Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

7.2 Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RCN24-12-2

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

1.1 To provide the recommendation from the Dog Control Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel to the Council.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Dog Control Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel consisted of Councillors C Hill (Chair), C Butler, J Ellis, B Maru and D Shallcrass.

2.2 At its 20 November 2024 meeting, the Dog Control Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel resolved:

SH 24-11-1

That the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Submissions Hearing and Deliberations Panel

1. receives the Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw - Deliberations report,
RSH24-11-1; and

2. agrees to the following changes to the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, for the reasons set out in Table 1: Clause changes in response to submissions of Attachment 1 of the agenda report:

a. add clause 3.8 ‘To minimise risks to the welfare of wildlife’; and

b. add ‘wildlife protection’ to clause 6.1.2; and

c. add clause 6.1.6 Educate the public on the environmental impacts of dogs on local wildlife and ways to mitigate risks; and

d. add a definition for ‘working dog’; and

e. correct clause reference error in clauses 17.2 and 17.3; and

f. correct clause reference error in clause 18.4; and

g. adds ‘or a disability assist dog’ to clause 20.2; and

h. correct clause reference error in clause 20.3; and

i. change the location name in Schedule 4 from ‘old library site’ to ‘Tākaka Memorial Reserve’; and

j. change the location description in Schedule 4 from ‘Motueka Sandspit – south of a line drawn through the point NZ Map Grid 2512857.1 (easting) 6009560.9 (northing)’ to ‘Motueka Sandspit – south of latitude marker 41.1200’; and

k. add explanatory note ‘Other parts of the Tasman District are also prohibited to dogs under different legislation, such as the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Bylaw 2016 and the National Parks Act 1980’ to Schedule 4; and

3. agrees to remove the sentence “They may also assist in surveillance in dog exercise and prohibited areas” in Section 6 of the Dog Control Policy; and

4. agrees to the following changes to the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, for the reasons set out in Table 2: Clause changes in response to staff recommendations of Attachment 1 of the agenda report:

a. remove ‘registered for the first time in New Zealand after 1 July 2006’ from clause 4.1; and

b. add that the bylaw is being made in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 in section 11.1; and

c. change the date the bylaw comes into force from a placeholder to 31 March 2025; and

d. change references of dog ownership to dog management in section 15.1; and

e. remove ‘summer months’ definition and include references to seasonal prohibitions alongside the relevant locations; and

f. add ‘Time or Seasonally Restricted Areas’ definition; and

5. declines to make the changes suggested by submitters, for the reasons set out in Table 3: Requested changes not recommended by staff of Attachment 1 of the agenda report; and

6. agrees to make the following changes to location zoning, for the reasons set out in section 5 of the agenda report and as summarised in Table 4: Location Status and Staff Recommendation of Attachment 2 of the agenda report:

a. change ‘Tomatea Reserve to Shaws Creek Bridge’ to ‘Beach adjacent to Northern Boundary of Tomatea Reserve to the Shaws Creek Bridge’; and

b. change ‘Pakawau Beach Northern end of Pakawau Beach campground to 1km south’ to ‘Pakawau Beach – Tomatea Reserve to 1km south of Pakawau Beach campground’; and

c. remove boat ramp and car park from ‘Ruataniwha Inlet, including northern end of Collingwood beach round to Elizabeth Street car park’; and

d. add an exemption for dogs contained on vessels in the Ruataniwha Inlet; and

e. remove Collingwood Holiday Park from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

f. change Parawhakaoho River Mouth to a Time or Seasonally Restricted Area, as set out in Schedule 3 (Attachment 3 to the agenda report); and

g. change ‘Rototai from western end of golf course to Waitapu Estuary foreshore (excluding Controlled Dog Exercise area in Rototai Recreation Reserve)’ to ‘Rototai from western end of golf course to Waitapu Estuary foreshore (excluding Controlled Dog Exercise area in Rototai Recreation Reserve and Motupipi Beachfront Reserve); and

h. remove Rototai Closed Landfill from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

i. change ‘Motupipi Beachfront Reserve: Rototai Recreation Reserve to the headland’ from a leash control to a controlled exercise area; and

j. change ‘Pōhara Beach from eastern camp boundary to Selwyn Street Reserve’ from seasonally prohibited to seasonal leash control as set out in Attachment 3 of the agenda report; and

k. remove Pōhara Top 10 Holiday Park from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

l. change Ligar Bay from a Time or Seasonally Restricted Area to a Controlled Exercise Area; and

m. remove Awaroa Vehicle Access point from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

n. remove Tonga, Adele and Fisherman Islands from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

o. remove Tokongawha Reserve from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

p. change Little Kaiteriteri Beach from a Leash Control Area to a Time or Seasonally Restricted Area as set out in Attachment 3 of the agenda report; and

q. change Dummy Bay from a Leash Control Area to a Time or Seasonally Restricted Area as set out in Attachment 3 of the agenda report; and

r. change Stephens Bay from a Leash Control Area to a Time or Seasonally Restricted Area as set out in Attachment 3 of the agenda report; and

s. reduce size of mapped area for Riwaka River Mouth to Tapu Bay Reserve; and

t. remove Mariri Closed Landfill from the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw; and

u. change the seasonal restriction at Lower Moutere Recreation Reserve from November–February to December–February; and

v. include Old Mill Walkway in the Schedule 5 of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail and change mapping to reflect that this section is a controlled exercise area; and

w. change description of Ruby Bay to remove reference to Old Mill Walkway; and

x. change mapping and description from ‘L.E.H Baigent Reserve and surrounding peninsula excluding campground’ to ‘Foreshore and Estuary around L.E.H Baigent Memorial Reserve’; and

y. change Hoddy Estuary Park from prohibited to prohibited on the vegetated margins of the Inlet and leash control for the remainder of the Park; and

z. change Railway Reserve from a leash control area to a controlled exercise area; and

aa. change the prohibited section of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail from ‘Tadmor Valley Road to Quail Valley Road’ to ‘From 4953 Motueka Valley Highway to Quail Valley Road’; and

6. notes that the following locations will remain as set out in the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, for the reasons set out in section 5 of the agenda report and as summarised in Table 4: Location Status and Staff Recommendation (Attachment 2) of the agenda report:

a. Waikato Inlet; and

b. Beach from Milnthorpe headland to Collingwood (east of township); and

c. Kendal Street beach access, Milnthorpe: Pathway between Kendal Street and inclusive of Milnthorpe headland; and

d. Parapara Inlet; and

e. Tukurua Beach (camp frontage); and

f. Onekaka Estuary; and

g. Patons Rock Beach (Settlement to Creek adjacent to Grant Road Puramahoi); and

h. Onahau Sandspit, Wetland and Estuary; and

i. left of Rangihaeata Headland to Fraser Road; and

j. Rangihaeata Beach; and

k. Rototai Recreation Reserve; and

l. Pōhara Beach West – from Selwyn Street to Western end of the golf course; and

m. Tākaka Central Business Area; and

n. Tākaka Township locations: the Village Green, Pioneer Park, the old library site and adjacent playground (noting previous resolution to change ‘the old library site’ to ‘Tākaka Memorial Reserve’); and

o. Tata Beach; and

p. Otuwhero Estuary and Sandspit; and

q. Breaker Bay Beach; and

r. Kaiteriteri Beach; and

s. Alex Ryder Memorial Reserve; and

t. Memorial Reserve Corner Riwaka; and

u. Memorial Reserve Corner Footpath, Riwaka; and

v. Motueka Sandspit – Southern End (noting description change in previous resolution); and

w. Saltwater baths; and

x. Trewavas Street Recreation Reserve; and

y. York Park; and

z. North Street Recreation Reserve; and

aa. Batchelor Ford Road; and

bb. Faulkner Bush Reserve - excluding the Leash Control Area, as defined on the map in Schedule 1; and

cc. Faulkner Bush Reserve Picnic Area; and

dd. Baigents Bush Reserve (noting amendment to reflect official name: Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, as per Attachment 3 of the agenda report); and

ee. Robson Reserve; and

ff. Kina Beach – exposed seaward side of the beach; and

gg. Deck Road Recreation Reserve and Easement; and

hh. McKee Memorial Domain; and

ii. Ruby Bay - Foreshore from Seaward boundary Māpua Leisure Park to Chaytor Reserve; and

jj. Rough Island; and

kk. Higgs Reserve; and

ll. Waimea Inlet Esplanade Reserve; and

mm. Apple Valley Road Esplanade Reserve; and

nn. Bronte Road East Esplanade Reserves; and

oo. Westdale Road Esplanade Reserves; and

pp. Hoddy Road Esplanade Reserves; and

qq. Maisey Road Esplanade Reserve; and

rr. Research Orchard Road Esplanade Reserve; and

ss. Sand Island, Waimea Estuary; and

tt. Shell bank by Bell Island; and

uu. Waimea Estuary Esplanade Reserves; and

vv. Pearl Creek Reserve; and

ww. Pearl Creek Esplanade Reserve; and

xx. Rabbit Island (noting name amendment to Moturoa / Rabbit Island); and

yy. Washbourn Gardens; and

zz. Jimmy Lee Creek Walkway; and

aaa. Bill Wilkes Reserve; and

bbb. Hunter Avenue Walkway; and

ccc. Jimmy Lee Creek Walkway North (Hill Street North Entrance to Cushendell Rise); and

ddd. Jimmy Lee Creek Walkway South in between Cushendell Rise and the Grassy Saddle; and

eee. Will's Gully walking track to Grassy Saddle; and

fff. Dellside Reserve including track up into Richmond Hills; and

ggg. Borck Creek; and

hhh. Hope Recreation Reserve and Hall; and

iii. Bryant Road carpark to the bridge to Pugh Road; and

jjj. South side of Quail Valley Road Bridge to entrance to 437 Wakefield-Kohatu Highway; and

kkk. Edward Street entrance to 320 Higgins Road; and

lll. 35 Sandeman Road to Lansdowne Road; and

mmm. western end of Lower Queen Street to eastern end of Redwood Road; and

nnn. Rabbit Island, starting from western end of causeway to the ferry landing; and

ooo. Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve; and

7. agrees to replace title page information about when the Dog Control Bylaw is made with a table on the following page documenting the bylaw’s review history; and

8. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a. agrees that the proposed Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, including the changes in resolutions 2-7 above, is the most appropriate form of bylaw for addressing perceived problems relating to public safety related to dog behaviour, the protection of wildlife from disturbances caused by dogs, the promotion of responsible dog ownership, and ensuring that shared public spaces are safe and enjoyable for all community members in relation to dog use and access; and

b. notes that the proposed Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, including the changes in resolutions 2-7 above, does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

9. recommends that the Tasman District Council considers discounted dog registration fees for working dogs in its fees for the 2025/2026 year; and

10. notes that staff will propose increases in the dog registration fees in the 2025/2026 year to fund proactive education and compliance activity; and

11. notes that staff will continue to explore the development of a dog park within the Tasman District and report progress to the Environment & Regulatory Committee by June 2025; and

12. delegates authority to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Submissions Hearing and Deliberations Panel Chair and the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor changes or minor editorial amendments to the proposed Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, prior to being submitted for consideration by to Tasman District Council; and

13. confirms the minutes of the 25 September 2024 Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Submissions Hearing meeting as a true and correct record.

Recommendation to the Tasman District Council

That the Tasman District Council:

1. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a. agrees that the proposed Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 is the most appropriate form of bylaw for addressing perceived problems in relation to public safety related to dog behaviour, the protection of wildlife from disturbances caused by dogs, the promotion of responsible dog ownership and management, and ensuring that shared public spaces are safe and enjoyable for all community members in relation to dog use and access; and

b. notes that the proposed Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

2. pursuant to section 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act and section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996, makes the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) with effect from 31 March 2025; and

3. authorises staff to publicly notify the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2024 and the date it has effect from; and

4. notes that the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2024 will need to be reviewed before 11 December 2029; and

5. confirms the minutes of the 20 November 2024 Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations meeting as a true and correct record.

2.4 The report to the 20 November 2024 Dog Control Bylaw Deliberations meeting is available on the Council’s website.

2.5 All submissions made on the Dog Control policy and Bylaw are available to view on the Council’s website.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 report ; and

2. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

b. notes that the proposed Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. pursuant to section 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act and section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996, makes the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) with effect from 31 March 2025; and

4. authorises staff to publicly notify the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2024 and the date it has effect from; and

5. notes that the Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 2024 will need to be reviewed before 11 December 2029; and

6. confirms the minutes of the 20 November 2024 Draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Deliberations meeting as a true and correct record.

4. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Tasman District Council Dog Control Policy & Bylaw 2024 for adoption

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.5 Amendment to the Tasman District Council Traffic Control Devices Register and Traffic Control Bylaw 2016

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Mike van Enter, Senior Transportation Engineer
Report Authorisers:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Number:	RCN24-12-5

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

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

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

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

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

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

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Amendment to the Tasman District Council Traffic Control Devices Register and Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 report RCN24-12-5; and

2. approves amendments to regulations, controls, restrictions and prohibitions in the Traffic Control Devices Register of the Tasman District Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 (Chapter 7 of Tasman District’s Consolidated Bylaw) pursuant to clause 7(3) of the Bylaw, as proposed by the Diagrammatic Descriptions and associated GIS co-ordinates in Attachment 1 to the agenda report (except for the proposal to relocate the bus stop outside 78 Berryfield Drive), with effect from 29 November 2024 or the date the traffic control device is installed, whichever is later; and

3. approves the existing bus stop outside 78 Berryfield Drive to remain as the preferred location; and

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

4. Background / Horopaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.4 Some of the proposed Traffic Control Device changes are considered to have minor or very isolated effects. Where the effects are considered isolated, consultation is typically via letter inviting feedback from adjacent property owners and businesses.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Residential Parking Management

5.1 Crescent Street, Richmond – new no parking restriction to allow reverse in driveway manoeuvre. Feedback received not specifically opposed to the additional parking restriction.

5.2 Mayer Crescent, Wakefield – new no parking restriction around the cul-de-sac turning head. Feedback received not specifically opposed to the additional parking restriction.

5.3 Waimea West Road – new no parking restriction. Feedback received not specifically opposed to the additional parking restriction.

5.4 Stephens Bay – parking restrictions at the intersections of:

5.4.1 Riwaka-Kaiteriteri Road / Stephens Bay Road,

5.4.2 Stephens Bay Road / Anarewa Crescent,

5.4.3 Stephens Bay Road / Cook Crescent, and

5.4.4 Anarewa Crescent / Tapu Place.

5.5 The Council received a request to demarcate a safe place for pedestrians to walk on Stephens Bay Road due to intensive parking over the Christmas period which includes boat trailers. Twenty-five submissions were received and a meeting with residents was arranged which resulted on a focus on main points:

5.5.1 Parking restrictions around corners of intersections to discourage illegal parking,

5.5.2 A lower Speed Limit on local roads,

5.5.3 Speed tables to encourage slower speeds, and

5.5.4 Trimming roadside vegetation.

5.6 Submissions received were all in support of the revised proposal.

Commercial Traffic Management

5.7 Pah Street no stopping restriction to keep vehicles queued at the traffic signals clear of the Countdown Supermarket access, allowing right turn in movements.

Public Parking Management

5.8 Decks Reserve, new mobility parking space adjacent to the Community House, requested by Community House.

5.9 It is noted that parking within Decks Reserve, including any class restricted or time restricted parking, is not available during the Motueka Sunday Market. The Motueka Sunday Market Limited occupies this space with a Licence to Occupy which is currently being renewed as per Figure 1 below. The decision in this report has no impact on the Market or parking availability during the Market.

Figure 1: Proposed License to Occupy area.

Bus Stop Amendments

5.10 Grey Street, Motueka – new parking restriction to allow bus to manoeuvre out of the bus stop.

5.11 Grey Street, Motueka – existing Bus Stop and School Bus Stop to be added to our Bylaw schedule. The school bus stop is historic, and no physical changes are proposed. The public bus stop was added in 2023 with no further feedback received.

5.12 Grey Street, Motueka – relocate Bus Stop. The bus stop was approved on 22 June 2023 outside of number 38. In response to feedback this was implemented outside of number 36. Update Bylaw schedule to match implemented location.

Berryfield Drive Bus Stop

5.13 Berryfield Drive proposal to relocate existing Bus Stop outside 78 Berryfield Drive. Residents adjacent to the existing bus stop have requested that the bus stop be relocated away from their property frontage due to their concerns about loss of privacy, annoyance from bus patrons and intrusion of view. Some of their concerns related to the bus parking at the bus stop for extended periods when the eBus service began, and which has now been addressed in conjunction with the bus operator. The eBus schedule does not require the bus to dwell at this bus stop.

5.14 An alternative location 210m west and outside 94 Berryfield Drive was investigated but is not recommended due to being a less central location within the residential, commercial and school catchment area and potentially increasing the walk distance for some of the 782 monthly users. The residents adjacent to the proposed location are also opposed to the relocation, with concerns relating to loss of privacy and outlook.

5.15 Another possible alternative location 125m west was considered unsuitable due to a conflict with driveways.

5.16 Figure 1 below shows a 500m-radius circle around the existing bus stops (green circles) and the proposed alternative location (orange circle). The existing bus stop provides coverage to a greater number of residential properties, particularly in the Fairmile Road/Chertsey Road/Hanworth Road area.

Figure 1. 500m radius catchments around bus stop locations in Berryfield area. Green shows existing, orange shows a proposed relocation of the bus stop near #78 Berryfield Drive to a location 210m northwest, outside #94 Berryfield Drive.

5.17 Overall, the benefits of relocating the bus stop (satisfies current affected adjacent residents) do not appear to outweigh the disbenefits (less coverage of residential properties and will dissatisfy other affected adjacent residents). On this basis it is recommended to retain the current bus stop location.

School Street

5.18 Church Street Road Closed to Motor Vehicles Monday – Friday 8am-4pm on school days. The Church Street school day closure pilot has been in operation since July 2023, with the school rolling out temporary bollards daily during the closure period. Richmond School has noticed a greater sense of safety for their students crossing over onto the nearby field. Feedback has been received via a letter drop and Shape Tasman survey. Sixty eight percent of respondents were in favour of the closure, thirty two percent were opposed to the closure. A full feedback summary is included in Attachment 2.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve changes proposed in the report and in Attachment 1, except for the proposed shifting of the Berryfield Drive bus stop, with effect from 29 November 2024, or the date the traffic control device is installed, whichever is later. This is the recommended option.	Improved function and safety of the road network at these locations. Positive feedback from the community who raised some of the concerns and proposals with Council staff.	Minor reduction in on-road parking. Affected residents adjacent to Berryfield Drive bus stop remain dissatisfied.
2.	Approve some of the proposed changes.	Some improved function and safety of the road network at these locations. There would be some positive feedback from the community who raised concerns with some of the proposals from the Council.	Minor reduction in on-road parking. If changes are not approved, there could be safety issues and negative feedback from the community.
3.	Do not approve the proposed changes.	Nil identified.	There could be safety issues and negative community feedback.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

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

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 No specific iwi engagement has occurred for the changes. These changes are relatively minor operational issues and isolated in effects.

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

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

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

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

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

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Low reputational risk associated with not being responsive to community requests.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Providing appropriate facilities for public transport is likely to support reduced transport emissions.

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

14.1 The proposed traffic control device changes are consistent with the Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy and the Regional Public Transport Plan.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

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

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Council approves the proposed changes:

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

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

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

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Diagrammatic Descriptions and associated GIS co-ordinates	223
2.⇩	Church Street Feedback Summary	239

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.6 Speed Management Consultation

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Bill Rice, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor - Transportation
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-12-6

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s agreement to:

· The proposed approach to implementing our Speed Management Plan; and

· Speed limits for schools and consultation on proposed speed limit changes for high-risk rural roads, speed limits for rural roads adjacent to schools, and McShane Road and Lower Queen Street.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The new Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024 (the Rule) came into force on 30 October 2024. It requires variable speed limits outside schools to be implemented by 30 June 2026. There is no requirement in the rule to use electronic variable signs for variable school speed limits other than if a variable speed limit applies outside normal school start and finish time.

2.2 It is recommended that static variable speed limit signs will be used outside all other schools except for Appleby School where electronic variable speed limit signs will be used as high speeds are likely. Monitoring of speeds to confirm the effectiveness of static signs is also recommended along with holding a specific budget aside to address any safety concerns.

2.3 The Rule also does not permit any speed limit changes (other than variable limits outside schools) which had been adopted under the 2022 Rule but were not in force on 30 October 2024 to come into force. A letter has been prepared for the Nelson-Tasman Joint Regional Transport Committee to send to the Minister of Transport requesting an exemption to this as effective and substantive consultation which meets the intent of the 2024 Rule has already occurred.

2.4 Any changes to existing speed limits proposed in our SMP (except speed limits outside schools) will now need to be treated as new speed limit changes. Consultation is required on new speed limit changes. This must include a “cost benefit disclosure statement” and be open for a minimum period of six weeks.

The Cost Benefit Disclosure Statement in the consultation material has been produced using the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Optional Cost Impact Analysis tool, this tool appears to be producing spurious results for low-speed environments with high speed limits. Consultation material may need to be reviewed should a fix be available for these issues.

2.5 The following process for speed limit changes is recommended:

11 December Tasman District Council Meeting

· approve variable speed limits for urban schools and peri-urban schools; and

· approve consultation plan for high-risk rural roads (Motueka Valley Highway, Moutere Highway, Dovedale Road, Neudorf Road, Edwards Road, McShane Road), and for base speed limits outside rural schools and associated roads such as Rush Lane (Tasman Village), Goddard Road (Tasman Village) and Excellent Street (Collingwood).

Mid-January to end of February 2025

· consult on high-risk rural roads and base speed limits outside rural schools.

Quarter 2 2025

· implement urban variable speed limits outside urban schools;

· decide on speed limit changes on high-risk roads, base and variable speed limit changes outside rural schools;

· consult on further speed limit changes from the SMP; and

Quarter 3 2025

· implement speed limit changes on high-risk roads and base and variable speed limit changes outside rural schools;

· decide on further speed limit changes; and

2026 and beyond

· implement further speed limit changes.

2.6 Recommendations and advice in this report were based on the Council receiving no NLTF funding. The recommended option can be funded within the currently budgeted local share for speed limit implementation.

2.7 NZTA has since indicated that some funding is available for speed limit implementation, but the extent of that funding is currently unclear. Staff will review the funding now available, and the criteria for it, and provide an update at the meeting.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Speed Management Consultation report, RCN24-12-6; and

2. approve variable speed limits for urban and peri-urban schools and Appleby School (Attachment 2 to the agenda report: List of variable school changes.)

3. approves consultation document for high-risk rural roads (Motueka Valley Highway, Moutere Highway, Dovedale Road, Neudorf Road, Edwards Road, McShane Road), and for base speed limits outside rural schools (Attachment 1 to the agenda report: Speed management consultation document); and

4. authorises the Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor to make minor edits to the consultation document and changes to the benefit cost disclosure statement to account for any errors in the cost impact analysis tool; and

5. approves the following speed limit setting process:

Quarter 2 2025:

· implement urban variable speed limits outside urban schools.

· decide on speed limit changes on high-risk roads, base and variable speed limit changes outside rural schools and some identified associated roads.

· consult on further speed limit changes from the Speed Management Plan.

Quarter 3 2025:

· implement speed limit changes on high-risk roads and base & variable speed limit changes outside rural schools and some identified associated roads.

· decide on further speed limit changes.

2026 and beyond:

· implement further speed limit changes.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Central government changes to the Setting of Speed Limits Rule have meant that the approved speed changes for Tasman District cannot be implemented as planned and many of the changes require further consultation.

4.2 The Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan (SMP) was approved at the Nelson-Tasman Joint Regional Transport Committee meeting on 23 July 2024. The draft Setting of the Speed Limits rule was introduced on 13 June 2024. The draft Rule indicated that any speed management changes that had been certified by the Director of Land Transport and added to the National Speed Limit Register prior to the introduction of the new Rule would be able to be implemented.

4.3 The requirements of the draft Rule enabling implementation of speed limits in the SMP were met prior to the final Rule being gazetted on 28 September 2024.

4.4 However, the final Rule has added a requirement that speed limits needed to be implemented (signs installed in the ground) by 30 October 2024. If the speed limits were not implemented, then any speed changes (apart from variable speed limits around schools) need to go through the consultation and approval process.

4.5 No funding was allocated to councils for speed limit implementation in the 2024-27 National Land Transport Plan. On 3 December 2024, NZTA announced that road controlling authorities could apply for funding from the National Land Transport Fund towards costs associated with implementing the changes necessary to give effect to directions set out under the new Rule. This would be through the Local Road Improvements Low Cost, Low Risk programme.

4.6 At the time of writing this report staff were assessing what this funding support may mean for the Council and will provide an update at the meeting. The recommended option is able to be funded from the currently budgeted 2024-27 local share.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The land use adjacent to McShane Road and Lower Queen Street has changed in recent years in terms of the Berryfield subdivision and new commercial developments, therefore it is proposed that speeds are lowered on McShane Road and a short section of Lower Queen Street to reflect the change in use.

