Agenda of Environment and Climate Committee

Environment and Climate Committee

4 November 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 Stop the Coal Monster - Ending Coal Use in Nelson/Tasman by 2025 Petition

Dr Aaron Stallard and Dr Joost van Rens, on behalf of Stop the Coal Monster, will present a petition and speak about ending coal use in Nelson/Tasman by 2025.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 29 July 2021 8 - 12

Document number M18832

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment and Climate Committee, held on 29 July 2021, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report 13 - 14

Document number R26281

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R26281).

7. Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Annual Update 15 - 68

Document number R26007

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Annual Update (R26007) and its attachment (A2767091).

8. Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan Programme Update 69 - 78

Document number R26248

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan Programme Update (R26248); and

2. Approves the revised recommended programme, including:

a) pausing work on the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan, to progress a Housing Choice Plan Change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan; and

b) continuing with the freshwater planning framework development; and

c) continuing with the Coastal Hazard Dynamic Adaptive Pathways planning programme; and

d) considering other priorities for plan changes following the enactment of the Natural and Built Environment Act.

9. Review of Amended Urban Environments Bylaw and commencement of the special consultative procedure to consult on amendments 79 - 135

Document number R19241

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Review of Amended Urban Environments Bylaw and commencement of the special consultative procedure to consult on amendments (R19241) and its attachments (A2771727 and A2771728); and

2. Determines that after completing the review, the current Bylaw should be amended and that the Draft Amended Bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems with the current Bylaw; and

3. Determines that the proposed Urban Environments Bylaw affects freedoms provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and those limits on freedoms are reasonable and proportional; and

4. Approves the commencement of a special consultative procedure on the Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 1 (A2771728) of Report R19241, with the consultation period to run from approximately 8 November to 8 December 2021; and

5. Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

6. Adopts the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 2 (A2771727) of Report R19241 for use in this special consultative procedure; and

7. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 8.6 of Report R19241 and agrees:

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

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

10. Biosecurity Annual Report 2020/21 and Operational Plan 2021/22 136 - 191

Document number R26273

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Report 2020/21 and Operational Plan 2021/22 (R26273) and its attachments (A2760681 and A2763427).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the Operational Plan 2021/22 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (A2763427), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

11. Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2021 192 - 261

Document number R26222

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2021 (R26222) and its attachments (A2770940, A2754786, A2748758, A2760820, A2760899, A2755600, A2771754).

Confidential Business

12. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

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	Harbourmaster function	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)

Harbourmaster function

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(i)

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

Karakia Whakamutunga

Environment and Climate Committee Minutes - 29 July 2021

Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Climate Committee

Te Kōmiti Taiao / Āhuarangi

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 29 July 2021, commencing at 9.06a.m.

Present: Cr K Fulton (Chairperson), Councillors Y Bowater, T Brand, M Courtney, J Edgar, M Lawrey, B McGurk, G Noonan, R O'Neill-Stevens, P Rainey, R Sanson, T Skinner and Ms G Paine

In Attendance: Manager Environmental Management (C Barton) and Governance Advisers (K McLean and J Brandt)

Apologies : Mayor R Reese, Councillor Noonan (lateness)

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1 Apologies

Resolved EC/2021/030

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives and accepts an apology from Her Worship the Mayor R Reese and from Councillor G Noonan for lateness.

Bowater/McGurk Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

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. Mike Fielding - ever-changing climate and the increasing need for households to be prepared for natural and non-natural events, withdrew his public forum request.

4.2 John Higginbotham - Parking Policy and Improvements to Parking

John Higginbotham tabled document A2724826 and spoke to the presentation, noting:

· infringements

· warnings

· community reputation.

Attachments

1 A2724826 - John Higginbotham - Tabled Document

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 10 June 2021

Document number M18693, agenda pages 6 - 13 refer.

Resolved EC/2021/031

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Environment and Climate Committee, held on 10 June 2021, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/McGurk Carried

6. Chairperson's Report

Document number R26052

There was no Chairperson’s Report.

7. Draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan Engagement Update

Document number R26018, agenda pages 14 - 16 refer.

Manager Environmental Planning, Maxine Day, presented the report and outlined the engagement process and timeline. Ms Day answered questions around engagement, Port Nelson and the Nelson Environment Action Group.

Resolved EC/2021/032

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan Engagement Update; and

2. Notes the proposed next phase of engagement for the Draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan as outlined in Report R26018.

Brand/Sanson Carried

8. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved EC/2021/033

That the Environment and Climate Committee

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

Brand/Fulton 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	Environment and Climate Committee Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 10 June 2021	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(c)(i) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Environment and Climate Committee Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 10 June 2021

Section 48(1)(a)

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

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(c)(i)

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

The meeting went into confidential session at 10.02pm and resumed in public session at 10.03pm.

The only business transacted in confidential session was to confirm the minutes. In accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, no reason for withholding this information from the public exists, therefore this business has been recorded in the open minutes.

9. Confirmation of Minutes

9.1 10 June 2021

Document number M18692, agenda pages 3 - 5 refer.

Resolved EC/2021/034

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Confirms the minutes of part of the meeting of the Environment and Climate Committee, held with the public excluded on 10 June 2021, as a true and correct record.

Edgar/Courtney Carried

10. Re-admittance of the Public

Resolved EC/2021/035

That the Council

1. Re-admits the public to the meeting.

Brand/Fulton Carried

There being no further business the meeting ended at 10.03p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 8: Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan Programme Update

Environment and Climate Committee

4 November 2021

REPORT R26248

Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan Programme Update

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update on the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan and to decide on a revised programme for the Nelson Plan.

2. Summary

2.1 The review of the Nelson Resource Management Plan, including the Regional Policy Statement and Air Plan, is underway with draft versions of the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan (WWNP or the Plan) released for public feedback in late 2020 and also September 2021.

2.2 Delays to the programme have been driven by planner shortages, COVID-19, additional demands from national policy directions and Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms. The consequence from these delays is that notification of the replacement Plan cannot occur until late 2022/early 2023.

2.3 The notification of the Plan needs to be carefully considered against the backdrop of RMA reforms. Replacement legislation is proposed to be introduced at the start of 2022. The Nelson Plan programme will need to consider additional resourcing demands and efficient use of staff, increasing workload and costs associated with the new legislation, and regional demands for a potential new Combined Plan and new Regional Spatial Plan.

2.4 The legislative changes fundamentally affect Council’s choices and are largely out of its direct control. As an implementor of central government legislation, Council will be obliged to develop new plans and processes once the new laws are enacted. This presents Council with a difficult choice – proceed with the multi-year programme of WWNP and associated costs; or pause until the new legislation is in place so that the WWNP can be re-positioned under the new legislation.

2.5 Officers are recommending a pause to the WWNP as the most efficient option given the constraints and risks facing the programme. The new programme would mean most of the current work would be ‘parked’ until it can be used in the replacement plans.

2.6 Until the new legislation (the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and Spatial Planning Act (SPA)) is in place, officers are recommending a plan change is proposed to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) to introduce greater housing choice. The plan change would carry forward the residential work already done under the WWNP – specifically to enable intensification and greater housing choice in urban zones.

2.7 The Environmental Planning team would continue to work on coastal hazard planning and freshwater management, while the majority of work other topics would pause.

2.8 Topics for other priority plan changes can be considered following the enactment of RMA replacement legislation.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan Programme Update (R26248); and

2. Approves the revised recommended programme, including:

a) pausing work on the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan, to progress a Housing Choice Plan Change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan; and

b) continuing with the freshwater planning framework development; and

c) continuing with the Coastal Hazard Dynamic Adaptive Pathways planning programme; and

d) considering other priorities for plan changes following the enactment of the Natural and Built Environment Act.

4. Background

4.1 The Environmental Planning team regularly reports progress on the WWNP via quarterly reports to the Environment and Climate Committee; and since 2020, also reports to the Audit and Risk Subcommittee. The recent reports have signalled risks to the delivery of the planned programme due to staff vacancies, increasing activity with resource management national directions and RMA reforms.

4.2 As a consequence of the RMA reforms, officers have regularly been considering implications to the WWNP Programme and prepared a range of options for Council to consider. These were considered at a Council workshop on 13 April 2021. Staff were requested to report back to Council for a decision about the WWNP programme later in the year once the Draft NBA had been released and there was more clarity around the timing, anticipated combined plan with Tasman and Marlborough Councils, and the extent of changes that may be required.

5. Discussion

Constraints to the Delivery of the WWNP

5.1 Currently, the Environmental Planning team has three planner vacancies – out of a team of 7 planners. A national shortage of planners is affecting the ability to recruit and retain staff. The nature of resource management policy work means retention of local knowledge and experience are important factors in the efficient delivery of the Nelson Plan.

5.2 COVID-19 has further delayed the programme, with the recent lockdown pushing out the timeframe for engagement on selected topics of the WWNP; and limited the capacity of some consultants (particularly those working from Auckland).

5.3 Activity in resource management national directions has significantly increased with a large volume of material being issued from the Ministry for the Environment for input, submissions and implementation. Alongside this, the complexity of the Freshwater Management package and increased need for iwi and community collaboration means more time is needed to progress the freshwater planning framework.

5.4 The constraints on the WWNP programme mean that a notification decision by early to mid-2022 cannot be achieved. There are a number of significant remaining steps prior to notification, including processing and responding to the public feedback on river flood hazards, Airport Zone and airport noise, and Port Noise; integration between topics to ensure cohesive approaches to management of issues; quality control and testing; legal review; notification to iwi and Ministers, responding to their feedback, with then final sign-off by Council.

Opportunities for Better Alignment

5.5 Whether Council decides to extend the notification date, or pause until the new legislation is in place, there are a number of opportunities for better outcomes. These include the ability for the Plan to incorporate outcomes from Te Ara ō Whakatū - City Centre Spatial Plan and potentially align with the Future Development Strategy 2022.

5.6 The WWNP may also be able to include anticipated new National Directions, such as the National Policy Statement (NPS) Indigenous Biodiversity, National Emission Reduction Plan, National Adaptation Plan, NPS Highly Productive Soil, and Air Quality National Environmental Standard, among others – if these are available in time to incorporate into the WWNP.

