Agenda of Council - 28 October 2021

Nelson City Council

28 October 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 Zero Carbon Nelson Tasman - Feedback on Kāinga Ora Housing Development (Social Housing)

Jenny Easton, on behalf of Zero Carbon Nelson Tasman (ZCNT

4.2 Tāhunanui Business and Citizens Association Incorporated - Waka Kotahi Proposals for Tāhunanui Drive and the Effects of those Proposals

Paul Matheson and Jacinta Stevenson, on behalf of the Tāhunanui Business and Citizens Association Incorporated

4.3 Public Health Service - Nelson Marlborough District Health Board - Nelson Future Access Project

Jane Murray, Health in all Policies Advisor, on behalf of Public Health Service Nelson Marlborough District Health Board

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 23 September 2021 12 - 38

Document number M18958

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 23 September 2021, as a true and correct record.

6. Mayor's Report

7. Recommendations from Committees

7.1 Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee - 21 October 2021

7.1.1 Tahuna Beach Camp - Approval to Lease Campground to the Tahuna Beach Camp Incorporated

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the leasing of the Tahuna Beach Camp to the Tahuna Beach Camp Incorporated Society for an initial term of eleven (11) years with two (2) rights of renewal of eleven (11) years each with renewals dependent on the Lessor and Lessee agreeing the annual base fee and gross income percentage

8. Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21 (deferred from 23 September 2021 Council meeting) 39 - 71

Document number R26321

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21 (deferred from 23 September 2021 Council meeting) (R26321) 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.

9. Cawthron Institute work programme

Volker Kuntzch, CE Cawthron, will present on the Cawthron Institute’s work programme.

10. Nelson Future Access - Business Case Endorsement 72 - 113

Document number R26073

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Future Access - Business Case Endorsement (R26073) and its attachments A2631617, A2749609, A2771168 and A2770156; and

2. Endorses the Nelson Future Access Business Case (Attachment A2770156 of Report R26073) to enable submission to the Waka Kotahi Board for approval; and

3. Notes that a variation to amend the Regional Land Transport Plan is required to include the SH6 Rocks Road Pre-Implementation Phase to facilitate Waka Kotahi seeking funding concurrently with the Business Case approval, and that consultation on this variation is not required as it does not trigger Council’s Regional Land Transport Plan’s Significance Policy and nor is it appropriate to carry out any additional consultation in the circumstances; and

4. Notes that funding applications will be made to the Waka Kotahi Board concurrently with the Business Case approval for the Washington and Railway Reserve to Waimea walking and cycling projects to enable pre-implementation work to commence; and

5. Notes that work will commence on several safety projects as detailed in Report R26073, funded from the Low Cost Low Risk funding assigned to Nelson City Council from the approved National Land Transport Programme; and

6. Notes that officers will progress with assessing off-street parking options in Tahunanui, pending the permanent reinstatement of the southbound lane at Bisley signals, and will report back to Council on this matter.

11. Nelson Central Library - Project Management and Governance Structure 114 - 131

Document number R26049

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Project Management and Governance Structure (R26049) and its attachments A2758524, A2762028 and A2760701; and

2. Approves the project management and governance structure as set out in Report R26049 and its attachments A2758524, A2762028 and A2760701; and

3. Agrees to establish a Nelson Central Library Governance Reference Group with Terms of Reference as set out in (A2760701); and

4. Appoints the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, ____ and ____ to the Nelson Central Library Governance Reference Group; and

5. Notes that the approval of the project management and governance structure does not constrain Council in relation to any final decision on library location, design, or construction procurement.

12. Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 132 - 196

Document number R18127

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (R18127) and its attachment (A2443568); and

2. Adopts the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A2511502)

13. Deliberations on sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing 197 - 224

Document number R26213

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Deliberations on sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing (R26213) and its attachments (A2763085 and A2767627); and

2. Accepts the following late feedback (A2767627) on the proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga ora for social and affordable housing, from:

· Rachel Boyack, MP for Nelson

· Ainslie Riddoch; and

3. Approves the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kainga Ora, subject to a negotiating brief that includes the following terms:

(i) That the sites be sold for market value to be determined by agreement with Kāinga Ora having regard to independent valuations for the site obtained by Kāinga Ora and Nelson City Council;

(ii) The design outcomes which were outlined to the community as part of the consultation document (A2704161) be adopted to inform the development design:

(a) High quality, high amenity, interactive and accessible design to street and laneway edges;

(b) Design compatibility with the adjacent public spaces and central city location;

(c) The use of appropriately scaled and well-modulated/articulated architectural design elements and an appropriate provision of space, openings and materiality (i.e windows, balconies and cladding types);

(d) Integration of vehicle, public transport and pedestrian circulation with adjoining street frontages and Wakatu Square with minimal provision of on-site carparking;

(e) Inclusion of quality, climate resilient, sustainable, design and building practices;

(f) Less than 50% of household units will be for social housing, the remainder will be a mix of affordable housing type;

(g) Demonstrates consistency with the six key moves of the Nelson City Council City Centre Programme Plan (August 2019);

(h) Minimise, as far as practicable, shading effects that lead to safety hazards on public streets, areas and footpaths;

(i) Provide appropriate cycle storage and servicing facilities;

(j) Within these outcomes, maximise housing yield; and

(iii) That Kāinga Ora works in partnership with Council officers on the design of the building, including that officers are part of the Kāinga Ora Project Steering Group contributing to decision making and Project Team responsible for progressing the project and its design;

(iv) That Kāinga Ora will seek to commission a local architect to be part of the design team for the development to ensure the building is a good fit with the city centre and Council priorities (exemplar intensification and affordable housing, good urban design including appropriate scale and height, sustainability features, provides for active mode;.

(v) That Kāinga Ora will, where reasonably possible, partner with local housing providers and developers and/or iwi to deliver the project to ensure that affordable rental and affordable apartment sales are enduring and well managed;

(vi) That Kāinga Ora will, where reasonably possible, utilise local construction companies and local materials to undertake the build, acknowledging that this may be affected by the current market shortage of both locally;

(vii)That Kāinga Ora uses its placement principles to allocate its social housing tenants to the housing typology of inner-city apartment living;

(viii)That communication with the community is undertaken by Kāinga Ora to ensure the community is well informed of progress, including during the progression of development design and housing partnership formations;

(ix) That a condition is imposed to ensure that if development of at least one of the sites has not commenced construction within 3 years, both sites will be offered back to Council to purchase for the sale price, less any works that have reduced its value;

(x) That a condition is imposed on sale that a covenant will be registered on the title giving Council a right of first refusal to purchase, on terms acceptable to Council, should Kāinga Ora seek to sell all or any part of the sites at any time unless the sales relate to affordable unit title apartments developed by Kāinga Ora or in partnership with others (subject also to any applicable legal obligation on Kāinga Ora to first offer to iwi);

(xi) As appropriate, a Memorandum of Understanding may be signed with the purchaser to reflect shared objectives for the development that are not included in the sale and purchase agreement;

(xii) Any other reasonable terms of sale necessary for the divestment; and

4. Delegates to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor/Chair of the Urban Development Subcommittee and Chief Executive the negotiation and approval of the sale and purchase agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (if appropriate) provided the terms are substantially consistent with the negotiating brief; and

5. Notes that progress on negotiations and development design will be overseen by the Kāinga Ora Governance Reference Group in accordance with the Terms of Reference; and

6. Notes that tenants of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street will be advised of Councils decision, and kept up to date on progress with negotiations, including advice in relation to the effect on their tenancies by officers; and

7. Confirms that the proceeds from any sale will be used to pay off debt; and

8. Approves the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street and identifies the matters in relation to making such a decision in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act, including:

(a) While it is not clear, the decision to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora rather than via public auction may be inconsistent with the NCC Asset Disposal Policy 2015; and

(b) Council has decided to approve the sale notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency with the Policy because of the broader strategic benefit of the proposal for the community (noting the above conditions) and the enhanced relationship with Kāinga Ora, together with the objective to sell the properties for market value; and

Confidential Business

14. 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 - 23 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: ·
3	Totara Street Properties	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)
4	Nelson Regional Development Agency - Reappointment of Director	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

Karakia Whakamutanga

Nelson City Council Minutes - 23 September 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 23 September 2021, commencing at 9.05a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (C Barton), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager 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 noted that the order of items would change to accommodate external presenters.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

4.1. Steve Cross - Three Waters Reform

Document number R26254

Steve Cross spoke about the Three Waters Reform. He provided a PowerPoint presentation (A2751881) and answered questions regarding amalgamations.

Attachments

1 A2751881 - Steve Cross 3 Waters PowerPoint Presentation

4.2. Tony Haddon - Request for a Private Plan Change (PPC)

Document number R26255

Tony Haddon spoke against the request for a PPC and urged for the request to be rejected.

4.3. Susan MacAskill - Request for a Private Plan Change

Document number R26256

Susan MacAskill spoke against the request for a PPC and asked that the request be rejected. She noted the enormous impacts of the proposed subdivision, which she felt should be considered as part of the broader context.

4.4. Nelson Citizens Alliance - Three Waters Reform

Document number R26261

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, noted that he had accepted a petition from Neville Male, on behalf of the Nelson Citizens Alliance. The text of which was:

“This petition containing 1828 signatures demands that Nelson City Council makes no commitment to transfer the City’s water assets valued at $685M without the consent of ratepayers, and also demands that the opportunity for full consultation with ratepayers is immediately provided, including the calling of submissions, without further delay. ”

Her Worship the Mayor accepted the submission. Mr Male was not available to speak to the petition at this time.

Attachments

1 A2755624 - Nelson Citizens Alliance - Three Waters Reform Petition

4.5. Save the Maitai - Request for Private Plan Change

Document number R26264

Monica Pausina spoke on behalf of Save the Maitai against the request for a PPC. She felt the potential rezoning would allow a huge subdivision in the most popular part of Maitai Valley, which would change the valley forever, affecting its high visual appeal. She noted the lack of airshed modelling and opportunity for community engagement. In response to a question, she felt that if the Future Development Strategy (FDS) had included the word “Maitai”, thousands of Nelsonians would have submitted on it.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 12 August 2021

Document number M18862, agenda pages 15 - 35 refer.

Two amendments were noted - that the word ‘unanimous’ needed to be removed from page 11 of the minutes (agenda page 25) and that Councillor Edgar was to be listed as present in all of the minutes for confirmation.

Resolved CL/2021/183

That the Council

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

Courtney/Edgar Carried

5.2 26 August 2021

Document number M18883, agenda pages 36 - 41 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/184

That the Council

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

5.3 2 September 2021

Document number M18892, agenda pages 42 - 52 refer.

Resolved CL/2021/185

That the Council

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

McGurk/Bowater Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 9.55am until 10.00am, at which time Councillor Skinner was not present.

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

Document number R26202, agenda pages 53 - 83 refer.

Group Manager, Environmental Management, Clare Barton, introduced John Massen, Environmental Bannister, representing the Maitahi Bayview Consortium, and Hemi Toia, Koata Ltd. A presentation was provided (A2752898).

Attendance: Councillor Skinner returned to the meeting at 10.08am.

Mr Massen spoke in support of the request for a PPC, noting that this was a gateway decision and Council should not have any regard to material not included in the PPC proposal.

Mr Toia asked that Council follow due process to make an informed decision. He noted that the PPC was about much-needed housing, but also protecting that environment for generations through environmental enhancements and sustainable design.

The meeting was adjourned at 10.24am until 10.38am, at which time, Councillor Lawrey was not present.

A video presentation on the Maitahi Village was provided -

https://vimeo.com/610376320/6187795e67

Attendance: Councillor Lawrey returned to the meeting at 10.41am.

Mr Toia spoke of the vision of the proposal and asked that Council accept the PPC request.

Ms Barton introduced Kerry Anderson and Gina Sweetman of DLA Piper, who provided a short presentation giving an overview of PPC rules (A2753164). It was clarified that both Ms Barton and Ms Sweetman were satisfied with the level of information provided at this stage of the process and that climate change matters and details around effects would be considered at the substantive hearing on the matter, where there would be an opportunity for everyone to speak.