5.2 The Base Speed limits are proposed to be lowered around Lower Moutere School, Upper Moutere School, Ngātimoti School, Central Takaka School, Collingwood School, Tasman School and Tasman Christian School. This not a requirement under the speed setting rule in relation to schools but it is considered consistent with Schedule 3 of the Rule, which requires lower speed limits on Peri-Urban roads, Urban streets, and Urban streets with no footpaths. These are defined as:

· Peri-urban roads: Roads that primarily provide access from residential property on the urban fringe or in a rural residential area, where the predominant adjacent land use is residential, but usually at a lower density than in urban residential locations (50km/h-80km/h eg 60km/h at Ngātimoti School).

· Urban streets: residential and neighbourhood streets, and streets that provide access to and support businesses, shops, on-street activity and services (50km/h – eg Āporo Road outside Tasman School)

· Urban streets with no footpaths: Residential and neighbourhood streets with pedestrian activity and no footpaths (40km/h – eg Dicker and Goddard Roads near Tasman School)

5.3 For Wakefield school, we are recommending a permanent 30km/h area between the current town 30km/h zone and Pitfure Street. We are also recommending that the variable zone is lengthened on Treeton Place from 150m to 270m as there is a playcentre adjacent to the school. This is permitted under the definitions section of the Rule of "outside a school gate" which allows any reasonably practicable modifications.

5.4 The Rule requires the Council to use reasonable efforts to implement variable speed limits outside schools by 30 June 2026. Previous guidance had recommended electronic variable signage be used on main roads outside schools, with static signage used on minor side roads.

5.5 Electronic signage only displays the variable speed limit during the times it is operating. Static signage shows the speed limit at all times with the hours it is operating shown underneath (see images below)

A sign with a number in a circle

Description automatically generated A sign with a number and date

Description automatically generated

Electronic Sign Static Sign

5.6 The estimated cost of electronic signs is $44,000 per pair, versus static signs at $3,000 per pair. The cost of electronic signage across the District is estimated at $1.1 million and
$1.3 million (Option one) compared to $170,000 to $200,000 for static signs only (Option four).

5.7 There was no approved funding for Tasman’s Low Cost Low Risk programme (including for implementing the Setting of Speed Limits Rule) in the 2024-27 NLTP. NZTA announced on
3 December 2024 that councils can apply for funding to implement the Setting of Speed Limits Rule. Details on the amount of funding available, and the criteria for it were not available at the time of writing.

5.8 Recommendations and advice in this report were based on the Council receiving no NLTF funding. Staff will review the funding now available, and the criteria for it, and provide an update at the meeting.

5.9 Staff have considered the use of electronic signs at our rural schools based on the following factors:

· Posted speed limit

· Operating speed

· Traffic volumes

· Any speed reductions proposed for the road

· Likelihood of children crossing or walking on the road based on carpark placement, footpaths and cycleways.

5.10 Based on the criteria above, Tasman School, Appleby School and Hope School are identified as suitable candidates for electronic signs under the current underlying speed limits. However, the base speeds are proposed to be lowered near Tasman School on Āporo Road (60km/h to 50km/h) and Hope school on Paton Road (80km/h to 60km/h). This reduction would make the road environment safer thus negating the need to have an electronic sign.

5.11 Appleby School is proposed to retain the 80km/h limit with a 30km/h variable limit and an electronic sign at this site is considered appropriate.

5.12 There are five schools which already have electronic 40km/h signs outside them. These signs run on a 2G/3G network which Spark and OneNZ will be shutting down by the end of 2025. There is a cost of approximately $15,000 to upgrade the signs to the 5G network. The 40km/h on these specific signs is fixed and cannot be altered to 30km/h. The schools with these signs are Brightwater School, Motueka High School, Ranzau School, Hope School and Motupipi School.

5.13 It is recommended that the 40km/h electronic signs at these sites are removed and replaced with 30km/h static signs as this would mean that there is a consistent approach to school speed limits across the District.

· Brightwater currently has a slow speed environment with a 40km/h speed limit through the town centre.

· Motueka High School is in an urban environment where all urban schools will have a 30km/h variable limit.

· Ranzau School and Motupipi School will be 60km/h with a 30km/h variable that will be monitored to see if there is compliance. Further measures can be investigated as necessary.

· Hope School is proposed to be a 60km/h speed limit with a 30km/h variable that will be monitored.

5.14 It is also recommended that operating speeds outside all schools be monitored following implementation of the variable limits, and that electronic signs or other traffic calming be considered if speeds are high.

5.15 All speed limit changes in the SMP, other than variable limits outside schools, need to be consulted on and approved. Refer to Attachment 2: List of variable school changes.

5.16 The following process is recommended for implementation of speed limit changes:

Mid-January to end of February 2025

· consult on high-risk rural roads and base speed limits outside rural schools.

Quarter 2 2025

· implement urban variable speed limits outside urban and peri-urban schools and Appleby School

· decide on speed limit changes on high-risk roads, base and variable speed limit changes outside rural schools.

· consult on further speed limit changes from the Speed Management Plan; and

Quarter 3 2025

· implement speed limit changes on high-risk roads and base and variable speed limit changes outside rural schools.

· decide on further speed limit changes; and

2026 and beyond

· implement further speed limit changes.

5.17 This process can be implemented using local share of the current SMP implementation budgets ($252,000, $258,000, and $264,000 for the next three years).

5.18 On 3 December 2024, NZTA announced that road controlling authorities could apply for funding from the National Transport Fund towards costs associated with implementing the changes necessary to give effect to directions set out under the new Rule. This would be through the Local Road Improvements Low Cost, Low Risk programme. Staff at the time of writing are assessing what this funding support may mean for the Council.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options for school speed signs are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Electronic signs on the main road of all schools as proposed in our SMP. $1.1 million to $1.3 million Other speed changes would occur in Years 5-6.	· Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56. · Installation of electronic signage would draw drivers’ attention to the required speed changes and increase compliance therefore making it safer for school children.	· Costly: Council to cover 100% of costs. NZTA funding bids are now open, but it is not guaranteed that NZTA will cover up to 51% of costs. · Exceeds available budget in 2024-2028. · Rollout of other speed changes is done over five plus years. · Would take 4-5 years to implement which does not meet the Rule’s timeline for schools (1 July 2026).
2.	Electronic signs for rural schools only. $700,000 - $800,000	· Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56. · Installation of electronic signage would draw drivers’ attention to the required speed changes and increase compliance therefore making it safer for school children.	· Costly: Council to cover 100% of costs, NZTA funding bids are now open, but it is not guaranteed that NZTA will cover up to 51% of costs. · Exceeds available budget in 2024-2026. · Rollout of other speed changes is done over five years. · Would take three years to implement which does not meet the Rule’s timeline for schools (1 July 2026).
3.	Static signs apart from locations with high operating speeds. Staff recommended option $410,000 - $470,000	· Greater safety benefits for a small number of locations. · Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56 for small number of locations. · Is cost effective and within available budget. · Rollout of all speed changes within three to four years. · Following monitoring and enforcement, targeted safety improvements can be made in site specific areas as required.	· Does not meet previous best practice guidelines for schools. · May not achieve good compliance due to drivers not being aware of change of school zone.
4.	Static signs for all schools. $380,000 - $400,000	· Is cost effective and within available budget. · Rollout of speed changes within three to four years. · Following monitoring and enforcement, targeted safety improvements can be made in site specific areas as required.	· Does not meet previous best practice guidelines for schools. · May not achieve compliance levels due to drivers not being aware of change of school zone.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Electronic signs on the main road of all schools as proposed in our SMP.

$1.1 million to $1.3 million

Other speed changes would occur in Years
5-6.

· Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56.

· Installation of electronic signage would draw drivers’ attention to the required speed changes and increase compliance therefore making it safer for school children.

· Costly: Council to cover 100% of costs. NZTA funding bids are now open, but it is not guaranteed that NZTA will cover up to 51% of costs.

· Exceeds available budget in 2024-2028.

· Rollout of other speed changes is done over five plus years.

· Would take 4-5 years to implement which does not meet the Rule’s timeline for schools (1 July 2026).

Electronic signs for rural schools only.

$700,000 - $800,000

· Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56.

· Installation of electronic signage would draw drivers’ attention to the required speed changes and increase compliance therefore making it safer for school children.

· Costly: Council to cover 100% of costs, NZTA funding bids are now open, but it is not guaranteed that NZTA will cover up to 51% of costs.

· Exceeds available budget in 2024-2026.

· Rollout of other speed changes is done over five years.

· Would take three years to implement which does not meet the Rule’s timeline for schools (1 July 2026).

Static signs apart from locations with high operating speeds.

Staff recommended option

$410,000 - $470,000

· Greater safety benefits for a small number of locations.

· Follows best practice set out in NZTA Traffic Note 37 and 56 for small number of locations.

· Is cost effective and within available budget.

· Rollout of all speed changes within three to four years.

· Following monitoring and enforcement, targeted safety improvements can be made in site specific areas as required.

· Does not meet previous best practice guidelines for schools.

· May not achieve good compliance due to drivers not being aware of change of school zone.

Static signs for all schools.

$380,000 - $400,000

· Is cost effective and within available budget.

· Rollout of speed changes within three to four years.

· Following monitoring and enforcement, targeted safety improvements can be made in site specific areas as required.

· Does not meet previous best practice guidelines for schools.

· May not achieve compliance levels due to drivers not being aware of change of school zone.

6.2 Option three is recommended given current fiscal constraints. Noting that this option includes ongoing monitoring and enforcement to ensure speeds are lowered. If specific sites continue to present problems, additional treatments such as electronic signs may be required.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Speed limit changes must comply with the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024.

7.2 Other than school speed limit changes, there is no longer any obligation to implement the other speed limit changes proposed in the Joint Speed Management Plan. Nor is there any obligation to review the Plan.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 In the original preparation of the Speed Management Plan in 2023, staff had engaged with iwi on specific sites of significance. The Setting of Speed Limits 2024 guidance states that road controlling authorities must use reasonable efforts to consult on proposed speed limit changes with Māori and do everything reasonably practicable to separately consult Māori on any proposed change affecting or likely to affect Māori land or land subject to any Māori claims settlement Act

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

9.1 A copy of Attachment 1 Speed management consultation document. Further consultation is required because there are specific requirements under the new Rule for consultation with the public on speed changes before the new limits can be implemented. Consultation is required to follow the principles of consultation in section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. There must be a period of at least six weeks and consultation material must include a benefit cost disclosure statement.

9.2 As the Council has already consulted on the Joint Speed Limit Management Plan comprehensively, staff do not recommend hearings. Instead, once submissions are received, staff will analyse these and provide advice to the Council for a final decision.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	There was a high level of interest in the original SMP consultation.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	Lower speeds can lead to a reduction of deaths and serious injuries on our roading network and have effect on travel times. These will be discussed in consultation material.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes	This decision only applies to a small portion of the total road network.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	Speed changes have already been budgeted for in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) over the next 10 years.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No	Existing contractors will be engaged to replace and install new speed signs.
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 Consultation material will be placed on the Shape Tasman page and articles will be placed in Newsline. As extensive consultation was held on the SMP in late 2023/early 2024, a restrained consultation campaign is proposed this time.

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

11.1 Speed limit changes have already been budgeted for in the LTP over the next 10 years however both Nelson and Tasman had assumed co-investment of 51% would be available from NZTA when the LTP was initially developed and consulted upon. Co-investment from NZTA for this activity was not confirmed when the National Land Transport Programme was announced, however NZTA have since signalled some funding may be available. The extent of that funding was unclear at the time of writing this report. Staff will review the funding now available, and the criteria for it, and provide an update at the meeting.

11.2 The recommended plan is within Council’s currently budgeted local share for the next three years if Option 3 is chosen.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The introduction of the new Rule and subsequent guidance provides us with the framework for speed changes. Our charts in the consultation document were completed using Megamap data current as of 2 December 2024, however NZTA updated this data on
3 December 2024 and at the time of writing, staff have not had time to assess the differences between the data sets.

12.2 This risk is mitigated by separating the school speed limit changes which are required by the rule from those that require a Cost Benefit Disclosure Statement.

12.3 The NZTA Optional Cost Impact Analysis tool appears to be producing spurious results for low-speed environments with high-speed limits. Consultation material may need to be reviewed should a fix be available for these issues.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Where rural speed limits are reduced from 100km/h, fuel consumption and emissions are expected to reduce.

13.2 Reducing speed limits around schools from 50km/h to 30km/h may result in a small increase in fuel consumption and emissions. Overall, the climate impact of possible speed limit changes is expected to be small.

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

14.1 The recommended proposal is broadly consistent with the adopted SMP, while also complying with the Setting of Speed Limit Rules. It is also consistent with the LTP.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 A staged approach to our speed management changes is proposed, with the mandatory changes outside schools happening in 2025/2026, and subsequent changes in later years.

