Agenda of Golden Bay Community Board

Tasman District Council Golden Bay Community Board Agenda – 08 April 2024

8 Reports

8.1 Request for approval of six new road names in a subdivision at Richmond Road, Pōhara.

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	8 April 2024
Report Author:	Linda Atkins, Development Contributions Administrator – Environmental Assurance
Report Authorisers:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RGBCB24-04-5

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek agreement from the Golden Bay Community Board to name six roads in a subdivision in Pōhara.

1.2 Council has delegated the power to name new roads to Community Boards where the road falls within a ward that has a Community Board. The decision must be made in line with the Council’s Street Naming Policy (Attachment One).

1.3 If the Golden Bay Community Board cannot reach an agreement the decision reverts to Council who will make a decision in consultation with the Community Board.

1.4 As with any delegated authority, the Golden Bay Community Board can refer a decision on naming a road back to the Council.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 An application has been submitted by Darrin Canton, Director of Staig & Smith on behalf of Richmond Pōhara Holdings Limited, to name six new roads in their subdivision in Pōhara (resource consent SH180012). The suggested names are based around the theme of modern star constellations, as they are all visible from Pōhara on clear nights.

2.2 The six proposed names are:

2.2.1 Centaurus Rise,

2.2.2 Chamaeleon Lane,

2.2.3 Antlia Lane,

2.2.4 Sculptor Lane,

2.2.5 Crux Lane and

2.2.6 Hydra Lane.

2.3 The applicant has also provided two alternative names if one is not accepted, being Vela and Pyxis.

2.4 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.

2.5 Staff understand that the applicant has not consulted with iwi. However, Council initiated consultation with 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.

2.6 The proposed names are not supported by Manawhenua Ki Mohua. They suggested alternative Te Reo names that have a similar meaning (Attachment Two). The proponent has been made aware of the alternative suggestions but has indicated a preference to proceed to a decision from the Board.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Golden Bay Community Board:1. receives the Request for approval of six new road names in a subdivision at Richmond Road, Pōhara. RGBCB24-04-5; and

2. notes the proposed names provided by the developer Richmond Pōhara Holdings Limited; and

3. notes that Manawhenua Ki Mohua have proposed alternative suggestions that have a similar Te Reo Māori meaning; and

4. pursuant to the Board’s delegated authority and the Council’s Street Naming Policy approves that:

4.1 Road 1 be named [pending your decision]

4.2 Road 2 be named [pending your decision]

4.3 Road 3 be named [pending your decision]

4.4 Road 4 be named [pending your decision]

4.5 Road 5 be named [pending your decision]

4.6 Road 6 be named [pending your decision]

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The names being proposed by the applicant for the subdivision are as follows:

Centaurus Rise, Chamaeleon Lane, Antlia Lane, Sculptor Lane, Crux Lane and Hydra Lane. Two alternative names are proposed if one or two of the six do not meet the street naming criteria.

4.2 The applicants have provided an explanation of the meaning of each name in Attachment Three. A plan and location of the subdivision is provided in Attachment Four.

4.3 Staff have initiated the consultation step with Manawhenua Ki Mohua over the six proposed names and two alternative names. The response was to suggest similar names based on stars and constellations in Te Reo Māori. See Attachment Four for their list which includes: Matariki (Pleiades, cluster of stars, note this name has already been used in Wakefield and cannot be reused), Māhutonga (Southern Cross), Autahi (Canopus, the brightest star), Tautoru (Orion’s belt), Ranginui (Beta Centauri, the closest pointer) and Whetu (star). Alternative or back up suggestions were Taniwha (water spirit, chief), Nakahi (serpent) and Waka (canoe, vehicle, spirit medium).

4.4 The proponent has been made aware of this by email but has indicated a preference to continue with the proposed names and proceed to a decision from the Board.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The proponents have set out their reasons for advancing the six names and two alternatives. Staff have considered these names against the criteria set out in the street naming policy and consider there is a close fit to the criteria. Item 1.4 in the policy - Theme (common or established) states “where a development creates more than one road, a common theme is recommended for names”.

5.2 There may be some challenges with spelling and pronunciation of Chamaeleon and Antlia. In the event that the Board approves the proposed names, that will be assessed as part of the final check with Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). If there is deemed to be an issue with spelling and/or pronunciation, the alternatives can be brought into play.

