AGENDA

Ordinary meeting of the

 

Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

 

Date: Wednesday 27 July 2022
Commencing at 1.30p.m.

 

Zoom conference link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86165681550

Meeting ID: 861 6568 1550

Passcode: 911008

 

Chairperson                     Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson Rachel Reese

Alternating Chairperson  His Worship the Mayor of Tasman Tim King

 

Members

Tasman District Council:

Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant, Councillors Barry Dowler, Mark Greening, Dean McNamara, Kit Maling, David Ogilvie, Trevor Tuffnell, Anne Turley,  Celia Butler, Chris Hill, Trindi Walker and Christeen MacKenzie

Nelson City Council:

Deputy Mayor Judene Edgar, Councillors Yvonne Bowater, Trudie Brand, Mel Courtney, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Rohan O’Neill-Stevens, Pete Rainey, Rachel Sanson and Tim Skinner

 

Quorum: 14 - at least five must be from each local authority

 

Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

Areas of Responsibility:

·              Matters relating to Statements of Expectation for all jointly owned Council Controlled Organisations and Council Controlled Trading Organisations

·              Receipt of six monthly presentations from Port Nelson Limited, Nelson Airport Limited and Tasman Bays Heritage Trust and from the Nelson Regional Development Agency (owned solely by Nelson City Council).

·              Discussion of policies, initiatives or directives stemming from central Government or external agencies, that involve cross-boundary issues

·              Implementation of the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy

Powers to Decide:

·              To determine the strategic direction to be given to jointly owned CCOs and CCTOs through Statements of Expectation

·              To adopt, approve, review and amend the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy and Implementation Plan

·              In matters relating to the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy, to undertake community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

Powers to Recommend to Councils:

·              All other matters requiring decision will be recommended to Nelson City and Tasman District Council, subject to an equivalent resolution being adopted by the other Council

Quorum:

·              The quorum at a meeting of the Joint Committee is set at 14, being a majority of members as the membership is an odd number. 

·              Of that quorum of 14 members, at least five must be from each local authority.

Procedure:

·              The Standing Orders of the Council providing administration to the committee will be applied at each meeting.

·              The Chairperson will alternate each meeting between the Mayor of Nelson City Council and the Mayor of Tasman District Council.  In the absence of either Mayor, the committee will elect a chair as its first item of business for that meeting.  No deputy chairperson will be appointed.

·              The Chairperson will not have a casting vote

·              These delegations/terms of reference may be varied by resolution of both Councils and any such resolution will be subject to adoption by the other Council unless it is a matter specific to one Council only

·              Copies of minutes of meetings of the Joint Committee will be retained by each Council for record keeping purposes

 

 


Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

27 July 2022

 

 

Page No.

 

1.       Apologies

An apology has been received from Councillor G Noonan

2.       Confirmation of Order of Business

3.       Interests

3.1      Updates to the Interests Register

3.2      Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4.       Public Forum

   

5.       Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions                 8 - 105

Document number R26951

Recommendation

That the Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

1.    Receives the report Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Adoption of Policy Decisions (R26951) and its attachments (1 – Recommendations on policy decisions from the Joint Committee Subcommittee, 2 – Officers' report of 31 May 2022 to the Subcommittee with the above attachments (Provided electronically only due to the file sizes), 3 – Minutes from the three days of deliberations hearings, 4 – revised Green House Gas emissions modelling memo provided by Tasman District Council officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations, 5 – two supplementary memos of information provided by officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations, 6 - Revised multi criteria analysis assessment including new sites, 7 - Memo on implementation of the Future Development Strategy); and

2.    Accepts the recommendations of the Joint Committee Subcommittee as detailed in the recommendations that are provided in attachment 1; and

3.    Notes that the Joint Committee Subcommittee agreed that the deliberations report, the attachments and supplementary officer advice provided in response to questions from the Subcommittee, provided the information required by the Subcommittee to make fully informed recommendations to the Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils on the final Future Development Strategy; and

4.    Directs officers to include in the final Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 (FDS) the matters in attachment 1 and instructs officers to amend the relevant FDS documents to give effect to these matters: and

5.    Notes that officers will prepare principles to guide the staging and rollout of development areas for inclusion in the final Future Development Strategy and that these principles will be used in the preparation of the implementation plans; and

6.    Notes that infrastructure providers will be consulted during the preparation of implementation plans referred to in Recommendation 5 and that the implementation plans will include preparation of neighbourhood and structure plans; and

7.    Recommends to both Councils that they explore the use of Inclusionary Zoning and consider plan provisions that require a range of section sizes, while retaining flexibility over housing typologies built, in housing plan changes and/or plan reviews; and

8.    Acknowledges that there have been a number of requests and proposals in submissions that have not been addressed by specific decisions as a result of this report and agrees not to make any changes in response to those submissions which have not been outlined in the earlier parts to this resolution; and

9.    Notes that submitters will each receive a response to their submission; and

10.  Notes, in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Joint Committee Subcommittee’s Future Development Strategy recommendations to the Joint Committee of the Tasman District and Nelson City Councils, contain inconsistencies with the existing policy in the following Council strategies and plans:

A) Tasman District Council’s Richmond and Motueka Town Centre Parking Strategy 2018 (the Parking Strategy). The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy identifying the carpark at Hickmott Place, Motueka for use as mixed use commercial and residential purposes, which is consistent with the zoning of the land, but is not consistent with the Parking Strategy which retains its use as a carpark.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within Motueka township and the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Tasman District Council will consider amending the Parking Strategy when it is next reviewed; and

B) Nelson City Council’s Tahunanui Structure Plan 2004 (the Structure Plan).  The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy proposing increases to the levels of residential intensification and increases to the heights for housing developments in the Tahunanui area, which are inconsistent with the intensities and heights of development in the Structure Plan.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council will consider replacing the Structure Plan when it prepares the neighbourhood plan for the Tahunanui area or when a plan change is prepared; and

C) Nelson City Council’s Nelson Urban Growth Strategy 2004 (Growth Strategy).  The inconsistency arises due to the Growth Strategy containing out of date growth projections which are inconsistent with the projections contained in the Future Development Strategy.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council is not proposing to update the Growth Strategy, as the document will be replaced by the new Future Development Strategy; and

D) Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council’s 2019 adopted Future Development Strategy. The inconsistency arises due to the requirement to enable sufficient supply of housing and business land to meet demand within the region, in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth. A different spatial growth pattern is proposed and hence some different sites. The 2022 Future Development Strategy, if adopted would replace the 2019 Future Development Strategy; and

E) Recommends to both Councils that they give consideration to how to support the Future Development Strategy intensification goals through land aggregation including working with Kāinga Ora; and

F) Recommends to both Councils that there is alignment of their Growth Strategies in terms of modelling and timing; and

G) Agrees to the Joint Committee Subcommittee recommendation that the implementation of the FDS is a standing item on the Joint Committee’s agenda.

11.  Notes the importance of neighbourhood plans for the successful implementation of the Future Development Strategy; and

12.  Recommends that officers report back, as a priority, to Nelson City Council on the options for preparing neighbourhood plans to feed into the Nelson Housing Plan Change process; and

13.  Recommends to Nelson City Council that it provides additional resources to enable the neighbourhood plans to be completed; and

14.  Notes that Tasman District Council is undertaking structure planning for its key neighbourhood areas as part of its plan change and plan review processes.

 

       

 

 

  


 

Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions

 

 

Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

27 July 2022

 

Report Title:         Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions

Report Author:     Chris Pawson - Senior Analyst Environmental Management

Report Number:   R26951

 

 

 

1.       Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide and outline the recommendations of the Future Development Strategy (FDS) Subcommittee on the draft FDS, following the hearings into submissions and deliberations between April-June 2022.

1.2      To recommend the acceptance of the policy decisions for inclusion in the final version of the FDS and its attachments. 

2.       Summary

2.1      This report, together with the officers’ report to the Subcommittee for deliberations on 31 May 2022 (attachment 2), summarises the key matters raised through the special consultative process for the Nelson Tasman FDS. This report seeks that the Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils accepts the policy decisions arising from the FDS, based on the recommendations of the Subcommittee, provided at attachment 1. 

2.2      Amended versions of the FDS and supporting documents have not been prepared at this stage, since the Joint Committee has not yet approved the recommendations of the Subcommittee which include the policy decisions for the final strategy.

