Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7 Reports

7.1 Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2025

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Elaine Stephenson, Governance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-10-8

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

1.1 To present the Tasman District Council Meeting Schedule 2025 for adoption.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 sets out requirements for written notification of meetings to local authority elected members.

2.2 It is standard practice for councils to adopt a schedule of meetings by resolution in order to meet those legislative requirements.

2.3 The proposed schedule (Attachment 1). is based on a six-weekly cycle for Council and Standing Committees, four (or six)-weekly cycle for Community Boards, with other cycles, such as quarterly, for various committees and subcommittees, for example, the Audit and Risk Committee; and has been prepared up to the end of the triennium in October 2025.

2.4 It is noted that some meetings will be required to be arranged on an ‘as needed’ basis, for example, Submission Hearings or Animal Control Subcommittee meetings.

2.5 To accommodate Council business and for efficiency, the schedule may need to be amended. Elected members will be given as much notice as possible of any changes that become necessary.

2.6 Elected members also receive notification of upcoming Council meeting commitments for the following week through the weekly Tasman Update. In addition, the electronic Outlook meetings calendar and the elected members’ meetings paper portal, LGHub are also kept up to date. Elected members can access the Outlook meetings calendar and LGHub via their Council laptops.

2.7 Council and Committee meetings are also detailed on the Council’s website via the Council’s meetings calendar and notified in the Council’s two-weekly publication Newsline.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2025 report RCN24-10-8; and

2. in accordance with Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022, adopts the Tasman District Council Schedule of Meetings 2025 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3. notes that the Schedule of Meetings may be amended, as required, to enable Council business to be performed efficiently.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Adopting a schedule of meetings is in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and assists the scheduling of reports to promote efficient decision-making and work programme planning.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt the proposed meeting schedule	Provides clarity for elected members and staff regarding their meeting commitments and to meet legislative requirements	None identified
2.	Decline to adopt the proposed meeting schedule	None identified	Does not assist the Council to meet its legislative requirements
3.	Amend the proposed meeting schedule	None identified, any changes to the meeting schedule can be made as required	Does not allow staff time to consider the consequences of moving meetings – significant planning has been undertaken in developing the proposed schedule, taking multiple requirements and preferences into account.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 This decision is in accordance with Clause 19 (6), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2022 and the Tasman District Council Standing Orders.

7. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

7.1 This is a procedural decision and no engagement with iwi has taken place. The proposed Schedule of Meetings 2025 follows the same typical meeting cycle of previous years.

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

8.1 This is a decision for the Council and no engagement is required to set the Council’s Schedule of Meetings, it is an internal process.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	low
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)	no
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	no
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	no
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	no
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	no
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	no
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	no

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

9.1 There are no direct budgetary consequences related to the adoption of the meeting schedule.

10. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

10.1 Staff recommend adoption of the Schedule of Meetings 2025; this is typically the same meeting cycle that has been used successfully in previous trienniums and will allow elected members to plan their other engagements/commitments accordingly and provide clarity for the public.

11. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

11.1 If the proposed Schedule of Meetings is adopted, staff will complete the necessary administration, this includes the provision of a Calendar of Meetings on the Council’s website for the public and the issuing of meeting invitations to elected members, so that their diaries are appropriately up to date with the meetings that they are required to attend.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Draft Calendar - 2025

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.4 River Stopbank Recompense Policy

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor; David Arseneau, Team Leader Rivers & Coastal
Report Authorisers:	Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy; Rob Smith, Group Manager Environmental Science
Report Number:	RCN24-10-11

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

- inform the Council of the feedback received during the consultation on the draft River Stopbank Recompense policy; and

- provide advice on suggested changes to the draft policy; and

- seek the Council’s approval to adopt the River Stopbank Recompense Policy (Attachment 1).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The report presents feedback from landowners, including Wakatū Incorporated (Wakatū), following consultation on the draft River Stopbank Recompense Policy.

2.2 Key concerns raised include the need for clarity on the Council’s responsibility for the stopbanks, consistent assessments, and issues with voluntary maintenance costs versus recompense.

2.3 Staff have recommended several changes to the policy based on feedback, including shifting from an application-based system to an automatic recompense system with annual inspections.

2.4 The revised policy emphasises collaboration between the Council and landowners to ensure the integrity of stopbanks and public safety.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the River Stopbank Recompense Policy report RCN24-10-11; and

2. notes the changes that have been made by staff to the policy in response to the consultation; and

3. adopts the River Stopbank Recompense Policy; and

4. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer and Group Manager – Environmental Science the authority to make payments to Eligible Private Landowners in accordance with the River Stopbank Recompense Policy.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 In late 2021, Wakatū Incorporation (Wakatū) expressed a desire for the Council to create a rates remission that was intended to offset the presence of the stopbanks on Wakatū land. This was raised in relation to the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Wakatū and Tasman District Council regarding access associated with the Motueka Stop Bank Improvement project. This MOU has since been signed and it was agreed by the parties that this matter would not form part of the MoU.

4.2 In December 2021, the Chief Executive wrote to Wakatū in response to the request. The letter advised that Council officers did not have delegation to decide on this matter and that it was a decision for the Council. It made a commitment that Council officers would present information to the Council and seek a decision within a 12-month period.

4.3 Access to the Motueka River stopbanks for maintenance and upgrades has been challenging in some cases due to the underlying land ownership model. In some circumstances the Council has not been able to fully gain access and perform its maintenance obligations on its assets, without resorting to seldom-used legacy statutory powers under the Soil Conservation and River Control Act, which are enabled under the Public Works Act. Some landowners or occupiers are also using the banks inappropriately, such as grazing the banks with cattle or damaging the stopbanks with access ramps, potentially compromising their integrity and increasing the flood risk to the community.

4.4 Staff estimated that a breach of the lower Motueka River stopbanks presented the greatest risk of this nature across the District. This is due to the size of the river, topography of Motueka and the proximity and size of the Motueka township to the stopbanks.

4.5 At the Council Meeting on 22 September 2022, staff recommended that recompense be considered for Class X areas of the Motueka Stopbanks only. The rationale for this was that the Motueka Stopbanks are the most significant stopbank asset that are located on property not owned by the Council and present the greatest level of risk to our community. This was discussed at length, with the draft resolution being amended to reflect the proposed policy should include all landowners whose land was used for river stopbanks in the Tasman District. A resolution was passed instructing staff to develop a policy supporting an annual payment to landowners whose properties are intersected by Council-maintained stopbanks.

4.6 On 21 September 2023 Council staff presented a report (RCN23-09-6) to the Council requesting approval to undertake consultation on the draft River Stopbank Recompense Policy with directly affected landowners.

4.7 The estimated total cost of the policy if all landowners successfully protect their stopbanks is approximately $20,000 per year. The recompense for individual properties is estimated to range from $100 to $1,500 per year. A provisional budget for this initiative was included in the 2023/2024 year in the Long-Term Plan (LTP) and is planned to be carried forward into the 2024/2025 financial year. Long-term budget was not provided for in the LTP for the 2025/2026 year and onwards but will be funded from the existing Rivers operational budgets until the next LTP process.

4.8 The objective of the policy is to provide financial recognition of the flood protection benefits provided by private landowners who demonstrate good land management standards around the stopbanks.

4.9 The policy is not designed to offset the land value of the area occupied by the stopbanks.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Consultation was carried out by directly emailing or sending letters to landowners who would be affected by the policy between 30 November 2023 and 24 January 2024.

5.2 Four landowners gave their feedback verbally, either in person or over the phone, and Wakatū provided their initial feedback through email, with follow up conversations with the Rivers team.

Summary of feedback received from private landowners

5.3 The main points made in the feedback from landowners are as follows:

· Ongoing problems with two flood gates in the stopbanks that require manual closing, presenting a health and safety risk, especially when managed by an elderly neighbour.

· Submitter reported that mowing and spraying around the public entrance to the river is done voluntarily. Signage in the area is deteriorating, leading to issues with freedom campers and boy racers.

· Significant pothole damage caused by trucks during work near a nearby residence, with an expectation that the Council will remedy this.

· Concern that the voluntary maintenance costs exceed what is offered under the policy.

· Inquiry about the status of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) funding for flood resilience, specifically for properties initially categorised as lower priority.

· Questions regarding alternative Council funding for fencing and Council responsibility for fencing on the river side of the stopbank.

· Concerns about the lack of visible stopbank maintenance despite annual rate payments.

· General support for the proposed policy, with a preference from one landowner for continued cattle grazing if it doesn’t cause issues.

· Support for a fence fund, with a request for clear guidelines on fence placement and proximity to the bank.

· Satisfaction with current gravel management, noting that the gravel level is lower than in the past.

· Desire for action against Old Man's Beard, with acknowledgment of biocontrol efforts.

· Concern that compensation is unfairly distributed, with those receiving direct flood protection from stopbanks being compensated while others do not benefit from the same protection. This was paired with an observation that receiving a recompense was a bit like being paid to wear a seatbelt.

Summary of feedback from Wakatū

5.4 Wakatū:

· Noted that there was no clear indication of what constituted the public good in the policy and requested clarification.

· Sought confirmation that the "Good Practise Standards" mentioned in the policy referred to the document linked under clause 27.

· Expressed concern about the consistency of assessments by Rivers Engineers regarding stopbank maintenance according to the Council's "Good Practice Standards," citing past inconsistencies experienced with Council staff assessments.

· Questioned whether the policy intended to shift the Council’s responsibility for maintaining certain aspects of the stopbanks onto the landowner.

· Requested greater clarity on the objectives and benefits of the policy for all parties involved, not just the Council.

· Noted that compensation would only be provided if the landowner applied, with no compensation paid if no application was made.

· Raised a concern that the policy must be consistent with an existing agreement and urged the Council to ensure alignment.

Staff Advice

5.5 Staff recommend several changes to the policy based on feedback received from landowners. The key change being recommended is for the recompense to be automatic rather than require an application from the landowner. The automatic payment would be subject to, but not necessarily dependent on, an annual inspection from the Rivers team.

5.6 Conducting yearly inspections of stopbanks is a proactive approach to ensure their integrity and safety and forms the foundation of good asset management regardless of this policy. Defaulting to recompense for landowners unless the inspection identifies specific issues can simplify the process and provide clarity to landowners.

5.7 Several parts of the policy have been updated to reflect this change, including the application process section being replaced with a payment process section to explain the operational side of how the policy will be implemented.

5.8 The payment process section sets out which process will be followed when the landowner and the ratepayer are the same, and for when the landowner and the ratepayer are different.

5.9 Implementing the policy when the landowner and ratepayer are the same requires issuing a credit to the rating account. In circumstances where the landowner and ratepayer are different, the payment is made directly to the landowner, and they will need to be set up as a creditor for the Council to make the payment.

5.10 The calculation for determining the amount of recompense remains the same as in the draft policy and is intended to be representative of a grazing fee for lost opportunity for the area of land that the stopbank covers, including a reasonable setback area for maintenance requirements.

5.11 It is proposed that recompense be paid at $500 per hectare per year with a minimum payment of $100 per property for landowners in compliance with best practice. The range of payments is estimated to be $100 to $1,500. The total cost is estimated to be no more than $20,000 per year. Any future recompense value adjustment can then be benchmarked to unimproved grazing land on a river berm to maintain relevance and fairness.

5.12 Council inspections are now considered by the policy, with a clause regarding the need for the Council to give prior notice before an inspection, which is in line with typical requirements under the RMA and Soil Conservation and River Control Act (SCRCA). This clause also acknowledges the potential for use of drones or other assistive technologies, with an expectation that Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules will be adhered to.

5.13 In response to feedback, the policy now refers to an acknowledgement of contribution to flood protection rather than ‘public good’ provided by eligible landowners. There has also been a further expansion of the Objectives section of the policy recognising the benefits to all parties involved by enhancing flood protection, safeguarding community assets, and fostering a collaborative approach to environmental stewardship and infrastructure maintenance.

5.14 Minor changes are recommended for improved readability and clarity. For example: ‘Good practice in relation to the maintenance and protection of stopbanks ensures they are more effective in the event they are needed’ has been changed to ‘Good practice in relation to the maintenance and protection of stopbanks ensures they are more effective during flood events’.

5.15 Staff recommend a slight change to the definition of Private Land from ‘land owned by an individual, group or organisation paying rates on that land in the Tasman District Council region’ to ‘rated land owned by an individual, group or organisation in the Tasman District Council region’. This clarification avoids the implication that links ‘private land’ to the people paying rates on the land.

5.16 The revised policy includes confirmation of payment timing, being the end of each financial year.

5.17 The revised policy clarifies delegation for payments and future variations to the policy will sit with the Group Manager – Environmental Science.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt the policy with the changes recommended by staff following consultation.	Amended policy is responsive to feedback received by the affected landowners and takes a proactive approach to the Council’s responsibility to regularly inspect the condition of stopbanks. This has the added benefit of helping to improve current asset management practices and serves as a valuable public education opportunity.	Payment by default may incur situations where compensation is provided to landowners who are not implementing good practice but goes unobserved by the Rivers team for up to a year.
2.	Adopt the draft policy that was presented to landowners during the consultation	This policy requires landowners to be proactive and apply for the recompense. This may result in a lower budget being required for recompense payments.	This option is not responsive to the feedback received from landowners and may give a perception that the final policy was pre-determined.
3.	Don’t adopt a River Stopbank Recompense Policy	Mitigates any risk of setting a precedent for this type of payment in the future related to any other Council assets located on private property. Doesn’t raise the Council’s expenditure or obligations. Landowners are currently not permitted to engage in poor stopbank management behavior under the TRMP, such as grazing cattle and planting trees; as well, it is an offence under the SCRCA to interfere with flood protection assets.	May have a negative impact on relationships with landowners, particularly Wakatū. Misses out on an opportunity to incentivise good behavior and carry out valuable public education on the stopbanks.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Council is not legally obliged to provide recompense. It has full discretion over the amount and the criteria specified in the policy.

7.2 If the Council adopts the policy, staff will request appropriate delegation for the Group Manager – Environmental Science to give effect to the policy. This is included in the suite of resolutions proposed in this report.

7.3 Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 outlines the principles for consultation, ensuring that those affected by a proposal have an opportunity to present their views and that their feedback is considered in the decision-making process.

7.4 Directly Affected Landowners Consulted: In accordance with Section 82, the Council met its obligations by directly consulting with landowners whose properties are intersected by Council-maintained stopbanks. This consultation occurred between 30 November 2023 and 24 January 2024, ensuring that affected parties were given sufficient time and opportunity to provide feedback.

7.5 Multiple Feedback Channels: The consultation involved multiple channels of communication, including emails, letters, phone conversations, and in-person meetings. This approach ensured that all landowners, regardless of their preferred method of communication, could participate in the consultation process.

7.6 Consideration of Feedback: The feedback received from landowners was carefully considered and has informed the recommended changes to the draft policy. These changes are detailed in the report, demonstrating that the Council has adhered to the principles of consultation by considering the views of those directly affected.

