Agenda of Council - Thursday, 7 March 2024

Nelson City Council

7 March 2024

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

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 1 February 2024 11 - 24

Document number M20428

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 1 February 2024, as a true and correct record.

6. Recommendations from Committees 25 - 58

6.1 Audit, Risk and Finance Committee - 14 February 2024

6.1.1 Draft Treasury Management Policy including Liability Management and Investment Policies

A copy of the Draft Treasury Management Policy is attached on page 24.

That the Council

1. Adopts the amended Treasury Management Policy (438494377-3833).

7. Presentation - City of Nelson Civic Trust

Roger Nicholson, Chair of the City of Nelson Civic Trust and trustees Karen Stade and Cathy Knight will give a presentation.

8. Mayor's Report 59 - 65

Document number R28390

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28390) and its attachments (1118544611-7597, 1118544611-7617 and 1118544611-7623); and

2. Appoints the Chairperson (or nominee) of the Climate Change Taskforce as an alternative representative on the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.

9. Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan 66 - 107

Document number R27962

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report (R27962) on the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 and its attachments (174474956-876 and 174474956-593); and

2. Adopts the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 (174474956-876); and

3. Approves Nelson City Council as the lead or support agency for the specific actions for implementing identified in the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 (174474956-593).

10. Tāhunanui Back Beach Site Remediation - Options Report 108 - 164

Document number R28060

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Tāhunanui Back Beach Site Remediation - Options Report (R28060) and its attachments (196698121-55850, 196698121-55851 and 196698121-56102); and

2. Confirms that the best option to remediate the contamination is to remove the contaminated sawdust and sand from Tāhunanui Back Beach to York Valley Landfill and to restore the site by grading and planting to establish low level dunes and establishing a smaller alternative carpark at Tāhunanui Back Beach for an estimated cost of $5.8m; and

3. Confirms that site remediation at Tāhunanui Back Beach requires a significant portion of the $5.8m estimated cost to be funded by Central Government through its Ministry for the Environment Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund; and

4. Requests the Chief Executive to continue discussions with the Government to confirm its commitment to provide significant funding towards Council’s preferred option of removing the contaminated sawdust and sand from Tāhunanui Back Beach to York Valley Landfill and to restore Tāhunanui Back Beach by grading and planting to establish low level dunes and establishing a smaller alternative carpark at the subject site for an estimated cost of $5.8m; and

5. Requests the Chief Executive to report back once Central Government has advised its commitment to funding for remediation and restoration of Tāhunanui Back Beach; and

6. Confirms that until a permanent solution is implemented the Tāhunanui Back Beach will continue to be managed to contain the contamination.

11. Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round November 2023 165 - 176

Document number R28210

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round November 2023 (R28210) and its attachments (636034393-11929 and 636034393-11966); and

2. Receives the minutes from the Community Investment Fund meeting held on 29 November 2023 and notes the funding decisions taken.

12. PLACEHOLDER - Draft Car Share Operation Policy

13. Infrastructure Six Monthly Report 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 177 - 196

Document number R28227

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Six Monthly Report 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 (R28227) and its attachments (1530519604-13277, 1833911234-1291 and 1833911234-1292); and

2. Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $400,000 in 2023/24 to complete Saxtons Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade for the reasons detailed in Report R28227; and

3. Approves unbudgeted additional renewal funding of $400,000 in 2023/24 to address urgent remedial works to key bus routes and bus stops before the onset of winter.

14. Environmental Management Six Monthly Report - 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 197 - 208

Document number R28279

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Six Monthly Report - 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 (R28279).

15. Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel 209 - 218

Document number R28354

Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel (R28354) and its attachment (539570224-19202); and

2. Notes the Council Resolution CL/2023/177 on 10 August 2023 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; and

3. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel (539570224-19202); and

4. Delegates functions, duties, and powers under section 34A(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel to consider, hear, deliberate and decide on all submissions and further submissions received on Plan Change 29; and

5. Approves the appointment of one additional Independent Commissioner to the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel; and

6. Confirms the Nelson City Council Delegations Register will be updated to include the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel.

Confidential Business

16. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Council

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

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

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Council Meeting - Confidential Minutes - 1 February 2024	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) · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person · Section 7(2)(j) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage
2	Appointment of additional Commissioner - Plan Change 29 To enable the engagement of the Commissioner to be negotiated	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)
3	Inner City Development	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)(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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
4	Proposed Property Purchase for Seasports Facility and Sale of Part of Haven Road Property	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)
5	Haven Precinct Proposed Acquisition	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
6	Proposed acquisition of land for reserve in Nelson	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
7	Proposed Road Stopping Part of Neale Avenue	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
8	The Community Events Fund - Moving Decision Making to Council	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
9	Trustee Rotation - Nelson Festivals Trust	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
10	Kiwisaver Contributions	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

Karakia Whakamutanga

Nelson City Council Minutes - 1 February 2024

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 1 February 2024, commencing at 9.01a.m.

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

In Attendance: Chief Executive (N Philpott), Deputy Chief Executive/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 Governance Adviser (H Wagener)

Apologies : Nil

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

No apologies were received.

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

There was no change to the order of business.

3. Interests

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

4. Public Forum

There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 14 December 2023

Document number M20414, agenda pages 11 - 39 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/001

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 14 December 2023, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Rainey Carried

6. Confirmation of Minutes - 7 December 2023

Document number R28296, agenda pages 40 - 48 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/002

That the Council

1. Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 7 December 2023, as a true and correct record.

Hodgson/Rollo Carried

7. The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust Strategic Presentation

Document number R28239

Chair of the Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Steve Green, Director, Julie Catchpole, and Manager Commerce and Enterprise, Ruth Roebuck presented a PowerPoint presentation (1982984479-7131) and answered questions about using green energy, development of a market strategy and collaboration with local artists.

Attachments

1 1982984479-7131 - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust Strategic Presentation

8. Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Annual Report

Document number R28171, agenda pages 49 - 98 refer.

The Chair of Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust, Ru Collins presented a PowerPoint presentation (982984479-7130) and answered questions about securing bio-diversity credits and patronage of the e-bus service by visitors of the sanctuary.

Resolved CL/2024/003
	*That the Council* 1. Receives the report Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust Annual Report (R28171) and its attachment (2134162460-1151).
His Worship the Mayor/Sanson Carried
	Attachments 1 1982984479-7130 - Brook Waimārama Sanctuary Presentation

9. Nelson Events Strategy implementation update

Document number R28240, agenda pages 99 - 109 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald and Policy Adviser, Ailish Neyland took the report as read and answered questions on Council facilitation of community events and the role of Nelson Regional Development Agency.

Resolved CL/2024/004

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Events Strategy implementation update (R28240) and its attachment (839498445-17987); and

2. Approves increasing the delegation levels for the Nelson Events Fund as outlined below:

a. The Events Development Committee may approve funding up to $45,000; and

b. The Chief Executive may approve funding between $45,001 and $99,999; and

c. Council may approve funding of $100,000 or above.

Sanson/Rollo Carried

10. Nelson Tasman Business Trust Annual Report 2022/23

Document number R28241, agenda pages 110 - 128 refer.

Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald and Policy Adviser, Ailish Neyland took the report as read and answered questions on annual funding by Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council and the breakdown of businesses supported by Nelson Tasman Business Trust in Nelson and Tasman District.

Resolved CL/2024/005

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson Tasman Business Trust Annual Report 2022/23 (R28241) and its attachments (839498445-17977 and 839498445-17976).

Sanson/Brand Carried

11. Mayor's Report

Document number R28311, agenda pages 129 - 132 refer.

His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Smith took the report as read and answered questions on engagement with central government about remediation of contaminated soil at Tāhunanui Beach and policy options for Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology.

Resolved CL/2024/006

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28311).

Courtney/Brand Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 10.07a.m. until 10.18a.m.

12. Approval of Draft Financial Strategy as supporting information for Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation

Document number R28265, agenda pages 133 - 157 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison took the report as read. Ms Harrison and Group Manager Strategy and Communications, Nicky McDonald answered questions on the distinction, implications and equity of using rateable units or occupiable units as the basis for setting the storm recovery rate in the Long Term Plan, how equitable the implementation of the proposed $330 including GST per rating unit for the recovery targeted rate would be on various categories of residential property and the appropriate time to change supporting information for consultation on the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

Resolved CL/2024/007

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval of Draft Financial Strategy as supporting information for Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation (R28265) and its attachment (1852948764-480); and

2. Approves the Draft Financial Strategy (1852948764-480) as supporting information for the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation process in accordance with sections 93G and 101A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. Agrees that His Worship Mayor Hon Dr Smith and the Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve any minor amendments required to the Financial Strategy prior to it being made available as supporting information during the Long Term Plan consultation process, including any amendments necessary to address audit requirements or any legislative changes prior to the consultation occurring.

Skinner/Hodgson Carried

13. Draft Revenue and Financing Policy for Consultation

Document number R28112, agenda pages 158 - 196 refer.

Group Manager Corporate Services, Nikki Harrison, took the report as read and answered questions on inclusion of properties undertaking biodiversity enhancements as forestry property rating and voluntary residential property targeted rates for installation of solar panels.

Resolved CL/2024/008

That the Council

1. Receives the report Draft Revenue and Financing Policy for Consultation (R28112) and its attachment (1852948764-352); and

2. Approves the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy (1852948764-352) for public consultation in accordance with sections 102, 103, 82 and 82A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. Agrees that the consultation on the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy will occur at the same time as the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation process; and

4. Agrees that His Worship Mayor Hon Dr Smith and the Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve any minor amendments required to the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy prior to it being made available for public consultation, including any amendments necessary to address audit requirements or any legislative changes prior to the consultation occurring.

Courtney/Sanson Carried

14. Proposed changes to Council's fees and charges for 2024/25

Document number R28216, agenda pages 197 - 279 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop, Strategic Adviser, Michelle Joubert and Strategic Adviser Community Services, Martin Croft took the report as read and answered questions on proposed increased dog registration fees, library fees and boat ramp fees. Ms. Bishop answered questions on partial cost recovery of resource consent fees. Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis answered questions on the proposed increase in the charges at the regional York Valley landfill and in relation to the proposed Solid Waste charges at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre.

Resolved CL/2024/009

That the Council

1. Receives the report Proposed changes to Council's fees and charges for 2024/25 (R28216) and its attachments (1598046314-141), (1598046314-132) and (1598046314-140); and

2. Adopts the proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges in Attachment 1 (1598046314-141) noting that those fees do not require consultation; and

3. Approves subject to the Long Term plan consultation process on the Regional Landfill fees, an increase of 17.7% (rounded for cash handling) to Solid Waste charges at the Nelson Waste Recovery Centre (as set out in Attachment 1(1598046314-141)) effective 1 July 2024; and

4. Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Schedule of Fees and Charges in Attachment 2 (1598046314-132) for those fees and charges that must be consulted on using the Special Consultative Procedure under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. Notes that all proposed fee changes in this report that are not approved by Council, will be consulted on using the same process (even where the Special Consultative Procedure is not required); and

6. Agrees a summary of information in the Statement of Proposal is not necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in section 5.10 of this report) and agrees:

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

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

The motion was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Smith (Chairperson)

Cr Anderson

Cr Benge

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr Hodgson

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Paki Paki

Cr Rainey

Cr Rollo

Cr Sanson

Cr Stallard

Against

Cr Skinner

Abstained/Interest

The motion was carried 12 - 1.

Sanson/Paki Paki Carried

15. Dedication of Council land to Legal Road - Wastney Terrace

Document number R28242, agenda pages 280 - 286 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure, Alec Louverdis took the report as read and answered questions on tracking Council.

Resolved CL/2024/010

That the Council

1. Receives the report Dedication of Council land to Legal Road - Wastney Terrace (R28242) and its attachments (1862260321-63192 , 1862260321-63193); and

2. Agrees to dedicate the portion of Road Reserve shown in Attachment 2 (1862260321-63193) of Report R28242 (Lot 9 DP15070 Wastney Terrace, Nelson) as legal road pursuant to Section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

His Worship the Mayor/Paki Paki Carried

16. Exclusion of the Public

Fiona Wilson of Nelson Regional Development Agency was in attendance for Item 4 Statement of Expectations 2024-2027 - Nelson Regional Development Agency of the Confidential agenda to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution is required to be passed:

Resolved CL/2024/011

That the Council

1. Confirms in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, Fiona Wilson of Nelson Regional Development Agency, remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 4 Statement of Expectations 2024-2027 - Nelson Regional Development Agency of the Confidential agenda, as she has knowledge relating to the Nelson Regional Development Agency that will assist the meeting.

