Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7 Reports

7.1 Road Stopping/Exchange

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Kevin O'Neil, Property Officer
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-06-4

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval to publicly notify the intention to stop a portion of unformed legal road located on the corner of Stagecoach Road and Seaton Valley Road, Mahana, (Attachment 1) and to approve the exchange of land for road.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Council was approached by the applicants in 2015. At this time, they were looking to purchase the subject property and approached the Council seeking approval to a road stopping to amalgamate some road land adjoining the property they were in negotiations to purchase.

2.2 The applicants applied for a road stopping and this was approved in principle with a few stipulations from the road stopping panel being that the road stopping process could not proceed until the applicants officially owned the property and that the road stopping (if undertaken) would be done using the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA) not the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). Using the LGA means that the road stopping must be publicly notified.

2.3 The road stopping process will be undertaken in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974. The process requires approval of the survey plan by Land Information New Zealand prior to public notification of the proposal which provides an opportunity for objections to be made to the proposal.

2.4 If no objections are received the road stopping will proceed and be confirmed by Council by public notice. The Council is asked to delegate to the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure the authority to sign all documents required to give effect to the stopping of the road land, and disposal of the land to adjacent landowners.

2.5 If objections are received, a hearing panel may consider the objections if the adjacent landowners wish to continue with the process. The Council is asked to appoint a hearings panel to consider any objections.

2.6 The hearings panel will make a recommendation to Council whether to uphold the objection which will bring the process to an end or refer the matter to the Environment Court to determine.

2.7 The vesting of the applicant’s land as road will be undertaken under Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Road Stopping and Exchange report RCN24-06-4 on the corner of Stagecoach and Seaton Valley Roads; and

In relation to the road stopping

2. approves the preparation of survey plans for the portion of road to be stopped on the appended Staig & Smith Plan titled “Proposed Road to be stopped and Land to be taken for Road CNR Stagecoach road and Seaton Valley Roads” dated 21 July 2023, to be submitted to Land Information New Zealand for approval; and

3. subject to the approval of Land Information New Zealand, proceed with public notification of the proposed road stoppings (or stopping) in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974; and

4. approves the appointment of a Hearings Panel to consider any objections received to the stopping of the unformed legal roads, and to make recommendations to the Council on whether to uphold any objections or refer the matter to the Environment Court, should objections be received; and

5. appoints the following Elected Members to the Hearing Panel:

………………………. (Chair)

……………………….

……………………….; and

6. Delagates to the Chair the authority to appoint other Elected Members in substitution should an Elected Member appointed to the Hearing Panel be unavailable; and

7. approves the stopping of the unformed legal road on the appended Staig & Smith Plan titled “Proposed Road to be stopped and Land to be taken for Road CNR Stagecoach Road and Seaton Valley Roads” dated 21 July 2023 pursuant to schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, subject to there being no objections received; and

In relation to the sale of stopped road

8. approves entering into a Sale and Purchase Agreement for the disposal of the land subject to the road stopping adjacent above, assuming there are no objections, with a requirement to amalgamate the stopped road with [title], with the land price to be determined by valuation and subject to the purchaser(s) agreeing to meet all of the Council’s costs for the road stopping and disposal process (including survey, legal, valuation and staff costs); and

9. delegates to the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure the authority and power to undertake all the relevant statutory requirements, including the authority to sign all relevant documentation necessary, to give effect to the sale; and

In relation to the road exchange

10. approves the purchase of a small portion (approx. 17 square metres) of the Gould property (Sec 23 SO 441504 – record of title 572251) at a market value to be determined by independent valuation and offset against the sale price of the road to be stopped; and

11. Approves that the approximately 17 square metre portion of the Gould property purchased be legalised as road; and

12. delegates to the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure the power to undertake all processes, including the authority to sign all relevant documentation necessary to give effect to the decision to purchase and vest the approx. 17 square metre portion of the Gould property, including the powers in Section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981 to declare land to be road.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The applicants were initially proposing to acquire and stop 1582m²of road land adjoining their property. The Council’s Transportation Manager reviewed the plan and met with the owners on site and determined that the Council would like to retain some of the land they were interested in acquiring and the Council would also like to acquire in exchange a small strip of land to vest as road from the applicant’s property to future proof the road corridor.

4.2 The Transportation Manager received and approved an amended plan based on the areas agreed on site whereby the applicants would receive 1395m² of road land and in return 17m² of land would vest as road in the Council with compensation payable to the Council for the additional land acquired above the land to vest as road.

4.3 A valuation will be obtained to determine the compensation payable to the Council for the stopped road land if the proposal is approved and the road stopping proceeds. The road land to be stopped will be amalgamated with the applicants existing title, while the land to be exchanged as road will be removed from the applicants Title and vest as road via gazette.

4.4 If objections are received, the adjacent landowners/applicants will have the opportunity to cease the process or continue. If they continue, a hearing will be required, and the Council is asked to appoint a hearings panel. The cost of the hearing will be met by the adjacent landowners/applicants.

4.5 If no objections are received, the Council is asked to delegate to the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure the authority to complete any processes and sign any documents required to give effect to the road stopping and the disposal of the land which will be by way of a Sale and Purchase Agreement. This will include the authority to give public notice that the road has been stopped, and to complete processes for the amalgamation of the titles.

4.6 If the road stopping fails, the costs of the road stopping process to date remain payable by the applicant.

5. Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The applicants have been advised that the costs of the road stopping process will be payable by them, even if the application is declined following public notice. They will be required to sign a costs agreement prior to any public notification. If there are no objections, or any objections are declined by a Council hearing, and the Environment Court agrees to the road stopping, the value of the land is payable in addition to the costs.

5.2 This is a significant disincentive to proceed with the road stopping application, but the applicants have decided the benefit outweighs the risks. Given the road land to be stopped involves land, which is not likely to be formed as road, nor used for public recreation (given the proximity of existing recreation facilities), there is no obvious reason to not commence the road stopping process.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Agree to allow the road stopping and exchange to proceed to public notification under the LGA. (This is the recommended option)	In return for stopping some surplus road land the Council will acquire some additional land for road and receive payment for the road land to be stopped.	None identified.
2.	Not agree to progress the road stopping to public notification under the LGA.	No further work is required.	Council will not receive any money for the surplus road land.

6.2 Option 1 (above) is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974 is quite prescriptive in setting out the process for a road stopping. The land is first surveyed. After the land is surveyed, public notification is undertaken. This includes at least two notices in Newsline, information on the Council’s website, and signage erected on the relevant sites. The public has 40 working days to provide an objection. If objections are received, the Council hears the objection, and can either uphold the objection, or send the matter to the Environment Court.

7.2 At any stage of the process, the adjacent landowners/applicants would have the opportunity to stop the process. If objections are received, the applicant would have the opportunity to stop the process (considered reasonably likely) given the high cost of a Council hearing, and a potential Environment Court process.

7.3 Schedule 10 only provides for the Council to notify its intention to stop the road. The Act does not seem to contemplate the scenario of a private person applying to have road land stopped. Thus, the public notice will advise of the Council’s intention to stop the road.

7.4 The Council will acquire the exchange land for road using the powers in the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA).

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

7.6 Consent to road land being stopped: The Council must obtain consent to the road stopping under the LGA from the Minister for Land Information (LINZ) who has the final decision on whether or not to stop the parcel of legal road. In the unlikely event the Minister declined to stop the road, the acquisition described in 7.4 would not occur.

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

7.8 This proposal does not contravene any policy or plan.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 This road stopping and exchange proposal was entered into the Iwi Engagement Portal (Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro) and has been discussed with all the local Iwi as part of the engagement process. We will also notify Wakatū re the proposed road stopping and exchange as they sit outside the portal. As the road stopping is being undertaken via the Local Government Act 1974 there is also provision for Iwi to object to the proposal at this stage as can any other member of the public.

8.2 To date one Iwi informally expressed their concerns re the road stopping proposal. We are waiting for a formal response. The applicant has been made aware of this and that they may face an objection if the road stopping goes to public notification under the Local Government Act, but at this stage they wish to proceed with the process.

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

9.1 This decision is considered to be of low to moderate significance given the area where the portion of road is located.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	As the road stopping is predominantly in the landowners benefit the Council is requiring that the road stopping proceed under the Local Government Act 1974, so there will be a requirement for public notification.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The entire road network is a strategic asset. This proposal will maintain the existing road network.
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 the road exchange will occur under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974, there will be a requirement for public notification and any members of the public will be able to submit an objection to the road stopping and exchange. Affected Iwi have also been notified. Given there will be no physical changes to the road network, this proposal is considered of low significance.

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

11.1 The landowners/applicants have agreed to cover all costs pertaining to this transaction, so there are no detrimental financial or budgetary implications arising from this decision. The Council will receive payment following a valuation to assess the level of compensation payable for the road land to be stopped if the proposal comes to fruition.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 This report seeks to minimise the risks associated with the sale of road land by undertaking the statutory requirement to publicly notify the intention to stop the road and dispose of the land. If there is significant opposition the Council will be able to terminate the process if objections are sustained at the hearing. If by any chance, there was significant opposition the adjacent owners/applicants would have the opportunity to stop the process.

12.2 Because the public notice is issued in the name of the Council any significant public backlash could be directed at the Council itself, whereas the reality is that the Council is responding to an application from the adjoining owner. The way schedule 10 of the LGA 1974 is worded only the Council can propose a road stopping.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The intention to stop this portion of road land will have no obvious impact on the Council’s climate change obligations or objectives.

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

14.1 There is no formal road stopping policy. The present process has evolved over many years, with applications considered by a staff committee, ahead of a decision by the Council on whether to proceed with a road stopping. Each road stopping has its own unique aspects. Development of a formal policy would be very difficult given wide variation of reasons to seek to stop roads. The present system is considered to work well.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 This exchange is considered to be of most benefit to the landowners. However, the Council will gain a small strategic amount of land to vest as road and receive payment for the difference in the value of land exchanged. The section of road is not required by the transportation team and there seems to be no obvious reason to reject the road stopping proposal.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If approved within the next month or two the Council will enter into a formal agreement with the landowners to proceed with the road exchange. The agreement notes that the Council cannot guarantee LINZ will agree to allow the exchange. A substantial deposit will be required prior to undertaking any further work. The deposit will cover all anticipated costs up to a potential hearing.

16.2 Once public notification has been undertaken, 40 working days are allowed for objectors to submit their arguments. If objections are received, the adjacent owners/applicants will have the opportunity to cease the process or agree to meet the cost of a hearing.

16.3 If no objections are received, a notice is undertaken formally stopping the road. A Title to the land subject to the road stopping will be raised and incorporated into the landowners existing land Title by way of amalgamation and the land in Section 2 will vest as road in exchange.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1. Site of proposed road stopping.

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.2 Amendment to Council's Traffic Control Devices Register and Traffic Control Bylaw 2016

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Mike van Enter, Senior Transportation Engineer
Report Authorisers:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-06-5

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to gain the Council’s approval to make changes to the Traffic Control Devices Register and map display, to ensure these are enforceable under the Traffic Control Bylaw 2016.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Council’s Traffic Control Bylaw 2016, and its accompanying Traffic Control Devices Register and map display, is the mechanism for the Council to record all authorised traffic control devices such as parking restrictions and regulatory traffic signs.

2.2 This report requests the Council’s approval for various changes and additions to the Traffic Control Devices Register.

2.3 A summary of the changes can be found in Section 5, and a diagrammatic description of each change is in Attachment 1.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Amendment to Council's Traffic Control Devices Register and Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 report RCN24-06-5; and

2. approves amendments to regulations, controls, restrictions and prohibitions in the Traffic Control Devices Register of the Tasman District Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 (Chapter 7 of Tasman District’s Consolidated Bylaw) pursuant to clause 7(3) of the Bylaw, as proposed by the Diagrammatic Descriptions and associated GIS co-ordinates in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, with effect from 21 June 2024 or the date the traffic control device is installed, whichever is later; and

3. notes that the Traffic Control Devices Register of the Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 be updated accordingly.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Council’s Traffic Control Bylaw enables the Council to establish, alter or remove traffic control devices by resolution, amending the Traffic Control Devices Register and map display.

4.2 Parking restrictions and certain regulatory Traffic Control Devices are managed through this bylaw. Changes require a resolution of the Council to become legally enforceable.

4.3 Consultation should be appropriate and in accordance with the Local Government Act Section 82, which sets out the principles of consultation. The consultation principles include:

4.3.1 That persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be provided by the local authority with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate.

4.3.2 The nature and significance of the decision or matter, including its likely impact from the perspective of the persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter.

4.3.3 The costs and benefits of any consultation process or procedure.

4.4 Some of the proposed Traffic Control Device changes are considered to have minor or very isolated effects. Where the effects are considered isolated, consultation is typically via letter inviting feedback from adjacent property owners and businesses. Changes that may be wider reaching are typically associated with more significant transportation projects.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 River Road (Appleby) Heavy vehicle restriction. Request from residents concerned about the safety of increasing volume of trucks on River Road and using the intersection with SH60. Both River Road (Appleby) and its intersection with SH60 do have geometric challenges.

Residential Parking Management

5.2 Toru Street, Māpua no parking restrictions. Request due to cars parking outside of inset parking bays restricting through movements to one-lane.

5.3 Crescent Street, Richmond no parking restrictions. Through our residential streets project there has been ongoing contact and feedback with residents regarding parking to maximise parking, ensure residents can turn out of driveways and providing width for FENZ fire trucks.

5.4 Rototai Road / Meihana Street, Tākaka no parking restriction. Requested no parking lines on the intersection due to vehicles parking too close to the limit line reducing sight distance from vehicles and crossing sight distance for pedestrians at the intersection.

5.5 Olympus Way, Richmond no parking restriction. Request due to parking occurring in a too short space was making driveway access difficult.

5.6 Hunter Avenue, Richmond no parking restriction. Request due to parked vehicles and a vertical crest making driveway visibility difficult.