Ms Sweetman advised that the National Policy Statement for Urban Design 2020 policy (NPSUD) required councils to be responsive to any PPC requests. It was noted that Council was working on an updated FDS and that the rules did allow for councils to put PPC requests on hold, but that the timeframe for the FDS review was a Joint Committee decision and given the length of time until that would occur, the applicant did not agree to a time extension.

Questions and discussion took place on the PPC request process and Council’s obligations.

During questions, Councillor Skinner raised a Point of Order against Councillor Sanson for irrelevant questioning. The Point of Order was not upheld.

Questions and discussion continued.

During debate, the following Points of Order were raised:

· Councillor Sanson against Councillor Fulton for misrepresentation, in that she had not said the existing plan was obsolete, but had mentioned a High Court ruling that referred to a plan being obsolete. The Point of Order was upheld.

· Councillor Edgar against Councillor Lawrey for irrelevance in that the FDS was not a substantive matter for today’s decision. The Point of Order was upheld.

Resolved CL/2021/186

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 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 Resource Management Act. Accordingly, consultation under the Local Government Act on this clause 25 process decision under the Resource Management Act is neither necessary nor appropriate.

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Fulton

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Against

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 9 - 4.

McGurk/Noonan Carried

Attachments

1 A2752898 John Massen - Request for a Private Plan Change Presentation

2 A2753164 - DLA Piper Request for a Private Plan Change Presentation

The meeting was adjourned from 12.37pm until 1.34pm.

7. Three Waters Reform Update (Agenda Item 13)

Document number R26075, agenda pages 176 - 233 refer.

An updated draft Government response letter was tabled (A2745300).

Chief Executive, Pat Dougherty, spoke to the report, noting minor corrections. Mr Dougherty advised that there were indications of proposed amendments declining to take part in the reform and calling for a referendum on the issue, and invited Jonathan Salter of Simpson Grierson to provide advice on those courses of action.

Mr Salter noted that this was a big issue for all of local government, and provided context regarding Council’s obligations, advising that to make a decision to opt out at this time would be premature and contrary to those obligations, that a binding referendum would be premature and unlawful, and a non-binding referendum would be pre-emptive and, in his opinion, not the best use of ratepayers’ money.

Questions and discussion took place on the Three Waters Reform, including:

· National democracy had the primacy and there was limited merit in undertaking a referendum when Parliament had the final say and had indicated that there would be a consultation process

· The Government appeared to be committed to reform

· A decision to opt in or to opt out would be a significant decision, requiring consultation

· The recommendations today did not entail making a definitive decision

· Involvement in the process did not equate to a conflict of interest.

Attendance: Councillor O'Neill-Stevens left the meeting at 2.01pm.

During questions, Councillor Edgar raised a Point of Order against Councillor Skinner for misrepresenting the position of the Mayor, the Point of Order was upheld.

The meeting was adjourned from 2.14pm until 2.29pm, at which time Councillor O’Neill-Stevens returned to the meeting.

Changes to the officer’s recommendations were:

· An alternative recommendation clause 5 was provided to ensure clarity - Notes that a decision to definitively support or not support the Government’s preferred three waters delivery option is not required at this time, and would be premature and contrary to the Council’s decision-making obligations in relation to significant decisions

· Recommendation clause 8 was amended to replace the words “it would be desirable…” with the words “Council would need…”

· The reference number of the draft Government response letter (A2745300) was added to recommendation clauses 9 and 10

Discussion on the Three Waters Reform Update was suspended to allow the meeting to hear Mr Male’s public forum input, as he had not been available earlier.

4.4. Nelson Citizens Alliance – 3 Waters Reform

Neville Male joined the meeting via phone and spoke on behalf of The Nelson Citizens Alliance regarding the Three Waters Reform. He felt that it was a big decision being made today, and that the situation was that the whole deal had not yet been sold well enough for the public to buy into it, although it was not to say that it might not get to that point. He felt the current model was unacceptable to most people. He had looked at the recommendations and draft Government response letter and requested that a provisional intent to opt out be added as he felt that every council would be included by default.

Discussion on the Three Water Reform continued, and Councillor Edgar, seconded by Councillor McGurk, moved the amended officers’ recommendations.

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 definitively support or not support the Government’s preferred three waters delivery option is not required at this time, and would be premature and contrary to the Council’s decision-making obligations in relation to significant decisions; 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 Council would need 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 (A2754300); 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.

Edgar/McGurk

Attendance: Councillor Fulton left the meeting at 3.34pm.

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2021/187
	*That the Council* 1. *Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

Following further questions and discussion, Councillor Courtney, seconded by Councillor Brand, moved an amendment by way of addition.

That the Council

1. Undertakes a public referendum on the Government’s Three Waters proposal, prior to it making a final decision to either retain or divest of the assets.

Courtney/Brand

Closure Motion
Resolved CL/2021/188
	*That the Council* 1. *Puts the amendment under debate, pursuant to Standing Order 23.2(b).*
Rainey/Edgar Carried

That the Council

1. Undertakes a public referendum on the Government’s Three Waters proposal, prior to it making a final decision to either retain or divest of the assets.

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Skinner

Against

Cr Bowater

Cr Edgar

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Absent

Cr Fulton

The amendment was lost 3 - 9.

Courtney/Brand

A further amendment proposed by Councillor Skinner lapsed for the want of a seconder, as Council’s Standing Orders did not allow the mover or seconder of the previous amendment to second a further amendment.

Resolved CL/2021/189

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

4. Notes the analysis of three water service delivery options available to Council at this time; 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 Council would need 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 (A2754300); and

The substantive motion was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Bowater

Cr Edgar

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Against

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Skinner

Absent

Cr Fulton

The substantive motion was carried 9 - 3.

Attachments

1 A2745300 - letter re NCC's response to the Government's Three Waters proposal

Edgar/McGurk Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 4.51pm until 5.00pm.

8. Nelson Central Library - Flood Mitigation Plan (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R26048, agenda pages 102 - 136 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, presented the report and introduced Activity Engineer Flood Protection, Toby Kay, and Contractor, Damian Velluppillai. Mr Louverdis clarified that the report confirmed there were no detrimental effects to adjacent properties and outlined the methodologies and scenarios considered. The rationale for the additional recommendation was clarified, in that there was no assumption of a two-building scenario.

Questions were answered regarding flood levels, the timeframe for community consultation and exceedance events. It was confirmed that Ministry for the Environment guidance had been considered for the scenarios used and that the modelling would be re-run when it was known what the building would look like, and if anything had changed this would be brought back to Elected Members.

Attendance: Councillor Bowater left the meeting at 5.22pm.

The motion was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2021/190
	*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 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; and 5. Notes that there is no commitment to the two-building footprint that has been modelled, or to specific building shapes or site layout .
Her Worship the Mayor/Brand Carried Resolved CL/2021/191
*That the Council* *3. Approves the Nelson Central Library Development Flood Mitigation Plan (A2733041).*
Her Worship the Mayor/Brand Carried

9. Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 7)

9.1 Audit, Risk and Finance Subcommittee - 14 September 2021

9.1.1 Bad Debts Writeoff - Year Ending 30 June 2021

Resolved CL/2021/192

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.

Edgar/Skinner Carried

9.1.2 Carry Forwards 2020/21

It was noted that, as requested at the last Council meeting, officers were preparing a report to look at the overall impacts of COVID-19 and it was agreed that further discussion was required to monitor carry forwards across the whole Council work programme.

Resolved CL/2021/193

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.

Skinner/Rainey Carried

9.2 Community and Recreation Committee - 16 September 2021

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

Resolved CL/2021/194

That the Council

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

Skinner/Brand Carried

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

Resolved CL/2021/195

That the Council

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

Skinner/Bowater Carried

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

Resolved CL/2021/196

That the Council

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

Skinner/Brand Carried

9.2.5 Community and Recreation Quarterly Report to 30 June 2021

Resolved CL/2021/197

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.

Skinner/Her Worship the Mayor Carried

10. Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R26217, agenda pages 84 - 88 refer.

In request to a question regarding Mayoral correspondence, Her Worship the Mayor clarified how Mayoral correspondence was managed. The Mayor’s Report was adjourned until the meeting reconvened on 5 October 2021.

Exclusion of the Public
Resolved CL/2021/198
		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/Noonan 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 - 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 September 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
	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
	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)

The meeting went into confidential session at 5.47pm and resumed in public session at 6.05pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 6.06pm to be reconvened on 5 October 2021.

Minutes of a meeting of the Nelson City Council -

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Reconvened in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Tuesday 5 October 2021, commencing at 11.48a.m.

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

Apologies
Resolved CL/2021/211
	*That the Council* 1. *Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillors Fulton and Rainey for attendance.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater Carried

11. Mayor's Report (Agenda Item 8 continued)

Document number R26217, agenda pages 84 - 88 refer.

Manager Governance and Support Services, Devorah Nicuarta-Smith, summarised the submission to the Department of Internal Affairs - Māori ward process alignment phase 2, and answered questions regarding the issues covered in Council’s submission.

Resolved CL/2021/212

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).

Her Worship the Mayor/Edgar Carried

12. Council - Status Report - September 2021 (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R26080, agenda pages 89 - 101 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis, noted that an item had been missed from the status report - Adoption of Treasury Management Plan, relating to the Forestry review. He advised that officers were working towards preparing costs for the required work and aimed to present these costs, in the first instance, to the December Forestry Subcommittee. Subject to approval, the next steps would be to commission the work in the current financial year to guide a future Forestry Activity Management Plan.

Resolved CL/2021/213

That the Council

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

Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

13. Nelson Central Library – Decision-making Timeline (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R26167, agenda pages 137 - 142 refer.

Group Manager, Community Services, Andrew White spoke to the report, explaining the rationale for the changes in the recommendation. He answered questions regarding risk in terms of the land exchange

Councillor Sanson foreshadowed an amendment.

Mr White answered further questions regarding negotiations and due diligence regarding climate change and noted that none of the work undertaken was site based. The Chief Executive noted that comprehensive flood modelling work, including an independent climate based risk assessment, had been done as part of the Long Term Plan.

Her Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Bowater, moved the officer’s 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, to:

Confirms that:

· 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

Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater

Councillor Sanson, seconded by Councillor O’Neill-Stevens, moved an amendment by way of addition.

During debate, the following Points of Order were raised:

· Councillor Sanson against Her Worship the Mayor for misrepresentation, in that Council’s Activity Engineer Flood Protection, Toby Kay, was not a climate financial risk assessment expert, the Point of Order was not upheld and it was reiterated that the modelling would be run again.

· Councillor Sanson against Her Worship the Mayor for misrepresentation, as there was no attempt to halt the process, which would run in parallel, the Point of Order was not upheld.

· Councillor Lawrey against Her Worship the Mayor for irrelevance in that the Kainga Ora project was completely different, the Point of Order was not upheld.

That the Council

2. Agrees to undertake an independent climate-related financial risk assessment, noting that this will run in parallel with land exchange negotiations; and

The amendment was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Sanson

Against

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Absent

Cr Fulton

Cr Rainey

The amendment was lost 3 - 8.

Sanson/O'Neill-Stevens Lost

Resolved CL/2021/214

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, to:

Confirms that:

The substantive motion was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Bowater

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Edgar

Cr Lawrey

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr McGurk

Cr Noonan

Cr Skinner

Her Worship the Mayor Reese (Chairperson)

Against

Cr Sanson

Absent

Cr Fulton

Cr Rainey

The substantive motion was carried 10 - 1.

Her Worship the Mayor/Bowater Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 12.35pm until 3.40pm, at which time, Councillors Sanson and Edgar were not present.

14. Uniquely Nelson - Annual Report 2020/21 (Agenda Item 12)

Document number R23760, agenda pages 143 - 175 refer.

It was agreed to defer the Uniquely Nelson – Annual Report 2020/21 to the 28 October Council meeting, in order to allow Uniquely Nelson representatives sufficient time to speak to the Annual Report.