His Worship the Mayor/Skinner Carried

Resolved CL/2024/012

That the Council

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

His Worship the Mayor/Skinner 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 - 14 December 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)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 48(1)(d) That the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in any proceedings to which this paragraph applies. Section 48(2) Paragraph (d) of subsection (1) applies to - (a) Any proceedings before a local authority where - (i) A right of appeal lies to any Court or tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings; or (ii) The local authority is required, by any enactment, to make a recommendation in respect of the matter that is the subject of those proceedings; and c) Any proceedings of a local authority in relation to any application or objection under the Marine Farming Act 1971. · Section 7(2)(j) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
2	Confirmation of Minutes - 7 December 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)(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)
3	Visitor Information Services - proposed current and future approach	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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
4	Statement of Expectations 2024-2027 - Nelson Regional Development Agency	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)
5	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust	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) · Section 7(2)(j) To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage
6	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - Nelmac Limited	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
7	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - Nelson Marina	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
8	Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Iwi Representative Appointment	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person

The meeting went into confidential session at 12.05p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.05p.m.

Karakia Whakamutanga

17. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

2	Visitor Information Services - proposed current and future approach
	4. Agrees that the report (R28099) and decision remain confidential at this time.

3	Statement of Expectations 2024-2027 - Nelson Regional Development Agency
	3. Agrees that Report (R28096), Attachment (839498445-17571) and the decision be made publicly available once the completed Nelson Regional Development Agency Statement of Expectations is published on the Nelson City Council website approximately 30 days after it is received by the Nelson Regional Development Agency Board.

4	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust
	4. Agrees that Report (R28032) and the decision be made publicly available once the completed Statement of Expectations has been published on the Nelson City Council website, approximately 30 days after it is received by the Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust.

5	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - Nelmac Limited
	5. Agrees that Report (R28118) and the decision be made publicly available once the completed Statement of Expectations is published on the Nelson City Council website, approximately 30 days after it is received by the Nelmac Board.

6	Statement of Expectations 2024/25 - Nelson Marina
	4. Agrees that Report (R28106) and the decision be made publicly available once the completed Statement of Expectations is published on the Nelson City Council website, approximately 30 days after it is received by the Nelson Marina Board.

Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit Iwi Representative Appointment

4. Agrees that the report and decision only be made public once the candidate has been advised of both councils’ decisions; and

5. Agrees the attachment (1833911234-755) remains confidential.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 3.05p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 8: Mayor's Report

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Mayor's Report

Report Author: Hon Dr Nick Smith - Mayor

Report Number: R28390

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide an update on a directive to fluoridate Nelson City Council’s water supply including an extension of time.

1.2 To appoint an alternative representative on the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.

1.3 To provide an update on spending from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund.

1.4 To acknowledge Councillor Trudie Brand, who was Acting Mayor for eight days in February.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28390) and its attachments (1118544611-7597, 1118544611-7617 and 1118544611-7623); and

2. Appoints the Chairperson (or nominee) of the Climate Change Taskforce as an alternative representative on the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.

3. Discussion

Fluoridation

3.1 Nelson City Council received a directive in August 2022 to add fluoride to the Nelson water supply by 30 April 2024 under the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021. Council faces a potential fine of $200,000 or $10,000 per day if it does not comply with the directive.

3.2 The directive to Nelson City Council was one of 14 directions to fluoridate made by the Director-General of Health.

3.3 A legal challenge by way of a judicial review was heard in the High Court. On 10 November 2023, the High Court issued its judgment on the preliminary issue, finding that the Director-General of Health made an error of law by not giving adequate consideration to the Bill of Rights in issuing the directions. The High Court did not set aside the directions, but further proceedings are under way to determine the implications of the finding and what relief may be granted.

3.4 Council was advised on 17 November 2023 by the Ministry of Health that the directive still stands and the Ministry was considering the implications of the judgment.

3.5 My concern is that, as the largest Council facing the requirement to fluoridate since the High Court’s decision, we risk getting caught in a legal dispute between the Director-General of Health and opponents of fluoridation. We do not want to get offside with Ministry of Health or incur any fines for non-compliance with the directive. Nor do we wish to incur legal costs by being challenged by opponents of fluoridation for proceeding when the process by which the directive was issued has been found to have an error of law.

3.6 Council officers raised concerns with me in February about the uncertainty. I wrote to the Minister of Health on 15 February 2024 (see Attachment 1 1118544611-7597), copying the Director-General of Health, seeking clarification and Council received responses dated 22 February 2024 (Attachment 2 1118544611-7617 and Attachment 3 1118544611-7623). I appreciate the prompt responses, which advise that the court has subsequently directed the Director-General of Health to assess whether each of the 14 directions made in 2022, including Nelson’s, were consistent with the Bill of Rights.

3.7 The Director-General of Health has granted an extension for Nelson City Council to fluoridate its water supply to 31 December 2024. We hope there is certainty by the time we reach this new deadline.

3.8 I am quite satisfied about the safety of fluoridating water supplies and the significant oral health benefits, particularly for children. The reason I support the delay until 31 December 2024 is respect for legal process and decisions of the courts.

3.9 The law change in 2021 took the decision about fluoridation off Councils. Our role now is simply one of complying with New Zealand law and its interpretation by the courts and, if after reassessment, the Director-General of Health’s direction to proceed remains, Council must ensure the necessary engineering work is completed and the addition of fluoride is safely implemented.

Representation at Nelson Tasman Climate Forum meetings

3.10 The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor are the appointed Council representatives to attend meetings of the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum. To ensure consistent coverage of these meetings, it is proposed that if either of the appointed representatives is unable to attend a meeting, the Chairperson of the Climate Change Taskforce or nominee (from the membership of the Climate Change Taskforce where possible) be delegated as an alternative representative.

Mayoral Discretionary Fund

3.11 A total of $5000 was paid from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund in December 2023 to the Fifeshire Foundation for the 12th annual Big Give Christmas Appeal to provide gift parcels for families in need.

3.12 As a result of the 2023 appeal, 305 parcels were gifted to families in hardship, reaching 1314 individuals including 987 children. The estimated value of the donations and gifts was $50,000 including sponsorship, cash donations, gifts, donated or discounted vouchers and activities, treats and toys.

3.13 In addition to the $5000 from the Mayoral Discretionary Fund, Council staff also helped assemble the gift parcels.

Acting Mayor appreciation

3.14 I would like to thank Councillor Trudie Brand for fulfilling the role of Acting Mayor so well over eight days in early February 2024 while both myself and Deputy Mayor Rohan O'Neill-Stevens were abroad.

3.15 As Acting Mayor, Councillor Brand spoke at the launch of the 2024 Nelson Fringe Festival and the start of the new academic year for the newly named and growing NZ Myanmar Victory School Nelson. In the role of Acting Mayor, Councillor Brand also represented Council at a meeting of the Nelson Women’s Centre and the presentation of a British Nuclear Test Medal to Royal New Zealand Navy veteran Neil Balloch.

3.16 During this time, Councillor Brand also kept her fellow Elected Members updated on the progress of the battle to contain a blaze in the Lee Valley that started on 7 February 2024.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1118544611-7597 Letter Hon Dr Shane Reti fluoridation clarification 15Feb2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: 1118544611-7617 DG response to Hon Dr Nick Smith February 2024 ⇩

Attachment 3: 1118544611-7623 Letter from DG of Health to Nigel Philpott regarding fluoridation ⇩

Item 9: Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan

Report Author: Scott Butcher - Environmental Programmes Advisor

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R27962

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the recommendations of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group, adopt the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 and agree to Council leading or supporting implementation of specific targets from the Action Plan.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report (R27962) on the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 and its attachments (174474956-876 and 174474956-593); and

2. Adopts the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 (174474956-876); and

3. Background

3.1 The Waimea Inlet is the largest semi-enclosed coastal inlet in the South Island and has international and national importance as a site for migratory birds.

3.2 The Waimea Inlet Management Strategy (Strategy) was developed in 2010 to coordinate a cross-regional approach for the care of the Inlet, which lies within both Nelson and Tasman regions.

3.3 Council is a signatory to the 2010 Strategy, along with Tasman District Council (TDC), the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Fish and Game.

3.4 The Waimea Inlet Coordination Group (the Group) was established in mid-2017 and developed the Waimea Inlet Action Plan (Action Plan) to give effect to the Strategy. The Action Plan was adopted by Council on 20 June 2019.

3.5 In June 2023 the Group completed a review of the 2010 Strategy and 2019 Action Plan, and an outcome of this process has resulted in combining both documents into a new revised document: the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 (Attachment 1 (174474956-876)).

3.6 Both the Strategy and Action Plan are non-statutory documents, aimed at maintaining and improving the health of the Inlet.

Waimea Inlet Coordination Group

3.7 Current members of the Group include representatives from Council, TDC, the Department of Conservation (DOC), Fish & Game, Waimea Inlet Forum (WIF), Tasman Environmental Trust (TET), and Te Tauihu iwi. Councillor Sanson is Council’s representative on the Group.

3.8 The role of the Group is to “identify, prioritise and coordinate the actions needed to achieve implementation of the Strategy and collate these into a proposed Action Plan.”

3.9 The Group is not a decision-making body. Section 7 of the Group’s terms of reference set out its powers to recommend:

“Each of the signatories of the Strategy is requested to review, consider and sign off on any updates to the Strategy and/or Action Plan that are proposed by the Coordination Group.

With regard to the Action Plan, signatories should focus on those specific actions that their organisation would like to assist with or take a lead on and sign off on those specific actions – rather than the Action Plan in its entirety. As the Action Plan will represent the collective effort of a wide range of organisations, groups and individuals, signatories are unlikely to be involved in all proposed actions.”

3.10 The full terms of reference for the Group are included as an appendix to the revised Strategy and Action Plan (Attachment 1).

Review of the Strategy and Action Plan

3.11 In April 2020, TDC secured $1.6m from the Ministry for the Environment to assist with implementation of the Action Plan. While most of the funding went towards ecological restoration initiatives, some was allocated to a review of the previous Strategy and Action Plan.

3.12 Work on the review has taken place over the past two years, facilitated by TDC. All Group member organisations, including Council and several Te Tauihu iwi, actively participated in the drafting process. Early consensus was reached on the proposal of combining the Strategy and Action Plan into a single document and reducing the Strategy’s scope to an overarching vision and desired outcomes.

Consultation on the draft Strategy and Action Plan

3.13 A draft of the revised Strategy and Action Plan was published on Council’s website in December 2022 and interested parties and individuals notified, requesting their feedback by 10 March 2023. Written feedback was received from seven groups and individuals. An in-person workshop on the Action Plan was held on 22 February 2023 with the Group then revising the Action Plan, to incorporate feedback received.

3.14 The resulting ‘Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026’ represents the collective effort of a wide range of organisations and individuals.

3.15 TDC adopted the Strategy and Action Plan on 24 August 2023.

4. Discussion

4.1 Council officers have identified which actions and targets in the Action Plan the Council is recommended to sign up to, either as lead or supporting agency. This information is appended as Attachment 2 (174474956-59) to this report.

4.2 While some of the actions and targets identified in the Action Plan are the responsibility of other agencies (e.g., TDC, DOC), many relate to Council’s core business and require involvement of teams across Council.

4.3 The table in Attachment 2 sets out whether this is an existing or future task for Council, whether funding is included in current budgeting, whether any additional funding and/or staff time is required, which Council team is responsible for working on the target, and who the proposed lead and support organisations are.

4.4 Many of the actions and targets identified in the Action Plan relate to tasks that Council has existing resources allocated, a few may require additional funding or staff time allocated to them, depending on future scoping of these actions.

4.5 One reason for the updating of the Action Plan is to have an investment ready document that external (i.e non-Council) funders can refer to when considering funding applications.

