Notice is given that an ordinary meeting of the Environment and Regulatory Committee will be held on:

 

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue: Zoom conference link: Meeting ID: Meeting Passcode:	Wednesday 1 October 2025 9.30am Tasman Council Chamber 189 Queen Street, Richmond https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81294071042?pwd=sXLwZhXm21U3FUpQj2XcpU6DGGHDe0.1   812 9407 1042 908089
Environment and Regulatory Committee   Komiti Ture    AGENDA

 MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr C Hill
Deputy Chairperson	Cr B Maru
Members	Mayor T King	Cr M Greening
	Deputy Mayor S Bryant	Cr C Mackenzie
	Cr C Butler	Cr M Kininmonth
	Cr G Daikee	Cr K Maling
	Cr B Dowler	Cr D Shallcrass
	Cr J Ellis	Cr T Walker

 

 

(Quorum 7 members)

 

Contact Telephone: 03 543 8400 Email: tdc.governance@tasman.govt.nz Website: www.tasman.govt.nz

 

1        Opening, Welcome, KARAKIA

2        Apologies and Leave of Absence

 

Recommendation That the apologies be accepted.

 

3        Public Forum

4        Declarations of Interest

5        LATE ITEMS

6        Confirmation of minutes

 

That the minutes of the Environment and Regulatory Committee meeting held on Thursday, 28 August 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

That the minutes of the Environment and Regulatory Committee meeting held on Thursday, 11 March 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

 

That the minutes of the Animal Control Subcommittee meeting held on Tuesday, 1 July 2025, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting.

7        Reports

7.1     Lease for Golden Bay Tennis at Golden Bay Recreation Park.............................. 4

7.2     National Policy Statement on Urban Development Requirements: Housing and Business Assessment 2027.................................................................................................. 14

7.3     Group Manager's report......................................................................................... 23

7.4     Building Assurance Manager's report................................................................... 50

7.5     Natural Hazards report.......................................................................................... 57

7.6     Rivers and Coastal Structures............................................................................... 76

7.7     Land and Water..................................................................................................... 86

7.8     Environmental Data and Monitoring.................................................................... 106

8        Confidential Session

Nil

9        CLOSING KARAKIA

 

7.1     Lease for Golden Bay Tennis at Golden Bay Recreation Park

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Margot Wilson, Property Officer
Report Authorisers:	Robert Cant, Programme Leader - Land & Leases; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager
Report Number:	RRC25-10-2

 

1.1     This report requests that the Environment & Regulatory Committee undertake three actions relating to the proposal to grant a lease to Golden Bay Tennis Club Incorporated over part of the land at Golden Bay Recreation Park (i.e. the area of land occupied by the tennis courts and building) in Tākaka.

1.1.1  Firstly, acting in its delegated role as administering body for the reserve, consider the recommendation from the Golden Bay Recreation Park Management Committee.

1.1.2  Secondly, consider whether to grant the lease and, if so, on what terms (another of the Environment & Regulatory Committee’s delegated roles as administering body).

1.1.3  Thirdly, acting in its delegated role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consider whether to consent to a lease over part of Golden Bay Recreation Park.

2.1     Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc has been operating on and off from their site on Golden Bay Recreation Park for over two decades. In roughly 2005, the Club notified Council Staff that they were folding. The Club has since re-formed and requires a new lease for its site.

2.2     The reserve is a Recreation Reserve vested under the Reserves Act 1977. The lease would be granted under Section 54(1)(b) of the Act. A standard lease of a 5-year term is considered appropriate.

2.3     The Management Committee for the reserve considered a proposal to grant this new lease and made a recommendation to the Environment & Regulatory Committee in favour of it (see report RGBRPM25-09-1).

2.4     The Tennis Club’s activities are compatible with the purpose of a recreation reserve and meet the requirements of the Reserve Act and the Council’s Reserves General Policies.

2.5     The Environment & Regulatory Committee now needs to undertake the following actions:

2.5.1  acting in its role as administering body for the reserve, consider whether to grant the lease, and if so, on what terms; and

2.5.2  acting in its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate under the authority of Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities from the Minister of Conservation, dated 12 June 2013, decide whether to consent to granting of the lease.

2.6     This report recommends that the Environment & Regulatory Committee:

2.6.1  Acting in its role as administering body for the reserve, considers the recommendation of the Golden Bay Reserve Management Committee and agrees to offer the lease; and

2.6.2  Acting in its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to the granting of the lease (this is the recommended approach).

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Lease for Golden Bay Tennis at Golden Bay Recreation Park report, RRC25-10-2; and

2.       notes and agrees with the recommendations of the Golden Bay Recreation Park Management Committee meeting held on 9 September 2025 pertaining to a lease to Golden Bay Tennis Inc. referenced in paragraph 5.2 of the agenda report; and

3.       pursuant to Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 and subject to obtaining consent from the Minister of Conservation, agrees to grant a lease over part of the land at Golden Bay Recreation Park (approximately 2718m²) held in Record of Title NL75/221 to Golden Bay Tennis Inc. for the purposes of operating a tennis club for a term of 5 years; and

4.       notes that the lease document cannot be executed without prior consent from the Minister of Conservation, and that the consent role has been delegated by the Minister to Council’s Environment & Regulatory Committee (Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities from the Minister of Conservation, dated 12 June 2013); and

5.       consents to the granting of a lease, pursuant to section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 under delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, over part of the land at Golden Bay Recreation Park held in Record of Title NL75/221.

4.1     Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc has been operating on and off from their site on Golden Bay Recreation Park for over two decades.

4.2     Golden Bay Tennis Club notified Council Staff that the club was folding in roughly 2005. 

4.3     Council staff subsequently received a query in 2019 stating that the club had re-formed some years prior and they were active again and needed to check regarding building insurance. 

4.4     Staff informed them that the building belonged to the club and the club needed to insure it and informed them that a new lease needed to be signed.

4.5     A draft for a new lease was created in early 2020 but due to club concerns on several lease details and then Covid complications, the work on the new lease was set aside.

4.6     As the tennis club has continued to operate from the site for several years now without a valid lease in place, formalisation of this use is required.

Image 1: Location of the proposed lease area (shaded red) at Golden Bay Recreation Park.

5.1     The Environment & Regulatory Committee now needs to undertake the following three actions:

5.1.1  consider the recommendation from the Management Committee for the reserve (acting in its role as administering body for the reserve);

5.1.2  consider whether to grant the lease and, if so, on what terms (acting in its role as administering body for the reserve); and

5.1.3  consider whether to consent to a lease over part of the Golden Bay Recreation Park (acting in its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate).

5.2     The Golden Bay Recreation Park Management Committee has the delegated authority to recommend and to provide advice to the Environment & Regulatory Committee on the granting of leases or licences on the Golden Bay Recreation Park. At its meeting on 9 September 2025, the Committee considered the lease proposal and made the following recommendation:

 

 

 

 

GBRPMC25-09-4

That the Golden Bay Rec Park Management Committee

1.       receives the New Lease at Golden Bay Recreation Park for Golden Bay Tennis      Club           Incorporated Report RGBRPM25-09-1; and

2.       approves the request to Council to grant a 5-year lease under section 54(1)(b) of   the Reserves Act 1977; and

Recommendation to Environment and Regulatory Committee

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       grants the lease, under section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977, to Golden Bay   Tennis Club Inc for a period of 5-years.

CARRIED

 

Evaluation of proposed lease

5.3     The oldest lease Council Staff hold on record for the tennis club dates back to 1997, but staff believe the club existed years prior. 

5.4     The Club’s vision is: “To provide opportunities for all members of the Golden Bay Community to enjoy a range of tennis coaching, competition and social activities, with a particular focus on encouraging juniors to take part.”

5.5     While Golden Bay Tennis has experienced some periods of recess, club membership is currently strong, and community interest has been consistent throughout recent years.

5.6     The proposed location on the reserve would be low impact as it would utilise an existing facility (tennis courts and building).

5.7     The Golden Bay Recreation Park, in addition to providing sports fields (both grass and artificial surfaces), also has leases to a variety of other community facilities such as the Drama Society and Toy Library. The reserve is a hub for sports and other community groups in the Golden Bay Ward and is well-sited near the Tākaka township. This lease would be complementary to the mix of community recreation facilities at the reserve.

5.8     A term of five years is proposed for the lease.

5.9     Staff recommend that the Council, acting in their role as administering body for the reserve, agree to grant the lease.

Considerations relating to the Environment & Regulatory Committee’s role as the Minister’s delegate

5.10   Note that this part of the report follows the template provided by the Department of Conservation and therefore differs from the Council’s standard report template.

Proposal

5.11   That the Environment & Regulatory Committee, acting in its role as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to a lease over part of Golden Bay Recreation Park, Tākaka.

 

 

Explanation

5.12   The Environment & Regulatory Committee, acting as administering body for the reserve, has proposed that the land where the tennis courts and building are located be leased to the Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc., for a term of five years (expiring 30 September 2030).

5.13   The purpose of the lease is to formalise the occupation of the site by the Golden Bay Tennis Club to enable them to continue operating a tennis club on the land.

5.14   Sharing of community facilities is encouraged, and the proposed lease agreement includes a provision enabling other groups to book all/part of the Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc. building. Clause 2.2 of the draft Lease explains this provision in more detail:

The Lessor recognises that the sharing of community buildings is beneficial.  With the Lessor’s prior written approval, the Lessee may sublet all or part of the Leased Area and Lessor’s Improvements to other community groups from time to time, and recover reasonable outgoings (based on actual costs to the Lessee) provided the other community group agrees in writing to be bound by the terms of this Lease and that the proposed activity complies with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977, Council’s Reserves General Policies and any reserve management plan covering the Land.

Legal Description and Status

5.15   The land known as Golden Bay Recreation Park is gazetted as the Golden Bay Recreation Showgrounds Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (Act).

5.16   The parcel of land at Golden Bay Recreation Park where the Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc. building is located is approximately 1.9288 hectares in area; being Pt Lot 1A DP 2371, part Record of Title NL75/221. The land is located at 2032 Tākaka Valley Highway, Tākaka.

5.17   This land was acquired by the Golden Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Association in 1934 and subsequently “vested in the Corporation of the County of Golden Bay as and for a recreation reserve” in 1959, pursuant to s.18 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1959.

5.18   In 1986 the land was classified as a recreation reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977 (New Zealand Gazette notice 1986, p 4034) and named as part of the Golden Bay Showgrounds Recreation Reserve (GN 1986, p 5313).

Policy and Criteria

5.19   Section 40 of the Reserves Act 1977 provides that the administering body is charged with the duty of administering, managing, and controlling the reserve, in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this Act, so as to ensure the use, enjoyment, maintenance, protection, and preservation of the reserve, for the purpose of its classification, as the case may require and within the means at its disposal.

5.20   Section 54(1)(b) requires that the lease comply with the relevant provisions set out in Schedule 1 of the Act which allows for leases to be issued.

5.21   Section 54(2A) states that the requirement of public notification does not apply where the proposed lease is currently contemplated by the approved management plan for the reserve. This occupation and lease are mentioned in the existing Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan 2003 on page 69:

“The reserve is at two levels. The upper terrace has several playing fields for rugby and soccer and clubrooms for a number of sports. The lower level has fenced tennis courts and clubrooms for tennis and other clubs. Clubs and activities that are based at the reserve include: rugby, touch rugby, soccer, tennis, squash, St Johns ambulance, Scouts, Brownies and drama. Most clubs occupy buildings on the reserve.”

         Leases:

          o Takaka Scout Group: 5-year lease; expires June 2003

o Takaka Rugby Club: 5-year lease; expires December 2003

o Golden Bay Tennis Club: 5-year lease; expires December 2002

o Takaka Drama Society: 5-year lease; expires February 2003

o St Johns Golden Bay: 5-year lease; expires February 2003”.

5.22   The Environment & Regulatory Committee, acting in this role as Minister’s delegate, is required to consider:

(a)   that the status of the land has been correctly identified and that the administering body has the power and authority to make the decision;

(b)   that the necessary statutory processes have been followed;

(c)   that the functions and purposes of the Reserves Act and particular classification and purpose of the reserve have been taken into account; and

(d)   whether any necessary consultation with tangata whenua has been undertaken.

5.23   The Council has adopted an appropriate process in respect of these matters.

Treaty of Waitangi

5.24   Manawhenua ki Mohua and Wakatū Inc were directly notified about the proposal.

Authority

5.25   Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977; and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities from the Minister of Conservation – dated 12 June 2013.

5.26   Summary of Powers for s54(1) (extract from Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities from the Minister of Conservation):

Give or decline to give prior consent to administering body, in the case of a recreation reserve vested in it, to grant leases for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and to grant a lease or licence for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (d) and to exercise all powers of the Minister referred to in the First Schedule that pertain to leases under e s4(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d).

Give or decline prior consent to administering body permitting, in a lease, the erection of buildings and structures for sports, games or public recreation not directly associated with outdoor recreation.

Consent or decline consent to variations or amendments to leases and consent to the carrying out of any other necessary actions arising out of the leases consistent with the First Schedule, Reserves Act.

Next steps

5.27   If prior approval is granted, the lease document can then be offered to the applicant.
If accepted, the document needs to be properly executed and meet any related requirements of the administering body. If the document is to be registered, then Council staff need to ensure it is lodged for that purpose.

6.1     The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Approve the lease to Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc	Legalises the ongoing use of the site for tennis club activities. Use of the existing tennis courts and building for tennis club activities is appropriate on a reserve that is a hub for other recreational activities.	No obvious disadvantage.
2.	Decline the lease to Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc	No obvious advantage or community benefit.	The Golden Bay Tennis Club would potentially need to find other premises and membership would likely suffer in the meantime.

6.2     Option 1 is recommended. 

7.1     The parcel of land at Golden Bay Recreation Park where the Tennis Club building and courts are located is approximately 1.9288 hectares in area; being Pt Lot 1A DP 2371, all Record of Title NL75/221. The land is located at 2032 Tākaka Valley Highway, Tākaka and the land is classified as: Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.

7.2       The Reserves Act 1977 requires (s.54 (2)) that a lease of part of a recreation reserve is to be publicly notified unless the lease is contemplated in an approved management plan. The Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan 2003 (page 69) provides for the Golden Bay Tennis Club to lease this site.

7.3     The leasing powers in respect of a recreation reserve for the purpose of an activity such as a tennis club is provided under s.54 of the Act. Section 54 also requires the prior consent of the Minister to a lease; however this was included in a 2013 delegation to Local Authorities for reserve land under their control. This delegation may be exercised by the Council as part of the decision-making process on the proposal.

8.1     Both Wakatū Inc and Manawhenua ki Mohua were directly notified of the proposed lease and five-year term.

8.2     Wakatū Inc acknowledged staff correspondence and stated no objections to the proposed lease being granted.

9.1     Significance may be low/moderate or high to {a group of people} for {a particular reason}. This informs the type of consultation that is advised.  Refer to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  Work your way through the table provided.  For well being assessment view the guide https://tasmandc.sharepoint.com/sites/SignificanceEngagement-Policy/Review/S&E Well-Being & Climate Change Report Guidance 2020-10-29.docx.

The overall significance is low.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	The Golden Bay Ward Reserve Management Plan provides for the site to be leased to the Golden Bay Tennis Club.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The group’s activities provide recreational and social benefits to participants.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	No	This lease is only for 5 years, however this group has been at this site on and off for over 20 years with no negative effects.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	The Council’s Reserves and Facilities as a whole are a strategic asset, but this proposal only involves a lease of a small area of reserve for recreational use.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	No change to level of service provided by this activity.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No	No real impact on rates, lease will be subject to a community lease rental.
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	The Tennis Club building has existing connections to water and wastewater services, which already consider TMOTW.

10.1   Council staff have been in communication with the Tennis Club Board Members.

11.1   This lease, if granted, will incur an annual rental fee of $380 including GST.

11.2   Leasing existing buildings and sports facilities to active clubs’ benefits both the local community and the Council. Leaseholders are responsible for the care and maintenance and related outgoings of their buildings and grounds, offering some minor financial benefits to the Council as a by-product.

