Agenda of Regulatory Committee - Thursday, 2 December 2021

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8 Reports

8.1 Proposed Cat Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Paul Sheldon, Special Projects Analyst - Biosecurity
Report Number:	RRC21-12-1

1 Summary

1.1 The Council has previously received representations that a bylaw requiring the microchipping of cats would assist in managing cat trespass, cat-transferred diseases, domestic cats being attacked by feral cats and threats to native birds. There have been hearings and workshops which culminated in the request for staff to bring a report to the Council with a recommended bylaw.

1.2 This report provides a Statement of Proposal, the proposed Bylaw and a Summary of Information to allow the Council to embark on a public engagement process using the Special Consultative Procedure as required under the Local Government Act 2002.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

2.1 receives the Proposed Cat Bylaw report RRC21-12-1; and

2.2 acknowledges that a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the cat management issues raised; and

2.3 acknowledges the proposed Cat Management Bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; and

2.4 agrees to commence a Special Consultative Procedure to propose the Cat Bylaw as indicated in this report RC21-12-1, and

2.5 approves the Statement of Proposal and Summary of Information, Attachments 2 and 3 of this Report RC21-12-1 respectively, as the basis of seeking community feedback on a proposed Cat Management Bylaw; and

2.6 agrees to the consultation documents being made available on the Council website and at all Council offices and libraries. Notices will also be posted in Newsline and local Newspapers; and

2.7 agrees to establish a subcommittee to hear any submission comprising Councillor ……… as Chair and Councillors ……….., ……………, ………….., …………, as members with the Chair having authority to co-opt in the event of any unavailability; and

2.8 notes that consultation will take place from 17 January 2022 to 25 February 2022.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 To give effect to the Regulatory Committee instruction for staff to develop a proposed Tasman Cat Management Bylaw for consultation.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 During the development of the now operative Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (RPMP), the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee received several submissions seeking more responsibility around cat management (e.g., domestic, stray/unowned, and feral cats) within the Tasman-Nelson areas.

4.2 The Joint Regional Pest Management Committee agreed that there was a case for intervention, however resolved that management of domestic and unowned cats was outside the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and could be better achieved through a bylaw type approach, similar to that adopted by Wellington City Council. Their bylaw has been operative for over three years (from February 2018) and involves a requirement for all cats over 12 weeks old to be microchipped. It is the best way to differentiate between owned cats and other cats. Other approaches may also be appropriate.

4.3 The Council considered a report (Attachment 1) outlining a range of options to address cat management at a workshop on 4 August 2020. The report summarised:

4.3.1 cat impacts (beneficial and negative)

4.3.2 RPMP submissions received and recommendations made

4.3.3 the National Cat Management Strategy

4.3.4 what is happening in the region, noting distinctions between Nelson (mainly city environs) and Tasman (mainly rural environs) regarding approaches

4.3.5 what other councils have done regarding cat management

4.3.6 relevant overseas cat management (e.g., European, Australian experiences)

4.3.7 advocating for national laws requiring cat management, noting that in 2018 Local Government New Zealand resolved to promote the development of national cat control laws.

4.4 Several options that are available include:

4.4.1 do nothing

4.4.2 develop a bylaw similar to Wellington City Council

4.4.3 include non-regulatory advocacy programmes

4.4.4 integrate a mix of all the above options.

4.5 At the Regulatory Committee meeting on 26 November 2020, Councillors directed staff to contact Local Government New Zealand for an update on the National Cat Management Strategy and associated national cat legislation and to commence development of a Cat Management Bylaw under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.6 Local Government New Zealand advise that there has been no progress with the National Cat Management Strategy which is still in draft form and that they have been unable to get interest from the Government to promulgate national cat legislation.

4.7 This year the Ministry for Primary Industries has revised the “Code of Welfare: Companion Cats” (May 2021) which is issued under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and places fundamental obligations related to the care of animals by setting minimum standards and recommending best practice in the care and management of animals.

4.8 The Code of Welfare: Companion Cats largely deals with minimum requirement for housing, feeding and caring for cats at all stages of their life but also includes Part 8 (Methods of Identification) where it states:

4.9 “It is strongly recommended that cats are able to be accurately identified in case of loss, or being held in boarding accommodation. Cats are likely to spend some of their time outside of their owner’s legal property boundary. For the purposes of control, it is necessary to be able to identify whether a cat has an owner or not. Methods of identification include the wearing of a collar and tag, tattooing or microchipping” and recommended best practice is that …a) Cats should be identified with a microchip”.

4.10 In the absence of other action at the central government level, the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) provides powers, scope, and the tests for councils to make bylaws, if that is accepted as an appropriate way to manage the public health and nuisance risks that cats can pose.

4.11 Section 145 of the LGA outlines the general powers for making bylaws and includes protecting the public from nuisance and protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety.

4.12 Section 146 of the LGA describes specific bylaw making powers which includes regulating the keeping of animals without limiting the provisions of Section 145 outlined above. Therefore, the Council has the power to regulate animals where this protects the public from nuisance and/or public health issues. Biosecurity and biodiversity matters are not normally managed via the LGA bylaw process but may be a collateral benefit.

4.13 Section 155 of the LGA requires that the Council must determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem and, if so, whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate from of the bylaw and that it will not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

4.14 Once the Council has determined that a bylaw is the most appropriate method, it must decide on its consultation approach in accordance with Section 156 of the LGA. For a matter of wide interest such as cat management, a submission and hearing process via the Special Consultative Procedure would be expected. As part of this process, a Statement of Proposal (Attachment 2) is required that outlines the options for cat management. These matters were also addressed in the report to the Council workshop on 4 August 2020, which outlined a range of options for dealing with the perceived problem. This is attached as Attachment 1 to this report. The preferred option was directed by the Council Regulatory Committee at its meeting of 26 November 2020.

4.15 The perceived problem was defined as how cats are best managed to address their positive and negative impacts.

Positive Impacts – Pet Cats	Negative Impacts – Pet Cats
Companion animals for many people including the elderly, especially those living alone.	Community amenity and health threats – nuisance and disease vector including cat trespass, wildlife predation in gardens, transmission of disease through contact, and cat bites and scratches.
Developing nurturing and social skills for a child’s development.	Economic and environmental threats for pastoral farming and marine environments including grazing animals, Hector’s dolphins and the wider marine food chain.
Rodent and rabbit control.	Predation on valued species such as birds and reptiles.

4.16 As noted, the focus for LGA bylaws is limited by the powers under Section 145 of the LGA to:

4.16.1 protect the public from nuisance

4.16.2 protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety

4.16.3 minimise the potential for offensive behavior in public places.

Section 146(a)(v) provides that the Council may make bylaws for the purpose of regulating the keeping of animals.

4.17 On this basis, a bylaw is still an appropriate method for addressing the health, amenity and nuisance aspects of the perceived problem. Biosecurity and biodiversity issues are matters more appropriately dealt with under the Biosecurity Act or Resource Management Act processes, but there may be some collateral benefit of a bylaw.

4.18 The proposed Bylaw enclosed in the Statement of Proposal has been developed by looking at various options currently being used elsewhere in New Zealand. Consideration has been given to whether these options are the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem outlined above. In particular, the Bylaw needs to be proportionate to the issue and ensure consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in accordance with Section 155 of the LGA.

4.19 The draft Bylaw is modelled on the Wellington City Council approach. The key features of the proposed Cat Management Bylaw are:

4.19.1 a requirement that all domestic cats over 12 weeks old are microchipped, and

4.19.2 that the microchip be registered on a database; and

4.19.3 a prohibition on feeding cats in public places.

4.20 Wellington City Council effectively treats the Cat Bylaw like a policy and relies on the SPCA, veterinarians and Companion Animals New Zealand (NZCAC) for education and implementation. Having spoken to these agencies, they rely on the Bylaw to help encourage owners to microchip. We are not aware of any proactive enforcement, rather other councils encourage microchipping and some subsidise Snip and Chip campaigns. They do respond to complaints where that is possible, as with any other animal related complaints raised by the public.

4.21 It does mean that cats caught without a microchip can be regarded as feral or unowned cats and if they pose a risk to other wildlife, actions can be taken.

5 Options

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Proceed with notifying a Cat Management Bylaw.

Mandatory microchipping of domestic cats will allow domestic cats to be distinguished from feral cats simplifying feral cat control with benefits related to animal and human health and protection of native animals.

The owners of domestic cats can be identified in the event a cat gets hurt or creates a nuisance. This will assist vets and the SPCA to do their job with reduced risk to misidentifying a cat or of not being able to return it to its owners.

There is a modest cost associated with microchipping and putting animals on the microchip register.

Some cat owners may feel their rights are being infringed - see comments about the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

Do not proceed with the Cat Management Bylaw.

It saves time and is less likely to upset some people.

Inability to definitively separate domestic from feral cats. This will result in feral cat control being more difficult and ongoing adverse impacts on health including domestic cats, toxoplasmosis impacting on humans, livestock and valued indigenous wildlife.

The inability to identify owners of hurt or nuisance cats to return cats, remedy nuisance, or provide health care where a cat is presented for health care after an accident.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended. In summary, a bylaw that is principally modelled on the Wellington City Council approach is recommended for the following reasons.

· The bylaw is proportionate to the scale of the current problem that is principally about cat identification and welfare.

· The management of this bylaw will largely fall to the SPCA for microchipping and determining the health of cats and NZCAC for registration.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 The introduction of a bylaw requiring the microchipping of cats represents a significant entrée into cat management that is not currently required nationally. It may be seen as unwarranted, and this carries the risk of public backlash. However, the evidence is that cats are involved in trespass and other nuisance behavior and can pose a threat to other cats and animals through fighting and the spread of toxoplasmosis. They also pose a significant risk to birdlife, including indigenous species. There is reasonably widespread support for a Council bylaw.

6.2 Any bylaw is reviewable on the grounds of reasonableness but the Council, provided it satisfies the relevant legal tests, can promulgate this form of subnational legislation.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 The Council can make bylaws for a range of purposes under Section 145 of the Local Government Act 2002. These purposes include:

· protecting the public from nuisance.

· protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety.

· minimising the potential for offensive behavior in public places.

7.2 It is clear from Section 146 of the LGA that bylaws can include the control of animals.

7.3 A bylaw must be justified in that it is reasonable and does not introduce requirements that are disproportionate to the issue to be managed.

7.4 The Council is obliged to consider whether a bylaw would be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). Some might regard the requirement to microchip their cat as an infringement on freedoms that cat owners currently enjoy. Targeting cat owners in this way does not constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Act and the proposed bylaw does not in any other way challenge freedoms provided to people under NZBORA.

7.5 The staff view is that proposed Cat Management Bylaw meets the relevant legal tests.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 The cost of bylaw development is predominantly staff time and is covered by existing budgets. As part of the implementation of the Bylaw, the Council could choose to subsidise the cost of microchipping and placement of the chip record on the register as some other councils have done. The cost of this would depend on the amount of the subsidy, the number of people who applied for it and the duration it was offered for. The Council could choose to set a cap on the amount it was prepared to spend and nominate the maximum to be spent. This would have to happen through a bid for funds as part of the annual plan round. There is no current budget for this.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 There is likely to be significant public interest in a Cat Management Bylaw and the Special Consultative Procedure must be used.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	Managing cats by requiring microchipping, for those who do not already do this voluntarily, is likely to be controversial because it is not required under national law and some may see a local bylaw as being a disproportionate response.
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 suggestion of a bylaw to manage cats will have positive and negative impacts as identified in this report.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	A bylaw introduces subnational law that will have an enduring effect but is designed to assist rational cat management and minimize adverse impacts.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	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	Although we will be relying on external agencies to assist with implementation
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No	While not involving the entering of a new activity, having a cat bylaw expands the range of animals that Council currently is involved with
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	No

10 Conclusion

10.1 The Regulatory Committee instructed staff to procced with development of a Cat Management Bylaw. The Statement of Proposal and draft of that Bylaw are attached for the Council’s consideration.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 If the Council resolves to proceed with the notification of a Cat Management Bylaw this could be done soon after the decision is made (shortly after this meeting).

11.2 Submissions could be open for approximately six weeks, but it is suggested the submission period does not commence until mid-January 2022 (Monday 17) with hearings and decisions in the first half of 2022.

Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 Council Workshop cat Managment	12
2.	Attachment 2 Statement of Proposal Cat Managment	34
3.	Attachment 3 Summary of Information Cat Managment	42

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.2 Annual Biosecurity Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Guinevere Coleman, Team Leader Biosecurity & Biodiversity
Report Number:	RRC21-12-2

1 Summary

1.1 The Council is obliged under the Biosecurity Act to report annually on activities undertaken under the Regional Pest Management Plan. The review of the 2020-21 Operational Plan (Attachments 1 and 2) summarises and reviews the activities undertaken by the Council in its role as the management agency during the previous financial year and comments on relevant biosecurity monitoring and compliance issues.

1.2 The 2021-22 Operational Plan (Attachment 3) outlines the objectives and activities to be undertaken in implementing the 2019-2029 Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Strategy within the approved budget of $884,000.

