Agenda of Council - Thursday, 10 August 2023

Nelson City Council

10 August 2023

Page No.

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Kathleen Mardon - The Nelson Foodbank and their work

Kathleen Mardon from the Nelson Foodbank will speak about the Nelson Foodbank and their work.

4.2 Nelson Tasman Pasifika Community Trust - Pasifika Communities in Whakatū

Robert Blake, Group Manager, Nelson Tasman Pasifika Community Trust will speak about their work and provide information about Pasifika Communities in Whakatū.

4.3 Mike Rodwell – Vaping

Mike Rodwell will be speaking about vaping addiction and the number of vape stores opening in the community.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 6 July 2023 12 - 22

Document number M20212

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 6 July 2023, as a true and correct record.

6. Mayor's Report 23 - 73

Document number R27833

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R27833); and its attachment (1118544611-7197); and

2. Receives the Local Government Members (2023/24) Determination 2023 from the Remuneration Authority (1118544611-7197); and

3. Acknowledges the retirement of Laurie Christian, from the Nelson Community Patrol, after close to 30 years of service.

7. Governance Structure Review 74 - 87

Document number R27853

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Governance Structure Review (R27853) and its attachments (1974015928-1230, 1974015928-1231, 1373411589-804, 1522493403-1647 and 1982984479-6368); and

2. Requests the Chief Executive to present a high level six-monthly report to Council on progress in each of the following activity areas: environment and regulation, infrastructure, and community services; and

3. Approves that the following two taskforces be established and confirms the proposed Terms of Reference for each that are attached to this report (R27853):

· Climate Change Taskforce (1974015928-1231)

· City Centre Playspace Taskforce (1974015928-1230); and

4. Confirms that the membership of the Climate Change Taskforce will be:

· Councillor Aaron Stallard (Chair)

· Councillor Matthew Benge

· Councillor Mel Courtney

· Councillor Rachel Sanson

· Mayor Nick Smith; and

5. Confirms that the membership of the City Centre Playspace Taskforce will be:

· Councillor James Hodgson (Chair)

· Councillor Trudie Brand

· Councillor Kahu Paki Paki

· Councillor Campbell Rollo; and

6. Adopts the Taskforce Protocols (1373411589-804) as guidance for the members and external participants of taskforces; and

7. Agrees that external participants appointed to taskforces are not members appointed under the Local Government Act 2002 as outlined in the Taskforce Protocols.

8. Notes the guidance prepared on liaison councillor roles and information protocols (1522493403-1647, 1982984479-6368); and

9. Notes that the Delegations Register will be updated to reflect the confirmed changes from the Governance Structure Review (R27853)

10. Agrees that in May 2024, Council further considers its governance arrangements so as to allow them to evolve over this triennium.

8. Notification of Plan Change 29 88 - 117

Document number R27805

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Notification of Plan Change 29 (R27805) and its attachment (539570224-14803); and

2. Agrees to proceed with Plan Change 29 subject to the correction of any minor errors that the Chief Executive considers necessary for the purpose of clarity and technical correctness; and

3. Endorses the content of the Section 32 Evaluation Report (539570224-14803) for Plan Change 29 subject to the correction of any minor errors the Chief Executive considers necessary for the purpose of clarity and technical correctness; and

4. Approves public notification of Proposed Plan Change 29 in accordance with Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to occur on 11 August 2023; and

5. Notes that at its meeting on 4 May 2023 Council agreed that Plan Change 31 would be notified alongside Plan Change 29; and

6. Agrees that the date for the close of submissions on Plan Change 29 and 31 is 27 working days after public notification which would be on 19 September 2023; and

7. Agrees to establish a mixed, three-person Hearings Panel comprising an Independent Chair, Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stephens and Councillor Brand to hear and recommend on submissions received in relation to Plan Changes 29 and 31.

9. Standing Orders Review 2023 118 - 211

Document number R27576

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Standing Orders Review 2023 (R27576) and its attachments (1982984479-5561 and 1373411589-873); and

2. Agrees to the inclusion of the provisions providing the ability for members to attend meetings via audio or audio visual link (Standing Order 13.7 – 13.14); and

3. Declines to adopt the use of a casting vote for the Chair (Standing Order 19.3); and

4. Selects Standing Order 22.2: Option A as the default for speaking and moving motions; and

5. Approves electronic archiving of meeting papers (Standing Order 29.2) commencing for business papers from 10 October 2022; and

6. Adopts, in accordance with Clause 27, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Nelson City Council Standing Orders (1373411589-873); and

7. Updates the Delegations Register to note that the following committees do not have a Public Forum:

a. Chief Executive Employment Committee

b. Audit Risk and Finance Committee

c. District Licensing Committee

d. Tenders Committee.

10. He Tātai Whetū implementation - approving changes to funding allocations 212 - 218

Document number R27816

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report He Tātai Whetū implementation - approving changes to funding allocations (R27816); and

2. Approves reallocating $50,000 from the Arts Relief Package and $100,000 from the Creative Tourism Initiative, to provide $150,000 to Arts Council Nelson to support its transition to an Arts Development Agency; and

3. Agrees that Arts Council Nelson/the Arts Development Agency is the appropriate agency to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package; and

4. Notes that the He Tātai Whetū/Arts and Creativity Strategy Taskforce is considering the best use of the Arts Relief Package funding and will recommend a refreshed approach to a future Council meeting; and

5. Notes the incorporation of a mapping exercise of current and future arts and creativity assets, within the arts hub investigation approved as part of the Annual Plan 2023/24.

11. Amendment to Terms of Reference for Regional Pest Management Joint Committee 218 - 227

Document number R27813

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Amendment to Terms of Reference for Regional Pest Management Joint Committee (R27813) and its attachment (596364813-7363); and

2. Notes that an amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee (596364813-7363) was approved by Tasman District Council at its meeting on 20 July 2023, subject to agreement by Nelson City Council; and

3. Approves an amendment to the Terms of Reference for the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee (596364813-7363) to include consideration of feral cats in the limited review of the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, by the addition of a fourth bullet point under 3. Areas of Responsibility, matters the review will be limited to considering, as follows:

· Identification of additional site led control areas for feral cat management including the use of Biosecurity Act Pest Agent Provisions.

12. Nelson Festival Trust End of Year Report - 2022/23 228 - 290

Document number R27748

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Festival Trust End of Year Report - 2022/23 (R27748) and its attachments (1511110536-760, 1511110536-761 and 1511110536-759)

13. The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 291 - 385

Document number R27831

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (R27831) and its attachments (756385493-50372 and 756385493-52701); and

2. Notes officers propose to remove the annual review of the effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy from the Long Term Plan performance measures to review the Strategy by 2025, then as required after that.

14. Tāhunanui Beach Unbudgeted Expenditure Request 386 - 429

Document number R27841

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Tāhunanui Beach Unbudgeted Expenditure Request (R27841) and its attachments (310955630-8811 and 310955630-8812); and

2. Allocates up to $100,000 of unbudgeted expenditure to prepare a plan of short-term and long-term actions to mitigate the effects and risks arising from sawdust material placed at Tāhunanui Beach in the 1960s; and

3. Allocates up to $350,000 of unbudgeted expenditure towards short term actions to mitigate the effects and risks arising from sawdust material placed at Tāhunanui Beach in the 1960s; and

4. Notes that the Mayor has written to the Minister and Chief Executive of Ministry for the Environment, providing a copy of this report and advising that Council will subsequently seek funding assistance from the Government’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund.

Confidential Business

15. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that Rob Gunn, Jane Sheard and Lindsay Coll of Nelmac remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 2 of the Confidential agenda (Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2023/24), as they have knowledge relating to Nelmac that will assist the meeting.

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 6 July 2023	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
2	Nelmac Limited final Statement of Intent 2023/24	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
3	August 2022 Extreme Weather Event Recovery - Land purchase	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

Karakia Whakamutanga

Nelson City Council Minutes - 6 July 2023

Minutes of a meeting of the

Nelson City Council

Te Kaunihera o Whakatū

Held in the Council Chamber, Floor 2A, Civic House, 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson on Thursday 6 July 2023, commencing at 9.02a.m.

Present: His Worship the Mayor N Smith (Chairperson), Councillors M Anderson, T Brand, M Courtney, J Hodgson, R O'Neill-Stevens (Deputy Mayor), K Paki Paki, P Rainey, C Rollo, R Sanson and A Stallard

In Attendance: Chief Executive (N Philpott), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Environmental Management (M Bishop), Group Manager Community Services (A White), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Team Leader Governance (R Byrne) and Senior Governance Adviser (H Wagener).

Apology: Councillors T Skinner and M Benge.

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Resolved CL/2023/138

That the Council

1. Receives and accepts an apology from Councillors T Skinner and M Benge.

Courtney/Brand Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register.

Councillors Hodgson and Anderson declared non-pecuniary interests as trustees of recipient organisations for Item 7. Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round June 2023.

Councillor R Sanson declared a non-pecuniary interest for Confidential Item 6. Nelson Events Fund application - International Cricket Series.

4. Public Forum

4.1. Graeme O'Brien - Kainga Ora Housing Projects

Document number R27771

Graeme O’Brien spoke to a tabled presentation (1982984479-6222) and answered questions regarding his concerns about the location, size, height and social impact of the proposed Kāinga Ora housing projects.

4.2. Clean Water Coalition - Fluoridation

Document number R27774

The Clean Water Coalition spokespersons Dharan Longley and Zoe Byrne spoke to a tabled presentation (1982984479-6223) and answered questions about their concerns regarding the mandatory fluoridation of the public water supply within Nelson.

Attachments

1 1982984479-6222 Council 06Jul2023 Tabled Document Public Forum Graeme O'Brien

2 1982984479-6223 Council 06July2023 Tabled Document Public Forum PowerPoint Clean Water Coalition

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 8 June 2023

Document number M20184, agenda pages 9 - 26 refer.

Resolved CL/2023/139

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 8 June 2023, as a true and correct record.

O'Neill-Stevens/Courtney Carried

5.2 22 June 2023

Document number M20196, agenda pages 27 - 38 refer.

Resolved CL/2023/139

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 22 June 2023, as a true and correct record.

O'Neill-Stevens/Courtney Carried

6. Mayor's Report

Document number R27770, agenda pages 39 - 84 refer.

His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith presented his report and proposed taking the discussion in parts.

Deputy Mayor Rohan O’Neill-Stevens spoke to the report on the Review of Nelson Festivals Trust reserves and answered questions. The Chief Executive, Nigel Philpott advised that a further report on the financial implications and implementation of the recommendations of the report, as recommended, would not be required and advised the required funding would be unbudgeted. Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison answered questions on the process of sourcing funding for unbudgeted expenditure. The recommendation was amended to include the recommendations from the report on the review of the Nelson Festivals Trust.

His Worship the Mayor spoke to the proposed Remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting 2023. After discussion, it was agreed to support all the remits except Remit 9: Earthquake-prone buildings, which would be decided on at the Annual General Meeting by the attending Councillors.

His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor M Courtney, and it was taken in parts.

Resolved CL/2023/139

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R27770) and its attachments (1118544611-7172, 1118544611-7173, 1118544611-7174, 1118544611-7175, 1118544611-7164); and

2. Supports, as a necessary step to achieve a successful response to its continued procurement of a development partner via open tender for the City Centre Housing Development (on 69-101 Achilles Ave and 42 Rutherford St), Kāinga Ora’s intention to include the possibility of the development having a portion of market housing; and

3. Notes that in line with Council’s decision to increase funding for Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance from $20,000 to $40,000, Tasman District and Marlborough District Councils have each agreed to match this increase; and

4. Notes the attached submission by His Worship the Mayor on the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill (1118544611-7174); and

5. Approves the recommendations from the report on the review of the Nelson Festivals Trust reserves (1118544611-7175):

a) Reinstates the $175,000 of Arts Festival funding removed during the Annual Plan process; and

b) Approves a 3.5% increase to Arts Festival funding, consistent with Council’s approach to arts organisation funding through the Annual Plan; and

c) Endorses a shift from a contractual arrangement to grant funding for the Nelson Festivals Trust; and

d) Approves the reinstated funding and inflation adjustment as unbudgeted expenditure.