5.3 Staff have initiated the consultation with iwi required under the street naming policy. Manawhenua Ki Mohua have advised that they do not support the use of the English and Latin names for the subdivision in this area. Manawhenua Ki Mohua have suggested Te Reo alternatives, that they consider to be better suited to the local area. These names comply with the policy in terms of reflecting local Māori culture, geography and a common theme.

5.4 The street naming policy does not provide any guidance to the Community Board where proposed street names are not supported by iwi. Rather, it becomes a matter for the Board to decide which names it will approve.

5.5 If the Board is uncomfortable with choosing the names, it can refer the decision back to Council.

5.6 Once the Board or the Council agrees on new road names, staff would then work with LINZ to ensure all criteria are met.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options that are available to the Board are broadly outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the names proposed by the developer	Allows completion of the naming process for the developer	Manawhenua Ki Mohua do not support the proposed names and have provided Te Reo alternatives
2.	Approve the alternative names suggested by Manawhenua Ki Mohua	Allows for the completion of the process, and for Manawhenua Ki Mohua to have active involvement	The developer does not approve of the street names
3.	Refer the decision on street naming back to Council in this instance	Avoids the Community Board having to decide whether to support the developer or Manawhenua Ki Mohua choices	Would introduce a delay into the street naming process and could indicate a lack of ownership of a local issue

7. Legal / Ngā ture

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

7.2 The Community Board has been given the delegated authority to make this decision in accordance with Council’s policy.

7.3 When making decision the Board must confirm that it has meet the decision-making requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.

7.4 As with any delegated authority if the Board does not feel it can make a decision, it is open to it to refer the decision to Council.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Manawhenua Ki Mohua were provided with an opportunity to provide comment on the proposed street names by Council staff. They felt strongly that the names should be in Te Reo and reflect the nature of the surrounding environment. The use of English and Latin names in this area was not supported.

8.2 As an alternative, Manawhenua Ki Mohua provided a list with eight (six plus two) Te Reo names relevant to the developer’s chosen theme.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The collection of names on the constellation theme provides cohesion to the subdivision, as the names are all related, and are relevant to this area. The applicant stated they are visible from this area on a clear night.

9.2 The Street Naming Policy does require subdivisions to include names on a theme, which the developer has done.

9.3 However, iwi engagement demonstrated that Manawhenua Ki Mohua are not supportive of the proposed names. They recommend the use of Te Reo alternatives on the chosen theme.

9.4 There are other street names in Te Reo Māori in the surrounding area.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	yes	Once approved, street names are essentially permanent, with limited ability for renaming. This means there is a high level of interest in how street naming proposals are dealt with.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	yes	Street naming has an increased prominence within society and across our District. It has changed from something that was at the whim of a developer to determine, to something more significant for members of our community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	yes	Both the developer and Manawhenua ki Mohua have considered and thoughtful views, but they are somewhat polarised.
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. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 As per the Council’s Street Naming Policy, consultation and engagement has taken place with Manawhenua Ki Mohua by the Council. The developer/applicant did not consult with iwi or the wider community.

10.2 Communication in terms of consultation and approval follows the process under the Street Naming Policy.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 Not relevant to this report.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 As with any decision making, there is a risk that the decision could be challenged if proper process has not been followed and due consideration has not been given to the appropriate factors.

12.2 If the English names are chosen, then this may have an effect on the Board and Council’s relationship with manawhenua.

12.3 If the Te Reo Māori names are chosen then the developer may complain that their suggestions were ignored.

12.4 These risks can be mitigated by giving the decision due consideration and clearly documenting the decision and reasons for that decision.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Not relevant to this report.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

Not applicable to this decision.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The names requested comply with several clauses of the Council’s Street Naming Policy. However, in meeting Council’s consultative obligations it has been established that Manawhenua Ki Mohua do not support the proposed names.

15.2 The addition of Te Reo Māori versions of the names will meet more clauses of the Policy, including cultural heritage.

15.3 Rather than reject the names outright, Manawhenua Ki Mohua have provided alternative names that have been put to the developer. The indicative response from the developer to date is a preference to retain their original suggested names.

