending Council’s resolution.

3.4      The draft submission (Attached A2724500) presents views which are in keeping with Council’s position on Māori representation to date, promote the goal of consistency between the legislative processes, and align with the general view of the sector (as outlined in a submission from Taituarā).

4.       Covid Emergency Fund

4.1      In September 2021 three grants were approved from the Covid-19 Emergency Fund for community organisations as follows:

•  Nelson Musical Theatre:                                                      $ 3,000

•  Nelson Historic Theatre Trust (Theatre Royal):                      $20,000

•  The White House                                                                $ 2,000        

Total:                                                                                   $25,000

 

4.2      $30,329 remains unallocated in the Covid-19 Emergency Fund for Community Organisations.

 

Author:          Rachel Reese, Mayor of Nelson

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2724500 Submission to DIA - Maori ward process alignment phase 2 27Aug2021   


Item 8: Mayor’s Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 9: Council – Status Report – September 2021

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26080

Council - Status Report - September 2021

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide a status update to Council.

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Council - Status Report - September 2021 (R26080) and its attachment (A1168168).

 

 

 

Author:          Elaine Stephenson, Governance Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A1168168 - Council Status Report - 23 September 2021   


Item 9: Council – Status Report – September 2021: Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 10: Nelson Central Library – Flood Mitigation Plan

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26048

Nelson Central Library - Flood Mitigation Plan

 

 

1.       Purpose of report

1.1      To present the results of flood modelling of the proposed site for the Nelson Central Library development.

1.2      To accept the Flood Mitigation Plan and to agree that flood management elements be incorporated in the design brief.

2.       Summary

2.1      As part of the approval process for the development of the new Nelson Central Library (library), Council asked for a Flood Mitigation Plan (FMP) to be prepared, so that it could better understand the potential impacts of the development on flood levels, both on-site and on adjacent sites.

2.2      Five scenarios were modelled by Council’s consultants, with these showing that the proposed footprint has minimal impact on flood levels within adjacent sites and for some scenarios show an improvement in flooding levels. If secondary flow paths are incorporated into the design, the development has some positive benefits in allowing water to drain from Halifax Street.

2.3      It is appropriate that the design brief for the library incorporates the recommendations from the FMP to ensure these benefits are realised.

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Flood Mitigation Plan (R26048) and its attachment (A2733041); and

2.    Agrees that the flood modelling presented in the Nelson Central Library Redevelopment - Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041) demonstrates that the proposed Nelson Central Library development (corner of Trafalgar/Halifax Streets) has negligible effect on adjacent properties if design and landscape features are incorporated into the design brief; and

3.    Approves the Nelson Central Library Development Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041); and

4.    Notes that further community consultation is programmed to be carried out in relation to the wider issue of central city flood risk and possible mitigation options.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      Council consulted on development options for its central library through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP). A deliberations report (R24785) was received by Council on 18 May 2021. Having considered that report, and the submissions it received, the Council resolved to:

Resolved CL/2021/001

That the Council

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 completion of a flood mitigation plan for the proposed building footprint including consideration of effects on adjoining sites.

4.2      This report specifically addresses the requirement of a FMP mentioned in the above resolution.

4.3      Council also identified reporting requirements in relation to several other issues, that will be the subject of separate reports to Council, including:

4.3.1   The land exchange negotiation (subject of a separate report on this agenda);

4.3.2   Quality assurance framework (subject of a separate report on this agenda);

4.3.3   The allocation of community space;

4.3.4   Climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability objectives; and

4.3.5   Housing opportunities.

5.       Discussion

5.1      Tonkin & Taylor Ltd was commissioned to run flood modelling scenarios to assess the impacts of the library development on the preferred site (corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street). This modelling methodology and results have been peer reviewed by Stantec Ltd.

5.2      A baseline model was created to represent the existing situation and building configuration on two scenarios – predicted present-day flood depths from a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) river flood event, and a 1% AEP flood event in 2130 incorporating RCP 8.5M climate change projections and sea level rise.

5.3      Five scenarios for the proposed library development were then modelled, with results compared to the baseline model to assess whether potential flood impacts on the site and adjacent sites were positive (i.e. reduced flooding); neutral (no significant impact on flood levels), or negative (causing increased flood depths). The five scenarios modelled were:

5.3.1   Scenario 1: A ‘worst case’ model which assumes all of the site bordered by Trafalgar, Halifax and Tahaki Streets is built up, obstructs all flood flows and displaces flood volume to surrounding areas – as noted this is the worst possible scenario and is not a scenario anticipated;

5.3.2   Scenario 2: Existing Burger King building and the small building between Findex and the pocket park removed, and two new library buildings added (as per initial concepts for the site) with no secondary flow path;

5.3.3   Scenario 3: As per Scenario 2 plus the inclusion of a secondary flow path through the site at approximate RL 3.0m;

5.3.4   Scenario 4: As per Scenario 3 plus the removal of the existing library building;

5.3.5   Scenario 5: As per Scenario 4 plus the inclusion of a Climatorium building (as per initial concepts for the site).

5.4      Each scenario was run assuming a present-day 1% AEP flood event, and a 1% AEP flood event in 2130 incorporating RCP 8.5M climate change impacts on rainfall and sea level rise.

5.5      It is important to note that Council does not have a final design for the library. The model scenarios have been based on initial concepts and are used on a ‘bulk and location’ basis, taking into account the expected footprint of the buildings. There is no commitment at this stage to the two-building footprint that has been modelled, or to specific building shapes and locations.

5.6      It is also important to note that Council has a separate programme of work to consider Maitai River flood management options for the wider central city. That issue will be subject to separate community consultation and any mitigation works carried out are likely to provide further flood protection for the library site. The model scenarios presented in this report have assumed no such mitigation works are in place.

6.       River flood model results

6.1      The FMP is attached (attachment 1) and contains the baseline model results and the results from the five scenarios. Each are discussed in turn below.

Baseline model

6.2      The baseline model shows the flooding that is predicted for a 1% AEP river flood event, both present day and in 2130. The key points to note are:

6.2.1   The flood map shows present-day flood depths of up to 1.0m in low-lying surrounding areas, including the current library/supermarket car park on Tahaki Street, and approximately 0.5m depth on Halifax Street;

6.2.2   The preferred site is not currently flooded, due to it being relatively higher than adjacent areas;

6.2.3   By 2130, a similar 1% AEP event could result in up to 1.7m flood depth on Tahaki Street and 1.2m depth on Halifax Street.

6.3      This flood model is currently being used to generate flood overlays for the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan. Council also has a separate programme of engagement and works budget within the LTP to address Maitai flood risk to the central city and the Wood.

          Model results – scenarios modelling

6.4      The modelled scenarios present information graphically that shows the difference in flood levels from baseline. Areas which are shaded white are where the concept library development causes neither positive (less depth of flooding) or negative (greater depth of flooding) impact, i.e. flood levels are within ±5mm of what they would be under the current building layout.

6.5      Areas shaded green are those areas which would experience lower flood levels under each of the development scenarios. Areas shaded yellow to red would experience greater flood depths. In some areas, increased flood depth is shown due to the lowering of ground level in the scenario, for instance, where a formed secondary flow path through the site has been represented. Where the scenario shows a present-day building being removed, relative flood depths will also be shown as higher because the removal of the building allows water to flow into the space, where previously in the baseline it could not. Conversely, construction of a new building in the scenario prevents entry of water flow and so has a positive impact (reduced flood depth).

