Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

7 Reports

7.1 Awaroa Seawall - Landowner Approval

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-5

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council, as landowner, to consider giving consent for a coastal protection structure (seawall) to be constructed over an area of the Awaroa Inlet Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve (the Reserve).

1.2 This report assesses an application from several property owners at Awaroa Inlet against the criteria set out in the Tasman District Council Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy – June 2024 (the Policy).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The application follows the criteria and application process in the Policy.

2.2 The applicants are seeking approval for a timber pole seawall on the Reserve to provide protection to their properties and reinstate a walkway along the Reserve that would provide both access public access across the reserve frontage and to their properties.

2.3 The seawall is consistent with the purpose of an esplanade reserve as it will restore and enhance public access to and along the reserve. It is also consistent with the Reserves General Policies and the Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan.

2.4 Several reports prepared by Tonkin & Taylor (T+T) provide an assessment of existing and future coastal erosion risk at the site, they assess potential remedial options, their effects, design life and cost.

2.5 The proposed structure is a 260m long vertical timber seawall with an exposed face of up to a 2.3m maximum height. At the western end of the seawall there will be beach level access to an elevated 1.8-metre-wide walkway along the inside of the seawall. Public foot access will then be along the esplanade until around 89 Awaroa Inlet, where a path will return to the beach. The bank behind the seawall will be planted with coastal native plants appropriate to the locality. The design and location of the proposed wall structure has been designed to minimise adverse effects. Construction costs for the proposed works will be met by the applicants who have also agreed that they will enter into and be bound by a legal agreement with the Council regarding their ongoing responsibility for maintenance and any liability arising from the structure.

2.6 A licence to occupy will be required for the structure on the reserve. The key benefits of this application are that it will restore and protect public access along the reserve and provide access to the sea.

2.7 The application has been assessed under the Policy and no significant impediments have been identified therefore approval is recommended.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Awaroa Seawall - Landowner Approval report, RCN25-09-5; and

2. gives consent as landowner for some 260 metres of vertical timber pole seawall on Awaroa Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve as set out in the application by the property owners at 89, 91, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121 and 123 Awaroa Inlet subject to:

a. a resource consent and, if required, a building consent being granted prior to undertaking any further works on the Reserve.

b. the owners of 89, 91, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121 and 123 Awaroa Inlet as direct beneficiaries of the coastal erosion protection entering into a joint and several Licence to Occupy for the seawall on the reserve; and

c. the owners of 89, 91, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121 and 123 Awaroa Inlet as direct beneficiaries of the coastal erosion protection entering into an agreement with the Council regarding the planting, ongoing maintenance, sand replenishment and any liability, related to the seawall; and

d. the owners of 89, 91, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121 and 123 Awaroa Inlet obtaining the necessary consents and approvals from the Department of Conservation for any sections of the seawall that are located in the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve; and

3. notes that this approval is given by the Council as landowner of the Reserve and is independent of the Council’s regulatory role in assessing and deciding on any resource consent and building consent applications related to the coastal erosion protection; and

4. notes that in accordance with the terms of this resolution the Group Manager Community Infrastructure may exercise his delegated authority (Delegations Register clause 5.9) to provide unconditional written approval as an affected person under the Resource Management Act 1991 to the resource consent application.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The applicants are the owners of 14 properties from 89 - 123 Awaroa Inlet, Awaroa whose properties have a frontage to the Reserve, also known as the Awaroa Private Landowners Group in attached reports.

4.2 The Reserve has been under attack from erosion since 2015/2-16 when the sandspit at the entrance to the estuary, which protects the inner Awaroa Estuary from open sea wave effects, started to move and recede. This left the area, known as Meadowbank, exposed and vulnerable to erosion. In addition to the widening of the estuary entrance there have also been changes in the flood tidal delta and channels system within the estuary.

4.3 At the western end of Meadowbank, almost all the esplanade reserve has eroded, leaving an unstable near vertical bank. Since the construction of a seawall in front of this bank, erosion has been limited to wind and rain weakening the eroded vertical face, with some material falling behind the wall. Further eastward, the Reserve is mostly unaffected due to the protective effect of two other seawalls, the eastern most seawall has generated some end effects causing some erosion in front of 89 and 91 Awaroa Inlet.

4.4 Beach levels in front of all three walls fluctuate regularly and in places where the western wall was incomplete, seawater has scoured out the fill behind it further weakening the bank of the Reserve. At the eastern end of the reserve there is a spit of sand which has provided some protection to the reserve and in the centre the reserve is protected by two contiguous seawalls.

4.5 In response to the erosion, beach replenishment was undertaken by the Council in conjunction with residents in 2018. As identified above, there are also three timber seawalls along the Reserve frontage. A seawall was constructed in front of the lodge at 107 Awaroa Inlet approximately 20 years ago, (described as Wall 2 in attached reports), this was consented. There is a section of unconsented seawall, constructed in 2021, in front of 97-105 Awaroa Inlet (Wall 3 in reports) and a further partly consented seawall in front of 115 -123 Awaroa Inlet (Wall 1 in reports). Wall 1 was granted a conditional Council landowner consent in September 2021 (RCN21-09-5). Construction was started prior to a resource consent application being considered, this resulted in an abatement notice being issued by the Council. The Council agreed through a subsequent mediation process to accept a resource consent application to formalise all the seawalls as part of an integrated erosion control application.

4.6 Further assessment of the coastal processes at play in the estuary and hydrodynamic wave modelling has been undertaken by coastal experts. This is part of an effects assessment for the seawalls to support both the landowner consent and the resource consent applications.

4.7 The applicants are seeking approval from the Council as landowner of the Reserve for a amalgamation of Walls 1, 2 & 3 into one continuous structure, mostly located above Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) on the seaward frontage of the Reserve. This includes moving a section of Wall 1 slightly seaward to minimise excavation of the existing bank and avoiding possible disturbance of a wāhi tapu site. Other changes will include addition of a second row of timber poles with bracing between rows, extension of the wall at its eastern end, installation of three lightweight rebuildable steps to provide beach access along the wall replacing existing structures and planting for stability and landscaping.
A walkway will be laid mid-height along part of the wall at the western end and up to the top of the bank where the Reserve widens and the return to the beach at the eastern end.

4.8 The seawalls will provide protection to the Reserve and ultimately protect the Meadowbank properties that abut the Reserve. The walkway along the Reserve will restore public access along the reserve frontage and enable access to the private properties which abut the reserve and have no other legal access. In addition, landscape values will be enhanced through planting and the cultural elements protected

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The application follows the format set out in Appendix 2 of the Policy and provides all the information needed for a decision. The application is included as Attachment 1 – Application for Landowner Consent, Awaroa, 27 August 2025, The application has been analysed against the requirements of the Policy.

Reserve Land Description

5.2 The reserve that is the subject of this application is the Awaroa Inlet Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve (the Reserve) described as Lot 10 DP 8100, this land was vested in the Council in 1972 on subdivision of a larger title. A separate title has not been issued for the Reserve; this is not uncommon for reserve land.

Assessment of Application

5.3 The Policy has a flow chart of the landowner approval process, this assessment follows the flow chart that is included in Figure 1 on the next page and considers the key questions at each step in the process.

Figure 1: Flowchart – Landowner approval process

A diagram of a process

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Location of the coastal erosion control structure

5.4 The proposed structure will largely be located on the Reserve land above MHWS, some parts of the structure will be below MHWS and above Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) that is be located in the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve (ATFS Reserve). This means that the application will need to be considered by both administering bodies. The Council is the administering body for the former and both the Council and Department of Conservation (DoC) are jointly the administering body for the later. DoC will consider a concession application for the parts of the structure located in the ATFS Reserve. The seawall structure, including its location, is shown in Attachment 2 - Awaroa Seawall, Tonkin + Taylor – Jul 25 (5 sheets).

5.5 The Reserve is a Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve. When assessing whether the proposed structure is consistent with the purpose of an esplanade reserve, the Council needs to be satisfied that:

a. the Reserve Land has conservation values AND the proposed structure will contribute to the protection of those values by one of the means set out, most likely by mitigating natural hazards to protect those values, or

b. the proposed structure enables public access to or along the sea, or

c. the proposed structure enables public recreational use of the reserve and adjacent sea, where compatible, with the conservation values of the reserve.

Conservation Values

5.6 The application identifies that the bank will be planted out with coastal native plants to enhance the natural values of the reserve and enhance slope stability assisting to mitigate natural hazards. The plants used will be species found growing naturally in the locality. Planting will improve the visual effects as there is currently a mix of native and exotic species, so the environment is highly modified.

Public Access

5.7 The structure will restore public access along the reserve by establishing a walkway in part behind the wall structure and in part along the top of the bank. Currently there is no public access along the western end of the reserve as it has been eroded. The wall and associated walkway will also improve access to the properties that abut the Reserve. There are no formed roads at Awaroa so practical access to the properties is from the beach to the Reserve via one of the access points and then along the Reserve to the properties. It is proposed to construct three set of lightweight stairs to the beach to replace a precarious existing stairway that juts out onto the beach, and rehabilitate the area currently used for access to the beach at the eastern end. This will provide good access to the beach and the sea from the Reserve. Public recreation use by both Meadowbank residents and visitors to the area will be significantly enhanced.

5.8 In summary, the seawall structure will be consistent with the Reserve purpose in that it will restore and enhance public access to and along the reserve. The natural values of the Reserve will not be significantly compromised and in fact the proposed planting will assist to stabilise and remedy the eroded slope, protect it from further erosion and positively contribute to the native vegetation patterns in the area.

Reserve Management Plans

5.9 Is the proposed structure consistent with the reserve management plan? Consideration needs to be given to the Reserves General Policies 2015 and the relevant ward reserve management plan, in this case the Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan 2003.

5.10 The Reserves General Policies 2015 has several policies relevant to this application. These are summarised on page 24 of the Policy. These include demonstrating a need for the structure, particularly a hard structure plus a list of considerations when evaluating a proposal for a new structure such as, the design, effects, financial matters, and conditions required. A number of these are considered in other parts of the Policy so are covered in the relevant section rather than here. The coastal hazards policy (5.3) requires that regard is given to policy 26 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement which gives an emphasis on using natural defences to protect against coastal hazards.

5.11 The Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan 2003 has several policies relevant to coastal erosion structures; these are outlined on pages 27 and 28 of the Policy. The management plan allows the construction of erosion control works, subject to Council approval. It identifies that structures should not unnecessarily restrict foot access onto or across the reserve. It prohibits structures unless they are compatible with the primary purpose of the reserve and necessary to meet a demonstrated demand for public use and permitted by the management policies for the reserve. Staff concur with the applicant that the application is consistent with the plan.

Case for a Coastal Erosion Protection Structure

5.12 In considering the case for a structure, consideration is given to the need for a structure rather than soft engineering solutions, whether alternatives have been considered and potential adverse effects from what is proposed.

5.13 A report prepared by Tonkin & Taylor (T+T), Coastal Erosion and Options Assessment for Awaroa Esplanade 2021 provided an assessment of existing and future coastal erosion risk at the site. It assessed several potential remedial options, including sand replenishment, their effects, design life and cost. This report was originally prepared in 2018 and updated in 2021 to reflect current conditions including further coastal erosion and a timber pole sea wall design was added.

5.14 A further assessment, Awaroa Coastal Processes Assessment was undertaken by T+T in 2024, this included an assessment of coastal processes, hydrodynamic wave modelling, a seawall effects assessment and feasibility assessment for sand replenishment.

5.15 The assessment outlines that the Awaroa Estuary is a dynamic tidal system with morphological changes that occur over varying timescales. Based on the coastal process assessment and hydrodynamic wave modelling, an effects assessment was completed for the proposed seawall.

5.16 It concluded that overall, the fully integrated sea wall proposal is expected to have beneficial effects on the public access along the top of the wall and coastal erosion of the backshore, negligible effects on the wider estuary morphology and water levels and a low effect on waves and currents locally at the toe and sediment processes fronting the wall. The potential effect on the adjacent shorelines is considered moderate as the structure is being extending to tie into the adjacent wider beach areas (therefore reducing the potential impacts of end effects). This effect should be monitored and mitigated, if end effects are detected or reported. Mitigation could include sand replenishment and/or wall extension and appropriate tie into adjacent shoreline. With mitigations these moderate levels of effects could be reduced to low.

5.17 These T&T reports have been prepared and updated over a four-year period and each considers changes in the environment since the previous report and modifies the conclusions slightly. The 2024 T&T report considers the entire Reserve frontage rather than having a focus on the western end only. There has been significant investigation, modelling and analysis of the Awaroa estuary including the entrance which shows that the estuary is an extremely dynamic environment.

5.18 The Council in 2021 granted a landowner approval for Wall 1 at the western end and through a subsequent mediation agreement it was agreed to regularise the other walls. The 2024 T&T report confirms that this revised integrated seawall proposal is an appropriate solution, and the assessment of effects range from beneficial for public access to moderate effects on adjacent shorelines, should end effects occur with the opportunity to apply further mitigations to reduce this to low.