5.7 Waverley Street, Richmond no parking restriction. Request due to parked vehicles on Waverley Street in front of the kerb/footpath build-out adjacent to the new Kainga Ora development restricting traffic flows as well turning traffic from Gladstone Road SH6.

5.8 Greenwood Street, Motueka no parking restriction at Vosper Street and Wilkinson Street intersections. Request concerning the lack of sightlines when turning out of Wilkinson Street at Greenwood Street.

5.9 Heritage Crescent, Richmond no parking restriction. Request from locals to create parking order with park limit lines while protecting clearance setback for vehicle accessways.

Commercial Parking Management

5.10 Reilly Street/Junction Street, Tākaka no parking restriction. Request from Golden Bay Community Board.

5.11 Elizabeth Street/Gibbs Road, Collingwood no parking restriction. Due to safety concerns because of parked vehicles obscuring intersection sightlines.

5.12 Talbot Street, Richmond no parking restriction. To allow through vehicles to bypass vehicles waiting to right turn into KFC.

5.13 230 High Street, Motueka P10 time restricted parking. Change from P60 to P10 at the request of On The Spot business to support higher turnover business.

5.14 Barros Place, Richmond no parking restriction. Request to allow larger vehicles to access driveways.

5.15 Wallace Street, Motueka no parking restriction. To reinforce the legal requirement to keep clear of the Fire Hydrant.

5.16 Aranui Road, Māpua Disability parks. Updating our Bylaw to reflect existing layout.

5.17 Aranui Road, Māpua Loading Zone parks. Updating our Bylaw to reflect existing layout and extending the time restriction to 15min to reflect feedback.

5.18 Estuary Place, Richmond no parking restriction. To address sightline concerns at the Queen Street Holiday Park vehicle access.

5.19 Richmond Town Hall to convert all day parks to P180 time restricted.

Recreational Parking Management

5.20 Railway Reserve at Jubilee Park, Richmond no parking restriction. Requested to keep cycleway clear of parked cars.

School Parking Management

5.21 Main Road Tapawera P10 time restricted parking. New P10 parking restriction to allow a drop off / pick up zone on the school side of the main road.

5.22 Paton Road, Richmond no parking restriction. Requested parking restriction in front of the school's main pedestrian entrance, to discourage drivers from parking in this area and blocking the sightline of drivers and pedestrians.

5.23 Golden Bay High School Innovative Streets layout. The existing layout was recommended by the Golden Bay Community Board and approved by the Operations Committee. The Bylaw should be updated to reflect the current layout.

5.24 Gardner Valley Road, Upper Moutere, School Bus Bay and no parking restriction. There are often times the bus cannot use the shoulder and parents are not able to pull into the NZTA land (State Highway Road Reserve land) as too many cars are parked in the way and the school bus also has to negotiate where to pull in if a car or truck is parked.

Residential Development

5.25 Whakarewa Street / Manoy Street, Motueka roundabout and associated no parking restrictions. Upgrade of the intersection for Motueka West development.

Transport Choices

5.26 Transport Choices Motueka and Richmond. Remove previously approved traffic control devices that will not be constructed and revert to existing.

Streets for People Mapua

5.27 Streets for People Māpua. The Council approved layout changes to the Aranui Road Streets for People project at its 2 May 2024 meeting that require traffic control device Bylaw changes including a wharf bound cycle lane, no parking restrictions and shared path changes.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve changes proposed in the report and in Attachment 1 with effect from 21 June 2024, or the date the traffic control device is installed, whichever is later. This is the recommended option.	Improved function and safety of the road network at these locations. Positive feedback from the community who raised some of the concerns and proposals with Council staff.	Minor reduction in on-road parking.
2.	Approve some of the proposed changes	Some improved function and safety of the road network at these locations. There would be some positive feedback from the community who raised concerns with some of the proposals from the Council.	Minor reduction in on-road parking. If changes are not approved, there could be safety issues and negative feedback from the community.
3.	Do not approve the proposed changes.	Nil identified.	There could be safety issues and negative community feedback.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The proposed changes meet the requirements of the Tasman District Council Traffic Control Bylaw 2016.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Staff used the Tasman District Council iwi portal for engagement and the Transport Choices Motueka project team held a hui with interested Iwi.

8.2 No specific iwi engagement has occurred for the changes that are not part of the Transport Choices project. These changes are relatively minor operational issues and isolated in effects.

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

9.1 The following table describes the level of significance of this decision. Overall, the level of significance is considered low as the changes are generally minor and we have consulted with directly affected residents, businesses, and stakeholders.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Changing road layouts can create a high level of interest, particularly on more highly trafficked roads. This decision affects a relatively small number of roads in the District. The changes associated with projects have had consultation undertaken on the proposed changes and a decision made to proceed with the project. For non-project changes, Council staff have consulted with immediately adjacent landowners. Several proposed changes have come from members of the community who are directly affected. There will be improved road safety or function for many transport system users at the locations of the proposed changes.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Good management of traffic controls and parking can contribute towards the success of a place; poorly managed and designed traffic controls and parking can undermine efforts to create highly liveable urban areas. The parking restrictions proposed are to address issues identified.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	Traffic devices are not permanent and can be changed if required.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The Council’s roading network is considered a strategic asset. The changes are intended to improve safety and accessibility of our transport network to a variety of user types.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	Delivering some of the proposed traffic control devices now as part of the Streets for People projects with external funding, may reduce planned expenditure to deliver these changes in future years.
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 The Transport Choices and Streets for People projects have included extensive communications.

10.2 Directly affected residents and businesses have been engaged to provide feedback on the proposed changes.

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

11.1 The cost of installing the proposed traffic control devices, and updating the register, will be met from existing budgets.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are safety risks associated with not approving some of the traffic control devices.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Providing improved facilities for walking, cycling and public transport, are likely to reduce transport emissions.

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

14.1 The proposed traffic control device changes are consistent with the Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy, the Richmond and Motueka Town Centre Parking Strategy 2018–2038, and the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP).

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The changes to traffic control devices are proposed to ensure the safe functioning of the road network at these locations, and to contribute to achieving the objectives of the Transport Choices projects, the Walking and Cycling Strategy, and the Regional Public Transport Plan.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Council approves the proposed changes:

16.1.1 Staff will provide instructions to our contractors to implement the changes required.

16.1.2 Staff will update the Traffic Control Devices Register as soon as changes are in place.

16.2 Community Infrastructure staff will provide the Communications team with details of the significant approved changes to be included in Newsline and on the Council’s website

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Traffic Control Devices Diagramatic Description - June 2024

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.4 Streets for People Post Implementation Feedback - Salisbury Road and Hill Street

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Joe Bywater, Project Manager; Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-06-7

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to summarise and present feedback and relevant data on the Salisbury Road and Hill Street pilot cycleways that have been installed as part of the Streets for People (SfP) programme, and request approval from the Council on the next steps.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 On 2 May 2024, staff presented a report to the Council requesting a decision about the Streets for People pilot projects on Aranui Road, Champion Road, and Queen Street. The Council endorsed the decision to maintain the pilot cycleways on Champion Road and Queen Street ‘as is’ and the pilot on Aranui Road with some changes.

2.2 The SfP project team has since completed collecting feedback on the pilot cycleway installations on Salisbury Road (between Champion Road and Queen Street), and Hill Street (between Champion Road and Queen Street).

2.3 All these pilots (Salisbury Road, Hill Street, Champion Road, Queen Street and Aranui Road) deliver initiatives from the Walking and Cycling Strategy (adopted in 2022), which has overarching targets of increasing the proportion of trips made within our urban areas by walking or cycling.

2.4 Staff have commissioned an external provider to summarise qualitative and quantitative data, including vehicle speeds, user numbers, and customer perceptions (Attachment 2).

2.5 Staff have also considered feedback received through other formats including service request, emails and meetings.

2.6 Understanding the performance of the fast, low-cost pilot projects will assist the Council in improving these projects in the short term, and in planning future permanent changes to street layouts to deliver against its strategic objectives in the long term.

2.7 The feedback has not raised any new issues that would suggest the Council should move away from delivering on-street cycle lanes in order to make progress towards achieving its strategic objectives for walking and cycling.

2.8 Based on the analysis and consideration of feedback, staff recommend the following changes for the Salisbury Road pilot.

Salisbury Road

· Options 2 and 3 - retain with changes. Proposed changes are:

o Replace some concrete separators with a more visible/durable product.

o Maintain two carparking spaces on road in front of the Florence Medical Centre.

2.9 Staff recommend the following changes for the Hill Street pilot:

Hill Street

· Option 5 – retain the existing pilot with removal of the 30 km/h zone between Queen Street and William Street.

2.10 If approved, staff will work with our contractors to action any changes as soon as possible.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Streets for People Post Implementation Feedback - Salisbury Road and Hill Street report RCN24-06-7; and

2. approves the following design changes:

2.1 Salisbury Road

2.1.1 Retain pilot but replace some concrete separators with a more visible product.

2.1.2 Retain pilot but reinstate two car parking spaces in front of Florence Medical Centre.

2.2 Hill Street

2.2.1 Retain pilot but remove the 30 km/h zone between William Street and Queen Street.

4. Background / Horopaki

Walking and Cycling Strategy

4.1 In May 2022, the Council adopted its Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022-52. This strategy outlined goals as follows:

· Improving network capacity, by encouraging people to walk or cycle to relieve congestion from cars;

· Looking after our environment, by reducing emissions;

· Healthy communities, by encouraging more people to engage in physical activity; and

· Vibrant urban communities, where better urban design helps reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle.

4.2 Among other things, the strategy outlined a network of new and improved cycle lanes in Tasman’s urban areas. Safer infrastructure was the number one action that the community said would make them more likely to walk or cycle.

4.3 The strategy set a target of increasing walking and cycling for short local journeys around the urban area from 19% in 2018, to 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2050.

4.4 For more background information regarding the relevance of the Richmond Programme Business Case and growth and intensification, please see the report presented to the Council on 2 May 2024 (RCN24-05-7, included in Attachment 1).

Delivery of Streets for People Project

4.5 Since the start of the project in 2022, staff have held numerous Governance Panel meetings and workshops, and have had designs endorsed for all streets in the SfP programme.

4.6 These designs have also been approved and relevant elements including cycle lanes and zebra crossings incorporated into the Traffic Control Devices Bylaw register.

4.7 Projects which have been implemented, and had data and feedback received and analysed, are on Aranui Road, Champion Road, Queen Street, and now Hill Street and Salisbury Road.

4.8 The SfP programme does not follow the ‘standard’ project lifecycle where a detailed design is produced, consulted on, refined, approved, and constructed in permanent and relatively high-cost ways. Rather, it is implemented rapidly using lower-cost materials and refined over time based on feedback and ongoing engagement with users.

4.9 All pilot projects have been delivered using relatively low-cost materials which can be refined with minimal investment.

4.10 The simplified steps for each site’s feedback process were as follows (all post the bylaw approval from the Council):

4.10.1 Pre-construction experience survey.

4.10.2 Construction.

4.10.3 Post-construction experience survey (at least two weeks after construction completion) open for at least four weeks.

4.10.4 Tube count data in February/March (annual tube count data).

4.10.5 Collation of feedback received and theming/coding to feedback into multiple themes.

4.10.6 Interpret and summarise themed feedback (undertaken externally).

4.11 The Council engaged an external consultant to collate and interpret the range of qualitative and quantitative data. The report summarising this data is included in Attachment 2.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Staff advise that those who are satisfied with the pilot cycleways are less likely to provide feedback, as they are not seeking a change. The same people who submitted in favour of the installation of cycleways for the Walking and Cycling Strategy in 2021/2022 may not have submitted for this round of feedback on Salisbury Road and Hill Street.

5.2 Staff note that the Hill Street survey was the last of 12 surveys specifically for Streets for People projects in the last couple of years. While all residents of Hill Street received a survey after implementation, there was a marked reduction in the number of surveys completed compared with other previous surveys. This is possibly due to consultation fatigue on the part of the community.

5.3 Council staff also sent out a randomised set of surveys to 150 residents of Richmond, but only received 23 responses. These were more positive than those received from the more targeted Hill Street resident group and generally in favour of active mode safety improvements. This is consistent with the premise that while most people agree with the objectives of improving walking and cycling, most people would also rather not lose on-street parking outside their property.

5.4 The loss of on-street parking is an issue that was discussed at length during the development of the Walking and Cycling Strategy in 2021/22. Ultimately the Council acknowledged in that strategy that the benefits of allocating space for safer on-street cycling outweigh the inconvenience of loss of on-street parking. This has led directly to the delivery of the on-street cycle lanes on key routes in Richmond.

5.5 For more background to this analysis and advice, as well as the Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators used, please refer to the report (RCN24-05-7) presented to the Council on 2 May 2024 (Attachment 1).

Monitoring and Evaluation Results to Date

Hill Street

5.6 The Hill Street pilot installation included separated cycle lanes on each side of Hill Street, from William Street to Champion Road. From William Street to Queen Street, rather than separated cycleways, the speed limit was dropped to 30 km/h, and parking retained on both sides of the road.

5.7 Since the installation, general perceptions of safety have improved, with a 10% increase in survey respondents saying they feel safer, and an 8% decrease in perceptions of being unsafe.

5.8 When asked about the perceived safety for children walking, biking, and scootering to school, responses show a 20% reduction in lack of safety (from 41% to 21%), and a 21% increase in perception of safety for children (from 41% to 62%).

5.9 Vehicle speeds decreased slightly, though it is notable that operating speeds within the pilot 30km/h zone between Queen Street and William Street remain similar to speeds in the 50km/h areas, and well above 30km/h.

5.10 Datasets on cyclist numbers are not complete due to the installation having been in place only a short time, but early indicative results suggest they have increased by 15% from 2023 to 2024. Future counts will be carried out to track and verify changes in cyclist numbers and measure progress towards targets in the Walking and Cycling Strategy and Transportation Activity Management Plan.