Defer item of business
Resolved CL/2021/215
	*That the Council* 1. *Defers the item Uniquely Nelson – Annual Report 2020/21 to be considered at the Council meeting to be held on 28 October 2021.*
Her Worship the Mayor/Noonan Carried

15. Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June (Agenda Item 14)

Document number R25980, agenda pages 234 - 250 refer.

Updated agenda pages 235 – 237 were tabled (A2751844)

Resolved CL/2021/216
	*That the Council* 1. Receives the report Strategic Development and Property Quarterly Report to 30 June (R25980) and its attachments (A2711975, A2712692).
Noonan/Skinner Carried
	Attachments 1 A2751844 - tabled replacement graphs agenda pages 235 - 237

16. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2021/217

That the Council

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

Noonan/Courtney 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)
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)
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)

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Council - 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)

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)

The meeting went into confidential session at 3.43pm. and resumed in public session at 3.50pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

IT Funding Request

That the Council

3. Agrees that the Report R26200, its attachment (A2735415) and the decision remain confidential at this time.

Mayor's Report - Confidential

That the Council

3. Agrees that Attachment 2 (A2699327) and the decision be made publicly available; and

4. Agrees that Report (R26177) and Attachment 1 (A2731116) remain confidential at this time.

Nelson Central Library Development Land Exchange Negotiating Team

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Central Library Development Land Exchange Negotiating Team (R26047) and its attachment (A2741022); and

2. Approves the Nelson Central Library Development Land Exchange Negotiation Team, consisting of the Group Manager Community Services (Team Lead), Group Manager Infrastructure, John Murray and Sam Cottier (Lead Negotiator); and

3. Notes that John Murray’s appointment to the panel is subject to approval of the Office of the Auditor General under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act (1968); and

4. Agrees that the decision be made publicly available, but the report (R26047) and its attachment (A2741022) remain confidential at this time.

Release of Nelson Marina - Land Development Plan

That the Council

1. Receives the report Release of Nelson Marina - Land Development Plan and its attachment (A2749027); and

2. Receives the letter of support from the Nelson Marina Advisory Group (NMAG)(A2749017); and

3. Agrees that Report (R26250), Attachment (A2749027) and the decision be made publicly available.

Directors remuneration 2021 - Nelmac Limited

That the Council

3. Agrees that the report Directors remuneration 2021 – Nelmac Limited (R26238) and decision be made publicly available once the 2021 Nelmac Annual General Meeting has taken place.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.55pm.

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

Resolved

Item 10: Nelson Future Access - Business Case Endorsement

Council

28 October 2021

REPORT R26073

Nelson Future Access - Business Case Endorsement

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek endorsement from Council for the Nelson Future Access project (NFA) final Business Case (Business Case) following public engagement and technical reviews undertaken by Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi).

2. Summary

2.1 The NFA project is led by Waka Kotahi, with Nelson City Council (NCC) as a key Project Partner.

2.2 Following approval by Council on 13 May 2021, Waka Kotahi commenced further engagement on the preferred programme (near-term and short-term programme and the Rocks Road Walk and Cycle project) that has culminated in the finalisation of the Business Case – the subject of this report.

2.3 The Business Case includes a programme of activities, designed with stakeholders, in a range of different activities within Nelson over the next 30 years. The programme aims to increase the availability of attractive walking and cycling paths and public transport options, focuses on reliable journeys to support regional economic development, improves safety for everyone, contributes towards NCC climate change goals and makes urban neighbourhoods more liveable.

2.4 Council endorsement of the Business Case is essential as a significant portion of the Business Case involves the local road network and consequential investment from both Council and Waka Kotahi. Without Council endorsement Waka Kotahi will not be recommending the Business Case to its Board. Without a Waka Kotahi supported NFA transport system-wide programme, many of the activities contained within the Business Case are unlikely to ever be rated high enough nationally by Waka Kotahi to receive funding. In order to make progress on Council’s local road projects, Council would need to develop individual business cases for each project and apply for funding for those activities.

2.5 The Regional Transport Committee (RTC) has been kept informed of the feedback and progress of the NFA.

2.6 The Waka Kotahi Board announced the 2021-24 National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) on 7 September 2021 and no funding for the NFA project, other than finalisation of the Business Case, was approved – because at the time this was not supported by a business case being in place.

2.7 An amount of $30M over the next 10 years (which includes Waka Kotahi’s share at the Funding Assistance Rate of 51%) has been included in both the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and Long-Term Plan (LTP) as a funding placeholder for the possible implementation of the near-term and short-term measures.

2.8 Now that the NFA Business Case recommendations are known, NCC are able to vary the RLTP placeholder to align with the early activities that require pre-implementation funding to progress. It is recommended that this is done concurrently with the Waka Kotahi Board approval process so that a funding application can be made in early 2022.

2.9 The final Business Case shows a significant difference between the current RLTP and LTP funding allocations and the recommended optimal delivery programme. A three-year work programme focused on the local road activities is covered off in this report which, subject to the Business Case approval:

2.9.1 Is aligned to Council’s RLTP;

2.9.2 Can commence without needing further consultation to update the RLTP;

2.9.3 Allows several projects, that will be in a construction ready state (ie designed and consented), to take advantage of funding opportunities that could arise.

2.10 Endorsement of the Business Case by Council is not in itself a commitment by Council to any works for which it does not have funding for - it does however show a commitment on the future direction addressed in the Business Case.

2.11 The recommended optimal programme in the completed Business Case will be used to inform the mid-term review of the RLTP in 2024.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Future Access - Business Case Endorsement (R26073) and its attachments A2631617, A2749609, A2771168 and A2770156; and

2. Endorses the Nelson Future Access Business Case (Attachment A2770156 of Report R26073) to enable submission to the Waka Kotahi Board for approval; and

4. Background

4.1 The background to this project is detailed in the 25 June 2020 and 11 May 2021 Council reports and is not replicated here. Those reports are appended as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.

4.2 The latest round of public engagement concluded on the 18 June 2021 and the team has assessed all submissions and reviewed activities and revised the Business Case accordingly.

4.3 The feedback has been shared with the Governance Group (GG), who endorsed the Business Case on 6 October 2021.

5. Iwi Partnership

5.1 Iwi are a key partner in the NFA project. Iwi have been invited to participate on the GG and have participated and provided input at the Project Reference Group (PRG) workshops. The Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) on Māori cultural values were also collaboratively developed with iwi advisors and used to assess the packages.

6. Business Case Summary

6.1 Refer to Attachment 3 for the Business Case Executive Summary.

6.2 The Recommended Programme, designed with stakeholders, includes investment in a range of different activities within Nelson over the next 30 years. The programme:

6.2.1 Increases the availability of attractive walking and cycling paths and public transport options close to areas of planned dense urban living;

6.2.2 Focuses on reliable journeys to support regional economic development;

6.2.3 Improves safety for everyone;

6.2.4 Makes urban neighbourhoods more liveable; and

6.2.5 Contributes towards NCC climate change goals by aligning the future transport system towards a low-carbon multi-modal future with less dependence on single occupancy car movements.

7. Funding and links to the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and National Land Transport Programme (NLTP)

7.1 As advised to Council previously, for a project to feature in the NLTP and be eligible for national funding, it must be part of an RLTP. The RLTP has been finalised and was sent to Waka Kotahi on 30 June 2021 and Council also signed off on its Long Term Plan (LTP) in June 2021.

7.2 The final RLTP and LTP includes a place holder amount of $30M over the next 10 years (inflated and including Waka Kotahi’s share at the Funding Assistance Rate of 51%), set aside to implement near to short term measures on the local road network. Whilst no specific projects were identified in the LTP, this placeholder funding included provision for a range of activities targeted at making best use of existing infrastructure that will improve safety, neighbourhood amenity and increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling.

7.3 The Business Case reflects a recommended optimal revised 10-year programme of $85M for the local road network (excluding Rocks Road walking and cycling) and this represents a shortfall of $55M from the figures in the RLTP/LTP. Given the tight fiscal environment for both Council and Waka Kotahi, it is proposed to develop activities for the 2021-24 period in line with Councils existing allocations to the NFA with a programme review when the time comes to update the RLTP (and LTP) in 2024 for 2024-2034.

7.4 Whilst funding was provided to complete the NFA Business Case, no funding for pre-implementation or implementation of the programme (including Rocks Road walking and Cycling) was approved because at that stage, the Business Case had not been advanced to the point where it could be presented to the Waka Kotahi Board.

7.5 On approval of the Business Case, Waka Kotahi will re-consider funding the programme. Activities also need to be included in the RLTP as a prerequisite for inclusion in the NLTP. Whilst NCC projects are included in the RLTP through the NFA placeholder activity, Waka Kotahi is likely to request that NCC vary the RLTP to include SH6 Rocks Road Pre-Implementation to facilitate inclusion in the NLTP and for a funding application to be considered. Varying the RLTP to include a pre-implementation phase for the project does not trigger the RTC’s Significance Policy. The Significance Policy deems a significant activity as any Improvement Activity with an estimated construction cost (including property) exceeding $5M and any other matter the RTC resolves as being regionally significant, but notes:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the following variations to the RLTP are considered not significant for purposes of consultation:

ii. A scope change to an activity that, when added to all previous scope changes for the same activity does not materially change the objective(s) and proposed outcomes of the activity;

NFA funding aside, the Waka Kotahi Board approved the 2021-24 NLTP on 7 September 2021 and announced funding for the regions. Nelson received $11.7M for city wide Low Cost Low Risk (LCLR) projects and $5.985M for operating and improving the public transport service as outlined in the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP). This is supported by the Business Case.

7.6 The Business Case has identified several safety priorities that can progress from the LCLR budget allocation approved for NCC as part of the approved NLTP and this is addressed in the report.

7.7 Council is also mindful that any improvement measures implemented on its arterial roads are likely to provide benefit to the State Highway. Whilst Waka Kotahi has advised that the programme is ineligible for an enhanced FAR rate, Council will continue to advocate for a higher subsidy than the current 51%. This discussion with Waka Kotahi is ongoing.

8. Implications of feedback on final Business Case

8.1 As a result of the delay in finalising the Business Case and the timing of the RLTP/LTP sign-off by Council (which preceded the latest round of engagement) and after considering the most recent feedback, the nature, timing, and costs of the projects have been refined.

8.2 The consultation document proposed the following improvements in the short-term:

8.2.1 To provide safer walking and cycling, a new section of cycle path between the Motueka St-Tipahi Street intersection and Hampden Street-Waimea Road intersection including a new signalised intersection at Motueka/Tipahi to connect key places such as schools and the hospital. This would connect to a cycle route developed as part of the Council’s Innovating Streets trial (making it more permanent) and would combine to form the Victory to Waimea cycling route.

8.2.2 A new active modes corridor facility up Washington Road between St. Vincent Street and Mt Vernon Place to align with a proposed council upgrade of 3 water infrastructure.

8.2.3 Safety improvements such as traffic calming measures to discourage people from taking short-cuts (rat-running) along Washington Road and Tipahi Street.

8.2.4 To improve safety and efficiency by installing traffic signals at the Parkers Road/Tahunanui Drive intersection.

8.2.5 To reduce rat-running in residential streets and to improve traffic flow along State Highway 6 (SH6), a reinstatement of the short (southbound) afternoon peak-hour clearway at the intersection of Bisley Avenue and Rocks Road. Outside of the afternoon peak period, parking would be allowed.

8.2.6 Area wide speed review of neighbourhood streets to make them safer and more attractive to walk and cycle around.

8.2.7 A new safe crossing point on Muritai Street near the intersection with Tahunanui Drive.

8.2.8 A signalised intersection at Franklyn Street and Waimea Road to make it safer to turn right into Waimea Road and to also provide safe crossing for pedestrians

8.3 Following the latest round of feedback, the following changes have been included in the Business Case:

8.3.1 Consider slower speed on Rocks Road;

8.3.2 Making permanent the southbound lane at the Bisley Avenue signals, including safe access to businesses;

8.3.3 Additional pedestrian facilities at Māori Rd and Tāhunanui Dr near St Stephens Church;

8.3.4 Remove the Whakatu Drive pedestrian crossing;

8.3.5 Separated cycle facilities (as opposed to a shared path) to link Railway Reserve to Waimea Road;

8.3.6 Align the programme over time with development pressures as they are consented; and

8.3.7 Bring forward the Ridgeway/Waimea signals to short-term providing potential for developer funding and to future proof the layout.