Design and Public Access

5.19 The consistency of the design of the structure with the purpose of the Reserve particularly in relation to access, potential adverse effects on other properties and any other coastal works in the area are considered.

5.20 The proposed structure is a 260m long vertical timber seawall with an exposed face of up to a 2.3m maximum height.

5.21 At the western end of the proposed structure there will be beach level access to an elevated 1.8-metre-wide walkway along the inside of the seawall. This walkway will lead to steps (or a ramp) that enables easy access on foot to the upper level of the Reserve immediately before 121 Awaroa Inlet. Public foot access will then be along the esplanade in front of adjacent properties, until around 89 Awaroa Inlet, where a path will return to the beach.

5.22 The sloping bank behind the seawall will be graded to a stable angle and planted with coastal native plants appropriate to the locality.

5.23 The design and location of the proposed wall structure has been designed to minimise adverse effects. It is likely however that there will be an adverse effect on sand levels in front of the seawall due to wave reflection and the confining of sediment behind the structure that would otherwise have eroded from the bank and fed the beach. The T&T coastal process assessment considered these effects to be very small compared to the volume of sediment that is actively moving in the estuary but noted that beach width in front of the wall could be expected to decrease further over time.

5.24 The seawalls have now been in place along most of the proposed seawall for four years, therefore the coastal engineers and the applicants have had the opportunity to observe effects, make a realistic assessment of their severity, and consider how best to manage and mitigate these effects.

5.25 The revised design addresses end effects by extending the seawall into significantly higher sand levels at each end. They identify that this will require monitoring and will likely require localised sand replenishment. They note that, at the eastern end, the seawall extends into a historically stable and sizable raised sandbank that has been there for the last twenty-five years. At the western end, sand levels have remained high over the last four years but are now showing some signs of receding. The volumes of sand required to keep the ends of the wall buried are quite small, in the order of 10-15% of the sand moved in the 2018 sand push up.

5.26 In summary, the potential adverse effects have been considered and solutions identified, all- tide public access will be restored by providing a walkway.

Cost and Maintenance

5.27 Responsibility for the construction, maintenance and any potential liability associated with the structure is considered.

5.28 Construction costs for the proposed works will be met by the applicants, the property owners at 89 – 123 Awaroa Inlet with property adjacent to the Reserve. Those property owners are aware that they will be required to enter and be bound by a legal agreement with the Council regarding their ongoing responsibility for maintenance and any liability arising from the structure and have provide an assurance that they have the financial capacity to fulfil their obligations.

5.29 The applicants have considered whether there are any special circumstances the Council should take into account when considering whether to contribute to the construction, maintenance or repair of the structure. They have commented that “the subject of cost sharing arrangements has not been deeply explored with council. As to who benefits, the obvious beneficiaries are, in no particular order:

· The general public, from restoration of public access and amenity.

· The Council, as the administering body of the reserve, from having remnants of their reserve saved, and from the restoration of the functions of their reserve.

· The adjacent landowners, from having their properties more protected from coastal erosion.

· The wider Awaroa community, from restoration of community access along the frontage of the settlement, and from restoration of some of the natural character of the reserve vegetation.

5.30 Rather than attempt to achieve an agreement on cost sharing as part of this landowner consent process, (which could significantly delay this application process), the applicants have suggested that any cost contribution agreement should be considered separately.

5.31 The Council has incurred considerable costs to date particularly in staff time working with the applicant and wider community on this matter and for a sand push-up consent for Awaroa. The Reserves & Facilities Department would be happy to provide appropriate plants for the bank from Coastcare budgets. This would be the limit of what the Council would expect to contribute.

Precedent and wider Implications

5.32 The precedent of allowing a structure in this location and what this would mean for other locations, is something the Council needs to consider.

5.33 Tasman District has a long coastline and there are pockets of coastal erosion at various points along that coastline. Each has different factors that need to be considered, some are near river mouths, some have a significant dune system in place, they all face different directions, some having greater exposure to wind and currents than others. Therefore, each situation needs to be fully investigated by coastal experts with an independent peer review of the assessment, as has been done in this case, prior to confirming an appropriate solution. The Policy provides a good framework to achieve this.

5.34 An occupation agreement will be required for the structure on the Reserve; it is appropriate that this be by way of a licence to occupy. The key benefits of this application are that it will restore and protect public access along the Reserve and provide access to the sea. As part of the licence to occupy, the applicants will need to enter into an agreement with the Council regarding the planting, ongoing maintenance, sand replenishment, and any liability, related to the seawall.

Other Consents

5.35 Both building and resource consents will be required. The applicant has engaged a resource consent planner to progress the resource consent application. The building consent application will be lodged following consideration of this application.

5.36 The applicant has advised that they will apply for a DoC concession after the resource consent, this approach has been confirmed by DoC as being appropriate.

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

6.1 The applicant is meeting the costs of investigating solutions, consenting, constructing and maintaining the structure. There are benefits to private landowners and the wider community resulting from an approval. The Council has incurred some cost to date in consenting a previous beach re-nourishment and is likely to contribute to planting if this application is approved. These costs will be met from Coastcare budgets. No further financial contribution has been budgeted.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Give Landowner Approval (Recommended)	Restoration of the esplanade reserve and reinstatement of pedestrian access along the Reserve.	Sand replenishment is likely to be required in future, the effects of this are outside the reserve.
2.	Decline giving landowner approval	There are no obvious advantages in declining this application.	All-tide public pedestrian access along the reserve will be lost and the property owners adjacent to the Reserve will have limited access to their properties

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Reserves Act 1977 will require the Council to grant an occupation agreement, in the form of a licence to occupy, for the structure to be located on Reserve land that will include conditions relating to planting, ongoing seawall and planting maintenance, beach replenishment and managing any liability related to the seawall. This has been covered in the report recommendations.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 The applicant has advised that consultation occurred prior to the 2021 application for landowner consent for just the Wall 3 area. Further consultation and site visits preceded Iwi providing a Cultural Impact Assessment in March 2023.

9.2 In mid-2024 agreement was reached with the Council that the applicants would be party to a "four-way" meeting involving DoC, Iwi, Council and the applicants. This proved complex to achieve but eventually a Draft Position Statement was issued by Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa and the Department of Conservation that explained their views and concerns about the proposal for Awaroa Walls 1-3.

9.3 In summary, concerns were expressed about:

· The potential for end of wall effects arising from the structure

· The potential for negative effects on the geomorphology and natural processes of the estuary

· The potential for disturbance of culturally significant artifacts and wāhi tapu

· Uncertainty about where responsibility lay for the maintenance and upkeep of the proposed structure and its eventual removal

· Suggested that the applicants should work collaboratively with DoC and Iwi to develop a more culturally sensitive response.

9.4 The applicants responded to these concerns and endeavoured to explain what steps could be taken to minimise and avoid the potential effects that DoC and Iwi identified. The applicants also stated they were keen and willing to work collaboratively as suggested.

9.5 The T+T coastal processes assessment, final version dated 19 December 2024 analysed many of the potential concerns referred to in the Draft Position Statement and was a key part of the applicant's response. Unfortunately, because of the timing of this report, it was not available when DoC and Iwi prepared their Draft Position Statement.

9.6 With regard to wāhi tapu, the applicants engaged an archaeologist in August 2022, to advise on an archaeological authority, accidental discovery protocols, and Iwi monitoring. The archaeologist raised an archaeological record N26/319. Changes have since been made to the design and positioning of the proposed wall to minimise and avoid the potential disturbance that Iwi highlighted.

9.7 The applicant has advised that communication with Iwi since mid-June 2025 has established that Iwi do not wish to meet, (to develop a collaborative response) but prefer that the applicants go ahead and lodge the Resource Consent application and they will put their views forward as part of the consenting process. The applicants remain open to collaborating with Iwi to improve their proposal so that the significant values in this area can be maintained, enhanced and protected.

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

10.1 As outlined in the following table, we consider this activity overall to be of medium significance to residents with coastal properties where there is a risk of coastal erosion.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Coastal erosion is an issue for a number of coastal communities. The Council has an obligation to give preference to natural defences. Community preferences tend to favour hard engineered solutions.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	There is a social benefit to reinstating public access across the reserve and protecting the reserve from erosion. There is an offset to environmental impacts through planting to stabilise the slope.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	The structure has an estimated life of around 30 years. There are no significant impacts related to the duration identified.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Reserves and Cemeteries in their entirety are a strategic asset, this policy will potentially have an impact on a single coastal reserve where it is impacted by erosion and adjoined by private properties.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	N/a
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 commitments are proposed other than consideration of Council input to funding, no budget has been identified to enable other than a minor contribution with planting.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	N/a
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	N/a
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	N/a
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	N/a

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The landowner approval process is the first of a number of approvals required including resource and building consents. There is also a need for DoC to grant a concession. Any public communication should be following completion of these processes.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The key risks are identified and analysed below:

Risk

Likelihood

(H/M/L)

Impact

(H/M/L)

Comments & Risk Management Strategies (Mitigations)

Further site works prior to other consents being obtained

This risk was realized following the 2021 landowner approval and is unlikely to be repeated.

Conditions of approval not met

Enforcement action may be required to ensure compliance.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal would contribute to the goal for tree planting and land stability and to some degree detract from goals relating to adaptation in the coastal environment.

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

14.1 A policy for coastal erosion protection structures on Council Reserve land has been prepared to assist private landowners in outlining the information required when making an application for landowner consent and to assist the Council in its role as decision maker by detailing matters the Council will consider.

14.2 The application has been assessed against the policy and complies with the policy, therefore approval is recommended.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The application seeks landowner consent for construction of a seawall to protect the esplanade reserve, reinstate public access across the reserve and protect private properties from coastal erosion. The solution has been arrived at following an assessment by coastal specialists.

15.2 The applicants are proposing to fund the construction and maintenance of the structure and enter into an agreement to cover any liability arising from the seawall.

15.3 The application has been assessed under Tasman District Council Coastal erosion protection structures on Council Reserve Land Policy – June 2024 and no significant impediments have been identified therefore approval is recommended.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The next steps will be for the applicants to progress the resource and building consent applications.

16.2 A licence to occupy plus an agreement for the ongoing maintenance, and any liability, related to the seawall agreement would need to be prepared and entered into with the applicant prior to construction of the structure.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	2025-08 Awaroa Landowner Consent Application	22
2.⇩	2025-07 T & T Awaroa Walls Design Drawings	39

7.2 Pakawau Seawall - Landowner Approval

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-6

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council, as landowner of the Pākawau Local Purpose - Esplanade Reserve (Reserve), to consider giving consent for a coastal erosion protection structure (seawall) on part of the Reserve.

1.2 This report assesses an application from the Pākawau Community Residents Association (Association) on behalf of the owners of 1132, 1134 and 1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road against the criteria set out in the Tasman District Council Coastal Erosion Protection Structures on Council Reserve Land Policy – June 2024 (Policy).

1.3 The landowner consent process under the Reserves Act considers whether coastal erosion protection should be constructed on the reserve. The process considers the purpose of the reserve and the reserves policy preference to use sustainable natural solutions to minimise the impact on the natural environment and promote natural resilience. The resource consent process is a separate regulatory process as determined by the Resource Management Act.

1.4 In giving approval as landowner, the Council is not giving any commitment regarding its independent role in assessing and deciding on any resource consent and/or building consent application related to this coastal erosion protection.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The application follows the criteria and application process in the Policy.

2.2 Several reports prepared by OCEL Consultants provide an assessment of coastal erosion at the site, they assess various remedial options and their effects and conclude that an engineered rock revetment is the preferred option as it has the least effects on the environment of the hard engineering rock seawall types.

2.3 Construction costs for the proposed works will be met by the applicants who have also agreed that they will enter into, and be bound, by a legal agreement with the Council regarding their ongoing responsibility for maintenance and any liability arising from the erosion protection.

2.4 A licence to occupy will be required for the structure on the reserve. The key benefits of this application are that it will restore and protect public access along the reserve and provide access to the sea.

2.5 The application has been assessed under the Policy, and no significant impediments have been identified therefore Council landowner approval is recommended subject to a resource consent for the works being granted.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Pakawau Seawall - Landowner Approval RCN25-09-6; and

2. gives landowner approval for the construction of coastal erosion protection at the southern end of Pākawau Local Purpose - Esplanade Reserve in the front of 1132, 1134 and 1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road, subject to;

a. a resource consent and, if required, a building consent being granted prior to any works commencing; and

b. the owners of 1132, 1134 and 1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road as direct beneficiaries of the coastal erosion protection entering into a joint and several Licence to Occupy for any erosion protection placed on the reserve; and

c. the owners of 1132, 1134 and 1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road as direct beneficiaries of the coastal erosion protection entering a joint and several agreement with the Council regarding the ongoing maintenance and any liability, related to the erosion protection; and

3. notes that this approval is given by the Council as landowner of the reserve and is independent of Council’s regulatory role in assessing and deciding on any resource consent and building consent applications related to the coastal erosion protection; and

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The applicant is the Association on behalf of three landowners at 1132-1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road who have properties abutting the Reserve. The Association is seeking approval to construct 61.5 metres of rock revetment on the Reserve along the frontage of three residential properties (1132-1136) effectively extending a length of existing rock revetment (384 metres) that lies to the south. The rock revetment is intended to provide protection from coastal erosion to the properties, provide walking access along part of the Reserve, include steps to access the beach and will be softened visually with indigenous vegetation. This application follows the implementation of a similar revetment on the Reserve in front of the 3 properties immediately to the south of this one in 2022.