5.7 Work on the Freshwater planning framework may also progress, with greater direction from iwi on the Te Mana O Te Wai programme expected over the next 12 months. Noting that this programme is still being developed and timeframes are not yet defined. The freshwater components are required to be processed through a separate plan hearing process prescribed under the NPS Freshwater Management. The planning outputs from the freshwater work may be subject to a variation to the WWNP.

5.8 Mapping of Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori is nearing completion and the outcomes and approaches to management of these sites could be aligned with Tasman District Council – providing a more efficient approach for iwi.

5.9 The Coastal Hazards Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) work is expected to progress through 2022, but may not be at a stage for inclusion in the WWNP (refer 5.15 below). The planning outputs from DAPP may be subject to a variation to the WWNP.

Implications from Resource Management Reform

5.10 The resource management reforms are picking up pace. Replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act is anticipated to be introduced to Parliament in early 2022. While there is still uncertainty about the specific content of the legislation and transition timeframes, the Draft Exposure Bill of the Natural and Built Environment Act indicates that planning documents will need to be substantively reconstructed to deliver new outcomes sought in the replacement legislation.

5.11 Positively, it is anticipated that much of the WWNP technical work, and work with stakeholders and communities that has helped establish baselines and frameworks for management of issues, will be able to be carried over into plans under the replacement legislation.

5.12 The Randerson Report recommended that Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council and Tasman District Council produce a single combined unitary plan. While Council has not received a formal response from the Minister for the Environment on whether or not the three councils will be producing a combined plan, there have been indications that a combined NBA plan and Regional Spatial Plan with at least Tasman is likely.

5.13 Preparing a combined NBA plan and Regional Spatial Plan is likely to take a number of years, and the timeframe will be initially dependant on Central Government’s delivery of the proposed National Planning Framework, and transitional arrangements. At this time, there is no clarity on these timeframes.

5.14 In the interim, an alternative programme is proposed to address Nelson’s pressing housing issue. The alternative involves a plan change to the NRMP, to increase housing choice across the urban environment.

5.15 The scope of the NRMP plan change would be limited to enabling greater residential development opportunities. The plan change would bring the work that has been done on the WWNP for housing, and restructure it into the NRMP. Due to the limited scope of the plan change, the work already completed, and the engagement on the draft WWNP, it is anticipated that a decision to notify the NRMP plan change could be made in mid-2022.

5.16 Other priority topics may be considered for NRMP plan changes once the RMA replacement legislation has been enacted.

Coastal Hazard DAPP Update

5.17 Council has commenced working through the DAPP process, having released the coastal inundation mapping for discussion with the community in late 2020. The feedback provided has assisted in obtaining an understanding of the community’s values.

5.18 In late June, Council held a workshop with stakeholders, iwi representatives and Council technical officers to consider the impacts and associated risks of climate change in relation to coastal inundation and erosion and flooding of the lower Maitai River. The workshop delivered outputs for further consideration and provided an opportunity for participants to obtain an understanding of the work of other organisations. A report on the workshop findings is expected to be publicly released before the end of 2021.

5.19 During 2022 and 2023, the DAPP programme will include further work in relation to the identification of values and objectives and vulnerability and risk assessments. Obtaining the views of the community and government agencies through a community engagement process will be an important part of this work.

5.20 Along with public engagement, officers are expecting to complete assessments of the coastal areas identified as being prone to erosion, update coastal inundation mapping with the latest LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) remote sensing imaging, and complete the identification and assessment of coastal structures including sea walls.

5.21 An essential part of the DAPP process will be the consideration of the implications of anticipated new legislation, national policy directions and the National Adaptation Plan in relation to the Nelson region. The national framework will inform the next stages of the DAPP process, including the completion of vulnerability and risk assessments and consideration of options and pathways.

6. Options

The following table considers the two main options of:

1. Extending the WWNP programme, with notification in late 2022/early 2023.

2. Notifying a NRMP plan change to increase housing choice, and pausing the WWNP until replacement RMA legislation has been enacted.

Option 1: Extending the WWNP programme
Advantages	· Maintains momentum on WWNP and presents a largely cohesive planning document (excluding Freshwater). · Allows for alignment with Future Development Strategy and Spatial Plan. · Maintains public confidence in the planning process to date. · Some additional directions may be able to be incorporated, reducing the need for subsequent Variations to the WWNP.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Very high potential for NBA and SPA requirements to start before WWNP process is completed. · Potential for on-going planner shortage to affect programme delivery due to significant size of the programme needs (i.e. preparing parallel plans), and wider national demand for planners. · Higher costs than Option 1 as there are likely to be parallel process for developing Nelson Plan and NBA/SPA plans. · Council will not meet statutory timeframe for notifying changes under the NPS Urban Development. · Freshwater plan variation still required.
Option 2: Notifying a NRMP plan change and pausing the WWNP (recommended option)
Advantages	· A housing plan change will implement Council’s priorities and the NPS Urban Development (in part). · Enables work on freshwater management and coastal hazard DAPP to continue. · Reduces risk of inefficiencies from parallel planning processes occurring, particularly if new legislative transition timeframes are short. · More efficient use of staff resources and budget. Lower costs than Option 1. · Enables time to start considering regional alignment across topics. · Potential capacity to consider other priority issues for NRMP plan changes. · If replacement legislation presents long transition timeframes and does not require a combined plan, the WNNP work can be re-ignited and the WNNP could likely be notified in 2023.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Uncertainty about the timeframes for legislation and the national planning framework. · Uncertainty about transitional arrangements. · Risk that information and technical material becomes out of date. · Risk that feedback from residents, stakeholders and public becomes out of date.

6.2 A large range of variables affect this programme and likely costs. Staff estimate that Option 1 costs will be higher than Option 2 as parallel workstreams are likely to be required to meet new legislative demands, while continuing with the hearing and appeal phases of the WWNP. The exact amount of additional costs have not been estimated at this time as they are difficult to confirm until new legislation is enacted. Under Option 1, the phasing of the budget needs to be adjusted, with some additional costs arising from the delay to notification of the Plan.

6.3 Option 2 costs are likely to be lower than Option 1, based on an assumption that large sections of work that have been completed for the Nelson Plan will be able to be applied to a combined plan under the NBA. Officers also expect significant cost savings to occur due to the reduced appeal process signalled for plan-making. However, there are likely to be unavoidable costs associated with creating two new plans (NBA and SPA plans) and funding a joint committee and independent hearing panel. Under Option 2, costs will also be incurred for progressing the Housing Choice Plan Change, DAPP and freshwater planning processes.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The WWNP programme requires amendment. Two options have been presented for consideration. The recommended option is to pause the WWNP programme until new legislation has been passed, and in the interim, progress a plan change to introduce greater housing choice in the urban area.

8. Next Steps

8.1 If the recommended option is accepted, the next steps are to:

· Prepare the scope of a housing plan change.

· Progress Freshwater Planning work with iwi and Top of the South Councils.

· Continue the Coastal Hazard DAPP programme.

· ‘Park’ remaining topics of the WWNP, in preparation for their use in the NBA plan or Regional Spatial Plan, or priority plan changes in the future.

Author: Maxine Day, Manager Environmental Planning

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The update on the WWNP provides council with an opportunity to understand factors affecting the programme and make informed decisions on the Resource Management Act functions of local government.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The report relates to the following community outcomes:

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

3. Risk

There are low risks from the decisions in this report. The WWNP represents a substantial change in how our natural and built environment will be managed. Delays to its release affect how impacts are manged and how people use and develop their land. However, the current NRMP does provide a level of control on activities and protection for the environment, meaning that a delay to the WWNP programme has low risks.

4. Financial impact

Detailed financial impacts of the options cannot yet be provided, noting the large range of variables that may affect this programme. A broad consideration of costs shows that Option 2 is expected to have lower costs than Option 1.

Option 1 enables the WWNP programme to use the budget contained in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031; however costs for parallel workstreams (to develop additional plans under NBA and SPA) will be additional costs and have not yet been included in the LTP. These additional costs are difficult to estimate accurately until new legislation is enacted.

Under Option 1, the phasing of the budget needs to be adjusted, with some additional costs arising from the delay. These costs will primarily be staff costs, and some consultant costs from incorporating new directions, the FDS and Spatial Plan. Currently the WNNP is underspent on its budget. The WWNP costs are loan funded as a capital project.

Option 2 costs are expected to be lower than Option 2 costs as much of the technical work to underpin policy development has already occurred under the WWNP programme. The value from that technical work is expected to be applied to the new plan/s. Officers also expect significant cost savings to occur due to the reduced appeal process signalled for plan-making. However, there are likely to be unavoidable costs associated with creating two new plans and funding a joint committee and independent hearing panel.

Under Option 2, costs will also be incurred for progressing the Housing Choice Plan Change, DAPP and freshwater planning processes.

Costs currently budgeted in the LTP 2021-2031 could be reallocated under Option 2, and may require further adjustment once the new legislation has been enacted (estimated in late 2022).

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low/medium significance because the work does not involve a change to a level or service, has a moderate financial impact, impacts some aspirations of the community, does not involve a strategic asset, may affect council debt to a low-medium level, is not an irreversible decision, and there is limited historic interest. No consultation on this decision is proposed.

6. Climate Impact

This report relates to the timing of policy development that may impact how climate change impacts are managed or adapted to. In particular, the report provides an update on the DAPP programme.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The WWNP programme is supported by the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu through an Iwi Working Group. The constraints on the programme and decision/s being sought in this report have been discussed with that working group.

8. Delegations

The Environment and Climate Change Committee has the following delegations to consider the removal of minimum car parking rates from the Nelson Resource Management Plan:

Areas of Responsibility:

· District Plan

Delegations:

· Developing, approving, monitoring and reviewing policies and Plans

Powers to Recommend (if applicable):

· Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

Item 9: Review of Amended Urban Environments Bylaw and commencement of the special consultative procedure to consult on amendments

Environment and Climate Committee

4 November 2021

REPORT R19241

Review of Amended Urban Environments Bylaw and commencement of the special consultative procedure to consult on amendments

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To complete the review of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015, determine amendments to be made, adopt a Statement of Proposal proposing those amendments and approve commencement of public consultation on the Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw, by way of a special consultative procedure.

