Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the Mayoral Relief Fund Policy.	Enables the two councils to open and manage a Mayoral Relief Fund following an emergency event.	None
2.	Not approve the Mayoral Relief Fund Policy.	Nil.	Does not provide guidance for the establishment and operation of a Mayoral Relief Fund following an emergency event.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Yes	These grants will go some way towards helping to alleviate the emotional and financial stress experienced by individuals, families, and businesses, due to an emergency event.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the delivery 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

Tasman District Council Agenda – 14 August 2025

7.2 Adoption of the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	14 August 2025
Report Author:	Anna Gerraty, Senior Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy; Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN25-08-2

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1 consider the recommendations of the Hearing Panel appointed to hear submissions on the Draft Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan (RMP) and the Draft RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley (see Attachment 1); and

1.1.2 adopt the amended Plan (see Attachment 2) as the final Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan; and

1.1.3 adopt the amended RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley (see Attachment 3) for inclusion in the Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP (2022).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Both the draft Lakes-Murchison Ward RMP (Draft Plan) and draft RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve (draft RMP section) were publicly notified on 11 April 2025 and open for submissions for two months. We received 107 submissions via the Council’s online submissions database. A further 359 individuals provided feedback on future options for Owen River Recreation Reserve and another 35 individuals provided feedback on the draft RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, via a ‘Fast Feedback’ option we provided on Shape Tasman. The Hearing Panel accepted one late submission at the hearing held on 9 July 2025. A total of nine submitters spoke to the Panel in support of their submission.

2.2 In general, the submissions received focused on the key consultation questions proposed in the Draft Plan and draft RMP section. Other submission points related to climate change, biodiversity, Māori cultural values, iwi engagement, dark skies, horse riding, and other general comments.

2.3 Staff have amended the text of both draft documents as per the Hearing Panel’s recommendations.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Adoption of the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley report, RCN25-08-2; and

2. agrees to amend the wording of the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan, as per the Hearing Panel recommendations included as Attachment 1 to the agenda report, noting that all amendments have been incorporated into the version included as Attachment 2 to this report; and

3. agrees to amend the wording of the Reserve Management Plan section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, as per the Hearing Panel recommendations included as Attachment 1 to the agenda report, noting that all amendments have been incorporated into the version included as Attachment 3 to this report; and

4. adopts the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan dated August 2025 as contained in Attachment 2 to the agenda report, in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 and delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation (dated 12 June 2013); and

5. adopts the Reserve Management Plan section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley as contained in Attachment 3 to the agenda report for inclusion in the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (2022), in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 and delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation (dated 12 June 2013); and

6. delegates authority to the Panel Chair, Councillor Ellis, to approve any minor amendments to the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and Reserve Management Plan section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, prior to publication.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Background to the drafting of the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan (the Plan) and RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley (located within the Moutere-Waimea Ward), the development process, and a copy of the Draft Plan and draft RMP section were provided in report RSCP25-04-3 at the 3 April 2025 Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

4.2 At that meeting, the Committee resolved – pursuant to Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 – to adopt both the Draft Plan and draft RMP section for public notification. The Committee appointed Councillors Ellis (Chair), Bryant and Mackenzie to the Hearing Panel to consider submissions on the Draft Plan and draft RMP section. The Committee also agreed that the Mayor could appoint at least one Mātauranga Māori expert panel member to the Hearing Panel. The Mayor subsequently appointed Renée Love (nominated by Te Ātiawa) and Ursula Passl (nominated by Ngāti Rārua) to the Panel.

4.3 On 11 April 2025, the Draft Plan and draft RMP section were publicly notified and the draft documents and consultation information were published on Shape Tasman. An article calling for submissions was included in the 18 April 2025 edition of Newsline. We emailed each of the eight Te Tauihu iwi and Ngāi Tahu and all people who had sent in ideas for inclusion in the Draft Plan and Draft RMP section, along with reserve management committees and other stakeholder groups in the Ward, to let them know that it was open for submissions. Submissions on the Draft Plan and draft RMP section closed on 16 June 2025.

4.4 We received 107 submissions via the Council’s online submissions database. A further 359 individuals provided feedback on future options for Owen River Recreation Reserve and another 35 individuals provided feedback on the draft RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, via a ‘Fast Feedback’ option we provided on Shape Tasman. One further late submission was accepted by the Hearing Panel on 9 July 2025.

4.5 Nine submitters spoke in support of their submissions at the hearing on 9 July 2025. All but one of the 10 submitters who originally indicated that they wished to be heard spoke at the hearing.

4.6 Report RSH25-07-3 provided the Hearing Panel with:

· a list of all submitters;

· submissions from those who requested to speak at the Hearing on 9 July;

· all submissions sorted by theme;

· detailed submissions; and

· the late submission from Katherine Dewar, received at 8.00 pm on 20 June 2025.

4.7 A second report (RSH25-07-4), provided the Hearing Panel with a summary of all submissions and staff comments to assist deliberations. The Hearing Panel considered all the submissions at their deliberations on 9 July 2025 and provided staff with directions to amend the Draft Plan and draft RMP section.

4.8 Due to the large number of submissions received, submission points were grouped into similar themes/topics to assist the Hearing Panel with their deliberations. These themes included:

a) the six key questions proposed by the Draft Plan and two key questions proposed by the draft RMP section (these key questions were published on Shape Tasman and in hard copy at the time both draft documents were publicly notified);

b) suggestions relating to other individual parks and reserves; and

c) various other comments.

4.9 A summary of the number of submitters supporting, opposing or neutral on each theme (where relevant), along with the total number of submissions received on each theme, is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

4.10 Table 1 – Statistical summary of submissions on the draft Lakes-Murchison Ward RMP

Submission theme	Number of submitters
Which option do you support for the future management of Poplars Recreation Reserve and why?	Option 1: Ongoing management by Council.	Option 2: Notify DOC that Council no longer intends to manage the reserve.	Total
	24	0	24
Do you support or oppose the proposal to build the new Tapawera Community Hub at Tapawera Memorial Park and why?	Support	Oppose	Neither	Total
	61	24	1	86
Which location at Tapawera Memorial Park would you prefer the new Tapawera Community Hub be constructed on and why?	Option 1: near the shearing stand.	Option 2: on ex-Railway land between Matai Crescent and the existing rugby clubrooms	Option 3: on ex-Railway land north of Matai Crescent.	None of these	Total
	11	32	19	13	75
Do you support or oppose the proposal for not-for-profit groups/ organisations (e.g. an Op Shop) to operate from the new Tapawera Community Hub and why?	Support	Oppose	Neither		Total
	50	18	4		72
Which one of the three potential future management options for Owen River Recreation Reserve do you support and why?	Option 1: Council works to increase the profile and use of the campground (e.g. by engaging a manager to oversee the campground and installing signage at the highway entrance). All services currently provided would remain under this scenario.	Option 2: Council manages the reserve as a campsite for self-contained campers only with no services provided (similar to the current situation at Wai-iti Recreation Reserve). The ablution block would be removed under this scenario, and toilets, showers and potable water would no longer be provided.	Option 3: Council requests reversal of the vesting and that DOC take over management responsibility for this Crown-owned reserve. Camping will most likely no longer be permitted under this scenario, but vehicle access between the highway and river would remain in place.		Total
Submissions database	16	4	0		20
Shape Tasman quick poll	298 (80%)	64 (17%)	10 (3%)		372 (359 individuals)
Total	314	68	10		392 (379 individuals)
Do you support or oppose the Council’s proposal to apply to DOC for removal of the vesting in trust over the four parcels of land that form Lower Maruia Recreation Reserve, so that management and control of the reserve reverts to the Crown and why?	Support	Oppose	Neither		Total
	6	4	1		11
Do you support or oppose the Council’s proposal to apply to DOC for removal of the vesting in trust over the four parcels of land that form Matakitaki Recreation Reserve, so that management and control of the reserve reverts to the Crown and why?	Support	Oppose	Neither		Total
	6	3	1		10
Do you support or oppose the proposal to sell the land and building known as Hampden Street Reserve, located at 5 Hampden Street in Murchison and why?	Support	Oppose	Neither		Total
	4	8	0		12
Any other comments on Lakes-Murchison reserves?	Four submitters made comments relating to other reserves.

4.11 Table 2 – Statistical summary of submissions on the draft RMP section for Baigents Bush

Submission theme	Number of submitters
Do you support or oppose the ‘future management options’ concept plan for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve and why?	Support in full	Support in part	Oppose	Neither	Total
Submissions database	7	-	5	2	14
Shape Tasman quick poll	22	8	5	-	35
Total	29	8	10	2	49
Do you support or oppose the proposed management policies for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve and why?	Support in full	Support in part	Oppose	Neither	Total
Submissions database	2	12	1	1	16
Shape Tasman quick poll	18	6	5	-	29
Total	20	18	6	1	45
Any other comments on Baigents Bush?	A total of 35 submitters made additional comments: 5 via the submissions database and 30 via Shape Tasman.

4.12 During deliberations, the Hearing Panel made detailed recommendations for amending both draft documents (see the minutes of the hearing and deliberations meeting held on 9 July 2025).

4.13 Staff have amended both the Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and RMP section for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, as per these Hearing Panel directions and recommendations.

4.14 The Hearing Panel has reviewed the amended text of both documents and recommends that the Council considers and adopts:

· the amended Plan as the final Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan; and

· the amended RMP section as the final section for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, for inclusion within the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan (2022).

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 A copy of the amended Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan is included as Attachment 2 to this report. A copy of the amended RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, is included as Attachment 3 to this report. Tracked-change versions of both amended documents are available on request.

5.2 The significant amendments that the Hearing Panel recommended be incorporated into the final Lakes-Murchison Ward RMP are summarised below:

5.2.1 RMP section 5.2.1 ‘Poplars Recreation Reserve’ has been amended to reflect the unanimous preference of submitters for continued management of this reserve by the Council.

5.2.2 RMP section 5.3.5 ‘Tapawera Memorial Park Recreation Reserve’ has been amended to provide for the proposed Tapawera Community Hub to be constructed on the ex-Railway land parcel north of Matai Crescent, but to rule out sites within the grounds of Tapawera Memorial Park (i.e. all land south of Matai Crescent) as locations for the new hub. The RMP has also been amended to provide for not-for-profit groups/organisations (e.g. an Op Shop) to operate from the new hub, based on the majority support for this proposal.

5.2.3 RMP section 5.12 ‘Owen River Recreation Reserve’ has been amended to provide for continued management of the campground and ongoing maintenance of its basic facilities, enhanced promotion of the campground, formalisation of the management arrangements, and environmental and access improvements.

5.2.4 RMP section 5.17 ‘Lower Maruia Recreation Reserve’ and section 5.18 ‘Matakitaki Recreation Reserve’ have both been amended to align with the proposal preferred by the majority of submitters, i.e. to divest both reserves back to the Crown.

5.2.5 RMP section 5.15.1 ‘Hampden Street Reserve’ has been amended to direct the Council to initiate the process to dispose of the land and building at 5 Hampden Street, Murchison, and to allow for use of the building as a community gym via a new lease or licence, until such time as the land sells or the building is no longer needed for a gym.

5.2.6 RMP section 5.13.3 ‘Riverview Scenic Reserve’ has been amended to update the description under the ‘Values’ subsection and provide for control of Muehlenbeckia australis at forest margins and during forest restoration.

5.3 The significant amendments that the Hearing Panel recommended be incorporated into the final RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve are summarised below:

5.3.1 The final layout plan and policies have been amended to:

· restrict cycling to the outskirts of the bush remnant; and

· encourage dog exercise on the open grassed area between the car park and Wai-iti River but discourage dogs within the remaining areas of the reserve.

5.3.2 Other amendments to policies include:

· guidance for consideration when the Dog Control Bylaw 2024 is reviewed;

· expansion of the policy on pest plant and animal control to include priorities and monitoring measures;

· limiting tracks within the forest remnant part of the reserve to walking-only and additional guidance on their design specifications;

· provision for additional seating, including memorial seats;

· including the need for an archaeological assessment of the water race route;

· updates and expansion to the policy on reserve signage; and

· expansion of the policy on working with iwi to include discussion on original names for this landscape and potential dual naming or inclusion on signage.

Further amendments to RMP section for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve

5.4 The original recommendations from the Hearing Panel included a direction to Council staff to include a reference to the updated layout plan within the ‘Issues and Options’ subsection for Baigents Bush, but did not provide direction on expanding the discussion text to provide background context on submissions received and how policies had been amended in response. Hearing Panel members considered this matter via email following the deliberations.

5.5 The Panel members recommended that the following contextual information be included near the end of the ‘Issues and Options’ subsection of the RMP section for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve:

“During public consultation, most submitters supported the draft concept plan (86%) and proposed management policies (83%) for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, either in full or in part. Two areas of community concern were access for cyclists and dogs within the bush remnant.

After considering all feedback, the Hearing Panel recommended amending the layout plan to confine shared walking and cycling paths to the perimeter of the reserve and ensure that internal tracks within the bush remnant are for walking only.

The Panel also recommended that, during the next review of the 2024 Dog Control Bylaw, Council consult on a proposal to reduce the extent of the Controlled Exercise Area to the open grassed area between the car park and Wai-iti River (see hatched overlay in the layout plan) and to designate the remainder of the reserve, including the bush remnant, as a Prohibited Area for dogs.

The Panel recommended that signage be installed in the interim to encourage dog exercise in the designated open grassed area. However, these signs would be guidance only and not legally enforceable unless changes are made to the Council’s Dog Control Bylaw.”

5.6 Staff have updated the amended RMP section included in Attachment 3 to include this additional contextual information.