4.2 The application for a revetment was initially lodged in June 2024 but was put on hold until all the required information had been received. This information was provided in August 2025.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Association’s application follows the format set out in the Policy and with the addition of the supplementary information provided in August 2025 now provides the information needed for a decision. The application is included as Attachment 1.

Reserve Land Description

5.2 The Reserve, which is the subject of the application, is Pākawau Local Purpose – Esplanade Reserve described as Lot 20 DP 5716; this land was vested in the Council in 1959 on subdivision of a larger title. A separate title has not been issued for the reserve; this is not uncommon for reserve land.

Assessment of Application

5.3 The Policy has a flow chart of the landowner approval process; this assessment follows the flow chart that is included in Figure 1 and considers the key questions at each step in the process.

Figure 1: Flowchart – Landowner approval process

A diagram of a process

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Location of the coastal erosion control structure

5.4 The applicant states that the proposed structure is to be located on the Reserve land above Mean High Water Springs (MHWS). This has been included in a drawing prepared by OCEL Consultants in 2025 and included as Attachment 2.

5.5 The drawing in Attachment 2 also shows the location and typical cross-section of the proposed structure which is like the previous structures to the south.

Consistency with Reserve Purpose

5.6 The drawing in Attachment 2 also shows the location and typical cross-section of the proposed structure which is similar to the previous structures to the south.

5.7 The Reserve is a Local Purpose (Esplanade) Reserve. When assessing whether the proposed structure is consistent with the purpose of an esplanade reserve, the Council needs to be satisfied that:

a. the reserve land has conservation values AND the proposed structure will contribute to the protection of those values by one of the means set out, most likely by mitigating natural hazards to protect those values, or

b. the proposed structure enables public access to or along the sea, or

c. the proposed structure enables public recreational use of the reserve and adjacent sea, where compatible, with the conservation values of the reserve.

Conservation Values

5.8 The Reserve extends around 800m in a north-south direction in front of properties from 1118 – 1194 Collingwood–Pūponga Main Road. A continuation of the rock revetment to the north is proposed in front of a further three properties.

5.9 A coast care programme is in place from about mid-way along the frontage and extends to the Tomatea Point Recreation Reserve. There is a risk that end effects from the proposed revetment could have an adverse effect on the reserve to the north of the wall, the applicant has considered this and have included a specially designed end wall that they say will keep end effects to a minimum.

5.10 There appears to have been some erosion created from ends effects from the previous stage of the revetment which had a similar end wall, there is some concern that as the revetment moves northward it is moving closer to a successful Coast Care programme putting that work at risk.

5.11 The coastal engineers, advising the applicant, OCEL, consider the end effects on the current revetment to be insignificant and therefore are of the view that the overall adverse effects on the coastal environment of the proposed extension are no more than minor.

5.12 The application provides for a planted strip along the top of the wall planted with coastal native plants to enhance the natural values of the reserve and down the face of the revetment helping to reduce the visual impact. The nominated plants are appropriate to this location. Planting into the gaps between the rock is not intended as the vegetation would be destroyed during storm events. Vegetation cascading down the wall will be more durable and mitigate replanting after storm events.

5.13 This approach is supported by staff however the planting that was required as part of the previous stage has not yet been done despite compliance notices being issued.

5.14 The applicant could be bonded to cover end effects and the planting work to address this matter. The applicant’s Coastal Engineer states in their report that, “there is no justification for a bond to cover end effects, they are of no significance at Pākawau”.

Public Access and Recreational Use

5.15 A 1.5m wide gravel path will be provided along the top of the wall to restore public access along the reserve. There is currently no public access across this part of the reserve. This would provide public access along this section of the reserve and to the beach via some steps. The provision of a path and steps to the beach is supported.

5.16 As identified in the section on public access, the applicant proposes to build a set of steps into the revetment. These would utilise selected rock for the steps and include a simple rope and pole handrail that meets recreational use standards. This would restore public access to the beach and the sea.

5.17 In summary, the structure will be consistent with the Reserve purpose in that it will restore and enhance public access to and along the reserve. The natural values of the Reserve will not be significantly compromised as there are no significant trees or other vegetation in this area of the Reserve, the vegetation that was there has been undermined by erosion and removed. There is some risk that this approach is just moving the issue further along the reserve.

Reserve Management Plans

5.18 The policy requires consideration of whether the proposed structure is consistent with the reserve management plan. In this section consideration needs to be given to the Reserves General Policies 2015 and the relevant ward reserve management plan, in this case the Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan 2003.

5.19 The Reserves General Policies 2015 has several policies relevant to this application, these include demonstrating a need for the structure, particularly a hard structure plus a list of considerations when evaluating a proposal for a new structure such as, the design, effects, financial matters, and conditions required. A number of these are considered in other parts of the Policy so are covered in the relevant section of this report rather than here. The coastal hazards policy (5.3) requires that regard be given to policy 26 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) which gives an emphasis on using natural defences to protect against coastal hazards.

5.20 The applicant has acknowledged the requirement to encourage and promote “natural defences” as set out in policies 25 and 26 of the NZCPS but states that these may not always be appropriate and that policy 27 provides that hard protection in certain locations is the only sustainable method of coastal protection. This section has been quoted out of context, policy 27 in the NZCPS, states this only relates to the protection of existing infrastructure of national or regional significance. Policy 27 (4) says that “Hard protection structures, where considered necessary to protect private assets, should not be located on public land if there is no significant public or environmental benefit in doing so”. The applicant argues that it considers that there are significant public and private benefits of locating the structure on reserve as follows:

· It is a matter of National Importance under Part 2 (Section 6) of the RMA to provide public access to and along the coast. This public access will be protected and enhanced by this proposal and would otherwise be lost with the “do nothing” approach.

· There is a significant public benefit is providing a safe stable rock revetment structure that would provide safe and sustainable access to the coast in comparison to the present unstable and unsafe an effectively unusable access to the beach.

· Under Section 2 of the RMA and the definition of “environment” “people and communities” are included as part of “ecosystems and their constituent parts”. In this case the people and community of this part of Pākawau will significant “environmental benefit” from the proposal structure.

· There is significant public benefit from landowners funding rock protection to protect a public esplanade reserve, at no cost to the general rate payer, and maintaining the structure in perpetuity.

· Housing is considered a “physical resource” which is included as part of the definition of “environment” under the RMA. The proposed structure will enable the long-term sustainability of the three houses in question which is a significant environment benefit in comparison to the potential long-term loss of the houses and the reserve itself without the hard protection.

5.21 The Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan 2003 has several policies relevant to coastal erosion structures; these are outlined on pages 27 and 28 of the Policy. The management plan allows the construction of erosion control works, subject to Council approval. It identifies that structures should not unnecessarily restrict foot access onto or across the reserve. It prohibits structures unless they are compatible with the primary purpose of the reserve and necessary to meet a demonstrated demand for public use and permitted by the management policies for the reserve. The Policies in the plan related to Rural Recreation and Esplanade Reserves (policy 6.4.6) allows the construction of erosion control works subject to Council approval. The section on the Pākawau Esplanade Reserve in its description of the Reserve acknowledges the presence of rock barriers on the reserve and states that the protection of the reserve from coastal erosion is an important issue. It does not provide any further direction on how this issue will be managed. Staff concur with the applicant that the application is consistent with the plan.

Case for a coastal erosion protection structure

5.22 In considering the case for a structure, consideration is given to the need for a structure rather than soft engineering solutions, whether alternatives have been considered and potential adverse effects from what is proposed.

5.23 Three reports have been prepared by OCEL Consultants, the first in September 2015 the second in September 2021 and a third in August 2025 (Attachment 3). These have canvassed the options and for coastal protection. The reports conclude that an engineered rock revetment is the preferred option as it has the least effects on the environment of the hard engineering rock seawall types. They note that hard rock revetment design is now highly developed and proven to work in this environment. Careful placement of the right size hard rock as per the recommended design will provide long lasting sustainable protection in this location and this has been shown with other similar rock revetment nearby such as Totara Avenue and the properties to the south of the site, that have shown that that rock revetments are successful and sustainable option for these coastal environments.

5.24 OCEL’s August 2025 report advises that the erosion at Pākawau is caused by the episodic East /Southeast storm events that generate signiﬁcant wind waves that erode sand from the beach and carry it north by littoral drift. Outside of the storm events, the beach at Pākawau is very calm and is a “low wave energy” beach which means it has very limited opportunity for the beach to recover after storm events. While the Council has attempted “soft” option solutions of sand push ups and coastal care plantings, these are quickly washed away in subsequent storm events are not a long term nor effective protection.

Design and Public Access

5.25 The consistency of the revetment design with the purpose of the Reserve particularly in relation to access, potential adverse effects on other properties and any other coastal works in the area are considered.

5.26 The extent of the proposed works is from 1132-1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road. The coastal protection works will consist of a 61.5m engineered rock seawall. OCEL Consultants believe that a hard engineering option is the only construction type which will offer long duration protection. An engineered rock revetment seawall is the preferred option as it has the least effects on the environment of the hard engineering seawall types. The irregular surface of the rock matrix serves to dissipate wave energy, reducing wave runup and reflection. This reduces the potential for overtopping allowing the height of the wall to be minimised.

5.27 The wall will be of similar design and construction to the existing seawall to the south of the site and will join into this seawall to form a continuation. The seawall will be constructed within the approximately 20m wide esplanade reserve. The top of the seawall will be variable from RL5.16m - 5.6m to match the approximate top of the existing ground level, with the back of the seawall placed a minimum of 2.0m seaward of the esplanade reserve/private property boundary. This will allow for the seawall to be built up an additional 1.0m higher should this be required due to future sea level rise over and above the minimum 0.5m sea level rise that the wall has been designed for, this extension would sacrifice the 1.5m wide public access track between the private property boundaries and the back of the seawall.

5.28 The toe of the seawall is buried below the beach to a depth of 2.0m MSL. This section of the revetment has been constructed as a vertical down stand to minimise the width of the seawall. The northern end will have a 30 degree return of the seawall inshore to tie the revetment back into the existing upper beach. This return ensures the wall batter continues into the zone where end effects (scouring caused by wave reflections off a vertical or steep face) would occur. From observations of the existing rock revetment seawalls adjacent to the site, which are steeper and have no return inshore, there has been minor impact from end effects. The placement of the return inshore will further minimise any potential of end effects. Drawing DR-150806-007 Rev.3 (Attachment 2) shows the extent and construction of the proposed seawall.

5.29 The applicant also proposes to construct a set of steps into the revetment; this would utilise selected rock for the steps and include a simple rope and pole handrail that meets recreational use standards.

Cost and Maintenance

5.30 Responsibility for the construction, maintenance and any potential liability associated with the structure is considered.

5.31 Construction and maintenance costs for the proposed works will be met by the property owners of 1132, 1134 and 1136 Collingwood-Pūponga Main Road. They will be fully responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure. Those property owners have agreed that they will enter and be bound by a legal agreement with the Council regarding their ongoing responsibility for maintenance and any liability arising from the structure.

5.32 The applicants have considered whether there are any special circumstances the Council should consider when determining whether to contribute to the construction, maintenance or repair of the structure.

5.33 The applicant considers there are significant benefits to the Council for this proposal in that the local community is largely funding the construction and ongoing maintenance of the structure and that it will ensure the sustainability of the reserve itself and the public access it provides and the sustainability of a group of houses that are in grave danger of being lost to the sea by coastal erosion.

5.34 They also state that the proposal will not interfere with the ongoing “coast care” coastal protection scheme that is being carried out further north of the beach towards Tomatea Point where the coastal hazard is much less, and the coast is even advancing.

Other Consents

5.35 A resource consent is required and has been applied for contemporaneously with this application. A building consent application will be lodged once landowner approval and a resource consent are granted, however it may not be required.