5. Options

5.1 The options are outlined below. Council can choose to adopt the Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 in its entirety or decide not to support the strategy. The preferred option is Option 1 - to adopt the Strategy and Action Plan in its entirety.

Option 1: Adopt the Strategy and Action Plan in its entirety – preferred option
Advantages	· Council demonstrates its commitment as a collaborative partner of the Waimea Inlet Coordination Group. · More effective and efficient achievement of environmental outcomes for Waimea Inlet through a collaborative strategic approach. · Council understands the resources (staff and funding) required to achieve the specific targets. Where unbudgeted additional funding is identified, Council can support these targets in principle, subject to future funding decisions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional resourcing may be required to implement actions in future years of the Action Plan. · There is a risk that signing up to the Action Plan in its entirety may raise unrealistic community expectations. For example, some people may expect Council to take all the responsibility for achieving targets and/or have unrealistic expectations about how quickly targets can be achieved.
Option 2: Decide not to adopt the Strategy and Action Plan
Advantages	· No adjustments to current work programmes would be necessary.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Targets are not achieved or take longer for others to achieve. · Council’s reputation as a collaborative partner in this process may be at risk, if the Strategy and Action Plan is not supported in some way.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Officers are seeking consideration and approval of the revised Strategy and Action Plan.

6.2 Officers recommend signing up to specific actions/targets listed in the Strategy and Action Plan that Council can assist or lead on, so that work can begin on its implementation.

7. Next Steps

7.1 Once the Strategy and Action Plan has been formally adopted by Group member organisations, implementation can proceed.

7.2 The Action Plan is intended to be a living document that may be amended over time, in response to new knowledge and changing circumstances.

7.3 Once adopted, the Group will continue to report annually on progress with implementing the Action Plan and review it every three years. The next report will be prepared in November 2024.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 174474956-876 Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2050 and Action Plan 2023 to 2026 - June2023 ⇩

Attachment 2: 174475956-593 Actions for Implementing the Waimea Inlet Action Plan 2023-2026 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Adoption of the revised Waimea Inlet Strategy and Action Plan provides a strategic framework for key stakeholders to work together to improve the Waimea Inlet. It will result in coordinated action with greater impact than would have been the case otherwise.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Strategy and Action Plan supports the Long-Term Plan’s Community Outcome that:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected. In particular that we treasure, protect and restore our special places and landscapes.

The Strategy and Action Plan addresses many of the priorities that are also included in the Nelson Biodiversity Strategy including:

· Outcome 2: Rare and representative examples of native communities and protected and restored.

· Outcome 4: Degraded indigenous ecosystems are restored and then sustained.

· Outcome 5: Biodiversity is resilient in the face of climate change.

Risk

The Waimea Inlet Management Strategy and Action Plan has gone through extensive consultation to ensure that actions are achievable. Due to this consultation, it is highly likely that the Strategy and Action Plan will achieve specified actions. If variations do occur, they are expected to be minor.

The possible extent of adverse consequences is low due to the proposed actions being similar to activities that have occurred in the past, which were limited to the Council section of the Waimea Inlet and primarily Whakatu Drive.

Several actions in the Plan are investigations which will guide future actions, so they have little risk associated with them.

Financial impact

Many of the actions listed are already underway. The cost of implementing these is expected to fit within existing budgets and can be accommodated in existing work programs. Minor additional staff time may be required in future years if actions become more resource intensive than originally anticipated. If additional funding is required, it could be allocated through future LTP or Annual Planning processes.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of lower significance based on listed Council Significance criteria. However, for the criteria “Historic or reasonable expectation of interest,” the Waimea Inlet does have particular significance to Iwi and the local community. Therefore, the engagement undertaken specifically sought out and included them.

Climate Impact

The Strategy and Action Plan include several actions that are a direct response to climate change adaptation, these include the following:

· Further investigations into the impacts of climate change on the Inlet.

· Where possible, facilitating the retreat of saltmarsh and edge vegetation.

· Building ecosystem resilience into existing estuarine vegetation remnants.

· Where possible reducing environmental impacts on the Inlet that may make it more suspectable to the impacts of climate change.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The TDC facilitator (Peter Lawless) engaged with Iwi on the revised Strategy and Action Plan throughout its development. Before release for public consultation an early draft was presented by Council officers at a Te Ohu Taiao meeting on 31 October 2022 to outline progress of early draft development stages.

Te Tauihu iwi have an open invitation to become signatories to the Strategy, to appoint representatives to the Group and participate in the implementation, review and monitoring of the Strategy and Action Plan. Seven of the eight iwi have attended one or more of the quarterly Group hui held since mid-2018, but Rangitane has not had the time/capacity to engage.

Legal context

· Council has power to make this decision.

· Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. In relation to this decision, this requires specific consideration of adequate consultation. Consultation has occurred to incorporate all stakeholders with an interest in Waimea Inlet. This is not a statutory document so legal risk is low.Legal advice has been sought from Council’s legal team.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 10: Tāhunanui Back Beach Site Remediation - Options Report

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Tāhunanui Back Beach Site Remediation - Options Report

Report Author: Hannah Curwood - Manager Parks and Facilities

Report Authoriser: Andrew White - Group Manager Community Services

Report Number: R28060

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To present options for addressing the sawdust contamination problem at Tāhunanui Back Beach and to select the preferred option.

2. Summary

2.1 Contaminated sawdust that was placed at Tāhunanui Back Beach in the 1960s requires remediation, along with the reinstatement of the dunes. Additionally, underlying sand is contaminated and necessitates remediation as well.

2.2 A report by Tonkin and Taylor recommends both the sawdust and sand are removed to the York Valley Landfill, the site is remediated to establish low-level planted dunes AND either:

· a formalised off-site parking area is established or;

· a smaller alternative carpark at the subject site is established (officers recommend this option).

Unbudgeted expenditure of up to $5,800,000 is required for this project, and staff are working closely with the Ministry for the Environment to seek funds towards this.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Tāhunanui Back Beach Site Remediation - Options Report (R28060) and its attachments (196698121-55850, 196698121-55851 and 196698121-56102); and

5. Requests the Chief Executive to report back once Central Government has advised its commitment to funding for remediation and restoration of Tāhunanui Back Beach; and

6. Confirms that until a permanent solution is implemented the Tāhunanui Back Beach will continue to be managed to contain the contamination.

4. Background

4.1 In 1968 Council permitted sawdust from local timber businesses to be placed at a location at the western end of Tāhunanui Beach.

4.2 Records identifying these businesses have not been found.

4.3 In 2022 Council initiated chemical testing of the sawdust material due to increasing erosion of the front of the sawdust pile exposing sawdust and wood offcuts.

4.4 In 2023 the sawdust material was found to be contaminated with timber treatment chemicals commonly used in the 1960s (CCAB: copper, chromium, arsenic and boron). Dioxin contamination was also found.

4.5 At its 10 August 2023 meeting Council received a report summarising the issues and requesting funding for investigation and short-term mitigation. It was resolved:

CL/2023/183

That the Council:

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

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

4.6 A report by consultants Envirolink was presented to the meeting which noted the following:

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.

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.

Consideration should be given to protecting the face of the stockpile along the foreshore from periodic erosion.

A short-term solution was put in place to contain the sawdust and prevent further dispersal of the contaminated material into the local environment. The exposed sawdust bank is wrapped with geotextile fabric and covered with a sand bund, with sand sourced from the adjacent foreshore. An asphalt bund was constructed to redirect stormwater from the carpark area away from the face of the bank and bund, and down the access track to the beach. The sand bund is intended to gradually erode (in place of the sawdust face) and requires maintenance. To date, maintenance of the sand bund has occurred in October, December and February. Ongoing maintenance will continue until the site is remediated.

4.7 The council has submitted a funding assistance request to the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. An application was filed for Phase 3 (remediation planning) in September 2023, amounting to $573,402. As of the current writing, this application is in the final stages of processing. Officers will provide an update to elected members at the March 7 meeting. Additionally, an application for Phase 4 (site remediation) will be pursued, ensuring that all potential MFE funding avenues are explored to cover the $5.8 million expense.

4.8 In addition, the Mayor has written to and been liaising with the Minister for the Environment.

5. Discussion

Tonkin and Taylor options report

5.1 The Tonkin and Taylor (T+T) report Tahunanui Back Beach – sawdust remedial options and site reinstatement assessment 2024 (T+T 2024) provides background information and options/recommendations for both the remediation of the contamination and the subsequent re-instatement of the site (refer Attachment 1 196698121-55850). T+T has also produced a summary document which is provided as Attachment 2 (196698121-55851).

5.2 T+T's assessment indicates approximately 5,930m3 of contaminated sawdust. In October 2023, T+T conducted additional testing on the capping material above the sawdust and the sand below it. The capping material, comprising topsoil and car park sub-grade, is deemed clean fill and can be reused on-site or elsewhere if separated from the sawdust. Testing of the sand beneath the sawdust has confirmed the presence of timber treatment chemicals, likely due to leaching from rainfall (with varying depths of contamination across the site). In total, there are 11,500m³ of sawdust, sand, and capping material, estimated to weigh around 16,000 tonnes, including a 20% contingency.

Remediation of the contamination

5.3 Sawdust from treated timber along with contaminated underlying sand are vulnerable to dispersion in an area experiencing active coastal erosion. The goals of remediating the site are to halt further erosion and discharge into the marine environment, minimise human (and pet) exposure to the contamination, and prevent adverse ecological impacts on both terrestrial organisms and the marine environment.

5.4 As the pertinent contaminants are classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the Council has responsibilities concerning their environmentally sound disposal. As the contaminant levels are below specific thresholds, the POPs do not necessitate destruction. Nevertheless, they still need to be disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner, in compliance with relevant national laws and regulations, standards, and guidelines.

5.5 The T+T 2024 report assessed the following potential options as not viable or practicable:

5.5.1 General uncontained burning of the sawdust;

5.5.2 Offshore disposal;

5.5.3 Thermal treatment;

5.5.4 On site stabilisation, treatment and/or containment;

5.5.5 CCAB treatment.

5.6 Several options were assessed for both the remediation of the sawdust and contaminated sand which considered the sustainability of the remediation option in view of carbon and energy costs and in alignment with the following hierarchy:

5.6.1 If practicable, on-site treatment of the contamination so that it is destroyed, or the associated risk is reduced to an acceptable level.

5.6.2 Off-site treatment, so that the contamination is destroyed, or the associated risk is reduced to an acceptable level, after which material is returned to the site.

5.6.3 Removal of contaminated material to an approved site or facility.

5.7 The following options were considered for the sawdust contamination remediation:

5.7.1 No long-term management

5.7.2 Cement kiln co-incineration

5.7.3 Removal to landfill.

5.8 The following options were considered for the sand contamination remediation:

5.8.1 No long-term management

5.8.2 Sand washing

5.8.3 Use as fine aggregate in concrete production

5.8.4 Removal to landfill.

5.9 After evaluating various remediation options, the preferred course of action involves the removal of the contaminated sawdust and underlying contaminated sand to York Valley Landfill. This recommendation stems from uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness of technologies aimed at either destroying or breaking down the contaminants. Additionally, factors such as availability, timeframe, and cost were taken into consideration. For further discussion on this recommendation, refer to the Options section.

Reinstatement of the site

5.10 These options primarily concentrate on restoring the gap in the dunes left after excavation, assuming the preferred option is pursued. Coastal erosion plays a pivotal role in this assessment. Weighted desired benefits are included in the T+T 2024 report and are copied below in Table 1.

Table 1 Desired benefits as provided by NCC (T+T 2024)

Desired Outcomes	Benefits – Investment Objectives	Weighting
Meets Tāhunanui Reserve Management Policy 1.2 – Coastal Erosion	1.2.2 Limit investment in existing and new assets on potentially threatened sites. 1.2.4 Carparks at the western end that are threatened by erosion will be closed as necessary and structures removed, rather than constructing protection works.	20%
Continue to be used safely for leisure and recreation purposes	Continued access to the beach.	20%
Ongoing maintenance	Reduced maintenance cost in managing the reconfigured area.	10%
Safety of area and users	Protecting flora and fauna on the beach and surrounding marine environments. Preventing harm to members of the public.	50%

5.11 When considering options in relation to the reinstatement of carparking, officers note that the Tāhunanui Reserve Management Plan also includes policies around access to recreation.