2.3      The Nelson City and Tasman District Councils received 568 submissions throughout the FDS consultation period (14 March to 14 April 2022 inclusive), including five late submissions which were accepted by the Subcommittee on the first day of the hearings.  120 submitters presented their submissions to the Subcommittee, all via audio-visual link. Each submitter was given 10 minutes to present to the FDS Subcommittee.  There is a detailed summary of the submissions provided at attachment 3 (Submissions summary report) of the officers’ report to the Subcommittee for deliberations on 31 May 2022 (attached to this report).

2.4      There are a number of attachments to the officers’ report of 31 May 2022 to the Subcommittee, as follows:

·   Attachment 1 – Schedule of speakers at the submissions hearing who appeared

·   Attachment 2 – Minutes from the four days of hearings

·   Attachment 3 – Submissions summary report (by Barker and Associates)

·   Attachment 4 – Analysis report for deliberations (by Barker and Associates), containing appendices on revised residential capacity analysis and Sense Partner’s review of selected submissions

·   Attachment 5 – Tasman District Council officers’ memo on Vehicle Kilometres travelled and Greenhouse Gas emissions model

·   Attachment 6 – Questions raised by Subcommittee during hearings and responses.

2.5      In addition, attachments to this report to the Joint Committee comprise:

·    Attachment 1 - Recommendations on policy decisions from the FDS Subcommittee

·   Attachment 2 – Officers' report of 31 May 2022 to the Subcommittee with the above attachments (Provided electronically only at http://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/Our-council/Downloads/council-agendas/2022/Joint-Committee-Subcommittee-Deliberations-Agenda-31May2022.pdf and http://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/Our-council/Downloads/council-agendas/2022/Attachments-of-Submissions-Hearing-31May2022.pdf due to the file sizes).

·   Attachment 3 –Minutes from the three days of deliberations hearings

·   Attachment 4 – Revised GHG emissions modelling memo provided by Tasman District Council officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations

·   Attachment 5 – Two supplementary memos of information provided by officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations

·   Attachment 6 - Revised multi criteria analysis assessment including new sites

·   Attachment 7 - Memo on implementation of the FDS.

2.6      The officers’ report to the Subcommittee (31 May 2022) covers the main themes raised by submitters and outlines officers’ responses and recommendations. This report uses the same themes and summarises the policy decision recommendations of the Subcommittee to the Joint Committee, for adoption.

2.7      The Statement of Proposal for the FDS comprised a core part (consolidated growth focused largely along State Highway 6 from Atawhai to Wakefield, but also including Māpua and Motueka and meeting the needs of Tasman rural towns) and a secondary part (creation of a new community near Tasman village and Lower Moutere (Braeburn Road), for consideration by the community. For clarification, the Subcommittee recommends adopting the core part of the proposal only.

2.8      The themes from submissions that are referred to in this report and the officers’ report of 31 May 2022 are:

·   Theme 1 - Growth projections (page 14 of officers’ report of 31st May 2022);

·   Theme 2 - Housing land capacity calculation and uptake rate for housing intensification (page 18);

·   Theme 3 - FDS outcomes (page 21);

·   Theme 4 - Multi criteria analysis framework (page 23);

·   Theme 5 - Greenhouse gas emissions reduction (page 29);

·   Theme 6 - Greenfield/brownfield housing capacity split (page 37);

·   Theme 7 - Proposal for a new community near Tasman village (page 42);

·   Theme 8 - Site specific matters (page 45);

·   Theme 9 - Implementation – infrastructure (page 52);

·   Theme 10- Staging of development (page 54);

·   Theme 11 - Building height – Nelson (page 55);

·   Theme 12 - Natural hazards – Tasman, the Wood and Tahunanui, Nelson (page 57);

·   Theme 13 - Strategic areas – Port Nelson and Nelson Airport (page 58); and

·   Theme 14 - New sites and amended sites proposed (page 59)

2.9      The Subcommittee recommends that the Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils approves the recommendations contained in section 3 of this report.

3.       Recommendation

 

That the Joint Committee of Tasman District and Nelson City Councils

1.    Receives the report Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Adoption of Policy Decisions (R26951) and its attachments (1 – Recommendations on policy decisions from the Joint Committee Subcommittee, 2 – Officers' report of 31 May 2022 to the Subcommittee with the above attachments (Provided electronically only due to the file sizes), 3 – Minutes from the three days of deliberations hearings, 4 – revised Green House Gas emissions modelling memo provided by Tasman District Council officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations, 5 – two supplementary memos of information provided by officers to the Subcommittee during deliberations, 6 - Revised multi criteria analysis assessment including new sites, 7 - Memo on implementation of the Future Development Strategy); and

2.    Accepts the recommendations of the Joint Committee Subcommittee as detailed in the recommendations that are provided in attachment 1; and

3.    Notes that the Joint Committee Subcommittee agreed that the deliberations report, the attachments and supplementary officer advice provided in response to questions from the Subcommittee, provided the information required by the Subcommittee to make fully informed recommendations to the Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils on the final Future Development Strategy; and

4.    Directs officers to include in the final Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 (FDS) the matters in attachment 1 and instructs officers to amend the relevant FDS documents to give effect to these matters: and

5.    Notes that officers will prepare principles to guide the staging and rollout of development areas for inclusion in the final Future Development Strategy and that these principles will be used in the preparation of the implementation plans; and

6.    Notes that infrastructure providers will be consulted during the preparation of implementation plans referred to in Recommendation 5 and that the implementation plans will include preparation of neighbourhood and structure plans; and

7.    Recommends to both Councils that they explore the use of Inclusionary Zoning and consider plan provisions that require a range of section sizes, while retaining flexibility over housing typologies built, in housing plan changes and/or plan reviews; and

8.    Acknowledges that there have been a number of requests and proposals in submissions that have not been addressed by specific decisions as a result of this report and agrees not to make any changes in response to those submissions which have not been outlined in the earlier parts to this resolution; and

9.    Notes that submitters will each receive a response to their submission; and

10.  Notes, in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Joint Committee Subcommittee’s Future Development Strategy recommendations to the Joint Committee of the Tasman District and Nelson City Councils, contain inconsistencies with the existing policy in the following Council strategies and plans:

A) Tasman District Council’s Richmond and Motueka Town Centre Parking Strategy 2018 (the Parking Strategy). The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy identifying the carpark at Hickmott Place, Motueka for use as mixed use commercial and residential purposes, which is consistent with the zoning of the land, but is not consistent with the Parking Strategy which retains its use as a carpark.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within Motueka township and the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Tasman District Council will consider amending the Parking Strategy when it is next reviewed; and

B) Nelson City Council’s Tahunanui Structure Plan 2004 (the Structure Plan).  The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy proposing increases to the levels of residential intensification and increases to the heights for housing developments in the Tahunanui area, which are inconsistent with the intensities and heights of development in the Structure Plan.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council will consider replacing the Structure Plan when it prepares the neighbourhood plan for the Tahunanui area or when a plan change is prepared; and

C) Nelson City Council’s Nelson Urban Growth Strategy 2004 (Growth Strategy).  The inconsistency arises due to the Growth Strategy containing out of date growth projections which are inconsistent with the projections contained in the Future Development Strategy.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council is not proposing to update the Growth Strategy, as the document will be replaced by the new Future Development Strategy; and

D) Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council’s 2019 adopted Future Development Strategy. The inconsistency arises due to the requirement to enable sufficient supply of housing and business land to meet demand within the region, in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth. A different spatial growth pattern is proposed and hence some different sites. The 2022 Future Development Strategy, if adopted would replace the 2019 Future Development Strategy; and

E) Recommends to both Councils that they give consideration to how to support the Future Development Strategy intensification goals through land aggregation including working with Kāinga Ora; and

F) Recommends to both Councils that there is alignment of their Growth Strategies in terms of modelling and timing; and

G) Agrees to the Joint Committee Subcommittee recommendation that the implementation of the FDS is a standing item on the Joint Committee’s agenda.

11.  Notes the importance of neighbourhood plans for the successful implementation of the Future Development Strategy; and

12.  Recommends that officers report back, as a priority, to Nelson City Council on the options for preparing neighbourhood plans to feed into the Nelson Housing Plan Change process; and

13.  Recommends to Nelson City Council that it provides additional resources to enable the neighbourhood plans to be completed; and

14.  Notes that Tasman District Council is undertaking structure planning for its key neighbourhood areas as part of its plan change and plan review processes.