15.2 The new Rule has removed requirements for electronic variable signage. It is recommended that static signs are generally used outside schools other than in locations where high operating speeds are expected. It is expected that no urban schools will require electronic signs, and that one or two rural schools will require them.

15.3 It is also recommended that operating speeds outside all schools be monitored following implementation of the variable limits, and that electronic signs or other traffic calming be installed if speeds are high

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Mid-January to end of February 2025: Consult on high-risk rural roads and base speed limits outside rural schools.

16.2 Quarter 2 2025: Implement urban variable speed limits outside urban schools, consult on other speed limit changes from the SMP, decide on speed limit changes on high-risk roads, base and variable speed limits outside rural schools.

16.3 Quarter 3 2025: Decide on further speed limit changes, implement speed limit changes on high-risk roads and base and variable speed limits outside rural schools.

16.4 2026 and Beyond: Implement further speed limit changes.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Speed Management Consultation Document	253
2.⇩	List of Variable School Changes	281

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.7 Upper Moutere Shared Path Funding

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN24-12-7

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval to bring forward $188,951 of existing budgets from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to enable the proposed Upper Moutere shared path to be constructed in 2024/25.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 There is a strong desire in the Upper Moutere community for the Council to deliver a new shared path from the village to the community centre in 2024/25, as originally planned before an NZTA funding shortfall resulted in a consequent deferral to 2025/26.

2.2 Bringing forward $188,951 of existing budget from 2025/26 to 2024/25 would enable the path to be completed in 2024/25.

2.3 Funding can be brought forward without materially impacting the Council’s net debt in 2024/25, and this is the recommended option.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Upper Moutere Shared Path Funding report, RCN24-12-7; and

2. approves the proposed budget changes by bringing forward $188,951 ($128,951 in GL 0502620016 and $60,000 in GL 0556620068) from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to enable the Upper Moutere Shared Path to be constructed in 2024/25.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 A new shared path from Upper Moutere village to the community centre (the Path) is the top priority on the Council’s New Footpaths Priority List. The community has been waiting for many years for this Path to be completed.

4.2 The Council’s Long Term Plan 2024-34 included an annual budget for new footpaths ($250,000 in 2024/25, $250,000 in 2025/26, increasing to $375,000 for 2026/27 and each year thereafter), with the expected funding being local share (49%) and NZTA low cost low risk (LCLR) funding (51%).

4.3 On 24 October 2024 the Council received a staff report (RCN24-10-15) advising that NZTA had not provided its share of LCLR funding in 2024-27. The Council resolved to not provide increased local share funding to replace the lost NZTA funding, due to concerns about the effect this could have on Council’s debt levels and rates increases. This decision meant that the Path would need to be deferred until funding was available in 2025/26, using both 2024/25 and 2025/26 local share funding.

4.4 The community has expressed strong concerns about deferring construction of the Path, and the impact this has on residents and particularly young people in terms of their safety and independence in accessing the community centre.

4.5 The Council could bring forward funding from 2025/26 to 2024/25 to enable the Path to be constructed as soon as possible in 2024/25. The amounts required to be brought forward are:

· New Footpaths GL 0502620012 $128,951

· District Land Purchase GL 0556620068 $60,000 (for committed works associated with the land purchases for the path)

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Bringing forward the proposed budgets from 2025/26 to 2024/25 will enable this highly valued community project to be delivered as soon as possible, while not materially affecting the Council’s debt or rates projections across the first two years of the LTP.

5.2 This decision does not impact the amount of work the Council will deliver over the first two years of the LTP.

5.3 The earlier Council decision of 24 October 2024 to not provide additional funding to replace missing NZTA funding across the 2024-27 Transportation Programme did not consider matters such as re-phasing existing budgets in detail. Staff do not consider that the decision in this current report could be considered a reversal of the resolution of RCN24-10-15.

5.4 Also, on 24 October 2024 (RCN24-10-16), the Council approved the deferral of net $7,354,221 of capital works from 2024/25 to 2025/26, noting that the consequential forecast borrowing cost is less than anticipated for 2024/25 in the LTP. Bringing forward $188,951 from 2025/26 to 2024/25 would not materially impact the noted consequential forecast borrowing cost, which would still be less than anticipated in the LTP.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve bringing forward funding of $188,951 from 2025/26 to 2024/25 (recommended)	Enables path to be constructed as soon as possible.	Slightly increased net debt at end of 2024/25.
2.	Do not approve bringing funding forward	Path construction will be delayed until 2025/26	Lower net debt at end of 2024/25.

6.2 Option 1, bringing forward funding 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 as part of this report and recommendation, and none is considered necessary.

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

9.1 Overall, this decision is of low significance to the wider district but is highly significant to the Upper Moutere community. Staff have had direct engagement with the Moutere Hills Residents Association since the Council meeting on 24 October 2024.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	High level of interest from local community, but low wider 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	Recommended option proposes to provide improved social and environments benefits to Upper Moutere slightly sooner than currently planned.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The road network is a strategic asset. This decision relates to a small part of the network.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	Minor impact on net debt in 2024/25 year, with zero net impact from 2025/26.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Staff have engaged directly with the Moutere Hills Residents Association and will provide an update to them after the Council has decided on 11 December 2024.

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

11.1 On 24 October 2024 (RCN24-10-16), the Council approved the deferral of net $7,354,221 of capital works from 2024/25 to 2025/26, noting that the consequential forecast borrowing cost is less than anticipated for 2024/25 in the LTP.

11.2 Bringing forward $188,951 from 2025/26 to 2024/25 as recommended in this report would not materially impact the noted consequential forecast borrowing cost, which would still be less than anticipated in the LTP.

11.3 Delivering the project in 2024/25 rather than 2025/26 may save some construction costs, as in recent years construction cost escalation has been running higher than underlying inflation.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Safety risks associated with the lack of safe path options have been brought into stark relief by an incident in late November 2024 where an Upper Moutere school pupil was struck and injured by a vehicle while crossing the Moutere Highway between the school and Sunrise Valley Road.

12.2 While not on the route of the proposed Path, it highlights how delaying improvement projects can have real impacts on our community, or conversely how the community can realise benefits as soon as a project is completed.

12.3 New paths are a relatively low-cost improvement included in the LTP (when compared with other infrastructure investments) but provide a high degree of wellbeing to communities where projects are completed, and are highly valued

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The recommended option provides the opportunity to reduce transport emissions by enabling the Upper Moutere community to safely travel between the village and the community centre without needing to drive, sooner than if the budget is not brought forward.

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

14.1 The recommended option is generally in accordance with the LTP.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 There is a strong desire in the Upper Moutere community for the Council to deliver a new shared path from the village to the community centre in 2024/25, as originally planned before an NZTA funding shortfall resulted in a consequent deferral to 2025/26.

15.2 Bringing forward $188,951 of existing funding from 2025/26 to 2024/25 would enable the Path to be completed in 2024/25.

15.3 Funding can be brought forward without materially impacting the Council’s net debt in 2024/25.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the recommended option is approved, staff will work with the contractor to deliver the Path as soon as possible.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.8 Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	David Stephenson, Team Leader - Stormwater & Waste Management
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN24-12-8

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to undertake consultation using the special consultative procedure (SCP) under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) for the draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (the Proposed Waste Plan).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council (the councils) both have a statutory responsibility to promote effective and efficient waste minimisation and, for this purpose, to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan. In 2012 the councils adopted a joint waste plan; in 2018 that plan was reviewed and in 2019 the councils adopted an amended plan, the Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (the 2019 Waste Plan).

2.2 The 2019 Waste Plan has been reviewed by the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Review Working Party (the Working Party), which was delegated this role in 2022. The Working Party recommended earlier this year to the councils that they revoke and replace the 2019 Waste Plan. Both councils adopted this recommendation in March and April 2024.

2.3 Since then, staff of the two councils have been working with the Working Party to develop a replacement plan. On 29 October 2024 the Working Party met to consider a final draft of the Proposed Waste Plan. It is titled the draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (Statement of Proposal) and is attached (Attachment 1).
A Summary of the information contained in the Statement of Proposal has also been prepared (Attachment 2).

2.4 Before adopting the Proposed Waste Plan, the councils must consult with their communities. Under section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, councils must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and, in doing so, the most recent waste assessment undertaken by the territorial authority under section 51 must be notified with the statement of proposal.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan report, RCN24-12-8; and

2. notes that under section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, both Tasman District and Nelson City Councils must consult the public using the special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 when preparing and revoking a waste management and minimisation plan; and

3. agrees that a Summary of the information contained in the Statement of Proposal is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal; and

4. agrees that the Summary of the information – Our Waste Plan contained (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) in the Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) provides a fair representation of the major matters in the draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, as required by section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002; and

5. approves the Summary of the information – Our Waste Plan (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) and the Statement of Proposal - Draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) for consultation in accordance with sections 83 and 87 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

6. agrees that the consultation approach (set out in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.8 of the agenda report):

a. includes sufficient steps to ensure that the Summary of information – Our Waste Plan and the draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be reasonably accessible to the public and will be publicised in a manner appropriate to their purpose and significance

b. will result in the Summary of the information – Our Waste Plan being as widely available as is reasonably practicable

c. meets the requirements of sections 82 and 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

7. agrees that the public consultation on the draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan will be undertaken over a period of a minimum of one month early in 2025; and

8. agrees the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Joint Waste Review Working Party be delegated authority to approve any minor editorial amendments required to the documents prior to them being printed and made available for public consultation; and

9. notes that in accordance with its Terms of Reference, the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Review Working Party has the delegation to oversee the hearings and deliberations process; and

10. notes that these decisions are subject to equivalent resolutions being passed by Nelson City Council.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council (the Councils) both have a statutory responsibility under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act) to promote effective and efficient waste minimisation and, for this purpose, to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan, and for the plan to be reviewed at intervals of not more than six years. The Act also requires that prior to conducting a review, a waste assessment must be prepared.

4.2 The councils must have a waste management and minimisation plan in place in order to receive a pro-rated proportion of the half of the New Zealand Waste Disposal Levy which is allocated to territorial authorities under the Act to spend ‘on matters to promote or achieve waste minimisation’.

4.3 The Act provides for one or more councils to prepare and adopt a joint waste plan. In 2010 the Council commenced work on a joint waste plan, which was adopted in 2012. In 2018 that joint plan was reviewed by the councils and in 2019 the councils adopted an amended plan, the Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (the 2019 Waste Plan).

4.4 In September 2022 the councils agreed to the formation of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Review Working Party (the Working Party) to review the 2019 Waste Plan; for Tasman District Council this resolution was at a meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee on 29 September 2022.

4.5 The Working Party comprises three elected members from each council and makes provision for up to three iwi representatives. An invitation was issued to iwi to nominate representatives in January 2023, and while no representatives have been nominated, regular updates are being provided to iwi.

4.6 The Working Party first met in February 2024 where it recommended to the councils that they revoke and replace the 2019 Waste Plan.

4.7 On 7 March 2024 the Strategy and Policy Committee of Tasman District Council resolved (SPC24-03-4):

That the Strategy and Policy Committee

1. receives the report Review of Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019 (RSPC24-03-2); and

2. notes the recommendation of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Review Working Party to commence revoking and replacement of the Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan; and

3. in accordance with section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, agrees that officers develop a draft replacement Nelson Tasman Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation in 2025, subject to Nelson City Council’s agreement; and

4. notes that Nelson City Council will consider this matter at its 4 April 2024 meeting; and

5. notes that the 2019 Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan remains in effect until such time that both councils adopt a new Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan informed by a public consultation process in 2025.

4.8 Nelson City Council resolved in April 2024 an equivalent resolution.

4.9 Since February 2024, the Working Party has met four times. Staff from the two councils have been working with the Working Party to develop a replacement plan. On 29 October 2024 the Working Party met to consider a final draft of the Proposed Waste Plan. This final draft document produced from that meeting is attached to this report (Attachment 1).

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Proposed Waste Plan provides a strategic framework for waste management and minimisation activities, and a regional action plan. This framework and action plan is shown in Figure 1.

5.2 The plan recognises that actions may be delivered both collectively and individually by the councils, depending on the requirements of each council’s area.

5.3 The regional action plan is designed both to meet forecast demand and challenges for the provision of waste services and infrastructure and to support our community to avoid and reduce waste.

5.4 Whilst some actions are already in place through the existing Long Term Plan, any new actions would need to be assessed to ensure that they are financially prudent, affordable, and meet the intention of the Proposed Waste Plan. These actions would then require approval through the Long Term Plan process before implementation.

Figure 1 - Strategic framework for the Proposed Waste Plan

5.5 In preparing the Proposed Waste Plan, the Working Party considered a variety of priorities, including aligning waste activities with action on climate change and proposed changes to relevant legislation.