2. Summary

2.1 Officers have completed a review of Council’s existing Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 (Bylaw).

2.2 The review of the Bylaw entails consideration of four key questions:

2.2.1 What is the perceived problem?

2.2.2 Is a Bylaw the most appropriate way to address the perceived problem?

2.2.3 Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate and if not, how should it be amended to be the most appropriate?

2.2.4 Will the Bylaw and any proposed amendments give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) implications?

2.3 The review shows it is appropriate to retain almost all of the existing Bylaw except for the following changes:

2.3.1 Remove the fees and charges provision in Part One of the Bylaw as this approach to fee setting does not comply with section 150 of the Local Government Act 2002. Fee setting does not need to be in the Bylaw because this is covered by the legislative rules.

2.3.2 Remove the ‘caravans for residential purposes’ provision to avoid duplication with planning rules.

2.3.3 Change the requirement (related to sandwich boards) relating to the width of the footpath which needs to be available to pedestrians from 2m to 1.5m to align with the more recent provisions in the City Amenity Bylaw 2017.

2.3.4 Reduce approval complexity for retailers by removing the requirement for businesses to gain a permit before setting up a retail display.

2.3.5 Include a provision enabling Council to change its approach to sandwich boards and retail displays through a resolution so that Council can be more agile when issues arise.

2.3.6 Do not include a speed limit for vehicles in reserves in the Urban Environments Bylaw because speed limits can be more effectively enforced under the Land Transport Act 1998 than the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3.7 Reduce health and safety conflicts in reserves by removing provision for golf practice in Neale Park.

2.3.8 Do not include an ‘offences and penalties’ clause in the Burial and Cremation part of the Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw because this Bylaw relies on the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 rather than the Health Act 1956.

2.3.9 Explicitly state what section of the Local Government Act 2002 enables Council to make each part of the Bylaw to clarify powers and obligations.

2.3.10 Make minor wording changes to improve the clarity and consistency of the Bylaw.

2.4 The Council is required under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to consult with the public on the Draft Amended Bylaw before it can be made. Officers recommend that this is done by way of special consultative procedure because the Bylaw controls a wide range of behaviours within the community. This will ensure everyone who has an interest in the Bylaw has an opportunity to make a submission on it.

2.5 The public will be able to make suggestions for changes to any aspects of the Bylaw during the consultation process.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

3. Determines that the proposed Urban Environments Bylaw affects freedoms provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and those limits on freedoms are reasonable and proportional; and

5. Agrees a summary of the Statement of Proposal Amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

6. Adopts the Statement of Proposal in Attachment 2 (A2771727) of Report R19241 for use in this special consultative procedure; and

7. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 8.6 of Report R19241 and agrees:

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

4. Background

4.1 Council’s existing Urban Environments Bylaw (Bylaw) was made in June 2015. Under section 158 of the LGA, the Bylaw is to be reviewed five years from the date on which it was made. On 28 May 2020 the Environment Committee resolved to commence a review of the Urban Environments Bylaw (Report R16988).

4.2 Section 160A of the LGA provides that this Bylaw will remain in force for a further two years post the five year timeframe, at which point it will be automatically revoked (unless revoked earlier).

5. Scope of the Review

5.1 Officers reviewed the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 and considered the matters under section 155 of the LGA (discussed in section 6 of this report) in relation to each group of provisions. Some of the matters officers considered were: resolving duplication of controls for residential caravans, cats (microchipping), consistency of the provisions in the city centre between the Urban Environments Bylaw and the City Amenity Bylaw, a review of alcohol in public places, and removing the fees provisions in the introduction and in the burial and cremations part of the Bylaw.

5.2 The officers’ review included a review of complaints data over the past five years that the Urban Environments Bylaw has been in effect. During that time there were 500 complaints relating to matters included in the Urban Environments Bylaw (out of a total of approximately 15,000 complaints received by Council). About 100 of these complaints related to chickens and about 50 related to busking.

5.3 While most of the bylaw related complaints have been about chickens, the number is still relatively low compared to general complaints, and issues have generally been easily resolved.

5.4 One cat-related complaint has been made in the last five years about a cat defecating on the neighbour’s property. Requests for microchipping of cats has largely been driven by the need for biodiversity management rather than nuisance (to which this Bylaw relates).

5.5 There have been approximately 20 complaints about use of caravans for residential purposes.

5.6 In addition, officers considered the need to align with Council’s new street design guidelines and the City Amenity Bylaw 2017. It also suggested removing the requirement to gain a permit for a retail display, as this was not needed for sandwich boards, which have a similar effect.

5.7 The officers’ review considered whether additional areas should be included in Schedule A, but recognised this would be subject to sufficient data being available to support their inclusion in Schedule A of the Draft Bylaw.

5.8 Finally, the officers’ review noted that the current burial and cremation provisions are working well. No other significant issues were identified for management under this Bylaw.

5.9 After completing the review officers recommend that a number of provisions should be amended. The Draft Statement of Proposal in Attachment 2 explains the reasons for the proposed changes related to: removal of controls in the Bylaw relating to caravans; changing the required clear pavement space (associated with sandwich boards) from 2m to 1.5m; removing the permit requirement for retail displays; enabling changes to the retail display and sandwich board provisions by resolution; removing the speed limits in reserves provision, removing the provision for golf practice in Neale Park; including the legislative basis for the making of each part of the Bylaw; removing the ‘fees’ and ‘offences and penalties’ provision in the Burial and Cremation part of the Bylaw (as well as the fees provision in the introduction), and some minor editorial changes.

5.10 Officers do not propose to include controls on cats, or include additional areas where alcohol in public places is banned, as raised at the 20 October 2020 workshop with the Environment and Climate Committee. The reasons are discussed below.

Cats

5.11 Officers recognise that the impact of cats on biodiversity can potentially be an issue, but consider that amending this Bylaw to address microchipping is not the most appropriate way of addressing any perceived problem as it could be addressed most effectively through biosecurity legislation or central government control.

5.12 Tasman District Council is considering an option of developing a Cat Management Bylaw, focusing on microchipping in order to be able to identify the owners of domestic cats where they were causing a nuisance, and distinguishing between owned and feral cats so that they can be appropriately managed.

5.13 Officers recommend that Council wait until the benefits or otherwise of a Tasman District Council bylaw can be assessed and, in the meantime, continue to request that central government looks at this issue for all of New Zealand.

Alcohol

5.14 Officers do not recommend making changes to Schedule A of the Bylaw which lists areas where a prohibition of alcohol in public places applies, due to the limited data Council holds to justify changes and the tight timeframe to complete the Bylaw review process.

5.15 Section 147A of the LGA requires Council to have evidence that any new area has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area and that the bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime and disorder. Officers have advised the Police of the proposed approach to allow time for the Police to provide such evidence as part of a submission, if the Police considers it is necessary to add any new areas to Schedule A.

5.16 Clause 6.6 of the Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw enables Council to amend Schedule A at any time by resolution, without the need to undertake a special consultative procedure (but the resolution does need to be publicly notified before it takes effect), along with section 147B of the LGA, if evidence comes to light in the future that the level of crime or disorder in the area can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area and that it is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime and disorder and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms.

6. Section 155 of the LGA Determinations

6.1 To complete the review of the Bylaw, Council needs to consider the following questions.

6.1.1 What is the perceived problem?

6.1.2 Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

6.1.3 Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate and if not, how should it be amended to be most appropriate?

6.1.4 Will the Bylaw and any proposed amendments give rise to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) implications ?

What is the perceived problem?

6.2 The Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 regulates a wide range of activities which have the potential to cause problems for the community. A detailed list of these problems is included in the Statement of Proposal, and these are summarised below.

6.2.1 Potential problems associated with keeping of animals include noise, odours, traffic accidents and property damage.

6.2.2 Potential health and safety issues related to barbed wire and electric fences, slaughtering animals, outdoor storage of dead animals, and overflowing rubbish bins.

6.2.3 Lack of visible building numbers can be a nuisance (particularly for visitors to Nelson), and can be a health and safety risk by delaying the ability for emergency services to find specific properties.

6.2.4 Uncontrolled advertising and trading in public places can lead to people feeling harassed and annoyed.

6.2.5 Disorderly placement of sandwich boards and retail displays on the street can be a safety risk for people with low vision and for people in wheelchairs.

6.2.6 People stepping in front of cars to offer to wash the windows can be a nuisance and a safety risk.

6.2.7 Uncontrolled drinking in public places can result in intimidation, property damage and violence.

6.2.8 Uncontrolled use of reserves can cause property damage, safety risks and impact on other people’s enjoyment of these public spaces.

6.2.9 Uncontrolled activities in cemeteries can create maintenance issues, impact on social and cultural wellbeing, and cause environmental damage.

6.3 Further changes proposed in the Draft Amended Bylaw address problems identified during the officers’ review of the Bylaw. These are:

6.3.1 The approach to fee setting does not comply with section 150 of the Local Government Act 2002. Fee setting does not need to be in the Bylaw because this is covered by the legislative rules.

6.3.2 The potential for duplication of provisions about use of caravans for residential purposes in planning rules and the Urban Environments Bylaw

6.3.3 Inconsistency between the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 and the City Amenity Bylaw 2017 regarding the required width of footpath which must remain clear of sandwich boards and retail displays.

6.3.4 Requiring a permit for a retail display is overly onerous.

6.3.5 Lack of flexibility to manage sandwich boards and retail displays to reflect future city centre design guides.

6.3.6 It is best practice to set all speed limits consistently and have them enforced consistently under the Land Transport Act 1998, rather than having a different approach for speed limits in reserves under the Local Government Act 2002.

6.3.7 There is a lack of clarity about the legal basis for each part of the Bylaw.

6.3.8 The clarity and consistency of the Bylaw could be improved.

Is a bylaw the most appropriate way of addressing the problem?