7.7 Documentation of Engagement: The report documents the engagement process, summarising the feedback received and the Council's response to it. This ensures that the consultation process is both transparent and accountable, meeting the legal obligations under the Local Government Act.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There are properties directly affected by the draft policy that are in collective Māori ownership. This policy has been initiated by Wakatū Incorporation, with extensive liaison with the Council’s Kaihautū at the time. Since then, the Rivers team has been in regular contact with Wakatū, who were included as landowners as part of the consultation.

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

9.1 Staff consider that the decision to adopt the policy is of low significance to the public and of moderate interest to affected landowners.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	This is likely to be of low interest to the public and of moderate interest to directly affected landowners.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	This policy seeks to improve social, environmental and economic well-being by promoting and incentivising good landowner stewardship of the public flood protection infrastructure located on their properties.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	There is a clause in the policy which notes that the Council can withdraw the policy at any time.
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?	Low	The financial impact is outlined in section 11.
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?	Low	The presence of stopbanks along a river could be seen as contrary to the principles of TMOTW, as they do not prioritise the health of the river itself. However, the impact in this case is considered low due to the historical nature of the stopbanks and high public value derived from their function.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Affected landowners have been consulted during development of the policy, and will receive a direct communication, either by mail or email, detailing the final policy, the changes made following consultation, and how the policy will impact them.

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

11.1 Staff have budgeted $25,000 in the 2023/2024 Annual Plan for the implementation of this policy, which is proposed to be carried forward to the 2024/2025 financial year. Further payments in Years 2 and 3 of the 2024 LTP will be funded from the existing Rivers activity operational budgets, and long-term budget for this policy will be requested in the LTP 2027-2037.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 It is possible that this policy will create expectations from other landowners who have public infrastructure on their property such as drains or watercourses serving a public benefit. To mitigate this, the policy is clear that this recompense should not be considered a precedent for other infrastructure.

12.2 If the Council chooses not to adopt the policy there will be no incentive for landowners to protect Council Maintained Stopbanks more than they currently do, which poses further risk to the structural integrity of the stopbanks and increases risk of their failure in the event of a flood without increased compliance and enforcement efforts. To mitigate this possible risk and to further support the objectives of this policy staff are actively pursuing further MBIE funding to supporting fencing along stopbanks, and it is anticipated that significant fencing can be installed through the recently awarded Before the Deluge funding.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 In the long term, there is likely to be an increase in the frequency and intensity of major flood events. Taking steps to maintain or improve the condition of stopbanks will enable them to better mitigate flood risks for the community.

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

14.1 This policy is aligned to the Council’s Rivers Activity Management Plan and the intention to maintain stopbanks at their current level of service.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The consultation process has provided valuable insights that have informed the recommended adjustments to the draft policy.

15.2 The proposed changes aim to address the concerns raised by landowners, including Wakatū, ensuring a more equitable and streamlined approach to recompense, and clarified responsibilities of both the Council and landowners.

15.3 Adoption of the revised policy will reinforce the Council’s commitment to maintaining the structural integrity of stopbanks, enhancing flood protection, and fostering positive relationships with landowners.

15.4 The report seeks the Council’s approval to adopt the River Stopbank Recompense Policy, reflecting the collaborative efforts and feedback gathered during the consultation.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the policy is adopted by the Council, staff will notify affected landowners to provide a copy of the final policy, outline the changes made following consultation, and how the policy will impact them.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

River Stopbank Recompense Policy

120

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.5 River Management - Section 17A Delivery of Services Review

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	David Arseneau, Team Leader Rivers & Coastal
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager – Environmental Science
Report Number:	RCN24-10-12

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to meet its obligations under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002, to periodically review the cost-effectiveness of its activities for meeting the needs of its communities for good-quality local infrastructure and public services.

1.2 The subject of this review is the delivery of the River Management activity, including annual maintenance and flood damage response within the Council’s X and Y rated rivers. These services are currently delivered for the Council by contractors with governance and funding provided by the Council.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), the Council is required to carry out service delivery reviews for its key infrastructure, service, and regulatory functions. The last review of the River Management activity was completed and approved in April 2016 (RESC16-04-05), although this review focused only on the delivery aspect of the activity.

2.2 Staff have completed a review of the River Management activity (Attachment 1) which recommends the following:

· The status quo be retained until such time that a more extensive review of potential governance, funding, and delivery arrangements can be undertaken, following completion of the scheduled River Management Plans; and

· Delivery of river management work continues to be through an external contractor (noted as “another person or agency” in the LGA) with extensive oversight and direction from Council staff, as it is considered the most cost-effective way of providing this service under the current governance and funding structure; and

· The current river maintenance contract (C1064), which has been running since 2016 and will expire in June 2025, be re-tendered to obtain up-to-date competitive pricing.

2.3 Staff recommend that the Council approve the decision to not undertake a full s17A review of the River Management activity at this time.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the River Management - Section 17A Delivery of Services Review report RCN24-10-12, and the Tasman District Council Section 17A Review of River Management activity detailed in Attachment 1; and

2. approves retaining the status quo arrangements for the River Management activity, with Tasman District Council providing governance and funding for the activity and an external contractor providing delivery of river maintenance services, with the river maintenance service delivery contract to be retendered prior to its expiration on 30 June 2025.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Under Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), the Council is required to carry out service delivery reviews every six years maximum, within two years before the expiry of a current service delivery contract, or in conjunction with any significant change to service levels.

4.2 These reviews “must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions”, considering options for the governance, funding, and delivery of infrastructure, services, and regulatory functions. This includes options:

4.2.1 where the Council retains responsibility for these areas,

4.2.2 where responsibility for delivery is assigned to a CCO or another authority/agency, or

4.2.3 where funding and governance is likewise assigned to a joint committee or other shared governance arrangement.

4.3 However, a local authority is not required to undertake a review if the authority is satisfied that the potential benefits of undertaking a review do not justify the cost of undertaking the review (LGA 2002 s17A.3.b).

4.4 The most recent s17A review for the River Management activity was completed and approved by the Council in April 2016 (RESC16-04-05). At this time, it was determined that the benefits of a Section 17A review for the activity would arise from changes to governance or funding, and that the best value for service delivery was to issue the river maintenance contract for open tender to secure competitive prices (which was done later in 2016).
A further recommendation was to ensure that sufficient resources were included in the LTP 2018-2028 to enable a planned approach to the governance and funding review. This resourcing was not included in that LTP, and a more thorough review of governance and funding options for the river maintenance activity has not since been completed as planned.

4.5 The current river maintenance contract (C1064) will expire at the end of June 2025, after having been extended several times since it was awarded in August 2016.

4.6 Council has now triggered two of the potential reasons to undertake a s17A review of the River Management activity: it has been six (eight) years since the last s17A review, and it is within two years before the expiry of a service delivery contract, namely C1064.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Staff have undertaken a review of the River Management activity (Attachment 1), using the s17A review template made available by Council governance staff for this purpose. The review consists of three parts:

5.1.1 Part I: Present arrangements. This section describes the current River Management service, its scope and rationale, existing Governance, Funding and Delivery arrangements, performance measures, and past/future budgets.

5.1.2 Part II: Decision to review – is a review required? This section undertakes a methodical analysis of Council’s legislated responsibility to undertake s17A reviews, and an assessment of the reasons a review may not be undertaken.

5.1.3 Part III: Review – analysis of options. This section is only required if it is determined that a s17A review needs to be completed; it was not completed as part of this review.

5.2 Council has a legal obligation to meet the requirements of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, the overriding purpose of which is to make provision for the conservation of soil resources, the prevention of damage by erosion and to make better provision for the protection of property from damage by floods. The extent to which Council carries out this mandate is established through the Rivers Activity Management Plan through the Long Term Plan process, noting that there is no clear minimum standard or level of service that the Council is obligated to provide to satisfy their statutory responsibility. This ambiguity provides some challenges in completing a robust s17A review.

5.3 The River Management activity is primarily funded through a targeted rate, levied on all rateable units in the District, differentiated by their location in one of three rating areas: the Rivers X, Y, and Z rating areas. Other revenue sources include debt, gravel extraction fees, river berm rental fees, Rivers Z recoveries, and periodic grants from central government for major capital projects.

5.4 Delivery of the River Management activity is primarily through the ongoing River Maintenance contract, which delivers on-the-ground maintenance and flood damage response within the Rivers X and Y areas. Management and direction of the contract is provided by Council’s Rivers and Coastal Structures team.

5.5 Staff consider that a s17A review is required to be undertaken for the River Management activity based on elapsed time since the previous review, and that the cost of undertaking the s17A review likely does not outweigh the potential benefits. However, there are several factors which impact the ability for Council to realise benefit from the review at this time, including the following:

5.5.1 The existing arrangements are largely effective, particularly as Council holds the statutory responsibility and powers for the service, as well as holding several global resource consents to enable river maintenance work. The current service provider consistently performs well and delivers high-quality work.

5.5.2 The broad scope provided under the Soil Conservation and River Control Act, and the current poorly defined level of service for River Y areas in particular, where most of the activity’s expenditures are made, make it difficult to assess the benefit of alternative governance, funding, and delivery structures. Staff’s intention is to establish clear levels of service and performance measures for the activity through completion of the River Management Plans, which are budgeted for in the 2024 LTP over the next five years.

5.5.3 The review of alternative governance and funding structures may impact the current targeted rate system and would benefit from community consultation to determine potential public value received.

5.5.4 Recent significant weather events and the rapidly changing legislative environment suggest that changes to how river management is governed, funded, or delivered in New Zealand may occur regardless of a s17A review.

5.5.5 Council’s Rivers team does not currently have the capacity to undertake a comprehensive review internally and have not secured an appropriate budget in the 2024 LTP to complete this work externally.

5.6 Based on the review completed by Staff (Attachment 1), it is recommended that a comprehensive s17A review of the River Management activity not be undertaken at this time, and that a detailed s17A review of the governance, funding, and delivery of the River Management Activity be undertaken following completion of the scheduled River Management Plans. Funding to undertake this work will be requested in LTP 2027 or future Annual Plans as appropriate.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Adopt staff’s recommendation to maintain the status quo governance and funding arrangements for the River Management activity, retender the river maintenance service delivery contract prior to its expiry on 30 June 2025, and pursue a more comprehensive s17A review following completion of the River Management Plans.	Enables the Council to undertake procurement of a new river maintenance contract with competitive prices. Provides clear scope and purpose for the River Management Plans. Resulting s17A review will be robust and reliable.	Longer time frame to obtain a full s17A review of the activity.
2.	Maintain status quo governance and funding arrangements, retender the river maintenance contract, and provide funding to immediately commence a more comprehensive s17A review based on current activity parameters.	Enables the Council to undertake procurement of a new river maintenance contract with competitive prices. Fully satisfies LGA s17A requirements in a shorter time frame.	Results of the s17A are not likely to be robust, and use of resources to obtain the review would be marginal.
3.	Option 1 or 2 but do not retender the existing river maintenance contract. The current contract would then be extended through direct negotiation with the current service provider.	Simplified procurement process to continue delivery of river maintenance services. As above for Options 1 or 2.	Current contract has run since 2016, and retendering provides an opportunity to update competitive prices and provide engage with the industry transparently.
4.	Direct staff to undertake a comprehensive s17A review prior to retendering or extending the current service delivery contract.	Strictest adherence to LGA requirements.	There would be a gap in service delivery as the current contract would lapse prior to completion of the s17A review and subsequent procurement process.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 This review has been completed in accordance with Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There has been no engagement with iwi/Māori in completing this review, as no review of the governance or funding structures of the River Management activity were undertaken. A future comprehensive s17A review would benefit from iwi engagement due to the significance of awa to all iwi.

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

9.1 This decision is considered to have low significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Maintaining status quo is unlikely to be controversial or of high public interest. This is expected to increase if alternative governance or funding structures are entertained following future s17A reviews.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	This decision is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on social, economic, environmental, or cultural aspects of well-being.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low-Moderate	Completion of the River Management Plan is current scheduled to require 5 years for budgetary reasons; delaying a full s17A review as recommended requires the status quo to be maintained for that period at minimum.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	This decision does not relate to any strategic assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	This decision does not result in a change to the level of service in the River Management activity, unless significantly higher prices are received through retendering of the river maintenance contract, which may require reduction of services.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	This decision does not significantly affect rates, debt or Council finances.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Not applicable	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 delivery of any Council group of activities?	Moderate	This decision enables entry into a contract to carry out delivery of river maintenance services.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	This decision does not require particular consideration of TMOTW; however, it is expected that TMOTW will form an important part of the development of the River Management Plans moving forward.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 There is no known need for communication of this decision to any other party other than Tasman District Council.

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

11.1 There are no direct financial or budgetary implications arising from this decision.

11.2 Retendering or negotiating the extension of the river maintenance contract may result in higher prices, requiring either reduction in service levels or increases to river management budgets. However, this is an inherent implication of most service delivery activities undertaken by Council.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are no significant risks associated with this decision.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The decision in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’. The decision will likely result in no net impact to Council’s or the District’s GHG emissions or carbon footprint. However, a more comprehensive s17A review in the future may identify that alternative governance or delivery arrangements provide climate-related benefits.

13.2 The River Management activity will certainly be impacted by a changing climate, and the ways we govern, fund and deliver these services will likely need to change and adapt as our climate normals change. However, the current decision is relatively short-term in nature and thus largely unaffected by a changing climate.

13.3 This decision does not detract from Council’s policies relating to climate change.

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

14.1 Maintaining status quo governance and funding arrangements, and retendering or extending the current river maintenance service delivery contract, are consistent with the Long Term Plan 2024-2034, and the 2024 Rivers Activity Management Plan.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Staff have completed a review of the River Management activity in accordance with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (Attachment 1).

15.2 Staff consider that maintaining the status quo, with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and river maintenance service delivery by an external contractor, is the most cost-effective arrangement in the short-term.

15.3 Staff consider that a more comprehensive s17A review of the governance, funding and delivery arrangements of the River Management activity should be undertaken following completion of the River Management Plans.

15.4 Staff recommend that the Council receive the review and approve the recommendation, to continue with the status quo – with governance and funding provided by Tasman District Council and service delivery by another person or agency.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Depending on direction provided by Council from this report, staff will prepare a procurement plan for River Maintenance Services in preparation to retender the contract, or will engage in negotiations with the current service provider to extend the existing contract.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

s17A review of River Management services

133

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.6 Public Notification Approval for Mohua MenzShed Lease and Lease Renewal for Brightwater Scouts

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Margot Wilson, Property Officer
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-10-13

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

1.1 To seek approval to undertake public notification for a proposed ten-year lease for Mohua MenzShed at Golden Bay Recreation Park; and

1.2 To seek approval for a five-year lease renewal for the Brightwater Scout Hall at Brightwater Recreation Reserve.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 On 10 September 2024 the Golden Bay Recreation Park Committee agreed to recommend to Council that Council staff begin the process of Public Notification of an intention to offer the Mohua MenzShed a ten-year lease at the former Tākaka Scout Hall. This gives effect to the Reserves Act 1977 which governs the reserve land in that area.