5.6 The Proposed Waste Plan introduces targets relating to reducing waste creation, reducing disposal to landfill, and a new target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with waste.

5.7 The Proposed Waste Plan includes a link to the 2024 Waste Assessment, which can also be found here: https://www.nelson.govt.nz/assets/Services/Downloads/water-and-wastewater/Joint-Waste-Assessment/Joint-Waste-Assessment-_September-2024-1.pdf

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The Council has two options regarding the Statement of Proposal as detailed below:

· Option 1 – Approve the Statement of Proposal (with minor amendments if required) and the commencement of a public consultation process, or

· Option 2 – Do not approve the Statement of Proposal and the commencement of a public consultation process.

6.2 The advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the Statement of Proposal (with minor amendments if required) and the commencement of a public consultation process.	Our community is afforded an opportunity to share their views with the Council on the proposed Waste Plan 2025. Legislative requirements have been met. Allows for alignment with Nelson City Council.	No significant risks or disadvantages.
2.	Do not approve the Statement of Proposal and the commencement of a public consultation process.	None known.	Risk of not meeting legislative requirements. Loss of opportunity to receive community feedback. Risk of not aligning with Nelson City Council.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Approve the Statement of Proposal (with minor amendments if required) and the commencement of a public consultation process.

Our community is afforded an opportunity to share their views with the Council on the proposed Waste Plan 2025.

Legislative requirements have been met.

Allows for alignment with Nelson City Council.

No significant risks or disadvantages.

Do not approve the Statement of Proposal and the commencement of a public consultation process.

None known.

Risk of not meeting legislative requirements.

Loss of opportunity to receive community feedback.

Risk of not aligning with Nelson City Council.

6.3 Option 1 is recommended: to approve the Statement of Proposal (with minor amendments if required) and the commencement of a public consultation process.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Tasman District Council has a statutory responsibility outlined in section 42 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, to ‘promote effective and efficient waste minimisation’ and, for this purpose, to adopt a waste management and minimisation plan (section 43). Section 45 of the Act provides for one or more councils to prepare and adopt a joint waste plan.

7.2 A waste management and minimisation plan must be reviewed at intervals of not more than six years (section 50). Section 44 of the Act sets out the requirements when preparing, amending, or revoking a waste plan:

In preparing, amending, or revoking a waste management and minimisation plan, a territorial authority must

· consider the following methods of waste management and minimisation (which are listed in descending order of importance): reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal; and

· ensure that the collection, transport, and disposal of waste does not, or is not likely to, cause a nuisance; and

· have regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy, or any government policy on waste management and minimisation that replaces the strategy; and

· have regard to the most recent assessment undertaken by the Council under section 51 of the Act; and

· use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and, in doing so, the most recent assessment undertaken by the territorial authority under section 51 must be notified with the statement of proposal.

7.3 The review of the 2019 Waste Plan and preparation of the 2024 Waste Assessment (appended to the Proposed Plan) were in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi/Māori have been invited to contribute to the review of the 2019 Waste Plan and development of the Proposed Waste Plan. The terms of reference for the Waste Working Party provides for Te Tauihu Iwi Chairs to nominate up to three representatives on the working party. Unfortunately, these positions have not been filled.

8.2 In recent months we have engaged with iwi through Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro – our iwi engagement portal and through kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) hui with iwi Taiao staff. We have provided early working drafts of our waste assessment and of the Proposed Waste Plan. Iwi staff members have expressed an interest in engaging on the Proposed Waste Plan in the new year.

8.3 While we were not able to represent iwi/Māori in preparation of the document, one of the guiding principles of the Proposed Waste Plan relates to iwi engagement. It is Principle 2 - to “Honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi through Kia Kotahi Te Tauihu – the Together Te Tauihu Partnership Agreement”.

8.4 The intent of the Proposed Waste Plan is that the councils will continue to engage with iwi/Māori throughout the life of the plan.

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

9.1 The following table provides an assessment of the significance of this decision. Staff consider that the significance of the decision is Moderate overall.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	Activities outlined in the Proposed Waste Plan are likely to affect each resident of the district and previous consultation on waste management and minimisation have generated a moderate level of interest.
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 goals and objectives of the Proposed Waste Plan and the activities arising from it are likely to affect social, economic, environmental and cultural aspects of well-being of the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	The goals and objectives of the Proposed Waste Plan are likely to affect the Council’s activities for the next 6-10 years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset?	None	This decision does not relate to a strategic asset.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low -Moderate	The decision to consult on the Proposed Waste Plan does not change any levels of service, but the strategic intent of the Proposed Waste Plan may affect levels of service in the future.
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	The decision to consult on the Proposed Waste Plan does not substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP, but the strategic intent of the Proposed Waste Plan may affect these in the future.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	None	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?	None	This decision does not involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	This decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	This proposal does not 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.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Under section 78 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council must, during its decision-making process, give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, a matter.

10.2 Section 44 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, states that the councils must use the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 when preparing, amending or revoking a waste management and minimisation plan.

10.3 Under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council must adopt a statement of proposal and ensure it is publicly available, together with a description of how the Council will provide interested persons with an opportunity to present their views and a submission period of not less than one month.

10.4 Under s 87(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 a Statement of Proposal must include:

· the proposed changes;

· the reasons for the proposed changes;

· an analysis of the reasonably practicable options, including the proposal; and

· any other information that the local authority identifies as relevant.

10.5 Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to consider whether a summary of the Statement of Proposal “is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal”.

10.6 The proposed Statement of Proposal is reasonably complex; therefore, a summary is considered necessary to assist with the public understanding of it.

10.7 The public consultation process provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to engage in the process, and a structured way in which the Council can respond to any concerns that may be raised. The proposed timeframe is outlined below:

Item	Date
Nelson City Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposal to the public for consultation	5 December 2024
Tasman District Council approves the release of the Statement of Proposal to the public for consultation	11 December 2024
Statement of Proposal publicly notified and open for submissions	1 February 2025
Consultation closes	7 March 2025
Hearing of Submissions	25 March 2025
Deliberation on submissions	29 April 2025
Final Waste Plan submitted to the councils for approval	July 2025

10.8 The following are the key methods proposed to raise public awareness of the consultation process, but these may be amended as the consultation process progresses:

· Direct contact with iwi partners and key stakeholders;

· A media release outlining the proposal and the key issues;

· Information and key dates advertised in the Councils’ newsletters to all households (Our Nelson and Newsline);

· Detailed information made available on Shape Nelson and Shape Tasman engagement websites;

· Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available from Customer Services Centres and Council libraries (and on the website);

· Copies of the Statement of Proposal and submission forms will be available for elected members to take to any community meetings that they attend during the consultation period;

· Coverage in the Councils’ social media channels.

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

11.1 Approving the Proposed Waste Plan for consultation has minor budgetary implications. Our consultation process will be largely delivered with internal resources.

11.2 The Proposed Waste Plan does signal a proposal for the councils to increase efforts to reduce waste generation, increase waste diversion and to protect people and the natural environment from the harmful impacts of waste. The activities to support these goals will likely require additional resources and investment.

11.3 Approving the draft plan for consultation, and adopting an updated Waste Plan in 2025, may create an expectation that the councils will provide additional resources and investment in the future, although this is not necessarily a given.

11.4 Funding for waste management and minimisation operations in Tasman District Council are currently funded by a mixture of user charges, targeted rates, general rates and Council’s share of the Waste Disposal levy, while capital works are largely funded by debt (Figure 1). The Council also receives a Local Disposal Levy from the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (currently $3,000,000 per annum), but this is largely used to offset resource recovery centre operating costs.

A pie chart with text on it with Crust in the background

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Waste Management and Minimisation Funding Sources
(2024-34 Activity Management Plan)

11.5 Except for kerbside recycling, which is funded by a targeted rate, most waste minimisation activities in Tasman District at present are funded by the Council’s share of the Waste Disposal levy. This funding has grown from $187,000 in the 2020/21 financial year to $888,000 in the 2023/24 year and is on track to provide over $1,100,000 in the 2024/25 year. This increase in funding has allowed the Council to increase the range of waste minimisation activities in recent years.

11.6 The Council will require ongoing Waste Disposal Levy funding to continue to increase waste minimisation activities and there is some risk that this funding stream will reduce in coming years. Cabinet papers released following Budget 2024 suggest that the government is considering reducing the 50% of Waste Disposal Levy income currently allocated to local government in the coming budget. We understand that several mayors have written to government expressing concern and we are preparing background information for the Mayor of Tasman District to consider.

11.7 Improvements in waste management practices could be delivered by commercial businesses and not-for-profit entities, and the Council has a regulatory and engagement role as well as providing services and infrastructure. Waste management services also have the potential to provide income to the councils to fund waste minimisation activities, through fees and charges and through the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit.

11.8 Funding and investment decisions for waste management and minimisation will be made through the Councils’ Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes. While a council’s Long Term Plan would normally be consistent with its waste management and minimisation plan, the Local Government Act 2002 allows for variations between the two. In the event that there is significant variation between proposals outlined in the two documents, the Council would need to identify and explain these in the Long Term Plan.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The main risk relating to this decision is if both councils do not approve the Working Party’s recommendation, resulting in a delay in the review and consultation process. If the Waste Plan review and consultation process is delayed, there is a risk that the councils will not complete their review of the 2019 Waste Plan within the six-year period required in law.

12.2 If this review is not completed within this period, the councils may compromise receiving their respective share of Waste Disposal Levy funding from central government.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal to approve the Proposed Waste Plan for consultation was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’.

13.2 The purpose of the Proposed Waste Plan is to provide strategic guidance for both councils’ waste minimisation and management activities, and a key component of this is emissions reduction activities and planning to respond to climate change.

13.3 For these reasons climate change subject matter experts from both Nelson City and Tasman District Councils are part of the project team to ensure a replacement Waste Plan reflects the councils’ climate action plans and national climate change policy.

13.4 Waste minimisation and management activities are strongly connected to action on climate change, particularly their impact on greenhouse emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated by both councils’ waste related activities, particularly York Valley and Eves Valley landfills, and the councils have the ability to influence behaviours in the wider community to reduce emissions from waste generation and disposal.

13.5 The Proposed Waste Plan includes new goals, objectives and targets that relate to reducing emissions from waste activities. The Proposed Waste Plan also includes a new focus area that proposes to address the impacts of climate change through emissions reduction and improved planning to respond to climate related events.

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

14.1 The Proposed Waste Plan is broadly aligned with the following strategic policies and plans:

· The Tasman Regional Policy Statement

· The Tasman District Council Long Term Plan – “Tasman’s 10-year Plan 2024-2034”

· Tasman Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

14.2 Both the Tasman District Council and the Strategy and Policy Committee of the Council have delegated authority to approve the Proposed Waste Plan for consultation.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 A proposed waste management and minimisation plan for Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council has been prepared by the working party created by the councils for this purpose. This plan has followed preparation of a waste assessment in accordance with the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and a decision in April 2024 to revoke and replace the 2019 Waste Plan. Approval is sought from the Council to commence consultation.

15.2 The same recommendations have been made to Nelson City Council for their meeting on 5 December 2024. Approval of the draft Waste Plan 2025 for consultation will be subject to Nelson City Council also approving this recommendation.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If both councils approve a public consultation procedure, the public consultation process will commence on 1 February and close on 7 March 2025.

16.2 The Waste Working Party will hear submissions and deliberate on amendments to the Proposed Waste Plan as provided for in the Joint Waste Review Working Party Terms of Reference.

16.3 Following the completion of the consultation process, including hearings and deliberations, a final draft of the Proposed Waste Plan will be presented to both councils for adoption by August 2025.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Draft Nelson Tasman Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2025 (Statement of Proposal)	306
2.⇩	Summary of the information contained in the Statement of Proposal	351

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.9 Amendments to Delegations

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Leith Townshend, General Counsel
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-12-9

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

1.1 To make further delegation amendments, and additional delegations, following the reorganisation of the Environmental Science group.

1.2 This report also provides clarification on delegations approved by the Council as requested at the Council meeting on 12 September 2024 (CN24-09-13).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Information, Science and Technology group has recently been restructured, with the group now focusing on Environmental Science, with the IT function moving to sit within Council Operations. The Environmental Science group, which has responsibilities including biosecurity, river and coastal management and environmental monitoring and management, have changes to position titles and roles which necessitate amendment to delegations.

2.2 As with the previous team restructures, the legal team have taken the opportunity to review all delegations within the responsibility of the Environmental Science group. This report provides recommendations for changes to statutory delegations for the Environmental Science group, including amendments and additional delegations.