 

 

4.       Background and Discussion

Statement of Proposal

4.1      The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 requires that a FDS is developed using the Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.  This procedure involves the preparation of a statement of proposal, public notification and opportunities for public submissions on the statement of proposal. 

4.2      The proposals included in the FDS Statement of Proposal (which included a Summary of Information and Draft Future Development Strategy) and the supporting technical information have been developed over the last 12 months. Confidential briefings on the draft FDS have taken place with elected members from both Councils on 19 October 2021, 16 November 2021, 24 January 2022, 8 February 2022 and 28th June 2022. On 8 March 2022, the Joint Committee approved the commencement of a Special Consultative Procedure on the draft FDS Statement of Proposal with the consultation period to run from 14 March to 14 April 2022.

4.3      The Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils agreed on 8 March 2022 to appoint the following members, Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant, Councillor Kit Maling, Councillor David Ogilvie, Mayor Rachel Reese, Deputy Mayor Judene Edgar and Councillor Brian McGurk, and add up to 3 iwi representatives to the Subcommittee to hear and deliberate on the submissions received on  the FDS Statement of Proposal and to make recommendations back to the Joint Committee which will make the final decisions to approve the FDS.

4.4      Ms Ina Kara-France was appointed by both Mayors (delegated by the Joint Committee), to the Subcommittee before the submission hearings commenced, following unanimous support from chairs of eight iwi of Te Tauihu. Ms Kara-France attended all the submission hearings and was present for the deliberations hearings.

4.5      The Statement of Proposal asked the community for feedback on the core part of the proposal (consolidated growth focused largely along State Highway 6 from Atawhai to Wakefield, but also including Māpua and Motueka and meeting the needs of Tasman rural towns), and a secondary part (creation of a new community near Tasman village and Lower Moutere (Braeburn Road)). It also asked for feedback on:

·   the 11 outcomes for future development in the regions (note these were the agreed outcomes of the draft FDS put together by the project team, the community (engagement round October 2021), iwi, stakeholders and the Councils. The community was asked whether they agreed with them.

·   the intensification proposals by area;

·   the greenfield expansion proposals by area;

·   the balance of greenfield development and intensification;

·   the business growth sites proposed;

·   whether there are any additional areas that should be included for housing or business growth;

·   whether the balance was right for growth in the rural towns; and

·   whether there was anything else important to guide growth in the regions, that was missed.

4.6      While the survey was detailed, it has enabled officers to analyse responses by geographical area which is important in guiding future development for the regions.

4.7      The Statement of Proposal proposed meeting identified demand for housing and business land for both a medium growth and high growth population scenario, so that the Councils can accommodate growth demands if high population growth continues, particularly in Tasman. Under a high growth scenario this equates to 24,000 homes in the urban environment and 5,100 homes in rural Tasman, totalling approximately 29,000 homes for the regions over the next 30 years. For business land, under a high growth scenario the Councils would need 48ha of commercial and 20 ha of industrial land. The Councils have plenty of capacity to cater for this growth over the long term, with the Housing and Business Assessments showing that capacity exists for about 88 hectares of commercial land and 50 hectares of industrial land over the next 30 years. However, this capacity is not spread equally throughout the regions, nor is it all currently serviced, with anecdotal shortages existing in towns like Richmond and Motueka following a survey undertaken in 2021.

4.8      The supporting documents that were relied upon to prepare the Statement of Proposal include:

·   Tasman Housing and Business Capacity Assessment 2021;

·   Nelson Housing and Business Capacity Assessment 2021;

·   Combined Tier 2 Nelson Tasman Housing and Business Capacity Assessment 2021;

·   “Housing We’d Choose” report 2021 (Market Economics);

·   Nelson Tasman Business land demand forecasting study 2021 (Sense Partners);

·   Tasman population projections 2021-2051;

·   Nelson population projections 2021-2051;

·   All National Policy Statements; and

·   Relevant National Environmental Standards.

4.9      The statement of proposal that was consulted on is available at the following links:

·   https://tasman.govt.nz/my-council/key-documents/more/future-development-strategy/

·   https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/future-development-strategy   

Consultation and feedback

4.10    Public consultation commenced on 14 March 2022 and closed on 14 April 2022 at 5.00 pm. Due to the red traffic light setting on the Covid Protection Framework, the consultation was online including 17 webinars hosted by both Councils. There were approximately 300 participants in these webinars. Many questions were asked at the webinars, and these were very wide ranging, but the recurring themes raised in these can be summarised as follows:

·   concerns about the submission timeframes;

·   importance of active and public transport provision;

·   density thresholds for viable public transport;

·   affordability of housing;

·   intensification uptake levels;

·   lack of focus on decarbonisation within the draft FDS and low emissions transport;

·   some concern about height limits – specifically that six storeys is too high;

·   concern about the proposals near Tasman Village – misaligned with NPS-UD, concern about carbon emissions from residents travelling to work and not supported by iwi;

·   importance of maintaining local character and visual amenity of Tahunanui with intensification;

·   questioning endless/exponential growth and that the Councils should constrain growth rather than providing for it;

·   population projections – concern that they are too high in some areas or do not reflect the need for affordable homes in others (e.g. Tākaka/ Golden Bay, Tapawera);

·   natural hazards particularly coastal inundation and flooding and concern about proposed growth in these areas;

·   iwi engagement and how this has been undertaken;

·   protecting productive land;

·   incorporating human environment factors into the mapping;

·   some confusion about how the FDS is different to plan changes or the District plan with questions relating to particular zoning provisions and controls and requests for rezoning of land;

·   issues with regard to growth in the Maitai Valley;

·   need to provide for job opportunities in rural areas as well as housing;

·   questions about infrastructure and development sequencing and funding;

·   demand for smaller homes and sections – FDS should reflect this;

·   visual amenity/local character.

4.11    The Councils received 568 submissions throughout the consultation period (14 March to 14 April inclusive 2022), including five late submissions which were accepted by the Subcommittee on the first day of the hearings. Hearings were held between 27 April and 3 May 2022. 120 submitters presented their submissions to the Subcommittee all via audio-visual link – 29 on day one, 35 on day two, 19 on day three and 37 on day four. Each submitter was given 10 minutes to present to the Subcommittee.

4.12    There is a detailed summary of the submissions provided at Attachment 3 of the officers’ report to the Subcommittee of 31 May 2022 (Submissions Summary report) and an analysis report at Attachment 4. The analysis report covers the key components of the draft FDS – base assumptions and methodology, outcomes, growth strategy and its implementation. Key issues arising through submissions on the draft FDS are discussed. Themes 1-14 arise from the submissions and draw on the analysis report. Attachment 6 of the officer’s report to the Subcommittee of 31 May provides the questions asked by the Subcommittee during the hearings and officers’ responses.

Ngā iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui

4.13    A summary of iwi of Ngā iwi o Te Tauihu o Te Waka a Māui submissions is provided in Attachment 4 of the officer’s report to the Subcommittee of 31 May (Analysis report). Submissions were received from Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Te Ātiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust.

4.14    Other than those issues covered under theme 7 (secondary part of the proposal – creation of a new community near Tasman village), key themes arising from these submissions by iwi include:

·   general support for intensification and increased housing supply in existing built up areas, over sprawling low density rural residential development;

·   consultation and capacity of iwi and hapū – concerns over resourcing and capacity to respond within the timeframes required through the process;

·   focus on Te Taiao, especially from Te Ātiawa, relating to achieving net enduring restorative outcomes and opposing the general presumption in the NPS UD on growth;

·   support for specific sites (T-195 St Arnaud (Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō), the papakāinga proposals which have reduced in overall scale requiring a smaller site;

·   maintained opposition to the inclusion of sites within Tasman village, unless agreement can be reached on significant sites (Te Ātiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust).

4.15    Through the submissions the Councils received suggestions to include 31 entirely new sites as growth areas and suggestions to amend five sites as growth areas. The Councils also received suggestions to include other sites as growth areas, but these sites had already been assessed as part of compiling the draft FDS.

4.16    As soon as officers had mapped the 31 new sites and five amended sites they were distributed to iwi on 29 April for feedback as part of the Multi Criteria Analysis (criteria 18-21). Feedback was sought by 13 May but officers acknowledge the timeframe was challenging due to iwi resources and capacity. To date written feedback has been provided by Manawhenua Ki Mohua and Te Ātiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust. Officers will provide any further feedback at the Joint Committee meeting should any be received.