1.3 These reports will also be conveyed to Nelson City Council as our joint partner in biosecurity management.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Annual Biosecurity Report RRC21-12-2; and

2. receives the Review of the 2019-2020 Operational Plan as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2; and

3. approves the 2021-2022 Operational Plan for the Tasman-Nelson Region attached as Attachment 3.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Operational Plan for the 2021-22 Financial Year and to summarise the achievements of the 2020-21 Operational Plan. This report has been prepared for Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council as the Regional Pest Management Strategy is a joint strategy, with an addendum which is specific to Tasman District.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 This report presents the activity of Tasman District Council and other agencies undertaken over 2020-2021 to implement the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (RPMP) as measured by the objectives set out in the Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2020-2021 (both volumes). For additional detail and explanation, reference should be made to the annual review reports attached as Attachment 1 and 2.

4.2 The 2020-2021 Operational Plan was delivered under budget, with the most significant deviation being staff costs causing a $137,000 underspend in staff time and overheads. Operational expenditure was on budget, balancing areas of higher expenditure with less expenditure elsewhere. The most significant deviation was an underspend of the Taiwan Cherry eradication programme, and an increase in consultancy in response to the emerging Lindavia issue.

4.3 Tasman District Council continued surveillance monitoring and investigations work to check and prevent 12 exclusion pests (Cape tulip; Chilean needle grass; hornwort; Indian myna; Johnson grass; koi carp; Phragmites; rooks; Senegal tea; velvetleaf; wallabies; and water hyacinth) becoming established in the region. Two incursions of wallaby were investigated and resolved.

4.4 Department of Conservation (DOC) reports that the DOC-led eradication of pest fish is making slow progress, with the pests remaining largely contained within their known areas. Experiments on Gambusia control look promising. The eradication of perch is made difficult with the popularity of this species for coarse fish sportfishing, and the extent of tench is proving difficult to reduce. The objectives for the other eradication pest animals have been met.

4.5 The councils continued their support for the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership. Sabella incursions in Nelson Haven continue but it is evident that the intensive management of this pest is protecting the rest of the greater Tasman Bay/Golden Bay area.

4.6 Except for Himalayan Balsam and Taiwan Cherry, progress on the eradication of the pest plant species on the eradication list is being made. For Himalayan Balsam, the minor setback relates to the identification of many more new sites. Eradication remains achievable.

4.7 For Taiwan Cherry, the main objective for the year was further survey to determine the extent of the problem, although active control of several priority infestations was also undertaken. The species is more extensive than previously assumed, and until the 15-year operational plan is developed, tracking progress toward eradication is premature. Infestations that were worked are largely well under control.

4.8 The Progressive Containment Pest programmes are making progress with generally few new sites and site reactivations occurring outside containment, compared to sites moving to zero-density.

4.9 The ongoing control of 23 widespread pests to reduce their impact and spread to other properties continued under the Sustained Control Programme. In most cases progress toward RPMP outcomes is being made. Measuring the success of pest plants that affect natural values depends on checking that priority sites remain clear of the pest. Further work is needed to identify priorities and to set annual performance targets on those priorities. There have been few (but not nil) instances of reluctant occupiers who required biosecurity officer persuasion to comply with the RPMP rules.

5 Options

5.1 The options available to the Council are to accept the review or ask that it be amended in some way. Staff are happy that the review meets the best practice expectation and is a fair and reliable report of the work programme.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 Implementation of the Regional Pest Management Strategy through the Operational Plan aligns with the strategy vision of “Enhancing community wellbeing and quality of life” by providing a framework for efficient and effective pest management and making best use of the available resources. The risk of pest incursions and the spread of species can present environmental and economic challenges for the Tasman and Nelson community. These risks are appropriately and proportionately managed through the work done by the Biosecurity staff.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

7.1 Section 85(1) (b) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the Management Agency for every pest management strategy to annually review the Operational Plan and report on its implementation.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 This activity is already funded within the Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) and no additional funding is sought.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 There will be a low level of public interest in this annual report, as the activity is only important for those people affected by pests. It will be released following acceptance so will be available for public inspection.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The Annual Report is a statement of accountability and while the activity affects a large number of landowners, it is not contentious.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	The delivery of the RPMP positively impacts the environmental well-being of Tasman. The Operational Plan identifies programmed work, which falls within budgeted limits. The activity is important for those people directly concerned with pest weeds and animals.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	This operational Plan is 1 year of the delivery of a 10 year RPMP.
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	Goal 2: Tasman District becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change	Biosecurity activities directly respond to the changing climate, identifying emerging pest plant and animal issues, and surveillance identifying changes in our local environment.
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low
6.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	This operational Plan is 1 year of the delivery of a 10 year RPMP.
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 RPMP is already funded through the LTP
8.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
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?	NA
10.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low
11.	Does the proposal require inclusion of Māori in the decision-making process (consistent with s81 of the LGA)?	Low

10 Conclusion

10.1 The 2021-2022 Tasman–Nelson Regional Pest Management Operational Plan has been reviewed from previous years to reflect the learnings from the first two years of the new RPMP 2019-2029. The Operational Plans for both Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council are now combined, and the structure simplified. Targets and outcomes have been reviewed to include greater recording of surveillance sites and developing techniques and technology to enable biosecurity officers to better record and plan their work. This review and re-write included collaboration with Nelson City Council which has taken more time to complete than originally expected.

10.2 Focus this year will be on improving the Pest Inspection database, identifying at risk sites for surveillance, and supporting the delivery of partner agencies (Nelson City Council and DOC).

10.3 Metrics in the 2021-2022 Operational Plan have been streamlined and simplified to better reflect the information available to judge performance with the Plan.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 Continue to implement the Tasman–Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan Operational Plan for the 2021-2022 year.

11.2 Consider if changes to the RPMP related to Taiwan Cherry, wilding pine, and Sabella rules should be initiated during this year or delayed until further information is available.

12 Attachments

1.	Attachment 1 Report on Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2020-2021 Objectives and Targets	50
2.	Attachment 2 Report on Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2020-2021 Objectives and Targets Addendum 1	77
3.	Attachment 3 Tasman-Nelson RPMP Operational Plan 2021-2022	87

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.3 Exchange of Unformed Road - 93 Richmond Road Pōhara

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Kevin O'Neil, Property Officer; Robert Cant, Programme Leader - Land & Leases
Report Number:	RRC21-12-3

1 Summary

1.1 Kelso Building Limited of 93 Richmond Road, Pōhara, approached Council staff regarding three buildings that encroach onto legal road along an unformed southern section of Richmond Road that runs through their property. Kelso Building Limited is proposing to stop a section of the unformed road where the three buildings currently encroach into the road corridor and exchange additional land to vest as road to not only maintain access along this section of legal road, but to also form a road link to Bay Vista Drive to the northeast.

1.2 This proposal is based on an exchange of land for mutual benefit at no cost to the Council.
It will create an improved legal road corridor for the Council with more land vesting as road than is being stopped. The landowner is planning to subdivide the property once the road stopping and vesting has been completed.

1.3 The plans (Plans A, B and C) are noted in Section 12 of this report.

1.4 Plan “A” shows the existing position of the legal road and the three encroachments into the road corridor. Plan “B” shows the original proposal with the road to be stopped bordered in white and hatched in black, and the proposed land to be exchanged and vested as road shown coloured pink. Plan “C” shows the most recent roading alignment that has been given approval as to concept from the Council’s Transportation Manager. The Transportation Manager was not satisfied with the original proposed roading formation as shown in Plan “B”.

1.5 The concept of the road exchange is a routine decision and staff recommend that the Council approves this exchange. The final decision under the Public Works Act will be subject to approval by Land Information New Zealand.

1.6 Given that the fine details of precise locations for the road to vest are not yet finalised, the Council is asked to delegate the ability to approve all details in relation to this road exchange to the Transportation Manager.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

1. receives the Exchange of Unformed Road - 93 Richmond Road Pōhara report RRC21-12-3; and

2. approves the road exchange in principle, and delegates final approval of the road stopping/exchange proposal to the Transportation Manager once the landowner has finalised all details regarding the new road to be constructed, subject to the Minister for Land Information’s approval, of the land parcels shown in pink on plans “B” and “C”, pursuant to Sections 17 and 114 of the Public Works Act; and

3. consents under Section 116 of the Public Works Act 1981, subject to the Minister for Land Information’s approval, to the stopping of the portions of the legal road shown bordered in white and hatched in black on plan “B”; and

4. delegates to the Council’s Transportation Manager the power to undertake all processes, including the authority to sign all relevant documentation necessary to give effect to the decision to exchange road land for private land, including the powers in Section 117 and Section 120 of the Public Works Act 1981 to deal with stopped roads and complete registration.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 To gain the Council’s consent to the stopping of unformed legal road adjacent to 93 Richmond Road, Pōhara under the Public Works Act 1981 and approve the purchase of land for road from the adjacent landowner. This is effectively an exchange of road land.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The concept is best explained with the aid of the plans in section 12 of this report. On Plan “B” the black hatched area (bordered in white) shows the legal road proposed to be stopped. The pink coloured areas show the land the developer proposes to exchange and vest as road. On Plan “C” - the amended roading plan, the alignment of the road now cuts through a second landowners’ property. Kelso Building Limited is close to signing a deal to acquire this land so they can exchange it so the road can be formed in a complying alignment.

4.2 A significant motivation behind the road exchange is the fact three buildings have been established outside the property boundary and a significant portion of the buildings are on legal road. One of these buildings is a substantial one and relocation or removal would have been an onerous requirement. The developers proposed a road exchange to enable the buildings to be on private land, with the new road land established elsewhere.

4.3 The landowner’s initial new road alignment was not acceptable to the Council’s Transportation Manager and a revised alignment was subsequently submitted and approved. This involves a different landowner, which will add complexity to the exchange. Due to the possibility this may need further modification, it is recommended that the Council’s Transportation Manager have the delegation to approve the final design and road exchange and the ability to sign all papers associated with the exchange. This will avoid the need to bring the matter back to the Council if minor changes are required.

4.4 All costs in relation to this transaction will be met by the developer. The land area of the road to be stopped is significantly less than the area of the land received in exchange, however the landowner has offered that the road stopping and vesting will just be a straight swap with no compensation required for the additional land to be vested as road.

4.5 The exchange will occur using the Public Works Act which allows the road exchange to proceed without the need for public notification. The proposal was considered by the Road Stopping Panel and the Transportation Manager. Staff have also consulted with the New Zealand Walking Access Commission (NZWAC). NZWAC has confirmed it does not oppose the road exchange as public access is being maintained. The developer has liaised with Manawhenua ki Mohua and staff have received confirmation it does not oppose the exchange.

4.6 The road exchange has mutual advantage. The developer’s land will benefit from no longer having three buildings that encroach onto the unformed legal road. The developer will also have an improved roading link for the future subdivision development. The Council will benefit from having access along the unformed section of Richmond Road formed, and the formation of an additional link road from Richmond Road to Bay Vista Drive. Public access will be enhanced if the exchange proceeds.

5 Options

5.1 Option 1: Agree to the road exchange. (This is the recommended option).

Pros:

· This will see the unformed section of Richmond Road formed along with a link road to Bay Vista Drive to the northeast.

Cons:

· None identified.

5.2 Option 2: Not agree to the road exchange.

Pros:

· None identified.

Cons:

· There will still be three buildings encroaching into the legal road and the opportunity to resolve this issue at no cost to the Council will be lost.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 This is a routine low risk proposal. There is no cost to the Council for allowing the road exchange to proceed.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 The Council will acquire the land using the powers of the Public Works Act 1981. This can be broken down into three key aspects:

7.1.1 Acquire land for road: The Council has the power to enter into an agreement to acquire land for public work (in this case road) under Section 17. The Minister for Land Information may gazette land to be road under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981. The Council must consent under Section 114. In effect, this involves the Council entering into an agreement with the developer to acquire the land for road and then asking the Minister to declare the land to be road. The agreement would be conditional upon the relevant parcels of road being stopped and offered in exchange for the developer’s land desired for road.

7.1.2 Consent to road land being stopped: The Council has the power to consent to the stopping of road under Sections 116 (Stopping Roads). The Minister for Land Information (LINZ) has the final decision on whether or not to stop the parcels of legal road. In the unlikely event the Minister declined to stop the road, the acquisition described in 7.2 would not occur.

7.1.3 Completion of title raising and subsequent transfer: If the Minister agrees to allow the road to be stopped and the Council to acquire land for road, the Council will be able to use Section 117 of the Public Works Act 1981 (dealing with stopped roads) and Section 120 (registration) to complete the raising of title and subsequent legal transfer of land ownership to the developer for amalgamation with the adjacent land.

7.2 The final decision on whether or not to allow the road exchange lies with LINZ who administer the Public Works Act 1981. It is considered a low risk that LINZ will refuse to approve the exchange given the benefits from resolving an existing untidy situation with the legal road.