5.12 The options considered in the T+T 2024 report are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of reinstatement options (T+T 2024)

#	Option	Description	Score / rank
1	Do nothing/minimal	The site is not managed.	42% / 6
2	Grade and plant to establish coastal wetland	Grade site post-remediation to a level below MHWS and plant to establish a habitat similar to the Back Beach Embayment.	61% / 4
3	Grade and plant to establish low level dunes	Grade the site to create a uniform low grade from the road level to the beach and dune stabilising plants. Formalise the car parking area opposite the roller skating facility.	78% / 1
4	Fill and plant to establish dunes at higher elevation	Sourcing and placing fill to elevate the site to some level between MHWS and the existing car park. Plant dune stabilising plants.	52% / 3
5	Establish smaller alternative carpark and low-level dunes	Option 3 with a new gravelled carpark on or adjoining the subject site instead of opposite roller skating.	75% / 2
6	Rebuild car park	Design and build a carpark of similar size on the site. Refer to	48% / 5

5.13 Options 3 and 5 both have similar high scores and are ranked by T+T as 1 and 2 respectively (and are both recommended by T+T). While T+T has ranked Option 3 as the first option, officers believe it would be remiss not to pursue Option 5 given the demand for parking adjacent to recreation opportunities, particularly wind-based board sports such as kite surfing and wind surfing (where equipment requires moving to the beach) and dog walking.

5.14 Reinstating some parking adjacent to the site is likely to be relatively insignificant in the scale of the project but could provide considerable benefits both practically and in terms of public goodwill. Officers also consider that the design and location of the parking area will be able to mitigate erosion risks in the very short term (i.e. it could be located on the estuary side of the dunes).

5.15 The effect of lowering the dune profile height has been assessed by T+T which has indicated that exacerbating erosion is unlikely given the remediation area is a small percentage of the overall sand spit volume.

Iwi

5.16 Regular discussions were held with iwi via Te Ohu Taiao and Council’s iwi engagement platform, Te Parikaranga. Phone conversations and emails allowed questions and concerns to be addressed directly. Iwi monitors were present on-site during initial investigations, temporary remediation works and will be kept abreast of the schedule of works going forward, allowing advance notice of the schedule to enable resourcing of iwi monitoring through each stage of the project. The options assessment report from T + T was shared and support for the preferred option has been received.

Engagement

5.17 Discussion was held with external and internal groups such as Waimea Inlet Forum, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Nelson), Department of Conservation, Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand, Tāhunanui Business and Residents Association, recreation stakeholders, NCC Science and Environment Team, and NCC Climate Change Team. The preferred remediation approach was discussed with these groups, and general support received. A summary of engagement is available in Attachment 3 (196698121-56102).

Funding

5.18 The following table shows the cost breakdown for six options.

5.19 There has been an appropriate contingency factored in under disposal cost and project cost calculation to account for uncertainties and further spread of contaminants.

5.20 The preferred option, Option 5, involving low-level dunes and construction of a small gravel car park, will cost up to $5.78 million. This includes disposal costs of up to $3.4 million and a project contingency of $1.06 million.

6. Options

Remediation of sawdust options

6.1 Options discussed below correspond to those in the T+T 2024 report, excluding the status quo/minimal option and the options discounted early by T+T (as described in paragraph 0 of this report).

6.2

Sawdust Remediation Option 1

· Off-site treatment of the contamination, so that it is destroyed or reduced to an acceptable risk (cement kiln co-incineration)

Advantages

· High temperature of the kiln destroys organic contaminants and immobilises inorganics though incorporation of the fly-ash into cement products.

· Energy recovery and beneficial reuse potential.

· An existing national pathway for management of treated timber.

· Likely more socially acceptable than landfilling.

· No ongoing management costs.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Acceptance of the material would need to be negotiated due to high moisture content, the presence of sand as an impurity, and PCP treated timber is not presently within the site resource consent.

· Only facility is in Northland, so large distances to transport - likely high transport and carbon cost.

· Environmental risk of spillage during transport long distance.

· High carbon cost in the co-incineration process.

· Removal of materials outside of the region may be a concern.

· Potential concern over the incinerator handling this material.

· Option unavailable for the contaminated sand which would still require treatment/remediation.

Sawdust Remediation Option 2 (Recommended)

· Removal of contaminated material to an approved site or facility (Removal to landfill)

Advantages

· Landfill has management in place to monitor for any risk of ongoing leaching.

· Contamination is contained.

· Potential for natural environmental degradation of PCP and PCDD/F within the landfill.

· Local disposal option so lower transport costs and lower carbon footprint.

· No ongoing management costs.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Contamination is not treated.

· Potential negative perception regarding disposal to landfill.

· Landfill cost to dispose of sawdust.

6.3 As noted in paragraph, the preferred option is removing the contaminated sawdust to York Valley Landfill.

Remediation of sand options

6.4 The options discussed below correspond to those in the T+T 2024 report, excluding the status quo/do nothing option.

6.5

Sand Remediation Option 1

· On-site treatment of the contamination so that it is destroyed or reduced to an acceptable risk (sand washing)

Advantages

· Ability to remove contamination from the sand and allow for reuse.

· Cleaning and retaining beach sand likely seen as socially beneficial.

· Investment in a plant would likely be of benefit to other parties so potential costs could be shared.

· No ongoing management costs.

· Deployment to site would reduce transport costs.

· Beneficial retention of the sand onsite.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Arsenic would need to be concentrated from wash water and disposal options are still required.

· Risk of spillage on site.

· Efficacy to remove contamination to remediation targets would need to be determined.

· High water use may be a concern, particularly if region is in water scarcity.

· Chemical use in washing may generate concern.

· Cost likely higher than landfill.

· Unknown if technology available in New Zealand, hence there could be capital cost to setup.

· Piloting efficacy for contaminant removal is likely required.

· Disposal of concentrated arsenic would add further costs.

Sand Remediation Option 2

· Removal of contaminated material to an approved site or facility (use as fine aggregate in concrete production)

Advantages

· Contamination is immobilised within the concrete.

· Contaminated material replaces mined material.

· Social acceptability of beneficial reuse.

· No ongoing management costs.

· Likely local options so lower transport costs.

· Contributes to a role in a long lifecycle material.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Sand would likely require washing prior to use hence requiring management of contaminated wash water.

· There is a risk of leaching out of the concrete in the mid-long term.

· Cost likely higher than landfilling.

· Unknown if technology available in New Zealand.

· May be a concern relating to the contaminant presence in the concrete.

· Potential legislative changes may impact use/reuse of the produced concrete.

· May require validation testing to confirm leaching rates out of concrete.

· Management and disposal of concentrated arsenic in wash water would add further costs.

· Option not available for sawdust which still needs treatment/remediation.

Sand Remediation Option 3 (Recommended)

· Removal of contaminated material to an approved site or facility (Removal to landfill)

Advantages

· Landfill has management in place to monitor for any risk of ongoing leaching.

· Contamination is contained.

· Potential for natural environmental degradation of PCP and PCDD/F within the landfill.

· Local disposal option so lower transport costs.

· No ongoing management costs.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Contamination is not treated.

· Potential negative perception regarding disposal to landfill.

· Cost to dispose of sand.

6.6 As noted in paragraph 5.9, the preferred option is removing the contaminated sand to York Valley Landfill.

Reinstatement options

6.7 The T+T 2024 report outlines six options, but only two are extensively discussed here, as they are deemed the most acceptable to both the council and the community (these two options were recommended by T+T). Additional analysis of the remaining four options is provided in Table 5.2 of the T+T 2024 report.

6.8 The primary difference between the two options considered is the location of reinstated car parking.

Reinstatement Option 1 (Option 3 in the T+T 2024 report):

· Grade and plant to establish low level dunes, formalise overflow parking south of roller-skating.

Grade the site to create a uniform low grade from the road level to the beach and dune stabilising plants. Formalise grassed area to the south of roller skating.

Advantages

· Limits investment in an area threatened by coastal erosion.

· Additional dune habitat for coastal invertebrates, avifauna, and lizards.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Potential perceived risk of increasing the coastal hazard of properties south of the Back Beach Embayment and accelerating coastal erosion processes in the area as the site will be lower than existing (although comparable with height of remaining dunes and likely similar to subject dune prior to material being dumped).

· Requires local seed sourcing to propagate and re-plant this area, therefore early input from a local nursery required.

· Sand from outside the project footprint will be required to create low level dunes, thereby creating a potential sand mining effect elsewhere.

· Formalised car parking area is some distance from subject site (250-300m) and is already used for overflow parking so not an increase in capacity).

Reinstatement Option 2 (Option 5 in the T+T 2024 report) (Recommended)

· Grade and plant to establish low level dunes, establish smaller alternative carpark at site.

Grade and plant to establish low level dunes and include a new gravelled carpark on site or adjacent.

Advantages

· Some carparking is provided for recreational users in close proximity to the beach.

· Additional dune habitat for coastal invertebrates, avifauna, and lizards.

· Limits investment in an area threatened by coastal erosion providing car parking is located prudently.

Risks and Disadvantages

· Erosion of the site will continue reducing the benefit period of the additional investment over the long term.

· Requires local seed sourcing to propagate and re-plant this area, therefore early input from a local nursery required.

6.9 As noted in paragraphs 0-0, the preferred option is grading and planting to establish low level dunes and establishing a smaller alternative carpark at the subject site.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Contaminated sawdust and sand at Tāhunanui Back Beach require remediation, along with the reinstatement of the dunes.

7.2 Following assessment of a report by T + T officers recommend both the sawdust and sand be removed to the York Valley Landfill, and the site be remediated to establish low level planted dunes and a smaller alternative carpark at the subject site.

7.3 Unbudgeted expenditure of up to $5,800,000 is required for this work, and staff are working closely with the Ministry for the Environment to seek funds towards this.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Design is expected to commence in March 2024, following which a funding application will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment for support through the Contaminated Land Remediation Fund.

8.2 Site works are expected to commence upon confirmation of funding.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 196698121-55850 - Tāhunanui Back Beach Contamination - T+T Options Assessment- 30 Jan 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: 196698121-55851 - Tāhunanui Back Beach Contamination - T+T Summary Report - 30 Jan 2024 ⇩

Attachment 3: 196698121-56102 - Tāhunanui Contamination Remediation - Stakeholder Engagement ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Remediating and reinstating the site contributes to the social and environmental well-being of the community.

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

Remediating and reinstating the site contributes to a healthy and protected natural environment, healthy and safe communities and providing access to recreational activities.

Risk

The likelihood of adverse consequences in relation to undertaking the recommended action is low, particularly when compared to the status quo in terms of people’s health and safety and risks to the environment.

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 remediation is not hastened and completed.

Financial impact

The financial impact of the decision is considerable; however officers are hoping to offset the total amount sought through funding from the Ministry for the Environment. No additional staffing is required as a result of this decision.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because of the high use of the immediate area, as well as the ongoing effect of the contamination on local dunes, back beach, associated land-owners and the sea. Additionally, this area is of high local significance culturally, for Iwi, tourism and commercial interests. An engagement/consultation plan was developed as part of the investigation and is ongoing.

Climate Impact

The effect of lowering the dune height has been assessed by T+T which has indicated that exacerbating erosion is unlikely given the remediation area is a small percentage of the overall sand spit volume. The height of the dune following works will be similar to those surrounding the site, and in keeping the dune level prior to the material being deposited in the 1960s.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Regular discussions were held with iwi via Te Ohu Taiao and Council’s iwi engagement platform, Te Parikaranga. Phone conversations and emails allowed questions and concerns to be addressed directly. Iwi monitors were present on-site during initial investigations, temporary remediation works and will be kept abreast of the schedule of works going forward, allowing advance notice of the schedule to enable resourcing of iwi monitoring through each stage of the project. The options assessment report from Tonkin and Taylor was shared and support for the preferred option has been received.

Legal context

· Council has power to make this decision under its power of general competence (Local Government Act 2002 s12(2)).