4.17    Significant legal obligations exist for councils in relation to Māori interests when working through the RMA, National Policy Statement and Local Government Act (LGA) processes. These are set out in paragraphs 13.6 – 13.14 of the officers’ report to the Subcommittee of 31 May 2022 and they were considered by the Subcommittee during deliberations.

Deliberations

4.18    The Subcommittee deliberated on 31 May – 02 June 2022. The following documents are attached to this report or the officers report of 31 May 2022:

·   Submissions hearings agenda (attachment 1 31 May 2022 report)

·   Submissions hearings minutes (attachment 2 31 May 2022 report)

·   Deliberations hearings minutes (attachment 3 to this report)

·   Revised GHG emissions modelling memo provided by Tasman District Council officers’ to the Subcommittee during deliberations (attachment 4 to this report and this was placed on both Councils’ websites during deliberations)

·   Two supplementary memos of information provided by officers’ to the Subcommittee during deliberations (attachment 5 to this report and these were placed on both Councils’ websites during deliberations)

·   Revised multi criteria analysis assessment including new sites (attachment 6 to this report and this was placed on both Councils’ websites during deliberations)

·   Memo on implementation of the FDS (attachment 7 to this report)

4.19    The above documents detail the issues considered by the Subcommittee, questions asked, and officers’ analysis, options and recommendations.

4.20    During the deliberations process, the following is of note:

·   The Subcommittee requested further sensitivity testing of the intensification uptake rate in the FDS and this was undertaken by Barker & Associates and is provided in its analysis report (attachment 4 to the officers’ report of 31st May 2022)

·   The revised Multi Criteria Analysis assessment of sites was provided to the Subcommittee, since it contained the new sites proposed through submissions

·   The officers’ memo on GHG emissions modelling was updated during deliberations to take account of the changes in recommended sites by officers to the Subcommittee and also the principles of Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan published 16th May 2022

·   The Subcommittee noted that Action 7.4 of Central Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (May 2022) is “to assess the extent to which existing urban development and infrastructure policy programmes (e.g. National Policy Statement on Urban Development) are aligned with emissions-reductions goals.”

·   The Subcommittee deliberated extensively over the implementation of the FDS and its potential staging and considered the requirement for neighbourhood and structure plans was very important for implementation. This led to a number of related resolutions on this theme

·   Strategic Areas – Port Nelson and Nelson airport (theme 13). The FDS Subcommittee was shown an amended map that highlighted site N-102 (Roto Street and surrounds) and the part of N-034 (Tahunanui Drive West) inside the 55dBA airport contour recommended to be removed from the FDS, before making their recommendation

·   The Subcommittee considered retaining or excluding sites T-028 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield, residential), T-032 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield, rural residential) and not to add site T-200 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield). Ultimately the Subcommittee resolved to exclude them all but noting in the final FDS document that these sites are likely to be considered in any future revision of the 2022 FDS, if additional housing land capacity is required 

·   Relevant officers presented to the Subcommittee during deliberations on the work being undertaken as part of Tasman’s Growth Plan Change. Feedback obtained from consultation on the Growth Plan Change (April 2022) led to the recommendation for several FDS sites to be amended, in order that site boundaries align.

·   The Subcommittee was informed about landowners’ and surrounding landowners’ views on new sites proposed through submissions as well as amended sites, where officers had received feedback. This information featured in the officers’ report and was verbally updated during deliberations.

4.21    The themes covered by the officers’ report to the Subcommittee for deliberations (31 May 2022) are set out below together with the Subcommittee’s recommendations on the FDS:

Theme

Page No. of officers’ report (31 May 2022) to FDS Sub-committee

Subcommittee’s  recommendations following deliberations

1. Growth projections

14

No changes to the draft FDS are recommended as a result of the issues raised by submitters on this theme. High growth population projections to be retained for sensitivity testing purposes in the FDS, to ensure the Councils have identified sufficient capacity if the population continues to grow quickly. (Note that the Nelson high growth projection is based on the StatsNZ 2018 census base population projections).

2. Housing land capacity calculation and uptake rate for housing intensification

18

Recommends the 15% uptake rate for intensification is retained in the FDS, to calculate the expected yield of dwellings from intensification.

Recommends amending the wording in the FDS to clarify the rate of intensification assumed is not a target and the Councils will aim for a greater proportion of growth to be catered for by intensification.

Recommends clarifying in the FDS that greenfield development will enable intensification and different housing typologies and these typologies will be differentiated on the FDS maps where applicable.

Recommends amending the implementation section of the FDS to clarify that quarterly monitoring and annual reporting will involve monitoring of the uptake rate of intensification.

3. FDS outcomes

21

Recommends that the term “outcomes” is changed to “objectives” in the FDS.

Recommends adding further description on the purpose/role of the outcomes/objectives in the FDS.

4. Multi criteria analysis framework

23

Recommends no changes to the MCA as a result of the issues raised by submitters on this theme. It is considered to be a robust approach to the assessment of potential growth sites throughout the regions.

5. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction

29

Recommends including in the FDS, comment that there are conflicting demands between the climate change direction and the housing capacity direction provided by central government and that balancing these demands is challenging;

Recommends including the preliminary and supplementary officer analysis undertaken on modelling GHG emissions in the final FDS technical report;

Recommends retaining the draft FDS core spatial scenario of consolidated growth focused largely along State Highway 6 from Atawhai to Wakefield, but also including Māpua and Motueka and to meet the needs of Tasman rural towns;

Recommends adopting the core part of the draft proposal and accepting that the preliminary and supplementary analysis on modelling GHG emissions is appropriate for considering the competing demands of the climate change and housing capacity direction from central government;

Recommends requiring that the FDS implementation plan (updated annually) closely monitors population growth trends and the proportion of intensification and greenfield areas that are enabled by rezoning and rule changes in Plan Changes across the regions

6. Greenfield/ brownfield housing capacity split

37

Recommends amending the greenfield/brownfield split to that detailed in the officers’ report of 31 May 2022, (sections 12.22.1 and 12.22.2), following the outcome of the analysis and decision making at earlier stages of the FDS, the correction of minor errors and consideration of the submissions.

Recommends both Councils explore the use of inclusionary zoning and consider plan provisions that make a range of section sizes mandatory, while retaining flexibility over housing typologies built in housing plan changes and/or plan reviews.

7. Proposal for a new community near Tasman village

42

Recommends removing all three sites near Tasman village (T-166, T-167, T-168, Aporo Road, Marriages Road, Horton Road and Stagecoach Road) and Braeburn Road, Lower Moutere (T-136) from the draft FDS and exclude new site T-202 (Hayden-Payne land, 583 Tasman View Road and adjoining block) in Lower Moutere proposed through submissions. (The site references can be found on the GIS viewer on the Councils’ FDS webpages and will be explained in the FDS).

8. Site specific matters

45

Nelson City Council sites

Recommends retaining sites N-106 (Maitai Bayview PPC28) and site N-032 Orchard Flats.

Recommends continuing to exclude site N-290 (Wakapuaka Flats, since renamed by the developer Horoirangi)

Tasman District Council sites

Recommends excluding site T-163 (Keoghan Road, Tākaka)

Recommends retaining sites T-105 (676 River Terrace Rd, Brightwater) and T-108 421 Main Road, Spring Grove, Wakefield) for business use.

Recommends excluding sites T-048 (Rototai Road, Tākaka), T-003 (Shannee Hills, Brightwater) and a small part of T-001 (75 Jeffries Rd, Brightwater) due to landowner opposition.

Recommends retaining all draft FDS sites in Murchison and Tākaka (except for T-048 and T-163).

9. Implementation – infrastructure

52

Recommends no changes to the draft FDS as a result of the issues raised by submitters on this theme.

10. Staging of development

54

Recommends officers prepare principles to guide the staging and rollout of development areas for inclusion in the FDS and that these principles will be used in the preparation of the implementation plans.

Notes that the infrastructure providers will be consulted during the preparation of implementation plans and that the implementation plans will include preparation of neighbourhood and structure plans.

Notes the importance of neighbourhood plans for successful implementation of the FDS.

Recommends officers report back as a priority to Nelson City Council on options for preparing neighbourhood plans to feed into the Nelson housing Plan Change process.

Recommends to Nelson City Council that it provides additional resources to enable the neighbourhood plans to be completed.