6.6      The results from the Scenario 1 ‘worst case’ model show that an impervious (solid) block build on the site would exacerbate upstream flooding (Trafalgar Street, Millers Acre and Halifax Street) in 2130 by between 50 and 100mm. This type of development would block a flow path back to the river, resulting in the increased flood depth shown. As noted, this is not the intention, and this is purely a worst-case scenario.

6.7      Scenario 2 ‘no secondary flowpath’ modelling shows more limited upstream flooding, again in the range of only between 50 and 100mm in 2130.

6.8      The inclusion of a secondary flow path through the site in Scenario 3 significantly reduces upstream flood depths in 2130. Increased flood depths of between 50 and 100mm are restricted to a limited area of road reserve on Trafalgar Street.

6.9      Scenario 4 shows the impact of removing the existing library building. This has a positive benefit to Halifax Street and Civic House as this creates an additional secondary flow path for stormwater. Flood levels are decreased by between 50 and 250mm. There are no negative off-site impacts.

6.10    Finally, Scenario 5 shows that the construction of a proposed Climatorium adjacent to the library has no significant impact relative to Scenario 4, as secondary flow paths are provided for around the building. A positive impact on Halifax Street is noted, as per Scenario 4.

6.11    It should be noted that for all scenarios, the nature of flooding in the  central city west of Trafalgar Street is that of surface ponding in a basin, such that flood flow velocities reduce as water depth within the CBD increases during the flood event. Aside from the immediate vicinity of the riverbank, flow velocity remains low as flood water slowly drains following the event.

7.       Recommended mitigation

7.1      Based on the results from the scenario modelling, it is recommended that any design brief for the library development should incorporate the following:

7.1.1   A secondary flow path within the site to mitigate the risk of the development having an impact on upstream flood levels. This will provide benefits to adjacent areas in a flood event;

7.1.2   The building should have a minimum floor level of at least RL4.0m. This level is based on meeting RCP 8.5M projections for 2130; and

7.1.3   The ability to raise the floor level of the building in future once sea level rise exceeds 1.0m relative to the existing mean sea level[12]. This gives resiliency if sea level rise is greater than projected, including for the RCP 8.5H+ climate projection.

8.       Options

8.1      Council has asked for an FMP for its preferred site for the development of the Nelson Central Library. It can now either accept the FMP and its recommendations or decline to accept it and ask for further information.

8.2      Officers note that the FMP fulfils the requirements of the Council resolution and officers recommend that Council accept the recommendations of the FMP and that these be used to inform the design brief (Option 1).

 

Option 1: Accept the FMP. Recommended option.

Advantages

·   Allows further work on the library development to take place

·   Fulfils Council resolution and will allow the project to proceed to the next steps

·   Acknowledges that the modelling demonstrates that flood impacts on adjacent properties are minimal and can be managed

·   Recognises that further work on flood mitigation will be required once designs are finalised

·   Allows the design brief to include secondary flows paths at an early stage

Risks and Disadvantages

·   Secondary flow path in the design may limit design options but this is unlikely

Option 2: Decline to accept the FMP

Advantages

·    Allows Council to seek further information

Risks and Disadvantages

·    Council would need to articulate what other information it would need to proceed with the library development

·    There will be significant delays to the project as Council acceptance of the FMP is required as a condition of proceeding with the next stage of the project

 

9.       Conclusion

9.1      Council asked for further advice on flood management for the preferred library site. Modelling has shown that off-site effects are limited and can be mitigated by the incorporation of design features. Similarly, on-site flood risk can be mitigated through building design and adaptability.

10.     Next steps

10.1    Council will receive a series of other reports on different aspects of the Nelson Central Library development project, including:

10.1.1 Housing options;

10.1.2 Project team structure and quality assurance;

10.1.3 Land exchange negotiations;

10.1.4 Community engagement; and

10.1.5 Design brief.

10.2    The recommendations from this report, if adopted, will inform the design brief.

10.3    Further flood mitigation work will be commissioned once the final building footprint(s) have been determined. These reports will take account of changes in requirements, including any updated central government requirements, and will form part of Council’s resource consent application for the library development.

 

Author:          Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2733041 - Tonkin and Taylor - Nelson Central Library Redevelopment - Flood Mitigation Plan - 25Aug2021  

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with purpose of Local Government

The provision of library services is a core function of local government. This report contains advice that demonstrates that the proposed library building can be designed in a manner that does not cause significant environmental effects in relation to stormwater movement and flooding. The project meets all the well-beings in the areas of environmental, economic, cultural, environment and social.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report was requested by the Council as part of a suite of reports required to give effect to its Long Term Plan 2021-31 decision in relation to the library development. The recommendations in this report fit with the following community outcomes:

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

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

•      Our communities are healthy, safe, and resilient

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

3.   Risk

This report deals with the specific risk of the library development causing flood impacts on adjacent sites. The report makes recommendations in relation to the design of the building and surrounding landscaping that can mitigate the identified risk.

4.   Financial impact

This recommendation has no financial impact. The library development is a budgeted project in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because Council has already consulted on this location as its preferred site for the library through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 process. The community will have access to the information contained within this report as part of the wider communication strategy in relation to the project.

6.   Climate impact

Current and future climate change impacts have been factored into the modelling used in this report. The recommendations include a trigger point for future adaptation of library floor levels to respond to sea level rise if required. Design recommendations will ensure that secondary flow paths are included within the design brief to allow for predicted secondary flows through the site.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

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

8.   Delegations

Decisions on the Nelson Central Library development project are matters reserved for Council.

 


Item 10: Nelson Central Library – Flood Mitigation Plan: Attachment 1 A2733041

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Item 11: Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26167

Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

To provide a revised sequential timetable for Council to make decisions in relation to the new Nelson Central Library Development.

2.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline  (R26167); and

2.    Amends clause 4 of resolution CL/2021/090 made during the 18-20 May 2021 Council meeting:

Confirms that, on completion of negotiations:

·    Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication strategy and engagement plan), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping, noting that this work will run in parallel with land exchange negotiations; and

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      At the Council meeting held on 18-20 May 2021, in Report R24785 Elma Turner Library – Deliberations on Submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Business Case, it was resolved that the Council:

Resolved CL/2021/001

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 completion of a flood mitigation plan for the proposed building footprint including consideration of effects on adjoining sites; and

3.   Confirms that, prior to negotiations taking place:

·    Council will approve the land exchange negotiating team and its brief; and

4.   Confirms that, on completion of negotiations:

·    Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication strategy), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping; and

5.   Notes that under best practice a Quality Assurance Framework is used for the life of the project; and

6.   Confirms that prior to design

·    Council will approve the level of any shared community spaces (including provision for community organisations) in the library building project scope; and

·    Council will approve climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability objectives for the new library building and surrounding landscaping; and

7.   Notes the guiding principle of developing an accessible community space, and requests officers also consider housing opportunities in the planning process and to report to Council on considerations; and

8.   Confirms that, should negotiations with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange be unsuccessful, officers will seek confirmation from Council to proceed with Option Four – to construct a new high specification library on the current site; and

9.   Confirms that no financial contribution has been committed by Council to Wakatū Incorporation to support construction of the Climatorium.