· The general decision-making requirements of sections 76 to 82 of Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 apply to this decision of Council. The report demonstrates that these general requirements have been met by:

o assessing significance and necessary consultation (refer Degree of significance and level of engagement above); and

o identifying the reasonably practicable options and assessing their advantages and disadvantages (refer options table in the body of the report).

· Officers will ensure that any applicable legal requirements for the carrying out the remediation works be identified and complied with.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 11: Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round November 2023

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round November 2023

Report Author: Mark Preston-Thomas - Manager Community Partnerships

Report Authoriser: Martin Croft - Strategic Adviser Community Services

Report Number: R28210

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To receive the minutes from the 29 November 2023 Community Investment Funding Panel meeting, in accordance with the Panel’s terms of reference.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Community Investment Funding Update - Small Grants Round November 2023 (R28210) and its attachments (636034393-11929 and 636034393-11966); and

2. Receives the minutes from the Community Investment Fund meeting held on 29 November 2023 and notes the funding decisions taken.

3. Background

3.1 Community Investment Fund (CIF) terms of reference: On 4 May 2023, Council approved the Community Investment Fund (CIF) priorities to ‘improve the wellbeing in Nelson ‘communities of greatest need’ focusing on reducing social isolation, reducing housing vulnerability, improving access to work and learning opportunities, and reducing the impact of poverty’; and approved amended membership, recruitment processes, funding allocations and Terms of Reference for the CIF Panel (the Panel).

3.2 CIF Panel membership

3.2.1 The Panel comprises the Group Manager Community Services as chair, and between four and six community members appointed by the (then) Community and Recreation Committee. Four community members: Arawhita Wiringi, Bhoj Raj Subba, Elva Vivienne (Viv) Lock and Rachel Gordon, were appointed in 2021 for three-year terms. Arawhita Wiringi’s appointment was endorsed by Iwi managers to bring an Iwi Māori perspective to the Panel.

3.2.2 The Panel is currently operating within its terms of reference with four community members. The Panel has the authority to co-opt further community members without voting rights, to provide specialist support or perspectives.

3.2.3 The Panel co-opted two community members for the June workshops and decision meeting, being Rob Blake and Ellie Young.

3.2.4 Recruitment for additional Panel members will take place during 2024 and will be presented to Council via a future report for decision.

3.3 Budget and Allocation process 2022-2023

3.3.1 CIF Budget: The total budget for the CIF in 2023/2024 is $372,792.00. This comprises two elements:

Annual budget allocation (LTP2021-31):               $370,272.00
Nelson Market income (5% of the profit):              $2,520.00
Total CIF funding:                                                $372,792.00

Less Year 3 Strategic grants already allocated $245,488.00

Funds available for 2023/24 Small grants

allocation $127,304.00

3.3.2 Strategic grant allocation: Up to 70% of the CIF budget may be allocated as strategic grants for up to three years. Three-year Strategic Grants were approved in 2021, with the second year’s instalment paid in July 2022 and the third years instalment paid in July 2023. The 2023/24 instalment received an increase of 7.2% for CPI adjustment via the Annual Plan.

3.3.3 Small grant allocation: The balance is allocated as small grants up to a maximum of $10,000. Most grants are between $2,000 and $5,000, over two rounds annually, being November 2023 (this round) and June 2024.

3.4 Funding Priorities for the Community Investment Fund

3.4.1 The priorities and funding criteria are set out in the CIF Panel Terms of Reference:

Funding allocations will be guided by the priorities set out in the current Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan, i.e.

To prioritise funding towards improving wellbeing in communities of greatest need, focusing on reducing social isolation, reducing housing vulnerability, improving access to work and learning opportunities and reducing the impact of poverty; and

To respond to changing and emerging needs in the community.

3.4.2 The Panel applied the following principles when considering the applications:

· Prioritising Communities of Greatest Need: Priority should be given to organisations that will make a tangible difference to improving community wellbeing by reducing social isolation, reducing housing vulnerability, reducing the impact of poverty, and improving access to work and learning in Nelson.

· Funding for success: It is better to adequately fund a small number of projects and decline others, than underfund multiple projects that cannot succeed.

· Small Grant Funding Levels: This fund is promoted as providing small grants with a maximum of $10,000 and an expectation that most grants will be between $2,000 and $5,000. Where a grant is requested as a contribution towards a larger project, the Panel should consider whether a grant will provide a meaningful contribution to the success of the project.

· Alternative Funding Options: This involves considering whether the organisation has access to alternative funding from other sources.

4. November 2023 Funding round - Applications and decisions

4.1 35 applications were received, requesting a total of $281,262.50 (around 4 times oversubscribed compared to available funding). Staff advised the Panel regarding eligibility, alignment with the funding priorities, and potential alternative or complementary funding sources. Unconfirmed meeting minutes are attached as attachment one.

4.2 The Panel considered each application on its merits, and either approved, partially funded or declined the application. Reasons for declining or partially funding applications were:

4.2.1 Incomplete alignment with Council’s strategic priorities and the grant funding criteria.

4.2.2 Does not achieve sufficient community benefit to Nelson residents when considered against alternative applications.

4.2.3 Does not sufficiently demonstrate the applicant’s ability to deliver the project, service or activity when considered against other applications.

4.2.4 Insufficient funding available to fully fund all suitable applications.

4.2.5 Alternative funding has been identified for the application.

Funding Allocation

4.3 The Panel approved grants totalling $64,300.00 to 14 organisations. A table listing the funding decision taken is attached as attachment two.

4.4 Staff have contacted applicants to inform them of the Panel’s decision.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 636034393-11929: CIF 29 November 2023 Minutes (unconfirmed) ⇩

Attachment 2: 636034393-11966: CIF November 2023 - Allocations ⇩

Item 13: Infrastructure Six Monthly Report 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Infrastructure Six Monthly Report 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023

Report Author: Alec Louverdis - Group Manager Infrastructure

Report Number: R28227

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide Council with a high level overview over the last six months to 31 December 2023, a brief look forward in the Infrastructure Group’s activity area, and to approve additional budget on two matters.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Six Monthly Report 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 (R28227) and its attachments (1530519604-13277, 1833911234-1291 and 1833911234-1292); and

2. Approves unbudgeted additional capital funding of $400,000 in 2023/24 to complete Saxtons Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade for the reasons detailed in Report R28227; and

3. Approves unbudgeted additional renewal funding of $400,000 in 2023/24 to address urgent remedial works to key bus routes and bus stops before the onset of winter.

3. Background

3.1 Council on 10 August 2023 (CL/2023/157) requested high level six monthly reports for the environment/regulation, infrastructure, and community services areas. This report covers the infrastructure activity for the past six months and a brief look forward.

4. Financial Results

4.1 For the six months ending 31 December 2023, Infrastructure’s deficit is $6.8M against a budgeted deficit of $0.8M ($6.0M unfavourable to budget).

4.2 Revenue and expenses have been reviewed and commentary has been included below for variances between actuals and budget of greater than or less than $200,000.

4.3 Profit and Loss

4.4 Operating Budget vs. Annual Plan Budget

4.5 The Full Year Operating Budget is less than the Annual Plan Budget by $2,585,000. This is due to a reduction in Transport Choices income by $2.6M.

4.6 Revenue

4.7 Rates income is greater than budget by $37,000.

4.8 Subsidies and Grants are less than budget by $2,210,000.

4.8.1 Operating Grants are greater than budget by $341,000, which is mainly due to Waka Kotahi transport income.

4.8.2 Capital Grants are less than budget by $2,551,000, of which, $0.7m is due to weather event recoveries, $0.4m is due to Three Waters Better of Funding for the railway reserve lighting, $0.2m is due to Transport Choices funding, $0.5m for Active Linear corridor, and $0.5m for Waka Kotahi funding.

4.9 Fees and Charges are greater than budget by $416,000. This is due to water supply income being $0.7m greater than budget due to water by meter commercial and residential charges being higher than budget (due to budget phasing). This is offset by $0.3m for Bee Card Trip revenue, which is lower than budgeted.

4.10 Other Revenue is less than budget by 87,000.

4.11 Development and Financial Contributions are less than budget by $732,000. This is due to less development activity than budgeted for.

Expenses

4.12 Personnel Costs are over budget by $814,000. This is mainly due to $0.2m of staff time being opex rather than capex, $0.2m in support services overhead, as well as $0.2m additional of temp staff.

4.13 Finance Costs are over budget by $874,000. This is due to internal interest costs in stormwater, flood protection and water supply. This is due to interest rate rises being greater than budgeted for.

4.14 Depreciation is over budget by $1,028,000. Depreciation has been based on the 2022/23 asset valuations, in which Council saw large increases. This resulted in a higher depreciation expense than planned.

4.15 Weather Event Costs are over budget by $255,000. This is mostly made up of transport-related expenditure.

4.16 Other Expenses are over budget by $693,000. This is made up of the following variances:

4.16.1 Insurance is over budget by $0.7m. This is because of increases in premiums due to a) increases in asset values, and b) higher premium rates.

4.16.2 Reticulation Maintenance is over budget by $0.5m. This is due to reactive spending on wastewater, stormwater and water supply reticulation.

4.16.3 NCC Share of Regional Sewerage costs are less than budget by $0.2m due to NRSBU charges being less than anticipated year to date.

4.16.4 Transport expenses are over budget by $555,000. This is mainly due to $0.7m of asset maintenance spend. Also. Bus Service costs are over budget by $1.2m, which is due to the new bus service, which had various changes to the bus routes. This is offset by $1.1m in opex minor improvements.

4.16.5 Kerbside kitchen waste expenses are less than budget by $0.7m. This is due to the government-funded initiative being delayed.

4.16.6 Solid waste engagement costs are over budget by $0.2m. This is for $0.2m of TDC costs for the Richmond Material Recovery Facility.

4.17 Capital expenditure in context

4.18 The full year capex operating budget for the Council is around $98.6M (including capital staff costs, excluding regionals and vested assets). Within that, there is a base capital delivery of $71.4M, the quantum that sits with Infrastructure to deliver is as follows:

4.18.1 $47M (base capital delivery);

4.18.2 $8.7M (base recovery delivery) which when summed with the OPEX base recovery delivery of $2.9M takes the total base recovery delivery to $11.6M for 2023/24;

4.18.3 $18.6M (addressing 18 slips and property purchases).

4.19 Capital Expenditure Infrastructure (Actuals to 31 December 2023)

4.19.1 As at 31 December 2023, capital expenditure is $5.9M behind the operating budget of $30.9M. Level of service projects are $1.3M behind budget, renewals are $3.1M behind budget, capital growth is $1.2M behind budget, and staff costs are $0.2M behind budget. More detail on the capital expenditure program is provided in section 8.

4.20 Capital Expenditure (excluding vested assets)

5. Key Performance Measures

5.1 As part of the development of the Long-Term Plan (LTP) Council approves levels of service, performance measures and targets for each activity. There are performance measures that fall under the Infrastructure activity area.

5.2 Overall, 26 out of the 35 performance measures can be confirmed as being achieved, 2 have not been achieved and 7 have not been measured yet.

5.3 The two performance measures that have not been achieved at mid-year are discussed below.

5.4 Transport - Reduction in the number of death and serious injury crashes (DSI), on the local road network to achieve the Vision Zero target of 40% reduction in DSI by 2031.

5.4.1 The table below shows how we are tacking on DSI’s compared to previous years.

5.4.2 The road user types, and the casual factors involved in crashes are similar to past years but actual numbers are small so percentage changes can be misguiding. However, 5 of the 12 DSI crashes this year have involved motorcyclists which is an over representation. Speed and Alcohol are also significant casual factors.

5.5 Solid Waste - Reduction of waste per capita by 10% by 2030. The Year 3 target is “Total waste less than 525kg/ capita”, and we are currently tracking at $552kg/capita and on this basis the measure is not on track.