2.2 The Brightwater Scouts lease for Council land at Brightwater Recreation Reserve expired on 30 November 2023. This land is also governed by the Reserves Act 1977, which requires that the Council be consulted prior to offering another 5-year lease.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Public Notification Approval for Mohua MenzShed Lease and Lease Renewal for Brightwater Scouts report, RCN24-10-13; and

2. approves staff undertaking Public Notification of an intention to grant a ten-year lease to Mohua MenzShed at Golden Bay Recreation Park pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 Section 54(1)(b) and (2)(2A)(a). Legal description: Pt Lot 1A DP 2371 with Record of title: NL75221. Land classified as Recreation Reserve; and

3. approves another five-year lease agreement for the Brightwater Scouts on Brightwater Recreation Reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 Section 54(1)(b). Legal description: Lot 1 DP 10225 forming part of the Brightwater Recreation Reserve under Gazette #In10292 – 1992 p3822 – former Record of title: NL5B/194. Land classified as Recreation Reserve.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 On 26 June 2024, Scouts Aotearoa (with the Council’s permission) agreed to transfer ownership of the former Tākaka Scouts building to the Mohua MenzShed.

4.2 The Golden Bay Recreation Park Committee approved the granting of a new 10-year lease to Mohua MenzShed for the former Scouts site at the Rec Park pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977. The Committee also registered a recommendation to the Council that public notification of the intention to grant this lease be undertaken. This report follows on from that recommendation.

4.3 Separately, the Brightwater Scouts have been located at the Brightwater Recreation Reserve for several decades. They own their building and are in the middle of a building improvement drive. Their previous five-year lease for the Council’s land expired on
30 November 2023. Staff are requesting that the Council approves another five-year standard lease agreement. Having a current agreement will support their fundraising efforts.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Council staff are required to consult with the Council regarding any new or renewed occupations on land classified as Reserve pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977.

5.2 The former Tākaka Scout Hall building was, for many years, both underutilised and in breach of lease. It will be beneficial to have a confirmed not-for-profit community group occupying it again – both to re-align it with regulations as well as to receive a good deal of overdue maintenance and hopefully regular, ongoing maintenance.

5.3 The MenzShed is a growing entity offering a social outlet for men, while teaching useful and fun skills in a non-judgemental environment. Thus, the new use of the building for adult men would follow on from the former young men’s scouting activities. MenzShed will bring new life and energy to the park as well as to the community.

5.4 The Brightwater Scouts building has been situated on Council land at Brightwater Recreation Reserve for over twenty years (it was built in 1951). Scouts Aotearoa own this building and have recently undertaken a drive for new members and fundraising for building renovations/maintenance.

5.5 The troop is needing a new standard five-year lease as soon as practical to reassure their funding benefactors of their permanence.

5.6 The desired action is for the Council to approve the undertaking by staff of Public Notification of an intention to grant a new ten-year lease to Mohua MenzShed at Golden Bay Recreation Park and to approve another standard five-year lease for the Brightwater Scouts at Brightwater Recreation Park.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1a.	Agree to Public Notification for a 10-year lease for Mohua MenzShed at Golden Bay Recreation Park.	This option would give new life to a “tired” old building and support a worthy group and the local community.	Other than staff time and effort, there is no real disadvantage – unless the Council prefers another tenant or to remove the building
2a.	Agree to public notification for a proposed land lease for less than the full 10 years.	A shorter tenure may inspire MenzShed to fast track their refurbishment plans. Or this might cause the MenzShed to sell and/or move the building. Some may prefer this.	Fast tracking MenShed plans may cause this project to fail on some or all levels: financially, memberships, building renovations, etc.
3a.	Decline to grant any land lease to Mohua MenzShed.	The Council may know of another group it feels is more suitable for the building and site may wish to remove the building.	This would cause MenzShed some inconvenience of time, effort and costs to either find another site and move the building or try to sell it.
1b.	Agree to grant another five-year standard lease to Brightwater Scouts at Brightwater Recreation Reserve.	This option would support the troop in their current efforts to upgrade their 73- year-old building and grow their troop.	Other than staff time and effort, there is no real disadvantage – unless the Council prefers another tenant or to remove the building.
2b.	Agree to the granting of another lease – but for less than the standard five years.	A shorter tenure may encourage the troop to be more efficient in their projects - or may force them to sell their building to another group that the Council might prefer.	Fast tracking MenzShed plans may cause this project to fail on some or all levels: financially, memberships, building renovations, etc.
3b.	Decline to agree to the renewal of any lease to the Brightwater Scouts.	The Council may know of another group it feels is more suitable for the building and site or the Council may wish to have this building removed.	This would cause Brightwater Scouts some worry and inconvenience of time, effort and costs to either find another site for their building or try to sell it --possibly closing the troop.

6.2 Options 1a and 1b are recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Both Mohua MenzShed and Brightwater Scouts are located on Recreation Reserve land. The Scouts occupation at Brightwater Recreation Reserve is documented in the Moutere-Waimea Reserve Management Plan, therefore no public notification is required.

7.2 The offering of a lease on land classified as Recreation Reserve is governed by The Reserves Act 1977, Section 54(1)(b) as follows:

54 Leasing powers in respect of recreation reserves

(1) . . . the administering body. . .of a recreation reserve that is vested in the administering body, . . . may . . .

          (b)     lease to any voluntary organisation part of the reserve for the erection of . . .
                  other building and structures . . . or lease to any voluntary organisations any
                  such . . . other buildings already on the reserve . . .

7.3 As the MenzShed would be a new lessee at Golden Bay Recreation Park, they are not mentioned in the Reserve Management Plan. Thus, a Public Notification process is required. This requirement of Public Notification is governed by The Reserves Act 1977, Section 54(2) as follows:

(2) Before granting any lease or licence . . . the administering body shall give public notice in accordance with section 119 . . . and shall give full consideration . . . to all objections and submissions in relation to the proposal received . . .

(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) shall apply in any case where the proposal—

(a) is in conformity with and contemplated by the approved management plan for the
reserve;

7.4 Both buildings have been in the same location for at least 20 years. Neither building’s use will drastically change, nor will they meaningfully interfere with the public’s access to or use of the relevant land.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 As the proposed Mohua MenzShed lease is longer than five years, consultation with Wakatū Incorporation will be undertaken. Staff will also notify Manawhenua ki Mohua of this lease.

8.2 As the term of the proposed new Brightwater Scouts lease is within the agreed “five-year non-notification time frame”, no iwi consultation will be undertaken for this lease.

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

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Neither site/building hold public significance thus neither have garnered any public comments or complaints over the years.
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 activities of both groups provide skill training and recreational and social benefits to participants.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No	The proposed Mohua lease is a total of ten years – the group’s community benefits may offset the additional 5-years. The Brightwater Scouts is a standard 5-year lease.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	All of Council’s Reserves are essentially strategic assets – but both proposed leases only involve a small area of each park that has been in use for decades.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	Once a contract is entered into, there is little service interaction required from the Council.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	While there is an annual fee, the purpose is essentially to defray costs of Council staff time rather than to add to the Council’s income.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No	There are no sales and no CCO’s or CCTO’s involved in this decision.
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	There are no private sector partnerships/contracts involved here – just proposals for two community leases.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No	Both decisions only involve offering a legal occupation contract to a community group tenant.
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	Water supply/use is not really a factor. It is not expected that the new/renewed activities at each site will use much water.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Council staff continue to keep Mohua MenzShed informed during the various steps of their purchase of the building and their request for a land lease for the site

10.2 Upon commencement of a public notification process, Council staff will be in contact with members of the public making submissions.

10.3 Regarding Brightwater Scouts, staff have been in contact with several of the national, regional and local members of Scouts Aotearoa regarding their building refurbishment project and the anticipated finalisation of their new lease.

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

11.1 Both leases, if granted, will incur an annual rental fee of $345 including GST.

11.2 A significant benefit to the Council with both leases is that both groups own their buildings and are solely responsible for repairs, maintenance and all related outgoings. As both buildings need a good deal of overdue maintenance and both organisations are currently committed to undertaking that necessary work, there will be no cost to the Council for the refurbishment/maintenance.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Council staff believe that the offering of both leases holds little to no risk to the Council.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The site occupations in this report were considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s Climate Change Consideration Guide 2022. The offering of new leases for the MenzShed and Brightwater Scouts will not impact on the Council’s carbon footprint or increase production of greenhouse gases particularly as both building uses will remain essentially as they have been in the past - for the foreseeable future.

13.2 Climate change will likely have little effect on these organisations or their sites. These locations are not known to be flood prone.

13.3 New leases for Mohua MenzShed and Brightwater Scouts align with both the Council’s and central government’s Climate Change plans in that having community support and activity groups situated locally reduces the need for long-distance travel and thus vehicle emissions.

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

14.1 The Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan 2003 briefly mentions the scout hall but makes no specific recommendations regarding it.

14.2 The local Golden Bay Recreation Park Management Committee has been consulted on the proposed new Mohua MenzShed lease as required by Council delegation. As a new lessee group, there is no mention/documentation of them in the Management Plan – hence the need for public consultation. However, this proposed lease occupation is considered by Council staff to be consistent with the Tasman District Council Reserves General Policy

14.3 The Moutere Waimea Ward Reserves Management Plan 2022 fully documents the occupation of the Brightwater Scouts and their building on the Brightwater Recreation Reserve. Policy recommendations made are as follows:

6 Allow for continued use of the Brightwater Scout Den and grounds, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a new five-year lease with the Scouts Association . . . As part of the new lease arrangement, require the removal of the shipping container and replacement with a purpose-built storage facility elsewhere within the leased area.

14.4 The Reserves and Facilities team are in discussions with the Brightwater Scouts regarding the storage container and are working towards a resolution. In all other respects, this occupation is considered by Council staff to be consistent with the Tasman District Council Reserves General Policy

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The staff recommendation is for the Council to approve public notification of an intention to grant a new ten-year lease to Mohua MenzShed at Golden Bay Recreation Park and to approve another standard five-year lease for the Brightwater Scouts at Brightwater Recreation Reserve.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Should the Council approve public notification for a proposed new lease to Mohua MenzShed, then a minimum one-month public notification process will likely be undertaken in November 2024.

16.2 The submissions hearing will be scheduled approximately two months following closure of submissions.

16.3 The deliberations will be referred to the Council one to two months following the hearing.

16.4 Assuming the decision is made to grant the lease, the lease document will then be finalised and sent to Mohua MenzShed for signing followed by the Council’s signing and execution.

16.5 Regarding the Brightwater Scout lease, should the Council agree to offer another standard lease to the Scouts, then within a few weeks of this report, the lease will be presented to Scouts Aotearoa for signing followed by Council’s signing and execution.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.7 Temporary Road Closures

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Tania Brown, Road Network Coordinator
Report Authorisers:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-10-14

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

1.1 This report seeks the Council’s approval for temporary road closures for upcoming local events.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The proposed temporary road closures are for the following events:

2.1.1 Westland Car Club Rally Event, Matakitaki Road between 1.48km – 11.48km, on Saturday 7 December 2024, 8.00am–6.00pm.

2.1.2 Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Santa Parade, Edward Street, Queen Street (from Edward Street to McIndoe Place), Wensley Road (from Queen Street to John Wesley Lane), McIndoe Place, Oxford Street (from Queen Street to Crescent Street), and Salisbury Road (from Queen Street to Talbot Street), Sunday 8 December 2024, 7.00am–3.00pm. Postponement date if required is Sunday 15 December 2024.

2.1.3 Golden Bay Workcentre Trust for the Tākaka Christmas Parade, Junction Street and Reilly Street, Saturday 14 December 2024, 9.30am–11.00am.

2.1.4 Richmond Unlimited for the Market Day, Queen Street (from No. 205 Queen Street to McIndoe Place), Monday 30 December 2024, 5.00am–6.30pm.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Temporary Road Closures report, RCN24-10-14; and

2. approves a temporary road closure for the Westland Car Club Rally Event, Matakitaki Road, from 1.48km from the start of the road for a distance of ten (10) kilometres
(RP 1.48 – RP 11.48), on Saturday 7 December 2024, from 8.00am-6.00pm; and

3. approves temporary road closures for Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Santa Parade on Edward Street, Queen Street (from Edward Street to McIndoe Place), Wensley Road (from Queen Street to John Wesley Lane), McIndoe Place, Oxford Street (from Queen Street to Crescent Street), and Salisbury Road (from Queen Street to Talbot Street) on Sunday 8 December 2024, or Sunday 15 December 2024 (as postponement date), from 7.00am-3.00pm; and

4. approves temporary road closures for Golden Bay Workcentre Trust for the Tākaka Christmas Parade, on Junction Street and Reilly Street, on Saturday 14 December 2024 from 9.30am-11.00am; and

5. approves a temporary road closure for Richmond Unlimited for the Market Day, on Queen Street (from No. 205 Queen Street to McIndoe Place), on Monday 30 December 2024, from 5.00am-6.30pm.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 As specified in the Local Government Act 1974 section 342 and schedule 10, temporary road closures for events can only be approved by the Council or a delegated Committee of the Council.

Westland Car Club – Car Rally Event

4.2 The Westland Car Club has applied to temporarily close Matakitaki Road from 1.48km from the start of for 10 kilometre’s (RP 1.48 – RP 11.48) from 8.00am to 6.00pm on Saturday
7 December 2024 for the Westland Car Club rally event.

4.3 This route has been used in previous years.

4.4 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 9 August 2024 and one objection was received.

4.5 If the temporary road closure is approved, pre- and post-inspections will be carried out by the Council’s roading contractor and any maintenance that needs to be carried out to the road after the event will be charged back to the Westland Car Club.

4.6 At the time of writing this report, one objection had been received, from a person who is concerned about the contribution of these kinds of events to emissions and global warming.

4.7 The New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.8 A Traffic Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

4.9 The applicant will deliver a letter advising of the closure to affected residents at least one week before the event.

4.10 The applicant has been advised that they must let residents and milk tankers through the closure area between races.

4.11 Emergency services will be advised by the Westland Car Club Committee of the closure and provide full access as needed.

4.12 The Westland Car Club rally will be conducted under the provisions of the MotorSport New Zealand National Sporting Code and its Appendices and Schedules including all event Supplementary Regulations and Safety Plans. MotorSport New Zealand will issue an Event Permit for the event upon application which includes Public Liability Insurance.

4.13 The proposed road closure is also in accordance with the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

4.14 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Richmond Unlimited – Richmond Santa Parade

4.15 Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Santa Parade propose to close Edward Street, parts of Queen Street, Wensley Road, Oxford Street, Salisbury Road, and McIndoe Place, Sunday 8 December 2024, 7.00am-3.00pm.

4.16 The postponement date is Sunday 15 December 2024.

4.17 This route has been used in previous years for the Parade.

4.18 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 9 August 2024 and no objections were received.

4.19 There will be proposed bus route changes introducing temporary stops on Talbot Street.

4.20 A road closure will be in place and fully managed by a qualified Traffic Management Company.

4.21 A Traffic Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager

4.22 The New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.23 The applicant will deliver a letter advising of the closure to affected residents at least one week before the event.

