Notice is given that an ordinary meeting of the Golden Bay Community Board will be held on:

 

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue: Zoom conference link: Meeting ID: Meeting Passcode:	Monday 14 August 2023 1.00pm Tākaka Office, 78 Commercial Street, Tākaka https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85033455589?pwd=NnhCYjVsc0hmc2lrTlNaWm16TDRtdz09 Meeting ID: 850 3345 5589 Passcode: 087709
Golden Bay Community Board    Hapori Whānui ō Mohua    AGENDA

 MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	A Langford
Deputy Chairperson	G Knowles
Members	H Dixon	Cr C Butler
	R Hewison	Cr C Hill

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

Contact Telephone: 03 525 0020 Email: jess.mcalinden@tasman.govt.nz Website: www.tasman.govt.nz

 

 

AGENDA

1        Opening, Welcome, KARAKIA TIMATANGA

2        Apologies and Leave of Absence

 

Recommendation That apologies be accepted.

 

3        Public Forum

          Registration is required to speak at public forum. You can register here

4        Declarations of Interest

5        Confirmation of minutes

 

That the minutes of the Golden Bay Community Board meeting held on Monday, 10 July 2023, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

6        Presentations

6.1     Mohua 2042............................................................................................................. 4

6.2     Climate Change and Resilience.............................................................................. 5

6.3     Golden Bay Youth Council Update.......................................................................... 6

7        Reports

7.1     Board Report............................................................................................................ 7

7.2     Pohara Recreation Reserve Tennis Pavilion........................................................ 23

7.3     Request for Approval of a New Street Name - Raniera Way................................ 33

7.4     Financial Summary................................................................................................ 49

8        Correspondence

Nil

9        Confidential Session

Nil

10      KARAKIA WHAKAMUTUNGA (CLOSING)

 

 

6     Presentations

6.1     Mohua 2042

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Jess McAlinden, Team Leader - Customer Services
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:

 

Members from Mohua 2042 Trust will make a presentation to the Golden Bay Community Board  to update them on developments with the Mohua 2042 strategy plan.

 

Nil

 

6.2     Climate Change and Resilience

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Jess McAlinden, Team Leader - Customer Services
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:

 

Barbara Lewando - Senior Climate Change Policy Advisor will make a presentation to the Board on Community Climate Change and Resilience.

 

Nil

 

6.3     Golden Bay Youth Council Update

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Jess McAlinden, Team Leader - Customer Services
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:

 

Members from the Golden Bay Youth Council will give a short verbal update to the Board regarding their activities and projects to support youth mental health and wellbeing.

 

Nil

 

7     Reports

7.1     Board Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Abbie Langford, Chair
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:	RGBCB23-08-4

 

1.1     The Chair’s report is attached inclusion in the agenda.

That the Golden Bay Community Board receives the Board Report RGBCB23-08-4.

3.1     The following topics were raised at public forum:

Topic	Outcome
Paul Sangster raised a number of items including: ·    Bollards installation and removal beside the public toilets at Tata Beach; ·    A stationary crane at Port Tarakohe; ·    Cyclist safety at Port Tarakohe; ·    Shared Path installation along Abel Tasman Drive would result in a loss of car parking that he felt would increase the safety risks to road users in the vicinity of the Pōhara Beach Holiday Park; ·    Suggesting a walkway could have been installed on top of the bund wall behind Kohikiko Place in Pōhara; ·    Concern that the installation of curbing on Meihana Street narrowed the street and created a hazard for large trucks.	All items were noted and forwarded to staff for their information.
Mike Sawyers requested removal of trees and bollards from the historic turning circle outside the old Pohara Beachfront motels.	This feedback was forwarded to staff

4.1     As you may be aware there has recently been an ‘Stop Co-governance’ tour traveling Aotearoa and they have recently held an event in Golden Bay.

4.2     As a Board we were sad to see the ‘Stop Co-governance’ tour happening and coming to Golden Bay. However, we were also happy to see our community pull together, and stand up and say, no, this is not who we are, this is not what we want.

4.3     We as a Board do not condone, support or give any weight to the claims being made by the ‘Stop Co-governance’ movement. We will continue to foster and have strong links to local iwi and sees the benefit, and the role, of local Iwi/Māori into its decision-making and service delivery processes.