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

6.1 The Council has provided the budget for preparation of both RMP documents in its Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

6.2 The costs associated with development of the Plan have been absorbed within the Service and Strategy Group.

6.3 There will be costs associated with implementing some of the recommended changes in the RMPs. Provision for some of these will come from existing reserve budgets, while others will need to be considered during future Council annual and long term planning processes.

6.4 By adopting the Plan and RMP section, the Council is not committing to funding all projects identified, or to fund them by a particular date. Some of the projects may involve contributions from volunteers (particularly in terms of time and labour), thereby reducing the financial costs associated with plan implementation. Where funding is required, allocation of funds will be subject to the Council’s annual and long term planning processes – i.e. will be balanced alongside all projects planned within the District each year.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 At the 9 July 2025 hearing and deliberations meeting, the Hearing Panel considered all submissions and feedback received on both draft documents. The Panel also formed recommendations on how both drafts should be amended in response to submission points that they accepted in full or in part. The Hearing Panel recommendations are summarised in section 5 of this report and further details are included within the minutes of the deliberations meeting.

7.2 The Hearing Panel recommendations of 9 July 2025 have been given effect to in the wording of the amended Plan (see Attachment 2) and amended RMP section (see Attachment 3). The Council is being asked to consider both amended documents and then adopt these as the final Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and final RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley (the latter is to be included in the Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP 2022).

7.3 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Agree to all the changes recommended by the Hearing Panel and adopt the amended Plan (see Attachment 2) as the final Plan and the amended RMP section (see Attachment 3) as the final RMP section.	This option shows that submitter views have been considered by the Hearing Panel and, where appropriate, amendments have been made to the Plan and RMP section.	Not every submission point has been accepted. Some submitters may therefore be disappointed that their suggestions were not given effect in the amended Plan/RMP section. However, this is part of the public submission process, and not all suggestions will be appropriate or can be adopted.
2.	Agree to some of the changes recommended by the Hearing Panel, reject other changes and/or make further amendments to the Plan/RMP section text before finalising and adopting the Plan/RMP section.	Option 2 has similar advantages to Option 1. An additional advantage is that it would enable the Council to make amendments to the Plan/RMP section before it is finalised if not all the Hearing Panel’s recommendations are accepted.	Option 2 has similar disadvantages to Option 1. Additionally, not all elected members were present to hear submitter views and were not part of the deliberations.
3	Adopt the Draft Plan and/or draft RMP section as the final Plan/RMP section without amendment, other than the amendments necessary to change the Plan/RMP section from a “draft” to a “final” Plan/RMP section.	Limited/no advantages.	The Council will be open to criticism for not listening to the community’s views through the public consultation process.

7.4 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Council has followed the correct procedure for preparing the Plan and RMP section, as required under the Reserves Act 1977. Detailed descriptions of this process, including engagement with iwi and the initial consultation round undertaken during the summer of 2023/2024, were included in previous reports on this matter.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi actively engaged in the Plan review throughout the whole process. Two of the five Hearing Panel members were mātauranga Māori experts nominated by iwi.

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

10.1 The Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley, are both moderately significant for our community as they impact on their use and enjoyment of parks and reserves. The public consultation procedure followed enabled the public to provide us with their views about the appropriateness or otherwise of the Draft Plan and draft RMP section. The amendments proposed are in line with submissions made on the Draft Plan and draft RMP section and are not of high significance. Therefore, the Council can adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Panel without undertaking further consultation.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	The Plan is of medium significance to residents and visitors to the Lakes-Murchison Ward because it sets policy direction for the use and management of approximately 34 parks and reserves. The RMP section is of medium significance to residents of Wakefield and surrounds because it sets policy direction for the use and management of the recently acquired Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve, Pigeon Valley.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Implementation of the Plan and RMP section will enhance future well-being.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	The Plan and RMP section are both likely to be in place for 10 years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The Plan will enhance the levels of service at a number of parks and reserves, however no major changes are proposed. The RMP section will enhance the level of service at Baigents Bush with the addition of new amenities.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The Plan and RMP section outline several development plans for specific parks and reserves. However, budget allocation decisions will be made separately, as part of future annual and long term plan processes. See paragraph 6.4 above.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	One of the reserves included in the draft RMP (the Tapawera-Tadmor Road Walkway) has been classified as a Local Purpose (Walkway and Utility) Reserve as it currently contains the water supply for Tapawera. This infrastructure is proposed to be moved to another site across the road within the next 10 years.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Communication has been covered in previous reports. Consultation on the draft documents was advertised and promoted on the Council’s website, social media channels, Shape Tasman and Newsline. Iwi, stakeholders and those who had previously submitted ideas for the draft Plans were directly notified via email when the draft documents were publicly notified.

11.2 Once the final documents are adopted, staff will publish these on the Council’s website, update the Shape Tasman project page and write to all submitters to advise them of the outcome.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Risks associated with the matters contained in the Plan and RMP section have been addressed in previous reports.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Plan includes objectives and policies that align with the Tasman Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

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

14.1 In 2013, the Minister of Conservation delegated a number of responsibilities under the Reserves Act 1977 to local authorities, including the ability to adopt reserve management plans under section 41 of that Act.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Council has undertaken an extensive public consultation process, initially seeking ideas for inclusion in both draft documents during the summer of 2023/2024. The Hearing Panel has then heard and deliberated on written and oral submissions on the drafts that were publicly notified on 11 April 2025.

15.2 The Hearing Panel recommends that the Council adopt both the amended Plan (Attachment 2) and amended RMP section (Attachment 3), incorporating numerous amendments made in response to matters raised by submitters.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The final Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan and final RMP section for Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve will both come into effect following adoption by the Council.

16.2 Staff will publish the final documents on the Council’s website and make hard copies available in our offices and libraries.

16.3 Staff will also respond to all submitters in writing, advising them of the Council’s decisions on the matters they raised.

16.4 Staff will work with iwi, community groups and others to implement the objectives and policies outlined in the final plans. The Council will consider budget requirements for specific projects via annual plan and long term plan processes.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Hearing Panel Recommendations	24
2.⇩	Lakes-Murchison Ward Reserve Management Plan (August 2025)	31
3.⇩	RMP section on Baigents Bush Scenic Reserve (August 2025)	167

Tasman District Council Agenda – 14 August 2025

7.3 Adoption of the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	14 August 2025
Report Author:	Anna Gerraty, Senior Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy; Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RCN25-08-3

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1 consider the recommendations of the Hearing Panel appointed to hear submissions on the Draft Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan (Draft Plan) (see
Attachment 1); and

1.1.2 adopt the amended Plan (see Attachment 2) as the final Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Draft Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan was publicly notified on 12 May 2025 and open for submissions for two months. We received 30 submissions via the Council’s online submissions database and hardcopy submission forms. Hundreds of individuals also provided feedback on several reserves via a ‘Fast Feedback’ option we provided on Shape Tasman. Two submitters spoke to the Panel in support of their submissions at the hearing held on 29 July 2025.

2.2 In general, the submissions received focused on the key consultation questions proposed in the Draft Plan. Other submission points related to resilient design in response to climate change, habitat restoration, shoreline reserves, inclusion of cultural interpretation features, such as pouwhenua, bilingual signage, and partnerships with iwi to reflect local history, requests for greater shade provision, differentiation across nearby playgrounds, to provide unique experiences rather than duplicated play equipment, and other general comments.

2.3 Staff have amended the text of the Draft Plan as per the Hearing Panel’s recommendations.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Adoption of the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan report, RCN25-08-3; and

2. agrees to amend the wording of the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan, as per the Hearing Panel recommendations included as Attachment 1 to the agenda report, noting that all amendments have been incorporated into the version included as Attachment 2 to this report; and

3. adopts the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan dated August 2025 as contained in Attachment 2 to the agenda report, in accordance with Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 and delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation (dated 12 June 2013); and

4. delegates authority to the Panel Chair, Councillor Daikee, to approve any minor amendments to the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan, prior to publication.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Background to the drafting of the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan (the Plan), the development process, and a copy of the Draft Plan were provided in report RSCP25-05-3 at the 9 May 2025 Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

4.2 At that meeting, the Committee resolved – pursuant to Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977 – to adopt the Draft Plan for public notification. The Committee appointed Councillors Daikee (Chair), Maling, Ellis and Greening to the Hearing Panel to consider submissions on the Draft Plan. The Committee also agreed that the Mayor could appoint at least one Mātauranga Māori expert panel member to the Hearing Panel. The Mayor subsequently appointed Renée Love (nominated by Te Ātiawa) and Ursula Passl (nominated by Ngāti Rārua) to the Panel.

4.3 On 12 May 2025, the Draft Plan was publicly notified and the draft document and consultation information was published on Shape Tasman. An article calling for submissions was included in the 16 May 2025 edition of Newsline. We emailed each of the eight Te Tauihu iwi and all people who had sent in ideas for inclusion in the Draft Plan, along with Hope Reserve Management Committee and other stakeholder groups in the Ward, to let them know that it was open for submissions. Submissions on the Draft Plan closed on 16 July 2025.

4.4 We received 30 submissions via the Council’s online submissions database and hardcopy submission forms. Hundreds of individuals also provided feedback on several reserves via a ‘Fast Feedback’ option we provided on Shape Tasman.

4.5 Two submitters spoke in support of their submissions at the hearing on 29 July 2025.

4.6 Report RSH25-07-6 provided the Hearing Panel with:

· a list of all submitters;

· submissions from those who requested to speak at the Hearing on 29 July 2025;

· all submissions sorted by theme; and

· detailed submissions.

4.7 A second report (RSH25-07-5), provided the Hearing Panel with a summary of all submissions and staff comments to assist deliberations. The Hearing Panel considered all the submissions at their deliberations on 29 July 2025 and provided staff with directions to amend the Draft Plan.

4.8 Due to the large number of submissions received, submission points were grouped into similar themes/topics to assist the Hearing Panel with their deliberations. These themes included:

a) the key questions proposed by the Draft Plan (these key questions were published on Shape Tasman and in hard copy at the time the Draft Plan was publicly notified); and

b) various other comments.

4.10 During deliberations, the Hearing Panel made detailed recommendations for amending the Draft Plan (see the minutes of the hearing and deliberations meeting held on 29 July 2025).

4.11 Staff have amended the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan as per these Hearing Panel directions and recommendations.

4.12 The Hearing Panel has reviewed the amended text and recommends that the Council considers and adopts the amended Plan as the final Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 A copy of the amended Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan is included as Attachment 2 to this report. A tracked-change version of the amended Plan is available on request.

5.2 The significant amendments that the Hearing Panel recommended be incorporated into the final Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan (RMP) are summarised below:

5.2.1 Section 5.2.5 ‘Central Park’ has been amended to provide for the development of a third playground in the smaller of the two oval areas, in response to strong submitter support for more diverse and age-appropriate play opportunities.

5.2.2 Section 5.2.6 ‘Rosales Park’ has been amended to include the final concept design and update the description of this within the Values subsection.

5.2.3 Written descriptions of concept plans and policies for Camberley Reserve (section 5.2.10), Lampton Reserve (section 5.2.11), and Chertsey Reserve (section 5.2.12) have been refined to address community feedback, including changes to improve accessibility, respond to concerns about play equipment placement and noise, and maintain the informal or low-impact character of certain reserves. The Hearing Panel recommended, for example, that the proposed half basketball court not be constructed at Lampton Reserve but could be considered at Jubilee Park.

5.2.4 Section 5.2.15 ‘Pukeko Park’ has been amended to initiate a renaming process in partnership with iwi, based on community support for a name that reflects local identity and values. Policies now support collaborative naming and development of interpretive signage.

5.2.5 Amendments to Jubilee Park (section 5.2.17) and Cambridge Street Playground (section 5.2.20) reflect submitter support for additional on-site parking, retention and upgrade of the skatepark, a potential half basketball court, and formal protection of both sites under the Reserves Act 1977. Policies have been amended or added accordingly.

5.2.6 Section 5.2.26 ‘Hope Reserve’ has been substantially revised to address the future use of the Maitai Lodge building and outline a hybrid management model. Amendments reflect a desire to retain local involvement while transitioning to more accessible booking systems, and to explore adaptive reuse and lease of the Lodge or deconstruction of the building if no sustainable use is found.

5.2.7 The Issues & Options and policies subsections for Chelsea Avenue (section 5.2.31) and Harriet Court (section 5.2.32) reserves have been amended to support the installation of a beginner-friendly pump track. A whole-of-reserve planning approach will be used to ensure upgrades are integrated with existing uses, maintain open green space, and minimise impacts on the peaceful character of the reserves. Additional seating, shade, and safety features will also be considered.

5.2.8 Section 5.2.35 ‘Easby Park’ has been amended to consolidate play equipment in the park’s western corner, improve separation of pedestrian and cycling traffic, and allow for installation of a modest pump track in the southern area. Several policies were amended or added to address flood resilience, heritage play features, and coordination with stormwater projects.

5.2.9 Section 5.2.37 ‘Paton Reserve’ has been amended to reflect feedback on the draft concept plan and clarify that future development will occur in a phased manner. The policies for this reserve were extensively rewritten to align with the preferred approach outlined in submissions.

Additional amendments based on feedback received on other aspects of the Draft Plan

5.3 Further refinements have been made to the Plan to strengthen commitments across a range of management themes, and to enhance clarity, practicality, and alignment with iwi, community, and stakeholder expectations. These additional edits address:

5.3.1 Part 1, Key Outcomes Sought: Expanded the ‘Environmental Outcomes’ subsection by adding this paragraph: “Biodiversity protection and ecological connectivity are paramount across Richmond Ward reserves of all sizes. Each reserve contributes uniquely to the network of habitats providing for native species and ecosystem functions. Management reflects an unequivocal commitment to safeguarding and restoring ecological values everywhere reserve land exists.”

5.3.2 Part 1, Legislative Context: Added a new section 1.4 ‘National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB)’ to note that the Plan will give effect to the NPS-IB.