9. Near-Term Activities

9.1 The local road activities identified in the Business Case that are recommended to be progressed over the next three years are shown below (funded jointly by NCC/Waka Kotahi):

9.1.1 Franklyn Street signals;

9.1.2 Muritai Street crossing facility;

9.1.3 Maori Road crossing facility;

9.1.4 Washington Road walking and cycling and speed management; and

9.1.5 Railway reserve to Waimea Road walking and cycling and speed management (including Motueka/Tipahi signals).

9.2 Supporting activities already in progress include:

· Area wide speed review of neighbourhood streets to make them safer and more attractive to walk and cycle around;

· Parking Strategy that will enable mode shift; and

· Public transport service improvements as outlined in NCC’s RPTP.

9.3 The non-local road priorities (funded 100% by Waka Kotahi) that are recommended to be progressed over the next three years are as follows:

9.3.1 Bisley Ave/Tahunanui Drive southbound merge;

9.3.2 Tahunanui/Parkers/Maire signals; and

9.3.3 Speed review of Rocks Road in co-ordination with NCC to ensure system wide review.

9.4 The estimated costs and timing for all the above priority work is shown over the page:

Project	21/22	22/23	23/24
NCC/Waka Kotahi funded
Muritai Street crossing (LCLR)		$340,000
Franklyn/Waimea signals (LCLR)	$139,000	$719,000	$719,000
Washington walk/cycle	$416,000	$4.5M	$4.5M
Railway Reserve to Waimea Road walk/cycle	$416,000	$5.3M	$5.3M
Waka Kotahi funded
Bisley/Tahunanui southbound merge		$70,000
Tahunanui/Parkers/Maire signals	$155,000	$1.3M	$1.3M
Rocks Road pre-implementation	$500,000	$3M	$3M

Washington and Railway Reserve Walk/Cycle projects

9.5 The Washington and Railway Reserve walking and cycling projects are projects currently in the RLTP, but whilst they are deemed as priorities in the Business Case, have not been assigned pre-implementation or implementation funding from the NLTP for the same reason provided earlier, namely that the Business Case had not been advanced to the point where it could be presented to the Waka Kotahi Board.

9.6 Moving forward, officers will work with Waka Kotahi, to ensure that the funding applications for pre-implementation work for these two projects are submitted concurrently with approval of the Business Case by Waka Kotahi.

10. Council priorities work in relation to the Business Case and the NLTP

10.1 As noted already, Council has received LCLR funding of $11.7M over the NLTP three-year period for the following activity classes:

· Road to Zero Safety - $2.8M;

· Local Road improvements - $3.3M;

· Public Transport Infrastructure - $0.7M;

· Public Transport Services - $2.5M; and

· Walking and Cycling - $2.4M.

10.2 For Council what this means is that work will commence on the following safety activities that will lend strong support to the Business Case, and can proceed now from LCLR funding as this is not contingent on other funding and does not require any change to the RLTP and LTP. Work on the pedestrian refuges at Muritai Street and Maori Road are subject to approval of the Business Case by Waka Kotahi.

Project	LCLR Activity	Contributing to NFA outcomes
Franklyn/Waimea signals	Road to Zero Safety	Walking & Cycling/Safety
School speed zone signs – Haven Rd	Road to Zero Safety	Walking & Cycling/Safety

11. Bisley/Tahunanui southbound merge

11.1 The Business Case recommends that the southbound merge lane be made permanent following a safety review and considerable concern about safety by the community. Making the merge lane permanent will:

11.1.1 Provide significant additional people and freight moving capacity through the intersection;

11.1.2 Result in a corresponding drop in rat running through the Port Hills;

11.1.3 Will make enforcement easier; and

11.1.4 Will ensure safe and visible access to the local residents and businesses.

11.2 This is an emotive issue and was not supported by the Tahunanui community or businesses. It is recognised that the chemist, doctor’s rooms and medlab are essential local services and that removing on-street parking outside of these businesses will make it more difficult for the community to access these services.

11.3 To move this forward, officers propose to commence work on assessing options for any short to medium term off-street parking. This work will be co-ordinated with Waka Kotahi’s timing of their planned southbound merge scheduled for 2022/23. Any solution would be funded fully by NCC.

12. Rocks Road

12.1 The expected cost to implement the recommended programme for Rocks Road, which includes a 5m wide walking and cycling facility is estimated to cost between $140 and $166M and is up from the estimated $60-$70M indicated in June 2020.

12.2 The revised cost is a result of more work and better understanding of risks, including consideration of the environmental and heritage factors relating to working within the coastal marine area, as well as the feedback from residents, transport system users, other stakeholders, and partners.

12.3 No further work can progress on this project until the finalisation of the Business Case, inclusion in the RLTP of pre-implementation work and approval by the Waka Kotahi Board and subsequent (and possibly concurrent) consideration of a funding application by Waka Kotahi for the pre-implementation phase of the project.

13. Council decision

13.1 As a key project partner, NCC’s involvement is required at this key milestone, that being endorsement of the final Business Case that will go to the Waka Kotahi Board for approval. An approved Business Case will elevate the priority of the NFA projects nationally and significantly enhance the chances of future funding.

13.2 The Waka Kotahi Board is meeting on 16 December2021 to consider and approve the final Business Case.

13.3 Without Council endorsement, Waka Kotahi will not be considering the Business Case, and it is less likely that individual activities identified in the Business Case will attain a sufficient national priority to receive future funding from Waka Kotahi.

14. Timeline

14.1 The timeline from this point on is as follows:

14.1.1 Council endorsement of the final Business Case. Subject of this report.

14.1.2 Amend RLTP to add Rocks Road Pre-implementation – 6 December 2021 RTC meeting, with approval by Council on 9 December.

14.1.3 Waka Kotahi Board Business Case approval – 16 December 2021.

14.1.4 Commencement of priority projects from the LCLR budget. 2020/21.

14.1.5 Commencement of Rocks Road walking and cycling pre-implementation phases will be dependent on the success of the funding application by Waka Kotahi in early 2022.

15. Discussion

15.1 The Executive summary is appended to this report. The final Business Case (A2770156) from Waka Kotahi is the culmination of well over four year’s targeted work involving key stakeholders through the PRG, iwi Partners and the governance structure and is a substantial document (comprising over 750 pages). The Business Case can be accessed via the link below and a hard copy was also placed in the councillor’s lounge on 20 October 2021.

https://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/projects/infrastructure/Nelson-Future-Access/NFA-DRAFT-Business-Case-19Oct2021-A2770156-small.pdf

15.2 The community has provided feedback during two engagement periods, with the most recent engagement focussed on the Short-term and Rocks Road Walk and Cycle projects.

15.3 The community has been advised of the feedback received from the most recent engagement and the Governance Group has endorsed the final Business Case.

15.4 The Waka Kotahi project team will attend the meeting to talk to the Business Case and to answer questions Councillors may have.

16. Options

16.1 Council has the option of either endorsing or not endorsing the Business Case. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Endorse the final Business Case. Recommended option
Advantages	· Will show Council leadership and commitment to the local road activities with the NFA Recommended Programme · Will recognise community feedback and insight · A necessary step to finalise the NFA Business Case and to seek Waka Kotahi Board approval · Will recognise the commitment from the PRG and all stakeholders · Will show commitment to addressing the identified problems with solutions that are aligned to NCC’s LTP priorities · Strengthens collaborative working relationship with Waka Kotahi · Contributes towards NCC climate change goals by aligning the future transport system towards a low-carbon multi-modal future with less dependence on single occupancy car movements.
Risks and Disadvantages	· May raise community expectations in an uncertain funding environment
Option 2: Do not endorse the final Business Case
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reputational risk with the wider Nelson community and the PRG · Apathy and fatigue with likely PRG and wider Nelson community burn-out who have been dealing with this project for many years · No positive outcome for Nelson · Will limit prioritisation for investment in Government’s NLTP · Will leave a vacuum in the long-term transport system planning for Nelson · Unlikely to attract Waka Kotahi funding in the future for sustainable transport options, reducing the capacity for NCC to respond to its climate change emergency

17. Conclusion

17.1 Arriving at a final Business Case, as presented in this report, is the culmination of four years of focussed investigation work and collaboration with iwi, key stakeholders and the wider public.

17.2 The final Business Case is presented to Council for endorsement. Council’s endorsement would demonstrate commitment to the local road activities within the NFA Recommended Programme that are critical to the success of the broader programme. This commitment strengthens the Business Case and will allow it to be submitted to the Waka Kotahi Board for approval. This in turn will allow funding to be sought and if successful will allow design and consenting to commence.

18. Next Steps

18.1 The next step following endorsement by Council of the Business Case will be for Waka Kotahi to present the Business Case to their Board for approval.

18.2 NCC officers will in partnership with Waka Kotahi make the necessary funding application(s) and update the RLTP to reflect the revised programme for Rocks Road Pre-implementation work.

18.3 Work will proceed on the delivery of key projects that can be funded from Councils local road LCLR budget as approved by the NTLP.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2631617 - NFA Report - Council - 25 June 2020 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2749609 - NFA Report - Council 11 May 2021 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2771168 - NFAP DBC Executive Summary ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The NFA Business Case aligns very well with the purpose of local government in that it enables democratic local decision-making and progresses a programme that promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities for the future.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Business Case will contribute to the following community outcomes:

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

“Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”; and

“Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”.

3. Risk

The report recommends endorsement by Council of the final Business Case following public engagement on the preferred programme. The process followed, to minimise risk, has been extensive and has included:

- Following the Waka Kotahi Business Case approach;

- Setting up a three-tiered governance structure;

- Setting up of a PRG comprising a wide range of stakeholders; and

- Liaising with Iwi at a high level.

4. Financial impact

Cost implication and funding responsibilities are detailed in the report.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This NFA outcome is of high significance and was publicly consulted on in June 2020 and May 2021.

With respect to updating the RLTP to enable Waka Kotahi to vary the NLTP to include the Rocks Road pre-implementation phases, the RTC’s Significance Policy deems a significant activity as any Improvement Activities with an estimated construction costs (including property) exceeding $5M and any other matter the RTC resolves as being regionally significant.

The Significance Policy notes:

“For the avoidance of doubt, the following variations to the RLTP are considered not significant for purposes of consultation:

ii. A scope change to an activity that, when added to all previous scope changes for the same activity does not materially change the objective(s) and proposed outcomes of the activity;

To allow for Rocks Road pre-implementation work (investigation, consent, and design), it is proposed (in line with the RTC’s Significant Policy) to vary the RLTP to include for this at a future RTC meeting that will then allow Waka Kotahi to include this in the NLTP and for a future funding application to be considered. The cost for the implementation of Rocks Road will be dealt with as part of the RLTP mid-term review and the next LTP.

6. Climate Impact

The NFA Investment Logic Map has as one of its benefits “Nelson’s transport system contributes to quality urban environments” with an associated KPI of increasingly moving to carbon neutrality. The project focusses on adaptation with respect to sea level rise.

The final Business Case also contributes towards NCC climate change goals by aligning the future transport system towards a low-carbon multi-modal future with less dependence on single occupancy car movements.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

Iwi have been involved in the decision-making as detailed in this report.

8. Delegations

Regular updates on the NFA have been provided to the Nelson RTC. The objectives and scope of the NFA were received by the 3 December 2018 Nelson RTC and endorsed by Council on 13 December 2018.

The decision to approve the final Business Case is Waka Kotahi’s. The GG has endorsed the Business Case and Council’s role is to endorse the Business Case that will allow it to be presented to the Waka Kotahi Board for approval.