4.4     As individuals, it is everyone’s responsibility to educate themselves and to have an understanding of what co-governance is, and what it will mean for Aotearoa. It is our responsibility to stand up and say, no, we won’t listen to scaremongering and untruths.

4.5     Co-governance means partnership, equality and positive change for Aotearoa. We encourage everyone to find out more and have informed conversations.

4.6     There is lots of information to be found on credible sources – check out the Newsroom articles or Democracy Action on the net.

4.7     Waiho i te toipoto, kaua i te toiroa – let us keep close together, not wide apart.

5.1     The Board offers its congratulations to Mayor Tim King who was recently recognised as the winner of the ‘SuperLeader’ award for his consistent commitment to the wellbeing of his community and his forward-thinking approach to leadership at the Ko Tātou Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference.

6.1     The CCTV system that was installed in Takaka has proved very valuable in keeping our community safe, and assisting our police.

6.2     It has been in place for approximately three years and police have requested our assistance in funding the installation of additional cameras and upgrading two of the cameras.

6.3     Suggested locations for placement are Pohara tennis courts, Motupipi carpark, GBHS corner, Tasman St in Collingwood, and one situated at the Bainham/Pakawau turn off.

6.4     Sergeant Johnathan Davies is happy to come to a board meeting and answer any questions that the board may have regarding this.

6.5     The cameras could be funded through our Special Projects funding, if this is something the board is interested in supporting.

6.6     Our Special Projects funding is currently being reviewed, and we are waiting to see if we are able to allocate more money into this fund.

7.1     The Audit and Risk committee have been considering the hire and usage of our Council assets to ensure that when they are hired, the event is one that is not associated with hate speech or exclusion, and meets the guidelines of responsible hire and use. A letter will be sent to Council facilities regarding this.

7.2     Councillor Butler will give a verbal update to the board, it would be good for the board to provide feedback to Council about this.

8.1     Council has two street seats left over after the Meihana St & Rototai Rd intersection trial.

8.2     The Board has been asked to present a proposal for a new site for these seats to be relocated within the Golden Bay community.

9.1     The Golden Bay Mohua Affordable Housing (GBMAH)Trust had been advised the resource consent for its proposed pensioner flat development at Reilly Street was likely to be declined, and the application has now been formally withdrawn.

9.2     Council has assessed the site as unsuitable for housing and cited the risk of development on flood prone land, and Council’s Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) policies are clear on avoiding this type of development in flood prone areas.

9.3     This will be disappointing news for the GBMAH Trust, which has put a lot of time and effort into its application and I am hopeful it will find a location that is accessible and safe for building on.

10.1   The Water Conservation Order (WCO) process is not a Council process. It is led by the Minister of the Environment.  Further information is available on the Ministry’s website.

10.2   The current phase of the WCO process is administered by the Environment Court. Council has received the final report and recommendations from the Environment Court.  The court’s report is available on the Environment Court website at The Water Conservation Order (WCO) process is not a Council process. It is led by the Minister of the Environment.  Further information is available on the Ministry’s website.

10.3   The current phase of the WCO process is administered by the Environment Court. Council has received the final report and recommendations from the Environment Court.  The court’s report is available on the Environment Court website at https://www.environmentcourt.govt.nz/cases-online/

10.4   The report indicates the Court will be recommending a Water Conservation Order for Te Waikoropupū and this reflects the agreement from all parties involved that this is a very special waterbody and taonga for Mohua/Golden Bay, the Tasman region, and all of New Zealand.

10.5   As a submitter to the hearing, the Council has focused on ensuring the WCO is able to be implemented in a practical way.  We want to see the best outcomes for the Springs, the wider Tākaka Catchments, iwi and the community.

10.6   The Council’s monitoring and management programme has for many years focused on risk management and used the best science available and best practice.  The Council’s past approach has been challenged through the Court process, based on the scale of monitoring undertaken in the Tākaka catchments and the information we have available.  The Council is committed to an independent review of our monitoring program in the Tākaka catchments to identify whether it continues to be fit for purpose and if there may be gaps that need to be addressed. 

10.7   The Council will maintain our commitment to improve freshwater management in the Tākaka valley, to ensure existing good water quality and health is maintained and improved where needed.