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

6.1 The applicant is meeting the cost of design, consenting, constructing and maintaining the revetment. There are benefits to private landowners and the wider community resulting from an approval. The Council has incurred some costs previously in consenting and providing sand push-ups and further north on the reserve supporting a Coastcare programme. These costs have been met from Coastcare budgets. No further financial contribution has been budgeted.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 As landowner of the Pākawau Local Purpose - Esplanade Reserve, the Council has two options as outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Give landowner consent for coastal erosion protection on Pākawau Local Purpose – Esplanade Reserve.	Restoration of the esplanade reserve and reinstatement of pedestrian access along the Reserve.	A coastal erosion protection structure may adversely affect the natural environment if not assessed, constructed and managed well.
2.	Decline landowner consent for coastal erosion protection to be constructed on Pākawau Local Purpose – Esplanade Reserve.	Declining landowner consent would result in the retention of the current natural environment.	Over time the esplanade reserve is likely to be permanently lost together with all-tide pedestrian access along the Reserve.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 The Reserves Act 1977 will require the Council to grant a licence to occupy for the structure to be located on Reserve land. It will include conditions relating to planting, ongoing seawall and planting maintenance and managing any liability related to the seawall. This has been covered in the report recommendations.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 The applicants have advised that Manawhenua ki Mohua are fully supportive of this application and recognise the importance of the Pākawau community. In a letter dated
7 April 2025 (Attachment 4) Manawhenua Ki Mohua have advised that it supports the protection and preservation of the coastal whenua/ foreshore at Pākawau as it holds deep signiﬁcance to the Iwi of Ngati Tama, Te Ātiawa and Ngati Rārua having been kainga/ Pā sites in the past. An iwi monitor will undertake monitoring during the construction of the revetment.

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

10.1 As outlined in the following table, we consider this activity overall to be of high significance to residents with coastal properties where there is a risk of coastal erosion, and of medium significance to some iwi/Māori.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	This decision is only about landowner consent and not about consenting of any coastal erosion protection proposal. There may be some misinterpretation that this decision is approving the coastal erosion protection when it is not.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Very Low	This landowner decision has very low, if any, impact on the social, economic, environment or cultural aspects of well-being of the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	There is some social benefit to reinstating public access across the reserve and protecting the reserve from erosion. All Pākawau is within a Cultural Heritage Precinct. Manawhenua ki Mohua has been consulted, they have requested revetment construction is monitored, the applicant has agreed to this.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	Reserves and Cemeteries in their entirety are a strategic asset, this policy will potentially have an impact on a single coastal reserve where it is impacted by erosion, and this is threatening private properties.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	None	This does not change the level of service provided by the Council.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Low	No financial contribution is proposed. The construction of the revetment and associated landscape works are being funded by the Association.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No	This decision does not involve any sale or part thereof of a CCO or CCTO.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No	This decision does not involve any entry into private sector partnership.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No	This decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	N/a

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The landowner approval process is the first of several approvals required including resource and building consents, any communication should follow completion of these processes.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The key risks are identified and analysed below:

Risk

Likelihood

(H/M/L)

Impact

(H/M/L)

Comments & Risk Management Strategies (Mitigations)

Site works occur prior to other consents being obtained

The project is being managed by the Community Association, they have undertaken several projects previously so understand the process well.

Conditions of approval not met

Enforcement action may be required to ensure compliance.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The proposal would contribute to the goal for planting and land stability and to some degree detract from goals relating to adaption in the coastal environment.

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

14.2 The application has been assessed against the policy and complies with the policy.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The application seeks landowner consent for construction of a rock revetment to protect the esplanade reserve, reinstate public access across the reserve and protect private properties from coastal erosion. The solution has been arrived at following an assessment by coastal specialists and is similar in scale and design to work consented in 2022.

15.2 The applicants are proposing to fund the construction and maintenance of the revetment and enter into an agreement to cover any liability arising from the seawall.

15.3 The application has been assessed under Tasman District Council Coastal erosion protection structures on Council Reserve Land Policy - June 2024 and no significant impediments have been identified therefore approval is recommended.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The next steps will be for the applicants to progress the resource and building consent applications.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	2024-06 PCRA Land owner approval application	55
2.⇩	2025-08 OCEL Revetment Design	69
3.⇩	2025-08 OCEL Pakawau Report	70
4.⇩	2025-04 MKM Pakawau Letter	85

7.4 Recommendation from the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel - Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Amy Smith, Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-09-8

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

1.1 To consider a recommendation from the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel following hearing and deliberations on the Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At its 28 August 2025 meeting the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel resolved as follows:

That the Submissions Hearing and Deliberations Panel:

1. receives the Draft Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations report; and

2. receives and considers all 58 submissions on the Draft Responsible Camping Bylaw received by 14 July 2025; and

3. agrees to staff amending wording, for the reasons set out in ‘Table 1: Changes proposed in response to feedback in submissions’ (Attachment 3 to the agenda report), in the follow clauses:

3.1 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (typo corrected)

3.2 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (Taupata Point added)

3.3 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (Staples Street added)

3.4 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (George Quay Boat Ramp added); and

4. agrees to staff amending the wording, for the reasons set out in ‘Table 2: Other changes proposed by staff’ (Attachment 3 to the agenda report), in the follow clauses:

4.1 Title and commencement (commencement date added)

4.2 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (weblink added)

4.3 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (location names corrected)

4.4 Schedule 1: Prohibited Areas for Freedom Camping (all maps updated)

4.5 Schedule 2: Restricted Areas for Freedom Camping (weblink added)

4.6 Schedule 2: Restricted Areas for Freedom Camping (location names corrected)

4.7 Schedule 2: Restricted Areas for Freedom Camping (all maps updated); and

5 agrees that:

5.1 the recommended changes to the draft Responsible Camping Bylaw are within the scope of decisions that can be made following consideration of views presented during consultation; and

5.2 in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy further consultation is not required on the recommended changes; and

6 agrees that, in accordance with section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, restricting or prohibiting freedom camping in defined local authority areas under the Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw (Attachment 4 to the agenda report), is:

6.1 necessary for one or more of the following reasons: to protect areas in the Tasman District, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas in the District, and to protect access to those areas; and

6.2 the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problems in relation to freedom camping in local authority areas; and

6.3 not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

7 agrees that the Draft Responsible Camping Bylaw (Attachment 4 to the agenda report) and the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel’s recommendations be presented to the Full Council for consideration and making at its meeting on 11 September 2025; and

8 delegates authority to the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel Chair and the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor changes or minor editorial changes to the Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025, prior to being submitted to Tasman District Council; and

9 notes that the updated Site Assessments (Attachment 5 to the agenda report) will be published on the Council’s website, as supporting information to the Bylaw.

2.2 Link to the agenda and recording for the 28 August 2025 Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations meeting.

2.3 Link to the minutes of the 28 August 2025 Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations meeting.

3. Recommendateion/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Recommendation from the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Panel - Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations report, RCN25-09-8; and

2. agrees that, in accordance with section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, the proposed Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025 (Attachment 1
to the agenda report) is:

a. necessary for one or more of the following reasons: to protect areas in the Tasman District, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit those areas in the district, and to protect access to those areas; and

b. the most appropriate form of bylaw for addressing perceived problems in relation to freedom camping in local authority areas; and

c. is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the revocation of the Tasman District Council Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017 effective from 1 November 2025; and

4. pursuant to sections 11 and 11A of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, makes the Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), with effect from 1 November 2025; and

5. delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer and the Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations Chairperson to approve any minor amendments to the Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), prior to it being publicly notified; and

6. authorises staff to publicly notify the Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) and the date it has effect from; and

7. notes that the Tasman District Council Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) will need to be reviewed before 11 September 2030; and

8. notes that the Freedom Camping Site Assessments July 2025 (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) will be published on the Council’s website, as supporting information to the Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025; and

9. confirms the minutes of the 28 August 2025 Responsible Camping Bylaw Hearing and Deliberations meeting as a true and correct record.

4. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Responsible Camping Bylaw 2025	124
2.⇩	Freedom Camping Site Assessments - July 2025	162

7.5 Temporary Road Closures

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Tania Brown, Road Network Coordinator
Report Authorisers:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager
Report Number:	RCN25-09-9

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

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

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The proposed road closures are for the following

2.1.1 Annual Phil Fiddymont Memorial Rally Sprint Saturday 1 November 2025 with a postponement date Sunday 2 November 2025.

2.1.2 Annual Westland Car Rally, Matakitaki Road between 1.48km – 11.48km, Murchison, Saturday 6 December 2025.

2.1.3 Annual Richmond Santa Parade Sunday 7 December 2025 with a postponement date of Sunday 14 December 2025.

2.1.4 Annual Motueka Starlight Christmas Parade Friday 12 December 2025.

2.1.5 Annual Richmond Market Day, Monday 29 December 2025.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Temporary Road Closures report, RCN25-09-9; and

2. approves the following temporary road closures:

a. Dovedale Road from Dove Creek Bridge to end at Pigeon Valley Road (RP16.5 to 19.99) (unsealed section) and Pigeon Valley Road from Sharp Road to end at Dovedale Road (RP5.28 to 10.73) (unsealed section), for the Annual Nelson Car Club Phil Fiddymont Memorial Rally Sprint on Saturday 1 November 2025,
9.00am – 5.00pm, with a postponement date of Sunday 2 November 2025.

b. Matakitaki Road Murchison, from 1.48km from the start for ten (10) kilometres (RP 1.48 – RP 11.48), for the Westland Car Club Rally, on Saturday 6 December 2025, 7.00am – 7.00pm.

c. Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Santa Parade, Edward Street, Queen Street (from Edward Street to McIndoe Place), Wensley Road (from Queen Street to John Wesley Lane), McIndoe Place, Oxford Street (from Queen Street to Crescent Street), Salisbury Road (from Queen Street to Talbot Street) on Sunday 7 December 2025, 7.00am – 3.00pm, with a postponement date of Sunday 14 December 2025.

d. Motueka Starlight Christmas Parade, Wallace Street from High Street to Decks Reserve carpark entrance on Friday 12 December 2025 3.00pm – 9.00pm (noting that New Zealand Transport Agency administer a temporary closure of High Street from Poole Street to Whakarewa Street); and

e. Richmond Unlimited Market Day, Queen Street between John Wesley Lane and McIndoe Place, Richmond, Monday 29 December 2025, 4.00am – 6.30pm.

4. Background / Horopaki

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

Nelson Car Club - Phil Fiddymont Memorial Rally Sprint.

4.2 The Nelson Car Club has applied to temporarily close part of Dovedale Road and Pigeon Valley Road on Saturday 1 November 2025 from 9.00am to 5.00pm with a postponement date Sunday 2 November 2025. The closure will be Dovedale Road from Dove Creek Bridge to Pigeon Valley Road; and Pigeon Valley Road from Sharp Road to the end at Dovedale Road.

4.3 This route has been used in previous years for this event.

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

4.5 This proposed closure is also in accordance with the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

4.6 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 22 August 2025, and on the Tasman District Council’s website.

4.7 There are no residents residing on the proposed road closure, the nearest dwelling is approximately 500 – 800m from the road closure.

4.8 As at the time of writing this report, no objections have been received. Staff will update the Council on any objections received after this report was prepared.

4.9 The New Zealand Police have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.10 A Traffic Management Plan will need to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager before the event can take place.

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

4.12 The Nelson Car Club holds public liability Insurance with a liability limit of $10,000,000.

4.13 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Westland Car Club – Car Hill Climb

4.14 The Westland Car Club has applied to temporarily close 10km of Matakitaki Road from 1.48km from the start (RP 1.48 – RP 11.48) from 7.00am to 7.00pm on Saturday
6 December 2025 for the Westland Car Club rally event.

4.15 This route has been used, and the closure has been approved in previous years.

4.16 The proposed closure was advertised in Newsline on 25 July 2025 and on the Tasman District Council’s website.

4.17 As at the time of writing this report, one objection has been received. Staff will update the Council on any objections received after this report was prepared.

4.18 The nature of the objection related to resident access during the event. This issue has been raised with the applicant and better accommodations for resident access during the event will be included in the Traffic Management Plan. The applicant has been advised that they must let residents and milk tankers through the closure area between races.

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

4.20 The New Zealand Police have been advised of the proposed closure and have no objections.

4.21 A Traffic Management Plan will need to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager before the event can take place.

4.22 The applicant will deliver a letter advising of the closure to affected residents at least one week before the event, evidence of this to be sent to Tasman District Council.

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

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

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

4.26 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Richmond Unlimited – Richmond Santa Parade

4.27 Richmond Unlimited proposes to close Edward Street, parts of Queen Street, Wensley Road, Oxford Street, Salisbury Road, and McIndoe Place, on Sunday 7 December 2025, 7.00am-3.00pm with a postponement date of Sunday 14 December 2025 for the Richmond Santa Parade.

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

4.29 The proposed closure for the Richmond Santa Parade was advertised in Newsline on
11 July 2025 and on the Tasman District Council’s website.

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

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

4.32 The Traffic Management Plan will be submitted and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

4.33 As at the time of writing this report, no objections have been received. Staff will update the Council on any objections received after this report was prepared.

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

4.35 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Starlight Christmas Parade Motueka

4.36 For the Starlight Christmas Parade on Friday, 12 December 2025, Motueka Events Charitable Trust proposes to close the following local roads (in addition to closure of High Street from Poole Street to Whakarewa Street which is a State Highway administered by Waka Kotahi) Wallace Street from High Street to Decks Reserve Carpark entrance, from 3:00pm to 9:00pm.

4.37 This route has been used in previous years for the parade.

4.38 The proposed closure for the Starlight Christmas Parade was advertised in Newsline on
11 July 2025, and on the Tasman District Council’s website.