4.24 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Golden Bay Workcentre Trust – Tākaka Christmas Parade

4.25 Golden Bay Workcentre Trust propose to close Junction Street and Reilly Street, Tākaka on Saturday 14th December 2024, 9.30am-11.00am.

4.26 Note that the organisers are also applying for State Highway 60 closure for Commercial Street through the New Zealand Transport Agency.

4.27 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 6 September 2024 and no objections were received.

4.28 A road closure will be in place and fully managed by a qualified Traffic Management Company.

4.29 A Traffic Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

4.30 The New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.31 The applicant will deliver a letter advising of the closure to affected residents at least one week before the event.

4.32 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Richmond Unlimited – Market Day

4.33 Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Market Day propose to close Queen Street on Friday 30 December 2024, from 5.00am-6.30pm.

4.34 This closure has been approved in previous years for the Market Day.

4.35 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 9 August 2024 and no objections were received.

4.36 There will be proposed bus route changes introducing temporary stops on Talbot Street.

4.37 A road closure will be in place and fully managed by a qualified Traffic Management Company.

4.38 A Traffic Management Plan will be submitted by the applicant and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

4.39 The New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Transport Agency have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.40 The applicant will deliver a letter advising of the closure to affected residents at least one week before the event.

4.41 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The Council has three options to consider as outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the proposed temporary road closures described in this report (recommended).	Westland Car Club – Rally event can proceed safely as planned. The Santa Parades and Richmond Market Day can proceed safely as planned.	Some business owners, residents and road users may be temporarily inconvenienced.
2.	Approve some of the proposed temporary road closures described in this report.	Some of these events can proceed as planned. Less effect on road users or residents.	Some events would not be able to proceed.
3.	Decline the proposed temporary road closures described in this report	No effects on road users or residents.	The Westland Car Club Rally, the Santa Parades and the Richmond Market Day would not be able to proceed.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

6.1 It is a requirement that temporary road closures for certain types of events made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act 1974 are presented to the Council for approval. Approval for temporary closures for certain events cannot be delegated to Council staff.

6.2 As per clause 11 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, consultation with the Police and New Zealand Transport Agency has been undertaken for the proposed temporary road closure for the proposed car rally event.

6.3 As per clause 11(e) of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, the road closures will not exceed the aggregate of 31 days for any year.

6.4 As per clause 11A of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1974, and clause 5 of the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965, Council staff will advertise the temporary road closures in Newsline and on the Council’s website if the closures are approved.

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

7.1 The following table describes the level of significance of the decision. Overall, the significance is considered low as the effects of the closures are minor, although the events have a high level of interest and attendance from 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?	Moderate	The Westland Car Club run a series of events and have done so for many years. The Santa Parades and Richmond Market Day are all well attended and part of a loved tradition that is well supported and attended by the community.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	As above.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The Westland Car Club rally event is for one day only and if there are any effects on the network the Club will remedy these. The Santa Parades and Market Day are well supported community events that are short in duration and will have no lasting effects on the roading network.
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 but this decision only relates to the temporary closures of small sections of the network for a short duration.
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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

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

8.1 There are no financial or budgetary implications for this decision.

9. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

9.1 Rallying events cause emissions, although normal daily vehicle usage on these roads also causes emissions. The potential emissions effects resulting from the decision to either approve or not approve the temporary road closures are impossible to calculate. Not approving the Matakitaki Road closure could mean no rallying activity occurs at all (causing nil emissions), or it may mean rally participants travel further afield to attend a different event (causing greater emissions).

9.2 Similarly, people driving to attend the Santa Parades and Market Day events will create emissions.

10. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

10.1 The car rally is part of an annual series of events and attracts entrants and spectators from across the region.

10.2 The Santa Parades and Market Day are positive and well-loved community events with good attendance by residents.

10.3 Temporary road closures for these events require the Council’s approval.

10.4 Staff recommend that the Council approve the temporary road closures in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 section 374 and Schedule 10.

10.5 The proposed Matakitaki Road temporary closure is also in accordance with the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

11. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

11.1 If the Council approves the temporary road closures:

11.1.1 Staff will advertise the closures in Newsline, on Antenno and on the Council’s website and social pages.

11.1.2 The event organisers will undertake a letter drop to affected landowners.

11.1.3 Staff will work with eBus to provide alternative bus routes for the days of the Richmond Santa Parade and the Richmond Market Day.

11.1.4 The applicants will submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Council’s Road Corridor Manager for approval at least one month before each respective event.

11.1.5 Staff will inform emergency services of the road closure details.

12. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.8 New Zealand Transport Agency - Funding Shortfall 2024-2027

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-10-15

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

1.1 This report is to:

1.1.1 inform the Council about the effects of New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funding decisions in the published National Land Transport Programme 2024/27 on the Council’s planned works in the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2024/34, and

1.1.2 seek a decision from the Council to either approve, or not, additional Council local share funding in the 2024/27 period to enable delivery of certain planned works, due to lower than expected NZTA funding.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The NZTA has been late in publishing the National Land Transport Programme 2024/27 (NLTP). This has meant that the Council has adopted its Long Term Plan 2024/34 (LTP) before the NZTA funding was confirmed.

2.2 The NLTP, which was published on 2 September 2024, confirms the funding that the Council will receive from the National Land Transport Fund.

2.3 Staff have compared the amount of funding allocated by NZTA with the assumptions and budgets in the LTP, and identified activities that are recommended to receive additional Council funding to enable the planned works to be completed.

2.4 The potential consequences of not ‘topping up’ with additional Council funding include worse footpath condition, reduced safety for road users, inability to complete works the community is expecting or has previously been engaged on, and increased future maintenance costs.

Summary of recommended local share funding increases:

	Recommended Increased Council Local Share Funding
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Cycle path maintenance	$12,087	$12,353	$12,637
Footpath maintenance	$61,120	$62,464	$63,901
Cycle path renewal	$9,135	$4,668	$25,494
Footpath renewal	$111,999	$114,463	$117,210
Reactive Safety Improvements	$104,114	$106,404	$108,958
Roadside hazard mitigation	$23,639	$24,159	$24,738
New Footpaths and Shared Paths	$131,325	$134,214	$206,153
Subtotal	$453,419	$458,725	$559,091

2.5 Providing additional Council funding would result in rates increases and debt levels above those approved in the LTP.

2.6 The NZTA has advised further funding may be available for Local Road Operations and Pothole Prevention (not listed in table above) during the 2024-27 period. The current shortfall for these activities across the three-year period is $558,242 and $1,359,048 respectively. Staff will work with NZTA to try and secure additional funding, which would be applicable to the 2026/27 financial year.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the New Zealand Transport Agency - Funding Shortfall 2024-2027 report, RCN24-10-15; and

2. EITHER:

2.1 approves additional local share funding, of the amounts shown in the following table, to enable these projects to be completed as per the 2024-34 Long Term Plan, noting that this would have some impact on rates rises and debt levels over and above that approved in the Long Term Plan;

	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Cycle path maintenance	$12,087	$12,353	$12,637
Footpath maintenance	$61,120	$62,464	$63,901
Cycle path renewal	$9,135	$4,668	$25,494
Footpath renewal	$111,999	$114,463	$117,210
Reactive Safety Improvements	$104,114	$106,404	$108,958
Roadside hazard mitigation	$23,639	$24,159	$24,738
New Footpaths and Shared Paths	$131,325	$134,214	$206,153
Subtotal	$453,419	$458,725	$559,091

OR:

2.2 declines additional local share funding and directs staff to limit expenditure to the local share budgeted in the Long Term Plan 2024/34 and approved New Zealand Transport Agency funding, in the 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years; and

3. notes Council staff will continue to work with the New Zealand Transport Agency to attempt to secure additional New Zealand Transport Agency funding for Local Road Operations and Pothole Prevention in the 2026/27 financial year, to address funding shortfalls of $558,242 and $1,359,048 respectively; and

4. notes if additional New Zealand Transport Agency funding for Local Road Operations and Pothole Prevention is not successful, funding for these activities will be reconsidered in the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The NZTA has been late in publishing the National Land Transport Programme 2024/27 (NLTP), due mainly to the late publishing of the 2024 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS). This has meant that the Council has adopted its Long Term Plan 2024/34 (LTP) before the NLTP and associated funding to Tasman District Council was confirmed.

4.2 The GPS includes some significant changes to the level of funding allocated to different activities, compared to the 2021-24 period. The NLTP, which was published on
2 September 2024, confirms the funding that the Council will receive from the National Land Transport Fund.

4.3 Staff have compared the amount of funding allocated by NZTA with the assumptions and budgets in the LTP. Comparisons are shown in table T below, grouped according to NZTA Activity Classes. Further breakdowns and analysis are provided in section 5.

Table 1

Activity Class	2024-27 LTP Budget	2024-27 NZTA Allocation	Difference
Local Road Operations	$24,290,593	$23,196,000	-$1,094,593
Local Road Pothole Prevention	$53,414,800	$50,750,000	-$2,664,800
Walking & Cycling (maintenance)	$1,810,237	$619,000	-$1,191,237
Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Public Transport Infrastructure	$157,323	$0	-$157,323
Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Local Road Improvements	$2,665,001	$0	-$2,665,001
Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Walking & Cycling Improvements	$1,838,039	$0	-$1,838,039
Public Transport Services	$1,774,333	$1,685,231	-$89,102
Road Safety Promotion	$799,418	$309,000	-$490,418

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Local Road Operations

5.1 This activity class includes:

	LTP Budget
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Structures maintenance (bridges, retaining walls)	$285,033	$291,304	$298,004
Environmental maintenance (slips, trees, mowing, spraying, ice gritting, Murchison stock effluent facility)	$2,890,960	$2,969,334	$3,052,817
Network service maintenance (signs, streetlights, roadmarking)	$644,154	$658,325	$673,467
Network operations (traffic signals)	$61,612	$62,968	$64,416
Network and asset management (staff and overheads, software, traffic counting, condition data collection)	$2,660,941	$2,888,297	$2,885,675
Structures component replacements	$429,839	$479,863	$491,380
Traffic services renewals (signs, streetlights)	$755,108	$921,244	$825,850

5.2 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $1,094,593 = $558,242. This is not tied to a specific category within the activity class; the Council has flexibility about how to adjust its programme of works.

5.3 NZTA advises that there may be an opportunity to access increased funding during the 2024-27 period. We have been successful with accessing increased funding during 2018-21 and 2021-24.

5.4 If the increased NZTA funding does not eventuate, the Council could spend its local share and defer up to $558,242 worth of works in 2026/27. This represents 6.7% of the 2026/27 Local Roads Operations programme (LTP budget $8,291,610).

5.5 Deferral would likely mean minimal bridge maintenance and structural component replacements, deferral of streetlight pole replacements, and reduced roadmarking and roadside mowing in 2026/27.

5.6 Deferring maintenance and renewals works does introduce the risk of increased future costs and reduced resilience or safety. In practice, some essential work would not be able to be deferred and there would remain a risk of overspending the budget, which would be managed and reported at the time.

5.7 Staff recommend that we plan to deliver the planned LTP scope and budgets in 2024/25-2025/26 and request increased funding from NZTA for 2026/27.

5.8 The Council may consider topping up the funding with additional rates and loan funding as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan, if our NZTA request is unsuccessful.

Local Road Pothole Prevention

5.9 This activity class includes:

	LTP Budget
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Sealed pavement maintenance	$3,979,209	$4,087,085	$4,201,993
Unsealed pavement maintenance	$689,704	$704,877	$721,089
Routine drainage maintenance	$1,210,304	$1,243,115	$1,278,065
Unsealed road metalling	$1,494,796	$1,527,681	$1,564,346
Sealed road resurfacing	$6,294,992	$6,465,649	$6,653,929
Drainage renewals	$2,477,174	$2,544,330	$2,618,420
Sealed road pavement rehabilitation	$1,186,086	$1,218,240	$1,253,716

5.10 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $2,664,800 = $1,359,048. This is not tied to a specific category within the activity class; the Council has flexibility about how to adjust its programme of works.

5.11 NZTA advises that there may be an opportunity to access increased funding during the 2024-27 period. We have been successful with accessing increased funding during 2018-21 and 2021-24.

5.12 If the increased NZTA funding does not eventuate, the Council could spend its local share and defer up to $1,359,048 worth of works in 2026/27. This represents 7.4% of the 2026/27 Local Road Pothole Prevention programme (LTP budget $18,291,558).

5.13 Deferral would likely mean fewer pavement repairs, less resealing, fewer culvert replacements and roadside drainage works, and less metalling of unsealed roads. This increases the risk of increased future maintenance costs, and reduced resilience and safety until such time as deferred maintenance is completed. Defects would take longer to repair, and road users will notice this.

5.14 Staff recommend that we plan to deliver the planned LTP scope and budgets in 2024/25-2025/26 and request increased funding from NZTA for 2026/27.

5.15 The Council may consider topping up funding with additional rates and loan funding as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

Walking & Cycling

5.16 This activity class includes:

	LTP Budget
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Cycle path maintenance	$36,015	$36,807	$37,654
Footpath maintenance	$182,116	$186,122	$190,403
Cycle path renewal	$27,220	$13,909	$75,962
Footpath renewal	$333,720	$341,062	$349,247

5.17 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $1,191,237 = $607,531. This is not tied to a specific category within the activity class; the Council has flexibility about how to adjust its programme of works.

5.18 NZTA advises that this activity class is unlikely to have additional funds made available as it is not a priority for the Government.

5.19 Footpath and cycleway maintenance is an essential service for our residents. Deferring maintenance or renewals to any significant degree would be noticeable in terms of defects present, risking the LTP levels of service for footpath condition and resident satisfaction as well as reducing safety.

5.20 The most recent footpath condition survey in 2023 showed 96.9% of our footpath network is in a condition of fair or better. This is above the target of 95%. However, there is 9.6km of footpath in poor or very poor condition, and 71km of footpath in fair condition but which will deteriorate over time.

5.21 The LTP budget has been set based on historic work quantities, the overall condition trend over time, and known defects. Renewal budgets and activity is below annual depreciation so our footpaths are ageing and will eventually require a much higher level of investment to renew.

5.22 Staff recommend delivering the planned LTP works by the Council approving additional funding to the amount of the NZTA shortfall.

5.23 However, an alternative option is to reduce the annual budget to the local share only. This would result in deferral of 51% of the planned footpath and cycleway maintenance and renewal works. This will cost more in the long term and provide inferior service to residents.

Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Public Transport Infrastructure

5.24 This activity includes:

· New bus shelters and seats

· Improved real-time information systems on buses and at key bus stops

5.25 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $157,323 = $80,235

5.26 NZTA advises that this activity class is unlikely to have additional funds made available as it is not a priority for the Government.

5.27 The Council has already installed several seats at many bus stops during 2023/24 and has also acquired three shelters in reasonable condition from Nelson City Council which they removed when they upgraded some of their shelters recently. This means we have an opportunity to provide shelter at some bus stops at far lower cost than originally estimated.