6. Considers the proposed Remits to the Local Government New Zealand AGM 2023, as discussed:

a. Remit 1: Allocation of risk and liability in the building sector – support;

b. Remit 2: Rates rebate - support;

c. Remit 3: Roading/transport maintenance funding - support;

d. Remit 4: Local election accessibility - support;

e. Remit 5: Ability for co-chairs at formal meetings – support;

f. Remit 6: Parking infringement penalties - support;

g. Remit 7: Rural and regional public transport - support;

h. Remit 8: Establishing resolution service - support;

i. Remit 9: Earthquake-prone buildings –confirm at the AGM;

j. Remit 10: KiwiSaver contributions for Elected Members - support;

k. Remit 11: Audit NZ fees - support.

His Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

The meeting adjourned from 11.08a.m until 11.15a.m. at which time Councillor Rainey left the meeting.

7. Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round June 2023

Document number R27749, agenda pages 85 - 97 refer.

Group Manager Community Services, Andrew White and Strategic Manager Community Partnerships, Mark Preston-Thomas took the report as read and answered a question on the frequency of funding update reports to the Council.

Resolved CL/2023/140

That the Council

1. Receives the report Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round June 2023 (R27749) and its attachments (636034393-11456 and 636034393-11464); and

2. Receives the minutes from the Community Investment Fund meeting held on 7 June (unconfirmed) and notes the funding decisions taken.

Courtney/Brand Carried

8. Elma Turner Library Seismic Strengthening Project - Additional Budget

Document number R27738, agenda pages 98 - 107 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison and Manager Property Services, Rebecca Van Orden took the report as read and answered questions on the timing of the opening of the full library building to the public, and the expected lifespan of the building.

Resolved CL/2023/141

That the Council

1. Receives the report Elma Turner Library Seismic Strengthening Project - Additional Budget (R27738) and its attachment (196698121-47508); and

2. Approves the addition of $940,000 unbudgeted capital expenditure in the 2023/24 financial year to allow for the full reopening of the Elma Turner Library.

His Worship the Mayor/Paki Paki Carried

9. Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions

Document number R27697, agenda pages 108 - 122 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald and Policy Adviser, Ailish Neyland took the report as read and answered questions regarding the purpose and use of the Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions in the development of the Long Term Plan, omission of lower level risks, mitigation and availability of the latest census data.

Following discussion on the proposed Mitigation 2024-2034 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section (p.113 of the Agenda) in the Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions, the meeting agreed to amend the wording as follows:

Engagement will be undertaken with the community to set targets that are both attainable and ambitious.

Following discussion of the Economic Forecast section (p.116 of the Agenda) in the Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions, the meeting agreed to amend the wording as follows:

A focus on value for money and affordability continued Council investment in projects which will help reinvigorate the economy.

It was agreed to move the “Relationship with iwi” section in the Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions to second in the list of assumptions, directly after “Demographics”.

Resolved CL/2023/142

That the Council

1. Receives the report Long Term Plan 2024-2034 - Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions (R27697) and its attachment (1852948764-211); and

2. Approves the amended Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions that will be used to inform development of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (1852948764-211).

Sanson/Courtney Carried

10. August 2022 Extreme Weather Event Recovery - Quarterly Update

Document number R27503, agenda pages 123 - 133 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis took the report as read and answered questions relating to unbudgeted expenditure for the May 2023 weather event and expected duration of the recovery process.

Resolved CL/2023/143

That the Council

1. Receives the report August 2022 Extreme Weather Event Recovery - Quarterly Update (R27503) and its attachment 1590798627-594; and

2. Approves retrospectively unbudgeted estimated expenditure between 31 December 2022 and 30 June 2023 as part of the August 2022 extreme weather event recovery of $8.2M; and

3. Approves retrospectively unbudgeted estimated expenditure between May 2023 and 30 June 2023 as part of the May 2023 weather event response of $1.42M.

His Worship the Mayor/Brand Carried

11. Appointment of Commissioners - Nelson Airport Limited

Document number R27769, agenda pages 134 - 137 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop took the report as read and answered questions on the differing roles of Council as consenting authority, Nelson Airport Limited as requiring authority and the Commissioners in a resource consent application and in a notice of requirement process. Ms. Bishop provided advice on potential conflicts of interest in the consent process as Council was a shareholder in the airport.

Resolved CL/2023/144

That the Council

1. Receives the report Appointment of Commissioners - Nelson Airport Limited (R27769); and

2. Approves the appointment of three independent Commissioners to hear and recommend on submissions received in relation to Private Plan Change 30 and the accompanying Notice of Requirement; and

3. Notes that Group Manager Environmental Management has delegated authority to select the credentialed Commissioners.

His Worship the Mayor/Rollo Carried

12. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CL/2023/145

That the Council

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

O'Neill-Stevens/Courtney Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 8 June 2023	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
2	Mayor's Report - LGNZ office appointments	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
3	Appointment of Independent Member - Audit, Risk and Finance Committee	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
4	Appointment of Directors to the Nelson Marina Council Controlled Organisation Board	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
5	Nelson Centre of Musical Arts Two-Year Debt Repayment Suspension	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
6	Nelson Events Fund application - International Cricket Series	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The meeting went into confidential session at 12:53p.m. at which time Councillor P Rainey joined the meeting. The meeting resumed in public session at 4:18p.m.

Karakia Whakamutanga

13. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

1	Mayor's Report - LGNZ office appointments
	3. Agrees that Report (R27780), Attachment (1118544611-7171) and the decision remain confidential at this time.

Appointment of Independent Member - Audit, Risk and Finance Committee

4. Agrees that only the decision be made publicly available following confirmation of the appointment being accepted; and

5. Agrees that Report (R27742) and its attachments remain confidential at this time.

Appointment of Directors to the Nelson Marina Council Controlled Organisation Board

4. Agrees that the Decision, Report (R27753), and its attachment (1511110536-720) remain confidential at this time; and

5. Agrees that the appointments be made public once they have been finalised.

Nelson Centre of Musical Arts Two-Year Debt Repayment Suspension

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Centre of Musical Arts Two-Year Debt Repayment Suspension (R27747); and

2. Agrees to support the Nelson Centre of Musical Arts by providing a two-year suspension from repaying the debt to Council on its loan, beginning 1 April 2023 and resuming 30 March 2025; and

3. Agrees that the decision only be made publicly available; and

4. Agrees that Report (R27747) remain confidential at this time.

Nelson Events Fund application - International Cricket Series

4. Agrees that Report (R27778) and Decision be released from public release after negotiations are concluded; and

5. Agrees that Attachment (839498445-16677) remains confidential at this time.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4:18p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 8: Notification of Plan Change 29

Council

10 August 2023

REPORT R27805

Notification of Plan Change 29

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek Council’s approval to publicly notify Proposed Plan Change 29 (PC29) to the Operative Nelson Resource Management Plan 2004 (NRMP) under clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2. Summary

2.1 Following a Council decision in 2021 to put on hold a review of all operative resource management plans via the Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan (WWNP), the Council directed that work should continue towards providing for a housing plan change to the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP), known as Plan Change 29 (PC29). The decision to pause a whole-plan review was made pending the outcome of the reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

2.2 The necessary analysis, development, pre-consultation, and final drafting of PC29 has been completed. Public notification of PC29 will allow those interested to submit either in support or request changes.

2.3 PC29 proposes to amend the NRMP to:

2.3.1 Enable more housing choice and opportunity in existing urban areas of Nelson that are in close proximity to services, amenities, and places of employment;

2.3.2 Implement the intensification and capacity requirements (Policies 2 and 5) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPSUD);

2.3.3 Manage new development of land, including intensification, in areas susceptible to natural hazards and to update built heritage provisions;

2.3.4 Provide for tangata whenua to develop papakāinga;

2.3.5 Assist in implementing the intensification scenario identified in the 2022 Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (NTFDS) and the Te Ara ō Whakatū - City Centre Spatial Plan.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Notification of Plan Change 29 (R27805) and its attachment (539570224-14803); and

2. Agrees to proceed with Plan Change 29 subject to the correction of any minor errors that the Chief Executive considers necessary for the purpose of clarity and technical correctness; and

4. Approves public notification of Proposed Plan Change 29 in accordance with Clause 5 of Schedule 1 to occur on 11 August 2023; and

5. Notes that at its meeting on 4 May 2023 Council agreed that Plan Change 31 would be notified alongside Plan Change 29; and

6. Agrees that the date for the close of submissions on Plan Change 29 and 31 is 27 working days after public notification which would be on 19 September 2023; and

4. Introduction

4.1 The primary objective of proposed PC29 is to respond to housing issues associated with growth and demand pressures by providing more enabling, contemporary, and ‘fit for purpose’ planning provisions in the NRMP, and to fulfil Council’s obligations under the NPSUD.

4.2 Proposed PC29 also ensures that Council’s obligations under Section 6 ‘matters of national importance’ are met in relation to the update of built heritage and natural hazards provisions.

5. Overview

5.1 Proposed PC29 is a substantial plan change. Content is underpinned by an extensive body of work including technical information that has been further refined by a process of community, stakeholder, and iwi engagement, as well as Council direction.

5.2 This report provides a high-level overview of PC29 and the process that has shaped it:

5.2.1 The background section outlines the process that was followed to develop provisions, including Council direction and key milestones. It also summarises how PC29 will meet legal obligations under the RMA and national direction.

5.2.2 The Scope/Extent section outlines the content of PC29. It sets out the scope of changes and provides a summary of amendments to NRMP chapters. The amendments are organised by topic e.g., Natural hazards – river flood.

5.3 Proposed PC29 itself and formal supporting documentation include:

5.3.1 Proposed chapter amendments identified as tracked changes to the ePlan version of the plan change (there is no hard copy of the plan change).

5.3.2 Proposed changes to zones and overlays (spatial information) are provided for within the ePlan.

5.3.3 Detailed analysis of those changes, including reasons for them and their efficiency, effectiveness, costs, benefits, and risks, is set out in the Section 32 report (Attachment 1).

5.4 Subject to Council approval, these three components comprise the package of documents that will be publicly notified. The notified proposed PC29 maps and text will be in ePlan format, consistent with the direction promoted in the National Planning Standards. There is no hard copy version and access is via https://nelson.isoplan.co.nz/operative.

5.5 The use of the ePlan format is a new development for Nelson City Council. While it was used for the draft Nelson Plan, this will be the first publicly notified planning instrument it is applied to. There will be clear instructions and guidance available on the use of this format at https://shape.nelson.govt.nz/plan-change-29.

6. Background and process to date

6.1 Nelson’s RMA Plans include the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) which incorporate the District Plan, Regional Plan, and Regional Coastal Plan, the Nelson Air Quality Plan and Regional Policy Statement. The resource management plans set out how Council can manage the growth, development, and protection of our built and natural environment.

6.2 Between 2013 and 2021 Council undertook a full review of all plans developed under the RMA with an aim of integrating the Plans into one document, the Whakamahere Whakatū Nelson Plan (WWNP). Draft versions of the WWNP were released for public feedback in 2020 and 2021.

6.3 In November 2021, Council paused the release of the WWNP, primarily due to resource management reform implications for the development of plans. The new legislation will require significant changes to plans, and it will be more efficient to complete the full review process under the new legislation.

6.4 Following this 2021 decision, officers were directed to prepare a housing plan change to the operative NRMP - Plan Change 29 (PC29). The aim of PC29 is to address growth and demand pressures on housing by providing more enabling and flexible housing opportunities within existing urban areas. PC29 will also enable Council to fulfil its obligations under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPSUD), especially in relation to providing for intensification options.

6.5 The process of developing PC29 did not involve starting from scratch. It carried forward much of the housing, heritage, and hazards related work already completed under the WWNP programme. It also implements directions from the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy 2022 – 2052 (NTFDS).

6.6 Key process steps that led to the development of PC29 are set out in Table 1. References to key documents showing elected members guidance, direction, and decisions to officers are provided for ease of reference.