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

4.40 The Traffic Management Plan will be submitted and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

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

4.42 As at the time of writing this report, no objections have been received. Staff will update the Council on any objections received after this report was prepared.

4.43 The emergency services have been advised of the proposed closures and have no objections or concerns.

4.44 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

Richmond Unlimited – Market Day

4.45 Richmond Unlimited for the Richmond Market Day proposes to close Queen Street, Friday 29 December 2025, 4.00am-6.30pm.

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

4.47 The proposed closure for the Richmond Market Day was advertised in Newsline on
11 July 2025, and on the Tasman District Council’s website.

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

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

4.50 The Traffic Management Plan will be submitted and reviewed for approval by the Council’s Road Corridor Manager.

4.51 As at the time of writing this report, no objections have been received. Staff will update the Council on any objections received after this report was prepared.

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

4.53 Staff recommend that this temporary road closure is approved.

5. Options / Kōwhiringa

5.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the proposed temporary road closures described in this report.	The events can safely proceed as planned.	Some business owners, residents and road users may be temporarily inconvenienced.
2.	Approve some of the proposed temporary road closures described in this report.	Some of these events can proceed as planned. Less effect on road users or residents.	Some of the events would not be able to proceed to the disappointment of attendees.
3.	Decline the proposed temporary road closures described in this report.	No effects on road users or residents.	The events would not be able to proceed as planned, to the disappointment of attendees.

5.2 Option 1 is recommended.

6. Legal / Ngā ture

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

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

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

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

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

7.1 The following table describes the level of significance of the decision. Overall, the significance is considered low as the effects of the closures are temporary in nature, and appropriate engagement has taken place with affected parties.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Moderate	The Nelson and Westland Car Clubs run a series of events and have done so for many years. The Christmas Parades and Richmond Market Day are all well attended and part of a loved tradition that are well supported and attended by the community.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	As above.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	The Nelson and Westland Car Club rally event is for one day only and if there are any effects on the network the Clubs will remedy these. The Christmas Parades and Market Day are well supported community events that are short in duration and will have no lasting effects on the roading network.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The Council’s roading network is considered a strategic asset but this decision only relates to the temporary closures of small sections of the network for a short duration.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

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

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

9. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

9.1 The main risk associated with the Council decision is reputational. Nelson-Tasman has an established motorsport community, and many events have been run in our district. Events can bring economic and social benefits to our community. Declining approvals for temporary road closures for these events could cause organisers to stop organising local events, with potential negative economic and social outcomes for some of our community.

9.2 Some people will be inconvenienced by the temporary road closures. However, the closures will be short in duration and are part of a strong New Zealand tradition that is cherished and supported by the local community.

10. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

10.1 Rallying events cause emissions, although normal daily vehicle usage on these roads also causes emissions. The potential emissions effects resulting from the decision to either approve or not approve the temporary road closures are impossible to calculate. Not approving the Pigeon Valley/ Dovedale Road and Matakitaki Road closures could mean no rallying activity occurs at all (causing nil emissions), or it may mean rally participants travel further afield to attend a different event (causing greater emissions). Similarly, people travelling to attend the Christmas Parades and Market Day events will create emissions.

10.2 Overall, the climate change effects of the proposed road closures are considered negligible.

11. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

11.1 The Christmas Parades and Market Day are a positive and loved community events with good attendance from the Tasman community.

11.2 The Nelson and Westland Car Club Rallies are part of an annual series of events and attracts entrants and spectators from across the region.

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

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

11.5 The proposed Pigeon Valley/ Dovedale Road and Matakitaki Road temporary closures are also in accordance with the Transport (Vehicular Traffic Road Closure) Regulations 1965.

12. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

12.1 If the Council approves the proposed temporary road closures:

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

· Staff will work with eBus to provide alternative bus routes should they be required for bus stops impacted due to temporary road closures.

· The applicants will submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Council’s Road Corridor Manager for approval one month before the event.

· The Nelson and Westland Car Clubs will undertake a letter drop one week prior to affected landowners.

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

13. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

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

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Mike van Enter, Senior Transportation Engineer
Report Authorisers:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-10

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

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

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

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

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

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

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Amendment to the Tasman District Council Traffic Control Devices Register and Traffic Control Bylaw report RCN25-09-10; and

2. approves amendments to regulations, controls, restrictions and prohibitions in the Traffic Control Devices Register of the Tasman District Traffic Control Bylaw 2016 (Chapter 7 of Tasman District’s Consolidated Bylaw) pursuant to clause 7(3) of the Bylaw, as proposed by the Diagrammatic Descriptions and associated GIS co-ordinates in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, with effect from 12 September 2025 or the date the traffic control device is installed, whichever is later; and

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

4. Background / Horopaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Recreational Parking Management

5.1 Manoy Street - New no parking restriction clarifying the intent of the recent Talbot Street to Manoy Street, keeping the path entrance free from parked cars.

5.1.1 No new consultation has been undertaken. The recent project to construct the shared path was appropriately consulted on and included the shared path link to the car park area adding the no-parking signs clarifies the intention of the path, that it is not parked on.

Residential Parking Management

5.2 Salisbury Road – Remove no parking restriction to reinstate parking. Removing the concrete separators form the on-road cycle lanes reduces the width requirement, allowing parking to be reinstated. The layout change will be co-ordinated with a programmed reseal.

5.2.1 Feedback was sought from immediately adjacent property owners and occupiers. One response was received in support of the changes.

5.3 Croucher and Chisnall Streets - Install P120 time limited parking between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday to 10 unrestricted spaces to allow the spaces to be used as visitor parking for the surrounding residential area.

5.3.1 High all day parking demand in this area from Richmond town centre activities means residential on-road visitor parking is not currently available in this area.

5.3.2 Residents in Croucher and Chisnall Streets were canvased for their view on issues with parking in the area and encouraging them to suggest changes. Four submissions were received with various suggestions.

5.3.3 The proposed parking changes were developed and feedback sought. Three submissions were received with none opposing the proposed changes.

Bus Stops

5.4 Poole Street – Relocate existing bus stop from outside number 29 and 31 Poole Street to outside 23 and 25 Poole Street. This was requested by the bus service operator due to the risk posed by an electrical pole at the existing stop.

5.4.1 The property owners affected by the proposed Bus stop were consulted. One submission was received citing that their property amenity would be affected.

5.4.2 The Bus Stop is proposed in this position due to it being screened by vegetation and fences of both properties. The length of the Bus stop including tapers fits within the distance between the two properties driveways.

5.5 Atkins Street – New Bus stops on Atkins Street.

5.5.1 As part of the review of the service, it was recognised that as demand for the service grows, so will the need for more stops. There is approximately 1.3km between the Bus Stops in Poole Street and Grey Street, where the bus route traverses through a lot of residential area.

5.5.2 Consultation was carried out with nearby residents with several concerned about the effect that the stop outside their property would have on their property's amenity.

5.5.3 Bus Stop locations are determined by firstly locating them where there is sufficient length of road to accommodate the stop including the pull-in and exit tapers, while located in a safe place with good sightlines.

5.5.4 Ideally, the stop location best suits a site where there is either a high fence or vegetation to screen the Bus stop.

5.5.5 Initially, the North bound stop had been proposed outside the empty corner section near Pã Street however, the landowner indicated they wanted to develop this land and maintain their options for siting future accessways.

5.5.6 The proposal attached and recommended for implementation was consulted on recently with no objections received.

5.6 Whitby Road – New Bus stops on Whitby Road.

5.6.1 Residents in the Spring Grove area at the eastern end of Wakefield, requested Bus Stops in the section of SH6 near Bird Lane.

5.6.2 Consultation was carried out, with one resident voicing concern about the effect that a Bus stop outside their property would have on its amenity and privacy.

5.6.3 The proposed Bus Stops were located where they would fit between vehicle accessways without affecting sightlines and limiting the loss of roadside parking.

5.6.4 Those properties affected by the proposed Bus stops have good road boundary fencing and screening to provide privacy for both residents and bus patrons.

5.7 Aporo Road – New Bus stops on Aporo Road.

5.7.1 Residents in the area requested Bus Stops on Aporo Road in the proximity of Marriages Road.

5.7.2 Consultation was carried out with residents and a copy of the proposal sent to the Tasman Area Community Association for comment.

5.7.3 Some residents asked if the Bus Stop could be at Deck Road. At Deck Road, the eastern side berm is narrow due to the road boundary being close to the seal edge along with a deep drain that would need realigning leaving bus patrons with little room to stand unless the bus was to stop partially out in the traffic lane. The speed limit in this area is 80km/h.

5.7.4 The proposed Bus Stop locations near Marriages Road, have wide existing seal shoulders with good sightlines. There is room on the eastern side berm to extend out the shoulder to accommodate a Bus shelter.

5.7.5 The seal layby on the western side is also used by the School Bus, where there is an existing shelter.

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

6.1 The cost of installing the proposed traffic control devices and bus stops is estimated to be $21,000.

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

6.3 Line marking typically requires a re-mark once every two years. Adding to the line marking will incrementally increase maintenance costs and contribute to increased future budgets.

6.4 Small signs typically have a 10-year design life but may last much longer. Adding more signs will increase future demand on renewals budgets.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve changes proposed in the report and in Attachment 1 to the agenda report. This is the recommended option.	Improved public transport service. Increased on-road parking on Salisbury Road. Positive feedback from the community who requested changes.	Minor reduction in on-road parking at bus stop locations. Minor increase in walking distance to all-day parking spaces for town centre all day parking demand. Modest cost of installing changes.
2.	Approve some of the proposed changes.	Some of the advantages of Option 1.	If changes are not approved, there could be negative feedback from those involved in the targeted consultation that was undertaken.
3.	Do not approve the proposed changes.	No cost.	No improvement in public transport service. No increased parking on Salisbury Road. No improved residential visitor parking in the Croucher and Chisnall Streets area.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

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

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

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

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

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

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Changing road layouts and adding public transport can create a high level of interest, particularly on more highly trafficked roads. This decision affects a relatively small number of roads in the District.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	Good management of traffic controls, parking and public transport facilities can contribute towards the success of a place; poorly managed and designed traffic controls and parking can undermine efforts to create highly liveable urban areas. The parking restrictions proposed are to address issues identified.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	Traffic control devices are not permanent and can be changed if required.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The Council’s roading network is considered a strategic asset. The changes are intended to improve safety and accessibility of our transport network to a variety of user types.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 Letters inviting feedback have been sent to immediately adjacent landowners and the Tasman Area Community Association. Any feedback received is described with the attached descriptions.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

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

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The changes to the transport network made by these traffic control devices are not expected to alter transport behaviour at a level that will impact greenhouse gas emissions although increased public transport use does can reduce transport emissions.

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

14.1 The proposed traffic control device changes are consistent with the Council’s Roading Policies and Strategies.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The changes to traffic control devices are proposed to ensure the safe and efficient functioning of the transport network and improved public transport provisions.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If the Council approves the proposed changes:

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

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

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Traffic control devices diagramatic descriptions September 2025

231

7.7 Eves Valley Landfill Road Stopping

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Kevin O'Neil, Senior Property Officer
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-11

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain the Council’s approval to the stopping of unformed legal road located within 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West under the Public Works Act 1981.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The Council owns the land at 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West. This is where the Eves Valley Landfill site is located.

2.2 The Council was approached by the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU), which is a joint committee between Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council, who manage the landfill site at 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West. They have asked the Council to undertake a road stopping over a small section of unformed legal road that encroaches into the Council’s land and then terminates part way through the property.

2.3 The unformed legal road is part of Golden Hills Road which encroaches approximately 370 metres into the southeastern corner of the Council’s property and is 20 metres wide along its entire length.

2.4 NTRLBU are proposing to stop the section of unformed legal road that encroaches into southeastern corner of the property comprising an area of approximately 0.7250ha.

2.5 There are no other affected adjoining landowners. All costs of the road stopping are to be met by NTRLBU.

2.6 The plans of the proposed road stopping are noted in Section 12 of this report.

2.7 Attachment 1 shows the property as it stands now with the unformed legal road (highlighted in red) running partway through the property from the southeastern corner of the property.

2.8 This is a routine decision and staff recommend that the Council approves the road stopping, which will be subject to final approval by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Eves Valley Landfill Road Stopping report, RCN25-09-11; and

2. approves the stopping of the section of legal road, pursuant to Section 116 of the Public Works Act, within the property of 214 Eves Valley Road as shown highlighted red in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, subject to the approval of Land Information New Zealand; and

3. delegates authority to the Group Manager Community Infrastructure to undertake all processes, including the authority to sign all relevant documentation necessary to give effect to the decision to stop the section of legal road within the property of 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) manage the landfill site on property owned by Council at 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West. There is an unformed section of legal road which will impede the future use of the site. This section of legal road ends within the property and is not connected to any other property or legal road.