Item 11: Nelson Central Library - Project Management and Governance Structure

Council

28 October 2021

REPORT R26049

Nelson Central Library - Project Management and Governance Structure

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve the project management and governance structure for the Nelson Central Library Development Project.

1.2 To establish a Governance Reference Group that provides Councillor input into the project.

2. Summary

2.1 As part of the Nelson Central Library Development project, Council asked officers to set out the project management and governance structure. Given the scale and public interest in the project, officers have sought professional, independent advice to develop a bespoke project management and governance framework that included input from other local authorities.

2.2 The framework includes both governance and management functions, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. It includes a Quality Assurance Team (QAT) that sits outside of the Delivery Entity (DE) to ensure design and construction is undertaken in a way that meets Council expectations for the project.

2.3 As part of the structure, it is recommended that a Nelson Central Library Governance Reference Group (GRG) made up of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, two Councillors, an iwi representative, Group Manager Community Services, Group Manager Infrastructure plus the Project Director is established. Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) have been developed for this Group.

2.4 This report only seeks a decision on the way in which the project is to be managed/delivered and does not pre-empt nor seek to influence future decisions of Council in relation to the specifics of location, design, or procurement process for construction.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Central Library - Project Management and Governance Structure (R26049) and its attachments A2758524, A2762028 and A2760701; and

2. Approves the project management and governance structure as set out in Report R26049 and its attachments A2758524, A2762028 and A2760701; and

3. Agrees to establish a Nelson Central Library Governance Reference Group with Terms of Reference as set out in (A2760701); and

4. Appoints the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, ____ and ____ to the Nelson Central Library Governance Reference Group; and

5. Notes that the approval of the project management and governance structure does not constrain Council in relation to any final decision on library location, design, or construction procurement.

4. Background

4.1 During the Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) deliberations on 18 May 2021, Council reconfirmed that its preferred option is to build a new library building on the corner of Halifax Street and Trafalgar Street, within the Riverside Precinct.

4.2 As part of a suite of recommendations, Council resolved on 18 May 2021:

That the Council

“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

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

4.3 Further to this resolution, Council considered a report on 5 October 2021 where the first resolution referred to in 4.2, on the matter of the subject of this report, was amended to read as below (changes are highlighted for ease of comparison). There is no substantial difference between the intent of the two resolutions as the amended resolution addresses matters of timing of the various work streams only.

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 This report specifically addresses the requirement of a project management and governance structure as well as the quality assurance framework mentioned in the above resolution.

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

4.5.1 The land exchange negotiation brief (Council has already agreed the negotiating team);

4.5.2 The allocation of community space;

4.5.3 Climate change mitigation and Environmental sustainability objectives; and

4.5.4 Housing opportunities.

4.6 Aesculus Project Management (Aesculus) was contracted by Council to provide advice on an appropriate project management framework. Officers also visited Christchurch City Council to view their approach in delivering large scale projects.

4.7 This work resulted in the development of a proposed project management and governance structure that was presented at a Council workshop held on 10 August 2021.

5. Discussion

5.1 The development of a new Nelson Central Library is a complex, high profile multi-year project involving several phases of work, including land negotiations, community engagement, project management, governance oversight, a quality assurance framework, concept design, detailed design, consenting, procurement, construction and fit-out.

5.2 There is significant public interest in the project, with high community expectations in relation to the deliverables specifically the look and functionality of the finished library, and the physical delivery thereof (project management, quality, and fiscal controls).

5.3 Council approved the business case for the project which sets out its own expectations in relation to the project scope, including flood mitigation, sustainability, and the outcomes to be delivered by the new library for the community. Further requirements may arise from the proposed community engagement that will take place in 2022.

5.4 Given the complexity and the scale of the project, officers have worked with Aesculus and consulted counterparts at the Christchurch City Council (who were involved in the construction of Tūranga), to develop a bespoke project management and governance structure for this project, based on good practice and the need for transparency and accountability. The structure includes a project organisational structure, with identified roles and responsibilities.

6. Project Organisational Structure

6.1 The project organisational chart (Attachment 1) sets out the proposed structure for project management and governance of the project. The physical delivery aspect, shown on the attachment, includes for a design/build scenario for the Delivery Entity (DE). Whilst this scenario could change as work on the project progresses, the project management and governance structure has been set up to operate effectively irrespective of how the DE delivers the physical works associated with the build.

6.2 The roles and responsibilities of each of the key roles and groups are set out in Attachment 2.

6.3 The design of the proposed structure seeks to ensure that all project duties are defined and allocated, and that there is clear and appropriate delegation of authority to allow decisions to be made which will enable effective delivery.

6.4 The key points to note are:

6.4.1 Council is the overarching owner of the project, providing high-level oversight and strategic direction to the project;

6.4.2 A GRG comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, two Councillors, the Group Manager Community Services, Group Manager Infrastructure, Project Director and iwi representative (to be appointed by the Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Mauī Iwi Chairs forum) will provide a mechanism for feedback, suggestions and overview to the Library Steering Group. The Group Managers and dedicated iwi representative were added to the GRG group further to the structure workshopped with councillors on 10 August, to ensure:

· In the case of the Group Managers, continuity between the Library Steering Group and GRG;

· In the case of the dedicated iwi representative to provide iwi high-level governance as opposed to an operational perspective.

6.4.3 Several engagement and partnership mechanisms will be established, including specific liaison with iwi;

6.4.4 Project co-ordination sits with a Project Director, who reports to the Project Control Group (PCG);

6.4.5 The PCG has responsibility for project monitoring, direct project governance, risk management, project reporting and escalation of risk to Council;

6.4.6 The Quality Assurance Group (QAG) sits outside of the main construction contract and will provide an independent review of the project to ensure all aspects are delivered in line with Council specifications – this addresses Council’s requirement that the delivery of this project will follow best practice with a Quality Assurance Framework in place for the life of the project;

6.4.7 A project management group responsible for the concept design and having construction oversight sits alongside the QAG and the Delivery Entity (DE) and is made up of independent specialists that will assess the final design arrived at by the DE and progress on site; and

6.4.8 The DE (under a design/build scenario) will be responsible for all aspects of detailed design and build. It will provide a designated single point of contact to Council to ensure clarity and accountability for the capital build delivery.

6.5 Draft ToR for the GRG have been developed (Attachment 3). It is recommended that these be agreed and that appointments are made to this Group.

6.6 Officers will continue to report progress to Council on a quarterly basis and have commenced a procurement process for the Project Director.

7. Options

7.1 There are two matters before Council, namely:

7.1.1 Consideration and approval of the project management and governance structure, including appointment of elected members to the GRG, noting that the framework does not make any assumptions as to the specific design of the library and that these will be the subject of future reports to Council; and

7.1.2 Consideration and approval of the ToR for the GRG.

Project Management and Governance Structure

7.2 Council has three options to consider in this matter, either:

7.2.1 Option 1: Approve (with minor amendments) the proposed project management and governance structure - officers recommend this option; or

7.2.2 Option 2: Not approve the proposed project management and governance structure; or

7.2.3 Option 3: Propose an alternative framework which may include no framework at all.

Option 1: Approve the project management/governance structure – recommended option
Advantages	· Provides a robust independent framework for the successful delivery of the project · The structure is based on professional project management advice and represents industry good practice · The structure has been designed to address issues raised by Council when it decided to progress the project · The structure provides clarity of responsibility and quality assurance · The structure, whilst different to how Council officers manages smaller capital projects, is fit-for-purpose for larger, complex vertical infrastructure projects
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not approve the project management/governance structure
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· The Project Director is a pivotal role and is subject to a procurement process - any delay in approving the framework will delay this procurement and delay the overall project
Option 3: Propose another project management/governance structure
Advantages	· May meet Council expectations
Risks and Disadvantages	· Would delay the project as officers would need to seek advice on any proposed alternative · Would delay the Project Director procurement · If Council decided not to establish any Governance Group, officers would have to rely on Council workshops and meetings to hear Councillor feedback and that (based on current demands on workshops and meeting dates) would introduce persistent and ongoing delays to the project. · Any changes are likely to result in significant delays to the project · Significant changes may compromise the effectiveness of the structure

Governance Reference Group Terms of Reference

7.3 Should Council agree to the proposed project management and governance structure, a ToR is suggested as the means to guide the GRG.

7.4 Council can either approve (with minor amendments) or not approve the proposed ToR for the GRG. Officers recommend approving the proposed ToR.

Option 1: Approve the GRG ToR – recommended option
Advantages	· Sets clear parameters under which the GRG can operate
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not approve the GRG ToR
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will not set clear parameters for how the GEG would be able to effectively operate.

8. Conclusion

8.1 Council and the Nelson community have high expectations for the Central Library Project, and whilst there are still decisions to be made in relation to the design brief and location, it is essential that there is confidence in the project management and governance structure.

8.2 Council officers have taken professional project management advice and have consulted with colleagues responsible for the delivery of Tūranga in Christchurch. The structure presented reflects that advice and provides clear governance and management arrangements, with a Quality Assurance Team and independent Clerk-of-Works to provide expert oversight.

9. Next Steps

9.1 Council officers will appoint a Project Director and once appointed, a meeting of the GRG will be arranged to discuss process in more detail.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2758524 - Proposed Project Management and Governance Structure ⇩

Attachment 2: A2762028 - Proposed Roles ⇩

Attachment 3: A2760701 - Draft Terms of Reference - Central Library Governance Reference Group ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Libraries are a core function of Council and contribute to the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the Nelson community in the present and for the future

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is consistent with Council’s preferred option in the LTP Consultation Document, and with the decisions made in relation to project management for the new library

3. Risk

All construction projects have a degree of inherent risk, as issues will arise at each stage of the process. The recommendations in this report provide a framework for managing those risks, which includes clarity around responsibilities and accountabilities for monitoring, reporting and delivery. A separate Quality Assurance Team will provide professional oversight of the project to ensure key Council expectations are met.

4. Financial Impact

Budget for the recommended option is included in the draft LTP.

5. Degree of Significance and Level of Engagement

This matter is of low/medium significance as it relates to management processes relating to a Central Library development, rather than to the specifics of the location and design. No specific community consultation or engagement has been carried out as part of preparing this report. However, feedback from the community through the LTP process did indicate an expectation of strong project management for this significant community project. The recommended approach is in line with that expectation.

6. Climate Impact

The report deals with a proposed structure to deliver the project. Sustainability outcomes are included in the project brief.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process

Māori have not been consulted in the development of this report. However, the recommended option will include iwi representation on the Project Control Group and Governance Reference Group and ongoing, specific engagement through a cultural consultant.

8. Delegations

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

Item 12: Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31

Council

28 October 2021

REPORT R18127

Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 following approval of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 in June 2021.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (R18127) and its attachment (A2443568); and

2. Adopts the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A2511502)

3. Background

3.1 Activity Management Plans (AMPs) are prepared by Council to inform development of the Long Term Plan (LTP). Following consultation on the LTP, AMPs and been reviewed and updated.

3.2 A series of workshops and briefings were held with the elected members during the preparation of this AMP.

3.3 The AMP takes account of previous Council and Committee resolutions and feedback at workshops on the proposed levels of service and key issues.

3.4 A draft Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan was not presented to Council for adoption prior to the Long Term Plan consultation as it was intended that there would be further workshops on the document prior to its adoption. However, a draft AMP was prepared and was used to inform the LTP development.