Table 1 - Key process steps of the development of PC29

Milestone	Description
WWNP public consultation – mid-late 2020	The draft WWNP was released for stakeholder, iwi and general public consultation. Feedback across all topics including housing provisions was presented to elected members in early 2021. A summary of all feedback to the draft WWNP was reported to Council at the 17 February 2023 Councillor Workshop.
WWNP paused, HPC initiated – November 2021	Officers were instructed by Council to pause the WWNP process and develop a housing plan change to the operative NRMP, the Housing Plan Change or PC29. The decision to pause the draft WWNP is set out in the 4 November 2021 Environment and Planning Committee minutes. The initial direction for scope of a housing plan change was provided at a 30 November 2021 Councillor Workshop.
PC29 scope and extent confirmed – April 2022	A preliminary draft of PC29 based on WWNP content was presented to Council. Officers sought direction from elected members on heritage and natural hazards. Guidance for the scope and extent of PC29 amendments was provided to officers at the 7 April 2022 Councillor Workshop.
Preferred planning pathway determined – May 2022	Officers sought direction from Council on the preferred RMA process planning pathway, confirming the use of the standard First Schedule of the RMA for processing PC29 following public notification. At this Council meeting, officers were also directed to present further information at a future workshop on climate change approaches of PC29 and an assessment of a perimeter block development, an alternative housing form (as presented by community action group Nelson Tasman 2050). The above directions of Council were made at the 19 May 2022 Council Meeting.
NTFDS directions confirmed – August 2022 Workshop	Council directed officers to implement NTFDS heights and densities into PC29, including a High Density Residential Zone. At this workshop, the climate change approach of PC29 and an analysis of ‘perimeter block development’ was presented to Council. Workshop directions addressing the above were provided to Officers at the 17 August 2022 Councillor Workshop.
Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy 2022 – 2052 (NTFDS) adopted – August 2022	The NTFDS was formally adopted by the Council at the 29 August 2022 Joint Committee of Nelson and Tasman Councils. Development of the NTFDS included public, stakeholder, and iwi engagement and formal statutory consultation.
Draft PC29 approved for formal statutory consultation – September 2022	At a council workshop on 13 September officers sought direction to release PC29 for formal statutory consultation with stakeholders and iwi partners.
Formal statutory consultation period November 2022 – January 2023	Formal consultation under Section 3(1) of the First Schedule of the RMA. Draft PC29 was released to iwi partners, government ministries and key stakeholders for feedback.
Consultation feedback presented, and sea level rise and public engagement direction sought – February 2023	Draft PC29 was presented to the new term of Council, including an overview of consultation feedback. At this meeting, Council direction on housing approaches in relation to coastal flood and sea level rise was given. Officers were directed to implement Ministry for the Environment interim guidance on the use of new sea-level rise projections in relation to identifying the boundary extent of intensification benefits. Council directed officers to prepare PC29 for public notification in mid-2023.
ePlan introduction and overview – July 2023	At a Council workshop on 20 July, officers provided Council with an introduction and overview of ePlan and the Plan Change content and process.

7. Consultation to date

7.1 Proposed PC29 has been shaped by public, stakeholder, and iwi partner involvement, and both formal statutory consultation and non-statutory engagement have been part of this process.

Public engagement

7.2 Extensive public engagement was completed from October 2020 to August 2021 for the draft WWNP, as the content relating to housing, hazards and built heritage was carried forward into PC29, officers have not re-consulted with the community prior to notification.

7.3 Council also engaged with the community on the development of the Nelson Tasman Future development strategy (NTFDS). Consultation with the public on NTFDS occurred between March and May 2022. The strategy was formally adopted at a joint council committee meeting on 29 August 2022 and came into effect 19 September 2022.

7.4 The NTFDS identifies how the region plans to provide for population growth over the next 30 years in a sustainable manner and includes direction around the location and level of intensification planned for the existing urban areas. The level of and locations for intensification proposed by PC29 is consistent with the public engagement undertaken for the NTFDS.

Stakeholder engagement

7.5 Draft PC29 was released to key stakeholders in accordance with section 3(1) Schedule 1 of the RMA in November 2022, and written feedback was received from:

· Tasman District Council,

· Transpower,

· Fire and Emergency New Zealand,

· Heritage New Zealand,

· Port Nelson,

· Waka Kotahi and

· Kāinga Ora.

7.6 Feedback received from stakeholders was generally positive, and there was support for the direction taken towards providing for a more enabling and flexible approach to housing opportunities within Nelson’s existing urban areas. Suggestions for improving some provisions were provided and led to refinements. As a result, PC29 was amended to:

· Improve consistency of like rules across chapters;

· Improve some assessment matters of rules to clarify intent;

· Better align policies with the direction of rules; and

· Align provisions with best practice and/or national standards in key areas (e.g. management of electricity infrastructure).

7.7 Stakeholder engagement on the development of PC29 is discussed further in section 11.3 of the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

Iwi partnership

7.8 An iwi working group (IWG) with the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu was established in early 2015 to identify the resource management issues of significance to Iwi, provide a Māori cultural perspective on resource management, and assist to develop appropriate policy responses. The IWG generally met on a 6-weekly basis.

7.9 The Iwi Working Group met regularly between 2015 and 2021 to discuss matters relating to the development of Draft Whakamahere Whakatu Nelson Plan (WWNP) content. In a separate process, the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu were also engaged by Council in the development of the Future Development Strategy 2020 – 2052 (NTFDS). As already noted, draft content of the WWNP and directions for growth from the NTFDS formed the basis of content for PC29.

7.10 Between late 2021 and early 2023, PC29 was discussed at the regular IWG meetings, with a particular focus on and collaboration over the development of papakāinga provisions.

7.11 Council must formally consult with Iwi in accordance with Schedule 1 clause 3(1)(d) of the RMA. This required Council to provide a copy of the draft plan change PC29 to iwi authorities and have particular regard to any advice received.

7.12 The eight Iwi of Te Tau Ihu were provided the draft PC29 between November 2022 and January 2023 for formal consultative feedback. Written feedback was received from Te Atiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust and Te Rūnanga O Ngāti Toa Rangatira. Key feedback led to some refinements to PC29.

7.13 More detail about Te Tau Ihu iwi involvement in the development of PC29 is set out in section 25.3 of the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

8. Legal context

8.1 This section addresses legal obligations relevant to and unpinning the development of proposed PC29. It provides a high-level summary of how PC29 addresses the requirements of planning policy development under the RMA and national direction.

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

8.2 The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a manner which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety.

8.3 A detailed assessment of PC29 against the RMA is provided for in the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1) including the economic costs and benefits of proposed changes.

8.4 Section 6 of the RMA contains the matters of national importance that must be recognised and provided for. Of particular relevance to PC29 are those matters directly affecting or affected by proposed changes to housing, namely 6(f):

the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development and 6(h) the management of significant risks from natural hazards.

8.5 These matters are specifically addressed by PC29 through proposed amendments to heritage and natural hazards provisions.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

8.6 A key driver underpinning PC29 is the National Policy Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD) 2020. This directive from central government sets out objectives and policies for planning that will result in well-functioning urban environments under the RMA.

8.7 Well-functioning urban environments are ones which have good accessibility for all people, between housing, jobs, community services, natural and open spaces, including by way of public and active transport, and in so doing, support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

8.8 Policy 5 of the NPSUD is a key policy shaping Council’s obligation to create a well-functioning urban environment for Nelson. As a tier 2 Council, it requires that Councils prepare their plans to:

Enable heights and densities of urban form commensurate with the greater of:

· The level of accessibility by existing or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial and community activities or

· The relative demand for housing and business use in that location.

8.9 Officers have taken urban design advice on how proposed housing provisions could ensure accessibility in terms of Policy 5. The advice and the analysis have informed the location and extent of the proposed high and medium density zones. More detail about how this advice was considered in PC29 is set out in the Section 32 report (Attachment 1).

8.10 Transportation advice was also sought to ensure housing development can be accommodated within the roading network, recognising efficiency and climate change considerations. This advice has informed changes to NRMP provisions that will ensure new developments to support active transport (transportation mode shift), reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and that the effects of those developments on the wider transportation network are managed. More information about how this advice was considered in PC29 is set out in section 22 of the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

8.11 In summary, Council can be satisfied that PC29 will give effect to Policy 5 of the NPSUD ensuring a well-functioning urban environment through both the outcomes it seeks and the way in which the plan provisions can be implemented.

Infrastructure

8.12 Objective 6 of the NPSUD sets the directive of providing for integrated infrastructure provision as part of the equation contributing to well-functioning urban environments. Council must ensure that decisions on urban development are integrated with infrastructure planning and funding decisions are strategic over the medium and long term and responsive to development proposals.

8.13 PC29 provides a theoretical section yield that in parts of the city cannot be supported by current or planned infrastructure provision. However, while measures are in place to improve capacity in key locations - as provided for in the Nelson Infrastructure Strategy and Long Term Plan, given the time and budget requirements for design and construction of infrastructure upgrades, it is essential that Council and developers work together to better sequence preferred locations for growth and intensification projects.

8.14 This will ensure a more orderly approach to provision of services and minimise disruption to traffic and business in the wider city. The Council will monitor development trends to be responsive to any identified infrastructure deficits in relation to permitted development; those requiring resource consent will be easier to manage where the Service Overlay in the NRMP applies.

8.15 More information about the strategy and how Council will provide for infrastructure support of intensification is set out in the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (NTFDS)

8.16 The NPSUD also directs Council to develop a strategy for future growth via Part 3 (Subpart 4). All Tier 2 councils that share jurisdiction over an urban environment must work together to produce a Future Development Strategy (NTFDS) which sets out a long-term vision for accommodating urban growth, in time to inform the Councils’ 2024-2034 Long Term Plan. Nelson City and part of Tasman District form the Tier 2 Nelson Tasman Urban Environment under the NPS-UD.

8.17 The NTFDS was adopted on 29 August 2022 and came into effect on 19 September 2022. The NTFDS outlines areas where there is potential for future housing and business growth focused largely along State Highway 6 from Atawhai to Wakefield, by intensification and greenfield expansion and some rural residential areas.

8.18 These directions for growth and intensification reflected the basis for refinements to the draft WWNP General and Medium density zones. The NTFDS also directed new High Density Zones in proximity to the City Centre and key suburban commercial zones.

8.19 Officers were directed to implement NTFDS intensification options through PC29 at the 17 August 2022 Council Workshop. By implementing the key directions of the NTFDS through PC29, Council can give effect to these objectives and realise its obligations under the NPSUD. More detail about how the NTFDS informed PC29 housing heights, locations and densities is set out in section 9 of the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

Plan Enabled Capacity

8.20 In providing for housing through PC29, the NPSUD further directs Council to ensure that sufficient housing capacity is provided for within its Plan.

8.21 Objective 2 states that: ‘planning decisions improve housing affordability by supporting competitive land and development markets’; and Policy 2 requires that tier 1,2 and 3 local authorities, at all times, provide at least sufficient development capacity to meet expected demand for housing and business land over the short term, medium term and long term.

8.22 To understand if the housing provisions of proposed PC29 will satisfy the requirements of these NPSUD policies, Council commissioned Market Economics to model the residential capacity enabled by the proposed plan change and provide an analysis of that relative to demand. This report is a key piece of supporting evidence that has formed part of and is attached to the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1).

8.23 The capacity and demand assessment indicates that proposed PC29 provisions will provide more than sufficient theoretical capacity relative to likely demand, up to eight times the level of long-term demand. Whilst at face value this level of capacity appears sizable, it is important to note that theoretical plan enabled capacity does not represent actual housing supply which is dependent on uptake and commercial feasibility.

8.24 Only a modest proportion of theoretical plan-enabled capacity, termed uptake, is likely to translate into housing supply. The measure of uptake used in the NTFDS process for estimating the proportion of intensification uptake relative to theoretical capacity over a 30-year period was 15%.

8.25 More information about this can be found in Section 7.3 of the background technical document of the NTFDS - http://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/Building-Planning/Downloads/city-development/future-development-strategy/fds-2022-2052/FDS-Final-Technical-Report-12.09.22.pdf.

8.26 The analysis of PC29 plan enabled capacity provided by Market Economics supports the new residential zones and the development opportunity they provide. The report recognises that the opportunities for intensification within the existing urban areas will provide flexibility and opportunity within inner-city and suburban locations that are highly accessible. The economic benefits of this approach are also recognised and taken into account within the analysis provided.

8.27 More information about the economic costs and benefits of proposed PC29 in relation to plan enabled capacity is set out within section 11.2 of the Section 32 Report (Attachment 1). This includes analysis of the proposed changes in terms of the purpose of the RMA, to ensure that people and communities can provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being.

Section 32 of the RMA

8.28 The purpose of section 32 of the RMA is to ensure that any Proposed District Plan or plan change provisions are robust, evidence based, and the best means to achieve the purpose of the Act. Council must undertake an evaluation of any proposed provisions prior to their notification. The Section 32 report (Attachment 1) provides the rationale for the proposed provisions and, as such, needs to be read in conjunction with those provisions.