5.28 Staff recommend retaining the local share budget for 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 totalling $77,088 and spending up to this budget. This will still enable some improvements to be made without increasing debt or rates.

Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Local Road Improvements

5.29 This activity includes:

	LTP Budget
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Speed Management Plan Implementation	$515,000	$526,330	$538,962
Reactive Safety Improvements	$204,145	$208,636	$213,643
Rural road improvements	$103,000	$105,266	$107,792
Roadside hazard mitigation	$46,350	$47,370	$48,507

5.30 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $2,665,001 = $1,359,151. No NZTA funding has been provided for any of the projects. This is notable as it is the first time that we have not secured any Low cost/low risk funding, a situation many councils find themselves in at the present time.

5.31 NZTA advises that this activity class is unlikely to have additional funds made available as it is not a priority for the Government. Their priority is to fund State Highway improvements including the Roads of National Significance, rather than local road improvements.

5.32 Road safety budgets do not go as far as they used to, so every dollar is quite precious to help contribute to keeping our community safe on our roads.

Speed Management Plan Implementation

5.33 Speed Management Plan (SMP) implementation is the most significant activity of this group, with strong community support for progressing many speed limits particularly around schools as per the approved SMP. Variable speed limits and associated electronic signs around schools are the most expensive part of the implementation (originally estimated at $1 million for 25 pairs of electronic signs).

5.34 The Setting of Speed Limits Rule (2024) was gazetted on 28 September 2024 and comes into force on 30 October 2024. Amongst other things the Rule requires Road Controlling Authorities to use reasonable efforts to implement Variable Speed Limits outside school gates by 1 July 2026.

5.35 There is some uncertainty about the expected costs of implementation of the SMP. This includes the lack of up-to-date guidance regarding the use of electronic variable speed signs near schools. The new Speed Limit Rule suggests a reduced requirement for electronic signs compared with previous guidance. Updated guidance is expected from NZTA on
30 October 2024.

5.36 Staff estimate that the rollout of variable speed limits outside school gates will cost $650,000 over 2024/25 and 25/26. This estimate assumes that:

· Electronic variable signs will not be installed at urban schools, except for the cluster of schools on Salisbury Road.

· Electronic variable signs will be installed outside rural schools on roads with high base speeds, such as Ngātimoti School (most rural schools fall into this category).

5.37 This estimate will need to be reviewed following release of the NZTA’s Speed Management Guide.

5.38 Staff recommend retaining the local share budget for 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27 and spending up to this budget. This is likely to enable the SMP to be implemented, with some residual risk regarding the timeframe for installing electronic signs near schools if these are required, without increasing debt or rates.

5.39 Staff will bring a report on Speed Management implementation to the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 14 November 2024.

Reactive Safety Improvements

5.40 This budget enables emerging safety issues to be addressed, for example improving sightlines by removing vegetation or trees, installing protective measures (e.g. guardrail as completed on River Terrace Road in 2023/24).

5.41 Work proposed in 2024/25 includes:

· improved delineation and curve warning signs on rural roads

· improvements at Ranzau Road/Pugh Road where there have been ongoing crashes

· improved sightlines at Edwards Road/Main Road Lower Moutere

· shifting the angled parking on Ellis Street, Brightwater further away from the traffic lane.

5.42 Other sites that are being considered for works include:

· Lower Queen Street painted median near Oakwoods

· Hill Street/Queen Street intersection, where long queues and near misses are being reported

· Moutere Highway/Golden Hills Road where vehicles enter Golden Hills Road at high speed

· Vegetation removal near 357 Neudorf Road

· Waimea West Road near Snowdens Bush where pedestrians cross with high-speed vehicles approaching.

5.43 The LTP budget was very modest, and it is important that this modest budget be available to address issues to help improve safety on our network.

5.44 Staff recommend delivering the planned LTP works by the Council approving additional funding to the amount of the NZTA shortfall.

5.45 However, an alternative option is to reduce the annual budget to the local share only. This would result in deferral of 51% of the planned safety improvements, reducing the Council’s ability to improve safety and respond to emerging safety issues.

Rural Road Improvements

5.46 This budget, partially funded by development contributions, is to enable minor improvements to be made to rural roads where small-scale incremental developments, which by themselves do not trigger road upgrade requirements on developers as part of resource consent conditions, have a cumulative impact on these roads.

5.47 This budget holds a lower priority than the safety improvement budgets, so staff recommend retaining the local share only.

Roadside Hazard Mitigation

5.48 This budget is intended to be used to either protect road users from, or remove, roadside hazards such as cliffs, trees, poles and drains. In recent times it has been used to install guardrail on Riwaka-Sandy Bay Road and Moutere Highway.

5.49 Planned works in 2024/25 includes upgrade of the old post and rope railing on Main Road Lower Moutere to a proper guardrail, which is also being partly funded by an insurance payout.

5.50 Staff recommend delivering the planned LTP works by the Council approving additional funding to the amount of the NZTA shortfall.

5.51 However, an alternative option is to reduce the annual budget to the local share only. This would reduce the amount of work able to be completed.

Low cost/Low risk Improvements – Walking & Cycling Improvements

5.52 This activity includes:

	LTP Budget
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
New Residential Greenways	$283,535	$289,773	$296,728
New Footpaths and Shared Paths	$257,500	$263,165	$404,221
Cycling Facilities			$43,117

5.53 The shortfall of NZTA funding is 51% of $1,838,039 = $937,400. No NZTA funding has been provided for any of the projects.

5.54 NZTA advises that this activity class is unlikely to have additional funds made available as it is not a priority for the Government. Its priority is to fund State Highway improvements including the Roads of National Significance, rather than local road improvements.

New Residential Greenways

5.55 This budget is to enable the ongoing implementation of traffic calming and other streetscape enhancements to support safer walking and cycling in urban areas (prioritised on those areas proposed for intensification or with higher pedestrian demand), as envisaged by the Walking & Cycling Strategy.

5.56 Recently completed works include Elizabeth Street, Herbert Street, Crescent Street, Surrey Road, and Blair Terrace.

5.57 Future proposed areas for works include George Street (as part of a pavement reconstruction, and possibly including crossing of Queen Street at shops), Cautley Street area, and Waverley Street near the kindergarten.

5.58 This work could be completed more slowly than planned in the LTP, although this would make it less likely that the objectives of the Walking & Cycling Strategy will be met.

5.59 Staff recommend retaining the local share only, recognising the financial constraints of the Council and the need to prioritise delivery of works across the transportation activity.

New Footpaths and Shared Paths

5.60 This budget is to enable the construction of new paths.

5.61 There is a long list of paths and improvements that the community would like the Council to deliver. The LTP budget for 2024/25 is planned to be used to construct the Upper Moutere shared path.

5.62 The next highest priorities on the list include:

· Improved pram ramps at Woodlands Avenue near Huffam Street and Sanderlane Drive

· New path along Collingwood Quay and Haven Road

· New path on Aporo Road near Tasman School

· New path connection across Māpua Drive at Higgs Road roundabout

5.63 All up there are currently 94 sites on the priority list. The total rough order cost of these improvements is $12 million.

5.64 A reduced budget would reduce the number of sites that could be completed each year and starve local communities of the benefits these paths bring in terms of safety and accessibility.

5.65 Staff recommend delivering the planned LTP works by the Council approving additional funding to the amount of the NZTA shortfall.

5.66 However, an alternative option is to reduce the annual budget to the local share only. This would mean the Upper Moutere Shared Path would need to be deferred until 2025/26 and be constructed using the 2024/25 and 2025/26 local share budgets.

Cycling Facilities

5.67 This budget was to progress design work on high-quality separated cycle lanes for delivery later in the LTP. This can be deferred without significant consequence.

5.68 Staff recommend deferring this budget to a later year. This can be actioned through the next LTP process.

Public Transport Services

5.69 This budget covers all aspects of delivering the eBus public transport service jointly with Nelson City Council.

5.70 The apparent shortfall in NZTA funding relates to the Tasman share of costs for the National Integrated Ticketing Solution (NITS). However, Nelson City Council has been allocated sufficient NZTA funding to account for these costs. Staff have obtained an agreement from NZTA and Nelson City Council that Tasman can pay its local share of the NITS costs to Nelson City Council, who will then claim the NZTA funding for this. This will have no net effect on Council LTP financial assumptions.

5.71 No further action is required.

Road Safety Promotion

5.72 This budget covers the community road safety programme, including staff costs and specific project delivery costs.

5.73 The shortfall in NZTA funding is 51% of $490,418 = $250,113.

5.74 In conjunction with the reduced funding approval, NZTA has also clarified what the funding can be used for. NZTA funding can no longer be used for local advertising or billboards supporting local road safety initiatives.

5.75 The key safety issues that require focus have not changed. These include:

· Motorcyclists

· Impairment

· Young Drivers

· Cycle safety

· Restraints

5.76 The Council has traditionally delivered regional road safety in partnership with other agencies including the Police, the Accident Compensation Commission and Nelson City Council. All these agencies have been affected by government funding changes, which has meant a reset of many programmes and activities.

5.77 Staff consider that the programmes can be right sized to meet the available budget, if the full local share is retained along with the reduced NZTA contribution.

5.78 Summary of recommended local share funding increases:

	Recommended Increased Local Share Funding
	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Cycle path maintenance	$12,087	$12,353	$12,637
Footpath maintenance	$61,120	$62,464	$63,901
Cycle path renewal	$9,135	$4,668	$25,494
Footpath renewal	$111,999	$114,463	$117,210
Reactive Safety Improvements	$104,114	$106,404	$108,958
Roadside hazard mitigation	$23,639	$24,159	$24,738
New Footpaths and Shared Paths	$131,325	$134,214	$206,153
Subtotal	$453,419	$458,725	$559,091

5.79 Summary of potential future local share funding increases, to be confirmed at future annual plan processes.

	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Local Road Operations	-	-	$558,242
Local Road Pothole Prevention	-	-	$1,359,048

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the recommended additional local share funding (recommended)	Enables key works to be completed as per the LTP	Increases debt (2024/25), and rates and debt for 2025/26 and 2026/27
2.	Approve all of the unfunded NZTA share with local share funding	Enables all work to be completed as per the LTP	Increases debt (2024/25), and rates and debt for 2025/26 and 2026/27, to a greater extent than Option 1.
3.	Approve none of the recommended additional local share funding	No increase to rates or debt in first 3 years of LTP	Key works proposed in the LTP can be only partially completed Could affect achievement of LOS (safety, footpath condition) Increase future costs of footpath maintenance

6.2 Section 5 contains more detailed description of the effects of less funding on each affected project.

6.3 Option 1 is recommended as this aligns best with the levels of service approved in the LTP and best long-term value for money.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no legislative requirements associated with this decision.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No specific engagement has occurred or is considered necessary for this decision.

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

9.1 The recommended option has good alignment with the LTP, Speed Management Plan, and Walking & Cycling Strategy which have all had significant community engagement.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	This decision affects proposed maintenance and improvement works, as well as debt levels, and will be of interest to communities and road users across the district.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	The safe and efficient operation of the transport network impacts the social and economic wellbeing of the community. This decision potentially affects a moderate portion of the network.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	Increased debt, reduced footpath maintenance, and slower response to safety issues may have a lasting effect on the Council finances and/or the community.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Moderate	Roads are a strategic asset, and this decision relates to a moderate portion.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The decision could have impacts on safety, footpath condition, and satisfaction levels 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?	Moderate	The additional Council funding required will put pressure on debt and rates in years 1-3 of the LTP.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
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?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
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?	N/A

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 No specific community communication has been completed in relation to this report.

10.2 Staff have discussed the funding decisions and future opportunities with NZTA staff.

10.3 If the chosen option is to reduce the amount of work completed below the scope recommended in this report, the Council will likely need to communicate this to the community. Any impacts on levels of service will need to be monitored and reported through normal annual reporting and audit processes.

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

11.1 The recommended option results in increased debt and rates across at least the first three years of the LTP. This may not be affordable or achievable for the Council as it would likely increase rates and debt above the approved LTP limits.

11.2 The alternative option, to spend only local share and approved NZTA funding, keeps within LTP financial limits in the first three years. However, it is likely to increase future costs for footpath maintenance.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Some specific risks are described for each activity in section 5.

12.2 Overall reputational risks exist with potentially reducing maintenance, safety and improvement works that the community are expecting to be delivered in accordance with the LTP.

12.3 Similarly reputational risks exist with the recommended option of increasing Council funding to meet some of the shortfall in NZTA funding, which would increase future rates rises and debt levels.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This decision has minimal implications on climate change or the Council’s Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

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

14.1 The recommended option largely aligns with the LTP, Transportation Activity Management Plan, Speed Management Plan, and Walking & Cycling Strategy.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 NZTA funding decisions for 2024-27 period have resulted in a shortfall of funding for several transportation activities.

15.2 The Council could choose to provide additional local share funding to some of these activities, as outlined in this report, to ensure they can be delivered in accordance with the LTP. However, this would increase rates rises and debt levels over and above those approved in the LTP.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the recommended option (additional Council funding) is adopted, staff will continue delivery of the LTP projects as described.

16.2 If the alternative option (no additional Council funding) is adopted, staff will:

· Amend planned delivery of works

· Communicate with affected stakeholders regarding reduced/deferred works.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

0.0 Community Infrastructure Capital Works Funding Approvals

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Russell McGuigan, Programme Delivery Manager; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager; Dini Jayasinghe, Programme Delivery Analyst
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-10-16

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to bring forward approved budgets from the Long Term Plan 2024/34 financial years 2025/26 and 2026/27, 2027/28 into 2024/25, 2025/26, and 2026/27 financial years for the following Water and Stormwater capital works projects. There will be no changes to the total approved budgets for these items over the Long-Term Plan (LTP) period and they will be offset by an overall reduction in funding required for the 2024/25 financial year.

1.1.1 1449-Richmond Reticulation- Lower Queen Street Trunk Main upgrade - Water

1.1.2 1141-Richmond South Reticulation, Low level Reservoir Stage 1 - Water

1.1.3 1272-Brightwater Reticulation – SH6 Main Renewal - Water

1.1.4 1490-New water Main Gladstone Oxford Three Brothers - Water

1.1.5 1251-Borck Creek SH60 Bridge Capacity Upgrade - Stormwater

1.1.6 1269-Borck Creek Widening Headingly Lane to Estuary - Stormwater

1.1.7 1584 - Wai-iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline Construction - Water

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Community Infrastructure Group delivers a portfolio of projects each financial year. Progress on the larger projects is regularly reported to the Operations Committee, focusing on timelines and budget.

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 Water and Stormwater projects are progressing faster than indicated this financial year in the LTP. Staff are seeking approval to bring forward budgets to cover the expenditure for the projects summarised in the section 4.1 below.