15.4 If the Board decides to approve the names as proposed, it is likely that decision would not meet the expectations of Manawhenua Ki Mohua. On the other hand, if the Board rejects the proposed names, in favour of the alternatives suggested by Manawhenua Ki Mohua, it is not clear how the developer would respond.

15.5 The Board is able to refer the matter back to Council if it is not comfortable with making a decision.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Community Board makes a decision on the street names, the applicant will be notified, and relevant staff will complete the street naming process.

16.2 If the Board decides not to name these streets, the matter will be referred to Council.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Street Naming Policy	13
2.⇩	Suggested Te Reo Street Names from Manawhenua Ki Mohua	21
3.⇩	Road naming application Richmond Pōhara Holdings Limited	22
4.⇩	Richmond Road Pōhara Subdivision Scheme	25

Tasman District Council Golden Bay Community Board Agenda – 08 April 2024

8.2 Adoption of Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2024

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	8 April 2024
Report Author:	Jennie McFarlane, Legal & Democracy Services Manager
Report Authorisers:	Joanna Cranness, People, Safety & Wellbeing Manager
Report Number:	RGBCB24-04-6

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To adopt the proposed Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2024.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Any code of conduct adopted by a council or community board must be adopted under Schedule 7, Part 1 Clause 15 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.2 A council is required to have a code of conduct for the Mayor and councillors.

2.3 This is optional for community boards, however when community boards have chosen to adopt a code of conduct, the Local Government Act 2002 provisions for codes of conduct will apply and the code of conduct can only then be amended or replaced with a new code by the board or future boards.

2.4 A 75% majority of all members present is required to adopt, amend, or replace a code of conduct.

2.5 Should the proposed Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2024 not be adopted, the Board’s existing code of conduct (Attachment 1) will remain in place, until amended or replaced.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Golden Bay Community Board

1. receives the Adoption of Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2024 report; and

2. in accordance with Schedule 7, Part 1 Clause 15 of the Local Government Act 2002, adopts the proposed Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2024 (Attachment 2 to the agenda report).

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Golden Bay Community Board voted on adopting an updated Code of Conduct in October 2019. A copy of the code is attached to this report.

4.2 On 12 February 2024, the Golden Bay Community Board held a workshop to consider its code of conduct and gave direction to staff to prepare a new Code of Conduct based on the new Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) template and the Code adopted by Council in 2023, subject to some amendments. The resulting proposed 2024 code of conduct (Attachment 2) is now presented for formal consideration by the Board.

4.3 The Local Government Act 2002 specifies certain matters which a code of conduct needs to contain, which is covered in section 7 of this report. Using the LGNZ template for the code ensures that the legislative requirements are met.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Board’s 2019 code of conduct includes a process for dealing with breaches of the code of conduct. However, the Council adopted a Policy for Investigation and Ruling on Alleged Breaches of the Code of Conduct policy in 2023 for managing Code of Conduct complaints and breaches (based on the LGNZ template) which applies to Council and to the community boards. This has been a new development for this triennium where LGNZ provided templates both for a code of conduct and for a complaints policy.

5.2 The Board’s proposed 2024 code does not make provision for complaints and breaches as this is covered in the Council Policy. Should the Board decide to continue with the 2019 Code of Conduct, then the Council Policy will over-ride the complaints process in the 2019 Code. This is because in accordance with Council’s Delegations Register, any decisions made by its Community Boards must be consistent with policies, procedures, standards, budgets, or resolutions adopted or made by the Council; and the Community Boards have powers to act in accordance with any statutory powers and the policies, plans and bylaws of the Council.

5.3 Continuing to have sections on complaints and breaches in a Board’s code of conduct will creates confusion, given the Council’s Policy now applies. It is noted that the Council’s Policy makes provision for the Board Chair to be involved in complaints related to a board member and there is also nothing to stop earlier resolution of issues and complaints prior to any formal process.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt the proposed 2024 code of conduct as attached	The Board will have an updated code of conduct. It reflects the latest LGNZ template and best practice and does not include a complaints and breaches process so better aligned with Council’s Policy and also with the Code of Conduct adopted by Council in 2023	None identified
4.	Decline to adopt the proposed 2024 code of conduct	None identified	The current code remains in force however it does not reflect the latest LGNZ template and best practice and still refers to a complaints and breaches process which will no longer apply

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Local Government Act 2002 requires that a Code of conduct must set out:

(a) understandings and expectations adopted by the local authority about the manner in which members may conduct themselves while acting in their capacity as members, including—

(i) behaviour toward one another, staff, and the public; and

(ii) disclosure of information, including (but not limited to) the provision of any document, to elected members that—

(A) is received by, or is in the possession of, an elected member in his or her capacity as an elected member; and

(B) relates to the ability of the local authority to give effect to any provision of this Act; and

(b) a general explanation of—

(i) the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987; and

(ii) any other enactment or rule of law applicable to members.