3.5 The focus areas within the draft AMP cover several areas of Council delegations, as shown in the table below.

Focus area	Team^{^[1]} within Council responsible	Current Committee delegation^{^[2]}
Trafalgar Centre	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Community Centres and Halls (Stoke Memorial Hall, Greenmeadows Centre/ Pūtangitangi, Wakapuaka Hall, Trafalgar Street Hall, Trafalgar Pavilion)	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Swimming Pools (Riverside Pool, Nayland Pool)	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Public Toilets	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Marina	Parks and Facilities	Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee
Campgrounds (Brook campground, Maitai Campground, Tahunanui Campground)	Parks and Facilities	Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee
Cemeteries (Marsden Valley, Wakapuaka, Seaview and Hira)	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Crematorium	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee
Parks and Reserves Bridges and Platforms (includes jetties and wharfs)	Parks and Facilities	Community and Recreation Committee note, transport bridges not included in this AMP note, marina bridges the delegation of Strategic Development and Property
Parks and Reserves Buildings (those buildings not included in other sections of this AMP or of the Parks and Reserves AMP)	Parks and Facilities and Property (leased properties)	Community and Recreation Committee
Saxton Field Buildings	Parks and Facilities and Property (leased properties)	Saxton Field Committee
Libraries (Elma Turner, Stoke, Nightingale Library Memorial)	Property and Libraries	Community and Recreation Committee Note, Council retains delegations for Elma Turner Library redevelopment
Heritage Houses (Isel House, Melrose House, Broadgreen House and Founders Heritage Park)	Property and Community Partnerships	Community and Recreation Committee
Community Properties (The Refinery, Citizens Advice/Plunket, Surf Lifesaving Tahuna, Stoke Community Hall, Guppy Park changing rooms, Waimarama Community Gardens, Woodturners building, Youth Nelson Building, 1 Kinzett Terrace, Tahunanui Community Centre, Tahunanui Beach café)	Property	Community and Recreation Committee
Civic House	Property	Council
Strategic Properties (250 Haven Road, Anchor building, 236 Haven Road, 300 Wakefield Quay, 23 Halifax Street – pending deconstruction, 101 Achilles Avenue, 81 Achilles Avenue, 42 Rutherford Street, Millers Acre and residential properties held for strategic purposes)	Property	Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee

4. Discussion

4.1 The Property and Facilities AMP sets out the background to Council’s Property and Facilities activity, and includes details of the following:

4.1.1 Levels of Service

4.1.2 Information on demand, lifecycle management and risk

4.1.3 Focus areas for the activities during 2021-31

4.1.4 Activity budgets for operations and project delivery

4.1.5 Plan improvements

4.2 The Executive Summary of the AMP is appended as Attachment 1.

4.3 The full Property and Facilities AMP 2021-31 (A2511502) is a large document and will be made available on the Council’s website, 2021-31 Activity Management Plans page (www.nelson.govt.nz/2021-31-activity-management-plans), once approved. It is available for elected members in SharePoint and a hard copy will be placed in the Councillors’ Lounge from 21 October.

Changes made through Long Term Plan deliberations

4.4 The following summarises the relevant resolutions made at the LTP deliberations affecting budgets in this AMP. These changes have been incorporated into the final AMP.

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

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

24. Approves the development and implementation of a zero overdue fees policy for all late returned library items including books, DVDs, magazines and other lending items, effective from 1 July 2021; and

25. Notes that this decision would result in lost non-rates revenue of $37,000 annually; and

26. Approves additional rates contribution to the Library activity of $37,000 annually to offset the reduction in non-rates revenue; and

27. Notes that Council’s library policy for lost items would not be affected by this change in policy.

28. Notes that officers will review the policy change after 12 months and if required report back to Council.

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

35. Approves a provision of up to $140,000 in Year 3 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 for a reconfiguration of the Guppy Park changing rooms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

43. Agrees that Council will make provision to fund 80% of the cost of the Sea Sports building with the expectation that users will raise a minimum of 20% of the total construction costs, subject to site identification upon approval of the Marina Master Plan.

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

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

46. Directs officers to liaise with the Nelson Lawn Tennis Club about a potential site and lease conditions and bring a report to the Community and Recreation Committee for further consideration including approval of final design concept.

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

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

57. Allocates 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; and

58. Requests officers to review the future uses of the Maitai Valley Motor Camp and report back to the Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee; and

59. Requests officers to reduce the cap on the number of Maitai Valley Motor Camp users.

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

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

63. Requests officers to complete a Masterplan for the sea side of the marina; and

64. Approves a provision of up to $110,000 in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 from the Marina account for a s17a review of governance models and transition costs towards a new governance model if required.

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

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

4.5 Separate resolutions were also made in relation to the Elma Turner library

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.

4.6 These changes have been incorporated into the final AMP budgets and body of the document where appropriate.

4.7 No significant changes have been made to the final AMP other than those made in relation to the above resolutions and in relation to direction provided through other Council decisions since the document was drafted. A number of formatting and template-related content changes and corrections have been made but none that alter the direction or substance of the draft AMP.

Activity Management Plans 2024-34

4.8 Planning for future Activity Management Plans 2024–34 will commence shortly. To ensure officers have a clear understanding of Council’s expectations and key issues, workshops will be arranged with the relevant Committees over the next three years.

4.9 There is an expectation that the structure of this AMP will change before the 2024 AMPs are prepared, with a likely outcome that there are three separate AMPs: The Marina, Facilities, and Property. More investigation is required before this can occur.

5. Options

5.1 The Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 supports Council in meeting its obligations under Section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the recommended option is for Council to adopt this Plan.

Option 1: Adopt the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (Recommended)
Advantages	· Supports Council to meet requirements of the Local Government Act 2002. · Aligns with the direction set by the LTP 2021-31
Risks and Disadvantages	· None
Option 2: Do not adopt the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31
Advantages	· None
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not adopting the AMP would leave Council without a clear plan to mitigate risks and achieve levels of service.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted Long Term Plan 2021-2031.

Author: Jane Loughnan, Parks and Facilities Asset Planner

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2443568 Executive Summary to Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan 2021-31 (A2443568) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Council’s Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan sets out the background to Council’s property and recreation facilities activities and will support Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The development of a Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan supports Council’s contribution towards Community Outcomes and Council strategy documents. These are listed in the AMP with a description of the activity’s contribution. All the community outcomes are supported by the activity:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

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

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

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

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

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

· Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

The AMP reflects the adopted Long Term Plan and any decisions undertaken in that.

3. Risk

Adopting the Activity Management Plan is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects all of the relevant Long Term Plan decisions. Adopting the Activity Management Plan also helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets for operations, maintenance, renewals and capital expenditure.

4. Financial impact

The Activity Management Plan reflects the decisions made by Council on 24 June 2021 when the Long Term Plan 2021-31 was adopted and sets out budgets for both operational and capital expenditure. Staff time has been used to prepare the AMP and this report.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because decisions arising from the LTP that were considered to be significant were consulted on through the LTP.

The LTP and LTP budgets have already been adopted by Council and this document supports the delivery of those items.

6. Climate Impact

The AMP sets out what activities are occurring in relation to climate impact over the ten year period. The AMP considers the potential impacts and risks climate change presents to the Property and Facilities Activity.

Climate impact implications were considered as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi feedback was sought on the AMP. Engagement with Māori will be undertaken on specific projects as required.

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

8. Delegations

The Community and Recreation Committee has the following delegations to consider the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan

Areas of Responsibility:

· Arts, Culture and Heritage

· Cemeteries and Crematorium

· Community Centres and Halls

· Community Development, including youth issues, ageing issues and social well-being

· Founders Heritage Park

· Heritage Houses and their grounds

· Recreation and Leisure Facilities and Services, including swimming pool facilities and Waahi Taakaro Golf Course

· Sports Fields, including Trafalgar Park and the Trafalgar Pavilion

· The Trafalgar Centre

Powers to decide:

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and plans, including activity management plans

Powers to recommend to Council:

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

· Decisions regarding significant assets

The Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee has the following delegations to consider the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan

Areas of Responsibility:

· Haven Precinct

· Marina Precinct

· Campgrounds

· Strategic properties as identified in the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan

Powers to decide:

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

Powers to recommend to Council:

· Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

Council retains all responsibilities, powers, functions and duties in relation to governance matters for the following items:

· Civic House

· Elma Turner Library redevelopment and Riverside Precinct

As the Property and Facilities Activity Management Plan covers matters that relate to the areas of responsibility of more than one committee, subcommittee or subordinate decision-making body, the matter is considered a cross-committee item and instead of being considered by one or more committees, will be considered by Council directly.

Item 13: Deliberations on sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing

Council

28 October 2021

REPORT R26213

Deliberations on sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the public feedback on the proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments.

1.2 Depending on consideration of public feedback, to approve the sale of 69 to 101 and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments subject to agreement to the conditions of the negotiating brief that is outlined in the report(R26213).

2. Summary

2.1 On 29 June 2021 Council adopted the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-31. One of Council’s key priorities in the LTP is housing affordability and intensification. Partnering with Central Government and utilising Council property is a work programme area identified to give effect to addressing the priority.

2.2 From the 30 August 2021 to 1 October 2021 Council sought public feedback on a proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing development.

2.3 A total of 276 responses were received, 53% stated that they supported the proposal, 37% stated they did not support it, 5% said they didn’t know if they supported it or not, and 5% didn’t state any preference.

2.4 After considering all the feedback received, and the reasons stated for that feedback, officers recommend that the proposal is progressed subject to a negotiating brief to address several of the concerns raised in the feedback.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

2. Accepts the following late feedback (A2767627) on the proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga ora for social and affordable housing:

· Rachel Boyack, MP for Nelson

· Ainslie Riddoch

3. Approves the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kainga Ora subject to a negotiating brief that includes the following terms:

(i) That the sites be sold for market value to be determined by agreement with Kāinga Ora having regard to independent valuations for the site obtained by Kāinga Ora and Nelson City Council.

(ii) The design outcomes which were outlined to the community as part of the consultation document (A2704161) be adopted to inform the development design:

(a) High quality, high amenity, interactive and accessible design to street and laneway edges.

(b) Design compatibility with the adjacent public spaces and central city location.

(d) Integration of vehicle, public transport and pedestrian circulation with adjoining street frontages and Wakatu Square with minimal provision of on-site carparking.

(e) Inclusion of quality, climate resilient, sustainable, design and building practices.

(f) Less than 50% of household units will be for social housing, the remainder will be a mix of affordable housing types.

(g) Demonstrates consistency with the six key moves of the Nelson City Council City Centre Programme Plan (August 2019).

(h) Minimise, as far as practicable, shading effects that lead to safety hazards on public streets, areas and footpaths.

(i) Provide appropriate cycle storage and servicing facilities.

(j) Within these outcomes, maximise housing yield; and

(vii)That Kāinga Ora uses its placement principles to allocate its social housing tenants to the housing typology of inner-city apartment living.

(xi) As appropriate, a Memorandum of Understanding may be signed with the purchaser to reflect shared objectives for the development that are not included in the sale and purchase agreement.

(xii) Any other reasonable terms of sale necessary for the divestment.

5. Notes that progress on negotiations and development design will be overseen by the Kāinga Ora Governance Reference Group in accordance with the Terms of Reference; and

7. Confirms that the proceeds from any sale will be used to pay off debt; and

(c) That there is no intention to amend the Policy to accommodate the decision at this time.

4. Background

4.1 On 29 June 2021 Council adopted the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-31. One of Council’s key priorities in the LTP is housing affordability and intensification. Partnering with Central Government and utilising Council property is a work programme area that was identified to give effect to this priority.

4.2 Kāinga Ora has expressed an interest in purchasing 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to build social and affordable housing. Details of this development are only conceptual at this stage.

4.3 Council originally purchased the site at 42 Rutherford Street in 1995 for the purpose of creating a road link – the extension of Bridge Street through to Vanguard Street. This road link is no longer considered necessary. The site is currently leased and used as a coffee roastery and cafe.

4.4 Council originally purchased the sites at 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue in 2011 for the strategic purpose of maintaining future development options in the city centre. The site contains a mixture of leased areas for car parking, community activity and a retail shop.

4.5 Officers are satisfied that Council’s obligations under the Public Works Act in relation to these sites have been met (following reasonable attempts to identify and contact the shareholders of the previous owner company, which was removed from the companies register in 2013). On the basis the properties are sold to Kāinga Ora via private sale, there are no further obligations on Council under the Public Works Act to publicly notify the sale.