11.3   It should also be noted that the modest standard annual rental is not intended to contribute to the Council’s finances but rather recognises the benefits community groups provide to the wider community. The rental partially offsets the cost of administering these community leases.

12.1   This is a low-risk decision for the Council. This request to offer a lease is for the use of an existing building and tennis courts on an existing reserve by a community group who have operated on this same site for over 20 years.

13.1   A new lease to the Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc will not impact on the Council’s carbon footprint or increase production of greenhouse gases, as there is no proposed change to land use.

13.2   Providing small local facilities for community recreation is preferable to people travelling further afield, thereby limiting vehicle emissions.

14.1   The proposed lease aligns with the Council’s Reserves General Policies document.

14.2   The Golden Bay Ward Reserves Management Plan 2003 provides for use of the site by the Golden Bay Tennis Club.

14.3   The Golden Bay Recreation Park Management Committee has delegated authority from the Council to provide recommendations relating to any proposed leases on the reserve. Their recommendation to the Council is that the lease be granted to Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc.

15.1   The Golden Bay Tennis Club is seeking a five-year lease of the area where the tennis courts and building is located on Golden Bay Recreation Park to operate a tennis club. Their activities are appropriate to be located on a Recreation Reserve, but this use needs to be formalised. The Golden Bay Recreation Park Committee has considered the proposal and recommended that the Council grant the lease. Staff also recommend that a lease be granted.

16.1   Should Council decide to approve the new lease to Golden Bay Tennis Club Inc. then the draft lease will be finalised and given to the group for signing.

16.2   Once the lessee has signed the document, the Council will sign and date it. It is expected this will all occur within the next several weeks.

Nil

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Jacqui Deans, Urban Growth Co-ordinator
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager; John Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
Report Number:	RRC25-10-3

 

1.1     To seek direction on whether to commence preparation of a Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) 2027, in the current climate of uncertainty surrounding national Resource Management reform and lack of clear direction from Central Government. The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) requires the preparation of a HBA in time to inform each successive Long-Term Plan (LTP). Work would normally commence on a HBA now to inform the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

2.1     Staff recommend not preparing a new HBA 2027. The HBA is a significant piece of work and preparation would normally commence now, in order to provide a HBA to inform the LTP.

2.2     While there is a legal obligation to prepare a HBA to inform each LTP, the current operating environment means there is uncertainty over whether a HBA will still be required for 2027. Emerging legislation at the end of 2025 (expected to be enacted mid 2026) and changes to national direction expected late 2025 will very likely include changes to the methodology for developing a HBA.  If the Council proceeds to prepare one now, there is a strong chance it will be out of date by the time it is adopted in 2027.

2.3     New population projections and business land demand forecasts are being procured, and these will be used to rerun the Council’s growth model to inform the LTP 2027-2037. This will provide robust evidence for the LTP and will not result in potential wasted work, if Central Government directs councils not to prepare a HBA 2027.

2.4     Should Central Government direct councils to prepare a HBA 2027, there would still be time to prepare an abridged HBA.  An abridged version would probably not be fully compliant with the requirements of the NPS-UD but would reduce risk of Central Government intervention.

2.5     By not commencing work on a full HBA 2027, this will enable better use of staff resources to focus on the LTP and requirements of forthcoming legislation, including developing a Regional Spatial Plan.

 

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Requirements: Housing and Business Assessment 2027 Report RRC25-10-3; and

2.       agrees to not commence preparation of a Housing and Business Assessment 2027 at this stage, acknowledging that if the Council is required to prepare a Housing and Business Assessment 2027 at a later date, an abridged version would be compiled in the time available to inform the Long-Term Plan 2027-2037.

4.1     Tasman, along with Nelson City is a tier 2 growth Council under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD). Tasman, jointly with Nelson City Council (NCC) must prepare and make publicly available, a Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) every three years, in time to inform each Council’s LTP. The HBA effectively sets out Tasman’s and Nelson’s expected demand for housing and business land over the next 30 years and how each Council is tracking in terms of providing sufficient zoned and serviced land to meet that demand. 

4.2     If a future shortfall in housing or business land is identified in the HBA, the Council must immediately notify the Minister for the Environment.

4.3     The Council produces a Tasman-only HBA as well as a Nelson-Tasman joint HBA. The most recent HBA was adopted by the Council in 2024 and the next HBA is due for adoption in 2027.  Preparation would need to commence now, as this is a significant piece of work.

4.4     The Government’s recent consultation document “Going for Housing Growth,” asked “Should Tier 1 and 2 councils be required to prepare or review their HBA and FDS (Future Development Strategy) in accordance with current NPS-UD requirements ahead of 2027 long term plans? Why or why not?” Tasman’s submission response was effectively ‘no.’ Consultation on “Going for Housing Growth” closed 17 August and officials are working through submissions and providing recommendations to the Minister. This process takes time and the Council will not have clarity on whether the requirement to complete a new HBA will be removed until at least later in the calendar year.

4.5     Discussions with NCC officers indicate they have the same view as Tasman staff that the resources involved in producing a new HBA will be better used for other projects.  NCC is going through a similar process to Tasman and a verbal update on NCC’s position will be given at the Committee meeting.

5.1     Normally work would commence on the HBA now in order to inform the Council’s LTP 2027-2037 and be ready for consultation at the end of 2026. The HBA provides a three-yearly snapshot of latest housing land in Tasman and Nelson, available housing land capacity (zoned and/or serviced/neither), as well as business land demand and capacity for the next 30 years.

5.2     The Government’s consultation on “Going for Housing Growth” has raised some doubt as to whether a HBA will be required for 2027. However, confirmation from Government will not be received until at least the end of the year.

5.3     If Council was to proceed with preparing a HBA now, proposed changes to the methodology of the HBA suggested in “Going for housing Growth,” would mean that the HBA would be out of date as soon as it is adopted in 2027.

5.4     The figure below explains the relationship between the FDS and HBA:

5.5     The Council’s latest HBA is 2024 and if the Council does not review it, this HBA will remain the latest assessment until a new HBA or its potential successor under RMA reform is developed.  Under current timings, this could be 2030, prepared to inform the LTP 2030-2040. Among other things, the HBA estimates the number of attached and detached houses needed to meet expected demand, as well as how the Council is doing in providing accommodation for seasonal workers, papakāinga opportunities and addressing poor housing affordability. These conclusions directly inform new rules in RMA plans. It is unlikely that estimates have changed very significantly since the 2024 HBA was produced.

5.6     That said, officers are still planning to procure new population projections and business land demand projections this year to inform the LTP 2027-2037.  The Council’s growth model will also be rerun in 2026. While a HBA may not be prepared for this LTP, high-level growth statistics will still be available. These stats are useful for planning the Council’s infrastructure requirements, level of development contributions needed and the expected income from rates on new developments.

5.7     A Nelson Tasman NPS-UD annual monitoring report 2025 and FDS annual implementation plan 2025, are currently being prepared and both are also requirements of the NPS-UD. These reports are planned to be taken to the 9 December Joint Committee of Nelson City and Tasman District Councils, the Nelson Tasman NPS-UD annual monitoring report 2025 for information and the FDS annual implementation plan 2025 for adoption.

6.1     If the Council does not prepare a HBA 2027, this will save approximately 800 hours of staff time, which can instead be spent on implementing the FDS and preparing for transitioning to the new legislation e.g. for Regional Spatial Plans.

6.2     Conversely if the Council does prepare a HBA 2027 and starts now, this will divert staff time, especially the Growth Co-ordinator’s and Senior Community Policy Advisor – Data analyst’s time (note this role is currently vacant).

6.3     Unlike many other councils, Tasman does not contract out preparation of the HBA. However, the Council will still procure new population projections and business land demand forecasts to inform Council’s growth model for the LTP 2027-2037. This is already budgeted for.

7.1     The options are outlined in the following table. They do not include both councils (Nelson City and Tasman District) preparing a joint HBA, even though legally we are required to do so.  This is because one Council cannot make decisions for another Council to prepare a document.

 

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Tasman District Council prepares a new HBA in time to inform the LTP 2027-2037 (i.e. commence October 2025)	Tasman would be partly complying with NPS-UD, but not fully if NCC chooses not to. Where councils share an urban environment (like Nelson and Tasman) a HBA must be prepared jointly by both councils. The Council would have fully up to date evidence on housing and business land demand and capacity. Removes risk of Central Government intervention, if councils are ultimately still required to prepare a new HBA. However, a reasoned justification exists for not proceeding with a HBA.	Methodology used for the HBA 2027 is likely to be outdated by the time it is adopted, making it non-compliant under new national planning direction. Indications from Government in its “Going for Housing Growth” paper are that the growth scenario required to be used may be different, as well as the contingency margin and other methodological assumptions from current requirements in the NPS-UD. It is a large piece of work and will divert the Growth Co-ordinator from preparing Council for the forthcoming Regional Spatial Plan. Preparation of the Regional Spatial Plan will need to start in earnest mid-2026, once the Planning Bill is enacted. Work would commence on a new HBA and then direction could be received from Central Government not to prepare a HBA for the LTP 2027-2037, resulting in wasted resources . By Tasman proceeding only with a HBA (and not Nelson) Council would not have the Nelson picture on housing and business land demand and capacity.
2.	Tasman does not prepare a new HBA for the LTP 2027-2037 (but procures new population projections and new business land demand projections in 2025, in order to run its growth model and inform the LTP 2027-2037.)	High level population, housing demand and business statistics will still be obtained anyway to inform Council’s growth model for the LTP 2027-2037. Potentially there is still time to prepare a shortened summary HBA, if required to do so, once there is certainty from Central Government. Would enable better use of officer resources including the Growth Co-ordinator to focus on the forthcoming Regional Spatial Plan.	Non-compliant with NPS-UD if Central Government decides that councils must prepare a HBA 2027. Potential for Central Government intervention. Council does not have fully up to date evidence on housing and business land demand and capacity. Without a new HBA, the 2024 HBA would need to be relied upon for e.g. demand for different types of housing.

7.2     Option two is recommended: do not prepare a 2027 HBA at this stage. Effort and resources are instead put into the emerging requirement to prepare a new Regional Spatial Plan and transitioning to the new planning system. Baseline growth work will still be undertaken in 2025 (procuring new population projections, housing demand and business land demand projections) to inform the Council’s growth model and LTP 2027-2037. 

8.1     The NPS-UD is a national direction. It is a national policy statement that prescribes objectives and policies for matters of national significance relevant to sustainable management under the RMA. Clause 3.19 of the NPS-UD requires every tier 2 local authority to prepare and make publicly available a HBA every three years, in time to inform the next LTP.

8.2     If more than one tier 2 local authority has jurisdiction over a tier 2 urban environment, (such as in the case of Nelson and Tasman), those local authorities are jointly responsible for preparing a HBA.

8.3     Until this legal requirement in the NPS-UD is formally changed, these obligations remain.

8.4     The risk of Central Government intervention, if a HBA 2027 is not prepared, is likely to be low. The Government has raised doubt as to whether a HBA will be required for 2027 in its recent “Going for Housing Growth consultation paper”, but confirmation will not be received until at least the end of the year.

8.5     A decision to not to prepare a HBA 2027 could be challenged though judicial review. However, the reasoned justification for not preparing a HBA, with forthcoming replacement legislation, would likely assist with reducing chances of a successful claim.

8.6     Additionally, if the decision was challenged the Council could choose to prepare an abridged HBA in the time available. 

9.1     No engagement is proposed with Māori on this proposal. This is because the legal obligation to prepare a HBA is on Council and therefore the consideration of whether or not to prepare a HBA 2027 rests with the Council alone.

9.2     Ngā iwi were extensively involved in preparation of the FDS. The HBA 2024 informed the LTP 2024-2034 and ngā iwi were also involved in preparation of the LTP. Proposed Plan Change 81 to the Tasman Resource Management Plan and Proposed Change 1 to the Tasman Resource Policy Statement, effectively implement the HBA’s assumptions (first ten years’ worth) and ngā iwi have been extensively involved in the preparation of those plan changes.

10.1   The decision being requested is considered to be of low significance.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	low	New population projections and business land demand forecasts will still be obtained for the Council’s growth model and LTP 2027-2037. The fact that the HBA 2024 is not revised is unlikely to be of interest to the community. There has not been a high level of community interest in the HBA 2024. There were 126 file downloads from the capacity assessments webpage in the past year but that page includes 17 documents. It is likely however that most downloads related to the HBA documents uploaded 12 months ago.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	low	Even without a new HBA, the Council will still plan for housing and business demand, using its growth model and LTP 2027-2037.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	low	At the end of 2025 the Government will release its new Planning and Natural Environment Bills which will replace the RMA. The Bills will likely be enacted during 2026 and new requirements for growth planning will apply to councils. Therefore the duration of a decision not to review the HBA will not be long.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	low	Not directly
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	low	The planning for infrastructure servicing and implementation of servicing programmes will continue regardless.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	low	While approximately 800 hours of officer time would be saved by not preparing a HBA 2027 this is not significant in terms of council’s debt, rates or finances.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	low	No it does not involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	low	No it does not involve entry into a partnership or contract.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	low	No it does not involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	low	The proposal itself does not. However the development of a HBA includes consideration of TMOTW and current legislation regarding three waters infrastructure services

 

11.1   No communication is proposed. A HBA is largely prepared for internal use, as well as Central Government’s in monitoring compliance with the NPS-UD.

11.2   Certain sectors of the community read the HBA e.g. developers, planning consultants, focussed community groups, but the majority of the community would not read the HBA.

11.3   The Council has prepared three HBAs to date in 2018, 2021 and 2024. These are available on the Council’s website. While some sectors of the community may be expecting to see another HBA in 2027, those same sectors would be aware of the Government’s RM reform work and the uncertainty this has created for ongoing work under the NPS-UD.

11.4   Once the Government releases its new Planning and Natural Environment Bills at the end of 2025, the Council can begin to plan its work programme to respond to new legal requirements under those Bills.

12.1   There are risks associated with the two options presented in this report.

12.2   Option 1 (prepare a HBA 2027) – Preparing a HBA 2027 risks becoming outdated by the time it is adopted, if the methodology used changes half way through. This would not be an efficient use of officer time. There is also a risk of direction coming from Central Government not to proceed with preparation of the HBA 2027 after work had started, resulting in wasted resources.

12.3   Option 2 (do not prepare a HBA 2027) – Risks non-compliance with NPS-UD if Central Government decides that councils must prepare a HBA 2027. It is possible that an abridged version of the HBA could still be prepared in a shorter time to mitigate the risk. Without an up-to-date HBA, the Council does not have fully up to date evidence on housing and business land demand and capacity. The 2024 HBA would need to be relied upon for e.g. demand for different types of housing.  However it is unlikely that demand for different types of housing will be significantly different to what the HBA 2024 found.

13.1   The HBA 2024 includes a section on planning decisions and the effects of climate change (section 5.11). 

13.2   Any future HBA (or equivalent under new legislation) would continue to include climate change considerations in planning for housing and business locations.

13.3   The Tasman Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan’s (2024-2035) adaptation outcome is “Tasman District becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change”. The Action Plan includes the following short-term action which the HBA encompasses, as the HBA informs future plan changes:

“Council's policy statements, strategies and plans developed and implemented under the resource management system and Local Government Act:

•    plan for natural hazards and sea level rise and consider future climate risks when identifying areas for development;

•    enable climate-resilient development and infrastructure in the right locations;

•    prioritise nature-based solutions where possible;

•    identify vulnerable people, communities, and transition to a more resilient environment;

•    is responsive to climate change adaptation requirements.”

14.1   The HBA informs the Council’s LTP. The figure in section 5.5 shows the relationship between the Council’s FDS, HBA and LTP. The FDS provides the big picture on future demand and capacity for housing and business over 30 years, providing more capacity than is likely needed. The HBA is based on latest population projections and business land demand forecasts and sets out the capacity required to meet that latest demand, usually a proportion of the total capacity identified in the FDS. The HBA informs the LTP in terms of the infrastructure required to service that growth.