2.4 The current budget allocation for Capital Projects in 2024/25 is $41,707,694.91. After bringing forward funding of $6,239,144.21 as per section 4.2 and deferring funding of $13,593,365 from 2024/25, the forecasted delivery for this year (2024/2025) totals $34,288,374.53. This will reduce loan funding and, consequently, lower interest payments.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council receives the Community Infrastructure Capital Works Funding Approvals report, RCN24-10-16; and

1. approves the proposed budget changes by bringing forward $6,239,144.21 (detailed in section 4.2 of the agenda report), from future years into 2024/25 and deferring $13,593,365 (detailed in Table 4.3 of the agenda report), currently funded in 2024/25; and

2. notes that, following these changes, the total capex proposed and consequential forecast borrowing cost is less than anticipated for 2024/25 in the Long-Term Plan 2024/2034: and

3. notes that staff will review the Capital Programme 2025/26 as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 deliberations, accounting for the impact of the changes proposed in the report; and

4. notes that the approval of the Wai-iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline project is subject to a Shareholders vote achieving 70% in favour of the project.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The table below presents the current budget allocation as outlined in the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan.

Projects	Total Budget	24/25	25/26	26/27	27/28
1449-Richmond Reticulation- Lower Queen Street Trunk Main upgrade	$4,903,511.00	$677,740	$692,650	$1,581,314	$1,951,807
1141-Richmond South Reticulation, Low level Reservoir Stage 1	$6,358,797.00	$206,000	$2,919,026	$3,233,771
1272 - Brightwater Reticulation – SH6 Main Renewal	$3,943,491.99	$1,048,677.99	$2,894,815
1490 – New water Main Gladstone Oxford Three Brothers	$3,889,575.32	$85,060.49	$202,841.27	$1,780,362.61	$1,821,310.95
1251-Borck Creek SH60 Bridge Capacity Upgrade	$ 8,467,939.00			$ 269,480.96	$3,696,304.33
1269-Borck Creek Widening Headingly Lane to Estuary	$ 5,643,539.00	$ 92,058.31	$3,337,984.86	$2,155,847.68
1584-Wai iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline Construction	$1,305,881.00		$52,633.00	$646,754.00	$606,494.00
Water Total	$20,401,256.31	$2,017,478.48	$6,761,965.27	$7,242,201.61	$4,379,611.95
Stormwater Total	$14,111,478.00	$92,058.31	$3,337,984.86	$2,425,328.64	$3,696,304.33
Total	$34,512,734.31	$2,109,536.79	$10,099,950.13	$9,667,530.25	$8,075,916.28

4.2 The table below presents the proposed budget changes

Projects	Total Budget	24/25	25/26	26/27	27/28
1449-Richmond Reticulation- Lower Queen Street Trunk Main upgrade	$4,903,511.00	$677,740.00	$4,225,771.00
1141-Richmond South Reticulation, Low level Reservoir Stage 1	$6,358,797.00	$2,000,000.00	$4,358,797.00
1272 - Brightwater Reticulation – SH6 Main Renewal	$3,943,491.99	$3,800,000.00	$143,491.99
1490 – New water Main Gladstone Oxford Three Brothers	$3,889,575.32	$85,060.00	$991,601.00	$2,812,914.32
1251-Borck Creek SH60 Bridge Capacity Upgrade	$ 8,467,939.00	$200,000.00		$ 69,480.96	$ 3,696,304.33
1269-Borck Creek Widening Headingly Lane to Estuary	$ 5,643,539.00	$ 280,000.00	$3,150,043.00	$2,155,848.00
1584-Wai iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline Construction	$1,305,881.00	$1,305,881.00
Water Total	$20,401,256.31	$7,868,681.00	$9,719,660.99	$2,812,914.32	$0.00
Stormwater Total	$14,111,478.00	$480,000.00	$3,150,043.00	$2,225,329.00	$3,696,304.33
Total	$34,512,734.31	$8,348,681.00	$12,869,703.99	$5,038,243.32	$3,696,304.33
Current budget less proposed budget	$0.00	$6,239,144.21	$2,769,753.86	-$4,629,286.93	-$4,379,611.95

4.3 The table below outlines the capital project budget savings and adjustments starting from 2024/2025.

Project	Category	2024/25 Budget	Forecast Spend 24/25	Budget Rephased 24/25	Notes
1268 - Lower Queen Street Bridge Capacity Upgrade	Stormwater	$5,303,135.47	$3,000,000.00	$2,303,135.47	Construction delayed due to service relocation & resource consent
1317 - Richmond South Section H - W, WW, SW - Bateup Drain Upgrade Stage 3	Stormwater	$928,160.00	$450,000.00	$478,160.00	Some construction in next financial year due to works needing to be done in summer months
1182 - New rising main Motueka West to wastewater treatment plant GL - Stage 2 Pah Street to Bridge	Wastewater	$161,536.96	$-	$161,536.96	Subdivision has been delayed
1182 - New rising main Motueka West to wastewater treatment plant GL - Stage 3	Wastewater	$1,839,635.62	$-	$1,839,635.62	Subdivision has been delayed
1450 - Motueka WWTP - Pretreatment Improvements	Wastewater	$3,914,000.00	$900,000.00	$3,014,000.00	Construction won't be starting next year. Still investigating options.
1451 - Takaka WWTP New Disposal System and Treatment Upgrade	Wastewater	$2,575,000.00	$1,000,000.00	$1,575,000.00	Construction will not begin this year as the design-build process is still in its early stages.
1489 - Collingwood WWTP Pretreatment Improvements	Wastewater	$-	$30,000.00	-$30,000.00	Budget will be allocated from activity balance
1317 - Richmond South Section H - W, WW, SW - Richmond South Wastewater Main (Section H)	Wastewater	$309,000.00	$150,000.00	$159,000.00	Some construction in next financial year due to works needing to be done in summer months
1327 - Tanker Filling Stations - GL - Wakefield	Water	$103,000.00	$-	$103,000.00	Location is yet to be decided
1494 - Tapawera WTP and Bore Renewal	Water	$638,600.00	$215,000.00	$423,600.00	Construction won't start until next year
1256 - Eighty-eight Valley Reticulation Upgrades	Water	$2,035,043.00	$500,000.00	$1,535,043.00	Land access and easements required for pipeline routes.
1267 - Waimea Plains Water Plan	Water	$1,621,317.00	$300,000.00	$1,321,317.00	Land access and easements required for pipeline routes.
1277 - Kaiteriteri Reticulation Reservoir Improvements	Water	$412,000.00	$206,000.00	$206,000.00	Some construction in next financial year
1317 - Richmond South Section H - W, WW, SW - Richmond South Reticulation - Low Level Water Main	Water	$154,500.00	$75,000.00	$79,500.00	Some construction in next financial year due to works needing to be done in summer months
1144 - Motueka Recreation Centre Water Facility upgrade	Community Facilities	$984,437.03	$200,000.00	$784,437.03	Scope changed- saving on project work
1572B - Brooklyn Stopbanks Refurbishment - Stage 2	Rivers	$-	$50,000.00	-$50,000.00	See 1572M. 50k to fix Plant & Food stormwater drainage due to removal of pump shed in Stage 1
1557 - Upper Moutere Shared Pathway	Roading	$-	$310,000.00	-$310,000.00	Subject to budget allocation
Total				$13,593,365

4.4 1449 - Lower Queen Street Trunk Main Upgrade
The project involves replacing an old asbestos water main with 3 km of new PE 450 water pipe, extending from the Gladstone Road intersection to Headingly Lane. The upgrade will be carried out concurrently with the Lower Queen Street Bridge project (Project 1268), scheduled to start in November 2024 and finish by December 2025. Aligning these two projects will minimise public disruption by reducing the overall duration of impact. Since we have now identified the correlation between the work that will be happening with other construction projects in the same area, it has been proposed to make budget changes before the work will start in the near future to work simultaneously reducing public disruption.

4.5 1141 – Richmond South Reticulation, Low-Level Reservoir Stage 1
The project aims to enhance resilience and support growth in Richmond by constructing a 2,500 m² concrete tank on Hill Street South. A related project will connect the new tank to Bateup Road with new pipework, scheduled for construction in the 2025/26 financial year. Bringing the budget forward will allow for timely alignment of these interdependent works. This project is currently out for tender.

4.6 1272 - Brightwater Reticulation – SH6 Main Renewal
The project involves replacing an old AC main that is at the end of its operational life with a larger diameter pipe to meet increased demand from recent and projected growth in the area. The new trunk main will enhance network resilience and reduce reactive maintenance costs. The physical works are scheduled to be completed within five months in the 2024/25 financial year, without extending over multiple years. Advancing the budget will facilitate the prompt completion of this renewal project. This project is currently out for tender.

4.7 1490 - New Water Main Gladstone Oxford Three Brothers
The project will replace and upsize the existing 150mm and 100mm water mains to a single 250mm ID pipe from Three Brothers Corner to the intersection between Gladstone Road and Oxford Street. The design budget, previously spread over two years, has been proposed to be consolidated due to the lack of necessity for the split. Bringing the budget forward will expedite project execution and optimize resource allocation. This project is currently out for tender.

4.8 1251-Borck Creek SH60 Bridge Capacity Upgrade
The project involves the replacement of the existing culvert with a bridge. This project prepares us for the increase in stormwater that results from the future development in Richmond South. This project had previously been put on hold due to the uncertainty of the availability of the land upstream of the bridge. With the recent acquisition of a parcel of land upstream of the bridge we have identified a possible opportunity of a substantial cost saving to the project. We want to explore this opportunity and complete our designs in relation to other projects that deal with Borck Creek upstream of the SH60 bridge.

4.9 1269-Borck Creek Widening Headingly Lane to Estuary
This project is part of the wider Borck Creek programme of works that allows further growth in Richmond West and Richmond South by increasing the stormwater capacity of Borck Creek. Last financial year, we had the budget to start our concept design, and we tendered for the demolition/salvage of two properties that are in the designation of the future, widened creek. The most cost-effective way to deliver this project is by coordinating it with the bridge construction to minimize disruptions.

4.10 1584 -Wai-iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline Construction
In years with precipitation below average, water storage in the Dam gets depleted to 15% or lower during the irrigation season. If dry conditions continue into the following winter, water storage cannot recover in time for the next irrigation season. The Dam has capacity of 780,000 m³ but its recovery turnover is limited by size of the upstream catchment and its full recovery on time for the next irrigation season can be expected only in average rainfall or wet years. The proposed intake at Quail Valley Stream will divert surplus flow from the Stream during high flow periods. Water will then flow through the proposed gravity pipeline, thus complementing inflow into the Dam.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The primary issue across these projects is the need for efficient coordination and timely budget allocation to avoid delays and minimise public disruption. Several of the proposed water infrastructure upgrades are in areas where other significant construction activities are planned or underway. Without bringing the budgets forward, there is a risk of extended project timelines, increased costs, and duplicated efforts due to uncoordinated construction schedules.

5.2 The 1449 - Lower Queen Street Trunk Main Upgrade and 1268-Lower Queen Street Bridge Projects operate in the same area. If budgets are not brought forward, the water main upgrade may not be aligned with the bridge construction, leading to prolonged disruptions for the public and increased costs due to multiple traffic management setups.

5.3 1141 - Richmond South Reticulation, Low-Level Reservoir Stage 1 project – Delaying the budget could impact the timely connection of the new reservoir tank to the pipework scheduled for 2025/26. This misalignment could affect Richmond’s growth plans.

5.4 1272 - Brightwater Reticulation – SH6 Main Renewal project – The renewal of the aging AC main is critical to improving network resilience and meeting demand. If the budget is not advanced, the project may be spread over multiple years, increasing the likelihood of reactive maintenance costs and potentially compromising service levels.

5.5 1490 - New Water Main Gladstone Oxford Three Brothers Project – The consolidation of the design budget over two years is intended to expedite the replacement and upsizing of existing water mains. Not advancing the budget could delay the project, reducing cost efficiency and prolonging the impact on local infrastructure and traffic.

5.6 1251 - Borck Creek SH60 Bridge Capacity Upgrade – Delaying the completion of the design now the land upstream of the bridge has been acquired, will jeopardise the opportunity of cost savings given that other Borck Creek related projects upstream of the bridge are advancing their designs, which could limit the options for the alignment of the creek and SH60 bridge.

5.7 1269 - Borck Creek Widening Headingly Lane to Estuary – Delaying the demolition/salvage off the two properties and the remediation of the contaminated soil is a Health & Safety risk.

5.8 1584 - Wai-iti Dam Augmentation Pipeline Construction – After consecutive dry seasons, the Wai-iti Dam is only filled to 33% heading into winter. The Wai-iti Dam Committee have requested that Council staff investigate a supplementary water source to improve resilience to dry weather. Given the dam has not reached capacity heading into summer, staff propose to bring this budget forward and complete the supplementary pipe construction before the Autumn/Winter months in 2025.

5.9 Overall, the issue is that without bringing the budgets forward for the water projects, there is a significant risk of misalignment between related projects, increased costs, and extended disruption to the public. Coordinating these projects through advanced funding will enhance project delivery, optimise resource use, and minimise disruption.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the request to bring the funding forward	By bringing the funding forward, the projects can be completed more efficiently, effectively, and with minimised disruption to the public and local communities. It also minimises the health and safety risks by removing the risk in timely manner.	Approving the request to bring the funding forward does not have any disadvantages as it offset the by some delayed projects.
2.	Decline the request to bring the funding forward	No clear advantages have been identified if the request is declined.	Declining the request to bring the funding forward could lead to misaligned project schedules, resulting in extended timelines, increased costs due to duplicated efforts, and prolonged public disruption. It may also delay critical infrastructure improvements, reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of project delivery. Also, staff will have to manage the health and safety risks for a longer period. In relation to the Wai-iti Dam project, the decision to not bringing the budget forward may result in the Dam shareholders not being able to irrigate during the 25/26 summer months.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no significant legal implications associated with this decision. The Council has the authority to rephase the Long-Term Plan budgets.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No engagement with iwi has been initiated to discuss advancing funding for the first six projects. However, staff have undertaken hui with iwi for the Wai-iti Augmentation project. As a result, there will be a cultural health indicator report which will be associated with the Resource Consent Application.

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

9.1 There are no significant legal implications arising from this decision, and the Council can bring the budgets forward.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Advancing the construction projects to minimise public disruption will likely gain public interest.
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. Regarding the Wai-iti Dam project, the decision not to bring the budget forward could result in the dam shareholders being unable to irrigate during the summer months of 2025/26.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	This decision will not affect the Council breaching the debt cap.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	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 rephasing decision will reduce the total LTP budget for the 2024/25 year, with some adjustments in 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28. However, there are no changes to the overall LTP budget.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	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 any new entries into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver 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 or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	This decision does not require 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 other Council communication channels. Further updates will be provided through these channels.

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

11.1 The proposed changes remain within the overall capital budget in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034. The changes are expected to deliver increased operational value to the Council. They may also offer improved value and risk management compared to the original budget allocations.

11.2 The proposed change will mean a reduction in capital spend of $6,239,144. This will result in lower debt servicing costs for 2024/2025.