4.6 A public feedback document was developed in collaboration with officers from Kāinga Ora and with oversight from the Council’s Kāinga Ora Governance Reference Group (Mayor Reese (chair), Councillors Edgar, Courtney, Rainey, Noonan and O’Neill Stevens). Council sought public feedback on the proposal from 30 August 2021 to 1 October 2021(extended by a week due to COVID lockdown) through a range of means including:

4.6.1 Media briefing in association with Kāinga Ora before the consultation period.

4.6.2 Council’s social media channels and Council’s website (Shape Nelson) with the feedback document linked.

4.6.3 Our Nelson feature including notice of the opportunity to provide feedback.

4.6.4 Advertising with local media – print, radio and online.

4.6.5 An opinion piece from the Deputy Mayor in The Nelson Mail.

4.6.6 An interview piece with local housing providers in Our Nelson.

4.6.7 App alerts via Nelson Weekly.

4.6.8 Inclusion of the proposal in the eight page summary for Te Ara o Whakatu sent to most households in Nelson as part of the Our Nelson publication.

4.7 Due to COVID lockdown restrictions the following engagement methods which were part of the original engagement strategy were unable to be undertaken:

4.7.1 Hard copies of the public feedback document were unable to be made available at all libraries and the Council Customer Service Centre.

4.7.2 Letter drop to adjacent property and business owners.

4.7.3 A housing supply update report to the Iwi Managers Meeting on 19 August was postponed to 28 September.

4.6.4 Site signage.

4.7.5 A display at the Te Ara ō Whakatū expo scheduled for 3 and 4 of September.

4.8 The public was able to provide feedback using Council’s website and/or online submission form in Shape Nelson, via email, or by phoning in to the customer service centre to have comments recorded.

4.9 Pre-engagement, in collaboration with Kāinga Ora, was undertaken with key stakeholders that had expressed an interest in housing prior to the COVID19 lockdown, including Rachel Boyack MP for Nelson, iwi, and community housing providers.

4.10 Pre-engagement with key inner-city developers who had expressed a previous interest in the sites, or those adjoining them, was also undertaken prior to the COVID19 lockdown.

4.11 Officers also met with leaseholders of the affected properties (prior to COVID19 lockdown) to advise them of the proposal and its process including the public feedback opportunity.

Infrastructure Acceleration Fund

4.12 Council has also submitted an Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) application. The application would support Council funding to accelerate the Linear Active Transport Corridor for the upgrade of Bridge Street and that part of Haven Road to Rutherford Street transport corridors and 3 waters underground infrastructure for all city centre residential development. The application was submitted on 18 August 2021, and Council was advised on 15 October that the Linear Active Transport Corridor application is through to the next round. A Request for Proposal now needs to be submitted by 17 December 2021.

4.13 The proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing development is not dependent upon the success of the IAF application. On-site individual/temporary infrastructure solutions are available to support the development prior to any future Council upgrade.

5. Discussion

5.1 Public feedback on the proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing sought the views of the public on:

5.1.1 Whether or not the proposal was supported; and

5.1.2 The reasons for those views.

5.2 The feedback document outlined three options that the Council had considered, and the advantages, disadvantages, and risks of those. The three options were:

Option 1: Sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments.

Option 2: Sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street on the open market to leverage housing supply.

Option 3: Retain some/all of the properties for future options.

5.3 The document stated that the Council’s preferred option was Option 1.

Feedback

5.4 A total of 276 responses were received via Shape Nelson, email and by post. The feedback is included in Attachment 1 and is summarised under the headings below.

5.5 Feedback on Te Ara ō Whakatū – Nelson Pathways was sought by Council at the same time as this consultation. This enabled the community to consider both related proposals in conjunction with one another. Many respondents provided feedback on both consultations. Where feedback on this proposal was submitted via Te Ara ō Whakatū – Nelson Pathways, it has been copied over and is included in this report.

Feedback summary

5.6 Feedback was received from Nelson residents (60%), from those living in Tasman (4%), other areas across New Zealand (1%) and areas of residence not identified (35%).

5.7 A total of 13 organisations gave feedback, including social and affordable housing providers, Nelson Marlborough Health, Ministry of Social Development (MSD), Oranga Tamariki, Community Action Nelson(CAN), Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA), Chamber of Commerce, Nelson Youth Council, Community Art Works, Zero Carbon Nelson Tasman, and Campaign to Save the Maitai.

5.8

Of all feedback provided, 53% stated that they supported option 1, 37% stated they did not support option 1, 5% said they didn’t know if they supported option 1 or not, and 5% didn’t state any preference.

5.9 The public feedback document included analysis of three options that Council had considered, and some respondents provided feedback in relation to their preference for one of the options. Of those that provided feedback in relation to support for any of the three options option 1 was most preferred, with option 2 and 3 receiving a much lower level of support.

Views of those in Support of Option 1

5.10 The reason most respondents supported the proposal (40% of respondents in favour of option 1) is that they consider there is a housing crisis, a dire need for affordable and social housing, and are supportive of Council undertaking action in this space.

5.11 Many respondents (25% of respondents in favour of option 1) further stated that they supported providing housing in the city centre that is obtainable for people on a range of income levels. Other feedback included that living in the Nelson city centre was desirable, including acknowledgement of its benefits such as activation of the city centre, reducing the reliance on motor vehicles for environmental reasons as well as the reducing the need to travel to work, and access to facilities and entertainment.

5.12 Some respondents gave background to their feedback reasons by identifying themselves as:

· low-income singles unable to afford home ownership (all ages)

· couples and families struggling to find suitable rental and home ownership accommodation

· teens worried about how they might afford rental and ownership property in the future

· students who are forced to overcrowd in Nelson accommodation or live far away from NMIT and commute

· parents wishing there were better options for their grown children

· existing homeowners acknowledging the difficulties others are having at finding accommodation both rental and ownership.

5.13 Organisations such as MSD, Nelson Marlborough Health, Tamariki Oranga, Community Housing Providers, CAN, Youth Council, Chamber of Commerce, NRDA, SANTI (Student Association of Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology Incorporated) were supportive of the proposal recognising the dire need for well-located social and affordable housing across the city. Some of these organisations provided recommendations for Council to consider in making their decision and these are discussed in sections 5.23 to 5.37.

5.14 Pre-engagement undertaken with iwi also supported the need to provide access for whanau to social and affordable housing. Iwi provided other additional feedback which is discussed in section 5.21 below.

Views of those who didn’t support an option

5.15 Several respondents (10% of those that didn’t know if they supported option 1) stated that there wasn’t sufficient detail provided on the proposal for them to form a view. Some stated that they supported the provision of social and affordable housing in general, but that they needed further detail including the development design, height, numbers of the mix of different types of housing provided, the price points and information about how Kāinga Ora would manage their tenants. Some of these respondents sought that Council maintain a role on overseeing the design of the development should it go ahead.

Views of those not in support of option 1

5.16 The reason stated by most respondents that did not support the proposal (29% of those that did not support option 1) is that they are concerned that it would result in an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime in the city centre, many of them citing emergency and transitional housing examples in Wellington, Christchurch and Auckland as examples of what would be expected. Many of these respondents identified themselves as city centre or fringe business and property owners and considered that the proposal would adversely affect property values and business incomes.

5.17 The other main reason provided by respondents that did not support the proposal (25% of respondents that did not support option 1) was that the location was wrong, that it would adversely affect the vitality of the city centre and mean that it was no longer a place they would like to visit. Some of these respondents suggested that housing for those in need should be in outer suburbs and on less valuable land.

5.18 Many (34%) of the respondents who did not support the proposal may not have understood that the proposal is for less than 50% social (not emergency or transitional) housing and that the greater portion is for affordable rental and affordable ownership options.

Summary of feedback on Option 1

5.19 Although, the feedback on option 1 highlighted a range of views the two main viewpoints are:

(i) those who themselves (or someone they know) do not have access to adequate housing and considered everyone should have the right to access housing and that Council should be doing everything it can in this space; and

(ii) those who considered providing housing for those in need (as described in the proposal) would adversely affect their property or business interests and/or result in anti-social behaviour and crime in the city centre.

5.20 Specific feedback was provided on several other issues or themes, including respondents who identified certain factors or provisos that would be needed to ensure the proposal was successful for them to support it. This feedback has been summarised below.

Other Feedback Themes

5.21 Feedback from Iwi

5.22 Pre-engagement was undertaken with iwi prior to the feedback process opening. Feedback received was that they were in support of action in the housing space, that they would be interested in having further discussions with Kāinga Ora about partnership opportunities should the sale go ahead, but that when Council disposes of land it should be offered to iwi first.

5.23 Social and Affordable Housing Mix

5.24 Several respondents raised the need to ensure an appropriate mix of social and affordable housing to achieve a balanced community. This included organisations such as Community Housing Providers, as well as individuals. Nelson Tasman Housing Trust provided detailed evidence from housing developments they manage elsewhere that a level of around 20-30% social housing and 70-80% affordable in any one development has been successful.

5.25 Nelson Marlborough Health (NMH) sought that at least 49% of the development is social housing units, stating that it is important that the amount is specified to enable community support agencies information about the level of wrap-around services that may be required. For the remainder of units NMH sought that affordable price controls are put in place and conditions requiring that they can only be sold back to Kāinga Ora to be resold again as affordable housing.

5.26 Kāinga Ora Management of Tenants

5.27 There was some concern of the quality of management of tenants by Kāinga Ora (or rather their predecessor Housing NZ) with examples cited of other places in New Zealand where social housing developments have been reported to have difficulties. CAN suggested that Council would have better control of outcomes if the land remained in Council ownership and Kāinga Ora did the development.

5.28 Parking

5.29 Feedback was received that activating Councils carparks with developments such as this was supported, as was a development that was well located to employment, shops, schools, services and active and public transport networks. Feedback was also received raising concern about where residents would park, with some suggesting a car parking building is required.

5.30 Height and Design

5.31 Several respondents sought that Council maintain control over the design of the future buildings, particularly in relation to whether the proposed height would fit with the character of the Nelson city centre. The Chamber of Commerce conducted a short poll with some of their membership. From the responses received, 89% felt that Nelson needs more people living in the inner city and while 75% supported the sale of land for development, there was concern that the proposal is lacking in detail and therefore cannot be supported in principal because once it’s sold all control of the design and build is lost. The members sought that a well-developed business case is provided so an informed choice can be made.

5.32 Location

5.33 A small proportion of those not in favour of the proposal cited the reason being that it was in the wrong location. These respondents considered that social and affordable housing should not be in high density apartment style buildings in the city centre. Reasons provided were that high density living is not great for families, that it can lead to mental health issues, and does not provide a sense of community.

5.34 Climate change

5.35 Several respondents including organisations, (in support and opposition of the proposal) raised the issue that the site is subject to inundation from sea level rise and river flooding. They queried whether this meant the site is not suitable for housing long term, or sought information on how this would be addressed in the development design. Some highlighted that Council has yet to adopt a sea level rise/flood response for the city centre and that this proposal, combined with the library proposal may predetermine a future response, or restrict a comprehensive approach from being taken.

5.36 Sales Price

5.37 Some respondents provided feedback that Council assets should be retained, or that they should be sold in an open market tender so that ratepayers can be assured the highest return. Some also expressed doubt about whether Kāinga Ora would pay market price.

5.38 In considering the feedback officers have proposed conditions to address some of the issues raised, these are discussed as part of a negotiating brief in the options section below.

6. Options

6.1 Council has the following options to consider:

(i) the proposal (Option 1): and

(ii) the other two options (Options 2 and 3) on which the public also provided feedback: and

(iii) the option about whether both properties are divested.

6.2 After considering all the feedback received, and the reasons stated for that feedback, officers recommend that Option 1(sale of both sites to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments) is progressed subject to a negotiating brief to address some concerns raised in the feedback.