4.2 The NTRLBU has identified the area of land surrounding, and including, the area of legal road to be stopped as the most suitable location for creation of a new “cell” for disposal of class 3 and 4 contaminated soils. Stopping this section of road will provide NTRLBU with a longer-term solution for landfilling contaminated soils.

4.3 The land adjoining the road stopping area is operated as landfill for regional benefit and is designated in the Tasman Regional Management Plan for landfill purposes D163 (Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal). The section of road to be stopped will be incorporated into the landfill designation D163. All costs in relation to this transaction will be met by NTRLBU.

4.4 There are no other affected adjoining landowners, and the road has never been formed nor used by members of the public.

4.5 The road stopping will occur using the Public Works Act 1981 which allows the road stopping to proceed without the need for public notification. The proposal was considered by the Council’s Road Stopping Panel and the Council’s Transportation Manager. Council staff have also consulted with Herenga ā Nuku (Outdoor Access Commission), Heritage New Zealand and all local Iwi on the proposal.

4.6 Herenga ā Nuku has confirmed it does not oppose the road stopping as public access is not being affected as this section of road does not connect to any other legal roads nor does it adjoin any reserve, public conservation land, waterway or provide any other recreational opportunity.

4.7 Heritage New Zealand have confirmed there are no heritage sites in the road stopping area.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 There is small section of unformed legal road that partially bisects the Council’s property at 214 Eves Valley Road. This section of legal road ends within the property and is not connected to any other property or legal road

5.2 This property is operated as a landfill controlled by the Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU), which is a joint committee set up to benefit both councils located in the region.

5.3 The Nelson Tasman Regional Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) have identified that the section of legal road that partially bisects the property restricts the full utilisation of the site at 214 Eves Valley Road and have asked if this section of road could be stopped and amalgamated into the Council’s Title.

5.4 The Road Stopping will be undertaking using the provisions for the Public Works Act 1981.

5.5 As the property is zoned “Rural 2” if the Council agrees to progress the road stopping consent will be required from LINZ which has delegated authority from the Minister of Lands.

5.6 A valuation will be undertaken to determine the compensation to be paid to the Council for the road land being stopped.

5.7 The section of road will be stopped via gazette and the land will be amalgamated into the Council’s Title for 214 Eves Valley Road.

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

6.1 The NTRLBU is a joint committee between the Tasman District Council and Nelson City Council. The NTRLBU will meet all the costs involved with the road stopping, including paying compensation to the Council (as landowner) for the approximate 0.7250 hectares of road land to be stopped.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Agree to the road stopping. (Recommended)	The NTRLBU will be able to use the entire landfill site at 214 Eves Valley Road for future expansion.	None Identified.
2.	Not agree to the road stopping.	The shared costs of the road stopping will be saved.	The existence of the unformed piece of legal road restricts the full utilisation of the landfill site.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 As there are no other affected/adjoining landowners the road stopping can be completed using the Public Works Act 1981, especially as the property is used for a public work (landfill site).

8.2 This proposal does not contravene any policy or plan.

8.3 Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori has been undertaken.

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

9.1 There is no requirement to undertake public notification if the Public Works Act 1981 is used to complete the road stopping. Given there will be no physical changes to the road network, this proposal is considered of low significance and does not require community engagement.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	No	There are no affected adjoining landowners.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	No
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	The entire road network is a strategic asset. This proposal will not have any impact on the existing road network.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 As the road stopping will occur under the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981, there is no requirement for public notification. All local Iwi have been consulted about the proposed road stopping and no issues or concerns have been raised by Iwi. Given there will be no physical changes to the road network, this proposal is considered of low significance.

11. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

11.1 This is a routine low risk proposal.

12. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

12.1 The decision on stopping this section of legal road does not have any impact on the changing climate and neither contributes to, nor detracts from, the Council’s and central government policies and commitments relating to climate change.

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

13.1 We note that there is an existing designation (D163) over 214 Eves Valley Road. This designation is for “Sanitary Landfill Refuse Disposal”. If the road stopping proceeds this designation will need to be extended to include the area of stopped road.

14. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

14.1 The road stopping is of equal benefit to both the Council and the NTRLBU. The road stopping may result in a small compensation payment to the Council (as landowner) for the road land to be stopped.

15. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

15.1 Within the next month the Council will enter into a formal agreement with the NTRLBU to proceed with the road stopping. The agreement notes that the Council cannot guarantee LINZ will approve the road stopping.

15.2 A valuation will be undertaken to assess the compensation that the Council is to receive for the road land to be stopped.

15.3 LINZ will be asked to approve the road stopping. If this is approved, the land will be formally surveyed, and LINZ asked to publish a gazette notice that stops road and amalgamates this land into the Council’s Record of Title for 214 Eves Valley Road, Waimea West.

16. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Eves Valley Landfill - Road Stopping - Appendix One

245

7.8 Selection of the Site for the New Wakefield Community Hub

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Martin Brown, Project Manager; Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager; Rob Coleman, Reserves Officer - Recreation and Systems
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-12

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 In The Tasman District Council Long Term Plan 2024-2034 funding has been allocated for the Waimea South Facilities. The main project is the new Wakefield Community Hub. The location for the new hub was advised in the Long-Term Plan as being on the Wakefield Domain off Collins Road.

1.2 In early 2025 a local landowner approached the Council project team regarding part of a site at 52 Edward Street. The site was large enough to house the planned approximate 1200m² to 1500m² facility and provided a viable option to explore, due to its proximity to the centre of the township. A SWOT analysis was developed to assess both the sites.

1.3 Two community sessions and a Shape Tasman poll provided this information to the community for comment and feedback.

1.4 Most comments and feedback showed the community’s overwhelming preference for the proposed facility to remain at the original location of the Wakefield Domain.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Selection of the Site for the New Wakefield Community Hub report RCN25-09-12; and

2. acknowledges that after the site review and community engagement, the community overwhelmingly supported that the Wakefield Community Hub remains at the Wakefield Domain, not the alternative site of 52 Edward Street.

3. Situation

3.1 With the emergence of the alternative site, the project team required a fact-based comparison of both sites. JTB Architects were engaged to complete a Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) assessment and provided a fact-based review for both sites.

3.2 The SWOT analysis highlighted both sites’ benefits and weaknesses.

3.3 In summary, Wakefield Domain allowed for much greater future expansion, interacted more with sports codes and had more space for parking. However, it will require more infrastructure to service and access the remote site, will likely promote car travel over walking due to the need to cross the State Highway. Finally, to access from Clifford Road is reliant on New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) approval which will have its challenges. As such alternative established access routes from the State highway and local roads will need to be considered.

3.4 In summary, 52 Edward Street has centre township and good walking access, close to school, lower infrastructure and access costs, could invigorate the centre of the township. However, only has limited expansion (maximum building area 1500m²) much more limited car parking, and concerns raised over township traffic increase and capacity, and has more impactful modelled inundation across the site area. The proximity to the local pub was felt by some of the community to be unfavourable and is closer to residential properties.

4. Locations

4.1 Site one Wakefield Domain (Indicative Area)

4.2 Site two 52 Edward Street

5. Community Feedback Summary

5.1 Feedback was collected by both the Waimea South Community Facility Charitable Trust and the Council.

5.2 The Waimea South Community Facility Charitable Trust set up two engagement meetings. These were held in Wakefield on Tuesday 17 June 2025, in partnership with Council staff. Further comments were also collected via the Trust’s website. Additionally, the Trust promoted the information and options on social and local media and Radio New Zealand.

5.3 Eighty-one (81) responses were received from the community-driven sessions and feedback forms most responses were from the 40+ year-old population.

5.4 The key messages were,

· Seventy-five percent (75%) of the responders preferred Site 1, the Wakefield Domain (Recreational Reserve) site.

· Positives for site 1 included, expansion and future proofing opportunities and good proximity to the sports fields and facilities

· Concerns for site 1, infrastructure cost to connect the site to mains and the SH6, safe access to the site for walking and cycling and child access, as need to cross SH6

· Fourteen percent (14%) of the responders preferred site 2, the 52 Edward Street Site.

· Positives for site 2 included the potential lower cost for infrastructure and road access, transforming the current brownfield site and having good access to the school

· Concerns for site 2 included the proximity to the hotel, parking limitations, increased congestion risks to the township, and lack of connection to the Sports facilities.

5.5 The Council ran a ‘Shape Tasman’ poll from 27 May 2025 to 22 July 2025 providing the information from the SWOT analysis with FAQs. One hundred and fifteen (115) comments were recorded (Note* some of the community added more than one comment and some were duplicates) – 71 responders preferred site 1, and 26 preferred site 2.

5.6 The key messages were,

· Positives for site 1 included, future expansion opportunity meets the communities’ growing needs, no cost to buy the site as we already own it, allows for sport, generous space for expansion, far batter outdoor opportunities to connect with other uses.

· Concerns for site 1 included, potential impact of future flooding, safety of pedestrians and cyclist access. Higher costs for infrastructure.

· Positives for site 2 included, central to the village, further away from the flood areas, easier to connect to service and roads, use the existing building don’t build another,

· Concerns for site 2 included, restricted shape and size of the site, bringing extra traffic into the village, the cost to purchase the site and demolish the building when the Council already owns site 1,

· Other comments, what will happen to the current hall? Need to look at flooding potential at the sites after recent events, concerns a small population get to spend so much when lots of work required on rivers. The Council has too much debt so should not be doing this project. Why is the decision going to be based on a small number of responses? The village has more halls than it can use and doesn't need another. Tasman District Council is in too much debt and now has a flood to clean up.

6. Next Steps

6.1 With the overwhelming community support for the Wakefield Domain (Recreational Reserve) site, the landowner of 52 Edward Street has been thanked and notified of the outcome from their approach.

6.2 The Council’s project team is now focused on the project initiation for the new hub on the Wakefield Domain site.

6.3 The next steps will involve site investigations, infrastructure and services review. Additionally, the project team is working on the road access and will be liaising with NZTA.

6.4 With the site confirmed we will be liaising with our iwi partners on the planned kaupapa.

6.5 The project team will be working with the community representatives and stakeholders to develop requirements for the new hub as part of the Design and Build Procurement planning.

7. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

7.9 Confirmation of the Location for the new Tapawera Community Hub

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Martin Brown, Project Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy; Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-13

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

1.1 To seek formal approval from the Council to develop the new Tapawera Community Hub within the Tapawera Memorial Park, north of Matai Crescent, area 3 on the aerial plan provided within this report.

1.2 Noting the site proposed, in the adopted Long-Term plan, was 95 Main Road Tapawera, site of the Tapawera Community Council Community Centre and Opportunity (OP) Shop.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 When the new Community hub in Tapawera was proposed, approved and adopted in the 2024/34 Long-Term Plan its location was planned to be at 95 Main Road Tapawera. A site not owned by the Council and was to be purchased by the Council.

2.2 Due diligence for the purchase of 95 Main Road Tapawera raised several issues and constraints with the site. This led the project team, with the community and the Parks and Reserves Team to look at other viable sites.

2.3 In total three further sites were identified as shown below (noting Site 4 was the original site, 95 Main Road Tapawera).

2.4 Two workshops were held with the Council in respect of all the sites and a SWOT analysis has been conducted to understand the benefits and constraints of all four sites.

2.5 Sites 1 to 3 (all Council reserve land) were also considered as part of the Reserves Management Plan review process, noting that site 4 was not owned by the Council so was not part of the review.

2.6 As part of the Reserves Management Planning Process (RMP), consultation was completed in June 2025. Comments and feedback were gathered on which of the three reserves was preferred for the location of the new Tapawera Community Hub.

2.7 The adopted Reserves Management Plan for the Lakes Murchison Ward RMP stated. Allow the new Tapawera Community Hub to be constructed on parcel (a) of Tapawera Memorial Park, at the location labelled in the above image as Option 3 (i.e. north of Matai Crescent).

2.8 Whilst the Lakes Murchison Ward RMP has been adopted on 14 August 2025, there is no specific mention of the hub in the resolutions. This is a material change to the adopted Long-Term Plan 2024 to 2034, as such the project team is seeking formal approval to construct the Hub within the Tapawera Memorial Park, north of Matai Crescent (area 3 on the aerial image above).

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Confirmation of the Location for the new Tapawera Community Hub report, RCN25-09-13; and

2. approves the location for the future Tapawera Community Hub within the Tapawera Memorial Park, a Council reserve, north of Matai Crescent, shown as area 3 on the aerial plan provided within this report.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The Tapawera Hub Project was adopted in the 2024/2034 Long Term Plan.

4.2 A budget of $2.68 million has been allocated, including $900,000 of community funding, to develop a Community Hub in Tapawera. (Around $500,000 has already been provided to the community in the form of funding from the Department of Internal Affairs).

4.3 Due diligence on the proposed site, 95 Main Road Tapawera, raised several constraints (including site and building not owned by the Council, divided community over the ‘historic’ nature of the building, other buildings and powerlines located on the site limiting its usable area). As a result, these other sites were considered and reviewed as part of the Reserves Management Plan Review process with a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) to provide more information on the Council owned land being considered.