4.       Discussion

4.1      There is a clear sequence of decisions contained within the resolutions passed by Council:

4.1.1   Resolution 2 states that the option to build the library requires agreement with Wakatū Incorporation on a land exchange involving that site and the current library site, and the completion of a flood mitigation plan;

4.1.2   Resolution 3 requires two decisions of Council before the negotiations commence; one to agree on the team, the other to agree on the initial negotiating position;

4.1.3   Resolution 4 requires further reports to be provided to Council on completion of negotiations;

4.1.4   Resolution 6 requires further approvals from Council to inform the design brief;

4.1.5   Resolution 7 requires a further report to Council as part of the planning process in relation to consideration of housing options.

4.2      At the Council workshop on 10 August, a presentation was given by Aesculus, which have been contracted by Council to provide project management advice. The elected memebrs heard that the timeline for the project was conservative, and that opportunities to speed up the programme would be explored. Aesculus has suggested that Council could save some time by allowing some of the reporting identified above to be carried out in parallel, rather than sequentially.

4.3      The key change recommended is that Resolution 4 is amended and replaced with the following resolution:

That the Council

      Confirms that:

Council will approve the community engagement process (including a communication and engagement plan), project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping, noting that this work will run in parallel with land exchange negotiations.

4.4      Negotiations may take several months to conclude. The current adopted resolution means that none of the preparatory work and initial engagement can be carried out until those negotiations are complete. Officers believe that it is preferable to carry out this work in parallel with negotiations in order to ensure the project can proceed quickly once negotiations are concluded, and to maximise opportunities for community engagement in the project planning process.

4.5      Other resolutions are unchanged. In line with resolution 2, a report on the flood mitigation plan is presented on the same Council agenda as this report.

4.6      Resolution 3 remains the same. A report on the composition of the negotiating team is on the public excluded agenda of this Council meeting. Once that team is appointed, it will assist Council officers to prepare the negotiating position, which will be reported back to Council in October 2021.

4.7      The remaining resolutions are also unchanged. In line with those, officers will bring reports to future Council meetings on:

·    The level of shared community space; and

·    Climate change mitigation and environmental sustainability objectives; and

·    Consideration of housing opportunities.

5.       Options

5.1      Council can either amend its previous decision and replace it with that recommended; or retain the existing resolution. The latter option will result in slower progress of the project and missed opportunities for community input to the project planning.

5.2      The recommended option is option 1. This allows for further preparatory work to be undertaken whilst negotiations are underway and will result in time savings for the project and expected benefits gained from earlier community engagement for the project.

 

Option 1: Amend the existing decision

Advantages

·   Enables planning work to be brought forward and engagement to begin prior to negotiations taking place

·   Reduced time between Council’s decision to proceed with the library development and starting a meaningful community engagement process for the project

Risks and Disadvantages

·   If negotiations are not successful, there is a risk that some effort will be wasted. However, officers will ensure that all preparatory work could be used to inform a different option for a new library

Option 2: Retain existing decision

Advantages

·    No work will be carried out prior to negotiations concluding

Risks and Disadvantages

·    This option will result in delays as none of the preparatory work identified in the existing resolution can take place until negotiations are completed

 

6.       Conclusion

6.1      Council articulated a specific progression of work on the Central Library Development project. Having analysed this, officers believe that there are time efficiencies and community engagement advantages to be gained by making a small change to the sequencing of work.

7.       Next Steps

7.1      If the recommended option is taken, officers will proceed with preparing reports on project management and governance approach, procurement process, financial management, and reporting and approvals processes for the proposed new library building and landscaping. These are expected to be presented to Council prior to negotiations concluding.

 

Author:          Andrew White, Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Nil

 

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 wellbeing of the Nelson community in the present and for the future.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is consistent with Long Term Plan 2021-31 and supports the community outcome that our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities.

3.   Risk

The recommended option seeks to reduce the risk of time delays on the project. There is a risk that if land exchange negotiations are unsuccessful, some of the preparatory work may not have been required. However, officers believe that such work will be substantially useful for a library development in another location.

4.   Financial Impact

Budget for the recommended option is included in the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

5.   Degree of Significance and Level of Engagement

This matter is of low significance as it relates to process rather than a substantive decision.  Further engagement on other aspects of the project will continue throughout the redevelopment process.

6.   Climate Impact

There is no climate impact from this decision.

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the Decision Making Process

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

8.   Delegations

Council has retained all responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters for the Nelson Central Library.

 

 


Item 12: Uniquely Nelson – Annual Report 2020/21

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R23760

Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21

     

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To receive Uniquely Nelson’s Annual Report.

 

     

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21 (R23760) and its attachment (A2739506); and

2.    Approves the Uniquely Nelson Annual Report as sufficient to provide Council with an overview of its activities during the 2020/21 year.

 

 

2. Background

2.1   Uniquely Nelson is an incorporated society governed by a Board and representing businesses and stakeholders in the City Centre. Its purpose is to promote Nelson City as a unique place to work, shop and enjoy spending time in. it provides the following services to Council:

 

·      Promote the city centre to current and potential users

·      Leverage opportunities to promote the city for events

·      Provide open communication with and between city centre stakeholders, Council and the Nelson Regional Development Agency

·      Assist and support the Council with the promotion of Nelson as the Smart Little City, particularly in the delivery of city centre work programmes

·      Work with Nelson City Council to support the delivery of Council’s vision for the city centre particularly through city centre and events work programmes

2.2   At its meeting of 20 June 2020 Council agreed to change the basis for the relationship with Uniquely Nelson from a memorandum of understanding to a contract. This was on the basis that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) didn’t provide sufficient clarity about Council’s expectations for Uniquely Nelson.

3. Discussion

3.1   Uniquely Nelson’s Annual Report for the 2020/21 year is attached. It provides information to meet the requirements of the contract i.e.

An annual report to be provided to Council by 30 September each year which includes:

·    A summary of Uniquely Nelson’s activities over the year

·    Performance against the key performance indicators

·    A summary of city centre health over the year, including accessible economic data and occupancy rates

·    Annual accounts

·    Performance against budget

·    Health and safety reporting

3.2   Simon Duffy, Manager Uniquely Nelson, and Chris Butler, Chair of the Uniquely Nelson Board will be present to speak to the Annual Report.

3.3   Officers consider the reporting this year is much more insightful and relevant for Council and shows the value of moving from an MOU to a contract and the greater clarity that has provided for Uniquely Nelson.

4. Options

4.1   Council has the option of approving the Uniquely Nelson Annual Report as sufficient to provide an overview of the activities undertaken in fulfilling the contract with Council (recommended). Alternatively, Council could ask for the Annual Report to be amended to provide more information on other topics or areas of activity.

Author:          Nicky McDonald, Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2739506 - Uniquely Nelson Annual Report 2020/21    


 

Item 12: Uniquely Nelson – Annual Report 2020/21: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 13: Three Waters Report Update

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R26075

Three Waters Reform Update

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide Council with updates on:

1.1.1   the Government’s 30 June 2021[13] and 15 July 2021[14] Three Waters Reform announcements, which proved additional information on the reform process previously outlined in 2020;

1.1.2   the specific data and modelling Council has received to date; 

1.1.3   the implications of the revised Three Waters Reform proposal for Council; and

1.1.4   next steps (including uncertainties).