14.2   However, by not doing a HBA, the LTP will still be informed by up-to-date population projections, housing demand and business land demand forecasts, as these are being procured anyway. The absence of a more recent HBA (2027) means RMA plan changes etc will not have up to date evidence on housing and business land demand and capacity. The 2024 HBA would still need to be relied upon for e.g. demand for different types of housing.

15.1   Given the current operating environment, officers recommend that the Council does not prepare a HBA 2027. Officers will still procure new population projections, housing demand and business land demand forecasts and will use these to rerun the Council’s growth model to inform the LTP 2027-2037.

15.2   This will provide robust evidence for the LTP and will not result in potential wasted work, if Central Government directs councils not to prepare a HBA 2027.

15.3   Alternatively, should Central Government direct councils to prepare a HBA 2027, there would still be time to prepare an abridged HBA, to meet such requirements. An abridged version would probably not be fully compliant with the requirements of the NPS-UD but would reduce risk of Central Government intervention.

15.4   By not commencing work on a full HBA 2027, this will enable better use of officer resources to focus on the forthcoming Regional Spatial Plan requirements.

16.1   If the Council agrees with the staff recommendations, the next steps for the remainder of 2025 include:

16.1.1    Procure new population projections

16.1.2    Procure new business land demand forecasts

16.1.3    Rerun the Council’s growth model to inform the LTP 2027-2037.

 

Nil

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer
Report Number:	RRC25-10-4

 

1.1     This report is an update on environmental and regulatory activity that has occurred since the 28 August 2025 committee meeting that is not otherwise covered in agenda papers.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Group Manager's report RRC25-10-4.

3.1     The Government is pursuing a three-phase plan to overhaul resource management. While phase three will completely replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), two new Acts recently passed to update the consenting process.

3.2     The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025 (RMAA 2025) aims to make specific changes to the RMA that will have short to medium-term effects for users, pending full replacement of the RMA with new legislation focused more on property rights, under phase 3 of the reforms.

3.3     RMAA 2025 has the most widespread impact on day-to-day consenting processes. While the Act applies from 21 August 2025, most of the provisions do not take effect until 21 October 2025. However, there are several amendments that apply with immediate effect, including:

3.3.1      Ability for councils to consider an applicant’s compliance history in consent decisions. The RMA now includes specific provision (s104(2EA) RMA) for consent authorities to have regard to any previous or current abatement notices, infringements notices, enforcement orders or convictions received by an applicant (whether a natural person or not) under the RMA. Where the non-compliant party is a natural person, the consent authority is restricted to considering relevant compliance history within the past seven years. This seven-year period does not apply to non-natural persons such as companies.

This information has to be provided as part of a consent application. While this looks like a good idea, the legislation does not differentiate the location of the non-compliance.  Thus a large national company needs to provide their non-compliance across the country since 1991, or the rivers team in council has to show all non-compliances from Council; e.g., overtakes of water during a drought.

Staff are taking a very pragmatic approach to this challenge, simply watching this space and will be a fast follower. 

3.3.2      Default 35-year duration and 10-year lapsing date for renewable energy and long-lived infrastructure consents

3.3.3      Ability for councils to decline land use consents based on natural hazard risk

3.3.4      Amendments to changes of conditions and reviews of aquaculture activities (where directed via a national environment standard).

3.4     Provisions that take effect on 21 October include:  

3.4.1      The Consent authority must consider scale and significance and whether it needs further information for section 104 of the RMA when requesting further information

3.4.2      Applications may be considered under section 104 of the RMA or returned as incomplete, if there is a lack of response from an applicant

3.4.3      Specific provision for review of draft conditions

3.4.4      One year maximum processing timeframe for specified infrastructure and wood processing.

3.5     The Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025 was passed on 27 August 2025, and also has several impacts on the Consenting process.

3.6     Changes made under this Act are targeted at implementing national infrastructure design solutions and performance standards for stormwater and wastewater, which are still being developed. The new design solutions and standards will be made under the Water Services Act 2021 (WSA), with the first wastewater standard anticipated later this year.

3.7     These standards will be particularly relevant to any solution proposed for the Motueka wastewater treatment plant. They will set out what treatment standards are required based on the receiving environment and any Consent issued will have to reflect these standards.

3.8     Additionally, an overflow and bypass standard is proposed which will mean that all the Council’s wastewater treatment plants will require new consents. 

4.1     The Mārahau community experienced major damage in the July weather events from flooding and debris flows. The community is worried about further erosion and forestry impacts within the current regulations. Many locals and stakeholders, including iwi (forestry owners), the forest manager and contractor, Council staff, and ward councillors, attended a meeting on 8 September 2025 to discuss the aftermath of the floods.

4.2     Attendees received a list of questions, and forestry owners outlined steps they are taking, such as retiring land and replanting with Mānuka. This is an issue that Council needs to work through with the proposed spatial plan and new plans that will be developed over the next four years.

4.3     Land management is a wider issue than just for Mārahau, as it relates to all the separation point granite soils, particularly those in steep catchments when they receive a significant heavy rainfall. 

5.1     We have now completed the 2025 Consents Survey, for which we have gathered data from residents using these services each year since 2020.

5.2     We gathered feedback from 229 applicants for our consent or licensing services. Questions were aimed at understanding applicants’ perceptions of service, satisfaction levels, and areas for improvement. The survey, conducted by research company The Curiosity Company, followed the same methodology that we have used since a refreshed survey design was first used in 2021. 

5.3     While we did use the survey to assess satisfaction with a range of applications and interactions with our group’s functions, it is primarily undertaken to address two Levels of Service in the Long-Term Plan: 

5.4     For both Building Consents and Resource Consents the performance measure is: At least 80% of survey respondents rate their satisfaction with Council’s building control (or resource consent processing) work as fairly satisfied or better. 

5.4.1      For Building Consents, the percentage of people who agreed that overall, they were fairly satisfied or better, increased from 54% in 2024, to 63% in 2025. 

5.4.2      Resource Consent satisfaction also increased from 47% in 2024 to 53% in 2025.  

5.5     While neither Performance Measure has hit the target of 80%, we have seen an uplift from 2024 results. 

5.6     Acknowledging that it is not a specified performance measure, we note that overall satisfaction with the Dog registration process was significantly down this year – 73%, down from 87% in 2024. We believe this reflects the recent public dissatisfaction with increases to dog registration fees, which was widely discussed across media channels. 

6.1     As discussed in section three of this report, the Government is working to replace the RMA with new legislation. There is widespread agreement that the RMA has not achieved desired outcomes and has become too complex and expensive.

6.2     Te Uru Kahika (TUK) is engaging in the RMA replacement legislation design process, and looking forward to working with central Government to provide the implementation expertise of special interest groups and other parties from across regional government.

6.3     The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) has several very significant work streams underway, working on National Direction and the RMA reform and they have made a formal request to regional councils via TUK, for secondees to work on environmental limits.

6.4     Some reporting is starting to appear on changes to how hazard information is reflected in LIMs, including a warning that with the information comes a greater responsibility for homeowners. The new LIM regulations come into effect next month, these require regional councils and district councils to communicate to provide hazard information. This should not affect Tasman District Council much, as we are a unitary council and already do this.

6.5     TUK as published three position pieces examining the new planning framework. The position pieces recently produced on RM system design are now available online.

6.5.1      Spatial Planning under the Planning Act.

              This sets out how a spatial planning framework can provide long-term, strategic direction to align land use and infrastructure with environmental constraints and opportunities.

6.5.2      Regional Regulatory Planning (Natural Environment Planning)

              Proposing how regional responsibilities under the new Acts can be clearly and efficiently defined, ensuring that regulatory processes are outcome-focused, streamlined, and proportionate.

6.5.3      Environmental Limits under the Natural Environment Act

              Outlines how environmental limits can be set and managed in ways that are risk-based, locally responsive, and nationally consistent, ensuring strong protection for natural systems.

7.1     A recent risk assessment for Pūponga has concluded that there is a moderate to high risk to navigation safety due to non-natural hazards in the area. A mitigation plan is currently under development; however, additional funding will be required to implement three new permanent navigation aids to address the identified risks.

7.2     Sam Ryder, current Maritime Officer, has been confirmed in his new role as Deputy Harbourmaster, effective 6 October 2025. This appointment provides essential cover for the team, as Tasman currently has only one warranted Harbourmaster.

7.3     Audits of oil transfer sites across Tasman are progressing well. The first of four identified sites has been signed off, and the remaining three are nearing approval.

7.4     A Tier 2 oil spill was declared following the discovery of an abandoned car wreck in the estuary near Best Island. Upon notification, the Regional On-Scene Commander and the Harbourmaster coordinated a rapid response. The vehicle was removed within three hours, with oil spill equipment and environmental monitoring deployed within the hour.

7.5     Unfortunately, the car had been in the tidal zone for quite some time. Using powers under the Navigation Safety Bylaw and Regional On-Scene Commander authority, staff were able to remove and dispose of the vehicle promptly. Reimbursement will be sought for the associated costs.

7.6     Flood debris continues to pose a significant risk to navigation safety. A Navigation Safety Notice remains in force, advising all vessels to proceed with caution. Debris has been reported along the coast, including portable toilets, fridges, freezers, benches, and large trees entangled with fencing. The latter was removed from beneath the Māpua Wharf and pontoon by Pūkāea and the Hi-ab ute after a call to the Harbourmaster from a concerned mooring owner. Had the tide turned, this could have resulted in a far more damaging outcome.

7.7     Tasman and Marlborough are working collaboratively on marine farm lighting management and have presented the concept at the South Island Harbourmasters Forum in Invercargill. The draft outlines proposed changes to current lighting practices, following updated Maritime New Zealand advice.

7.8     Achieving consistency across the top of the South will not only improve navigation safety but also simplify the process for marine farm operators. We anticipate that this joint approach may serve as a model for nationwide adoption. Meetings with industry representatives are scheduled to ensure alignment and support.

8.1     As part of the Resource Consent update in August, we were reviewing the Environment Court decision on CJ Industries Limited gravel extraction consent at Peach Island, Motueka.  Since August, Council staff, under legal advice, have decided to not take any further part in the proceedings to the High Court. This does not mean we are abandoning our evidence or indicating agreement with the Court decisions in their entirety. It simply reflects our intention to respect and abide by it, given the circumstances.

9.1     At its meeting on 5 June 2025, the Committee was advised that the Council had successfully obtained an enforcement order for the removal and disposal of hazardous substances that were unlawfully stored at a property located in Upper Moutere.

9.2     The enforcement orders were served to the property owner at the time. However, the property was subsequently sold through a mortgagee sale on 7 July 2025. The new owners have since engaged proactively with Council compliance staff to ensure full adherence to the enforcement order.

9.3     To facilitate the safe removal of hazardous substances, a specialist hazardous waste company was contracted. The first collection of chemicals was completed on 2 September 2025. The new owners have been given until 21 October 2025 to ensure that all hazardous substances are either stored in full compliance with relevant regulations or removed to an approved disposal facility.

10.1   We acknowledge some significant changes in the staffing and running of the Environment and Regulatory Committee.

10.2   Councillor Chris Hill has decided not to run again for Council, so this is her last Committee meeting as Chair. On behalf of the staff, we would like to thank Councillor Hill for her leadership, her knowledge of the areas we cover at these meetings, and her calm, level-headed management at “the top table”. Additionally for her compassion and putting people in the centre approach to issues. You will be missed. Noho ora mai, Chris.

10.3   We also acknowledge Kim Drummond, who has recently left Tasman District Council. Kim’s dedication to our region, and his deep knowledge of the regulatory environment, and his careful provision of information through to this Committee will be truly missed. Kia ora rawa atu, Kim.

10.4   Lastly, thank you to Leif Pigott for being in the hot seat today and providing a thorough knowledge of both the Regulatory and the Environmental Management space, which dominates the reports today.

 

1.⇩

Consents Survey 2025 - results

29

  

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Matt Feely, Building Assurance Manager
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Number:	RRC25-10-5

 

1.1     This report covers the period from 11 March – 14 September 2025.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Building Assurance Manager's Report RRC25-10-5.

3.1     Tasman District Council is legally required under the Building Act 2004 to perform the functions of a Building Consent Authority (BCA) and must maintain accreditation under the Building Regulations 2006. This is reinforced as a performance measure under a related level of service in our 10-year plan. We have continued accreditation with our next assessment 6 - 10 October 2025.

3.2     Territorial Authority (TA) assessments are carried out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to ensure Council have the appropriate systems, processes and resources to carry out their core TA functions under the Building Act 2004.

3.3     We are awaiting confirmation of our next TA assessment; the date is yet to be confirmed and likely to be during the first half of 2026. At this stage it is unclear what the area of focus will be.

3.4     Over the past year, Building Consent activity has shown a modest upward trend, with 1,180 applications lodged, an increase of 43 compared to last year. A total of 1,166 Building Consents, and 854 Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) were issued, which closely aligns with forecast expectations and the economic outlook anticipated. New dwelling applications increased by 34, while commercial applications remained steady. Looking ahead, we expect total application volumes to grow by around five percent over the next 12 months, with inspections and CCCs projected to rise by approximately two percent.

3.5     Schedule 1(2) exemptions (Discretionary exemptions) remained consistent with the previous year, at 111. Certificates of Acceptance rose from 50 to 73, swimming pool audits reached 611 in line with the three-year inspection cycle, and Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) audits increased from 160 to 180. Notices to Fix reduced significantly from 45 to 17, with no infringements issued during the 2024/25 year.

3.6     Staff development has remained a key focus, with ongoing training to advance the team’s competency levels, enhance capability, and reduce reliance on external contractors. The contractor training resource continues to deliver strong results, contributing to improved efficiency. We have also maintained our commitment to customer and stakeholder engagement through regular updates to the website, quarterly newsletters, and direct communications.

3.7     Staffing changes over the year included the loss of seven team members due to restructuring and other factors. Three of those staff members have been replaced.

3.8     Government reforms have been a significant focus, particularly relating to small standalone dwellings (“granny flats”), self-certification, and Building Consent system reforms. Council has made submissions on the: “granny flats” proposal, and we are awaiting further details on implementation timelines to assess how these changes will affect operations.

4.1     Our staff continue to issue Building Consents and Code Compliance Certificates within 20 day statutory time frames. On average, we are completing work within eight days for Building Consents, and six days for Code Compliance Certificates.

4.2     With the inhouse trainer in place we have increased competency levels with most new dwelling consents able to be processed in-house. We are currently growing commercial capability, and the majority of commercial processing is contracted out.

5.1     Keeping up with Government announcements.

5.2     Pool barrier audits remain challenging, due to legacy issues.

6.1     Staffing changes over the year included the loss of seven team members due to restructuring and other factors. Three of those vacancies have been filled.

6.2     Currently exploring recruitment options.

7.1     One technical staff member is in his second and final year of the Level 6 Diploma in Building Surveying.

7.2     Service delivery has been maintained at 99% within statutory timeframes for building consents and code compliance certificates.

7.3     Customer engagements have continued with Certified Builders and Master Builders quarterly meetings. Council has continued its quarterly Building Assurance newsletter, which informs our key customers of important updates, legislation changes, and any other relevant matters.

8.1     Over the five-year period, there has been a noticeable and steady decline in the number of building consent applications received. In 2020–21, a total of 1,651 applications were submitted. This figure has fallen to 1,180 applications for 2024–25, representing a significant reduction in demand for building consents.

8.2     A similar downward trend is evident in the number of consents issued, including amendments. These have decreased from 1,486 consents in 2020–21 to 1,166 consents in 2024–25. The number of new dwellings consented (excluding amendments) has also halved during this period, dropping from 619 to 314, indicating a marked slowdown in residential development activity.

8.3     Despite the reduction in volume, the efficiency of consent processing has remained consistently high. The average time taken to process a consent has improved significantly, decreasing from 11 working days in 2020–21 to just 8 working days in 2024–25. Furthermore, between 98% and 99% of all consents have been processed within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days, demonstrating strong performance and adherence to regulatory requirements.