4.4 Three Council owned reserves were considered against the original proposed site. These reserves were also considered as part of the Lakes Murchison Reserves Management Plan (RMP), and consultation was undertaken with the community.

4.5 The hearings and deliberations, as part of the RMP review process, resulted in the preferred site option of site 3 and this was adopted within the Lakes Murchison Reserves Management Plan.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Long-Term Plan 2024/2034 adopted the project based on the new hub being located at 95 Main Road, Tapawera.

5.2 The intention is to now build in a different location. The new location is within a Council Reserve, as a result the project team needs to seek the Council’s approval for this change of location from that in the adopted Long-Term Plan 2024/2034 and to construct the building on the Council Reserve.

5.3 From the discussions with the community groups, with the consultation as part of the Reserves Management Plan review process, site 3 has garnered good general support. The following points provide the key factors considered for each of the sites.

· Site 1 - Gazetted under the Reserves Act 1977, subject to a low level of inundation, limited-service infrastructure in place and potential impacts to adjacent residential properties and the shearing sheds.

· Site 2 – Not Gazetted under the Reserves Act 1974, Fee simple reserve land, subject to more significant inundation, some limited-service infrastructure in place and potential impacts to adjacent residential property.

· Site 3 – Not Gazetted under the Reserves Act 1974, Fee simple reserve land, no inundation modelled to the area where the hub is planned to be located, small service infrastructure works required but mostly in place, central to the township with connectivity to shops, toilets, recreational reserve with skate park and playground.

· Site 4 – 95 Main Road, Tapawera had constraints including, local division over removal of the existing building, other heritage artifacts placed on the site, the Kahurangi Waharoa, overhead powerlines, the cost of purchasing the land and ratifying agreements with all other interested parties and anecdotal boundary encroachments.

5.4 The SWOT analysis and indicative estimates undertaken by third-party consultants has highlighted that site 3 provides the best opportunity to get best value for the community. Highlighting site 3 should provide the most cost-effective options to develop the Hub.

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

6.1 The move to the alternative site does not impact the projects’ incumbent financial risk any more than the original proposed site.

6.2 The existing financial and budgetary risks remain the same and relate to the community funded element ($900,000) and the annual maintenance and running costs for the life of the facility.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Locate the new Tapawera Community Hub on site 3. (Recommended)	The site is centrally located between amenities (public toilets and skatepark/playground). Lower initial infrastructure connection costs as all services are near the site. Has limited to no inundation modelled across the site. The community generally supports this location over the other two sites.	No road frontage. Lacks room for significant expansion, though could have some expansion over its life. Will require realignment of the existing Tasman’s Great Taste Trail. Will reduce the green space in the central township, but there are many green spaces close to the township.
2.	Locate the new Tapawera Community Hub on site 2.	Has road frontage. Has more room for expansion and could tie into the rugby rooms if it was desired.	Has a moderate level of modelled inundation across the site (300 to 700mm). Will require additional infrastructure to connect to the mains (three waters, power and data).
3.	Locate the new Tapawera Community Hub on site 1.	Has significant room for future expansion and could tie in to the rugby club if it was desired. Ties in with the rugby field and sports areas.	No road frontage. It is a Gazetted Reserve (Reserves Act 1974) which could limit the activities within the hub. Furthest from the road access. Will require significant infrastructure to connect to the mains (three waters, power and data). Will require longer access to the driveway. Is ‘out of the way’ and close to residential properties. Has a low level of modelled inundation across the site (100 to 300mm).

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 For information, the land where the hub is to be located is not a Gazetted site under the Reserves Act 1977.

8.2 Site 3 has been adopted as the proposed site for the Tapawera hub as part of the Lakes Murchison Reserves Management Plan. (Adopted in August 2025).

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 This kaupapa has been included in hui over the last year. Though with the site now confirmed the Whakawhitiwhiti Whakaaro - Iwi Engagement Portal has been updated to reflect the change to the location.

9.2 The local iwi partners will be asked how actively they wish to be engaged, and steps progressed now to engage with them on the cultural significance of the area, any cultural monitoring and tikanga.

9.3 Additionally, there are opportunities to have local hapū and whānau narratives and stories integrated with these new facilities. As such it will be important for hui on the kaupapa as we move into initial and concept design stages, so they are involved from the start.

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

10.1 Generally, as a new facility it has significance for the Council and ratepayers. Specifically for the local population and final users of the new hub this has moderate significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Locally there is a high level of public interest. But as one of the smaller community funded projects has not garnered the reach of other new facilities.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	High	Locally this is the key driver for the facility to improve the amenity of Tapawera and increase the benefit to the community socially and for wellbeing.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	Any new facility will come with a minimum life of 50 years or more. As such the community and the Council will need to support the new facility moving forward.
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?	Medium	This new hub will be the first community hub owned by the Council in Tapawera.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Medium	The Long-Term Plan has provided for around $1.8 m of Council capital expenditure for Year 3 2026/2027 (relies on a further $900,000 being raised by the community).
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?	Yes	A new Council facility will be formed and there will be community leases for the user(s) of the facility.
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 Communications will be released once the site has been confirmed with the Council. This is to follow up from the June/July consultation for the Reserves Management Plan. Formal notification to the community, and more generally, the district, of the progress of the project and the new site location will be completed.

11.2 Moving forward at key parts of the project we will engage with the community through Shape Tasman Polls. This will include feedback on the concept design, feedback on the final design and as the project progresses to consent and construction.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Whilst initial desktop and visual assessments have been undertaken on the site locations, there is a low risk that unforeseen challenges may exist with the selected site.

12.2 Once confirmation of the site is received from the Council a full detailed site investigation will be conducted. This is to ensure any risks or issues are identified early in the process. This way these can be suitably mitigated through the design process as far as possible.

12.3 The project has a limited budget and relies on community funding. The site selected is likely to provide the best opportunity for value, though the scope will need to be prioritised and scope creep managed throughout the project.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The site selection requested in this report was considered by staff in accordance with the process set out in the Council’s ‘Climate Change Consideration Guide 2024’. The design team will be provided with the guide. The project team will work with the community and the design team to ensure minimal impact on the Councils carbon footprint. This will be developed through good design, good operating and sustainable practices with elements of the new building and systems installed to mitigate and manage carbon footprint increase.

13.2 Part of the initial assessments for the selected sites were focused on climate change considerations. Specifically for this area inundation was a key driver and considering recent weather events. The site selected has no inundation evident in the 1% AEP modelling. Additionally, further steps to increase resilience include screw piling and a finished floor level 600mm above ground level to account for future weather event severity increases.

13.3 The design of the new hub will align with the National Adaptation Plan (2022), with steps taken to mitigate where possible embodied carbon and operational emissions.

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

14.1 The project is aligned with the Long-Term Plan 2024/34 save for the location change to the Council owned site.

14.2 The project is aligned with the recently adopted Lakes Murchison Reserves Management Plan.

14.3 The Council has the delegated authority to make the decision requested in this report.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 With the support of the community and the Reserves Management plan process recently undertaken, the move to another site within the township carries a relatively low risk. Additionally, the move from the original 95 Main Road Tapawera site will remove many constraints and risks for the project.

15.2 Site 3 in the project teams’ opinion, backed up with recent investigations, is likely to provide the best value for the community project. It should see as much of the budget and community funding going into the actual built facilities, as opposed to underground services, as possible.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 With the Council approving Site 3, the design team will be engaged in the next two months.

16.2 The concept and preliminary design can then be commenced, and the project developed further.

16.3 The current timeline, subject to community funding, should see a tender for the project around June 2026 with the potential for work to commence around August 2026.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

7.10 June/July 2025 Two Weather Events - Recovery Update

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	11 September 2025
Report Author:	Jamie McPherson, Transportation Manager; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager; Richard Hilton, Horticultural Officer - Waimea, Richmond & Murchison; Rylee Petterson, Recover Support Manager; Matthew McGlinchey, Finance Strategy & Planning Manager; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Authorisers:	Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RCN25-09-14

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

The purpose of this report is to:

1.1 provide an update to the Council on the recovery efforts to date.

1.2 provide estimates on costs to the Council and available funding streams to minimise the impact of those costs on the Council.

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 On 26-27 June 2025 the Nelson-Tasman region experienced a significant rainfall event, leading to extensive flooding and landslide activity. A State of Local Emergency was declared on 27 June 2025 and transition to recovery occurred on 10 July 2025.

1.2 On 11 July 2025 a further significant rainfall and wind event occurred, resulting in further flooding and landslide activity, impacting many of the same areas affected two weeks previously. The district has not experienced flooding of this magnitude since 1877. A further State of Local Emergency was pre-emptively declared on 10 July 2025.

1.3 The combined damage from these two events in quick succession was significant, last experienced this widespread in Tasman in 1983. Predominantly rural communities in the Tasman District suffered extensive damage with homes, buildings, businesses and land impacted. Damage to the natural environment is significant, particularly in the river network with the associated deposition of silt and other waste. Widespread landslides have impacted the district’s roading network.

1.4 Following the second declaration, a further transition into recovery occurred on 17 July 2025, in place for 28 days until 14 August 2025. The notice of local transition period provides Recovery Managers specific statutory powers, including the power to direct works and direct evacuation.

1.5 To enable recovery powers to continue, particularly for works in the river network, the transition notice was extended for a further 28 days until 11 September 2025.

1.6 The nature of the work required, and the need to retain the Recovery Transition powers it is almost certain that the Transition period will be extended again from 11 September 2025 to Thursday 9 October 2025.

1.7 This report also provides a financial summary of the response and outlines the cost implications across Council operations, including expected and potential funding sources. These figures are indicative only and work is continuing to establish the true costs.

1.8 The indicative total net external cost to the Council is just under $10.6 million (see Table 1), subject to final funding confirmations and asset condition assessments.

1.9 Staff time attributed to the event is approximately $530,000 and is not included in the table below.

1.10 The external resource costs total $415,739 and are included in Table 1. All figures mentioned in the report are indicative and are subject to change as damage assessments are completed and more accurate costs and funding information becomes available.

A table with numbers and text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Table 1 – Summary of Estimated Costs and Funding

1.11 Some areas have already received full funding, while others will require Council contribution or internal absorption. Significant funding support is being pursued through the various central government agencies.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the June/July 2025 Two Weather Events - Recovery Update report, RCN25-09-14; and

2. approves a Council contribution of 9.5% of total costs, up to a maximum of $100,000, towards the reinstatement of Graham Valley South Branch Road, to be funded from the subsidised roading activity; and

3. notes that as at 2 September 2025, the Council could be looking to fund around $10.6 million to recover from all the damage incurred by the two weather events.

3. The Recovery Structure

3.1 In the Civil Defence Emergency Management context, two Group Recovery Managers and a Recovery Support Manager oversee the recovery process.

3.2 Recovery is delivered through five key work streams called pou: iwi, natural, built, social and economic (see Figure 1).

3.3 Each pou has a lead who coordinates activities and reports to the Recovery Support Manager and Recovery Managers. Support functions for the pou include community engagement and communications, and finance and funding.

3.4 These roles interact to create a framework for a strength-based, holistic and inclusive approach to recovery.

A screenshot of a computer screen

AI-generated content may be incorrect. Figure 1: June/July floods recovery structure

Iwi

3.5 Iwi have been consulted during the recovery process and have provided advice on planned waste management activities near sites of archaeological significance (Riwaka) and burial sites (near the Motueka Wastewater Treatment Plant).

3.6 Rāhui processes are being reviewed and are awaiting sign-off from iwi partners. It is important to note that the setting of rāhui is generally undertaken in response, while the lifting often occurs during recovery.

Social impact

3.7 Effective social recovery is critical to the overall recovery of a community. As such, the Council has contracted three recovery navigators to engage with people who have been impacted by these events.

3.8 Navigators aim to facilitate access to the right support at the right time to affected individuals and family/whānau to enable them to move forward with their lives.

3.9 The navigators have organised several community outreach events and partnered with organisations such as Nelson Bays Primary Health and the Rural Support Trust to attend these events. They are aware of the stress caused by dealing with insurance companies and the subsequent impact on psychosocial wellbeing, so have referred some people to New Zealand Claims Resolution Service to assist with the insurance claims process.

Economic impact to Tasman

3.10 A Tasman Key Sector Impacts Report was commissioned by the Nelson Regional Development Agency (NRDA). The report is based on information collected from the key primary industry and tourism sectors up to the second week of August 2025 and provides a high-level, indicative summary of the economic impacts.

3.11 Key findings show that the cumulative effects over the long-term will be more than $260 million, with almost $50 million of potential lost GDP from lower production and demand in the next year alone, split as follows:

· $25m forestry losses (14% of baseline forestry GDP)

· $11m horticulture and viticulture losses (4% of baseline horticulture and viticulture GDP)

· $6m livestock losses (4% of baseline livestock GDP)

· $6m tourism losses (3% of baseline tourism GDP)

· $0.4m aquaculture losses (0.2% of baseline seafood and aquaculture GDP

4. River Network

4.1 Extensive damage has been experienced in our river network. In our larger rivers (XY rivers), the Motueka, Motupiko, Tadmor and Wai-iti rivers have been worst affected. Numerous smaller river Z rivers have also been impacted.