6.3 Recommended terms of the negotiating brief are:

6.3.1 That the sites be sold for market value.

6.3.2 The design outcomes which were outlined to the community as part of the consultation document be adopted to inform the development design:

(a) High quality, high amenity, interactive and accessible design to street and laneway edges

(b) Design compatibility with the adjacent public spaces and central city location

(d) Integration of vehicle, public transport and pedestrian circulation with adjoining street frontages and Wakatu Square with minimal provision of on-site carparking

(e) Inclusion of quality, climate resilient, sustainable, design and building practices

(f) Less than 50% of household units will be for social housing, the remainder will be a mix of affordable housing types

(g) Demonstrates consistency with the six key moves of the City Centre Programme Plan

(h) Minimise, as far as practicable, shading effects that lead to safety hazards on public streets, areas and footpaths

(i) Provide appropriate cycle storage and servicing facilities

(j) Within these outcomes, maximise housing yield.

6.3.3 That Kāinga Ora works in partnership with Council officers on the design of the building, including that officers are part of the Kāinga Ora Project Steering Group contributing to decision making and Project Team responsible for progressing the project and its design. Officers will regularly report progress to the Kāinga Ora Governance Reference Group for feedback.

6.3.4 That Kāinga Ora will seek to commission a local architect to be part of the design team for the development to ensure the building is a good fit with the city centre and Council priorities (exemplar intensification and affordable housing, good urban design including appropriate scale and height, sustainability features, provides for active mode).

6.3.5 That Kāinga Ora will, where reasonably possible, partner with local housing providers and developers and/or iwi to deliver the project to ensure that affordable rental and affordable apartment sales are enduring and well managed.

6.3.6 That Kāinga Ora will, where reasonably possible, utlise local construction companies and local materials to undertake the build, acknowleding that this may be affected by the current market shortage of both locally.

6.3.7 That Kāinga Ora uses its placement principles to allocate its social housing tenants to the housing typology of inner-city apartment living.

6.3.8 That communication with the community is undertaken by Kāinga Ora to ensure the community is well informed of progress, including during the progression of development design and housing partnership formations.

6.3.9 That a condition is imposed on sale that if construction of at least one of the sites has not commenced within 3 years, the land will be offered back to Council to purchase for the sale price, less the value of any works that have reduced its value.

6.3.10 That a condition is imposed on sale that a covenant will be registered on the title giving Council a right of first refusal to purchase, on terms acceptable to Council, should Kāinga Ora seek to sell all or any part of the sites at any time unless the sales relate to affordable unit title apartments developed by Kāinga Ora or in partnership with others (subject also to any applicable legal obligation on Kāinga Ora to first offer to iwi).

6.4 Some of these conditions may be able to be agreed as part of the sale and purchase agreement, while others may be agreed to as part of a Memorandum of Understanding, as occurred with the divestment of the community housing. While an MOU is non-binding, Kāinga Ora has through the community housing divestment demonstrated its willingness to honour its agreement with the Council to ensure an enduring partnership approach to housing in Nelson.

Option 1: Sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments subject to a negotiating brief outlined above in section 6.3.
Advantages	· Is supported by most of the feedback from the community (53%) and includes conditions to address several issues provided by those as reasons why they do not support the proposal. · Kāinga Ora is a willing, well-resourced partner with successful delivery experience. · Divestment to Kāinga Ora has a broader strategic benefit for the community as opposed to, for example, another commercial investor. · Divestment to Kāinga Ora will achieve social and affordable housing developments constructed, owned and managed by the government and their partners and kept as social and affordable stock in perpetuity. · Divestment represents a significant step in delivering on Council’s housing intensification and affordability and city centre development priorities in the Long Term Plan. · Further strengthens Council’s partnership with Kāinga Ora to bring housing supply to the market in Nelson, building on relationships established through the sale of Council’s community housing. · Supports ongoing relationship with Kāinga Ora, where Council partners to bring more social and affordable housing supply to the Nelson market. · Supports the Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū (feedback yet to be considered) city living outcomes and provides the opportunity to leverage compatible projects, i.e. Linear active transport corridor. · Is supported by Government resourcing and funding and is more likely to achieve an exemplar built form in a timely manner than a market development. · Enables Council to pay off debt from the sales proceeds. · Maximises intent of IAF funding which together with this proposal and Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū may leverage greater interest in residential development in the city centre.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Existing tenants will need to find alternative premises. · 12 leased and 12 carpool car parks will be lost or need to be relocated. · Other uses for the sites are forgone. · Not supported by a significant portion (37%) of those who provided feedback, however this is somewhat mitigated by the reasons for that lack of support being concerns about emergency and transitional housing, and that the Council could impose conditions on any sale regarding the amount of social housing on the site.
Option 2: Sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street on the open market to leverage housing supply
Advantages	· Enables Council to consider a wide range of housing proposals · Supports Draft Te Ara ō Whakatū (feedback yet to be considered) city living outcomes and provides opportunity to leverage compatible projects, i.e. Linear active transport corridor. · May achieve a higher sale price via a competitive sale process · Enables Council to pay off debt from the sales proceeds
Risks and Disadvantages	· Only a very small portion of feedback (4%) received was in support of this option · Does not take advantage of the opportunity to partner with Kāinga Ora to leverage better housing supply especially for lower-medium income households · Unlikely to result in Council achieving social or affordable housing supply in perpetuity · Does not demonstrate a commitment to partner with Kāinga Ora · Existing tenants will need to find alternative premises · 12 leased and 12 carpool car parks will be lost or relocated · Other uses for the sites are forgone
Option 3: Retain some/all of the properties for future options.
Advantages	· Allows retention of some/all of the properties for consideration of future uses such as a hotel, a performing arts centre, a commercial development, a public transport hub, or other community development. · Existing tenants can be retained in the interim. · 12 leased and 12 carpool car parks will be retained in the interim.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Only a very small portion of feedback (6%) received was in support of this option · Selecting this option would not be consistent with the 53% of those providing feedback that the sites should be used for social and affordable housing. · Does not align with Council’s LTP priorities of leveraging housing affordability and intensification utilising its property portfolio. · Does not build on Councils existing relationship with Kāinga Ora or strengthen relationships to achieve housing supply. · Does not deliver social and affordable housing. · Council will not be able to reduce debt levels using the proceeds of the sale.
Option 4: Sell only one of either 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing developments subject to conditions outlined above in section 6.3.
Advantages	· One property is retained for future options. · All the other advantages from option 1. · Some existing tenants may be able to be retained.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Feedback from only one respondent was received seeking that only one of the properties (42 Rutherford Street) was sold. · Would result in a reduction of housing being provided. · Design and construction benefits of developing two adjacent properties would not be obtained. · All the other risks and disadvantages with option 1.

6.10 Council’s Asset Disposal Policy 2015 aims to ensure disposals are undertaken in a way that maximises value for money for the Council and minimises opportunities for exploitation by individuals or organisations. Land and property disposals must be approved by Council. For an asset worth more than $50,000 the policy recommends public auction or trade-in. The Asset Disposal Policy is general in nature and it is not immediately clear that it applies to land. If it does apply, officers consider that the broader strategic benefit of the proposal and the enhanced relationship with Kāinga Ora are valid reasons for departing from the policy in terms of not following public auction or trade-in processes. Additionally, a condition is proposed in the negotiating brief that the sale will achieve at least market value of the properties.

6.11 Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that when Council is taking a decision that is significantly inconsistent with a policy the reasons for the inconsistency must be identified, along with any intention to amend the policy to accommodate the decision. In this case the Asset Disposal Policy does not provide adequate guidance due to the nature of the asset and the intent to leverage an outcome that requires direct involvement of Kāinga Ora. Officers consider for this reason that it is appropriate to depart from the policy (to the extent it does apply to the specific proposal). A resolution has been added to the recommendations to ensure that the legal complexities of making a decision that potentially engages section 80 of the Local Government Act are acknowledged.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Housing affordability and intensification are key priorities of the Council. To achieve this Council seeks to utilise its own property portfolio and work with others, including government departments such as Kāinga Ora to leverage increased housing supply. The proposal currently being considered by Council ticks all these boxes.

7.2 Council has made a successful expression of interest application to Kāinga Ora for an Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) grant for the Bridge Street Active Transport Corridor to accelerate residential intensification in the city centre. Council is now able to participate in a Request for proposals IAF round, with decisions on those being made in April 2022.

7.3 53% of the community provided feedback in support of the proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing, while 37% did not support the proposal. Many respondents provided feedback regarding provisos or conditions that would ensure the development was successful. Officers have proposed a negotiating brief with conditions to address the concerns raised by some and to provide assurance to Council of the outcomes sought.

7.4 Officers recommend Council approves the sale of 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and 42 Rutherford Street subject to the negotiating brief.

8. Next Steps

8.1 If the recommendations in this report are approved the following would be the next steps:

8.1.1 Tenants are advised of Council decision and what this may mean for their tenancies.

8.1.2 Kāinga Ora undertakes due diligence, including Geotech investigations on the sites.

8.1.3 Council engages a property professional to advance the negotiating brief, a sale and purchase agreement and Memorandum of Understanding.

8.1.4 Progress on negotiations and development design is overseen by the Kāinga Ora Governance Reference Group.

8.1.5 Sale and purchase agreement and MOU is negotiated and approved by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive.

8.1.6 Ongoing involvement of officers occurs through the Kāinga Ora Steering Group and Project Group.

8.1.7 Kāinga Ora carries out the development in accordance with the agreed terms and MOU.

Author: Lisa Gibellini, Strategic Housing Adviser

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2763085 - Feedback on proposal to sell 69 to101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing (Circulated separately) ⇨

Attachment 2: A2767627 - Late Feedback Received on proposal to sell 69 to 101 Achilles Avenue and/or 42 Rutherford Street to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in this report support the purpose of local government whereby the recommended decision enables Council to play a role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the community through partnering with other to achieve social and affordable housing.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

· The recommendations in this report fit with the community outcomes;

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

• Our communities are healthy, safe and resilient

3. Risk

There is a risk that some members of the community do not support the recommendations in this report. This risk is considered as mitigated in part by additional conditions recommended to address the issues raised in feedback and that there is no formal consultation obligation of Council to divest these sites.

There is a risk of negative publicity generated by other parties who have an interest in these sites and those who have a negative view of Kāinga Ora developments. Council has obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 to act in accordance with sound business practice when engaging in commercial transactions and to act in a transparent and open manner in reaching this view. Other parties have expressed an interest in purchasing these sites over the years. This alone does not require Council to offer the properties to the market more generally. Divestment to Kāinga Ora has a broader strategic benefit for the community as opposed to, for example, another commercial investor. The purpose of the divestment to Kāinga Ora is to achieve a social and affordable housing developments constructed, owned, and managed by the government.

Any residual risk of a public law challenge arising from dealing with Kāinga Ora directly can be mitigated by ensuring Council achieves a sale price that is at market value (and at least equal to the book value of the assets).

There is a risk that the development does not proceed once Kāinga Ora has completed its due diligence, it may no longer wish to purchase the sites. This is a risk associated with most property sale processes.

4. Financial impact

If the option to divest the site(s) to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing development proceeds, negotiation of a sale price based on the market valuation can proceed. It is anticipated that the proceeds of any sale would be used to reduce debt.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance to the community taking into account Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, and given the limited nature of the proposed disposal and the Council’s LTP priorities of housing intensification and affordability, using Council land and partnering with Government including Kāinga Ora to bring housing supply to the market in Nelson. The community feedback summarised in this report ensures that the council is able to consider the views of those most affected by the proposal and the community in making a decision.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change impact will need to be considered in the development design to be developed by Kāinga Ora. Sustainability and climate resilience requirements have been included in the design outcomes recommended as conditions to be negotiated as part of any sale and agreement process. Any development on these sites will also need to consider and provide acceptable solutions for inundation from flood waters due to climate change.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Pre-engagement with Iwi was undertaken prior to the public feedback process and additionally at the NCC Iwi Managers Forum in preparing this report. Feedback from that engagement is summarised in this report.

8. Delegations

This matter is cross-committee as it falls within the delegation of the Infrastructure Committee, Strategic Development and Property Subcommittee and Urban Development Subcommittee, and therefore is a matter for Council.

[1] Note, the maintenance and operations may fall to different Council teams

[2] Note, the Committee structure may change over the life of this plan