5.11 Key feedback themes centre around support for the increased safety for active modes, particularly for pedestrians. Residents have expressed a preference for fewer separated cycle lanes and more raised crossing facilities. There was also significant feedback expressing concern around the lack of carparking (although note that a survey conducted on Hill Street pre-change showed a utilisation/parking occupation rate of 8.0% between Champion Road and Queen Street).

5.12 As a result of this feedback, staff recommend maintaining the pilot cycle lanes between William Street and Champion Road but discontinuing the 30 km/h section from William Street to Queen Street. The lower speed limit has had negligible effect on traffic speed, so this section is not providing safety benefits to cyclists, and there is not sufficient time to install higher cost traffic calming features before the project funding expires on 30 June 2024.

Salisbury Road

5.13 The Salisbury Road SfP pilot installation included a buffered cycle lane on both sides of the road with all on-street parking being removed, apart from existing indented parking by the school and shops.

5.14 Since the pilot cycleways were installed, average motor vehicle speeds have not changed significantly along Salisbury Road.

5.15 Datasets on cyclist numbers are not complete due to the installation having been in place only a short time, but early indicative results suggest they have increased by 14.7% from 2023 to 2024. Future counts will be carried out to track and verify changes in cyclist numbers and measure progress towards targets in the Walking and Cycling Strategy and Transportation Activity Management Plan.

5.16 Since the installations, general perceptions of safety have improved. Before the installation, 47% of respondents thought the area was ‘very unsafe’ or ‘unsafe’ for school children or teens to walk, scoot, skate or cycle. After the installation, this reduced to 20%.

5.17 Key feedback centres around sentiments that the changes have improved safety, but significant concern about the removal of previous space available for car parking and dislike of the concrete separators. The concern about loss of car parking is largely focused on the area in front of the Florence Medical Centre.

5.18 As a result of the feedback, staff recommend maintaining the pilot as is, but incorporating two carparking spaces in front of Florence Medical Centre and replacing some of the concrete separators, which are in areas more prone to vehicle strike, with a more visible product.

5.19 Given the overall off-street parking capacity and proximity to nearby side streets, staff note that these cycleways are a key element of progressing the integrity of the Richmond cycle network and achieving strategic objectives. The ‘network effect’ of creating linked-up cycleways is critical to achieving the targets and objectives of the Walking and Cycling Strategy.

5.20 See engagement feedback below for additional commentary.

Engagement Feedback

General Comments

5.21 Early results suggest the installations are contributing positively towards the objectives of the Walking and Cycling Strategy, noting that changes in user behaviour (for example, choosing to walk or cycle rather than drive for a short trip) take time and results should be tracked and measured across multiple years.

5.22 Some schools in the pilot area have suggested that they have more students cycling to school since the cycle lanes were installed, as evidenced by cycle racks being full to overflowing.

5.23 Hill Street received 225 individual feedback submissions post construction, and Salisbury Road received 612 responses. Staff acknowledge that the residents that completed this survey were self-selecting and may therefore not be a statistically representative sample size.

5.24 Staff consider it is likely that many residents that were supportive of the pilot installations may not have filled out the post-construction survey, as the pilots were satisfactory in their view.

Salisbury Road, Richmond

5.25 The Summary of Findings report identifies the five main positive themes, and the five main negative themes from the feedback data. The five main negative themes are as follows:

· Concern about car parking removal (124 responses from the 612 total).

· Concerns about impact to safety (87 responses from the 612 total).

· Lack of clear rationale or data to support change (47 responses from the 612 total).

· Opposition to concrete separators (47 responses from the 612 total).

· Opposition to materials/bollards/fit out (44 responses from the 612 total).

Hill Street, Richmond

5.26 The Summary of Findings Report lists the top positive and negative feedback themes received for Hill Street. The top five themes from the question “what do you dislike about the project?” (excluding the general opposition theme) was as follows:

· Concern about car park removal (91 responses from the 225).

· Concerns about impact to safety (30 responses from the 225 total).

· Opposition to colours, markings, signage (23 responses from the 225 total).

· Opposition to cycle lanes (15 responses from the 225 total).

· Consider accessibility needs (12 responses from the 225 total).

5.27 Opposition to the removal of car parking is not unexpected. It takes a significant amount of time before the community adjusts to the required change in habits due to any change in infrastructure.

5.28 Staff also note that a survey conducted on Hill Street pre-change showed a utilisation/ parking occupation rate of 8.0% between Champion Road and Queen Street prior to the installation of the pilot cycle ways.

5.29 While not a key feedback theme from the community, the speed data indicates that the 30 km/h speed zone between William Street and Queen Street has not been effective and therefore the pilot has delivered no benefits to cyclists on this section. Rather than install traffic calming features, which will not be achievable within the SfP project funding deadline of 30 June 2024, staff recommend restoring a 50km/h speed limit with an acknowledgement that no improvement to cycling was achieved on this section through either the pilot or by removing the pilot.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options for Salisbury Road are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Retain pilot projects as is and continue to monitor the site.	· Maintains increased level of protection to cyclists and other active mode users. · Continues to build connection to the wider developing cycle network. · Follows through on policies and objectives approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy. · Allows for more time to see an increase in active mode user numbers as the network continues to grow and link up. · Takes action to make it safer for significant numbers of children to get to school safely.	· Members of the community who do not like the project, or elements of the project, may not feel listened to. · Does not respond to some of the issues that staff recommend warrant some minor change. For example, parking and accessibility to the Florence Medical Centre.
2.	Retain pilot with the replacement of some concrete separators with a more durable and visible product.	· Increase visibility of the separators while maintaining the safety element of having physical separation between the cycle lane and live traffic. · Less maintenance cost. · Responds to a frequent theme in the consultation feedback.	· Additional cost to replace the current concrete separators. · The public may not like the more ‘temporary’ look of the more visible separator replacements. · Additional period of road works necessary.
3.	Retain pilot project with the reinstatement of two carparks in front of the Florence Medical Centre. (Realign cycle lane to go around the carparking and rejoin the original pilot after the Salisbury Road/Talbot Street intersection).	· Will allow predominately elderly patients to park directly in front of the Medical Centre. · Demonstrates that feedback can result in change (this was a common theme in the feedback).	· Cyclists would need to navigate their way around any parked cars and opening doors, which decreases the level of safety for cyclists although for a short, localised area only.
4.	Retain pilot project with the following change: Reinstate parking on one side of the road and install sub-standard dual-direction cycleway.	· Would reinstate parking on one side of the road.	· Cycleway width would be well below the minimum standard for a dual direction facility. · Dual directional cycle ways are also less safe than single direction. · This option creates ambiguity within the full network of cycleways. · Not achievable within the Streets for People timeframes so would need to be funded within the transportation activity budget.
5.	Remove pilot installation entirely.	· Satisfies those community members who want on-road parking re-instated.	· Increases risk for pedestrians and cyclists. · Fails to give the project a long enough chance to gain traction. · Contrary to the objectives and targets of the Walking & Cycling Strategy and Transportation Activity Management Plan.

6.2 Options 2 and 3 (retain pilot with some changes) are recommended for Salisbury Road.

6.3 The options for Hill Street are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Retain pilot project as is	· Maintains increased level of protection to cyclists and other active mode users, with the exception of the William Street to Queen Street section. · Continues to build connection to the wider developing cycle network. · Follows through on policies and objectives approved through the Walking and Cycling Strategy. · Allows for more time to see an increase in active mode user numbers as the network continues to grow.	· Members of the community who do not like the project, or elements of the project, may feel not listened to. · 30 km/h shared zone between William Street and Queen Street will continue to operate with poor speed limit compliance, putting cyclists at risk.
2.	Retain pilot project with the following changes: Reinstate parking on one side of the road and install sub-standard dual-direction cycleway. Return speed limit to 50 kmph.	· Partially satisfies residents who want on-street parking.	· Insufficient road width means dual directional cycle way would be below minimum standards, so would not operate safely. · Dual directional cycle ways are also generally less safe than single direction. · This option creates ambiguity within the full network of cycleways. · Not achievable within the project timeframes so will need to be funded wholly by the Council. · Fails to take steps to action the targets and policies in numerous approved Council strategies.
3.	Retain pilot with additional traffic calming measures between William Street and Queen Street to achieve 30km/h zone.	· This may reduce operating speeds to the required 30kmh, making it safer for cyclists while still retaining parking	· Installs additional humps for emergency services and buses to navigate. · Will likely attract significant negative feedback from commuters using this road (as we have for Wensley Road) when alternative options exist. · Not be able to be completed by 30 June 2024 therefore costs would be wholly absorbed by the Council, rather than 90% by NZTA.
4.	Retain pilot, with additional removal of on-street parking between Queen Street and William Street, installation of cycle lanes and resumption of 50km/h speed limit in this section.	· Provides a more consistent and complete cycleway network in accordance with the Strategy. · Provides benefits to cyclists	· More removal of on-street parking · Limited time to implement before funding ends on 30 June 2024
5.	Retain pilot, with removal of 30km/h zone between Queen Street and William Street.	· Aligns vehicle operating speeds with speed limit, which is generally safer than having poor speed limit compliance.	· Does not provide safe facility for cyclists as envisaged by the Walking & Cycling Strategy.
6.	Remove pilot installation entirely	· Satisfies community members who want on-road parking reinstated along the length of Hill Street.	· Inconsistent with the targets and objectives of the Walking & Cycling Strategy · Increases risk for cyclists. · Fails to give the project a long enough chance to gain traction. · Limits the connectedness of the Richmond cycle network. · Fails to take steps to contribute to meeting the targets and policies in approved Council strategies.

6.4 Option 5 (retain overall pilot, with removal of 30km/h zone) is recommended for Hill Street on the basis that the required traffic calming is not affordable for the Council. This option provides no real change from the current pilot level of service.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Any changes to traffic control devices will need to be reflected in the Traffic Control Devices Bylaw register through a subsequent Council resolution.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Staff held multiple hui with iwi during early concept design. Given that works included retrofitting areas already allocated as road reserve, iwi did not request to be actively engaged for the remainder of the project.

8.2 To note, this engagement was undertaken before the Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro (Iwi Engagement Space) was developed.

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

9.1 This report is of high significance to residents that live on any of the SfP streets as the ability to utilise on-street parking has been removed.

9.2 This report is of high significance to residents wanting to utilise cycle lanes and with an interest in improving the effectiveness of the transport network in Richmond.

9.3 Relative to many Council projects, the Walking & Cycling Strategy and SfP projects have had a high degree of engagement with our community.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The responses to our experience surveys have been high, indicating that public interest is high. There is anecdotal evidence that the recommended option will be controversial.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	High	The recommended option will positively impact the wellbeing of the community in the future, as evidenced during development and engagement on the Walking & Cycling Strategy. This is due to safer cycle lanes giving residents freedom of transport choice. This will free up congestion for those that must drive and reduce emissions with less of the population driving. With active transport modes being promoted and being a safe option, it will lead to a healthier community with wider economic benefits.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The pilot projects demonstrate that road layouts can be modified relatively quickly and easily.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Roads are a strategic asset, but this decision relates to a small part of the network.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Moderate	A decision to remove the pilot installations would decrease the Councils ability to achieve performance measure targets for cycling.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Staff have run a significant feedback process both pre- and post-implementation of pilot projects on Salisbury Road and Hill Street. A summary of this feedback process is included in Attachment 2.

10.2 For additional information about the communication and feedback process for these pilots and the Walking and Cycling Strategy, refer to the report (RCN24-05-7) presented to the Council on 2 May 2024 (Attachment 1).

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

11.1 The recommended options provided in this report are achievable within the existing budgets for the SfP projects.

11.2 Any works that cannot be completed by 30 June 2024 will not be eligible for 90% subsidy from NZTA.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Should the Council approve the recommended options, there may be a risk that parts of the community may feel their voices weren’t listened to.

12.2 There is a risk that residents who agreed with the pilots did not engage in the feedback process as they were satisfied that the pilots had addressed their prior concerns.

12.3 If the options to remove any or all of the pilot cycle lanes is adopted, there is a risk that significant numbers of the community will be unhappy that what was considered progress towards safer cycling, trips to school, and environmental benefits have been retracted.

12.4 If the options to remove any or all the pilot cycle lanes is adopted, there is a risk that the significant number of residents, schools and community groups that strongly supported the Walking and Cycling Strategy will see this decision as the Council not adhering to a high-profile plan that was widely consulted on and adopted.

12.5 If the pilot projects are removed, there is a risk that members of the community will perceive this decision as Tasman District Council failing to take action to tackle climate change.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The matter requiring a decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The recommended options may reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with use of the Council’s transport network, which is one of the goals of the Walking and Cycling Strategy.

13.3 The options for removing the pilot cycle lanes may increase or keep the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Councils transport network the same. This is based on the existing cycle network staying the same and the proportion of commuters cycling staying the same. According to the Walking and Cycling Strategy, if the proportion of people undertaking their commute by car versus cycling or walking stays the same as 2018, there will be 16,600 more cars on the road by 2050 (accounting for population growth projections).

13.4 For more information about climate change considerations, refer to the report (RCN24-05-7) presented to the Council on 2 May 2024 (Attachment 1).

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

14.1 There is significant strategy and policy in place, adopted and endorsed by Tasman District Council over the last several years that outlines the installation of cycling infrastructure to make these goals and targets achievable. The actions proposed come directly from the actions and networks that form part of the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022.

14.2 The pilot cycle lanes installed on Salisbury Road and Hill Street align closely with the maps consulted on for the Walking and Cycling Strategy (2022) and support the principles, policies and targets identified in the strategy.

15.3 For more information on the high level of strategic alignment with existing Council and regional plans, refer to the report (RCN24-05-7) presented to the Council on 2 May 2024 (Attachment 1).

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The pilot projects including cycleways that make up the Salisbury Road and Hill Street Streets for People projects are closely aligned to a wealth of strategy and policy decisions already endorsed by Tasman District Council.

15.2 The projects are the physical actions that have resulted from carrying out the plans and step changes identified in the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022.

15.3 Robust consultation and engagement were undertaken for the prior strategies that form the genesis of the Streets for People projects, and for the pilot cycle ways themselves.