2.3 This report also contains requested clarification on the delegation amendments requested to the register at the Council meeting on 12 September 2024. These delegations were requested following the re-structures and position title changes in the Finance team and the Legal and Democracy Services team.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Amendments to Delegations report, RCN24-12-9; and

2. approves the change in position title for delegations under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 from ‘Team Leader – Water Supply and Wastewater’ to ‘Team Leader – Water Supply’; and

3. approves the amendments to delegations under s.329 and s.330 in the Resource Management Act 1991 to replace the position titles ‘Group Manager – Information, Science and Technology’ and ‘Environmental Information Manager’ with ‘Group Manager – Environmental Science’; and

4. approves amendment to management delegation 5.5 RMA Authority (to act with the scope of responsibility as a requiring authority) to change delegation from ‘Group Manager – Information, Science and Technology’ to ‘Group Manager – Environmental Science’; and

5. approves changes to delegations under the Biosecurity Act 1993 as detailed in Attachment 1 of the agenda report; and

6. approves changes to delegations under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 as detailed in Attachment 1 of the agenda report; and

7. approves a change to the Operations Committee terms of reference to remove the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act delegation under Part 7; and

8. approves delegation under s.31 of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 to the Group Manager – Environmental Science; and

9. acknowledges that clarification on delegations approved under the Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information Act 1987, Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and Rating Valuations Act 1998, as requested by the Council on
12 September 2024 (CN24-09-13) has been provided; and

10. notes that the Delegations Register will be updated to reflect changes approved.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Council’s authority to delegate to its standing committees, committees, subcommittees, or staff is principally derived from Schedule 7, Clause 32 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Delegations are made to staff roles not to individuals and recorded against position titles, which necessitates review when position titles change, or organisational restructures occur to ensure that each role retains or gains the delegations needed.

4.2 The legal team are working through a comprehensive review of statutory delegations, to prepare for a move from the current PDF delegations register to LocoDelegations, an online, searchable delegations register. LocoDelegations has been developed for the local government sector and legally reviewed by Simpson Grierson, who are currently engaged by the product developer to review content on a regular basis. This helps ensure changes to legislation are notified to councils using the product, assisting with keeping delegations up to date.

4.3 Where powers have been previously delegated, amendments to position titles generally do not require approval by the Council due to the Chief Executive Officer’s powers of sub-delegation. Certain legislation, however, requires that only the Council can delegate its powers and functions, and this applies to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Any amendments to powers, and any new delegations also require approval by the Council.

4.4 Following restructures impacting the Finance and the Legal and Democracy teams, staff requested amendments and additional delegations to roles within these teams at the Council meeting on 12 September 2024.

4.5 The Council requested that clarification on these amendments be provided:

CN24-09-13

That the Tasman District Council

8. requests that clarification be provided showing the changes to the delegations in this resolution, post the meeting;

4.6 This report provides detail on the amendments that were approved for the following Acts:

· Local Government Act 2002

· Local Government Official Information Act 1987

· Local Government (Rating) Act 2002

· Rating Valuations Act 1998

4.7 Due to a further restructure involving positions that sit in the Environmental Science group, delegations impacting positions within that group require amendment. As such,a review of delegations under the following Acts was undertaken:

· Biosecurity Act 1993

· Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941

· Wild Animal Control Act 1977

4.8 Positions within that group also held delegations under the Resource Management Act 1991 which require amendment due to change in position titles and responsibilities of those roles.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

New and amended delegations

5.1 As with any restructure, it is important to ensure delegations remain up to date. Amendments and delegations are requested for the Environmental Science group to ensure:

5.1.1 Position titles and delegations are correct for current roles with responsibility for areas under these Acts; and

5.1.2 Staff have the delegations to the level needed.

5.2 This report requests the following changes to delegations, to be recorded as detailed in Attachment 1: Proposed Amendments to Delegations Register.

Biosecurity Act 1993

5.3 A new delegation is requested to provide formal delegation to the Environmental Science group to undertake the operational responsibilities of the Council regarding Biosecurity including under the newly adopted Regional Pest Management plan. Note that the delegation does not confer the following powers under this section as these cannot be delegated under section 100H(3):

(a) the power to determine the ways in which consultation must be undertaken; or

(b) the power to make, review, amend, or revoke a plan; or

5.4 Staff also request the removal of the delegation under s.100E to the Strategy and Policy committee under part 4: statutory delegations. The power described does not correlate with the section number provided. Section 100E provides direction on “Review of plans after national policy direction approved, amended, or revoked and replaced.” This specific section is not referenced in the Strategy and Policy Committee’s terms of reference, only the power of recommendation. Under s100H(3)(b) only the Council can make decisions on plans, so in the case of a change in National Policy direction as anticipated by s.100E, this would go to the Council.

5.5 The final delegation request under this act relates to Tasman District Council’s role as a management agency under the Act, and the power provided to management agencies under s.131 ‘Declaration of controlled areas.” Previously this power has been recorded as a warranted power of specific authorised officers, however as a power of a management agency it is appropriate that it should be recorded as a delegation to staff in the delegations register.

Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA)

5.6 As of November 2023, the responsibility for rivers and coastal structures moved from the Community Infrastructure group to what is now the Environmental Science group. With the team now fully established under Environmental Science it is appropriate to review delegations under SCRCA to ensure they sit with the rivers and coastal structures team.

5.7 Delegations recorded currently under this Act are included in a broad delegation as follows:

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated

5.8 In the Operations Committee terms of reference, the delegation had been removed as below:

5.9 Part 7 of the Act has not been repealed, only s144 within this part. Staff however have reviewed all delegable powers under Part 7, with delegations being amended to include the Environmental Science team, and those powers not delegated to staff, are proposed to remain with the Council rather than being delegated to a committee. Powers under these sections (s125, s131, s137, s138 and s139) have been deemed by staff as either not used or very rarely used.

5.10 A new delegation is requested under section 154 which provides the power to give written approval to a person in relation to watercourses and works and recovering costs of any damage. This allows staff with the delegation to act where there is destruction or damage to any watercourse or defence against water, and this has not been permitted, and to recover costs in the manner prescribed in the section.

Wild Animal Control Act 1977

5.11 Staff also request a new delegation under s.31 of the Wild Animal Control Act which provides the authority to prepare to submit plans for destruction of wild animals for approval of the Minister. The delegation will provide authority for Environmental Science staff to work on an ungulate management programme. Staff are currently working with Department of Conservation and Kotahitanga mō te Taiao on developing a plan in this area.

Resource Management Act 1991

5.12 Staff request approval to amend delegations under s.329 (power to issue a water shortage direction) and s.330 (power to invoke emergency work provisions) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) currently providing delegations to ‘Environmental Information Manager’ and ‘Group Manager – Information, Science and Technology’ respectively. Neither of these position titles now exist, with the request to change both delegations to ‘Group Manager – Environmental Science’.

5.13 Staff also request a change to the delegation to act with the scope of responsibility as a requiring authority under management delegations 5.5 from ‘Group Manager – Environmental Science as excerpted below:

Clarification of previous delegation requests and amendments

Local Government Act 2002

5.14 A new statutory delegation was requested to make clear the delegations regarding elected members’ pecuniary interests. The Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Act 2022 inserted a new set of requirements and obligations into the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), regarding elected members’ pecuniary (financial) interests.

5.15 The Council appointed the Legal and Democracy Services Manager as registrar (responsible for keeping the register) on 3 November 2022 (CN22-11-6) however as at that time the new sections had not been inserted into the Local Government Act 2002, a statutory delegation was not made. The new delegation requested also updated the position title - the Legal and Democracy Services Manager position no longer exists, with the administration of elected member pecuniary interests now sitting with the Governance team.

5.16 An excerpt from the current Delegations Register with the approved delegation is below:

Local Government Act 2002
	s.54A Keeping a register of members' pecuniary interests	Chief Executive Officer (includes Acting Chief Executive Officer) Governance Manager

Local Government Act 2002

s.54A

Keeping a register of members' pecuniary interests

Chief Executive Officer (includes Acting Chief Executive Officer)

Governance Manager

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA)

5.17 Prior to the recent approval of changes to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (CN24-09-13) delegations under the Act were recorded in Management Delegations as follows:

A white paper with black text

Description automatically generated

5.18 No new delegations were requested as Parts II to V includes sections 10 – 40). The only changes to delegations were to:

· Record delegations separately by section under Part 4: Statutory Delegations of the register rather than as a catch-all under “authority to exercise parts II to V of LGOIMA”. This will align with the requirements of LocoDelegations.

· Update position titles due to the restructure of the Legal and Democracy team into the Governance team and Legal team - it is now the Legal team that manages the LGOIMA process.

· Inclusion of all staff under section 15 - provision of documents, as all teams assist with responding to requests in their function areas.

5.19 An excerpt from the updated Delegations Register with these updates is below:

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
	s.10 Actioning requests	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.13 Deciding whether a request is to be granted and in what manner and if charge to be made	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.15 Providing documents	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) All Council staff
	s.16 Deleting information from a document and giving reasons	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.17 Refusing a request for information for certain reasons	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.17A Considering whether fixing a charge or extending a time limit would enable a request involving substantial collation or research to be granted	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.17B Deciding whether to consult with the person who made the request where it is likely to be refused	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.18 Giving reasons for refusal of a request and information about rights	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.21 Making documents available with deletions or alterations or providing another document and providing reasons for withholding documents	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.24 Taking the necessary precautions when giving access to information	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.25 Taking action when correction requested and informing person of any action taken	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer
	s.26 Refusing access to personal information in certain circumstances	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Tier 2 Group Managers General Counsel Senior Legal Advisor Legal Advisor Legal Services Officer Legal Support Officer

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

s.10

Actioning requests

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.13

Deciding whether a request is to be granted and in what manner and if charge to be made

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.15

Providing documents

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

All Council staff

s.16

Deleting information from a document and giving reasons

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.17

Refusing a request for information for certain reasons

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.17A

Considering whether fixing a charge or extending a time limit would enable a request involving substantial collation or research to be granted

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.17B

Deciding whether to consult with the person who made the request where it is likely to be refused

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.18

Giving reasons for refusal of a request and information about rights

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.21

Making documents available with deletions or alterations or providing another document and providing reasons for withholding documents

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.24

Taking the necessary precautions when giving access to information

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.25

Taking action when correction requested and informing person of any action taken

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

s.26

Refusing access to personal information in certain circumstances

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Tier 2 Group Managers

General Counsel

Senior Legal Advisor

Legal Advisor

Legal Services Officer

Legal Support Officer

Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA)

5.20 Staff already held statutory delegations under the LGRA, however these were based on the prior team structure, and were not complete. Amendments and additional delegations under this Act were requested as follows.

Amendments and updates

5.20.1 Update position titles (all sections) for the Chief Financial Officer and the Revenue and Rates Manager, and remove position titles that no longer exist;

5.20.2 Update delegations to include additional roles with responsibility under the new team structure;

5.20.3 Update wording to align with the requirements of LocoDelegations;

Additional delegations

5.20.4 Provide delegations to staff to formalise their authority to meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 regarding administration of rates records:

· s. 38 – that delegated staff may ask a person for confirmation that they meet the requirements as to who can inspect a rates record;

· s. 41 – 42 – that delegated staff can amend rates records when there is an error, and recover any rates due to an error, in accordance with the details in these sections.

5.20.5 Provide delegations to staff to formalise their authority to meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 regarding the provision of rates notices and collection of rates:

· s. 44 – 49, 51 – that delegated staff deliver rates assessments and rates invoices to ratepayers setting out the information required by the Act in these sections.

· s. 53 – that delegated staff can appoint a person to collect rates as assessed.

· s. 58 – that delegated staff can apply penalties as allowed for and in the manner prescribed by this section.

5.20.6 To ensure staff have all delegations required to carry out administrative tasks associated with the Council’s Rates Remission policies. Some of these delegations were already provided under a catch-all “Authority to administer rate remission and postponement policies” but not all sections were detailed – additional delegations were requested to complete the delegation of these functions (sections 88, 89, 90).

5.20.7 Provide delegations to staff to meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021 under which additional sections were inserted into the LGRA on 1 July 2021 regarding the administration of separate rating areas on Māori freehold land (s98A – 98F)

5.20.8 Provide additional delegations to staff where there were only delegations to complete part of the process. Staff already had delegation under s.99 to apply to the Māori Land Court for charging orders. Delegations were added under s.108 and s.111 to enable staff to apply for enforcement of an order to, and of penalties imposed by, the Māori Land Court.

5.21 Staff now also request a minor change to delegations under the LGRA to update the position title ‘Team Leader – Water Quality and Wastewater’ to ‘Team Leader – Water Quality’.