10.8   The Council is mindful of the implications on the lives and livelihoods of those living in areas of the valley that are covered by the proposed WCO.  Those implications are likely to include changes to the way land and water are used by people.  The area covered by the proposed WCO is called the Wharepapa Arthur Marble Aquifer Recharge Area (WAMARA). 

10.9   The Court process has defined a water allocation limit for the catchment and a minimum water flow to protect the Springs, which reflects the 2019 recommendations of the Tākaka Freshwater and Land Advisory Group (FLAG) - a collaborative undertaking between community and Manawhenua ki Mohua and supported by Council.  The proposed WCO has also defined a nitrate target at the Springs to be reached by 2038 and would be the first WCO in New Zealand to seek improvement in water quality.  There will also be limits for Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen and Water Clarity at the Springs.

10.10 The final decision on the WCO rests with the Minister for the Environment.  Now that the Environment Court has released its report and recommendations, there is a short appeal period for those involved.   If no appeals are lodged it will be over to the Minister for the Environment to decide whether to accept or reject the Court’s recommendations.  If the Minister accepts the court’s recommendations then the WCO will eventually become law.   For more information on this process see the Ministry for the Environment’s webpage.

10.11 The Council is continuing to develop a new resource management plan for this catchment, which will ultimately implement the Water Conservation Order, alongside the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.  In parallel, the council is progressing an Action Plan in conjunction with farmers and Manawhenua ki Mohua that will identify actions by the Council and land and water users in the Springs recharge area to manage nitrate.

10.12 The report indicates the Court will be recommending a Water Conservation Order for Te Waikoropupū and this reflects the agreement from all parties involved that this is a very special waterbody and taonga for Mohua/Golden Bay, the Tasman region, and all of New Zealand.

10.13 As a submitter to the hearing, the Council has focused on ensuring the WCO is able to be implemented in a practical way.  We want to see the best outcomes for the Springs, the wider Tākaka Catchments, iwi and the community.

10.14 The Council’s monitoring and management programme has for many years focused on risk management and used the best science available and best practice.  The Council’s past approach has been challenged through the Court process, based on the scale of monitoring undertaken in the Tākaka catchments and the information we have available.  The Council is committed to an independent review of our monitoring program in the Tākaka catchments to identify whether it continues to be fit for purpose and if there may be gaps that need to be addressed. 

10.15 The Council will maintain our commitment to improve freshwater management in the Tākaka valley, to ensure existing good water quality and health is maintained and improved where needed.

10.16 The Council is mindful of the implications on the lives and livelihoods of those living in areas of the valley that are covered by the proposed WCO.  Those implications are likely to include changes to the way land and water are used by people.  The area covered by the proposed WCO is called the Wharepapa Arthur Marble Aquifer Recharge Area (WAMARA). 

10.17 The Court process has defined a water allocation limit for the catchment and a minimum water flow to protect the Springs, which reflects the 2019 recommendations of the Tākaka Freshwater and Land Advisory Group (FLAG) - a collaborative undertaking between community and Manawhenua ki Mohua and supported by Council.  The proposed WCO has also defined a nitrate target at the Springs to be reached by 2038 and would be the first WCO in New Zealand to seek improvement in water quality.  There will also be limits for Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen and Water Clarity at the Springs.

10.18 The final decision on the WCO rests with the Minister for the Environment.  Now that the Environment Court has released its report and recommendations, there is a short appeal period for those involved.   If no appeals are lodged it will be over to the Minister for the Environment to decide whether to accept or reject the Court’s recommendations.  If the Minister accepts the court’s recommendations then the WCO will eventually become law.   For more information on this process see the Ministry for the Environment’s webpage https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/water-conservation-orders/water-conservation-orders/ .

10.19 The Council is continuing to develop a new resource management plan for this catchment, which will ultimately implement the Water Conservation Order, alongside the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.  In parallel, the council is progressing an Action Plan in conjunction with farmers and Manawhenua ki Mohua that will identify actions by the Council and land and water users in the Springs recharge area to manage nitrate.