5.3.3 Part 3, Te Ao Māori Worldview (Section 1.1): Included an additional policy: “Encourage use of mātauranga Māori frameworks and narratives in educational materials for reserves to foster a deeper public understanding of place and whakapapa connections.”

5.3.4 Part 3, Overview of the Ecology (Section 1.2): An additional objective was added to prioritise the protection, enhancement, and restoration of indigenous biodiversity and ecological connectivity throughout the Richmond Ward reserves network, including smaller and less prominent reserves. Five supporting policies were introduced to recognise all reserves as important for biodiversity, promote comprehensive protection and restoration efforts, enhance habitat connectivity, prevent activities that fragment or degrade ecological values, and foster collaborative ecological monitoring with iwi and community groups.

5.3.5 Part 3, Naming of Parks and Reserves (Section 2.3): Expanded the Issues & Opportunities section to add: “Council acknowledges that the naming and interpretation of parks and reserves is a continuing, evolving process that must be sensitive to tikanga Māori and respond to iwi aspirations.”

5.3.6 Part 3, Visitor Use & Management (Section 3.1): Expanded the Issues & Opportunities section by:

i. Adding a subsection on ‘Dog exercise and recreation areas’ to more comprehensively recognise dog walking as a valued recreational activity, while clearly integrating references to the Council’s Dog Control Bylaw. The revised text emphasises the provision of designated off-leash areas away from ecologically sensitive zones alongside the importance of clear signage and ongoing public education to encourage responsible dog ownership.

ii. Expanding the subsection on ‘Amenities, accessibility and accommodating a growing and aging population’ to emphasise the incremental enhancement of accessible and age-friendly amenities—including toilets, shelters, picnic areas, rubbish facilities, and wayfinding signage—across not only major parks but also well-used neighbourhood reserves and urban greenways. Wayfinding improvements include bilingual signage (English and te reo Māori), universally accessible fonts and symbols, and interpretive materials promoting ecological and cultural values.

5.3.7 Visitor Use & Management (Section 3.1): Nine new policies have been added. The new policy text gives effect to 5.2.11.1 (ii) and encourages investment in placemaking and programmed community activities in underused smaller parks to strengthen local identity, reduce anti-social behaviour, and increase community pride. The potential for edible landscapes and inclusive, universally accessible design features that align with ecological and cultural goals is actively promoted.

5.3.8 Community Engagement (Section 3.3.): This new section has been added under “3.0 Recreational Use of Parks and Reserves” to expressly promote and support active community stewardship across the Richmond Ward reserve network. This includes encouragement of “friends of” groups, school partnerships, and volunteer restoration and maintenance events—especially focused on smaller and less-developed reserves. Policies now suggest consideration of volunteer training, materials, and ongoing support, supporting sustainable community involvement in reserve care.

5.3.9 Coastal Reserves (Section 5.1): A new objective has been added to explicitly prioritise protection and enhancement of the ecological integrity of reserves adjoining the Waimea/Waimeha Inlet and other estuarine/saltmarsh margins, with an emphasis on native biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Four new policies (9–12) have been introduced to establish and maintain eco-sourced buffer planting along these sensitive margins, prioritise habitat protection including restoration of degraded areas, and implement pathway and fencing controls to minimise disturbance to vulnerable wildlife, especially during critical seasonal periods. Additionally, targeted education and interpretation initiatives have been added to raise public awareness about the ecological values and promote responsible visitor behaviour. Policy 6 has been rewritten to strengthen adaptive dog control measures through the Council’s five-yearly Dog Control Bylaw review process, ensuring consideration of dog prohibitions or restrictions on all coastal reserves adjoining the Inlet. This revision specifically ties access control to ecological monitoring, seasonal wildlife needs, and stakeholder feedback, while committing to clear public communication to support the protection of vulnerable species and community compliance.

5.3.10 Overview and Policies for Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserves and Local Purpose (Esplanade & Utility) Reserves in Richmond Ward (Section 5.3.1): Policy 4 has been expanded to require utilisation of eco-sourced native species for revegetation and restoration plantings, and a new policy has been added recommending use of nature-based solutions for stormwater management, such as constructed wetlands, riparian buffers and biofiltration, where practical.

5.4 These additional edits reinforce the RMP’s holistic approach to ecological protection, cultural partnership, active and inclusive recreation, and community partnerships, reflecting both the Hearing Panel’s recommendations and detailed stakeholder advice received during the final stages of plan development.

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

6.1 The Council has provided the budget for preparation of the Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan in its Long Term Plan 2024-2034.

6.2 The costs associated with development of the Plan have been absorbed within the Service and Strategy Group.

6.3 There will be costs associated with implementing some of the recommended changes in the final Plan. Provision for some of these will come from existing reserve budgets, while others will need to be considered during future Council annual and long term planning processes.

6.4 By adopting the Plan, the Council is not committing to funding all projects identified, or to fund them by a particular date. Some of the projects may involve contributions from volunteers (particularly in terms of time and labour), thereby reducing the financial costs associated with plan implementation. Where funding is required, allocation of funds will be subject to the Council’s annual and long term planning processes – i.e. will be balanced alongside all projects planned within the District each year.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 At the 29 July 2025 hearing and deliberations meeting, the Hearing Panel considered all submissions and feedback received on the Draft Plan. The Panel also formed recommendations on how the document should be amended in response to submission points that they accepted in full or in part. The Hearing Panel recommendations are summarised in section 5 of this report and further details are included within the minutes of the deliberations meeting.

7.2 The Hearing Panel recommendations of 29 July 2025 have been given effect to in the wording of the amended Plan (see Attachment 2). The Council is being asked to consider the amended document and then adopt this as the final Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan.

7.3 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Agree to all the changes recommended by the Hearing Panel and adopt the amended Plan (see Attachment 2) as the final Plan.	This option shows that submitter views have been considered by the Hearing Panel and, where appropriate, amendments have been made to the Plan.	Not every submission point has been accepted. Some submitters may therefore be disappointed that their suggestions were not given effect to in the amended Plan. However, this is part of the public submission process, and not all suggestions will be appropriate or can be adopted.
2.	Agree to some of the changes recommended by the Hearing Panel, reject other changes and/or make further amendments to the Plan text before finalising and adopting the Plan.	Option 2 has similar advantages to Option 1. An additional advantage is that it would enable the Council to make amendments to the Plan before it is finalised if not all the Hearing Panel’s recommendations are accepted.	Option 2 has similar disadvantages to Option 1. Additionally, not all elected members were present to hear submitter views and were not part of the deliberations.
3.	Adopt the Draft Plan as the final Plan without amendment, other than the amendments necessary to change the Plan from a “draft” to a “final” Plan.	Limited/no advantages.	The Council will be open to criticism for not listening to the community’s views through the public consultation process.

7.4 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Council has followed the correct procedure for preparing the Plan, as required under the Reserves Act 1977. Detailed descriptions of this process, including engagement with iwi and the initial consultation round undertaken during the summer of 2023/2024, were included in previous reports on this matter.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi actively engaged in the Plan review throughout the whole process. Two of the five Hearing Panel members were mātauranga Māori experts nominated by iwi.

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

10.1 The Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan is moderately significant for our community as it impacts on their use and enjoyment of parks and reserves. The public consultation procedure enabled the public to provide us with their views about the appropriateness or otherwise of the Draft Plan. The amendments proposed are in line with submissions made on the Draft Plan and are not of high significance. Therefore, the Council can adopt the recommendations of the Hearing Panel without undertaking further consultation.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	The Plan is of medium significance to residents and visitors to the Richmond Ward because it sets policy direction for the use and management of approximately 133 parks and reserves.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Implementation of the Plan will enhance future well-being.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	The Plan is likely to be in place for 10 years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	N/A
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The Plan will enhance the levels of service at a number of parks and reserves, however no major changes are proposed.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	The Plan outlines several development plans for specific parks and reserves. However, budget allocation decisions will be made separately, as part of future annual and long term plan processes. See paragraph 6.4 above.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/A
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/A
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/A
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	Sections 5.3 to 5.6 of the draft RMP provide management guidance for Local Purpose Reserves of various types, including many that have a stormwater management function. The management guidance provided includes reference to TMOTW principles.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Communication has been covered in previous reports. Consultation on the Draft Plan was advertised and promoted on the Council’s website, social media channels, Shape Tasman and Newsline. Iwi, stakeholders and those who had previously submitted ideas for the Draft Plan were directly notified via email when the document was publicly notified.

11.2 Once the final document is adopted, staff will publish the Plan on the Council’s website, update the Shape Tasman project page and write to all submitters to advise them of the outcome.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Risks associated with the matters contained in the Plan have been addressed in previous reports.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Plan includes objectives and policies that align with the Tasman Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.

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

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Council has undertaken an extensive public consultation process, initially seeking ideas for inclusion in the draft document during the summer of 2023/2024. The Hearing Panel has then heard and deliberated on written and oral submissions on the drafts that were publicly notified on 12 May 2025.

15.2 The Hearing Panel recommends that the Council adopt the amended Plan (Attachment 2), incorporating numerous amendments made in response to matters raised by submitters.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The final Richmond Ward Reserve Management Plan will come into effect following adoption by the Council.

16.2 Staff will publish the final Plan on the Council’s website and make hard copies available in our offices and libraries.

16.3 Staff will also respond to all submitters in writing, advising them of the Council’s decisions on the matters they raised.

16.4 Staff will work with iwi, community groups and others to implement the objectives and policies outlined in the final Plan. The Council will consider budget requirements for specific projects via annual plan and long term plan processes.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Hearing Panel recommendations for Richmond Ward RMP	181
2.⇩	Richmond Ward RMP (August 2025)	199
3.⇩	Statistical summary of submissions received on the draft Richmond Ward RMP	441

Tasman District Council Agenda – 14 August 2025

7.4 Phase Two - Speed Management Decision

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	14 August 2025
Report Author:	Jane Murray, Transportation Planning Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-08-4

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

1.1 To seek the Council’s approval of specific speed limit reductions.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Between 9 June and 21 July 2025, the Council consulted on speed limit reductions on the following five types of roads:

· Narrow or winding tortuous unsealed roads reduced to 60km/h

· Rural residential roads and peri-urban streets reduced to 50-60km/h

· Urban roads which do not have footpaths reduced to 40km/h

· Specific roads

2.2 We received a total of 236 submissions during this consultation phase. We had five ward-based surveys and received between 30-73 submissions in each ward.

2.3 The submission results were collated with the submissions we received through the 2023/2024 submission phase. There was division amongst the general feedback between the degree of support/opposition we received. We received conditional organisational support from Transporting NZ and the Automobile Association. The report shows a breakdown of the types of support and opposition that we have received.

2.4 Following consultation, staff recommend:

· Advisory signs are used rather than speed reductions (with some exceptions) for the proposals relating to Narrow and Unsealed Roads and Urban Roads without footpaths.

· Speed limit changes as proposed are made for rural residential roads (except for Umukuri and Anderson Roads) and specific roads, as staff consider that the safety benefits of reducing speed outweigh arguments regarding travel times and efficiency.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Phase Two - Speed Management Decision report, RCN25-08-4; and

2. receives and accepts submissions on the speed limit changes; and

3. approves the reduction of speed limits in Attachment 1 to the agenda report: Phase Two Reductions:

3.1 Golden Bay Rural Residential Roads

3.2 Golden Bay Specific Roads

3.3 Lakes Murchison Rural Residential Roads

3.4 Lakes Murchison Specific Roads

3.5 Motueka Rural Residentials Roads

3.6 Motueka Specific Roads

3.7 Moutere Waimea Rural Residential Roads

3.8 Moutere Waimea Specific Roads

3.9 Richmond Rural Residential Roads

3.10 Richmond Specific Roads; and

4. agrees that the speed limit for all other roads consulted on through Phase Two Reductions do not change, and that advisory signs are used instead; and

5. notes that the speed limit signs on Waimea West Road will be moved to the eastern end of the bridge to align with the National Speed Limit Register and Council resolution in 2016.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Regional Land Transport Plan has a regional objective that “Communities have access to a safe transport system regardless of mode”. The indicators for this objective are:

(a) the number of deaths and serious injuries; and

(b) deaths and serious injury as a proportion of all crashes.

4.2 Tasman is currently not meeting the performance target for this indicator. The figure below shows the deaths and serious injuries (DSIs) on local roads in the Tasman District over the past 12 years.

A graph of a number of roads

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

4.3 Speed management is one tool the Council has to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our network.

4.4 Extensive consultation on speed limits was carried out in Nelson-Tasman from 29 November 2023 to 29 February 2024, with 23 engagement sessions and 2,247 submissions. Feedback informed both Phase One and Phase Two consultations.

4.5 The draft Setting of Speed Limits rule was introduced on 13 June 2024. The Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan (SMP) was approved by the Joint Committee of Nelson City and Tasman District Councils on 23 July 2024.

4.6 The final Setting of Speed Limits Rule came into force on 30 October 2024. Changes in the final Rule meant many previously approved speed limits could not be implemented without further consultation, including cost–benefit disclosure statements.

4.7 Due to these requirements, consultation was split into two phases. Phase One (27 January – 2 March 2025) focused on McShane Road, rural roads near schools, and high-risk rural roads. The Council approved these changes on 27 March 2025, and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) certified them on 30 May 2025. The storm events of June-July 2025 meant that implementation was delayed by two weeks and will occur between 28 July to 11 August 2025.

4.8 Phase Two consultation took place between 9 June and 21 July 2025.

4.9 The Phase Two proposed changes focus on five types of roads staff propose to change the speed limit for:

· Narrow or winding tortuous unsealed roads (reduced to 60km/h)

· Rural residential roads and peri-urban streets (reduced to 50-60km/h)

· Urban roads which do not have footpaths (reduced to 40km/h)

· Specific roads (identified by feedback or risk)

4.10 These changes are all consistent with the approved Speed Management Plan.

4.11 Shape Tasman, Newsline and Facebook were used to promote the consultation and targeted emails to key stakeholders such as the Automobile Association.