1.2      To provide feedback to the Government on the proposed Three Waters Reform programme.

2.       Summary

2.1      Over the past four years central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters (drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater), following the Havelock North campylobacter outbreak in 2016. The background in Attachment 1 includes information on Taumata Arowai, which became a new Crown entity in March 2021 and will become the dedicated water services regulator later this year. 

2.2      The Government has concluded that the case for change[15] to the three waters service delivery system has been made (Attachment 2) and during June and July 2021 it released information and made announcements on:

2.2.1   the direction and form of Three Waters Reform, including four proposed new Water Service Entities (and their indicative boundaries), their governance arrangements and public ownership;

2.2.2   Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS) findings for individual councils based on the data/information supplied under the Request for Information (RFI) process by each council. Nelson City Council (NCC) was asked to undertake a deep dive under the RFI process;  

2.2.3   a package of investment ($2.5 billion) for councils to invest in the future for local government, urban development, and the wellbeing of communities and ensuring no council is worse off because of the reforms. Funding support is also being provided to support transition work (additional to the $2.5 billion package); and 

2.2.4   an eight-week process for councils to understand the implications of the reform announcements, ask questions and propose solutions and for Government to work with councils and mana whenua on key aspects of the reform (including governance, integrated planning and community voice).

2.3      Nelson City Council has been placed in Entity C and our “better-off” (Attachment 3) funding allocation is $20,715,034.

2.4      The Government and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) consider that the national case for change has been made. Each council will ultimately need to decide whether they agree with the Government’s proposal and its desirability in a local context (if the process remains voluntary) at a later date once the Government has announced the next steps including detail on the economic regulator and consumer forum. 

2.5      This report provides analysis of the information provided and assesses the Government’s proposal.

2.6      In preparing this report, officers have used the LGNZ, Taituarā, and Te Tari Taiwhenua Internal Affairs guidance[16] to assist Council to understand the information provided to date and enable Council to prepare for future decisions and consultation and engagement with the community.

2.7      Council commissioned Morrison Low to independently review NCC’s information (Attachment 4). LGNZ offered this service to support councils to understand how the dashboard information was put together and work through the implications at a local level. The review confirms that the Council specific information looks broadly correct.

2.8      Government decisions on entity boundaries, governance and transition and implementation arrangements will occur after the eight week process ends (30 September 2021). 

2.9      If the reform goes ahead, it is anticipated that councils will continue to deliver water services until at least early 2024 and council involvement in any transition will be required throughout. 

3.       Recommendation

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Three Waters Reform Update (R26075) and its attachments (A2734504, A2734513, A2734630, A2736353, A2734616, A2745775, A2745300, A2748814, and A2748820); and

2.    Notes the Government’s 30 June and 15 July 2021 Three Waters Reform announcements; and

3.    Notes Morrison Low’s advice on the accuracy of the information provided to Council in June and July 2021 as a result of the Request for Information and Water Industry Commission for Scotland modelling processes; and

4.    Notes the analysis of three water service delivery options available to Council at this time; and

5.    Notes that a decision to support, or not support, the Government’s preferred three waters service delivery option is not lawful (would be ultra vires) at present due to section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002, which prohibits Council from divesting its ownership or interest in a water service except to another local government organisation, and what Council currently know (and doesn’t know) about the Government’s preferred option; and

6.    Notes that Council cannot make a formal decision on a regional option for three waters service delivery without doing a Long Term Plan amendment and ensuring it meets section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

7.    Notes that Council intends to make further decisions about the three waters service delivery model after 30 September 2021; and

8.    Notes that it would be desirable to gain an understanding of the community’s views once Council has further information from the Government on the next steps in the reform process; and

9.    Approves the draft letter (A2745300) to the Government outlining where Council seeks guidance and gives feedback on the proposed Three Waters Reform programme; and

10.  Agrees that the Mayor, Infrastructure Committee Chair and Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve minor editorial amendments to the Government response letter; and

11.  Notes that the Chief Executive will report back once staff have received further information and guidance from Government, Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā on what the next steps look like and how these should be managed; and

12.  Notes that Council has considered the decision-making requirements of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 and determined that they have been adequately complied with for the purposes of this report, taking into account that a) no decisions are being made at this stage to agree to the Government’s proposal and b) the low to medium significance under the Significance and Engagement Policy of the decision to request the Chief Executive to seek further information from and give feedback to the Government on the reform proposal.

 

 

4.       Background

4.1      Following the serious campylobacter outbreak in 2016 and the Government’s Inquiry into Havelock North Drinking Water, central and local government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing the system for regulating and managing the three waters.

4.2      The focus has been on how to ensure safe drinking water, improve the environmental performance and transparency of wastewater services and the stormwater network and deal with funding and affordability challenges, particularly for communities with small rating bases (or high-growth areas) that have reached their prudential borrowing limits.

4.3      The Government’s stated direction of travel has been for publicly-owned multi-regional models (with a preference for local authority ownership). The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), in partnership with the Three Waters Steering Committee commissioned specialist economic, financial, regulatory and technical expertise to support the Three Waters Reform Programme and inform policy advice to ministers. This advice has been tested with the Three Waters Steering Group (which includes elected members and officers from local government).

4.4      The initial stage (Tranche 1 – Memorandum of Understanding, Funding Agreement, Delivery Plan and RFI process) was an opt in, non-binding approach for the purposes of providing information.  It did not require councils to commit to future phases of the reform programme, to transfer their assets and/or liabilities, or establish new water entities. Council received $5.7 million as part of the first tranche of funding for investment in water services and infrastructure. The 2020 indicative reform programme and then anticipated next steps can be found in Attachment 1.

4.5      Council completed the RFI process over Christmas and New Year 2020/21 and the Government has used the information from councils and modelling to make preliminary decisions on the next stages (Attachment 1). All councils agreed to take part in the RFI process, with 49 councils undertaking a ‘deep dive’.

 

5.       Discussion

Government’s June and July 2021 announcements and information releases

5.1      In June 2021 a suite of information was released by the Government that covered estimated potential investment requirements for New Zealand, scope for efficiency gains from transformation of the three waters service and potential economic (efficiency) impacts of various aggregation scenarios[17].  

5.2      In summary, the modelling indicated a likely range for future investment requirements at a national level in the order of $120 billion to $185 billion and an average household cost for most councils on a standalone basis to be between $1,910 and $8,690 by 2051. It also estimated these average household costs could be reduced to between $800 and $1,640 per household by achieving efficiencies in the range of 45% (approximately 2% per annum) over 15-30 years if the reform process went ahead. An additional 5,800 to 9,300 jobs and an increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of between $14 billion to $23 billion in (Nett Present Value, NPV terms) over 30 years were also forecast. 

5.3      As a result of this modelling, the Government is proposing to:

·   establish four statutory, publicly-owned water services entities that own and operate three waters infrastructure on behalf of local authorities;

·   establish independent, competency-based governing boards;

·   set a clear national policy direction for the three waters sector, including integration with any new spatial / resource management planning processes;

·   establish an economic regulation regime; and

·   develop an industry transformation strategy.

The proposed safeguards against privatisation can be found on page 26 of the DIA’s summary of the case for change[18]

5.4      Attachment 2 contains more detail on the national context and Attachment 5 provides the DIA/LGNZ overviews.

5.5      Nelson City Council has been placed in Water Services Entity C, although the precise boundaries are still up for discussion.