6.4 A bylaw is the most appropriate way to regulate the range of matters included in the Draft Urban Environments Bylaw, particularly where there are specific powers under the LGA to manage and enforce these activities through a bylaw.

6.5 It is necessary to have the ability to manage activities which cause a nuisance, as well as health and safety risks, in relation to people’s experiences of public places. There are limited alternative options to using a Bylaw to do this. Council would need to rely solely on non-regulatory methods if the Bylaw was not in place.

Is the form of the Bylaw (the content) appropriate?

6.6 The Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw because it meets the following tests:

• it is authorised by statutory authority under sections 145, 146, 147 and 149 of the Local Government Act 2002;

• it is not repugnant to the general laws of New Zealand;

• the bylaw is certain and provides clear direction;

• the bylaw is reasonable; and

• the bylaw is not overly restrictive, onerous on any person, or impractical.

What are the potential implications for NZBORA?

6.7 Part 2 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) sets out 20 rights that are affirmed and protected under the NZBORA, subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (section 5 of the NZBORA).

6.8 Section 14 (freedom of expression) states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

6.9 Section 18 (freedom of movement) of the NZBORA states that everyone lawfully in New Zealand has the right to freedom of movement and residence in New Zealand.

6.10 Section 19 (freedom from discrimination) states that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination.

6.11 Section 21 (unreasonable search and seizure) states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise.

6.12 The Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw places some restrictions on these rights, as follows.

6.13 The Trading in Public Places provisions place some limits on people’s freedom of expression by limiting the ability to beg, busk, or place advertisements on any street or other public place, or tree or structure, other than a dedicated “poster tower” without a Council permit.

6.14 The Control of Alcohol in Public Places provisions enable the Police to seize and remove alcohol, and to search vehicles, and to arrest people, where use of alcohol is in breach of the Bylaw’s prohibitions on the possession or consumption of alcohol in public places.

6.15 The Reserves provisions limit freedom of movement in reserves in some circumstances, for health and safety reasons.

6.16 The Burial and Cremation provisions limit freedom of movement in cemeteries overnight.

6.17 In conclusion, the Amended Urban Environment Bylaw does affect freedoms provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as described above. However, these limits on freedoms are reasonable and proportional in order to ensure all members of the community are able to enjoy Nelson’s urban environment.

7. Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw

7.1 A copy of the Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw is set out in Attachment 1 to this report, which reflects the suggested amendments as a consequence of the review referred to above. This Draft Bylaw includes a broad range of provisions, which have one or more of the following purposes:

7.1.1 To protect, promote and maintain public health and safety.

7.1.2 To protect the public from activities that may constitute, or have the potential to constitute, a nuisance, including the keeping of animals, bees and poultry.

7.1.3 To minimise the potential for disorder or offensive behaviour, including controlling the bringing of alcohol into specified public places and the consumption and possession of alcohol in those public places.

7.1.4 To regulate trading in public places, including soliciting donations, busking and begging.

7.1.5 To manage activities within Nelson’s parks and reserves, including Nelson’s cemeteries.

7.1.6 To promote the display of street numbers on buildings.

7.2 The Draft Amended Bylaw is largely the same in substance to Council’s existing Bylaw, with minor amendments (as outlined in clause 2.3 of this report) to be consistent with other Council plans and address a safety issue associated with golf practice in Neale Park.

7.3 The Statement of Proposal (in Attachment 2) includes two general options related to increasing or reducing restrictions (see clause 4.1) to ensure Elected Members have the ability to make a broad range of changes in response to submissions as the public will be able to submit on the Draft Bylaw in its entirety and not just the amendments proposed by Council. This is made clear in clause 6.1 of the Statement of Proposal.

7.4 Outcomes of the special consultative procedure could include:

7.4.1 retaining the existing provisions in the Bylaw;

7.4.2 adopting the proposed amendments outlined in the Statement of Proposal, or a variation of these, based on community feedback;

7.4.3 adopting a different approach in the Bylaw based on community feedback (see Scope of Council decisions following consultation on page 5 of the SOP).

7.5 A consultation period from 8 November to 8 December is proposed, to give the public the opportunity to consider the provisions and provide their feedback. This will be followed by a hearing and deliberations and adoption of the new Bylaw before June 2022.

8. Requirement to use the special Consultative procedure

8.1 Before making a bylaw, section 156 of the LGA requires Council to use the special consultative procedure if the bylaw concerns a matter identified in the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of significant interest to the public, or if Council considers that there is likely to be a significant impact on the public due to the amendments to the Bylaw.

8.2 Schedule 1 of the Significance and Engagement Policy provides a method for assessing significance against criteria. In this case, the most relevant criteria is ‘building on existing decisions’. This equates to ‘moderate’ significance.

8.3 The Bylaw controls a wide range of behaviours within the community, and the review of it is a matter of moderate significance. Carrying out a special consultative procedure will ensure everyone who has an interest in the Bylaw has an opportunity to make a submission on it.

8.4 Officers have prepared a statement of proposal, set out in Attachment 2 to this report. It complies with the requirements for bylaw related statements of proposal in sections 83 and 86 of the LGA.

8.5 A summary of the Statement of Proposal is not considered necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal because the Statement of Proposal is a short document, and there is limited opportunity to summarise it more concisely.

8.6 Public communications about the statement of proposal and Draft Amended Bylaw will include direct email/letters to key stakeholders, information and a submission form on the Shape Nelson website, and a notice in Our Nelson.

9. Options

9.1 If the Committee accepts that a Bylaw is the most appropriate way forward, it has three options to consider:

· commence consultation on the Draft Amended Bylaw set out in Attachment 1 (A2759599) – this is the recommended option;

· make further amendments to the Draft Amended Bylaw;

· do not commence consultation and instead rely on the existing Urban Environments Bylaw until it is automatically revoked (on 2 June 2022) with an ultimate net result that Council will not have an Urban Environments Bylaw.

Option 1: Commence consultation on the proposed Bylaw – officers recommend Option 1

Advantages

· A bylaw will provide a reasonable level of ability to protect people’s amenity and experiences of public places in Nelson.

· Commencing consultation in early November ensures a new bylaw will be in place when the existing Bylaw expires in June 2022.

· The Draft Amended Bylaw is similar in substance to the existing Bylaw, so residents and visitors will not experience major change.

Risks and Disadvantages

· No significant risks or disadvantages.

Option 2: Make Further Amendments
Advantages	· Allows any further issues to be identified and amended in the Bylaw, if control under a Bylaw is the most efficient mechanism for managing that activity.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Further time and resources to undertake the review of information and amendments. · Potential for a time delay to affect the adoption of the Bylaw by June 2022.
Option 3: Do not commence consultation and rely on the existing bylaw
Advantages	· The existing Bylaw will remain in operation for now.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The existing Bylaw will be revoked on 2 June 2022, after which Council would have no ability to regulate the matters included in the Urban Environments Bylaw, and the Police would have no enforcement powers to control the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places.

10. Conclusion

10.1 As a result of the review of the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015 it is appropriate to make some amendments to address health and safety issues and avoid nuisance associated with people’s experiences of public places. Officers recommend commencing consultation on the Draft Amended Bylaw using the special consultative procedure in accordance with sections 83, 86 and 156 of the LGA which will enable Council to consider public feedback on the proposed changes, and any other changes suggested by submitters.

11. Next Steps

11.1 The next steps in the process are:

- public consultation period from 8 November to 8 December

- hearing of submitters who wish to speak in early 2022

- deliberations in early 2022

- adoption of an amended Policy and Bylaw before 1 June 2022.

Author: Maxine Day, Manager Environmental Planning

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2771727 - Statement of Proposal - Draft Urban Environments Bylaw - 20 October 2021 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2771728 - Draft Amended Urban Environments Bylaw - 20 October 2021 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Draft Urban Environments Bylaw supports the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the Nelson community by putting in place the ability to control activities which can impact on amenity and people’s experiences of public places in Nelson.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft Urban Environments Bylaw supports the following community outcomes:

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

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

3. Risk

Not adopting the Draft Urban Environments Bylaw would leave Council relying on its existing Bylaw, which is due to expire on 2 June 2022. If no new bylaw is made before then, Council would have no ability to regulate the matters included in the Urban Environments Bylaw 2015, and the Police would have no enforcement powers to control the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places.

4. Financial impact

There are no immediate funding implications over and above the current costs of administration and enforcement.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Schedule 1 of the Significance and Engagement Policy provides a method for assessing significance against criteria. In this case, the most relevant criteria is ‘building on existing decisions’, and the decision or action relates to previous decisions but is not necessarily consequential. This equates to ‘moderate’ significance.

Although the Draft Amended Bylaw carries over almost all of the substance of the existing Bylaw, it may generate some public interest. Consultation with the community will occur through the special consultative procedure, in accordance with section 156 of the LGA.

6. Climate Impact

Climate change has been considered in relation to the Draft Bylaw. However, none of the Draft Bylaw provisions have the capacity to assist with (or to affect) climate change mitigation or adaptation.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No Engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report, however the extent of changes has been discussed with Pou Taiao of the iwi trusts, via the Nelson Plan Iwi Working Group.

8. Delegations

The Environment and Climate Committee has the following delegations to consider bylaws.

Delegations:

Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility.

Areas of responsibility:

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

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

· Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate.

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

Item 10: Biosecurity Annual Report 2020/21 & Operational Plan 2021/22

Environment and Climate Committee

4 November 2021

REPORT R26273

Biosecurity Annual Report 2020/21 and Operational Plan 2021/22

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is twofold:

a) To present a summary of progress against the targets and objectives of the 2020-21 Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP); and

b) To present the RPMP Operational Plan for the 2021-22 financial year and seek agreement for Council to approve the Plan.

2. Summary

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

2.2 The 2020-21 Operational Plan was approved by the Environment and Climate Committee at its meeting on 18 February 2021. The Report on the Operational Plan 2020-2021 Objectives and Targets (Attachment 1) summarises the activities undertaken. This review confirms Nelson City Council is meeting its biosecurity obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993 and work undertaken was within budget.

