Agenda of Strategy and Policy Committee

Tasman District Council Strategy and Policy Committee Agenda – 30 September 2021

9.2 Report on the Resident Satisfaction Survey 2021

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy and Policy Committee
Meeting Date:	30 September 2021
Report Author:	Sandra Hartley, Policy Officer; Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Number:	RSPC21-09-2

1 Summary

1.1 This report provides the Strategy and Policy Committee with an overview and a copy of the 2021 Annual Resident Survey report.

1.2 This year the Council engaged a new research provider to carry out the annual Resident Satisfaction Survey, Research First. Adelaine Hansson, a Senior Researcher from Research First, will be in attendance via Zoom to assist with answering questions you may have.

1.3 The survey was carried out in May, with 400 residents contacted by a mix of landline or cell-phone numbers.

1.4 The top three positive changes in satisfaction were for:

· public consultation;

· stormwater; and

· pre-paid rubbish bags.

1.5 The top three negative changes in satisfaction were for:

· roading;

· the way rates are spent; and

· Council’s role in resource management.

1.6 This year was the first time that overall satisfaction with Council was measured, with 65% of respondents satisfied.

1.7 There were two notable changes in other measures (unrelated to satisfaction). They were:

· 13% decrease in the number of people who have seen, read or heard Council information (down from 96% in 2020); and

· 15% decrease in the number of people who felt Council had a good reputation (down from 84% in 2020).

1.8 For 2021, where measures had a related level of service performance target, 11 services or facilities achieved the target, six did not achieve the target, and one was not accurately measured. This is a change from 2020, where 14 services or facilities achieved the target, and four did not achieve the target.

1.11 Much of the information from the survey is used for the Council’s annual reporting on performance measures in the Annual Report. Staff also use the information regarding low satisfaction rates to help identify areas for service improvements.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1. receives the Report on the Resident Satisfaction Survey 2021 report RSPC21-09-2; and

2. receives Resident Satisfaction Survey 2021 contained in Attachment 1 to this report and the Resident Satisfaction Survey 2021 Appendix 3 contained in Attachment 2 to this report.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report provides the Strategy and Policy Committee with an overview and a copy of the Resident Satisfaction Survey 2021 report.

3.2 There are a number of positive and negative movements in satisfaction from last year. This report provides staff comment and analysis on services or facilities that have seen a decline in satisfaction of more than 10%. It does not provide comprehensive analysis of other services or facilities. If the Committee requests further analysis, staff can present that information to a subsequent meeting.

4 Research Provider & Methodology

4.1 The National Research Bureau (NRB) undertook the Council’s resident surveys (Communitrak^TM) from 1996 to 2020. The contract with them ended last year and, following a Request for Proposal to research providers in New Zealand, Research First were engaged to provide our annual resident satisfaction surveys for the next three years.

4.2 Research First have undertaken resident satisfaction surveys for several councils since 2011.

4.3 Adelaine Hansson, Senior Researcher for Research First and Project Manager for Tasman’s Resident Satisfaction Survey, will be in attendance via Zoom at this Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

4.4 After a pilot testing phase, the survey was carried out in May by contacting residents by landline and cell-phone numbers from Research First’s database of telephone numbers.

4.5 Between 1 May to 31 May, 400 residents were contacted by landline (297) and by cell-phone (103) numbers. Quotas based on age, ward and gender were required for the survey. Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of respondents.

Figure 1: Percentage of interviews by ward

4.6 This year we incorporated a new, more balanced satisfaction scale because the past three-point scale was positively skewed. Refer to Table 1 for a comparison.

Table 1: Comparison of response options

4.7 Attachment 1 provides a copy of Research First’s Resident Satisfaction Survey Report 2021.

4.8 Attachment 2 provides a breakdown of results by age, gender and location.

5 Summary of Results

Overview of Results

5.1 An infographic summary and full breakdown of results are provided in Attachment 1. Below is a table that summarises the 2020 and 2021 results, the movement in satisfaction, and whether the targets were achieved or not, for each service or facility.

5.2 Research First have guaranteed a 95% level of confidence with the survey results. This means that for the sample of respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 4.9%.

Table 2: Summary of Satisfaction Results

Service/Facility	Satisfied 2021	Satisfied 2020	% Change	Target	Target Achieved
Overall satisfaction**	65% residents	N/A	N/A	No target	N/A
Public consultation	58% residents	48%	10% ↑	50%	Yes
Stormwater	93% users	84%	9% ↑	80%	Yes
Wastewater/Sewage	98% users	92%	6% ↑	80%	Yes
Public Libraries	96% users	91%	5% ↑	83%	Yes
Water Supply	86% users	81%	5% ↑	80%	Yes
Recovery Centre/Waste Transfer Station	90% users	88%	2% ↑	No target	N/A
Pre-paid rubbish bags	82% users	80%	2% ↑	70%	Yes
Kerbside Recycling	93% users	92%	1% ↑	90%	Yes
Environmental information	66% residents	66%	0%	No target	N/A
Emergency Management	77% residents	78%	1% ↓	70%	Yes
Recreational Facilities	92% users	95%	3% ↓	85%	Yes
Aquatic Centre*	87% users	90%	3% ↓	70%	Yes
Public Toilets	78% users	81%	3% ↓	70%	Yes
Public halls/community buildings	74% residents	77%	3% ↓	75%	No
Service received when contacting Council	82% residents	88%	6% ↓	85%	No
Community Programmes & Events	66% residents	77%	11% ↓	75%	Not measured
Footpaths	63% residents	74%	11% ↓	70%	No
Resource Management – respondents who were aware of the Council’s role in resource management and policy and planning work were asked how satisfied they were.	55% residents	69%	14% ↓	70%	No
The way rates are spent	57% residents	77%	20% ↓	No target	N/A
Roading	44% residents	72%	28% ↓	70%	No

5.3 The survey question for Community Programmes and Events asked all respondents what their level of satisfaction was regardless of whether they had attended an event or not. The performance target specifies satisfaction of only those that attended an event. Therefore, this performance target has been recorded as not measured.

Table 3: Summary of Other Results

Service/Facility	% 2021	% 2020	% Change	Target	Target Met
Access to Council information % of respondents who have seen, read or heard Council information	83% residents	96%	13%↓	No target	N/A
Council Reputation % of respondents who felt the Council’s reputation was good	69% residents	84%	15%↓	No target	N/A
Level of Information Provided % of residents who felt the level of information provided by Council is enough	75% residents	74%	1%↑	80%	No

* only asked in Richmond and Moutere-Waimea Wards

**new question

↑ increase in satisfaction

↓decrease in satisfaction

Key Findings

5.4 The top three positive changes in satisfaction were for:

· public consultation;

· stormwater; and

· pre-paid rubbish bags.

5.5 The top three negative changes in satisfaction were for:

· roading;

· the way rates are spent; and

· Council’s role in resource management.

5.6 The most notable drop in satisfaction with roading is discussed further in Section 6 of this report, along with other areas that have seen a decrease of more than 10%.

5.7 This year was the first time that overall satisfaction with Council was measured, with 65% of respondents satisfied.

5.8 There were two notable changes in other measures (unrelated to satisfaction), they were:

· 13% decrease in the number of people who have seen, read or heard Council information; and

· 15% decrease in the number of people who felt Council had a good reputation.

5.9 For 2021, where measures had a related level of service performance target, 11 services or facilities achieved the target, 6 did not achieve the target, and one was not accurately measured. This is a change from 2020, where 14 services or facilities achieved the target, and four services or facilities did not achieve the target.

5.10 Staff are currently unable to provide benchmarking against other councils for 2021 as other councils are yet to publish their results. Staff will present this information to the Committee when it becomes available. The timing for this will be dependent on other councils and staff have not yet been provided an indicative timeframe.

6 Analysis of Results

Community Programmes & Events

6.1 The annual residents survey 2021 showed a decline in apparent satisfaction with community programmes and events compared with previous surveys. This section discusses the results, apparent reasons for this change, and looks at whether there are any issues that are not already being managed through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and Activity Management Plan 2021-2051.

Figure 2: Satisfaction with community programmes and events over time

6.2 As alluded to above, the survey for Community Programmes and Events asked all respondents what their level of satisfaction was regardless of whether they had attended an event or not. The performance target specifies satisfaction of only those that attended an event. Therefore, this data was not collected and the performance target has been recorded as not measured.

6.3 Staff have analysed the verbatim comments to better understand the issues that were concerning survey respondents. The results are summarised in the table below.

Table 4: Analysis of verbatim comments for community programmes and events

Issue/Category	Number of Comments	Known Issue?	Management Plan/Response	Satisfaction Outlook
Not interested in the events or the respondent doesn’t attend them.	14	Yes	Ultimately our events will not appeal to the full range of Tasman residents and there is a limited range of events that the Council can facilitate within existing budgets. This may also be a reflection that most events are predominantly held in the Richmond area. Further consideration will be given to deliver events in regional towns.	Slightly Positive
Not many, or any events held in the respondent’s locality. Some residents specifically mentioned rural areas and Golden Bay.	10	Yes	Again, this is likely to be reflection that most events are predominantly held in the Richmond area. Further consideration to be given to delivering events in other areas. This may also be due to some residents being unaware that Council supports but doesn’t necessarily lead some events e.g. Matariki at Te Uma in Motueka which was led by Te Āwhina Marae. Funding constraints do limit the number of events that can be held, thereby limiting coverage across the District.	Slightly Positive
Not targeted to my age or my child’s age, particularly teenagers.	4	No	Staff consider that a good range of family friendly events are on offer. For example, movie nights and Carols by Candlelight are welcome to all ages. Staff will discuss with the Youth Council as to what improvements could be made to future events.	Slightly positive
Unaware of events taking place	5	No	Recreation events are well advertised through a range advertising mediums, including our website, social media, local newspapers, Itson, and Newsline. Staff routinely review appropriate communication channels and will identify opportunities for improvement as they arise.	Slightly positive
They think Council shouldn’t be providing community events	3	Yes	Staff are aware some residents feel that Council should focus on infrastructure or what they consider to be core services. However, it is important for Council to enhance all four dimensions of community well-being and the Community Outcomes.	Neutral

6.4 It is unclear why the service has experienced a drop in satisfaction, especially when the events on offer are inclusive and high quality. Next year staff will ensure that the survey questions accurately reflect the performance measure and focus on residents who attend events. There is some helpful feedback for staff to consider such as the need to routinely assess community needs and tailor events accordingly.

Resource Management

6.5 The annual resident survey 2021 showed a decline in apparent satisfaction with those respondents who were aware of Council’s role in resource management policy and planning work compared with previous surveys. This section discusses the results and apparent reasons for this change.

Figure 3: Satisfaction with resource management over time

6.6 For this service, there were no verbatim comments collected in the survey for staff to analyse. Instead, staff have provided comments based on their understanding of contextual matters at the time the survey was conducted.

6.7 The question around satisfaction with Council’s resource management operations is meant to cover the environmental policy work as there are other questions dealing with environmental information and a separate survey on resource consents. However, when people are asked about their satisfaction in the way Council manages natural resources like water, air quality, zoning land, they may well conflate all functions. 70% of respondents said they knew something of what the Council did in the activity which is good with only 55% being satisfied or very satisfied (down from a previous 69%). 40% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The survey corresponded with the rural push back on central government freshwater regulations and significant natural areas and it should be noted that in the last year, the Council has consulted on outstanding natural landscapes and coastal hazards, subjects which have been challenging. The drop may well reflect this sentiment and as we move into the review of Tasman Environment Plan, we will be doing our best to engage with the community in an open and collaborative manner.

Rates

6.8 The annual resident survey 2021 showed a decline in respondents’ apparent satisfaction with the way rates were spent on services and facilities compared with previous surveys. This section discusses the results and apparent reasons for this change.

Figure 4: Satisfaction with rates over time

6.9 For this question, there were no verbatim comments collected in the survey for staff to analyse. Instead, staff have provided comments based on their understanding of contextual matters at the time the survey was conducted.

6.10 The timing of the survey coincided with the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031. Through this process the Council agreed to increase the rates cap from 3% to 4.5% for the first three years, rising to 7% for the next two years with the last five years dropping back to 4.5%.

6.11 While there were good reasons to do this, any increase in rates often attracts negative publicity and staff believe this was reflected in the results.

6.12 The Waimea Community Dam had also encountered cost overruns and a new targeted rate was also being considered. While this did not eventuate, it was a topical issue that gained a great deal of local attention.

6.13 Golden Bay and Lakes/Murchison areas were the least satisfied with the way rates were spent. In these areas, residents often perceive that they receive little more than a road network in their areas given their remote nature.

6.14 Our research provider offers the following observations. “The information from the national sample really focused on the drop in rates satisfaction being driven by perceptions that residents keep getting asked to pay more but they have little say about what that money is spent on. There is a real disconnect between the visible areas of spending and perceptions of return on investment. So, people are quick to tag on to examples of spending that they were not consulted on, and that they individually can’t see the value of, they then use this as a way to validate dissatisfaction. Those three areas that we focused on in the data release are really closely linked: value for money, opportunities to have my say and information on decisions that affect the area. Where perceptions of value for money are low, perceptions on information dissemination and community engagement are also likely to be low.” Refer to Attachment 3 for further information.

Roads

6.15 The annual resident survey 2021 showed a notable decline in apparent satisfaction with roads and footpaths compared with previous surveys. This section discusses the results, apparent reasons for this change, and looks at whether there are any issues that are not already being managed through the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and Activity Management Plan 2021-2051.

Figure 5: Satisfaction with roading over time

6.16 Staff analysed the verbatim comments to better understand the issues that were concerning survey respondents. The results are summarised in the table below.

Table 5: Analysis of verbatim comments for roads

Issue/Category	Number of Comments	Known Issue?	Management Plan/Response	Satisfaction Outlook
Development Congestion Need upgrades	39	Yes	Key issue in Activity Management Plan (AMP). Richmond Programme Business Case in progress. Walking and Cycling Strategy in development. Congestion expected to increase with ongoing growth and limited funding available for projects to offset it e.g. improving walking and cycling, public transport.	Negative
State Highway complaint	37	Yes	Not relevant to Council road network.	N/A
Patch Ups Roadworks Ageing Roads	32	Yes	Key issue in AMP. Relates to reduced investment in resurfacing from 2015-2020 period. AMP proposes to increase resurfacing from 2021 onwards but New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funding has not increased sufficiently. Actual resurfacing each year will remain below sustainable level.	Negative
Roughness Bumpy roads	32	Yes	Roughness on most categories of roads is within Level of Service targets. The exception is arterial roads, although Lower Queen Street has had smoothing works completed in June-July 2021 which will improve the result. Roughness will tend to increase over time due to a low renewal rate and because roughness is not a reason to renew pavements under NZTA funding rules.	Negative
Potholes	30	Yes	Key issue in AMP. Relates to reduced investment in resurfacing from 2015-2020 period. AMP proposes to increase resurfacing from 2021 onwards but NZTA funding has not increased sufficiently. Actual resurfacing each year will remain below a sustainable level.	Negative
Unsealed maintenance	21	Yes	Perennial issue, due to dynamic nature of roads. Routine inspections show network condition is within expected range. Some additional metalling budgeted for in Long Term Plan from 2021.	Slightly positive
Parking Narrow Streets	18	Yes	Parking demand is increasing with growth in Richmond. Town Centre Parking Strategy outlines Council responses and interventions. More removal of on-street parking likely on some roads to accommodate cycle lanes. Public consultation coming up for Richmond Programme Business Case and Walking and Cycling Strategy, should help inform community.	Slightly positive
Vegetation Weeds	10	Yes	Perennial issue. No change proposed to LOS currently offered.	Neutral
Speed limits - too high	9	Yes	Speed Management Plan being developed, likely to result in (lower) safe and appropriate speeds being implemented across the network over time.	Positive
Request more seal extensions	4	Yes	No plan to do more seal extensions due to cost.	Neutral
Roadmarking Signs	4	No	Maintenance specification needs review to ensure high wear sites are being proactively treated.	Positive
Utility projects	4	Yes	Complaints about pipeline installation/ replacement projects, not under control of road activity.	Neutral
Drainage	3	Yes	Minor issue. AMP planned more drainage maintenance and renewal but NZTA funding has not increased sufficiently.	Slightly positive
Speed limits - too low	1	Yes	Speed Management Plan being developed, likely to result in (lower) safe and appropriate speeds being implemented across the network over time.	Negative

6.17 Most of the issues are already well understood and specifically addressed in the Council’s Transportation Activity Management Plan 2021-2051 and Long Term Plan 2021-2031. However, the outlook for many of the issues is negative, in that there is insufficient available funding to address them to the extent that we could expect resident satisfaction to increase.

6.18 The most common issue was the effects of development/congestion. The next most common issues mentioned were specifically on State Highways, which are not controlled by the Council. Issues related to potholes, road maintenance and roughness were also common. As State Highways are the busiest roads in the district, it is possible that some of the development/congestion issues related to peoples experience on State Highways.

Footpaths

Figure 6: Satisfaction with footpaths over time

6.19 Staff analysed the verbatim comments to better understand the issues that were concerning survey respondents. The results are summarised in the table below.

Table 6: Analysis of verbatim comments for footpaths

Issue/Category	Number of Comments	Known Issue?	Management Plan/Response	Satisfaction Outlook
No footpath / not enough	40	Yes	Long Term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) has small budget for new footpaths, but without NZTA funding for 2021-2024 it is likely a decrease overall. Only a small amount of footpath will constructed each year, not enough to make a difference to survey result.	Negative
Uneven / cracked	36	Yes	2020 Footpath condition rating exceeded Level of Service target (95.8% in fair or better condition, >95% target). Limited NZTA funding will put pressure on overall maintenance and renewal budgets and future condition. Overall condition unlikely to improve.	Negative
Too narrow/ next to kerb	16	Yes	LTP has small budget for improvements, but without NZTA funding for 2021-2024 it is likely a decrease overall.	Negative
Vegetation	10	Yes	Perennial issue, requires extra Council resources to proactively manage.	Neutral
Patches / potholes	8	Yes	2020 Footpath condition rating exceeded Level of Service target (95.8% in fair or better condition, >95% target). Limited NZTA funding will put pressure on overall maintenance and renewal budgets and future condition.	Neutral
Behaviour of users	6	Yes	Share with care' education campaign to be launched late 2021. Also awaiting outcome of NZTA regulatory review which may legalise the use of footpaths by cyclists, which would likely increase conflict between users.	Slightly positive
Too good / too wide	4	No	Perception that investment in paths should instead be put into roads. AMP already has balanced approach	Neutral
Recycling or rubbish bins on paths	3	Yes	Likely to get worse with Richmond intensification and more bins put out on paths for collection	Negative
Parking on path	2	Yes	Enforcement issue	Neutral
Lack safe crossings	2	Yes	LTP includes safety improvement budget although lack of NZTA funding means less will be able to be done.	Slightly positive
Lack of kerb on Queen Street	2	Yes	No plan to change Queen Street.	Neutral
Gravel not sealed	1	Yes	Limited improvement budget.	Neutral
Aesthetics	1	No	Not a Level of Service.	Neutral

Roads and Footpath Discussion

6.20 The condition of our road and footpath network does not tend to change very rapidly, so there is no obvious reason why satisfaction would have dropped so substantially in real terms in 2021 compared with 2020. There are potentially wider centrally-driven issues outside of the Council’s control that could be influencing road user satisfaction, such as:

· awareness of lack of funding for road maintenance and improvements in regions like Tasman and Nelson, and/or general dissatisfaction with how funding is being distributed;

· National Policy Statement - Urban Development which requires councils to enable more housing development;

· a push for safer speed limits arising from the Government’s Vision Zero road safety strategy; and

· climate change and emissions awareness.

6.21 Aside from these national-scale issues, staff have explored other specific matters arising from the survey results.

6.22 The scale prior to 2021 included what might be described as a ‘neutral’ score of ‘fairly satisfied’, which was the predominant response people gave in previous surveys. This would have reflected that while many people may have some issues related to road or footpaths that they weren’t happy with, on balance they may consider themselves ‘fairly’ satisfied. However, the 2021 scale makes it much more black and white without a ‘neutral’ score. It is possible that if previous surveys had used a similar scale, that past road and footpath satisfaction scores would also be lower.

6.23 While staff understand the survey may advise respondents that the survey is not about state highways, these roads inevitably lie at the heart of many journeys or at least impact on them, and flavour overall perceptions. While state highways have always been mentioned in residents’ surveys, there has been noticeable deterioration in road condition, and increasing frustration at congestion which primarily occurs on this busier network.