5.22 An excerpt from the updated Delegations Register with approved changes and the amended position title detailed in paragraph 5.8 is below:

Local Government (Rating Act) 2002
133	s.28(2) Power to decide whether the disclosure of the name of any person is necessary to identify a rating unit.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager, Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
134	s.28(3) Authority to determine a fee for being supplied a copy of Rating Information Database (RID) data.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
135	s.29 Authority to determine objections to the Rating Information Database.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
136	s.35 Authority to remove a name from the Rating Information Database.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager, Team Leader - Revenue Administration, Revenue and Rates Manager, Senior Rates Officer, Finance Officer - Accounts Receivable and Revenue, Finance Officer - Banking and Revenue, Finance Officer - Rates and Revenue, Rates Officer, Water Billing Officer
	s.38 Inspection of rates records	Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
137	s.39 Authority to determine objections to rates records.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
138	s.40 Authority to correct errors in the Rating Information Database and Rate Records.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager, Senior Rates Officer, Rates Officer, Water Billing Officer
	s.41 Issuing an amended rates assessment where there is an error in rating information database or rates record is corrected and refunding rates where necessary	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
	s.41A Issuing an amended rates assessment to give effect to objection to valuation under Rating Valuations Act 1998 and refunding or recovering money where necessary	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
	s.42 Recovering additional rates in certain circumstances	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration
	s. 44-49, 51 Designing and delivering rates assessments and invoices to ratepayers in accordance with these sections	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
	s.53 Appointing and entering into agreements re rates collector	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
140	s.54 Power not to collect small amounts.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
	s.58 Imposing penalties in certain circumstances	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
141	s.61 Authority to collect unpaid rates from the owner.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager, Team Leader - Revenue Administration
142	s.62 Authority to collect unpaid rates from persons other than the owner.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer, Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager, Team Leader - Revenue Administration,
143	s.63 Authority to commence legal proceedings for the recovery of rates that are in default.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer, Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
144	s.67 Applying to have a judgement enforced and offering land for lease.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer
145	s.72 Authority to consent to sell or lease unit by private treaty.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer
146	ss.77 Authority to sell or lease abandoned land.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer
147	ss.85, 87, 114-115 Authority to administer rate remission and postponement policies.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer, Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager, Team Leader – Water Supply ~~& Wastewater~~
	s.88 Adding a postponement fee in accordance with policy	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
	s.89 Recording the net cost of postponed rates in accordance with policy	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration Senior Rates Officer Rates Officer
	s.90 Registering a notice of charge or release on a rating unit	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager Team Leader Revenue Administration
	s.98A-98F Making decisions on division into separate rating areas and no longer a separate rating area, apportionment of rates, adjustments, and related functions	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
148	s.99 Authority to apply to Maori Land Court for charging orders.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer, Financial Performance Manager, Revenue and Rates Manager
	s.108 Applying to the Māori Land Court to enforce a charging order	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
	s.111 Māori Land Court may make order for payment	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
149	s.135 Authority to sign documents for court proceedings.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive), Chief Financial Officer, Financial Performance Manager,

Local Government (Rating Act) 2002

133

s.28(2)

Power to decide whether the disclosure of the name of any person is necessary to identify a rating unit.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

134

s.28(3)

Authority to determine a fee for being supplied a copy of Rating Information Database (RID) data.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

135

s.29

Authority to determine objections to the Rating Information Database.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

136

s.35

Authority to remove a name from the Rating Information Database.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager,

Team Leader - Revenue Administration,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Senior Rates Officer,

Finance Officer - Accounts Receivable and Revenue,

Finance Officer - Banking and Revenue,

Finance Officer - Rates and Revenue,

Rates Officer,

Water Billing Officer

s.38

Inspection of rates records

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

137

s.39

Authority to determine objections to rates records.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

138

s.40

Authority to correct errors in the Rating Information Database and Rate Records.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial OfficerFinancial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Senior Rates Officer,

Rates Officer,

Water Billing Officer

s.41

Issuing an amended rates assessment where there is an error in rating information database or rates record is corrected and refunding rates where necessary

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

s.41A

Issuing an amended rates assessment to give effect to objection to valuation under Rating Valuations Act 1998 and refunding or recovering money where necessary

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

s.42

Recovering additional rates in certain circumstances

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

s. 44-49, 51

Designing and delivering rates assessments and invoices to ratepayers in accordance with these sections

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

s.53

Appointing and entering into agreements re rates collector

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

140

s.54

Power not to collect small amounts.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

s.58

Imposing penalties in certain circumstances

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

141

s.61

Authority to collect unpaid rates from the owner.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Team Leader - Revenue Administration

142

s.62

Authority to collect unpaid rates from persons other than the owner.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer,

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Team Leader - Revenue Administration,

143

s.63

Authority to commence legal proceedings for the recovery of rates that are in default.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer,

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

144

s.67

Applying to have a judgement enforced and offering land for lease.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

145

s.72

Authority to consent to sell or lease unit by private treaty.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

146

ss.77

Authority to sell or lease abandoned land.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

147

ss.85, 87, 114-115

Authority to administer rate remission and postponement policies.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer,

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager,

Team Leader – Water Supply ~~& Wastewater~~

s.88
Adding a postponement fee in accordance with policy

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

s.89

Recording the net cost of postponed rates in accordance with policy

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

Senior Rates Officer

Rates Officer

s.90

Registering a notice of charge or release on a rating unit

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

Team Leader Revenue Administration

s.98A-98F

Making decisions on division into separate rating areas and no longer a separate rating area, apportionment of rates, adjustments, and related functions

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

148

s.99

Authority to apply to Maori Land Court for charging orders.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer,

Financial Performance Manager,

Revenue and Rates Manager

s.108

Applying to the Māori Land Court to enforce a charging order

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

s.111

Māori Land Court may make order for payment

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

149

s.135

Authority to sign documents for court proceedings.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive),

Chief Financial Officer,

Financial Performance Manager,

Rating Valuations Act 1998 (RVA)

5.23 Prior to the amendments approved by the Council, delegations under the Rating Valuations Act 1998 were recorded in management delegations only as per the excerpt below:

A close up of a white background

Description automatically generated

5.24 This delegation was moved to sit under statutory delegations, as that section provides all delegations under specific Acts. Additional delegations were requested to ensure the appropriate staff have authority to undertake the responsibilities (operational) of the Council under the RVA.

Additional delegations

5.24.1 s.8 and s.9 – enables staff to undertake requirements under the RVA with regard to revaluations of the rolls and who can provide valuations.

5.24.2 s. 34, 36 and 40 – provides staff with delegations to follow operational process when there are objections to valuations.

5.25 An excerpt from the updated Delegations Register with these approved changes is below:

Rating Valuations Act 1998
	s.8 Appointing and notifying the valuation services provider	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager
	s.9 General revaluation of rolls at 3-yearly intervals	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager
	s.14 – 16 Authority to make alterations to its Valuation Rolls to readjust valuations and entries	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) – Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager
	s.34 Determining to alter or decline to alter a valuation	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
	s.36 Applying to have objection heard by Land Valuation Tribunal if dissatisfied with review	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager
	s.40 Make alterations to give effect to the Land Valuation Tribunal decision, even if appeal is pending.	Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive) Chief Financial Officer Financial Performance Manager Revenue and Rates Manager

Rating Valuations Act 1998

s.8

Appointing and notifying the valuation services provider

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

s.9

General revaluation of rolls at 3-yearly intervals

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

s.14 – 16

Authority to make alterations to its Valuation Rolls to readjust valuations and entries

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

– Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

s.34

Determining to alter or decline to alter a valuation

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

s.36

Applying to have objection heard by Land Valuation Tribunal if dissatisfied with review

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

s.40

Make alterations to give effect to the Land Valuation Tribunal decision, even if appeal is pending.

Chief Executive (includes Acting Chief Executive)

Chief Financial Officer

Financial Performance Manager

Revenue and Rates Manager

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the amendments to delegations and new delegations requested.	Approving delegation changes will ensure that delegations in the register are up to date following restructure impacting roles/responsibilities within the organisation and changes to position titles. Delegation of operational processes, and functions ensures staff can carry out responsibilities of the Council efficiently and provides transparency on powers staff have responsibility to exercise.	The staff delegation changes relate to operational processes – no disadvantages have been identified.
2.	Do not approve amendments to delegations or new delegations.	No advantages to not approving amendments to delegations have been identified.	Roles within the Council will not have up to date delegations for their current position title.
3.	Approve only some amendments to delegations and new delegations.	The Council may wish to approve staff delegations and leave committee delegations as they are. This will mean staff have delegations required, and that other delegations under the specified Acts remain with a committee as opposed to sitting with the Council.	Current committee delegations do not align with current process and/or lines of report due to restructure within the organisation. Some delegations are not recorded accurately against statutory sections. While legislation is being reviewed it is appropriate to review and correct any delegations that may not be appropriately recorded.

6.2 Option 1 is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The RMA restricts the sub-delegation of powers. Delegated authority needs to come directly from the Council.

7.2 Councils operate under a plethora of legislation daily. Many statutes, particularly older ones give powers and functions to the Council and do not provide for direct delegations to staff. This means councils must work through each Act (and their bylaws, policies etc.) and decide on levels of delegated authority.

7.3 Councils power to delegate is principally derived from Schedule 7, Clause 32 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Any new delegations must be approved by the Council.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Due to delegations being operational by nature, no engagement has been undertaken with iwi.

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

9.1 The proposed changes to the Delegations Register are considered of low significance and no community engagement and consultation has been required.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	While there has been some public interest in delegations, generally, delegations are a matter for the Council to ensure that the Council can operate as efficiently as possible. The delegations requested in this report relate to operational processes.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Where staff do not have delegations to the appropriate level, efficiency of operational processes can be affected which may impact on the service the community receives.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	Ensuring delegations are in place helps to improve services for customers and at the same time, reduce risk to the Council.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	None of the delegations requested relate specifically to a strategic asset, however a lack of delegation may impact on the ability to manage responsibilities in relation to strategic assets efficiently.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	No substantial change anticipated.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	NA
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	NA
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	NA
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	NA
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	NA

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Managers have been involved in reviewing changes to the Delegations Register and will be advised if these are approved.

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

11.1 Delegation changes identify roles responsible for powers of the Council and do not in and of themselves constitute any financial or budgetary implications.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If the Council does not delegate to staff this means that every decision would require a decision of the Council, which would be inefficient.

12.2 It is important for staff to hold delegated authority from the Council or the Chief Executive Officer to enable them to carry out their powers, duties, and functions otherwise risk can be created for the Council if unauthorised decisions are challenged.

12.3 Delegations are to a role or position, not to an individual person, therefore it is important that these are kept up to date particularly when there is a restructure and subsequent changes to responsibility to areas of the Council and to position titles.

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

13.1 Only the Council has

13.1.1 authority to amend delegations to the RMA and the LGRA;

13.1.2 authority to make additional delegations to staff under these Acts; and

13.1.3 authority to approve amendments to committee terms of reference.

14. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

14.1 Ensuring correct delegations are in place for decision making and other powers and functions is essential, and it is recommended that the proposed changes and amendments to delegations be approved by the Council.

15. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

15.1 The Delegations Register will be updated with the proposed changes once approved by the Council. LocoDelegations will also be populated with approved delegations.

15.2 The full review of the Delegations Register as part of preparations for moving to LocoDelegations as the method of recording officer delegations will continue.

15.3 Further changes to the Delegations Register will be brought to the Council in the coming months as staff work towards implementation of LocoDelegations.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Proposed Amendments to Delegations Register - Tracked Changes

370

Tasman District Council Agenda – 11 December 2024

7.10 Richmond Library Building - Strengthening and Repair Requirements

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 December 2024
Report Author:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Authorisers:	Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN24-12-10

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

1.1 This report presents the Council with an update on the condition of the Richmond Library building and outlines the strengthening work and repairs needed.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 A recent detailed seismic assessment of the Richmond Library building has confirmed that the building is an earthquake risk. The risk primarily relates to the capacity of the boundary block wall along the eastern side of the building (see highlight in Figure 1).

2.2 The library building has had long-term problems with water tightness and sagging roof trusses. It is intended that these be remedied as part of the proposed strengthening works.

2.3 The seismic strengthening options include strengthening to either 33% or 67% NBS (New Building Standard). Quotes to repair leaking cladding and sagging roof joists have been received.

2.4 The strengthening work proposed would lift the building beyond being Earthquake prone, which is greater than 67% NBS.

2.5 The estimated cost of the repairs and strengthening work is $1,300,000 plus GST.

2.6 The Long Term Plan 2024/2034 does not include specific funding for this work. It is proposed that the $1,300,000 be funded by Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs).

2.7 As at October 2024 the balance in the Richmond RFC account is $12,500,000.

2.8 This strengthening and repair work is estimated to take four months to complete. It is intended that the library remain open during this period, however the work will be staged to minimise the disruption to the library activities. There is an additional cost of $125,000 to further minimise disruption by working at night.