8.29 Section 32 requires that Plan objectives are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and that options and alternatives for achieving those objectives are assessed for their effectiveness and efficiency. This includes an assessment of the benefits and costs of environmental, economic, social and cultural effects.

Officers are confident that sufficient and proportionate consideration has been given to the effectiveness, efficiency, costs and benefits of proposed PC29 as outlined in the Section 32 report (Attachment 1).

9. Scope/Extent of Plan Change 29

9.1 This section provides an overview of the content of PC29 in terms of the scope of changes to provisions, and spatial changes (maps and overlays) of the NRMP.

Spatial extent

9.2 The spatial extent, or land area affected by PC29 changes is defined by the urban zones of the NRMP within Nelson and can be viewed on the ePlan. These are as follows:

· Residential, Residential – Higher Density Area, Residential – Lower Density Area (Residential – Lower Density Stoke)

· Inner City – Centre, Inner City – Intense Development, Inner City – Fringe

· Suburban Commercial Zones

· Commercial Leisure Area

· Industrial (Port), Industrial (Annesbrook), Industrial (Stoke), Industrial (Nayland Road South Area).

9.3 All other Zones, not listed above, are not within scope of PC29. The out-of-scope NRMP zones are the Open Space and Recreation Zone, Conservation Zone, Rural Zone, Rural – Lower Density Small Holding Area, and Rural – High Density Small-holding Area. The NTFDS greenfields areas are also out of scope of PC29, and the area of land subject to Private Plan Change 28 (Maitai/Maitahi) is also not within scope of PC29.

9.4 While the spatial extent of PC29 is defined by the urban zones, some locations within those zones will not be up-zoned to provide intensification opportunities. This is due to land in these locations being affected by coastal flooding, river flooding, or slope instability risk.

9.5 The areas not being up-zoned to enable intensification are as follows:

· Areas at risk from coastal inundation from future potential sea level rise;

· Residential zone areas that are affected by both coastal and river flood;

· Areas that were significantly affected by the August 2022 flood event; and

· The area defined as Slope Instability Area 1, which includes land in and around the Tāhunanui Slump.

9.6 In these areas, the status quo NRMP Residential Zone development opportunities will apply to potential development. New and updated hazards and heritage information being introduced through PC29 will however apply to the entire PC29 extent including these areas.

9.7 Further information about these areas and how hazards are being addressed through PC29 are outlined in section 9.8 below.

Scope of amendments

9.8 The scope of changes to NRMP chapters is defined as follows:

9.8.1 Amendments that enable intensification of development on land currently zoned for residential and commercial uses, outside of those areas identified as being susceptible to significant risk from natural hazards.

9.8.2 Amendments to ensure a well-functioning urban environment.

9.8.3 New or amended provisions that manage development in urban areas potentially susceptible to natural hazards (river and coastal flood, fault, liquefaction and slope instability), within all residential, inner city, suburban commercial and industrial zones.

9.8.4 Amendments to built heritage items and provisions ensuring the appropriate management of heritage values through housing development within the residential, inner city, suburban commercial, and industrial zones.

9.8.5 Amendments to ensure alignment with national planning standards where relevant and practicable.

9.8.6 Consequential amendments to ensure consistency and functionality of the NRMP as a whole.

9.9 The above scope is defined by changes directly affecting or affected by the overarching objective of providing for more housing opportunities within existing urban areas of Nelson.

10. Summary of PC29 Amendments

10.1 This section provides an overview of amendments to NRMP provisions being proposed through the PC29 by topic.

Residential areas

10.2 Proposed PC29 introduces three new residential zones, a General residential zone (GRZ), a Medium-density residential zone (MRZ), and a High-density residential zone (HRZ). These can be viewed on the ePlan.

10.3 The new provisions for these zones aim to provide more enabling and flexible residential opportunities supporting intensification in and around key amenities. Objectives and policies recognise the balance between enabling intensification and providing flexibility for landowners to provide for their needs, while ensuring a standard of amenity for current and future residents.

10.4 Uptake of the opportunity may impact on the environment of existing residential areas through increases in the bulk of buildings but there are minimum amenity standards designed to achieve a balance in urban form.

10.5 An overview of the new zones is as follows:

10.5.1 General residential zone (GRZ) standards enable greater flexibility than current NRMP residential zones, by providing for more housing options. Up to three residential units will be allowable as a permitted activity to a height of 8m (2 storeys). Other standards that protect amenities are aligned with current best-practice for standard residential development.

10.5.2 Medium-density residential zone (MRZ) standards allow for a greater density of development. Up to three units of development will be allowable as a permitted activity and development standards are generally aligned with Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) required of Tier 1 Councils through the Resource Management Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters Amendment Act (2021). This includes up to three units to a height of 12m (3 storeys).

10.5.3 High-density residential zone (HRZ) standards are based on NTFDS heights and densities and allow for up to 19.5m (6 storeys) and three units of development as a permitted activity, subject to key development standards also being met. The zone anticipates apartment-style development, in central locations adjoining key access and commercial centres.

10.6 Existing residential zones and planning provisions in some locations will be retained, and status quo development opportunities in these areas will not be amended. As noted above, these locations are affected by current or future potential natural hazards. This is discussed in more detail in the natural hazard’s sections below.

10.7 While the provisions relating to development in the existing residential zones are not proposed to be amended, the names of them are proposed to be changed as set out below in Table 2. This is to avoid confusion with the proposed new general, medium and high density residential zones.

Table 2 – Existing residential zone – name changes

Current NRMP Zone	Proposed PC29 Zone name
Residential Zone	Residential Zone - standard area
Residential Zone – Lower density area	Residential Zone – lower density area
Residential Zone – Higher density area	Residential Zone – comprehensive area

10.8 More information about the residential zones is detailed within section 19 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1) including an assessment of the spatial extent of the zones and amendments relating to activities in the residential zones are contained in Chapters of the changed NRMP.

Commercial zone changes

10.9 Opportunities for residential development are also being introduced into existing commercial zones. These are the Inner City – City Centre, Inner City – Fringe, and Suburban Commercial zones, which can be viewed on the ePlan.

10.10 Objectives and policies supporting this change identify the dual aim of providing housing opportunities close to amenities and helping to reinvigorate the city’s commercial centres by supporting higher concentrations of people living in those locations. Residential activity will be enabled from above the ground floor in these zones, prioritising commercial activity at street level.

10.11 The heights enabled within each commercial zone generally align with those directed by the NTFDS and the height of any adjoining residential zone. This can ensure an appropriate height differential between residential and commercial zones at any given adjoining boundary. In the Inner City zones, the heights enabled are 24m or 6 storeys. In the Suburban Commercial zones heights vary to generally align with adjoining residential development.

10.12 Following previous Council direction, all new buildings in the commercial zones will require a resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity. Council considered proposed permitted standards were too prescriptive and did not provide sufficient flexibility or innovation in design. Restricted discretionary activity status does allow for quality design outcomes for new buildings in the city centre and suburban commercial areas. Activity standards and the exercise of discretion address matters such as:

· Building design and development layout effects on the visual quality and interest of streets and public open spaces

· Heritage values of adjacent scheduled buildings

· Residential amenity values for building occupants, including access, outlook, privacy, and storage.

10.13 Proposed PC29 does not change the spatial extent of the Inner City - City Centre or the Suburban Commercial zones.

10.14 Proposed PC29 does however seek to extend the Inner City - Fringe zone southwards along Vanguard Street and St Vincent Street. This rezoning is intended to replace the Industrial zone that applies in this location under the NRMP and is consistent with the land use change indicated in the NTFDS.

10.15 Within all commercial zones, including the re-zoned Inner City – Fringe at the Vanguard Street and St Vincent Street locations, new permitted housing will have to provide for acoustic insulation to mitigate against the potential for reverse sensitivity effects on existing commercial and light industrial activities. This can ensure the on-going viability of potentially conflicting activities in this mixed-use environment.

10.16 More information about the commercial zones is detailed within section 21 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1) including technical advice and an assessment of the need for acoustic insulation, and chapter amendments to the NRMP relating to activities in the commercial zones.

Natural Hazards – Liquefaction

10.17 Operative NRMP provisions do not manage risk from liquefaction. PC29 will introduce a Liquefaction Hazard Overlay identifying areas within the urban zones that are potentially susceptible to liquefaction. PC29 also proposes provisions to manage new development on land within the Liquefaction Hazard Overlay. The Liquefaction Hazard Overlay is available to view on the ePlan.

10.18 Within the Liquefaction Hazard Overlay, minor buildings and additions to existing buildings and network utilities are permitted activities, otherwise resource consent is required for buildings and network utilities as a restricted discretionary activity.

10.19 With all activities in the Liquefaction Hazard Overlay where a resource consent is required, a key requirement is the provision of an assessment of the liquefaction hazard risk prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer or engineering geologist.

10.20 Subdivision that creates an additional allotment is proposed as a restricted discretionary activity in the Liquefaction Hazard Overlay.

10.21 Further details on the Liquefaction Hazard Overlay and the rules that apply to it are detailed within section 13.3 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Amendments relating to liquefaction provisions (including objectives, policies and rules) are contained in NRMP chapters 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Natural Hazards – Faults

10.22 Proposed PC29 incorporates new technical information on faults and updates the NRMP provisions for development in areas potentially susceptible to fault hazards, within urban zones, largely based on the approach developed through the draft WWNP processes.

10.23 The NRMP Fault Hazard Overlay is to be removed within urban zones and two new fault hazard overlays are introduced. Properties affected (either partially or wholly) are located within NRMP residential zones, the new GRZ, the MDRZ and the Suburban Commercial Zone The new overlays can be viewed on the ePlan:

· Fault Deformation Overlay – Minor buildings and additions to existing buildings and network utilities are permitted, otherwise all building work and network utilities, are restricted discretionary activities. Subdivision is proposed to be a discretionary activity.

· Fault Awareness Overlay New residential units are a restricted discretionary activity. Subdivision is also a restricted discretionary activity.

10.24 Where resource consent is required for activities within the Fault Deformation Overlay or the Fault Awareness Overlay, a key requirement is the provision of an assessment of the fault hazard risk prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer or engineering geologist.

10.25 The operative NRMP Fault Hazard Overlay and associated provisions will be retained outside of PC29 areas and will therefore continue to apply as relevant in the Open Space and Recreation Zone, Conservation Zone, and rural zones.

10.26 Further details on the fault hazard overlays and the rules that apply to them are detailed within section the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Amendments relating to fault hazard provisions (including objectives, policies and rules) are contained in NRMP Chapters 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9.

Natural Hazards - Slope instability

10.27 The existing NRMP Tāhunanui Slump Core Slope Risk Overlay, Tāhunanui Slump Fringe Slope Risk Overlay, and Grampians Slope Risk Overlay are proposed to be replaced by new overlays within the urban zones. Four new overlays are proposed, Slope Instability Area 1 Overlay, Slope Instability Area 2 Overlay, Slope Instability Area 3 Overlay and a Debris Run-out Area Overlay.

10.28 Properties affected (either partially or wholly) are within NRMP Residential Zone - Lower Density Area, and within all urban zones in scope of proposed PC29 except the Inner City-Centre Zone and the Industrial Zone. The proposed new overlays can be viewed on the ePlan.

10.29 The four slope instability overlays are as follows:

· Slope instability Area 1 - properties most at risk from slope instability, located at Tāhunanui. This area is not being ‘up-zoned’ to enable intensification within it. Status quo development opportunities will continue to apply to any new development affected by the overlay, including provision for one residential unit to be built on a vacant site as a non-complying activity. More than one residential unit on any site is proposed to remain a prohibited activity. Additions to existing residential units are proposed to be non-complying activities and accessory buildings greater than 10m2 are proposed to be provided for as restricted discretionary activities. Restrictions continue to be placed on structures greater than 1000kg, on earthworks, and on stormwater disposal. Subdivision that creates a new allotment is proposed to remain a prohibited activity.

· Slope instability Area 2 - areas that are at elevated risk of slope instability including properties on the Grampians, Marybank, Marsden Coal Measures, and parts of the Tāhunanui Fringe. Provision is made for new residential units as a restricted discretionary activity, as are additions to existing buildings and accessory buildings greater than 10m2. Restrictions are placed on structures greater than 5000kg, on earthworks, and on stormwater disposal. Subdivision is proposed to be a discretionary activity.