Notes that Tasman District Council is undertaking structure planning for its key neighbourhood areas as part of its Growth Plan Change and Plan review processes.

11. Building height

55

Recommends retaining the indicative number of storeys for buildings in the draft FDS, noting that they will be subject to further analysis in any future Plan Change processes.

12. Natural hazards – Tasman, the Wood and Tahunanui, Nelson

57

Recommends that the Tahunanui slump core area be removed from the pink and white infill area shown on the draft FDS maps, noting that the draft FDS approach to natural hazards remains otherwise unchanged.

Recommends retaining the FDS areas in the suburbs of The Wood and Tahunanui subject to the outcomes of the climate adaptation Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways process underway.

Recommends differentiating the FDS areas in the suburbs of The Wood and Tahunanui with different colour or overlay in the FDS maps, so as to highlight they have not been included in the FDS housing capacity numbers.

13. Strategic areas – Port Nelson and Nelson Airport

58

Recommends removing site N-102 (Roto Street and surrounds) and the part of N-034 (Tahunanui Drive West) inside the 55dBA airport contour from the FDS.

14. New sites and amended sites proposed and sites proposed for exclusion through submissions

59

Nelson City Council sites

Recommends expanding both areas N-011 (Saxton) and N-112 (Orphanage West) by adding two additional areas called N-115 (Saxton Extension) and N-116 (Orphanage West Extension) while leaving the area N-011 as a single residential greenfield expansion area with any other land use to be considered as part of a plan change or resource consent application.

Tasman District Council sites

Recommends including site T-198 (Falcon Ridge, Higgins Road, Brightwater, rural residential) and removing site T-54 (Teapot Valley, Brightwater, rural residential);

Recommends removing sites T-028 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield, residential) and T-032 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield, rural residential) and not to add site T-200 (Pigeon Valley Road, Wakefield), noting in the final FDS document that these sites are likely to be considered in any future revision of the 2022 FDS, if additional housing land capacity is required; 

Recommends including sites T-205 (14 Waiwhero Road, Motueka Valley, rural residential) and T-213 (319 Motueka Valley Highway, rural residential) to existing FDS site T-17 (either side of Mytton Heights, Motueka);

Recommends including site T-206 (Hickmott Place car park, Motueka, mixed use);

Recommends including site T-217 (1 Main Road, Tapawera, residential);

Recommends including site T-219 (3177 Korere Tophouse Road, St Arnaud, rural residential) to adjoin the existing FDS site T-181 (3103 Korere Tophouse Road, St Arnaud, rural residential), noting that the full extent of these sites should not be developed, in order to robustly protect the wetlands and the high value ecology of these sites, and to improve their environmental outcomes;

Recommends changing the boundary of FDS site T-01 (Jeffries Road, Brightwater, residential) to include the whole of the landowner’s property (106 Jeffries Road) but also to remove a small southern portion (75 Jeffries Road), where the landowner is not supportive;

Recommends excluding site T-003 (Shannee Hills, Brightwater, residential) as the landowner is not supportive;

Recommends excluding site T-48 (Rototai Road, Tākaka, residential) as the landowner is not supportive;

Recommends reducing the size of FDS site T-37 (Fairfax Street, Murchison, residential), as the adjoining landowner is not supportive;

Recommends amending the orientation of site T-145 (Page Road, Tākaka, Light industrial);

Recommends reducing the overall scale of site T-195 but including a small parcel of land (Massey Street, St Arnaud, papakāinga);

Recommends extending the boundary of site T-05 (Wanderers Avenue, Brightwater, residential) to align with the Growth Plan Change boundary following further evaluation and to allow for an esplanade reserve;

Recommends extending site T-42 (Stafford Drive, Māpua, residential) to the south-west corner of site to align with the Growth Plan Change, subject to the outcome of further consultation with iwi;

Recommends excluding a small parcel of land in the south-east of site T-107 (Edward Street, Wakefield) following further evaluation for the Growth Plan Change;

Recommends removing site T-41 (88 Valley Road, Wakefield, residential);

Recommends removing site T-54 (Teapot Valley, Brightwater, rural residential);

Recommends removing site T-163 (42 Keoghan Road, Tākaka, rural residential); and

(Note: the site references can be found on the GIS viewer on the Councils’ FDS webpages and will be explained in the FDS)

Other matters arising

 

Notes, in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002, that the Joint Subcommittee’s FDS recommendations to the Joint Committee of the Tasman District and Nelson City Councils, contain inconsistencies with the existing policy in the following council strategies and plans:

·       Tasman District Council’s Richmond and Motueka Town Centre Parking Strategy 2018 (the Parking Strategy). The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy identifying the carpark at Hickmott Place, Motueka for use as mixed use commercial and residential purposes, which is consistent with the zoning of the land, but is not consistent with the Parking Strategy which retains its use as a carpark.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within Motueka township and the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Tasman District Council will consider amending the Parking Strategy when it is next reviewed; and

·  Nelson City Council’s Tahunanui Structure Plan 2004 (the Structure Plan).  The inconsistency arises due to the Future Development Strategy proposing increases to the levels of residential intensification and increases to the heights for housing developments in the Tahunanui area, which are inconsistent with the intensities and heights of development in the Structure Plan.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council will consider replacing the Structure Plan when it prepares the neighbourhood plan for the Tahunanui area or when a plan change is prepared; and

·  Nelson City Council’s Nelson Urban Growth Strategy 2004 (Growth Strategy).  The inconsistency arises due to the Growth Strategy containing out of date growth projections which are inconsistent with the projections contained in the Future Development Strategy.  The reason for the inconsistency is to enable sufficient supply of housing to meet demand within the wider Tasman and Nelson regions in accordance with the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to respond to growth.  The Nelson City Council is not proposing to update the Growth Strategy, as the document will be replaced by the new Future Development Strategy.

Other matters arising

 

·   Recommends to both Councils that they give consideration on how to support the FDS intensification goals through land aggregation including working with Kāinga Ora.

Other matters arising

 

·   Recommends to both Councils that there is alignment of their Growth Strategies in terms of modelling and timing.

Other matters arising

 

·   Recommends to the Joint Committee that the implementation of the FDS is a standing item on its agenda.

Updates since deliberations

4.22    Since the close of the deliberations hearings submitter 31414 has contacted officers to enquire why his submission has not been considered in the deliberation recommendations. The submitter is the owner of a very small part of site T-001 (Jeffries Rd, Brightwater). His submission noted opposition to the inclusion generally of this site in the draft FDS and site T-003 (Shannee Hills). The submitter received a letter late February from Tasman District Council, informing him that his land formed part of FDS site T-001. The submitter’s submission was considered at the time of the hearings. The submitter subsequently emailed officers on 19 June 2022 asking why his land had not been recommended for removal from site T-001 during deliberations. Upon checking the submission, it is clear that the submitter did not request this and also did not provide his address on his submission, so officers had no way of knowing he was a landowner of part of the site.

4.23    The landowner owns a very small part of site T-001 but it is in the middle of the growth area.  It is recommended that the land remains in site T-001. The FDS does not rezone land and there is no requirement for submitter 31414 to develop his land, although his property would be impacted by development around him if site T-001 is developed in the next 30 years.

4.24    Further discussions have been held with Te Ātiawa on site T-042 (Stafford Drive, Seaton Valley Māpua). This site was previously included in the 2019 FDS and was recommended for inclusion in the current FDS. However during further consultation with iwi on the proposed sites in April 2022, Te Ātiawa raised significant cultural heritage concerns for this site. Council has encouraged Te Ātiawa to engage with the landowner consortium, including Ngāti Koata to find a solution. At the time of this meeting no solution or agreement has been proposed.

4.25    Officers have identified the competing interests in this case, including being mindful that the FDS must be informed by “Māori, and in particular tangata whenua, values and aspirations for urban development” (National Policy Statement Urban Development clause 3.14) and have carefully weighed these interests in coming to the recommendation below.

4.26    The recommendation to Councils is that the site remains in the FDS. However, the Councils acknowledge the concerns raised by Te Ātiawa and note that these concerns can be subsequently addressed in any RMA or plan change process.

4.27    In the time between the submissions hearings and this report being prepared, it has become clear that, due to a change in the capacity assessment method, 1,240 dwellings were missed from the currently zoned capacity category expressed in the draft FDS. This capacity is available in the area of undeveloped land to the east of Princes Drive in Nelson. Original residential capacity estimates covering Nelson City were informed by GIS data sources provided by Nelson City Council which identified the “Urban Built Area” and excluded land otherwise zoned for residential development or currently in the process of residential development.  As such, not all existing development areas within Nelson were captured by either identified FDS areas or the broader residential infill areas. Comparable areas within Tasman District were captured as part of the initial capacity calculations.