11.1   Since the 10 July 2023 Board meeting, the Board have attended the following workshops:

11.1.1         Board Strategy Day

11.1.2         Code of Conduct Workshop

11.1.3         Speed Management Review Workshop

12.1   The Board’s annual Bronze membership of the Golden Bay Promotions Association will be due for renewal in August at a cost of $286 pa inclusive of GST. (Attachment one)

13.1   Entries are open for the 2023 Beautiful Awards, with the organisation asking Kiwis everywhere to nominate the people, projects and places that they believe illustrate the height of environmental excellence in Aotearoa.

13.2   Nominations for the Beautiful Awards are open from Monday 17 July until Monday 21 August 2023.

13.3   More information can be found at https://www.knzb.org.nz/programmes/rewards-and-recognition/beautiful-awards/

14.1   The Board has received the following items of correspondence:

14.1.1         An update from New Zealand Police regarding the Tactical Response Unit which the Board was previously received a presentation on. (Attachment two)

14.1.2         A request for a letter of support of the Golden Bay Toy Library who require support from a Community Organisation to support a funding application to the Rāta Foundation. (Attachment three)

14.1.3         A letter from Tish Potter regarding the Ligar Bay Beach Reserve, noting the items raised are operational, not governance.  (Attachment four)

14.1.4         A letter regarding the removal of dangerous trees at the Pohara Beach Holiday Park noting the items raised are operational, not governance.  (Attachment five)

15.1   The Action sheet is attached (Attachment six)

 

1.⇩	Golden Bay Promotions Association Membership	14
2.⇩	Letter from New Zealand Police	18
3.⇩	Letter from Golden Bay Toy Library	19
4.⇩	Letter from Tish Potter - Ligar Bay Beach Reserve	20
5.⇩	Letter from Tish Potter - Removal of trees at Pōhara Beach Holiday Park	21
6.⇩	Action Sheet - August	22

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.2     Pohara Recreation Reserve Tennis Pavilion

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Lynne Hall, Horticultural Officer - Motueka & Golden Bay
Report Authorisers:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Number:	RGBCB23-08-5

 

1.1     The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Community Board for the future of the tennis pavilion at Pohara Recreation Reserve.

2.1     Following concerns raised by members of the public and staff around vandalism and disrepair of the tennis pavilion, a decision is sought for the future of the building.

2.2     There is no formal tennis club at Pohara and the tennis pavilion has fallen into disrepair.  Vandalism is rampant and regardless of attempts by Council to repair and maintain, or exclude access altogether, vandalism has increased to the extent that something needs to be done about the building.

2.3     This could be considered an operational matter, however, due to the potential for public interest, staff request the Board consider the options and costs and reach a decision accordingly.

That the Golden Bay Community Board

1.       receives the Pohara Recreation Reserve Tennis Pavilion report RGBCB23-08-5; and

2.       requests staff to repair the tennis pavilion building at the Pohara Recreation Reserve including, removal of internal walls and install a security camera at an estimated cost of $10,000.

 

4.1     History of the courts and pavilion is a little unclear but they were originally installed on land owned by the Golden Bay Cement Works in the 1930’s by the Tarakohe Tennis Club with help from the Cement Works

4.2     There has not been an official club using the courts for around 20 years, however, there is an informal group that play regularly, and the courts are used casually by visitors and locals throughout the year.

4.3     Reports of vandalism of the courts and pavilion go back as far as 2006 but it has increased in recent times to the extent the building has become an eyesore and is unsafe. Antisocial behaviour is common - including overt vandalism, drinking and smoking which is further exacerbated where vision into the building is obscured by the front walls.

5.1     Of the options to be considered, staff recommend the Board choose Option 3, to repair the building, remove internal walls and install a security camera.

5.2     The above option is around mid-range cost wise but there is a likelihood of ongoing vandalism.

5.3     The mural can be retained either in-situ or relocated elsewhere but will require repairs and removal of graffiti.

5.4     There is reasonably high community interest in the future of the building. The current building is at least 60 years old and may have either been altered from the original building believed to have been erected in the late 1930’s/early 40’s, or completely rebuilt.