4.12 The consultation document and the Ward specific books (Attachment 7-12) shows maps of all areas.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Since the last speed limit review in 2019, the Council has received numerous requests for reductions. Legislative changes have delayed implementation of speed limit changes. Attachment 1: Schedule 1: Phase Two Reductions lists the roads where changes are proposed. Each road has been individually assessed based on the surrounding environment and considering safety concerns and community feedback. For example, Tata Beach Esplanade is currently 100km/h but is an urban area with a high number of recreational visitors and no footpath, making a lower limit appropriate.

Overall feedback on our consultation:

5.2 We split the consultation by ward, tailoring questions for each of the five areas. Submissions were received through Shape Tasman.

	# of overall respondents	Respondents who live in this specific ward
Golden Bay	30	77% n= 23
Lakes Murchison	73	79% n= 56
Motueka	42	74% n=31
Moutere Waimea	48	71% n=34
Richmond	40	85% n=34

5.3 Some groups or individuals may not have submitted in this round as they had already provided views in earlier consultations.

5.4 Key themes from the submission commentary:

The general themes from the submissions have echoed the key themes from our two previous speed consultations.

Support speed limit reductions: Topics
General support	Non-specific comments about safety, road conditions, and mixed users (e.g. cyclists, elderly, tourists).
Support for specific sites	Requests for lower speeds at named locations.
Reductions improve safety	Belief that lower speeds reduce crash severity
Safer for vulnerable users	Concerns about cyclists, children, walkers, pets, horses.
Mismatch between road environment and current speed limit	Comments relating to increased development and tourism require lower speeds. Also, respondents thought that there was inappropriate vehicle speeds in built-up or unsealed areas.
Against speed changes
General opposition	Belief that reductions are unnecessary, costly, ineffective, or poorly enforced.
Driver education preferred	Calls for more training and better driver behaviour instead of changing speed limits.
Costs	Calls to spend money elsewhere: on road surface quality
Road conditions dictate speed	Many submitters said people should just adjust their speed based on factors like weather, road conditions, visibility.
Other road infrastructure	Engineering fixes (e.g., realigning corners, more passing bays)
Reductions cause frustration	Concerns about driver fatigue, risky overtaking, and non-compliance.
Other
Signage	Many submitters argue that advisory speed signs, warning signs, or corner-specific signage are more effective than blanket speed limit changes with Drunks Hill (Korere-Tophouse Road) being frequently mentioned. Golden Bay and Motueka respondents highlight a need for clear signage near tourist areas, one-lane bridges, and shared roads (walkers, cyclists, horses)

5.5 Most opposition was general in nature, focusing on concerns about overregulation or driver frustration, rather than objections to specific roads (with the exception of Korere-Tophouse Road). A smaller but notable group supported speed reductions in principle, while a minority engaged with site-specific proposals in detail.

5.5.1 Transporting NZ supports a risk-based approach to speed management and most proposed reductions, particularly where current speeds are already low. However, they stress that lower limits alone won’t improve safety without consistent Police enforcement, especially on key freight routes. They urge the Council to avoid unnecessary reductions where crash history is minimal, and safety benefits are negligible. Several roads across Richmond, Lakes-Murchison, Golden Bay, Moutere-Waimea, and Motueka are highlighted where proposed changes are not justified by data or road conditions.

Attachment 6: Transporting NZ Submission shows the full submission.

Response: Transporting NZ focuses heavily on mean vehicle travel speeds but overlooks the presence of more vulnerable road users – such as cyclists on roads like Goodall Road, Tadmor Valley Road, Redwood Road (Appleby) which form part of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail. It is estimated that these users contribute $34 million to the Nelson/Tasman economy.^{^[1]} This economic benefit has been considered in the speed limit recommendations pertaining to these roads. The submission also focuses on the additional travel times which are very low for the roads (between one to 14 seconds).

5.5.2 Nelsus responded to the Richmond and Motueka surveys and supported all changes except for a section of Umukuri Road.

5.5.3 Response: Umukuri Road and Anderson Road have been removed from the list of recommended speed limit changes.

5.5.4 Motueka Community Board supported recommended safe speed signs and warning signs of road curves. They suggested consistent implementation of 40km/h, 60km/h, 80km/h, 100km/h rather than 30km/h, 50km/h and 70km/h zones. They support using road improvements, road safety education and speed guidance. They recommended direct consultation with affected residents.

Attachment 5: Motueka Community Board submission: shows the full submission

Response: Staff support a consistent, rule-aligned approach to speed management. The Board’s recommended speed limits do not align with the new Setting of Speed Limits Rule.

While direct consultation with residents on affected streets would have been ideal, budget and staff resource constraints made this unfeasible. However, the consultation did ask whether respondents lived on affected streets, as shown in Attachment 3: Phase 2 Feedback 2024 to 2025 Consultations. Collecting detailed demographic or mode-of-transport data was not possible due to the length of the survey.

Police: No response.

5.6 Narrow or winding tortuous unsealed roads:

5.6.1 Context:

Many narrow or winding unsealed roads in Tasman have 100km/h speed limits. As part of our speed management review, we considered reducing these limits to improve safety and consistency for drivers. This aligns with the Safe and Appropriate Speed principles in the 2022 Rule. Although the 2024 Rule does not have a legal requirement to reduce speeds on these roads, it requires that any new speed limits on all unsealed roads be 60–80 km/h.

5.6.2 Crash data:

Crash records show few crashes on these roads, but minor and non-injury crashes are often under-reported, particularly in the remote locations typical of these roads. Combined with low traffic volumes, this suggests the actual crash rate per kilometre travelled may be higher than the data suggests.

5.6.3 Phase Two consultation options:

Two options were presented

· Reduce the speed to 60km/h

· Use advisory speed signs.:

5.6.4 Narrow or Winding Tortuous Unsealed Results by Ward

	Support			Against
	Support Lower Limit	Support lower limits plus signs	More signs only	Status Quo
Golden Bay – Mangarakau & Whanganui Inlet (6 roads)	24% n=17	24% n=7	7% n=2	45% n=13
Golden Bay (not in Mangarakau area) (8 roads)	22% n=6	22% n=6	11% n=3	46% n=13
Lakes Murchison (17 roads)	19% n=13	16% n=11	22% n=15	42% n=28
Motueka (4 roads)	43% n=17	23% n=9	10% n=4	25% n=10
Moutere Waimea – Motueka River West Bank Area (8 roads)	24% n=10	26% n=11	12% n=5	38% n=16
Moutere Waimea – (Not River West Bank Area) (9 roads)	30% n=13	23% n=10	9% n=4	39% n=17
Richmond (1 road)	30% n=11	16% n=6	8% n=3	46% n=12

*Note: “Support column” includes both “Lower limit and “Lower limit plus Signs” categories

5.6.5 Summary of Support:

Motueka and Moutere Waimea wards showed the strongest support for lower limits. Golden Bay respondents preferred lower speeds for Mangarakau and Whanganui but were more divided for speeds elsewhere. Richmond respondents were equally divided. Lakes- Murchison, which has the highest number of narrow winding unsealed roads, only had 35% of respondents supporting lower speeds.
In a 2020 survey, 91% of respondents supported speeds below 100 km/h—59% favoured
60 km/h, and 32% preferred 80 km/h. Lower participation in 2025 may reflect consultation fatigue.

5.6.6 Road Specific Feedback:

We received very few comments specifically about narrow & winding unsealed roads with four comments supporting reduced speed on Tophouse Road.

Ten respondents specifically stated that they supported all proposed changes on the narrow winding unsealed roads. Two respondents did not support any changes, two others requested reductions on all unsealed roads, and one preferred a reduction to 80km/h rather than 60km/h. Several respondents also expressed support for changes at specific locations:

Lakes Murchison: Tophouse Road n=4, Wangapeka Plain Road n=1,

Golden Bay: Mangarakau/Wanganui n=3, Rameka Creek n=2

Motueka: Rocky River Road n=1, Pokororo n=1

Moutere Waimea: Pig Valley Road n=1, Wairoa Gorge Road, n=1 [Thorpe-Orinoco Road received 6 requests for reductions]

Richmond: Aniseed Valley Road n=5

5.6.7 Funding and Signage:

Under the previous 2022 Rule, co-funding from NZTA was expected. The 2024 Rule and new Government Position Statement limit funding to speed changes near schools. In response, the Council has considered advisory signs as a more cost-effective alternative. Advisory signs are less expensive and need fewer installations—one every 8 km vs every
2 km for formal speed limit signs. The speed management guide states that repeater signs are not usually necessary if the nature of a particular length of road is such that a road user would reasonably understand that the speed limit displayed on the last speed limit sign remains the speed limit on the road throughout the whole of that length of road.” This applies to most of our tortuous unsealed roads

Advisory signs are not legally enforceable but help guide safe speeds, especially where police presence is limited. Some of these roads already lack posted speed limits.

Recommended Approach

Advisory signs are recommended for roads in this category, except for Totaranui Road and Awaroa Road. These roads provide access to Abel Tasman National Park and are heavily used by visitors. The roads have been moved to the Specific Roads section. The Lee Valley and Wairoa Gorge area were included for 80km/h limits in the Specific Road section. Pig Valley Road and Andrews Road, which are narrow and winding roads, nearby, are now also proposed to be 80km/h to create a consistent speed zone across the area.

5.6.8 Weather impacted Roads:

Some roads (e.g. Pigeon Valley, Wangapeka West Bank) have been affected by storm damage. Advisory signs provide flexibility to adjust or delay installation as needed, based on site conditions.

5.6.9 Recommendation

Use advisory signs on these roads, except for the four listed in the Specific Roads section [Totaranui Road, Awaroa Road, Andrews Road, Pig Valley Road], where formal speed reductions are recommended. See Attachment 1: Schedule 1: Phase Two Reductions and Attachment 2: Advisory Signs List

5.6.10 Estimated Costs by Ward

Ward	Speed limit reductions Only	Advisory Signs Only	Preferred option: Advisory signs (except Totaranui Awaroa, Andrews, Pig Valley Roads)
Golden Bay	$32,000	$13,000	$11,000 (+2 speed limit reductions = $4,000)
Lakes Murchison	$25,000	$16,000	$16,000
Moutere Waimea	$20,000	$13,000	$11, 000 (+2 speed limit reductions = $2,000)
Motueka	$7,000	$3,000	$3,000
Richmond	$1,000	Less than $1,000	Less than $1,000
Total	$85,000	$46,000	$44,000 Advisory signs $4,000 Speed limit reductions $48,000 Total
Note: Additional treatment may be needed on some roads with known safety risks.

5.7 Rural residential roads:

5.7.1 Context:

Many rural residential streets in Tasman have speed limits of 80–100 km/h, which are too high for their function. These roads serve low-density housing, lack footpaths, and are used for walking, cycling, and recreation. Residents frequently request lower speeds. Under the Speed Limit Setting Rule, limits of 50–80 km/h are permitted for these roads.

5.7.2 Community Feedback:

We were unable to directly target residents due to budget constraints, but the consultation asked if respondents lived on roads proposed for speed reductions. Of 71 people who did, 83% supported the reductions, and 17% did not.

· Mārahau Valley Road: 12 supported

· Fairfax Road: 10 supported, 1 opposed

More detail is in Attachment 3: Phase 2 Feedback 2024 to 2025 Consultations.

5.7.3 Rural Residential Results by Ward

	Support			Against
	Yes to All	Support in part	Neutral	No to All
Golden Bay (13 roads)	43% n=13	10% n=3	3% n=1	43% n=13
Lakes-Murchison (6 roads)	43% n=29	7% n=5	15% n=10	35% n=24
Motueka - not Brooklyn (8 roads)	54% n=21	0% n=0	13% n=5	33% n=13
Motueka – Brooklyn/Riwaka Area (8 roads)	45% n=18	5% n=2	15% n=6	35% n=14
Moutere Waimea – Not Kina, Ruby Bay, Seaton or Westdale) (32)	44% n=19	0%	9% n=4	47% n=20
Moutere-Waimea – Kina Beach (5 roads)	46% n=21	9% n=4	9% n=4	37% n=17
Moutere-Waimea – Ruby Bay (5 roads)	48% n=21	0% n=0	11% n=5	41% n=18
Moutere-Waimea – Seaton Valley	38% n=16	-	14% n=6	48% n=20
Moutere-Waimea – Westdale, Rabbit Island (5 roads)	33% n=14	2% n=1	26% n=11	40% n=17
Richmond n=5	46% n=17	11% n=4	5% n=2	38% n=14

5.7.4 Summary of Feedback

· Over half of respondents in Golden Bay, Motueka, Lakes Murchison, and Richmond wards supported speed limit reductions.

· Moutere-Waimea which has the highest number of rural residential roads, had five questions relating to this type of road.

o Support was highest for Kina Beach (54%) and Ruby Bay (48%) areas

o Support was lower for Seaton Valley (38%) and Westdale Rabbit Island (35%).

o In 2024, 15 specifically requested reductions on Bronte East Road and spoke at the hearings.

· Across other rural residential areas in Moutere-Waimea, 44% supported reductions, while 47% did not.

5.7.5 Written Feedback on Rural Residential Roads

5.7.6 For this round of consultation, there were very few people with specific comments supporting reductions on rural residential roads. Fairfax Road and Mārahau Valley Road received the most responses.