7.3 This proposal does not contravene any Council policy or plan.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 The developer has agreed to cover all costs pertaining to this transaction, so there are no financial or budgetary implications for the Council arising from this decision.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 There is no requirement to undertake public notice if the Public Works Act is used to do the road exchange. Given there will be no physical changes to the road network, this proposal is considered of low significance and does not require community engagement. It is worth noting that the physical changes to the road network will occur as a result of the subdivision process, rather than this process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The current road is unformed, and unused. Public access will be improved when the new road land is formed as part of the subdivision.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No	The developer has the right to form the existing road so providing a better alignment has mutual benefit.
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	The entire road network is a strategic asset. This proposal will improve the road network.
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	The developer is meeting all costs.
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)?	No	The landowner consulted with Manawhenua ki Mohua as there are known sites of cultural significance located at the property address although Manawhenua ki Mohua confirmed via email that they have no objection to the proposed road exchange.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The exchange is a technical land exchange, considered to be of mutual benefit to both the developer and the Council. It allows the legal road to avoid existing buildings and be more logically matched to the formation. It also allows the developer’s land boundaries to relate to the physical road more logically.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 If the Council agrees to the proposal, within the next month staff will enter into a formal agreement with the developer to proceed with the road exchange. The agreement notes that the Council cannot guarantee LINZ will agree to allow the exchange.

11.2 After the agreement is signed, LINZ will be asked to approve the exchange in principle. If that is approved, the land will be formally surveyed, and LINZ asked to publish a gazette notice that declares land to be road and stops road for amalgamation with the developer’s title. This is likely to take several months to conclude.

12 Plans

12.1 93 Richmond Road - Plan A - Shows the existing position of the legal road and the three encroachments into the road corridor.

12.2 93 Richmond Road - Plan B - Shows the proposed road to be stopped bordered in white and hatched in black, and the proposed land to be exchanged and vested as road shown coloured pink.

12.3 93 Richmond Road - Plan C - Shows the most recent amended roading alignment that has been given concept approval from the Council’s Transportation Manager. The Transportation Manager was not satisfied with the original proposed roading formation shown in Plan “B”.

“A” Aerial Photo Showing 3 Encroachments at 93 Richmond Road, Pohara

“B” Original Subdivision Plan Showing Road to Stop and Land to Vest as Road.

“C” Amended Roading Formation to Northern End of Property – June 2021

13 Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.4 Exchange of Unformed Road - Moutere Highway - Merc Developments Ltd

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Kevin O'Neil, Property Officer; Robert Cant, Programme Leader - Land & Leases
Report Number:	RRC21-12-4

1 Summary

1.1 The Council was approached by a lawyer acting on behalf of Merc Developments Limited who are the owners of a 60.8850-hectare block of land located along the Moutere Highway. Merc Developments Ltd are looking to subdivide their block of land located between the Moutere Highway and the Coastal Highway in Moutere. There is currently an unformed legal road that bisects this block and generally runs from south to north through the property, terminating at the northern boundary of an adjoining property owned by Tama Asset Holding Company Limited (Ngāti Tama Ki Te Waipounamu).

1.2 The landowners are proposing to stop the northern half of the existing legal road (approximately 1.4145ha), and in exchange, vest land for road of approximately 2.1508ha. This will improve the location of the road corridor and allow for ease of access to the proposed 25 lots to be created by the subdivision. The proposed exchange and vesting of additional land as road will not only maintain access in this area, but it will improve public access with the main entry point to the subdivision, being from Redvale Road to the east, and with the provision of access via a future road to the west. The single lane gravel road access from the southern end of the block will not be used for access to the future subdivision, and bollards will be installed so only cyclists and pedestrians can access the subdivision from the south off Moutere Highway.

1.3 This proposal is based on an exchange of land for mutual benefit at no cost to the Council. It will create an improved legal road corridor for the Council with more land vesting as road than is being stopped. The landowner is planning to subdivide the property once the road stopping, and vesting has been approved.

1.4 The plans (Plans A and B) are noted in Section 12 of this report.

1.5 Plan “A” shows the property as it stands now with the unformed legal road running through the property from the southern to northern boundaries.

1.6 Plan “B” is the subdivision plan that shows the location of the unformed legal road proposed to be stopped (1.4145ha) bordered in green, and the proposed land to be exchanged and vested as road (2.1508ha) shown bordered in blue.

1.7 This is a routine decision and staff recommend that the Council approves this exchange, which will be subject to final approval by Land Information New Zealand.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

1. receives the Exchange of Unformed Road - Moutere Highway - Merc Developments Ltd Moutere Highway, Moutere report RRC21-12-4; and

2. approves the road exchange, subject to the Minister for Land Information’s approval, of the land parcels shown bordered in blue on plan “B”, pursuant to Sections 17 and 114 of the Public Works Act; and

4. delegates to the Property Services Manager the power to undertake all processes, including the authority to sign all relevant documentation necessary to give effect to the decision to exchange road land for private land, including the powers in Section 117 and Section 120 of the Public Works Act 1981 to deal with stopped roads and complete registration.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 To gain the Council’s consent to the stopping of unformed legal road located between the Moutere Highway and the Coastal Highway, Moutere under the Public Works Act 1981, and approve the purchase of land for road. This is effectively an exchange of road land.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The concept is best explained with the aid of the plans included in section 12 of this report. The green bordered areas show the legal road proposed to be stopped. The blue bordered areas show the land the developer proposes to exchange and vest as road. All costs in relation to this transaction will be met by the developer.

4.2 The land area of the road to be stopped is significantly less than the area of the land received in exchange, however the road stopping and vesting will just be a straight swap with no compensation required for the additional land to be vested as road.

4.3 The exchange will occur using the Public Works Act which allows the road exchange to proceed without the need for public notification. The proposal was considered by the staff Road Stopping Panel and the Transportation Manager. Staff have also consulted with the New Zealand Walking Access Commission (NZWAC). NZWAC has confirmed it does not oppose the road exchange as public access is being maintained and improved.

4.4 The road exchange has mutual advantage. The developer will have an improved and more practical roading link for their future subdivision development. The Council will benefit from having improved access by the new roading alignment that will connect with future roads to the west and east, rather than have a road that terminates in the middle of nowhere.

4.5 Ngāti Tama was asked to comment. Ngāti Tama owns land the road stopping impacts, as it technically loses road frontage. Ngāti Tama has confirmed that it does not oppose the stopping of the unformed legal road that runs through Merc Developments land, as they are confident that they have sufficient access options for their future subdivision off Stringer Road.

4.6 A neighbourhood group from the adjacent “Galeo Estates” (Galeo Estate Residents Association – GERA) has lodged a petition with the Council, objecting to the Resource Management Act (RMA) application for subdivision on the basis that the use of Redvale Road being the vehicular route for landowners is inappropriate. That question is appropriately considered in the RMA process and is not considered relevant to this road exchange. While the exchange provides a new road linking to Redvale Road, it does not necessarily lead to that being formed for vehicles. If the vehicular route from the subdivision was to the Moutere Highway (as the GERA advocates) the new road link to Redvale Road arising from this exchange would be of potential benefit as a walking/cycling route.

5 Options

5.1 Option 1: Agree to the road exchange. (This is the recommended option).

Pros:

· This will see the unformed section of road formed along with link roads to the west and east (Redvale Road).

Cons:

· None identified.

5.2 Option 2: Not agree to the road exchange.

Pros:

· None identified.

Cons:

· A section of legal road that runs through the landowner’s block remains unformed.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 This is a routine low risk proposal. There is no cost to the Council for allowing the road exchange to proceed.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

7.1 The Council will acquire the land using the powers in the Public Works Act 1981. This can be broken down to three key aspects:

7.1.1 Acquire land for road: The Council has the power to enter into an agreement to acquire land for a public work (in this case road) under Section 17. The Minister for Land Information may gazette land to be road under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981. The Council must consent under Section 114. In effect, this involves the Council entering into an agreement with the developer to acquire the land for road and then asking the Minister to declare the land to be road. The agreement would be conditional upon the relevant parcels of road being stopped and offered in exchange for the developer’s land desired for road.

7.1.3 Completion of title raising and subsequent transfer: If the Minister agrees to allow the road to be stopped and the Council to acquire land for road, the Council will be able to use Section 117 of the Public Works Act 1981(dealing with stopped roads) and Section 120 (registration) to complete the raising of title and subsequent legal transfer of land ownership to the developer for amalgamation with the adjacent land.

7.2 The final decision on whether or not to allow the road exchange lies with LINZ, who administer the Public Works Act 1981. It is considered a low risk that LINZ will refuse to approve the exchange given the benefits from resolving an existing untidy situation with the legal road.

7.3 This proposal does not contravene any policy or plan.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 As mentioned earlier, the developer has agreed to cover all costs pertaining to this transaction, so there are no financial or budgetary implications arising from this decision.

9 Significance and Engagement

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The adjoining established subdivision “Galeo Estate” resident’s association (GERA) is unhappy that the main point of the entry to the Merc Developments Limited subdivision will be through Redvale Road, and they have lodged a petition with the Council as to why the main entry point is not going to be off the Moutere Highway. While of significant interest to this group, the wider public are unlikely to consider this a significant issue
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	No.	The developer has the right to form the existing road, so providing a better alignment has mutual benefit
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	The entire road network is a strategic asset. This proposal will improve the road network.
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	The developer is meeting all costs.
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)?	No	Ngāti Tama confirmed that they are happy with the proposed road exchange.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The exchange is a technical land exchange, considered to be of mutual benefit to both the developer and the Council. It allows the legal road to be more logically matched to the subdivision formation and provides additional access points to the subdivision.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 Within the next month or two the Council will enter into a formal agreement with the developer to proceed with the road exchange. The agreement notes that the Council cannot guarantee LINZ will agree to allow the exchange.

11.2 After the agreement is signed, LINZ will be asked to approve the exchange in principle.
If that is approved, the land will be formally surveyed, and LINZ asked to publish a gazette notice that declares land to be road and stops road for amalgamation with the developer’s title. This is likely to take several months to conclude.

12 Plans

Moutere Highway - Plan A – Existing block with unformed legal road shown.

Moutere Highway - Plan B – Subdivision plan showing road to be stopped and land to exchange and vest as road.

“A” Aerial photo showing existing block with unformed legal road

“B” Aerial photo showing subdivision plan with road to be stopped (bordered in green) and land to exchange and vest as road (bordered in blue).

Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.5 Annual Air Quality Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Diana Worthy, Senior Policy Planner
Report Number:	RRC21-12-5

1 Summary

1.1 The Annual Air Quality Report is appended to this report (Attachment 1). It summarises the air quality work programme for the period 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021, including our compliance with the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NES-AQ).
A summary of the key information contained in the Annual Air Quality Report is set out below.

1.2 The Council has a permanent, fixed monitoring station in the Richmond Airshed, measuring particulate matter (PM₁₀ and PM_2.5). The NES-AQ allows one permissible exceedance per year for PM₁₀ and any exceedance above this is a breach of the regulations. Over the monitoring period, the Richmond Airshed had four exceedances of the daily standard for PM₁₀, all during winter 2021. The exceedances were primarily associated with the burning of wood for home heating. Since 2012, daily PM₁₀ concentrations have fluctuated with no overall declining trend. Monitoring of PM_2.5 also occurred during the same period. The data shows the Airshed exceeded the 2021 World Health Organisation’s (WHO) daily guideline value of 15 µg/m³ a total of 63 times.

1.3 The Council has a winter-time air quality monitoring programme in Motueka and surrounds. Monitoring of PM₁₀ was undertaken in the Motueka township and no exceedances were recorded of the PM10 daily standard over the winter period (May-August 2021). The results of a commissioned air quality monitoring study in Riwaka and Brooklyn are not yet available but will be reported in due course.

1.4 During the six-month period from 1 April to 30 September 2021, the Council received 164 air quality related complaints. Of these, 28 complaints related to odour; five were dust related; nine were discharge of pesticide/herbicide complaints; and 116 complaints related to smoke.

1.5 The Council has ongoing research and non-regulatory work programmes. In addition to the Riwaka/Brooklyn monitoring, technical work this year included assessing the influence of katabatic winds in the Richmond Airshed, and management options for the Richmond Airshed. The Council continues to operate the Good Wood scheme alongside Nelson City Council and provides education and advice through the Council’s communications and publications. Funding was also provided to Warmer Healthier Homes Te Tau Ihu Charitable Trust to enable retrofitting of insulation into qualifying owner-occupied homes in the District. The Council’s contribution of $20,000, along with other third-party funders, enabled the insulation of 228 houses in the District over the 2020/2021 financial year.

1.6 Both the national regulations and international guidance relating to the management of air quality are going through a significant period of change. At this time it is unclear how the current NES-AQ review (focusing on PM_2.5and mercury emissions) will tie in with the wider Resource Management Act 1991 reforms. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) will also need to consider the updated 2021 World Health Organisation guidelines as part of this review. These overall changes may have significant implications for the management of Tasman’s air resource going forward. In particular, the requirement to monitor and manage PM_2.5sources could result in the establishment and targeted management of new airsheds. Additionally, there will be implications for the management of the Richmond Airshed, particularly given that it remains polluted under a PM₁₀ monitoring regime.