6. Central Government Reforms

6.1 The new government has signalled significant reform, including:

6.1.1 Amending the Resource Management Act 1991 to make it easier to consent new infrastructure;

6.1.2 Establishing a fast-track one-stop-shop consenting and permitting process for regional and national projects of significance;

6.1.3 Immediate stop-work notice placed on Three Waters - with assets returned to Council ownership (since been repealed);

6.1.4 Establishing Regional Infrastructure Fund with $1.2 billion in capital funding;

6.1.5 Building infrastructure with 13 new Roads of National Significance and four major public transport upgrades;

6.1.6 Reduction of expenditure on cycleways; and

6.1.7 Changes to the funding arrangements for the Community Connect Concessions Scheme for Public Transport. The Government will continue with Crown funding support for half price public transport concessions for Community Services Card holders and half price concessions for Total Mobility services (75% discount). However, Crown funding for free fares for 5 -12-year-olds and half price fares for 13-24 year-olds on public transport will end on 30 April 2024.

7. Forestry transition project

7.1 Since Council adopted the Right Tree Right Place Taskforce recommendations, officers have commenced planning to address the various recommendations. Budget has been set aside for this in the LTP.

7.2 While transition plans are be developed, Council’s contracted commercial forestry manager has continued to monitor the estate and undertake essential operations as required including desiccations spraying in the Maitai and Marsden forests.

7.3 Council’s Financial Strategy and Treasury Management Policy has been amended to reflect Council’s decisions and due to their significance are due to be consulted on through the LTP process.

7.4 The focus on the next six months is on assessing land registered in the Emissions Trading Scheme, developing transition plans (post Long Term Plan consultation) and ordering plants for the upcoming planting season.

8. Commentary on Capital Projects

8.1 A progress summary of key infrastructure capital projects is appended as Attachment 1. Further detail is provided below.

9. Recovery

9.1 Excellent progress continues to be made on all matters relating to the recovery effort following the August 2022 and May 2023 severe weather events (refer to Attachment 2). Key achievements include:

9.1.1 Reinstatement of the golf course bridge across the Maitai River;

9.1.2 Reinstatement of Devenish Place;

9.1.3 Completion of Atmore Terrace (slip 8);

9.1.4 Commencement of work on multiple slips on Cable Bay Road; and

9.1.5 Award of Glen Creek and Maitai slips.

9.2 The focus in the next six months includes design of the Devenish Place and Cleveland Terrace intakes, construction of Maitai pump track, ongoing works to address slips on Council land; ongoing gravel removal, attending to priority urban river/stream works and commencing work on Maitai and Glen Creek works (aiming to be completed by the end of June).

10. Three waters and flood protection

10.1 The last six months saw the completion of:

10.1.1 All Activity Management Plans;

10.1.2 The new Awatea wastewater pump station;

10.1.3 The upgrade of Hastings Street as part of the wider Washington Valley Infrastructure upgrade;

10.1.4 The Hastings stormwater connection to the St Vincent Street culvert as part of the future upgrade of the St Vincent Street stormwater culvert;

10.1.5 The Wolfe Street/Collingwood wastewater renewals;

10.1.6 The Wastney Terrace, Cawthron Crescent and Vanguard Street stormwater upgrades;

10.1.7 The first stage of construction of the Fluoride dosing works at the water treatment plant. Note: the Ministry of Health have agreed to the Mayor’s request for an extension of time for completion of the works and Council now has until 31 December 2024 to begin fluoridating the Nelson water supply;

10.1.8 Bolt Road Watermain Renewal Stage 3.

10.2 The NWWTP resource consent was lodged in December 2023 - 12 months in advance of the consent expiry and six months ahead of previously planned. This following the view expressed by elected members at a workshop to bring this forward.

10.3 The focus on the next six months includes completion of Tahunanui Catchment 3 stormwater upgrade works, design of Tahunanui Catchment 9 stormwater works, tendering for professional design services for the upgrade of Paru Paru Road (linked to the IAF), design for the replacement of the Atawhai Sewer rising main, progressing the design for the replacement of the box culvert on St Vincent Street and progressing the construction of the Maitai dam aeration.

Flood Protection

10.4 The last six months saw the completion of Saxton Creek Stage 4 with only minor works on the adjoining private properties still to be completed and planting to be undertaken next season. The creek is now flowing in the new channel and the baffle at Champion Road has been removed.

10.5 This is the culmination of a multi-year contract following the 2013 severe weather event. It has spanned 11 years, multiple project managers and several weather events in that period many severe in nature. Stage 4 of the project commenced in September 2021 and is the final stage of work that commenced at the boundary of NCC/TDC. The total cost of the works for this final stage is $27.2M with the physical works component relating to the creek upgrade totalling around $20M with works to the Alliance site totalling around $3.4M. The project received $7.4M from central government.

10.6 Stage 4 has been, by far, the most complex of all the stages as presented to Council previously. It involved working with two landowners that needed to maintain their businesses throughout construction (and in the case of Alliance adhering to very strict protocols around animal management), working through COVID-19 restrictions, daily tidal influences, fish passage control, strict consent conditions, maintaining Saxton Creek base flow, working adjacent to Main Road Stoke, using a crane that was affected and delayed by high winds, the relocating of a TDC watermain, encountering services not on plans requiring relocation, dealing with other contract works on site, dealing with an existing culvert under Main Road Stoke (the state of which could only be determined as work progressed and found to be worse than previously thought) and several severe weather events and many rainfall events.

10.7 The works have been significantly impacted by the August 2022 severe weather event, the May 2023 weather event and several other rainfall events that have delayed works and added additional cost. These events required the contractor implementing contingency plans, working closely with the landowners and subsequent clean-up works.

10.8 The result of the challenges experienced, as detailed above, has resulted in a delay to the project with the project also tracking over budget by $400,000. This represents 1.5% of the total cost of the project and 2% of the physical works – both in relation to the size and complexity of the project is not unreasonable. It has certainly not been easy with the weather events and Covid and these could not have been anticipated or planned for.

10.9 Due to the delays to the project, the final planting within the new culvert (a condition of consent) will be undertaken next financial year and $150,000 will be requested through the deliberations report to be included in Year 1 of the LTP to cater for this work.

10.10 The focus on the next six months includes making the stage 4 works fully operational by the end of March 2024, planting of the culvert as per resource consent conditions and closing out the project during the six month defects period.

11. Transport and Public Transport

11.1 The last six months saw the completion of:

11.1.1 New safety improvements across the city including permanently closing Hampden Street, installing a pedestrian refuge at Bayview Road, traffic calming features in the Tahunanui Hills and the reconstruction of Domett Street to include better cycling and walking facilities beside the Maitai River and the Songer Street and Railway Reserve Crossing.

11.1.2 6.1km of road resurfacing work as an approximate cost of $720,000. This includes asphalt and chip seal sites. Further work totalling $635,000 will be carried out before the end of the resealing season and includes large stretches on Main Road Stoke, Dodson Valley Road, Marsden Valley Road and Vanguard Street.

11.1.3 Development of the Transport Activity Management Plan to both guide the development of the LTP and give a robust evidence base to seek New Zealand Transport Agency – Waka Kotahi funding for the 2024-2027 period.

11.1.4 Launch of the eBus Service with associated bus hub on Bridge Street and other infrastructure upgrades to accommodate the new service. Patronage levels on eBus services are steady across all routes. Some decline in patronage due to the Christmas Holiday Period with schools closing during December and people taking leave from work before and after Christmas was expected. January patronage shows a rise and the return to school saw buses travelling at capacity at peak times. Under the previous contract on a typical weekday approximately 1,800-2,000 passenger trips were taken per day. By December 2023, under the new contract, close to 3,500 passenger trips/day were recorded.

11.1.5 An unforeseen outcome of the successful roll out of the new ebus service and new bus routes has been that some road surface deterioration has occurred across the network. The underlying cause is poor pavement strength on some roads resulting in seal cracking, heaves and potholes. A case in point was Jenner road that suffered major damage before the route was retired and replaced with a new route that came into effect on 12 February, with the revised route 3 travelling up Toi Toi Street as far as the Abraham Heights roundabout. Timetables and bus stops have been appropriately amended.

11.1.6 Remedial works are being undertaken to repair road damage especially at various bus stops, but additional funding will be required to address these works this financial year. To date around $29,000 has been spent on remedial works on Jenner road before the decision was made to retire the route, with some permanent works still to be undertaken. There are still four months remaining of the current financial year and remedial work to key sites are required to ensure that they withstand the challenges posed during the wetter colder months. It is estimated that $400,000 will be required to effect repairs on key sites.

11.1.7 Looking forward ongoing maintenance of bus routes and bus stops will be required and this has been planned for planned in the next three years as part of the Transport Activity Management Plan and included in the LTP. Officers are aware that the situation is not unique to Nelson /Tasman and the new ebuses are causing similar issues across the country.

11.1.8 On a positive note and building on the excellent increase in patronage, the installation of 13 new bus shelters on the Nelson network has commenced utilising Transport Choices funding.

11.1.9 Preparation for the new bus hub at Millers Acre continues with the deconstruction of building at 41 Halifax Street. Officers are working with an adjacent property on access to their private carpark before the area is turned into public carparking space.

11.2 The Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), The Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) and the Regional Speed Management Plan have been collaboratively developed with TDC and have all be open for consultation over January and February. Hearings are scheduled and deliberations reports will be taken to the Joint Regional Land Transport Committee during March and April for the RLTP/RPTP and April through June for the Speed Management Plan.

11.3 The focus on the next six months includes finalising the Halifax Street site for parking, and an intersection upgrade at Toi-Toi Street/St Vincent Street and progressing tenders for traffic counting and street sweeping.

12. Bridge To Better

12.1 Engagement with iwi, businesses and stakeholders has been underway over past five months to inform the development of the concept design of Bridge Street. Strategic communications has raised awareness of the project and promoted public discussion.

12.2 A councillor workshop was held in late February to advise elected members of the feedback, with a future workshop planned for March where the concept designs will be presented, whereafter officers will seek Council approval to proceed to developed design. The dashboard is appended as Attachment 3.

13. Solid Waste

13.1 The draft Joint Waste Assessment with TDC has been completed and review of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan has commenced with the working party.

13.2 Funding has been secured through Te Pūtea Whakamauru Para/Waste Minimisation Fund in partnership with TDC to develop a business case for domestic food waste collection, including options for processing food waste. This is scheduled for completion in October 2025 and will guide future Council decisions.

13.3 Funding from the Waste Minimisation Fund has contributed to the development of a construction & demolition waste facility in partnership with Nelson Environment Centre. Operations scheduled to commence in March 2024.

13.4 The Residential Recycling collection contract ends in June 2025 and a tender for a new contract will be published on GETS in April 2024.

14. Tenders Awarded

14.1 Tenders above $300,000 awarded under delegated authority in the last six months are listed below:

Project Name	Awarded to	Tender Price
Streets for People hospital connection	Isaac Construction	$758,256
Tahunanui Hills stormwater catchment 3	Nelmac Ltd	$822,000
Cable Bay Slip repairs - flood recovery	Donaldson Civil	$762,458
Fluoride dosing at Water Treatment Plant	Fulton Hogan	$547,995
Atmore Tce Slip remediation/road reinstatement – flood recovery	Fulton Hogan	$858,538

14.2 Challenges

14.3 Challenges over the past six months remain front of mind through this and are expected to continue.

· Staff within the Infrastructure Group are experiencing periods of high workloads, and this is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future whilst officers provide additional support for unplanned/re-active work.

· Market buoyancy is leading to an inability to secure resources in a timely manner.

· The resurgence of Covid has hit the team particularly hard.

15. Options

15.1 There are two matters to consider in this report – one relating to Saxton Creek Stage 4 stormwater upgrade and the other to remedial work to Nelson bus route/bus stops. Each are discussed below:

15.2 Saxton Creek Stage 4 Stormwater upgrade - approve or not approve additional expenditure to complete all works. Officers support option 1 (approving additional funding).

Option 1: Approve additional funding. Recommended option.
Advantages	· Allows the completion of stage 4 – a project that has spanned 11 years. · Provides the resilience to the network.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional funding but is a very small percentage of the overall budget.
Option 2: Do not approve additional funding
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Savings elsewhere in the Stormwater activity to fund this shortfall will need to be secured and officers cannot find those savings

15.3 Remedial work to bus routes and bus stops - approve or not approve additional expenditure. Officers support option 1 (approving additional funding).

Option 1: Approve additional funding. Recommended option.
Advantages	· Allows remedial works to some key bus routes and bus stops to support a very successful roll-out the e-bus service. · Provides resilience to the network.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Additional unbudgeted funding
Option 2: Do not approve additional funding
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will result in further damage that will cost more in the long-run and place already tight budgets under more stress. · Will get worse with pending winter.