Road Condition and Maintenance Funding

6.24 Funding for road maintenance through the current ‘co-funding’ approach involving Waka Kotahi introduces some risk to the road network if insufficient co-funding is made available. For the 2018-2021 period, and 2021-2024 period, Waka Kotahi have provided less funding than the Council has calculated is required to maintain the network. There appears to be a view nationally that some road networks, including Tasman, are in ‘too good’ condition and that some deterioration in overall condition may be acceptable over time. Our view is that allowing condition to deteriorate is risky and could cost more in the long term. Waka Kotahi funding for 2021-24 has been increased compared with 2018-21 which will enable the network condition to be largely maintained, but not improved.

6.25 The Council commissions independent Condition Rating of our sealed roads every 2 years. This enables calculation of a Condition Index (CI) which is an overall reflection of sealed road condition. For CI a lower score means better condition. A score of 0-2 is considered excellent, 2-5 is very good, 5-10 is average and so on. Our network overall is in very good (almost excellent) condition although the trend is that condition is slowly deteriorating.

Figure 7: Network Condition Index Over Time

6.26 It should be noted that the roughness (or bumpiness) of our road network is also generally very good compared with our peers at other provincial councils. Only our arterial roads, which make up 0.7% of our network, have been measured as rougher than our peer group. This is primarily due to Lower Queen Street, which has been in a holding pattern while various underground services have been upgraded in recent years. A smoother asphalt surface has been laid (after the residents’ survey) on rougher parts of this road in June/July 2021 which will improve roughness. See Figure 8. Note a lower roughness score equates to a smoother road. The 85^th percentile is considered a representative roughness score – 15% of any given road will have a roughness higher than this number.

Figure 8: 85^th Percentile Comparison for Roughness

6.27 Interestingly, using a measure called Smooth Travel Exposure (STE), which considers the proportion of trips that are made on roads that exceed a certain roughness threshold, Tasman fares better than our peer group for all road classifications. This shows that drivers experience slightly smoother trips on our road network than on our peer groups networks. See Figure 9. In this graph, a higher score is better and represents more vehicle trips being undertaken on smooth roads.

Figure 9: Smooth Travel Exposure

6.28 Clearly the dissatisfaction of our residents with the road condition reflects some desire for an unachievable and unaffordable condition.

Roads and Footpaths Conclusion

6.29 Resident satisfaction has likely changed as a result of the change in survey methodology and a perceived lack of focus and investment on improving our roads due to growth in the district, rather than as a result of actual changing network condition.

6.30 In almost all cases the issues identified by residents have already been considered by the Council’s Transportation Activity Management Plan.

6.31 Based on the survey results and this analysis, satisfaction with roads and footpaths is unlikely to improve in the next few years given the limited amount of funding available to make progress on the issues identified.

Access to Council Information

6.32 This question measured the percentage of residents that saw, read, or heard Council information in the last 12 months. This year the percentage was 83% which is down from last year by 13%. This question did not ask respondents about whether they were satisfied with the communications they received or not.

Figure 10: Access to Council information over time

6.33 The survey did show that the most commonly seen Council communication resource was Newsline.

6.34 It is difficult for staff to determine why less people have seen, read, or heard from Council. 38% of respondents said they preferred face to face customer counter interactions with the Council. To some extent this has been limited by Covid-19 restrictions at times and could have had a small impact on whether people felt like they had heard from Council or not. Also, as more transactions are possible online, e.g. dog registrations, this could have had an impact.

6.35 Encouragingly, there were increases in satisfaction in two related communication questions:

· 75% of residents felt the level of information Council provided was enough, this is an increase of 1%.

· 58% of residents were satisfied with the way Council consults the public in the decisions it makes, this was an increase of 10%.

Council Reputation

6.36 This year, 69% of respondent felt the Council’s reputation was good. This is down from last year by 15%.

Figure 11: Satisfaction with Council reputation

6.37 Council’s reputation is an overall measure and will be reflective of many of the points previously discussed in this report. For this reason, staff have not provided further analysis or discussion.

7 Conclusion and Next Steps

7.1 Our annual residents’ telephone survey was carried out in May, with our new provider Research First.

7.2 Of the 18 performance measures, 11 met their target, 7 did not, and 1 was not accurately measured.

7.3 Information from the survey will be used to report against the Council’s performance measure targets in the Annual Report 2020/2021. Staff also use the information regarding low satisfaction rates to help identify areas for service improvements.

7.4 Staff will also prepare a summary of the key results for inclusion in a future edition of Newsline.

Attachments

1.⇩	Resident Satisfaction Survey Report 2021	26
2.⇩	Resident Satisfaction Survey - Appendix Three	98
3.⇩	Perceptions of Local Government August 2021	111

Tasman District Council Strategy and Policy Committee Agenda – 30 September 2021

9.3 Commencement of Plan Change - Housing in Brightwater, Wakefield, Murchison, Mapua and Motueka

Report To:	Strategy and Policy Committee
Meeting Date:	30 September 2021
Report Author:	Jeremy Butler, Team Leader - Urban and Rural Policy; Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager
Report Number:	RSPC21-09-3

1 Summary

1.1 Tasman is experiencing high rates of urban growth and demand for new housing. The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy has a target of providing 40% of new housing through intensification.

1.2 This paper outlines proposals to rezone land for housing in Murchison, Brightwater, Wakefield, Mapua and to change the residential rules for Motueka West, Wakefield and Mapua to provide a more enabling consenting framework for higher housing densities. This will have the benefit of incentivising more efficient use of land for housing and contributes to implementing the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (FDS).

1.3 The areas included in this paper are either already zoned for residential use or identified in the FDS as potential sites for growth or intensification.

1.4 In summary the proposals are:

· Brightwater – re-zoning of land identified in the FDS for housing;

· Wakefield - a combination of rule changes to enable higher densities and some additional re-zoning to make the most efficient use of the available land;

· Murchison – identification of land for re-zoning to residential and rural residential. The FDS identifies some possible locations;

· Mapua – re-zoning of rural residential land to residential as identified in the FDS for intensification; and

· Motueka - rule changes to enable higher densities on residentially zoned land identified in the FDS for intensification.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1. receives the Commencement of Plan Change - Housing in Brightwater, Wakefield, Murchison, Mapua and Motueka RSPC21-09-3; and

2. approves the commencement of work to scope and develop a plan change or changes to address urban growth pressures and the demand for housing in Brightwater, Wakefield, Murchison, Mapua and Motueka; and

3. instructs staff to report back to the Strategy and Policy Committee on recommendations for a draft plan change or changes following scoping of possible plan changes in Brightwater, Wakefield, Murchison, Mapua and Motueka.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 To seek approval to scope plan changes to rezone land for housing in Murchison, Brightwater, Wakefield, Mapua and to change the residential rules for Motueka West, Wakefield and Mapua to provide a more enabling consenting framework for higher housing densities.

3.2 To seek approval to develop a draft plan change or changes to be bought back to the Strategy and Policy committee for a decision on whether to then proceed to non-statutory consultation on the drafts ahead of any formal plan change process.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 Tasman District is experiencing very high rates of urban growth and housing shortages. The year ending May 2021, saw a record 633 building consents issued for new dwellings. House prices continue to increase. According to the Real Estate Institute of NZ (REINZ) the median house price in Tasman was a record $850,000 in May 2021, an increase of 21% since May 2020. The demand for new housing is also creating a tension with the ongoing loss of productive land.

4.2 While we currently have adequate capacity on paper as defined by the NPS-UD, there are opportunities to maximise the use of existing zoned land through amending rules to enable higher densities, more choice and more efficient use of that land. This is the case in Motueka, Mapua and Wakefield. Demand is uneven across the District and in Murchison there is demand but the owners of land that is currently zoned for residential uses are not interested in developing. There is a similar situation in Brightwater where current zoning is creating barriers to the development of land zoned or identified through the Future Development Strategy (FDS) for housing.

4.3 The aim of the proposals set out in this report is to address a combination of shortages in housing supply in Murchison and by providing sufficient levels of zoned land that can be developed at higher densities in the townships that need it most.

4.4 The next Strategy & Policy Committee meeting will also receive a paper outlining growth pressures in Richmond and options to address those pressures.

Murchison

4.5 While growth predictions for Murchison are low, there is evidence of a real shortage of housing and accommodation. Multiple conversations with various Murchison business owners, the school principal, real estate agents indicate there is clear evidence that there is a requirement for more residential and rural residential land in Murchison with a particular urgency for more residential land.

4.6 The landowners of existing deferred residential land have indicated they have no interest in developing. To meet demand, staff initial investigations have identified two possible locations for residential zoning (Figure 1). The first is an area that straddles Fairfax Street on the southern boundary of Murchison. The second is a large block of land bounded by Hotham Street, Chalgrave Street and the State Highway on the western side of Murchison.

4.7 Part of the Fairfax Street site is identified in the FDS for future growth. The other site is not. This is a very early indication of possible locations for additional residential land. A detailed assessment of servicing will be required along with discussions with landowners to determine the feasibility of the sites. If the Committee supports proceeding, then staff will complete an assessment of servicing, hazards, landowner interest and staff will come back to you with detailed recommendations on potential areas for re-zoning.

4.8 We are also proposing to scope potential locations of land for rural residential development. This will be done in conjunction with landowners and the community. Any potential rural residential locations will be assessed and presented to the Committee for consideration.

Figure 1. location of potential sites for re-zoning land for residential development.

Brightwater

4.9 The proposal for Brightwater is to bring forward the re-zoning of a block of land identified in the FDS as being needed in approximately 7-17 years to meet demand. Growth in Brightwater could in theory be accommodated for the next 7-10 years by uplifting deferred zoned land adjacent to the Ernest Rutherford memorial. However, the landowner has indicated that it is not feasible to develop just the deferred land. The block of deferred land and the adjacent area identified in the FDS is in single ownership, except for a smaller holding in the very south-west corner (Figure 2). The owners have indicated that if the area identified in the FDS is not zoned residential they are likely to plant grapes on the majority of the block which will mean it is lost for housing for a long time.

4.10 This is also an opportunity to review the residential rules that apply to the whole area to determine if they could be amended to enable higher housing densities. The current rules for the deferred residential land enable standard or comprehensive development.

Figure 2. location of land proposed for re-zoning for residential development.

4.11 There is also a small area of land that requires a reassessment of the underlying zones on Waimea West Road (Figure 3). The proposal is to amend the zones that apply to land located at 366 and 368 Waimea West Road to align with a subdivision boundary adjustment that was undertaken in 2007.

4.12 The subdivision relocated the boundaries of two titles. The owner at the time of title CTNL107/125 approached Council, as did the owner of the neighboring title CTNL107/124, to carry out a boundary adjustment to enable an existing house, which was located close to Waimea West Road to be relocated toward the rear of the site.

4.13 The intention of the parties was that following the boundary relocation, the portions of land exchanged that were amalgamated into the existing titles, would be rezoned in line with existing zonings and intended new uses as shown below.

4.14 The subdivision was duly completed but the rezoning of the land (from Recreation to Rural 1 and vice-versa) exchanged was not.

Figure 3. Current zoning of 366 and 368 Waimea West road. Council recreation property outlined in blue. Green is Recreation zone, yellow is Rural 1 zone.

Wakefield

4.15 The proposal for Wakefield covers an area of land with mixed zoning off Edward Street (Figure 4). The proposal is to increase the area of land within the same boundary that is residentially zoned and amend the rules to enable higher densities to make the most efficient use of the available land for housing. The land is residential on the western side of a tributary of Pitfure Stream and rural residential on the eastern side with a large strip of rural one land separating the two, to accommodate potential flood flows. New flood modelling indicates that the area required to accommodate flood flows can be reduced.

4.16 We have had initial discussions with the landowner who is supportive of the proposal. If the Committee supports proceeding, then an assessment of servicing and hazards will be completed and staff will come back to you with detailed recommendations on changes to zoning and rules that could apply to this site. The current rules for the residential land enable standard or comprehensive development. The rural residential land is deferred to ensure access in a Q100 event; and for provision of a pedestrian/cycle link over the Pitfure Stream.

Figure 4: Location of site proposed for changes to zoning and development rules.

Mapua

4.17 In Mapua, the proposal is to rezone three areas of land in Seaton Valley road from Rural Residential to Residential to enable higher housing densities (Figure 5). These areas are identified in the FDS for intensification from decade two (7-17 years away). This proposal would enable intensification to occur earlier. Given the land is currently zoned rural residential then it can be developed now which would effectively mean the opportunity to provide more houses in this area would be lost.

4.18 The three areas of rural residential land identified in the FDS for intensification are:

· Seaton Valley Flats - 12 hectares, the proposal is for standard density, with an estimated yield of estimated yield 119 homes;

· Seaton Valley Hills – 21 hectares, the proposal is for medium to low density, with an estimated yield of 500 homes in FDS; and

· Seaton Valley Northern Hills – 16 hectares, the proposal is for medium to low density, with an estimated yield of 12 homes in FDS.

4.19 Initial discussions with some of the landowners indicate they support the proposals. There is sufficient wastewater, water and stormwater servicing (proposed in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031) within the defined area of the map. If the Committee supports proceeding, then staff will come back to you with detailed recommendations on the spatial extent of changes to zoning and the rules that could apply to these sites.

4.20 The area of low-lying land adjacent to Seaton Valley Road is proposed to be used as a communal stormwater detention for contributing catchments with sports fields and passive transport connections. The upper portion of this land has an indicative reserve overlay on it as it has been identified as the location for new sports fields.

4.21 The entire parcel has been included in an Infrastructure Acceleration Fund application and we expect to hear back in October whether this has been successful.

Figure 5: location of areas to consider for intensification.

Motueka West - Whakarewa Street

4.22 The proposal for Motueka West is to amend the current Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) rules to enable higher densities. The land is currently deferred residential: standard density (Figure 6).

4.23 The area is part of a larger area identified in the FDS for intensification from decade two (7‑17 years away). However, development of the larger area is dependent on servicing. Further work is needed to align the staged infrastructure servicing plans with the landowners’ development stages.

4.24 The landowners are supportive and have plans for higher than standard housing densities. Amending the rules to enable higher densities will support those plans.

4.25 If the Committee supports proceeding, then staff will come back to you with detailed recommendations on amendments to the current residential rules that could apply to this site.

Figure 6. location land identified for intensification (red)

5 Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

	Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Proceed with the proposals outlined in this report	Allows more efficient use of land for housing. Higher densities can potentially reduce pressure for further expansion onto productive land.	Creates additional demands on the Environmental Policy Team that could risk delivery of the new plan,
2.	Proceed with a selection of the proposals	Will enable intensification/growth in some towns.	If some areas are rejected, then the opportunity for intensified development is likely to be lost. Existing land shortages in some areas would continue.
3.	Don’t proceed with the proposals	No additional cost to Council.	Opportunity to maximise the use of greenfield land for new housing is lost. Existing pressure on loss of productive land will continue. Existing housing shortage in some locations will continue.

5.2 Option one is recommended.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 There are no identified risks associated with development of draft plan changes. There will be several opportunities for community comment and input. We will also ensure we work with iwi on the proposals.

6.2 There is likely to be a reasonable amount of community interest in the proposals and ensuring adequate opportunities for community input will help to ensure the proposals reflect community input.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

7.1 Parts of Tasman District form the Nelson Tasman Tier 2 Urban Environment under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD). These comprise Richmond, Brightwater, Wakefield, Māpua and Motueka. Policy 2 of the NPS-UD requires Tier 2 local authorities, at all times to provide at least sufficient development capacity to meet expected demand for housing and for business land over the short, medium and long term.

7.2 The FDS provides a long term indication of where and how growth will be catered for in terms of both new land for housing and business and also where intensification can potentially occur. The proposals in this report are the next step in implementing that strategy. Most of Tasman’s towns are built on or close to productive land and urban expansion is constantly eroding the amount of productive land available. The FDS seeks to minimise urban expansion over productive land and enabling higher housing densities will help by making the most efficient use of the land that is lost to primary production.

7.3 Enabling intensive housing helps to provide a diversity and choice of housing density and form to cater for a growing population, a changing demographic profile and a range of living options.

7.4 Section 31 (1) (aa) of the RMA “the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in relation to housing and business land to meet the expected demands of the region” is relevant to these proposals. Intensification is being proposed as a way of meeting some of the increased demand for housing in the district. The contribution intensification can make has been estimated in the 2019 FDS as 40% of additional housing capacity across the region (60% of additional capacity within the Nelson Urban Area (Nelson, Tahunanui, Stoke, Richmond, and Hope)). This is predicated on the areas identified in the FDS for intensification being re-zoned to enable higher densities of housing.

7.5 If the proposals proceed then staff will develop draft plan changes. These will be released for stakeholder and community feedback. Once the draft plan changes are finalised, they will be notified in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. This process involves notification, submissions, further submissions, hearings and then notification of a decision. Subject to no appeals on the decision, the plan change can be made operative.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 There will be additional costs associated with bringing forward the rezoning and rules changes for these areas. Given demand, it is considered a priority. There are two options to cover the costs. A request has been submitted for additional budget through the activity balances carry overs. Council will be asked to consider this when it receives the activity balances carry over report. If the request isn’t successful, then some of the work on the Tasman Environment Plan will have to be re-prioritised and pushed out to next financial year.

8.2 Early indications are there will be no additional cost in relation to servicing. The areas identified in this report are either already serviced or services are planned through the LTP. However staff will confirm this as part of bringing preferred options back to the committee.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 There is likely to be a reasonable amount of interest in these proposals given the topical nature of housing. Community groups and associations will be interested in proposals to provide for higher density housing in their communities. We are not expecting any significant opposition. The Murchison & Districts Community Council has recently written to the Council requesting an urgent plan change to provide additional land for housing. The Committee will view a presentation at this meeting requesting it enable intensification in Mapua. There has been further anecdotal information that suggests there will be a reasonable amount of support for the proposals in this report. There will be several opportunities for community input into these proposals initially informally as the draft changes are developed and then formally through the statutory plan change process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Housing is very topical. Any proposals that involve urban growth are likely to attract a lot of interest.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	The proposals are seeking to address some of the issues associated with the housing shortage and high house prices in Tasman. Staff anticipate that the proposals should have positive impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	High	The proposals to enable higher densities will result in long term impact through the creation of new communities and new housing.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	Medium	Higher housing densities is likely to mitigate transport emissions if we don’t need to expand out as fast with accompanying travel emission impacts
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset?	No
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	Yes	The Resource Management Act codifies the engagement required with iwi on plan changes.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The proposals outlined in this report present an opportunity to make more efficient use of land that has been identified for housing by enabling higher densities and to address local shortages of land for new housing. The proposals also have the potential to mitigate some of the pressure for expansion onto productive land. They also contribute to the implementation of the FDS by re-zoning some areas of land that are identified in the FDS as areas for intensification.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 If approved the proposals in this paper will be scoped in consultation with landowners and stakeholders before final recommendations are presented to the Committee on whether specific proposals should proceed and in what particular form. That would be followed by the release of draft plan changes for feedback and then a formal RMA Schedule 1 plan change process follows. Before public notification, Council is required to have prepared a Section 32 report which is made available at the time of notification of the Proposed Plan Change.

Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Strategy and Policy Committee Agenda – 30 September 2021

9.4 Strategic Policy and Environmental Policy Activity Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Strategy and Policy Committee
Meeting Date:	30 September 2021
Report Author:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager; Wouter Woortman, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor - Stormwater; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy
Report Number:	RSPC21-09-4

1 Summary

1.1 This report provides the Committee with an update on some of the key highlights of the Service and Strategy Group’s strategic policy and environmental policy work.

1.2 The report also provides a revised timeline for the Annual Plan 2022/2023.

1.3 The report seeks approval to adopt and publicly notify the decisions of the hearing panel for Plan Change 71 - Coastal Occupation Charges and Plan Change 72 - Moorings and Coastal Structures in accordance with the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1.4 The report seeks a resolution to uplift the deferred zone status on land in Māpua.

1.5 The report seeks a resolution for the Mayor in conjunction with the Mayor of Nelson to write to Te Tau Ihu Iwi to request nominations for a Matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) representative to sit on the Future Development Strategy hearings panel in 2022.

1.6 The report provides a revised programme for the completion of the review of Council’s involvement in older persons housing.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1. receives the Strategic Policy and Environmental Policy Activity Report RSPC21-09-4; and

2. notes the timetable for preparation of the Annual Plan 2022/2023, as follows; and

15 December 2021	Council workshop – Review revised budgets, rates impact on example properties and for staff to recommend whether consultation is required.
23 February 2021	Council workshop – Review revised budgets, rates impact on example properties and further discuss whether consultation is required
31 March 2022	Full Council meeting – adopt Draft Annual Plan 2022/2023 and information for consultation
4 April – 4 May 2022	Public consultation
11-12 May 2022	Hearings
25 May 2022	Deliberations Meeting
23 June 2022	Full Council Meeting – Adopt Annual Plan 2022/2023

N.B. The latter part of this timeline will vary if the decision is taken not to consult on the Annual Plan.