2.3 The 2021-22 Operational Plan (Attachment 2) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken this year in implementing the RPMP. The total approved budget for implementing the Operational Plan for the Nelson region is $333,000.

2.4 The Operational Plan 2021-22 and the review Report for the 2020-21 Operational Plan will be reported to Tasman District Council as a joint partner and the management agency for the RPMP.

3. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Biosecurity Annual Report 2020/21 and Operational Plan 2021/22 (R26273) and its attachments (A2760681 and A2763427).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves the Operational Plan 2021/22 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (A2763427 of Report R26273), specifically as it relates to Nelson City Council’s area.

4. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3 The Operational Plans are based on the pests and programmes contained in the RPMP outlined above along with the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015. The 2021-22 Operational Plan outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken when implementing the RPMP in 2021-22.

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

4.5 Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council participate in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership along with Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries. This continues to be an effective forum through which to prepare for, and respond to, marine pest incursions, including RPMP species.

5. Discussion

Report on Operational Plan 2020-2021

5.1 Activities to implement the RPMP in the Nelson region in 2020-21 are detailed in Attachment 1 and are summarised below under the relevant pest programmes.

5.2 Several significant challenges occurred during the year, specifically Covid-19 restrictions and early retirement of key TDC staff, which impacted the field work able to be undertaken. Nevertheless, as the report identifies, indications are that the objectives and targets of the RPMP are generally being met. Since June 2021 the Council has employed its own Biosecurity Officer to undertake work previously contracted to Tasman District Council to implement the RPMP in the Nelson region.

Exclusion pests

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

5.4 A potential incursion of Koi carp into the pond at Queens Gardens was investigated and discovered to be a large goldfish.

5.5 There was one wallaby incursion involving the importation of an animal into Nelson to be kept as a pet. The animal was destroyed.

Eradication pests

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

5.7 There are no new sites reported for African feather grass. Follow-up monitoring of the last known site is scheduled for 2021/22, but previous indications were that this pest is well on track to eradication. There have been no new sites since 2011-2012.

5.8 The Nelson region remains free of Bathurst bur, boxthorn, Egeria, entire marshwort, knotweed, Indian ring-necked parakeet and red-eared slider turtles.

5.9 Cathedral bells are very close to being eradicated, with three remaining active sites in Nelson and no new sites reported. Nelson sites were not visited this year.

5.10 There are 19 known infestations of climbing spindleberry in Nelson, all of which have fewer plants than previously seen. No new sites were reported in Nelson.

5.11 Four new sites of Madeira vine were discovered in Nelson and one site was reactivated, bringing the total number of known infestations in Nelson to 15. Infested sites can be very persistent and it is anticipated that even with intense treatment, 15 years of monitoring is needed after activity has ceased, for proof of eradication.

5.12 There were no new sites of saffron thistle discovered. There is only one active site and four monitoring sites in Nelson. This pest is tricky to eradicate due to the 20-year viability of the seed in the soil and its ability to re-erupt after disturbance following long periods of dormancy. Monitoring of previously infested sites is ongoing.

5.13 Work has progressed well to control Taiwan cherry in the Nelson region. Management has been directed toward a large source infestation in Atawhai. Monitoring to date shows that the level of density of Taiwan cherry in this infestation has reduced from over 80% down to 5%. As reported previously, Tasman District Council is reconsidering the eradication classification of Taiwan cherry due to a much higher level of infestation than initially thought in the Tasman region, and the consequential significant cost of managing eradication of this plant in that region. Any change in status will require a review of the relevant provisions in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan and consideration of implications for successful eradication in the Nelson region.

5.14 Regular surveillance for Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) in Nelson Haven continued. As part of a scheduled delimitation/elimination survey in May/June 2021, three single Sabella specimens were found on marina structures. All were removed. A separate detection on a vessel from Auckland was reported and treated by a commercial diver in February 2021.

5.15 Staff work with Kiwifruit Vine Health to manage wild kiwifruit. No new infestations were discovered in Nelson. Six monitoring sites were visited. Three previously known sites are now inactive and three remain active. The data indicates slow progress is being made towards eradicating this pest.

5.16 The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the lead organisation for the eradication of introduced pest fish species in the Tasman and Nelson regions (ie Gambusia, rudd, tench and perch). There have been no new incursions of rudd, tench and perch in Nelson which remains free of these pests and DOC continues to keep these pests in check in Tasman. DOC’s 2020-2021 target for Gambusia was to explore whether eradication is feasible. The results of several small-scale control operations indicate that eradication is feasible, with an intensive hand-netting operation in Maire Stream looking successful.

5.17 DOC is also the lead management organisation for the eradication of Spartina. While there has been a general downward trend of Spartina detections around the Waimea Estuary in recent years, in 2020-21 the total of active infestations found increased from five to nine. However, none of these are within the Nelson region. An additional benefit of the Spartina surveillance programme has been the identification and treatment of non-RPMP but highly invasive pest plants in Waimea Inlet, in particular Jellybean ice plant.

Progressive Containment pests

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

5.19 The Nelson region remains free of Bomarea, Chinese pennistenum, purple loosestrife, and reed sweet grass.

5.20 Infestations of Nassella tussock, variegated thistle, and white-edged nightshade continue to reduce in extent and indications are that these pests are being contained within their respective containment zones.

5.21 There were two new satellite infestations of Nassella within the Nelson region. This is tempered by no reactivation of monitored sites and 5 sites moving from active to zero density. The management and monitoring of the Nassella tussock inside the containment zone is the responsibility of the occupier.

5.22 There were four instances in the Nelson region where previously clear sites of variegated thistle have reactivated but the level is less than the “fewer than 10%” target. New sites found are far fewer than the number of previously known active sites moving to zero density over 2020-2021 (seven are located in the Nelson region).

5.23 The containment zones for White-edged nightshade are both in Nelson and this is where the majority of the 2020-2021 effort on this species was expended. There are no reported “new” sites but there are 38 “active” sites that are new locations of seedlings. This indicates localised spread. Only one of these sites is outside the containment zone and is very close to the boundary within a cluster of known sites. There have been no reported instances of clear sites being reactivated. In total, 25 previously known active sites are now at zero density (all of these in Nelson). Monitoring of the Brook Sanctuary cluster (inside the containment zone) did not identify any active sites.

Sustained Control pests

5.24 The ongoing control of 23 widespread pests to reduce their impacts and spread to other properties continued under the Sustained Control Programme, with many of the sustained control areas located in Tasman District. Targets in the Operational Plan 2020-21 included collaboration with Tasman District Council officers to identify priority sites for management of chocolate vine, Gunnera species, Lagarosiphon, Queensland poplar, yellow flag, and yellow jasmine.

5.25 Chocolate vine was discovered and treated on three new sites in the Nelson region.

5.26 No new sites of Gunnera or Lagarosiphon were detected in Nelson.

5.27 One new site of yellow flag iris was identified, and noted for control, in Nelson.

5.28 Work on Queensland poplar focussed on determining the extent of the infestation. New sites about 5km north of a core infestation in Nelson indicates that the species is spreading on to land that was clear until recently.

5.29 The Nelson region remains clear of yellow jasmine.

5.30 Occupier-led control and reporting may be sub-optimal for preventing the spread of these species. Many of the sites are in an urban setting and probably do not pose a risk to high value natural areas. An exercise to prioritise the monitoring of high-risk sites has yet to be undertaken, and until then there is no basis for a targeted approach to check spread on to land that is clear. Meanwhile biosecurity officers endeavour to prioritise the treatment of sites that are close to areas of natural value such as native bush.

Site-led pests

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

Pest control in addition to RPMP 2020-2021

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

5.33 In Conservation Reserves pest control was focussed on feral ungulates (large mammals with hooves, eg goats, deer, pigs), wilding conifers and a range of vine, ground cover, shrub and tree weeds. Weed management in Landscape and Esplanade Reserves is increasingly being directed by Ecological Restoration Plans.

5.34 A trial was undertaken to control the invasive aquatic pest plant water celery (not listed in the RPMP) in a section of Orphanage Stream in May/June 2021 using the herbicide Trichlopyr (Garlon 360). This was successful with complete eradication of targeted plants 4 weeks after treatment. Most of the plant material was on the stream banks rather than growing in the stream, meaning less spray of plants in the water. Based on monitoring information there was no detectable adverse effect on water quality or ecological values. This programme will be extended in 2021/22 further downstream in Orphanage Stream and to other streams where water celery has become established.

5.35 The Nelson Nature programme provided support for animal and plant pest control for groups and landowners on private land, and groups on Council land. This support ranged from technical advice for lower priority sites to funding for contractors and pest control at high value biodiversity sites. Most funding was provided through the Council’s Environmental Grant scheme.

Operational Plan 2021-2022

5.36 The 2021-22 Operational Plan sets the programme of work that has already been committed to via the RPMP and is budgeted. It builds on learnings from implementing the RPMP in 2020-21 and will be the first year the Council’s newly appointed Biosecurity Officer will be involved in implementing the Plan. Targets and measures have been updated to enable better alignment with the RPMP and improve monitoring of performance against RPMP objectives. This includes:

5.36.1 Grouping pests together under their relevant programmes and distinguishing between targets aimed at outcomes and those focused on service delivery.

5.36.2 Clarifying the role of Tasman District Council as the management agency, Nelson City Council’s role as the lead agency in the Nelson region, and other organisations that act as lead agencies for specific pests, such as the Department of Conservation or Ministry for Primary Industries.

5.36.3 Developing the pest database to improve capture of the density and extent of infestations and surveillance effort.

5.36.4 Developing a surveillance programme for Progressive Containment pests and a management strategy to reduce the extent of infestation for at least one Containment zone.

6. Options

6.1 Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Approve 2021-22 Operational Plan (Preferred option)
Advantages	· Continue work to effectively implement the Regional Pest Management Plan. · Meets Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements. · Work is budgeted for.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None obvious.
Option 2: Amend 2021-22 Operational Plan
Advantages	· Provides for changes if deemed inconsistent with the Regional Pest Management Plan.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Creates delays/reprioritisation of work. · Potential additional costs. · Potential significant risk of not controlling pest plants and animals. · May not meet Biosecurity Act 1993 requirements.