15.4 Despite the brief amount of time that they have been installed, staff have measured an increase in active mode use, and an increase in perception of safety.

15.5 Feedback was received that some members of the community are unhappy with the reallocation of road space to cycleway, but this feedback is expected and not unusual for this type of project. Feedback was also received confirming that the roads now feel safer for people walking or cycling.

15.6 Staff recommend that the Council retains the pilot project on Hill Street (with changes between Queen Street and William Street where the 30km/h zone is not effective) and retain the pilot on Salisbury Road (with changes based on feedback from the community, specifically replacing some of the concrete separators and reinstating two car parks in front of the Florence Medical Centre).

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the recommendations in this report are approved by the Council, staff will take action to make the identified changes as quickly as possible.

16.2 NZTA funding for all Streets for People projects expires on 30 June 2024, so all changes will be implemented by this time.

16.3 Staff will continue to collect information on vehicle speeds, cyclist numbers and perceptions of safety as the pilots continue.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Streets for People Report 2 May 2024	224
2.⇩	Folkl Summary of Findings Salisbury Hill	256

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.6 Initiation of the Motueka Wastewater Treatment Solutions Project

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Pauline Webby, Senior Water and Wastewater Planning Advisor; Adam Henderson, Team Leader - Project Managers
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-06-9

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval for the initiation of the Motueka Wastewater Treatment solutions (WWTS) project.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At the time of writing this report, there are 11 years left to investigate, design, fund, build and commission a new solution for Motueka Wastewater Treatment (WWTS).

2.2 This report sets out the project timeline in associated blocks and details the next year of work which we are seeking approval to commence.

2.3 The timeframe of the work stages to complete and commission a Motueka wastewater treatment solution is bounded by the resource consent expiry date of 15 October 2035.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Initiation of the Motueka Wastewater Treatment Solutions Project report, RCN24-06-9; and

2. approves the initiation of the Motueka Wastewater Treatment Plant work programme (first stage year 1 preparation and options).

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Motueka WWTS is in a location that is no longer appropriate or resilient to natural hazard events/climate change effects for a wastewater treatment plant and a solution is required that would relocate from the current site.

4.2 The risk factors for the Motueka WWTS include flooding from the Motueka river, coastal storm surges, and rising sea level. Over time, climate change induced sea level rise will render the location untenable for use as a WWTS facility.

4.3 Alongside this risk, our region’s iwi have signalled consistently that the WWTS adversely impacts wāhi tapu, mahinga kai and that the discharges directly to water are offensive.

4.4 Resource consent decision RM141088 sets out the consent framework and conditions for the existing WWTS and gave a term of 20 years with the expiry date being 15 October 2035. Condition 6 of this consent required a feasibility study to be undertaken to look at the possible future site options that would meet a set of criteria.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The first year of project planning is critical to the project’s success by ensuring there is an effective team in place to ensure the framework for development and implementation of a WWTS solution is robust.

5.2 The March Council workshop signalled the start of this work programme in July 2024. It is intended the following work will be undertaken in the first two years:

· ensure that partnership with iwi is in place - the Regional Wastewater Philosophy (RWWP) work provides a framework;

· reactivate and task the Motueka Wastewater Working Group. As part of this process, update the terms of reference and replace ‘working’ in the name of the group to ‘reference’. This provides clarity that this existing group has a historical context and for other stakeholders there will be other forums to gather their input;

· set up a Motueka Wastewater Project Board and structure, with iwi in partnership with the Council;

· identify the internal team and requirements;

· develop project principles and set up a communication plan;

· undertake a ‘lessons learned’ process which includes the Waimea Community Dam project and other large projects (potentially from around New Zealand);

· identify key stakeholders;

· review and investigate current wastewater treatment designs/solutions in New Zealand;

· review and investigate all practicable options for a Motueka wastewater treatment solution, including the transfer of wastewater elsewhere;

· set a review schedule to update the Council’s Executive Leadership Team and Councillors on the project timeline and to keep the Motueka Ward Councillors regularly briefed; and

· schedule a Councillor workshop for May 2025, to outline completed work and outcomes and seek direction for Year 2 of the work plan.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve programme of work for next year	Ensures there is a clear start point for the project. Ensures that lessons learnt from (WCD and other projects of scale in New Zealand) are built into the programme. Allows time to set up a Council project framework effectively. Will be able to factor in wastewater servicing/ housing growth and relocation longer term for areas of Motueka exposed to rising sea level risks	Burdens on funding, staff constraints - not being available to support the work. Increased funding risk associated with a project with significant scale for the Council.
2.	Delay work in part or full	Financial commitment deferred.	WWTS may not be commissioned before the consent expiry on 15 October 2035. Natural hazard impacts may be realised without any preparation for alternatives. No climate resilience is being accounted for.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve programme of work for next year

Ensures there is a clear start point for the project.

Ensures that lessons learnt from (WCD and other projects of scale in New Zealand) are built into the programme.

Allows time to set up a Council project framework effectively.

Will be able to factor in wastewater servicing/ housing growth and relocation longer term for areas of Motueka exposed to rising sea level risks

Burdens on funding, staff constraints - not being available to support the work.

Increased funding risk associated with a project with significant scale for the Council.

Delay work in part or full

Financial commitment deferred.

WWTS may not be commissioned before the consent expiry on 15 October 2035.

Natural hazard impacts may be realised without any preparation for alternatives.

No climate resilience is being accounted for.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi, Resource Management Act (RMA), Local Government Act (LGA), Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), Tasman Wastewater Bylaw and the RM141088 resource consent 2035 expiry date.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Early work undertaken with the District’s iwi for a transfer to Three Waters entity is now being taken advantage of to reposition as a partnership with iwi under the framework set out in ‘Together Te Tauihu.’ This will enable a strong and effective partnership between the Council and iwi to understand the opportunities and constraints of developing a new WWTS solution together.

8.2 The partnership will lead the public engagement with the community and key stakeholders.

8.3 The existing Motueka Wastewater Working Group will be reactivated and tasked to support the community process in some form (yet to be decided). It has full membership of all the District’s iwi and corporate entities.

8.4 The Motueka Wastewater Working Group is a specific group formed post the iwi 2005 Environment Court challenge to the Tapu Bay pipeline. This group has a specific membership and over the past 20 years has been a reference group for Motueka wastewater generally and re-tasked several times. Staff are recommending this role be better reflected in the group’s name by changing it to the Motueka Wastewater Reference Group.

8.5 The last work undertaken was the development of the feasibility study that was a requirement of RM141088 condition 6. This group has been on hold since 2022 and will be re-tasked at the start of the Motueka WWTS project. Membership is as follows:

· Department of Conservation;

· Nelson Tasman Health Board;

· Fish & Game;

· the region’s iwi;

· Wakatū;

· Whakarewa (NRAIT);

· Motueka Councillors; and

· Motueka Community Board Chair.

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

9.1 Schedule 1 of the significance and engagement policy lists Wastewater treatment plants and reticulation as a strategic asset. The community will have a high level of interest in the solutions identified, and ultimately the solution decided upon. The financial, environmental, and cultural impact of the solution ultimately constructed will be significant. There will be several steps over the longer-term programme to engage the public formally on this.

9.2 However, this report recommends we start work and outlines the proposed programme for the next year, including early engagement with interested parties, and seeks the Council’s approval. This decision, by itself, is not significant and doesn’t require 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	The Motueka WWTS will involve the community and interest is already high in parts of the community and interested stakeholders. The start-up decision in this report is not of high significance.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Yes, but the decision sought in this report to initiate early work is not significant in of itself.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Med	The decision to start the project this year ensures no further loss of time for the project and allows for project planning. The long term outcomes are reliant on effective front end planning.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Med	Yes, but the decision sought in this report to initiate early work is not significant in of itself.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	No, the decision sought in this report does not propose any changes to levels of service. The final solution will improve capacity and resilience of wastewater treatment for Motueka, but this does not change the Council’s level of service.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	Not in the next first year of the project, but over the next 10 years this will be a significant financial commitment.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	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?	Low	Not at the first phase of planning.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	There will be early community engagement and communication messaging in Year 1.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater?	Med	Communication/community engagement. There will be a need to provide opportunities for the community and stakeholders to engage with us, alongside early key messages, and good visibility on the steps for the project. There will be an opportunity for community engagement on the solutions for the Motueka WWTS solutions.
11	Does the proposal require consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater and Three Waters services?	High	Yes, it will need to be where there is a proximity to freshwater.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Over the next 11 years the Motueka wastewater project is a high cost/high risk project. The estimated costs are set out in the Draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

10.2 The first year of this project is not high cost or risk. However, the foundation work of this first year is critical to the planning and success of later stages.

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

11.1 This is a high-risk project for multiple reasons and is considered complex. It will include consideration of wastewater volume/quantity/quality issues with climate resilience factors needing to be accounted for.

11.2 There will be risks managing the community and stakeholders' expectations and concerns for many reasons. These will encompass community anxiety and concerns around the cost and debt impacts on rates, the location of a new WWTS solution, where any output of treated discharges will go.

11.3 This first year will lay out the steps for a robust process. A key component of the planning process will be to ensure a clear communication plan with key messages at the key stages both internally for the Council staff and externally to the community and stakeholders.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 This does directly impact or affect climate resilience outcomes in the longer-term. Climate change resilience will be factored into the project plan.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The primary driver of a shift of the Motueka WWTS from the Thorp Street location is climate change resilience.

13.2 The future design process will provide opportunities to factor in other elements of developing and incorporating climate change resilience into the solution.

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

14.1 The 2024-2034 draft LTP process has set out and made provision for the funding of the Motueka wastewater project.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 It is important that the initial steps for this significant programme of work are well framed out as early as possible.

15.2 The discrete steps that are outlined in the timeline are integral to the forward success of this project.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Develop a financial plan for Years 1 and 2.

16.2 Outline the project plan - detail Years 1-2, broader framework for Years 3-11.

16.3 Set up process/systems to run project management with risk register.

16.4 Identify mentor framework.

16.5 Develop a communications plan – internal and external.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.7 Regional Wastewater Philosophy - Transformation to a Council/Iwi Partnership Agreement

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Pauline Webby, Senior Water and Wastewater Planning Advisor; Renee Thomas, Kaihautū - Te Kāhui Hononga
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-06-10

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

1.1 To approve the Council forming a wastewater partnership with the region’s nine iwi under the umbrella of the ‘Together Te Tauihu partnership’ by transformation of the regional wastewater philosophy (RWWP) work.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Regional Wastewater Philosophy work (RWWP) has been undertaken between the Council, iwi and the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit (NRSBU) as a means of creating a shared understanding that encompasses Te Ao Māori values and aspirations for iwi for wastewater management in the region with a long-term view. This work started as a collaborative approach leading to the transfer of three waters infrastructure to a Three Waters/ Affordable Waters entity.

2.2 With the removal of the Affordable Waters legislation and the associated transfer of three waters infrastructure to the Affordable Water’s entity, the value of the RWWP work has changed. It is no longer simply a combined Te Tauihu focus for transfer to a Three Waters entity. For Tasman District Council, the RWWP is an effective means of communication and shared collaboration with iwi in terms of management of change for its wastewater infrastructure.

2.3 It supports direction for iwi and the Council in terms of development of solutions for ageing Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in Motueka and Tākaka alongside the management of wastewater infrastructure across the Tasman region.

2.4 The value of the RWWP work is as a framework for partnership with iwi that aligns with the commitments and principles in the ‘Together Te Tauihu Partnership Agreement’.

2.5 Creating the partnership is a fundamental step that is a building block of developing trust/ relationships. This supports the work ahead for both the Motueka and Tākaka wastewater treatment solutions.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Regional Wastewater Philosophy - Transformation to a Council/Iwi Partnership Agreement report, RCN24-06-10; and

2. approves the Regional Wastewater Philosophy work programme being framed into a partnership with iwi for the management of Wastewater Treatment Plants and discharges aligning with the principles and commitments within the ‘Together Te Tauihu Partnership Agreement’.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Motueka Wastewater Strategy Working Group paused mid-2022 to allow iwi/the Council to better understand each other's views on wastewater management (the ‘RWWP’ process). Synchronicities with the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit’s (NRSBU) masterplan work were capitalised on and the Council, NRSBU and iwi joined forces to develop a draft regional wastewater philosophy.

4.2 Costs have been shared 50/50 between the NRSBU and the Council over the past two years of this work. The work has helped inform the NRSBU’s draft 50-100-year master plan. It has been an effective use of time for iwi and the Council.

4.3 Iwi have identified that the management of WWTPs, their locations, and the associated wastewater discharges is a priority workstream for them.

4.4 As part of the work completed, iwi provided a shared statement of their position on wastewater management from a Te Ao Māori perspective and knowledge.

4.5 The RWWP is currently a draft document that is cognisant of the positions held by all parties. As part of this, there is a draft outcomes and objectives framework for the management of WWTPs and the associated wastewater discharges. Te Ahu Rei has gifted a Whakatauaki to lead this work and potentially will form part of the partnership document.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The shared approach developing the regional wastewater philosophy work alongside a change in government direction has created an opportunity for both a new direction for this work, and to ensure the focus and purpose is appropriate.

5.2 This report proposes that the draft RWWP work forms the basis of a wastewater partnership agreement between the Council and iwi that upholds the ‘Together Te Tauihu’ partnership agreement.

5.3 The proposed new direction for the RWWP has now been socialised with the Council’s Executive Leadership Team and the Council (the manager of the Nelson Regional Sewerage Business Unit was present for this work.)

5.4 The Council’s partnership with iwi forms part of an integrated process that will support the Motueka wastewater treatment solution project, from the start. In the longer term, this will be direction setting for wastewater processes across the Tasman District.

5.5 The value of the partnership agreement and understanding is to elevate the wastewater work within the Council’s management structure, where it can provide for:

• leadership and collaborative partnership;

• strengthening co-operative working relationships;

• significant wastewater projects, form governance arrangements together; and

• ensuring shared outcomes and objectives with actions and next steps are living documents and able to evolve through time.