5.6      The proposed boundaries place all of Nelson and most of Tasman and Marlborough in Area C with a projected 2051 cost per household of $1260 (in today’s dollars).  Entity D, which includes the balance of the South Island, is based on Ngai Tahu’s takiwā and has a projected cost of $1640 per household in 2051.  The proposed boundary is of concern to Marlborough and Tasman District Councils as it would mean their districts are split between two entities (the grey areas in the map above).  Both Marlborough and Tasman have expressed a preference that their districts are not split by the proposed reforms.

5.7      Following a meeting with Minister Mahuta immediately prior to the LGNZ Conference the Minister committed to following up with iwi about Council concerns on the split.  A response has not yet been received.

5.8      On 15 July 2021, in partnership with LGNZ under a Heads of Agreement[19], the Government announced a package of $2.5 billion to support councils to transition to the new water entities and to invest in community wellbeing. This funding is made up of a $2 billion ‘better-off’ element (funded $1 billion from the Crown and $1 billion from the new Water Services Entities, $500 million of this will be available from 1 July 2022) and an uncapped $500 million ‘no council worse off’ element (available from July 2024 and funded by the Water Services Entities). The “better-off” funding can be used to support the delivery of local wellbeing outcomes associated with climate change and resilience, housing and local placemaking, and there is an expectation that councils will engage with iwi/Māori in determining how to use their funding allocation.

5.9      Nelson’s funding allocation from the “better off’ package is $20.7 million.  The detail of the funding (including expectations around the use of reserves) and the full list of allocations can be found in Attachment 3.  Conditions associated with the package of funding have yet to be worked through. 

5.10    In addition to the funding announcements, the Government has committed to further discussions with local government and iwi/Māori over the next eight weeks on:

·   the boundaries of the Water Service Entities; 

·   how local authorities can continue to have influence on service outcomes and other issues of importance to their communities (e.g. chlorine-free water); 

·   ensuring there is appropriate integration between the needs, planning and priorities of local authorities and those of the Water Service Entities; and

·   how to strengthen the accountability of the Water Service Entities to the communities that they serve, for example through a water ombudsman.

5.11    As a result, the proposed original timetable for implementing the reform (outlined in Attachment 1) and for councils to consult on a decision to opt-in (or not), no longer applies.  Further advice on the difficulties and risks of making a decision to opt-in or not is included at section 6 of this report.

5.12    It is important to note that the Government has not ruled out legislating for an “all-in” approach to reform to realise the national interest benefits of the reform.

5.13    In the interim, DIA continues to engage with officers on transition matters on a no regrets basis should the reform proceed. These discussions do not pre-empt any decisions about whether to progress the reforms or whether any individual council will transition.

5.14    If the reform goes ahead, it is anticipated that councils will continue to deliver water services until at least early 2024 and council involvement in transition will be required throughout. 

Council specific information and analysis

5.15    While the Government and LGNZ consider that a national case for change has been made, each council will ultimately need to decide based on its local context.

5.16    Councils do not have a national interest test for their decision making.  Councils are required to act in the interests of their communities and the community’s wellbeing (now and into the future), provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to their decision-making processes, ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the district or region (including planning effectively for the future management of its assets) and take a sustainable development approach[20].  

5.17    Council currently delivers three waters through a mixed model of in-house and contracted services. Council is jointly responsible for the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit with Tasman District Council.

5.18    Nelson City’s dashboard from WICS’ analysis looks like this:

The Nelson City Council dashboard, and the dashboards of other councils, can be accessed on DIA’s site[21].

5.19    The key aspects Council should note are detailed below.

5.19.1 Average cost of per household:

·   the DIA (based on several assumptions) states it is currently $1,050 (excluding GST); our council based on the 2021/22 Plan is $1,128 (excluding GST).

·   DIA’s reform (Entity C) projects $1,260 by 2051, compared with $2,330 for Nelson City without the reforms

5.19.2 Impact on debt and revenue[22]:

 

Actual

LTP

 

 

Transfer date

 

30-Jun-21

30-Jun-24

Summary

 

 

NCC Net Debt without Transfer

$85.9 million

$191.9 million

NCC Revenue without Transfer

$123.3 million

$145.7 million

NCC Debt to Revenue Ratio without Transfer

70%

132%

 

 

 

3 Waters Portion of borrowings

$48.3 million

$81.5 million

3 Waters Revenue

$32.0 million

$36.8 million

3 Waters Debt to Revenue Ratio

151%

222%

 

 

 

NCC Net Debt with 3 Waters out

$37.6 million

$110.4 million

NCC Revenue with 3 Waters out

$91.3 million

$109.0 million

NCC Debt to Revenue Ratio with 3 Waters out

41%

101%

·   At the proposed transfer date, Council’s overall debt to revenue ratio will have increased from the current level of 70% to 132%, still well under the cap of 175%.

·   If the Three Waters transfer goes ahead, an estimated $81.5 million of debt and $36.8 million per annum of revenue will be transferred to the new entity at the end of June 2024.  The Three Waters activities are more highly indebted relative to revenue than the rest of Council with a forecast debt to revenue ratio of 222%.

·   There is an improvement in the debt to revenue ratio if the transfer to Three Waters goes ahead in June 2024.

 

 

5.19.3 Capital Expenditure Forecast –

·   Council’s own information demonstrates that there is significant investment required over the next 10 years of our Long Term Plan and out across 30 years in our infrastructure strategy, underpinned by assumptions that regulatory standards will tighten and that there will be more monitoring and enforcement in the future.

·   In addition, Council has the following upgrades / additional plant and treatment capital works and investment planned beyond the 10 years of the LTP 2021/31 (excluding NRSBU):

·   $239.6 million between years 11-15

·   $190 million between years 16-20

·   $204.8 million between years 21-25

·   $203.9 million between years 26-30

The Infrastructure Strategy 2021-2051 graphs (Attachment 6) highlights this investment.

·   Our asset condition, performance (and confidence) levels for:

·   water is overall Good

·   wastewater is overall Good

·   stormwater is overall adequate for the next 10 years (climate change will impact significantly on this activity).

·   Our maintenance budgets are likely to be adequate for the next 3-10 years (Covid-19 is starting to have an impact on operational costs)

5.20    Climate change will have an impact on infrastructure. The key effects that will impact on Nelson are sea level rise, heavy rainfall, flooding events, drought and extreme temperatures. The impact on infrastructure will vary as will responses.

5.21    The WICS information has been peer reviewed by Farrierswier and Beca to ensure that both the modelling and underlying assumptions are reasonable in the New Zealand context.  Their advice is that the work provides a reasonable indication of the “order of magnitude”[23] of the gains that can be delivered though the new system and the level of future investment Council is likely to need to make over the next 30 years. 

5.22    At this stage it is not possible to fully test the projections as the standards for New Zealand out to 2051 are not known, although it is reasonable to assume that there will be greater community and mana whenua expectations around environmental performance and quality, tougher standards to meet for water quality (drinking and receiving environment) and that monitoring, compliance and enforcement will attract closer government scrutiny than it does currently. This affects both operational and capital expenditure (costs will go up), including the number of staff (or contractors) that council will need to ensure Council outcomes for water and community and legal requirements are met.  