7. Conclusion

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

7.2 The 2021-22 Operational Plan provides for a consistent and efficient approach to biosecurity management across both Nelson and Tasman. The Plan ensures the Council meets its statutory obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993. Activities are within budget.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Continue to implement the Operational Plan 2021-22 for the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

8.2 Officers are currently scoping potential changes to the RPMP should this be initiated by Tasman District Council. Potential changes are reviewing the eradication status of Taiwan cherry in the Tasman region in particular, as well as wilding conifer control and alignment of Sabella rules similar to those in the Marlborough RPMP in order to improve consistency across the Top of the South. This could require re-establishing the Joint Regional Pest Management Committee to oversee the Plan change process.

Author: Richard Frizzell, Environmental Programmes Officer

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2760681 - Report on the Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2020-2021 Objectives and Targets ⇩

Attachment 2: A2763427 - Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2021-22 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

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

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected;

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

3. Risk

The Operational Plan for 2021/22 will meet the Council’s requirements under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Any changes would risk delaying the ongoing implementation of the Plan.

4. Financial impact

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

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

Climate change has not been considered within this report. However, it is acknowledged that it will have implications for future biosecurity risks and incursions and responding to these. Biosecurity control will provide more vegetation growth in the future and increase carbon sequestration.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

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

5.4.1 Areas of Responsibility:

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

5.4.2 Delegations:

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

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

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

5.4.3 Powers to Recommend to Council:

· Approval of final versions of strategies, policies and plans

Item 11: Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2021

Environment and Climate Committee

4 November 2021

REPORT R26222

Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2021

1. Purpose of Report

To report on financial and non-financial performance measure results for the first quarter of the 2021/2022 financial year for the Environmental Management Group activities. The activities included are: Building, City Development, Resource Consents and Compliance, Planning, and Science and Environment. Climate Change is also included in this report.

2. Recommendation

That the Environment and Climate Committee

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Quarterly Report - 1 July-30 September 2021 (R26222) and its attachments (A2770940, A2754786, A2748758, A2760820, A2760899, A2755600, A2771754).

3. Financial Results

Profit and Loss by Activity

Variance Commentary

3.1 As at 30 September 2021, Capital Expenditure is $184,000 behind budget. Level of Service is $155,000 behind budget, Renewals and Growth are under budget by $18,000 and $11,000 respectively.

3.2 Monitoring the Environment expenditure is less than budget by $106,000. Hill Country Erosion expenditure is behind budget by $33,000 and Healthy Streams is behind budget by $24,000. These are expected to be spent by the end of the year and the budgets will be phased to reflect this in the next quarter.

3.3 Environmental Advocacy/Advice income is less than budget by $53,000. Maitai ERP grant income is $74,000 behind budget with funding to be received on submitting the quarterly report in the second quarter. Unbudgeted grant income of $19,000 has been received from Forest and Bird for Rush Pool pest plant control.

3.4 Building Services income is greater than budget by $170,000. Building consent income is ahead of budget by $147,000 with stronger market demand than anticipated.

3.5 Resource Consents expenditure is greater than budget by $91,000. Job purchases are ahead of budget by $47,000 and External Expert Services are ahead of budget by $6,000, with consultants required to be used due to lack of staffing to deal with the increased volume of consents being sought.

4. Key Performance Indicators

4.1 The two not on track measures are non-compliance with statutory timeframes for resource consents (73% on time for the quarter) and building consents (98% on time). The impacts of staff shortages and the lockdown have contributed to this non-compliance. The five performance measures not measured yet are timing related e.g. recreation bathing, pest management and compliance effectiveness will all be done later in the year. The State of the Environment measure is only required every 5 years and the City Centre programme every 3 years.

4.2 See Attachment 1 for the full performance measure details (A2770940).

5. Summary of activities

Building

5.1 The Building Control Authority (BCA) went through an IANZ audit in late June. The outcome was positive with greatly improved results from the previous audit with only 11 General Non-Compliances (GNCs). All GNC’s have been cleared and confirmation was received on 8 October that the BCA has achieved IANZ re-accreditation and are now back on a two-yearly audit rotation.

5.2 Through the COVID period there have continued to be high numbers of building inspection requests and a steady number of consent applications have been received.

City Development (Urban Development Subcommittee matters)

5.3 During the period officers have delivered eight reports to Council, its Committees, and the Iwi Managers Forum. A number of workshops were also held.

Te Ara ō Whakatū– Nelson City Centre Spatial Plan engagement

5.4 Council approved community engagement on Te Ara ō Whakatū at its meeting on 26 August 2021. Consultation was open from 30 August to 1 October and over 320 people and organisations have provided feedback.

Kāinga Ora proposal

5.5 Council approved community engagement on its proposal to sell land to Kainga Ora for a social and affordable housing development at its meeting on 26 August 2021. Consultation was open from 30 August to I October and over 250 submissions/comments were received.

Housing Reserve

5.6 A workshop on phasing the approach of the Housing Reserve was held with the Urban Development Subcommittee on 14 September 2021. A report on this matter is scheduled for Council on 5 October 2021.

Future Development Strategy

5.7 Work on the preparation of the next iteration of the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy is continuing. This quarter the focus has been on appointing contractors to project manage the Strategy and working with them to develop consultation material.

Environmental Planning

Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan

5.8 The focus for the Planning team through the first quarter has remained on the continued development of the content of the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan.

5.9 Officers ran targeted engagement with landowners on ‘Notable Trees’ from 22 June – 20 July; and in August started public engagement on flood hazard maps and plan provisions, Airport zone, Airport Noise, and some limited engagement with affected residents on Port Noise. The feedback period runs until 19 October 2021.

Coastal Hazards (DAPP)

5.10 Council has continued working through the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) process while awaiting new legislation on climate change and managed retreat. A multi-agency workshop on coastal hazard risks and impacts was held in late June, with a report to the Committee due before the end of 2021.

Resource Management Reforms and National Directions

5.11 On 9 September, Council’s submission on the Draft Exposure Bill of the Natural and Built Environment Act was retrospectively approved.

5.12 Central Government is currently seeking feedback on options that will inform the development of freshwater farm plan (FW-FP) regulations under part 9A of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020; and feedback on proposed amendments to the national Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020 (NES-Freshwater), specifically relating to wetlands.

Private Plan Change

5.13 On 23 September 2021 Council accepted the private plan change (PPC) request received from CCKV Dev Co LP and Bayview Nelson Limited. The private plan change will continue through the Schedule 1 Resource Management Act process which includes public notification and a hearing by independent accredited commissioners.

Resource Consents and Compliance

Resource consent applications

5.14 Application numbers remain high and are 14% higher than the first quarter in the last financial year. The resource consents granted include:

· The extension to the Coastal View development comprising of 78 units.

· A six-storey apartment building containing 31 units in Haven Road (the last consent issued under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act before this Act was repealed on 16 September).

· Seven consents associated with stage 4 of Saxton Creek (Main Road Stoke to Whakatu Drive).

· A telecommunication facility in Cable Bay.

· A 21-lot subdivision and associated earthworks off Hill Street.

· A Habitat for Humanity subdivision consent to enable a 14-unit development in Stoke.

· A certificate of compliance to operate a mobile hot-tub business on Pepin Island.

Science and Environment

Programme and project health summary

5.15 Project health summary attached (Attachment 2 - A2754786)

Air Quality

5.16 There were no exceedances of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) for PM10 during this quarter.

Jobs for Nature

5.17 In addition to Project Mahitahi, Council has been granted close to $1 Million of funding over three years from the Department of Conservation (DOC) to support restoration of high value biodiversity sites on private land in the Wakapuaka and Whangamoa catchments. The project will provide the equivalent of 16 FTE’s over the three years to control weeds and other pests at selected sites, and work on the ground will start in October 2021.

Healthy Streams

5.18 Annual State of the Environment freshwater quality data was reviewed and included in the national summary for the 2020 LAWA river water quality update, which went live on 22 September to celebrate World Rivers Day. Results can be found at https://www.lawa.org.nz/

Nelson Nature

5.19 65 applications requesting almost $500,000 of funding were received in the August 2021 round of Environmental Grants. Site visits are currently underway, and grants will be evaluated against the published grant criteria. Successful grants will be funded from the MPI’s Hill Country Erosion Fund, and the Nelson Nature and Sustainable Land Management budgets.

Sustainable Land Management

5.20 The Hill Country Erosion programme has supported 37 landowners to plant 51,800 trees across over 19 hectares of erosion prone land in Nelson between June and September. Most of the grants supported private landowners to retire steep marginal pasture or exotic forestry and transition to native forest, with a smaller number supporting the retirement of marginal pasture on Council land in the Maitai Valley.

Coastal and Marine

5.21 A tea bag decomposition experiment was presented at the October Te Ohu Taiao meeting and was received with great interest. The experiment involves planting 2 specific tea bag types in the Waimea Inlet and the Haven. These teabag types represent both fine and woodier natural litter that would be found in estuaries. These are left for 3 months and then dug back up. Little or no degradation indicates the potential for carbon sequestration, degradation indicates break down and therefore release of carbon into the atmosphere. This information may be used to indicate preferential areas for restoration to also increase carbon sequestration potential. The main experiment will be preceded by a small pilot later this month that will be recorded and be part of the Tasman Environmental Trust Blue Carbon presentation at The Ocean Race Summit in Auckland in November.

Biosecurity

5.22 The annual programme of Taiwan cherry control has begun. Priority has been given to sites in Nelson North, including Cable Bay, Glenduan, Wakapuaka and Marybank as it is the most infested area and where biodiversity values are at greatest risk.

Partnerships

Kotahitanga mō te Taiao (KMTT) is an alliance of the top of the south Councils, Te Tauihu iwi, and the Department of Conservation, supported by global conservation organisation The Nature Conservancy (TNC). KMTT meets at least quarterly and aims to get the best possible conservation outcomes for people and nature in Te Tauihu, guided by a strategy launched in 2019.