3. receives the recommended decisions from the Hearing Panel for Plan Change 71 – Coastal Occupation Charges (Attachment 1 dated 19 August 2021) and Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures (Attachment 2 dated 19 August 2021); and

4. accepts the recommended decisions for Plan Change 71 – Coastal Occupation Charges (Attachment 1) and Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures (Attachment 2) as the decisions of the Committee; and

5. agrees to publicly notify the decisions for Plan Change 71- Coastal Occupation Charges and Plan Change 72- Moorings and Coastal Structures as soon as practicable and in accordance with the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

6. agrees to adopt Plan Change 71 – Coastal Occupation Charges and Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures, and affix the Tasman District Council Seal to the adopted plan changes, where no appeals to the Environment Court are received; and

7. agrees to refer the adopted plan change as set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to the Minister of Conservation for approval; and

8. notes that following approval from the Minister of Conservation, Plan Change 71 – Coastal Occupation Charges and Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures will be publicly notified as operative as required by Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

9. receives the information contained in this report on the Uplift of Deferred Zone – part of 166 Mapua Drive; and

10. agrees to the removal of ‘Rural 1 deferred Residential zone’ status and replacement with ‘Residential zone’ status for part of the property located at 166 Mapua Drive, being described as: Lot 2 DP479544; and

11. agrees that an invitation is made to Te Tau Ihu Iwi for a Matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) representative to sit on the Future Development Strategy hearings panel in 2022 (the invitation will be made jointly by the Mayors of Tasman and Nelson); and

12. agrees to continue the review of Council’s older persons housing in accordance with the following programme:

Milestone	Completion
Steering Group workshop – agree options for consultation	October 2021
Development of options document	November – December 2021
Initial Community Board, iwi and other stakeholder options consultation	February – April 2022
Steering Group consideration of consultation feedback	May 2022
Council agreement to preferred option	June 2022
Development of draft consultation document for LTP amendment and audit of the document	July – September 2022
Adoption of draft consultation document by Council	September 2022
Consult on LTP amendment using the special consultative process and final audit of the LTP amendment	November 2022 – February 2023
Final decision by Council and adoption of amendment	March 2023
Commence process for divestment or transfer	April 2023
Conclude process	November 2023

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report provides the Committee with an update on some of the key highlights of the Service and Strategy Group’s strategic policy and environmental policy work.

3.2 In addition, the report seeks decisions on the following matters:

3.2.1 a reviewed timetable for the preparation of the Annual Plan 2022/2023;

3.2.2 adoption and public notification of the decisions of the hearing panel for Plan Change 71 - Coastal Occupation Charges and Plan Change 72 - Moorings and Coastal Structures;

3.2.3 removal of the ‘deferred Residential zone’ status and replacement with ‘Residential zone’ status for part of the property located at 166 Mapua Drive;

3.2.4 an invitation being made to Te Tau Ihu Iwi for a Matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) representative to sit on the Future Development Strategy hearings panel; and

3.2.5 a revised programme for the completion of the review of Council’s older persons housing in response to resolution OC20-10-5 of the Operations Committee in October 2020.

4 Strategic Policy Update – Dwayne Fletcher

Annual Plan

4.1 Staff have been carrying out project planning for the Annual Plan 2022/2023. On this occasion the project team suggest a timeline that sees the budget for 2022/2023 being agreed by Council in March 2022. Council will also formerly decide in March whether to consult on the Annual Plan, although staff will discuss this in a workshop with Council in February 2022. The Council is required to consult on its Annual Plan if there are significant or material changes from the corresponding year in the LTP 2021-2031.

4.2 On previous occasions the budget has been decided and the consultation/no consultation decision taken prior to Christmas. The primary reason for this change is to gather more accurate and timely financial information for 2022/2023 by collecting this information later in the 2021/2022 financial year.

4.3 The proposed timeline for the Annual Plan 2022/2023 is as follows:

15 December 2021	Council workshop - Review budgets for 2022/2023 and provide direction to staff. Discuss whether consultation is likely to be required.
23 February 2021	Council workshop – Review revised budgets, rates impact on example properties and further discuss whether consultation is required.
31 March 2022	Full Council meeting – adopt Draft Annual Plan 2022/2023 and information for consultation
4 April – 4 May 2022	Public consultation
11-12 May 2022	Hearings
25 May 2022	Deliberations Meeting
23 June 2022	Full Council Meeting – Adopt Annual Plan 2022/2023

N.B. The latter part of this timeline will vary if the decision is taken not to consult on the Annual Plan.

Updates

4.4 The following table contains an update of the other key projects and activities that the Strategic Policy Team staff either manage or are involved in.

Community Policy Update

Project	Description	Status	Comments
Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031	Comprehensive plan of Council’s activities and projects for 10 years and how Council will fund them. The LTP is reviewed every three years.	Delayed	Target completion date: 30 July 2021 The final LTP was adopted on 30 June 2021. The final adopted and designed version is currently available online. We are awaiting the printing of hardcopies. This has been delayed by the Covid 19 restrictions. Staff have completed responses to submitters by 31 August 2021, one month later than first planned.
Annual Report 2020/2021	Financial and performance reporting for 2020/2021, Year 3 of the Long-Term Plan 2018/2028.	On track	Target completion date: 16 December 2021 Project is underway with financial and non-financial information being gathered. Audit NZ will commence its audit of the Annual report in early October. An initial draft of the Annual report is due to be reviewed by the Audit and Risk Committee on 28 October 2021.
Annual Plan 2022/2023	Plan for the Council’s activities and projects for 2022/2023 with a particular focus on changes to the plans for that year in the LTP 2021-2031.	On track	Target completion date: 23 June 2022 Project planning work has commenced on the Annual Plan 2022/2023. The proposed timeline is detailed earlier in this report.
Annual Residents Survey	A survey of a representative sample of residents to get feedback on the Council’s performance	On track	Target completion date: 30 September 2021 The report providing an overview and summary analysis of the annual residents’ survey is being considered at today’s meeting.
Interim Policy on Giving Consent to Fly Unmanned Aircraft over Council Land	Staff have commenced a review of this policy as part of the periodic review of Council policies.	On hold	Target completion date: On hold Following a Council workshop on 8 September 2021, staff have put this work on hold until we understand the Ministry of Transport’s intentions further later this year/early next year.
Reserve Management Plan projects	Staff have prepared a draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (RMP), ready for public notification. Further information about this project (including an updated timeline) is available online at: www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/projects/moutere-waimea-reserves-project/	On track	Target completion date: April 2022 Staff have prepared a draft Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP. If the Committee agrees to publicly notify the draft RMP at today’s meeting, the two-month submission period will run from 15 October to 17 December 2021. Hearings and deliberations will be held in February 2022. Staff anticipate presenting the final plan to Council for adoption in April 2022.
Tasman Climate Action Plan	Council adopted the Tasman Climate Action Plan (TCAP) in September 2019. The Plan is available online at www.tasman.govt.nz/link/climate-action	On track	Ongoing Updates on TCAP initiatives are included in the ‘Climate Change Update’ report to alternate Strategy and Policy Committee meetings. A detailed annual report on progress with implementation of the TCAP will be presented at the 11 November Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.
Waimea Inlet Action Plan	Council adopted the ‘Waimea Inlet Action Plan’ in March 2019. The action plan was developed to implement the ‘Waimea Inlet Management Strategy 2010’. Both are available online at: https://www.tasman.govt.nz/my-council/key-documents/more/environment-reserves-and-open-space/waimea-inlet-management-strategy/	On track	Target completion date for document review: June 2022 A review of both the Management Strategy and Action Plan documents is underway. Staff anticipate that both documents will be reviewed by June 2022. Updates on the Ministry for the Environment funded projects relating to Waimea Inlet are included in the Environmental Information report to Council’s Operations Committee.
Golden Bay Easter Sunday Trading Policy	The Golden Bay Community Board are reviewing the Local Easter Sunday Trading policy under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 as it relates to the Golden Bay Ward. Following consulting, the Board will make a recommendation to Full Council.	On track	Target completion date: February 2022 Staff had a workshop with the Golden Bay Community Board on 10 August. Staff will present a draft Statement of Proposal for public consultation approval to the 12 October Golden Bay Community Board meeting.

Infrastructure Planning Update

Transport and Coastal
Richmond Programme Business Case (NZTA Project)	The Richmond Programme Business Case (PBC) is led by Waka Kotahi / NZTA to identify issues and develop an improvement plan to address these issues. This work is being undertaken alongside the Nelson Future Access Project (NFAP) to ensure consistency across the network.	On track	Target completion date: Late 2021 Council and Waka Kotahi have just completed public engagement. 1,163 individual pieces of feedback were recorded, including 328 conversations at drop-in events. Based on the public engagement feedback, staff are refining the preferred programme of works for recommendation to the Hearings Panel. The final PBC (including endorsement from the Council) is planned for the 4th quarter of 2021. Waka Kotahi will approve the PBC at their first meeting in 2022.
Walking and Cycling Strategy	Develop a walking and cycling (active transport) strategy to guide development of our walking and cycling networks across the District. This will help address key transportation issues for our District. This work is in line with the direction that central government has given and with our community expectations.	On track	Target completion date: To be confirmed Staff have developed a draft document which will be workshopped with the Council in September. The feedback we get will influence how much more work is required and timeframes.
Regional Boat Access Study	Undertake a study to determine a location, and scope of works for a boat ramp and associated facilities within Tasman Bay.	On track	Target completion date: October 2021 Staff have had a follow up hui with iwi to discuss revised options. The business case is currently being completed by consultants. Staff will workshop the options with Council in October before presenting a final report to Council in November.
Stormwater
Richmond South Stormwater planning	Development of a stormwater management plan for existing and future development areas in Richmond South, including cross section designs for planned drain upgrades. The Stormwater Management Plan will feed into a structure plan for the area.	On track	Target completion date: December 2021 The model has been updated with new lidar and updated hydrology. The model provides flows and flood extents for current and future development scenarios, including climate change effects. This information is now used to design green stormwater corridors in Richmond South.
Motueka Catchment Management Plan (CMP)	The Motueka CMP will identify and address key issues such as flooding, water quality, stream health and effects from developments in a holistic manner, similar to the Richmond CMP.	Delayed	Target completion date: 4^th quarter 2021 The individual components that feed into the CMP have been finalised and the digital “storymap” format has been drafted. Progress was delayed due to key staff currently acting in a different capacity, preparing the IAF application as well as cancellation of a hui with iwi due to lockdown. Staff will endeavour to present a draft CMP in a workshop to Council in October.
Māpua, Ruby Bay and Coastal Tasman Stormwater Modelling	A stormwater model for Māpua, Ruby Bay and Coastal Tasman to identify locations that are at risk of stormwater flooding in 1% and 10% AEP events.	On track	Target completion date: June 2022 The Māpua/Ruby Bay stormwater model is currently being used to identify and test high level solutions for future growth and key areas of concern.
Overland Flowpath Management	Overland flowpaths have been mapped and verified in the field for all urban area. This next phase of the project is about identification of key overland flowpaths and works required to reinstate or improve them. The aim is also to put legal mechanism in place that protect overland flowpaths from development.	On track	Target completion date: TBC Flowpaths are currently being updated using recently flown LIDAR covering new development areas in Richmond. The next step is to develop a framework to identify key overland flowpaths.
Richmond Stormwater Monitoring Programme	In accordance with conditions of consent Council is required to develop a stormwater monitoring plan for Richmond.	On track	Target completion date: June 2022 A consultant has been engaged to develop a monitoring plan that will include water quality sampling as well as a system to monitor progress on the actions identified in the Richmond CMP. The monitoring plan will be developed in close collaboration with Council’s freshwater scientist.
Water and Wastewater
Water Network Modelling	Modelling of various water supply networks.	On track	Target completion date: Brightwater (October 2021) & Māpua/Ruby Bay (complete) Staff have engaged a consultant to develop a hydraulic model for the Brightwater network and are collating data for the model build. Staff anticipate the model to be completed in October 2021.
Modelling	Modelling of Waimea network Network monitoring, data analysis and model outputs will inform the timing of specific capital works projects that are planned as part of the Waimea Wastewater Network Strategy.	Delayed	Target completion date: December 2021 Staff have engaged consultants to undertake a four staged modelling project for the Waimea wastewater trunk main. Consultants have recommended collection of additional flow data before building and calibrating the model. The planned installation of flow gauges has been delayed due to key staff being fully engaged in preparing IAF applications.
Motueka Wastewater Strategy	Development of a long-term wastewater network strategy for Motueka, including the relocation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).	Delayed	Target completion date: late 2022 Staff are working with iwi to finalise a WWTP site criteria framework. This was presented to the working group at a workshop on 1 September. Direction was sought from the working group on next steps and work on discharge options will commence in due course. Target completion date has been delayed due to resourcing constraints within the working group.

5 Environmental Policy Update – Barry Johnson

Decision on Plan Change 71 Coastal Occupancy Charges, Plan Change 72 Moorings and Coastal Structures and Moorings Area Bylaw

5.1     Plan Change 71 Coastal Occupancy Charges, Plan Change 72 Moorings and Coastal Structures and Moorings Area Bylaw were publicly notified on 20 June 2020. The following submissions were received:
Plan Change 71:           11 submissions
Plan Change 72:           20 submissions
Moorings Area Bylaw: 12 submissions.

5.2 The summaries of decisions requested by submitters for Plan Changes 71 and 72 were notified on 7 November 2020. One further submission was received on Plan Change 72. The Committee has previously received a link to the submission summaries and the summaries are available on Council’s website.

5.3 The hearing for the two plan changes and the bylaw took place on 25 May 2021. The deliberations were held on 25 May 2021, following the hearing. The hearing and decision is complicated somewhat as the plan changes and the bylaw follow different processes under the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) and the Maritime Transport Act 1994 respectively. To simplify matters, the Committee has previously resolved to delegate the authority to hear and consider submissions on the Mooring Area Bylaw to the hearing panel for Plan Change 71-Coastal Occupation Charge and Plan Change 72- Moorings and Coastal Structures (RSPC20-02-5 refers).

5.4 The Hearing Panel consisted of Cr Maling (chair) and Crs Dowler and MacKenzie and Ms Tracey Kingi. Apologies were received from Cr Hill.

5.5 Submitters present: D Thomas (Torrent Bay Township Committee) and N Clifton (Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club).

5.6 The next steps require a resolution by Council to accept the recommendations of the hearings panel and to notify the decision in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 1 of the RMA. If no appeals are received on the plan changes then the next step required by the RMA is for the Council to affix its seal to the plan changes and to send the plan changes to the Minister for Conservation for approval. Once approval is received from the Minister of Conservation then the Council is required to publicly notify the plan change as operative.

5.7 This report is seeking Council agreement to the next steps outlined above. Subject to no appeals and a timely response from the Minister for Conservation, the plan changes should be made operative towards the end of 2021.

5.8 Submissions on the Mooring Area Bylaw were heard at the same time as the two plan changes and a separate resolution regarding the Mooring Area Bylaw will be brought before Council in accordance with the requirements of the Maritime Transport Act 1994. The provisions in the Plan Change 72 and the Mooring Area Bylaw have been drafted so that both documents are required to be operative before the Mooring Area provisions come into effect. If there is a lag between the two documents becoming operative e.g. an Environment Court appeal then the non-affected document remains dormant until they are both made operative.

Uplift of deferred zone to residential Māpua Drive

5.9 In accordance with Rule 17.14.2 of the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), staff recommend the removal of the ‘Rural 1 deferred Residential zone” status and replace with ‘Residential zone’ status for:

Lot 2 DP479544

5.10 The area for which the deferred zone status is to be lifted is located at 166 Mapua Drive as shown in Figure 1 below.

5.11 The Group Manager – Community Infrastructure supports the removal of the deferred zone and its replacement with Residential zone. He has confirmed by letter dated 3 August 2021 he is satisfied the sites have appropriate services.

5.12 The sites were deferred for the following services: Reticulated Water Supply, Reticulated Wastewater Supply, and Stormwater Servicing.

5.13 Following a decision on the recommended resolution contained in this report, the TRMP Schedule 17.14A and corresponding TRMP Zone and Area maps will be updated to reflect the removal of the deferred zone status. The new zone will be Residential. The change takes effect from the date the Council makes its resolution (Schedule 17.14A).

5.14 The landowners have been advised by letter of the change. Staff will also advise the Māpua and Districts Community Association of the change.

5.15 Figure 1. Location of site for deferment uplift

5.16 Figure 2 – revised zone map showing land as residential zone.

Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy

5.17 The Environmental Policy team has recently begun a review of the Future Development Strategy (the FDS). The FDS is a Council strategy prepared jointly with Nelson City Council. It assesses and sets out where and how residential and business growth with the Nelson and Tasman regions will occur over the next 30 years. An FDS was adopted in July 2019. The existing FDS requires updating in order to meet the requirements of the Government’s National Policy Statement Urban Development 2020 (the NPS UD) which came into effect in August 2020. It will ensure both Councils are well placed with an evidence base to inform reviews and changes to unitary plans, to facilitate the next round of Long Term Plans (2024), including infrastructure strategies and to support business case work and future inter-council and central government funding partnerships.

5.18 The project is currently underway and will be completed in July 2022. The preparation of the updated FDS will comprise the following stages:

Stage 1 Project initiation (July – August 2021)

Stage 2 Baseline information analysis and review (July – October 2021)

Stage 3 Initial stakeholder and community engagement (online) (September – November 2021)

Stage 4 Drafting the FDS (October 2021 – February 2022)

Stage 5 Public consultation Special Consultative Procedure (March – May 2022) including face to face consultation with communities

Stage 6 Update and finalise the FDS (May – July 2022).

5.19 This FDS must use the special consultative procedure in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The FDS must also involve hapū and iwi in its preparation, including taking into account the values and aspirations of hapū and iwi for urban development. In addition to partnering with iwi during the preparation of the FDS and seeking involvement of hapū, staff recommend that an invitation is made to iwi for a Matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) representative on the FDS hearings panel. Should councillors approve this recommendation, the Mayor would be asked to approach iwi and invite nominations for such a representative. The hearing would be held in early May 2022. Nelson City Council is also considering a similar recommendation from staff and hence a joint invitation from both Mayors to iwi could be made.

Tasman Environment Plan

5.20 The team is continuing to work with landowners on the Outstanding Landscapes and Coastal Environment project. Further site visits are being arranged so the landscape architect can visit properties where it is needed to discuss ONL/ONF boundaries with landowners. This work has been delayed as the landscape architect is based in Auckland and the Covid Alert Level 4 restrictions have prevented her from travelling to Tasman. A revised set of ONL/ONF maps will be published once all site visits and assessments have been completed.

5.21 Community engagement on Coastal Hazards to discuss high level options is running from September to October. Due to the recent Covid outbreak community drop-in events had to be cancelled. They are replaced by a series of webinar events on 28 and 30 September. A report that discusses the options available at a regional scale was released ahead of the engagement along with updated web pages.

5.22 The following table gives a brief update on the significant environmental policy work streams, including Tasman Environment Plan work streams.

Project	Description	Status	Comments
Whole of Plan review	Review of the Tasman Regional Policy Statement and Tasman Resource Management Plan	On track – but future unclear	Team is developing issues and options on plan topics. Resource Management legislation review has created uncertainty. Project timelines will need to be reviewed when further information becomes available.
E-Plan	Procurement and implementation of an electronic plan to replace paper based planning documents	In progress	Procurement in progress. Early conversations with supplier underway.
Tākaka & coastal catchments water management (Tākaka FLAG)	Development of a plan change to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management	On track	Draft plan change is in development. Staff are completing further analysis to aid decisions on some outstanding recommendations.
Te Waikoropupū WCO (note: not a Council process)	Application for a Water Conservation Order over Te Waikoropupū and the supporting aquifer.	In progress	Court mediation is ongoing. Expert conferencing is underway. No hearing date yet. Anticipate hearing could be early 2022.
Waimea Plains water quality management (Waimea FLAG)	Project to activate nutrient management plan requirements in Tasman Resource Management Plan.	On track	Working with stakeholders and past Waimea FLAG members to develop an issues and options paper.
Action for healthy waterways	Government’s package of legislative reforms around management of freshwater	In progress	Working with iwi, Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council to develop a Te Tau Ihu wide plan for implementing new NPS requirements. New policies required by NPS were inserted into TRMP on 19 December 2020.
Coastal Hazards	Project to identify and manage coastal hazards in Tasman.	On track	Vulnerability and Risk assessment complete. Working with iwi to identify iwi values at risk. Next round of community engagement is currently underway.
Growth/Future Development Strategy	Ongoing work to implement the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy.	On track	Review of current FDS commenced 1 July 2021. See item above.
Mooring management review Coastal occupation charges	Project to change the way moorings are managed and to develop policy on coastal occupation charges.	On track	Hearings completed. Decision recommended for release in this committee meeting (separate section in this report).
Programme of urban re-zonings arising from Special Housing Areas (SHA).	Plan change project to fix zoning anomalies that resulted from SHA gazettals.	On track	Hearing held on 18 August. Decision pending
Omnibus 2 plan change	Omnibus to tidy up a number of minor errors and anomalies in the TRMP	On track	Hearing scheduled for October 2021.