· Slope Instability Area 3 - includes the remainder of the hills that have been assessed as having some potential for slope instability hazard. New residential units are a restricted discretionary activity as are additions to existing buildings and accessory buildings greater than 10m2. Restricted discretionary resource consent will be required for structures greater than 5000kg. Further restrictions are placed on earthworks and stormwater disposal. Subdivision is proposed to be a discretionary activity.

· Debris Run-Out area - where there is a risk of being affected by the run-out from instability occurring upslope, PC29 provisions focus on requiring resource consent for new residential units as a restricted discretionary activity, while additions to existing residential units and accessory buildings greater than 10m2 are restricted discretionary activities. Subdivision is proposed to be a discretionary activity.

10.30 Where resource consent is required for activities within the slope instability overlays, a key requirement is the provision of an assessment of the slope instability risk prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer or engineering geologist.

10.31 Further details on the fault hazard overlays and the rules that apply to them are detailed within section 13.3 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Amendments relating to fault hazard provisions (including objectives, policies and rules) are contained in NRMP Chapters 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

Natural Hazards - River flood

10.32 Proposed PC29 updates existing NRMP overlays and associated provisions with the latest technical information. This includes the introduction of three new flood hazards overlays: the Flood Hazard overlay, the High Flood Hazard overlay, and Floodway overlay.

10.33 Following the August 2022 flood event, areas that were significantly affected or require further assessment are not up-zoned to enable intensification.

10.34 Properties within the Flood Hazard and High Flood Hazard overlays (including the Floodways) that are at risk of flooding in a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event up to 2130 are shown in an overlay. These overlays will replace the current NRMP Inundation Overlay and NRMP Floodpath Overlay, with some exceptions (see para below). The NRMP flood related overlays will continue to apply to land outside PC29 spatial extent.

10.35 Generally, in the flood related overlays, except for Floodways and Flood Paths, the rules relating to the following activities default to restricted discretionary activities when the specified permitted conditions cannot be met:

· storage and use of hazardous substances;

· buildings;

· network utilities;

· fences, walls and outdoor storage;

· earthworks; and

· flood mitigation and protection works.

10.1 Matters of restricted discretion for buildings include floor or ground levels, building design, other mitigation measures to address risk from the flood hazard, any exacerbated effects in relation to flooding on or off-site, access, including ingress and egress, adaptive management approaches, evacuation plans, and any additional risk from coastal hazards.

10.2 There are only minor distinctions in the rules that apply to the two flood overlays; the exception to this is for the creation of vacant allotments through subdivision in the High Flood Hazard overlay, which is a non-complying activity. Subdivision in the Flood Hazard and High Flood Hazard overlays is otherwise a restricted discretionary activity.

10.3 As noted above, not all hazard risk areas are covered by the new and updated flood mapping. In some locations, new information is not available to replace the existing NRMP flood related overlays, and these residual parts of the overlay will be retained where there is a remaining flood hazard risk.

10.4 Similarly, the NRMP includes a flood path overlay and a table of unmapped flood paths (Flood Path table) identifying flood channels. Where the information contained in the Flood Path table has not been updated with new information, it has been retained.

10.5 More information about the various river flood overlays and the rules that apply to them are detailed within section 13.2 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Chapter amendments relating to river flooding objectives and policies are contained in NRMP Chapters 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Rules relating to the various flood hazard overlays are contained within the zones affected by them and can be found in the same chapters listed above.

Natural Hazards – Coastal Flood (sea level rise)

10.6 Proposed PC29 addresses areas at risk from coastal flooding by sea level rise by not up-zoning them for intensification opportunity. This approach might be seen to pre-empt the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) process the Council is working on, but it is appropriate and proportionate at this time.

10.7 In the areas that are not being up-zoned for intensification, existing NRMP residential zone opportunities for development will continue to apply.

10.8 PC29 defines the area not being up-zoned as that affected by coastal flood scenario, 1% AEP event, 2130, SSP 8.5 (H+) including Vertical Land Movement (VLM). At the 17 February workshop, Council understood this approach was consistent with Table 3 in the Ministry for the Environment interim guidance on the use of new sea-level rise projections. This means in particular, that residential areas in the Tāhunanui area have not been up-zoned.

10.9 More information about coastal flooding and Council’s approach to sea level rise is detailed within section 13.1 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Rules relating to the low lying areas are contained within the zones affected by them, and can be found in NRMP Chapters 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10.

Heritage

10.10 Proposed PC29 heritage provisions ensure the protection of built historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. The proposed amendments include:

· Policy DO4.1.13 is amended to provide additional direction for determining appropriate subdivision, use, and development in heritage precincts.

· Amendments to existing rules and standards, to provide for the appropriate use and development of heritage resources and their setting (for both heritage items and precincts).

· The addition of new heritage-related definitions to support the implementation of rules.

· The removal of the City Centre - Inner Heritage Precinct (commercial) and related design guide.

· The addition of Richmond Avenue Heritage Precinct (residential) and related design guide.

· Amendments to the criteria in NRMP Appendix 1 used for assessing the heritage significance of buildings, places, and objects.

· An update to the heritage schedule in NRMP Appendix 1, including reassessment of the significance of heritage items using the amended criteria, updating details about heritage items where necessary, and the addition or removal of heritage items.

10.11 More information about heritage is detailed within section 24 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Chapter amendments relating to heritage objectives and policies are contained in Chapter 5. Rules relating to the various heritage items and precincts are contained within the zones where they are located and can be found in NRMP Chapters 7,8 and 9.

Papakāinga

10.12 PC29 provisions for papakāinga better enable the development of papakāinga by tāngata whenua on their land within the urban zones of PC29 where there is a whakapapa or ancestral connection to the land. The amendments include:

· The addition of new definitions into Chapter 2 (to apply only to papakāinga provisions for urban zones) - meaning of words for ancestral land, ancillary activity, commercial activity, general title land, Māori land, Papakāinga, taonga, tipuna/tupuna, whakapapa.

· A suite of new objectives and policies for papakāinga.

· New rules and standards into zone chapters: Chapter 7 Residential, Chapter 8 Inner City, Chapter 9 Suburban Commercial. New rules include papakāinga development as a permitted activity on land held under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and on general title land held by Māori with whakapapa or ancestral connection to the land.

· Permitted activities will need to comply with some zone-specific standards including site coverage, yards, building height, daylight admission, and maximum gross floor area for commercial activities (in residential zones).

10.13 More information about papakainga is detailed within section 25 of the Section 32 report (Attachment 1). Chapter amendments relating to papakainga objectives and policies are contained in Chapter 5. Rules relating to papakainga are contained within NRMP Chapters 7, 8 and 9.

Transport

10.14 The purpose of changes to transport provisions in proposed PC29 is to ensure that new development will result in well-functioning urban environments that support a reduction in carbon emissions whilst maintaining accessibility and connection. They seek to ensure that active transport and alternatives to private car use, such as use of micromobility devices (e.g. bikes, E-bikes, scooters and other personal transportation devices) are better supported in the NRMP.

10.15 Changes also respond to the impact of Policy 11 of the NPSUD, which removes the ability of Councils to require on-site car parking: ‘In relation to carparking… the district plans of tier 1, 2, and 3 territorial authorities do not set minimum car parking rate requirements, other than for accessible car parks…’

10.16 Proposed amendments include:

· Removal of the mandatory requirement to provide vehicle access to every site, and the associated proposal to require pedestrian access to every site that doesn’t have a vehicle access;

· Additional requirements for on-site car parking, where this is voluntarily provided, including on site loading spaces to allow for deliveries, pick up and drop off; requirements to provide for electric vehicle charging; accessible parking spaces required for multi-unit residential developments (over and above the requirements of the Building Act); and lighting standards for car parks, loading spaces and cycle parking areas to make these safer at night;

· Requirements for most residential and commercial activities to provide for secure and covered micromobility device parking for residents, visitors and staff.

· The requirement for end of trip facilities to support walking and cycling, and to enable a mode shift towards more people using active forms of transport;

· Enabling the assessment of effects on the transport network where an activity is likely to generate higher numbers of vehicle trips;

· Updated standards for shared private vehicle accesses, including right of ways and shared vehicle access for multi-unit developments.

10.17 More information about transportation is detailed within section 22 of the s.32 report (Attachment 1). Chapter amendments relating to transportation objectives and policies are contained in NRMP Chapters 5 and Rules and appendices relating to transportation, parking and access are contained within chapters 7, 8, 9, 10 and Appendices 10 and 11.

11. Climate Change Issues

11.1 At a Council meeting held on 19 May 2022 officers were requested to identify how PC29 can deliver to mitigation and sequestration of greenhouse gases, climate change adaptation, and improvement of local environments including water conservation to an Environment and Climate Committee workshop.

11.2 A plan change of this nature is a limited and indirect tool to address climate change. Council can access other powers to assist with mitigation. However, climate change trends have informed the development of PC29.

11.3 The enabling of an increase in housing through urban intensification will support climate mitigation and network resilience. Examples of the broader positive climate change/sustainability outcomes that PC29 contributes to are:

· Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) - as people live closer to where they work and recreate, it is likely that this will reduce the reliance on cars for travel leading to a greater uptake of active transport options such as walking and cycling. This in turn will reduce GHG emissions.

· Less stress on network resilience over time - through the continued use and ongoing upgrades of existing infrastructure rather than just relying on greenfield infrastructure which requires additional resources including land.

· Avoiding intensification in areas where sea level rise, associated coastal inundation, exposure to coastal erosion and river flooding are likely to present an unmanageable risk to people, property, and infrastructure.

11.4 In addition to the above overall approach, numerous activities at the dwelling level are available without requiring resource consent (ie a permitted activity). PC29 does not mandate activities such as rainwater tanks or solar panels as in many instances the Building Act now manages this activity. Rather, through objectives and policies and the permitted activity category of development, it encourages activities, for example, the collection of rainwater to provide supplementary domestic water supply for outdoor use (garden irrigation or the washing of vehicles).

11.5 Permitted activities in PC29 include roof or ground-mounted solar array (GHG reduction), small wind turbines (GHG reduction), and rainwater tanks.

12. Notification

12.1 Public notification of PC29 initiates a statutory consultation and decision-making process set out in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act comprising several stages:

Table 3: Notification Timeline

Stage

Timeframe

Public submissions

Once PC29 is notified, the public may make submissions on the Plan Change under clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

The closing date for submissions must be at least 20 working days after public notification (clause 5(3)(b) of Schedule 1).

Officers propose 27 working days (11 August – 19 September) (39 calendar days) given the community response to the Nelson Airport Plan Change - PC30 timeframes.

Summary of submissions

Following the closing date for submissions, Council must summarise the submissions and the decisions requested by submitters, and then publicly notify the summary.

While there is no statutory timeframe officers are planning for notifying the summary by November.

The amount of time required will vary depending on the quantity and complexity of submissions.

Further submissions

Some people or groups (including Council) can make further submissions on the Plan Change. A further submission can only support or oppose a submission. It cannot extend the scope of an original submission.

No more than ten working days after public notification of the summary of submissions (clause 7(1)(c) of Schedule 1).

Hearings

A mix of elected members and independent commissioners will form the panel to hear submissions on PC29, unless no person indicates they wish to be heard.

No statutory timeframe, except that the panel must give at least 10 working days’ notice of the place and time of the hearing (clause 8B of Schedule 1).

Officers are planning for hearings in July/August 2024 at the latest.

Recommendations

Following the hearing, the hearings panel must make recommendations on the Plan Change in a written report.

No statutory timeframe.

Council decision on recommendations

Following receipt of the recommendations, Council must decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the hearings panel. Council must then publicly notify its decision(s).

Public notification of decisions

All submitters must be notified when the decision is issued.

A decision must be issued no more than two years after notification of the proposed policy statement or plan.