5.6 The work to date has informed the direction of the NRSBU’s master plan and they will continue to benefit from the direction setting partnership framework between the region’s iwi and the Council, where the NRSBU will be a key stakeholder in the Council’s processes.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Forming partnership	Sets up the development of future WWTP upgrades with iwi at the start-up of the projects, with a shared understanding and working framework. Reduces the likelihood of contested consent processes with the potential for legal contest. Creates opportunity for innovation in this space. Supports the development of the Motueka wastewater treatment solution project over the next 11 years. Potential for investment opportunities for building/infrastructure.	Setting up and embedding partnership takes ongoing commitment and time which equates to ongoing costs for Council and the region’s iwi.
2.	Not forming partnership	No advantages	Potential for misunderstanding each other’s perspectives in the wastewater space and then contested consents and legal challenges from iwi if the Council does not fulfil their obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. No formal context for the RWWP work without Three Waters/Affordable Waters.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Forming partnership

Sets up the development of future WWTP upgrades with iwi at the start-up of the projects, with a shared understanding and working framework.

Reduces the likelihood of contested consent processes with the potential for legal contest.

Creates opportunity for innovation in this space.

Supports the development of the Motueka wastewater treatment solution project over the next 11 years.

Potential for investment opportunities for building/infrastructure.

Setting up and embedding partnership takes ongoing commitment and time which equates to ongoing costs for Council and the region’s iwi.

Not forming partnership

No advantages

Potential for misunderstanding each other’s perspectives in the wastewater space and then contested consents and legal challenges from iwi if the Council does not fulfil their obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

No formal context for the RWWP work without Three Waters/Affordable Waters.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The following key documents provide the legal framework for the Council to develop and support engagement with our region’s iwi.

· Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi;

· Resource Management Act (RMA);

· Local Government Act (LGA);

· Tasman Regional Policy Plan (TRPS);

· Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP); and

· Tasman Wastewater Bylaw.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 The RWWP draft framework is the output of engagement for wastewater infrastructure and discharges to and near: wai/water, mahinga kai sites/food harvesting/gathering, wāhi tapu/sensitive sites with the region’s iwi. Tasman has two WWTP’s that are in locations of high and immediate significance to iwi, needing infrastructure capacity upgrades and alternative solutions for discharges within a 10 to 15-year window (2035 – Motueka and 2038 – Tākaka).

8.2 The RWWP work to date was to have a shared approach on values and aspirations for WWTPs and wastewater discharges and to develop a long-term perspective.

8.3 Iwi have been asking for confirmation of the Council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) support for the RWWP work over the last two years.

8.4 Creating a partnership at the appropriate level will strengthen iwi relationships and signals the Council’s commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and this process.

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

9.1 The proposed partnership commitment between the Council and iwi is a significant component of the engagement with iwi.

9.2 Management of wastewater and the associated discharges is a priority activity, and iwi have confirmed their wastewater perspectives multiple times within legal challenges by iwi (e.g. Tapu Bay pipeline 2005) Council hui, RWWP work. The iwi position is set out within the ‘Iwi statement of position for wastewater.’

9.3 There has been reinforced messaging about the discharges from WWTPs to water, mahinga kai and wahi tapu sites being unacceptable and offensive to iwi.

9.4 An affirmative decision that supports partnership would uphold the commitment below:

‘Engaging with iwi/Māori – Council has put in place processes to provide opportunities for iwi/Māori to contribute to Council’s decision-making processes (refer to section below^{^[1]}). Council will work with iwi/Māori to refine and improve these processes over time.’ ^{^[2]}

9.5 Creating the partnership is a fundamental step that is a building block of developing trust/ relationships. This supports the work being undertaken both within the policy team for land and freshwater plan changes and the work ahead for Motueka and Tākaka wastewater treatment solutions.

9.6 The following table is assessed for significance from the perspective for iwi partnership and community. It is important to acknowledge that creating the partnership with iwi will not reduce the community opportunity to engage or lessen the significance of the wastewater project for the community.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The public community opportunity to engage is not impacted or lessened by this decision. Current political/public debate on Te Tiriti may create apprehension for some of the community around partnership models. Iwi will also be looking to the Council to uphold the ‘Together Te Tauihu partnership.’
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental, or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	What is good for iwi is equally, in these circumstances, positive for the overall community cultural, social, economic, and environmental outcomes.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	High and Low	This question is dependent on the meaning drawn from the statement. Yes, this contributes to the positive benefits due to the more focused approach to iwi engagement. No – this decision does not give rise to adverse impacts as a consequence of support for partnership.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	High	WWTPs are strategic assets. Forming a wastewater partnership between iwi and the Council increases the opportunities for constructive conversations and longer term, the success of WWTP projects. All WWTPs and associated reticulation are considered strategic assets in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, Schedule 1.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	Does not impact the levels of service for the Council.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision affect debt, rates, or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	There is scope for increased partnership costs, however this is likely to be lower than the cost of disrupted decision making when there is a lack of understanding of differing world views and perspectives.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	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?	Low	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering a group of activities?	Low	The NRSBU will become a key stakeholder in the process.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater?	High	Partnership assists with a joined-up conversation in relation to the impact of wastewater discharges on freshwater water quality outcomes.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 There have been discussions with iwi and the NRSBU by the Council’s planning advisors representing the RWWP work.

10.2 Discussions have been held with Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council through Tasman District Council’s Group Manager – Community Infrastructure, Richard Kirby. Nelson City Council appears supportive.

10.3 Discussion with ELT and at the Council workshop has indicated the priority is partnership with Tasman District Council first given the priorities relating to the Motueka and Tākaka WWTPs.

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

11.1 Overall, the costs associated with partnership are low to medium.

11.2 There are costs for a writer that all parties agree is suitable to draft the RWWP work into a partnership agreement with outcomes, objectives, and actions. Partnership hui and the associated costs will be ongoing. However, these costs will occur whether there is a partnership in place or not.

11.3 Partnership is the first step that needs to be in place for the Motueka WWTP project.

11.4 There will be ongoing work for the Council and iwi in understanding what solutions for WWTP location and management are viable in the early stages of investigation and design work.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Low risk - partnership and ongoing dialogue with iwi is an effective way of mitigating risk associated with a significant wastewater treatment solution, where the budget provision is approximately $150 million.

12.2 Working together is effective in terms of finding shared pathways forward that may reduce the potential for legal contest.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Creating an iwi wastewater partnership does not directly influence climate change resilience but may contribute to improved decision making around wastewater management. Effective partnership is likely to contribute to improved design processes that can positively influence climate change resilience initiatives in relation to WWTPs. WWTPs are known contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Tasman Regional Policy Statement (TRPS)

14.1 Chapter 4 sets out Tangata Whenua interests and the chapter is supportive of iwi engagement and dialogue.

14.2 Institutional Council knowledge has moved from the point in time that the TRPS represented.

14.3 The proposed wastewater partnership agreement would be consistent with the principles, significant issues and objectives set out in the TRPS.

14.4 The proposed wastewater partnership agreement is also consistent with submissions received to the Draft Long Term Plan 2024-2034, seeking consistency with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for wastewater engagement between iwi and the Council.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 An affirmative decision for partnership would align and uphold the key partnership principles of ‘Together Te Tauihu | A Partnership Agreement for a Stronger Te Tauihu.’ The five principles are set out below:

· Kotahitanga - we navigate and paddle together in unison

· Honotanga - we recognise each other’s autonomy and mandate

· Tauritetanga - we work together to achieve equity in outcomes

· Kaupapa Mau Tonu - we are in for the long term, for our mokopuna

· Tauutuutu - we foster reciprocity and mutual benefit

15.2 A proposed partnership agreement would set out the framework for the tikanga - protocol and practices, that will apply to the wastewater partnership work going forward with an expectation that this is an adaptable document that will help build improved outcomes for WWTPs, associated infrastructure and discharges.

15.3 Confirming agreement for forming a wastewater partnership agreement embedding the RWWP work and outlining the framework for decision making in the governance space for WWTPs and associated discharges would be a positive and constructive outcome for the region.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Fund and draft a wastewater partnership agreement using RWWP outcomes, objectives historical context, and outline:

· confirm partnership;

· further work on actions/next steps; and

· regional conversation with Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.8 Community Infrastructure Capital Works Funding Approvals

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	David Stephenson, Team Leader - Stormwater & Waste Management; Giles Griffith, Project Manager; Kurt Clayworth, Management Accountant; Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-06-11

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval of unbudgeted expenditure in the 2023/2024 financial year for the following capital works projects:

· the Motueka West Stormwater capital project, and

· drainage renewals in the transportation activity, and

· pavement rehabilitation in the transportation activity.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Community Infrastructure Group delivers a portfolio of projects each financial year. Progress of the larger of these projects is regularly reported against time and budget to the Operations Committee of the Council.

2.2 Most variations of cost against budget are managed through delegation of the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure to adjust budgets within an activity, within delegated limits, and within the total annual budget for each activity.

2.3 Several projects this year are expected to exceed budgets greater than the delegated limits of the Group Manager. We are seeking authority for additional expenditure for the projects summarised in the following table.

Activity	Project	Total Budget 2023/24*	Forecast expenditure	Proposed Budget Change	Funding source(s)
Stormwater	Motueka West Discharge System	$3,545,000	$5,500,000	$1,955,000 increase	Additional borrowing in 2023/24, funded from indicative budget in 2024/25.
Stormwater	Total			$1,955,000 increase
Transportation	Drainage Renewals	$1,024,029	$1,602,620	$578,591 increase	Offset by budget transfer from 0401620002 sealed road resurfacing
Transportation	Pavement Rehabilitation	$1,101,106	$1,580,695	$479,589 increase	Offset by budget transfer from 0401620002 sealed road resurfacing
Transportation	Sealed Road Resurfacing	$4,506,827	$3,121,366	$1,058,180 decrease	Transferring budget to offset overspends in Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Renewals
Transportation				Net $0
All Activities	Total			$1,955,000
	* Total budget 2023/24 is the sum of Annual Plan 2023/24 budgets, carry forwards authorised in September 2023 and other changes made under delegated authority.

2.4 We have reviewed our forecast capital expenditure across the stormwater and transport activities to June 2024 and expect that this expenditure will be funded by underspends in other projects and, in some cases, additional borrowing in the current financial year.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Community Infrastructure Capital Works Funding Approvals report, RCN24-06-11; and

2. approves increased capital expenditure of up to $1,955,000 for the Motueka West Stormwater Discharge project in the 2023/2024 financial year; and

3. Notes that the indicative funding in the Long Term Plan 2024/2025 will cover the increased capital expenditure of $1,955,000 for the Motueka West Stormwater Discharge project; and

4. approves an increase in the Council’s borrowing to fund the increased cost in the Motueka West Stormwater Discharge project; and

5. approves capital expenditure of up to $1,602,620 for Drainage Renewals in the Transportation activity, offset by the transfer of $578,591 of existing budget from Sealed Road Resurfacing; and

6. approves capital expenditure of up to $1,580,695 for Pavement Rehabilitation, offset by the transfer of $479,589 of existing budget from Sealed Road Resurfacing; and

7. approves an increase in Council’s borrowing fund for the increased cost in the Drainage Renewals and the Pavement Rehabilitation within the Transportation Activity; and

8. notes that this borrowing will further increase the risk of a breach of the Council’s $250m net debt limit in the 2023/24 year; and

9. notes that the Council intends, when considering carry forwards from the 2023/24 year, to decrease the indicative capital funding in the Long Term Plan 2024/2034 for the Motueka West Discharge Project to compensate for the increased costs incurred in 2023/2024.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Community Infrastructure Group delivers a portfolio of projects each financial year. Progress of the larger of these projects is regularly reported against time and budget to the Operations Committee of Council.

4.2 Most variations of cost against budget are managed through delegation of the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure to adjust budgets within an activity, within delegated limits, and to a total bottom line budget for a group of activities.

4.3 Several projects this year are expected to exceed budgets greater than the delegated limits of the Group Manager. We are seeking authority for additional expenditure for the following projects:

· the Motueka West Stormwater project, which has progressed faster than expected,

· Transportation drainage renewal and pavement rehabilitation projects, where the cost of works in 2023/24 was greater than allowed for in budgets set in 2020/21, noting that the over-expenditure is offset by balancing under-expenditure within the transportation renewals programme.

4.4 The projects and funding sought are summarised in the table below, and further information for each project is provided in the following paragraphs.

Activity	Project	Total Budget 2023/24*	Forecast expenditure	Proposed Budget Change	Funding source(s)
Stormwater	Motueka West Discharge System	$3,545,000	$5,500,000	$1,955,000 increase	Additional borrowing in 2023/24, funded from indicative budget in 2024/25.
Stormwater	Total			$1,955,000 increase
Transportation	Drainage Renewals	$1,024,029	$1,602,620	$578,591 increase	Offset by budget transfer from 0401620002 sealed road resurfacing
Transportation	Pavement Rehabilitation	$1,101,106	$1,580,695	$479,589 increase	Offset by budget transfer from 0401620002 sealed road resurfacing
Transportation	Sealed Road Resurfacing	$4,506,827	$3,121,366	$1,058,180 decrease	Transferring budget to offset overspends in Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Renewals
Transportation				Net $0
All Activities	Total			$1,955,000
	* Total budget 2023/24 is the sum of Annual Plan 2023/24 budgets, carry forwards authorised in September 2023 and other changes made under delegated authority.

Motueka West Discharge System

4.5 The Motueka West Stormwater Discharge Project is to provide additional stormwater capacity from the Motueka West Development Area to Woodlands Creek.

4.6 The project involves constructing culverts to take stormwater from land west of High Street, underneath High Street (State Highway 60), along Lowe Street across Woodland Avenue and through private property to Woodlands Drain. The project also involves undertaking improvements to drain stormwater west under High Street at the Wratt Street intersection.