Aerial view of a parking lot

Description automatically generated

Figure 1 Shear wall between library and 278 Queen St (yellow is location of shear wall)..

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Richmond Library Building - Strengthening and Repair Requirements report, RCN24-12-10; and

2. approves strengthening the Richmond Library Building to at least 67% New Building Standard, including repairs to the cladding and roof trusses; and

3. approves funding of up to $1,300,000 plus GST from the Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions to fund the estimated costs of strengthening and repairing the Richmond Library Building.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The library building is located at 280 Queen Street, Richmond. It is primarily a single storey building with a second storey over the middle portion of the building. The building was originally designed c.1985’s as a warehouse and front-of-house shop. It is currently used as a Library downstairs and offices upstairs.

4.2 The Richmond Library's roof structure comprises timber trusses supporting a lightweight metal roof. As part of the alterations in 2009, the upper storey was fitted out with a new ceiling and internal partitions with new air conditioning. Some ductwork and an air conditioning plant are located above the ceiling.

4.3 Over the years the roof trusses have sagged from a pre-camber when they were installed to a point now where the sag below the horizontal. This is most noticeable above the partitions in the second storey where the ceiling grid is now resting on the glazing, suggesting a sag of at least 10mm. There is a noticeable sag visible on top of the roof (on the line of the ridge flashing).

4.4 The ceiling sagging was initially noticed in 2021, and an investigation found that one of the roof truss bottom chords was damaged. In March 2021, this roof truss bottom cord was repaired.

4.5 The installation of roof accessways (pre-2020) and solar panels (2023) may have contributed to the sag in the roof trusses but the extent of this is not clear as the sag had occurred prior to these additions.

4.6 In June 2021, Council arranged for an IEP (Initial Evaluation Procedure) survey to be completed for the building. The IEP assessment was primarily concerned with life safety and earthquake risk. It did not consider the susceptibility of the building to damage in an earthquake.

4.7 After receiving the IEP, an ISA (Initial Seismic Assessment) was carried out using the IEP assessment and the available drawings. This indicated an overall score of 75% New Building Standard (NBS). This corresponds to a Grade B building, (as defined by the NZSEE building grading scheme) and is above the threshold for earthquake-prone buildings (34% NBS). The ISA was based on the available drawings and did not involve any invasive inspections of specific components of the building.

4.8 An ISA is an initial first-stage review prior to a detailed seismic assessment (DSA). A DSA was considered unnecessary at the time following the outcome of the IEP which assessed that there were no significant structural faults.

4.9 The ongoing problems with the leaking roof and the sagging trusses, staff decided that a more detailed condition assessment of the building needed to be undertaken. This was to better understand the overall structural condition of the specific components within building.

4.10 A consulting engineer and a building contractor were engaged to undertake this condition assessment. This assessment included a review of the IEP undertaken in 2021. The consulting engineer then produced a report in March 2024 on the initial findings of that assessment.

4.11 This March 2024 report noted that the addition of solar panels on the roof had increased the dead-loading on the roof trusses and indicated that this needed to be reduced. The additional loading from the solar panels increased roof deflection and may have exacerbated the leakage in the roof. Temporary roof supports were installed in May 2024 while further structural assessments could be carried out.

4.12 This March 2024 report also identified concerns with the capacities of the roof/floor diaphragms and shear walls and recommended a more detailed invasive assessment be undertaken.

4.13 To confirm the seismic performance of the building, the same structural engineer and contractor were engaged in August 2024 to complete a Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA). The brief was to investigate other potential structural weaknesses that may not have been considered in the Initial Seismic Assessment (2021) and subsequent condition reports (March 2024). This study comprised invasive inspections into specific components of the building structure.

4.14 A draft DSA report was presented in November 2024. This is currently being peer-reviewed. By convention, a building’s NBS rating is directly attributed to the weakest component of the structure. The weakest component in the library building is the shear boundary block wall on the northwestern side of the building (figure 1). Consequently, the building is regarded as earthquake prone (below 33% NBS).

4.15 Although the building is regarded as earthquake prone it only relates to one component – the shear wall in the front corner. The structural engineer has confirmed that this is the only component that is likely to collapse in an earthquake. Although the rest of the building may be damaged to varying degrees, it has inherent strength not to collapse in an earthquake.

4.16 The structural engineer also confirmed that some additional roof and/or ceiling bracing is needed in a some of the bays to lift the strength of the building to above 67% NBS.

4.17 To mitigate immediate risk, it is intended to immediately portion off the shear wall with a temporary wall and close the meeting room until the shear wall is strengthened.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 A building in New Zealand with an earthquake rating of less than 34% of the new building standard (NBS) is considered earthquake prone. This means that the building is more likely to sustain damage during a moderate earthquake.

5.2 The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) recommends that buildings with a rating of C, D, or E be retrofitted to achieve a grade of at least B or 67% NBS.

5.3 The library is a well-used facility with many people coming and going on a daily basis. The public expectations are for a resilient structure and in this case the NZSEE recommend a building assessment to be greater than 67% NBS.

5.4 The final DSA report has not been received to date as it is still being peer reviewed. However, the final report is unlikely to change the outcome of the draft report, and this report is anticipating that the works needed will still need to be done.

5.5 Once the final DSA report is received it will need to be forwarded to the Building Control Authority (BCA) and this would result in an earthquake-prone building (EPB) notice being issued.

5.6 The EPB notice will require the Council to mitigate this risk 12 years from the date of issue. However, given the risk to staff and the public it is recommended that the proposed works be committed and undertaken as so as possible.

5.7 The wall cladding on the Petrie Carpark side of the building also leak and it is proposed that the cladding be replaced, and the windows reset to restore water tightness. Various repairs to the window surrounds and flashings have been implemented without success.

5.8 It is proposed strengthening, roof repairs and cladding replacements are carried out at the same time to minimise disruption and cost.

5.9 The strengthening and repairs are likely to take up to 4 months to complete. It is proposed that the library remain functional during this period and that the works be undertaken in sections of the building and that they be cordoned off as appropriate. There will be ongoing coordination between the contractor and library staff to ensure interruptions and disruptions are kept to a minimum whilst the work is undertaken.

Repair Costs

5.10 The estimated cost for the strengthening, watertightness and roofing repairs are around $1,300,000. This would result in the building reaching at least 67% NBS.

5.11 The Richmond Library is a community facility, and the works proposed will extend the life of the building. It is therefore proposed that the $1,300,000 be funded from Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs).

5.12 The balance of the Richmond RFCs (as at October 2024) is $12,500,000.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 Currently, there are no suitable alternative premises within Richmond with a usable area available (>2000m²) to relocate the library. Alternatively, smaller venues could be leased with much of the library contents going into storage. This option is not considered viable as it would involve additional cost with the associated reputational and operational disruptions.

6.2 Staff believe that Council and the wider community would want the Richmond Library to remain as functional as possible whilst the strengthening and repair work is undertaken.

6.3 There are three options for council to consider. These are outlined in the following table are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Keep Library functioning whilst completing the strengthening and repairs and attain at least 67% NBS.	Allows the Library to remain functional and operational with some limitations at times. Meets NZSEE recommendations	Disruptions whilst the library is functioning.
2.	Close the library and complete that strengthening and repairs and attain at least 67% NBS.	No disruption to the work being undertaken and may result in reduced cost (this has not been quantified to date).	No physical access to library services and facilities for up to four months.
3	Undertake the works after hours and allow the library to keep functioning during normal opening hours.	Although there will be areas cordoned off during this period, there will be no work on site being undertaken whilst the public are accessing the library.	This would add potentially an additional $125,000 to the costs of the work.

6.4 Option One is recommended. The Richmond Library’s significance to the community and to the wider public requires the Council to make this library building as safe and resilient as possible. The NZSEE recommend buildings are strengthened to at least 67% NBS.

6.5 The option of doing nothing is not considered as staff believe it is not a viable option. The building is earthquake prone, and Council will be given an ultimatum by the BCA to strengthen within a finite period. However, in the intervening period staff and users of the library would still be exposed to the risks of operating within an earthquake prone building. Staff recommend that this is a risk that council should not consider.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Building owners have legal responsibilities regarding earthquake-prone and earthquake risk buildings, including:

7.1.1 Detailed Structural Assessment - If a building is potentially earthquake prone, the building owner must provide an engineering assessment within 12 months. In this case Council will provide the BCA the finalised DSA report as soon as it is released.

7.1.2 Remedying or demolishing the building - If a building is assessed as earthquake-prone, the owner must remediate it to a standard that makes it no longer earthquake-prone.

7.1.3 Heritage Buildings - Owners of heritage buildings can apply for up to 10 years more time to strengthen their buildings. The library is not a heritage building.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 The proposed work is primarily focused around strengthening and repairing an existing community facility and therefore considered to not require specific engagement with iwi.

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

9.1 The decision in this report is to confirm the strengthening and repairing of the Richmond library is not considered to be a significant decision.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High if the decision is to close the library	The future of the library is considered of high significance by the public, evidenced by surveys and events in Nelson.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The proposed repairs will cause some disruption to library activities whilst the work is underway though this will be kept to a minimum.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Yes	Libraries are identified as a strategic asset in the TRMP.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Minimal impact	The library operation will be affected during the works though this will be kept to a minimum.
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 it is intended to be funded from Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions, this could impact net debt levels.
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 To date, there has been initial briefing with the Library Manager and there will be ongoing communication with library staff during the works.

10.2 The BCA will need to be notified once the final DSA report has been peer-reviewed and released.

10.3 A Communications Plan will be developed to inform staff and the public following the Council decision and during the four months while the works are being undertaken.

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

11.1 It is recommended that the estimated $1,300,000 be funded by Richmond Reserve Financial Contributions (RFCs). This account has a balance of $12,500,000 (October 2024).

11.2 The nature of the expenditure is capital expenditure. This expenditure will extend the life of the building. The use of RFCs will affect the net debt levels of council.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The DSA report is currently being peer-reviewed by an independent firm of structural engineers and although some minor changes are anticipated – the overall %NBS ratings is not likely to materially change.

12.2 The NZSEE guidelines indicate the following risk to building owners:

% NBS	Alpha Rating	Approximate risk compared to a new building	Life-safety risk description
80 to 100	A	1-2 times greater	Low Risk
67 to 79	B	2-5 times greater	Low to Medium risk
34 to 66	C	5-10 times greater	Medium risk
20 to <34	D	10-25 times greater	High risk
<20	E	25 times greater	Very high risk

Figure 2 NZSEE Building grading

12.3 The seismic risk of the shear wall can be contained by partitioning it off and mitigating the immediate risk.

12.4 Whilst an extensive and invasive survey has been carried, unforeseen repairs could be uncovered whilst implementing the works. The estimate includes scope risk of 15% which should be sufficient. However, until the building works commence, and old cladding removed staff cannot confirm that the 15% is sufficient.

12.5 The building consent process could take 6-8 weeks. Non-structural works could be started during this period.

12.6 As previously outlined, the works will disrupt the operation of the library. The shear wall can be repaired without affecting the operation of the library by partitioning off the meeting room. There is some risk of disrupting the Café operation however staff believe this can be managed.

12.7 At least half of the meeting room will be closed off by a partition wall separating the shear wall. It is likely the library office will need to be shifted to the Council offices while ceiling joists are strengthened. Cladding repairs can take place without disrupting operations. The Café can continue operating except for a short period if works are staged.

12.8 Careful planning, comprehensive safety management and a clear communication strategy with staff and customers is being undertaken that would mitigate any misunderstanding and risk.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Richmond Library is not within the 2-metre sea level rise inundation zone.

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

14.1 The Council’s infrastructure strategy prioritises the following:

a) Providing services that meet the needs of our changing population.

b) Planning, developing and maintaining resilient communities.

c) Providing safe and secure infrastructure.

d) Prudent management of existing assets and environment.

14.2 Strengthening and repairing the Richmond library aligns with the above priorities c and d.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 That the Council approves the staged repairs of cladding and roof in conjunction with seismic strengthening to at least 67% NBS.

15.2 The estimated cost of $1,300,000 to undertake the strengthening and repair works is recommended to be funded from Richmond RFC’s.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Immediate partition of high-risk area isolating the shear wall (meeting room).

16.2 Procure a developed design.

16.3 Apply for a building consent.

16.4 Engage Scott Construction to finalise pricing schedule and undertake a due diligence exercise to ensure value for money is being achieved.

16.5 Develop a staged strengthening and repair plan in consultation with library staff.

16.6 Currently it is estimated that the works will take around four months to complete. Staging of these works could result in a longer duration particularly if we prioritise and minimise the disruptions to Library operations/functionality.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

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.⇩	Saxton Field Activity Management Plan 2024-2034	152
2.⇩	Saxton Development Plan	205