8.4     The number of building inspections undertaken has also declined in line with the overall reduction in building activity. In 2020–21, there were 8,624 inspections carried out, compared to a projected 5,590 inspections in 2024–25.

8.5     However, one area of concern is the persistently high inspection failure rate, which has fluctuated between 61% and 72% over the five-year period. This suggests ongoing challenges in construction quality or compliance with building standards, and may warrant further investigation or targeted support for builders and developers.

8.6     In terms of CCCs, both the number of applications received and certificates issued have declined over time, reflecting the broader decrease in building activity. Despite this, the processing of CCCs has remained efficient, with average processing times consistently between five and six working days. Additionally, 99-100% of CCCs have been processed within the required 20 working days, indicating strong performance in this area.

Summary of Key Trends

8.7     There has been a clear and sustained decline in building activity, as evidenced by reductions in applications, consents issued, inspections, and CCCs.

8.8     Processing performance has remained strong, with high levels of efficiency and compliance with statutory timeframes for both consents and certificates.

8.9     The high rate of inspection failures remains a notable issue, potentially pointing to persistent challenges in construction practices or understanding of compliance requirements.

8.10   Building Consent results from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2025 are shown highlighted in the table below with comparisons to the previous four years.

 

Building Consent Results	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025
Building Consent Applications
Building Consent Applications	1651	1601	1386	1137	1180
Building Consents Issued  (Including Amendments)	1486	1500	1376	1127	1166
Building Consents Issued for New Dwellings  (Excluding Amendments)	575	510	484	264	422
Number of New Dwellings Consented  (Excluding Amendments)	619	559	592	280	314
Building Consent Average working days to be processed	11	10	9	7	8
Building Consents Processed within 20 working days.  (percentage)	99%	98%	99%	99%	99%
Inspections and Code Compliance
Building Inspections undertaken	8624	7539	8127	6306	5590
Building Inspections Failed (percentage)	61%	68%	72%	67%	65%
Code Compliance Certificate Applications	1286	1054	1259	1005	835
Code Compliance Certificate Issued	1266	1060	1165	1029	854
Code Compliance Certificates Average working days to be processed	5	6	6	5	6
Code Compliance Certificates Processed within 20 working days (percentage)	99%	99%	99%	99%	100%

 

9.1     Determinations are made by MBIE on matters of doubt or dispute to do with building work. Rulings are legally binding on a case-by-case basis. Previous determinations may provide useful guidance for subsequent issues as they arise, although individual circumstances may vary. Council currently has two determinations with MBIE.

9.2     Complaints can be made to the Council by practitioners. There are currently no such complaints.

10.1   The compliance section of Building Assurance has continued to undertake all the territorial authority responsibilities under the Building Act, other than those functions of the building consents team, and includes:

10.1.1    Inspections of Pool Barriers

10.1.2    Processing Building Warrants of Fitness (BWoF)

10.1.3    Audits of BWoFs

10.1.4    Processing building consent exemptions

10.1.5    Processing Certificates of Acceptance (COAs)

10.1.6    Investigating and resolving complaints

10.1.7    Compliance Investigation/ Enforcement

10.1.8    Issuing Notices (Notices to Fix, Dangerous and Insanitary, Infringement Notices, Certificates for Public Use etc).

10.2   Schedule 1(2) exemptions, (Discretionary Exemptions) which allow certain building work to proceed without a formal building consent, have seen a gradual decline in application volumes over the five-year period, applications dropped from 147 in 2020–21 to 111 in 2024–25, indicating a reduced reliance on this exemption pathway. Exemptions Issued followed a similar trend, decreasing from 141 to 107. Average Processing Time fluctuated slightly, ranging from 31 to 36 working days, with no clear trend toward improvement or delay. This suggests a stable but moderately lengthy processing timeframe for these exemptions.

10.3   Certificates of Acceptance (CoAs) are issued for building work completed without consent. This area has seen notable growth, applications increased significantly from 38 in 2020–21 to 73 in 2024–25, nearly doubling over the period. Certificates issued rose in parallel, from 35 to 76, reflecting both increased demand and responsiveness.

10.4   The percentage of CoAs issued within the statutory 20 working days has varied considerably, starting at 37% in 2020–21, dipping to 26% in 2021–22, then improving to 62% in 2023–24, before falling again to 38% in 2024–25. These fluctuations suggest ongoing challenges in meeting statutory timeframes, possibly due to complexity or resource constraints.

10.5   Swimming Pool Audit tracking began 2023–24, with 457 audits conducted, increasing to 611 in 2024–25. This reflects a strong focus on pool safety and regulatory compliance.

10.6   Compliance schedules issued remained low, but gradually increased from 42 in 2020–21 to 48 in 2024–25, indicating steady but limited activity in this area.

10.7   Compliance schedule amendments tracking began in 2021–22, with 264 amendments that year, followed by a decline and stabilisation at 149 amendments in both 2023–24 and 2024–25.

10.8   Building Compliance results from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 are shown highlighted in the table below.

Building Compliance Results	2020 to 2021	2021 to 2022	2022 to 2023	2023 to 2024	2024 to 2025
Schedule 1(2) Exemptions
Schedule 1(2) Exemption Applications	147	138	105	110	111
Schedule 1(2) Exemption Issued	141	127	77	101	107
Schedule 1(2) Exemption Average working days	34	32	35	31	36
Certificate of Acceptance
Certificate of Acceptance Applications	38	31	50	50	73
Certificate of Acceptance Issued	35	30	50	43	76
Certificate of Acceptance Issued within 20 working days (percentage)	37%	26%	48%	62%	74%
Other Building Compliance functions
Swimming Pool Audits Conducted	-	-	-	457	611
Compliance Schedules Issued	42	21	23	27	48
Compliance Schedule Amendment Issued	-	264	117	149	149
Building Warrant of Fitness received	220	471	534	499	511
Building Warrant of Fitness Audits	-	-	4	160	180
Notice to Fix Issued	14	24	54	45	17
Infringement Notice Issued	-	-	5	10	0

11.1   The Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 came into effect on 26 November 2024. Its primary effect is to extend all non-lapsed earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines by four years, with an option for a further two years.

11.2   The Building (Overseas Products, Standards and Certification Schemes) Amendment Act 2025 came into effect on 7 April 2025. This Act makes it easier to use overseas building products by requiring BCAs to accept them as complying with the Building Code.

11.3   Small Standalone Dwellings (Granny Flats). Government committed to exempting standalone dwellings up to 70m² from requiring building consent. Conditions will apply, with further detail expected by the end of 2025.

11.4   From 22 August 2025, BCAs must complete at least 80% of building inspections within three working days. Councils may use risk-based approaches or remote inspections. MBIE will publish quarterly performance data.

11.5   The Government will relax setback rules for small detached buildings. From late 2025, single-storey buildings under 10m² will no longer require a minimum boundary setback, and those 10–30m² will only need a 1m setback. The intent is to make it easier and cheaper to build sheds, sleepouts, and small garages without consents.

11.6   The Government is investigating proportionate liability measures, including requiring home warranties (with opt-out), professional indemnity insurance, and stronger accountability for Licensed Building Practitioners.

11.7   There are several proposed changes to licences for Building Practitioners, including a new waterproofing licence, an improved complaints process, and stronger disciplinary measures. There is also a proposal that self-certification be introduced. This would allow qualified building professionals and accredited companies to carry out low-risk residential work without BCA inspections.

11.8   Lastly, the Government is looking at voluntary consolidation of Building Consent Authorities, with the intent to improve efficiency and consistency.

12.1   The receipt of Potential Impact Classifications (PICs) has stagnated. To address this, a communication process is being implemented to identify barriers to the supply of classifications and to determine what guidance may assist large dam owners in meeting the requirements introduced by the regulations.

13.1   We are continuing to meet our obligations in this area. However, the Government is presently undertaking an extensive review of the management of seismic risk in existing buildings. The purpose of the review is to ensure seismic risk is being managed effectively and in a workable, proportionate way. Changes are expected; just how the review conclusions will impact building owners is unknown at this time.

13.2   The final stage of the review is expected to begin early 2026 which will include the drafting, introduction and passage of the Bill (if any) and implementation of any regulatory and non-regulatory measures.

14.1   Our next accreditation assessment is 6 – 10 October 2025.

15.1   On 27 June 2025, a significant flood event occurred across the Tasman region. On 29 June 2025, an application was submitted to MBIE to designate the entire Tasman region under Section 133BC of the Building Act 2004. The designation was confirmed and will remain in place until 29 June 2028, with reviews every 90 days.

15.2   During June and July council staff carried out Rapid Building Assessments with support from MBIE, Nelson City Council, and Buller District Council. This additional resourcing was critical to maintaining business as usual during the response period.

15.3   As of 31 July 2025, a total of 53 white placards, 45 yellow placards, and 10 red placards had been issued. As of 14 September there are 59 white placards, 43 yellow placards, and 5 red placards.

Nil

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Dr. Alastair Clement, Team Leader Natural Hazards & Geomorphology
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Number:	RRC25-10-6

 

1.1     The Natural Hazards team was highly involved in the response to the June and July flood event, providing advice to the Emergency Operations Centre, capturing over 5,000 photos of the event, mapping the flood extent, and post-flood surveying of flood marks.

1.2     Support was gratefully received from Environment Canterbury and Bay of Plenty Regional Council for assistance with surveying flood marks after the June flood event.

1.3     Drone surveys of Parapara beach in early May showed the value of Coast Care plantings in helping the beach remain resilient to high tides and storm waves.

1.4     A new waves and tides portal has been developed to make information from Council’s wave buoy more accessible to the general public.

1.5     The conclusion of a project evaluating the feasibility of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation in the Motueka catchment shows some promising results.

1.6     The Natural Hazards team continues to provide support to the public and a wide range of Council processes and operations.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Natural Hazards Report RRC25-10-6.

3.1     The Natural Hazards and Geomorphology team reports twice-yearly (April and October) to the Environment and Regulatory Committee to update the Committee on the team’s activity and receive feedback and answer questions from the Committee.

4.1     During the June and July 2025 flood events staff from the Natural Hazards team assisted other Council teams and the Emergency Operations Centre.

4.2     During the June event Bryan Scoles undertook drone-based flow gauging to support the Environmental Monitoring team. Bryan also processed photos taken during helicopter reconnaissance flight so that they could be made available to the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) with geospatial information attached (see section below).

4.3     During the July flood event Alastair Clement supported the flood forecasting team and the duty flood officer and provided technical advice to the EOC around flood hazards across the district, and in particular Motueka and Riwaka. Glenn Stevens also provided technical advice to the EOC around flood hazards to Takaka. All members of the team undertook a post-event reconnaissance flight, with Bryan Scoles again processing the photos after the flight to make them available to the EOC with geospatial information attached (see section below).

5.1     Staff from the Natural Hazards team undertook drone and helicopter reconnaissance flights during the 27 June flood event and a helicopter reconnaissance flight immediately after the 12 July flood event.

5.2     As the 27 June flood event was unfolding Bryan Scoles was assisting the Hydrology team with drone-based flow gaugings of the Wai-Iti River. On his way back to the Richmond office, Bryan decided to check on flood extents in the Pitfure catchment between Wakefield and Brightwater. Bryan took a number of drone photos along the length of Higgins Road that captured the flood extent close to its peak. These photos will be used to produce a flood map for the Pitfure. This fills a gap for Council, as up until now we have had limited information about flood extents in the Pitfure catchment.

Figure 1: View looking north along Higgins Road between Wakefield and Brightwater taken by a drone close to the peak of the flood event on 27 June.

5.3     Later during the 27 June flood event Bryan Scoles and Glenn Stevens from the Natural Hazards team (accompanied by Matt Mazzuchelli from the Rivers and Coastal Structures team) undertook a helicopter reconnaissance flight to capture information about the extent and impact of flooding. This flight captured photos across the upper Wai-iti valley, the Motupiko and Tadmor valleys, most of the length of the Motueka valley, the Moutere valley, and parts of the western Waimea plains. In the Motueka valley many of the photos captured the flood at its peak and so have been invaluable for mapping the extent of flooding across the Motueka catchment (see below). These photos were immediately passed onto the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC).

Figure 2: View of flooding in the Motupiko valley looking upstream during the 27 June 2025 flood event.

Figure 3: View of flooding near Thorns Beach in the Motueka valley looking downstream during the 27 June flood event.

5.4     A helicopter reconnaissance flight was also undertaken after the 11 July flood event by staff from the Natural Hazards team (Alastair Clement, Glenn Stevens, and Bryan Scoles) and the Rivers and Coastal Structures team (Aleshia Genever). This flight covered Kaiteriteri and Marahau, Riwaka, the Motueka valley, Dove valley, Stanley Brook, Tadmor, Motupiko valley and the middle and lower reaches of the Wai-iti. These photos were also immediately passed onto the Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) who used them to inform their intelligence and operations functions.

Figure 4: View of the Wai-Iti River looking downstream towards the confluence with the Wairoa River taken after            the 11   July flood event.

Figure 5: View looking up Pretty Bridge Valley taken after the 11 July flood event.

5.5     Over 5,000 images were captured by staff during and after the June and July flood events. All images have now been geolocated and oriented; and are available on the Council Intranet for staff to use for recovery and ongoing decision-making purposes.

Figure 6: Map showing the distribution of over 5,000 photos taken during and after the June and July 2025 floods. Each triangle indicates the location of a photograph, with the orientation of the photograph indicated by the direction the triangle is pointing.

5.6     Following the 27 June flood event staff from the Natural Hazards team also coordinated post-event aerial photography capture by New Zealand Aerial Surveys. This 10 cm resolution aerial photography was flown on 17 July 2025 following the second flood event and was focused on the valley floors of the majorly affected rivers including the Wai-Iti, Moutere, Motueka, Dove, Stanley Brook, Motupiko, and Tadmor. This imagery is freely accessible via the LINZ Data Service (https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/122749-tasman-river-valleys-flood-01m-aerial-photos-2025/).

Figure 7: (left) An example of the Aerial Surveys orthophotography taken near Hinetai on the Upper Motueka River; (right) Full extent of the aerial photography captured on 17 July 2025. The area shown on the left is indicated in red.

6.1     Following the 27 June flood event Natural Hazards team member Glenn Stevens immediately began to use the helicopter reconnaissance photos to map the extent of flooding in the Motueka catchment. This map later became a crucial input during the emergency response to the 12 July flood event as it provided a picture of the areas likely to be affected during the second flood event.

6.2     Following the July flood event the mapping has been updated to provide a composite of the area inundated across both flood events. This mapping will be crucial information in the future for managing flood hazard in the affected catchments. The mapping is particularly important for the Motueka valley where the June flood event that was photographed close to peak was on the order of a 1-in-100-year flood event—this magnitude of flood event is the threshold for natural hazards decision-making in contexts such as the building consents and resource consents.

6.3     In the main Motueka River valley the flood extent has been mapped for a length of over 70 km from the State Highway 60 bridge to upstream of Goldpine. In the Motupiko valley the flood extent has been mapped from the confluence with the Motueka River upstream for a length of over 23 km. The Tadmor valley flood extent has been mapped over a length of 24 km upstream from the Motueka confluence, while the Dove has currently been mapped over a 10 km length upstream of the confluence with the main Motueka River.

Figure 8: (left) Zoomed-in view of the middle reaches of the Motueka River and Dove valley showing the mapped extent of the June and July floods; (right) View of the wider Motueka valley and tributary valleys showing the full extent of mapping of the June and July flood events to date. The area shown on the left is indicated by the black rectangle.

6.4     Elsewhere, the Natural Hazards team is planning to map the 27 June flood extent across the Pitfure floodplain captured by drone photographs close to the peak of the event. Once the mapping has been completed across all catchment where there are suitable photographs, the Natural Hazards team intends to look at opportunities to get public feedback on the mapping.

7.1     Following the 27 June 2025 flood event an offer of support from other regional councils was received under the inter-council agreement for flood event assistance. This agreement allows for regional councils to provide operational support during flood events. Given the broad extent of the area affected by the flooding, the short period of time before further bad weather was forecast, and limited in-house surveying capacity, support was requested in the form of surveyors to map and survey flood marks and debris lines across the affected catchments.

7.2     Flood marks and debris lines provide valuable evidence on the extent and depth of flooding in affected catchments. This information can be used to calibrate flood models and assist in future planning and resilient development.

Figure 9: Example of a debris line surveyed by the Natural Hazards team in the Moutere valley at the Holaway Road ford. The two ends of the debris line are indicated with arrows.

Figure 10: Example of a ‘seed line’ surveyed by the Natural Hazards team at Old School Road near Kohatu after the 27 June flood event. The ‘seed line’ (arrowed) records the flood level through fine debris caught on fencing material.

7.3     A team of two surveyors from Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoP RC) flew into the district for three days while a team of two surveyors from Environment Canterbury (ECan) drove up from Christchurch with two vehicles for the two teams to use. (A river engineer also came from BoP RC to support the Rivers and Coastal Structures team.) The team from BoP RC began surveying from the end of the Motueka stopbanks near College Street and progressively worked their way up the river, while the ECan team started near Tapawera and worked their way down the river.

7.4     While the two visiting survey teams were capturing flood marks in the Motueka valley, Natural Hazards team members Alastair Clement and Bryan Scoles focused on surveying flood marks and debris lines in the Pitfure catchment (between Wakefield and Brightwater), along the Wai-iti, through the Motupiko and upper Motueka, and in the Moutere valley. The major challenge with the surveying was the lack of cellphone coverage around Wakefield. Council’s GPS surveying equipment is most effective when in areas with cellphone coverage and has limited range radios for use when cellphone coverage is not available. This was not an issue faced by the BoP RC and ECan survey teams who had equipment with higher-power longer-range radios.

7.5     Altogether the three teams of surveyors were able to capture hundreds of flood marks from across the district. The assistance from ECan and BoP RC was invaluable as the Natural Hazards team did not have the capacity to undertake surveys across all the affected catchments in the time available before the weather turned and valuable evidence was potentially washed away.

Figure 11: Example of debris caught in a fence surveyed by the Natural Hazards team on Batchelor Ford Road in the lower Moutere valley after the 27 June flood event. The arrow indicates the maximum level of debris caught on the fence.

7.6     Following the survey effort the three teams of surveyors held a debriefing session to cover ‘lessons learned’, as this is the first time that surveyor support has been provided under the agreement for flood assistance. This debriefing session was valuable for the Natural Hazards team as the surveyors that came from BoP RC and ECan had a wealth of practical experience surveying flood marks and were very open to sharing their knowledge.

7.7     Lessons learned for future floods included:

7.7.1  Having a single central point of contact and coordination for all survey teams;

7.7.2  Providing out of district survey teams with an official letter from (via CDEM) to explain the role and purpose;

7.7.3  Provide cards with Council’s contact information for survey teams to give out;

7.7.4  Other councils use GPS equipment with longer-range radios; and

7.7.5  A small team of two from NIWA also came to undertake post-event surveying after the July flood. NIWA focused their efforts in the Motueka valley and the Dove valley.

Figure 12: Hamish Sutton from NIWA surveying debris lines in the Motueka valley near Woodstock after the July flood event. The line on the left is from the 27 June flood event, while the line on the right is from the 11 July flood event.

 

8.1     The June and July flood events have highlighted the ongoing efforts by the Natural Hazards team to ensure that development across the District is resilient to the effects of natural hazards such as flooding. Development that is resilient to flooding relies on having a good understanding of the exposure to flooding and its potential impacts and then using this understanding to avoid this exposure and impacts or where this isn’t possible to ensure that development is well prepared by having well-designed developments that are adapted to their flood exposure. In the course of reconnaissance flights during the June flood event staff took photos of a number of more recent developments that demonstrated resilience by having been located on elevated building platforms to avoid exposure to inundation. The building up of these platforms was the direct result of advice and guidance from staff in the Natural Hazards team.

Figure 13: Resilience of a commercial building in the lower Moutere valley photographed during the 27 June flood event.

             Figure 14: Resilient development (house in the mid-ground) at Qunney’s Bush on the lower Motupiko River        photographed   during the 27 June flood event.

9.1     During the June and July flood events the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) activated the International Charter: Space and Major Disasters. The charter provides access to critical satellite imagery from a range of providers to support disaster management and recovery. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) acts as the New Zealand coordinator for the charter.

9.2     Prior to the June and July flood events the charter had not been activated for many New Zealand events, so this presented the opportunity to LINZ and Council to work together to understand the opportunities presented by the charter.

9.3     Glenn Stevens in the Natural Hazards team has been working to understand the different type of satellite imagery available through the charter so the Council is well prepared to access and utilize such imagery in future weather events.

9.4     LINZ and Council staff held a debriefing session after the event to cover lessons learned, which included:

9.4.1  A better understanding of which satellite imagery is most useful for analysing the impacts of emergency weather events;

9.4.2  LINZ publishing data online in future events to make it easier to access; and

9.4.3  Looking to establish an MOU with data suppliers such as Aerial Surveys so that imagery flown by Council can be shared directly with LINZ.

             Figure 15: The disaster charter imagery interface showing a range of available PlanetScope imagery.

Figure 16: Comparison of different satellite imagery available through the disaster charter: (top) Pleiades 0.7 m resolution imagery; (bottom) PlanetScope 3 m resolution imagery.

 

10.1   In early May, Bryan Scoles and Alastair Clement undertook drone surveys of beaches at Parapara and Patons Rock. These surveys produce 3D models of the beach, and repeating the surveys through time enables changes in beach form and volume to be analysed. Drone surveys have an advantage over cross-sections that were formerly used to beach changes in beach form over time, as the 3D models produced by the drone surveys provide a picture of changes in beach form and volume along the full length of a beach while cross-sections only provide information for one small area of a beach.

10.2   Through April and early May 2025 beaches in Golden Bay had been subject to high tides and strong southeasterly winds on several occasions, so the beach surveys were timed to capture the effects of these storms. The Parapara beach survey was of particular interest as in late 2023 Steve Richards from the Reserves team at Council undertook a sand pushup and Coast Care plantings in front of a number of properties along the northern end of the beach in front of properties 64–74 Bishop Road. These works were undertaken with support and assistance from the community and these property owners.

10.3   The May 2025 drone survey showed that the section of beach backed by the Coast Care plantings had stood up well to the high tides and waves. However, along the beach to the north of where the plantings had been undertaken, the scarp at the rear of the beach had been cut further back. This example highlights the value of Coast Care plantings in helping to protect beaches from erosion during storms.

Figure 17: Oblique drone photograph from May 2025 of Parapara beach looking south. The approximate length of beach where Coast Care plantings were undertaken in 2023 is indicated with the blue arrow.

Figure 18: Comparison image with the photo above showing the detail in the 3D model developed by drone photogrammetry.

Figure 19: Oblique drone photograph from May 2025 of Parapara beach looking south. The approximate length of beach where Coast Care plantings were undertaken in 2023 is indicated with the blue arrow.

11.1   Recently, to make Council environmental data more readily accessible to the public, Stephen D’Andrea from the Environmental Data team has worked with Bryan Scoles of the Natural Hazards team on development of a web application that displays marine conditions in real-time. This includes wind speed and direction, wave height and direction, and tide levels.

11.2   Tide information comes from Council’s tide gauges at Little Kaiteriteri and Port Tarakohe, while the wind and wave data comes direct from the Tūātea wave buoy that was installed in March this year through a relationship between the Natural Hazards team and Canterbury University, which supplied the buoy. Data collected from the buoy is fed into the southislandwaves.co.nz website, which collects and displays information from other mainland locations. However, we’ve been able to take the Tasman-specific data and pull it through to a web app that’s easy to access to highlight our local conditions.

11.3   The new wind and wave data web app is available at tasman.govt.nz/environmental-data-portal – click on the ‘tidal data’ tab.

             Figure 20: Screenshot of the new wind and wave data app on the Council’s Environmental Data Portal               website.

12.1   Staff from the Natural Hazards team have recently completed their collaborative work with staff from Environmental Policy team (Diana Worthy and Paula Hammond) on updating the 2019 Inundation Practice Note (IPN). These updates included:

12.1.1         Incorporating updated 2024 guidance from the Ministry for the Environment               (MfE) about climate change and sea-level rise;

12.1.2         Updated sea-level rise projections and new vertical land movement rates from                    the NZSeaRise Programme;

12.1.3         Incorporating new 2023 guidance from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and                Employment (MBIE) about natural hazards provisions for building consents;

12.1.4         Revised mean sea-level and high tide analysis for Tasman and Golden Bays undertaken by NIWA in 2023;

12.1.5         2024 revisions to the NIWA Coastal Calculator for coastal inundation levels;

12.1.6         Extreme sea-level (storm) analysis for Waimea and Moutere Inlets undertaken by NIWA in 2024.

13.1   The two-year-long feasibility study into nature-based solutions (NbS) for flood mitigation in the Motueka catchment concluded in June 2025. This study was funded by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), with modelling undertaken by Council’s project partner WSP.

13.2   The project evaluated the feasibility of a number of NbS, including:

13.2.1         Revegetation of the upper Motueka catchment and floodplain;

13.2.2         Reconnecting the river to the floodplain and using the floodplain for the storage of floodwaters;

13.2.3         Leaky barriers or dams in river channels and on the floodplains.

13.3   The feasibility of these NbS was assessed by building a detailed flood model of the catchment. A series of floods were simulated in the model with and without the NbS being represented, with the differences in flood magnitude and duration in different areas of the catchment being used to assess the feasibility of the different NbS. However, it is important to note the NbS are generally assessed to be most effective during smaller flood events. Consequently, the main results of the modelling were based on effectiveness of NbS during a 5% AEP flood event (roughly a 2% AEP flood event is a 1-in-50-year event)

13.4   Generally, the results from the modelling showed that a combination of NbS has the greatest effect on slowing the flow of floodwater through the Motueka catchment. For example, for a 5% AEP flood where scenarios evaluating revegetation showed decreases in flood flows of 4–11 per cent (Figure 21) or in-channel leaky barriers alone showed decreases in flood flows of 0.5–5 per cent (Figure 22), revegetation in combination with floodplain storage of floodwaters and leaky barriers showed decreases of 3–36 per cent (Figure 23).

Figure 21: Impact of revegetation in the upper Motueka catchment on flows during a 5% AEP flood event.

Figure 22: Impact of in-channel leaky barriers on flows during a 5% AEP flood event.

Figure 23: Impact of the combination of increased vegetation in the upper catchment, in-channel and on floodplain leaky barriers, and floodplain storage of flood waters during a 5% AEP event.

13.5   At this time model runs are still being completed as due to the size of the model (which represents the entire Motueka catchment), each scenario run in the model takes over 10 hours to complete. Once the full set of results are received staff will look to see how the findings from the modelling may be put into practice by working with landowners and the community.

14.1   The Natural Hazards team has been working with Mike Harry from the LIMs and Property Information team and Terry O’Donnell and Luke Chignall from the IT team in Council Operations to get ready for the introduction of new LIMs regulations which come into effect on 17 October 2025.

14.2   In response to the new regulations natural hazards comments in LIMs will now need to be broken up into five separate sections to be included in the LIM document. These sections are: coastal hazards; rivers and rainfall flooding; slope instability; seismic hazards; and other natural hazards. LIM comments will also make use of the natural hazards maps on the Environmental Map Viewer which was released earlier this year.

14.3   Given this change to writing multiple separate comments, the Natural Hazards team anticipates requesting funding in the next LTP for process improvements to enhance efficiency. The Natural Hazards team is also looking to explore options for semi-automating LIM comments for additional efficiency.

15.1   The Natural Hazards team continues to provide ongoing support to a range of Council processes and teams, as well as the general public, including:

15.1.1         Responding to requests from the public for natural hazards information;

15.1.2         Natural Hazards summaries for Land Information Memorandums (LIMs);

15.1.3         Natural Hazards information to support building consent processes;

15.1.4         Natural Hazards and geomorphology information to support resource consenting                processes; and

15.1.5         Technical support for the Environmental Policy team to undertake plan changes                 and planning proposals where these are progressing.

 

Nil

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	David Arseneau, Team Leader Rivers & Coastal Structures
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Number:	RRC25-10-7

 

1.1     This recurring Rivers and Coastal Structures update report has a three-fold purpose:

1.1.1    To update the Environment and Regulatory Committee on activity in the Rivers and Coastal Structures team,

1.1.2    To receive feedback as to the committee’s view of what good river and coastal management operations looks like, and

1.1.3    To provide a level of confidence as we change and adapt to the new operating and legislative environment around us, that we have a plan and are moving in the right direction.

1.2     A particular focus of this update report is on the June-July 2025 floods and their implications for the Rivers Activity.

2.1     This report provides an overview of the performance of Council’s flood protection infrastructure during the June-July 2025 floods, the work underway to carry out an effective recovery programme, a financial update of recovery work to date, and an update of a range of other aspects of the Rivers activity.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Rivers and Coastal Structures report;

4.1     Tasman District experienced back-to-back severe weather events on 27 June and 11 July 2025, resulting in record- or near-record-high river flows in many areas and causing unprecedented damage to our river network, both in magnitude and extent. Details and statistics on the weather events themselves have been covered in other reports to Council, and as such this report will focused on the specific impacts to Tasman’s rivers, the performance of our flood protection infrastructure during the flood events, and how the response and early recovery work have proceeded.

4.2     Council’s flood protection stopbanks were severely tested during both flood events, incurring damage in several areas but generally performing well considering the scale of flood flows and our stated levels of service. The performance of each stopbank scheme during each flood is noted below.

4.3     Stopbank performance during the 27 June 2025 flood (~100-year recurrence interval in the Motueka River, very high flows in the Wai-iti River and tributaries):

4.3.1    The Motueka Stopbanks came within 200-300mm of overtopping at the SH60 bridge, which is within the freeboard and well above the design level of service at that location. Minor damage to the stopbank batter occurred near College Street where refurbishment works finished only weeks earlier (grass cover had not yet established). No failures, no significant damage, no overtopping.

4.3.2    Overtopping occurred along the west side of the Peach Island stopbanks at several areas, causing scour damage to the banks but no complete breach or failure. Temporary repairs were carried out prior to the 11 July 2025 flood, and this area has been identified for upgrade/refurbishment in the upcoming construction season as part of the ongoing Regional Infrastructure Fund programme of work.

4.3.3    Limited overtopping occurred along the right bank of the Brooklyn River stopbanks, with no significant damage noted.

4.3.4    Extensive overtopping occurred along the Riuwaka River stopbanks due to the level of service flow being exceeded for an extended period of time.

4.3.5    Limited overtopping occurred along the left bank of the Waimea Stopbanks around the Pearl Creek area, with flows below the stated level of service, with no significant damage noted.

4.4     Stopbank performance during the 11 July flood (~50-year recurrence interval in the Motueka River, extreme flows in the Wai-iti River and tributaries):

4.4.1    The Motueka Stopbanks performed well with flood levels peaking below the 27 June levels. No damage noted, but extensive debris deposited along flood banks.

4.4.2    Overtopping occurred again along the west side of the Peach Island stopbanks, causing further scour damage to the banks but no complete breach or failure.

4.4.3    More extensive overtopping occurred along the right and left banks of the Brooklyn River stopbanks, with scour damage noted in several areas. Temporary repairs were carried out following the flood and these stopbanks are programmed for rebuild/ refurbishment in the upcoming construction season.

4.4.4    Extensive overtopping again occurred along the Riuwaka River stopbanks due to the level of service flow being exceeded for an extended period of time, though not as severe as the 27 June event.

4.4.5    An approximately 150m section of the Waimea Stopbanks, along the Wai-iti River downstream of Livingston Road, was undermined by lateral riverbank erosion and completely destroyed. Reconstruction works commenced promptly once the damage was identified and have been completed as of 12 September (before and after photos below).

Figure 1: Destroyed section of Wai-iti Stopbank as at 12 July

Figure 2: Rebuilt Wai-iti Stopbank as at 11 September

4.5     The vast majority of damage incurred during the June-July 2025 floods occurred in the non-stopbanked, rural River Y and River Z areas of the Motueka, Wai-iti, Dove and Moutere catchments.

4.6      A significant challenge being faced by the Rivers activity is our pre-flood position of limited asset knowledge and historical information management, limited long-term river management strategy for River Y areas, and limited team resources and systems to manage an event of this scale. We have been working to improve these areas over the past year, but the flood has strongly emphasised our historical shortcomings in these areas.

4.7     In the face of the scale of damage from these floods, we determined early on that a robust programme management approach for the recovery would be required, based on a prioritised, risk-based, commercially-sensible approach. To that end, we have retained recovery and commercial experts from DS Project Solutions to develop the processes and systems we would need to make this happen.

4.8     There are several parallels but interrelated workstreams that have been running since the floods:

4.8.1    An approximately 4-6 week period after 27 June focused on immediate response, post-flood stopbank inspections, emergency stopbank repairs, post-flood river surveillance with drones, river realignment/gravel shifting work, and nervously watching the weather forecast.

4.8.2    Engaging DS Project Solutions to implement a programme management approach for the recovery work.

4.8.3    Engaging WSP engineering consultants to:

1.    Collate available spatial data, imagery, drone photos, insured asset data, etc., for the purpose of asset impairment assessment, overall damage assessment, and documentation for future insurance claims

2.    Ensure that our asset data is fit for purpose for insurance claims, with the added   benefit of producing a “clean” asset register moving forward

3.    Develop a GIS framework and tracking tool for the above, which will be carried forward into our BAU moving forward

4.    Carry out on-site visual assessments of assets where imagery is not sufficient to   determine condition (to be scheduled based on forward work programme)

5.    Develop a risk-based prioritisation framework to inform recovery work, based on a range of spatial data (land use, location of houses, infrastructure proximity, etc.)

4.8.4  Deploying contractor resources (Taylors primarily, supplemented by others on a case-by-case basis) working on urgent river work while the programme management and damage/asset assessments are underway, in a manner that does not conflict with the risk-based prioritisation approach while it is being developed.

4.8.5           Developing an economic case for the importance and value of the affected rural areas to support further government funding opportunities, in collaboration with a range of internal and external partners.

4.8.6    Working with a range of Council and external partners on our “River Z” areas, as we have put a hold on the subsidy programme for the time being but want to support recovery efforts as much as possible.

4.8.7    Working with Edridge Contracting and others on targeted gravel extraction work in the Waimea and Upper Motueka rivers.

4.9     A significant amount of contractor resources have been deployed to our rivers in the post-flood period; for example, in the past 6 to 8 weeks Taylors has had continually active in the field a total 7-8 diggers, 5-6 bulldozers (including 3 D8s and a D9), 4-5 dump trucks, and a range of supporting equipment such as rock transport trucks, skidders, graders and tractor-trailers. This is a significant increase over our BAU which typically consists of 1-2 excavators and 1-2 dump trucks as needed.

4.10   We are currently (as of 16 September) working to finalise a three-month programme of recovery work, covering the October to December period, to carry out known high-priority recovery work, and to deploy resources into smaller rivers that have been highly impacted, such as the Tadmor and Dove rivers, increasing resources in the Wai-iti River, and addressing key areas in the Lower-Middle Motueka River.

4.11   Over this three-month period, a more comprehensive picture of total damage and asset impairment will be obtained, and a full recovery programme with a range of risk-based design approaches will be developed, facilitating discussions on long-term risk tolerance along our rivers balanced against programme cost and duration.

5.1     Total gravel extraction volumes from 1^st July 2024 to 30^th June 2025 (i.e., 24-25 Financial Year) are summarised in the table below. Several other extractions were either underway or permitted (but not yet started) prior to the 27 June flood event.

Table 1. Summary of gravel extraction over the 24-25 financial year

River	Gravel Extracted (m3)
Anatoki River	872
Buller River	172
Matakitaki River	870
Motueka River – Lower (MBLE)	9,005
Motueka River – Upper (MBLE)	11,097
Tākaka River	1,943
Smaller Rivers and Tributaries	184
Grand Total	24,143

 

5.2     Since the June-July 2025 floods, there has been significant interest in new gravel extractions from contractors, landowners, and Council officers. A range of extractions have been completed, are currently underway, or have been permitted to proceed, summarised in the table below.

Table 2. Gravel extractions completed, underway or permitted to date for 25-26 financial year

River	Gravel Extractions Completed (m3)	Extractions Permitted or Underway (m3)
Anatoki River	36	~500
Aorere River		200
Buller River		Investigating options
Matakitaki River	1,449
Motueka River – Lower (MBLE)	419	2,000
Motueka River – Upper (MBLE)	2,152	~20,000
Motupiko River (MBLE)		~11,200
Waimea River (MBLE)	69,620
Smaller Rivers and Tributaries		3,600 (Pretty Bridge) 100 (Riuwaka)
Grand Total	73,676	~37,600

5.3       A reduced gravel extraction fee of $4.50 per cubic metre is being applied to highly impacted rivers following the June-July 2025 floods, including the Upper Motueka River, key areas of the Lower Motueka River, and the Motupiko River. This is to facilitate urgent extractions that may be required as part of flood recovery works in the most severely affected areas. Other rivers may be considered for a reduced rate based on urgency of river management need to support flood recovery work.

5.4     The Rivers and Natural Hazards teams are currently procuring updated green LiDAR surveys for many of the district’s rivers which were affected by the floods and which have a current or historical gravel extraction activity. Obtaining survey information following significant extractions and following any flood that exceeds a 20-year recurrence interval is a requirement of Council’s gravel extraction resource consent for MBLE areas and will also provide valuable insight into the geomorphic changes resulting from the major floods.

6.1     Activity at the TDC willow and poplar nursery since the June-July 2025 floods has focused on clean-up of flood debris, harvesting of as much willow and poplar material as possible to support recovery works, and carrying out an expansion of the nursery into adjacent berm land area.

Figure 3: TDC Nursery immediately following the 11 July flood event, showing expansion area to the left

6.2     As part of the flood recovery work, over 2,700 poplar and willow poles were distributed to over 120 people across flood effected areas. A further 2,500 native trees were also distributed with the poles, or to sites where native plants were deemed more suitable; these native plants were diverted from the River Team’s regular annual native planting programme to support hard-hit landowners. To support recipients of the plant material, two webinars were held offering guidance on where and how to plant the poles and providing an opportunity for participants to ask questions specific to their situations. Recordings of these webinars have been shared with all recipients and will be made available as an online resource. Where larger volumes of natives have been distributed to one property, Tasman Bay Guardians have been engaged to help organise and facilitate volunteers to get them planted and take the pressure off people already overwhelmed with flood recovery.

6.3     The nursery is currently being expanded into the adjacent Council-owned River berm land, increasing the total area from approximately 2.5 ha to 3.6 ha. The expanded area will be planted with a mixture of poplar and willow species, with poplars primarily supporting hill country erosion work for private landowners and other Councils, and willows primarily supporting the Rivers activity for riverbank stabilisation. Expansion work includes installation of new perimeter fencing, sourcing and planting of stock material, renewal of degraded water irrigation lines, and laying of new irrigation lines prior to the dry summer period.

Figure 4: Overview of TDC Poplar and Willow Nursery expansion area

OAG Performance Audit – Flood Protection

7.1     Tasman District Council, alongside Waikato Regional Council, was selected by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) to participate in a performance audit on flood protection infrastructure. The OAG’s focus for the performance audit was on how well Tasman District Council as a local authority ensures that flood protection infrastructure effectively mitigates the risk of flooding from rivers and inland bodies of water.

7.2     The draft audit report was circulated to Tasman staff on 18 August 2025 for review and comment and currently remains confidential until the OAG tables the report at parliament (date to be determined). The results of the audit will be reported to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, or its successor following the upcoming local government elections, once we receive confirmation that it is no longer confidential.

Rivercare Meetings 2025

7.3     The 2024 Rivercare Meetings were carried out in November and December 2024, with great turn out from the community and Councillors. Staff are now looking forward to the 2025 meetings, with the post-flood response and recovery work transitioning to a more structured programme of work and easing strain on team resources.

7.4     Dates and venues for the 2025 meetings will be scheduled over the coming weeks and will be advertised to the community and Council as soon as possible and regularly in the lead up to the meetings.

Retendering of the River Works and Maintenance Contract

7.5     The new river maintenance contract, C1552, was awarded to Taylors Contracting following a robust tendering process in the first quarter of 2025 and commenced on 1 July 2025. The contract will run for an initial period of three years, with options to extend for a further three and two years (i.e., 3+3+2-year contract) based on contractor performance.

Motueka and Peach Island Stopbank Project

7.6     The project team is currently finalising stopbank refurbishment and repair designs for the upcoming construction season, forming Year 2 of the three-year programme which is co-funded by Kanoa under the Regional Infrastructure Fund. The Year 2 programme is expected to include the following sections of stopbank:

7.6.1  Motueka River, left bank, carrying on a previously refurbished section at River Road upstream to the Brooklyn River stopbanks, an approximate length of 770m. Expected completion before end of 2025.

7.6.2  Peach Island stopbanks, west side, where overtopping occurred during both the 27 June and 11 July flood events, an approximate length of 550m. Expected completion before end of 2025.

7.6.3  Brooklyn River stopbanks, from Anderson Road to Motueka River West Bank Road, both sides, an approximate length of 2,000m (may also include the stopbanks downstream of Anderson Road to meet the Motueka River stopbanks or may be scheduled in Year 3). Expected completion in first half of 2026.

7.6.4  If time and resources allow: Motueka River, left bank, from the Brooklyn River stopbanks to Blue Gum corner, an approximate length of 1,980m. Expected completion in first half of 2026.

Murchison River Management Area – Assessment of Need

7.7     A community meeting was held on 11 August, immediately following the Murchison District Community Council AGM, to discuss the PDP river assessment report and solicit feedback on river issues around Murchison and potential ways forward. The meeting was well-attended and I found the feedback productive and informative.

7.8     Next steps include an assessment of options for river management at Murchison, such as creation of a new River Y area, with a focus on the financial aspects to local and district-wide ratepayers, as well as identifying any immediate opportunities for gravel management to help mitigate erosion risk in key areas.

Fly-Tipping

7.9     Clean-up costs for illegal dumping along our rivers incurred costs of $22,876 by the river maintenance contractor over the 24-25 financial year. Aside from the cost of cleanup, which is covered by Council’s waste management activity, the work occupies contractor time and resources that should be focused on our rivers.

8.1     Work is ongoing to determine the ownership of the many coastal assets and what structures the council is responsible for maintaining along our coastline. A cross-Council working group meets regularly to collaborate on asset data collation and verification, and on populating an interim asset database solution while the longer-term permanent solution will be realised with future horizons of Harakeke.

9.1     The forward work programme for the Rivers activity is dominated by flood recovery, and this will likely continue for the next 12 months at minimum. The recovery focus for the next three months, leading up to the end of the calendar year, will involve ongoing riverbank reconstruction and river realignment (i.e., rough “shaping”, mostly by grading and shifting river gravels) in preparation for future stabilization and revegetation work.

9.2     Construction work on Year 2 of Stage 2 of the Motueka Stopbank Refurbishment is planned to commence on 1 October (or thereabouts) and will run through to the end of the construction season in April-May 2026.

10.1   The extensive damage to Tasman’s rivers resulting from the June and July 2025 floods has incurred significant financial risk to Council. To mitigate this, we are implementing a programme management approach to the recovery work that will be driven by sound risk-based prioritisation and commercial monitoring of recovery work. Regardless, significant costs are expected to be required for even a bare-minimum level of recovery and resilience improvements.

10.2   Although our flood protection stopbanks generally performed well during the floods, areas of overtopping and damage have identified some level of service improvements that will be required; these will be assessed and programmed promptly.

10.3   The risk profile of Tasman’s flood protection stopbanks is important to continually keep front of mind, shown in the table below. Standard best practice would be a 1% AEP level of protection (100-year recurrence interval).

Stopbank Scheme	Level of Service standard
Waimea	2% AEP (1:50 year), with estimated 600mm freeboard
Motueka	2% AEP (1:50 year), with 50-600mm freeboard
Peach Island (not currently a formal LOS separate from the Motueka LOS)	Generally, 2% AEP with variable freeboard, lowest at the upstream/southern end of the island where there is little to no freeboard
Riuwaka	Less than 10% AEP (1:10 year)
Brooklyn (not a formal LOS)	Less than 10% AEP (1:10 year)

11.1   River activity expenditures for the 25-26 financial year will be dominated by work to recover from the June-July 2025 flood events, as well as the ongoing Motueka and Peach Island stopbank projects (Year 2 of a 3-year programme).

11.2   A key priority of the Rivers team is to complete the asset impairment and damage assessment work that is currently underway, in collaboration with key technical consultants, to be able to quantify the full extent of damage incurred by the floods. Based on this overall assessment, a prioritised programme of recovery work can be developed. However, it is clear that the recovery will require significant unbudgeted expenditure in the Rivers activity over the 25-26 financial year and beyond.

11.3   To support the river recovery work, staff are working with our insurers, NEMA, and Kanoa to explore available funding mechanisms.

11.4   During the July and August 2025 periods, river flood recovery work has incurred the following actual costs for physical works:

11.4.1    $1,515,777 operational spend on physical works, including urgent flood   response work between the two floods and for several weeks following 11 July, emergency stopbank repairs, extensive gravel relocation to close off realignments and return rivers to their historical channels as much as possible, clean-up of extensive woody debris to prevent remobilization in future floods, and other river stabilization and realignment work.

11.4.2    $1,321,300 capital spend on physical works, including urgent placement of rock protection on critically vulnerable areas (approximately 8,500 tonnes placed to date), and reconstructing the section of Wai-iti River stopbank and river berm that was destroyed in the 11 July flood.

11.5   The September period will include the completion of major works at a number of high-risk damage sites, and a tapering down of deployed contractor resources to a more sustainable (but still elevated) level. Estimated costs for the September period are approximately $250,000 to $300,000 per week.

11.6   The initial 3-month programme of recovery work, covering the October to December period roughly, is based on cost for 3x excavators, 3x dozers, and about 3000-4000 tonne of rock protection installed per month (to be carefully scrutinised), which is approximately $125,000 to $200,000 of expenditure per week.

11.7   Business-as-usual maintenance work will also be affected by the floods and the magnitude of recovery work required, though this is partially due to many assets that would have required maintenance being damaged or destroyed by the floods. However, some key maintenance activities will need to occur, including stopbank mowing and maintenance, and spraying of river fairways for weed control. Staff are working to quantify these activities for budgetary forecasting.

11.8   River activity expenditures for the 24-25 financial year were in line with budgets, with some minor non-budgeted spend in the Coastal activity to address unsafe structures and consent renewals.

11.8.1       Rivers operational spend covering the X and Y rating areas saw $1,400,298 of actual spend against a budget of $1,409,730.

11.8.2       Rivers general capital spend covering the X and Y rating areas, including new and renewed rock protection, flapgate renewals, and general stopbank renewals,       saw $316,876 of actual spend against a budget of $839,450. This is due to a lower need for rock protection over the year, and delays in starting a general    stopbank renewal programme to remove large trees, fix rabbit holes, repair eroded banks, etc.

11.8.3       Rivers capital spend on the Motueka and Peach Island stopbank projects saw $2,324,626 of actual spend against a budget of $2,500,000, concluding Year 1 of the three-year capital programme co-funded by Kanoa under the Regional Infrastructure Fund.

 

Nil

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Mirka Parker, Environmental Manager - Land & Water
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Number:	RRC25-10-8

 

1.1     Flood Recovery & Catchment Support

1.1.1  250+ property visits post-flood by the Catchment & Land Use Team.

1.1.2  Developed a Rural Hub webpage with recovery resources.

1.1.3  Supported River Z landowners and triaged over 100 service requests.

1.1.4  Promoted “building back better” with ecological restoration and resilience planning.

1.1.5  Distributed 2,700+ poplar poles and 2,500 native plants to 120+ landowners.

1.2     Catchment Projects & Partnerships

1.2.1  Matakitaki River: Willow control in sensitive areas.

1.2.2  Wetland restoration: Fonterra-funded projects in Golden Bay.

1.2.3  Tidal gate upgrades: Installed at Ferrer Creek and Motueka Delta.

1.2.4  Collaborated with Landcare Trust, iwi, and community groups.

1.2.5    Planning the Growing Native Forests Workshop (Nov 2025).

1.2.6    Supporting the Tākaka Catchment Collective and Cobb Mitigation Fund strategy.

1.3     Freshwater & Estuarine Monitoring

1.3.1  New staff member (Keith Nolan) joined for river ecology work.

1.3.2  Estuary sediment monitoring showed minimal post-flood impact.

1.3.3  Kaiteriteri Beach: Further investigations and monitoring

1.3.4  Exploring new real-time modelling project with Cawthron.

1.3.5  Exploring national water quality project with broader parameters (e.g. DOC, chloride).

1.4     Special Projects & Envirolink

1.4.1  Drone + AI project to assess drought impacts on rivers.

1.4.2  Stream enhancement prioritisation with Cawthron.

1.4.3  Ongoing work on constructed wetlands, fish passage, and lake monitoring.

1.4.4  National leadership in fish passage management and wetland policy.

1.5     Water Resources

1.5.1  Tākaka WCO sampling ongoing.

1.5.2  Plan Change 84 awaiting Ministerial decision.

1.5.3  Flood damage to river flow sites in Motupiko and Wai-iti.

1.5.4  Groundwater modelling and quality reports completed for Waimea, Buller, and Golden Bay.

1.6     Soil & Contaminants

1.6.1  Staff are reviewing the NES-Soil standards and preparing for future implementation.

1.6.2  Contaminated land database updates are ongoing, with new sites added post-flood.

1.6.3  Support provided for landowners dealing with flood-related contamination issues.

1.7     Air

1.7.1  Air quality monitoring continues in Richmond and other key locations.

1.7.2  Winter PM10 levels were generally within acceptable limits, with occasional exceedances.

1.7.3  Community engagement on air quality and wood burner use is ongoing.

1.8     Jobs for Nature (J4N) Projects

1.8.1  Multiple J4N-funded projects are underway, focusing on riparian planting, wetland restoration, and pest control.

1.8.2  Collaboration with iwi, community groups, and contractors to deliver environmental outcomes.

1.8.3  Monitoring and reporting frameworks are being developed to track progress and impact.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Land and Water report; and

2.       receives the Buller and Golden Bay Groundwater Quality Survey Summary Reports

3.1     The Catchment and Land Use Team has played a key role in the flood recovery efforts, with their team leader also taking on the additional responsibility of managing the Environment Pou function within the recovery team. With their expertise as land use advisors and their strong collaborative approach—both internally and externally—the team is uniquely positioned to act as a vital link between landowners, various council teams, and external partners. The team is operating with the clear intent to be supportive and enabling.

3.2     Since the flooding event, the team of four has visited over 250 properties, providing on-the-ground support and guidance. Through this work, several key recovery workstreams have emerged:

 

 

Rural Hub

3.3     A dedicated Flood Recovery page was developed and is actively maintained on the Rural Hub. Positioned under a new tab on the landing page, this resource serves as a central hub for rural communities and the primary sector, supporting both immediate clean-up and long-term recovery. The page includes practical guidance on flood waste and silt disposal, safety advice from the Top of the South Wood Council regarding windthrow and forest damage, biosecurity tips for identifying and reporting invasive weeds, and information on consents and compliance. It also features a calendar of community events and key dates, such as fencing material distributions, webinars, and industry drop-in sessions. Designed as a one-stop-shop, the page provides direct links to industry contacts, financial support, and other essential tools. Content is regularly updated to ensure relevance and accuracy, helping communities stay informed and connected throughout the recovery journey.

Support for the Rivers Team & River Z Landowners

3.4     In response to high demand from landowners, the Catchment and Land Use Team has been actively supporting the Rivers Team by engaging directly with those affected by flooding along the River Z waterways—areas not formally managed by Council.

3.5     The team has responded to over 100 service requests, conducting one-on-one site visits to assess damage and identify needs. Acting as a triage point, the team documents issues using Survey123, allowing them to be recorded thematically and supported with photos.

3.6     Their efforts have extended beyond individual support, contributing to the broader flood recovery response in collaboration with both internal teams and external partners. Internally, they’ve worked closely with consents, compliance, communications, community infrastructure, hazards, and rivers teams. Externally, they’ve engaged with rural professionals, partnered with MPI on farm support, and collaborated with catchment groups.

3.7     The team is now analysing their observations, sorting them into key themes, and working with internal teams to co-design solutions. A clear need is emerging: to work with multiple landowners along affected tributaries to develop integrated sub-catchment solutions and a suite of coordinated actions.

Building Back Better

3.8     Throughout this work, the team has looked for opportunities to enhance flood resilience and support freshwater and terrestrial ecology. In many cases, flooding has improved instream habitat, and some landowners are showing interest in ecological restoration. Numerous sites have been identified for follow-up support.

Planting Support

3.9     The team has also coordinated the distribution of erosion-control planting materials, including poplar and willow poles and native plants. To date, over 2,700 poplar poles and 2,500 native plants have been distributed to more than 120 landowners.

Strategic Planning

3.10   These engagements have also served as a springboard for broader conversations around catchment and sub-catchment flood resilience planning. The team is helping to shape future strategies that integrate nature-based solutions and community-led initiatives.

 

             Figure 1: Survey 123: each dot is a landowner’s visit

             Figure 2: This is one of the SR that was sorted by working with Tasman Lines and Rivers Team – e.g. of triage and resource     availability (Tasman Lines paid for and managed works after providing basic plan)

 

Figure 3: A Moutere example: ⅓ of a QEII covenant (matai forest remnant) has been destroyed. The Catchment team are planning to work with landowner and Rivers team to help protect bank, using woody debris fallen from the covenant.

 

Specific Projects

3.11   Environmental Map viewer: the Natural hazards map viewer, now the environmental map viewer has been expanded to include spatial layers required for Freshwater Farm planning. Twenty-three layers, such as soils, land use classification and biodiversity areas have been quietly added with more to come over time.

Freshwater Farm Plans | TDC Environmental Map Viewer

Figure 4: Screenshot of the environmental map viewer – Freshwater Farm Plans landing page

 

 

Catchment Enhancement Projects

3.12   Mātakitaki Braided River Protection: targeted willow control has been carried out using ground-based contractors in sensitive areas of the Mātakitaki braided river, ensuring that native vegetation and waterways are protected from collateral damage. Further weed control is planned for summer, in collaboration with DOC, iwi, and local landowners.

3.13   Weed Control – Dovedale, Williams Road & Neimann Creek: efforts have focused on controlling willow encroachment in wetland areas, where native vegetation is being shaded out. These interventions aim to restore ecological balance and improve habitat quality.

3.14   Tidal Gate Fish-Friendly Upgrades: fish-friendly tidal gate upgrades have been installed at Ferrer Creek and Whakapaetuara / Motueka Delta. These upgrades are designed to enhance fish passage and restore natural tidal flows. Ongoing monitoring is being carried out in partnership with adjacent landowners to assess the increased tidal influence at both sites.

Figure 5: Installing the Motueka Delta tidal gate with ATS Environmental (Kelly Hughes)

Figure 6: Ferrer Ck tidal gate improved

3.15   Landcare Trust TDC landowner collaboration - Fonterra wetland grant awarded.

3.15.1         In partnership with Landcare Trust, Fonterra wetland funding has been awarded             to three wetlands in Golden Bay—two natural wetlands with estuarine and                          freshwater values, and one constructed wetland in the Upper Tākaka area.

3.15.2         The Catchment and Land Use Team supported the process by identifying                       potential sites, offering guidance on project design and wetland regulations, and            providing drone mapping. Further recommendations are currently being                          developed.

3.15.3         The team also attended a hui on the West Coast, hosted by a farmer-led                        catchment group, to discuss wetland management alongside Tasman District                 Councils wetland ecologist. Since the hui, several farmers have requested site               visits to explore wetland opportunities. One such visit to Patarau Hills (Figure 7              below) became a focal point for discussing management options to enhance                  ecological value. Drone imagery was captured, and further advice is being                      sought to guide next steps.

Figure 7: Dune slack wetlands near the Patarau River out west

Figure 8: Aorere true left - another Fonterra wetland supported

Figure 9: Puramahoi wetlands on Fonterra farm. Saltmarsh foreground, sequence into swamp, up stream

3.16   Motueka/Moutere Catchment:

3.16.1         Worked with Landcare Trust, Tasman Bay Guardians, Motueka Catchment                     Collective, Student Volunteer Army, Fish & Game, and others.

3.16.2         Supported Flood Recovery Navigators with service requests and rural                             community meetings.

3.16.3         Planning and Engagement:

·    Participated in internal planning for catchment-level flood resilience.

·    Linked efforts with the recently completed Nature-Based Flood Resilience modelling.

·    Presented to Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (KMTT) and the Land Management Group.

·    Preparing to revive the Integrated Iwi Engagement wānanga series for the Motueka-Riuwaka Catchment.

3.17   Tākaka Catchment:

Growing Native Forests Workshop – A Collaborative Initiative

3.17.1         In partnership with Te Uru Rākau – New Zealand Forest Service, the team is co-           hosting the Growing Native Forests Workshop on 20 November at Puramahoi                Hall in Mohua. This event will bring together landowners, iwi, environmental                  groups and technical experts to explore both practical and strategic approaches             to native forest regeneration in the region.

3.17.2         While the agenda is still being finalised, proposed topics include:

·    Transitioning from exotic to native species

·    Natural reversion

·    Seed sourcing and collection

·    Maintenance and plant selection

·    Fire planning

3.17.3         Additional topics under consideration include climate resilience, particularly                    nature-based solutions for flood and drought, and the development of ecological            corridors from mountains to sea. The workshop will be grounded in local context            and community aspirations, providing a platform for knowledge sharing and                  collaboration to support long-term restoration goals.

Takaka Catchment Collective & Cobb Mitigation Fund

3.17.3.1      The team continues to support the establishment of the Tākaka Valley Catchment Collective—a community-led initiative focused on improving environmental outcomes across the catchment. Environmental leadership       is actively involved in the Steering Group, which is working closely with the Tasman Environmental Trust (TET) to revitalise the Cobb Mitigation Fund.

3.17.3.2      Together, they are co-developing a Tākaka Catchment Enhancement Strategy to guide future funding decisions. This strategy is being shaped through extensive community engagement, including surveys, hui, and field days and will reflect local priorities and aspirations.

3.17.3.3      Designed as a high-level yet actionable framework, the strategy will                        empower the community to propose and lead their own initiatives,                       supported by the fund. The overarching goal is to create a clear, inclusive              pathway for environmental restoration, resilience building, and long-term            sustainability in the Tākaka Valley.

4.1     New Staff member - Keith Nolan started on 18 August 2025 as a resource scientist to support work with Trevor James. In particular he will focus on river ecology monitoring and investigations into sources of poor water quality. Keith got to know the region and many of its rural landowners while working for Kumanu who was contracted to Tasman District Council to deliver fish passage remediation as part of the Jobs for Nature (J4N) project.

Figure 10: New Resource Scientist - Keith Nolan

 

Estuary Monitoring Programme

4.2     The team reviewed reports on Broad-Scale Mapping Ruataniwha and Motupipi Estuaries. These will be presented to Council in the New Year along with the development StoryMaps aimed at being easily accessible for the general public.

4.3     The team measured sediment plates in Moutere Estuary in mid-August 2025. Surprisingly there were only slight increases in sedimentation rates above that experienced over the 15 years in the Moutere Estuary. It is possible that some of the sediment deposited after the flood events of June-July 2025 was subsequently resuspended and transported into Tasman Bay.

Figure 11: Measuring sediment Moutere Estuary

Swimming Water Quality Monitoring Programme

4.4     Following the confirmation of a “Poor” water quality status for Kaiteriteri Beach—based on over 100 samples collected over the past five years—staff have engaged in several discussions with the Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve team and are preparing for additional investigations and monitoring at the site.

4.5     To improve the timeliness and accuracy of public health warnings, staff have commissioned a proposal from Cawthron Institute to develop a mechanistic model for predicting faecal indicator bacteria levels. This model aims to provide real-time warnings for contact recreation, addressing the current delay of up to a week caused by lab processing and resampling requirements.

4.6     Unlike previous modelling attempts, this approach is expected to be more cost-effective and reliable. Importantly, the model will also support iwi decision-making, enabling rāhui to be lifted more promptly and with greater confidence.

 

 

River Water Quality Monitoring Programme

4.7     Staff are exploring opportunities to join a national initiative aimed at enhancing water quality characterisation through a broader range of parameters than previously used. In particular, the focus is on incorporating toxicity modifiers such as dissolved organic carbon and chloride, which can provide a more comprehensive understanding of water quality dynamics.

Special projects

4.8     Following the floods, staff carried out four rounds of coastal water quality sampling across Golden and Tasman Bays to assess faecal indicator bacteria levels and determine the safety of sites for contact recreation. The results provided critical information that supported the lifting of the rāhui.

4.9     During the same period, staff also tested ponded areas that had formed near the main picnic area on Rabbit Island after the heavy rainfall. Encouragingly, E. coli concentrations in these ponds were found to be unexpectedly low, indicating minimal contamination risk.

Envirolink Project 1

4.10   Staff have set up a project with University of Canterbury to provide tools to more rapidly assess the effects of low flows (droughts) on river ecosystems. This work is funded by Envirolink and involves AI analysis of photos taken by drones and can assess changes in wetted area and water depth with flow. The methods will be applied mostly to the most vulnerable rivers (mostly those that are shallow and braided – see Figure 12 below).

 

             Figure 12: An example of the data analysis

Envirolink Project 2

4.11   Staff are setting up an Envirolink advice grant to be provided by Cawthron regarding priority catchments for stream enhancement. This involves the review of a document prepared by Trevor James and workshopping the methodology. Several parties who know our district’s rivers well have already been consulted.

4.12   Advice on ‘building back better’ after the floods for our stream ecosystems

4.13   Advice on various consents e.g. subdivisions, estuary disturbance, and gold mining.

4.14   Working with Earth Sciences (formerly NIWA) on reports and flyers about the performance of the Fish Creek constructed wetland near Te Waikoropupū Springs. Staff are planning a field trip for farmers in Golden Bay in March 2026 to learn about constructed wetlands used to treat farm run-off.

4.15   Lake monitoring: Continuing to work with Cawthron regarding the potential improvement in water quality of Lake Killarney. A new Master Services Agreement and contract has been put in place for our lake monitoring with Cawthron.

4.16   Participated in a workshop convened by MfE and MPI about how to ease the regulatory burden when constructing wetlands. They involved Tasman District Council given our nation-leading global consent that we use to help landowners construct wetlands. 

4.17   Several staff met with a scientist from the Bioeconomy Science Institute (formerly Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research) about cooperation with a project to develop better methods for sediment source tracking. This project will be applied to the Waimea catchment and parts of the Buller. 

4.18   Staff have helped set up and co-chairing the NZ Fish Passage Management Group (FPMG; mostly regional council representatives, MfE and DOC) which set up following the demise of the NZ Fish Passage Advisory Group when MfE withdrew support. The FPMG aims to do the following:

4.18.1         Information sharing – regular comms in a variety of channels that achieve shared          Insight, knowledge, as well as encouragement and support

4.18.2         Promoting best practice & consistency to improve outcomes, and avoid                           duplication (consistent implementation of NES-F, FFR, FP action plans (creation            and reporting))

4.18.3         Identify and promote key knowledge gaps and direct funding to fill key gaps (e.g.            fill knowledge gaps and improve/create new guidance)

4.18.4         Provided advice on policy at the National Level

4.18.5         Working with our Environmental Education staff.

·    Talk to Garin College Environment Group and High-Achieving Students about our work

·    Providing suggestions for a stream walk in lower Borck Creek.

5.1     Tākaka WCO Monthly Sampling - June, July and August sampling runs have been completed. A subset of the data is available to the public on the Tasman District Council website. 

5.2     Plan Change 84 summary has been finalised, awaiting an outcome from the Minister to see if it will become operative.

5.3     Significant damage to a number of telemetered river flow sites, particularly in the Motupiko and Wai-iti catchments.

5.4     Waimea Plains Groundwater Flow Model report is being reviewed.

5.5     The Upper Motueka Flow model has been finalised and Cawthron and Landcare are reviewing the model and adequacy of data for the Upper Motueka area. 

5.6     The 2024 Buller Gravel Aquifer Groundwater Quality Survey report has been completed – link to the report here: Council Report Summary 2024 Buller Gravel Aquifer GW Quality Survey.pdf

5.7     The 2025 Coastal Golden Bay Groundwater Quality Faecal Survey report has been completed – link to the report here: Council Report Summary 2025 Golden Bay Faecal GW Quality Survey.pdf 

Post-Remediation Monitoring – Former FCC Site, Māpua

6.1     Remediation of the former Fruitgrowers Chemical Company (FCC) site in Māpua was completed in 2007. Since then, ongoing environmental monitoring has been conducted in the adjacent estuarine areas.

6.2     In May 2025, sediment sampling undertaken by Davidson Environmental Ltd identified a significantly elevated concentration of Total DDT (93 mg/kg) on the eastern beach. The sample contained ‘prills’, and the contamination was considered likely to have originated from trenching works carried out in 2022, which may have mobilised deeper contaminants to the surface.

6.3     To verify these findings and assess the extent of contamination, Tasman District Council engaged consultants (EHS Support New Zealand Ltd) to conduct further sampling in June 2025. The results indicated that the elevated concentrations reported in May were likely anomalous and not representative of broader site conditions or environmental risk. While some residual contamination may exist—potentially due to surface disturbance during the 2022 works—it appears to be limited in both scale and distribution.

6.4     The site management plan (SMP) for the former FCC site will be updated to include guidance for those undertaking subsurface work in the foreshore

             Figure 13: Sample Locations

S-map Final Release

6.5     S-map is New Zealand’s digital soil map, providing reliable, detailed information to support sustainable land management. It includes key soil properties such as depth, stoniness, and clay content, along with more advanced data like water-holding capacity and nitrogen leaching risk. Developed by Landcare Research soil experts, S-map combines historic surveys with modern data sources.

6.6     In August 2025, a major national update was released, including more than 12,000 hectares of new mapping in Aorere. This marks the final output of the MPI and Regional Council S-map Expansion programme.

             Figure 14: Smap Coverage (blue polygons) in Tasman

Soil Intactness Survey 2025-2026

6.7     Tasman District Council is undertaking the third Soil Intactness Survey, following previous assessments conducted in 2001 and 2011. This survey will use current satellite imagery and apply the Land Monitoring Forum’s (LMF) point sampling methodology to assess soil stability across the district.

                         Figure 15: Grid-based point sampling

6.8     The primary objective of this work is to monitor long-term trends in soil condition, including soil loss (erosion), soil accumulation and land disturbance. These indicators are critical for understanding the impacts of land use and natural processes on soil health and for informing sustainable land management practices.

6.9     Tasman’s environmental wellbeing depends on the resilience of its natural resources —productive soils, clean water, and a stable climate. While erosion is a natural process in New Zealand’s geologically active landscape, its severity can be influenced by how land is used and managed. This survey will contribute to the Council’s Environmental Monitoring Programme by providing updated data to support policy development, resource planning, and environmental stewardship.

Winter 2025 Air Quality Monitoring

7.1     The air quality monitoring for Winter 2025 in the Richmond airshed has shown that the standard for PM10 has been met to date, with no exceedances of the national air quality standard. Monitoring of PM2.5 also occurred and there have been 54 exceedances of the 2021 WHO daily guideline value of 15 µg/m3 recorded up to the end of August.  A programme of sampling for both PM10 and PM2.5, using two co-located monitors, has also been ongoing over the winter in Richmond.  A screening survey for nitrogen dioxide in Richmond and Motueka is nearing completion. 

Figure 16: Richmond air quality monitoring – Winter 2025

Richmond Air Quality Emissions Inventory 2025

7.2     An Emissions inventory report for the Richmond Airshed has been completed in 2025. The total PM10 and PM2.5, discharged to air on an average winter's day and annual average in Richmond from home heating, industrial activities, outdoor burning and traffic, is shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2 below.

7.3     Domestic heating was the main source of winter particulate accounting for 87% of the daily winter PM10 emissions and 89% of the daily winter PM2.5 in Richmond. The main source of annual PM10 and PM2.5 in Richmond was also domestic heating with contributions of 69% and 73%. The main source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions was motor vehicles at 87% of the daily winter and 94% of the annual emissions.

7.4     A full report for air quality will be presented to the new Council early next year.

Wetlands

8.1     With the autumn planting complete the project has achieved 94% of the project target. The other project KPI’s are currently sitting at:

8.1.1  Area of wetland planting – 11.65ha, 126% of target

8.1.2  Length of fencing installed or repaired – 6.77km, 236% of target

8.1.3  Weed control area – 393ha, 381% of target

8.1.4  Animal pest control area – 2149ha, 61,436% of target (by supporting Magpie control)

8.1.5  Number of work hours – 33,837, 82% of total.

8.2     With work ongoing for a further 10 months through to June 2026 staff anticipate achieving 100% of the two KPI’s not yet achieved.

8.3     Outreach and knowledge sharing continues with a presentation to the national local government Land Managers group providing a good opportunity to fine tune prior to upcoming presentation at the New Zealand Association of Resource Managers conference in November 2025.

Wasp Biocontrol

8.4     Wasp Biocontrol work is going well, with warm summer conditions in the UK looking positive for a good harvest of agents to bring back to Aotearoa. Negotiations are underway with landowners in the Ōtautahi region to support the project by hosting wasp nests during the establishment phase as we look to achieve mass rearing for the March 2026 release.

8.5     Furthermore, a hīkoi was held to support greater connection and knowledge sharing between ngā Iwi ō te Tau Ihu and scientists at Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. See this short video of the visit. Wasp biocontrol whānau hīkoi July 2025

Figure 17: Dr Bob Brown shows the team around the ‘vespiary’ facility used to raise hoverflies prior to release. Note collection of flowering plants for hoverflies to feed on.

Figure 18: Native "readylawn" has now been installed on site and has survived the first rain fall. Initial indications are promising. 

Fish Passage

8.6     As part of the Jobs for Nature (J4N) fish passage remediation project, staff are progressing a significant data consolidation and migration effort in the month of September. This work is a core component of the project and is being undertaken to ensure that J4N data is available internally to council staff in a familiar and accessible format.

8.7     While the primary driver is the J4N programme, the approach has been designed to add value beyond the immediate scope by considering wider regional needs. As a result, migration includes not only J4N data, but also other relevant regional datasets (excluding data held by forestry companies). This amplifies the impact of the J4N investment and supports a more mature and integrated approach to fish passage data management.

8.8     Once complete, this work will enable council staff to:

8.8.1  Visualise in-stream structures and barriers across the region

8.8.2  Analyse historical and current assessments of these structures

8.8.3  Support decision-making with more comprehensive and accessible data

8.9     This foundational work will underpin future planning, monitoring, and remediation efforts. It aligns with broader goals of transparency, accessibility, and evidence-based environmental management, while remaining firmly rooted in the objectives of the J4N programme.

8.10   If possible, the project will be completed ahead of schedule due to expedited progress.

8.11   Additionally, a significant evaluation report is expected around November 2025, assessing the effectiveness of remediation efforts and the conditions under which they are most successful. This will be a key milestone in understanding the impact of the J4N programme and guiding future use of low cost remediations.

8.12   Finally, there is an upcoming opportunity to share this work nationally at the Freshwater Sciences Conference, where two presentations will present results of the evaluation work and regional/project data insights.

8.13   This work will underpin future planning, monitoring, and remediation efforts. It aligns with broader goals of transparency, accessibility, and evidence-based environmental management—while remaining firmly rooted in the objectives and funding scope of the J4N programme.

Nil

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	1 October 2025
Report Author:	Mike Ede, Environmental Manager - Data & Monitoring
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Group Manager - Environmental Science
Report Number:	RRC25-10-9

 

1.1     A new weather radar for the Nelson Tasman area is expected to be commissioned in the summer of 2026.

1.2     The environmental monitoring team has recently acquired some new equipment allowing measurement and deployment safer and staff to be more efficient when undertaking river flow measurements.

1.3     The river flow and rainfall network came through the flooding largely unscathed, but we have some sites where repairs will take some time to complete.

1.4     A digital and data strategy has been developed for the Environmental Science area.

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1.       receives the Environmental Data and Monitoring Report RRC25-10-9.

3.1     The Environmental Monitoring and Data team reports twice yearly (April and October) to the Environmental and Regulatory Committee to:

3.1.1    Update the Environmental and Regulatory Committee on the activity in the Environmental Monitoring and Data team.

3.1.2    Receive feedback from the committee.

4.1     Tasman have been advocating for a weather radar for Tasman for nearly 15 years. After several recent flood events an official announcement for the Government to fund MetService to procure and operate a new Nelson Tasman weather radar to improve severe weather monitoring and response to the region, was made on the 19 July 2025.

4.2     The MetService has initiated the procurement in August and are working at pace to deliver the radar as soon as possible. An indicative timeline from the MetService outlines the main project milestones.

4.2.1  Securing at Site: Duration 12 Months - This requires a mix of field and desk assessments to identify candidate sites that are accessible and provide good coverage, with a willing landowner.  This can be the most lengthy phase of the whole project. Initial site investigations were completed in August with input from Tasman.

4.2.2  Radar Purchase and Delivery: Duration 3-6 months – The weather radar unit system is built to order by the manufacturer and then shipped to New Zealand from Europe. MetService intend to air freight the radar to avoid shipping delays.

4.2.3  Onsite construction: Duration 2 months. On-site construction will include building a concrete foundation to support both the tower and a portable building for the communications and power systems, and potentially improving access roads and power supply installation, although solar power is now an option. This stage is generally done in the warmer months to avoid weather delays.

4.2.4  Radar Installation: Duration 10 days. The installation phase is followed by commissioning and acceptance tests, and then integration of the data into MetService IT systems for operational use

4.3     Considering the preliminary work has already been completed on site assessment, the radar will be ordered as soon as the preferred technology is confirmed, with the site selection process running in parallel. The indicative timeline for delivery of a radar from Europe is October 2026. The radar will be air freighted to New Zealand to avoid any maritime shipping issues and save 2-3 months on the project timeline. Commissioning of the Nelson Tasman radar is expected to occur in the summer of 2026 with a moderate degree of confidence, noting that securing a site is the biggest timeline risk.

4.4     Now that a weather radar has been secured, Tasman must ready itself to utilise the benefits it will bring. Currently Tasman receive forecast rainfall data for its rainfall sites every six hours which are feed into flood models. The forecast is generated by the MetService from the global weather model outputs they receive. Once the weather radar data is available for Tasman the MetService increase the frequency of the rainfall forecast data to hourly and provide a greater special coverage of the forecast. Tasman current flood models will have to be updated to be able to consume and apply the more frequent rain forecast updates.

5.1     The monitoring team have taken delivery of two new flow Surfbee remote controls vessels that are used to deploy Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP) that Tasman have been using for some years now.

5.2     The new vessels are autonomous which allows the operator to focus on the data collection not the deployment and reduce the operator’s exposure to working in the actual river and reduce the health and safety risk.

Figure 1: Tessa Dreadon operating one of the new Surfbee vessels on the Waimea River

5.3     In addition to the Surfbee vessels, the monitoring team now have two Hydro-STIV Portables. These are flow measurement devices that can record videos with a built-in camera in a tablet, and perform velocity and discharge measurements on-site. The velocity and discharge can be measured using the angle information from the tablet’s accelerometer and distance from the water surface.

5.4     The addition of this new equipment increases the capability of the Tasman monitoring team and has them on a par with other councils across the country regarding river flow measurement.

5.5     During and post June/July floods, these two new pieces of equipment have collected some invaluable data and enabled faster and safer deployment than previous methods.

6.1     The hydrology monitoring network delivered critical real time river and flow data during the June and July floods and the resilience of the network in general was good, despite that, the network has sustained some damage.

6.2  The monitoring team have responded well and have made both temporary and permanent repairs to the network to ensure data is always available. This has both stretched the team and led to other projects being delayed. The team were also assisted in the immediate post event by hydrology staff from both Nelson City and West Coast Regional Council assisting with high flow gaugings and urgent repair work at monitoring sites. This assistance was provided for by MOU between regional councils to support each during flood events.

6.3  Additional ongoing maintenance at sites as a result of the floods continues, as do flow gaugings to develop and maintain new ratings curves for each site since the flood events.

  

Figure 2: Bank erosion at the Motueka River at Woodstock flow monitoring station after June-July flood events.

6.4     The following is a list of total site failures during the events and failure type.

Rain gauge inundations:

6.4.1  Wai-iti at Richardsons (Spring Grove)

·    Replaced, but further work required to elevate above future flood levels.

6.4.2  Waimea at TDC Nursery

·    Replaced, but further work required to elevate above future flood levels.

Water level site failure:

6.4.3  Wai-iti at Belgrove

·    Site washed away on peak of second flood and river control weir damaged.  A temporary site and backup water level radar were installed.  Further work pending summer low flows to assess work required to repair channel control (concrete & metal plate), replace rock protection and fully reinstate site.

6.5     The following is a list of sites damaged during the event where repairs have been finished.

6.5.1  Motueka at North’s Bridge

·    Water level radar damaged by digger working in riverbed underneath - replaced.

6.6     The following is a list of sites and nature of the damages during the event where repairs are underway:

6.6.1  Motupiko at Christies

·    Log jam, damaged pipe work, eroded supporting bank, and broken mid external staff gauge.  Log jam removed and pipework stabilised.  Discussions re: channel works in play with landowner and forestry company.  Pending summer low flows to rebuild bubbler site and external staff gauges.  Backup radar undamaged.

6.6.2  Motueka at Woodstock

·    significant erosion risked tower stability and damaged bubbler line (back-up).  Repairs to erosion around site and the Baton Bridge abutment should be completed by Rivers Team this week.  Moderate amount of work required to reinstate external staff gauge and bubbler line, particularly noting that the riverbed has scoured down to bedrock not seen in past 50 years likely to result in extremely low water levels. Refer to Figure 3.

6.6.3  Wai-iti at Livingstone

·    significant erosion of banks, high flow gauging infrastructure (cable fox) washed away.  Temporary water level radar installed.  Pipework stabilised, and ongoing.  Pending summer low flows to reinstate rock protection and complete site repair (bubbler, tower intake, lower external staff gauges).

 

Figure 3: Rock placement underway at the Motueka River at Woodstock flow monitoring station.

7.1     Environmental Sciences current technology environment has been built without enterprise-wide alignment, has resulted in siloed data, information and workflows, and stagnant digital products.

7.2     Taking a lead from the Blueprint for Tasman’s Digital Future, the time is right for change from this present state. We are cognisant that we must use our limited resources wisely and ensure that digital and data investments deliver meaningful results now and into the future.

7.3     With the recent appointment of Chris Harte as the Product Owner Environmental Applications in the Environmental Data team, the wider Environmental Science area has, with the assistance of Co-Digital, developed the Environmental Science Digital Business Strategy.

7.4     This strategy provides a clear vision of our digital and data, explores the steps to get there and anchor our approach as we move forward and deliver digital change and will enable us to provide trusted environmental data and value services that enable people to make informed decisions, promote ecosystem and support a thriving, resilient Tasman.

 

Nil