4.7 The contract for this work, Contract 1249 was awarded to Fulton Hogan on 11 December 2023, for the sum of $4,540,360 and work commenced on site in March this year.

4.8 The work was originally scheduled to be completed in 24 weeks (6 September 2024), but favourable weather conditions and swift progress by the contractor means that this work is now expected to be substantially completed by 28 June 2024.

4.9 Funding for this project was originally budgeted over a three-year period, from 2021/2022 to 2023/2024. The budget in this financial year is $3,545,000 and a budget of $2,196,990 has been included for consideration in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

4.10 At the current rate of progress, and if fine weather conditions continue, we expect total capital expenditure for this year to be between $5 million and $5.5 million. This would require between $1.455 million and $1.955 million additional funding this financial year (2023/2024).

An aerial view of a neighborhood

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 – Location of the Motueka West Stormwater Discharge project

Transportation Projects

4.11 Renewals budgets are set on a district-wide basis by activity. For example drainage renewals (culverts, kerb and channel), pavement rehabilitation (reconstructing structural layers of roads), resealing, bridge component replacement, and traffic services renewals (signs, railings and streetlighting replacement).

4.12 Each financial year, the scope of works within each activity tends to vary from the budgets that have been set when the LTP was approved. This variance is based on actual needs determined from detailed inspections, design and prioritisation of individual elements of works based on the needs of the wider network.

4.13 The recommendations in this report are based on a transfer of budgets between the different renewals categories. This is in accordance with NZTA funding rules.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 It is normal, in the Council’s capital works programme, for some projects to be delayed or advanced ahead of programme, and for project costs to vary over and under budgets for the work. This variation is normally managed through the delegated authority of the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure.

5.2 The variations in these projects exceed the delegated authority of the Group Manager but represent normal variations in the capital work programme. The Motueka stormwater project is progressing ahead of programme, but within budget, while the transportation projects reflect a change in work priorities due to the condition of the network.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve additional expenditure and funding as requested	Authorising additional expenditure allows these projects to be completed in a timely manner and for the Council to meet contractual obligations.	Where additional expenditure cannot be funded by savings or delayed expenditure within the activity additional borrowing will be required.
2.	Decline additional expenditure and funding as requested	Declining additional expenditure that requires additional borrowing will reduce the Council’s total debt in the short term.	Declining additional expenditure may delay project work or prevent the Council from meeting its contractual obligations.

6.2 Staff recommend Option 1, to approve additional expenditure and funding as requested.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no significant legal matters arising from this decision. The Council is able to authorise additional expenditure and borrowing.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No engagement with iwi has been initiated regarding the additional funding required for these projects.

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

9.1 We have reviewed this decision against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. We have considered the significance of this decision to be Low and consider that there is no further engagement or consultation required for the Council to make this decision.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The funding sought is by in large for projects included in the Council’s Annual Plan 2023/24. Where not included in the Annual Plan these projects responded to a pressing, immediate need which is likely to receive public support.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	There are low impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community due to this decision.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low-Moderate	This decision results in an increase in Council debt in 2023-24, which increases the risk of breaching the debt cap.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset?	Low	This decision does not result in a material change in any of the Council’s strategic assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	This decision does not create a substantial change in any Council level of service.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low-Moderate	This decision results in an increase of up to $1.955 million in Council debt in 2023-24. There will be a corresponding decrease in the 2024-25 financial year.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Nil	This decision does not involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO.
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?	Low	This decision does not involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	This decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater?	Low	This decision does not require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Progress on these projects has been reported to the Council’s Operations Committee and, for larger projects, through Shape Tasman and other Council communication channels. Further updates will be provided through these channels.

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

11.1 The total increase in 2023/2024-year budget of $1.955 million will mostly be funded by additional borrowing, causing an increase in the total debt, and increasing the risk of a breach of the Council’s net debt limit in June of the 2023/24 year.

11.2 There is no change in the total cost to the Motueka West Stormwater project, this is purely related to when the money will be spent. The total budget for this project in the 2024/2025 year will be adjusted accordingly.

Where are we at?

11.3 The Council is not in a strong position to fund unbudgeted expenditure. In the current 2023/24 Annual Plan, the Council’s debt was budgeted to peak just under the $250 million net debt cap. This purchase along with previous council decisions to fund unbudgeted expenditure increases the risk of a forecast breach of the Council’s self-imposed net debt limit. The Council is also forecasting to have an operating deficit, that is an unbalanced budget in 2023/2024 which will need to be funded through increased borrowing.

11.4 The Council has already authorised unbudgeted capital expenditure of circa $22 million this financial year (2023/2024).

11.5 At the end of May 2024 Council total debt stood at $358.1million. Net debt after adjusting for pass through loans to Waimea Water Ltd and deposits was $230.7 million. It is difficult to determine the level of increased borrowing through to 30 June 2024. This will depend on several factors including capital works programme, operational expenditure, Waimea Community Dam budgeted expenditure and typical annual billing falling in June (for example insurance premiums).

What does it mean?

11.6 Given current pressures on the Council, including the operational deficit, if this budget increase is approved it will increase the risk of a breach of the net debt limit of $250 million in the 2023/2024 year.

11.7 A breach of the net debt target will draw Standard and Poors (S&P) attention to the Council, which has recently had its credit outlook reduced from stable to negative. S&P has raised its concerns over the sector as a whole; that includes current and projected debt levels in relation to rates and other income.

11.8 A breach of the net debt limit will need to be explained in the 2023/24 Annual Report. It may also draw further discussion with our auditor over the Councils view on financial prudence.

What do you want to do?

11.9 The decision to increase the budget for the project in the 2023/2024 year is one for the Council.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 We consider that authorising this additional expenditure and funding is a low-risk decision. The additional funding is not material in terms of the Council’s capital works programme, and the funding sought is by in large for projects included in the Council’s Annual Plan 2023/24. Where projects were not included in the Annual Plan they responded to an immediate need.

12.2 Declining this additional expenditure may delay project work or prevent the Council from meeting contractual obligations and give rise to reputational risks including from a breach of its net debt limit.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The projects referenced in this decision are generally consistent with Tasman Climate Action Plan 2019 and the draft Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

13.3 Several of the projects will help protect communities from the effects of climate change and add resilience to the transport network.

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

14.1 This funding decision is generally in accordance with the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and the Annual Plan 2023/24. Most of the projects were included in these documents.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Community Infrastructure Group delivers a portfolio of projects each financial year. Most variations of cost against budget are managed through delegation of the Group Manager – Community Infrastructure but several projects this year are expected to exceed budgets greater than the delegated limits of the Group Manager.

15.2 We recommend authorisation of this additional capital expenditure and, where necessary, additional borrowing to fund this expenditure.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If this expenditure is approved, approved budgets will be updated, and additional borrowing arranged where necessary.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.7 Māpua Boat Ramp - Request for Funding Reallocation

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-06-12

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider a request from the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust (the Trust) to reallocate further funding from the $700,000 allocated for the Māpua Boat Ramp in the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 In May 2021, the Council approved funding contributions of $50,000 in 2021/22, $50,000 in 2022/23 and $600,000 in 2023/24 towards the development of a boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park.

2.2 The project is being managed by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust (the Trust) which has been set up to obtain a resource consent, then own and operate the boat ramp once consented and constructed.

2.3 The Trust has requested further funding of $250,000 to cover its indicative costs of proceeding with the resource consent process. The Trust indicates that of this $250,000; $50,000 for preparing reports for the Resource Consent Hearing, $50,000 for its legal representation at the Resource Consent Hearing and $150,000 towards the cost of the Resource Consent Hearing.

2.4 The Council needs to decide whether it approves reallocating the full amount of additional funding as requested or approves a smaller amount of funding or declines the request altogether.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Māpua Boat Ramp - Request for Funding Reallocation report,
RCN24-06-12; and

2. notes the Council resolution of 17 May 2021 agreeing to advance funding for the new Tasman Bay Boat Access Facility of $700,000 (excluding inflation) to $50,000 in 2021/2022, $50,000 in 2022/2023 and $600,000 in 2023/2024, for the purpose of providing a new boat ramp facility at Waterfront Park in Māpua to be funded from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserves Financial Contriubitons account; and

3. notes that, as at 30 March 2024, the Council has paid the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust $169,406 from the allocated funding towards the preparation and application for a Resource Consent for the boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park; and

4. EITHER:

4.1 approves advancing an additional $250,000 from the allocated funding as requested by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust to cover anticipated costs of its reports to the Resource Consent Hearing ($50,000), plus its legal representation at Resource Consent Hearing ($50,000) and a contribution to the costs of the Resource Consent Hearing ($150,000);

OR:

4.2 approves advancing an additional $150,000 from the allocated funding to only contribute to the Resource Consent Hearing costs associated with the Māpua Boat Ramp Resource Consent application;

OR:

4.3 declines advancing a further $250,000 from the allocated funding as requested by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 In December 2019, the Council gave approval, as landowner, to the Māpua Boat Club to proceed with the resource consent application for the development of a boat ramp on the Māpua Waterfront Park. The Māpua Waterfront Park is open space and not classified as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

4.2 In May 2021, at its deliberation meeting for the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031, the Council approved funding contributions of $50,000 in 2021/22, $50,000 in 2022/23 and $600,000 in 2023/24 towards the development of a boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park. Funding would come from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserves Financial Contributions account.

4.3 In June 2023, the Council considered and approved an initial request to bring forward $95,000 from the $600,000 originally allocated in 2023/2024 to help fund the costs it has incurred in preparing a resource consent application for the construction of a boat ramp at the Māpua Waterfront Park.

4.4 The Trust has confirmed that it has incurred costs to 31 March 2024 totalling $234,314. It has funding totalling $81,822 primarily comprising two loans.

4.5 Up until 30 March 2024, the Council has funded $169,406 towards the preparation of the resource consent application. This balance expenditure of $64,908 is being covered by the two loans.

4.6 The members of the Trust have the view that the council has previously promised a boat ramp to replace the one that became inaccessible during the development of the commercial precinct around the Māpua wharf. Although there is no specific resolution of the Council confirming this promise there is evidence of anecdotal comments from elected members at various times over several years conveying support for another boat ramp in the Māpua vicinity.

4.7 The Trust has developed and submitted a resource consent application for the boat ramp. The application has been subject to a public consultation process and the Council received approximately 111 submissions opposed and 212 submissions in support and six neutral submissions. Eighty-eight submitters wish to be heard.

4.8 On 9 April 2024, the Trust met with the Council’s resource consent staff to be briefed on the consent process from here. The Trust were advised that it needed to produce additional reports to offset and respond to the key issues raised in the consultation process.

4.9 The Trust has asked that the resource consent process be put on hold for the time being.

4.10 The Trust is now requesting a further $250,000 to cover the estimated costs of

· the hearing ($100,000 to $150,000),

· reports for the hearing ($50,000) and

· legal representation at the hearing ($50,000).

4.11 The Trust acknowledges that it signed an agreement with the Council regarding the funding and any further funding advanced by the Council would necessitate more contribution from the Trust. However, until a resource consent is granted, the Trust has stated that its fundraising capability is very restricted, and it simply cannot raise further funds from its own resources for a community boat ramp without further advances from the Council.

4.12 Further to this, the Trust has stated that funders they have approached have indicated that they require a resource consent before they can make any funding contribution.

4.13 The Trust has also stated that its trustees are no longer willing to put their time and money into this project without a resource consent.

4.14 The Trust has the dominant view that the boat ramp is a community facility, and that the Council should be committing more funding to it.

4.15 The Trust has made the point that there has been considerable volunteer input to date in locating the water and wastewater pipes in the estuary (120 hours), household surveys (200 hours), time in public meetings, information stands at the Māpua market plus meetings with iwi and community groups.

4.16 The cost estimate for the boat ramp was $1,713,886 plus GST in March 2019. This included a 15% contingency. From March 2019 to December 2023 the Construction Cost Index has increased by around 35-37% which suggests that the cost estimate could now be in the vicinity of $2.3 million.

4.17 The following are the actual budgets which include the inflation adjustments made to the figures in the Long-Term Plan 2021/2031;

· Year 1 (2021/2022) $51,150

· Year 2 (2022/2023) $52,378

· Year 3 (2023/2024) $648,652

· Total (LTP 2021/2031) $752,180

4.18 As of 31 March 2024, the Council has contributed $169,406 to the Trust costs. The balance available to the Trust is now $582,774.

4.19 The Deed of Funding between the Trust and the Council requires the Trust to submit quarterly reports. These reports require the following information:

· Delivery of Project Activities

· Project Learnings

· Financial Management – Costs and Fundraising Activity

· Risk Management

· Progress Report Declaration

4.20 The last quarterly report submitted by the Trust was dated 18 April 2024 and covered the first quarter 2024 to 30 March 2024.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 In its resolution, SH21-05-28, dated 17 May 2021, the Council approved funding of $700,000 for the purpose of providing a new boat ramp facility at Waterfront Park in Māpua to be funded from the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs). With inflation this $700,000 has escalated to $752,180 (see clause 4.15 above).

5.2 RFCs should be spent on capital development associated with the Parks and Reserves activity, whether purchasing land for reserves or investing on the reserves themselves. Although the Waterfront Park at Māpua is not a gazetted reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, the Council believed that in making its decision to fund the boat ramp, it would relieve the Grossi Point Reserve from being utilised as a boat ramp plus car and boat trailer parking area. Providing a boat ramp at an alternate site would allow Grossi Point to be developed to function more as a recreation reserve than it currently is.

5.3 The other key driver for moving the launching of boats from Grossi Point is that Grossi Point is culturally significant to Māori/iwi so any investment to remove its use as a boat ramp facility and protect its status as a significant cultural site is fully justified.

5.4 The Council is aware that the funding it has already paid to the Trust has no security. If the Trust fails to obtain a consent or if the conditions of consent are too onerous to enable the boat ramp to be constructed, then the Council’s funding contribution will not be recovered. Any additional funding would also be at risk for the same reason.