5.5     Not doing anything is not an option due to the state of the building and health and safety risks.

 

6.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Remove the building, and the mural, consider saving the mural to reinstate elsewhere.	Removes all possibility of vandalism.	Loss of historic and sentimental value. Loss of shade
2.	Remove the front of the building, retain the mural.	This ensures the building (albeit altered) and mural remain which will ensure shade and some historical value is retained. Lower fire and vandalism risk.	Most expensive option. Will require a building consent. Potential for vandalism to continue.
3.	Repairs to existing building, remove internal walls and install security camera.	Not costed although desktop estimate is around $10,000. No consent required. Retains building and mural.	Vandalism is likely to continue including risk of fires.
4.	Do nothing	No cost	Building deteriorates further and safety risks and fire risks are not addressed.

6.2     Option 3 is recommended by staff ie to repair the building, remove internal walls and install a security camera at an estimated cost of $10,000.

7.1     Council is required to address the health and safety risk that the building poses even though the most likely cause of harm would be personal injury due to mis-use and antisocial behaviour.

 8.1    Iwi have not been consulted as this is largely operational and the building and facilities are not expected to be of high interest to iwi, however the Pohara Recreation Reserve is within the cultural heritage overlay.

9.1     The decision is largely operational but due to potential interest from the community, the Community Board may decide a formal consultation process is required.

 

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	Sentimental value of both the building and the mural
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Building provides shade and shelter for court users
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	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
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No

 

10.1   Currently there has been no communication with the wider community.  The Board may wish to seek community feedback before reaching a decision, in particular, with regard to removal of the building.

10.2   Some casual feedback while researching the history of the building suggests at least some in the community would like to see the pavilion retained.

 

11.1   Quotes and estimates to remove the building or retain as a shelter range from approximately $6,500 to $16,000.  The most expensive option (retain as a shelter only) would also require a building consent which could add as much as $5,000.

11.2   To repair the interior, remove internal walls and install a security camera has not been fully investigated or quoted, however, staff estimate this option at around $10,000.

11.3   There would be no cost in retaining the status quo but a security camera could be installed to help reduce further vandalism - this would be around $4,000 for a permanent camera.  Cameras do not necessarily stop vandalism and it is often difficult to identify perpetrators and secure compensation for damage.

11.4   There is no budget assigned through the LTP for costs for any of the proposed options.

12.1   Leaving the building in its current state could create a safety issue. There is no longer any glass left in the windows but there have been instances of attempts to light fires in the past. There have also been reports of youth climbing onto the roof of the building.

12.2   There is a risk in completely removing the building of displeasing some members of the community which could result in negative publicity.

13.1   This decision has a low impact regarding mitigation, adaptation or responding to climate change, however, retaining the building in some form will provide shade and shelter for players and the public.

14.1   Reserves General Policies under Abandonment or Change in Use allows Council to decide whether the facility is compatible with the function and values of the reserve and decide an appropriate course of action (4.4.2.2).

14.2   Reserves General Policies - Buildings and Structures are required to meet the need of an approved use and users without significant adverse effect on the values of the reserve and adjoining landowners (6.1.1.1).

15.1   The Board is requested to consider the options and instruct staff of the option it would like to take.

16.1   Staff will investigate availability of budget to proceed with the preferred option.

16.2   Once funding has been secured, staff will proceed with implementing the preferred option.

 

1.⇩	Pavilion photos	28
2.⇩	Pohara Tennis Pavilion Quotes and Comments	31

  

 

 

 

7.2     Request for Approval of a New Street Name - Raniera Way

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Linda Atkins, Development Contributions Administrator – Environmental Assurance
Report Authorisers:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RGBCB23-08-6

 

1.1     The purpose of this report is to seek agreement from the Golden Bay Community Board to accept or reject an application to name a right of way.

1.2     The Street Naming Policy delegates the power to accept or reject new road names to the Community Boards where they exist. Otherwise, a decision is made by the Group Manager Environmental Assurance in consultation with a Ward Councillor.

1.3     If the Golden Bay Community Board cannot reach an agreement, the decision reverts to the Group Manager Environmental Assurance in consultation with the Community Board.

2.1     An application has been submitted by Des Payne to name a private right-of-way off Matenga Road, Ligar Bay.

2.2     The application process encourages the applicant to consult with iwi, and the decision-making process requires the Council to provide iwi with an opportunity to comment.

2.3     The name Raniera Way has been approved by Manawhenua Ki Mohua, the organisation representing Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua and Te Ātiawa within the area defined as the Golden Bay catchment and Kahurangi National Park area.