6 Council Older Persons Housing Review – Richard Hollier

6.1 In October 2020, Council agreed to suspend the review of Council’s Older Persons Housing until at least August 2021 and requested the Reserves and Facilities Manager to report back with a revised programme for the completion of the review prior to the end of August 2021. The reason for suspending the review was due to the workloads around the Long Term Plan (LTP) and as there was no urgent pressure to complete the process.

6.2 A revised timeline has been prepared – outlined below. The timeline suggests restarting the process in October 2021. A possible outcome of the review could be the transfer of ownership or control of the housing portfolio, which is a strategic asset in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and in terms of the definition of a strategic asset under section 5 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 97 (1)(b) of the Act identifies that a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset from a local authority will require an amendment to the LTP. Both the consultation document on the proposed LTP amendment and the final amendment to the LTP will require auditing by Council’s auditor, Audit New Zealand. The alternative would be to delay a decision on this matter until it can be consulted on through the next LTP process in 2024.

6.3 The process will realistically take around two years to complete and require considerable staff resource and some external resources.

Milestone	Completion
Steering Group workshop – agree options for consultation	October 2021
Development of options document	November – December 2021
Initial Community Board, iwi and other stakeholder options consultation	February – April 2022
Steering Group consideration of consultation feedback	May 2022
Council agreement to preferred option	June 2022
Development of draft consultation document for LTP amendment and audit of the document	July – September 2022
Adoption of draft consultation document by Council	September 2022
Consult on LTP amendment using the special consultative process and final audit of the LTP amendment	November 2022 – February 2023
Final decision by Council and adoption of LTP amendment	March 2023
Commence process for divestment or transfer	April 2023
Conclude process	November 2023

6.4 Once the programme is adopted a letter will be sent to all the housing residents to advise them of the new programme and provide assurance on protection of their welfare.

Attachments

1.⇩	C71 Coastal Occupancy Charges	141
2.⇩	C72 Moorings and Coastal Strucutres	156

1.0 Introduction

This report provides the decision of Tasman District Council (Council) for Plan Change 71 – Coastal Occupation Charges (Plan Change). The decisions on the Plan Change and reason for those decisions can be found in Section 6 of this report. The specific changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) arising from this Plan Change can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

2.0 General-Timeline

2.1 The Hearing Panel consisted of Cr Maling (chair) and Crs Dowler and MacKenzie and Ms Tracey Kingi. Apologies were received from Cr Hill.

2.2 The hearing was held at the Tasman District Council Chambers on 25 May 2021, 9:30 am. The hearing was undertaken as part of a joint hearing for Plan Change 72 (Moorings and Coastal Structures) and the Mooring Area Bylaw.

2.3 Submitters present: D Thomas (Torrent Bay Township Committee) and N Clifton (Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club).

2.4 Council officers present: T Bray, B Johnson, P Meadows, A Humphries, D Cairney, J MacKay. D Bush-King also attended for part of the hearing.

2.5 The deliberations were held on 25 May 2021, following the hearing.

2.6 The recommendations of the Hearing Panel were finalised on 25 May 2021 and approved by the Strategy and Policy Committee on the 19 August 2021.

3.0 Decision Overview

Having had regard to the issues raised by the submitters, evidence presented at the hearing and statutory requirements, the decision of Council regarding the Plan Change is to Accept without Modification. The specific amendments to the TRMP arising from this Plan Change can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

The Plan Change is technical in nature and was undertaken primarily to meet obligations under Section 401A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) which requires Council to include a statement in the TRMP addressing coastal occupation charges. All but one submission supported the Plan Change and the Section 42A report and evidence presented at the hearing raised no significant concerns. The one submission which opposed the Plan Change sought the deletion of the Plan Change, which was declined primarily as the decision requested was contrary to the requirements of Section 64A, 401A and 32(1) of the RMA

After considering the recommendations of the Hearing Panel, the Strategy and Policy Committee made the decision to accept the Plan Change without modification on the 19 August 2021.

4.0 Background

4.1 The Plan Change

Coastal occupation charges are a charge under the RMA that can be made against any person who occupies public space within the coastal marine area. Charges can apply to, but are not limited to, wharves, jetties, moorings, marinas, boat ramps, cables, pipes and marine farms; and those activities that are long-term occupations of the coastal marine area. Temporary and transient uses of the coastal marine area like fishing, swimming and anchoring vessels are not considered to be coastal occupations. The RMA (Sections 64A, 401A) requires Council to address coastal occupation charges in the regional coastal plan.

In 1991 when the RMA first gained ascent, it included provisions for “coastal rentals” which applied to most coastal structures. The coastal rentals were to be administered by regional councils and the revenue was to be passed on to central government. The amount to be paid was set by the Resource Management (Transitional, Fees, Rents and Royalties) Regulations 1991. Regional councils, with the exception of Southland, refused to implement the coastal rentals and urged the Government to amend the legislation to allow the revenue collected from the coastal rentals to be retained by regional councils. In 1997, the RMA was amended and coastal rentals were replaced with coastal occupation charges. This change enabled councils to charge for coastal occupation, with the proviso that any charges collected had to be spent on the sustainable management of the coastal environment within the region. Further changes to the RMA in 2010 precluded coastal occupation charges being imposed on protected customary rights group or customary marine title group exercising a right under Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA Act 2011).

The principles underlying coastal occupation charging are that:

· Public access to and within the coastal marine area is protected and private occupation of the coastal marine area is a privilege and not a right; and

· Where private occupation has an adverse effect on public access to and use of the coastal marine area, then some form of compensation for the loss is appropriate.

Coastal occupations charges are a method by which the public can be ‘recompensed’ for the loss of the ability to use and access public space. There are clear analogies with land-based activities. For example, if somebody wished to use a local or national park for commercial purposes, e.g., coffee carts or concession stand, they would expect to pay for use of that space. The only difference with coastal occupation charges is that there are restrictions on what the money paid can be spent on.

Section 401A of the RMA (Transitional Coastal Occupation Charges) requires Council to include a statement or charging regime for coastal occupation charges in the TRMP. A statement or charging regime could be included at any time, however, after 2014 a statement or regime is required to be undertaken at the same time as the first change to the regional coastal plan. Proposed Plan Change 72 (Moorings and Coastal Structures) is the first change to the regional coastal plan. The purpose of this Plan Change is solely to meet the requirement of Section 401A of the RMA and enable Proposed Plan Change 72 to be notified.

Before making a decision of whether or not to include a regime for coastal occupation charges, Council was required under Section 64A(1) of the RMA to have regard to both public benefits (lost and gained) and private benefits (gained) in determining whether or not to introduce a charging regime. After undertaking that assessment (see Section 2 of the Section 32A report) Council decided it was appropriate to charge for the private occupation of the coastal marine area where the private benefit outweighed the public net benefit.

However, following further evaluation of the options under Section 32 of the RMA (see Section 3 of the Section 32A report), Council determined that the risk of implementing a coastal occupation-charging regime, at that point in time, was too high due to lack of clarity in the legislation and a number of barriers to implementation. Council decided that the most appropriate course of action was to introduce a statement into the TRMP supporting coastal occupation charges in principle, but not to introduce coastal occupation charges regime at that time, and to continue working towards developing a fair and equitable regime.

On 27 February 2020 the Strategy and Policy Committee recommended that the Plan Change be notified. On 20 June 2020, Proposed Plan Change 71 was publicly notified with submissions closing on the 27 July 2020. Eleven submissions were received.

The Summary of Decisions Requested was publicly notified on 7 November 2020 with the further submission period closing on 23 November 2020. No further submissions were received.

Nine submissions supported the Plan Change, one submission opposed the Plan Change and one submission requested changes to the text.

The hearing was held at the Tasman District Council Chambers on 25 May 2021, 9:30 am. The deliberations were also held on 25 May 2021, following the hearing. The hearing was a combined hearing with submissions on this Plan Change heard at the same time as the submissions on Proposed Plan Change 72 and the Mooring Area Bylaw.

5.0 Statutory Context

5.1 Introduction

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) provides the statutory framework for decision-making on Plan Changes and Part 1 of the Schedule 1 applies. After considering a plan change, Clause 10 of the Schedule 1 requires Council to give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in the submissions. The decision must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions and must include a further evaluation of the plan change in accordance with section 32AA (if changes are made); and may include consequential alterations and any other matter relevant to the plan change arising from submissions. Council is not required to address each submission individually in the decision.

Council has delegated the authority to make decisions on plan changes to the Strategy and Policy Committee and by resolution on 19 August 2021 the Strategy and Policy Committee accepted the recommendations from the Hearing Panel and approved notification of this decision.

The following documents have been considered in making this decision and due consideration and weight has been given to the various provisions. The key provisions are detailed below.

5.1.1 Resource Management Act 1991

Section 401A: Transitional Coastal Occupation Charges

...

(4) Where no provision for coastal occupation charges has been made in a regional coastal plan or proposed regional coastal plan by the expiry date [1 October 2014], the regional council must, in the first proposed regional coastal plan or change to a regional coastal plan notified on or after the expiry date, include a statement or regime on coastal occupation charges in accordance with section 64A.

(5) In this section, expiry date means the date that is 3 years after the commencement of section 59 of the Resource Management Amendment Act (No 2) 2011.

This section requires Council to include a statement or charging regime in the regional coastal plan, when it next notifies a change to the regional coastal plan.

Section 64A: Imposition of Coastal Occupation Charges

(1) Unless a regional coastal plan or proposed regional coastal plan already addresses coastal occupation charges, in preparing or changing a regional coastal plan or proposed regional coastal plan, a regional council must consider, after having regard to—

(a) The extent to which public benefits from the coastal marine area are lost or gained; and

(b) The extent to which private benefit is obtained from the occupation of the coastal marine area,—

whether or not a coastal occupation charging regime applying to persons who occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area should be included.

(2) Where the regional council considers that a coastal occupation charging regime should not be included, a statement to that effect must be included in the regional coastal plan.

(3) Where the regional council considers that a coastal occupation charging regime should be included, the council must, after having regard to the matters set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), specify in the regional coastal plan—

(a) The circumstances when a coastal occupation charge will be imposed; and

(b) The circumstances when the regional council will consider waiving (in whole or in part) a coastal occupation charge; and

(c) The level of charges to be paid or the manner in which the charge will be determined; and

(d) In accordance with subsection (5), the way the money received will be used.

(4) No coastal occupation charge may be imposed on any person occupying the coastal marine area unless the charge is provided for in the regional coastal plan.

(4A) A coastal occupation charge must not be imposed on a protected customary rights group or customary marine title group exercising a right under Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

(5) Any money received by the regional council from a coastal occupation charge must be used only for the purpose of promoting the sustainable management of the coastal marine area.

This section defines what Council must consider before making a decision to impose a coastal occupation charging regime and what must be included in a charging regime. This section also requires the inclusion of a statement in the regional coastal plan should the decision be to not impose a charging regime. No further assessment under Section64A has been made for this Decision, but it should be noted that this decision meets the requirements of Section 64A(2).

Part II

The Supreme Court found in 2014 that councils need not consider Part II of the RMA when making decisions on plan changes where the matter is fully addressed in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). This Plan Change is unusual in that the NZCPS does not cover coastal occupancy charges and, for this reason, an assessment under Part II is required.

Part II of the RMA, section 5 states that the purpose of the Act is to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 6(d) states that it is a matter of national importance to maintain and enhance public access to and along the coastal marine areas and section 7(b) refers to the efficient use of resources.

Coastal occupation charges are not mentioned in Part II. The environmental, economic and social effects of using and occupying the coast are assessed through a separate resource consent or the plan making process. Coastal occupation changes are a charge applied after that assessment and they do not directly affect the environment. However, as money received from coastal occupation charges is required to be spent on the sustainable management of the coastal environment, the charges are considered to support Section 5 of the RMA. A charging regime may also promote more efficient use of resources (Section 7(b)) by acting as a disincentive to the occupation of areas larger than required.

Coastal occupation charges are not thought to affect the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with the coast (Section 6(e)) and Section 64A (4A) prevents coastal occupancy charges being imposed on protected customary rights or customary marine title groups (6(g)). Coastal occupation charges could financially support Maori in their role as kaitiakitanga (Section 7a).

This Plan Change supports (in principle) the implementation of coastal occupation charges and the continued investigation into methods by which they could be implemented in the TRMP.

Section 32 and Section 32AA

A detailed Section 32 report accompanied the Plan Change and the matters raised in the Section 32 report were further considered in the Section 42A report and in the deliberations. Section 32AA requires a further evaluation of any changes that have been made to the Plan Change after the Section 32 report was completed. The Committee has decided to accept the Plan Change without modification and for the reason that no changes have been made, no further evaluation has been undertaken under Section 32AA.

5.1.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

The purpose of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal environment. There are provisions in the NZCPS regarding the allocation and use of public space but no specific provisions regarding coastal occupation charges. To the extent that money received from a charging regime is to be spent on the sustainable management of the coastal environment is considered consistent with the policies of the NZCPS.

5.1.3 Tasman Regional Policy Statement

The Tasman Regional Policy Statement (TRPS) provides an overview of the resource management issues for Tasman and includes policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources for the region.

Coastal occupation charges would support the general sustainable management objectives of the TRPS; however, the TRPS does not include any specific provisions relevant to coastal occupation charges.

5.1.4 Tasman Resource Management Plan (which includes the Regional Coastal Plan)

The purpose of the TRMP, in part, is to assist Council, in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation, to achieve the purpose of the RMA in relation to the coastal marine area in Tasman.

There are specific objectives and policies regarding the occupation of space in the coastal marine area, however, these policies seek to address environmental effects arising from the occupation, which is different to the purpose of coastal occupation charges. The TRMP does not include any specific objectives, policies or methods relating to coastal occupation charges.

5.1.5 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (MACAA) divests the common marine and coastal area from ownership and sets out a number of core rights for public use regarding access, fishing and navigation. MACAA specifically provides for the public to pass, re-pass, enter, stay in or on, and leave the common marine and coastal area without charge (Section 26), subject to provisions under other Acts and customary interests.

Coastal occupation charges only apply to longer-term and permanent occupations of the common marine and coastal area and do not affect transient and temporary uses like fishing, swimming and anchoring which are protected by this Act. Coastal occupation charges are not directly affected by this Act.

Summary of Statutory and Policy Framework

Sections 401A and 64A of the RMA require Council to either implement a coastal charging regime, or include a statement in the plan to the effect that Council has made the decision not to implement a charging regime, at the next change to the regional coastal plan. Section 64A sets out what must be considered before Council makes a decision and Section 64A(3) states what must be addressed in the charging regime. Beyond these sections, the RMA neither provides support nor opposes the introduction of coastal occupation charges, or provides details of what form a charging regime should take.

Coastal occupation charges are not discussed in either the TRPS or the TRMP.

To the extent that the RMA (including policy documents and plans) seeks sustainable management of the coastal environment, then it is considered that the imposition of a coastal occupation charging regime is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act. The Plan Change supports the imposition of a charging regime, but does not implement one at that point in time for technical reasons. The Plan Change is considered to meet the requirements of the RMA and other legislation.

6.0 Decision and Reasons for the Decision

This section contains a summary of submissions, summary of evidence, the decision and the reasons for the decision. Section 6.1 addresses the Plan Change as a whole and the following Section 6.2 provides the decision and reasons for the proposed changes. A copy of the changes to the TRMP arising from this Plan Change decision can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

6.1 Plan Change 71 – as a whole

6.1.1 Introduction

This decision considers Proposed Plan Change 71 as a whole.

Summary of Submissions

The following submissions were received in support of the proposed plan change.

· Chris Rutledge  (4168.1)

· Sanford Limited (4169.1)

· Torrent Bay Township Committee (2971.1)

· Marine Farming Association (4179.1)

· Thomas, Daryl (4170.1)

· Trevor Riley (2852.1)

· Nelson Pine Industries Limited (3495.1)

· Golden Bay & Tasman Bay Ring Road Farming Limited et al (4166.1 & 2) 

· Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Limited (327.1) 

One submission (4167.1) was received which opposed the Plan Change in its entirely and sought the deletion of the Plan Change. Submission (4167.1) is summarised as follows:

“It appears that Council has already decided to not charge, uncertain of the purpose of this consultation. Charging is a principle means of managing any limited resource, it is extraordinary that Council should decide not to use it. It appears that people holding mooring licences are being subsidised by the rest of the community of ratepayers. A mooring occupies approx. 1200 m². The submitter pays over $4000 p.a. for 809m² section as a contribution for TDC functions. Why should a mooring not similarly pay a contribution? The consequence of not charging for moorings is already apparent at Trewavas St, there are several unused, derelict, unsightly boats moored there and there is no incentive for the owners to dispose of them properly when they are not charged for the privilege of mooring. 

The wording of para 3 is unacceptably vague. Given that the section itself recognizes the importance of a charging regime, I would expect that Council would commit itself to a time line for developing and introducing a charging regime.”

With the exception of the above submission, all other submissions where either in support or support in part for the Plan Change (see Section 6.2).

Summary of the Section 42A Report

It was recommended that the Hearing Panel accept in part the decision sought by the submitters supporting the plan change (subject to any modifications required under Topic 2) and decline the decision sought in submission (4167.1) for the reason that the request would not meet the requirements in Sections 64A, 401A or 32(1) of the RMA.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Torrent Bay Township Committee attended the hearing and spoke in support of the Plan Change and coastal occupation charges.

6.1.2 Decision

That the Strategy and Policy Committee accepts Plan Change 71 without modification, as detailed in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

6.1.3 Reasons

The purpose of Proposed Plan Change 71 is to meet the requirements of Section 401A of the RMA which requires Council to either include a statement to the effect that charges will not be imposed (the option taken in this plan change) or impose a charging regime in the regional coastal plan. Council undertook an assessment under Section 64A of the RMA to determine the public benefits (lost or gained) and private benefits (gained) in determining whether or not to introduce a charging regime. Council reached the decision that, in principle, where private benefit is greater than public benefit, the public should be compensated through coastal occupation charges. However, when the imposition of coastal occupation charges was evaluated under Section32 of the RMA, it was determined that the risk of implementing a coastal occupation charging regime, at that point in time, was too high due to lack of clarity in the legislation and a number of other barriers to implementation. The decision was made to include a statement in the TRMP supporting coastal occupations charges, but to defer the implementation until the legal and policy uncertainties around such a charging regime were resolved. Council would also continue to co-operate with and support other parties in the development of a legally defensible charging regime.

All submissions supported Council’s decision (in principle) to impose coastal occupation charges, with one submission however opposing the plan change in its entirely and seeking the deletion of the plan change. The submitter expected the Council to commit itself to a timeline for developing and introducing a charging regime. The submitter did not attend the hearing or provide additional evidence for consideration.

Under the First Schedule of the RMA, Council can decide to withdraw or decline Proposed Plan Change 71 as requested by the submitter; however, such a decision would not meet the requirements of Sections 64A and 401A of the RMA or achieve the purpose of the Plan Change under Section 32A of the RMA.

If Council decided to withdraw or decline Proposed Plan Change 71, the status of Proposed Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures could also be challenged, because notification of Proposed Plan Change 72 relies on Section 401A of the RMA being given effect to.

After considering the matters raised in the Section 32 and 42A reports, evidence presented at the hearing the decision has been made to accept Proposed Plan Change 71 as notified without modification (see Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments). This decision is considered to meet the purpose of the Act and the objectives of the Plan Change.

6.2 Amendments sought to the text

6.2.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received from the Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay Inc. requesting text amendments (1050.1 &1050.2).

Summary of Submissions

The first request is summarised as follows:

(1050.1) Amend the first paragraph as follows: 

In accordance with section 64A of the Act, Council is required to consider whether or not a coastal occupation charging regime applying to persons who occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area should be included in the Regional Coastal Plan”. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) regional councils are able to charge for the occupation of the coastal marine area (CMA). Coastal occupation charges cannot be imposed unless the charge is provided for in the regional coastal plan and ensure that private occupation of this public land is recognised, with the loss of public benefit adequately accounted for. The funds raised by such charges can be used not only to mitigate, remedy or otherwise manage the actual or accumulative effects in the area but also in the wider environment (a public benefit). There is no inherent right to occupy public space in the CMA; however, coastal occupation charges must not be imposed on a protected customary rights group or customary marine title group exercising a right under Part 3 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.”

Reason: Emphasis needs to be added to ensure that the “cost” of occupation of public space for private benefit is recognised. Southland Regional Council continues to charge coastal occupation charges; most other councils have failed to accept this cost to the public but have bowed to commercial and private pressure.

The second request is summarised as follows

(1050.2) In accordance with section 64A of the Act, Council is required to consider whether or not a coastal occupation charging regime applying to persons who occupy any part of the ~~common marine and coastal area~~ coastal marine area should be included in the Regional Coastal Plan…”

Reason: Due to the uncertainties associated with the MACA Act where land title extends into the CMA, for future clarity it is best to ensure the Coastal Marine Area which is specified in the Resource Management Act and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is used.  As coastal occupation charges must not be imposed on protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups exercising a right under the MACA Act, the use of the phrase here is confusing.  

Summary of the Section 42A Report

(1050.1) The report found that the wording submitted added further information regarding the form and nature of coastal occupation charges. The proposed wording did not change the effect of the plan change and whether or not the wording was included was largely a matter of drafting. There was no recommendation.

(1050.2) The report found that the notified wording fulfils the requirements of Section 64A of the RMA regarding the need to have a statement in the TRMP and the notified wording was correct. If the suggested wording was adopted it would simplify the wording, but the wording could be challenged for being incorrect. The recommendation was that no change be made.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.2.2 Decision

That the Strategy and Policy Committee accepts Plan Change 71 without modification, as detailed in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

6.2.3 Reasons

(1050.1) The wording proposed by the submitter adds further information regarding the form and nature of coastal occupation charges and was considered to be beneficial for that reason. However, the proposed wording did not have a material effect on the implementation of the coastal occupation charges and for reasons of brevity, the decision was made not to include the additional information.

(1050.2) The RMA 1991 requires Council to prepare a regional coastal plan for the coastal marine area which includes the foreshore, seabed and coastal water and covers the area from the mean high water mark seaward to the outer limits of the territorial sea. Under the MACA Act 2011 the coast is defined as the “marine and coastal area” and the area within the marine and coastal area which has no privately owned land, etc., is defined in the Act as the common marine and coastal area”. The common marine and coastal area, in essence, is the coastal marine area which is not privately owned.

As part of the enactment of the MACA Act in 2011, a number of consequential amendments were made to the RMA 1991. Section 12(2)(a) of the RMA was amended and permission “to occupy any part of the coastal marine area” was changed to permission to occupy any part of the “common marine and coastal area”. Similar consequential changes were made to Section 64A, which requires Council to include a statement regarding a coastal occupation charging regime for persons occupying the “common marine and coastal area” ( see below) .

Section 12(2) of the RMA: “No person may, unless expressly allowed by …a rule in a regional coastal plan… or a resource consent, - (a) occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area; …”

Section 64A(1) of the RMA: Imposition of coastal occupation charges requires the Council to consider “whether or not a coastal occupation charging regime applying to persons who occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area should be included”.

Section 401B of the RMA -Obligation to pay coastal occupation charge deemed condition of consent “In every coastal permit that – (a) authorises the holder to occupy any part of the common marine and coastal area: and”

The wording in MACA Act 2011 and the interplay with the RMA 1991 is complicated and it is acknowledged that it would be less confusing if the wording was changed to refer to the simpler and more commonly used coastal marine area, as requested by the submitter. However, to change the wording from common marine and coastal area to coastal marine area would be technically incorrect under Section 64A of the RMA 1991. For that reason, the decision has been made to not make the text amendments requested.

After considering the matters raised in the Section 32 and 42A reports, the decision has been made to accept Proposed Plan Change 71 as notified without modification. This decision is considered to meet the purpose of the Act and the objectives of the Plan Change.

Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments

Part III: Coastal Marine Area - Add a new section at the end of Part III Introduction as follows:

“Coastal Occupation Charges

Council agrees with the principle of coastal occupation charges and considers that an appropriate regime would assist in the sustainable management of the common marine and coastal area. However, given the legal and policy uncertainties around such a charging regime, Council has decided not to impose a charging regime at present.

Until such a time that a charging regime is included in the Plan, the Council will continue to cooperate with and support other regional authorities and central government agencies in the development of a legally defensible charging regime. Council will also continue to advocate the necessary changes to the legislation and policy at a national level.”

1.0 Introduction

This report provides the decision of Tasman District Council (Council) for Plan Change 72 – Moorings and Coastal Structures (Plan Change). The decisions on the Plan Change and reasons for those decisions can be found in Section 6 of this report. The specific changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) arising from this Plan Change can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

2.0 General-Timeline

2.1 The Hearing Panel consisted of Cr Maling (chair) and Crs Dowler and MacKenzie and Ms Tracey Kingi. Apologies were received from Cr Hill.

2.2 The hearing was held at the Tasman District Council Chambers on 25 May 2021, 9:30 am. The hearing was undertaken as part of a joint hearing for Plan Change 71 (Coastal Occupation Charges) and the Mooring Area Bylaw.

2.3 Submitters present: D Thomas (Torrent Bay Township Committee) and N Clifton (Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club).

2.4 Council officers present: T Bray, B Johnson, P Meadows, A Humphries, D Cairney, J MacKay. D Bush-King attended for part of the hearing.

2.5 The deliberations were held on 25 May 2021, following the hearing.

2.6 The recommendations of the Hearing Panel were finalised on 25 May 2021 and approved by the Strategy and Policy Committee on the 19 August 2021.

3.0 Decision Overview

The submissions received on the Plan Change and evidence presented at the hearing were predominantly in support of the Plan Change, with several suggested amendments to the text to improve the readability or functionality. There were also several submissions requesting parts of the Plan Change be declined. Having had regard to the issues raised by the submitters, evidence presented at the hearing and statutory requirements, the decision of Council regarding the Plan Change is to Accept with Modification. A copy of the Plan Change incorporating the modifications can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments

After considering the recommendations of the Hearing Panel, the Strategy and Policy Committee made the decision to accept the Plan Change with modification on the 19 August 2021.

4.0 Background

4.1 The Plan Change

The proposed Tasman regional coastal plan was notified in 1995 and became operative in 2011. Since then a number of issues within the coastal marine area have arisen and two significant documents that influence the management of the coastal marine area have been created—the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA) and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). In the last few years the need to review the regional coastal plan has become pressing and a full review of the regional coastal plan commenced in 2019. It is anticipated that the regional coastal plan review will take a number of years and for that reason this Plan Change is proposed ahead of that review. The Plan Change consists of the following components.

Moorings Review

On 1 October 2011 the regional coastal plan became operative, forming part of the combined Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP). Following that date, most existing moorings required resource consent to continue occupying the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). By 2013 it became evident that the mooring provisions in the TRMP were not working well, with the majority of pre-existing moorings continuing as unauthorised structures. Council subsequently made the decision to undertake a review regarding the way moorings were managed. The initial findings were that there was:

1) conflict and tension in the management of swing moorings in high demand areas: and

2) the current RMA processes were leading to inefficient use of space and overly complex approval processes in some locations.

The moorings review also identified there were three key external documents that had come into effect since the Plan was notified and these documents needed to be considered or addressed in the regional coastal plan. These documents were the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA), New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan (2012). In 2013 Council also commenced the statutory review of the Tasman District Council Consolidated Bylaw – Chapter 5: Navigation and Safety Bylaw (2005) and the Bylaw review was considered to present an ideal opportunity to better align the way moorings were managed in the District under both sets of legislation.

In July 2013 the Environment and Planning Committee considered the moorings review report and following that consideration a discussion document was prepared and circulated for public feedback over January-March 2014. The public were consulted on two options:

· Option 1: Create new mooring areas, with combined TRMP and Bylaw Changes; or

· Option 2: Retain the existing system in the TRMP for managing moorings (status quo).

The Council resolved on 22 May 2014 to proceed with the drafting of a plan change and bylaw, taking into consideration the additional matters raised in the consultation.

During the drafting of the plan change and bylaw a number of additional matters were identified, including the need for new policy and rules providing for the removal of unauthorised coastal structures. There were delays to the review process and it wasn’t until 2019 that the draft plan change and bylaw was completed and approved by Council on 18 April 2019 for public feedback. The draft plan change and bylaw were circulated for public feedback in July 2019. A total of 59 responses were received and further changes were made to the draft plan change and bylaw. In February 2020 the Council made the decision to publicly notify the proposed plan change and bylaw.

The key components of the proposed plan change are summarised as follows:

1. Establishment of appropriately located Mooring Areas at Mapua, Motueka, Tapu Bay, Stephens Bay, Kaiteriteri, Otuwhero Inlet (Marahau), Torrent Bay, Boundary Bay, Milnthorpe and Mangarakau Wharf.

2. A new policy protecting the Mooring Areas from the adverse effects of other coastal activities.

3. Minimisation of space used for moorings by providing appropriate areas, enabling management within, and encouraging public moorings.

4. Requiring the removal of unauthorised, abandoned or redundant structures affecting natural character, habitats and ecosystems, natural features and public access, except where the removal would have adverse effects, including on historic heritage.

5. Encouraging moorings to locate in appropriately located Mooring Areas.

6. Amendments to the existing policy for Kaiteriteri regarding the number of structures within the Bay.

7. Amendments to the public access policy.

8. A new policy supporting public and multi-use structures and public access in the coastal marine area.

9. Providing for the maintenance, repair or replacement of existing structures (relating to craft).

10. A new rule providing for moorings in Mooring Areas as permitted activities subject to conditions being met and the mooring owner holding a Mooring Licence issued by the Harbourmaster under a Mooring Area Bylaw.

11. Requiring owners of permitted activity structures to provide contact details.

12. Requiring structures be maintained free from any pest or pest agent.

13. Continuing to provide for moorings in locations outside of Mooring Areas as a discretionary activity.

14. A new rule permitting the removal of coastal structures, subject to conditions.

15. A new rule permitting a discharge from structures being removed, subject to conditions.

16. Amendments to Schedule 25A (Permitted Coastal Structures) deleting some structures from the list and including additional structures as permitted activities.

Plan Change timeline

On 27 February 2020 the Strategy and Policy Committee resolved that the Plan Change be notified. On 20 June 2020 the Plan Change was publicly notified with submissions closing on the 27 July 2020.

Twenty submissions were received.

The Summary of Decisions Requested was publicly notified on 7 November 2020 with the further submission period closing on 23 November 2020.

One further submission was received from the Minister of Conservation regarding the submission by the Marine Farming Association.

5.0 Statutory Context

5.1 Introduction

The following documents have been considered in making this decision and due consideration and weight has been given to the various provisions. The key provisions are detailed below.

5.1.1 Resource Management Act 1991

Section 32 and Section 32AA

A detailed Section 32 report accompanied the Plan Change and the matters raised in the Section 32 report were further considered in the Section 42A report and in the deliberations. Section 32AA requires a further evaluation of any changes that have been made to the Plan Change after the Section 32 report was completed. The Committee has decided to accept the majority of the Plan Change without modification. Where modifications occurred the section 32AA was undertaken as part of the decision making process and noted in this report in accordance with S32AA(1)(d)(ii) as the changes made are minor in nature.

5.1.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

The NZCPS sets out objectives and policies for the sustainable management of New Zealand’s coastal environment. The regional coastal plan is required to give effect to the objectives and policies of the NZCPS. The regional coastal plan part (III) of the Tasman Resource Management Plan made operative prior to the current NZCPS coming into effect. For that reason it only partially gives effect to the objectives and policies of the NZCPS. Until the NZCPS is fully given effect to in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (or its successor), significant weight is required to be given to the objectives and policies of the NZCPS in making a decision on this plan change or relevant resource consent applications. There were a number of submissions requesting the Plan Change give greater effect to the NZCPS – particularly regarding natural character and outstanding natural landscapes and features. Council acknowledges the need to implement the NZCPS through its plan and is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of the TRMP including the coastal parts of the plan. Council consider the comprehensive review the most appropriate avenue for implementing the NZCPS. . This is a significant undertaking and while it has been commissioned, it will not be completed before this Plan Change is made operative.

6.0 Decision and Reasons for the Decision

This section contains a summary of submissions, summary of evidence, the decision and the reasons for the decision. Section 6.1 addresses the Plan Change as a whole and Sections 6.2- 6.26 provides the decision and reasons for specific changes sought through the submissions. A consolidated copy of the changes arising from the decisions can be found in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments.

6.1 Plan Change 72 – as a whole

6.1.1 Introduction

This decision considers the Plan Change as a whole.

Summary of Submissions

The following submissions were received in support, support in part or opposed in part the provisions in the Plan Change.

· (2852.1) Riley, Trevor

“Support the Plan Change and seek its retention in its entirety”.

· (3495.1) Nelson Pine Industries Ltd

“Support the Plan Change and seek its retention in its entirety”

· (4179.1) Marine Farming Association

“Support the plan changes”

· (4168.1) Rutledge, Chris

“Support the Plan Change and seek its retention in its entirety”

· (327.1) Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Ltd

“Oppose in part and seek amendments”

· (4127.1) Conservation, Minister of

“Retain the provisions of the plan change with the amendments outlined in the submission”.

· (4167.2) Mosley, Michael Paul - 20.1.3.2B

Supported

· (1050.21) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay - 21.2.3.15

Support/retain

· (849.2) Heritage New Zealand - 21.2.3.6

Support

· (1050.2) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay.

Support – consistent and sustainable design of mooring structures.

The following submissions were not addressed in Sections 6.2 - 6.26 and, for that reason, the decisions on these submissions have been included in this section.

· (1050.4) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay - Acknowledge that in order to give effect to the NZCPS 2010, areas that require recognition of various attributes will need to be identified in the TRMP. Until these areas are identified, and appropriate overlays included in the Plan it cannot be regarded as “strategic” as required by Policy 7 in that it has not identified areas where the activities being considered in this plan change may be inappropriate. Thus, a precautionary approach in relation to these areas must be taken.

· (2971.1) Torrent Bay Township Committee

o Favour the majority of the changes.

o Moorings and structures should be legalized and consented.

o Mooring and structure owners should be identified

o Unconsented mooring owners should have the opportunity to legalize them.

o If the opportunity is not taken, then unconsented moorings and structures should be removed

· (4173.2) Patrick, Mike - Unless required for safety reasons, the public should have reasonable access to any wharf, jetty etc.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

It was recommended that the Hearing Panel accept in part the decision sought by the submitters supporting the plan change (subject to any modifications arising from the other Topics).

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Torrent Bay Township Committee attended the hearing and spoke in support of the Plan Change.

6.1.2 Decision

That the Strategy and Policy Committee accepts the Plan Change with modifications, as detailed in Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments. The modifications and the reasons for the modifications can be found in Sections 6.2-6.26.

Submissions in support of provisions in the Plan Change which are not modified by the decision are accepted.

Those submissions in support of provisions which are modified by the decision are accepted in part, to the extent that the provision has been modified.

6.1.3 Reasons

(1050.4) The information requested for inclusion and consideration to give effect to the NZCPS has been commissioned and will be incorporated in to the Tasman Environment Plan (TEP) along with a full planning framework to give effect to the NZCPS. A strategic planning evaluation for the Plan Change was carried out based on the information held or commissioned by Council. Based on that evaluation, Council reached the conclusion that the Mooring Areas were appropriate activities for the locations proposed. It is accepted that the Council needs to give effect to the NZCPS and that a precautionary approach should be taken in the absence of sufficient information. In this instance significant information was gathered and it is considered that the effects of the activity are well understood, particularly for those areas that have been used for mooring for a significant length of time. Should information subsequently become available that deems the use of the areas or mooring as inappropriate then the Mooring Area boundaries can be amended or the area removed through the plan review or a plan change.

(2971.1) The submission supports provisions in the TRMP and in the Plan Change, this support is accepted with no changes required to the Plan Change provisions.

(4173.2) There is a general premise for public access to and along the coastal marine area and the public should have access to all wharves and jetties within Tasman, unless there are specific safety issues e.g. the structure is in disrepair. No change is required to the Plan Change provisions.

6.2 Amendments Sought to the Definitions

6.2.1 Introduction

Seven submissions were received requesting amendments to the definitions or the inclusion of new definitions to clarify the meaning of words used in the TRMP/ Plan Change. There was one further submission in support of a submission.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.5) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Include water-based activities in meaning [Commercial Activity]

(4166.1) Golden & Tasman Bays Ring Road Farming et al.

“Craft” is not defined and thus it is not clear whether it applies to all contrivances using the water surface, does it extend to rafts or other structures.

(327.2) Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Ltd

Provide a clear definition for “craft”. OR Include marine farming vessels temporally “moored” while harvesting, or vessels dropping off passengers such as walkers in the National Park.

(327.4) Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Ltd.

Add the following definition

“Mooring” means any weight or article placed in or on the foreshore or the bed of a waterway or in the Coastal Maine Area for the purpose of securing a vessel, raft, watercraft, aircraft or floating structure and includes any wire, rope, chain, buoy or other devices attached or connected to the weight. “Mooring” may include a system of weights and attachments for the same purpose but does not include an anchor that is normally removed with the vessel, raft, water craft, air craft or floating structure, and does not include any rafts, floating structures, anchors, weights, rope, chains or buoys or other devices connected to the Buoy which form part of an aquaculture operation, which are authorised by a Coastal Permit issued under the provision of the Tasman Resource Management Plan or the Resource Management Act 1991.

(4179.3) Marine Farming Association

“That “mooring” be added to the defined words and it be made abundantly clear that a “mooring” is not a marine farm anchor or any other component part of marine farm infrastructure.”

(4127.2) Minister of Conservation – Further Submission – support. Amending the definition of mooring to exclude a marine farm anchor or any other component of marine farm infrastructure provides plan certainty.

(4173.1) Patrick, Mike

Define “maintenance” [of structures] to specifically exclude maintenance dredging.

(4169.1) Sanford Ltd

Exclude from the Plan Change moorings associated with aquaculture activities.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommendation- No changes.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions.

6.2.2 Decision

No change to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.2.3 Reasons

The inclusion of the words “water-based activities” in the definition of “commercial activity” would have an effect that was beyond the scope of the Plan Change and for this reason the request was not accepted.

A number of changes were requested regarding the definition of mooring and there were also requests for new definitions to ensure that marine farming activities were not caught by the definitions (e.g “craft”). For the reasons discussed in the Section 42a report it was considered that no changes were required because the existing definitions, plan provisions and provisions in other legislation achieved the outcome the submitters were requesting.

6.3 20.1.3.2A: Minimisation of Moored Craft Occupation

6.3.1 Introduction

Four submissions were received regarding policy 20.1.3.2A. Two submissions supported the policy and two submissions sought amendments to the wording.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.3) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Support.

(1050.6) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

20.1.3.2A(b) Make efficient use of public space

(1050.7) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

20.1.3.2A(c) Reword

(4167.1) Mosley, Michael Paul

Support.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

The support should be accepted pending the decision on submissions 1050.6 & 1050.7.

No recommendation for submissions (1050.7) & (1050.6).

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.3.2 Decision

The support is accepted with no changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.3.3 Reasons

Regarding the requests for changes to the wording, insufficient information was provided to enable the Committee to understand the nature of the requested.

6.4 20.1.3.2C: Interference with Mooring Activities

6.4.1 Introduction

One submission was received which opposed Policy 20.1.3.2C or alternatively sought amendments to the text (4167.4).

Summary of Submissions

(4167.4) Mosley, Michael Paul

Opposed – delete in its entirety or amend to make it clear that uses of the water body are not to be excluded.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommended no change.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding this submission.

6.4.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from this submission.

6.4.3 Reasons

The purpose of this policy is to prevent the establishment of other coastal activities/occupancies within the Mooring Areas which could affect the use of the Mooring Area. The submitter is correct in that the effect of the policy is to prevent other activities establishing within the Mooring Area, however, it is considered that there is sufficient space outside of the Mooring Areas to accommodate those activities. Regarding other activities within the Mooring Areas, temporary or occasional activities such as swimming, boating (including races) are not affected by this policy and are provided for under the MACA Act. For these reasons the decision was made to neither delete or amend the policy.

6.5 20.1.3.2D: Effects of Granting New or Existing Permits

6.5.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received supporting Policy 20.1.3.2D (4167.4) & (1050.8) and one submission sought an amendment to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.8) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Insert the word “of” before the word “existing.

(4167.3) Mosley, Michael Paul

Supported.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Accept both submissions, amend as follows:

20.1.3.2D To avoid the adverse effects on the efficient use of coastal space within a Mooring Area arising from granting new or re-consenting of existing coastal permits for moorings.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.5.2 Decision

Accept the support and amend as follows:

20.1.3.2D To avoid the adverse effects on the efficient use of coastal space within a Mooring Area arising from granting new or re-consenting of existing coastal permits for moorings.

6.5.3 Reasons

The text change suggested improves the wording of the policy. The change is minor in nature and the evaluation required by Section 32AA identifies no issues with the proposed request.

6.6 20.1.20: Regulatory Methods

6.6.1 Introduction

Four submissions were received regarding the Methods of Implementation 20.1.20.1 (1050.9) (327.3) (4179.4) & (529.1). Two submissions sought changes to the wording and the third submission requested additional text. There was one further submission in support of (4179.4).

Summary of Submissions

(1050.9) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

20.1.20.1(fa) Insert the word “design” after the word “space”

(327.3) Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Ltd

20.1.20.1(a) Amend “rules that regulate construction and operation of structures in the coastal marine area” to: Rules that regulate construction and operation of structures in the coastal marine area relating to craft.

(529.1) Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club

Recognise existing use in particular of the Motueka and Otuwhero Inlet-Marahau estuaries for small boat sailing by ensuring the regulatory methods do no restrict the current public uses of a Mooring Area.

(4179.4) Marine Farming Association

That a schedule for periodic surveying of Mooring Areas for marine pests be developed in conjunction with the Top of the South Biosecurity Partnership.

o (4127.3) Minister of Conservation - Further Submission – Support. Including, in the Implementation Section of this plan, a requirement to periodically survey mooring areas for marine pests in conjunction with Top of the South Biosecurity Partnership would implement Policy 12 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommend the word “design” be inserted after the word “space” in 20.1.20.1(fa) and the following new text be added

20.1.20.2(#) Periodic surveys of Mooring Areas be undertaken for marine pests in conjunction with the Top of the South Biosecurity Partnership.

No recommendation pending a discussion on the need to recognise small boat racing.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Motueka Yacht and Cruising Club attended the hearing and presented evidence requesting that the mooring area be moved. There was also a request that more control be established over the use of the public area regarding boats.

6.6.2 Decision

Amend as follows

(fa) Bylaw provisions which manage the allocation of space, design and use of moorings within Mooring Areas.

Add the following new text

20.1.20.1(j) Periodic surveys of Mooring Areas be undertaken for marine pests in conjunction with the Top of the South Biosecurity Partnership.

6.6.3 Reasons

The request to insert the word “design” better describes the scope of the matters covered by the Bylaw and would be an improvement, with minor effect.

The requested text change which sought to add the words “relating to craft” would improve the readability; however, this request affects a provision not included in the Plan Change and is considered beyond the scope of the Plan Change.

The appropriateness and location of the Motueka 2 Mooring Area and its impact on the small boat racing was discussed and with the substantive decision written up in Section 6.26 (Map180B) . The concerns raised by the Motueka Yacht and Cruising Club were considered valid and the decision was made to address those concerns through the bylaw and mooring licence provisions following discussions between the Club and the Harbourmaster. For this reason, no change was required to the Regulatory Methods.

Periodic surveys of the CMA for marine pests already occurs, largely dependent on need and the availability of funds, and Rule 25.1.2.1(f) requires structure owners keep structures free of any pest or pest agent declared under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The inclusion of a method of implementation supporting periodic surveys will help ensure that Mooring Areas are kept free of marine pests as well as help give effect to Policy 12 of the NZCPS. For these reasons the request was accepted.

6.7 Chapter 21: Effects on Coastal Marine conservation, Heritage, Access and Amenity Values

6.7.1 Introduction

One submission was received regarding the heading for Chapter 21

Summary of Submissions

(1050.10) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Amend heading to include “Natural Character, Natural Landscapes, Seascapes and Features, and Biodiversity”.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommendation – no change

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.7.2 Decision

No change to the Plan Change arising from this submission

6.7.3 Reasons

The change requested affects text that does not form part of the Plan Change. The changes proposed for the Chapter heading have no legal impact on the interpretation or application of the provisions within the chapter and to that extent have no effect other than to possibly aid the reader in understanding the scope of the chapter. The heading could be improved but it is considered the best place to do this is through the plan review.

6.8 21.0: Introduction

6.8.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received regarding Chapter 21.0 Introduction (1050.11) & (4167.5). Both submissions supported the new wording and one (1050.11) submission sought to amend the wording.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.11) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Support the new wording.

Insert the words “and reduces environmental and aesthetic impacts” after “for other users.

(4167.5) Mosley, Michael Paul

Support

Summary of the Section 42A Report

The following was recommended

Amend Introduction 21.0 as follows:

“The coast is a finite resource and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 recognises and promotes the efficient use of the coastal environment. Consolidating activities into areas, encouraging multiple and public structures and requiring developments to occur without lengthy delays are some ways in which efficient use can be made of the coast environment. The removal of abandoned or redundant structures also frees up the coast for other users and reduces environmental and aesthetic impacts.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.8.2 Decision

Amend Introduction 21.0 as follows:

6.8.3 Reasons

The requested wording improves the Plan Change and for this reason the decision was to accept the request.

6.9 21.1.3: Natural Character Policies

6.9.1 Introduction

Seven submissions were received regarding the natural character policies (1050.15), (1050.12), (1050.13), (1050.1), (849.1), (4167.6) & (4167.7). Five submissions supported the proposed policies, one submission requested an amendment to the text, and one submission requested a new policy.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.15) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.1.3.# Add a new policy: “To protect natural character by identifying areas of at least high natural character and mapping accordingly shown by overlay mapping in the Plan.

(1050.12) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.1.3.4 Amend – replace “coastal marine animals and plants” with “coastal and marine fauna and flora”.

(849.1) Heritage New Zealand, (1050.13) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay; and (4167.6) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.1.3.5 Supported

(4167.7) Mosley, Michael Paul; and (1050.14) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.1.3.6 Supported

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommended no changes

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.9.2 Decision

No changes to Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.9.3 Reasons

TDC has undertaken a natural character study for the district and the draft document identifies areas of high, very high and outstanding natural character. Consultation on the draft natural character study has commenced and once finalised the information will be incorporated with supporting planning provisions into the TEP. It is acknowledged that the Council needs to give effect to Policy 13 of the NZCPS, however, it will take some time for the mapped areas to be complete and for this reason the “overlay mapping” will only be included in the TEP where full effect will be given to the NZCPS.

Policy 21.1.3.4 does not form part of the Plan Change and is only shown in the plan change to provide context for the new policies proposed in the plan change. It is acknowledged that the current wording is relatively clumsy and could be improved. However, for the reason that Policy 21.1.3.4 does not form part of the Plan Change the decision was made to not adopt the requested changes.

6.10 21.1.20.1: Regulatory Methods

6.10.1 Introduction

Five submissions were received regarding regulatory methods (1050.16), (1050.17), (1050.18), (4167.8) & (4167.9). Four submissions supported the proposed methods, and one submission requested an additional method.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.16) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.1.20.1(d) Support

(1050.18) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Add “(a) Rules that avoid adverse effects of structures including moorings in areas of Outstanding Natural Character identified by overlays in the Plan.” Renumber and retain.

(4167.8) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.1.20.1(d) Supported

(1050.17) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.1.20.1(e) Support

(4167.9) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.1.20.1(e) Supported

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommendation no changes.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions.

6.10.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.10.3 Reasons

TDC has undertaken a natural character study for the district and the draft document identifies areas of high, very high and outstanding natural character. Consultation on the draft natural character study has commenced and the decision has been made to incorporate the mapped areas and supporting planning provisions for natural character into the TEP. It is acknowledged that TDC needs to give effect to Policy 13 of the NZCPS, however, it will take some time for the mapped areas to be complete and for this reason the “overlay mapping” will only be included in the TEP where full effect will be given to the NZCPS.

6.11 21.2: Protection of Habitats and Ecosystems

6.11.1 Introduction

Four submissions were received regarding this section. (1050.19), (1050.20), (1050.24) & (4167.10). One submission was in support and three submissions requested amendments.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.19) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Amend heading to add: “including Ingenious Biological Diversity (biodiversity)”

(1050.20) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Insert new objective: “To ensure effects of moorings (and other structures) on areas of significant biodiversity are avoided” Renumber objectives accordingly.

(1050.24) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Insert new policy “To protect indigenous biodiversity by avoiding adverse effects on (list Policy 11(a) NZCPS) shown by overlay mapping in the Plan”.

(4167.10) Mosley, Michael Paul

Supported

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Recommendation no change

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.11.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.11.3 Reasons

TDC is in the preliminary stages of gathering information on significant indigenous biodiversity values and once that investigation is completed the effects of activities on those values will be evaluated and a policy response drafted. The work will be modelled on the process recently used by the Marlborough District Council and will give effect to Policy 11 of the NZCPS (Indigenous biological diversity). The scheduled indigenous biodiversity assessment and maps are likely to take some years to complete and the decision has been made to include the maps and policy provisions in the TEP. For that reason, it was decided that the requested wording should not be accepted.

6.12 21.2.3.18: Limiting Structures in CMA adjoining Abel Tasman National Park

6.12.1 Introduction

Eight submissions were received regarding Policy 21.2.3.18 (1050.22), (1050.23), (4181.1), (4170.1), (4127.4), (4127.5), (4172.1) and (2971.2). There was one submission in support of the policies (except 21.2.3.18(e)) and the remaining six submissions sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.22) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Support/retain except 21.2.3.18(e).

(1050.23) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.2.3.18(e) Insert the words “nor affects marine habitats or ecosystems” after the word “adverse”.

(4181.1) Midgley, John

Ensure the right to moor in Stephens Bay is similar in terms to Torrent Bay “mooring in Stephens Bay is in association with an interest in a land title at either Tapu Bay or Stephens Bay or Dummy Bay”

(4127.4) & (4127.5) Minister of Conservation

21.2.3.18(b) Retain as notified with the following amendments – deletion of the words “Two boat ramps at Totaranui.

(4170.1) Thomas, Darryl, (2971.2) Torrent Bay Township Committee and (4172.1) Hannen, M I

Only those with invested interests in Land Title at Torrent Bay or Glasgow Bay and to the extent that the cumulative effect of Moorings or structures at each location.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Accept (1050.22), (4170.1), (4172.1), (2971.2)

No change (4181.1)

Amend 21.2.3.18(e) as follows:

(e) ~~swing~~ moorings ~~will be allowed only~~ in association with an interest in a land title at Boundary Bay, Torrent Bay/Rākauroa, or Astrolabe Roadstead, and only to the extent that the cumulative effect of moorings at each location is not adverse nor affects marine habitats or ecosystems.

Accept (4127.4) & (4127.5). Delete 21.2.3.18(b) and 21.2.20.1(b)(ii) as shown below.

21.2.3.18 To limit the number, location, and scale of structures in the coastal marine area adjoining the Abel Tasman National Park in accordance with the following:

…

~~(b) two boat ramps at Totaranui;~~

21.2.20.1 Regulatory

…

(b) Rules that limit the number, location, and scale of structures in the coastal marine area adjoining the Abel Tasman National Park in accordance with the following:

…

~~(ii) two boat ramps at Totaranui;~~

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Torrent Bay Township Committee attended the hearing and spoke in support of limiting the moorings to adjoining property owners.

6.12.2 Decision

(1050.23) - Amend 21.2.3.18(e) as follows:

Delete 21.2.3.18(b) and 21.2.20.1(b)(ii) as shown below.

21.2.3.18 To limit the number, location, and scale of structures in the coastal marine area adjoining the Abel Tasman National Park in accordance with the following:

…

~~(b) two boat ramps at Totaranui;~~

21.2.20.1 Regulatory

…

(b) Rules that limit the number, location, and scale of structures in the coastal marine area adjoining the Abel Tasman National Park in accordance with the following:

…

~~(ii) two boat ramps at Totaranui;~~

6.12.3 Reasons

Submission (1050.23) requests Policy 21.2.3.18(e) be amended. The requested wording clarifies what needs to be considered during consideration of a resource consent application for a new mooring in Boundary Bay, Torrent Bay/Rākauroa and for that reason the wording change is accepted.

Submission (4181.1) requests that the right to moor in Stephens Bay is limited to landowners. The purpose of the Torrent Bay policy is to enable landowners with water access only to moor boats they use for accessing their properties. There is road access to Stephens Bay and landowners in Stephens Bay are not reliant on water access to access their properties and any such policy would need to be for a different purpose than that for Torrent Bay. The requested change introduces a significant change for both existing mooring owners and for the Stephens Bay community. Restricting mooring ownership to residents only would resolve several of the issues surrounding moorings use in Stephens Bay e.g., parking and for that reason the request has merit, however, for reason of equity and fairness consultation would need to be undertaken with those effected before introducing such a policy. The request is considered beyond the scope of the Plan Change and has not been accepted.

Submission (4127.4) & (4127.5) request the deletion of the words “Two boat ramps at Totaranui” to remedy a duplication between Policy 22.2.3.18, Method of Implementation 21.2.20.1 and the structures listed in Sch. 25A. The reference to the boat ramps in 21.2.3.18(b) and 21.2.20.1(b)(ii) is a duplication and the text is not required, for that reason the request was accepted.

6.13 21.2.20: Regulatory Methods

6.13.1 Introduction

Four submissions were received regarding policy 21.2.20 & 21.2.20.1 (4167.11) (1050.25) (1050.26) (1050.27). There was one submission in support and the remaining three sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4167.11) Mosley, Michael Paul

Supported

(1050.25) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.2.20.1 Insert new matter: “(a) Rules that avoid adverse effects of structures including moorings in areas identified by overlays in the Plan in areas of significant indigenous biological diversity shown on overlays” (and quote details in relevant section 11(a) NZCPS).

(1050.26) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay)

21.2.20.1 Retain - except 21.2.20.1(b)(iv) (v?)

(1050.27) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.2.20.1(b)(v?) Insert the following words “nor affects marine habitats and ecosystems” after the word “adverse”.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted

If submissions 1050.20 & 24 were accepted, then the new method (1050.25) should also be accepted. If accepted, then redrafting of the proposed wording was suggested to fit within the general drafting style used in the Plan.

Recommend that (1050.23) be accepted and (1050.27) should also be accepted as a consequential amendment.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.13.2 Decision

Amend the wording to 21.2.20.1(b)(v) as follows:

(v) ~~swing~~ moorings will be allowed only in association with an interest in a land title at Boundary Bay, Torrent Bay/Rākauroa, The Anchorage or Astrolabe Roadstead, and only to the extent that the cumulative effect of moorings at each location is not adverse nor affects marine habitats and ecosystems;

6.13.3 Reasons

The proposed amendment is a consequential amendment arising from the decision to accept the wording change proposed for 21.2.3.18(e) (10.50.23).

6.14 21.3.2: Objective

6.14.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received regarding Objective 21.3.2 (1050.28) & (327.5). Both submissions asked for amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.28) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Amend to “Maintenance of the natural character and landscapes/seascapes of the coastal marine area and avoidance of any effects on Outstanding Natural Landscapes/Seascapes and features”.

(327.5) Golden Bay Marine Farmers Consortium Ltd

Add “… but recognising aquaculture and its structures within the Coastal Marine Area”.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

No changes recommended

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.14.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.14.3 Reasons

Objective 21.3.2 is not amended by the Plan Change and the plan change does not address Policy 15 of the NZCPS in any substantive manner. TDC has undertaken a landscape study for the district and the draft document identifies areas of outstanding natural landscapes/features. Consultation on the draft study has commenced and once finalised the information will be incorporated with supporting planning provisions into the TEP.

Objective 21.3.2 is not amended by the Plan Change and the Plan Change does not address aquaculture. For this reason, the request (327.5) is considered beyond the scope of the Plan Change.

6.15 21.3.3: Natural Features Policy

6.15.1 Introduction

Five submissions were received regarding policy 21.3.3 (4167.12), (1050.29), (1050.30), (1050.31), (849.3). Three submissions were in support and the remaining two requested amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4167.12) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.3.3 Support

(1050.30) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.3.3.2 Support/retain

(849.3) Heritage New Zealand

21.3.3.2 Support

(1050.29) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.3.3.1 Amend – add the following words: “and status” after the word “modification”.

(1050.31) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.3.3 Add new policy: “To protect natural features and landscapes by avoiding adverse effect on (list Policy 15(c) NZCPS) shown by overlay mapping in the Plan.”

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support was accepted.

No changes recommended.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.15.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.15.3 Reasons

Policy 15(c) lists the matters to be considered when identifying and assessing natural features and natural landscapes of the coastal environment. The matters listed are not intended to be used as policy in the plan and to some extent it would be difficult to apply the wording as written. These criteria have however been used in the recently drafted landscape and natural features study and following consultation the areas identified in the study will ultimately be incorporated into the TEP maps, along with the planning framework required under Policy 15 (d) of the NZCPS. For these reasons the requested changes are unable to be implemented in this Plan Change but will be through the TEP.

6.16 21.3.20: Regulatory Methods

6.16.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received regarding Policy 21.3.20 (4167.13) & (1050.32). There was one submission in support and the remaining submission sought an amendment to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4167.13) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.3.20 Supported

(1050.32) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Add a new method “(a) Rules that avoid adverse effects of structures including moorings in areas of Outstanding Natural Landscapes/Seascapes and Features identified by overlays in the Plan.” Renumber.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted

Recommend no changes.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.16.2 Decision

No changers to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.16.3 Reasons

TDC has commissioned a report identifying areas of outstanding Natural landscapes/ seascapes and features and following consultation the areas identified will be incorporated into the TEP Maps, along with the planning framework required under Policy 15 (d) of the NZCPS. For these reasons, the requested changes are unable to be implemented in this Plan Change but will be through the TEP.

6.17 21.6.1 & 21.6.2: Public Access

6.17.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received regarding Sections 21.6.1 and 21.6.2 (1050.33), (1050.34). Both submissions seek amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.33) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.1 Amend - add the words “natural features and landscapes” after “natural character”.

(1050.34) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.2(a) Amend - add the words “natural features and landscapes”.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

No changes recommended.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.17.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.17.3 Reasons

The Plan Change does not make changes to either Issue 21.6.1 or Objective 21.6.2(a) but does propose changes to Policy 21.6.3.1 with inclusion of a new reference to the functional need for activities to occupy the CMA. The Plan Change does not address natural features and landscapes within the CMA in any meaningful way with the intention for Policy 15 to be fully given effect to through the TEP. For these reasons, the requested changes are unable to be implemented in this Plan Change but will be considered through the comprehensive plan review.

6.18 21.6.3: Access

6.18.1 Introduction

Eight submissions were received regarding section 21.6.3 (4167.14), (849.4), (4167.15), (4167.16), (1050.35), (1050.36), (1050.37) and (4167.17). There were three submissions in support, three submissions in opposition and two requests for amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4167.14) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.3.1 Opposed.

(849.4) Heritage New Zealand

21.6.3.4 Support.

(4167.15) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.3.4 Supported

(4167.16) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.3.5 Opposed.

(1050.35) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.3.6 Support/Retain except (a) and (b)

(1050.36) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.3.6(a) Amend- the word “encouraging” to “requiring”

(1050.37) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.3.6(b) Amend- the word “encouraging” to “requiring”

(4167.17) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.3.6 Opposed.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted

Amend 21.6.3.1 as follows or delete the proposed wording:

To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of facilities for access to and from the coastal marine area and consider the functional need for those activities to occupy the coastal marine area.

No change recommended for (4167.16) (1050.36) (1050.37) (4167.17)

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.18.2 Decision

(849.4) (4167.15) (1050.35) - Support accepted

(4167.14) - Amend 21.6.3.1 as follows or delete the proposed wording:

(4167.16) (1050.36) (1050.37) (4167.17) - No change

6.18.3 Reasons

(4167.14) opposes Policy 21.6.3.1 for the reason the meaning is unclear. The purpose of the proposed Plan Change wording is to better reflect Policy 6(2)(c) of the NZCPS which requires that activities which do not generally have a functional need for being located within the CMA, be located elsewhere. The wording is considered unclear and is improved by the insertion of the word “those” between “for” and “activities” and the insertion of the wording “consider” before the words “the functional”.

(4167.16) opposes Policy 1.6.3.5 and requests that the policy is rewritten to make it clearer what the intent and expectations are. This policy is part of a set of policies that identify where the establishment of additional Mooring Areas would be appropriate. This policy supports the establishment of Mooring Areas in practical and accessible locations for boaties. No change to the Plan Change is considered necessary.

(1050.36) and (1050.37) The Plan Change encourages moorings to locate within Mooring Areas by providing for them as a permitted activity and requiring a resource consent (Discretionary Activity) for moorings established elsewhere in the CMA. There is insufficient space within the Mooring Areas to provide for all currently consented moorings and the Mooring Areas are not located in all areas where moorings are currently established or required. To change the policy 21.6.3.6(a) to require moorings to be located in Mooring Areas would require significant amendments to the objectives, policies and rules which currently provide for moorings outside of Mooring Areas. It is considered there are sufficient objectives and policies within the TRMP regarding the establishment of moorings outside of Mooring Areas and there is no need for moorings to be located solely within Mooring Areas.

(1050.37) It is anticipated that public moorings will be established within the Mooring Areas and there are currently three moorings consented for public use (boat club) at Tata Islands. However, TDC has no particular powers to require the establishment of public moorings or funding nor is there any guidance on where they should be strategically located. Consideration regarding the need and location for public moorings will occur through the Policy 6 (activities) and Policy 7 (strategic planning) (NZCPS) review work.

6.19 21.6.20: Regulatory Methods

6.19.1 Introduction

Five submissions were received regarding Section 21.6.20.1 (1050.38), (1050.39), (1050.40), (4167.18) and (4167.19). There were three submissions in support and two submissions seeking amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.38) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.20.1 Support in general

(4167.18) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.20.1(h) Supported

(4167.19) Mosley, Michael Paul

21.6.20.1(i) Supported

(1050.39) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.20.1(b) Add the words “and along” after the words “across”

(1050.40) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

21.6.20.1(c) Add the words “natural landscapes and features” after the word character”.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted

Recommend no changes.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.19.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions

6.19.3 Reasons

TDC is currently undertaking a landscape and natural features study and following consultation on the areas identified, the study will be incorporated into the TEP maps, along with the planning framework required under the provisions of the NZCPS. The intention is not to include the new information and policies in the TRMP and for that reason, the requested change is unable to be implemented in this Plan Change but will be through the comprehensive plan review.

6.20 25.1.2: Permitted Activities

6.20.1 Introduction

Five submissions were received regarding Section 25.1.2 (4167.20), (849.5), (4177.1), (4127.2), (529.2). Three submissions where in support and two submissions sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4167.20) Mosley, Michael Paul

All supported

(849.5) Heritage New Zealand

25.1.2.1(d) Support, Inclusion of maintenance and repair, using same or similar materials as a permitted activity.

(4177.1) Kininmonth, Mike and Clare

25.1.2.1(c)(i) Reconsideration

(4127.2) Conservation, Minister of

25.1.2.1 Retain

(529.2) Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club

25.1.2.1(c) Add the requirement for any vessel moored to be in a serviceable and seaworthy condition as managed by the Navigation Safety Bylaws.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

No changes recommended

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Motueka Yacht and Cruising Club attended the hearing and presented evidence requesting that more control be established over the use of the public area regarding boats.

6.20.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.20.3 Reasons

The Plan Change provides for short term, occasional live aboard activities to enable the repair and maintenance of boats. The TRMP (Rule 25.1.6.1(c)) currently prohibits longer term/permanent living aboard where the boat is fixed to the land (e.g., on a mooring) and for this reason the request for permanent residential activity cannot be provided for boats moored within the Mooring Areas.

The request that any vessel moored within the Mooring Areas be in a serviceable and seaworthy condition as managed by the Navigation Safety Bylaws has been declined. The Plan Change introduces a system by where appropriate locations for moorings are identified and the mooring of a boat within the areas is a permitted activity subject to holding a mooring licence. The sea worthiness of boats is not particularly considered under the RMA or the TRMP and is largely addressed through a separate piece of legislation (Maritime Transport Act) which enables the Harbourmaster to act in matters of maritime safety. It is acknowledged that derelict boats and poorly maintained boats are an issue, particularly in Motueka and Otuwhero, however the issue is considered to be beyond the scope of this Plan Change.

6.21 Contravention of a Rule (25.1.2.1(a), 25.1.2.3 and 25.1.5.6A)

6.21.1 Introduction

Three submissions were received requesting changes to the text (1050.41) (1050.42 (1050.43).

Summary of Submissions

(1050.41) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

25.1.2.1(a) Amend as follows: “The activity does not contravene any other applicable rule in this Plan”

(1050.42) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

25.1.2.3 Insert as follows: “(a) The activity does not contravene any other applicable rule in this Plan”

(1050.43) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

25.1.5.6A Insert as follows: “(a) The activity does not contravene any other applicable rule in this Plan”

Summary of the Section 42A Report

No change recommended

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.21.2 Decision

No change to the Plan Change arising from these submissions.

6.21.3 Reasons

The requested changes modify the rules cascade for activities listed in 25.1.2.1(a), 25.1.2.3 & 25.1.5.6A and would require a number of amendments to the current rule provisions to respond to the change in the rule cascade. There may be some benefit in the requested changes however, in the absence of an in-depth analysis it appears the current consenting framework is both effective and appropriate. The requested changes would have a complex impact on the consenting framework within the TRMP and would require significant changes which are beyond the scope of the Plan Change. A separate assessment and plan change would be required.

6.22 25.1.2.3: Discretionary Activities

6.22.1 Introduction

Three submissions were received regarding Rule 25.1.2.3 (849.6) (4127.6) and (849.7). There was one submission in support and two submissions sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(849.6) Heritage New Zealand

Amend as follows “…does not comply with the rule ~~25.1.2.2~~ 25.1.2.1 is a discretionary activity…”

(4127.6), Minister of Conservation

Amend as follows “… does not comply with Rule ~~25.1.2.2~~ 25.1.2.1”

(849.7) Heritage New Zealand

25.1.2.3 (q) Support Inclusion of heritage and cultural values as a matter for consideration in assessment of resource consent applications.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted

Rule 25.1.2.2 has been deleted and the reference should be changed to 25.1.2.1.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.22.2 Decision

Amend rule 25.1.2.3 as follows:

Any structure for the launching, haulout, mooring, berthage, or storage of craft, or yacht or boat club clubrooms, and including launching ramps, slipways, swing or pile moorings, jetties, or boatsheds, that does not comply with rule ~~25.1.2.2~~ 25.1.2.1, is a discretionary activity, if it complies with the following conditions:

6.22.3 Reasons

The change requested corrects an error. Rule 25.1.2.2 has been deleted and the reference should be changed to 25.1.2.1.

6.23 25.1.5.6A: Permitted Activities (Removal of Structures)

6.23.1 Introduction

Two submissions were received regarding Rule 25.1.5.6A (1050.1) & (849.8). There were two submissions in support and one submission sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.1) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

25.1.5.6A Support the removal of derelict, poorly designed unconsented moorings. If requested by the owner, unconsented moorings within mooring areas should be relicensed within 12 months of the plan becoming operative or removed at the owner’s expense.

(849.8) Heritage New Zealand

25.1.5.6A(f) Oppose in part. Amend as follows:

“(f) The structure is not entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rarangi Korero ~~recorded on the New Zealand Heritage List (in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014)~~ or listed in Schedule 16.13A, or within a Cultural Heritage Site, including those listed in Schedule 16.13D

Note: Before undertaking any work that may affect an archaeological site (recorded or unrecorded) an authority is required from Heritage New Zealand. An archaeological site is defined in the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 as any place in NZ (including buildings, structures or shipwrecks) that was associated with pre-1900 human activity, where there is evidence relating to the history of New Zealand that can be investigated using archaeological methods.”

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support accepted.

Recommend amending the text of 25.1.5.6A(f) as follows:

The structure is not entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rarangi Korero ~~recorded on the New Zealand Heritage List (in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014)~~ or listed in Schedule 16.13A, or within a Cultural Heritage Site, including those listed in Schedule 16.13D

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions

6.23.2 Decision

Amend the text of 25.1.5.6A(f) as follows:

The structure is not entered on the New Zealand Heritage List/Rarangi Korero ~~recorded on the New Zealand Heritage List (in accordance with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014)~~ or listed in Schedule 16.13A, or within a Cultural Heritage Site, including those listed in Schedule 16.13D

6.23.3 Reasons

The intention is to remove all unconsented moorings before Mooring Licences are issued to avoid conflict between previous and subsequent mooring owners. Attempts to locate owners of unconsented moorings will take time and there will also be significant work associated with the processing of the new Mooring Licences applications. For this reason, the Bylaw includes provisions which enable the Harbourmaster to release the Mooring Areas in stages. It is unlikely that all unconsented moorings will be removed within 12 months of the plan becoming operative, however, the implementation of the new provisions is reliant on the unconsented/ delict moorings being removed either at the owners or Council’s/DOC’s cost. The requested removal of all derelict, poorly designed unconsented moorings is supported, but unachievable within the timeframe requested.

The changes requested strengthen Rule 25.1.5.6A(f) and better integrate Rule 25.1.5.6A(f) with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Similar notes and provisions are included elsewhere in the TRMP (eg 16.3.5.1) for areas outside of the CMA. For these reasons the changes requested were accepted.

6.24 25.1.20: Principal Reasons for Rules

6.24.1 Introduction

Four submissions were received regarding Section 25.1.20 (1050.44), (1050.45), (1050.46), (4127.7). The four submissions sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(1050.44) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Reinsert “[and] details of their structural integrity” before the words “to Council.

(1050.45) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Break paragraph up to make more sense

(1050.46) Friends of Nelson Haven & Tasman Bay

Amend the last sentence to read “All new structures require consent which will not be granted if in areas identified as Outstanding Natural Character, Outstanding Natural Landscapes/Seascapes or features or with significant biodiversity values in accordance with Policy 11 of the NZCPS.”

(4127.7) Conservation, Minister of

Amend as follows “…under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Ownership of Structures Regulations 2015…”

Summary of the Section 42A Report

(1050.44) & (1050.46) – No change.

(4127.7) & (1050.45) – Accept. Amend 25.1.20 as follows:

Where coastal structures are abandoned and no owner can be found then, under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Ownership of Structures Regulations 2015, the Crown (Department of Conservation) is deemed to be the owner and the structure can be removed. Council can also remove some abandoned structures where the structure is considered to be of minimal value and the owner cannot be found. All new structures require consent, which will not be granted unless adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

No material was presented at the hearing regarding these submissions.

6.24.2 Decision

Amend 25.1.20 as follows:

… Otherwise, the structure needs to be removed.

[New paragraph:]

6.24.3 Reasons

Section 25.1.20 provides a high-level summary of the reasons for the planning framework within Chapter 25 and has no regulatory effect. The wording in Section 25.1.20 is confusing and where it mentions “unauthorised structures that have no adverse effects have been given permitted activity status subject to a condition relating to their structural integrity” it is referring to those structures identified prior to notification of the TRMP which were ultimately included in the Schedule 25A e.g., the Mapua and Kaiteriteri moorings. Rule 25.1.2.1(b) provides for all structures listed in Schedule 25A as permitted activities, all other unauthorised structures require consent or should be removed. The removal of the wording “structural integrity” in the Plan Change is proposed because that wording appears to have been included in Section 25.1.20 in error. “Structural integrity” is not listed as a condition for permitted activities (Section 25.1.2.1) and it is thought that it might have been one of the initial selection criteria when Schedule 25A was being compiled in the early 1990’s. The proposed deletion of the wording “structural integrity” corrects an error in the TRMP.

(1050.46) The requested text would be confusing as the purpose of the section is to give the principal reasons for the rules, and no specific rules giving effect to the NZCPS (regarding Outstanding Natural Character: Outstanding Natural Landscapes/Seascapes and Features and Significant Indigenous diversity) are planned for the TRMP.

(4127.7) Accepted as it corrects an error.

6.25 Schedule 25: Coastal Structures permitted by Rule 25.1.2.1

6.25.1 Introduction

Twelve submissions were received for Schedule 25 (1050.44), (4127.7), (4171.2), (849.9), (4172.4), (4170.2), (4170.3), (4170.4), (2971.3), (2971.4), (2971.5) & (4171.1). There were nine submissions in support and three submissions sought amendments to the text.

Summary of Submissions

(4171.1) Clark, Andy

Amend schedule to include [Milnthorpe] Boat Ramp.

(4171.2) Clark, Andy

Amend schedule to include Pile Mooring.

(849.9) Heritage New Zealand

Oppose. Sch. 25A(ii): Amend wording for Mangarakau Wharf from “derelict” to “uncompleted wharf”.

(4172.2) M I Hannen, (4170.2) Thomas, Darryl, (2971.3) Torrent Bay Township Committee

[Torrent Bay Estuary Lagoon] The present Main Jetty and small Boat Ramp have resource consent – so no problem.

(4172.3) M I Hannen, (4170.3) Thomas, Darryl, (2971.4) Torrent Bay Township Committee

Finger Jetty] Agree with the Finger Jetty becoming a Permitted Activity

(4172.4) M I Hannen, (4170.4) Thomas, Darryl, (2971.5) Torrent Bay Township Committee

[Torrent Bay Pile Moorings] support the retention of the two pole moorings.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

Support is accepted.

Recommended no change except for the amendment of the wording in Sch. 25A(ii)(21) to “Adjoining ~~derelict~~ uncompleted wharf”.

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

The Torrent Bay Township Committee attended the hearing and spoke in support of legalising all moorings and coastal structures.

6.25.2 Decision

Amend the wording in Sch. 25A(ii)(21) to “Adjoining ~~derelict~~ uncompleted wharf”.

6.25.3 Reasons

The requests for two additional structures (the pile mooring and boat ramp at Milnthorpe) to be added to the list of permitted activities in Schedule 25 was not accepted because the environmental effects had not been assessed. It was decided that those two structures should be re-assessed for inclusion as part of the comprehensive plan review.

Amendment to the text for Sch. 25A(ii)(21) (Mangarakau Wharf) from “derelict” to “uncompleted wharf” was accepted. The requested change made the wording consistent with (Sch. 25A(i)(11)) and better reflected the history of the site.

The two pole moorings in Torrent Bay are private structures adjoining a national park. As there is no immediate need to provide for these structures it was decided that the activity status of these structures should be re-considered through the comprehensive plan review.

6.26 Maps 180

6.26.1 Introduction

Ten submissions were received regarding the mapped Mooring Areas (4127.3), (4179.2), (4174.1), (529.3), (4167.21), (4181.2), (4181.3), (4181.4), (4181.5), (4171.3). There was one further submission (4127) in opposition to one submission.

Summary of Submissions

(4127.3) Conservation, Minister of

Maps 180. Retain

(529.3) Motueka Yacht & Cruising Club

Map 180B. The Mooring Area be moved further north to start opposite 77 Trewavas St (from 107 Trewavas St).

(4167.21) Mosley, Michael Paul

Map 180B. Oppose Motueka Mooring Area 2 – Delete the mooring area and all resource consents for moorings offshore from Trewavas Street Reserve should be publicly notified.

(4174.1) Darling, W K

Do not allow Mooring Areas to be fixed. Allow local users to be integral players of the Management Committee to administer rules in their Mooring Areas.

(4179.2) Marine Farming Association

GEN - That flexibility be retained in the designation of Mooring Areas to allow for future development of critical port/marina infrastructure

· (4127.1) Minister of Conservation - Further Submission – Oppose. Future development of critical port/marina infrastructure should either be introduced by plan change or when the Tasman Resource Management Plan is reviewed

(4181.2) Midgley, John

Map 180C. Stephens Bay is open to the east and southeast and so subject to the sea build up and this leaves vessels exposed to the prospect of severe movement leading to breaking away from their mooring.

(4181.3) Midgley, John

Map 180C. One commercial operator is more than enough for this small family type bay.

(4181.4) Midgley, John

Map 180C. For safety reasons I consider there are enough moorings in Stephens Bay.

(4181.5) Midgley, John

Map 180C. The current commercial operator should be moved to Kaiteriteri.

(4171.3) Clark, Andy

Map 180F. Amend Map to enlarge the Mooring Areas back to the size of the original proposal.

Summary of the Section 42A Report

No recommendation for (4127.3), (529.3) & (4167.21)

Recommend no change for (4181.2), (4181.3), (4181.4), (4181.5) (4171.3) (4174.1) & (4179.2)

Summary of Evidence Presented at the Hearing

6.26.2 Decision

No changes to the Plan Change arising from these submissions

6.26.3 Reasons

(4179.2) requested that flexibility be retained in the designation of Mooring Areas to allow for future development of critical port/marina infrastructure. The Minister of Conservation opposed this request because any further development of critical port/marina infrastructure should either be introduced by plan change or when the TRMP is reviewed. The shortage of space and facilities at Port Motueka is acknowledged by TDC and to address those issues a strategic plan for the area is proposed to provide for future use and growth. Any changes needing to be made to implement the strategic plan including any changes required to the Mooring Area will be given effect to through the TEP.

(4174.1) requested that Mooring Areas should not be fixed. However, for this to occur the Mooring Areas would need to be made a Permitted Activity. This would be contrary to some of the provisions in the TRMP that prohibit the establishment of moorings in certain areas. In addition, the Harbourmasters powers to decline applications or to place conditions on Mooring Licences is limited to matters of navigational safety. This would make it difficult for mooring applications to be declined for environmental reasons, such as the presence of significant indigenous biodiversity. Regarding locals managing the areas, the inclusion of a Mooring Area Groups in the Bylaw enables those with an interest in the Mooring Areas to have a greater say, if agreed to. No changes to the Plan Change were required.

Map 180B – Motueka 2

Initially, the Mooring Area proposed for Trewavas Street was much larger and following concerns about environmental impacts the area was reduced in size. Further consultation was undertaken based on the reduced area. The area proposed by the submitter has not been consulted on or formally assessed as part of the environmental assessments. The impacts of the Mooring Area were considered on the summer racing, and it is thought the incompatibilities between the two activities can be resolved through the conditions on the Mooring Licence and following discussions between the Club and the Harbourmaster regarding location and duration of moorings.

(4167.21) Public notification is usually determined by the framework in the RMA and often at the discretion of the planner processing the application. The existing process is considered appropriate.

Map 180C - Stephens Bay

(4181.2) The exposed nature of Stephens Bay is acknowledged and requires the Harbourmaster to specify or approve mooring structures appropriate for the environment. The Mooring Licence will also include conditions regarding mooring structure maintenance which will enable the structures to remain fit for purpose. No change to the Plan Change is necessary.

(4181.3) The impact of the current commercial operators has on Stephens Bay is acknowledged. Kaiteriteri Mooring Area is restricted in size and unlikely to be able to accommodate any further commercial operators unless there is heavy investment in marine facilities. Under the existing and proposed policy and rules TDC is unable to compel mooring owners to relinquish their consents and move to another area. For this reason, no change has been made to the Plan Change.

(4181.4) considers for safety reasons there are enough moorings in Stephens Bay. The Harbourmaster acknowledges that Stephens Bay is currently at capacity and suggests there are unlikely to be additional moorings established there in the near future. For the reason that further moorings are unlikely, no change to the Plan Change has been made.

Map 180F - Milnthorpe

(4171.3) Initially the area proposed for the Milnthorpe Mooring Area was extended to incorporate an illegal mooring to the west. Feedback on the extended areas was that the illegal mooring was no longer in use and the proposed area was likely to interfere with navigational passage. For that reason, the Mooring Area was reduced in size. The proposed Mooring Area is used infrequently for mooring, and it is not anticipated that the area will become heavily used following the introduction of the Mooring Area. Should demand increase for moorings within the Milnthorpe then there is the opportunity, through the plan review, to expand the Mooring Area pending further investigation. For this reason, no change is proposed to the Plan Change.

Appendix 1: Schedule of Amendments

[Under separate cover]

Tasman District Council Strategy and Policy Committee Agenda – 30 September 2021

9.5 Notification of the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan

Report To:	Strategy and Policy Committee
Meeting Date:	30 September 2021
Report Author:	Anna Gerraty, Senior Community & Reserves Policy Advisor
Report Number:	RSPC21-09-5

1 Summary

1.1 This report seeks the Committee’s agreement to publicly notify the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (Draft Plan).

1.2 The Draft Plan proposes that future management of parks and reserves in Moutere-Waimea Ward is essentially very similar to their current management. Council has already fully developed many of its reserves, meaning they require little more than ongoing maintenance. However, there is scope for development of newly acquired reserves and potential enhancement of others.

1.3 The Draft Plan identifies several development proposals and a number of key questions for consultation. We will include a summary list of development proposals and key consultation questions in leaflet form, to assist people who wish to submit on the Draft Plan.

1.4 Council has an existing ‘Reserves General Policies’ document that applies to all parks and reserves in the District, including those in Moutere-Waimea Ward. The Draft Plan refers to that document, rather than repeating policies. Sections on individual reserves therefore only include additional policies, specific to that reserve. Both documents should be read together for a complete picture of reserve management. Some of the Draft Plan policies do differ from those in the Reserves General Policies document; the Draft Plan policies take precedence in such cases.

1.5 The section on Māpua Waterfront Park recognises that, although Council allocated some funding for a new boat ramp at this location in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP), additional processes and authorisations are required before construction can begin. The Draft Plan provides for the potential construction of a boat ramp at Waterfront Park, if these other requirements can be met.

1.6 We have worked together with Te Tau Ihu iwi staff and reserve management committees to prepare the Draft Plan. Several hui were held to discuss initial Draft Plan content. Feedback received from the public during the initial ‘seeking ideas’ consultation phase has also been incorporated into the Draft Plan.

1.7 We recommend that the Committee delegates to a Hearing Panel the task of hearing and considering submissions and making recommendations on amendments for inclusion in the final Plan. Hearings and deliberations will be held in Richmond during February 2022.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1. receives the Notification of the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan Report RSPC21-09-5; and

2. notes the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan is still subject to final document formatting and language style changes; and

3. requests that staff edit the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (provided under separate cover and dated 22 September 2021) as per any amendments tabled at this meeting; and

4. adopts (pursuant to Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977) the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (provided under separate cover and dated 22 September 2021), as amended at the meeting, for public notification on 15 October 2021, with submissions closing on 17 December 2021; and

5. agrees to the Mayor and the Group Manager – Service & Strategy being delegated the ability to sign off any further minor editorial amendments to the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan before it is publicly notified on 15 October 2021; and

6. delegates to a Hearing Panel the task of hearing and deliberating on submissions received on the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan, and making recommendations on amendments to the Plan to Council; and

7. appoints a Hearings Panel consisting of Crs ___ (Chair), ___, ___ and at least one Mātauranga Māori expert Panel member [to be appointed by the Mayor]; and

8. agrees that the Chair of the Hearing Panel has the ability to appoint another member to the panel, should one of the appointed members be unavailable; and

9. notes that the Hearing Panel will report back to a Council workshop with its recommendations on amendments to the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan, before the Plan is finalised and presented to Full Council for adoption in 2022.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report seeks the Committee’s agreement to publicly notify the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan.

4 Background and Discussion

Requirement to prepare Reserve Management Plans

4.1 A total of 247 separate parcels of land within Moutere-Waimea Ward are protected and managed under the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act). The preparation of reserve management plans (Plans) for land held as reserve, except Local Purpose reserves, is mandatory under the Act. Council is the administering body for these reserves and is therefore required to prepare a Plan to guide the use, development, and management of Moutere-Waimea Ward reserves – in consultation with iwi and the community. Attachment 1 provides an overview of the statutory process.

4.2 On 20 May 2021, Council resolved to classify 207 land parcels that were existing reserves in Moutere-Waimea Ward (RCN21-05-4); only 21 reserve areas had been classified previously. The final step in that process – publication of a notice in the New Zealand Gazette, stating the classification of each reserve – was completed in June 2021. The notice was published in the 29 June 2021 edition of the New Zealand Gazette (see Attachment 2). Section 41(3) of the Act requires reserves to be classified before a draft plan is publicly notified.

4.3 We have worked together with Te Tau Ihu iwi and reserve management committees to prepare a Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (Draft Plan), supplied under separate cover. Management guidance for each of the land parcels formally protected under the Act is included within the Draft Plan.

4.4 In addition to these 247 land parcels, Council also administers another 23 areas of land that form part of the open space network in the Moutere-Waimea Ward. While there is no legal requirement to prepare management plans for these areas, management guidance for each area has been included within the Draft Plan.

4.5 For completeness and management efficiency, we have chosen to include Local Purpose Reserves within the Draft Plan.

4.6 Two schedules are included within Appendix 3 of the Draft Plan: the first lists all reserves protected under the Act and the second lists the other 23 areas covered by the Draft Plan.

Consultation requirements

4.7 Public notification of the Draft Plan is required under section 41(6) of the Act, to allow for objections and comments (i.e. public submissions).

4.8 Consultation must be in accordance with the statutory process prescribed in the Reserves Act 1977, and consistent with the consultation principles in the Local Government Act 2002, and Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

4.9 The Reserves Act sets out the consultation process for the development of a reserve management plan:

4.9.1 Before the development of a plan, the administering body can choose to signal its intention to prepare a plan and invite comment if it believes that written suggestions could materially impact the preparation of a draft plan.

4.9.2 A draft version of the plan is then prepared, giving full consideration to any comments received during the initial round of public consultation.

4.9.3 The draft plan must then be approved for public release (i.e. publicly notified for submissions). The Strategy and Policy Committee has delegated authority from Council to carry out this step in the process.

4.9.4 The submission period must be open for at least two months and hearings held for those submitters who wish to be heard. The draft plan is then revised, in response to submissions and hearings. Once Council is satisfied with the content of the plan, it has delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation to adopt the final plan.

4.10 If you approve the Draft Plan for public release, we recommend that public notification takes place on 15 October 2021 (in Newsline and on Council’s website), with the submission period open until 17 December 2021.

Ideas and feedback received to date

4.11 Council publicly notified its intention to prepare a plan for Moutere-Waimea Ward reserves on 29 November 2019 (in Newsline and on the website) and invited public comment until the end of February 2020. We subsequently extended this feedback period to the end of March 2020.

4.12 We heard from 128 individuals and community groups during the initial consultation period. This included 70 complete responses to a survey and ‘suggestions’ submitted by 58 people or groups via the online submission database or letter.

4.13 A summary of the feedback received during the initial consultation period is included in Part 1 of the Draft Plan, appended under separate cover. One of the key findings was that people appreciate the range and diversity of existing parks and reserves and want to see these well maintained, perhaps with some minor improvements where needed.

4.14 We invited each of the eight Te Tau Ihu iwi to work with staff to prepare the Draft Plan. Several iwi accepted this invitation and provided text that has been included within the Draft Plan. Staff from Te Ātiawa recently emailed us the following feedback about their involvement in this process:

“The Kaitiaki o te Taiao Team, from Te Ātiawa Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust, has had a constructive history of involvement with the review of Reserve Management Plans in Tasman in recent years. Since early 2021, our Team has been regularly engaged, collaboratively, with TDC (Anna Gerraty and Richard Hollier) in the drafting of the Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP. This work and earlier involvement in the drafting of the Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP, are an expression of Tangata Whenua Iwi actively participating in these processes in the post-Settlement world. These processes offer models for consolidating a respectful partnership between Tangata Whenua Iwi and Tasman District Council. Te Ātiawa welcomes its involvement and is appreciative of this necessary opportunity and the related support and commitment by TDC.”

4.15 We have also worked with a number of reserve management committees to prepare the Draft Plan and incorporated their feedback.

4.16 A list of suggested improvements or changes to the current management regime are proposed in the foreword of the Draft Plan. Many of these have been included at the request of iwi. Others have been included in response to ideas received during the initial consultation period or were identified by the Reserves and Facilities team. These items, along with a list of consultation questions, are posed as key matters for public comment and submission.

4.17 The Draft Plan proposes that future management of parks and reserves in Moutere-Waimea Ward is essentially very similar to their current management. Council has already fully developed many of its reserves, meaning they require little more than ongoing maintenance. However, there is scope for development of newly acquired reserves (e.g. the recent additions to Wakefield Recreation Reserve and Māpua Recreation Reserve) and potential enhancement of others.

4.18 As mentioned above, the Draft Plan identifies several development proposals and a number of key questions for consultation. We will include a summary list of development proposals and key consultation questions in leaflet form, to assist people who wish to submit on the Draft Plan.

Relationship to Council’s Reserves General Policies document

4.19 Council has an existing ‘Reserves General Policies’ document that applies to all parks and reserves in the District, including those in Moutere-Waimea Ward. The Draft Plan refers to that document, rather than repeating policies. Sections on individual reserves therefore only include additional policies, specific to that reserve. Both documents should be read together for a complete picture of reserve management. Some of the Draft Plan policies do differ from those in the Reserves General Policies document; the Draft Plan policies take precedence in such cases.

Potential boat ramp at Māpua Waterfront Park

4.20 The Draft Plan section on Māpua Waterfront Park recognises that, although Council allocated some funding for a new boat ramp at this location in the LTP 2021-2031, additional processes and authorisations are required before construction can begin. The Draft Plan provides for the potential construction of a boat ramp at Waterfront Park, if these other requirements can be met.

Management of Grossi Point Recreation Reserve

4.21 The major management issue at Grossi Point Recreation Reserve is ensuring that recreational use of the reserve is compatible with protection of the highly significant cultural heritage values, including the several archaeological sites located here. A separate Cultural Heritage Management Plan for Grossi Point will be prepared during 2022. Future management of the reserve should be in accordance with the latter plan, due to the sensitivity of the site. Hence the Draft Plan section on this reserve only contains one policy, which is to “Manage the reserve in accordance with the cultural heritage management plan (yet to be prepared).”

5 Options

Option One (recommended)

5.1 The Committee resolves to publicly notify the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan, with any minor amendments that may be made at the meeting and final document formatting and language style changes. This option supports Council’s statutory obligation under the Reserves Act 1977 to notify the Draft Plan prior to making any final decision on the Plan.

Option Two (not recommended)

5.2 Resolve not to publicly notify the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan. This option does not support Council’s statutory obligation under the Reserves Act 1977 to notify the Draft Plan prior to making any final decision on the Plan.

5.3 This option would only be appropriate if you wished to make major amendments to the Draft Plan prior to us reporting the amended document back to you for approval before consulting.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 There are no identified risks associated with publicly notifying the Draft Plan, as it is a statutory requirement and provides an opportunity for our community to comment. We have worked together with iwi and reserve management committees to prepare the Draft Plan. We have also asked for public feedback over the summer of 2019/2020 and incorporated many of the suggestions received into the Draft Plan.

6.2 After hearing from submitters, there is additional scope for making changes to the Plan before it is finalised and adopted by Council (i.e. following the formal submission and hearing period).

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

7.1 We are undertaking the Plan preparation in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977. Public notification of a Draft Plan is required by section 41 of the Act.

7.2 The community will have an opportunity to submit on the Draft Plan over a two-month period between 15 October 2021 and 17 December 2021. We will schedule hearings and deliberations for February 2022.

7.3 Once Council has finalised and adopted the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan, the final Plan will replace the current outdated management plan for the Ward’s reserves.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 Council’s LTP includes a budget for Plan development.

8.2 The final Plan will provide an indication of actions/tasks going forward, which will inform annual budgets, the Reserves and Facilities Activity Management Plan and future LTPs.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 Overall, the decisions sought in this report have a low level of significance, particularly to communities of the Moutere-Waimea Ward. Formal public consultation is required under the Reserves Act 1977. We have already undertaken initial consultation for the preparation of this Draft Plan and the Draft Plan reflects the outcomes of that process. The decisions sought in this report are to undertake the second consultation phase required to enable Council to understand the views and preferences of the community prior to finalising the Plan.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	This document will be of medium significance to local residents and visitors to Moutere-Waimea Ward because it sets policies for the use and management of 156 park and reserve areas.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The Plan sets out objectives and policies for of future management of parks and reserves and their use and enjoyment by current and future generations.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The decisions made through the Plan process will be of a medium duration, as the final Plan is likely to be in place for 10 years.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	Low	The Draft Plan contains policies relating to climate change issues that align with the Tasman Climate Action Plan (e.g. providing for retreat from sea level rise).
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The Plan will have some impact on the levels of service at some parks and reserves, however no major changes are proposed.
7.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The proposals contained in the Draft Plan are likely to have only a small impact on Council’s overall finances.
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	Medium	This report recommends that the Mayor appoints at least one Mātauranga Māori expert to the Hearing Panel. An overview of consultation undertaken with iwi to date is outlined in paragraph 4.14 of this report.

10 Conclusion

10.1 There is a legal requirement to publicly notify draft reserve management plans. This report seeks the Committee’s agreement to publicly notify the Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan.

10.2 We recommend that a Hearing Panel be appointed to hear submissions received and provide directions for amending the Draft Plan prior to it being finalised and adopted. We suggest there be four or more Panel members: three Councillors and at least one Mātauranga Māori expert member.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 Once you agree to publicly notify the Draft Plan, the document will be formatted and published online. Hard copies will be available for public viewing in our offices and libraries. Public notification will be advertised in the 15 October edition of Newsline and on our website.

11.2 We will prepare a ‘quick guide to the Draft Plan’ leaflet, which will list the key questions and suggested development proposals for public consultation, provide details on where to view the full document and include a submission form. Hard copies of these pamphlets will be available at our offices and libraries.

11.3 The Draft Plan must remain open for submissions for at least two months from date of public notification (our timeframe is 15 October 2021 to 17 December 2021).

11.4 Staff will make a recommendation to the Chief Executive and the Mayor on potential nominees for a Mātauranga Maori Hearing Panel member, to be appointed by the Mayor.

11.5 Staff will summarise submissions received and prepare a report for the Hearing Panel. Hearings will be scheduled to take place during February 2022.

11.6 The Hearing Panel is required to consider all submissions received. Deliberations will be scheduled to take place during February 2022.

11.7 A workshop will be held with all Councillors in March 2022. At this workshop, the Hearing Panel will present their recommendations for amendments to the Draft Plan. Councillors will then provide staff with directions regarding any changes they wish to make to the Draft Plan to bring back to Full Council for a decision.

11.8 Staff will present the final Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan to Full Council for adoption at its meeting in April or May 2022.

Attachments

1.⇩	Process for Preparing Reserve Management Plans	203
2.⇩	NZ Gazette Notice classifying reserves in Moutere-Waimea Ward	204
3.⇨	Draft Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (Under Separate Cover)

Chairperson	Cr K Maling
Deputy Chairperson	Cr C Hill
Members	Mayor T King	Cr D McNamara
	Cr S Bryant	Cr D Ogilvie
	Cr C Butler	Cr T Tuffnell
	Cr M Greening	Cr A Turley
	Cr B Dowler	Cr T Walker
	Cr C Mackenzie	Cr D Wensley

Goal	Target	Action	Status	Progress Update
1. Council contributes to New Zealand’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions (incl. net carbon emissions).	1(a) Council's emissions* of methane reduce by 10% below 2017 levels by 2030 and 47% by 2050 or earlier. Council's net emissions* of all other greenhouse gases reduce to zero by 2050.	(iii) Facilitate and support a higher number of strategically located EV charging stations and electric bike docks/charging stations across the District.   Continue to increase the number of plug-in hybrid vehicles in Council’s fleet and investigate use of electric vehicles.	Progressing	Council’s vehicle fleet currently includes seven hybrid cars, but no electric vehicles (EVs) as yet. Staff are assessing options for potential purchase of Council’s first EV. The LTP 2021-2031 has no budget for installing EV charging stations at our service centres or elsewhere in the District. Installing a slow charger at our service centres to charge fleet vehicles would cost approximately $5,000. A rapid charger for public use is estimated to cost $30,000. Council was committed to sticking to the debt cap for Tasman’s 10-Year Plan, and the initial suggestion to include a generic fund of $35,000/year for electric bike and EV charging stations around the District did not receive enough support. ChargeNet is currently working on rolling out EV charging stations across the highways of Aotearoa at ‘road trip gaps’. It is not considering any local road networks at present.
1. Council contributes to New Zealand’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions (incl. net carbon emissions).	1(a) Council's emissions* of methane reduce by 10% below 2017 levels by 2030 and 47% by 2050 or earlier. Council's net emissions* of all other greenhouse gases reduce to zero by 2050.	(vi) Continue to work with communities to plant trees (e.g. riparian margin restoration, habitat enhancement, land stability, planting in Council parks and reserves and within some roading corridors, expand Council nursery production), to sequester carbon.	On track	Over the time period September 2020 to September 2021, Council has planted over 85,000 plants and trees. This includes planting undertaken for the Waimea Inlet Jobs for Nature project, our River Planting Programme, planting undertaken by Reserves and Facilities, Catchment Enhancement Fund plantings, and the Marahau-Otuwhero revegetation project.
1. Council contributes to New Zealand’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions (incl. net carbon emissions).	1(a) Council's emissions* of methane reduce by 10% below 2017 levels by 2030 and 47% by 2050 or earlier. Council's net emissions* of all other greenhouse gases reduce to zero by 2050.	(viii) Investigate energy efficient design and renewable energy options for Council buildings and activities.	On track	The new Motueka Library will have solar photovoltaic and a rainwater capture system. The solar panels have been installed and both systems will be connected this November. The Brightwater Water Treatment Plant has a solar photovoltaic system in place. There are plans to extend this to other water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants as funding becomes available. Other energy efficient projects currently underway: 1. In six months, we will trial an ultra-high efficiency electric motor at the Brightwater Water Treatment Plan. From an energy efficient perspective, this is important as 60-70% of the electricity used by the Council is related to water or wastewater, and almost all of that is pumping-related. Each pump is powered by an electric motor. If the trial is successful, for above ground pumping, we will likely switch our standard pump motor to one of these ultra-high efficiency motors. 2. We have purchased one power quality meter which has motor analysis capability. This will help us check that our electric motors are running as efficiently as possible. 3. Staff are continuing to work through a prioritised list to reduce electricity used by our wastewater and water treatment plants.
1. Council contributes to New Zealand’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions (incl. net carbon emissions).	1(a) Council's emissions* of methane reduce by 10% below 2017 levels by 2030 and 47% by 2050 or earlier. Council's net emissions* of all other greenhouse gases reduce to zero by 2050.	(ix) Implement the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP), to reduce total waste to landfill. This plan includes new options for achieving overall reduction (e.g. promotion of circular economy, education, service changes etc).	Progressing	Staff are working with Nelson City Council (NCC) to divert construction waste from landfill. This work is possible with the Ministry for the Environment's (MfE) Waste Minimisation Fund. The ‘Breakfast for Builders’ event has been postponed due to the Covid-19 lockdown. The plan is to engage with the sector first before implementing any trials to achieve reduced construction waste to landfill for reuse. This year we have promoted reuseable cups and recycling car seats. We have, and will continue, to promote our composting voucher with an informative video on composting, Love Food Hate Waste content, Second Hand Sunday, FutureFit, and ShareWaste (a compost sharing collective). The most recent Second Hand Sunday had positive engagement, with over 1,500 residents from Nelson and Tasman seeking out information on the event, and over 600 downloads of the list of participating addresses. The most recent Second Hand Sunday had 60 survey participants, with 16 people saying they were made aware of the event via our Facebook page. Once we are at a lower alert level, we plan to promote the event waste grants and the national campaign, RefillNZ.
1. Council contributes to New Zealand’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions (incl. net carbon emissions).	1(d) Use of transport (e.g. walking, cycling etc) as a form of transportation increases year on year.	(i) Continued investment in new and (maintenance of) existing active transport networks.	On track	During the past quarter no new cycle lanes have been constructed within the District. Staff have recently received direction from councillors, and are developing Council’s Draft Walking and Cycling Strategy for consultation with the public. Staff have been working with developers to ensure that more developments are better connected. A good example of this is in Richmond West where we have added in around 7 km of new shared pathways. The Kohatu to Tapawera section of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail has recently been completed. There are a few sections of the Trail staff are considering for improvement, but the current state of the Trail does not prevent people from using those sections of the Trail. Staff are working on a detailed design for the Tapawera to West Bank section. This will be the final section, which will complete the loop.
2. Tasman District becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change.	2(b) New coastal development and infrastructure accounts for climate change risks, including sea level rise.	(i) The Coastal Hazard mapping and plan change programme continues to completion; including consideration of the extent of the risks, options and regulatory responses for adaptation, relocation, coastal structures etc.	On track	The Coastal Management Project is in Phase 3 of its work programme. The focus is on how we can respond to sea level rise and coastal hazards by identifying high-level options that enable us to adapt. The options are grouped into four categories – accommodate, protect, avoid, and retreat. Community engagement is being undertaken between 6 September and 15 October and includes updated website pages, publication of a high-level coastal management options report, and three interactive webinars in late September. Feedback is being sought via an online feedback form, virtual feedback board, and hard copy forms. On completion of this engagement, all feedback will be summarised into a report and published on our website. This information will be used to inform next steps in the work programme. This will focus on considering specific options at the local level around Tasman, including respective costs, benefits, and potential adverse effects - and which of these are acceptable.

Item	Action required	Responsibility	Completion Date	Status
Meeting Date – 8 July 2021
Climate Change Update Report RSPC21-07-04	Staff were requested to send the MfE webinar slides included as Attachment 2 to the report, out to Crs in a clearer format	Anna Gerraty	Anna sent the webinar slides to Crs on 9 July	Complete
Strategic Policy, Environmental Policy & Activity Planning Report RSPC21-07-05	Staff to invite the local Director of Public Health to attend a Council meeting to discuss the nitrate issue	Lisa McGlinchey	The Director of Public Health is currently in MIQ but will be invited to attend an upcoming meeting	In progress
Waimea Dam confidential presentation	Staff to prepare a report for the next Full Council meeting so that Council can make a formal decision if it wants to proceed with the hydro option	Mike Drummond	A report regarding this matter was included in the Full Council agenda for 12 August 2021	Complete