4.28    This capacity issue was discussed during deliberations and the Subcommittee chose to remove areas close to Wakefield due to them scoring poorly under the MCA. This decision has in part taken up the additional capacity identified in Nelson.

4.29    Following deliberations, further work has been done on what form the neighbourhood plans will take and the method and timing for undertaking them. The advice received from Barkers and Associates is that, due to the incremental nature of intensification, neighbourhood plans can be prepared in stages with the planning aspects of them undertaken during a plan change and the infrastructure planning to take place during preparation of asset management plans. Further detail on this matter is included in attachment 7 to this report.

 

 

Proposed steps for adopting the final FDS

4.30    This report provides the Subcommittee’s recommendations to the Joint Committee for the policy decisions relating to the changes recommended from the draft FDS.

4.31    Once the policy basis for the final FDS is approved (which will require decisions from the Joint Committee), Council officers will edit the FDS and its attachments to ensure alignment with the policy decisions. As a result, adoption of the final FDS document is expected to occur at the Joint Committee of 29th August 2022, in time to inform the Councils’ Long Term Plans 2024-2034.

5.       Options

5.1      The decision-making options for the Joint Committee are outlined in the table below. In summary, the Joint Committee can either approve the recommendations of the Subcommittee; or review and amend them.

5.2      If the Joint Committee wishes to amend any aspect of the Subcommittee recommendations, then it must be aware of certain limitations and risks that could arise.  This includes the requirement to ensure that any amendments do not go beyond the scope of the statement of proposal, that proper consideration is given to the purpose and requirements of a FDS under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development, and the requirements to satisfy the decision-making requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.  In being able to satisfy the LGA requirements, decision-makers must be familiar with the submissions made on the draft FDS, and the deliberations phase. 

 

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

1.Accept the Subcommittee’s recommendations (recommended option).

Officers have reviewed the submissions, evaluated the changes sought and undertaken further limited consultation (as considered necessary). Arising from this, the Subcommittee has made its recommendations for the FDS.

If the Joint Committee accepts the Subcommittee’s recommendations, some submitters will receive changes that they have requested. 

It is noted that there is no requirement to accept or reject any submission, instead the requirement is to consider the matters raised in a submission.  This consideration has been completed by the Subcommittee through its deliberations.

The Joint Committee will not be recommending all of the changes requested by submitters. Given the varied and divergent views the Subcommittee received, it is not possible to meet all the views and preferences presented.

2. Accept the Subcommittee’s recommendations, but direct officers to undertake further consultation in relation to the new sites proposed through submissions

The Joint Committee may consider that it does not have sufficient information on the views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the FDS (relative to the new sites proposed for inclusion).

Further targeted consultation could clarify any particular changes of concern to the Joint Committee, if responses are received from those who are consulted. 

Increased costs and delay

The costs of delaying the FDS adoption, by undertaking further consultation, are likely to outweigh the benefits in this case.  This is particularly because any delay in adopting the FDS until after the elections may result in the full consultation process needing to start again.

The consequence of this could be that the Councils would not have an FDS in place in time to inform their next Long Term Plans. The Councils may not be complying with the NPS-UD in this respect.  The 2019 FDS is no longer compliant with the NPS-UD and uses outdated housing demand projections.

3. The Joint Committee could recommend changes to the Subcommittee’s recommendations for the FDS and either add additional changes or reduce them.

The advantages of this option will depend on the changes that the Joint Committee approves.

The disadvantages will depend on the changes the Joint Committee approves.

 The Joint Committee would need to carefully consider the decision making requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, whether the amendments will align with the purpose and requirements of a FDS under the NPS-UD and ensure that they remain in scope.  In additional, natural justice issues may arise depending on the extent of amendments decided.

Subject to the nature and degree of amendments decided, there could be risk of challenge to the Joint Committee’s decision.

 

 

Important considerations for decision making

6.1      Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Joint Committee of the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils delegated the overseeing of the special consultative procedure (SCP) for the draft FDS to the Subcommittee, at its meeting of 8th March 2022. This took place between March and June 2022 and the Subcommittee has now made its recommendations to the Joint Committee for the FDS, prior to the policy decisions of the FDS being adopted.

The Councils have undertaken a SCP process to enable them to understand the views and preferences of the community, as well as limited further consultation with landowners and surrounding landowners of new sites proposed through submissions and amendments to boundaries of some sites.  The SCP process and statement of proposal itself makes it clear that the final proposal may change as a result of the views expressed by the community and in response to other information the Council receives from consultants, officers or other sources.  Therefore, the final proposal after consultation may be different from the draft proposal which was put out for consultation.

In making its recommendations, the Subcommittee considered the content of the submissions, the reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives of the FDS and assessed the various options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. The submission process helped the Subcommittee to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the available options and assisted with understanding the views and preferences of the community. Submission processes do not amount to a poll, or a vote on any proposal.  Submissions are a means of allowing the Subcommittee to gather an indication of the views and preferences of affected, or potentially affected, people. They are one input into the Subcommittee’s recommendations, along with other information and advice the Subcommittee sought or was provided by officers. Through an SCP process, there is no requirement to accept or reject any submission.  Instead, the obligation is to consider the submissions received and evaluate them against the overall objective of the proposal.

The Subcommittee considered whether there was a need for further consultation with the community on the new proposed and amended sites, taking into account the latest information officers provided on further consultation with surrounding landowners to specific sites, subsequent to submissions closing. It considered whether it had enough information on the views and preferences of the people who may be affected by the additional sites, amended sites and sites to be removed, from submissions generally and specific feedback from the further limited consultation. Under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) on principles of consultation, subsection (4) states a Local Authority must have regard to:

(b) the extent to which the current views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter are known to the local authority; and

(c) the nature and significance of the decision or matter, including its likely impact from the perspective of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in the decision or matter; and

(e) the costs and benefits of any consultation process or procedure.

A large number of submissions (568) were received on the draft FDS from individuals and groups within the community and these have been summarised in the officers’ report of 31st May 2022. Submitters are able to address wider (regional) issues or choose to focus on specific matters and sites. No one submission or set of submissions can be taken to represent the wider views of the community. Each submission needs to be considered on its own and together with all others, to evaluate community views and preferences. In evaluating these submissions they need to be considered in terms of their content and relief sought and in the context of the size of the Nelson and Tasman communities (circa 55,500 and 58,000 respectively). The submissions also need to be considered in light of the context that they were requested i.e. the draft FDS, its objectives and the scope of potential change outlined in the Statement of Proposal. Submitters may not necessarily be representative of the views of the wider community.

The questionnaire that formed part of the Statement of Proposal included a question (question 33) which asked the community “whether any additional areas should be included for housing or business growth or if there are any proposed areas that you consider are more or less suitable”. It was therefore consistent that the Subcommittee considered the sites and suggestions that were put forward by submitters and considered whether they should be included in draft FDS.  Officers recently sought the views of surrounding landowners on new and amended sites (subsequent to submissions closing) and these were provided to the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee considered the content of the submissions received not just the quantity of submissions. The substance of the arguments put forward by submitters, along with the advice of officers and other experts, together influenced the Subcommittee’s recommendations to the Joint Committee. Submissions are of course not the sole source of knowledge about community views and preferences on urban growth matters. Together, the Subcommittee had a broad understanding of these issues already through other engagement exercises and consultations on other recent Council plans, as well as through experience of speaking with the community.

The FDS is a high level, non-statutory strategic planning document. That said it informs a wide range of other plans of both Councils. All members of our community affected by the proposals in the eventual FDS will have further opportunities to engage and submit to both Councils, if/when sites are proposed for rezoning through changes to or reviews of Councils’ resource management plans.

The cost of the further limited consultation on new and amended sites undertaken by officers recently was relatively small, when considering the benefits of obtaining those views of landowners surrounding the sites. It was a straightforward exercise and the scale of further consultation was considered proportionate to the scale of changes recommended by officers to the draft FDS. Officers considered further consultation beyond that was therefore not necessary. However, should the Joint Committee recommend further consultation on any proposed changes to the FDS, the costs of doing so would need to be weighed against the benefits.