2.4     The Street Naming Policy (Attachment One) delegates the power to accept or reject new road names to the Community Boards where they exist. The purpose of this report is to consult the Golden Bay Community Board and seek agreement to accept or reject this application.

That the Golden Bay Community Board:

1.       receives the Request for Approval of a New Street Name - Raniera Way Report; and

2.       accepts the name Raniera Way, off Matenga Road, Ligar Bay.

4.1     The name being proposed for the right-of-way is Raniera Way which is located in their private subdivision off Matenga Road, Ligar Bay.

4.2     The applicant has most recently confirmed the name Raniera Way after the Council discussed other options with Manawhenua Ki Mohua.

4.3     The applicant’s reason for proposing the name Raniera Way is that Raniera was the son of Matenga.

4.4     See Attachment Two for the location of this road, which is between sections 42 and 48, off Matenga Way.

5.1     Staff recommend the Board accepts the name Raniera Way, noting that Manawhenua Ki Mohua supports the use of this name.

5.2     The name is consistent with all clauses in the Street Naming Policy.

 

6.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the name applied for.	Allows completion of the naming process and the name already has approval from Manawhenua Ki Mohua.	n/a
2.	Reject the name.	Demands the process start again with a new name. Iwi would be consulted again.	The naming process would have to begin again, delaying the installation of the road sign.

6.2     Option one is recommended.

7.1     Not relevant to this report.

 8.1    In this case, Manawhenua Ki Mohua were provided with an opportunity to provide comment by Council staff over the name Raniera Way.

8.2     This name was approved by Manawhenua Ki Mohua and no concerns were raised by iwi.

9.1     This name continues the naming theme of the subdivision.

 

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No.
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?	Yes.	It will last for many generations.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No, the street is on private land owned by the applicant.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates, or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No.
8.	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.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	No.

 

10.1   As per the Council’s Street Naming Policy, consultation and engagement has taken place with Manawhenua Ki Mohua who endorsed this name.

 

11.1   Not relevant to this report.

12.1   Not relevant to this report.

13.1   Not relevant to this report.

14.1   The Council is given the power to name roads under the Local Government Act 1974, 319 (1) (j).

14.2   This application has followed the Street Naming Policy in terms of consulting local iwi and/or providing iwi with an opportunity to comment. It is supported by Manawhenua Ki Mohua.

14.3   The Street Naming Policy delegates the authority to accept or reject new road names to the relevant Community Board where one exists.

14.4   The Group Manager Environmental Assurance is granted the authority to sign the street naming letter to the applicant and the memorandum to Tasman District Council staff under Section 226 (1) (e) of the Resource Management Act (Authority to sign legal documents).

15.1   The name requested complies with all clauses of the Council’s Street Naming Policy, and the consultation and overall level of engagement with Iwi is deemed to be appropriate for this application.

15.2   Community Board acceptance of the name Raniera Way is recommended.

16.1   If Community Board acceptance is confirmed, the applicant will be notified, and relevant staff will complete the street naming process.

 

1.⇩	Street Naming Policy 2022	38
2.⇩	Map of location of Raniera Way off Matenga Road, Ligar Bay	47

  

 

 

 

7.4     Financial Summary

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	14 August 2023
Report Author:	Liz Cameron, Assistant Management Accountant
Report Authorisers:	Kurt Clayworth, Management Accountant
Report Number:	RGBCB23-08-7

 

1.1     The financial report for the financial year ending 30 June 2023 is attached.  The report is a draft as the Annual Report is still to be finalised and an audit undertaken.

1.2     The net financial position for the year-to-date is a surplus of $27,241.

1.3     Board expenses YTD are $5,343 and are made up of electricity, board meeting expenses, Community Board levy, training and advertising.

1.4     The Board’s reimbursements for June are ($1,751) due to a coding error correction.

1.5     Closed account interest for the year is significantly higher than budget due to higher than budgeted interest rates.

1.6     The net position for the Community Board’s overall funds, as at 30 June 2023, is a surplus balance of $93,184.

1.7     The financial report for the period ending 30 June 2023 is attached (Attachment 1).

That the Golden Bay Community Board receives the Financial Summary report.

 

 

 

1.⇩

Financial Summary

50