· Golden Bay: Rangihaeta area n=6

· Lakes Murchison: Fairfax Street n=10, Matakitaki n=3

· Motueka: Mārahau Valley Road and Harvey Road n=9, Starnes Road n=3

· Moutere Waimea: Kina Beach Road & Cliff Road n=5

· Richmond: Haycock Road n=3

· Fairfax Street n=10

· Mārahau Valley Road n=9

5.7.7 Two submissions asked that Umukuri Road be excluded from the rural residential section, noting it is mostly straight, has few houses, and serves as a bypass for Riwaka. Staff agree and recommend no changes to Umukuri or Anderson Roads. In 2024, we ran more engagement sessions and had increased media coverage, which led to higher public participation in the consultation process and more requests for speed limit reductions on rural residential roads. especially in the following areas:

· Golden Bay: Glenview Road n=10, Rangihaeta Road n=4,

· Motueka Whakarewa Street n=8, Douglas Road n=4

· Moutere Waimea: Bronte East Road n=15, Old Coach Road n=4, Westdale Road, n=4, Pomona Road n=3, Marriages Road n=3,

· Richmond: Haycock Road n=3

5.7.8 Recommendation:

Although posted limits are 80–100 km/h, average speeds on these roads are between 35–45 km/h due to road width, lack of markings, poor visibility, and shared use.
Formal reductions to 50 or 60 km/h better reflect how these roads are used and improve safety for all users.

We recommend proceeding with the proposed speed limit reductions for rural residential roads, based on:

· Community feedback

· Current road use and design

· Alignment with national guidance and observed speeds.

We recommend all rural residential roads are reduced except for Umukuri Road and Anderson Road.

5.7.9 Estimated Costs by Ward of recommended option

Ward	Speed Limit Reductions
Golden Bay	$15,000
Lakes-Murchison	$10,000
Moutere-Waimea	$65,000
Motueka	$20,000
Richmond	$10,000

5.8 Urban roads which do not have footpaths:

5.8.1 Context

Some urban residential streets in Tasman lack footpaths, creating safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Nelson Tasman Regional Transport Committee advocated for these types of urban streets to have a new category in the 2024 Rule. While the committee recommended 30 km/h, the final Speed Setting Rule requires 40 km/h when a new limit is set, but there is no requirement to change existing limits.

5.8.2 Phase Two Consultation Options

Two options were presented:

· Reduce the speed limit to 40km/h

· Use advisory signs.:

A yellow sign with a person walking

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Advisory signs have been used successfully on short or low-traffic streets. These signs are not enforceable but help guide safer driving.

	Support			Status Quo
	Lower	Lower speeds & add signs	More signs	Status Quo
Golden Bay	29% n=8	21% n=6	4% n=1	46% n=13
Lakes-Murchison*	37% n=25	3% n=2 [support in part]	16% n=11 [neutral]*	44% n=30
Motueka	39% n=15	26% n=10	5% n=2	29% n=11
Moutere-Waimea - General	32% n=13	20% n=8	10% n=4	39% n=16
Richmond*	36% n=13	6% n=2 [support in part]	8% n=3 [neutral]*	50% n=18
*There was an error in the questions for the Lakes Murchison and Richmond where the question asked was stated as (Support/Neutral/Against) instead of the standard four options.

5.8.3 Summary of Feedback

Golden Bay and Motueka Wards supported speed reductions for these types of roads. Richmond and Lakes Murchison were not in support although these two wards have very few of these types of roads compared with Golden Bay and Motueka.

We only received three comments, one supporting reductions on Headingly Lane, one supporting reductions on Green Tree Road and Wharf Rod (Riwaka), and one requesting that Rangihaeta Road be reduced to 40km rather than 50km.

In 2024, more feedback was received from areas like Tata Beach (Golden Bay, n=4). Golden Bay: Tata Beach area n=4.

5.8.4 Recommended Approach:

The rationale for the inclusion of urban roads without footpaths in the joint Nelson Tasman Speed Management Plan was to have a consistent approach across the region including both Nelson and Tasman. However, many of Nelson’s urban roads without footpaths were reduced to 30km/h prior to the Speed Management Plan, and the 2024 Setting of Speed Limits Rule only allows for new limits of 40km/h for these streets, and allows existing limits to remain unchanged. It is therefore not possible to achieve consistency across the region as originally intended.

In 2020, 86% of survey respondents supported limits below 50 km/h on streets without footpaths. Many of these roads are short, with low volumes of traffic, and already have average speeds below 50 km/h. To manage safety and costs, we propose a three-tiered approach.

Tier one: Use cautionary signs

Default option unless road meets Tier Two criteria.

Tier two: Reduced speed limit to 40km/h if the road

a. Has posted speed limit above 50km/h or

b. Is in, or adjacent to, a recreational area, or town centre or

c. Has no berms for pedestrians or

d. Has crashes

Tier three: No signs needed if:

a. Road is shorter than 200m or

b. No crash history and average speeds are below 40km/h

It is considered that this approach balances safety with cost-effectiveness.

Tier Two roads are listed in the Specific Roads section.

Tier Two Urban Roads Recommended for Speed Limit Reduction (to 40km/h)

	Road	Rationale
Golden Bay 40km/h	· Junction Road	In town centre, higher number of walkers
	· Reilly Street	In town centre, higher number of walkers, adjacent to the playground. One non-injury crash
	· Kendal Street	Recreational area, higher number of walkers, currently 100km/h
	· Nelson Street	Recreational area, higher number of walkers, currently 100km/h
	· Totara Avenue	Residential street, currently 100km/h
50km/h No sign needed	· Harwood Place	Currently 100km/h, change to 50km/h [no sign needed]
	· Patons Rock Road Beach Access	Currently 100km/h change to 50km/h [no sign needed]
	· Tata Beach Esplanade	Currently 100km/h change to 50km/h [no sign needed]
Lakes-Murchison	None Identified
Motueka	Anerewa Crescent	Recreational area
	Cook Crescent	Recreational area
	· Stephens Bay Road	Recreational area
	· Tapu Place	Recreational area
	· Community Road	Half of this road is privately owned. Tasman’s Great Taste Trail runs the length of the road with the Riverside community adjacent. (2024: Average daily use 60 cyclists at Pine Hill Road). Riverside section is signposted at 30km/h and we recommend the road is consistent with this..
	· Inlet Road	Inconsistent with 30km/h area around it
Moutere- Waimea	· None identified
Richmond	· Headingly Lane	Recreational area and has section of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail

Tier three (no signage required)

Golden Bay: Tennyson Street, Prior Road, Patons Rock Road, Parapara Beach Road

Lakes Murchison: George Street

5.8.5 Recommendation

Use advisory signs on these roads, except for the Tier Two Road listed above, where formal speed reductions are recommended. See Attachment 1: Schedule 1: Phase Two Reductions and Attachment 2: Advisory Signs List

Cost Estimate by Ward

Ward	Speed limit reductions	Advisory Signs*	Preferred option: Advisory signs with some exceptions
Golden Bay	$24,000	$20,000	$7,000 (+5 speed limit reductions = $7,000)
Lakes Murchison	$2,000	$2,000	$1,000
Moutere Waimea	$2,000	$2,000	$2,000
Motueka	$10,000	$7,000	$2,000(+6 speed limit reductions = $8,000)
Richmond	$6,000	$5,000	$3,000 (+ 1 speed limit reductions = $1,000)
Total	$44,000	$36,000	$15,000 Advisory signs $16,000 Speed limit reductions $31,000 Total
Some roads may need further treatment should safety concerns emerge

5.9 Specific Roads

5.10 Overview

This section covers roads that don’t fit into other categories. Speed limit reductions are proposed due to specific factors unique to each road—such as mismatched speed limits, safety concerns raised by residents or the Council, high numbers of walkers or cyclists, or changes to the road environment.

This table below summarises proposed speed limit changes for individual roads, including:

· Road length

· Current and proposed speed limits

· Average (mean) operating speed

· Number of reported injuries (2019–2024)

· General support from consultation

· Comments from the 2024 and 2025 consultations

· Rationale for the change

Note: One crash may involve multiple injuries, and many minor crashes go unreported, particularly in remote areas.

5.11 Recommended approach

The Urban Roads without Footpaths Tier Two list and the four roads from the Narrow/Winding Unsealed Roads have been moved to the Specific Roads section. It is recommended that all these speed limit reductions are approved.

Golden Bay											Injury code: F = Fatal, S=Serious Injury, M= Minor Injury, NI= Non Injury
	Speed (km/h)					Feedback			Requests to reduce	Commentary
Road name	Posted	New	Mean	Length (km)	Crash	Yes	Neutral	No	Requests to reduce
Abel Tasman Drive (Pohara Valley Road to 1570 Abel Tasman Drive(southern boundary))	60	50	45	6.65	1M	43% n=12	7% n=2	50% n=14	2025 n=1 2024: n=5 No change n=1	Multiple requests to lower speeds around Port Tarakohe, Ligar and Tata Beach, due to high pedestrians/ cyclists use and heavy vehicles accessing the port. Wainui section is narrow. Golden Bay Community Board requested a reduction in 2024 and 2025
Abel Tasman Drive (1570 Abel Tasman Drive to 1597 Abel Tasman Drive (northern boundary))	60	50	45	0.20	0	43% n=12	7% n=2	50% n=14	2024: n=1	Rural residential area which is adjacent to an area where we are recommending a reduction to 50km/h
Anatoki Track Road (Entire Length)	100	80	17	0.81	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	0	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Awaroa Road (Entire Road)* *Feedback from general question: Unsealed, narrow, winding roads	100	60	16	4.03	0	43% n=12	More signs 11% n=3	46% n=13	0	This is narrow winding road which has torturous alignment. Used to access key recreational areas. This section is included for consistency with Totaranui Road.
Cemetery Road (Entire Length)	100	80	15	0.38	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	0	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Collingwood Quay (Entire Length)	70	50	56	0.42	0	46% n=13	4% n=1	50% n=14	0	Because the area is recreational and has no footpaths, a lower speed limit is proposed.
Collingwood Bainham Main Road (existing 70 km/h to SH)	70	50	35	0.56	1NI	46% n=13	4% n=1	50% n=14	0	This road is considered as part of the urban environment of Collingwood, a lower speed limit is proposed
Collingwood-Puponga Main Road (Pakawau Bush Road to 1088 Collingwood -Puponga Main Road (existing 60km/h zone)	60	50	59	2.12	1M 1NI	43% n=12	4% n=1	54% n=15	2024: n=1 No change n=1	The reduction is proposed due to the area’s urban and recreational use, and the absence of a footpath.
Collingwood-Puponga Main Road (end of existing 60km/h zone (1088 Collingwood-Puponga Main Road) to 75m south of southern boundary of 1062 Collingwood -Puponga Main Road)	100	50	62	0.31	0	43% n=12	4% n=1	54% n=15	2024: n=5	The reduction is proposed due to the area’s urban and recreational use, and the absence of a footpath. The township has grown in size and this is a 310m extension of the urban area
East Takaka Road (From Central Takaka Road south 570m)	100	80	76	0.57	0	32% n=9	25% n=7	43% n=12	0	Residents safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Glenview Road (Central Takaka Road to 120m south west of Packard Drive)	100	80	59	3.87	1M 1NI	32% n=9	25% n=7	43% n=12	2024: n=4	Used as a the shortest route between Central Takaka and Pohara, There have been two accidents.
Harwood Place (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	50	12	0.17	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	0	Current speed limit is 100km/h, make 50km/h because it is an urban area.
Hill View Road (Entire Length)	100	80	18	0.38	1NI	32% n=9	25% n=7	43% n=12	0	Consistency with Glenview & Rameka Creek Roads.
Langford Road (Entire Length)	100	80	20	0.57	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	0	Consistency with Long Plain Road
Long Plain Road (Entire Length)	100	80	54	8.2	2NI	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	2024: n=8	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Junction Street (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	50	40	10	0.15	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	0	Urban Road with No Footpath. In town centre, high number of pedestrians.
Kendal Street (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	40	46	0.15	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	2024: n=2	Urban Road with No Footpath. Recreational area, higher number of walkers, currently 100km/h
McCallum Road (Entire unsealed section)	100	60	38	3.70	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	2024: n=8	The unsealed section is proposed to be reduced to 60km/h because a large section of it is classed as narrow/winding with tortuous alignment.
McCallum Road (Long Plain Road to end of the seal)	100	80	49	2.35	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	2024: n=8	Limit is proposed to drop to 80km/h because of traffic to the Anatoki salmon farm. In 2024, Anatoki Salmon Farm has requested a 60km/h limit on this section.
Milnthorpe Quay (Nelson Street to end of the road)	100	40	27	0.10	0	50% n=13	8% n=2	42% n=11	2024: n=2	This narrow road leads to the wharf and is used by many recreational visitors.Consistent with proposed limit on Nelson Street
Moulder Road (Entire Length)	100	80	23	0.49	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	0	Consistency with Long Plain Road.
Nelson Street (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	40	29	0.45	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	2024: n=2	Urban Road with No Footpath. Recreational area, higher number of walkers, currently 100km/h
One Spec Road (Entire Length)	100	80	38	3.03	0	36% n=10	18% n=5	46% n=13	2024 n=1	Consistency with Long Plain Road .
Packard Road (Entire Length)	100	80	44	3.20	1NI	32% n=9	25% n=7	43% n=12	0	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Patons Rock Road Beach Access (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	50	NA	0.04	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	0	Recreational area, higher number of walkers. Currently 100km/h. Recommend making 50km/h so it is consistent with surrounding area.
Rameka Creek Road (Glenview Road to 1204m south of Hill View Road)	100	80	24	1.56	1S	32% n=9	25% n=7	43% n=12	2025 n=2 2024 n=2	Consistency with Glenview Road.
Reilly Street (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	50	40	28	0.15	1NI	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	2024 n=1	Urban Road with No Footpath. In town centre, high number of pedestrians.
Tata Beach Esplanade (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	50	13	0.14	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	2024 n=3	Currently 100km/h. Recommend making 50km/h so it is consistent with surrounding area
Totara Avenue (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Roads with No Footpath	100	40	19	0.68	0	50% n=8	More signs 4% n=1	46% n=13	2024 n=3	Urban Road with No Footpath, residential street. Currently 100km/h
Totaranui Road (Entire Lengh)	100	60	26	10.5	1M 1N	43% n=12	More signs 11% n=3	46% n=13	2024 n=1	Narrow and tortuous. Route to a popular recreational area.