7.2 Staff advice is that the Board’s draft code meets the requirements of the Act,.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 It is noted that the LGNZ template for a code of conduct contains specific references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Council’s Code of Conduct requires members to commit to operate in a manner that recognises and respects the significance of the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and lists a number of general principles. The Board’s proposed 2024 code includes this provision as well.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The decision is of moderate significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	The Board already has a code of conduct and this is simply an updated version.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	NA
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	NA
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	NA
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	NA
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	NA
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
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?	NA
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Affordable Waters services?	NA

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 If adopted, the new code of conduct will be published on to the Council’s website.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 NA

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are no risks associated with this decision.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 The Golden Bay Community Board already has a code of conduct. The decision today is whether to replace the current code with an amended version based on the latest LGNZ template.

13.2 Staff have reviewed the proposed 2024 code and advise that it does currently meet the requirements of the Act.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 If adopted, the proposed 2024 code will become the Golden Bay Community Board’s current code until it is either amended or replaced, and will be published on the Council’s website.

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct 2019	34
2.⇩	DRAFT Golden Bay Community Board Code of Conduct (February 2024)	71

Tasman District Council Golden Bay Community Board Agenda – 08 April 2024

8.3 Tasman District Council Policy on the Community Boards Special Project Funds

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	8 April 2024
Report Author:	Jennie McFarlane, Legal & Democracy Services Manager
Report Authorisers:	Joanna Cranness, People, Safety & Wellbeing Manager
Report Number:	RGBCB24-04-7

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 To consider a draft Council Policy on the Community Board Special Project Funds which provide criteria for each community board to be able to make decisions on allocation of their funds and recommend the Policy for adoption by Council.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 Both the Motueka and the Golden Bay Community Boards receive funding, primarily from a targeted rate. Part of this funding is allocated to the Boards’ Special Project Funds which they use to support projects and community initiatives.

1.2 The Community Boards developed criteria for the allocation of their Special Project Funds at a joint workshop in 2023, as well as reviewed the Motueka Community Board Special Project Fund Criteria.

1.3 As both community boards have Special Project Funds it is considered appropriate to have a combined Council policy. As the funding is derived from rates, any policy is required to be in accordance with the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy and to be approved by the Council.

1.4 A draft Tasman District Council Policy on the Community Boards Special Project Funds policy (incorporating the criteria and changes requested by the Boards) has been prepared (Attachment 1), which covers the purpose of the policy and the criteria which apply for the allocation of the funds.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Golden Bay Community Board

1. receives the Tasman District Council Policy on the Community Boards Special Project Funds RGBCB24-04-7; and

1. recommends the draft Tasman District Council Policy for Community Boards Special Project Funds, in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, to Council for adoption.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Motueka Community Board has had a special project fund for longer than the Golden Bay Community Board and Council approved the Motueaka Community Board Special Project Fund Criteria in July 2015. No criteria for the Golden Bay Community Board have been formally approved until now.

4.2 The Golden Bay Community Board funding primarily from a targeted rate and a small amount from the local market and bank interest is (GBCB total annual revenue for the 2022/2023 year was $78,570). The GBCB has been administering a Special Project Fund since the 2018/19 year. For the financial year 2023/2024, the annual budget for the fund is $10,811. The Board’s reserves balance is $101,996, with a current balance of $37,747 for the Special Project Fund.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The purpose of the draft Tasman District Council Policy on Community Board Discretionary Funds is to enable the boards to allocate funding to support Council infrastructure related projects of a high priority for the Golden Bay Ward, but not high enough in relation to district-wide priorities to gain direct Council funding, and for community projects and initiatives in their respective ward areas.