Recently the Alliance made the decision to work with TNC planning experts to design a conservation/restoration planning process for Te Tauihu using the Conservation by Design approach (https://www.conservationbydesign.org/), adapted to fit Te Ao Māori frameworks and the local Nelson context. This approach will be built around existing KMTT projects including Project Mahitahi.

5.23 Nelson City Council was awarded a large environmental grant through Envirolink, which focused on how to better incorporate Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) into the regional sector’s research, science and technology strategies. The project was delivered by Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research and the report can be found at https://www.envirolink.govt.nz/assets/2141-NLCC117-Te-Ao-Maori-matauranga-Maori-to-address-regional-council-RST-strategies-and-priorities.pdf

6. Legal Proceedings Update

Building

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

Resource Consents and Compliance

6.2 A long procedural process on a dog attack matter has ended with the appeals lost and the decision to euthanise confirmed. Another dog attack hearing was scheduled for 19 August but has been delayed due to COVID until 26 January 2022. A disqualified dog owner has appealed Council’s decision to uphold the disqualification. The hearing is set for 1 December 2021.

7. Risks and Challenges

Building

7.1 Recruitment within the Building team is continuing, applicants with the required qualifications, relevant experience and competencies are proving hard to find. With the upcoming retirement of a senior building inspector to add to the existing vacancy, the BCA will need to manage inspection demand with support from external contractors until such time as successful recruitment can fill the gap.

City Development

7.2 Recruitment for a City Development Manager is underway.

7.3 Preparation of a new Future Development Strategy to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS-UD) is expected to attract widespread community interest.

Environmental Planning

7.4 Programme delays have arisen from the recent COVID-19 lockdown, affecting the planned engagement on the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan. Additionally, the extended lockdown for a number of the Auckland consultants is affecting their capacity to complete work within the intended timeframes.

7.5 Staff vacancies continue to affect the ability of the Environmental Planning team to efficiently deliver the work programme. The staff shortages and delays have a knock-on effect to the wider programme and are being reported separately to the Environment and Climate Committee.

7.6 Wider RMA reforms continue to present uncertainties and challenges in planning the forward work programme.

Resource Consents and Compliance

7.7 Two planner vacancies remain. Consultants are not always able to assist with processing meaning compliance with statutory timeframes will be difficult to achieve until positions have been recruited and are fully trained. Work on improving practices has slowed while application numbers remain high.

Science and Environment

7.8 Alert level 4 and 3 COVID-19 lockdowns in August and September prevented site visits and community-based programmes, however State of the Environment monitoring continued. Site visits have been able to go ahead in Alert Level 2, but community workshops and events are all postponed until Alert Level 1. Contractors have been working to complete all planned plantings within the August to September planting window.

7.9 Wood burner authorisation is the process that certifies that burners sold and installed in New Zealand meet the mandatory National Environmental Standards for Air Quality. To date authorisation of burners with emissions greater than 1.0 g/kg and less than 1.5 g/kg has been carried out for the whole of New Zealand by Nelson City Council. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has commissioned a review of the wood burner authorisation process which may bring about changes going forward.

8. Climate Change

8.1 Nelson City Council is leading the establishment of a working group to estimate Nelson region greenhouse gas emissions (community emissions) based on the Global Protocol for Communities. The Report will include emissions based in geographical boundaries. It will include emissions sources that will reflect where the emission was produced (production-based, for example a factory that produces greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) as part of its activities) and also where the emission is a result of a consumption in the region (consumption-based). The group includes members of Tasman District Council, the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum from its Science, Technology & Research Group and the Nelson Regional Development Agency. This work aims to provide a finer breakdown of emissions and a wider source of data, which will take current inventory reports for communities further (e.g. Community emissions published by Stats NZ). The group has also been awarded pro-bono hours from KPMG to provide external support in carbon accountancy.

8.2 One of the pages of Council’s climate change website has been updated to include Council’s carbon footprint, current mitigation actions and climate change adaptation methodology and initiatives. The link is http://www.nelson.govt.nz/climate-change/councils-climate-change-action/

8.3 A .4FTE staff resource has been allocated as a designated resource to support the calculation of the Council and community carbon footprint GHG and energy audits in Council facilities. This in-house expertise will cost less than using an external consultant and retain expertise in-house. It is expected that the role will also generate energy cost savings and support a decrease in GHG emissions. Council will engage an external third-party to verify its carbon footprint inventory. Having third party verification provides confidence that any reporting is an accurate depiction of the GHG emissions of the organisation. Other councils across New Zealand have also developed internal capabilities to measure their own carbon footprints (e.g. Auckland, Tasman District Council).

8.4 Council staff attended the “Influential Program New Zealand-Netherlands: Water and Climate Adaptation” webinar sessions in late September. One of the objectives of the programme was to contribute to further intensifying NZ and Netherlands cooperation under the framework of the Joint Statement for Climate Change Action part of the Carbon Neutrality Coalition where New Zealand is a member. New Zealand and the Netherlands agree to share experiences and lessons learned on supporting communities and economies in climate action and collectively reach out to other countries to commit to carbon neutrality and to submit long term strategies that ensure that collectively we limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. and to exchange knowledge, views and ideas about shared challenges and lessons learnt in the field of water and climate adaptation between experts in the New Zealand and Dutch water sectors. The sessions provided useful learnings for Council’s work in planning, strategy and infrastructure.

9. Urban Greening Project Update

Urban Greening Project Update:

9.1 Parks and Facilities officers, the Chair of the Environment and Climate Committee and the consultant Den Aitken of AitkenTaylor have been working on defining the draft brief which is to be workshopped with the Committee on 21 October.

10. Environmental Management Activity Update by Business Unit

Building Update

10.1 The compliance team are dealing with an increasing number of aged or failing retaining walls. Some of these have been identified as dangerous and are being dealt with appropriately.

10.2 A good start to the year has been made with solid building consent applications and inspection numbers. Statistics are recorded in Attachment 3 - A2748758.

10.3 An update to the Go Get consenting system will be made during the third quarter of this financial year, this will bring further internal efficiencies to the system and provide improved service to the customer. Investigations have commenced to incorporate the swimming pool record keeping into the Go Get system. This would digitise/simplify the process for staff and eliminate paper records.

Strategic Direction and Focus

10.4 An external review is to be undertaken of systems and procedures that capture specified system information, from receiving a Building Consent, to the issuing of the Code of Compliance Certificate and compliance schedule. The intention is to streamline the process and improve the quality of documentation provided to clients and address IANZ recommendations.

City Development Update (Urban Development Subcommittee Matters)

10.5 Council’s Housing and Business Capacity Assessment has been submitted to the Ministry for the Environment. Additionally, the Minister for the Environment has been notified of the projected shortfall of housing capacity, as required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

10.6 Work on the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy has continued. This is a lengthy process spanning 12 months. Focus this quarter has been on appointing contractors to project manage the Strategy and working with them to develop consultation material. The first round of public engagement is running during October.

10.7 A proposal to sell land to Kāinga Ora for social and affordable housing was progressed and public engagement undertaken. A decision on the proposal is scheduled for the 28 October Council meeting.

10.8 Additionally, the Te Ara ō Whakatū (City Centre Spatial Plan) was progressed with community feedback on the draft open from 30 August to 1 October. 320 people and organisations provided feedback. The deliberations report will be presented before the end of the year.

10.9 Two more Urban Design Panel meetings were held during this quarter involving housing developments.

Strategic Direction and Focus

10.10 The key strategic focus of the team (in addition to those mentioned in the summary section 5) has involved:

10.10.1 Adoption of Phase One of the Housing Reserve by Council on 5 October 2021.

10.10.2 Progressing investigation into the establishment of the City Centre Residential Conversion Fund.

Environmental Planning Update

Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan

10.11 A large volume of work has been undertaken across all topics to update the Draft Plan provisions, and develop the Section 32 reports. A series of topics are still in development particularly relating to freshwater management, climate change and natural hazards, and Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori (SASM).

10.12 Officers have continued to work with iwi on SASM mapping and Freshwater. In relation to freshwater, staff are awaiting the first stage report on Te Mana o te Wai that will help inform subsequent work under the NPS Freshwater Management 2020.

10.13 Officers ran targeted engagement with landowners on ‘Notable Trees’ from 22 June – 20 July with very little feedback received. Where feedback was received, it largely related to questions or corrections on the tree assessment reports that had been issued to landowners.

10.14 Public engagement has occurred on flood hazard maps and plan provisions, Airport zone, Airport Noise, and limited engagement with affected residents on Port Noise. The engagement was scheduled for 18 August – 17 September, however, this was delayed due to the recent COVID-19 lockdown. Council has received a steady amount of feedback, over 60 responses to the river flooding, and over 20 responses for the Port Noise. The feedback period runs until 19 October 2021.

Coastal Hazards (DAPP)

10.15 Council has continued working through the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) process while awaiting new legislation on climate change and managed retreat.

Resource Management Reforms and National Directions

10.16 On 9 September, Council’s submission on the Draft Exposure Bill of the Natural and Built Environment Act was retrospectively approved. Officers gave an oral submission to the Parliamentary Select Committee via zoom on Thursday 2 September.

10.17 Central Government is currently seeking feedback on options that will inform the development of freshwater farm plan (FW-FP) regulations under part 9A of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2020. Freshwater farm plans are intended as a practical way for farmers to meet the freshwater standards and to reduce the regulatory burden. The regional sector has developed a combined submission containing feedback from across the sector, including from Nelson City Council (Attachment 4 - A2760820). Four common themes were identified across council feedback:

· Council resourcing constraints: significant additional resources will be required for data, engagement, compliance, and enforcement.

· The need for linkages from the national scale down to catchment and farm scale.

· A requirement for both consistency and flexibility in different parts of the farm planning system.

· Transition to fully implemented FW-FPs should be determined by the regional context.

10.18 The Nelson region is likely to be less affected by the Freshwater Farm Plan regulations than other regions with a high level of farming activity. The discussion document can be found here https://environment.govt.nz/publications/freshwater-farm-plan-regulations-discussion-document/

10.19 In addition, Central Government has recently released a discussion document to facilitate feedback on proposed amendments to the national Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020 (NES-Freshwater), specifically relating to wetlands.