1.7 The development of the Aorere ki uta, Aorere ki tai – Tasman Environment Plan (TEP), our second-generation resource management plan, is underway. Staff are currently working on ‘issues and options’ for each planning topic. The emerging national direction will influence the scope and requirements under the ‘discharges to air’ section of the TEP. While timeframes for the national direction is currently unclear, MfE is likely to continue to work with iwi, councils and stakeholders next year. Staff will seek direction from the Council as further details become known.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee receives the Annual Air Quality Report RRC-21-12-5.

3 Purpose of Report

3.1 This report summarises the key information set out in the Annual Air Quality Report, (Attachment 1). That report details the winter 2021 results for air quality monitoring for particulate matter pollution in the Richmond Airshed and Motueka township against compliance with the requirements of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004 (NES-AQ). It also includes information on the wider air quality work programme undertaken this year including complaints and enforcement, research, non-regulatory programmes, and ‘discharges to air’ policy planning.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The Annual Air Quality Report is attached to this report (Attachment 1). The following paragraphs set out a high-level summary of the contents of that report.

Why is Air Quality Important?

4.2 Good air quality is fundamental to our wellbeing and is a taonga to be protected, restored or improved. The presence of contaminants in the air can have adverse health and nuisance effects on people, property and the environment. Small particles of pollution are known as particulate matter (PM). They consist of solid and liquid particles suspended in the air and are usually measured in two sizes:

· PM₁₀ refers to particles that have a diameter of less than 10 microns (coarse component).

· PM_2.5refers to particles that have a diameter of less than 2.5 microns (fine component) and is a subset of PM₁₀.

Legislative Framework

4.3 The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (Air Quality NES) are regulations made under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA 1991) which aim to set a guaranteed minimum level of health protection for all New Zealanders. The NES-AQ came into effect in 2004 and was amended in 2011. It includes a standard for PM₁₀ for outdoor air quality of 50 µg/m³ (micrograms per cubic metre) over a 24-hour average. The Air Quality NES does not apply to indoor air quality. The NES-AQ has been under review for the last couple of years and staff are actively engaging in that process.

4.4 While the NES-AQ provides a level of health protection from air pollution, the 50 µg/m³ concentration limit for PM₁₀ is not a ‘no-effect’ threshold. The Council has a regulatory obligation to comply with this limit but achieving even lower concentrations of particulate matter will ultimately result in improved health outcomes for the community.

4.5 Several legislative amendments (nationally and international commitments) are underway which will have implications for management of discharges to air in our District. These are summarised in the table below:

Legislative Amendments/Guidelines	Summary
NES-AQ review	Focus of the review is on home heating and controlling mercury emissions to help New Zealand meet its obligations under the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
Resource Management Amendment Act 2020	This amendment will enable councils to consider greenhouse gas emissions when consenting discharges to air, and for councils to have regard to emissions reduction plans and national adaptation plans when making and amending their resource management plans.
Wider RMA 1991 reforms	Three new pieces of legislation are proposed to replace the RMA 1991, including the proposed Natural and Built Environments Act.
Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill 2021	This Bill proposes to limit air pollution from ships around ports to align New Zealand’s legislation with Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines (September 2021)	After a systematic review of the accumulated evidence of the significant health impacts arising from poor air quality, WHO has adjusted almost all its air quality guideline levels downwards, including those for particulate matter. The Ministry for the Environment will need to consider these revised guidelines as part of the Air Quality NES review.

Richmond Airshed Monitoring Results and Analysis

4.6 The Richmond Airshed is monitored continuously because it exceeds the standard for concentrations of particulate matter during winter months. It is classified as a polluted airshed under the NES-AQ and requires targeted management. The key source of pollution in the airshed is biomass combustion (burning of wood) over the cooler winter months, primarily associated with home heating.

4.7 The NES-AQ allows one permissible exceedance per year for PM₁₀ and any exceedance above this is a breach of the regulations. Over the monitoring period for this report (1 September 2020 – 31 August 2021), the Richmond Airshed had four exceedances of the daily standard for PM₁₀ over winter 2021. Figure 1 (over page) illustrates the number of exceedances recorded per year in the Airshed for PM₁₀ since records began in 2000, and the highest recorded exceedance per year. Since 2012, daily PM₁₀ concentrations have fluctuated with no overall declining trend.

4.8 Monitoring of PM_2.5was also undertaken. The data shows the Airshed exceeded the 2021 World Health Organisation’s (WHO) daily guideline value of 15 µg/m³ a total of 63 times. For comparison, based on the 2005 WHO daily guideline value of 25 µg/m³, the airshed had a total of 24 exceedances which is consistent with previous years’ results.

Motueka, Riwaka and Brooklyn Air Quality Monitoring Programme

4.9 The Council has an air quality monitoring programme to better understand if there are air quality issues in the Motueka, Riwaka and Brooklyn areas associated with home heating and/or outdoor rural burning. Temporary monitoring of PM₁₀ was undertaken in the Motueka township (at Goodman Ledger Park) and no exceedances were recorded of the PM₁₀ daily standard over the winter period (May-August 2021). The maximum PM₁₀ recorded in Motueka was 32 µg/m³.

4.10 The Council also commissioned Mote Ltd to undertake a PM_2.5monitoring programme at four sites in Riwaka and Brooklyn over winter using ‘dustmote’ air quality monitoring sensors which are suitable for research purposes. The results of the study are expected in December, and a full review of the 2021 data for these areas will be completed and reported following receipt of this work.

Figure 1: Number of Exceedances of 24-Hour PM₁₀ for Richmond (2000 to 2021)

Note: PM₁₀ has been measured in Richmond since 2000, with gaps in the data for

2001/2002 and continuous monitoring using a BAM from 2006.

Complaints and Enforcement

4.11 During the six-month period from 1 April to 30 September 2021, the Council received 164 air quality related complaints. Of these, 28 complaints related to odour; five were dust related; nine were discharge of pesticide/herbicide complaints; and 116 complaints related to smoke. This total number of complaints is significantly down on previous years, where the Council received 338 total air related complaints in 2020, and 208 complaints in 2019.

4.12 Staff undertook the following enforcement action during the year relating to non-compliant discharges to air: five abatement notices, six infringement notices, and 11 warnings. Three outdoor burns which resulted in serious breaches of the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) rules are currently under further investigation.

4.13 Council staff are continuing to update the home heating records for the Richmond Airshed to ensure compliance with the TRMP rules. Staff will continue to target non-compliant properties to enable the owners sufficient time to remediate their situation prior to the 2022 winter.

Research

4.14 The Council has an ongoing air quality research work programme to help assist our understanding and management of air quality in the Tasman District. The outputs of this work will be used to inform the development of the discharges to air section of the Aorere ki uta, Aorere ki tai – Tasman Environment Pan. Attachment 1 sets out further details of the following research:

· The University of Canterbury studied the influenced of ‘katabatic winds’ on dispersion of PM₁₀ in the Richmond Airshed.

· Environet Ltd and the University of Canterbury modelled a range of management options to reduce particulate concentrations for the Richmond Airshed, including such as the status quo under the TRMP rules, allowing the installation of ultra-low emission burners, phase out of non-NES-AQ approved burners, and behaviour change initiatives.

Non-regulatory Programmes

4.15 Non-regulatory programmes can play a key role in contributing to a reduction of winter-time air pollution through a number of often simple actions undertaken by residents and land managers in our District. Our non-regulatory work includes:

· The Council, working in partnership with Nelson City Council, operates the voluntary Good Wood scheme which promotes wood merchants who supply a trusted source of quality firewood.

· Fourteen (14) entries were received for the ‘Do You Stack Up?’ firewood storage competition. This is the third year the Council has run this competition and it provides an engaging way to educate residents of correct firewood storage.

· Warmer Healthier Homes Te Tau Ihu Charitable Trust (WHH) administers grants to enable retrofitting of insulation into qualifying households. The Council’s contribution of $20,000, along with other third-party funders, enabled the insulation of 228 houses in the District over the 2020/2021 financial year. In May 2021 the Council resolved to provide a further $60,000 to WHH to be spent over the following three-year period.

· This year staff targeted improving our air quality social media presence, with a range of seasonal Facebook posts to promote education and advice in relation to home heating and rural outdoor burning activities. This was supplemented by Newsline articles and the Council’s air quality website material, including best practice guides for home heating and outdoor burning.

Discharges to Air Policy Planning

4.16 Work is underway to develop the Aorere ki uta, Aorere ki tai – Tasman Environment Plan (TEP), which will replace the TRMP. This year the Environmental Policy team has been working on topic-specific ‘issues and options’ papers. The issues identified for the ‘discharges to air’ topic include smoke from domestic home heating; outdoor rural burning; agrichemicals; odour, dust and other nuisances; large scale combustion; and greenhouse gas emissions. Over 2021/2022, staff are preparing these papers to workshop with Councillors to seek comment on draft recommendations, which in turn will be consulted on with iwi, stakeholders and the wider community in 2022.

4.17 In general, the Council is currently in a good position in relation to our TEP work programme and the wider RMA 1991 reform. This is because our plan is in its early stages with the development of background work relating to the identification of issues and options, and progressing technical work/research, which will all be used to inform the TEP over the next few years. However, staff recognise that the emerging national direction will influence the scope and requirements under the ‘discharges to air’ section of the TEP.

5 Options

5.1 There are no options considered as this is an information only report. However, once the timeframe and contents of the NES=AQ review and wider RMA 1991 reform relative to the development of the TEP is known, staff will bring options to the Council to seek direction regarding review of the discharge to air rules.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 The Richmond Airshed continues to be polluted and is non-compliant with the NES-AQ in relation to PM₁₀. Both human behaviour in relation to burning and weather conditions influence the levels of air pollutants and in a worse case year, the targets are likely to continue to be exceeded.

6.2 There are implications if the Council continues to exceed the NES-AQ. These may include adverse reputational effects and the potential for legal challenge on any future proposed TEP discharge to air rules by interested parties seeking more stringent or relaxed control of air quality. Tasman also has an ageing population, so the proportion of population at greatest risk from poor air quality is increasing.

6.3 In addition, an investigation may be undertaken by MfE for non-complying councils and an Airshed action plan and/or a progress report to monitor whether councils are on track to meet the targets may be requested by the Minister for the Environment.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

7.1 This report provides the results of the air quality monitoring undertaken in Richmond over the winter of 2021, as required by the NES-AQ and Section 35 of the Resource Management Act. The Richmond Airshed is non-compliant with the Air Quality NES.

7.2 As previously noted, staff have been implementing a work programme to develop an evidence base through monitoring and research, which will ensure a robust review of the discharges to air rules as part of development of the TEP.

7.3 These national legislative changes and international guidelines have the potential to have significant implications for the management of Tasman’s air resource. The requirement to monitor and manage PM2.5 sources could result in the establishment and targeted management of new Airsheds. Additionally, there will be implications for the management of the Richmond Airshed, particularly given that it remains polluted under a PM₁₀ monitoring regime.

7.4 The development of the Aorere ki uta, Aorere ki tai – Tasman Environment Plan (TEP), our second-generation resource management plan, is underway. Staff are currently working on ‘issues and options’ for each planning topic. The emerging national direction will influence the scope and requirements under the ‘discharges to air’ section. While timeframes for the national direction is currently unclear, it is expected that MfE will continue to work with iwi, councils and stakeholders next year. Staff will seek direction from the Council as further details become known.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 Through the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan there are budgets in place to enable a more proactive and strategic air quality work programme. This funding will enable further research and monitoring to meet our requirements under the NES-AQ in relation to PM₁₀ over the next 10 years. Staff have also made best use of grants through MBIE’s Envirolink funding programme to commission research work from the University of Canterbury and Environet Ltd.

8.2 It is likely that the outcome of the NES-AQ review will have implications on the air quality budget if additional monitoring for PM_2.5is required for compliance purposes. Budget could also be required to provide sufficient resources to enable the implementation of a more targeted non-regulatory work programme to reduce emissions.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 At this stage while there is high public interest in air quality, the receipt of this report is of low significance and no public consultation is required, although the monitoring results are publicly available.

10 Conclusion

10.1 There were four exceedances of the NES-AQ for daily PM₁₀ of 50 µg/m³ for particulate matter over the winter of 2021. The Richmond Airshed is non-compliant with the NES-AQ and is therefore classified as a ‘polluted’ airshed. Since 2012, daily PM10 concentrations have fluctuated with no overall declining trend. The implications of this is that no further discharge consents can be granted that would make this situation worse.

10.2 There have been approximately 164 air quality complaints for the winter of 2021, largely relating to smoke complaints.

10.3 Staff have also been implementing a work programme to develop an evidence base through monitoring and research, which will ensure a robust review of the discharges to air rules as part of development of the TEP. Our non-regulatory work programme is ongoing to promote education and advice.

10.4 The NES-AQ is currently under review and staff have been engaging in this process, along with the wider RMA 1991 reforms. Staff will seek direction from the Council as further details become known.

Attachments

Attachment 1 Annual Air Quality Report - 1 Sept 2020 to 31 Aug 2021

136

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.6 Building Assurance Manager's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Ian McCauley, Building Assurance Manager
Report Number:	RRC21-12-6

1 Summary

1.1 This information report updates the Committee on activities of the Building Assurance section over the six-month period since the last report issued 6 May 2021.

1.2 Tasman District Council is legally required under the Building Act 2004 to perform the functions of a Building Consent Authority and must maintain Accreditation under the Building Regulations 2006. The IANZ Audit on the building consents team in late October was a very good result with minor issues to resolve for re-accreditation.

1.3 The last six months have not shown any slowdown in building consent applications, and we are on track to meet or exceed our 12-month forecast. There have been significant staff challenges particularly in the building support and consent processing teams with the loss of experienced staff and constant renewed training demands for the replacements to meet our service obligations. However, some staff within the team, seeking career progression opportunities have successfully moved into technical roles and this has been a positive change, although the backfilling has been particularly demanding on the building support team.

1.4 In March 2020 MBIE conducted an audit of the territorial authority functions under the Building Act, focusing specifically on Pool inspection obligations and Building Warrants of Fitness (BWOF’s). The audit highlighted some shortcomings and required a detailed strategy to work toward better compliance. As Council is aware, we have diverted resources to improve pool compliance. This has meant other compliance workstreams have fallen behind. Progress reports to MBIE will continue until we stabilise, and we are on track with the strategy to achieve this.

1.5 The team is functioning well and although having suffered setbacks with resignations of experienced officers meaning higher workload demands, the replacements are highly motivated, and the team morale is good.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee receives the Building Assurance Manager's Report RRC-21-12-6.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report informs the Council of the activities of the Building Assurance Section since the last report issued on 6 May 2021.

4 Building Control Functions and Delivery

Regulation 18 Diploma

4.1 The building consent processors and inspectors undertaking the Diploma in Building Surveying completed their last assignments this month with the overall results expected in late December. They have all invested a significant amount of their own time to complete the level-6 Diploma and this has been very demanding while carrying out their processing and inspection duties. Their dedication, perseverance and assistance given to each other during this demanding work has been commendable.

4.2 Service delivery has been maintained at 99% within statutory timeframes both for building consents and code compliance certificates, as well as achieving our Activity Management Plan Performance measures. Details can be seen in the statistical summary in this report.

4.3 A multi-proof consent was issued for the Golden Bay affordable homes project with the purpose to allow for more efficient processing of the same design. Two further applications have been issued under this method of consenting. There is another multi-proof application in the system, however, the progress for these have been slower than we had hoped.

Stakeholder engagement

4.4 Interaction with stakeholders, which includes regular face-to-face meetings, were postponed due to lockdown. Meanwhile, our quarterly Building Assurance report informs our key customers of important updates, legislation changes, and any other relevant matters. These reports have been well commended and are valuable in keeping our customers aligned with important process changes, expectations, and issues they need to be aware of.

5 Compliance Team Function and Service Delivery

5.1 The Compliance section of Building Assurance undertake all the territorial authority responsibilities under the Building Act other than those functions of the building consents team, and include the following:

· Inspections of Pool Fencing

· Processing Building Warrants of Fitness (BWOF)

· Audits of BWOF’s

· Processing building consent exemptions

· Processing Certificates of Acceptance (COA’s)

· Complaints

· Compliance Investigation/ Enforcement

· Issuing Notices (NTF, Dangerous and Insanitary, Infringement, CPU etc.)

Status and work of the Compliance Team

5.2 The Committee may recall the Building Assurance report in May this year noting that the compliance team positions became vacant after its staff moved into other roles within Building Assurance, and the team leader had resigned.

5.3 This meant that replacement staff required significant training for the various tasks. However, our immediate urgency was and is, the backlog of pool fencing and BWoF’s that were also highlighted in the MBIE T/A audit undertaken in May 2020.

5.4 The strategy to regain a stable position on both these functions included the appointment of a fixed term specialist administration officer.

5.5 We have achieved good results and are on track to inspect all pools on our register by the end of the year. The report chart below is generated weekly, monitored for progress and any adjustments made to workflows as deemed necessary.

5.6 The Committee will note that the report includes Building Warrant of Fitness data. It was a requirement to amend compliance schedules to reflect some legal changes made to these in 2013. Tasman District Council has approximately 600 BWoF’s and we are halfway now to achieving the required amendments.

5.7 A ‘Specified System’ is the term used to describe a special feature (system) required to be installed in buildings to ensure that the people who use buildings can do so safely. This includes, escaping out of a building safely if it is on fire; healthy air supply; drinking water supply protected. Mechanical air conditioning; fire alarm systems; backflow prevention devices etc. are all part of what is called a ‘Compliance Schedule.’

5.8 The BWOF is the owners legal statement provided annually to the Council which confirms that the systems contained on the ‘Compliance Schedule’ have been checked and maintained during the previous 12 months.

5.9 The compliance team is also required by MBIE to undertake BWOF audits within our district commensurate with the risk/use of the building and safety systems installed.

5.10 Although building consent exemptions and certificates of acceptance (COA) processing are stable, we are looking forward to focusing attention across these and other compliance tasks after we stabilise pool inspections and BWOF’s. The intention is to audit and review these processes to gain the same level of efficiency that has been successfully applied to pools and BWOF’s.

5.11 The chart below shows the dedicated attention the compliance team are giving to pool fencing and BWOF’s. Once we have caught up, we will organise the pool inspections to be spaced out and maintained in a consistent and regular manner.

6 Determinations/ Practitioner Complaints

6.1 MBIE Determinations. Determination applications to MBIE are prescribed in the Building Act and intended to be a cost-effective way to help resolve disputes that occasionally occur about Regulatory decisions we make. There is a 15-day opportunity to appeal to the District Court if any party disagrees with a final Determination decision. The decision of the district court appeal on the matter is final.

6.2 We currently have six determinations most of which are long overdue for finalising by MBIE.

6.3 Two relate to pool fencing compliance, three to design issues and one to noncompliance with the building consent.

6.4 A Practitioner complaint was formally lodged with ENGNZ against two Chartered Professional Engineers and accepted for independent expert technical review and mediation. This is to be treated confidentially until resolved. We consider we have a responsibility to the sector and the public to hold professional practitioners to account and will do this when we consider it is required.

7 Statistical Summary

7.1 Comparative statistics are shown by the following three columns in the table below.
The comparisons are three 12-month periods between 1 November to 31 October.

7.2 The numbers under ‘Building Consents Issued’ will rise sharply before the end of year with over 100 subdivided lots at the Lower Queen Street development ready for new dwellings. These were delayed in submitting due to subdivision issues however, our stakeholders have advised that most of these are now ready to lodge.

7.3 Seventy-five of these applications are starting to be submitted now at Section 224 stage (prior to title) and we have developed a conditional process for this work to manage the risk (pre-title) which we consider to be low. The difference in the recent StatsNZ figure for new dwellings is due to the different 12-month reporting period. We are tracking to again exceed our last year's new dwellings figures for the same period.

7.4 The BCA has maintained its statutory timeframes for both issuing building consents and code compliance certificates among the highest in the country at 99%. The average days for issuing these are also at 11 for consents and five for CCC’s, which is also meeting our Activity Management Plan performance measures.

7.5 The ‘failed inspections’ at 67% are not a reflection of poor building work but rather the document management tracking system which requires a ‘fail’ to record missing documentation. Inspection blocks are placed if any missing documentation is necessary for a compliance decision. These figures show our building inspectors are using the system as intended which ensures efficient and effective management toward code compliance certificate. Our key customers understand this procedure well and are content because we have met with them and explained the reasons.

Building Assurance Results	1 November 2018 - 31 October 2019	1 November 2019 - 31 October 2020	1 November 2020- 31 October 2021
Building Consents Issued	1407	1453	1429
New Dwelling Consents Issued (excluding Amendments)	480	567	515
Average Processing Days	12	12	11
Building Consents Processed within time %	96%	97%	99%
CCC Applications	1176	1048	1267
CCC Issued	1046	1105	1255
CCC Issued within time %	99%	99%	99%
CCC Average Processing days	0.9	3	5
Inspections	7518	7615	8255
Failed Inspections %	40%	53%	67%

8 Resourcing Considerations

8.1 During 2021, and within the last six months, the BCA unfortunately lost some experienced technical processors. This put significant constraints on the team because they were fully competent, productive processors. While we are very pleased to have filled these positions, the training and supervision requirements before the new staff begin to be productive is intensive and demanding for between 6-12 months.

8.2 We are meanwhile pleased to have reliable contracts in place to assist as required until we build up our internal capacity again.

8.3 Although the constraints are significant due to the new processing staff, the team is managing well and despite their regular assignments for their Building Surveyor Diploma throughout the year, we maintained good performance statistics. The inspections team is fully resourced and stable.

9 Risk Management

9.1 Building assurance risks have been assessed and added to the Council’s risk register. Consequences and controls have been listed and categorised. Building Assurance’s main risk mitigation continues to be ensuring that all technical staff are competent to assess building consent applications and issue only when compliance with the building code is demonstrated. Inspectors must in turn only issue Code Compliance certificates when the building work is completed in accordance with the building consent.

9.2 IANZ accreditation helps provide the Council with a level of assurance that our Quality Management System (QMS) is working. This QMS includes training toward competence, evidence of effectiveness of training, internal audits and continuous improvement which all assist in mitigating risk to the Council. The IANZ audit result completed earlier this month has confirmed in the report that the building consent authority functions continue to present a low risk to the Council.

10 Tasman District Council BCA Accreditation Audit

10.1 International Accreditation NZ (IANZ) undertook its biannual audit which ran over a five-day period concluding on Tuesday, 2 November. This Audit is required to measure the performance and compliance of the BCA functions against the Building Regulations 2006.

10.2 The Auditors were generally complimentary of the work of the BCA and particularly commented that our statutory timeframes were amongst the best in the country. They recognised this was achieved despite considerable constraints imposed such as eight technical staff undergoing Diploma training, loss of some key staff and consistently high consent application numbers.

10.3 The summary below is taken from the IANZ report.

RISK ASSESSMENT

‘The BCA’s risk, both to the Territorial Authority, as a BCA and also as an organisation accredited by IANZ was assessed. The BCA was considered to pose a Low Risk. The main reasons for considering this risk category were:

· A relatively low number of GNCs were raised during the assessment.

· The GNCs raised were generally minor in nature.

· There were no major concerns regarding the BCA’s technical output.

· The BCA had been generally compliant with accreditation requirements since the last assessment.

· The BCA appeared to have a stable management team.’

10.4 Of the 14 ‘General Noncompliance’ (GNC’s) received:

· Four (4) were cleared on site.

The remaining 10 GNC’s were as follows:

· Three (3) related to external contracts.

· Three (3) to Compliance schedules.

· Two (2) related to our training process.

· Two (2) minor process additions.

10.5 We developed a clearance plan for all of these GNC items which has been submitted for review by IANZ.

11 Building Act/ Code changes

11.1 The Building Assurance report in May 2021 provided information on the Building Amendment Bill 2021, This bill was passed into law by Royal assent on 7 June 2021 and provided for Modular Components Manufacturing (MCM), Building Products Information Requirements (BPIR), and Product Certification improvements.

11.2 The various and significant supporting regulations that are currently being drafted will underpin these changes to the Building Act.

12 Earthquake Prone Buildings

Progress

12.1 Motueka, Takaka, Collingwood and Richmond remain to be completed for Earthquake Prone Buildings (EQPB) assessment and in that order. We decided to leave Richmond last due to the volume and public engagement work that may be generated.

12.2 Motueka is expected to have all assessments completed by the end of this year.

12.3 On 20 July 2021, we held a workshop with the Motueka Community Board in preparation for the earthquake prone building assessments that were next to be done in Motueka, beginning with the strategic routes.

12.4 Motueka is in a medium seismic zone with associated timeframes below:

· EQPB assessment by the Council within 10 years (priority buildings 5 years)

· Strengthening work completed within 25 years (priority buildings 12.5 years)

12.5 The streetscape assessment on the buildings located on the strategic routes has been completed, and a detailed desktop review is underway.

12.6 Contact lists were prepared in anticipation for the intended public engagement, however, due to Covid-19 lockdowns and the subsequent social distancing, this has not been attainable to date, therefore we are amending the comms strategy to a combination of mailouts, website information, and FAQ’s. Any further enquiries that follow can be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

System improvements

12.7 Concerted effort has gone into setting up a system that will allow for more simplified reporting and information retrieval for those buildings which have either been identified as ‘potentially’ or confirmed earthquake prone. The reporting is considered paramount, not only to supply information for MBIE requirements, it also usefully enables the monitoring of dates and deadlines. The earthquake prone status of a building, where relevant to a specific property, will now be simply presented on LIMS.

13 Expectations in 2022?

13.1 MBIE expect that councils will actively identify pools in their districts which are not registered. After we stabilise pool inspections that are on our register, we will be using various initiatives in our district to this end which will include:

· Active engagement with pool suppliers

 Communication strategies and potential ‘amnesty’ periods

 Aerial GIS

14 Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.7 Regulatory Managers Six Monthly Report
1 March to 30 September 2021

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Adrian Humphries, Regulatory Services Manager
Report Number:	RRC21-12-7

1 Summary

1.1 This is a six-monthly status report on activities within the Regulatory Section (the last report was RC20-11-5). Compliance activity will be reported separately on a bi-annual basis.

1.2 Two staff have left us and three have joined over the period. The Harbourmaster team also received an international award.

1.3 Issues with a backlog of food premise verifications caused by COVID 19 access limitations have been cleared, in part by using s food contractor. Enforcement action was instigated against an insanitary food supplier with a successful outcome.

1.4 An application for an Off-Licence in Motueka caused angst for many of the community but was withdrawn by the applicant. Alcohol license applications were up by over 10% on the same period last year.

1.5 Health licensing saw a slight increase on last year, this is most likely due to lockdown rebound and the increase in demand.

1.6 Dog numbers have increased by 4% to 11.897 registered dogs.

1.7 Parking has been busy, however, some restrictions still exist on issuing tickets for out-of-date registrations and warrants.

1.8 Freedom camping has been quiet over winter. Proposed legislative changes have been put on hold by Central Government.

1.9 The grounding of the FV Mistral caused some excitement and lots of frustration due to its location.

1.10 Development Contributions continue to be collected to support the ongoing expansion in council infrastructure.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee receives the Regulatory Managers Six Monthly Report
1 March to 30 September 2021 report RRC-21-12-7

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report informs the Council of the activities of the Regulatory Section over the period 1 April 2021 to 30 September 2021. The Compliance and Monitoring team, although part of the Regulatory Section, report to the Council separately on a biannual basis.

4 Regulatory Section Activity Report

Staff

4.1 Graham Caradus retired in April after 50+ years in the Civil Service. He was last seen enjoying his yacht in the Marlborough Sounds! We were very fortunate to have a high calibre of applicants to replace him and managed to secure the services of Daniel Winter.

4.2 We have also recruited two Compliance officers, Kathy Richardson and David Francis. Kathy has an enforcement background with Police and other government agencies. She has taken over the air discharges portfolio vacated by Jane Stuart when she moved to the freshwater compliance role. David is in a general compliance role and has a great deal of variety to cope with. He was previously employed in a similar role in Nelson City Council.

4.3 Jimmy Mackay (Deputy Harbourmaster) left us and we were fortunate enough to recruit Paul Appleby in his stead. Paul is a very experienced mariner and had worked for Council as a part time contractor last summer.

Search and Rescue Award: After previously receiving a Certificate of Achievement from New Zealand Search and Rescue, the Harbourmaster team involved with the rescue of the Ocean Jem were winners of an International Maritime Rescue Federation (IMRF) Award. The award category was Outstanding Team Contribution to Marine SAR Operations. The award was jointly shared by Nelson Coastguard, RCCNZ, Police SAR, and the Tasman Harbourmaster. Without the involvement of the team a serious situation would have become much worse.

Food Safety

4.4 COVID-19 left us with a backlog in food verifications which had to be cleared. To assist in this we employed a contractor who carried out some of the necessary visits. We have been fully up to speed for over 4 months and are able to incorporate new National Programmes into our audit schedule.

4.5 Late last year council EHOs carried out enforcement inspections on an unregistered butcher in Hope. The Ministry of Primary Industries prosecuted the owner in September, and this resulted in the judge imposing a $24,000 fine against the butcher. As they had no means to pay, this was changed to 240 Hours Community Work. The importance of this conviction should be seen in context – over 240 transactions including selling to cafes, and the hygiene standards in the butchery were very poor. Action by our EHOs removed a serious risk to public health.

4.6 Work on the food safety Quality Management System (QMS) is progressing. Once successfully audited this will allow our team to include National Programmes on its verification list.

Sale of Alcohol

4.7 An application in October 2020 for an Off-Licence in Motueka caused angst for many of the community. In total 266 objections were made against granting the licence, mostly from local residents. The application was opposed by the Police, Medical Officer of Health and the Licensing Inspector. The applicants decided to withdraw their application shortly before the matter was due to be heard by the District Licensing committee.

4.8 No Controlled Purchase Operations have been carried out over the period due to COVID.

4.9 Alcohol licenses issued over the period are shown below:

Table 1: Alcohol Licences issued over the period 1 April to 30 September 2021
Type	2020	2021
Club Licence	12	14
Off Licence	28	23
On Licence	45	29
Special Licence	11	26
Managers Certificate	133	164
Temporary Authority	8	8
Totals	237	264

Health Licences

4.10 These are issued under the Health Act:

Table 2: Total Health Licences held as of 30 September 2021
Camping Grounds	45
Food Control Plans/ National Programmes (including Mobile Shops)	495 (363 verified by the Council)
Hairdressers	48
Funeral Directors	5
Offensive Trades	11

Noise Complaints

4.11 People seem to have been partying more and working less this year!

Table 3: Noise Complaints over period 1 April to 30 September 2020 and 2021
Type	2020	2021
Music/Party	236	264
Machinery	76	66
Animal	2	1
Other	30	26
Total	344	357

Dog Control

4.12 Registrations – compared to last year, 446 more dogs have been registered in the District, this represents about a four percent increase. More targeted enforcement has led to fewer unregistered dogs. The number of menacing dogs has also decreased as the numbers of dogs classified purely because of their breed has dropped.

Table 4: Dog numbers as of 30 September 2021
	2020	2021
Dogs Registered	11,451	11,897
Dogs Unregistered	34	14
Total	11,485	11,911
Classified Dogs
Dangerous Dogs	24	23
Menacing Dogs	87	78

4.13 Prosecutions – One dog attack is still before the Court.

4.14 Infringements - We have issued infringement notices for a range of offences under the Act. It should be noted that before issuing an infringement notice for failure to register a dog, we have attempted to contact the dog owner at least three times. Contact methods include letters, emails, and phone calls where we have the appropriate details.

Table 5: Summary of Dog Infringements – 1 April 2020 – 30 September 2021 and same period in 2020
Infringement	Issued
	2020	2021
Failing to register dog	180	67
Failing to keep controlled	11	10
Failure to comply with classification	2	2
Willful obstruction of an officer	2	0
Failure to comply with barking abatement	2	2
Failure/refusal to supply correct information	1	0
Failure to implant microchip transponder	0	1
Total	198	82

Stock Control

4.15 Wandering stock incidents are much the same as for previous years. Control Services Tasman Ltd (CSTL) have good relationships with farmers throughout the District who will often assist with resolving such issues.

Litter and Illegal Dumping

4.16 In collaboration with the Engineering Services Department, we have been cracking down on illegal dumping. The use of covert cameras at several locations has enabled us to identify offenders and take action against them. Over the period, ten $400 infringement notices were issued. The cameras are moved to new and potential hotspots as required.

4.17 A litter strategy team has been set up in council to investigate ways of addressing ongoing issues.

Parking

4.18 During the pandemic lockdown, a moratorium was put on issuing infringement notices for expired warrants and registrations. This, combined with severe restrictions on movements, resulted in reduced income for several months and will be seen more with reduced Court returns over the next few periods.

Table 6: Summary of Parking Infringements 1 April to 30 September 2019 and 2020
Period	Issued	Paid	Cancelled	To Court	Total $ Anticipated
2020	1,543	1,040	164	260	$69,760
2021	2,786	1,700	439	655	$106,506
Actual Income
2020	$80,213.16*
2021	$122,896.44*

*Includes income from the Courts for historical fine payments

Freedom Camping

4.19 During the winter, freedom camping continues, but at a much lower level. The re-emergence of Covid-19 meant that once again complaints received related to a lack of appropriate social distancing by campers. Few other issues were raised. A defendant for an infringement notice issued in February requested a hearing and the matter was dealt with in the Nelson District Court. The Court found against Council accepting that the defendant had been merely resting as opposed to camping. This decision will have wider national ramifications, as in the future Council will have to gather significantly more evidence to prove a person is “camping” and not “Resting” as defined by the Freedom Camping Act. The matter has been raised with the Department of Internal Affairs who have recently postponed their review of the Freedom Camping Act until at least next year.

Table 7: Summary of Complaints and Infringements for Freedom Camping 1 April to 30 September 2020 and 2021
Period	Infringements Issued	Complaints Received
2020	7	63
2021	1	17

4.21 There will be no Responsible Camping Fund support from Government this year.

Harbourmaster

4.22 Commercial Operators: Commercial operators who specialize in local tourism are still doing well, but the larger water taxi and kayak companies are still substantially down on tourist numbers due to Covid. The school holidays are still seeing good numbers in the National Park, but during the intervening times the operators are gearing back to using only the smallest of their passenger carrying vessels etc. The kayak companies in particular are well down in numbers, as without the international tourists the numbers of guided kayak trips are ~70% down. Despite offering a 50% reduction in fees during the 2020 21 year we are now back to charging full fees for the operator’s commercial vessel licencing, these fees were set just before the second lockdown and were due 31 October.

4.23 Harbourmaster Vessel: Sentinel is now over 5 years old and has done ~2200 engine hours. Sentinel recently had its end of term (5 year) survey, and it passed with no issues, this included an inspection of the fuel tank and a complete structural integrity inspection of the hull. The motors are still performing well, however, running an outboard for 2200 hours is roughly equivalent to the wear seen in 250,000 km car. They are due replacement in the next financial year.

4.24 Whale Rock navigation marker: This is a Maritime NZ marker situated near Bark Bay in the Abel Tasman and it was lost during the storm on 6 July. The mark is important as it identifies a submerged rock ~200 meters offshore that puts boats in danger as they transit the area. The Tasman Harbourmaster put out a temporary marker buoy and then worked with Maritime NZ to reinstate the aid to Navigation.

4.25 Seasonal buoys: The 180 seasonal buoys (marking navigational hazards, ski lanes and swim areas etc) were put out in September and October. It takes ~4 weeks to prepare the navigation aids for deployment as we need to maintain the weights, chains, and buoys seasonally. We used to pay a contractor to do the in-water deployment of the seasonal buoys but this year we again used our own barge (towed by Sentinel) to do this work, and this results in savings for Council.

4.26 Community engagement and education: Due to Covid we are finding many of the regions scheduled Maritime events have been cancelled. Of the six pre-Christmas Maritime events that are usually held we have only held two so far. Hopefully the ten events that are usually held post-Christmas will still be able to go ahead. Cancellations have so far included the Clued-up Kids program, the Kaiteriteri Waka Ama, and the Santa Parade.

4.27 TDC Boating and Water Sports Brochure: 4000 copies of the summer 2021-2022 Boating and Water Sports Brochure are currently being printed, and this is a great way for us to get important safety information across to our locals and visiting boaties. We also have six months of tide tables in the brochure, and this encourages boaties to seek out this booklet from the local boat ramps.

4.28 Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) funding: This year the Harbourmaster put in two bids for funding from Maritime NZ. One was towards funding our Harbourmaster/regulatory summer student. This was approved and we have now had funding for this position rolled over for the last 5 years. The second bid was an initiative to have an Education and Enforcement Officer shared across the three top of the south Harbourmaster offices (Marlborough/ Nelson/ Tasman) but was not approved due to cost. We will also be undertaking “No Excuses days” this year where MNZ officers come on board the Harbourmaster boat for ~five days over the summer period.

4.29 Derelict boats: Two derelict boats have been removed under Harbourmaster powers over the last 6 months, one was from Grossi Point, Mapua, and the other was from Trewavas Street, Motueka.

4.30 Marine farming: On 18 July storm seas of ~8 meters height were experienced in Tasman and Golden Bays. This storm action resulted in millions of dollars of storm related damage to local marine farms. The storm resulted in huge crop loss and also hazards to navigation from drifting marine farming equipment, including several entire marine farm lines. It has taken months for the owners to reinstate the marine farms and lessons learnt from the storm damage are that larger anchoring systems need to be put in place. We are also now seeing faster adoption of the new clamp float mussel float technology; this is reducing the amount of plastic in the ocean by reducing the number of adrift mussel floats and also reducing the need for plastic mussel lashing to tie on the floats. In response to the storm damage the Harbourmaster put out hazards to navigation notification associated with the adrift equipment, and also assisted by helping to clean-up the debris. Over the period we have done one nighttime compliance check on the mussel farm lights.

4.31 Signage: Various navigation safety signage has been updated and added to in response to either issues raised by the community or the Harbourmaster team. This includes more signage at designated Ski areas so that the public knows that these areas are for water ski purposes only, and not for general high-speed use. We want to avoid the situation where high speed craft such as jet skis are in the same limited area as water skiers who have fallen off their skis; this has been the cause of fatalities in other districts.

4.32 Motueka Channel Local Knowledge Channel Guide: The Motueka channel guide is now on Version 38. The channel markers have needed to be shifted seven times in the last six months in response to the sand spit having changed shape. Copies of the channel guide are continually being put out at the Motueka ramp, and the guide is also published on the Tasman District Council website. Marking the channel is a very important task in order to prevent local boats from running aground. A particular risk is boats hitting the sand bar at speed, coming to a sudden stop and subsequently causing de-acceleration injuries to the occupants. We are also now standardizing the use of highly visible green plastic mussel floats to mark the channel. These now have radar reflectors, reflective tape and top lights to make night operations safer.

4.33 Launch wardens: We currently have six honorary launch wardens; these are in strategic locations i.e. Mapua, Tapu Bay, Torrent Bay and Port Tarakohe.

4.34 Shipping: We continue to build infrastructure around providing navigation safety services for shipping. We have been coordinating with the Marlborough and Nelson Harbourmasters and will recommend to Council that we will charge the same as Port Marlborough for the provision of navigation safety services to ships. One of the issues we have with coordinating shipping, is that we do not have the staffing to provide a 24-hour, 7 day a week response capability to direct shipping. We are currently in discussions with Port Nelson around using their 24-hour manning and associated VHF channel to assist with this task. Initial discussions are positive as Port Nelson have limited space in their waters to anchor shipping and are keen to work with TDC. Once all of the issues have been addressed a report will be submitted to Council for consideration.

4.35 Moorings: The new plan change has been adopted and we will be able to bring our moorings areas into the new system in the New Year. A report to Council recommending the adoption of the associated Mooring Bylaw will be presented early in the New Year. It is proposed that we have a staged approach to this starting with Mapua, and moving through ten other moorings areas. Moorings licences for new moorings will be issued on a first in first served basis, existing moorings that are resource consented or permitted will be bought into the licensing system according to their existing legal status. As part of this process, we will need to remove all unauthorised mooring structures and we expect this to be controversial as many boaties are used to having free use of these unconsented structures.

Regional Oil Spill Response

4.36 We are required under the Maritime Transport Act (MTA) to have an oil spill response capability to deal with any oil spills in our region. Together with Nelson City Council and Port Nelson we have a team of approximately 20 personnel (who are trained by Maritime NZ) to achieve this.

4.37 Tier 2 Plan – There is a requirement in the MTA for us to produce a Regional Oil Spill Contingency Plan and review it annually. Every five years we must review all elements in depth, this is a significant undertaking. The review was carried out by the Regional On Scene Commanders and signed off by Maritime NZ (MNZ) in April 2021.

4.38 FV Mistral – Council is aware of the protracted response to grounding of the fishing vessel Mistral. MNZ were very happy with our efforts and have asked for a presentation to the national oil spill community on the actions taken as a learning opportunity.

Development Contributions

4.39 Income from DCs is shown in Table 9 below:

Table 8: Development Contribution Invoices 1 April to 30 September 2021
DCs	Apr-21	May-21	Jun-21	Jul-21	Aug-21	Sep-21	Totals
Roading	13,959	80,157	22,034	88,212	144,790	197,790	546,943
Stormwater	95,057	166,771	22,235	203,894	651,242	596,790	1,735,989
Water	166,804	355,408	37,998	162,694	724,792	403,665	1,851,362
Wastewater	219,174	455,821	7,650	192,233	868,470	743,918	2,487,265

Totals	494,995	1,058,158	89,917	647,034	2,389,294	1,942,162	6,621,560

5 Conclusion

5.1 Another busy six months for the team. Covid-19 did not see a reduction in workload but did see some ongoing challenges such as working remotely. We are experiencing more negativity from some members of the community in many areas of our work. This may be due to COVID fatigue or changes in the make-up of the people in the district amongst other things. Despite this, staff continue to offer service at a level which is exceptional i.e. In the Customer Survey conducted by Research First, they recorded levels of satisfaction at 85% (environmental health) and 95%(dogs).

Table 9: Annual Communitrak^tmSurvey
	Score - showing proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree
Question	Dogs	Environmental Health
Staff were helpful and courteous	80.0 (90.0)	96.0 (90.0)
Costs were reasonable	87.0 (94.0)	60.0 (80.0)
Time taken was reasonable	93.0 (94.0)	87.0 (84.0)
Overall level of satisfaction with Council service	95.0 (96.0)	85.0 (92.0)

Figures in brackets refer to the 2020 survey.

5.2 We look forward to continuing to serve our community as best as we can

6 Attachments

Nil

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

8.8 Road Naming Policy

Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Dennis Bush-King, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RRC21-12-8

1 Summary

1.1 The Council is responsible for the naming and renaming of roads. Since 2012, the Council has had a Road Naming Policy which provides guidance to developers and staff. This report recommends that the Committee adopt an updated Policy.

1.2 The new version has made a number of changes including:

1.2.1 Merging of processes for roads and private rights of ways, including an updated application form

1.2.2 Provision for iwi/Māori to be notified of name changes

1.2.3 Updating and technical edits.

1.3 However, the Policy retains its overall structure in compliance with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing.

1.4 The naming of roads is delegated to the Community Boards and where there is no community board, to the Group Manager, Environmental Assurance. Both Community Boards are happy with the draft policy and we received some feedback from iwi and additions were made.

1.5 Place names are an important part to confirming and maintaining identity and iwi feedback on the Policy asked that provision be made for an iwi representative to be around the table when road naming decisions are made. Until wider representation matters are considered, and in addition to the provisions of the policy, provision could be made for iwi participation in the decision-making process if the Council wishes to do this without necessarily changing the delegations already in place. Staff recommend that the Council seizes this opportunity for increased participation as it addresses iwi feedback and algins with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi

1.6 This report recommends the Committee adopt the policy as included in Attachment 1 to this report.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

1. receives the Road Naming Policy report RRC21-12-8; and

2. adopts the Road Naming Policy dated 3 December attached as Attachment 1 to Report RC21-12-8; and

3. notes that staff will liaise with the Community Boards over inviting an iwi representative when considering road naming proposal and that for staff delegated decisions, they will be informed by consultation with a nominated iwi representative.

3 Purpose of the Report

3.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval to an updated Road Naming Policy included in Attachment 1 to this report.

4 Background and Discussion

4.1 The Council has had a Road Naming Policy which has provided guidance to developers and staff since 2012. When land is subdivided and new roads created, the Council has the power to name roads and developers are encouraged to provide suggestions. The policy outlines the matters to be considered. Names can reflect geographical, cultural, or historical associations with the place where the road is situated.

4.2 The new version (see Attachment 1) has made several changes including:

4.2.1 merging of processes for roads and private rights of ways, including an updated application form

4.2.2 provision for iwi/Māori to be notified of name changes

4.2.3 updating and technical edits.

4.3 However, the policy retains its overall structure in compliance with AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing, which is the national standard that the New Zealand Geographic Board expects local authorities to follow.

4.4 The naming of roads is delegated to the Community Boards and where there is no community board, to the Group Manager, Environmental Assurance. Both Community Boards are happy with the draft policy and we received some feedback from iwi and additions were made.

4.5 Place names are an important part to confirming and maintaining identity. Iwi feedback on the Policy asked that provision be made for an iwi representative to be around the table when road naming decisions are made This would require a change to the delegations register, including to the composition of the Community Boards in relation to road naming decisions. Until wider representation matters are considered, and in addition to the provisions of the policy, the Mayor could ask for iwi to nominate a person to participate in the decision-making process to provide a Te Ao Māori perspective, even though the decision would rest with the Council delegate. Staff can approach the Community Boards if this change is supported. Staff recommend that we explore this opportunity without changing the Delegations.

4.6 This report recommends that the Committee adopt the Policy as included in Attachment 1 to this report.

5 Options

5.1 The Committee has the option of adopting the Road Naming Policy as recommended, or with amendments. The option of not adopting an updated policy means the current outdated version will continue to apply. It is recommended an updated version is adopted.

6 Strategy and Risks

6.1 The naming of roads, and especially the renaming of existing roads, which the policy also covers, can at times be a source of controversy and emotion. The policy discourages the naming of roads after living people unless recognising a significant community contribution and family names must have an historic or cultural association. Some people are unhappy with these constraints, but staff are generally able to manage these expectations.

7 Policy / Legal Requirements / Plan

.7.1 Section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974 provides the mandate to the Council for road naming and numbering. There is no obligation for the Council to have a policy to guide the use of these legal powers, but it is appropriate that there is a policy in place for guidance to developers and staff.

8 Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 There are no financial implications arising from adopting this policy which are not already covered within any operational budgets.

9 Significance and Engagement

9.1 Having a Road Naming Policy is optional. Because it is an operational policy, it is considered to be of low significance. Targeted consultation has taken place with iwi and the Motueka and Golden Bay Community Boards. It is not considered necessary that any wider consultation or engagement with the wider public is needed either prior to, or subsequent to the Committee considering this report.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low
4.	Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?	Not applicable
5.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes	Roads are a significant Council asset but their naming is not of high strategic importance
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?	Mo
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	Provision made within the Policy for iwi participation

10 Conclusion

10.1 The current Road Naming Policy is outdated and merits revision. It is recommended that the Committee adopts the version included as Attachment 1 to this report.

11 Next Steps / Timeline

11.1 Following adoption, the new policy will be uploaded to the Council’s website and applied. We will let developers and others know through either email and/or Newsline.

Attachments

Road Naming Policy

184

Tasman District Council Regulatory Committee Agenda – 02 December 2021

2.3 Environmental Assurance Manager's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	2 December 2021
Report Author:	Dennis Bush-King, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RRC21-12-10

1 Summary

1.1 This report covers several general matters concerning the regulatory activities of the Council since meeting of the Regulatory Committee on 21 October 2021.

2 Draft Resolution

That the Regulatory Committee:

1. receives the Environmental Assurance Manager's Report RC21-12-10; and

2. endorses the submissions made in respect of the Resource Management (Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (Attachment 1), and the Discussion Paper on Wetland Management (Attachment 2) contain in Report RC21-12-10; and

3. endorses the Enforcement Policy attached as Attachment 5 to Rep RC 21-12-10 as a guide to staff in exercising enforcement obligations on behalf of the Council; and

4. notes the Enforcement Policy will be uploaded on to the Council website as information to the public on how we meet our enforcement obligations following a style review by Communications staff.

3 Natural and Built Environment Bill

3.1

3.1 The Select Committee considering the Government’s early exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill (NBEB) has reported back to Parliament.

3.2 The majority of the Committee considered that the development of the NBEB should proceed, and that the full Bill be introduced to the House of Representatives. Some of the provisions in the exposure draft should be redrafted to better reflect the reform objectives. Recommendations were reached by majority, and the report should be read in this way. There are 37 specific recommendations which support most of Tasman District Council’s submission. Not supported by Tasman District Council is the recommendation that there be an option for environmental limits to be expressed as a permitted maximum amount of harm or stress.

3.3 The report recommends further work on:

· Te Tiriti O Waitangi principles

· Resolving conflicts between outcomes

· Regulations that need to be articulated in the National Planning Framework (NPF)

· Planning committees, their role,representation, and secretariat functions

· Implementation principles.

3.4 The Committee agreed there needed to be a substantial role for local authorities in place-based planning, even though it supported having one plan per region. The Committee noted the strong submissions from Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council about the different environmental character and issues in our regions, and opposition to requiring a combined plan for all three councils across Te Tau Ihu (the top of the South Island). Some Committee members agreed with these concerns.

3.5 Local government concerns raised about the NBEB plan process and the need for close engagement with the sector were acknowledged and accepted. The Committee agreed that it is important there is strong local democratic input in the making of NBEA plans. It was accepted that local authorities have experience with consenting and broader regulatory aspects, and it is important that local councils continue to play a substantial role within the NBEB’s proposed plan-making framework. The Committee confirmed that Māori had a critical role in plan making, including having advisers as part of any secretariat, to advise on mātauranga Māori. Also flagged was an ill-defined role for central government in assisting planning committees to achieve as much consistency as possible when developing NBE plans.

3.5 Treaty settlements have established co-governance and co-management arrangements regarding specific taonga which need to be upheld. Submissions from Māori set out two approaches to partnership that could be incorporated within the NBEB. One approach was to set up national and regional co-governance bodies, comprising iwi/hapū appointees and local and central government appointees. Another approach included the establishment of “mana whakahaere councils” and regional executive committees which would comprise iwi, hapū, and Māori landowners.

3.6 The Committee has reshaped the clauses on environmental limits and environmental outcomes, shifting them out of the Purpose part of the Bill and created a new concept of Transitional Limits which will be set in the NPF. Environmental targets may also emerge as something to work within. There is still much uncertainty over how these will apply and how internal conflicts will be reconciled.

3.7 The Committee suggested the carryover of all relevant definitions already defined under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) unless policy intent changes were involved. It was noted that further direction on how principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are to be given effect to is needed, including, but not limited to, local government’s role in Treaty partnership.

3.8 The Minister has established a steering group with local government Mayors and Chief Executives to engage on the details of the reform proposals going forward.

4 Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD)

4.1 The Government has published its Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD), a follow-up to its more specific National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) from last year directing councils to consider densifying their inner city suburbs. This latest GPS HUD was required by October 1 under the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Act 2019 and must be reviewed every three years.

4.2 The GPS-HUD outlines the Government’s vision for housing and urban development, informed by four aspirational outcomes and six focus areas. These priorities outline the actions needed to take over the short to medium term to transform housing and urban outcomes. The GPS-HUD signals Government’s commitment to adopting new ways of working and partnering with individuals and organisations across the housing and urban development system to deliver change, including expectations of local government.

4.3 The Tasman Region, despite having high unaffordability indices, is not listed as a housing and urban development focus area.

5 Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

5.1 Councillors had a workshop on the proposed legislation that could allow up to three buildings, three stories high on qualifying residential allotments. A submission was prepared and is tabled for retrospective endorsement as the closing date was 16 November 2021 – see Attachment 1.

6 Essential Freshwater

Changes to Wetland Rules

6.1 The Government has proposed changes to the National Environmental Standards as they affect activities involving the disturbance or destruction of wetlands. The intent behind the changes is to be commended, which is to clarify the application of the standards on such activities as quarrying, landfills, and urban development; improve the definition of a natural wetland as it applies to farms in pasture, along with other minor changes. A submission was circulated for review prior to the closing date and is enclosed for endorsement
(Attachment 2).

Intensive Winter Grazing (IWG)

6.2 The Regional Sector has recently submitted its second quarterly report to the Minister for the Environment on what is happening nationally, so it is timely that we update Council on the Tasman experience.

6.3 Staff undertook flyovers of Golden Bay and Murchison areas in July to identify properties which were at risk of breaching the proposed IWG regulations. Site visits were undertaken on these farms in early August and the visits proved to be very beneficial allowing staff to assess IWG following the extreme weather events experienced in Golden Bay during July. Pugging was seen to be a major issue especially for those properties grazing on swedes as they were obviously disadvantaged with the proposed pugging rules. No discharge of sediment or effluent to freshwater was identified. Discussions and education focused on the sowing of critical source areas and grazing of grass/crop buffer at the end of the IWG cycle. Concern was expressed at the proposed dates for resowing, with a number of farmers indicating they will not be undertaking IWG in the future. The proposed changes to the IWG regulations have negated a lot of the concerns expressed by the farmers around pugging and resowing dates. Educational site visits will continue and focus on critical source areas, well established buffers and demonstrating good management practice.

6.4 Five community engagement meetings were undertaken within the Tasman Region during October in conjunction with the Rural Support Trust and these covered the entire suite of Freshwater related regulations including IWG. Some informative discussions were had, and staff have a number of questions to follow up on. Farmers spoken to are generally well informed and aware of the pending regulations, the majority have engaged with one of the many groups providing guidance and support on IWG practice. There has been strong collaboration between primary sector organisations, farming groups and Council to ensure farmers are onboard and proactively thinking about the 2022 IWG season. Staff have indicated that the upcoming 2022 winter will be a ‘trial run’ for the new regulations, which are now expected to come into force on 1 November 2022.

7 Waste Management Legislative Review

7.1 The Ministry for the Environment is consulting on a reform of the waste management, including a review of the Litter Act. Te kawe i te haepapa para | Taking responsibility for our waste: Proposals for a new waste strategy, the Government is dramatically changing the approach to what it calls a circular economy approach and proposing a new legislative framework. A workshop was held to brief Councillors on 17 November and submissions close 10 December 2021 (extended from 26 November).

7.2 Any new legislation is planned for 2023. The Government’s intention behind the review is to:

7.2.1 ensure the data, regulations and strategy are in place for transformational change

7.2.2 get resource recovery and recycling systems working well

7.2.3 reduce emissions from organic waste

7.2.4 stimulate innovation and redesign for long-term change

7.2.5 understand the scale and best approach for remediating past damage, and

7.2.6 establish long-term information and education programmes.

7.3 At the same time, but with a closing date of 16 December 2021, consultation is also proceeding on new regulations controlling the collection, reuse and renewal of tyres and large batteries!

8 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Metrics

8.1 The annual report of regional council’s compliance monitoring and enforcement work has been released. A copy of the National Summary and the figures for Tasman are reported in Attachment 3. The full report can be made available on request.

8.2 There was some media commentary on the fact that Tasman seemingly only monitored 57% of its 4,941 regional consents which required monitoring and that this was the lowest rating (although Auckland and Waikato did not provide figures). The number of consents requiring monitoring for Tasman (and remember our district consents are on top of this figure) was second highest to that of Southland Regional Council, so we are not sure how to interpret the percentage number. Environment Canterbury only reported 1,314 consents requiring monitoring which seems strange given they have a larger number of water permits than most other Councils put together. Staff will seek clarification prior to the next survey.

8.3 However, we accept that we have not been able to get around to monitoring all the consents that should technically be monitored by an on-site visit or assessed by other means. Staff have to allocate their time to dealing with complaints and permitted activity monitoring as well as consent monitoring and take a risk-based approach. While I cannot definitively reassure the Committee, I would say that those consents that are not monitored annually would be in the lower risk category.

9 Down in the Weeds

9.1 The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Hon Simon Upton, has released a report on weeds in the environment and the threat they pose to native ecosystems. A summary of key messages is to be found in Attachment 4 to this report.

9.2 The regional pest management plan procedures come in for some fair criticism as being complicated, inconsistent, and not very responsive to pest incursions. Other observations from the report are that the ‘good neighbour’ rule has been ineffective, the cost benefit obligations have not worked and focused on the wrong things, an inference that pests targeted for control reflect public and political pressure, and effort goes into monitoring actions and not outcomes. The Ministry for Primary Industries, as lead agency is criticized as often missing-in-action, and that roles and responsibilities across the sector are generally confusing. The passion and commitment from individuals and community groups was acknowledged and Project De Vine was a case study.

9.3 The recommendations are largely targeted on the Government although one recommendation does implicate regional councils and that suggests more effort is needed to scan for, and respond to, emerging weeds of interest.

10 Making Good Decisions

10.1 The Ministry for the Environment is reviewing the Making Good Decisions Programme, looking at the content, delivery, and effectiveness in light of the resource management reforms. Making Good Decisions is the approved accreditation for commissioners who sit on council hearing panels and make decisions under the RMA.

10.2 I am not sure if any members participated in the independent survey, but the report has found the programme is largely meeting the needs of course participants but there are opportunities for improvement including:

10.2.1 review the structure of the programme to improve it for participants with varying levels of knowledge and experience

10.2.2 include more practical ‘on the ground’ training

10.2.3 help councils identify and contact potential commissioners

10.2.4 greater use of tikanga-based learning and encourage greater adoption of the programme with Treaty partners

10.2.5 always use appropriately experienced trainers to lead te ao Māori elements

10.2.6 more practical training for chairs (e.g., managing conflicts of interest, obtaining specialist advice and helping those with less understanding of hearings processes)

10.2.7 review the training needs of experienced commissioners and how they can support the next generation

10.2.8 improve administration of the course to handle complaints

10.2.9 develop tools for continuous professional development, mentoring, regular practice knowledge updates, and keep commissioners engaged through their career

10.2.10 improve access to content to help lay witnesses with hearings processes.

10.3 The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is looking at developing an online platform for accredited persons to enable further professional development and training.

11 Tower Insurance Changes Flood Risk Pricing

11.1 Tower Insurance have recently announced changes to the way they will assess flood hazards from waterways and rainfall, and the associated risks to property such hazards present. Tower has undertaken its own flood hazard assessment for residential addresses across New Zealand, assigning them a risk rating. Policy holders are able to download an app to access the data. Tower’s insurance premiums will now reflect these risk ratings, with an increase for higher risk properties and a decrease for lower risk properties. Tower’s risk assessment does not presently include coastal inundation and erosion hazards.

11.2 Tower’s press release notes that their risk assessment uses data obtained from New Zealand organisations and institutions, including the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), territorial and regional councils and the Insurance Council of New Zealand. Tower have reportedly included all publicly available flood defence and mitigation measures into their risk assessment. Council staff have not been involved in the risk assessment undertaken by Tower and are not privy to the results of this assessment.

11.3 The Council has provided hazard information, including Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) derived elevation data, to the insurance industry over recent years when requested. This is public information and there is no reason for Council to withhold such information, nor is it Council practice to do so. The interpretation of this data, the determining the risk such hazards present, and its application to insurance premiums is solely Tower’s.

11.4 The Council currently provides natural hazard information upon request to landowners and the wider public, including through the issuing of Land Information Memorandum (LIMs). It is possible that the information Council holds on individual properties, particularly any site-specific information, may differ from Tower’s hazard and risk assessment. Council staff ensure that any hazard information provided to ratepayers and the wider public is both accurate and current. Should an insurance policy holder wish to challenge Tower’s risk assessment, it will be a matter between them and Tower. Without knowing what Tower’s hazard and risk assessment looks like across the Tasman region, it is not possible to comment further at this time.

12 Water Metering

12.1 The Committee asked staff to report back on whether the Council should move bore owners across to telemetered water meters especially given the new Regulations in force. MfE has accepted our interpretation that the regulations do not make telemetry compulsory for all water meters and that weekly readings, as are currently required, are sufficient.

12.2 If higher resolution data was collected, i.e., 15-minute volumes, our water compliance monitoring database would still only be able to accept weekly volumes. The weekly volumes are what compliance is based on for the majority of consented takes. An upgrade of the database is not feasible at the present time.

12.3 Telemetry would likely cut down on the amount of weekly missing readings and the staff effort associated with this. However, the data supplied may still not be 100% accurate, with technical issues more predominant with such technology and our experience suggests that third party suppliers are not as responsive as they could be on behalf of their clients. To prove the accuracy of the data, site visits are often required, requiring more staff time in visiting the meter and auditing the readings.

12.4 There are cost implications for the water user and Council if telemetry were made compulsory. For the user there would be the cost of the equipment and installation along with ongoing data host costs. This may draw the ire of the majority of water users who comply with Council’s requirement for weekly reporting. There would be a cost to Council, as we would likely need to increase or redeploy the staff resource if all 1478 or so metered bores were to be telemetered. We currently manage 103 using this method.

12.5 Managing the data produced at scale would be yet another responsibility to impose on the Council’s information system. The option of dealing with a third-party data host for such a large number of users could become a complicated, time consuming issue around the legality of who is responsible for any missing readings, the consent owner or the data host.

12.6 There are some areas of the District that would have communication issues, which would inhibit telemetry or force a large cost on the consent holder. An alternative such as the current system would be needed in these situations.

12.7 While real time monitoring would avoid the missing return issue, we have option of taking enforcement action against persistent offenders such as an Infringement Fine or an Abatement Notice. An Infringement Fine for breaching Resource Consent conditions (Weekly Readings required) is $500. An Abatement Notice is not designed as punitive but a means to gain compliance. It carries a $750 fine if not complied with and the prospect of prosecution. One would hope that if we employed these measures, they would act to deter others. A further option could be to enforce telemetry on repeat offenders, and this is contemplated in the consents.

12.8 The regulations require a pulse capable meter to be installed to allow future datalogging. Tasman District Council has allowed existing meters that are not pulse capable to be ‘grandfathered’ if they are verified as accurate. As we are not requiring datalogging/telemetry, there is no reason to enforce an extra cost on the consent holder to replace an accurate meter if they were not requiring the use of the pulse capable functionality.

12.9 On balance, the staff view is not to enforce compulsory telemetry. It would seem fairer to take a more robust line with individual offenders for missing readings that are required by regulation, rather than penalise all for something that is not compulsorily required by regulation.

13 Enforcement Policy

13.1 The Council last adopted its Enforcement Policy in November 2016 (Resolution EP16/11/03 refers). The Policy describes the approach taken, and options available, in ensuring compliance with the many and varied rules and regulations the Council has to enforce. It is an operational policy for staff, but it does reside on the Council website as an outward-facing document to explain to readers our approach to meeting our obligations. The 2016 Policy was held up as one of two examples of a good Enforcement Policy in the Ministry for the Environment’s Guidelines for Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement. However, the opportunity has been taken following a recent review to refresh the Policy.

13.2 The main changes made in the update in Attachment 5 include:

· An edit to trim down the size, including removal of all the legislation administered but the essential structure has been retained

· A rewritten introduction

· Inserting a section on managing potential conflicts of interest

· Updating the section on who can make decisions

· Updating the policy to identify the triaging process which reflects, and is proportional to, the nature of any breach or issue.

13.3 It is recommended that the Committee endorses the updated Enforcement Policy. Subject to approval of the text, Comms staff will assist in improving the format prior to uploading on the website.

14 Stewardship Land Consultation

14.1 The Department of Conservation has released a discussion paper Stewardship land reclassification - law reform which looks at the classification and disposal process for stewardship land in New Zealand. Submissions close 8 March 2022. It is unclear whether local authorities have a role to play, and some of the land may be used for Treaty of Waitangi redress so discussion will be held with iwi. However, it looks like there are about 246,262 hectares of land in Tasman District. The actual amount is unclear as the dataset we have used picks up areas such as the Rainbow Conservation Area, the St James Conservation Area, and Lyell Range. A lot of small areas involving roads and streams e.g. Fern Flat Road, Dry Weather Road, Gravel Pit, St Arnaud, Alexander Bluff Road are covered.

15 Action Sheet

15.1 Attachment 6 is the Action Sheet which updates Councillors on action items from previous Committee meetings relevant to the Regulatory portfolio.

16 Attachments

1.	Resource Management (Housing Supply and Ohter Matters) Amendment Bill	206
2.	Submission on Changes to Regulations Affecting Wetlands	212
3.	CME Metrics Report 2020-2021	220
4.	Down in The Weeds	222
5.	Enforcement Policy	226
6.	Action Sheet	236

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