5.2 The draft Policy includes generic criteria applicable to both Community Boards for the allocation of the funds and the specific criteria requested by each Community Board.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Recommend the draft policy to Council for adoption (subject to any changes either Community Board proposes before referral to Council)	Ensures there is one Council policy covering the needs of both the community boards and addresses the lack of current formalised policy and criteria for the Golden Bay Community Board. Reflects the same process as for the community Boards’ Discretionary Funds process.	None identified.
2.	Does not recommend the draft policy to Council for adoption (subject to any changes either Community Board proposes before referral to Council)	None identified.	Does not ensure there is one Council policy covering the needs of both the community boards and does not address the lack of current formalised policy and criteria for the Golden Bay Community Board. Does not follow the same process as for the community Boards’ Discretionary Funds process.

6.2 Option One is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

1.5 There is no legal requirement to have a Council Policy for the Community Board Special Project Funds however it is good practice to have some consistent and transparent policy on the purpose and allocation of the funding. This also ensures there is oversight by the Council of the funds, given they derive from rates and alignment with the Revenue and Funding Policy.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There is requirement for engagement with iwi in relation to the Policy.

9. Significance and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui

9.1 The proposed Policy is not considered to be significant or require public consultation.

	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?	Yes	Funds support community projects and initiatives
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)	N/A
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. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 If the Policy is adopted by the Council, a copy will be made available on the Council website.

11. Financial or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea

11.1 There are no financial or budgetary implications to consider.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The adoption of a Policy by Council will reduce risk relating to lack of clarity about Council and the community boards’ policy and criteria for the Special Project Funds.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 There are no considerations to address in relation to Climate Change although the community boards may choose to support projects that are related.

14. Alignment with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere Rautaki Tūraru

14.1 As mentioned, the draft Policy requires to align with the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, as rate funding is involved. It will also align with Council’s Policy on Community Board Discretionary Funds.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The adoption of a Policy by Council which covers the needs of both the community boards and the criteria to apply for allocation of their funds is in line with the approach used for their Discretionary Funds and provides certainty for the community as to how the special project funds are administered and allocated.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Once both community boards have considered the draft Policy and recommended it to the Council for adoption, a referral report will be prepared for Council.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Draft Policy on Community Boards Special Project Fund

Tasman District Council Golden Bay Community Board Agenda – 08 April 2024

8.4 Board Report - April

Decision Required

Report To:	Golden Bay Community Board
Meeting Date:	8 April 2024
Report Author:	Abbie Langford, Chair
Report Authorisers:
Report Number:	RGBCB24-04-8

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo

1.1 The Board report is attached for inclusion in the agenda.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Golden Bay Community Board

1. receives the Board Report - April RGBCB24-04-8; and

2. <approves> or <declines> the placement of historic mural panels on the front of the Golden Bay Museum building.

3. Items from March Public Forum

3.1 The following public forum representations were received at the 11 March 2024 meeting.

TOPIC	PRESENTER	OUTCOME
E-POD (Emergency Points of Distribution)	Amanda Power, E-POD	This item was noted.
Jet skis on Takaka River	Cynthia McConville Forest and Bird Golden Bay	This item was noted by the Board and the Harbourmaster who was present at the meeting.
Floating Launching Ramp	William (Bill) Wallis	This item was noted by the Board, along with the Harbourmaster who was present at the meeting

4. Meeting Frequency

4.1 The Community Boards have been asked to consider their current meeting frequency and if this could be extended from the current monthly rotation to a six- weekly one. Council and Committees meet six-weekly.

4.2 The Democracy Services team is currently seriously under resourced to support the Boards, and Council and Committees.

4.3 One option is to have Board meetings occur every six weeks, to better coincide with Council and Committee meetings.

4.4 The Board could consider meeting two-monthly if there are a limited number of decision reports.

4.5 Increasing the timing between meetings would reduce the costs to the Board with staff time for Agenda and meeting preparation and enable better use of the Elected Members time.

5. Museum Mural

5.1 The Board have been asked to approve the installation of a historic mural on the Golden Bay Museum building, as the local elected representatives of the building’s owner (Tasman District Council).

5.2 The Board received the following information from the Golden Bay Museum regarding its plans to install an historic mural on the front of the museum building.

5.2.1 The proposed mural will depict what the Pioneer tram might have looked like at the turn of the century. It has been created in an impressionist painter’s view by local artist, Chris Finlayson.