11.3 The projects that have been delayed accommodating the work will need to be factored in to the upcoming 2025/2026 annual plan process.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Staff consider the decision to bring budgets forward to be low risk. Historically, delays in capital projects and related funding are most often caused during the Initiation phase, where scope is defined, and concept designs are advanced to detailed designs. This phase typically leads to underspending on capital works. Based on historical data, there appears to be sufficient capacity within the existing budget framework to accommodate the proposed changes without negative financial impact.

12.2 Declining this request to bring the budgets forward will delay projects, increase costs, result in resource inefficiencies, lost opportunities, health and safety risks and stakeholder dissatisfaction, all of which could negatively impact total project outcomes.

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’

13.2 The Borck Creek works are necessary to mitigate the flood risk.

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

14.1 This funding recommendation is generally in accordance with the Long Term Plan 2024-2034. All the projects are included in this document.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Community Infrastructure Group delivers a portfolio of projects each financial year. Progress on the larger projects is regularly reported to the Operations Committee, focusing on time and budget. 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.

15.2 Staff recommend approval of these budget changes to better align with the project's current requirements and timelines.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If these changes are approved, the projects will be delivered according to the new proposed timelines.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.10 Minor Land Purchase to Remedy Historic Encroachment

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Nick Chin, Enterprise and Property Services Manager; Kevin O'Neil, Property Officer
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-10-17

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval for the purchase of 21m² of land to remedy a historical building encroachment; and

1.2 To fund the purchase from the Waimea-Moutere Reserves Financial Contributions budget.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The former Wakefield Library building (now the Wakefield Toy Library) was recently upgraded. It was noted during construction that part of the toy library building does not sit within the legal boundary for 61 Edward Street, Wakefield (figure 1 below).

2.2 From notes on file, staff can determine that the library building was extended in the 1970’s along the southeastern end of the building. This extension encroaches onto the neighbouring property at 63 Edward Street.

2.3 There was an old note found on file where the previous owners of 63 Edward Street at the time advised in writing that they approved the encroachment onto their land.

2.4 To remedy this encroachment, the current owner of 63 Edward Street has agreed to sell the Council 21m² of land that would then move the boundary so that the whole building is on one title. This purchase would also include a narrow access strip for future maintenance.

2.5 It is proposed that the costs associated with the purchase be funded from the Waimea-Moutere Reserves Financial Contributions budget (opening balance $10.02 million).

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Minor Land Purchase to Remedy Historic Encroachment report,
RCN24-10-17; and

2. notes that the property is owned by the Council as fee simple but cannot be sold without following the respective provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 and the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. notes that Reserve Financial Contributions can be invested in Council reserves and facilities and 61 Edward Street is considered a Council facility as it is used as a public library; and

4. approves the acquisition of 21m²from 63 Edward Street, Wakefield to remedy the historic encroachment; and

5. delegates authority to the Enterprise and Property Services Manager to execute any documents required for the property purchase and legalisation; and

6. approves the costs of up to $20,000 for the purchase and to complete the legal and statutory processes, with funding from Waimea-Moutere Reserves Financial Contributions budget.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The original property at 61 Edward Street was gifted to the Trustees of the Wakefield Library by Joseph Gibbs back in 1912.

4.2 The property was subsequently transferred to “The Chairman, Councillors and Inhabitants of the County of Waimea” in 1955 for the purposes of a Public Library and is subject to the “Libraries and Mechanics Institutes Act 1908”.

4.3 The land is owned by the Council in fee simple for the purposes of a public library. The property can only be considered for sale if the relevant offer back provisions pursuant to section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 and the sale of endowment properties pursuant to sections 140 and 141 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.4 The property is currently used as a “Toy Library” and is an asset of the Reserves and Facilities team and contained within Reserves Activity Management Plan. Reserves Financial Contributions can be invested in Council reserves and facilities.

4.5 In the mid-1970’s an extension was added to the library building. This encroached slightly onto the neighbouring property at 63 Edward Street. At the time of construction, the owner of 63 Edward Street approved the encroachment, and this was recorded on the property file.

4.6 The current adjoining owner is happy and willing to sell some land to the Council to tidy up this historical encroachment.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The building occupies approximately 7m² of the neighbouring property. It is proposed to acquire 21m² to allow for a sufficient strip of land that can be used for access for future maintenance of the building.

5.2 Given the adjacent owners support, it is recommended the Council progresses with the resolution of this encroachment (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1 The 21m² land proposed for purchase (yellow).

6. Options / Kōwhiringa Figure 2 The 21m2 land proposed for purchase (yellow).

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the purchase of 21m² of land from the owner of 63 Edward Street Wakefield.	This will tidy up an historic encroachment and ensure that the Councils improvements are contained within the property’s legal boundary.	The costs of remedying this encroachment will be in the order of $20,000 including survey, legal and legalisation fees.
2.	Take no action	This will save $20,000.	Council would still own a building that encroached private property.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The purchase of this small amount of land has not been specifically provided for in the Council’s Long Term Plan 2024-34.

7.2 Only the Council can approve a property purchase where the proposed purchase has not been signalled in the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No specific iwi engagement is proposed, as this property transaction for remediating a historic encroachment is not significant nor a departure from existing indicative plans.

8.2 There are no known sites of significance, wahi tapu or archaeological sites at this location.

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

9.1 Overall, the significance of this decision is assessed as low. No specific engagement has occurred other than with the adjoining landowner who is open to the Council purchasing the land to tidy up the current encroachment.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	There is no impact on the general public.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	N/A	There are no impacts on the general public.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	There will be no real impact or perceivable change.
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	The purchase will have no impact on the 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	The total costs of the land purchase will be around $20,000.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
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?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
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?	N/A

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Communication has only been undertaken with the affected adjoining landowner. The impact of tidying up this historic encroachment has no effect on the public as no perceivable changes are to be made.

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

11.1 There is no provision in the Annual Plan 2024/25 or Long Term Plan 2024/34 for this minor property purchase though the impact is minimal due to the low costs involved.

11.2 The estimated cost of the purchase, including survey, vesting of the land and legalisation is estimated at $20,000.00.

11.3 It is proposed that funding for this purchase come from the Waimea-Moutere Reserves Financial Contributions budget.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There is low risk of reputational damage if the Council was to purchase this small amount of land to tidy up the existing historical encroachment.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 This property purchase will have no impact on the Tasman Climate Action Plan.

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

14.1 The purchase of this 21m² section has not been specifically provided for in the Council’s LTP 2024/2034. However, the purchase meets the legal requirement to resolve historical boundary issues and therefore aligns with the LTP 2024/2034.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Purchasing 21m² of land from 63 Edward Street, Wakefield provides an opportunity for the Council to tidy up an historical encroachment.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If option 1 is approved, staff will prepare an agreement for execution and arrange for the additional land to be added to the title for 61 Edward Street, Wakefield to tidy up the building encroachment.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.11 Draft Māpua Masterplan

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Anna McKenzie, Principal Planner – Environmental Policy; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-10-18

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval to commence community consultation on the draft Māpua Masterplan (the Masterplan). It is proposed to use a process similar to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Special Consultative Procedure involving the receipt of written submissions and the hearing of verbal submissions to inform the final decision-making process.

1.2 The consultation process is proposed to commence on 1 November 2024 and run through to 16 February 2025.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Masterplan is intended to be a comprehensive plan that provides strategic direction on how Māpua will grow and develop over the next 30 years.

2.2 A key driver for the Masterplan is to inform how Māpua will respond to growth as the Tasman District continues to experience high population growth. The Council is legally required to ensure that there is sufficient zoned and serviced land to meet Tasman’s expected demand for residential and business land over the short, medium and long term
(1-30 years).

2.3 Māpua is identified, along with Brightwater, Wakefield, Motueka and Richmond as one of Tasman’s urban centres and is expected to provide for some of the growth in the District. The draft Masterplan outlines how this growth can be accommodated, and outlines plans for improvements to recreational areas, ecological outcomes, active transport linkages, open space, and infrastructure services. It seeks to recognise Māpua’s significant cultural values, character and identity and promote natural hazard and climate change resilience as well as adaptation measures by supporting climate resilient development.

2.4 The draft Masterplan comprises two documents:

· The draft Māpua Masterplan containing draft Masterplan Maps and a draft Masterplan Action Plan (Attachment 1); and

· the draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information Document providing background information and the Stormwater Catchment Management Plan (Attachment 2).

2.5 Implementing the Masterplan will occur through the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy Implementation Plan, Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) Plan Changes, the Long Term Plan, Asset Management Plans, Council projects, and partnerships with the community and ngā iwi.

2.6 The next step in the Masterplan Project is to seek community input using a process similar to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Special Consultative Procedure involving written submissions, the hearing of verbal submissions and deliberations. A final decision is proposed to be made by the Council’s Strategy and Policy Committee.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Draft Māpua Masterplan report RCN24-10-18;

2. approves the Draft Māpua Masterplan (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) and Draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for consultation; and

3. agrees to use a process similar to the Local Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure involving written submissions, hearings and deliberations for the Māpua Masterplan; and

4. agrees that the Draft Māpua Masterplan consultation period to run from
1 November 2024 to 16 February 2025; and

5. agrees that the Draft Māpua Masterplan consultation be advertised in Newsline, on the Council’s website, Shape Tasman, via social media posts and a pamphlet drop in central Māpua, and by writing to landowners whose properties are directly subject to proposals in the Draft Māpua Masterplan; and

6. agrees that the Strategy and Policy Committee will hear and deliberate on submissions and approve the final masterplan.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 In 2023, various Council departments were planning on undertaking planning processes in Māpua including a review of several key documents such as the Māpua Waterfront Area Masterplan 2018-2028, Māpua Structure Plan 2010 and Māpua Catchment Management Plan. In addition, ngā iwi expressed concern around their ability to resource the Council’s high number of consultation processes and members of the Māpua community expressed concerns around consultation fatigue. The development of a single masterplan for Māpua was considered an opportunity to bring the Council’s multiple planning processes into a single plan to inform:

· Implementation of the Future Development Strategy,

· Stormwater Catchment Management Plan and infrastructure Asset Management Plans,

· Reserve management and development,

· The Long Term Plan; and

· Changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan.

4.2 The Masterplan Project was approved by the Council on 16 February 2023. The methodology and timeline for developing the Masterplan is outlined in the following diagram:

A close-up of a calendar

4.3 Community consultation during development of the draft Masterplan has been extensive and has utilised a range of methods to inform and engage with the public. This has included developing a dedicated Masterplan information webpage, media articles, social media posts, letter drops and four drop-in sessions at the Māpua Community Hall over September 2023 and February 2024. These public events were attended by Council staff covering all the key specialist areas i.e., infrastructure, planning, reserves and transport. Elected members were also present at the community events. During the second consultation session, ngā iwi representatives attended, and a video and material displayed. Feedback was captured through feedback forms (available online and in hardcopy) and during the first event, feedback was documented directly on maps.

4.4 This extensive and varied consultation approach has helped ensure the project had a wide reach and enabled as many people to provide feedback as possible. At the first and second engagement events, Council staff spoke to over 300 people from a variety of ages and demographics and received a significant amount of feedback from each consultation round. Summary consultation documents were developed for each event, and these are included in Appendix 6 of the Draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information.

4.5 Following the testing of scenarios during community consultation in February 2024, a preferred option was developed, it forms the basis of the draft Masterplan. We are now seeking the Council’s approval to formally consult on the draft Masterplan. This involves inviting written submissions, and hearing of verbal submissions and deliberations.

4.6 Following the hearing, deliberations will take place before the adoption of a final Māpua Masterplan. The Council will then start implementing the plan. Some actions will be undertaken relatively quickly, such as commencing preparation of a TRMP Plan Change to implement the final layout. Others will be longer term projects such as the completion of the proposed Seaton Valley Wetland as this is dependent on the development of the surrounding land and long-term community support for planting.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 A Masterplan approach ensures that the Council has an integrated plan that provides an overarching framework to support growth and development in Māpua and implement the Future Development Strategy. The development of the draft Masterplan has involved several stages of ngā iwi and community engagement including testing issues, opportunities, principles and options. To guide the process, a set of overarching principles were developed in consultation with ngā iwi and the community. These principles have guided the Masterplan development process and have been used to test options. We also tested options during the community engagement to identify those the community preferred. Ngā iwi representatives were consulted at each development step and contributed to the development of the mana whenua principle and community consultation events. Engagement has been facilitated through both physical events and online platforms. Council workshops provided an elected member perspective. The final decision on the Masterplan content is proposed to be made by the Council following submissions and hearings and deliberations.

5.2 The Masterplan process has resulted in a draft Masterplan illustrating a series of housing, business, cultural, open space, ecological, infrastructure, recreational and movement actions which set the direction for Māpua. The draft Masterplan includes:

· Proposed zoning changes

· Future infrastructure upgrades

· Planned recreational linkages and open spaces

· Catchment management planning

5.3 The draft Masterplan is supported by a draft Māpua Masterplan Action Plan that outlines all the proposed actions required to achieve the Masterplan principles, many of which cannot be illustrated spatially. A draft Masterplan Supporting Information Document also accompanies the draft Masterplan, outlining in detail the Masterplan development process. Both documents are attached (Attachments 1 and 2).

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the release of the draft Māpua Masterplan and draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information for consultation as proposed.	- Progress the Masterplan Project through to its next step – release of a draft Masterplan. - Meet community expectations around releasing a draft Masterplan for consultation.	- There will be a high level of public interest and resourcing will need to be adequate to manage the expected high level of written submissions and the hearing of verbal submissions.
2.	Delay the release of the draft Māpua Masterplan and draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information for formal consultation.	- Reduces cost in the short to medium term. - Allows staff time to be used on other priorities. - Could allow for informal feedback on the proposed Masterplan	- Delay to the project timeframes will have flow-on effects to other workstreams and resourcing e.g. plan changes, staff availability. - It is considered that sufficient informal consultation has been undertaken to inform the development of the draft Masterplan. It is considered that there will be limited value to the process in undertaking additional consultation.
3.	Withdraw from the Masterplan process and don’t complete a masterplan for Māpua.	- Resources will be able to be re-allocated.	- No strategic or integrated planning in Māpua creating poor outcomes for the community, and wider region. - Community and iwi expectation is that a Masterplan will be developed.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The Masterplan is a non-statutory document. However, ensuring the District has enough serviced and zoned land for housing and business development is a key priority for the Council as well as being a legal obligation under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development. The Tasman District’s 10-year Long Term Plan 2024-2034 provides the infrastructure services required (including drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, roading, footpaths, reserves and community facilities) to enable residential and business development to occur. The Masterplan focuses on setting a framework of strategic direction and vision to support growth and development in Māpua to inform key Council documents including the Long Term Plan, Asset Management Plans, changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan, Reserve Management Plans and the Stormwater Catchment Management Plan.

7.2 The Masterplan is also a step in implementing the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 (FDS). The FDS identifies the location of future housing and business growth areas in the District, including in Māpua. The Masterplan will identify how those areas will be developed. The FDS was developed to meet the requirements of the Government’s National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) which came into effect in August 2020. One of the key purposes of the NPS-UD is to create well-functioning urban environments and to encourage competitive land and development markets to improve housing affordability.

7.3 The NPS-UD requires councils to:

· Compile evidence including three yearly Housing and Business Assessments.

· Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity to meet Tasman’s expected demand for residential and business land in the Tasman urban environment. The Tasman urban environment includes Richmond, Motueka, Māpua, Brightwater and Wakefield.

7.4 The Masterplan, as a strategic spatial document, seeks to plan for a well-functioning urban environment in Māpua whilst ensuring that there is sufficient residential and business land to meet Tasman’s expected demand.

7.3 Another objective of the Masterplan is to develop a stormwater Catchment Management Plan (CMP) for the Māpua Urban Drainage Area (UDA). The CMP process seeks to identify how we will deliver positive stormwater outcomes for the environment and people within the UDA. Aside from being a proactive approach to managing stormwater for growth and Māpua residents, the CMP is also a requirement under the Council’s urban stormwater discharge resource consent, which was granted in May 2021.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 The Masterplan was developed in partnership with ngā iwi as Treaty Partners and in accordance with the Relationship Agreement signed in December 2023 by the eight iwi of Te Tauihu and the three councils of Te Tauihu.

8.2 Ngā iwi involvement in the Masterplan project has included participation in multiple hui and providing representation at Council workshops and community engagement events. In collaboration with ngā iwi, a video on the significance of Māpua to ngā iwi and posters on ngā iwi background, Te Ao Maori Values and Visions and archaeological evidence were included with the public consultation material.

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

9.1 The community consultation process to inform development of the draft Masterplan has utilised a range of methods to inform and engage with the public. Consultation has been extensive, and a variety of consultation approaches have been used to ensure the project had a wide reach and enabled as many people to provide feedback as possible. At the first and second engagement events, Council staff spoke to over 300 people from a variety of ages and demographics and received a significant amount of feedback from each consultation round.

	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 Māpua community is very engaged in the process, and it is likely that there will be a significant number of submissions.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	The draft Masterplan provides strategic direction on how Māpua will grow and develop over the next 30 years. The draft direction is considered to positively impact social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing for the present and future communities of Māpua. There are however elements of the plan which may be considered by some to negatively impact community well-being as land is rezoned to accommodate residential growth.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Yes	This is consultation on a draft Masterplan, but the final plan will shape the future development of Māpua and the Council’s investment in this area.
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?	Yes	Although the document is draft, it proposes a change in zoning of Council owned land.
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 The community consultation process during the development of the Masterplan utilised a range of methods to inform and engage with the public, including various media channels, pamphlet distribution and public information sessions.

10.2 Communications for the release of the draft Masterplan will include the Council’s range of media channels including Newsline, social media and the dedicated Māpua Masterplan Shape Tasman website. The Shape Tasman website will be used as the platform for providing information on the project and will direct the community to the Councils submissions tool for submissions.

10.3 The Māpua, Richmond and Motueka Libraries, and Richmond Service Centre will display information about the draft Masterplan including hard copies of the draft Masterplan. An opportunity for the submission of hard copy submissions will be provided at these centres.

10.4 Information pamphlets will be distributed to households in the Māpua urban area advising people of the consultation, the opportunity to submit on the draft Masterplan and the process for submitting. Targeted landowner letters will also be sent to all landowners with land affected by a proposal in the Masterplan.

10.5 An update on the project timeframes has been provided to the Māpua & Districts Community Association (MDCA). More information will be provided to MDCA when the draft Masterplan is released for consultation.

10.6 The draft Masterplan submission form will include specific questions relating to the Masterplan and will include a requirement for names and addresses to be provided.
A demographic question will also be included to help understand who in our community is participating in consultation.

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

11.1 Work on the Masterplan is included as part of the Environmental Policy and Strategic Policy work programmes. No new budget is required. The Plan changes that follow this and the infrastructure proposed are largely factored into the Council’s Long-Term Plan. Some refinements may be needed as part of the Long Term Plan review process in 2027.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the consultation documents including supporting information are not adopted at this meeting for consultation, there is a high risk that the project timeframes may be extended until late in 2025 and be impacted by the Local Government Elections which commence in late 2025. This would significantly delay the project and the team’s policy work programme.

12.2 There is a low risk that the Council’s consultation processes might be challenged. The process so far to develop the Masterplan has been thorough and includes:

· extensive early consultation processes;

· providing an extended consultation period of three and half months on the draft Masterplan;

· ensuring people that may have an interest have, and are kept informed through a variety of communication channels;

· providing several different ways for people to make submissions;

· providing communications technology that enables people to present their submissions to hearings remotely; and

· the Strategy and Policy Committee members considering submissions on the draft Masterplan with an open mind before making decisions.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft Masterplan aligns with the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change, specifically the Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan (TCRSAP). It relates to TCRSAP goal/s to mitigate and adapt to climate change, particularly in supporting intensification of housing so that more people can live close to urban centres and identifying residential growth outside of areas subject to future inundation. The draft Masterplan supports active transport and reductions in vehicle use through improving walking and cycling connections and providing additional business land in Māpua.

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

14.1 The draft Masterplan assists in implementing the FDS and assists the Council in meeting its obligations under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development. The development of the Stormwater Catchment Management Plan also assists the Council in meeting its requirement under the Council’s Urban Stormwater Discharge Resource Consent, which was granted in May 2021.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The draft Masterplan has been developed after considerable community consultation on principles, issues, opportunities, options and actions. Releasing the draft Masterplan for formal submissions is the next step in the process and will enable the final Masterplan to be informed and refined through community feedback and submissions.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 On approval to consult, staff will notify the community that submissions are open on the draft Māpua Masterplan. It is intended that submissions will be open from 1 November 2024 until 16 February 2025. Submissions will be received via the Council's online submissions tool and hard copy forms.

16.2 Following the closing of the submissions period, a hearing date will be set, and submitters will have the opportunity to be heard by the Strategy and Policy Committee at a hearing. Delibrations and a final decision on the Masterplan will follow.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Māpua Masterplan - Final Draft for public consultation	195
2.⇩	Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information combined Appendices	217

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.13 Risk Appetite Statement

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Amy Clarke, Risk & Assurance Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Deidre Hemera, Assurance and Improvement Manager; Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-10-20

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

1.1 To seek approval of the Risk Appetite Statement (Statement) as developed with the Mayor and Councillors.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Statement is a key element of the Risk Management Framework, it describes the amount and type of risk that the Council is willing to pursue or retain in the execution of its strategic and business objectives.

2.2 The Statement is a guide from the Council. While the Statement provides a framework to respond to in most circumstances, there remains an expectation that staff act with prudence, good judgement and be open to pursuing opportunities outside of the risk appetite where appropriate.

2.3 Two workshops were held with the Council to inform development of the Statement (Attachment 1). At the first workshop individual assessments of each risk type were provided. The second workshop gave the opportunity to discuss the consolidation of the individual assessments.

2.4 The Audit and Risk Committee reviewed the statement at its meeting on 3 October 2024 and recommended it to the Council for adoption.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Risk Appetite Statement report RCN24-10-20; and

2. adopts the Risk Appetite Statement in Attachment 1 to the agenda report.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Statement is a key element in the Risk Management Framework which was approved in May 2024. The Statement needs to be developed and adopted by the Council.

4.2 The Statement describes the amount and type of risk that the Council is willing to pursue or retain in the execution of its strategic and businesses objectives. The Statement will influence, and guide decision making, clarify strategic intent and help to ensure alignment with the direction of the Council. The Statement will be reviewed annually.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Two workshops were held with the Council to inform the development of the Statement.

5.2 At the first workshop, individual assessments of each risk type were provided. These individual assessments were consolidated into a draft Statement.

5.3 At the second workshop, there was the opportunity to discuss if the consolidation of the risk appetite was a fair representation of the views of the Council as a whole. Feedback from this workshop has been incorporated into the draft Statement (Attachment 1).

5.4 The Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) reviewed the Statement at its meeting on 3 October 2024 and recommended it to the Council for adoption.

5.4.1 The ARC also requested that the Risk and Assurance Advisor report back on how the risk appetite statement will be embedded – for example communication through the organisation and use in decision making.

5.5 The Statement covers the categories of risk as described in the Risk Framework (Financial, Relationships and Reputations, Operational, Legal and Regulatory Compliance, People and Wellbeing/ Health and Safety, Environmental, Project Performance).

5.6 A pictorial summary is provided as well as descriptions for each category.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the Risk Appetite Statement (with or without changes)

Enables the Risk Management Framework.

Provides guidance on the amount and type of risk the Council is willing to accept.

None.

Do not approve the Risk Appetite Statement

None

Does not enable the Risk Management Framework.

Does not provide guidance of the amount and type of risk the Council is willing to accept.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 There are no applicable legal requirements.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 There has been no iwi engagement with the Statement. Risk management maturity is low, but as it develops it may be appropriate to engage iwi in the development of subsequent Statements.

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

9.1 This is considered of low significance; the Statement is a guide for staff decision making within their existing remits. Engagement with the public is not considered necessary.

	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 Statement is a guide on the Council’s willingness to pursue risk or accept risk. It doesn’t change delegations or reporting structures; it provides clarification and a framework to guide decision making within existing remits.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No	The Statement supports the management of risks.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The Statement is an integral part of the road map to build risk maturity, it will be communicated through several initiatives or activities we are undertaking to build risk maturity.

10.2 The ARC has requested that a plan to embed the statement is presented to them.

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

11.1 None

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the Statement is not adopted there is a risk that the Council is not using good practice risk management to manage risks.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Statement is an important element of the Risk Management Framework which provides a vehicle for climate change risks to be identified and escalated.

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

14.1 The Risk Appetite Statement is an important element of the Risk Management Framework which is designed to support risk management across policy and strategic plans.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Risk Appetite Statement has been created in consultation with the Council, and its adoption and embedding will enable the Risk Management Framework and assist in growing risk maturity.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Once the Risk Appetite Statement is adopted, it will be embedded in the Council, with oversight from the ARC.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Risk Appetite Statement

374

Tasman District Council Agenda – 24 October 2024

7.14 Audit and Risk Committee - Terms of Reference

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	24 October 2024
Report Author:	Amy Clarke, Risk & Assurance Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Deidre Hemera, Assurance and Improvement Manager; Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-10-21

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

1.1 To amend the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) Terms of Reference (TOR).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 An amendment to the Audit and Risk Committee (ARC) Terms of Reference (TOR) is proposed to allow for continuity of membership in extraordinary circumstances.

2.2 The opportunity has also been taken to consider the entirety of the TOR, and additional changes are proposed to clarify the responsibilities of the committee and amend an error in elected member numbers.

2.3 These changes will enable continuity of support from ARC and provide clarity for the committee and Council staff.

2.4 The draft TOR was reviewed by ARC on 3 October 2024 and ARC requested amendments including a provision for a Deputy Chair to be appointed by the Council. The Deputy Chair can be an appointed or independent member.

2.5 The ARC recommended the amended TOR to the Council for adoption.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Audit and Risk Committee - Terms of Reference report, RCN24-10-21; and

2. adopts the Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3. appoints XXX as Deputy Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The ARC TOR is adopted by the Council at the start of each triennium.

4.2 When the terms of the independent members of the ARC were due for renewal it was identified that the existing TOR did not allow for the extension of appointments in extraordinary circumstances. There were also some other changes which were identified as being beneficial.

4.3 The ARC reviewed the TOR at the ARC meeting on 3 October 2024 and recommends the TOR to the Council for adoption.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 It has been identified that some flexibility in the membership of the committee would be valuable to allow for more than two terms (or six years total) in extraordinary circumstances. This would allow for elected or independent members to be reappointed if required to provide continuity of support to the Council. Situations this might apply to include the need for a specific skill set, significant change in the organisation (e.g. change of leadership), or a significant event impacting the Council or the region. The draft TOR (Attachment 1) includes the following:

5.1.1 “Any member of the committee, either elected or independent, may serve no more than six years (the equivalent of two terms of three years) on the committee. In extraordinary circumstances, the Council may approve an additional term for a member of an appropriate length to ensure the committee is able to provide continuity of support to the Council.”

5.2 The opportunity has been taken to consider the entirety of the TOR and several amendments are recommended:

5.2.1 widening the scope of ARC to include Health and Safety, Governance and Integrity. These areas are already included in principle, but specific detail is not provided within the TOR. This provides clarity for ARC and Council staff.

5.2.2 providing more specific detail on the responsibilities of ARC. This creates a workplan for staff to understand what reports and information should be regularly provided at ARC.

5.2.3 specifying what information should be included in the Chair’s annual report to the Council.

5.2.4 amending the number of elected members to four to reflect the appointments.

5.3 The ARC also requested amendments which have been incorporated, including:

5.3.1 A Deputy Chair be appointed by the Council.

5.3.2 The quorum should include one independent member, along with the two elected members.

5.4 These changes will provide clarity for staff and the committee to understand the purpose, function and remit of the committee.

5.5 If the Council agrees to the amendments to the TOR, a Deputy Chair will need to be appointed. This position can be an elected member or independent member. The Chair is an independent member, Graeme McGlinn. The other members of the ARC are:

5.5.1 Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant

5.5.2 Councillor Celia Butler

5.5.3 Councillor Christeen Mackenize

5.5.4 Councillor Trindy Walker

5.5.5 Ms Analisa Elstob (independent member)

5.5.6 Mayor Tim King (ex-officio)

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Adopt the ARC TORs

Allows for continuity of support in extraordinary circumstances.

Provides increased clarity for staff and the committee on the functions of the ARC.

Amends membership numbers and allows for a Deputy Chair position.

None.

Don’t adopt the ARC TORs

May offer the opportunity to further consult on the TOR.

Does not address the appointment terms in the TORs, or correct membership numbers or increase clarity for staff and the committee.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The power of the Council to establish committees (including the Audit and Risk Committee) to undertake its functions is outlined in section 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. Terms of reference are agreed for each committee that outline their areas of responsibility and delegations.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No consultation with iwi or Māori has been undertaken when preparing this report as it is not considered necessary for the amendments to the TOR.

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

9.1 The significance is assessed as low.

	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 ARC does not have any decision-making powers. The changes are minor and are for correction and clarity.
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)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 The draft TOR were discussed in the open session of the ARC committee on
3 October 2024.

10.2 If adopted, they will be included in the Delegations Register and published on the public website.

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

11.1 None.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The draft ARC TOR allow for elected or independent members to be reappointed if required to provide continuity of support to the Council. Situations this might apply to include the need for a specific skill set, significant change in the organisation (e.g. change of leadership), or a significant event impacting the Council or the region.

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

13.1 The Council has the authority to adopt the ARC TOR.

14. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

14.1 The draft ARC TOR provides improvements which will reduce risk and provide clarity for the committee and staff.

15. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

15.1 If adopted, the ARC TOR will be updated in the Delegations Register.

15.2 The ARC will be notified and a workplan will be developed based on the TOR.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

ARC TOR Draft

381

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.⇩	NRSBU Business Plan 2025-26	308
2.⇩	NRSBU Annual Report Summary 2023-24	325