5.23    There is always a level of uncertainty and risk around assumptions and forecasts, whether prepared by Council for our LTPs or by others such as Government to facilitate policy decisions. Morrison Low has reviewed the assumptions from WICS based on Nelson specific information (Attachment 4).

5.24    There has been some criticism of WICS methodology, assumptions and applications for New Zealand. Whangarei District Council engaged Castalia, a global strategic advisory, which reported concerns with WICS methodology generally but in particular of its applications to Whangarei.

5.25    DIA responded to the Castalia report stating they consider the Castalia report to misrepresent the evidence base and analysis support the reform proposals, and that the report reaches conclusions that are not well supported by the available empirical evidence from similar reforms undertaken in other jurisdictions.

5.26    To assess whether the proposed better off ($20.7 million) and no worse off funding to Council is sufficient, Council needs further information on the conditions that will be associated with that funding. It is assumed that this funding would provide Council with an opportunity to address a range of issues and opportunities to improve community wellbeing.

 

6.       Transition

6.1      Managing transition risks to the Government’s proposed model are likely to pose a greater challenge for Council and others in its grouping than the other risks associated with the Government proposal. If the Government’s proposal were to proceed, effective management of the transition by Council, Government and partners will be critical. It is likely the transition will take some time and transitional arrangements may be in place post the July 2024 transition date.

6.2      That said, transition away from the status quo to any other option, carries inherent risks, with potential mitigations to reduce both impact and likelihood and therefore residual risk and sticking with the status quo may not be sustainable in the short, medium or long term. 

 

7.       Council decision making and consultation

7.1      Part 6 of the LGA, sections 76 to 90, provide the requirements for decision making and consultation, including the principles of consultation and information that needs to be provided including the reasons for the proposal and the reasonably practicable options. 

7.2      Section 76 requires that in making a significant decision, which a decision on the future management and or ownership of three waters assets will be, councils must comply with the decision-making provisions. This is a ‘higher bar’ than the “promote compliance with” that applies for ordinary decisions. 

7.3      Section 77 states that councils must seek to identify all reasonably practicable options and then assess the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

7.4      Section 78 requires that in the course of making a decision a Council must consider community views but section 78(3) explicitly says that consideration of community views does not require consultation, which is reinforced by case law.

7.5      Section 79 gives Council discretion to decide how the above Part 6 requirements are met including the extent of analysis done etc. Therefore, while a decision could be challenged, a judicial review is unlikely to be successful unless the decision made by council was manifestly unreasonable, the process was flawed or the decision was beyond its powers (as given in law, i.e. the council did not act within the law).

7.6      However, despite section 79 of the LGA, a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset from the council (or to it) must explicitly be provided for in the council’s Long Term Plan (and have been consulted on specifically in its consultation document). 

7.7      Council’s existing LTP and the consultation information and process used to develop it will not suffice to meet this test, as Council did not itself have adequate information on the options and the implications earlier this year when it consulted on the LTP.  An LTP amendment and commensurate consultation process on the ownership and governance arrangements and asset transfers proposed would be necessary.

7.8      There are also provisions in the LGA that relate to unlawful decisions to sell or dispose of assets, which can be investigated by the Auditor-General.  

7.9      A decision to opt-out would also be affected by the consultation and decision-making requirements set out in this report, including the need to follow a robust process that could survive a judicial review, as well as make a final decision that was not manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances. 

7.10    Given the Government’s:

·   8 week period of engagement with mana whenua and councils;

·   commitment to explore issues such as council and community influence of service outcomes, integration with other reform proposals, spatial and local planning;

·   request for councils to give feedback on the proposal, identify issues and solutions; and

·   uncertainty around next steps, including whether the reform may become mandatory or legislative change will remove legal barriers to opting in

it would be premature to make a decision to opt in, or out, of the reform process and may expose the Council to litigation risk. 

7.11    A Government Bill to progress the reforms could address the issues raised above, for example removing the section 130 requirements (obligation to maintain water services) has explicitly been raised.

7.12    At this stage no decision is required on future delivery arrangements.  Council should wait until it has further information before consulting on and/or making a decision on the Government’s proposal.

7.13    If reform is not made mandatory, to ensure sufficient information is available to meet the moral and legal requirements of Council decision-making, staff will develop an analysis of options (based on further information from the Government, advice on next steps, and regional discussions) prior to any Council consultation and decision making on future water services delivery. Whether this is ultimately required will be dependent on where the Government gets to with the reform process and the decisions it makes after 30 September 2021.

 

8.       Information that the Council requires or potential solutions to outstanding issues that it would like to convey to Government and LGNZ

8.1      This eight week period provides Council the ability to ask questions, give comments and make suggestions to DIA and LGNZ on the reform.

8.2      There are still several national issues that need to be resolved, including:

·    the final boundaries

·    protections from privatisation

·    consultation with mana whenua and communities

·    what will a Government Bill cover and whether the reform will be mandatory

·    conditions associated with the Government’s package of funding for local government 

·    councils’ role in the management and provision of Stormwater services

·    transition arrangements, including our own workforce challenges (without transition challenges on top) and due diligence for asset transfers etc.

8.3      Any other specific information needs, issues, or solutions that Council needs will be followed up by officers with DIA and LGNZ.

8.4      Since the July announcements from the Government, Council has had two workshops on the three waters reform. On 31 August, Morrison Low presented their review on the WICS modelling (Attachment 4) and LGNZ presented on the background and key areas of the reform package. On 9 September Council reviewed additional financial information, the governance structure and the factors driving the reform.

8.5      Throughout these workshops the following themes have emerged where Council requires additional information from the Government:

8.5.1   Nature of Council ownership and the risk of privatisation

8.5.2   Council’s role in the Governance structure, including Council input and protecting local voices

8.5.3   Impact on the 2022 Local Body Elections and if Council can make a decision which binds a future Council

8.5.4   Impact on Water Catchment Areas

8.5.5   Council’s advocacy for local issues

8.6      The draft Council response to the Government (Attachment 7) outlines questions and areas where Council requires clarification or additional information.

 

9.       Conclusion

9.1      While there is uncertainty about the future steps in the Government’s reform proposal, and current legislative impediments to it, the current eight-week period gives Council the opportunity to understand the information it has received (and will continue to receive) from the RFI and modelling processes. 

9.2      It also provides an opportunity for Council to understand its potential options, including the financial, workforce and sustainability impacts for Council and the wider economic, social and cultural implications of each option, using the guidance that has been issued. It also provides an opportunity to engage in discussions with other councils in its entity grouping, share information and ask questions and propose solutions to issues it sees to Government and LGNZ. 

9.3      All of this information will be useful to inform future decision making by both Council and Government and consultation and engagement with mana whenua and communities.

 

Author:          Pat Dougherty, Chief Executive

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2734504 - From Taituarā -  2020 Background (including Taumata Arowai information and Indicative Reform Programme)

Attachment 2:   A2734513 - From Taituarā - The Government’s conclusion that the case for change has been made

Attachment 3:   A2734630 - From Taituarā - Better Off Funding Allocations

Attachment 4:   A2736353 - Morrison Low review of Three Water Information

Attachment 5:   A2734616 - From Taituarā' - DIA and LGNZ reform overview

Attachment 6:   A2745775 - Infrastructure Strategy Three Waters Capital Funding

Attachment 7:   A2745300 - Draft Response to Government (Circulated separately)  

 

Important considerations for decision making

1.   Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Central governments objectives of improvement to the provision of water services supports the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community.