5.5 The Council resolution of the meeting held on 17 May 2021 point 4 – “requests that at least one third of the project costs is funded from a community contribution.” To date the Trust has quantified its contribution by applying hourly rates to its volunteer efforts. Although this is a positive initiative, staff are not sure that this was the Council’s intention that in-kind volunteer input would count towards the one third community contribution.

5.6 The cost estimate for the boat ramp, which is now assessed at $2.3 million, assumes that any conditions of consent are within the scope of the original estimate. This may not be a valid assumption. The conditions of consent may add to the costs of construction and possibly to the ongoing operation and management of the boat ramp. Whether the Trust has considered this risk is unknown.

5.7 Based on the uncertainty around the granting of a consent, any decision of the Council to grant the additional funding would be at the risk of becoming a sunk investment if consent is not granted. The Council could decide to provide other types of funding but even then, the risk around not obtaining the benefit of any type of investment needs to be a consideration in any decision it makes.

5.8 Should the Council decide not to provide any further funding, whether RFCs or any other type of funding, there remains the risk that the Trust may decide it has insufficient funding to not progress any further with the project. That being the case, the RFC funding already invested in the consent process will be lost. If the Council wanted a return on that investment, it could consider taking a further risk and provide the requested funding.

5.9 The other risk that the Council should bear in mind, is that if the consent is granted, with 111 submissions opposing the application, conceivably an appeal could be lodged with the Environment Court which would draw the Trust into much greater investment in expertise and legal representation to progress with that process.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the additional $250,000 as requested by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust from the funding already allocated by the Council.	Allows the Trust to progress with the resource consent process.	May be a sunk investment if a consent is not granted.
2	Approve $150,000 of the additional $250,000 requested by the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust so to only cover the costs of the Resource Consent Hearing.	This would support the public view that Council is funding the Resource Consent Hearing for the benefit of all submitters.	The Trust would not receive funding support for its reports and legal representation at the Resource Consent Hearing. May be a sunk investment if a consent is not granted.
3.	Decline the Boat Ramp Community Trust’s request for the additional $250,000 from the funding already allocated by the Council.	No further investment required from the Council until the resource consent is granted.	May result in the Trust not progressing with the consent application and the funds the Council has invested to date is a sunk investment.

6.2 Staff have no specific recommendation on which option Council should choose. The Council needs to consider all the detail presented in this report in making its decision.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Council has already resolved to provide RFC funding for the boat ramp. There are no legal requirements other than the funds being distributed in accordance with the Funding Deed signed between the Council and the Trust.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 We understand the Trust has consulted with iwi as part of its development of the resource consent application.

8.2 This decision in this report does not specifically require iwi input.

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

9.1 This decision is not considered to be a significant decision requiring further engagement with the community or any specific agencies. It is primarily about whether the Council agrees to advance additional funding that it has already allocated in this Long-Term Plan 2021/2031 for this project.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	The number of submissions opposing the consent application suggest that there is quite a lot of interest in the local community. Consequently, advancing further funds to progress the consent process may be considered to be of medium significance.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The decision is only about funding of a project that is already the subject of public consultation and deliberations.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	If the Council decides to advance the additional RFC funding and consent is not granted, the benefit for the reserves activity of that RFC funding would be lost.
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?	Maybe	The timing of the advancement of the funding would need to be managed so to keep the Council within its debt limits.
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 The Council has not had any communication on this decision other than requesting further information from the Trust.

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

11.1 As stated in this report the Council has provided funding in its Long Term Plan 2021/2031 and this decision aligns with that funding provision.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The key risk with this decision is that if the Council approves advancing the requested funding and the consent is not granted, then the investment is not recoverable, it is a sunk investment.

12.2 The counterfactual risk is that if the Council does not approve advancing the requested funding, then the Trust may decide not to progress with the project. This would mean that funding that the Council has invested to date ($169,406) will not be recovered, it would be a sunk investment.

12.3 The additional risk is that should a consent be granted, and an appeal is made to the Environment Court then unless additional funding is sourced by the Trust, it may not be able to progress with the project through the Environment Court.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This decision does not need to consider climate change implications. Any climate change implications would be dealt with as part of the resource consent process.

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

14.1 There are no specific plans for a boat ramp in the Māpua vicinity. This is purely an initiative from a group of local people who have formed a Trust to progress this.

14.2 The Council has previously considered a regional boat ramp, but this has not resulted is a specific location but rather deferred to current boat ramps around the region.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Council needs to decide whether to advance additional funding from that already allocated for the boat ramp in the Māpua Waterfront Park.

15.2 There are risks associated with the outcomes of the resource consent process for the boat ramp. The risk of the Council investing further in the Trust’s desire to progress with the resource consent could result in a sunk investment if consent is not granted or if it is granted and an appeal is made to the Environment Court. If neither of these risks occur and consent is granted without appeal, then the Council may get a return on its investment.

15.3 The Council has the choice to either approve advancing the full $250,000 as requested by the Trust, or advance funding of $150,000 towards the costs of the Resource Consent Hearing, or decline advancing any further funding until the Resource Consent is granted.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The decision of the Council will be conveyed to the Māpua Boat Ramp Community Trust.

16.2 Should the Council approve the additional funding, then it will be distributed in accordance with the Funding Deed between the Council and the Trust.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.10 Chief Executive's Update

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-06-13

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on some key activity since the Chief Executive’s last report on 2 May 2024.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Chief Executive‘s Update report, RCN24-06-13.

3. Ministry of Social Development – “Better Public Service” Goals

3.1 I received a letter from Craig Churchill, Regional Commissioner for Social Development/ Regional Public Service Commissioner, asking for support in meeting targets set by the Coalition Government.

3.2 Craig explained that the “Better Public Service” goals are to assist New Zealanders, to be safe, strong, and independent. The goals are to reduce the number of people on Jobseeker Support and to reduce the number of people requiring emergency housing.

3.3 For the Tasman District (Richmond, Motueka and Tākaka combined) this means an approximate reduction from 1,829 Jobseekers receiving Jobseeker Support as of January 2024, to a total of 1,222 by June 2029, a reduction of 607 total Jobseeker Support recipients.

3.4 Craig is asking for a collective whole community approach to creating sustainable employment opportunities and better community housing solutions.

4. Legal and Democracy Services Update

4.1 The numbers of LGOIMAs received each month remains extremely high. The numbers are published on our website here - LGOIMAs and information of public interest | Tasman District Council.

4.2 As you may be aware the Council was successful in the Court of Appeal in relation to a pool fencing case. The High Court’s creation of a new duty and weakening of the limitation period would have created an unhelpful precedent and made it harder for councils to regulate pool fencing. Hence the need for this appeal. However, I can advise that the respondents have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

5. Te Kahui Hononga Team Update

Collingwood Campground –Land Court Judge Visit

5.1 On 28 May 2024, members of our Executive Leadership Team, staff and Councillors travelled to Collingwood to welcome Māori Land Court Judge Reeves for a site visit to ‘Aorere’, specifically Pt Reserve A Square 15, ML Plan 916, situated in Block XV Pakawau Survey District at the Collingwood Campground.

5.2 The visit addressed concerns that campsites had encroached onto Māori land. A court session was held on 29 May 2024 during which Judge Reeves confirmed several key changes: the block would be named 'Aorere Pā,' the original owners were recognised, accreted land was added to the block, and two whanau were appointed as agents to negotiate with the Tasman District Council moving forward.

5.3 This outcome marked a significant step in resolving the land issues and ensuring proper management and respect for the Māori land. Further proceedings are scheduled for September to continue resolving the matter.

5.4 Our staff are working closely with iwi and effected parties to work through solutions as outlined by the Māori Land Court Judge.

Matariki Update:

5.5 Te Kāhui Hononga are working with the Community Partnerships team, organising a public community event to celebrate Matariki alongside the Motueka whānau, hapū and iwi. This will be on Friday 5 July 2024 at Decks Reserve from 7pm (bad weather back-up date of Saturday 6 July), with storytelling, waiata and warm kai. A hangi fundraiser is being organised with Parklands School.

6. Long Term Plan (LTP) Update

6.1 Elected members have completed the hearings and deliberations and have resolved on the key elements of the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan (LTP). The LTP is a lengthy process. The Council team and elected members deserve praise for the way they managed one of the most challenging Long Term Plans that Tasman District Council and likely the whole sector have ever gone through.

6.2 Officers continue to work through several matters with Audit New Zealand to obtain an audit opinion to support the Council to adopt the LTP. One of the challenging issues, which is primarily driven by the different planning cycles of Waka Kotahi/NZTA and local government, has been the indicative funding allocations for transportation. The allocations largely support an increase in funding for road maintenance to support the Councils proposed increased funding but at a lower level than anticipated, and public transport has seen slightly reduced funding in the next year. Waka Kotahi/NZTA has provided information on the likely funding at a very late stage in the LTP process.

6.3 These impacts appear manageable and not material in the context of the 10 years of the LTP. At this stage there is a small risk this situation will not be remedied to the satisfaction of the Council’s auditors in time for the LTP to be adopted on 27 June 2024 as planned. Staff have programmed 1 July 2024 as a back-up date for adopting the LTP.

7. Staff Values Awards

7.1 The twice-yearly staff values awards will be held on 4 July 2024. We have received 113 nominations with several staff members receiving more than one nomination. This event is a highlight of the year’s calendar with a good level of staff engagement.

8. Multi Employment Collective Agreement (MECA) Updates

8.1 Since November 2022 the Council has been a party to a Multi-Employer Agreement (MECA) between the PSA Union, Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council and Marlborough District Council. In 2023 the parties agreed to a two-year MECA with a mid-term remuneration review. The midterm remuneration negotiation has now been concluded.

8.2 Tasman’s negotiated salary grade increases for positions covered by the MECA ranged from 4.0% to 6.4% with the Living Wage increase being 6.9%, plus some employees will also receive additional performance increases.

8.3 We are pleased to confirm that the MECA negotiations with the PSA Union were ratified with PSA members on 31 May 2024.

9. Digital Innovation Project Update

9.1 The MagiQ Cloud upgrade went live successfully on 27 May 2024. Processes were functional at go live and the feedback from users about the go live has been positive.

9.2 The 12-week Discovery phase for the Customer Relationship Management project starts on 24 June 2024 with our vendor HCL New Zealand Ltd - Information Technology Services in New Zealand | HCLTech. HCL have been in New Zealand since 1999 and have been delivering industry-leading capabilities centred around Digital, Engineering and Cloud, powered by a broad portfolio of technology and business services software.

9.3 The Data Insights project has started with our vendor Datacom. The first step is to meet key data owners and users in the business to develop an understanding of our data management needs.

10. Audit of Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Update

10.1 A few months ago, a request was made by elected members to review our Civil Defence Emergency Management Capability considering the Hawkes Bay Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Response to Cyclone Gabrielle.

10.2 We have now received a proposal for this review from Simplexity and will provide the outcome of the review to the Council once completed.

10.3 The approximate timeline for this review to be completed is September - October 2024.

11. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 20 June 2024

7.12 Joint Regional Cemetery - Business Case

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	20 June 2024
Report Author:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-06-15

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

1.1 To agree to proceed with a regional cemetery jointly with Nelson City Council.

1.2 To adopt the business case for the joint regional cemetery. This will be subject to Nelson City Council adopting the same business case. This is scheduled to be considered at their meeting in early July 2024.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 In 2020, both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council jointly commissioned a report on Cemetery Provision in Nelson and Richmond which was received by both councils in December 2021.

2.2 Both councils adopted a Memorandum of Understanding in 2022 (Attachment 1) for the development of a business case to address several matters that would inform the decision of whether to proceed with a joint regional cemetery.

2.3 Officers from both Councils have been working collaboratively to develop a business case with guidance provided by a Joint Regional Cemetery Working Group comprising two elected members from each council and an iwi representative.

2.4 Funding for the potential acquisition and initial development of a joint regional cemetery was included in the 2021-2031 Long-Term Plan for each council with funding for any potential acquisition confirmed in the 2023/2024 Annual Plans. Development funding has also been included in the draft 2024-2034 Long-Term Plans.

2.5 The Business Case provides the framework required to support any opportunity that arises to acquire suitable land and establish an appropriately located, and accessible joint regional cemetery to serve both the Nelson City and some wards of the Tasman District for at least 100 years. It proposes that the Regional Cemetery would be acquired, developed, operated, maintained and governed on a shared basis between Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.

2.6 Officers have proposed as part of the business case four project objectives for consideration. Two of these relate to the acquisition and assessment of suitable sites and may be a necessary part of the process moving forward if ultimately the Council has to compulsorily acquire land, or it needs to designate land for the cemetery under the Resource Management Act. Officers have also proposed site location criteria, so there is a consistent set of objectives and criteria applied to all sites considered.

2.7 This report is seeking approval of the business case which supports the development of a Joint Regional Cemetery, outlines the project objectives for acquisition of land, site location criteria for a joint regional cemetery and agrees the basis for implementing the project.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Joint Regional Cemetery - Business Case Report RCN24-06-15; and

2. commits to proceeding with a regional cemetery jointly with Nelson City Council subject to the Nelson City Council also committing; and

3. adopts the Nelson City and Tasman District Joint Regional Cemetery Business Case, June 2024 in Attachment 2 subject to Nelson City Council adopting this business case; and

4. notes that officers will report back on a formal agreement that will govern the development of a regional cemetery and the provision of regional cemetery services.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Local Authorities have a legislative responsibility and mandate to ensure the provision of cemeteries. The Burial and Cremation Act 1964 imposes a duty on Local Authorities (section 4) to ‘establish and maintain’ a suitable cemetery where sufficient provision is not otherwise made for the burial of the bodies of persons dying within its district.

4.2 In 2020 both Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council jointly commissioned a report on Cemetery Provision in Nelson and Richmond - Assessment of Supply and Demand. The report was received by both councils in December 2021. This report estimated that the Richmond and Marsden Valley cemeteries will reach capacity for burial interments within the next 10-20 years and that there was a long lead time for the purchase and development of a new cemetery. Updated death projections undertaken in 2023 have resulted in revised site estimates being calculated based on a 100-year burial capacity, with a provision for around 16,000 burials (average 160 per annum) which requires an overall area of 22ha.