For example, the costs of delaying the FDS may outweigh the benefits of additional consultation particularly when considered against the fact that the sites will need to go through other planning processes prior to being developed and the risk of having to re-consult if the FDS is not adopted prior to the election. All the information from the consultation process which was available to the Subcommittee (including the submissions, hearing and deliberations minutes, outcomes of subsequent targeted consultation, and officers’ reports) is available to the Joint Committee to assist its understanding of community views.

The NPS UD (sub part 4 clause 3.12) requires tier 2 local authorities to prepare and make publicly available an FDS in time to inform the preparation of the next Long Term Plan (LTP). Tasman District Council has already commenced work on its next LTP, and it is therefore important that the FDS is concluded before September 2022 to enable preparation of this plan and other plans that form part of the LTP. The 2019 FDS is no longer compliant with the NPS UD as it uses outdated demand projections and was not developed to achieve the requirements of the NPS-UD 2020 (which has a different set of policy requirements).

The various changes proposed to the FDS through this report will have a mix of impacts on the various aspects of community wellbeing.

6.2      Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Councils are required to use the SCP when preparing the FDS. The relevant requirements of the SCP are found in sections 83 and 87 of the LGA. The general consultation requirements in section 82 apply to all consultation, including use of the SCP.

Section 83 provides that the Councils must prepare a statement of proposal (SOP) including a summary of information and a draft of the FDS. The SOP has formed the basis of the Councils’ public consultation process. The Councils distributed the summary of information in each service centre and library and restocked, and made the full SOP publicly available, including on the Councils’ websites. Written submissions were invited on the proposal, and any submitter had the opportunity to be heard in support of their submission. The process undertaken by the Councils on the FDS to date complies with the requirements of the LGA.

The consultation undertaken through the FDS SOP provides the Joint Committee with an understanding of views and preferences of the submitters. When making its decision, the Joint Committee should also consider that it has available to it information from 568 submitters representing individuals and a range of organisations. There are approximately 58,000 residents in the Tasman District and 55,000 residents in Nelson City who are also likely to have a range of views and preferences in relation to the matters contained in the FDS. The Councils are not obligated to adopt any position that is advanced to them – even one that has majority support.

The Joint Committee considers community views as one input into its decision making process. The Joint Committee has a wider understanding of the issues than was able to be fully articulated to the public through the consultation process. It is privy to additional information and advice and needs to consider each matter in the context of what it is trying to achieve for the regions and its residents, now and into the future. 

There are factors that the Joint Committee must have regard to in complying with the decision making provisions in the LGA including the principles in section 14 of the Act, the Councils’ resources and the extent to which the nature of the decision, or the circumstances in which it is taken allow the Council the scope to consider options, or the views and preferences of persons. The present circumstances include the need for the Councils to meet the legislative timeline for the FDS to be finalised and adopted by the Councils in time to inform the next LTP.  This timeframe makes further consultation by the Councils on any of the matters in this report difficult but not impossible. In this context officers recommend that sufficient additional consultation has been undertaken recently on the new and amended sites.

The section 14 principles that are relevant here are:

·    openness and transparency;

·    giving effect to the Council’s identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner;

·    the views of all communities;

·    community well-being and the interests of future as well as current communities;

·    your strategic priorities and desired outcomes;

·    collaboration with other bodies;

·    prudent stewardship of resources; and

·    effective future management of assets.

The FDS informs both Councils’ Long Term Plans, as well as a range of other Council plans. This is a function of the FDS. The 2019 FDS did so and this FDS, if adopted will continue to do so.

The decisions in this report have some inconsistencies with a few existing policies.  Under section 80 of the LGA, the Councils are required to identify those inconsistencies, the reasons for the inconsistencies and whether the policies will be changed to reflect the decisions. The resolutions in this report address the section 80 requirements.

6.3      Risk

The key risks are reputational and litigation related. Some people may support the Joint Committee’s decisions but others may oppose them and seek to judicially review the decisions resulting from this report or the final adoption of the FDS.

The Councils received a range of community and organisational views on the matters consulted on through the FDS Statement of Proposal.  The Subcommittee’s considered the views of the community, officers’ recommendations and other advice it received in order to make recommendations for the preparation of the final FDS.  Such other advice included the consultants’ advice attached to the officers’ report of 31st May 2022 and the supplementary memos provided by officers during deliberations for example. 

The Subcommittee considered it had sufficient information on the views and preferences of people who may be affected by the additional or amended sites proposed for the draft FDS and any sites proposed to be removed. This information came from the submissions generally, the limited additional consultation undertaken by officers recently as well as the understanding of the Subcommittee of wider issues than was able to be articulated to the public through the consultation process.

In considering the risks associated with the FDS to both Councils, it is useful to consider the following issues:

·    Compliance with the LGA requirements

·    Review of submissions

·    Scope considerations

·    How well decision makers understand the views of the community on any matters that it may wish to amend from the draft FDS and Statement of Proposal that was consulted on

·    Process of considering new sites

·    Compliance with the requirements of the NPS-UD, RMA and associated instruments

·    Questions and issues raised by the Subcommittee

·    Implications of having no FDS

Compliance with the SCP process is critical in ensuring that the public has all of the information it needs to make an informed submission. Failure to meet the requirements of the SCP process would put the FDS process at risk of legal challenge.

The FDS consultation process to date has followed the SCP process closely and is compliant with the requirements of the LGA. Additionally, early engagement prior to developing the draft FDS has allowed a more robust draft document to be presented as part of the SCP.

One aspect of the consultation that differed from the usual methods that both Councils use is the online webinar format that allowed the public to ask questions about the draft FDS. This would usually occur face to face in public drop-in sessions around each district, but this was not possible due to the restrictions that COVID 19 posed. This element of the consultation is not strictly required but the webinars did provide both a useful forum for questions from the public as well as a level of feedback. They were well attended with over 300 people joining.

The SCP process is intended to ensure that those that wish to have their say can in an effective manner. It is therefore critical that all submissions have been given an appropriate level of consideration during the process. Submissions have been received in three main formats, online in the submission database, email and hardcopy. Both Councils have had admin officers responsible for processing these submissions so that they were all contained within the submissions database for consideration by officers and for distribution to the members of the Subcommittee.

During the process of reviewing submissions, each submission was read by more than one officer as well as by at least one member of the consultant team. The information that these submissions contain was summarised and distilled down to inform the contents of this report and its supporting documents as well as the officers’ report of 31st May 2022.

After considering the submissions, officers mapped and assessed new sites proposed as well as amended sites and considered the effects on capacity of removing certain sites as requested by unsupportive landowners, or sites that scored poorly in the MCA. Officers then undertook limited consultation with the landowners and surrounding landowners of new and amended sites, to obtain their views on these new proposals. Officers consider this approach has provided a robust picture of landowners’ views on the latest proposals, and a sound basis on which to recommend certain outcomes. Combined with the views already expressed by the community through submissions, officers consider the Subcommittee had and the Joint Committee has sufficient information on the current views and preferences of persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in the FDS.

There is of course a risk that elected members may choose to not progress the FDS to its final adoption in time for it to inform the LTP 2024-2034 as required by the NPS UD. The implications of not adopting an FDS are that neither Council would have an up-to-date FDS to inform its other Council plans, including its LTP (including its Infrastructure Strategy) and any new Resource Management Plan. It is a requirement of the NPS UD to have an FDS in place in time to inform the LTP. The implications of this are not absolute as the level of non-compliance would be considered during any challenge to the Councils’ processes and any response to any successful challenge. The relevant sections of the RMA are provided below.

Sections 24 and 25 of the RMA provide the functions of the Minister for the Environment. These include the monitoring and effect and implementation of the RMA and national policy statements. Section 24A provides the Minister with power to investigate the exercise or performance by a local authority of any of its functions, powers or duties under the RMA and make recommendations. Section 25 provides residual powers to the Minister for the Environment, such that he can appoint one or more persons to exercise or perform all or any of the functions, powers or duties in place of the local authority.

 

 

 

6.4      Financial impact

Changes required to the FDS document to finalise it are allowed for in the existing officers’ and consultant budgets so there are no financial implications in this respect.

The FDS does not have the power to force changes directly to the LTPs where the final decisions are associated with infrastructure servicing. That being said, the FDS does provide a strong direction to both the LTP and RMP Review processes, so the Councils will be required to take this into account. Both Councils have development contributions policies that require the cost of the growth portion of new infrastructure to be met by developers. In most cases this infrastructure is built in advance of the development occurring by the Councils and it is often debt funded before the costs are recovered through development contributions.