			Lakes-Murchison
	Speed (km/h)					Feedback				Requests to reduce	Commentary
Road name	Posted	New	Mean	Length (km)	Injury		Yes	Neutral	No	Requests to reduce
Korere Tophouse / Tophouse (570m north of Tophouse Road to State Highway 63)	100	80	72	4.06	1S 3M 5NI		26% n=19	22% n=16	51% n=37	2025: n=5 No change n=11 2024: n=1 (straight section) No change n=1	While some respondents opposed a speed reduction, there have been multiple injury crashes on this section of road. The nearby state highway is already 80km/h, so this change ensures consistency.
Motueka Valley Highway (existing 50km/h (15m south of 20 Main Road Tapawera) to existing 80km/h area (352m south of southern boundary of Mararewa Cemetery))	100	80	86	2.84	1S 1M 4NI		21% n=14	38% n=26	41% n=28	2024: n=1 (straight section) No change n=1	Southern approach to Tapawera. Residents safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillor (six recorded crashes). Not supported by Transporting NZ.
Tadmor Valley Road (For 1775m from Main Road Tapawera)	100	80	84	1.78	4NI		19% n=13	46% n=32	36% n=25	0	Western approach to Tapawera. 80km/h recommended due to four crashes. Not supported by Transporting NZ.
Tophouse Road (Entire Length)	100	80	38	1.73	1M		26% n=19	22% n=16	51% n=37	2024: n=1	A long section of this road is narrow and tortuous. An 80km/h limit is recommended for consistency with State Highway and Korere Tophouse

Motueka								Injury code: F = Fatal, S=Serious Injury, M= Minor Injury, NI= Non Injury
	Speed (km/h)					Feedback				Requests to reduce	Commentary
Road name	Posted	New	Mean	Length (km)	Crash	Yes	Neutral		No	Requests to reduce
Alexander Bluff Road Bridge	100	80	36	0.17	0	44% n=18	29% n=12		27% n=11	2024 n=2	Bridge limit is proposed to be aligned with limit on Motueka Valley Highway.
Anarewa Crescent (Entire Road)	50	40	19	0.31	0	59% n=24	15% n=6		27% n=11	2024 n=1	Urban Road with No Footpath. Used by local walkers and cyclists, holiday area
Central Road (Entire Road)	100	80	60	4.98	2S 2M 1NI	44% n=17	28% n=11		28% n=11	2024 n=2	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors. (five recorded crashes)
Chamberlain Street (Entire Road)	100	80	59	4.23	3M 1NI	44% n=17	28% n=11		28% n=11	2024 n=5	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors. (four recorded crashes)
Ching Road (Entire Road)	100	80	48	2.06	0	44% n=17	28% n=11		28% n=11	2025 n=1	Consistency with Central Road and Chamberlain Street
Community Road (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Road no Footpath	100	30 or 40	22	0.58	0	66% n=25	More Signs 5% n=2		29% n=11	2024 n=1	Urban Road with No Footpath. Used by Riverside community and Great Taste Trail cyclists (60 cyclists/daily at Pine Hill Road). Half of road is private and Riverside section is signposted at 30km/h. Riverside Community have advocated for lower speeds here. Recommend making the road 30km/h to be consistent with the rest of the road but if NZTA do not agree then we could make it 40km/h
Cook Crescent (Entire Road)	100/ 50	40	19	0.32	0	59% n=24	15% n=6		27% n=11	0	Urban Road with No Footpath. Recreational users. Part of the road is currently 100km/h
Goodall Road (Entire Length)	100	60	17	0.48	1M 2NI	446 n=18	23% n=9		31% n=12	2025 n=1 2024 n=1	Part of the Great Taste Trail (85 cyclists/daily) Nelson Tasman Cycling Trust requested a reduction
Harvey Road (southern boundary of 182 Harvey Road to the end)	100	60	20	0.70	0	71% n=22	0% n=0		29% n=9	2025 n=6 2024 n=20	Many local requests to reduce this road. Will be consistent with rest of Harvey Road
Hursthouse Street (Entire Road)	100	80	60	2.56	2NI	41% n=11	44% n=17		28% n=11	2025 n=1 2024 n=2	Consistency with Central Road.
Inlet Road (Entire Road)	50	30	16	0.22	0	56% n=23	44% n=17		28% n=11	2024 n=1	Urban Road with No Footpath. In town centre. Current speed limit is inconsistent with current 30km/h zone in Kaiteriteri

Kaiteriteri Sandy Bay Road (From end of 30km/h limit (100m west of Rowling Heights) to Riwaka-Sandy Bay Road)	80	60	39	5.19	5M 2NI	56% n=23	15% n=16	29% n=12	2024 n=3	This is a mountainous corridor with high recreational use. Multiple injury crashes.
Mcbrydie Road (Entire Road)	100	80	45		1NI	41% n=11	44% n=17	28% n=11	2025 n=1 2024 n=4	Consistency with Central Road.
Riwaka-Kaiteriteri Road (From 50m south of cycle underpass at 300 Riwaka-Kaiteriteri Road to start of existing 50km/h zone^{^[2]}	80	60	46	0.69	1S 4M 1NI	59% n=24	15% n=6	27% n=11	2024 n=4	This is a mountainous corridor with high recreational use. There are a number of cyclists who prefer this route to Kaiteriteri rather than using the mountain bike tracks. Multiple injury crashes.
Sandy Bay-Marahau Road (From Kaiteriteri-Sandy Bay Road to the start of the 30km/h zone(173 Sandy Bay-Marahau Road))	80	60	56	1.68	3M 1NI	56% n=23	15% n=16	29% n=12	0	Narrow road used by cars, cyclists and horses to access recreation areas. Several injury crashes.
Starnes Road (Entire Road)	100	80	38		0	41% n=11	26% n=7	33% n=9	2025 n=2 1 request = 50km/h 2024 n=1	Consistency with Central Road.
Stephens Bay Road (Entire Road)	50	40	26	0.40	0	59% n=24	15% n=6	27% n=11	0	Urban Road with No Footpath. Recreational users.
Tapu Place (Entire Road)	50	40	14	0.12	0	59% n=24	15% n=6	27% n=11	0	Urban Road with No Footpath. Recreational users. [Note has footpath but all other streets don’t so for consistency, it is included]

Moutere-Waimea									Injury code: F = Fatal, S=Serious Injury, M= Minor Injury, NI= Non Injury
	Speed (km/h)					Feedback						Requests to reduce	Commentary
Road name	Posted	New	Mean	Length (km)	Crash		Yes	Neutral			No	Requests to reduce
Andrews Road	100	80	17	1.75	0		53% n=13	9% n=14			39% n=17	0	Narrow and winding unsealed road. Consistency with Wairoa Gorge Road.
Baigent Reserve Access (Entire Length)	100	30	37	0.25	0		30% n=13	32% n=14			39% n=17	2024 n=1	Short access road to a recreational area.
Church Valley Road	100	80	56	5.51	2M		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	2025 n=1 2024 n=1	Consistency with Wairoa Gorge Road.
Eighty Eight Valley Road (From end of existing 50km/h zone (south boundary of 107 Eighty Eight Valley Road) to 220m south of Totara View Drive)	70	50	61	0.96	0		30% n=13	32% n=14			39% n=17	2025 No change n=1 2024 n=1	Residents’ safety concerns have been raised with Ward Councillors.
Garden Valley Road	100	80	43	2.90	0		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	2024 n=2	Consistency with Lee Valley Road and Wairoa Gorge Road.
Irvine Road (Entire Length)	100	80	18	0.31	0		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	0	Consistency with Lee Valley Road and Wairoa Gorge Road.
Lee Valley Road (Entire length)	100	80	56	7.81	1M 1NI		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	2025 n=1 2024 n=1	This is a narrow road used by people accessing recreational areas by vehicles
Lloyd Valley Road	100	60	15	2.34	0		29% n=12	36% n=15			36% n=15	0	Consistency with Lee Valley Road and Wairoa Gorge Road.
Mead Road (Entire length)	100	80	39	1.20	0		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	0	Consistency with Lee Valley Road and Wairoa Gorge Road.
Motueka River West Bank Road (From end of existing 80km/h^{^[3]} zone 180m south to Pearse Valley Road to Woodstock Road)	100	80	51	3.83	1M 2NI		31% n=11	31% n=13			38% n=16	0	Part of the Great Taste Trail with a number of cyclists using this road on a daily basis. 2024: 1 request to reduce speeds. Nelson Tasman Cycle Trust requested a reduction
Pig Valley Road	100	80	17	1.75	0		53% n=13	9% n=14			39% n=17	0	Narrow and unwinding unsealed road. Consistency with Wairoa Gorge Road.
Seaton Valley Road (Mapua Drive to Stagecoach Road)	80	60	54	2.85	4NI		38% n=16	14% n=6			48% n=20	2025 n=2 2024 n=5	Considered to be rural residential. Currently signposted 50km/h from 100m north of Les Wakefield to Mapua Drive but NSLR shows this section as 60km/h
Sharp Road (Entire Length)	100	60	32	0.99	0		36% n=15	26% n=11			38% n=16	0	Consistency with Pigeon Valley Road.
Wairoa Gorge Road (Entire length)	100	80	57	9.07	0		31% n=14	33% n=15			36% n=16	2025 n=1 2024 n=1	Number of recreational vehicles accessing Wairoa Gorge Bike Park means lower speeds should be considered. Unsealed section is 5.45km long).
Woodstock Road (Entire Road)	100	80	26	0.13	0		31% n=11	31% n=13			38% n=16	0	It is proposed that the speed of this bridge matches the adjacent roads (Motueka River West Bank Road & Motueka Valley Highway)
Spencer Place	50	40	9	0.07	0		30% n=6	55% n=11			15% n=3	0	The speed is proposed to be 40km/h which is consistent to Ellis Street which has a 40km/h limit and 30km/h variable limit. Aligning the limits means that an additional 50km/h sign is not needed as part of the school changes.
							30km/h			50km/h
Mapua Causeway (Entire Length)	100	30	32	0.28	1M		50% n=22			50% n=22			Part of the urban speed area and has no footpath. 30km/h is recommended as it is consistent with current operating speeds. 50km/h is consistent with existing signage

Richmond								Injury code: F = Fatal, S=Serious Injury, M= Minor Injury, NI= Non Injury
	Speed					Feedback				Requests to reduce	Commentary
Road name	Posted	New	Mean	Km	Injury	Yes	Neutral		No	Requests to reduce
Aniseed Valley Road (30m west of Haycock Road to Nelson City Council Boundary	80	60	50	14.91	7 NI 4M	46% n=18	13% n=5		41% n=16	2025 n=5 2024 n=6 No change n=1	This narrow road used by both vehicles and cyclists to access recreational areas. There have been 11 accidents here.
Clover Road East (Between SH and Start of 80km/h zone)	100	80	68	0.62	1 M 1 NI	42% n=16	16% n=6		42% n=16	2025 n=3 2024 n=6	100km/h is inconsistent with the surrounding 80km/h area.
Clover Road West (Entire Road)	100	80	52	1.50	0	42% n=16	16% n=6		42% n=16	0	Consistency with Clover Road East.
Headingly Lane (Entire Road) *Feedback from general question: Urban Road no Footpath	50	40	34	0.82	0	36% n=13 Support in part 6% n=2	8% n=3		50% n=18	2025 n=2	Urban Road with No Footpath. Used by recreational users and includes part of the Great Taste Trail. School have requested variable 30km/h.
Lower Queen Street (end of seal (809 Lower Queen Street) to end)	80	60	71	0.68	0	43% n=16	8% n=3		49% n=18	2025 n=1 No change n=1 2024 n=1	This road is part of the Great Taste Trail and is used daily by many cyclists.. Nelson Tasman Cycle Trust requested a reduction

Full details of the local and organisational feedback can be found in Attachment 3: Phase 2 Feedback 2024 to 2025 Consultations and Attachment 4: Verbatim Feedback

5.12 Additional considerations:

5.12.1 Waimea West Road: The section between 107 Waimea West Road and the bridge is signposted as 100km/h, but the National Speed Limit Register classifies it as part of the Brightwater Urban Area, which has a 50km/h limit. In 2024, we received seven requests from local residents and the Brightwater Residents’ Committee to lower the speed limit to 50km/h, and five submissions asking for more enforcement in this area. We propose to make this change after deliberations. This section wasn’t included in the current consultation, as the 50km/h limit has already been approved by Council as part of setting the 50km/h urban boundary around Brightwater.

5.12.2 We propose that the speed signs are moved to the eastern end of the bridge in line with the speed limits shown in the National Speed Register.

5.12.3 Upper Moutere: Moutere Highway: In October 2024, the Moutere Hills Residents Association submitted a petition

a) to lower the speed on the Moutere Highway to 80km/h,

b) to lower speeds in the village to 40km/h and

c) install a pedestrian crossing near the Upper Moutere School.

The speeds on the Moutere Highway has since been reduced to 80km/h. However, staff initially believed the new speed rule did not permit a 40km/h in the village so this was not included in the consultation. Following further discussions with NZTA, it appears the road may qualify as an “urban street with significant levels of pedestrian and/or cycling activity” which could allow a future reduction to 40km/h if supported by Council and subject to further consultation.

