MINUTES

of the

Strategy and Policy Committee MEETING

Komiti Rautaki me te Kaupapahere

held

9.30am, Thursday, 3 October 2024

at

Tasman Council Chamber, 189 Queen Street, Richmond

The video recording of this meeting is available on the Council’s YouTube channel.

Present:                  Councillor C Butler (Deputy Chair) presiding, Mayor T King, Deputy Mayor S Bryant, Councillors G Daikee, B Dowler, J Ellis, M Greening, C Hill, M Kininmonth, C Mackenzie, B Maru, D Shallcrass and T Walker,

In Attendance:        Golden Bay Community Board Member, Henry Dixon, Motueka Community Board Member, David Armstrong (Zoom), Group Manager - Service and Strategy (J Ridd), Group Manager Environmental Assurance (K Drummond), Reserves & Facilities Manager (G Reburn), Senior Community Policy Advisor (A Gerraty), Environmental Policy Manager (B Johnson), Strategic Policy Manager, (D Fletcher) and Governance Manager (E Stephenson)

Absent:                   Nil

1        OPENING, WELCOME

Deputy Chair, Councillor Butler, (presiding) opened the meeting and invited Councillor Hill to give the opening karakia.

2        APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Moved Councillor Dowler/Councillor Hill

SPC24-10-1

That the apologies from Councillor Maling for absence and from Councillor Maru for early departure be accepted.

CARRIED

3        Public Forum

3.1     Bruce Struthers (via Zoom) - the definition of "on track", and "delayed" - Mapua Masterplan.

Bruce Struthers spoke about the Mapua Masterplan, which was listed as being on track, but now had a new completion date, and noted that stormwater for Mapua Ruby Bay had also been delayed.

He felt the coastal community should be considered an outstanding natural landscape, and was unsure how the Masterplan could be categorised as on track. He suggested that the delay was causing stress to existing homeowners and that progress reports should be provided to the community, with the team being held to account.

3.2     Wai-west Horticulture Limited and landowners affected by proposed PC79

Julian Raine and Stuart Flowerday, spoke representing Wai-west Horticulture Limited (WWH) and landowners affected by proposed Plan Change 79 (PC79). Speaking notes were tabled, these are available on the Council’s website in the Minutes Attachment document.

Mr Raine noted that he was speaking on behalf of the wider affected landowner group, and specifically for WWH, which occupied a large portion of the scheduled area identified in Lower Queen Street. He said the group:

· was supportive of the Council’s approach to lift the deferred status and enable light industrial land use but was concerned that in its present form it would not result in a viable development opportunity. The proposed limitations on subdivision, land use and built form would disincentivise investment

· accepted the potential natural hazard risks, but considered a way forward was to enable landowners to future proof their land from potential sea level rise through the development process, rather than adopting blanket provisions that restricted alternative and innovative planning solutions

· did not support a prohibition on subdivision, this was important to ensure staged development could proceed cost-efficiently 

· was concerned that landowners in the scheduled area were not being treated like-for-like with other landowners who had already had the industrial deferment lifted and had developed their sites

· would like to see the Council commit to protecting the coastal boundary on the coastal side of Lower Queen Street

· had no knowledge of the environmental trigger that would require development to cease/ relocate

· was disappointed in the lack of a collaborative approach between the Council and affected landowners. 

It was also noted that:

· the Council had adopted a contour-based threshold for land to be included in the scheduled area, this threshold did not align with other coastal areas, including the proposed development of Airport land 

· the recent Housing Business Capacity updates represented unrealistic provision of industrial land to cater for the growing residential population, especially in Richmond

· WWH land was presently in apples and ensuring a clear pathway for this land use to continue was important. Reverse sensitivity effects had not been adequately considered. Rural land use was not compatible with an industrial zone. WWH would need to rely on existing use rights, which had limitations

· the Ashfield block, while an important part of the wider WWH operation, had clear potential for alternate land use given its proximity to the Richmond township edge. WWH accepted that the future of this land was not in apples, but development potential must be able to co-exist with land in WWH ownership that sits outside the scheduled area 

· the group requested an extended period for submissions to be prepared.