12.2 The requirement for a plan change notified under Schedule 1 of the RMA is outlined in clause 5 of that Schedule, to be read in conjunction with Section 2AC of the Act. Officers have prepared a comprehensive notification package which is designed to exceed our statutory obligations and includes:

· A free ‘friend of the submitter’ service provided by the Council to remove barriers and foster participation in the plan change process;

· Shape Nelson web page which provides a summary of the Plan Change, including a comprehensive FAQ, how to make a submission, further submissions process, the closing date for submissions, where to find more information or get help, and the friend of the submitter service;

· Publication of a summary Notice in the Nelson Mail, Our Nelson and a community newspaper;

· A targeted social media campaign that highlights the ability of the public to search their property online through the Eplan, key proposed changes and the ‘friend of the submitter’ service;

· Publication of the summary of the Plan Change and FAQ in Our Nelson during the consultation period;

· A targeted advertising campaign;

· Media briefing session;

· A physical community drop-in session held at the Nelson Market in conjunction with the elected members during the period submissions are open; and

· Material and assistance available at the Customer Service Centre and each library in the region.

13. Options

13.1 The decision to notify this plan change is of low significance as it is required by law if the Council elects to proceed with the plan change. However the content of the plan change will be of widespread interest and significance.

Option 1: Approval to publicly notify Plan Change 29 – Staff Recommendation
Advantages	· NPSUD requirements are met · NTFDS expectations are met · Those expectations of intensification opportunities are better met with the plan change that the current NRMP
Risks and Disadvantages	· None except the Council will incur cost in responding to submissions which is part of the engagement process
Option 2: Delay approval to publicly notify Plan Change 29
Advantages	· If Council wishes to take more time to consider the plan change, this is an option
Risks and Disadvantages	· Delay in presenting the plan change and receiving public feedback · Delay in notification could create issues if people try and take advantage of the plan content before certain provisions take legal effect
Option 3: Do not publicly notify Plan Change 29
Advantages	· One less job on the Council work programme
Risks and Disadvantages	· Considerable sunk investment of time and resource · Expectations have been built up that such a plan change will be released. These will not be met if public notification does not proceed · NPSUD requirements still to be met · Some developments could occur that would not be consistent with the proposed plan content

14. Hearings Panel

14.1 Under Section 34A(1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA), Council can delegate its functions, powers, and duties to a Hearings Panel to hear and recommend on plan changes and other RMA proceedings.

14.2 It is proposed that submissions on PC29 and PC31 which will be notified concurrently, be heard by a three-person panel comprising an independent Chair who has the chair endorsed accreditation and two accredited elected members.

14.3 Given the policy impact of the housing plan change it is appropriate that elected members are involved in the proceedings as local knowledge and an understanding of Nelson’s housing and growth challenges and the options Council has to respond to these, will be an advantage during the hearing and deliberation process.

14.4 This will be a process that could involve considerable hearing time and span one to two months, so it may not be easy for elected members to invest this time in which case we can defer to independent commissioners. Elected members are remunerated in line with the determination from the Remuneration Authority (Local Government Members (2022/23) Determination 2022).

14.5 Once the Council has confirmed composition of the hearing panel, the Group Manager has delegated authority to make the appointment and indications of availability and inclination from elected members are welcome.

15. Conclusion

15.1 PC29 provides a suite of changes to existing provisions in the NRMP enabling improved housing opportunities in terms of supply and housing choice whilst ensuring appropriate management of natural hazards and protection of heritage values. The changes will help to fulfil Council’s obligations under the NPSUD and implement the intensification options of the NTFDS.

16. Next Steps

16.1 If the Council approves public notification of Plan Change 29, Officers will prepare and publicly notify it on or before 11 August 2023. Note that it will be accompanied by Plan Change 31 which Council adopted at its meeting on 4 May 2023.

Author: Dennis Bush-King, Acting Group Manager Environmental Management

Authoriser: Mandy Bishop, Group Manager Environmental Management

Attachments

Attachment 1: 539570224-14803 - Plan Change 29 - Section 32 Evaluation Report - July 2023 (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The matters in this report support Nelson City Council’s work to provide capacity for future growth and discuss the Government’s requirements of local authorities for growth planning as set out in sections 30 and 31 of the RMA and its National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

PC29 implements the intensification scenarios outlined in the NTFDS, supports the objectives in the Te Ara ō Whakatū - City Centre Spatial Plan, assists with addressing the Long term plan priority – Housing affordability and intensification and is consistent with the community outcomes, particularly:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected

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

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

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

· Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy

Risk

No decision to notify a plan change is risk free. Given the scope of the plan change, people may be unhappy with aspects of the proposal, but they will have the opportunity to provide feedback.

As foreshadowed in the report, if the uptake of the intensification opportunities exceeds infrastructure capacity in any particular location, and Council is unable to respond in time, there may be some unhappiness or frustration from developers.

Financial impact

The development of PC29 has required a significant financial investment.

No additional funding is sought as a consequence of this decision.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not specifically apply to engagement or consultation processes that are required under the RMA. Public notification of PC29 initiates a statutory consultation and decision-making process comprised of several legal steps. This is on top of the considerable engagement undertaken to date.

Climate Impact

The decision to notify PC29 does not have a specific climate impact although the opportunities will be impacted by climate change and the design of the plan change has taken into account those areas where carbon footprints can be reduced through a plan change.

Section 11 of this report details climate change considerations and issues during the development of PC29.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Extensive engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing PC29. Section 7 of this report details the Iwi engagement that has taken place during the development of PC29.

Delegations

The Council has the lawful authority to consider notifying PC29.

Item 9: Standing Orders Review 2023

Council

10 August 2023

REPORT R27576

Standing Orders Review 2023

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To review and adopt updated Nelson City Council Standing Orders.

2. Summary

2.1 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires all local authorities to adopt a set of Standing Orders (SO) for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees.

2.2 Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) provides an updated template every three years to ensure any new legislation and evolving standards of good practice are incorporated. They recommend delaying adopting new standing orders until after the new governing body has had a period operating under the existing ones.

2.3 The proposed Standing Orders (Attachment 2 1373411589-873) are adapted from the LGNZ Standing Orders template and customised to suit Nelson City Council.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Standing Orders Review 2023 (R27576) and its attachments (1982984479-5561 and 1373411589-873); and

2. Agrees to the inclusion of the provisions providing the ability for members to attend meetings via audio or audio visual link (Standing Order 13.7 – 13.14); and

3. Declines to adopt the use of a casting vote for the Chair (Standing Order 19.3); and

4. Selects Standing Order 22.2: Option A as the default for speaking and moving motions; and

5. Approves electronic archiving of meeting papers (Standing Order 29.2) commencing for business papers from 10 October 2022; and

6. Adopts, in accordance with Clause 27, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Nelson City Council Standing Orders (1373411589-873); and

7. Updates the Delegations Register to note that the following committees do not have a Public Forum:

a. Chief Executive Employment Committee

b. Audit Risk and Finance Committee

c. District Licensing Committee

d. Tenders Committee

4. Background

4.1 Clause 27 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the LGA) requires Council to adopt a set of Standing Orders for the conduct of its meetings and those of its committees. Standing Orders provide the Chair of a meeting with tools to guide meetings through debate and provide a framework of rules that ensures public decision-making is fair, open and transparent.

4.2 The adoption of new Standing Orders and any amendment to or suspension of the Orders requires the support of not less than 75% of the members present and voting at the relevant meeting.

4.3 Council adopted the current Standing Orders in June 2017, at which time it moved from Model Standing Orders to a plain English template provided by Local Government New Zealand. There have been some changes made over the previous five years including increasing speaking time for groups and organisations to 10 minutes, moving the procedure for leave of absence from the Code of Conduct to an appendix in Standing Orders and a move to electronic confirmation of minutes.

4.4 The template allows for optional provisions and Elected Members must decide whether to include all or any of these when adopting standing orders:

4.4.1 Option to join meetings by audio and audio-visual link;

4.4.2 Provision for a casting vote by a Chair;

4.4.3 Choice of three different ways of dealing with motions and amendments.

4.5 At workshops on 7 July 2023 and 20 July 2023 elected members discussed some of the optional provisions and other recommended changes to customise LGNZ standing orders. This report takes into account the guidance provided by elected members to date and includes additional draft changes required to customise LGNZ standing orders for Nelson City Council.

4.6 Attachment 1 (1982984479-5561) is a table of differences between NCC standing orders and LGNZ standing orders, including officer commentary and recommended changes.

4.7 Attachment 2 (1373411589-873) is a marked up copy of LGNZ standing orders providing for NCC adaptations that, if adopted, will become the new Nelson City Council standing orders.

4.8 Council now needs to decide whether to adopt LGNZ standing orders and whether to include all or any of the optional provisions and recommended changes.

5. Discussion

5.1 LGNZ Optional Provisions

5.2 SO13.7 Right to attend by audio or audiovisual link

5.2.1 Given that the use of meeting attendance via audio visual link is now commonplace, and particularly important throughout the period of the COVID-19 Epidemic and severe weather emergencies, officers recommend these provisions continue to be included in Council’s Standing Orders.

5.2.2 It should be noted that only when emergency legislation applies, such as the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill (current to 1 April 2024), members attending via audio visual link count towards the meeting quorum.

5.3 SO19.3 Chairperson has a casting vote

5.3.1 There are three options for Council to consider:

5.3.2 Option 1: Chair can use the casting vote for any decision where there is an equality of votes.

5.3.3 Option 2: Chair cannot use the casting vote.

5.3.4 Option 3: Chair can only use the casting vote where a statutory decision is required (including but not limited to the adoption of Annual Plan, Annual Report, Long Term Plan, Regional Land Transport Plan, Nelson Resource Management Plan change).

5.3.5 Allowing for a casting vote can be a pragmatic step to ensure efficient decision making, especially where there is an even number of members present and voting. It is worth noting that despite common perception, there is no binding convention requiring the casting vote to be made to preserve the status quo. Clause 23.9 allows for a further recommendation to provide direction if a motion is lost.

5.3.6 The need for efficient decision making must be weighed against the democratic principle that a person should have a single equally weighted vote. This principle is reflected in the default position of cl. 24 (2) Schedule 7, LGA which states that the Chair does not have a casting vote unless specified in the local authority’s standing orders.

5.3.7 Members guidance at the workshop on 20 July was to retain the status quo of no casting vote.

5.4 SO22 General procedures for speaking and moving motions and Council

5.4.1 The LGNZ template offers Council a choice of three frameworks for speaking to and moving motions and amendments.

5.4.2 Option A (SO 22.2) is the most formal of the three and limits the ability of members to move and second amendments if they have already spoken. This is the framework used in the 2003 Standards New Zealand Model Standing Orders and Council currently operates under this option.

5.4.3 Option B (SO 22.3) is less formal. While limiting the ability of movers and seconders of motions to move amendments, this option allows any other member, regardless of whether they have spoken to the motion or substituted motion, to move or second an amendment.

5.4.4 Option C (SO 22.4) it the least formal. It gives members more flexibility by removing the limitations on movers and seconders speaking which exist in the other two options.

5.4.5 Notwithstanding the above, Council has the ability by majority vote to use another option for a meeting or an item and can suspend standing orders with the support of 75% of members present.

5.3.7 At the workshop on 20 July 2023 members indicated a preference to retain the status quo (Option A) at this time as the default for speaking and moving motions.

Additional changes

5.5 SO15 Public Forum

5.5.1 At the workshop on 7 July members discussed alternative approaches. These included:

· Limiting Public Forum to scheduled Council meetings, as the current governance structure is such that subordinate decision-making bodies are single purpose committees. This does not preclude the ability of a Chair to allow a public forum or delegation for a specific purpose and would not apply to subordinate decision-making bodies established jointly with Tasman District Council.

· That time limits for Public Forum remain at 5 minutes for individuals and 10 minutes for groups (the 2022 LGNZ Template maintains 5 minutes for all speakers). However additional information would be sought in advance from a potential speaker to help manage the meeting efficiently, including requesting a speaker to identify how their presentation relates to the responsibilities of Council, and providing for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to decide who will speak, giving priority to early and most relevant requests.

· An additional clause to specifically provide for a Right of Reply. Should a public forum speaker provide only one perspective on an issue or adversely affect the reputation of an individual or organisation the Mayor and Deputy Mayor may provide an opportunity for a balancing perspective by a relevant person or organisation during the public forum. Where possible the Right of Reply will be coordinated to be heard at the same meeting.

5.5.2 Officers have included the first two bullets above in the draft Standing Orders.

5.6 SO 29.2 Electronic Archiving

5.6.1 In 2021 The Chief Archivist issued the authority to retain public records in electronic form only.

5.6.2 The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s229 and 230 allows for retention of meeting papers in hard copy or stored electronically provided there is a reliable means of assuring the integrity of the information is maintained and it is readily accessible for subsequent reference. Whether in hard copy or electronic form minutes must be available for inspection by the public.