5.12.4 Attachment 13 Phase Three Corrections shows three corrections that need to be made in the National Speed Limit Register. These are administrative changes and are for information only.

5.12.5 Recommendation:

We recommend proceeding with the proposed speed limit reductions in the Specific Roads table above based on:

· Community feedback

· Current road use and design

· Alignment with national guidance and observed speeds.

5.13 Cost by Ward

This table includes all roads moved to this section from the Urban Roads without Footpaths and Narrow/Winding Unsealed Roads categories.

Ward	Specific Roads Only	Plus narrow and winding roads	Plus urban roads with no footpaths
Golden Bay	$40,000	$4,000	$7,000
Lakes Murchison	$28,000	$0	0
Moutere Waimea	$40,000	$0	0
Motueka	$25,000	0	$8,000
Richmond	$11,000	$0	$1,000
Total	$144,000	$4,000	$16,000	$164,000

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

6.1 The Tasman District Council Long Term Plan 2024-2034 provides budget for the implementation of the Speed Management Plan. The annual budgets are $250,000 per annum. $210,000 is available from NZTA for 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 toward speed limit changes around schools.

6.2 Phase One and Phase Two Speed reductions will be over four years (Years One to Four) and are forecast to cost $800,000. No annual year budget will be exceeded.

6.3 Phase Two funding will come from the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 years.

6.4 The budgets also allow for future safety improvements from 2028 onwards such as electronic variable signs around schools or threshold treatments.

	Option One All Changes	Option Two Recommend by staff Rural Residential & Specific Roads & small number of narrow windy & urban roads with no footpath reduced (+advisory signs for all other roads)	Option Three Rural Residential & Specific Roads (+ advisory signs for all other roads)	Option Four No changes
Narrow/Windy Unsealed	$85,000	$48,000	$46,000	0
Rural Residential	$120,000	$120,000	$120,000	0
Urban Road No Footpath	$44,000	$31,000	$36,000	0
Specific Roads	$144,000	$164,000	$144,000	0
Total	$393,000	$363,000	$346,000	0

6.5 Implementation would be over two years and set for the 2026/2027 and 2027/2028 years.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The Council consulted on four types of roads:

• Narrow or winding tortuous unsealed roads reduced to 60km/h

• Rural residential roads and peri-urban streets reduced to 50-60km/h

• Urban roads which do not have footpaths reduced to 40km/h

• Specific roads

7.2 The Council has several options: it can reduce speeds on all roads in each category, make changes to selected roads, or choose not to make any changes at all.

7.3 Below shows the high level options available

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	All speed limit reductions are adopted	Reduces crash risk and harm Enables rollout from 2026. Avoids the need for further consultation and cost benefit analysis Aligns with 2024 Council decision Consistent approach to narrow/windy unsealed roads or to urban roads without footpaths.	May not satisfy submitters who opposed changes Highest cost
2.	Adopt some changes [Recommended Option] · Rural Residential Roads and Specific roads · Four selected Narrow & Windy Unsealed Roads (see Section 5.5.7) · 15 selected Urban Roads with No Footpaths (see Section 5.7.4) · Use Advisory signs elsewhere	Responds to community concerns for speeds limits in rural residential areas and specific areas Consistent approach to rural residential areas Targets the specific roads with safety risks (e.g. recreational areas, high crash rates, presence of cyclists) Balances safety improvements and cost savings Advisory signs don’t require NZTA certification	May require future consultation for roads not changed now Partial crash reduction now May not satisfy all submitters Inconsistent treatment across similar road types
3	Rural residential and Specific Roads only	Consistent approach to rural residential areas Addresses community concerns in key areas Some crash reduction Lower cost Advisory signs don’t require NZTA certification	Leaves out known risk roads (e.g. unsealed roads) Inconsistent approach Some benefits not achieved May not satisfy all submitters May require future consultation for roads not changed now
4	No proposals are adopted	May satisfy those opposed to reductions No cost to implement	No safety improvement Fails to address community concerns Would require rework and re-consultation for future changes May not satisfy submitters who support specific speed limit reductions. Significant staff resources have already been invested in this work.

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

All speed limit reductions are adopted

Reduces crash risk and harm

Enables rollout from 2026.

Avoids the need for further consultation and cost benefit analysis

Aligns with 2024 Council decision

Consistent approach to narrow/windy unsealed roads or to urban roads without footpaths.

May not satisfy submitters who opposed changes

Highest cost

Adopt some changes

[Recommended Option]

· Rural Residential Roads and Specific roads

· Four selected Narrow & Windy Unsealed Roads
(see Section 5.5.7)

· 15 selected Urban Roads with No Footpaths
(see Section 5.7.4)

· Use Advisory signs elsewhere

Responds to community concerns for speeds limits in rural residential areas and specific areas

Consistent approach to rural residential areas

Targets the specific roads with safety risks (e.g. recreational areas, high crash rates, presence of cyclists)

Balances safety improvements and cost savings

Advisory signs don’t require NZTA certification

May require future consultation for roads not changed now

Partial crash reduction now

May not satisfy all submitters

Inconsistent treatment across similar road types

Rural residential and Specific Roads only

Consistent approach to rural residential areas

Addresses community concerns in key areas

Some crash reduction

Lower cost

Advisory signs don’t require NZTA certification

Leaves out known risk roads (e.g. unsealed roads)

Inconsistent approach

Some benefits not achieved

May not satisfy all submitters

May require future consultation for roads not changed now

No proposals are adopted

May satisfy those opposed to reductions

No cost to implement

No safety improvement

Fails to address community concerns

Would require rework and re-consultation for future changes

May not satisfy submitters who support specific speed limit reductions.

Significant staff resources have already been invested in this work.

7.4 Option 2 is recommended as it balances a cost-effective response to safety and community concerns.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 All proposed speed changes align with the Setting of Speed Setting Rule 2024, with three exceptions –Inlet Road (30km/h) Community Road (30km/h) and Tapu Place (40km/h) where reductions are consistent with existing surrounding speed limits. They would not result in any additional cost to the Council.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Staff engaged with Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa and Ngāti Rārua in February 2025 and have regularly updated the engagement portal. During the first consultation phase in 2023-24, the speed management process was discussed at hui, and feedback sought. It is now proposed additional signage will be used on Pōhara Valley Road close to the marae rather than a speed reduction originally proposed on Falconer Road.

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

10.1 Consultation has followed the requirements of the Setting of the Speed Limits Rule 2024 (S3.8). The Council has consulted on each proposed speed limit change and made reasonable efforts to engage with road users, local communities, businesses on the affected roads and schools. This Rule does not require consultation under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	Many people are passionate about speed limit changes (for and against).
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?		The proposed reductions aim to improve safety on rural residential, unsealed, and urban roads without footpaths, and on roads raised as concerns by the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The transport system as a whole is a strategic asset. These changes affect a small proportion of the system and have been subject to comprehensive consultation.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Consultation ran for six weeks from 9 June 2025 to 21 July 2025. We received 236 responses. An article was published in Newsline, which is delivered across the Tasman District. Posts were also shared on Facebook and information was made available on the Shape Tasman website.

11.2 Earlier consultation took place from 29 November 2023 and 29 February 2024 during which 2247 submissions were received.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 If these speed limit reductions are not implemented, Tasman District may continue to fall short of the safety performance objectives in the Regional Land Transport Plan. These objectives include reducing the number and proportion of deaths and serious injuries from crashes.

12.2 There is a political risk that some community members - whether for or against the changes - may be dissatisfied with the Council’s decision.

12.3 Staff are aware of a Judicial Review filed in the High Court challenging the Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024. The applicant sought to overturn the 2024 Rule and reinstate the 2022 version in the interim. The High Court dismissed the interim injunction application in April 2025. The substantive judicial review remains active, with no final decision yet. As Tasman’s proposed speed limit reductions generally align with both the 2022 and 2024 Rules, the outcome of the review is expected to have minimal impact on the proposed changes.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposed speed limit reductions are expected to have minimal impact on climate change overall.

13.2 However, reducing rural speed limits from 100km/h may lead to lower fuel consumption, and the 2024 cost benefit analysis shows this would contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

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

14.1 The proposed speed limit reductions support the objective in the Regional Land Transport Plan that all communities have access to a safe transport system regardless of mode.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The consultation received feedback from 236 individuals

15.2 Staff have considered this feedback along with input from the 2023/24 consultation. We propose speed limit reductions on rural residential roads, specific urban roads without footpaths, and narrow or winding roads identified by the community.

15.3 These speed limit changes are a practical and cost-effective way to make roads safer, using the approach allowed under the new Speed Rule. The speed limit reductions present a pragmatic way to improve road safety outcomes through safer speeds within the framework allowable under the new Speed Rule

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Staff will submit the list of roads with speed limit changes to NZTA for certification.

16.2 Once certified, staff will proceed with implementation (July 2026 onwards).

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Schedule 1: Phase Two Reductions	477
2.⇩	Advisory Signs List	499
3.⇩	Phase 2 Feedback 2024 to 2025 Consultations	503
4.⇩	Phase 2 - Verbatim Feedback	521
5.⇩	Phase 2 - Motueka Communitiy Board Submission	553
6.⇩	Phase 2 - Transporting NZ submission	554
7.⇩	Phase 2 - Consultation Material	562
8.⇩	Phase 2 - Golden Bay Map Book	572
9.⇩	Phase 2 - Lakes-Murchison Map Book	609
10.⇩	Phase 2 - Motueka Map Book	627
11.⇩	Phase 2 - Moutere Waimea Map Book	648
12.⇩	Phase 2 - Richmond Map Book	681
13.⇩	Phase 2 - Corrections	693

Tasman District Council Agenda – 14 August 2025

7.6 Private Plan Change Request - JL Palmer Limited

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	14 August 2025
Report Author:	Erin Hawke, Policy Planner - Natural Resources
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-08-6

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

1.1 A private plan change request to amend the boundary between the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone and the Appleby Gravel Zone boundary, affecting Map 232B of the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) has been lodged by JL Palmer Limited. The Mayor and Councillors are asked to consider accepting the Private Plan Change Request (PC86).

1.2 Approval is also sought to notify PC86 within four months of agreeing to accept this request as required by Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Resource Management Act, 2021 (RMA).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Due to the construction of the Waimea Community Dam water security within the affiliated zones, including the Appleby Gravel Zone, has improved.

2.2 The requester, J L Palmer Limited, owns land at 153 Palmer Road, Brightwater. His bore WWD 24337 is located within the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone bordering the Appleby Gravel Zone, shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - showing bore WWD24337 in the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone and bore WWD24586 in the Appleby Gravel Zone

2.3 Bore WWD 24337 is west of the confluence of the Wai-iti and Wairoa rivers. It is approximately 360m from the Wai-iti River and 590m from the Wairoa River, shown below in Figure 2.

A satellite view of a farm

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 2 – showing the distances of bore WWD24337 to the Wai-iti and Wairoa rivers

2.4 The Wai-iti Dam Service Zone is not affiliated to the Waimea Dam. Instead the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone is supplemented by releases from the Wai-iti (Kainui) Dam using the same methods employed for the Waimea Community Dam and its zone of benefit. The Wai-iti Dam Service Zone water supply is less secure. Water users in the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone can experience frequent rationing and cease takes during dry periods.

2.5 Over time, the requester has noted that the water in bore WWD 24337 appears to be influenced by the flow of the Wairoa River. It also appears to respond in a similar way to another of the requester’s bores, bore WWD24586 which is in the Appleby Gravel Zone approximately 210m to the north east of bore WWD 24337.

2.6 A technical report by Aqualink validates these observations. The Council’s Principal Environmental Scientist for Water and Special Projects, Joseph Thomas, has reviewed the Aqualink report and accepts that water from the Waiora River, which is influenced by the Waimea Community Dam, likely extends underground to bore WWD 24337.

2.7 The current zone boundary follows Aldourie Road, which was drawn for the Waimea West Zone boundary many years ago. The plan change requests that the Appleby Gravel Zone boundary be redrawn along an old river terrace to provide some hydrogeological control (see Attachment 2 - private plan change request map).

2.8 Written approvals to this private plan change request (PC86) have been provided.

2.9 Council staff have no concerns with the private plan change request and consider it addresses the requisite statutory requirements to proceed to notification.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Private Plan Change Request - JL Palmer Limited report RCN25-08-6; and

2. accepts Private Plan Change Request - JL Palmer Limited pursuant to cl 25(2)(b), Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991; and

3. approves public notification of Private Plan Change Request JL Palmer Limited within four months of this decision.

4. Background / Horopaki

The private plan change request

4.1 JL Palmer Limited has lodged a request to amend Map 232B of the TRMP so that the Appleby Gravel Zone extends southwest to encompass bore WWD24337. This would enable JL Palmer Limited to take affiliated dam water from his bore WWD 24337 for which it holds water permit RM191377.

4.2 JL Palmer Limited has observed that water levels are sustained within bore WWD 24337 even when the Wai-iti River runs dry, as experienced in 2000/01 and 2018/2019 seasons.

4.3 Further to this, they have noted that bore WWD 24337 responds similarly to their other bore WWD 24586, located north of Aldourie Road, within the affiliated Appleby Gravel Zone.

4.4 The Aqualink report, which has been peer reviewed by Andrew Fenemor of Landcare Research, validates these observations. The assessment is based on three components:

4.4.1 bore stratigraphy and yields from five bores;

4.4.2 modelling of river flow responses in subject bores from a fresh in the Wairoa River without influence from the Wai-iti River; and

4.4.3 modelling the zone of influence from modelled pumping of bore WWD 24337.

4.5 Aqualink’s technical assessment provides evidence of hydrological responses to Waimea Community Dam flow releases in various bores that support an amendment to the boundary of the affiliated Appleby Gravel Zone in the vicinity of Aldourie Road. They consider this amendment would better portray the zone of effect from flow releases from the Waimea Community Dam.

4.6 The Council’s Principal Environmental Scientist for Water and Special Projects, Joseph Thomas, has reviewed the Aqualink report and accepts that water from the Waiora River, which is influenced by the Waimea Dam, likely extends underground to bore WWD 24337.

4.7 The Aqualink report recommends that the Appleby Gravel Zone boundary be redrawn along an old river terrace to provide some hydrogeological control (see attached private plan change request map).

4.8 Written approvals to this private plan change request (PC86) have been provided by Waimea Irrigators Limited, Waimea West Hops Limited, MG Group Holdings Limited, Chaiman of the Wai-iti Dam Users Committee, and Ian Palmer. Written approvals are not a requirement for plan change requests, however the requester has been proactive in discussing the request with these parties and receiving the approvals.

4.9 Fish and Game New Zealand were approached but declined to provide their written approval. They have concerns with what happens to the relinquished Wai-iti water rights, which could easily be re-allocated further up the catchment.

4.10 The Appleby Gravel Zone comprises the surface waters and groundwater in alluvial gravels within the Waimea Plains in depths up to 15 metres and is affiliated to the Waimea Community Dam.

4.11 In Tasman, many of the shallow alluvial aquifers are replenished by leakage from the rivers. This is the case with the Appleby Gravel Aquifer which is recharged primarily by the Wairoa River and any dam releases from the Waimea Community Dam.

Tasman Resource Management Plan

4.12 Resource consents are required to take groundwater for irrigation and the relevant Objectives and Policies relating to this are contained in Chapter 30 of the TRMP. Relevant rules are within Chapter 31.

4.13 However, no changes are sought to any of the written provisions in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), only map 232B. Any changes to resource consents required to take water will be addressed separately to the plan change.

4.14 The scope for the plan change request is very narrow as the request only affects the Appleby Gravel (affiliated) Zone. The boundary of the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone and the (unaffiliated) Waimea West Zone will not change.

4.15 Any changes to the unaffiliated zone boundaries can be considered when a full review of the TRMP is undertaken once the resource management reforms and national directions are gazetted, to rationalise the unaffiliated zone boundary with the affiliated zone boundary.

4.16 If the request is successful, the requester will require a new water permit under the TRMP rules to take groundwater in the Appleby Gravel Zone from bore WWD 24337. In doing so he will be required to relinquish his access to groundwater from the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone using the same bore.

Process for considering the private plan change request (PC86)

4.17 The requester has proposed that Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA for private plan changes be adhered to, rather than the freshwater planning process under s80A of the RMA.

4.18 According to the requester the basis for this request is:

Clause 6B(b) of Section 80A states that a regional council may use the freshwater planning process when preparing other provisions of a regional plan that relate to freshwater.

Section 80A clearly relates to plan process prepared or undertaken by a regional council (clause 1). It does not provide for a plan change privately prepared and requested.

4.19 Furthermore, Section 80A relates to the freshwater planning process required to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM).

4.20 In this instance, the plan change request seeks to change a water management zone boundary. It does not seek to give effect to the NPS-FM. Consequently, the general provisions for notifying a private plan change under Schedule 1, Part 2 of the RMA can be used.

Assessment of environmental effects

4.21 The requester has provided an assessment of environmental effects corresponding with the scale and significance of the proposal and concludes there will be positive effects, including:

4.21.1 more accurate data on the use and allocation of water from the Waimea Community Dam, particularly on the margins;

4.21.2 an additional shareholder, and therefore additional funding for Waimea Irrigators Limited; and

4.21.3 greater certainty and reliability for the requester in relation to a water supply for their orchard business.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The requester has provided a thorough plan change request including an Assessment of Environmental Effects, s32 Evaluation Report, a Technical Assessment by Aqualink, peer reviewed by Andrew Fenemor (Landcare Research) and Affected Party Approvals.

5.2 Moving the zone boundary will affect land owned by Tasman District Council (paper road and river reserve), Waimea West Hops Limited and a strip of unalienated crown land. It may have the effect of marginally increasing rates for the land liable to rates but given the area is very small it may not register a change.

5.3 Council staff have no concerns with the private plan change request and recommend it be accepted by the Council so that it can proceed to notification.

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

6.1 The cost to progress this relatively minor private plan change request will be borne by the requester if option 1 ‘Accept’ is chosen.

6.2 Staff time required for administration, assessment of the application, and to assist with the notification and submissions process can be charged to the requester under option 1.

6.3 Time for staff to assist with this private plan change request can be met from within the current Environmental Policy team’s work schedule.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Accept	· The Council administers the legal process and the costs are largely borne by the requester. · Accepting the request indicates that the Council considers that there is enough information for it to be publicly notified, not that the Council necessarily supports it. · The s32 report, the Assessment of Environmental Effects and description of the proposal have been completed by the requester and do not need replicating or reworking. · Is an example to other landowners who may want to proceed with a similar type of private plan change, that the Council will not bear the costs for these. · Allows the Council to work with the requester to achieve the best outcome. · Ensures it remains a private plan change which is likely to be an exemption to the Plan Stop being introduced in August via the Government’s second RMA Amendment Bill when it is expected to pass into law.	· The Council has less control to modify or withdraw the request at a later stage, if required. · Rules do not have effect until the plan is operative.^{^[4]}
2.	Adopt	· If the Council adopts a private plan change, it continues through the process as if it was a Council-initiated plan change. · Implies that the Council generally supports the proposal. · Gives the Council greater control over what is notified. · By gaining control of the process, it is possible to modify or withdraw the request at a later stage, if required. · Rules protecting or relating to water have an effect on notification s86B RMA.^{^[5]}	· Implies the Council will bear the cost of managing the plan change from the date that it adopts it. · Councils only ‘adopt’ plan changes in rare circumstances.^{^[6]} · Works well when there is a component of public benefit, because the ratepayers are bearing the costs, but in this case the benefit is privately derived. · Creates a precedent for future privately initiated plan changes.
3.	Reject	· There are no grounds for rejection as set out in Clause 25 (4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.	· Rejection would expose the Council to a potentially successful legal challenge: - it is not frivolous or vexatious; - the substance of the change has not been dealt with by the local authority or the Environment Court within the last two years; - the change is in accordance with sound resource management practice; - the change would not make the plan inconsistent with Part V (other policies and plans); and - the plan to which the change is being made has been operative for more than two years.
4.	Resource consent	· No advantages	· The requested change could not be achieved through a resource consent process as it relates to changing zone boundaries within the TRMP.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Council’s statutory requirements in relation to a private plan change are contained within the Schedule 1, Part 2, clause 25 of the RMA.

8.2 The two pragmatic options are to accept or to adopt.

8.3 If PC86 is accepted it would follow the procedures for notification set out in Schedule 1, Part 2, clause 26 and must be notified within four months of the decision.

8.4 Following this procedure the plan change will not have legal effect until it is operative, once any submissions or appeals have been settled.

8.5 Recent announcements by the Government indicate that they will put a stop to unnecessary plan changes under the RMA. This will be done via an amendment to the RMA Amendment Bill currently before the House.^{^[7]} However, private plan changes are likely to be exempt.^{^[8]}

8.6 Despite the announcements from Government, it was the Supreme Court’s finding in Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others that decisions must be made based on the law as it currently stands, not on potential future legislative changes.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 The Waimea Plains area, including the waterways and coastal environment, holds significant cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional values and associations for Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu.

9.2 Statutory Acknowledgements over the Waimea, Wai-iti and Wairoa Rivers and their tributaries are held by Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.

9.3 Ngāti Toa Rangatira hold a Statutory Acknowledgement over the Waimea River and tributaries.

9.4 The requester has provided a summary of the private plan change request to the eight Te Tauihu iwi.

9.5 On notification ngā iwi will be provided with a copy of the full request. Clause 26, Part 2, Schedule 1 of the RMA is silent on pre-notification regarding consultation for iwi authorities.

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

10.1 The proposals in this paper have a relatively low level of significance for the Waimea community. No significant community involvement or consultation is 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	No
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Environment By gaining water from the Appleby Gravel affiliated zone the requester can sell his shares in the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone. The zone is fully allocated with a waiting list so this provides scope for new land in the Wai-iti to be irrigated. This creates a minor cumulative effect to the groundwater resource by adding a new user further up catchment. However, the groundwater resource is protected by the allocation regime for both zones. The amount of allocated water within the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone will not change. The Appleby Gravel Zone is not fully allocated. Cultural There is unlikely to be any cultural impacts or benefits, although part of the land being rezoned is covered by Statutory Acknowledgements for Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu. Economic There are economic advantages for the requester and Waimea Irrigators Ltd. The requester will gain more security of supply for his orchard business and potentially profit. Waimea Irrigators Limited can sell their shares and help fund repayment of the dam. Social There are unlikely to be social impacts.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The Waimea Community Dam is a strategic asset. This proposal supports the Waimea Dam as another investor is buying into the scheme.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Low	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	Low	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Low	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	Low	The allocation regimes for the Appleby Gravel Zone and the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone protect water for its ecological values and contributions to river flows. It maintains a reservation for community drinking water. The remaining water is then available for irrigation and consumptive use. Therefore, the obligations of Te Mana o Te Wai are met.

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Environmental Policy staff have engaged with Consents, Compliance, Environmental Science and Community Infrastructure in deciding how to progress this plan change request.

11.2 The requester has provided a summary of the application to Ngā Iwi o Te Tauihu.

11.3 The requester has also provided a description of the proposal to the following parties, whom they consider to be affected by the request:

Name	Registration number	Address
Murray King (Director) Waimea Irrigators Limited	6091410
Cameron Ealam (Chairman) Wai-iti Dam Water Users Committee
Lawson Davey Fish and Game New Zealand
Ian Palmer		155 Palmer Road
Ben Giesen (Director) Waimea West Hops Limited	6854773	Lot 1 Aldourie Road
Kerry Wells MG Group Holdings Limited	1544428	71 Aldourie Road, Waimea West

Table 1 – Affected parties identified by the requester

11.4 Notification of PC86 will follow the prescribed timeframes and process under Schedule 1 clause 26 of the RMA.

11.5 No prior communication with the public for this private plan change request is required.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 There are potential risks with Options 1 and 2 presented in this paper.

12.2 In financial terms the risk is lower for Option 1 than Option 2, as the requester will bear the cost of the private plan change.

12.3 Environmentally the risks are low as the river flows and groundwater levels are protected by limits and levels set in the TRMP to protect ecological values and these will not change.

12.4 There is a waiting list for water permits in the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone and if JL Palmer Ltd can utilise water from the Waimea Dam, another user up-catchment may benefit from the Wai-iti Dam shares he will no longer require.

12.5 The political risk of Option 1 is lower than Option 2 as the Council is not seen as endorsing the proposal. During the notification period the community has an opportunity to submit their views through the submission, hearing and appeal process.

12.6 A private plan change is less likely to be halted by Government under the indicative resource management reforms, which lowers the potential risk for disruption to the process.

12.7 Once the zone boundary for the Appleby Gravel Zone has moved south the requester will be required to apply for a water permit or vary his existing water take permit RM191377.

12.8 A new permit will be a restricted discretionary activity. A variation to a water permit is a discretionary activity. Either way the takes can be conditioned so that the requester only uses the water from bore WWD 24337 from one consent to irrigate the nominated land area.

12.9 The aquifer boundary adjustment also involves land owned by Waimea West Hops Limited. Waimea West Hops Limited already has bores in the Appleby Gravel Zone with the associated benefits of access to Waimea Dam water. It is unlikely they would seek another bore in this area and if they did, a new water permit would be required.

12.10 The Appleby Gravel Zone is not fully allocated.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

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

13.2 While greenhouse gas emissions are largely driven by economic growth^{^[9]} the change to the Appleby Gravel Zone boundary will have little impact. The change will enable JL Palmer Ltd to apply a more secure source of water to their land, not necessarily enabling them to produce more apples.

13.3 Furthermore, the Council is committed to the Waimea Community Dam and its associated water allocation regime. The effects on climate change were presumably accounted for when the Dam and affiliated water was consented.

13.4 When considering the effects of climate change on the requester it appears that he is aiming to be more resilient by gaining access to a secure water supply.

13.5 Consequently, this proposal does not detract from the Council’s and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change (e.g. Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan, Emissions Reduction Plan, National Adaptation Plan etc.).

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

14.1 The Council has the delegations for decisions on changes to the TRMP, and their associated plan development and plan making processes under RMA Schedule 1.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Considering the balance of legal, financial, operational and reputational risks to the Council, staff recommend that the Private Plan Change Request to amend the boundary between the Wai-iti Dam Service Zone and the Appleby Gravel Aquifer (PC86) is ‘accepted’.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 Following the Council’s decision to adopt or accept PC86 Council is required to publicly notify the plan change request following the procedures set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, including the requirement to notify within four months of making that decision.

16.2 Within that time, staff will consult with the requester, notify ngā iwi and people who may be directly affected by the change request, and publicly notify it.

16.3 Upon notification there is a 20-working day submission period, followed by a further 10-working day further submission period.

16.4 A hearing will be held unless no submissions are received and there are no concerns about the request.

16.5 At any time prior to making its decision (either before the hearing or as a result of it), the Council can initiate a variation to the change request with the agreement of the requester. Such a variation would need to be publicly notified and the process would start again from that point.

16.6 The requester and any person who made a submission may appeal the decision of the Council to the Environment Court within 30 working days.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Private Plan Change Request to Tasman Resource Management Plan	767
2.⇩	Water Notification Map PC86	831

[2] Existing 50km/h sign is approximately 95m north of speed limit change recorded in the National Speed Limit Register

[3] Speed limit change is recorded in the National Speed Limit Register, but not signed

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