Attachment 1   Julian Raine speaking notes

4        DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

          Nil

5        LATE ITEMS

          Nil

6        CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Councillor Daikee/Councillor Kininmonth

SPC24-10-2

That the minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting held on Thursday, 15 August 2024, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED

Moved Councillor Mackenzie/Councillor Kininmonth

SPC24-10-3

That the confidential minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting held on Thursday, 15 August 2024, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

CARRIED

An additional public forum presentation was heard.

3.3     Graham Thomas on behalf of the McLean Family Trust – Plan Change 79

Graham Thomas spoke on behalf of the McLean Family Trust in support of PC79 but noted that the Trust did have concerns regarding the prohibition of subdivision. He provided some background on the deferred zoning, noting that a proposal had been put forward for retaining industrial zoning.

The Trust strongly supported keeping the ability to subdivide and felt that property owners stood to lose out. He noted the staff recommendation that subdivisions become a non-complying activity and requested a different status for a more workable solution, such as restricted discretionary or discretionary.

7        Reports

7.1     Public notification of proposals to classify existing reserves within Lakes-Murchison and Richmond Wards

Reserves & Facilities Manager, Grant Reburn and Senior Community Policy Advisor, Anna Gerraty, presented the report, which was taken as read. It was confirmed that the proposals only related to land that was currently subject to the Reserves Act. Councillors were nominated for appointment to the Hearings Panel.

Moved Deputy Mayor Bryant/Councillor Dowler

SPC24-10-4

That the Strategy and Policy Committee

1.       receives the Public notification of proposals to classify existing reserves within Lakes-Murchison and Richmond Wards report RSPC24-10-1; and

2.       notes that the Minister of Conservation has provided the Council with delegated authority to classify reserves under section 16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977; and

3.       notes that sections 16(2A) and 16(11b) of the Act enable the Council to classify reserves not derived from the Crown by simple resolution (i.e. without the Minister of Conservation’s consent or need for public consultation); and

4.       agrees to publicly notify the proposals to classify reserves not derived from the Crown along with all other existing reserves listed in Attachments 2 - 4 to the agenda  report under section 16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977; and

5.       exercising a delegation from the Minister of Conservation under section 16(4) of the Reserves Act, instructs staff to proceed with giving public notice of a proposal to:

5.1     notify the intention to classify the areas of reserve land described in Attachment 2 to the agenda report as Scenic Reserve under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 (noting that one is located in Lakes-Murchison Ward and the other in Moutere-Waimea Ward); and

5.2     notify the intention to classify the areas of reserve land described in Attachment 3 to the agenda report as Recreation Reserve under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 (noting that 12 are located in Lakes-Murchison Ward and 45 in Richmond Ward); and

5.3     notify the intention to classify the areas of reserve land described in Attachment 4 to the agenda report as Local Purpose Reserve (of various types) under section 16 of the Reserves Act 1977 (noting that 14 are located in Lakes-Murchison Ward and 163 in Richmond Ward); and

6.       delegates the task of hearing and considering submissions on the proposals to classify reserves to a Hearings Panel; and

7.       appoints a Hearings Panel consisting of the following councillors:

Councillor Jo Ellis (Chair);

Deputy Mayor Stuart Bryant;

Councillor Glen Daikee;

Councillor Christeen Mackenzie;

Councillor Kit Maling; and

if available, up to two Matauranga Māori experts [to be appointed by the Mayor], with the Hearings Panel Chairperson having the ability to appoint another councillor should an appointed member of the panel be unavailable; and

8.       agrees that the Hearing Panel will report back to the Council with recommendations on whether to classify reserves in Lakes-Murchison Ward, Richmond Ward and one reserve in Moutere-Waimea Ward, for a decision.

CARRIED

7.2     Heritage Building Options

Group Manager - Service & Strategy, John Ridd, provided the background for this proposal. He clarified that it was expected that the advisory group would be community-led.

An updated clause 5 in the recommendation was provided to change ‘suggestions around rating policy incentives’ to ‘recommendations from the Heritage Advisory Group’.

The motion was moved by Councillor Mackenzie, seconded by Deputy Mayor Bryant.

Questions and discussion included:

· The lack of reference to heritage assets in the draft Annual Report

· Wakefield as a heritage destination

· The need for a district-wide focus and inclusion of cultural heritage

· The development of Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Group

· Protecting public heritage vs private ownership and financial pressure on the Council

· Methodology for heritage trees

· Process and criteria.

As a result of questions and discussion, the mover and seconder agreed to change clause 2 of the motion from ‘endorses’  to ‘supports in principle’.

Councillor Maru exited the meeting at 10:33 am.

Environmental Policy Manager, Barry Johnson, advised that the Council had sought community nominations for community heritage buildings, but that the budget for this assessment was currently paused.

During discussion, replacement of the words ‘in principle’ by the word ‘option’ in clause 2 of the motion was suggested.

Councillor Daikee exited the meeting at 10:35 am.

Concerns were voiced regarding the process, and it was suggested that this was “putting the cart before the horse” as the Terms of Reference, purpose and function of the group was undecided.

Clarification was provided that the suggestion to replace the words ‘in principle’ by the word ‘option’ in clause 2 of the motion had not gained the agreement of the mover and the seconder.

Moved Councillor Mackenzie/Deputy Mayor Bryant

SPC24-10-5

That the Strategy and Policy Committee

1.       receives the Heritage Building Options report; and

2.       supports in principle the formation of a Heritage Advisory Group with Terms of Reference to be confirmed with the Strategy and Policy Committee; and

3.       notes that a further report will be provided to the Strategy and Policy Committee to formally appoint the Heritage Advisory Group and agree its Terms of Reference; and

4.       agrees that any amendment to reflect heritage buildings within the current Tasman Resource Management Plan is retained in the long-term work plan but not expediated; and

5.       agrees any recommendations from the Heritage Advisory Group be discussed during the Long Term Plan 2027-2037.

CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 10.42am and reconvened at 11.05am, at which time, Mayor King joined the meeting.

It was decided to consider the confidential item - 8.2 Notification of Plan Change 79 to the Tasman Resource Management Plan at this point, and the public was excluded at 11.05am.

8        CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

8.1     Procedural motion to exclude the public

Moved Councillor Mackenzie/Councillor Hill

SPC24-10-6

That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

8.2     Notification of Plan Change 79 to the Tasman Resource Management Plan

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution
The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.	48(1)(d) - To deliberate in private in a procedure where a right of appeal lies to a Court against the final decision.	s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

CARRIED

The open session was resumed at 12.25pm.

7.3     Strategic Policy and Environmental Policy Activity Report

Strategic Policy Manager, Dwayne Fletcher spoke to the Strategic Policy update. He introduced new staff member, Team Leader - Infrastructure Planning - Service & Strategy, Michael Goldingham, and noted that the speed management plan new speed rule had been issued this week, this meant that the Council would need to reconsult and staff would report back with options and timing.

In response to a suggestion, Mr Fletcher confirmed that, in the future, when target dates changed, that original project target dates would remain in the activity report.

Councillor Maru returned to the meeting at 12:31 pm.

Mr Johnson spoke to the Environmental Policy Update. He noted that Plan Change 81 – Urban Growth would be delayed until early next year, and that the Council was advising all landowners of this by letter.

It was noted that engagement on the Port Motueka Structure Plan would commence soon and that elected members would be advised of the process going forward.

Moved Councillor Hill/Councillor Kininmonth

SPC24-10-7

That the Strategy and Policy Committee

1.         receives the Strategic Policy and Environmental Policy Activity Report.

CARRIED

RESTATEMENTS

It was resolved while the public was excluded:

8.2     Notification of Plan Change 79 to the Tasman Resource Management Plan

That the Strategy and Policy Committee

5.       agrees that the report and decision be made publicly available when the proposed plan change is notified.

The meeting concluded at 12.37pm

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on 14 November 2024.

SPC24-11-2

That the minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting held on Thursday, 3 October 2024, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.