5.6.3 The LGNZ Standing Orders template was updated to reflect the ability for Council to archive meeting papers electronically and given all meeting papers are created electronically officers recommend moving to electronic archiving.

5.6.4 With the introduction and testing of Sharepoint as an information management system, Council’s Information Technology and Information Management specialists have supported the move to electronic archiving and confirm meeting papers can be accessed from at least two separate mediums. The systems for backing up those mediums have different retention points. Sharepoint data is protected by Microsoft’s default policies regarding redundancy and availability, but due to the criticality of this data to the organisation there is an additional process backing this up as well.

6. Options

6.1 Council can adopt the Proposed NCC Standing Orders as reflected in Attachment 2, with any amendments, or decide to retain the NCC standing orders adopted in 2017.

Option 1: Adopt the Proposed NCC Standing Orders, with any amendments
Advantages	· Ensures standing orders incorporate changes to legislation · Incorporates the recent review and update by LGNZ · Ensures NCC standing orders are consistent with best practice
Risks and Disadvantages	· Requires some familiarisation with a new set of standing orders
Option 2: Do not adopt the Proposed NCC Standing Orders
Advantages	· Retains standing orders Elected Members are familiar with
Risks and Disadvantages	· Updates made to reflect changes to legislation are done in isolation from the rest of the sector, LGNZ and best practice

7. Conclusion

7.1 It is recommended that the Council adopt the updated Standing Orders (1373411589-873).

8. Next Steps

9. The Standing Orders will come into effect when adopted by resolution and will apply to all meetings of the Council, its committees, subcommittees, quasi-judicial committees and subordinate decision-making bodies.

Author: Robyn Byrne, Team Leader Governance

Authoriser: Nicky McDonald, Group Manager Strategy and Communications Author:

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1982984479-5561 Standing orders review - summary of differences ⇩

Attachment 2: 1373411589-873 PROPOSED Nelson City Council Standing Orders ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The review and adoption of up to date standing orders supports efficient and effective decision making at governance level.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

It is good practice to review and adopt standing orders each triennium to ensure standing orders are fully compliant with legislation and best practice.

Risk

There is a low risk associated with this matter. The draft standing orders are informed by legislation and best practice.

Financial impact

There is no cost associated with the recommendations in this report.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because it relates to the adoption of revised standing orders governing the way Council’s meetings are run. No engagement on the matter is required.

Climate Impact

There is no climate impact associated with the recommendations in this report.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

This is a matter for Council and subject to a 75% majority vote.

Item 10: He Tātai Whetū implementation - approving changes to funding allocations

Council

10 August 2023

REPORT R27816

He Tātai Whetū implementation - approving changes to funding allocations

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve adjustments to the Better Off Funding allocation for implementation of He Tātai Whetū – Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy.

4.4 To note that the arts hub investigation will include a mapping exercise of Nelson City’s current and potential future arts and creativity assets.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report He Tātai Whetū implementation - approving changes to funding allocations (R27816); and

3. Agrees that Arts Council Nelson/the Arts Development Agency is the appropriate agency to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package; and

5. Notes the incorporation of a mapping exercise of current and future arts and creativity assets, within the arts hub investigation approved as part of the Annual Plan 2023/24.

3. Background

3.1 In September 2022, Council approved the Better Off Funding proposal for Council’s allocated $5.18 million of tranche one funding:

Resolved CL/2022/206

That the Council

2. Approves the funding proposal (1601344813-168) for Tranche 1 Better Off Funding be submitted to the Department of Internal Affairs

3.2 The funding was allocated to seven projects and one of these was implementation of He Tātai Whetū – Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy. The three elements to receive funding under this project were:

3.2.1 Te Tauihutanga Design and Identity Project – $0.5 million

The project aims to protect and revitalise Toi Māori in Whakatū Nelson by building an enduring and sustainable model for Māori-led delivery.

3.2.2 Creative Tourism Winter Festival – $0.4 million

This would be a month-long winter programme delivering participatory and educational arts opportunities for visitors and locals.

3.2.3 Arts Relief Package – $0.1 million

This project would invite proposals from local artists for grants of $5,000 to $10,000 per recipient to create arts activations in the city.

3.3 The Te Tauihutanga Design and Identity Project is being led by iwi and no changes are proposed to this funding or project. The He Tātai Whetū/Arts and Creativity Strategy Taskforce is proposing changes to the funding of the other two elements.

3.4 The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has signalled that there is flexibility to make adjustments to what was provided in Council’s application, as long as it is documented and the DIA is informed of the variations.

4. Discussion

4.1 Council established a Taskforce made up of community members and elected members to help drive progress in implementing He Tātai Whetū. Part of the Taskforce’s role, as stated in its Terms of Reference, is that it will:

4.1.1 oversee the development of the projects being funded from the Better Off Funding package

4.1.2 support work being undertaken to scope an arts hub using the $100,000 allocated in the Annual Plan 2023/24.

5. Better Off Funding allocation

4.2 At its first meeting, the He Tātai Whetū/Arts and Creativity Strategy Taskforce discussed how the context had shifted since the development of the Strategy in 2022, particularly due to the impacts of COVID-19 on the sector. It then considered how the funding could be adjusted to better reflect the current environment and what would bring the greatest benefits to the arts sector and wider community now. The Taskforce agreed to request three adjustments to what is currently in Council’s Better Off Funding agreement with the DIA. These are outlined below.

Allocate funding to support Arts Council Nelson’s transition to an Arts Development Agency

4.3 He Tātai Whetū identified a series of key moves to deliver the outcomes and objectives of the strategy. One of the key moves was to establish a development agency for the arts. In December 2022, Council resolved:

Resolved CL/2022/286

That the Council

Supports the Arts Council Nelson initiative to expand its role to provide the Development Agency for the Arts, as envisaged in He Tātai Whetū/the Whakatū Nelson Arts and Creativity Strategy

4.4 Arts Council Nelson, supported by Council, applied to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage’s Cultural Sector Regeneration Fund in February 2023 to expand its role but the application was unsuccessful.

4.5 The Taskforce recognises that Arts Council Nelson would need sufficient funding and support to successfully transition into the expanded agency and this should be prioritised. It felt it would be unrealistic to expect a small agency, dependent on much input of volunteer labour, to oversee a strategic reorientation of its role without appropriate funding. Therefore, the Taskforce agreed to request an adjustment to the current funding allocation to provide $150,000 to Arts Council Nelson as a grant to support its transition to an Arts Development Agency. The funding, as per the Better Off Funding agreement, is available to be used up until the end of June 2027, however it is expected the $150,000 would be expended over a 12 month period.

4.6 To make the $150,000 available, the Taskforce requests the following adjustments:

4.6.1 Reallocating $50,000 of the $100,000 assigned to the Arts Relief Package.

4.6.2 Reallocating $100,000 of the $400,000 assigned to the Creative Tourism Initiative.

Agree Arts Council Nelson/Arts Development Agency is the appropriate agency to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package

4.7 The Taskforce also considered that Arts Council Nelson (or in its new form as Arts Development Agency, depending on the timing of that transition) would be the logical organisation to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package. This would fit with the new development agency’s role in investment attraction, publicity and capability development. As an agency that is proposed to unite the currently fragmented Nelson arts sector, having these projects to manage would give focus and credibility and support the transition into its more professional and strategic role.

Reassess the current approach for the Arts Relief Package

4.8 The intention behind the Arts Relief Package was to provide immediate relief to local artists experiencing the impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on the sector. Since these recommendations were put to Council the wider context has changed and the Taskforce sees an opportunity to use the funding in a more effective way, the first priority being to use some of the funding ($50,000) to support the establishment of the much needed independent arts development agency to provide leadership for the sector.

4.9 The Taskforce considers a reassessment of how the remaining $50,000 should be spent is necessary, while still maintaining the intent to provide financial opportunities to practitioners. Once the Taskforce has a proposal for a refreshed approach, this will come back to Council for consideration.

Impact of proposed reallocation

4.10 Moving $150,000 of funding from the Creative Tourism Event and the Arts Relief Package will reduce the scope of those two projects. However, the Taskforce feels the higher priority is to move ahead with establishing the new arts development agency, given the pivotal role that agency is to have in providing leadership and services to Nelson’s arts and creative sector. There is a clear logic to these projects coming under the umbrella of the new agency and the move will give the agency immediate relevance and credibility as a focal point in the sector.

Arts hub investigation

4.11 During discussion about the arts hub investigation, the Taskforce identified a need for a strategic mapping exercise of the current and potential future arts and creativity assets in Nelson City. This would form part of the work supporting the arts hub investigation.

4.12 The product would be a tool for Council and the community to guide decision making on current and future arts and creativity assets to ensure best value for money and best outcomes for the creative sector and wider community. It would identify opportunities to link the use of current and potential new facilities and ensure a spread of arts and creativity focal points across the city.

4.13 In addition to the mapping work, a working group within the Taskforce will be meeting with a consultant to input to an intitial scope for the arts hub.

5. Options

5.1 Arts Council Nelson grant

Option 1: Approve reallocating $50,000 from the Arts Relief Package and $100,000 from the Creative Tourism Initiative, to provide $150,000 to Arts Council Nelson to support its transition to an Arts Development Agency
Advantages	· Provides Arts Council Nelson with funding required to transition to an Arts Development Agency. · The funding will lay the groundwork for an expanded agency which can deliver better outcomes for the sector.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduces funding for the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package. · It may take some time before the outcomes of this funding are visible to the community as a sign of progress implementing He Tātai Whetū.
Option 2: Do not approve reallocating funding
Advantages	· The Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package will retain the funding originally assigned to them.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Arts Council Nelson will not have the support it requires to start transitioning into an Arts Development Agency.

6. Implementation of the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package

6.1 Option 1: Agree that Arts Council Nelson/the Arts Development Agency is the appropriate agency to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package
6.2 Advantages	· Arts Council Nelson is already a trusted and credible agency in the sector, and has existing relationships and networks to draw on. · This work would support Arts Council Nelson’s transition to an Arts Development Agency.
6.3 Risks and Disadvantages	· There is a risk that some in the community would have liked an opportunity to undertake this implementation work.
6.4 Option 2: Do not agree that Arts Council Nelson/the Arts Development Agency is the appropriate agency to implement the Creative Tourism Initiative and Arts Relief Package
6.5 Advantages	· Others in the community would be able to apply to undertake this work.
6.6 Risks and Disadvantages	· Loss of opportunity to support Arts Council Nelson in its transition to an arts development agency · Loss of opportunity to use the already established networks of Arts Council Nelson. · Delay in progressing these initiatives.

6. Next Steps

6.1 If Council approves the proposed adjustments to the Better Off Funding to activate implementing He Tātai Whetū, staff will contact the DIA to negotiate the adjustment to the current contract.

Author: Ailish Neyland, Policy Adviser

Authoriser: Nicky McDonald, Group Manager Strategy and Communications

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Approving adjustments to the funding allocated to the implementation of He Tātai Whetū fits with the purpose of local government by ensuring funding is used in the most effective way to support a sector that contributes to the cultural, economic and social wellbeing of communities.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation supports the following Community Outcomes:

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

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

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

Risk

The risk of the proposed adjustments is low, as it is a reallocation of existing funding and the amendments align with the direction of He Tātai Whetū and will progress its implementation.

Financial impact

The proposed adjustments are reallocating existing funding available so this would not impact other areas of Council funding.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance to the arts and creative sector and of low significance to the wider community. Discussions with Arts Council Nelson have been undertaken but no other engagement is proposed.

Climate Impact

The decision in this report will have no impact on the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 14: Tāhunanui Beach Unbudgeted Expenditure Request

Council

10 August 2023

REPORT R27841

Tāhunanui Beach Unbudgeted Expenditure Request

1. Purpose of Report

To request unbudgeted expenditure to plan and implement a short-term solution for erosion mitigation measures, and to investigate a long term solution for managing contaminated material at the Tāhunanui Beach raised carpark.

2. Summary

2.1 In 1968, Council resolved to allow sawdust from local timber businesses to be placed at a location at the western end of Tāhunanui Beach.

2.2 In 2022, due to concern about increasing erosion of the front of the sawdust pile, Council initiated chemical testing of the sawdust material.