2.   Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

This report’s content supports the following community outcomes :

·    Our unique natural environment is health and protected

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

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

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

·    Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

3.   Risk

Significant risks, legal responsibility and financial implications have been identified in analysing the reform proposals and completing an analysis of options for this report.  However, there is no decision required at this point, other than to note those issues and to request further information from Government if Council wishes to.

4.   Financial impact

There are significant long-term financial impacts relating to the transfer of three water assets and management to a new Water Services Entity. This will be considered following the Government’s announcement of next steps after 1 October 2021.

5.   Degree of significance and level of engagement

The future of water services delivery is a significant issue which will be of interest to a wide range of community members and groups.  This report however does not commit the Council to a decision relating to the proposed reform. Instead it provides initial analysis of the reform proposals for Council’s information and highlights the uncertainties.  As such the significance of this report, as assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, is low to medium. Council is not required to consult at this time.  Further advice regarding any future consultation requirements will be provided after September 2021. In the interim Council has worked to increase public understanding of the proposals through.

6.   Climate Impact

Climate considerations (both mitigation and adaptation), resilience and environmental impacts are drivers of the reform process.  While there are no specific impacts arising from this report the decisions that occur post September 2021 will have an impact on climate and environmental issues change response.  Some of these impacts have been canvassed in this report as appropriate to the options analysis that can be done with currently available information. 

7.   Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Crown is currently leading the engagement with iwi/Māori, mana whenua.

8.   Delegations

This is a matter for Council. 

 


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 3

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 4 A2736353

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 5

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Item 13: Three Waters Report Update: Attachment 6

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 14: Strategic Development and Propoerty Quarterly Report

 

Council

23 September 2021

 

 

REPORT R25980

Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      The 26 August 2021 Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee meeting was cancelled due to COVID-19 Alert level 4. This report is consequently being presented to Council, for its information.

1.2      To inform the Subcommittee of the financial and non-financial results for the fourth quarter of 2020/21 for strategic properties, the marina and campgrounds activities under the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee’s delegated authority.

2.       Recommendation

 

That the Council

1.    Receives the report Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June  (R25980) and its attachments (A2711975, A2712692).

 

 

3.       Background

3.1      Quarterly reports on performance are provided to each Committee on the performance and delivery of projects and activities within their areas of responsibility.

3.2      The financial reporting focuses on the full year performance (1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021) compared with the full year approved capital and operating budgets.

3.3      Unless otherwise indicated, all information is against “Approved Budget”, which is the 2020/21 annual budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the appropriate Committee or Council.

3.4      Detailed Capital project sheets are included in Attachment 1 (A2711975). Capital project sheets have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2020/21, are multi-year projects with a budget over $1 million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

3.5      Capital project status is analysed based on three factors: quality, time, and budget. From the consideration of these three factors the project is summarised as being on track (green), some issues/risks (orange), or major issues/risks (red). Projects that are within 5% of their budget are considered to be on track in regard to the budget factor.

4.       Financial Results

Profit and loss

 

 

Operating Revenue (excluding rates)

 

Operating expenditure

 

 

 

Capital expenditure

4.1      Tahuna Beach Holiday Park income is less than Approved Budget by $68,000. Camp Rental income is under Budget by $51,000 due to the Council’s COVID-19 response package. Recoveries of water by meter and trade waste income is also under budget by $17,000 due to lower than planned operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

4.2      Brook Valley Holiday Park income is less than Approved Budget by $156,000. Camp Site Fees are under Budget by $100,000. Sundry Income is under Budget by $24,000 and Semi Permanent Camp Fees are under Budget by $16,000. Council increased the fees at the Brook Camp in 2019/20 by 20%, to meet the Finance and Revenue recovery targets for the activity, with the intent that fees would also increase by 20% in 2020/21. However, Council decided later to increase the fees by the CPI only in 2020/21 but no adjustment was made to the Budget to reflect this decision.

4.3      Nelson Marina staff operating expenses is greater than Approved Budget by $31,800. The new Nelson Marina Manager started in March 2021 to begin the process of creating a new team to take over the management of Nelson Marina from Nelmac.  This was an unbudgeted expense.

5.       Updates

Campgrounds

5.1      A confidential report was received by the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee at the 11 February 2021 meeting about the Brook Valley Holiday Park long-term occupancy compliance. Further updates were provided in a confidential report on 1 April and 1 June to the Subcommittee on this matter.

5.2      In addition, Council passed resolutions about the campgrounds through the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) deliberations in May 2021 as follows: 

Approves in principle 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.

Allocates in principle up to 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 requests a report to the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee prior to works being undertaken.

Requests officers review the future uses of the Maitai Valley Motor Camp and report back to the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee; and

Requests officers to reduce the cap on the number of Maitai Motor Camp users.

5.3      In response to the LTP resolution to review future uses, a Subcommittee confidential briefing on 15 June focussed on campground visioning.

5.4      A section 17A Local Government Act Review has been commissioned for the Brook Valley Holiday Park and Maitai Valley Motor Park. The consultant met with stakeholders including Subcommittee representatives, officers, and contractors and visited the campgrounds during July. Once completed, the review will be reported back to the Subcommittee.

5.5      Progress has been made at all three campgrounds towards meeting legal compliance:


 

Brook Valley Holiday Park

5.6      Council received written consent for the establishment of a relocatable home park (RHP) in March 2021. This consent is subject to meeting Camping Grounds Regulations 1985 (CGR) requirements for a RHP, or being granted a certificate of exemption and resource consent for long term occupation. A resource consent application for Council as camp owner/operator was lodged in March 2021. Flood modelling by a consultant for Council is awaited, which will inform hazard mitigation considerations. Partial exemption to CGR has been granted to 13 April 2022 and full compliance must be achieved before that date.

5.7      Work is underway to progress the design of service hubs containing wastewater and potable water connects to relocatable home campsites.

5.8      Obtaining outstanding Code Compliance Certificates for temporary portacabin ablution facilities at F Block is dependent on some minor works to portacabins and the potential need to provide accessible toilets and showers within the camp. This is being progressed currently.

5.9      Landscaping planning is underway, which will help meet the CGR compliance by separating long term and short-term occupant sites.

5.10    The Brook Camp has invested into the Health and Safety aspects of the site, as outlined in the recent condition assessment – ensuring that steps and walkways are safe for use, areas at night are visible with correct lighting and the removal of unsafe stairways. Old and damaged weatherboards have been repaired along with gutters and down pipes on the buildings in the campground.

5.11    There was a total of 1,541 nights booked at the Brook Camp for the financial year from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

Maitai Valley Motor Camp

5.12    Temporary exemption to the CGR expired in February 2021. No resource consent has been lodged for long term occupation, as this cannot be achieved without significant investment in wastewater treatment and drinking water tap instalment at the camp.  Council decided not to fund this investment in its 2021-31 Long Term Plan.

5.13    Council, as owner of the land, and the lessee, received an infringement and abatement notice on 23 July. (note that this has been reported but was received in the 2021/22 Financial Year). The abatement notice requires that Council ceases allowing residential activity at the Maitai Motor Camp by 23 January 2022. The infringement notice is for the contravention of section 9 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Schedule Oss.7i of the Open Space and Recreation chapter in the Plan identifies the activities that are permitted in the Maitai Motor Camp, residential activity is not identified as a permitted activity and no Resource Consent has been applied for to authorise permanent residential activity. The infringement Notice to Council includes a $300.00 infringement fee.

5.14    A consultant is providing advice on the wastewater system for the reduced cap on the number of occupants. The lessee has been informed they are not to exceed the recommended cap of occupants of 80 campers per day.

Tahuna Beach Holiday Park

5.15    The lessee has submitted a resource consent application for long term occupancy and an application for temporary exemption to the CGR whilst issues are resolved.

5.16    The lease, due to expire on 30 June 2021, has been extended by variation to December 2021.

The Marina

5.17    The management of the Marina has been brought back in house. A transition plan was worked on through the year to ensure that the termination date of 30 June 2021 of the contract with Nelmac was met.

5.18    A new Marina Manager commenced in March 2021. The role will manage the Marina and investigate the preferred governance model for the Marina. Additional Marina staff positions have been appointed. 

5.19    Work on the Marina Master Plan was carried out in Quarter Four and is continuing through Quarter 1 and 2 of 2021/22. A briefing was held with elected members on the Marina Master Plan on 1 April 2021. Once the master plan has been drafted, it will be submitted to the Subcommittee for review.

5.20    Marina fees and charges for 2021/22 were consulted on and a decision on the fees was made by Council on 13 May. Users have been informed, and fees are now in place.

5.21    New monthly reporting is being provided to the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee. The most recent report, provided on 3 August, outlined work underway at the marina since the start of the financial year and the timeframes for this work.

5.22    For future quarterly reports for the year from 2021/22, marina financials will be further broken down by cost centre to give the Subcommittee more detailed understanding of marina operations, which will also include the breakdown for 2020/21. This will also help inform marina operational and strategic decisions, as well as future fees and charges.

Marina Hardstand

5.23    The marina hardstand was completed in the final quarter of 2021/22 and is now operating as designed and within resource consent requirements. A new hardstand maintenance manual has been prepared and is being followed to ensure the hardstand continues to be compliant and maintained appropriately.

Recycling compounds

5.24    Recycling compounds were installed in late 2020, and in the last quarter of 2020/21, compounds were painted and recycled artwork from Nelson Airport was installed.

Transition

5.25    A main focus of the final quarter was the transition to new marina management from 1 July 2021. Transition work included:

·   The purchase of a new software system and data entry into the system

·   Development of new Licence Agreement

·   Development of a new organisational structure and employment of a new marina management team.

·   Staff Training and Development

·   Development of Marina Masterplan as per Marina Strategic Plan

·   Review of Governance model for Nelson Marina

·   Debt review and collection

·   Review and reorganisation of accounts

·   Development of reporting templates

Strategic Properties

5.26    Work commenced on site at Millers Acre to address the remedial cladding works. Approximately half of the cladding was removed by the end of June and is being left to dry out while investigation and the replacement cladding solution is being determined. Communication with tenants has been undertaken regularly.

5.27    A Management Asbestos survey identified the presence of dust containing asbestos at the Reliance Building (236 Haven Road), resulting in immediate communication with the tenants (MenzShed), signage installed, and the building secured against access.  An independent risk assessment and airborne fibre monitoring was completed showing less than trace levels of 0.01 fibres/mL.   Access to limited (unaffected) areas of the building has been permitted with the areas affected cordoned off until remediated by a licenced removalist.

Activity Management Plan

5.28    The marina, campgrounds and strategic properties are assets contained within the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan (AMP). A further workshop will be held with the Subcommittee to provide the Subcommittee with information about any changes to the AMP, and the final AMP will be presented to Council in October 2021 for adoption. The final AMP goes direct to Council as the issues in it cross more than one Committee. 

6.       Key Performance Measures

6.1      As part of the development of the Long-Term Plan 2018-28, Council approved levels of service, performance measures and targets for each activity. There is one performance measure that is within the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee’s delegation, Marina berth holder occupancy, which is reported in this quarterly report.

6.2      Performance measures are reported during the financial year accordingly, the scale to report on the key performance measures at the end of the year is as follows:

·    Achieved

·    Not achieved

·    Not measured

6.3      Attachment 2 (A2712692) lists the performance measure, its status and commentary.

7.       Conclusion

7.1      The review of performance for the fourth quarter of 2020/21 for the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee is included in this report, with project reports and a performance measure attached.

 

 

Authors:                Nigel Skeggs, Manager Nelson Marina

Rebecca Van Orden, Manager Property Services

Tanya Robinson, Strategic Adviser

 

Attachments

Attachment 1:   A2711975 - Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - Project Sheets - Quarter 4 2020/21 (A2711975)

Attachment 2:   A2712692 - Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - Performance Measures - Quarter 4 2020/21 (A2712692)   


 

Item 14: Strategic Development and Propoerty Quarterly Report: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


Item 14: Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June: Attachment 2

PDF Creator 



[1] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392, at para 33

[2] As amended in response to the Further Information Request dated 3 August 2021. Amendments were received on 24 August 2021.

[3] Figure 8: from the Plan Change Request

[4] Table 1 from the s32 Evaluation – Maitahi Bayview

[5] As updated in response to the further information request

[6] As updated in response to the further information request

[7] Power, communication and data

[8] Number taken from the executive summary of the PPC Request

[9] See section 2.1 of the section 32 evaluation report.

[10] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392, at para 33

[11] Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rārua, Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Rangitane

[12] The existing mean sea level has been derived from tidal records for Port Nelson between 2008-2017.

[13] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-water-reforms-build-economic-resilience-and-save-ratepayers-money

[14] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-provide-support-water-reforms-jobs-and-growth

[15] Transforming the system for delivering three waters services (dia.govt.nz); https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/transforming-the-system-for-delivering-three-waters-services-the-case-for-change-and-summary-of-proposals-30-june-2021.pdf

[16] https://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/Three-Waters-Guidance-for-councils-over-the-next-eight-weeks-FINAL.pdf

[17] This information, including peer reviews and the Minister’s briefing can be accessed at: https://www.dia.govt.nz/Three-Waters-Reform-Programme and release-of-second-stage-evidence-base-released-june-2021.   

[18] Transforming the system for delivering three waters services (dia.govt.nz)

[19] https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/heads-of-agreement-partnering-commitment-to-support-three-waters-service-delivery-reform.pdf

[20] See for example sections 5 and 14 of the LGA.

[21]https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiOGE1OTJlYWUtZDZkNy00YWZjLTgzN2EtOTY1MzQxNGM5NzJmIiwidCI6ImY2NTljYTVjLWZjNDctNGU5Ni1iMjRkLTE0Yzk1ZGYxM2FjYiJ9

[22] These asset values include land which has been revalued at current market value, buildings and equipment which are valued at historical cost less accumulated depreciation and Infrastructure which is revalued at replacement cost less accumulated depreciation.
These are therefore accounting values rather than what it would cost to replace the assets or what they are insured for.

[23] Page iv, 2021, Farrierswier, Three Waters Reform, Review of methodology and assumptions underpinning economic analysis of aggregation available at https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Three-waters-reform-programme/$file/farrierswier-three-waters-reform-programme-review-of-wics-methodology-and-assumptions-underpinning-economic-analysis-of-aggregation-released-june-2021.pdf