4.3 The councils subsequently agreed, through a Memorandum of Understanding
(Attachment 1), in 2022 to work collaboratively to investigate the development of a new joint regional cemetery and progress with a business case that would support that initiative.

4.4 The Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment 1) records the framework agreed for the development of the business case for a joint regional cemetery. This business case has been drafted (Attachment 2) and includes site location criteria, a preferred governance and management structure, a policy framework for the development and operation of the cemetery, and a funding model. The councils now need to independently make decisions on whether to commit to the development of a joint cemetery. If the councils both agree to proceed, the Memorandum of Understanding will be replaced with a formal agreement to govern the development of a regional cemetery and the provision of regional cemetery services.

4.5 Funding for the acquisition and initial development of a joint regional cemetery was included in the 2021-2031 Long-Term Plan for each council with funding for acquisition of appropriate land confirmed in the 2023/2024 Annual Plans. Development funding has also been included in the 2024-2034 Long-Term Plans.

Business case for joint regional cemetery

4.6 Officers from both councils have been working collaboratively to develop the business case with guidance provided by a Joint Regional Cemetery Working Group comprising two members from each council and an iwi representative. The Working Group has met on several occasions over the past two years and provided guidance and feedback on the location and site selection criteria, options for size and capacity, governance, management and operations and the development of the business case.

4.7 The topics in the discussion section below provide a summary of the topics required to be considered as part of the business case as directed under the Memorandum of Understanding. These are:

· Criteria to assess potential locations

· Location and acquisition options

· Development requirements

· Operational requirements – governance structure, management structure

· Funding model for capital and operational costs

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Objectives for the new cemetery

5.1 As part of the business case development project objectives for acquisition of land and site location criteria have been developed.

5.2 Officers are seeking approval of the following project objectives in the business case from both councils for a new joint regional cemetery:

· To acquire land for the establishment, ongoing operation, and maintenance of a new joint regional cemetery to accommodate the burial needs of residents of Nelson and Tasman (Richmond and Waimea/Moutere Wards) for at least 100 years at one location.

· The new joint regional cemetery land is of an optimal size, suitability, and location (including being accessible) for the intended purpose and the adverse effects (including on natural values) can be appropriately managed.

· The new joint regional cemetery land is acquired, and the cemetery is funded, developed, operated, maintained, and governed on a shared basis between Nelson City and Tasman District Councils.

· The new joint regional cemetery land is acquired, masterplan prepared, and the first stage is developed to meet the burial needs of residents of Nelson and Tasman (Richmond and Waimea/Moutere Wards) at least 12 months prior to capacity at Richmond cemetery being reached (estimated to be by 2032).

Location criteria for the new cemetery

5.3 Officers are also seeking the approval of site location criteria outlined in the business case. These are in two parts – gateway site location criteria and site-specific location criteria.

5.4 The gateway site location criteria are a ‘coarse filter’ intended to be applied to both the council territorial areas to identify a range of properties that are generally suitable for a joint regional cemetery:

5.5 Gateway Site Selection Criteria are provided below:

· Distance from central Nelson and central Richmond

· Slope of site for interments

· Location is not classified as Highly Productive Land

· Land not identified for housing or business growth

5.6 Specific Site Selection Criteria are provided below:

· Depth of water table / Ground water

· Buffer distance from watercourses

· Suitability of ground conditions

· Land is not at risk of sea level rise and inundation

· Land is able to be developed as a cemetery

· Cemetery facilities are able to be developed on site

· Transport accessibility

Locations and acquisition options

5.7 The first project objective identifies burial capacity for 100 years (equating to a site of 22 hectares). A cemetery with this burial capacity offers greater long-term security that enables both councils to meet legislative requirements for the provision of land sufficient to meet the burial needs for people residing in its district. It will be more difficult over time to find larger areas of land near the population base, as large land areas are being utilised to accommodate housing or business development (including horticultural production) and land values will increase.

5.8 Officers have undertaken the first stage of analysis using GIS to apply the Gateway Site Location Criteria across the region to identify geographical areas potentially suitable as a cemetery. The results of this analysis were that no suitable sites were identified in the Nelson City area within a 40km radius of Central Nelson and the number of sites in the Tasman District were limited, particularly when Highly Productive Land was considered.

5.9 The specific site selection criteria will be applied to potential sites as the next step in the site selection process. This is due to be progressed following adoption of the Business Case.

Development requirements

5.10 Development requirements have been identified and listed based on an indicative cemetery layout and include roading, parking, water supply, maintenance facilities, toilets, landscaping, fencing and plot layout. Further detail and indicative costings are provided in the attached business case.

Governance structure

5.11 A range of governance options were considered as part of the options assessment. A Joint Council Committee similar to Saxton Field was the preferred governance option due to its proven approach, simplicity, and low cost.

5.12 The suggested structure of the Joint Committee is two Councillors from each Council, with an iwi representative and independent chairperson.

Management and operations structure

5.13 Following approval of this business case, a formal project management group will be confirmed to deliver the project through the initial stages of land acquisition, consenting, masterplan development and initial stage cemetery construction.

5.14 A range of management and operating structure options were considered, the preferred approach was a mix of in-house delivery for management and administration aspects and continued use of external contractors for operational delivery. This is preferred as it provides Council oversight of cemetery management while outsourcing operational requirements.

Funding model

5.15 Options for funding the regional cemetery were considered as part of the Options Assessment section of this business case. A range of funding options were considered as part of assessing the proposal against the Project Objectives.

5.16 The preferred option where each council contributes 50% of the initial land acquisition and a proportion of the development cost with timing based on the initial use date which fully meets Project Objective 3.

5.17 The proposed funding arrangements are that the land acquisition and initial development costs prior to the cemetery commencing operation would be funded jointly by each council. A revenue stream from fees and charges will be available once the cemetery is operational.

5.18 Consideration was given to Tasman District Council providing a greater share of the initial funding on the basis that they will be utilising the cemetery several years earlier than Nelson City. However updated death projections show that the earliest use of a new cemetery for Tasman would be eight years and 10 years for Nelson. Therefore, this no longer seems necessary particularly as the costs will be recovered from cemetery fees over the longer term.

5.19 The financial analysis of the preferred option confirms that the cost of land acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation can be fully recovered through user charges. The councils fund the initial cost of land acquisition, development, maintenance, and operations and this is recovered through revenue from plot sales and interments over the operational life of the cemetery.

5.20 The cost of maintenance at the end of the cemetery operational life will be funded for a period by residual surplus revenue, however the grounds maintenance costs will continue in perpetuity so there will still be an ongoing, maintenance cost once these funds are exhausted.

5.21 The estimated whole-of-life-cost of the investment is $46.5m over the expected 100-year life of the cemetery. This is offset by potential revenues of nearly $72.0m.

5.22 It is proposed that the capital funding required for land acquisition and the initial development phase of $3,782,350 be split equally between the two councils. This funding is included in the Annual Plan 2023-2024 and the Draft Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 for both Councils.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt the business case	· Staff can continue to progress acquisition of land and development for a joint regional cemetery. · Enables Nelson and Tasman to provide for their cemetery needs in a timely manner. · Allows Nelson and Tasman to meet their legislative requirements regarding provision of burial space for their communities. · Provides agreed approach for the councils to work together. · More cost effective for the councils to work together on one cemetery than on smaller individual cemeteries	· Additional work (leading to further time delays) required to provide an alternative solution to meet the region’s burial requirements. · Nelson City Council is very unlikely to find a suitable site within its boundaries that isn’t already developed or in a future development zone. · Capital and operational budgets required to develop and run a joint regional cemetery.
2.	Partially adopt the business case. For example, adopting the objectives and criteria, while choosing to further examine governance, management, and funding models.	· Time to further examine governance, management, and funding models	· This will add to the lead in times and some aspects could be covered in a later stage of the project involving the development of a Cemetery Master Plan.
3.	Don’t adopt the business case	No apparent advantage	· Increased costs associated with additional work required and inflation of property and development values. · If one or both councils decide not to proceed with the joint regional cemetery there are likely to be increased costs associated with each council developing separate cemeteries. · Long lead-in times for development for acquisition and development of a cemetery mean than there is a risk that a new cemetery is not available when existing cemeteries reach capacity (particularly pressing for Tasman District).

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Council can make these decisions under its general power of competence.

7.2 Approving a business case for a joint regional cemetery is a decision of the Council.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Kaumātua Harvey Ruru was appointed to the Joint regional Cemetery Working Group as an iwi representative. The role of the Working Group was to provide high level guidance and support to staff in the development of the business case.

8.2 The councils will be engaging with iwi further through the masterplan process.

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

9.1 This matter is of medium significance because the provision of a cemetery would have a moderate impact on some sections of the community. The proposal has been budgeted for and engaged on in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plans and the draft 2024-2034 Long Term Plans.

	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?	Low	It provides for long-term burial needs of the community.
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)	Yes	Local authorities are required to provide areas for burials for the community.
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?	Yes	Funding is already provided for acquisition and development of a cemetery in the current LTP and draft LTP 2024-2034.
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?	Yes	Cemetery operation and maintenance services are likely to be undertaken by an external contractor.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 A joint media release with Nelson City Council will be provided after the draft business case has been approved by both councils.

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

11.1 Capital funding for acquisition was provided in the 2021-2031 Long-Term Plans, with funding for initial development, operation and maintenance included in the draft 2024-2034 Long-Term Plans for both councils.

11.2 The proposed funding arrangements are that the land acquisition and initial development costs prior to the cemetery commencing operation would be funded jointly by each council. A revenue stream from fees and charges will be available once the cemetery is operational.

11.3 The financial analysis in the business case confirms that the cost of land acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation can be fully recovered through user charges. The councils fund the initial cost of land acquisition, development, maintenance and operations and this is recovered through revenue from plot sales and interments over the operational life of the cemetery.

11.4 The financial model shows that there will be adequate revenue to cover the acquisition, development, operational and maintenance costs from year 10 onwards with a deficit in years where a further stage of the cemetery is developed. This deficit will be repaid during the life of that stage.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The key risks that might prevent, degrade, or delay the achievement of the Project Objectives are identified and analysed below:

Risk	Likelihood (H/M/L)	Impact (H/M/L)	Comments & Risk Management Strategies (Mitigations)
Delays in acquisition process	M	M	If initial approaches are unsuccessful, move quickly to commence notice of requirement/designation process
Availability of large enough site in single ownership	M	M	There are some sites of sufficient size available in the general area of interest. Property acquisition strategies will consider that acquisition of more than one property may be required
Price increase due to awareness that the Council is the purchaser	M	L	Use third party to undertake purchase on behalf of the Council
Withdrawal of commitment to project by one or other council	L	H	Impact depends on timing, if known early then easier to adjust
Development costs higher than anticipated	M	M	Robust costing process following completion of Masterplan to reduce impact
Death forecasts vary significantly from projections	M	L	The staged approach to development reduces risk by regular review of demand forecasts and implementing each stage to provide capacity for a further 20 years at a time

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Climate change impacts have been mitigated through the development of appropriate site location criteria. These have included avoiding land that is a risk of sea level rise, restricting the distance people must travel from central Nelson and Richmond (thereby reducing emissions from those travelling to the cemetery) and not utilising productive land or land identified for growth.

13.2 The provision of one regional cemetery means more efficient maintenance and burial through economies of scale. Compared to having multiple smaller sites, it means the cemetery can be developed at a scale where staff can be based at site (reducing travel between). Areas that are too steep for burials can be planted to provide habitats for native flora and fauna.

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

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

14.1 Under the Local Government Act, the purpose of local government is to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

14.2 Providing a joint regional cemetery will provides the following for the community:

· Social - provides for long term burial needs of Nelson and Tasman communities.

· Economic - provides for reduced cost and increased operating efficiency reducing overall cost to community through economies of scale.

· Environmental - resource consent/designation process includes assessment and mitigation of potential adverse effects on the environment and seeks to ensure they are contained and mitigated. Site location criteria also ensure certain environmental factors are specifically considered in advance of a Resource Management Act process, including the criteria relating to water table, buffer distances from watercourses to minimise contamination risk and that the land is not at risk of sea level rise and inundation.

· Cultural - provides opportunities for memorialisation and landscaping that recognise heritage, identity, and creativity. Areas are identified across the regions’ cemeteries, including the new cemetery if appropriate, to provide for different cultures burial and memorial needs.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

14.3 Providing a new joint regional cemetery is consistent with the following community outcomes:

· Our urban and rural environments are people friendly, well planned, and sustainably managed.

· Our infrastructure is efficient, cost effective and meets current and future needs.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The development of the Project Business Case has been a thorough process that confirmed the benefits of a Joint Regional Cemetery to meet the burial needs of Nelson and some Tasman residents in the long term. The report seeks the commitment of both Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council to proceed with the acquisition, development, and operation of a joint cemetery, adopt the business case, develop a formal agreement between the councils, and to complete the other actions identified in the business case.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If both councils approve the draft business case, Officers would:

· Jointly provide a media release with Nelson City Council.

· Report back a formal agreement that will govern the development of the cemetery and provision of cemetery service.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Memorandum of Understanding - Development of a Joint Regional Cemetery	404
2.⇩	Nelson City and Tasman District Joint Regional Cemetery Business Case	412

[1] Section 2.2 of the Tasman District Council Significance & Engagement Policy, 1 July 2023

[2] Tasman District Council Significance & Engagement Policy, 1 July 2023.

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor S Bryant
Councillors	Councillor C Butler	Councillor M Kininmonth
	Councillor G Daikee	Councillor C Mackenzie
	Councillor B Dowler	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor B Maru
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor D Shallcrass
	Councillor C Hill	Councillor T Walker

1.⇩	Letter to the Government from Mayors and Chairs regarding Māori Wards and Constituencies	362
2.⇩	Local Government New Zealand - Four-monthly report	369