4.2 Urgent works are currently being undertaken in several locations to stabilise riverbanks and bridge abutments. The immediate focus is on quantifying the impairment of insured assets.

4.3 The Rivers team have begun a comprehensive review of our XY river network using a longer-term, risk-based approach to determine the best way to recover, with a focus on future resilience.

4.4 This review will help to inform costs to both the Council and funders on the level of support required.

4.5 Costs to Council: The impact on river infrastructure (i.e. insured assets) is provisionally estimated as at least $20 million. Access to several affected sites is still restricted, which limits the ability to confirm the full extent of the damage. The first invoices for river-related repairs are expected imminently.

4.6 Complete recovery costs will depend on the full extent of damage, ability to pay, and the overall recovery strategy.

4.7 Funding is anticipated from three main sources:

· 60% from National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and 40% from the Council’s insurer, Aon.

· The claim to NEMA and Aon is subject to specific assets registered on the insurance schedule. This is in the process of assessment. There is an excess of $750,000 to be covered by the Council. NEMA has their own criteria of what claims they accept, which may differ to what Aon accept.

4.8 There is also a possibility that funding via the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF) may be accessed. This is administered through Kānoa (Regional Economic Development and Investment Unit at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)). The fund covers 60% of eligible costs, meaning that the Council would need to co-fund the remaining 40% to unlock that support.

4.9 At this stage, Kānoa have ringfenced $16 million for tranche two of the RIF, focusing on ‘build back better’ initiatives to improve resilience to the Tasman river network.

4.10 Overall, the target is to secure funding for at least 75% of total river restoration costs through a mix of insurance and government contributions

5. Roading Network

5.1 The district roading network suffered widespread damage and a large recovery effort is underway via the Tasman Alliance. Currently, over 4,000 jobs associated with the emergency have been entered into the system and at the time of writing 1,900 jobs were still open and requiring work to be completed.

5.2 Management of the roading recovery works is a significant task and a team has been set up within the Tasman Alliance for this.

5.3 Costs to the Council: the total cost of repairs and restoration is currently estimated at
$20-25 million. Approximately $6 million has been spent during July and August.

a. Funding: The Council has secured via the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) Emergency Works fund, an increase in our Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) to 91% for response activities, and 81% for recovery activities. Additionally, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) may contribute toward the cost of silt removal on roads.

5.4 A significant under slip has led to the sustained closure of Graham Valley South Branch Road, isolating one household and preventing vehicle access to the Flora car park in the Kahurangi National Park.

5.5 Graham Valley South Branch Road is part of the roading network, but financial responsibility for maintenance sits with the Department of Conservation (DoC). The Council has been working with DoC and NZTA regarding funding. NZTA has decided to provide funding assistance to DoC of 71% for the estimated $1million reinstatement cost. DoC has requested that the Council contribute 50/50 towards the remaining 29%, or approximately $150,000.

5.6 Staff have suggested to NZTA that the reinstatement could be funded via the Council at our 81% funding assistance rate, however NZTA have decided to fund DoC. The Council would have expected to do a 50/50 cost share with DoC for the remaining 19%. On this basis, a valid offer from the Council would be to fund 9.5% or up to approximately $100,000 of the reinstatement costs.

6. Waters and Waste

Three Waters

6.1 The damage sustained to the three waters infrastructure was not extensive, and the three water activities are now back to business-as-usual. A recovery plan has been written to address the long-term resilience of the network.

6.2 Cost to Council: time to repair, clean-up costs and damage to three waters infrastructure (water supply, wastewater, and stormwater) is estimated at $800,000. Forty percent (40%) of the damage can be claimed through the Aon Infrastructure policy for assets registered in the asset schedule. Rivers and Waters and Waste access a common deductible of $750,000 per event. The 60% funding provision by NEMA is not accessible due to the cost of damage not exceeding the applicable threshold of $2.1 million. The NEMA threshold for three waters is at a higher rate than rivers and the Council will need to meet the 60% shortfall through internal funding.

Waste management

6.3 There were extensive amounts of silt and complex debris including woody vegetation, plastics and fencing materials deposited in rivers, the roading network, the marine environment, and on both private and public land.

6.4 The Council provided access for domestic waste to be dumped at the Council’s cost at resource recovery centres, until 10 August 2025. After demand reduced, requests are now being managed on a case-by-case basis.

6.5 The majority of horticultural and agricultural waste disposal has been organised by growers who have worked with neighbouring properties to make arrangements. The Council has assisted a small number of growers in Riwaka to receive silt at the carpark of the Riwaka Rugby Grounds and is managing disposal of this material.

6.6 Arrangements have been made with a nearby landowner in Riwaka to dispose of the silt on their land. A site of archaeological significance is present on the land and Council staff have been consulting with iwi to ensure that there are no concerns with laying silt near this site.

6.7 On the site there will be some disturbance of the silt that has been deposited on top of the existing ground, but there will be no digging into the existing ground. The land is cultivated at present and in future the silt that is spread will be ploughed and mixed with the existing ground. Iwi have agreed with this in principle, provided that the silt is tested (completed) and there is no significant ground disturbance.

6.8 Cost to Council and funding: The waste management activity is forecast to incur costs of $2.67 million in response to flood-related waste and disposal challenges.

6.9 The Ministry for the Environment have agreed to fund a 70% subsidy up to $2 million via the Emergency Waste Fund, and the Council will need to contribute $670,000 to unlock this funding. The funding has extended to include the management and disposal of horticultural and agricultural silt, complex waste in the river network and the marine environment.

6.10 The Council’s contribution of approximately $670,000 will be funded through existing activity and capital budgets, including waste levy funds, and the Nelson Tasman Landfill Business Unit (NTRLBU) contingency fund, created following the August 2022 event. Any shortfall in funding will be covered by activity reserves. Discussions are ongoing to confirm access to NTRLBU funds, and further analysis of detailed expenditure will be required to finalise the funding strategy.

7. Tasman’s Great Taste Trail

7.1 Tasman’s Great Taste Trail suffered significant damage, with total repair and reconstruction costs estimated at $3.1 million. This will be managed in two tranches.

7.2 The first tranche, valued at $1.6 million, which includes all affected trail sections except for Wakefield-Belgrove, is awaiting an announcement from MBIE via the NZ Cycle Trail Fund Extreme Event Funding.

7.3 The second tranche, which includes a new trail between Wakefield and Belgrove, is still in the planning stages and a funding decision from MBIE may be expected after our route planning has been completed later this year.

8. Council Parks and Forestry

Parks

8.1 Council parks and open spaces have experienced damage costing an estimated $500,000. Unfortunately, this figure falls below the insurance excess, and no other external funding sources are currently available. As a result, the Council will need to absorb this cost internally, likely either through current operating budgets or by incorporating it into future rate increases from the 2026/27 financial year onwards.

Forestry

8.2 While forestry operations were impacted by the emergency, the financial effect in the immediate term is expected to be neutral. The Council anticipates approximately $2 million in increased revenue in the 2025/26 year due to early harvesting, which will offset expected revenue reductions in 2026/27.

8.3 However, there will be longer-term impacts, as trees scheduled for harvest in 2027/28 and beyond have been brought forward, potentially reducing future income in those years.

9. Funding – Mayoral Relief Fund

9.1 The Mayoral Relief Fund (MRF) was established to support those directly impacted by the weather events. Total contributions to date are $475,000 including $150,000 in direct Government support. To date, $316,000 has been paid out to 140 claimants.

9.2 The Ministry of Primary Industry (MPI) has agreed to fund $340,000 for a rural sector fund, to be administered by the Council. This fund is available to those who have experienced damage and receive more than 51% of their income from their property.

9.3 Both funds closed on 5 September 2025. The panel for the MRF meets and distributes funds weekly with a washup of any remaining funds planned shortly after the closing date. The panel for the rural sector fund will endeavour to meet within a couple of weeks of the fund closing to assess all applications.

10. External Expertise and Resources

10.1 In response to the scale and complexity of the emergency event, the Council engaged approximately ten external personnel across a range of specialist roles. These resources were brought in to supplement internal capacity and ensure an effective, coordinated recovery effort across multiple workstreams.

10.2 Among these roles, a number of specialists were appointed to assist with asset condition assessments. This was critical in identifying the extent of damage across infrastructure, facilities, and public amenities, and in prioritising repair works. Given that many sites were initially inaccessible, specialist assessments were staged over several weeks as access was restored.

10.3 Funding coordination has also required dedicated expertise. The Council appointed individuals specifically to manage funding applications, liaise with central government agencies (such as NEMA, NZTA, MFE, and MBIE), and ensure compliance with eligibility criteria. These roles are essential for securing the maximum possible external contribution toward recovery costs, and for managing the significant reporting requirements associated with such funding.

10.4 Recovery Navigators were engaged to work directly with affected residents, landowners, and community groups, particularly in areas where impacts were most severe. These roles focused on community engagement, needs assessment, and coordination of relief assistance and rebuilding efforts, ensuring that recovery plans remained responsive to those most affected.

10.5 A GIS (Geographic Information System) specialist was also brought in to support spatial mapping of damage zones, assist with risk analysis, and help visualise the extent of flooding and infrastructure impacts. This data was critical for informing decision-making and communicating recovery progress to internal stakeholders and the public.

10.6 In addition, data capture specialists were contracted to help record and consolidate operational, financial, and asset-related information from across the organisation and the field. Their work underpins both reporting obligations and future mitigation planning.

10.7 Given the significant cost associated with these external resources, estimated at over $415,000, the Council is actively seeking reimbursement or co-funding from central government. These applications are currently in progress, and confirmation of eligible funding streams is expected to occur over the coming months

11. Additional costs to Council

11.1 Emergency Operations Centre (EOC): The EOC incurred costs totalling approximately $265,000. Of this, $105,000 relates to welfare operations, which are expected to be fully funded through NEMA.

11.2 The remaining $160,000 is yet to be formally allocated and may ultimately be split between joint operations (shared across councils) and Council responsibilities. An internal process is still underway to determine the appropriate allocation and final funding responsibilities for this remaining portion.

11.3 Staff time: The data reveals that the organisation dedicated a substantial amount of peoplepower to managing emergency and weather-related events, totalling over 10,400 hours between the 2024/25 and 2025/26 fiscal years. Nearly 86% of these hours were concentrated in 2025/26, indicating that the response and recovery efforts will extend well beyond the initial impact.

11.4 At an hourly rate of $50, this labour effort translates to over $530,000 in costs, representing a significant financial burden on top of other emergency-related expenditures. The sustained high level of staff involvement suggests that the organisation has had to divert considerable resources away from its regular business-as-usual activities. This diversion has likely caused delays or interruptions in routine projects and services; it has impacted overall service delivery and operational efficiency.

11.5 While these costs and challenges highlight the immediate and ongoing strain emergency events impose, the experience and coordination developed during this time could enhance the organisation’s future preparedness and resilience. Nonetheless, the findings emphasise the need for careful resource planning to ensure emergency responses do not unduly compromise everyday operations.

12. Rating – Financial Impacts

12.1 As a result of damage to properties, approximately 300-400 properties need to be revalued by Quotable Value. The costs are $150,000 for this work. Once the valuations are complete, the Council will also lose the rate revenue associated with rates calculated on the property value, General Rate being the largest. This is estimated at a further $150,000 cost to the Council. Funding sources for this are being pursued.

13. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

13.1 The Recovery has progressed very well. The Recovery Team have collaborated with the various agencies and targeted support as required.

13.2 The overall cost to council of the two events is estimated to be around $10.6 million.

14. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

14.1 To progress with the Recovery effort. The future efforts will be in three specific areas;

· firstly the Navigators working in the various agencies and directing affected people accordingly, and

· secondly focusing on restoring the road network including appropriate resilience in specific areas, and

· thirdly working in the rivers to restore appropriate erosion protection.

15. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

8 CONFIDENTIAL SESSION

8.1 Procedural motion to exclude the public

The following motion is submitted for consideration:

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

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

8.2 Richmond Aquatic Centre - Procurement of Management and Operations Agreement Report

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

8.3 Motueka Property Update - Former Motueka Library Building, Laura Ingram Building, Motueka Service Centre and Hickmott Place Carpark

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

8.4 Review of Property Holding - Motueka

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

8.5 Motueka Community Pool Project Update

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to damage the public interest.

For Council to Act a Guarantor for and agreed amount of Community funding to allow work to continue is likelyto reduce onus and committment by the comunity to rasie required funding.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

For Council to Act a Guarantor for and agreed amount of Community funding to allow work to continue is likelyto reduce onus and committment by the comunity to rasie required funding.

s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

For Council to Act a Guarantor for and agreed amount of Community funding to allow work to continue is likelyto reduce onus and committment by the comunity to rasie required funding.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

8.6 Chief Executive Officer Remuneration Review 2025/26

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

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