2.3 In 2023, the sawdust material was found to be contaminated with timber treatment chemicals commonly used in the era when the material was accepted by Council (CCAB: copper, chromium, arsenic and boron). Dioxin contamination was also found.

2.4 The contaminated material is eroding on average about three metres annually.

2.5 This report recommends that, due to the known contamination, work is urgently undertaken to mitigate further erosion and manage risks associated with the sawdust and wood material.

2.6 Funding will be required for short-term erosion protection and long-term remediation. Currently there is no budget for this work.

2.7 Staff cannot, at this stage, advise Council about physical works for short-term or long-term actions. Staff will engage consultants with suitable specialist skills to assist Council to develop its action plan.

2.8 Further decision reports will be presented to Council in the coming months as the situation becomes clearer. However, given the urgency of this matter, this report recommends that Council makes an early unbudgeted commitment to interim physical works so erosion mitigation work can begin with minimal delay following completion of the consultants’ report.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Tāhunanui Beach Unbudgeted Expenditure Request (R27841) and its attachments (310955630-8811 and 310955630-8812); and

3. Allocates up to $350,000 of unbudgeted expenditure towards short term actions to mitigate the effects and risks arising from sawdust material placed at Tāhunanui Beach in the 1960s; and

4. Background

4.1 The western end Tāhunanui Beach is eroding as the Blind Channel moves eastwards. Almost 80 lineal metres of the Beach has been lost since 2000. 35 metres has eroded between February 2019 and December 2022.

4.2 Council has implemented a policy of ‘managed retreat’ since the adoption of the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan (RMP) in 2004 (http://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/Our-council/Downloads/tahuna-final-RMP.pdf ), removing fallen large trees, scoured carparks and roadways.

4.3 The RMP is specific to the management of coastal erosion, “there are no hard protection works planned for the western end of the beach, north of the embayment, even though car parks at the west end of the reserve are threatened by the eastward migration of the Blind Channel’. Further, “Car parks at the west end that are threatened by erosion will be closed as necessary and structures removed, rather than constructing protection works.”

4.4 As the Beach erodes, a high and wide face of sawdust and other wood material has been exposed at the raised carpark towards the western end of the Beach. This face has progressively eroded into the sea along with the surrounding dunes as the coast has retreated.

4.5 Erosion of the sawdust material began in 2019 and has continued at an average rate of around three metres a year since then. Initially logs and sawdust were seen and not presumed to be treated. A decision was made in 2022 to start testing the material for contamination.

Fig 1. Site of contaminated material 2022, showing historic extent of sawdust placed in 1968.

4.6 The sawdust and wood material was placed at the Tāhunanui Beach site following a Council decision in 1968. This request came about after millers, timber merchants and joinery factory owners were not able to continue to use a privately owned site they had previously used.

4.7 Council decided to stop placing further material at the beach site in 1969.

5. Discussion

Testing for contaminants

5.1 The sawdust was tested for contaminants in May 2023 following a decision in 2022 to enhance Council’s response to the ongoing erosion of the carpark. The results from this testing weren’t conclusive and consequently further testing was undertaken to determine the extent of the sawdust stockpile along with a more precise assessment of contaminants.

5.2 A more detailed assessment was undertaken in July 2023 to determine the presence of CCAB and other timber treatment chemicals, and the extent and dimensions of the sawdust stockpile. Consideration was also given to possible locations for safe disposal if required, based on recognised guidelines applicable to the Nelson and Tasman regions.

Results of testing

5.3 Results from the second assessment (Attachment 2) show that:

‘…multiple samples have elevated concentrations of CCAB associated with the sawdust. A number of arsenic results exceed the NESCS standard (Ministry for the Environment (2011) Resource Management, National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations for a recreation land use.’

‘Five of the sawdust samples were randomly selected for dioxin analysis. Dioxins were detected in all five of the samples analysed. Based on the PCDD TEQ value, two of the samples exceed the NESCS standard for a recreation land use. Dioxins are considered toxic and can be associated with the use of pentachlorophenol (PCP) which is a known wood preservative. PCP is no longer used in New Zealand. Dioxins are also associated with historical use in the pulp and paper industry. Dioxins can accumulate in the fats of animals and humans and have a half-life persistency of 7 11 years. Many of the contaminant concentrations that have been detected also exceed the ANZECC (Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, 2013) sediment quality guidelines.’

‘Much of the waste material is capped (protected) by the sealed car park and surrounding topsoil and / or sand, thus preventing direct human exposure. While the face of the sawdust pile along the foreshore is exposed to the public, it is not readily accessible and would not be a location where prolonged exposure occurs. The constant erosion of the wood waste from ongoing tides and storm surges exposes the marine environment to a number of potentially toxic and harmful contaminants, particularly the dioxins; however, it is a very dynamic environment with significant dispersion and dilution occurring.’

5.4 The report concludes that:

‘Ultimately the material should be removed from its current location primarily due to the constant erosion and discharge of material that is shown to have elevated contaminants present. One of the primary issues with removing it will be identifying a facility that can accept it’.

5.5 Work has been undertaken by a surveyor to provide a quantity assessment of the amount of material. The material to be moved is estimated to be approximately 5,900 cubic metres.

Risks

5.6 Environmental: The report states ‘The constant erosion of the wood waste from ongoing tides and storm surges exposes the marine environment to a number of potentially toxic and harmful contaminants, particularly the dioxins, however it is a very dynamic environment with significant dispersion and dilution occurring.’

5.7 To date there have been no assessments completed on surrounding shellfish or marine life to show that contaminated material has been adversary affected. Furthermore, it would be difficult to confirm that the contaminated material was the source, rather than toxins from rivers, streams, other coastal activities, or other tributaries that feed into Tasman Bay.

5.8 Community: The report states ‘Much of the waste material is capped (protected) by the sealed car park and surrounding topsoil and / or sand, thus preventing direct human exposure. While the face of the sawdust pile along the foreshore is exposed to the public, it is not readily accessible and would not be a location where prolonged exposure occurs.’

5.9 Reputational: The sawdust material was placed in this location because of an earlier Council decision in 1968. While the current Council can’t change actions taken at that time, it can act to minimise effects and risks now.

5.10 Financial: Cost of actions to be taken are unknown but will become clearer with further investigation and planning. Costs may be significant but central government funding assistance may be an option –investigation required.

Solutions and budgets

5.11 Short-term work

5.12 Urgent work now needs to begin to provide short-term mitigation against the erosion of contaminated material into the sea while a longer-term solution is found.

5.13 An expert marine consultant has been approached from Council’s Panel Consultants to provide short-term solutions for erosion mitigation measures, and consider longer-term solutions, costs, modelling and impacts.

5.14 Staff estimate that this phase of work could cost up to $100,000. A timeframe to complete this work has not been confirmed but would be undertaken with urgency.

5.15 Staff anticipate that the initial short-term mitigation work could cost up to $350,000, with the potential for ongoing maintenance costs depending on the time to implement a long-term solution. With the very limited amount of investigation completed to date this figure is a best guess estimate only.

5.16 These costs may be able to be capitalised, although depending on the timing between completing short-term and long-term works, this would be unlikely to spread the cost over a longer period.

5.17 Staff have reviewed existing operational Parks and Facilities budgets for any capacity to reallocate existing resource for this work but have not been able to find suitable options without significantly reducing delivery of core services.

5.18 The scale and scope of the issue was not known in time for inclusion in Council’s 2023/ 24 annual plan, hence the request for unbudgeted expenditure.

5.19 Long-term work

5.20 Staff anticipate the long-term works to cost in excess of $3 million dollars, based on indicative assessment to dispose of the material locally. This assessment assumes that the York Valley landfill will accept the material, which requires further investigation based on the concentration of contaminants and limits on what the Landfill can accept.

5.21 A further report about long term options and more accurate cost estimates will be presented to Council in the coming months.

5.22 It is anticipated that planning for a long-term solution will include:

5.22.1 assessing options to mitigate effects and risks (for example; chemical/ biological treatment, removal/ disposal, capping/ sealing)

5.22.2 resource consent conditions and actions that may arise

5.22.3 investigating the costs and benefits of options identified

5.22.4 advice of local iwi

5.22.5 site remediation and enhancement

5.22.6 stakeholder engagement

5.22.7 investigating potential funding partners (noting that the Mayor has already written to the Minister and Chief Executive of the Ministry for the Environment advising that Council will seek assistance from the Government’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. (See Attachment 1).

5.23 Costs incurred to date have been funded from the unprogrammed esplanade reserves budget (initial and follow-up testing). Unbudgeted expenditure is needed in order implement the recommendations from this work.

5.24 Long-term financial impacts will be assessed as part of the consultant’s investigation and will reported to Council in the coming months.

Desired long-term solution

5.25 The desired long-term objectives in the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan include;

5.25.1 “ To manage and plan for the effects of coastal erosion and enhance the natural healing of the fore-dunes;

5.25.2 To reduce the adverse effects of activities that exacerbate dune erosion;

5.25.3 To provide a safe and pleasant environment for all visitors to the Reserve;

5.25.4 To enhance and protect the significant ecological values of the back beach embayment and dune landforms.”

5.26 These objectives from the RMP will be taken into consideration in the consultants’ investigations.

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented – to approve or not approve the requested unbudgeted expenditure. Staff recommend option 1.

Option 1: Approve unbudgeted expenditure of up to $450k for consultant and funding of short-term solutions (recommended)
Advantages	· Obtain expert advice to manage the contaminated material · Proactively enhance and protect the back beach and front dunes · Protect the marine environment and members of the public who frequent the area · Public see that Council is proactively managing a complex environment and social issue · Reduced reputational risk to Council and community
Risks and Disadvantages	· Allocation of unbudgeted expenditure
Option 2: Do not allocate budget for consultant and funding of short term solutions
Advantages	· No allocation of unbudgeted expenditure
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reputational risk to Council and Community · The marine environment is at risk of more contaminants entering the ecosystem · Council is not seen to be acting on an environmental issue · Possible environmental compliance issues

7. Conclusion

7.1 The allocation of unbudgeted expenditure is required to provide an expert consultant to advise on mitigation against the continued erosion of contaminated material into the immediate environment. It will also allow short-term remediation work to start with minimal delay once the consultants’ recommendations have been received.

8. Next Steps

8.1 A consultant will be commissioned to advise on solutions.

8.2 Short term mitigation against the erosion of contaminated material into the sea will start as soon as possible.

8.3 Longer-term solutions, costs, modelling and impacts can start to be assessed with work starting as soon as decisions have been made.

Author: Sarah Clarke, Team Leader Parks

Authoriser: Andrew White, Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Attachment 1: 310955630-8811 - Mayor's letter to Ministry of Environment - 3 August 2023 ⇩

Attachment 2: 310955630-8812 - Envirolink - Tahuna Stockpile - 2 August 2023 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

a) provides a framework and powers for local authorities to decide which activities they undertake and the manner in which they will undertake them; and

b) promotes the accountability of local authorities to their communities; and

c) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Further investigations will need to consider the consistency with community outcomes and council policy.

Risk

Should the recommendations be approved the risk can be assessed more fully with expert advice. The likelihood of adverse consequences is high if this advice is not sought.

The risk to Council reputation, public health and safety issues, relationship with Iwi and the cultural importance of the back beach and associated land is significant if a more detailed assessment of the issue is not completed.

Financial impact

Seeking unbudgeted expenditure for both investigation phase and initial work. Future costs are hard to quantify prior to receiving the consultants’ recommendations but are likely to be significant.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of the high use the capped carpark on the material has, and its ongoing effect on local dunes, back beach, associated land-owners and the sea. Additionally, this area is of high local significance culturally, for tourism and commercial interests. An engagement/consultation plan will be developed as part of the investigation.

Climate Impact

Climate impact will be considered in the investigation phase.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi Chief Executives and General Managers have been advised of the issue prior to this meeting. Iwi will be engaged in the process to develop the remediation options report.

Delegations

This decision is a matter for Council.

Activity	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	2022/23
Parking	1522	1427	1544	1063	1182
Dog Control	1913	1693	1613	1500	1678
Resource consent monitoring	1562	2496	1436	1318	1013
Noise nuisance	1214	1360	1453	1533	1428
Bylaw / Building / Planning	562	560	544	444	484
Pollution	289	256	317	307	245
Stock	114	78	84	82	68