10.20 New regulations for the regulation and protection of ‘natural wetlands’ form part of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-F). Following stakeholder feedback, the Government (Ministry for the Environment) are seeking submissions on the following proposed amendments to natural wetland provisions in the NPS-FM and NES-F:

· Making the definition of 'natural wetland' clearer to ensure that only the areas intended are captured by the regulations.

· Making it easier to undertake maintenance and restoration activities in and around natural wetlands.

· Providing regulatory provision for biosecurity activities in and around natural wetlands.

· Including Resource Management Act 1991 consenting pathways for quarrying, landfills, clean fills and managed fills, mineral mining and urban development operations in and around natural wetlands.

10.21 The consultation period is 1 September to 27 October 2021. There is limited impact on Nelson from the proposed changes. A combined regional sector submission is not being developed. Submissions are being made by some of the larger regional councils and those with a high proportion of wetland area and/or significant mining or quarrying activity in the region. At this stage officers are not proposing to make a submission given the limited impact for Nelson and also the issue of not having adequate officer resource to prepare one.

10.22 Officers have a developed a strategy for managing the significant new wetland work programme and are taking a risk-based approach to prioritising actions based on regulatory requirements, time sensitivity and impact for Nelson.

10.23 The discussion document can be found here https://environment.govt.nz/publications/managing-our-wetlands-discussion-document/

Strategic Direction and Focus

10.24 Working on the next steps for Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan given the Government’s legislative changes.

Resource Consents and Compliance Update

10.25 A senior planner has been recruited and will start on 1 November 2021. A graduate planner commenced in August. Resource consent application numbers remain high. The combined impact of staff vacancies and the lockdown in August has resulted in a decline in compliance with timeframes and fewer decisions being issued in September. A summary of the consents and compliance statistics is contained in Attachment 3 - A2748758.

10.26 The Harbourmaster resigned on 31 August. The Deputy Harbourmaster has been appointed the Acting Harbourmaster until a review of the role is undertaken. Two yachts broke from their moorings in July, a lot of logs and debris after storm events were removed from the harbour, and radio testing was carried out resulting in improvements to the VHF coverage. A broken-down power boat was towed back to shore during level 3 which was covered on One News.

10.27 Lockdown impacted some regulatory services, city parking patrols ceased during alert levels 4 and 3. Other services were provided remotely. The parking staff report the new pay by plate system is much faster and more efficient for them to use, than the previous ticket machines.

10.28 There are currently 5,874 dogs registered for the year, with 191 dogs unregistered and requiring a follow up from dog control staff.

10.29 A wetter than normal few months has resulted in higher levels of drainage and runoff complaints.

Strategic Direction and Focus

10.30 The priority is to focus on clarifying roles and customer improvement responsibilities for senior staff.

Science and Environment Updates

Air Quality

10.31 Five yearly monitoring of Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is being carried out at the St Vincent and Blackwood Street air quality monitoring sites. Analysis of the result will be undertaken at the conclusion of the monitoring programme and reported early 2022.

Meteorology

10.32 The cumulative rainfall graphs show that this year has been cumulatively wetter than normal (long term average rainfall totals). July and August were particularly wet months. Most rainfall recorders recorded 80% more than normal monthly rainfall totals. Rainfall totals in September were closer to normal. (Attachment 5 - A2760899)

Healthy Streams

10.33 Nelson region freshwater web reporting pages are being developed using a template designed and tested by Greater Wellington Regional Council. The content includes water quality, ecology and recreational bathing monitoring results compared to regional and national water quality limits, along with an overview of the regional monitoring site network, monitoring methods and other key information resources. It will be available to the public later this year. Then work will take place to develop the same web reporting for other domains e.g. air, biodiversity.

10.34 Riparian habitat assessments of plantings in the Brook, Maitai and Wakapuaka rivers were undertaken for the third year with Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) students, as part of a long-term monitoring project to assess the broader ecological benefits of riparian habitat over time.

10.35 The Poorman Valley Stream Community Engagement Project has moved into the last phase. The community have been invited to contribute personal stories, history and information about Poorman Valley Stream, which will be included in a Story Map.

10.36 A new environmental technician role has been established to help meet the demands of additional freshwater monitoring required to inform decision making under the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020 and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Jobs for Nature: Project Mahitahi

10.37 During July, three community plantings were held to contribute to the overall count of native plants being installed in the catchment. The total number of plants planted through Project Mahitahi to date is over 30,000. As at September, there are 27 different people employed across the Project, hosted by six different agencies, working on publicly accessible land.

10.38 The Ministry for the Environment has recently released a series of video clips, in collaboration with the Department of Conservation, which highlights the various aspects of Project Mahitahi at a national scale.

10.39 The July-Sept quarterly report to the Project Mahitahi Governance Group is attached (Attachment 6 - A2755600) for more detailed information on project status.

Nelson Nature

10.40 This year’s Great Kereru Count was the final of eight years for the national citizen science initiative supported by Nelson Nature. Results are due to be released soon, but poor weather and COVID restrictions meant that observer effort was down on previous years.

10.41 A Community Trappers Workshop held by the Nelson Nature team and supported by Tasman Environmental Trust was held in July to provide an opportunity for knowledge sharing and networking with key members of Nelson’s trapping community. Approximately 50 people attended.

10.42 Tīeke (Saddleback) were observed frequenting the Brook Valley Campground in August, after being translocated to the Brook Waimārama Sanctuary earlier in the year. Given the high risk of predation on birds outside of the Sanctuary, rat and mustelid (stoat, weasel) traps were installed throughout the campground. A community backyard trapping programme and a large community trapping project in the Brook Valley are in the pipeline.

Sustainable Land Management

10.43 An Envirolink funded project to develop regional guidelines for transitioning plantation forestry to native forestry has been completed, partly in response to demand from small woodlot owners wanting to transition away from plantation species. The study has 5 case study sites across the Top of the South, including 2 in Nelson. The report is expected to be published at the end of October on the Envirolink website.

Coastal and Marine

10.44 The Cawthron Institute has completed a report for NCC about the potential for the low impact propagation of seagrass in a laboratory setting for New Zealand, looking at international examples that can be adapted to the Nelson environment. This would have huge implications for the ability to be able to restore seagrass without having to damage the little amounts of seagrass that are remaining, which is the current method being used. This report was funded by an Envirolink grant and is published on the Envirolink website https://www.envirolink.govt.nz/assets/2146-NLCC119-Review-of-the-potential-for-low-impact-seagrass-restoration-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf

10.45 The results of a coastal bird survey commissioned last summer by Nelson City and Tasman District councils have been analysed. Altogether, 50 coastal bird species were recorded during the survey, including 16 nationally threatened species. The survey confirmed the Nelson Boulder Bank as regionally, nationally or internationally significant breeding habitat for many coastal bird species. At least 64% of the Nelson City breeding population of tarāpunga (red-billed gulls), half of Nelson’s breeding population of tōrea pango (variable oystercatchers) and 22% of the Nelson’s breeding population of tara (white-fronted terns) depend on the Boulder Bank for breeding. The survey results will be valuable for both planning and operational projects and will be published on Council’s website.

10.46 An Ecological Restoration Plan (ERP) has been produced for the Council Esplanade Reserve land that adjoins Waimea Inlet between Monaco and Reservoir Creek. This ERP will guide the Councils operational work in this area to build upon past restoration planting. Key recommendations included increasing the extent of planting and changing the species composition, ecological education for key stakeholders, and weed control.

Biosecurity

10.47 Following a successful trial of an aquatic herbicide to control water celery in Orphanage Stream, an annual schedule has been established to use it in 2021/22 to control water celery, Vietnamese parsley and parrot’s feather. This meets requirements of resource consent and Environmental Protection Authority permissions and has been discussed with iwi and the Department of Conservation. Spraying is scheduled to begin from mid-October in Orphanage Stream, Saxton Creek, Orchard Stream, Poormans Valley Stream, Arapiki Stream, Jenkins Creek, Brook Stream, Hillwood Stream and a drain along Cable Bay Road.

10.48 The Council has employed a Biosecurity Officer to undertake work previously contracted to Tasman District Council to implement the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) in the Nelson region. In addition to surveillance and control of RPMP pests, the role has been instrumental in discovering and controlling incursions of moth plant and blue passionflower (both plants are very invasive and are nationally listed Unwanted Organisms).

Strategic Direction and Focus

10.49 Strategic focus areas for delivery this year are upgrading our collection, management, analysis and reporting of data to meet new requirements; responding to the Government’s regulatory change programme; and continuing to look for partnership opportunities in project development and delivery.

Author: Clare Barton, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2770940 - Performance measures ⇩

Attachment 2: A2754786 - Science and Environment Programme Health Summary July-Sept 2021 ⇩

Attachment 3: A2748758 - Building and Consents and Compliance stats ⇩

Attachment 4: A2760820 - Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations - Regional Sector Feedback on Discussion Document, September 2021 ⇩

Attachment 5: A2760899 - Cummulative Rainfall Graphs to September 2021 ⇩

Attachment 6: A2755600 - Project Mahitahi quarterly governance report - Jul-Sept 2021 ⇩

Attachment 7: A2771754 - Nelson Plan Project Sheet July to Sept 2021

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Environmental Management work programme addresses the following community outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Risk

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

4. Financial impact

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

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

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

6. Climate Impact

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

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

The Environment and Climate Committee has the following delegation:

Areas of Responsibility:

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

· Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust

· Bylaws, within the areas of responsibility

· Climate Change policy, monitoring and review

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

· Climate change reserve fund use

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

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

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

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

· Hazardous substances and contaminated land

· Maritime and Harbour Safety and Control

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

· Policies and strategies relating to compliance, monitoring and enforcement

· Policies and strategies related to resource management matters

· Pollution control

· Regulatory enforcement and monitoring

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

· Urban Greening Plan

Delegations:

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

Excerpt from Nelson City Council Delegations Register (A11833061)

Environment and Climate Committee

Areas of Responsibility:

Delegations:

Powers to Recommend to Council: