Tasman District Council
Submissions Hearing Agenda – 11 May 2022
3 Reports
3.1
Catchment
Management Plan Motueka
Decision Required
|
Report To:
|
Submissions Hearing
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
11 May 2022
|
|
Report Author:
|
Wouter Woortman, Team Leader
- Infrastructure Planning
|
|
Report Number:
|
RSH22-05-2
|
1.1 This
report has been prepared to assist the Submissions Hearing and Deliberation
Panel (the Panel) to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions received on
the Draft Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan (Draft CMP).
1.2 At
its meeting on 16 December 2021, Full Council approved the Draft CMP for public
consultation (Report Number: RCN21-12-9). The consultation period ran from 3
February 2022 to 4 March 2022. Eight written submissions were received (see Attachment
1).
1.3 This
report assists the Panel to hear submission and provides the Panel with a
summary of the submission received and discusses a range of matters raised in
the submissions, including staff recommendations. Staff recommend several minor
variations to the Draft CMP in response to submissions. Staff do not recommend
large increases in
expenditure and/or the inclusion of major new projects in the final Motueka CMP
because these would not be cost-effective.
1.4 Staff
seek direction on any changes for inclusion in the final Motueka CMP. These
will be discussed with Councillors at a workshop, prior to the final Motueka
CMP being presented for formal consideration and adoption at Full Council on 30
June 2022.
That the Submissions Hearing and
Deliberations Panel:
1. receives
the submissions and deliberation report on the Draft Motueka Town Catchment
Management Plan; and
2. receives
the eight submissions on the Draft Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan
contained in Attachment 1 to this report; and
3. requests
that staff make the following changes to the Draft Motueka Town Catchment
Management Plan in response to matters raised in submissions:
a. include an improvement action
to investigate extending and improving existing wetland and estuary area
between Old Wharf Road and Tudor Street;
b. identify and better articulate the
risk of wastewater overflows to human health and how this relates to stormwater
management in particular areas in Motueka and increase the priority of the
improvement action “Investigate ways to reduce stormwater infiltration
into the wastewater network” from medium priority to high;
c. include links to existing
Council documents that provide better insight into known water quality issues
in Motueka;
d. investigate widening the scope for
the existing Motueka West discharge project and include improvement options for
the wider area, including flooding at the High Street/ Wratt Street
intersection;
e. confirm the prioritisation of
frequently occurring but less severe flooding over rare but extreme flooding as
currently proposed in the draft CMP;
f. investigate localised flood
issues with property owners and provide site-specific advice on potential
improvement actions;
g. include a table with improvement actions
around implementing water sensitive design;
h. articulate more clearly the
maintenance responsibilities for roadside drains;
i. include an improvement
action to investigate Lummis Drain capacity and maintenance issues; and
4. agrees
staff give effect to the recommendations referred to in Resolution 3 above when
preparing the amended Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan; and
5. authorises
staff to make minor wording changes to increase clarity or correct minor errors
when preparing the amended Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan; and
6. agrees
that staff present and workshop the amendments in resolution 3 with Councillors
prior to the Final Motueka Town Catchment Management Plan being presented for
consideration and adoption by Full Council (expected on 30 June 2022).
3.1 This report provides the Hearing and Deliberation Panel (Panel) with
a summary of the submissions received on the Draft Motueka Town Catchment
Management Plan (Draft CMP) and associated staff recommendations for discussion
during deliberations. The report is intended to assist the Panel to:
· hear and deliberate on submissions to the Draft CMP; and
· make recommendations to Full Council on any amendments to the Draft
CMP before adoption.
4.1 At
its meeting on 16 December 2021, the Council appointed a working group to
consider public feedback on the Draft CMP and formulate recommendations to be
considered at a Council workshop prior to the Plan being finalised. The working
group (referred to as the Panel in this report) comprised Councillors Bryant,
Maling, Dowler, Ogilvie, and Walker. Councillor Ogilvie subsequently withdrew
from the Panel so that he may make a submission.
4.2 Hearings
and deliberations will take place at the same meeting of the Panel.
4.3 All
submissions are provided in Attachment 1. A summary of all submissions with
staff recommendations is provided in Attachment 2. A more detailed analysis of
some of the issues raised by submitter David Ogilvie is provided in Attachment
3.
4.4 Two
submitters have indicated that they wish to be heard by the Panel:
· David Ogilvie; and
· Brent Maru, on behalf of the Motueka Community Board.
4.5 Once
the Panel has agreed to any changes to the Draft CMP, staff will discuss these
with Councillors at a workshop, and then prepare the Final Motueka CMP for
adoption by Full Council on 30 June 2022.
4.6 This
report is not confidential. However, during deliberations, the Panel may
discuss matters that are confidential. These matters might include discussions
about flood risks and/or interventions relating to a specific property. If this
occurs, staff recommend the Panel resolve to go into public excluded while the
matter is discussed.
Initial development of the Draft CMP
5.1 Te
Tau Ihu Iwi were approached by staff prior to starting the development of the
Draft CMP and were asked to indicate at what level of involvement they wished
to have.
5.2 Following
this early engagement with iwi, Ngāti Rārua and Te Atiawa were
closely involved in the development of the Draft CMP. Other iwi indicated that
they could not provide input due to insufficient resourcing or did not provide
a response back to staff.
5.3 Global
Stormwater Discharge Consent RM191019 requires the Council to develop catchment
management plans for all 15 Urban Drainage Areas. The Council has an obligation
to manage adverse effects from stormwater discharges from its network.
5.4 The
five key themes that are addressed by the Draft CMP are:
· Streams and Aquatic Habitat
· Contamination Risks
· Flooding
· Growth
· Integration
5.5 At
its meeting on 16 December 2021, the Full Council approved the release of the
Draft CMP for public consultation.
Public
engagement
5.6 The
consultation period ran from 3 February 2022 to 4 March 2022. The public was
notified of the opportunity to provide feedback on the Council’s Website,
Newsline and via social media channels.
5.7 The
Council’s Global stormwater discharge consent also required consultation
with the following organisations:
· Relevant Te Tau Ihu iwi entities and authorities.
· Conservation-based organisations (Nelson-Marlborough Fish and Game
Council, Nelson-Tasman Forest and Bird, Royal Forest and Bird Society of NZ, and
the Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai).
· Local community-based organisation: Friends of Nelson Haven and
Tasman Bay.
· Motueka Community Board.
· Nelson-Marlborough District Health Board.
· Tasman District Council – Environment and Planning Department.
5.8 A
letter was sent to stakeholder organisations informing them of the Draft CMP
(link to Tasman Website) and welcoming their feedback.
5.9 Submissions
were received from three of these stakeholders: Nelson Marlborough District Health
Board; Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay; and the Motueka Community
Board.
5.10 Public
webinars were held on 23 February and 2 March to provide an opportunity for
staff to present the Draft CMP to the community and answer any questions. Both
of these public consultation options were poorly attended. Webinars were
recorded and a link to the recording of the first webinar was added to
Council’s Draft CMP web page.
5.11 Eight
submissions were received by the consultation closing date (see Attachment 1).
6 Summary
of key submission themes and recommendations
6.1 Of
the eight submissions, five are generally in support of the proposed approach
(submissions 29873, 29942, 30971,31001, 31053) and two are in opposition
(submissions (31067 and 31068). One submission did not specify.
6.2 Key
themes raised in the submissions and associated staff recommendations are
summarised below.
6.3 A
complete overview of all submissions and staff recommendations is provided in
Attachment 2.
Stream health
and aquatic habitats
6.4 The
Draft CMP sets targets and related improvement actions to meet the following
aspiration: Our urban streams, aquatic habitats and coastal environments are
healthy and accessible.
6.5 Submitters
generally acknowledge the importance of healthy streams, aquatic habitats, and
coastal environments. One submitter (29942) identified this as the most
important aspiration of the Draft CMP.
6.6 Two
submitters (31001, 31068) highlighted an opportunity to extend the existing
Wharf Road wetland/estuary area.
6.7 Friends
of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay advocated:
· for freshwater flows to be as wide as possible and with meandering
channels so that flooding probabilities are reduced; and
· to maximise the number of freshwater channels throughout the
District, from the hills to the coast.
Staff recommendation:
· Include an improvement action in the final Motueka CMP to
investigate extending and improving the existing wetland and estuary area
between Old Wharf Road and Tudor Street.
Contamination
Risks
6.8 The
Draft CMP sets targets and identifies improvement actions to meet the following
aspiration: Stormwater discharges do not degrade the water quality and
ecosystem health of our streams and estuaries.
6.9 Submitters
generally acknowledge the importance of good water quality and ecosystems.
Submitter 31001 identified this as the most important aspiration of the Draft
CMP.
6.10 Submitter
31067 agreed that contamination is a serious threat if stormwater systems are
inundated but commented that the Draft CMP does not provide a compelling case
that water quality needs improving.
6.11 Two
submitters (30971, 31053) support the proposed improvement action to
investigate how stormwater intrusion into the wastewater system and associated
wastewater overflows can be reduced, or commented that investigations into this
issue should be “ramped up”.
6.12 The
Nelson Marlborough Health Board commented that the plan needs to articulate the
level of risk that wastewater overflows have on human health and what methods
should be used to mitigate these risks.
Staff recommendations:
· Identify and better articulate in the Final Motueka CMP the risk of
wastewater overflows to human health and how this relates to stormwater
management in particular areas in Motueka.
· Include links in the CMP to existing Council documents that provide
better insight into known water quality issues in Motueka.
Flooding
6.13 The Draft CMP sets targets and
identifies improvement actions to meet the following aspiration: Stormwater
flooding does not create a hazard to our community or cause damage to
properties.
6.14 Two submitters (31067, 31068) strongly
oppose the proposed approach to manage flood risk in Motueka, commenting that
the improvement actions do not address the biggest issues, show no intent to be
innovative, and solutions are put in the “too hard basket”.
6.15 Submitter 31068 proposed several
specific engineering interventions to reduce flood risk within specific
sub-catchments in Motueka. A detailed analysis of these proposals including
staff recommendations is provided in Attachment 3.
6.16 Submitter 30971 recommends that the
Council works in partnership with property owners to incentivise on-site
mitigation measures such as rain tanks and soak pits.
6.17 Nelson Marlborough Health Board
supports the objectives and improvement actions but comments that public
awareness of flood risks needs to be increased through education so that
communities can be better prepared for when large storm events happen.
Staff comment
6.18 Staff have investigated a combination
of 17 different intervention options with a stormwater model with the aim of
reducing habitable floor flooding during extreme events (future 1% annual
exceedance probability (AEP) – i.e. a future 1 in 100-year flood) in
Motueka. Modelled options included several of the suggestions made by
submitters and included pumping in some locations, pipe upgrades, development
of open channels/ green corridors as well as combinations of multiple
interventions.
6.19 Potential solutions are effective in
reducing habitable floor flooding for 30-45 properties in the Northeast of
Motueka. These interventions are estimated to cost $30M to $70M and therefore
are not cost-effective, with a cost per property of approximately $1 to $1.5M.
6.20 Lower
cost interventions are not effective in reducing habitable floor flooding
during extreme flood events (1% AEP). However, there are lower-cost options
that help reduce the impacts of nuisance flooding (10% AEP i.e. a 1 in 10-year
flood).
6.21 Measures
such as soakpits, raintanks, and increased sump capacity can help reduce
nuisance flooding or ponding in smaller events but are unlikely to have an
impact in larger more hazardous events that impact the urban catchment. The
Draft CMP proposes the development of a soakage strategy as a high priority to
identify areas where soakage can help alleviate nuisance flooding.
Staff
recommendations:
· Investigate widening the scope for the existing Motueka West
Discharge Stage 1 project and include improvement options for the wider area,
including flooding at the High Street/ Wratt Street intersection. This may
result in cost increases for this project.
· Retain the priority for frequently occurring but less severe
flooding over rare but extreme flooding, as is currently proposed in the Draft
CMP.
· Investigate localised flood issues with property owners and provide
site-specific advice on potential improvement actions.
· Do not invest in flood mitigation on private property unless
improvement actions have positive effects on multiple properties in the wider
area.
Development
6.22 The Draft CMP sets targets and
identifies improvement actions to meet the following aspiration: We enable
water-sensitive growth for future generations.
6.23 Submissions generally support a
transition from a conveyance-focused stormwater management approach to an
integrated water-sensitive design approach.
6.24 Submitter 31053 commented that this section
does not have a table of improvement actions. They recommended that a table is
included because it demonstrates clear action that the Council will undertake.
Staff recommendations:
· Include a table in the final
Motueka CMP with improvement actions for implementing water-sensitive design.
Integration
6.25 The Draft CMP sets targets and
identifies improvement actions to meet the following aspiration: We manage
stormwater in a holistic, efficient and cost-effective manner.
6.26 Three submissions (30971, 31067, 31068)
questioned the true meaning of “cost-effectiveness” in terms of the
real cost to people and property and commented that “cost-effectiveness
had not been well documented in the plan.
6.27 Two submissions (31067 and 31068)
commented that impacts such as climate change, rainfall, and sea level rise
needed to be looked at as a whole.
6.28 Submitter 30971 supported the position
that investment in infrastructure to meet the full 1 in 100-year event level of
service is unaffordable within Council’s current debt level. However,
they also stated that we need to continue seeking opportunities to work in
partnership with the government.
6.29 Submitter
31068 criticised the lack of financial details and commented that the plan fails to attain the standards required of a long-term plan.
They also criticised the lack of monitoring information and provision for
funding.
Staff
recommendation
· Staff consider that integration and subsequent improvement actions
have been detailed in the Plan. The cost-effectiveness of flood improvement
measures (a measure of estimated construction cost per property) is included in
section 6.3 of the Plan. Therefore, staff recommend no change to the CMP in
response to submissions relating to cost-effectiveness or integration.
Other issues raised
6.30 Several
submitters raised issues that were not directly related to the main themes of
the Draft CMP.
6.31 Submitter
29873 commented that some properties do not have a stormwater connection but
are paying the stormwater rate. While not stated in the submission, staff
believe the implication was that the Council should invest more in these areas.
6.32 Three
submissions (29873, 31067,31068) commented
that increased maintenance of Thorp, Woodland and Lummis Creek and roadside
drains was needed. Submitter 31068 commented that an arrangement with the
landowners of Lummis Drain is urgent.
6.33 Two
submitters (29873, 31068) raised concerns about the impact that the development
of Motueka West would have, especially on Woodland Creek.
6.34 Three submissions (30971,
31067,31068) commented on the layout and format of the Draft CMP. These
submitters do not think that the plan is user-friendly, noting that it was confusing
to read. Another submitter (31053), however, congratulated the Council on the
holistic approach and how the information is easily digestible on the
storyboard pages.
6.35 Two submissions (30971, 31068)
commented that consultation had been limited and constrained by Covid and there
was a lack of engagement in the public webinar.
Staff
recommendations
· Articulate more clearly in the final Motueka CMP the maintenance
responsibilities for roadside drains for private landowners and the Council.
· Adding an improvement action in the final Motueka CMP to investigate
Lummis drain capacity and maintenance issues.
· Adding an improvement
action in the final Motueka CMP to assess how level of service improvements can
be incorporated into the Motueka West Discharge Stage 1 project. Staff note
that modelling indicates that Woodland Creek can accommodate expected
discharges from the Motueka West Discharges Stage 1 project, but that impact
will be further evaluated as the project progresses.
· Do not change the reliance on an online format CMP. However, staff
will consider the feedback provided for the development of future CMPs.
7.1 The
options are outlined in the following table.
|
|
Option
|
Advantage
|
Disadvantage
|
|
1.
|
Proceed
with the proposed Draft CMP without amendments
|
No further work required to adopt final plan
|
Submitters
have raised a number of valid points, which staff agree with. No change to
the document may be seen as a failure to listen.
|
|
2.
|
Proceed
with the Draft CMP with the amendments recommended by staff
|
This option will address some of the points raised in
submissions.
Rejects submission proposals that would not be
cost-effective or affordable to the Council or community
|
May
not satisfy submitters whose views have not been incorporated into the
amended CMP
|
|
3.
|
Proceed
with the proposed CMP with other amendments
|
May satisfy some submitters
|
May not satisfy submitters that support the current
approach of the CMP
May
not satisfy submitters whose views have not been incorporated into the
amended CMP
Potentially significant cost implications, especially if a
programme to support a 100-year level of service is sought
|
7.2 Option
two is recommended by staff.
8.1 There
are no identified risks associated with the approval of the proposed amendments
to the Motueka Town CMP. Full Council will make the final decision to adopt the
amended CMP.
8.2 Development
of the Motueka CMP is required by our Global Stormwater Discharge Consent. If
the CMP is not adopted by Council, the Council will not meet the conditions of
this consent.
9 Policy
/ Legal Requirements / Plan
9.1 Addressed
in report RCN21-12-9.
9.2 The development and
consultation of the Draft CMP has been carried out:
· in accordance with the
Council’s decision-making obligations under the Local Government Act
2002; and
· as required per the conditions
outlined in the Global
Stormwater Discharge Consent RM191019.
10 Consideration
of Financial or Budgetary Implications
10.1 The
costs associated with hearing submissions and deliberations have been met
within existing budgets.
10.2 Adoption
of the Motueka CMP will inform future planning and development processes, where
costs will be assessed on an ongoing basis and built into the Council’s
future Long Term Plan processes. Staff do not consider that the variations
proposed to the Draft CMP by staff in this report will result in material cost
increases to the stormwater activity as a whole. However, the increase in the
possible scope of Motueka West Discharge Stage 1 project may increase the cost
of that project.
11 Significance
and Engagement
11.1 Addressed
in report RCN21-12-9. Staff consider that the Motueka CMP is of medium
significance. The consultation process we have followed has provided the public
with the opportunity to outline their views about the appropriateness or
otherwise of the proposals contained in the Draft CMP.
11.2 The
Council can make the recommended changes to the Draft Plan without undertaking
further consultation as these changes are considered of low significance
(detailed in the following table)
|
Issue
|
Level of Significance
|
Explanation of Assessment
|
|
Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be
controversial?
|
Low
|
Eight submissions were received during the consultation period. The
changes recommended to the draft CMP are minor and unlikely to be of high
public interest or controversial.
|
|
Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural
aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?
|
Low - Medium
|
Low for the recommended changes to the draft CMP, which are of a minor
nature.
|
|
Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects
from the decision?
|
Low
|
The recommended changes do not fundamentally alter the management of
stormwater as proposed in the draft plan. The CMP will be reviewed in 6
years.
|
|
Does this activity contribute or detract from one of the goals in the
Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019?
|
No
|
The CMP is intended to help meet the adaptation goals of the Tasman
Climate Action Plan 2019. The recommended changes do not significantly alter
its contribution.
|
|
Does the decision relate to a strategic asset?)
|
No
|
The stormwater network as a whole is considered a strategic asset.
This report covers only the Motueka stormwater system. The recommended
changes to the draft CMP will not materially change the network.
|
|
Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service
provided by Council?
|
No
|
The changes recommended to the draft CMP do not propose changes to the
levels of service.
|
|
Does the proposal or decision substantially affect debt, rates or
Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?
|
Low
|
The changes recommended to the draft CMP do not substantially affect
debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP. However,
the potential increase in scope for the Motueka West Stage 1 project may
increase the cost of that project.
|
|
Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or
controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?
|
N/A
|
|
|
Does the decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or
contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?
|
N/A
|
|
|
Does the decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a
group of activities?
|
N/A
|
|
12.1 Hearing, deliberating, and
making recommendations on the submissions received is a critical part of the
public consultation process and must be completed to successfully adopt the
final Motueka CMP, and to meet the requirements of the Global Discharge Consent
(RM191019).
12.2 There was a low level of public
engagement with the Draft CMP, although the majority of submitters generally
supported the plan. Several suggestions have been recommended for inclusion in
the final Motueka CMP. However, large increases in expenditure and/or the
inclusion of major new projects have not been recommended, because staff do not
consider that these would be cost-effective.
12.3 The recommended changes to the Draft CMP are
considered minor and can be made without further consultation. Staff seek the
Panel’s approval of the recommended amendments for inclusion in the final
Motueka CMP to be considered and adopted by Full Council.
13.1 Following
the hearing and deliberations, staff will
· make
the necessary changes to the Draft CMP, to give effect to the recommendations
of the Panel; and
· workshop
the recommended changes with Councillors; and
· provide the proposed
final Motueka CMP to the Full Council for formal adoption.
13.2 Following adoption, staff will provide the plan to the Tasman District
Council’s Team Leader - Monitoring Enforcement for consent monitoring
and certification.
|
1.⇩
|
Attachment 1 - Submissions
|
16
|
|
2.⇩
|
Attachment 2 - Summary of submissions and recommendations
|
41
|
|
3.⇩
|
Attachment 3 - Additional flood assessment information
|
54
|