The interest costs associated with this borrowing is also part of the development contributions so in effect the cost to the Councils in the long term is minimal.

6.5      Degree of significance and level of engagement

The SCP process and notified proposal itself makes it clear that the final proposal may change as a result of the views expressed by the community and in response to other information the Council receives from consultants, officers or other sources.  Therefore, the final FDS, following consultation, may be different from the draft proposal which was put out for consultation.

The Joint Committee must have open minds to being persuaded that its proposal should not be adopted without change, and/or that something else should be adopted in its place. However, in order to be fair to submitters who have become involved, and those who may have chosen not to participate (given the terms of the SOP), it is appropriate that there are limits to the extent to which changes can be made without having to undertake additional consultation or engagement.

The purpose of assessing the level of significance of any changes proposed at this stage in the process is to provide the Joint Committee with an understanding of potential implications of those changes, and to satisfy the LGA requirements.  This assessment can then guide the Joint Committee on the level of understanding elected members may already have in relation to a potential change and whether it is necessary to undertake any additional consultation or engagement with landowners, specific groups or interested parties. 

The matter that needs to be considered with reference to the significance and engagement policies of both Councils is the level of significance of any changes recommended and/or finally adopted compared to the draft FDS that went out for public consultation. The potential changes that will need to be considered are:

·    addition of new and amended sites;

·    changes to existing site boundaries in draft FDS;

·    removal of sites in draft FDS; and

·    greenfield/intensification split.

Alongside the potential changes to the draft FDS, the following matters need to be considered:

·    whether the Joint Committee has enough information on the views and preferences of people who might be affected by the addition of new or amended sites or sites which are proposed to be removed;

·    the nature and significance of the decision, including its likely impact from the perspective of persons who will or may be affected by, or have any interest in, the decision or matter;

·    the costs and benefits of any consultation process or procedure;

·    whether the change is larger than could have been reasonably expected by the public, relative to the notified proposal;

·    any additional processes and decisions involved under the RMA and LGA before any development occurs, which will likely have separate and specific consultation processes.

If the changes are considered to be of a high level of significance/significant then further engagement may be required, unless the Joint Committee considers it already understands the likely views of the community in relation to the proposed changes, or there are other factors that weigh against the benefit of further engagement.

The FDS’s strategic policy nature would generally suggest that further consultation is not required, especially given the limited additional consultation that officers have undertaken since submissions closed.  The Subcommittee has considered whether any of the proposed changes would not have been “reasonably foreseeable” consequences of the process and it did not consider that further wider consultation should be required. The costs and benefits of any additional consultation process or procedure must be considered. The Subcommittee requested additional advice from officers in advance of making recommendations.

There is no statutory requirement to further consult in relation to any change to a proposal, with that decision needing to take into account several factors.

For the Nelson area, the changes to the FDS growth areas associated with the inclusion of new sites are considered relatively minor. There are only three changes in the form of extensions to three existing areas. Two new extension areas adjacent to the Saxton and Orphanage Stream West FDS areas have approximately 10 immediately adjacent neighbours and are only approximately 20 ha in size. The extension of N-109 Wood South to include the property at 123 Halifax Street East has approximately six immediate neighbours and is approximately 2 ha in area.

Officers consider that these two Nelson areas do not represent a significant change in the context of the overall FDS development area as it represents a net addition of 69 ha or 2% of the total FDS land capacity of 3379 ha that were notified in the SCP.  Also, these sites are adjacent to other sites proposed in the draft FDS so the public could reasonably have expected some areas to be expanded following consultation.

Officers consider that the eight new Tasman sites, the five amended Tasman sites and the four Tasman sites to be excluded do not represent a significant change in the context of the overall FDS development area. It represents a net addition of 54 ha or 1.6% of the total FDS land capacity of 3379 ha that were notified in the SCP. (In Tasman there was an increase of 142 ha but a loss of 88 ha).

Looking across all the changes proposed from the draft FDS, there is a total of 123 ha of additional land proposed, or 3.6% of the total development area consulted on in the draft FDS. This represents a relatively small change to the draft FDS as a whole and as such, can be considered a reasonably anticipated outcome for the wider community.  Also, the FDS does not rezone the land.  Before the land can be developed, there will need to be a plan change process or resource consent process undertaken.  A plan change process would require public consultation and enable anyone affected by the proposal to have an opportunity to comment before the land was rezoned.  A resource consent process would require consideration of the potential impacts on neighbours before deciding whether to publicly notify any consent application. 

The Subcommittee considered whether it had sufficient information and understanding of the community’s views and preferences, (from the submissions on the draft FDS the subsequent limited consultation and other information it has), of landowners likely to be affected by new and amended sites being proposed and considered it did.

Adopting the FDS policy decisions recommended by the Subcommittee is likely to be a moderate level of significance, given the large number of submissions received on the draft FDS. Officers have sought the views of iwi on the new and amended sites proposed for inclusion in the final FDS and some iwi have responded; the views of landowners whose properties were proposed for inclusion by others; and the views of landowners surrounding new proposed and amended sites. 

Should the Joint Committee choose to change the FDS in a manner different to the Subcommittee recommendations then, depending on the type and extent of the changes, the significance may increase.

In summary, the level of significance on decisions on the FDS is likely to be moderate. Some sites like the Maitai/Kaka Valley sites are of high public interest.  However, officers are not proposing to change these sites from what was included in the proposal consulted on. Also, the Subcommittee has a good understanding of the views of the community from the submissions and from other public input on the matter. Given the information provided to the Joint Committee, it also has the opportunity to be well informed of community views.

The majority of the changes proposed to the draft FDS will have a low to moderate level of significance, but recommending the FDS for adoption itself will have a moderate level of significance, as partly evidenced by the 568 submissions received. 

The rural Tasman sites attracted low levels of public interest in the proposal consulted on, so changes in these areas may also be of a low level of public interest.  The secondary proposal included in the SOP was of moderate public interest with some submitters supporting it and with others against it. 

While the FDS is a non-statutory document, it is an important guiding document for a range of other Council plans

6.6      Climate Impact

Climate change impacts were raised by a large number of submitters. The analysis of those impacts is outlined in attachments to this report and the officers’ report of 31st May 2022, under Vehicle Kilometres Travelled, GHG emissions and natural hazards and resilience of future development. The decisions relating to the changes proposed to the FDS do not of themselves impact on climate change, however, the implementation of these decisions will have implications and these will be considered when the FDS sites are proposed for rezoning.

6.7      Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have been invited to advise officers of their views on the new sites proposed for inclusion in the final FDS, following submissions.  Some feedback has been received and is contained in the officers’; report of 31st May 2022.

The Subcommittee comprised an iwi representative and she was therefore involved in the recommendations being made by the Subcommittee.

6.8      Delegations

The Joint Committee has the following delegations to consider the Future Development Strategy.

Areas of Responsibility:

·     Implementation of the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy

Powers to Decide:

·    To adopt, approve, review and amend the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy and Implementation Plan

·     In matters relating to the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy, to undertake community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes

Powers to Recommend:

·     All other matters requiring decision will be recommended to Nelson City and Tasman District Council, subject to an equivalent resolution being adopted by the other Council

7.       Conclusion and Next Steps

7.1      The officers’ report of 31 May 2022 (Attachment 2) summarises the submissions for each theme, provides analysis of the issues and makes individual recommendations for each theme.  The Subcommittee’s recommendations for the FDS are presented in this report.

7.2      As a result of 568 submissions on the draft FDS, The Subcommittee is recommending a number of amendments to the draft strategy. These are provided in section 4.19 of this report and recommend these amendments be made.

Attachments

Attachment 1:   Recommendations on policy decisions from FDS Subcommittee

Attachment 2:   FDS Deliberations report and attachments - Link to electronic copies

Attachment 3:   FDS Deliberations minutes

Attachment 4:   Green house gas emissions memo - updated analysis with changes to FDS areas

Attachment 5:   Supplementary information provided to the subcommittee during deliberations.

Attachment 6:   Updated multicriteria analysis post submissions

Attachment 7:   Implementation memo (Barkers and Associates)   


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 1

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 2

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 3

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 4

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 5

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 6

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Item 5: Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 - Acceptance of Policy Decisions: Attachment 7

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator