Agenda of Council - Thursday, 10 October 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 5 September 2024, commencing at 9.02a.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 and A Stallard

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

Kaumàtua: Luke Katu, Melanie McGregor

Apologies : Councillor T Skinner

Karakia and Mihi Timatanga

1. Apologies

Apologies
Resolved CL/2024/169
	*That the Council* 1. *Receives and accepts the apologies from Councillor Tim Skinner for attendance.*
Rollo/Paki Paki Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chair advised Item 8: Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward was to be considered as the first substantial item followed by Item 7: Mayor’s Report.

3. Interests

Councillor Paki Paki, as the incumbent Māori Ward Councillor, noted an interest on Item 8: Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward.

4. Public Forum
There was no public forum.

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 1 August 2024

Document number M20677, agenda pages 14 - 22 refer.

Resolved CL/2024/170

That the Council

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

His Worship the Mayor/Rollo Carried

6. Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward (Agenda Item 8)

Document number R28659, agenda pages 87 - 97 refer.

Group Manager Strategy & Communications, Nicky McDonald, Kaihautu, Pania Lee and Manager Governance and Support Services, Devorah Nicuarta-Smith presented the report and provided an update from central government on other councils who had made the decision on Māori wards. They answered questions on the total number of councils in the country, the number of Māori wards in the country and Council’s obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001.

His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith noted Councillors Hodgson and Rainey had foreshadowed amendments if option 2 of the officers’ recommendation were the motion. He called for a mover and seconder in principle to enable progression.

Councillor Paki Paki moved in principle, seconded by Councillor O’Neill Stevens, the officers’ recommendation option 2 with the exclusion of option 2a - “Noting that a poll of electors must then be undertaken concurrent with the 2025 triennial local election on whether a Māori ward should be established in Nelson, and that the results of that poll will be binding and apply for the 2028 and 2031 elections” - as this was a follow on action from the decision and understood.

Resolved in principle

That the Council in principle

1. Receives the report Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward (R28659); and

2. Resolves under the transitional provisions of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 to retain the Māori ward it established for electoral purposes since 2020;

The in principle motion was put and a division was called:

For

Mayor Hon Dr 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

Nil

Apology

Cr Skinner

The in principle motion was carried unanimously

Paki Paki/O'Neill-Stevens

The meeting was adjourned from 10.21a.m. until 10.30a.m.

Councillor Hodgson moved in principle, seconded by Councillor Brand, proforma to enable discussion, proposed additional clauses be added to the motion to request additional non-binding poll questions be included with 2025 local election voting documents, to inform the next representation review.

Ms McDonald and Ms Nicuarta-Smith answered questions on polls and the costs associated with them, the next representation review timelines, the most recent previous representation review and community engagement, future expenditure on representation reviews, estimated costs for future polls with additional questions and the cost of community engagement and promotions.

The in principle amendment was put and a division was called.

That the Council in principle

3. Directs the Electoral Officer to [also] undertake a non-binding poll for all Nelson City Council electors alongside the 2025 triennial local election on potential representation arrangements, as allowed for by section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 on the other key changes made in 2021 without a poll; notably the change from the election of all Councillors at large, to a mixed system of some by wards and some at large, and the change of voting system; and

4. Notes that undertaking a non-binding poll on representation arrangements will address the concern that the referendum on the Māori ward is discriminatory by also conducting a poll on the future of the general wards of Central and Stoke/Tāhunanui; and

5. Requests that the Deputy Electoral Officer, in consultation with the Electoral Officer, prepare a report for Council on the appropriate wording for the non-binding poll questions; and

6. Notes that the results of the non-binding poll on representation arrangements will help inform the representation review that Council is required to undertake in the next term; and

7. Notes that a neutral information sheet will be provided in the voting pack by the Electoral Officer, covering voting at large, wards and electoral systems; and

8. Agrees that $50,000 extra funding will be set aside for the election project in the Annual Plan 2025/26 to allow the further questions to proceed; and

9. Notes that this council’s preferred approach would be to treat all wards equally, requiring that any initiative to establish or disestablish a ward, or to change to a different electoral system, be subject to the outcome of a poll of electors.

For

Mayor Hon Dr Smith (Chairperson)

Cr Hodgson

Against

Cr Anderson

Cr Benge

Cr Brand

Cr Courtney

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Paki Paki

Cr Rainey

Cr Rollo

Cr Sanson

Cr Stallard

Apology

Cr Skinner

The amendment in principle was lost 2 - 10.

Hodgson/Brand Lost

Attendance: His Worship the Mayor left the meeting at 11.04a.m at which time Deputy Mayor O’Neill-Stevens assumed the Chair.

Attendance: His Worship the Mayor returned to the meeting at 11.08a.m at which time he resumed the Chair.

The meeting was adjourned from 11.45a.m. until 11.50a.m.

Councillor Rainey, seconded by Councillor Sanson, moved an amendment in principle to request a report on legal implications of not proceeding with a poll on the Màori war alongside the next election.

Ms McDonald explained the significant staff cost associated with the request and answered questions on Council’s obligation to fund actions that must be carried out by the Electoral Officer.

That the Council

3. Requests the Chief Executive to report back on the implications of Nelson City Council refusing to hold a referendum on the question of a Māori Ward at the 2025 local election

The amendment in principle was put and a division was called:

For

Cr Anderson

Cr Courtney

Cr O'Neill-Stevens

Cr Paki Paki

Cr Rainey

Cr Sanson

Cr Stallard

Against

His Worship the Mayor Smith (Chairperson)

Cr Benge

Cr Brand

Cr Hodgson

Cr Rollo

Apology

Cr Skinner

The amendment in principle was carried 7 – 5.

Rainey/Sanson Carried

The substantive in principle motion was put and carried.

Resolved CL/2024/171That the Council

1. Receives in principle the report Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2024 - decision on Māori Ward (R28659); and

3. Requests the Chief Executive to report back on the implications of Nelson City Council refusing to hold a referendum on the question of a Māori Ward at the 2025 local election

7 Mayor's Report

Document number R28772, agenda pages 23 - 86 refer. Strategic Adviser Infrastructure, Mark Macfarlane and Chair of the former Right Tree Right Place Taskforce, Dr Morgan Williams, presented the report, tabled a map of Maitai Valley Planting (340448201-6725) and spoke on various matters relating to plantings. Dr Williams answered questions on the reasons behind the taskforce not recommending planting native plants in all designated areas, erosion control, opportunities to secure native plants at a lower price, taskforce recommendations and mixed species forests. Dr Williams in reply to a question, noted that the officer recommendations re redwood planting in the Maitai was not inconsistent with the Taskforce recommendations. The meeting was adjourned from 12.38p.m. until 12.46p.m. The motion was taken in parts
Resolved CL/2024/172
	*That the Council* 8. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group (1118544611-7861), which replaces the Sister City Coordinating Group Procedures and Protocol (839498445 – 14252); and 9. Acknowledges and thanks Gail Collingwood for her dedicated voluntary service to the Sister City Coordinating Group since 2013 and her previous long service as a Councillor and Deputy Mayor, which included extensive work developing and supporting our sister cities; and *10. Appoints Councillor Trudie Brand as the Chair of the Sister Cities and International Visitors Co-ordinating Group.*
His Worship the Mayor/Rollo Carried
Resolved CL/2024/173
*That the Council* *1. Receives the report Mayor's Report (R28772) and its attachments (1118544611-7862, 1118544611-7861, 839498445–14252, 1118544611-7854, 118544611-7855, 1118544611-7853); and*
His Worship the Mayor/Rollo Carried

The meeting was adjourned from 12.51p.m. until 12.55p.m.

His Worship the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Brand moved the remaining clauses of the Mayor’s Report recommendations.

	That the Council 2. Establishes the Forestry Transition Working Group to provide governance oversight on the implementation of Council’s decisions in relation to its transition from commercial forests to amenity forests; and 3. Adopts the amended tabled Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference (1118544611-7862); and 4. Appoints to the Forestry Transition Working Group His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith (Chair), and Councillors Matthew Benge, Trudie Brand, James Hodgson, Kahu Paki Paki, Rachel Sanson and Aaron Stallard; and 5. Recommends that the Chief Executive bring forward the appointment of a Forest Systems Manager to lead the transition work; and 6. Notes that the Forest Systems Manager role will be funded from the Forests Account and that the Forestry Transition Working Group will be consulted about the job description for the role;
Councillor Sanson, seconded by Councillor Benge put an amendment including further changes to the Terms of Reference noting that it would achieve better governance oversight over Council’s forestry work.
His Worship the Mayor/Brand
That the Council 2. Establishes the Forestry Transition Working Group to provide governance oversight on the implementation of Council’s decisions in relation to its transition from commercial forests to amenity forests; and 3. Adopts the further amended Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference (1118544611-7862); and 4. Appoints to the Forestry Transition Working Group His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith, (Chair), and Councillors Matthew Benge, Rachel Sanson, Aaron Stallard, Kahu Paki Paki, Trudie Brand and James Hodgson; and 5. Recommends that the Chief Executive bring forward the appointment of a Forest Systems Manager to lead the transition work; and 6. Notes that Council is moving away from commercial forestry and is employing a whole-of-forest approach with a focus on the regeneration of the existing 10,000ha of indigenous forest as well as newly planted forest, prioritising biodiversity, recreation and ecosystem health throughout the transition; and that the Forestry Transition Working Group will provide guidance about the job description for the role of Forest Systems Manager

The item was adjourned at 1.05p.m. at which time the meeting moved into Confidential session

8 Exclusion of the Public

External Adviser, Melisa Kappely from Intepeople, was in attendance for Item 3 of the Confidential Agenda (Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review) to answer questions and, accordingly, the following resolution was required to be passed:

Recommendation
Resolved CL/2024/174
	That the Council 1. Confirms, in accordance with sections 48(5) and 48(6) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, that External Adviser, Melisa Kappely from Intepeople remain after the public has been excluded, for Item 3 of the Confidential agenda (Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review), as she has knowledge relating to the Chief Executive’s employment that will assist the meeting.
Rollo/Paki Paki Carried

Resolved CL/2024/175

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:

Rollo/Paki Paki 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 - 1 August 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)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) · Section 7(2)(c)(ii) To protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest
2	Recommendations from Committees
	Chief Executive Employment Committee - 7 August 2024 Chief Executive Performance Assessment Report 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)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
	Chief Executive Employment Committee - 7 August 2024 Draft 2024/2025 Chief Executive Performance Agreement	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
3	Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person
4	Housing Reserve Grant Applications	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	Board Remuneration - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Nelson Regional Development Agency, Nelmac Limited and Nelson Marina Management Limited	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(i) To enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The meeting went into confidential session at 1.05p.m. and resumed in public session at 2.25p.m. at which time it returned to item 7.

9. Mayor's Report reconvened (Agenda Item 7)

The motion and amendment were discussed and an adjournment was taken to give Council officers time to compile a document which included all proposed changes and amendments.

Item adjourned at 2.30p.m. to consider Item 6.

10. Recommendations from Committees (Agenda Item 6)

10.1 Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit - 2 August 2024

10.1.1 NRSBU General Manager Update Report August 2024

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/176

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Adopts the final Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit 2024 – 2034 Activity Management Plan (1080325921-753).

His Worship the Mayor/Paki Paki Carried

10.3 Consultation Panel - 15 August 2024

10.3.1 Activities in Public Places Deliberations Report

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/177

That the Council

10. Adopts the amended Commercial Occupation Policy (839498445-18767) and the Licence Fee Schedule (839498445-18517); and

11. Notes that:

a. the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28586 in relation to sandwich boards, the definition of “occupy’ and clause 6.10, differ from the proposed amendments in the Statement of Proposal; and

b. the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report RR28586 respond to views presented on the proposed amendments in the Statement of Proposal; and

12. Agrees that the recommended amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28586 in relation to sandwich boards, the definition of “occupy’ and clause 6.10:

a. do not require additional consultation; and

b. are within the scope of decisions that can be taken following consideration of views presented on the Statement of Proposal; and

13. Determines, following consideration of submissions, that the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw as shown in Attachment 2 of report (R28745) are the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problems; are the most appropriate form of amendments to the Bylaw and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

14. Adopts the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw (839498445-18785) ; and

15. Determines that the amendments to the Urban Environments Bylaw will commence on 12 September 2024; and

16. Notes under section 80 of the Local Government Act, that clause 5.18 of the amended Urban Environments Bylaw (839498445-18785) which relates to the display of sandwich boards:

a. is inconsistent with the Nelson Resource Management Plan Rule AP20r.2.1.i which sets the permitted activity conditions for the location of signs; and

b. the reason for the inconsistency is that amending the Bylaw to align with the Nelson Resource Management Plan now, in the current economic climate, is likely to add to the financial pressures already being experienced by local Nelson businesses; and

17. That staff are considering whether the relevant section of the Nelson Resource Management Plan (Rule AP20r.2.1.i) needs to be amended to accommodate the decision in relation to the Urban Environments Bylaw and when any proposed amendment to the Nelson Resource Management Plan could be progressed.

Rollo/Benge Carried

10.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit - 16 August 2024

10.2.1 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit General Manager Update Report August 2024

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/178

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Adopts the final Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit 2024 – 2034 Activity Management Plan (1399367370-8789).

Rollo/Paki Paki Carried

10.2.2 Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Annual Report 2023 -2024

Recommendation to Council CL/2024/179

That the Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council

1. Receives the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit Annual Report 2023 -2024 and its Attachments (1399367370-10513 and 749984575-1602).

Courtney/Stallard Carried

11. Mayor's Report reconvened (Agenda Item 7)

Extension of Meeting Time
Resolved CL/2024/180
	*That the Council* 1. *Extends the meeting time beyond six hours, pursuant to Standing Order 4.2.*
His Worship the Mayor/Courtney Carried

Attendance: Councillor Rainey joined the meeting via zoom at 3.00p.m.

With the agreement of the meeting, and the mover and the seconder, the amendment was updated to reflect further clarification, and was put.

Resolved CL/2024/181

That the Council

2. Establishes the Forestry Transition Working Group to provide governance oversight on the implementation of Council’s decisions in relation to its transition from commercial forests to amenity forests; and

3. Adopts the further amended tabled Forestry Transition Working Group Terms of Reference (1982984479-8232); and

4. Appoints to the Forestry Transition Working Group His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith (Chair), and Councillors Matthew Benge, Trudie Brand, James Hodgson, Kahu Paki Paki, Rachel Sanson and Aaron Stallard; and

5. Recommends that the Chief Executive bring forward the appointment of a Forest Systems Manager to lead the transition work; and

6. Notes that Council is moving away from commercial forestry and is employing a whole-of-forest approach with a focus on the regeneration of the existing 10,000ha of indigenous forest as well as newly planted forest, taking into account biodiversity, recreation, ecosystem health, realistic costs and mitigating major risks throughout the transition; and

7. Confirms that the Forestry Transition Working Group will provide guidance about the job description for the role of Forest Systems Manager

The agreed motion was put and a division was called:

For

His Worship the Mayor (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

Nil

Apology

Cr Skinner

The motion was carried 12 – 0.

Sanson/Benge Carried

Attachments

1 1982984479-8231 Terms of Reference Forestry Transition Working Group 2024 - Mayor Hon Dr Nick Smith

2 1982984479-8232 Amended Terms of Reference - Forestry Transition Working Group 2024 - Cr Rachel Sanson

3 340448201-6725 GIS - Forestry - Maitai Valley Planting

Attendance: Councillor Rainey left the meeting at 3:33p.m.

12. Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (Agenda Item 9)

Document number R28655, agenda pages 98 - 103 refer.

The meeting adjourned from 3.43p.m. until 3.48pm

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop and Senior City Development Adviser, Martin Kozinsky took the report as read and answered questions on community housing.

Resolved CL/2024/182

That the Council

1. Receives the report Amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (R28655) and its attachment (336940202-11407); and

2. Approves the amendment to the Policy on Development Contributions 2024 (336940202-11407) to the glossary definition of social housing, as outlined in section 5.9 of this report (R28655), to read “Housing developments undertaken by a Community Housing Provider that is registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority or developments that deliver a similar housing outcome. Social housing providers exempt from DCs are outlined in section 7.1 of this Policy”.

O'Neill-Stevens/Brand Carried

13. The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (Agenda Item 10)

Document number R28669, agenda pages 104 - 107 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop and Manager Consents and Compliance, Chris Miles took the report as read and answered questions on frequency of reviews and level of enforcement of the bylaws (e.g. Freedom Camping Bylaw), assessing and measuring compliance.

Resolved CL/2024/183

That the Council

1. Receives the report The Effectiveness of the Compliance Strategy 2020 (R28669) and its attachment (756385493-50372); and

2. Notes the Long Term Plan performance measure requiring an annual review of the effectiveness of the Strategy has been removed from the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan and the Compliance Strategy will now be reviewed in 2025, then as required after that.

Sanson/Courtney Carried

14. Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Agenda Item 11)

Document number R28725, agenda pages 108 - 130 refer.

Group Manager Environmental Management, Mandy Bishop and Environmental Programmes Adviser, Richard Frizell, took the report as read and highlighted that a Section 5.10 would be added and the Options Table would be removed from the Statement of Proposal which would bring it in line with Tasman District Council’s Cat Management Bylaw.

Resolved CL/2024/184

That the Council

1. Receives the report Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw (R28725) and its attachment (596364813-11766) which includes the Statement of Proposal and the Draft Cat Management Bylaw, reasons for the proposal and the determinations required by section 155 of the LGA02; and

2. Determines that the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems related to the keeping of cats; it is the most appropriate form of Bylaw and any limits on rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 are reasonable and proportional, for the reasons set out in this report (R28725); and

3. Approves the commencement of the special consultative procedure on the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766) to run from 9 September to 9 October 2024; and

4. Adopts the amended ‘Statement of Proposal for a Cat Management Bylaw’ in Attachment 1 (596364813-11766)) for use in this special consultative procedure; and

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

6. Delegates the hearing and deliberations process in relation to submissions on this proposal to a Consultation Panel of elected members, who will make recommendations to the Council on those submissions; and

7. Appoints a Consultation Panel to Hear and Deliberate on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw consisting of:

· Councillor Matty Anderson (Chairperson)

· Councillor Mathew Benge

· Councillor Rachel Sanson

8. Approves the consultation approach set out in section 6.5 of Report R28725 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.

Sanson/Anderson Carried

15. Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (Agenda Item 12)

Document number R28663, agenda pages 131 - 141 refer.

Group Manager Community Services, Andrew White and Strategic Adviser Community Services, Martin Croft took the report as read and answered questions on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approach with other Council Organisations or Council Controlled Organisations, the process of the MOU and duration of the funding.

Resolved CL/2024/185

That the Council

1. Receives the report Nelson School of Music Trust: Memorandum of Understanding (R28663) and its attachment (1511110536-1100); and

2. Approves the Memorandum of Understanding between Nelson School of Music Trust trading as Nelson Centre of Musical Arts (NCMA) and Nelson City Council, delegating His Worship the Mayor to sign on behalf of Council; and

3. Delegates His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to make any necessary minor editorial amendments prior to signing.

Brand/Courtney Carried

16. Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024 (Agenda Item 13)

Document number R28718, agenda pages 142 - 161 refer.

Group Manager Strategy & Communications, Nicky McDonald and Policy Adviser, Ailish Neyland took the report as read and answered questions on the cost to undertake a special consultation, implications of option 2 and representation within the engagement.

Resolved CL/2024/186

That the Council

1. Receives the report Gambling Venue Policy Review 2024 (R28718) and its attachment (839498445-8131); and

2. Notes that a review of Council’s Gambling Venue Policy (839498445-8131), which is required under the Gambling Act 2003 and Racing Industry Act 2020, has been undertaken and is outlined in this report; and

3. Option 1:

a. Agrees that the result of the review is that no change is needed to the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 (839498445-8131); and

b. Determines that no further consultation or engagement on the decision to retain the current Gambling Venue Policy 2018 with no changes is required.

His Worship the Mayor/Rollo Carried

17. Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders (Agenda Item 14)

Document number R28757, agenda pages 162 - 172 refer.

Group Manager Strategy & Communications, Nicky McDonald and Team Leader Governance, Robyn Byrne, took the report as read and explained the report allows clauses amended in the standing orders to include quorum through audio visual link.

Resolved CL/2024/187

That the Council

1. Receives the report Update to Nelson City Council Standing Orders (R28757) and its attachment (1373411589-1729); and

2. Updates Nelson City Council Standing Orders sections 11 and 13 outlined in clauses 4.6 – 4.7 of Report R28757 to allow for members joining a meeting remotely to be counted as quorum; and

3. Adopts Nelson City Council Standing Orders, effective from 01 October 2024.

His Worship the Mayor/Paki Paki Carried

18. Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034 (Agenda Item 15)

Document number R28428, agenda pages 173 - 180 refer.

Strategic Adviser Infrastructure, Mark Macfarlane and Manager Utilities Activity Management, Phil Ruffell took the report as read and answered questions on Activity Management Plans (AMPs) at the end of the Long Term Plan 2034 and risks and challenges of AMPs in the next few years.

Resolved CL/2024/188

That the Council

1. Receives the report Infrastructure Activity Management Plans 2024-2034 (R28428) and its attachments (1833911234-1363, 1833911234-1364, 1833911234-1365, 1833911234-1366, 1833911234-1367 and 1833911234-1385); and

2. Adopts the revised Infrastructure Activity Management Plans

a. Wastewater (1833911234-1391),

b. Water Supply (1833911234-1392),

c. Stormwater (1833911234-1390),

d. Flood protection (1833911234-1389),

e. Transport (1833911234-1388), and

f. Solid Waste (1833911234-1394).

3. Delegates authority to His Worship the Mayor and Chief Executive to approve any minor amendments required to the documents prior to the public release of the Infrastructure Activity Management Plans.

His Worship the Mayor/Brand Carried

Karakia Whakamutanga

19. Restatements

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

2.1.1

Recommendation from Committee:

CONFIDENTIAL: Chief Executive Performance Assessment Report 2024

That the Council

1. Confirms the Chief Executive’s Performance Rating outcome for the 12-month period to June 2024:

KPI 1 is Achieved/Exceeded

KPI 2 is Achieved

KPI 3 is Exceeded

With the overall rating of Achieved/Exceeded; and

2. Notes the Performance Rating is a factor when considering the Chief Executive’s fixed remuneration for 2024/2025 year; and

3. Agrees that the decision be made publicly available.

2.1.2

Recommendation from Committee:

CONFIDENTIAL: Draft 2024/2025 Chief Executive Performance Agreement

That the Council

1. Approves the recommendation to adopt the Chief Executive’s Performance Agreement for 2024/2025 (1809402794-1209); and

2. Agrees that the decision and Attachment 1809402794-1209) be made publicly available.

3	CONFIDENTIAL: Chief Executive Employment Committee Recommendation to Council - CE Remuneration Review
	3. Agrees that Report (R28746), decision and Attachment (1982984479-8050) remain confidential

4	CONFIDENTIAL: Housing Reserve Grant Applications
	8. Agrees that Report R28712, attachments (336940202-11386, 336940202-11904 and 336940202-11903), and decision be made publicly available following completion of negotiations.

5	CONFIDENTIAL: Board Remuneration - The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Nelson Regional Development Agency, Nelmac Limited and Nelson Marina Management Limited
	6. Agrees that the decision be made publicly available following the Annual General Meetings for the Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatū Trust, Nelson Regional Development Agency and Nelmac Limited, and after the Chair and Directors have been informed at Nelson Marina Management Limited.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 4.56p.m.

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

Resolved

Item 7: Mayor's Report

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Mayor's Report

Report Author: Hon Dr Nick Smith - Mayor

Report Authoriser:

Report Number: R28828

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider engaging with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Tasman District Council about the establishment of a place-based housing partnership in the Nelson-Tasman region.

1.2 To note my appointment to the Transport Revenue Stakeholder Reference Group.

1.3 To acknowledge the Government’s grant of $3.44 million towards the cleanup of wood waste at Tāhunanui Beach.

1.4 To provide an update on the Government’s proposed building consent reform.

1.5 To provide an update on the development of the National Infrastructure Plan.

1.6 To consider bringing forward $2,500 for Sister City visits from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to support up to one-third of receipted costs of my visit to Nelson’s sister cities of Huangshi and Yangjiang.

2. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the Mayor’s Report (R28828) and its attachments; and

2. Requests officers engage with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Tasman District Council about the establishment of a place-based housing partnership in the Nelson-Tasman region and report back to a future Council meeting detailing potential benefits, options and a recommended way forward; and

3. Approves bringing forward a portion of the funding for Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to support up to $2,500 or one third of the receipted costs, whichever is the lesser, of the Mayor’s visit in October 2024 to Nelson’s sister cities of Huangshi and Yangjiang.

3. Discussion

Housing place-based partnerships

3.1 Housing remains a critical and challenging issue for our city and region. This is due to the combination of high house prices along with the region being a popular place to live, an area of growth with relatively low incomes, and a historic undersupply of social housing. Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (KOHC) has an average of one home per 76 people nationally but only one home per 150 people in the Nelson-Tasman region.

3.2 The solution to our housing problems requires a wide range of initiatives, mostly led by central government. Council’s most important role is getting our planning rules and infrastructure provision right to support increased housing supply. We have successfully used our Housing Reserve to leverage additional community housing and we are on track to meet the goal set in 2022 to double from 50 to 100 the number of community owned affordable rentals by 2026. We also have a role to advocate for housing investment by Government and I attach my letter to the Board of KOHC, dated 16 August 2024, in respect of developments in Examiner and Nile streets (refer attachment 1).

3.3 Council officers and I have had discussions with Government housing officials as to whether there is merit in our region developing a more formal structure to lead ongoing housing work. This proposal has also been discussed by the Community Housing Acceleration Taskforce. These place-based partnerships are a Ministry of Housing and Urban Development - Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga (HUD) initiative that involve working with others to support the development of housing to meet the needs of each individual place. This supports communities with poor housing outcomes, helping them achieve enduring improvements. It typically starts with a clear strategy that addresses an agreed definition of the housing issues and is backed up by a thorough analysis of available data.

3.4 In a place-based partnership, governance is usually tailored to the size and range of issues and is as streamlined as possible, consisting of the partner entities and key stakeholders. It would be a partnership between Council, central government agencies, iwi and community housing providers. I have discussed the proposal with neighbouring Mayor Tim King and he is open minded about Tasman also being a participant.

3.5 A place-based partnership would demonstrate collaborative thinking about issues and options to address Nelson’s housing issues and assist partners to share and align work programmes to give effect to upcoming changes that will be enabled through the Government’s Going for Housing Growth policies and tools (currently under development).

3.6 It would also enable joint submissions and applications for funding particularly in relation to the delivery of social housing and for the financing of infrastructure upgrades. Having a place-based partnership would assist community housing providers to position themselves to provide social housing in locations where it is needed and provide direction and certainty to housing developers about where to invest and the timing of infrastructure development.

3.7 The concept is a positive step in tackling the region’s housing issues and will assist with progressing collaborative housing project opportunities.

3.8 My proposal is that Council staff engage with HUD and Tasman District Council about the establishment of a place-based housing partnership covering the Nelson-Tasman region and report back to Council on the potential benefits of the initiative.

Transport Revenue Stakeholder Reference Group appointment

3.9 I have accepted a role as a local government representative on the Transport Revenue Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG). The SRG has been established by the Ministry of Transport - Te Manatū Waka. The role is unpaid but my costs such as travel are being met by the Ministry and not Council.

3.10 Council spends about $60 million a year on transport with about $20 million per year coming from Government, from road user charges and excise taxes on fuel. The other $40 million is met by rates. We also have a huge interest in the funding for investment and maintenance of State Highways in our city, which comes from these revenues. The key reason we have not seen the level of investment in transport infrastructure needed to keep up with growth is that there has been insufficient funds available from the National Land Transport Fund.

3.11 The SRG is expected to perform an important role by supporting the development of the Ministry of Transport - Te Manatū Waka and the NZ Transport Agency – Waka Kotahi work programmes through the provision of sector and industry specific insights with a focus on contributing ideas to improve the revenue system. The key challenge is in helping advise the Government on the reform of transport revenue systems outlined in the Revenue Action Plan for the National Land Transport Fund.

3.12 I attended the first meeting of the reference group on 23 September 2024 and my involvement is expected to involve monthly meetings through to at least mid-2025 following which there will be legislation to implement the reform. The SRG is covered by confidentiality requirements so there will be limited opportunity for me to report to Council on the work beyond announcements made by Government. However, I will be doing all I can to see the system improved for regions such as Nelson.

Government grant towards Tāhunanui Beach cleanup

3.13 On 1 October 2024, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds announced in Nelson that the Government would contribute $3.44 million towards the cleanup of the contaminated wood waste at Tāhunanui Beach. I thank Councillors for having confidence at the August meeting in my verbal assurances that we would get at least 50% funding from Government and that has enabled us to get the work done before summer.

3.14 The grant from the new Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund covers 75% of the total cleanup cost of $4.59 million. The Minister noted at the press conference that this would be the highest percentage contribution to councils from the new fund. This welcome contribution reduces the ratepayer contribution for the cleanup to $1.15 million. Council will spend another $300,000 for the construction of a replacement gravel car park and the planting of the remediated area. This brings the total project cost to $4.89 million, less than previously estimated.

3.15 I wish to acknowledge the Council team, led by Andrew White, who have been working on this problem since it was first identified in May 2023. I have been involved in work involving more than a dozen contaminated sites. They are difficult problems and few have been resolved as quickly or smoothly as this one.

3.16 Council has been well served by our officers in commissioning the testing, being open in reporting the results to Council and the community, helping develop a solution and access to transfer the contaminated material to the York Valley Landfill, maintaining a good relationship with the Environment Ministry while getting on with the fix, keeping iwi and the community well informed and working with the contractors to get the job done. We wish them well in getting the physical work completed safely over the next couple of months.

Proposed building consent reform

3.17 Minister of Building and Construction Chris Penk has contacted Council to advise that a programme of work is underway in response to the challenges faced by Building Consent Authorities. The proposed reforms of the building and construction industry include several projects aimed at reforming the building consent system and streamlining the existing building consent process. The intention of the reforms is to make it simpler to build by improving consistency, certainty and the efficiency of the consent system.

3.18 Minister Penk advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – Hīkina Whakatutuki (MBIE) will identify the best way to deliver consenting services in New Zealand. This will include considering the scope of building work exempt from a building consent, investigating a new Building Consent Authority structure, considering liability settings and exploring the role of private insurance in the consent system.

3.19 The Government has started consulting on this matter and has indicated it wishes to engage fully with local authorities during the consultation process. I joined a webinar on 30 September 2024 with Minister Penk and David Hall, the General Manager of Building System Performance at MBIE.

3.20 These reforms may have major implications for our building consent role and team. We may be required to form a combined business unit with adjacent councils or be part of a nationwide service or building consenting portal.

3.21 There is a case for reform and I see three positives in the way the Government is approaching the problem. The timing works well as the building sector is currently not as busy, the Minister is committed to an engagement and consultation process, and the Ministry understands that Council’s risk adversity is directly related to the unfair legal liabilities councils face.

3.22 However, there are two concerns that I wish to highlight. Firstly, the Government is underestimating the influence of International Accreditation NZ (IANZ) on council building consenting processes. IANZ has high standards that councils must follow to be accredited yet these strict requirements often frustrate builders and building consent applicants. Our Council building officers feel squeezed between one part of Government through IANZ wanting strict compliance and others wanting a more flexible, responsive approach to contain costs. The second concern is placing greater responsibility for the quality of building work on Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) when the system for maintaining standards of LBPs is slow and cumbersome. If LBPs are to have wider scope to do work unregulated, then the system for ensuring their quality needs to be strengthened.

3.23 Getting the detail right in this complex area is going to be very important and we will need to be engaged in this process to obtain the best outcome for Nelson, our housing sector and our building industry.

National Infrastructure Plan

3.24 Minister of Infrastructure Chris Bishop and Minister of Local Government Simeon Brown have advised that the Government has tasked the Infrastructure Commission with developing the National Infrastructure Plan and has requested that local government organisations assist with its development. The plan will bring together the three elements of the capital intentions programme and identify the gap between the planned investments and the long-term investment needs, making recommendations on how to address the gap. The plan will help inform infrastructure investment and policy decisions and may also be used to support the development of regional deals.

3.25 The Government’s intention is to finalise the plan by December 2025 with public consultation on the draft scheduled for June 2025.

3.26 Council intends to engage with the Infrastructure Commission on the development of the plan and provide information for the Pipeline – the national dataset of infrastructure project information. The letter from the Ministers is attached for information (refer attachment 2).

Sister City visit to China

3.27 The Nelson branch of the New Zealand China Friendship Society asked in May that I join its delegation to China from 14to 23 October 2024, visiting our two Sister Cities of Huangshi (population 1.6 million) and Yangjiang (population 1.4 million). The society noted that Sister City relationships are with Council and outlined the importance of the Mayor leading the delegation and the need to rebuild the relationships after the Covid pandemic.

3.28 The founding principle of Sister Cities is to build international understanding to help avoid conflicts and war. Nelson will be sending 10 students to Yangjiang in April 2025. Other benefits to Nelson include our sister city gardens, recognising the relationship with Huangshi and Miyazu in Japan.

3.29 This visit has a trade and tourism focus, aiming to leverage the Sister City relationships to grow Nelson’s economic and cultural ties with China. It will be an important visit to refresh the relationships after a period of low contact during and following the Covid-19 pandemic. China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and third-largest source of tourists.

3.30 I am conscious of the current pressures on ratepayers and considered declining the invitation. My worry in declining is that these city-to-city relationships will not survive without civic leadership and the last visit was in 2015. I decided to accept the invitation but to meet a good share of the costs personally.

3.31 Council approved the visit at its meeting on 6 June 2024. It was resolved:

CL/2024/116

That the Council:

Approves leave in October for His Worship the Mayor Hon Dr Smith to visit Nelson City Council’s Sister Cities in China.

3.32 The June report noted that the costs would be split with the Mayor personally meeting the cost of airfares and Council the other costs. I do not wish the cost to Council to exceed $2,500, which is half the sum of $5,000 allocated three yearly in the Long Term Plan for Council/Mayoral Sister City visits. It is therefore proposed to limit Council’s contribution to the lesser of either $2,500 or one third of the total cost. Council has previously funded the full cost of sister city visits by previous Mayors Rachel Reese and Aldo Miccio with the last visit to China in 2015 costing $7,488.

3.33 Council’s Long Term Plan 2024-2034 includes funding for such Sister City visits. During deliberations in May 2024, for the Long Term Plan, it was resolved that the Council:

Approves funding of $5,000 operating expenditure to be added to years 2, 5, and 8 of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 as a provision for future Council/Mayoral Sister City Visits;

3.34 The timing of this expenditure was estimated and allocated to staggered years over the 10-year period with the intention to shift it as needed in response to invitations and planned trips. It is proposed that up to $2,500 of the costs for the October 2024 visit to China be met by bringing forward some of the funding from Year 2.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Letter to Simon Moutter Kāinga Ora re Examiner and Nile Street projects 16Aug2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: Letter from Hon Bishop and Brown regarding the National Infrastructure Plan 27Sep2024 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The housing recommendation in this report supports the social wellbeing of the community by considering the opportunity to establish a multi-agency/group structure to progress solutions to the region’s housing needs.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report support the following community outcomes:

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

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

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

· Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, including with iwi, fosters a regional perspective, and encourages community engagement;

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

Risk

The recommendations in this report are low risk. The staff time required to consider the opportunity to establish a place-based housing partnership is minimal.

Financial impact

The cost associated to implement the housing recommendation relates to staff time which is expected to be minimal while the Sister City recommendation brings forward existing funding.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matters covered in this report are of low significance and no community engagement is planned.

Climate Impact

The decisions to be taken in this report will not affect the ability of Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Delegations

These are matters for Council.

Item 10: Approval to bring forward budget - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Bridge to Better projects

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Approval to bring forward budget - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Bridge to Better projects

Report Author: Alec Louverdis - Deputy Chief Executive / Group Manager Infrastructure

Report Number: R28781

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To approve bringing forward funding set aside in 2025-26 and 2026-27 into the current 2024-25 financial year as part of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund (IAF) - Bridge to Better (B2B) funding to progress two projects, the water ring main and flood gate upgrade earlier.

2. Summary

2.1 A number of significant works are planned in the inner city over the next two to three years including the St Vincent stormwater culvert upgrade, Paru Paru wastewater pump station upgrade, Paru Paru carpark and the B2B upgrade.

2.2 All of these works are critical and cannot be delayed. However in order to minimise disruption to the inner city and to take advantage of a buoyant contractor’s market and availability, officers plan to bring some works forward in particular the water ring main in Halifax, Collingwood and Bridge Street (between Collingwood and Queens Gardens) and the flood gate upgrade.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to bring forward budget - Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Bridge to Better projects (R28781); and

2. Approves bringing forward budget (part of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund - Bridge to Better) of $1,226,500 from 2025-26 and $2,659,800 from 2026-27 to 2024-25 to allow the tender and award of the water ring main works to proceed ahead of schedule; and

3. Approves bringing forward budget (part of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund - Bridge to Better) of $335,500 from 2025-26 to 2024-25 to allow the Flood Gate Upgrade works to proceed ahead of schedule.

4. Background

4.1 The B2B project is a key Council project aimed at revitalising Bridge Street from Collingwood Street to Rutherford Street. The project includes road and footpath reconstruction as well as a number of utility upgrades in the wider CBD that are being undertaken at the same time.

4.2 While Bridge Street and Rutherford Street will be the streets most impacted by the B2B works adjacent, other streets will also feature in utility upgrades and will be impacted by traffic disruption in the principal streets.

4.3 The water supply component of these works includes the installation of a 300mm water main to parts of the main ring road to the CBD:

4.3.1 From Tasman Street to Collingwood Street along Bridge Street East;

4.3.2 Collingwood Street from Bridge Street to Halifax Street;

4.3.3 Halifax Street from Collingwood Street to Rutherford Street;

4.3.4 Rutherford Street from Halifax Street to Bridge Street; and

4.3.5 Bridge Street from Collingwood Street to Rutherford Street.

4.4 The Flood Gate Upgrade is proposed to be installed on the existing inner city stormwater outlet pipe at the Halifax Street bridge over Saltwater Creek. The flood gate is expected to provide some protection to the inner city from very high tides. The construction works are independent of other construction works and are able to be undertaken at the same time as the water ring main works with minimal additional disruption.

4.5 Funding for this work has been approved by Council as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP).

5. Discussion

5.1 Parts of the water supply upgrade works are able to be packaged as separate work programmes to be constructed ahead of the B2B works main upgrade between Rutherford and Collingwood . This allows early construction of these works in the streets adjacent Bridge and Rutherford Streets.

5.2 It is proposed to construct the watermain upgrade as two separate work packages:

5.2.1 Package 1 - Bridge Street East from Tasman Street to Collingwood Street.

5.2.2 Package 2 - Collingwood Street (Halifax to Bridge) and Halifax Street (Rutherford to Collingwood)

Funding

5.3 Funding has been approved for these works as part of the B2B project in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP) as shown below (uninflated prices).

Detail	Year1 2024/25	Year2 2025/26	Year3 2026/27	Year4 2027/28	Year5 2028/29	Year6 2029/30
Water Supply
IAF Bridge St	385,000	1,650,000	2,659,800	2,109,800	0	0
IAF Collingwood St	859,100	0	0	0	0	0
IAF Halifax St	1,226,150	1,226,500	0	0	0	0
IAF Rutherford St	22,000	909,150	0	0	0	0
Flood Protection
IAF Flood Gate Upgrade	55,000	335,500	0	0	0	0

5.4 To allow this work to proceed, funding needs to be brought forward from the LTP timeframes. The uninflated budgets required to facilitate these early work are shown below.

Detail	Year1 2024/25	Year2 2025/26	Year3 2026/27	Year4 2027/28	Year5 2028/29	Year6 2029/30
Water Supply
IAF Bridge St	3,044,800	1,650,000	0	2,109,800	0	0
IAF Collingwood St	859,100	0	0	0	0	0
IAF Halifax St	2,452,650	0	0	0	0	0
IAF Rutherford St	22,000	909,150	0	0	0	0
Flood Protection
IAF Flood Gate Upgrade	390,500	0	0	0	0	0

6. Options

6.1 Two options are presented. Approve bringing budgets forward or not bring budgets forward. Officers recommend option 1.

Option 1: Approve bringing forward budget from 2025-2026 and 2026-27 to 2024-2025
Advantages	· Supports delivery of the Bridge to Better project. · Good use of contractor availability and advantageous prices · Reduces disruption to the CBD
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Don’t approve bringing forward budget from 2025-2026 and 2026-27 to 2024-2025
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Missed opportunity to utilise contractor availability and save costs · Missed opportunity to minimise disruption to the CBD

7. Conclusion

7.1 To minimise disruption in the inner city it is proposed to do some works in the current financial year, specifically undertaking the B2B water ring main works and the flood gate upgrade earlier and that will require bringing funds forward into the current financial year.

7.2 This will also allow Council to benefit from the current competitive construction prices.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Once budget transfer has been approved by Council, prices will secured, contracts awarded with works planned to commence in February next year.

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations in this report support the cultural, economic and social wellbeing of the community by accelerating works in order to revitalise and provide infrastructure capacity to enable development in the city centre

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report align with the following community outcomes:

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

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

• Our communities are healthy, safe, and resilient

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

Risk

The recommendations in this report are considered to be low risk for Council because the report simply adjusts funding timing for projects already confirmed in the Long Term Plan 2024-34.

Financial impact

The B2B water ring main is a large project that has funding identified in the Long Term Plan 2024-34 that has been adopted by Council. Bringing forward the funding as recommended will require a minor adjustment in Council’s borrowing requirements for 2024-25 which will be off-set by a reduction in the following years.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The B2B project was consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 consultation. Amending budget timing is of low significance.

Climate Impact

Climate impact will be considered throughout the design, material selection, and construction methodology and period of this project.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Iwi have not been engaged as part of writing this report.

Legal context

Council has the power to make these decisions in accordance with sections 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 11: Local Water Done Well - Service Delivery Options

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Local Water Done Well - Service Delivery Options

Report Author: Phil Ruffell - Manager Utilities Activity Management

Report Authoriser: Alec Louverdis - Deputy Chief Executive / Group Manager Infrastructure

Report Number: R28752

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the requirements of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024 (Act) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2024/0031/latest/LMS964380.html?src=qs - particularly the service delivery options for the Council water supply, wastewater and stormwater utilities and decide on the appropriate options to present to the community in a consultative process under sections 61 to 64 of the Act.

2. Summary

2.1 Central Government, as part of its revised water reform programme ‘Local Water Done Well’, has recently completed the second part of its programme. The first part – completed in February 2024 was the repeal of the previous governments ‘Three Waters Reform’ programme.

2.2 A key requirement of the recently completed Act is for all Councils to prepare a ‘Water Services Delivery Plan’ (Plan) within 12 months of the Act coming in to force ie by 3 September 2025.

2.3 The Plan must include comprehensive details of the three utilities – current state, financial information, the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services, sustainability and implementation plan.

2.4 The Plan must be formally adopted by Council and submitted to the Secretary for Local Government for acceptance.

2.5 Council must consult with the community on the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering water services.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Local Water Done Well - Service Delivery Options (R28752); and

2. Determines that models for delivery of water services for Nelson are:

a. Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services; or

b. Establishing or joining a water services council-controlled organisation – either (A) alone or (B) with other council(s); or

c. Establishing or joining a joint local government arrangement under section 137 of the Local Government act 2002; and

3. Adopts Model a. (Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services) as the preferred model for the proposal for consultation with the community; and

4. Directs staff to prepare a consultation statement of proposal for this option - to be brought to Council in a future report with details of the proposed consultation.

4. Background

4.1 Central government has embarked on a legislative programme that is expected to facilitate the development of more sustainable frameworks to own, operate and renew the country’s water-based networks. These networks are predominantly in the hands of local councils across New Zealand.

4.2 The primary catalyst for the water industry reform was the contamination of the Havelock North potable water supply with campylobacter in August 2016.

4.3 The previous government established an independent water quality regulator – Taumata Arowai in 2022 and initiated its own legislative approach to water services delivery with the ‘Three Waters Reform’ programme. Central government elections in 2023 led to a change of government and the abandoning of that programme.

4.4 The Act is the current government’s second piece of legislation. It completed the statutory process on 2 September 2024. The first piece of legislation in February 2024 repealed the previous governments three waters reform legislation.

4.5 The key requirement for Council in the Act is to prepare a Plan by 3 September 2025.

5. Discussion

Water Services Delivery Plan

5.1 Council has twelve months to prepare and submit the Plan to the Secretary for Local Government for acceptance.

5.2 The Act specifies the contents of the Plan. It must include comprehensive details of the three water-based utilities – description of assets, levels of service, regulatory compliance, financial information, the anticipated or proposed model or arrangements for delivering the water services including details of public consultation, financial sustainability and an implementation plan.

5.3 The Department of Internal Affairs has provided a template for Councils to use when preparing the Plan.

5.4 The majority of the required background information is contained in Council’s activity management plans plus the Long Term Plan 2024-34.

5.5 Council must consult the community on the proposed model or arrangements for delivering the water services.

5.6 The Plan must be adopted by Council prior to submission to the Secretary for Local Government.

Water Services Delivery Models

5.7 For the purposes of community consultation, the Act identifies the following three distinct delivery models which must be considered in any consultation. The Act also allows Council to identify other delivery models if they wish:

5.7.1 Model a. Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services; or

5.7.2 Model b. Establish, join or amend a water services council-controlled organisation (WSCCO); or

5.7.3 Model c. Establish, join or amend a joint local government arrangement under the Local Government Act 2002.

5.8 Council Officer’s assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the models is set out below.

Model		Advantages	Disadvantages
Model a. Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services.		Simplicity and economic efficiency. Structure already in place. Nelson City utilities in good shape.	Borrowing capacity with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) currently limited to 2.80 x income level from 1 July 2025. LTP 2024-34 has Council debt at 1.82 at Year 10 so still some headroom.
Model b. Establish, join, or amend a water services council-controlled organisation (WSCCO).	Option A. Form WSCCO alone.	‘Arms - length’ operating model. Ability of the WSCCO to access higher levels of borrowing with the LGFA – up to 5 x income level if financially supported by Council.	Cost of establishing and ongoing funding for new structure. More complex linkage to respond to Council and community priorities.
	Option B. Form WSCCO with other council(s).	‘Arms - length’ operating model. Ability of the WSCCO to access higher levels of borrowing with the LGFA – up to 5 x income level if financially supported by Council. Share costs of service delivery if a joint WSCCO.	Cost of establishing and ongoing funding for new structure. Possible that Nelson ratepayers will support other Council(s) with lower standard utilities if a joint WSCCO. Some dilution of control over Nelson City assets with joint WSCCO. More complex linkage to respond to Council and community priorities.
Model c. Establish, join, or amend a joint local government arrangement under the Local Government Act 2002.		Share costs of service delivery.	Cost of establishing and ongoing funding for new structure. Some dilution of control over Nelson City assets. Possible that Nelson ratepayers will support other Council(s) with lower standard utilities.

5.9 As part of the previous government’s ‘Three Waters Reform’ programme extensive analysis of the financial impacts of the proposal for new three waters entities was carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

5.10 The following table from the DIA sets out the expected future household costs for the options of standalone entities, joining with Marlborough District Council & Tasman District Council (Entity H) and being part of the very much larger (21 Councils) Entity C.

Estimated average household costs in 2051 (in 2020 prices)	Councils as standalone entities*	Combined Te Tau Ihu entity (Entity H)	Original proposal (Entity C)
Marlborough	$6,560	$3,460	$1,260
Nelson	$2,330
Tasman	$6,760

*These figures are taken from the Local Dashboard published on the Department of Internal Affairs website.

5.11 For Nelson the two most economical options were joining with 20 other Councils or continuing as a standalone entity.

5.12 The Local Water Done Well workshop with elected members on 28 August 2024 identified model a. (Remain with the existing approach for delivering water services) as the preferred services delivery option. Council Officers also support this model.

6. Consultation

6.1 The Act requires Council to consult with the community prior to making a final decision on the appropriate service delivery mechanism.

6.2 The three models considered in this report must be included in community consultation. Council is able to identify additional model(s) if they wish.

6.3 A further report will be brought to Council to adopt a statement of proposal (SOP) that will inform community consultation.

7. Options

7.1 As the Act requires Council to undertake community consultation Council only has two options to consider – to either adopt one of the above service delivery models or not.

7.2 A decision not to adopt one of the service delivery models will mean alternative option(s) will need to be developed and re-submitted to Council for eventual adoption. This will delay consultation and the development of the Water Services Delivery Plan.

Option 1: Adopt one of the report service delivery models as the basis for consultation (Recommended)
Advantages	 Complies with the Act and allows for a timely consultation process.
Risks and Disadvantages	 Nil.
Option 2: Do not adopt one of the report service delivery models as the basis for consultation
Advantages	 Nil.
Risks and Disadvantages	 Requires development of additional model(s) which will delay the consultation process.

8. Timing

8.1 Timing of key milestones are set out below:

· Decision on services delivery model to inform consultation – this meeting.

· Report to adopt SOP 7 November 2024.

· Community consultation 2 December 2024 – 31 January 2025.

· Council hear submissions 20 February 2025.

· Council deliberations and decision on service delivery model 13 March 2025.

· Complete Water Services Delivery Plan 18 July 2025.

· Council Adopt Water Services Delivery Plan 7 August 2025

· Water Services Delivery Plan Submitted to Secretary for Local Government 22 August 2025.

9. Conclusion

9.1 Council must prepare a Plan by 3 September 2025.

9.2 In preparing a Plan it must consult with the community about options for the model to deliver water services to the city.

9.3 It is recommended that Council adopts a preferred service delivery model as outlined in this report. Council officers can then prepare a SOP plus details of the proposed community consultation that together will be brought back to Council for approval.

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Consultation with the community directly supports democratic decision making by communities. Water services delivery impacts the economic well-being of the community in the present and future through service charges and timely renewal of key utility assets.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations in this report align with the following community outcomes:

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

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

Risk

The recommendations in this report are considered to be low risk for Council for the following reasons:

· Council is required to undertake community consultation on water services delivery models under the Act.

· The final decision on the water services delivery model to be adopted by Council will be made in a future Council meeting.

Financial impact

The financial impacts of the water services delivery model will be considered as part of the community consultation.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of high significance because it involves the process to adopt a water services delivery model for the council water utilities. The Act requires Council to consult with the community about the model that Council proposes to adopt.

Climate Impact

The decisions in this report have the potential to impact Council’s ability to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future – particularly if service delivery models are chosen that involve a joint WSCCO or other joint agreement with one or more councils under the Local Government Act 2002.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. However, officers will directly contact iwi to inform them of the proposal and invite feedback as part of the special consultative procedure.

Legal context

Council has power to make the decision on community consultation for water services delivery models under sections 61-64 of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Act 2024. The legal process that Council must follow to make this decision is set out in sections 61, 62 and 64 of the Act.

Delegations

The decisions contained in this report are within Council’s area of responsibility.

Item 12: Adoption of the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Adoption of the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029

Report Author: Richard Frizzell - Environmental Programmes Officer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28743

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To

a) consider the recommendations of the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee; and

b) adopt amendments to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

2. Summary

2.1 Proposed changes to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (the Plan) were publicly notified for submissions on 28 February 2024, with consultation closing on 28 March 2024.

2.2 The Regional Pest Management Joint Committee (Joint Committee) heard submissions on the proposed amendments on 27 May 2024. Following deliberations on 11 July 2024 the Joint Committee resolved to recommend amendments to the Plan to both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for approval.

2.3 This report details the process followed to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 in amending the Plan. The Joint Committee has powers to recommend to both Councils the adoption of the amendments to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

2.4 The Plan is the principal document that governs how the Council will meet its pest management obligations under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). It details those programmes that will be used to eradicate or manage unwanted pests that may otherwise pose a risk to our environment or economy.

3. Recommendation

That the Council, acknowledging Tasman District Council prior approval,

1. Receives the report Adoption of the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (R28743) and its attachments; and

2. Confirms that it is satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation on the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, in accordance with Section 72 of the Biosecurity Act 1993; and

3. Agrees that the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 specifies the matters listed in Section 73(3) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and complies with Section 73 of the Biosecurity Act 1993; and

4. Confirms that it is satisfied that the draft Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 meets the requirements of Section 74 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (including not being inconsistent with the National Policy Direction); and

5. Adopts the amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (NDOCS-596364813-11862); and

6. Agrees to notify submitters and the public of its decision on the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029, in accordance with Section 75(4) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, via its website, following adoption of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 by both Councils; and

7. Delegates authority to the His Worship the Mayor of Tasman District Council and Chief Executive of Tasman District Council to make minor edits to the finalised Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 prior to it being made publicly available.

4. Background

4.1 On 24 March 2023, the Council formed the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee (Joint Committee) with Tasman District Council to oversee the development of a partial review (the Proposal) to amend the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

4.2 On 14 December 2023, both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council determined that the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act) were met and publicly notified the Proposal on 28 February 2024. Consultation ran for a month, closing on 28 March 2024.

4.3 The following provides a brief overview of recommended changes which are detailed in attachments to this report:

4.3.1 Blue passion flower and Moth plant be added as eradication pests.

4.3.2 Boneseed is added as a sustained control pest in the Nelson Port Hills area.

4.3.3 Pampas is added as a sustained control pest in two sites in Golden Bay (Aorere Valley and Whanganui Inlet).

4.3.4 Water celery and Vietnamese parsley are added as sustained control pests.

4.3.5 Sabella rules are updated requiring vessels entering Tasman-Nelson to have a level of fouling of 2 or less unless they are entering for the purpose of hauling out or for emergency purposes. This aligns with Marlborough District Council and provides consistency across Te Tauihu/the Top of the South Island. Local boats are excluded from this rule unless they leave the region for more than 3 days.

4.3.6 Feral cat rules were extended to cover areas of high biodiversity. In Nelson high value sites, no person shall release a cat into the wild, and no person shall shelter or feed feral or stray cats.

4.3.7 Wilding conifers (10 species) are added with five rules targeted at early intervention and protecting areas not yet infested with wildings. Early action significantly reduces the overall cost of control. Three rules are region wide, and two are specific to within operational areas. Each rule includes an option of a negotiated management agreement for complex cases.

4.4 101 submissions were received, and 12 submitters spoke in hearings by the Joint Committee on 27 May 2024.

4.5 Submissions were overall supportive of the proposed changes. No changes to the Proposal were recommended for blue passionflower, boneseed, pampas, moth plant, water celery and Vietnamese parsley.

4.6 In response to submissions, changes were recommended for wilding/pest conifers, cat and Sabella rules.

4.7 At its last meeting on 11 July 2024 the Joint Committee considered officer recommendations regarding submissions and resolved to recommend the amendments to the Plan to both Councils for their approval. The report and attachments to this meeting are available on the Council website (Regional-Pest-Management-Joint-Committee-11Jul2024-Agenda.pdf; Regional-Pest-Management-Joint-Committee-11Jul2024-Agenda-Attachments-Under-Seperate-Cover.pdf) and the Joint Committee resolutions are attached to this report (Attachment 1).

5. Discussion

5.1 To comply with the Biosecurity Act 1993 the Council must be satisfied that it has followed the steps outlined in Sections 70 to 75 of the Act to produce or amend a regional pest management plan. These sections cover initiation of a proposal, satisfaction of the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management, including appropriate cost benefit analyses, appropriate consultation, appropriate preparation of the Plan and decision-making by the Joint Committee. An assessment attached to this report (Attachment 2) outlines these steps and provides guidance on how officers and the Joint Committee have met these requirements. The Council is being requested to confirm that it is satisfied that Sections 70 to 75 of the Act have been met.

5.2 The finalised plan with changes as recommended by the Joint Committee is included as Attachment 3. All changes agreed to at the deliberations meeting of the Joint Committee on 11 July 2024 and outlined in Attachment 1 are incorporated. There are some minor editing requirements (confirmation of maps, numbering, grammar) that will require final sign off before printing. The Council is requested to adopt these changes, as recommended by the Joint Committee, and allow for delegated authority to make minor edits before publishing.

5.3 The Joint Committee has satisfied itself that the Council can receive the attached documents as the decision version of the Plan. If the Council is satisfied with the documents, it can release its decisions on submissions (the essence of this report). From the date of notification of decisions, submitters will have 15 working days to appeal to the Environment Court. If there are no appeals, then the amendments to the Plan are ‘made’ and become operative.

5.4 At its meeting on 12 September 2024 Tasman District Council considered the recommendations from the Joint Committee and adopted the amendments to the Plan subject to the same agreement by Nelson City Council.

6. Options

6.1 There are two options:

· Approve the amendments to the Plan (the recommended option);

· Require amendments to the documentation prior to approval.

Option 1: Approve the Plan amendments (recommended option)
Advantages	· Supported by a majority of submitters. · Enables decision to be released to submitters and the amended provisions of the Plan to be operative as soon as possible. · Supports recommendations from the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee and aligns with the decision by Tasman District Council.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Will require extra work to manage additional pests but this can be done within existing budgets.
Option 2: Require amendments/don’t adopt Plan amendments
Advantages	· Allows for further consideration of the amended Plan provisions.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Delays implementation of amended Plan provisions and effective management of specified pests. · Does not support Joint Committee recommendations or decision by Tasman District Council

7. Conclusion

7.1 If the Council is satisfied with the amendments to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan, and the supporting documentation as outlined in the report, it will need to adopt it.

8. Next Steps

8.1 When the Council decisions on the Plan amendments are made and notified, the 15 working day provision for submitters to appeal to the Environment Court begins. If no appeals are made the Councils’ seals can be affixed accordingly and the Plan amendments become operative.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Regional Pest Management Joint Committee resolutions 11 July 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: Biosecurity Act 1993 Section 70 to 75 assessment (satisfaction on Plan requirements) for the TNRPMP ⇩

Attachment 3: Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 amended following 2024 partial review (NDOCS-596364813-11862) ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The report and recommendations outline how Council will address emerging pest issues and enhance provisions of its Regional Pest Management Plan, including community consultation to achieve this. A consistent and cost-effective approach to pest management across the Nelson-Tasman regions is achieved by working jointly with Tasman District Council. It also provides a valuable service for the Nelson community, ensuring environmental and economic risks from pests are effectively addressed.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The report and recommendations detail how Council will improve management of key pests and align with the vision of “Enhancing community wellbeing and quality of life” by responding to emerging pests and improving the framework for efficient and effective pest management and making the best use of available resources. This contributes to the Council’s following Community Outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

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

Risk

There are potentially business risk impacts for both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council if there is an application to the Environment Court regarding Councils’ decisions on the Plan amendments, under section 76 of the Biosecurity Act 1993. There would be costs directly attributable to having to participate in the appeal process and further associated delays in the implementation of amended Plan provisions.

Financial impact

Analysis of the Plan amendments conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs and the costs will be covered within existing budget allocation,

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The matter is of medium to high significance given the importance that a regional pest management plan has on the economic, environmental, social and cultural well-being of the regions it covers, There are a number of people, organisations and agencies affected by, and/or interested in, the issues and outcomes.

Consultation and engagement in the Proposal is a requirement under section 72 of the Biosecurity Act 1993. There has been a high level of engagement with public and stakeholders (as detailed in Joint Committee recommendations and Minutes).

Climate Impact

The amended Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan is expected to facilitate the ability of the Council’s to manage pest incidences as a result of climate change.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

The Proposal was presented to Te Ohu Taiao and included on Council’s iwi engagement platform Te Parikaranga.

Legal context

· Council has power to make this decision under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The legal process that Council must follow to make this decision is outlined in sections 70 to 75 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and an assessment is provided in Attachment 2 outlining how these requirements have been met, including consultation and a submission process.

· Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. In relation to this decision, this has been met by the consultation and submission process required by the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Delegations

The Council has responsibilities and powers to adopt amendments to a Pest Management Plan under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Item 13: Approval to consult on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Approval to consult on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Report Author: Bruce Mutton - Structural Engineer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28696

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To agree to undertake consultation using the special consultative procedure (SCP) under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) for the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

2. Summary

The current Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 (the Policy) has been reviewed and changes are recommended. A proposed amended Policy is attached to this report (Attachment 2), and it is recommended Council consults on the proposed changes.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to consult on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy (R28696) and its attachments; and

2. Approves consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure on the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy; and

3. Approves the Statement of Proposal and its attachment the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy for consultation; and

4. Approves that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not necessary for the public to understand the proposed Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy; and

5. Delegates to a Consultation Panel to hear and deliberate on submissions to the amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy, and recommend a decision to Council; and

6. Appoints the following Elected Members to the Consultation Panel - amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

a. Xxx (Chair)

b. xxx; and

c. xxx

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.5 to 5.10 of this report R28696) 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.

4. Background

4.1 Sections 131 and 132A of the Building Act 2004 require Council to adopt a policy on dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings. The policy must state:

4.1.1 The approach Council will take in performing its functions under this Part of the Act;

4.1.2 The Council’s priorities in performing those functions;

4.1.3 How the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

4.2 Under section 132 of the Act, Council must complete a review of its policy at intervals of not more than 5 years. If amendments or replacement are proposed, then consultation must be undertaken using the SCP.

4.3 Officers last reviewed the policy in 2019, and the amended policy was approved by Council on 5 March 2020.

4.4 The current policy (Attachment 3) has recently been reviewed by officers and they recommend amendments to this policy.

5. Discussion

5.1 The current policy requires amending primarily because of changes to the Building Act 2004 relating to the emergency management of buildings, that legislation commenced in November 2019.

5.2 Officers sought and received feedback from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora and Nelson’s heritage architect community. This feedback was considered and incorporated into the proposed policy.

5.3 The proposed amended policy is attached to this report. In summary the key changes are:

5.3.1 Due to changes to the Building Act 2004 relating to the emergency management of buildings that commenced in November 2019

5.3.2 Editorial changes and additional clarifying information, and

5.3.3 Clarifying when Council will take action to recover costs from Building Owners.

5.4 The nature of changes is listed in more detail in the Statement of Proposal attached to this report (Attachment 1).

Consultation Process

5.5 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter.

5.6 Under section 162 of the Act, this policy may only be replaced in accordance with an SCP under the LGA 2002. Under section 83 of the LGA 2002, Council must adopt a statement of proposal and ensure it is publicly available, together with a description of how Council will provide interested persons with an opportunity to present their views and a submission period of not less than 1 month.

5.7 Under s 87(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 a Statement of Proposal must include:

5.7.1 the proposed changes;

5.7.2 the reasons for the proposed changes;

5.7.3 an analysis of the reasonably practicable options, including the proposal; and

5.7.4 any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

5.8 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed Statement of Proposal is not unduly complicated therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

5.9 The public consultation process provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process and a structured way in which Council can respond to any concerns that may be raised. The proposed timeframe is outlined below:

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	10 October 2024
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	11 October 2024
Consultation closes	11 November 2024
Hearing of Submissions	26-27 November 2024
Deliberation on submissions	13 December 2024
Council Meeting – Consideration and final decision making	March 2025

5.10 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

5.10.1 Direct contact with iwi partners and key stakeholders;

5.10.2 Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues;

5.10.3 Information and key dates advertised in Council’s newsletter to all households (Our Nelson);

5.10.4 Detailed information made available on Shape Nelson engagement website;

5.10.5 Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available from the Customer Services Centre and Council libraries (and on website);

5.10.6 Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available for elected members to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period;

5.10.7 Advertisement/s in local newspapers;

5.10.8 Coverage in Council’s social media channels and notifications through Antenno app.

Panel

5.11 It is open to Council to delegate all steps in the policy making process for dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings. To help ensure the most efficient use of governance time and completion of the process by March 2025, it is recommended that Council establish a panel to consider written and oral submissions, deliberate and make recommendations to Council. The membership of this panel is to be determined by elected members at this Council meeting.

6. Options

6.1 In reviewing the current policy, officers have considered the following options:

Option 1: Approve for consultation the proposed amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy (preferred option)
Advantages	· Consultation provides an opportunity for the community to share their views with Council on the proposed policy · The proposed policy accommodates amendments to the Building Act 2004 · The proposed policy improves readability and removes duplication within the current policy · Legislated requirements relating to review and adoption are met · The proposed policy incorporates consideration of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) guidance for developing policies on dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings
Risks and Disadvantages	· No significant risks or disadvantages · Some potential reputational risk if the consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively
Option 2: Status quo - Retain the current Policy
Advantages	· Does not require a consultation process · Savings in staff time and costs
Risks and Disadvantages	· The current policy will not be in accordance with the Building Act 2004 · A lack of clarity of the approach that will be taken in performing functions, · Increased legal risk · The current policy does not take account of MBIE guidance for developing policies on dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings · Reputational risk due to inaction for incorporating legislation changes
Option 3: Council directs officers to revise the proposed amended Dangerous Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy
Advantages	· If applicable, provides clear information to the public at the start of the consultation process · Other advantages are expected to be the same as option 1
Risks and Disadvantages	· The consultation period and adoption of the policy may be delayed · Some potential reputational risk if consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively

7. Next Steps

7.1 If approved consultation will commence on 11 October and close on 11 November 2024. Submissions will be invited and then a hearing will be held (if required). The Hearing Panel will consider public feedback and make recommendations to Council. Following completion of the consultation process, the Policy will be presented to Council for a decision on adoption.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Statement of Proposal Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: DRAFT Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy - reviewed 2024 ⇩

Attachment 3: Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2006 - approved 05Mar2020 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommended option involves the community in democratic decision making and best enables the well-being of the community into the future, consistent with the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the LGA 2002.

Carrying out the special consultative procedure for a Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy at the same time as that for the Dangerous Dams, Earthquake Prone Dams and Flood Prone Dams Policy is cost and time efficient and best allows the community, officers, and members of Council to consider any relationship between and proportionality of the policies.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed Policy on Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings meets the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 community outcomes:

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

Risk

The SCP is required under the Building Act 2004. The proposed policy amends the current Policy in a way that is likely to improve understanding by the public and officers of its context, the approach to be taken, priorities and how heritage is considered.

Risks to the Council’s reputation and relationships if consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively. Risk assessed as Medium (unlikely x minor).

Risks to the community (health, safety, financial), environment and legal risks if the policy adopted is not fit for purpose. Risk assessed as Medium (unlikely x moderate to major).

Financial impact

The costs of the recommended option have not been estimated but are not expected to be large. No additional resources are required. The proposed policy clarifies cost recovery opportunities.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to moderate significance to the community, due to the potential effects of actions taken under the policy. The assessed level of significance is not sensitive to the option approved.

It may however be significant to owners and occupants of buildings identified as dangerous, affected, or insanitary. Of note is that the effects of not taking such actions could be expected to have greater negative effects on owners, occupants, and the community as a whole.

Irrespective of the degree of significance, consultation with the community is required in the form of a SCP by section 132 of the Building Act 2004. The current policy was previously revised and approved following a SCP, therefore option 2 to retain the current policy was subject to an equivalent level of engagement in 2019.

Climate Impact

Climate related hazards such land instability triggered by extreme weather events and coastal or surface flooding are expected to increase. The proposed policy is by necessity reactive to events and once an event is impactful enough, it is overridden by subpart 6B of Part 2 of the Act, such as during an emergency declaration or while a designated area is in force.

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future. It will result in no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

An article was published in the August 2024 Te Kāhui Whiria Newsletter setting out the context, nature of revisions and anticipated timeline.

Legal context

· Council has power to make this decision under the Building Act 2004. The legal process that applies to this decision is set out in sections 131, 132 and 132A. It sets out that a SCP is required.

· Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of the LGA 2002. In relation to this decision, this requires specific consideration of sections 82, 83, and 87.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.

Item 14: Approval to consult on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy

Council

10 October 2024

Report Title: Approval to consult on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy

Report Author: Bruce Mutton - Structural Engineer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28754

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To agree to undertake consultation using the special consultative procedure (SCP) under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) on the proposed replacement Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy.

2. Summary

2.1 The existing Dangerous Dams Policy 2006 has been reviewed and replacement with the attached proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy (the Policy) is recommended (see Attachment 2).

3. Recommendation

That the Council

1. Receives the report Approval to consult on Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy (R28754) and its attachments; and

2. Approves consultation using the Special Consultative Procedure on the proposed replacement Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy; and

3. Approves the Statement of Proposal and its attachment the proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy for consultation; and

4. Agrees that a summary of the Statement of Proposal is not necessary for the public to understand the Proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy; and

5. Delegates to a Consultation Panel to hear and deliberate on submissions to the Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy, and recommend a decision to Council; and

6. Appoints the following Elected Members to the Consultation Panel - Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy:

a. Xxx (Chair)

b. xxx; and

c. xxx

7. Approves the consultation approach (set out in sections 5.5 to 5.10 of this report R28754) and agrees:

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

4. Background

4.1 Section 161 of the Building Act 2004 (The Act) required Council to adopt a policy on dangerous dams within 18 months of the commencement of that part of the Act (that is by 31 May 2007). The policy must state:

4.1.1 The approach that the Council will take in performing its functions under this part of the Act;

4.1.2 The Council’s priorities in performing those functions; and

4.1.3 How the policy will apply to heritage dams.

4.2 Council adopted the current Dangerous Dams Policy (Attachment 3) in 2006.

4.3 Under section 162 of the Act, Council must complete a review of its policy at intervals of not more than 5 years. If amendments or replacements are proposed, then consultation must be undertaken using a SCP.

4.4 Officers briefed Councillors on Council’s regional authority roles and responsibilities with respect to post-construction dam safety at a workshop on 5 April 2024. Possible outsourcing of services to be provided by Marlborough District Council, and the timing of this consultation were discussed.

4.5 Following the commencement of the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations) on 13 May 2024, a review of the Dangerous Dams Policy was carried out.

4.6 The result of this review is that officers recommend the current policy be replaced with the proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Dangerous Dams Policy 2006 requires replacement primarily because of changes to the Act in 2008, 2013 and 2019 relating to dams and the emergency management of buildings, and the commencement of the Regulations.

5.2 The proposed replacement policy has been developed by officers based on a template developed in collaboration with Regional Councils across New Zealand and on consideration of policies subsequently adopted by Tasman District Council, Marlborough District Council and Waikato Regional Council.

5.3 Officers sought feedback from local owners and operators of dams (Council and a private owner) and Nelson Tasman Emergency Management.

5.4 The proposed replacement policy is attached to this report. Key changes to the current policy include:

5.4.1 Removal of section 2.1 commentary on local geography, weather, geology, numbers and types of dams. This can be removed because the current Act and Regulations are now more prescriptive, making that information less relevant to policy decisions around the approach to be taken in performing Council’s functions;

5.4.2 Removal of section 2.4 reference to Council identifying dangerous dams, because the Act now has explicit requirements for building owners to identify, assess and monitor their dams, and identify and report whether they are dangerous, earthquake-prone or flood-prone;

5.4.3 Section 2.5 response to complaints and dam documentation has been reworked such that in response to information that a dam is dangerous, earthquake-prone or flood-prone, the Nelson Tasman Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group and where relevant lifeline utility operators, Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and iwi of Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Mauī will be notified. The detailed response is now encapsulated in the replacement policy’s section 5 Council’s approach to performing its functions;

5.4.4 Removal of section 2.6 dam assessment criteria, as this content is now specified in the Regulations;

5.4.5 Removal of section 2.12 economic impact of the policy. Economic priority considerations are set out in the proposed policy section 6 Council’s priorities;

5.4.6 Updated content and definitions to reflect the current Act and Regulations.

Consultation Process

5.5 Under section 78 of the LGA 2002, a local authority must, in the course of its decision-making process, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter.

5.6 Under section 162 of the Act, the current policy may only be replaced in accordance with an SCP under the LGA 2002. Under section 83 of the LGA 2002, Council must adopt a statement of proposal (see Attachment 1 to this report) and ensure it is publicly available, together with a description of how Council will provide interested persons with an opportunity to present their views and a submission period of not less than one month.

5.7 Under s 87(3) of the LGA 2002 a Statement of Proposal must include:

5.7.1 the proposed changes;

5.7.2 the reasons for the proposed changes;

5.7.3 an analysis of the reasonably practicable options, including the proposal; and

5.7.4 any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

5.8 Section 83 of the LGA 2002 requires Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal.” The proposed Statement of Proposal is not unduly complicated therefore, a summary is not considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

Proposed Consultation Process and Timeline
Council approve the release of the Statement of Proposals to the public for consultation (SCP)	10 October 2024
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	11 October 2024
Consultation closes	11 November 2024
Hearing of Submissions	26-27 November 2024
Deliberation on submissions	13 December 2024
Council Meeting – Consideration and final decision making	March 2025

5.10 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

5.10.1 Direct contact with iwi partners and key stakeholders;

5.10.2 Media release outlining the proposal and the key issues;

5.10.3 Information and key dates advertised in Council’s newsletter to all households (Our Nelson);

5.10.4 Detailed information made available on Shape Nelson engagement website;

5.10.5 Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available from the Customer Services Centre and Council libraries (and on website);

5.10.6 Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available for elected members to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period;

5.10.7 Advertisement/s in local newspapers;

5.10.8 Coverage in Council’s social media channels and notifications through Antenno app.

Panel

5.11 It is open to Council to delegate all steps in the policy making process for dangerous dams, earthquake-prone dams and flood-prone dams. To help ensure the most efficient use of governance time and completion of the process by March 2025, it is recommended that Council establish a panel to consider written and oral submissions, deliberations and make recommendations to Council. The membership of this panel is to be determined by elected members at this Council meeting.

6. Options

6.1 In reviewing the current policy, officers have considered the following options:

Option 1: Approve consultation on the proposed replacement Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy (preferred option)
Advantages	· Consultation provides an opportunity for the community to share their views with Council on the proposed policy · The proposed policy incorporates amendments to the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 · Legislated requirements relating to review and adoption are met · The proposed policy is developed in collaboration with Regional Councils across New Zealand · The proposed policy incorporates consideration of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) guidance for developing policies on dangerous, affected and insanitary buildings that is relevant to dams
Risks and Disadvantages	· No significant risks or disadvantages · Some potential reputational risk if consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively
Option 2: Status quo - Retain the current policy
Advantages	· Does not require a consultation process · Savings in staff time and costs
Risks and Disadvantages	· The current policy is not in accordance with the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Dam Safety) Regulations 2022 · A lack of clarity of the approach that will be taken in performing functions · Increased legal risk · Reputational risk due to inaction for incorporating legislation changes
Option 3: Direct officers to amend the proposed replacement Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy
Advantages	· If applicable, provides clear information to the public at the start of the consultation process · Other advantages are expected to be the same as option 1
Risks and Disadvantages	· The consultation period and adoption of the policy may be delayed · Reputational risk if consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively

7. Next Steps

7.1 Consultation will commence on 11 October and close on 11 November 2024. Submissions will be invited and then a hearing will be held if required. The Hearing Panel will consider public feedback and make recommendations to Council. Following completion of the consultation process, the Policy will be presented to Council for a decision on adoption.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Statement of Proposal Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy - 2024 ⇩

Attachment 2: DRAFT Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-Prone Dams and Flood-Prone Dams Policy - proposed 2024 ⇩

Attachment 3: Dangerous Dams Policy 2006 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Carrying out the special consultative procedure for a Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy at the same time as that for the Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy is cost and time efficient and best allows the community, officers and members of Council to consider any relationship between and proportionality of the policies.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The proposed Dangerous Dams, Earthquake-prone Dams and Flood-prone Dams Policy meets the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 community outcomes:

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

Risk

The SCP is required under the Building Act 2004. The proposed policy was based on a template developed in collaboration with Regional Councils across New Zealand, and sets out the approach to be taken, priorities and how heritage is considered.

Risks to the Council’s reputation and relationships if consultation is not communicated and conducted effectively. Risk assessed as Medium (unlikely x minor).

Risks to the community (health, safety, financial), environment and legal risks if the policy adopted is not fit for purpose. Risk assessed as Medium to High (rare to unlikely x extreme).

Financial impact

The costs of the recommended option have not been estimated but are not expected to be large. No additional resources have been requested.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of moderate to high significance to the community due to the potential effects of actions or inactions taken under the policy. The assessed level of significance is not sensitive to the option approved.

Irrespective of the degree of significance, consultation with the community is required in the form of a SCP by section 162 of the Building Act 2004. The current policy was previously adopted following a SCP, therefore option 2 to retain the current policy has been subject to an equivalent level of engagement in 2006.

Climate Impact

Climate related hazards such land instability and extreme weather events are expected to increase. The proposed policy is by necessity reactive to events and once an event is impactful enough, it is overridden by subpart 6B of Part 2 of the Act, such as during an emergency declaration or while a designated area is in force.

This decision will have no impact on the ability of the Council to proactively respond to the impacts of climate change now or in the future. It will result in no impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

Legal context

Council has power to make this decision under the Building Act 2004. The legal process that applies to this decision is set out in sections 161 and 162. It sets out that the Special Consultative Procedure is required.

Council’s decision must be made in accordance with Part 6 of the LGA 2002. In relation to this decision, this requires specific consideration of sections 82, 83, and 87.

Delegations

This is a matter for Council.