5.2.2 The Pioneer tram was in use for approximately 24 years in the early 1900s and ran down Commercial Street from East Takaka to Waitapu Wharf.

5.2.3 Image size is W2400mm x H2000mm, it would be printed on two ACM panels and riveted to the corrugated iron at the front of the building with rubber washers between to form a watertight seal.

5.3 The museum has asked the Board to consider financial support for the project, and has been advised to apply to the Discretionary Fund.

5.4 A Discretionary Fund application is anticipated to come to a future Board meeting.

6. Roading update

6.1 An update from Transportation Engineer Robert Deck regarding the roading items raised at the Board meeting on 11 March 2024 has been received.

6.2 The Board requested information regarding the following items:

Query	Staff Response
Installation of a footpath on the southern side Reilly Street, and requesting the repainting of faded yellow no parking lines	Reilly Street is identified in our New Footpaths Priority Matrix at #24. So it may be some years before it can be funded. Currently there is no budget available for this work. However, a recent development of #10-16 Reilly Street requires the construction of a new footpath. I am currently working with the developer to prepare a suitable design that will be most beneficial to the public
Revisiting the safety concerns around pedestrian access at Motupipi St intersection with Commercial St (SH60) intersection, and seeking potential solutions	Motupipi/Commercial St - Can we confirm the issue that is needing to be solved? In the past the issue has been described as pedestrian safety, and there are no easy solutions here. Various design options have been produced and reported previously to GBCB but truck tracking and access to the existing private entranceways (NPD) is a major limiting factor to installing a refuge island. A raised zebra appears to be the ‘least worst’ option for pedestrian and truck movements. We have no funding available this financial year, and future funding is very uncertain given the government’s unwillingness to subsidise walking or cycling improvements in future. The intersection itself is the responsibility of NZTA and we have had some dialogue with them in the past – happy to restart this.
Raising safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists on Abel Tasman Drive at both Port Tarakohe entrances and including the quarry area which services significant heavy traffic movements	Port Tarakohe area - staff are developing a concept design to see what will potentially fit here. There is no funding for any improvements (which are likely to be expensive) unless the Port/property activity have budget available. The Port/Property team advise the need for significant road realignment at the Port and a solution for pedestrians and cyclists (particularly just before the tunnel). There is no pedestrian walkway, but a fence has been relocated to provide some additional space in this area, however there is no safe access prior to and through the tunnel.

6.3 Council’s Property team has advised it is aware of pedestrian safety concerns in this area, and notes:

7. Reserves and Facilities update

7.1 A memo from Golden Bay Horticultural Officer Lynne Hall regarding walkways in Takaka raised at the Board meeting on 11 March 2024 is attached. (Attachment one).

8. Hanging Baskets

8.1 The hanging baskets which grace the Tākaka CBD have been created and grown in a tunnel house located at the Sustainable Living Centre in Takaka for the past 10 years.

8.2 The existing tunnel house has been flagged for removal, which means the volunteer group will lose the nursery space they have been utilising.

8.3 The vibrant hanging baskets contribute to creating a welcoming street atmosphere in Tākaka township, and are well loved by the wider community and visitors.

8.4 The project receives annual funding of approximately $5,000.00 from Council’s Reserves team which covers the cost of plants, liners, etc. Volunteers fill and install the baskets and maintain the irrigation.

8.5 Members of the Board have identified that without a nursery space, the hanging basket volunteer group would be unable to supply this well-loved feature in future.

8.6 The members of the Board would like to identify potential solutions, including funding opportunities and potential locations for a tunnel house to be located to enable this community project to continue.

9. Action Sheet

9.1 The Action sheet is attached for inclusion in the agenda. (Attachment two).

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Memorandum from Parks and Reserves on Walking Access	109
2.⇩	Action Sheet	111

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

September 2023	GB Boys and Girls Show	$500.00
September 2023	Golden Bay Work Centre Trust	$500.00
October 2023	Golden Bay High School Prizegiving	$100.00
October 2023	Collingwood Area School prizegiving	$100.00
December 2023	Sentient Clan Services	$388.44
February 2024	Takaka Village Green Acquisition	$500.00
February 2024	Tinbum Triathlon	$287.50

Applicant	Request	Grant/Decline
Collingwood RSA	$500