16. Strategic Direction and Focus

16.1 Regional Wastewater disposal philosophy – Officers will be working with iwi, Tasman District Council, the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit and Marlborough District Council to develop high level collection and disposal criteria that will guide future works for the entities.

16.2 Progressing the capital/renewals works programme - In the four months to 30 June, the focus will be on completing the current capital works programme and planning for the projects in Year 1 of the LTP.

16.3 The focus on the Recovery programme will be completing slips on roads that will open them again to two way traffic.

16.4 Consultation on the Joint Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan closed end of February and submissions will be heard by the Regional Transport Committee.

16.5 All Councils are expecting a new Government Policy Statement in early March, and once changes are known may require changes to the transport programme within the LTP, Regional Land Transport Plan and Regional Public Transport Plan 2024-2034.

16.6 Officers are continuing to closely monitor water use and river levels as the summer dry weather continues. Further restrictions will be imposed as necessary to protect the water storage in the Maitai Dam as Autumn approaches.

16.7 Council is required to report to the water services regulator – Taumata Arowai on a regular basis. These reports cover areas such as testing of the network, protection from contamination and provision of reliable services. As this is a new process for all water suppliers’ officers will work with the regulator on areas of uncertainty so we can better refine procedures and address any shortcomings.

17. Conclusion

17.1 It has been a successful six months for Infrastructure. The report covers the request with reasons for additional unbudgeted expenditure.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 1530519604-13277 Infrastructure Project Health Summary ⇩

Attachment 2: 1833911234-1291 Recovery Dashboard ⇩

Attachment 3: 1833911234-1292 Bridge To Better Dashboard ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

All projects are part of the current LTP and Annual Plan, meeting the requirements of fit with purpose of Local Government. The project meets all the well-being’s in the areas of environmental, economic, cultural, environment and social.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The works in this report cover the following Community Outcomes - “Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs”; “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient”; and “Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy”.

Risk

The matter of additional budget for Saxton Creek Stage 4 is of low risk as work has been completed and is a very small percentage of the overall project value for this stage having experienced challenges such as COVID and several severe weather events.

The matter of additional budget for remedial work to bus routes and bus stops is to attend to damage that will incur greater costs if not attend to now.

Financial impact

The additional budget requested for Saxton Creek Stage 4 is a very small percentage of the overall project value for this stage having experienced challenges such as COVID and several severe weather events.

The additional budget to effect remedial work to bus routes and bus stops is required to effect necessary repairs that if not done now will cause more damage and will incur greater cost.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matters in this summary report are of low significance and further consultation is not required.

Climate Impact

The Saxton Creek Upgrade work commenced 11 years ago to address impact of increased rainfall and events that impacted the city in 2011 and 2013.The work to effect remedial works to bus routes/bus stops is to allow the ebus to continue to operate effectively. The ebus with its electric batteries reduces substantially the use of diesel fuels.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Legal context

There are no legal matters pertaining matters raised in this report.

Delegations

This matter is for Council to consider.

Item 14: Environmental Management Six Monthly Report - 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Environmental Management Six Monthly Report - 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023

Report Author: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28279

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To report on financial and non-financial performance measures and focus areas for the first half of the 2023/24 financial year for the Environmental Management Group activities. The activities included are Building, City Development, Resource Consents and Compliance, Planning, and Science and Environment. Climate Change is also included in this report.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Environmental Management Six Monthly Report - 1 July 2023 - 31 December 2023 (R28279).

3. Financial Results

3.1 For the six months ending 31 December 2023, the Environmental Management’s surplus is $1.6m ($1.6m favourable to budget).

3.2 Revenue and expenses have been reviewed and commentary has been included below for variances between actuals and budget of greater than or less than $200,000.

Profit and Loss

Operating Budget vs. Annual Plan Budget

3.3 The Full Year Operating Budget is greater than the Annual Plan Budget by $4,000.

Revenue

3.4 Rates income is in-line with budget.

3.5 Subsidies and Grants is greater than budget by $401,000. This is mainly due to phasing of the budget (the Ministry for the Environment Grants income was bulk received early in the year, whereas the budget was phased throughout the year).

3.6 Fees and Charges is greater than budget by $3,000.

3.7 Other Revenue is greater than budget by $110,000.

Expenses

3.8 Personnel costs are less than budget by $377,000. This is mainly due to City Development and Developing Resource Management Plan personnel costs being less than expected.

3.9 Finance costs are less than budget by $3,000.

3.10 Depreciation is greater than budget by $1,000.

3.11 Other Expenses are less than budget by $723,000. Significant variances are as follows:

3.11.1 Riskpool Claim $0.2m over budget. This is due to a historic exposure to calls dating pre-2010/11 when Nelson City Council was part of a New Zealand Mutual Liability Riskpool Scheme for Insurance. This is funded by the building insurance reserve.

3.11.2 Resource Consent Job purchase costs are over budget by $0.3m due to consultant costs, some of which can be on-charged to resource consent applicants.

3.11.3 Top of the South Marina Biosecurity Partnership expenses are under budget by $0.3m, due to expenses not yet being spent.

3.11.4 Nelson Nature programmed expenses are under budget by $0.5m as the majority of these expenses are expected to be spent in quarter 3 and 4.

3.11.5 Nelson Regional Management Plan Consultant expenses are under budget by $0.3. This expenditure is expected to occur in the last quarter.
Operating Revenue

3.12 Operating Expenditure

4. Capital Expenditure (Actuals to 31 December 2023)

4.1 As at 31 December 2023, Capital Expenditure is $0.5m behind the Operating Budget of $1.1m. Per the graph below, this is mainly due to Monitoring the Environment spend being $0.3m under budget, and City Development spend being $0.2m under budget.

5. Key Performance Indicators

5.1 Council’s KPI for granting building consent applications within statutory timeframes, is 100%. A percentage of 91.8% compliance has been achieved. The majority of breaches occurred due to geotechnical reviews carried out by external contractors not being completed within the statutory timeframes. Conversations are being had with these consultants to remedy this situation.

5.2 Council’s KPI for issuing code of compliance certificates within statutory timeframes, is 100%. A percentage of 98.8% compliance has been achieved. Breaches occurred due to human error. Substantive compliance with IANZ requirement of 95%, has been achieved.

5.3 Only 51% of resource consents have been processed on time for the first six months (where 100% is the target). Timeframe exceedances in this period can be largely attributed to older and more complex consents being processed and decided in the post August 2022 storm and COVID period, as well as ongoing vacancies within the team. Timeframes are anticipated to improve in the second half of the year as the backlog of consents has been resolved and as vacancies are anticipated to be filled.

5.4 No judicial reviews have been received; this measure is on track.

5.5 The performance measure relating to the review of the Compliance Strategy has not been measured yet, as it is not measured quarterly. This measure will be reported on at the end of the financial year.

6. Summary of Activities to 31 December 2023

6.1 Building

6.1.1 399 Building Consent (BC) applications have been received in the first two quarters of 23/24 compared to 367 applications for the same period in 22/23. The estimated value of work for the first 2 quarters of 23/24 was $106m compared to $126m in 22/23.

6.1.2 By October 2023, NCC’s Building Consent Authority (BCA) had successfully cleared 16 of the 19 General Non-Compliances (GNCs) it received in the IANZ audit carried out in June 2023. Two GNCs were given conditional clearance to be reassessed at IANZ’s return in June 2024 and the remaining GNC outstanding in relation to Councils NDOCs document management system, was given an extension of time until 23 May 2024. The records team along with external consultants, are currently working on solutions.

6.1.3 The Compliance team have been working hard to have all compliance schedules updated to the new format required by MBIE with only a couple of outstanding examples remaining. The feedback from MBIE has been very positive about Council’s approach, very complimentary comments were made in regard to the proactive way Council has been dealing with this and the quality of the compliance schedules the team are producing.

6.2 City Development

6.2.1 Two city centre projects (Upper Trafalgar Street upgrade and Fiddle Lane upgrade) and a winter activation event (indoor ice-skating) were successfully delivered during the period.

6.2.2 One grant of the housing reserve of $750k was made during the report period generating a total of 5 additional houses. A further $2,250,000 of the housing reserve was set aside for applications by iwi trusts until 30 November 2025. Officers are continuing to work with Kāinga Ora and other developers to leverage affordable housing in the city centre to meet the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund housing outcomes requirements.

6.2.3 The requirements of the National Policy Statement Urban Development were met through the preparation of the annual monitoring report, approved by Council in November 2023, and the preparation, jointly with TDC, of the Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan, approved by the Joint Committee in the same month. Work on the Tasman Nelson Urban Environment Housing and Business Capacity Assessment is underway.

6.3 Planning

6.3.1 A very busy period with three plan changes notified:

· Private Plan Change 30 – Nelson Airport runway extension – notified 10 June 2023 – 460 submissions covering more than 1,000 points

· Plan Change 29 – Housing and Hazards – notified 11 August – community meetings and library sessions - 880 submissions covering more than 9,000 points

· Plan Change 31 – Nelson Junction – notified 11 August – six submissions – hearing 4 December – Council accepted recommendations to approve Plan Change 31 on 14 December – if no appeals becomes operative on 23 February 2024

6.3.2 Work is also progressing to update our provisions to comply with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM) and update our hazards information. Staff are keeping a close watch on central government announcements for changes that will be made in these areas and are working closely with Te Tau Ihu councils and iwi.

6.4 Resource Consents and Compliance

6.4.1 Resource Consent application numbers in the first two quarters are comparable to last year with 211 in 23/24 and 218 in 22/23. Consents have been granted for various housing developments within the region ranging from single new dwellings to social and retirement village housing developments (e.g. the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust development on Totara Street and the Summerset Richmond Ranges retirement village extension).

6.4.2 Officers also continued to prioritise August 2022 weather event applications for storm remediation works through this period.

6.5 Science and Environment

6.5.1 Across the integrated catchment programme, the Hill Country Erosion Fund saw over 200,000 trees planted across 23 properties. Forty landowners were supported to develop land environment plans. MfE has funded a nature-based solutions project focused on building flood resilience in the Wakapuaka catchment. Phase 1 of the project (data gathering and gap analysis) is underway.

6.5.2 In the engagement space two Enviroschools held reflections at Silver Level – Nayland College and Birchwood School. New Cyanobacteria signs were installed along the Maitai River. Community events were held for World Rivers Day, and the Wakapuaka catchment.

6.5.3 The State of the Environment monitoring programme is tracking at a similar level to that undertaken in previous periods to fulfil reporting requirements. In the past six months the state of environment field technicians undertook monitoring, collection and processing of:

· 106 flow gaugings

· 80 flow recorder site inspections

· 31 rain gauge site inspections

· 180 freshwater state of environment samples

· 48 coastal state of environment samples

· 45 recreation bathing/swimming samples

· 30 quantitative microbial risk assessment samples

· 18 marine state of environment samples

· 15 air quality site inspections.

6.5.4 The biosecurity programme has seen procurement of Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership coordination for 2023 – 2026 completed, and the annual biosecurity report completed and presented to Council on 9 November 2023.

6.5.5 Jobs for Nature-funded projects delivered nearly 10,000 hours of biodiversity restoration work in the Maitai, Wakapuaka and Whangamoa catchments in the six months to 31 December. This included native planting, weed control, predator trapping, planting after-care and cultural training with iwi partners.

6.5.6 In September, staff held the Nelson Halo Native Tree Giveaway, with 200 plants handed out to Nelson residents with the aim of attracting native birds to the urban centre.

6.5.7 A total of 25 grants have been approved this year with a value of over $195,000. Out of the of 25 grants given:

· 9 restore riparian margins or wetlands

· 15 reduce erosion from streambanks or steep slopes on farming and forestry land

· 11 enhance soil conservation

· 5 exclude stock from waterways

· 6 protect and restore a Significant Natural Area

· 10 enhance native wildlife through predator control

· 11 restore biodiversity by controlling weeds or browsing animals

· 1 provides a bird corridor through the Brook Valley.

6.6 Climate Change

6.6.1 Council’s 6th annual operational footprint has been completed, for the year 2022/23, continuing the declining trend in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the last five years. This reduction has been driven in large part by infrastructure improvements at the York Valley landfill, such as methane collection and flaring.

6.6.2 Council has completed a third-party verification of the Nelson community’s GHG emissions for the period of 2018/19 and 2019/20. The project received pro bono support from KPMG to develop the carbon accountancy, and from McHugh & Shaw, via a Carbon and Energy Professionals NZ Certified Carbon Auditor, to conduct assurance of the community carbon footprint. This work provides good insight into our regional emissions profile, outlining which areas pose the biggest challenges/opportunities for emissions reduction. Transport continues to be the highest source of emissions at nearly 60% in the base year 2018/19. Updated information will be uploaded on the Council website.

6.6.3 Carbon footprint training has been provided for the Nelson Centre for Musical Arts and The Suter. Council secured 75% co-funding from EECA for energy audits for the two organisations, based on internal audit results.

6.6.4 Development of the Nelson Tasman Regional Risk Assessment Tool is nearing completion. The tool, known as the Nelson Tasman Risk Explorer, provides a dynamic platform that integrates data across a range of domains, evaluating risk over time and considering various hazard scenarios. The tool will support prioritisation of adaptation planning and better decision making. The tool will be brought to Council, once complete, for a decision on making the information available to the community and around messaging needed to accompany its release.

6.6.5 The Council-appointed Climate Advisory Group’s work on developing a Climate Change Strategy is continuing. The Climate Change Taskforce has been established since the Advisory Group began its work and a process is now underway to involve it in the Strategy development.

6.6.6 The climate-resilient stormwater upgrade on St Vincent Street has been successfully completed. This upgrade aims to enhance resilience against heavy rain events and mitigate flood risks.

7. Risks and Challenges

7.1 Staffing remains the biggest risk and challenge with senior roles difficult to recruit for in the resource and building consent teams. Some key positions in the City Development and the Planning teams have recently been filled.

7.2 Budgeting constraints can also make the delivery of services challenging such as implementing Te ara ō Whakatū to revitalise the city.

7.3 Central government regulation reviews and changes have brought uncertainty to work programmes across many teams.

7.4 Financial pressure on landowners is affecting their ability to co-fund restoration/planting projects and engage with wider Council programmes.

8. Legal Proceedings

The Building Unit has one legal proceeding in progress. Under the Resource Management Act there is an application for enforcement orders, an application for a declaration, an appeal on Plan Change 28, and a prosecution for the discharge of sediment to water. There’s also appeals of infringement notices, two relating to parking and one dog control matter.

9. Strategic Direction and Focus

9.1 The building industry is expected to pick up in the latter part of 2024, with the demand for new housing increasing after the high immigration numbers, however with inflation not slowing as fast as expected and the potential of further interest rates rises, this prediction may change.

9.2 The Building team is liaising with Marlborough District Council (MDC) on the new Dangerous Dams legislation, investigating the possibility of transferring some of NCC’s Dams functions to MDC. MDC has in excess of 200 classifiable dams, has the required systems and processes in place, while NCC has approximately four classifiable dams.

9.3 Improving co-ordinated engagement with developers in the pre-application stage through to the end of the project continues to be a focus. A revamp of the pre-application steering group to better enable a smooth processing pathway is on track to be shared at the City Summit in March. Updating resource consent information available to the public (e.g. through update of the NCC website) and how information is provided to iwi is also work in progress.

9.4 Work is underway to assess and identify any Council-owned land that is surplus to requirements and could be used to leverage housing outcomes. A report will be brought to Council, in accordance with the Housing Acceleration Taskforce’s direction, for a decision on sites that may be disposed of.

9.5 Work on the Tasman Nelson Urban Environment Housing and Business Capacity Assessment is underway and due to be completed in the next few weeks.

9.6 Consultation on the draft Development Contributions Policy 2024 commences on 26 March 2024.

9.7 The Integrated Catchments team has begun Catchment Condition Surveys to prioritise grant funding and project work. They are also transitioning freshwater work programmes to create Integrated Catchment Management Plans which will be used across Science & Environment, Parks, Utilities and other teams.

Attachments

Nil

Item 15: Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel

Council

7 March 2024

Report Title: Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel

Report Author: Clare Piper - Manager Planning and Development

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28354

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To seek a resolution from the Council to appoint additional commissioner(s) to the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel.

1.2 To delegate to the hearings panel the authority to make decisions on the plan change.

1.3 To adopt the Terms of Reference for the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel (R28354) and its attachment (539570224-19202); and

3. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel (539570224-19202); and

5. Approves the appointment of one additional Independent Commissioner to the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel; and

6. Confirms the Nelson City Council Delegations Register will be updated to include the Plan Change 29 Hearing Panel.

3. Background

3.1 At the Council meeting on 10 August 2023, Council resolved:

Resolved CL/2023/177

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-Stevens and Councillor Brand to hear and recommend on submissions received in relation to Plan Changes 29 and 31.

3.2 At a public meeting on 7 September 2023, a decision was made by the Chief Executive in consultation with His Worship the Mayor and Councillors to extend the submission timeframe and the support of the Friend of Submitters to 31 October 2023.

3.3 Council received 864 submissions on Plan Change 29 (PC29) by the extended closing date of 4pm, 31 October 2023, another 16 submissions were received after the closing deadline.

3.4 At the Council meeting on 7 December 2023, Council resolved:

Resolved CL/2023/276

That the Council

1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28203); and

2. Agrees all late submissions on Plan Change 29 received up to the date of this report (7 December 2023) be accepted and included in the summary of submissions.

4. Discussion

4.1 The Hearing Panel of Independent Hearing Commissioner Greg Hill (Chairperson) and Councillors Trudie Brand and Rohan O’Neill-Stevens (acting as Commissioners) have been appointed and require delegated authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to consider, hear, deliberate, and decide on all submissions and further submissions received on PC29.

4.2 Delegating the authority to the hearings panel to make decisions on submissions will help to streamline the planning process. The hearing panel requires the necessary skills and experience to make such decisions. Having heard the submitters and weighed up the evidence, the hearing panel is best placed to make the decisions on submissions.

4.3 The power to give final approval of PC29, pursuant to clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, once the submissions and any subsequent appeals are addressed, will remain with the Council. This power cannot be delegated.

4.4 Generally, in making its decision, Council cannot deviate from the Hearings Panel’s recommendation as it did not hear all the evidence itself, but Council can refer matters back to the Hearings Panel for further recommendations.

4.5 There are no limitations on the number of Commissioners that are appointed to hear a Plan Change. It is usual practice to have an uneven number of Commissioners in case there are differences of opinion which can lead to a stalemate situation unless the chair has a casting vote.

4.6 The Terms of Reference for the PC29 Hearing Panel (Attachment 1) sets out the responsibility and principles for the panel including:

4.6.1 The panel membership, quorum, and conflict of interest process.

4.6.2 Delegated powers.

4.6.3 The Hearing Panel is responsible for determining its own procedures for the conduct of the hearing of submissions and further submissions throughout the hearing process and will issue other directions by way of Minute from time to time, both in the lead-up to the hearings, and during the hearings.

4.6.4 In the event that considerations on any particular submission or issues are not unanimous then the majority view of the panel shall be reflected as the Panel’s recommendation. For the rare occasions there is a split view the Chair would have the casting vote. However, the dissenting views shall also be outlined in the recommendation report.

4.7 On 12 February 2024, council publicly notified the summary of decisions requested containing more than 9,000 submission points raised by the community, the number and large range of submissions received creates a significant workload for the existing Hearing Panel. Over 300 submission points raised concerns about the composition of the Hearing Panel.

4.8 The provisions of section 34A of the Resource Management Act requires that:

(1A) If a local authority is considering appointing 1 or more hearings commissioners to exercise a delegated power to conduct a hearing under Part 1 or 5 of Schedule 1,—

(a) the local authority must consult tangata whenua through relevant iwi authorities on whether it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapu, and

(b) if the local authority considers it appropriate, it must appoint at least 1 commissioner with an understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū, in consultation with relevant iwi authorities.

4.9 Staff are currently working through the process of consulting with iwi authorities as per the requirements of section 34A(1A)(a).

5. Options

5.1 The large numbers of submissions and the issues covered by submitters requires a range and depth of technical knowledge which no single commissioner can be expected to have. The number of commissioners should match the scale of the decision that needs to be made, its complexity, and the experience and expertise of the commissioners. There should be sufficient expertise in the panel to ensure full understanding of the relevant evidence and information presented.

5.2 For Plan Change 29 there are a number of matters relating to intensification of residential and commercial activities on land subject to hazards. A Commissioner with experience in this field would assist the current Panel members better understand the technical information presented to them.

5.3 Council needs to ensure that the people they wish to appoint as commissioners hold a current certificate under the Making Good Decisions programme which provides RMA decision-makers with the skills they need to run fair and effective resource consent, plan change and designation hearings, and to make informed decisions or recommendations. Commissioners should also be able to demonstrate an open mind to the matters put before them and have not already made public comments on the outcomes they want to see for the process.

5.4 Most councils use an odd number of commissioners in hearings to avoid stalemate situations. With an even number of commissioners, Council may want to identify which commissioner will have a casting vote (usually the chairperson or most experienced commissioner) in the appointment/delegation of powers to commissioners.

5.5 Four options have been considered and are outlined below: the preferred option being appointing one additional independent commissioner.

Option 1: Appoint one additional independent commissioner (preferred option)
Advantages	· Additional experienced resource to assist with technical issues, report writing and workload. · Brings an additional set of specialist expertise or enhanced diversity that is not available within council. · Enables the consideration of skills and experience of independent commissioners employed to match the nature, scale and technical complexity of the issues raised in submissions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The additional expense of using an independent commissioner. · Risk of stalemate situations is higher but can be mitigated by identifying which member has a casting vote.
Option 2: Appoint two additional independent commissioners
Advantages	· Same as option one, plus: · Enables further discussion with iwi to consider appointing a commissioner with understanding of tikanga Māori. · Uneven number of commissioners eliminates the risk of stalemate situations.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The additional expense of using two independent commissioners.
Option 3: Appoint one additional Councillor to act as a commissioner
Advantages	· Provides the opportunity for elected members holding a current certificate under the Making Good Decisions programme to utilise this training. · More local knowledge and understanding could be an advantage during the hearing and in the deliberations.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Political pressures that may otherwise be placed on Councillors at key times. · The Councillor may have actual or perceived conflicts of interest if they have already made their views on the outcome of PC29 public. · Risk of stalemate situations is higher but can be mitigated by identifying which member has a casting vote.
Option 4: Do not amend the makeup of the Hearing Panel
Advantages	· There is no additional cost to Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· A high workload for the inexperienced Commissioners could lead to the delay of the recommendation report, which could pose a risk to Council in respect to meeting the timeframes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA. · Submitters on this matter could be upset their views have not been listened to.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Staff recommend option 1: Appoint one additional independent commissioner with the Chair having a casting vote for the rare occasions when there is a split of views.

7. Next Steps

7.1 Staff will identify an accredited commissioner available for this work.

Attachments

Attachment 1: 539570224-19202 - Plan Change 29 - Hearing Panel Terms of Reference ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

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

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The relevant community outcomes are:

Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

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

Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

Our region is supported by an innovative and sustainable economy.

The relevant Council Priorities (LTP 2021-31) are:

Housing affordability and intensification.

Risk

The risk of not appointing additional Commissioners could lead to the delay of the hearing, which could pose a risk to Council in respect to meeting the timeframes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA under which decisions must be given within 2 years of notification of a proposed policy statement or plan.

Financial impact

Council is responsible for all costs associated with any additional commissioners appointed to the panel. No additional funding is sought as a consequence of this decision, costs can be covered by exiting budgets.

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

This matter is of moderate significance because council received 880 submissions on Plan Change 29, 300 submission points raised concerns about the composition of the Hearing Panel.

Climate Impact

This decision 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.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Ongoing engagement with Māori is being undertaken in accordance with section 34A(1A)(a) of the RMA.

Legal context

Council has power to make this decision under Schedule 1 process of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Delegations

Council may appoint subordinate decision-making bodies to carry out its governance responsibilities, powers, functions and duties.