Agenda of Report to Tasman District Council Meeting

7 Reports

7.1 Plan Change 79 - operative in part

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 May 2026
Report Author:	Jeremy Butler, Team Leader - Urban and Rural Policy
Report Authorisers:	Barry Johnson, Environmental Policy Manager
Report Number:	RCN26-05-15

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

1.1 This report seeks that Council approve Plan Change 79 in part, limited to those provisions that are not subject to appeal, and to make that part of the plan change operative.

1.2 The report is procedural and gives effect to Council’s existing decision in respect of zoning and development‑enabling provisions that have not been appealed, without prejudicing the Environment Court’s consideration of the appeal.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Council adopted the recommendation Plan Change 79 on 19 February 2026. An appeal has since been lodged against specific provisions of the decision. The appeal does not relate to all parts of the Plan Change. The zoning and development‑enabling provisions proposed to be made operative are not subject to appeal and are clearly severable from the matters before the Environment Court.

2.2 This report seeks Council approval to make Plan Change 79 operative in part, limited to the provisions that have not been appealed, in accordance with Cl 17(2) Schedule 1 of the RMA 1991.

2.3 Attachment 1 shows highlighted in orange all the amendments to the TRMP which will NOT be approved and will not become operative. All unhighlighted provisions in that document, as well as the zone, area and discharge maps that formed part of the plan change, will be approved under this resolution and will be made operative as soon as practicable.

2.4 All area, zone and discharge maps are also attached and are to be approved and made operative.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. Approves Plan Change 79 – Deferred Zoning in part, being those parts of Plan Change 79 that are not highlighted in orange in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, and the zoning, area and discharge Decision maps. Also to recognise that the provisions which are highlighted in orange in Attachment 1 are not approved and remain subject to appeal; and

2. Approves the affixing of the Tasman District Council seal to the approved provisions and the public notification of their operative date.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Plan Change 79 – Deferred Zoning (PC79) was publicly notified in November 2024 and progressed through the Schedule 1 process under the Resource Management Act 1991. The primary purpose of PC79 was to amend the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) to introduce a revised and more robust deferred zone framework, and to give effect to that framework by rezoning and managing a range of existing deferred sites across the District.

4.2 In particular, PC79 sought to:

· clarify how deferred zones transition to their intended end‑use zones;

· link the release of deferred land to clearly specified infrastructure requirements; and

· enable the release, retention, or re‑zoning of existing deferred land where this was considered appropriate following assessment through the plan change process.

4.3 Following notification, PC79 was the subject of submissions, further submissions, and a hearing before an independent Hearing Panel. The Hearing Panel issued its recommendations to Council, addressing the submissions received and recommending amendments to the notified provisions.

4.4 On 19 February 2026, Council considered the Hearing Panel’s recommendations and resolved to adopt decisions on PC79. That decision accepted, accepted in part, or rejected submissions and further submissions, and approved changes to the TRMP as set out in the Council’s decision documentation and Schedule of Amendments.

4.5 The Council’s decision on PC79 was released on 13 March 2026, in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. As a result, an appeal period commenced during which appeals could be lodged with the Environment Court.

4.6 An appeal has since been lodged against specific parts of the PC79 decision. The appeal does not challenge the entirety of PC79. Instead, it is limited in scope to particular objectives, policies and rules.

4.7 Under the Resource Management Act, where a plan change decision is appealed in part, Council may approve part, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of; see cl 17 Schedule 1. While the drafting of cl 17 does not explicitly address a situation where no appeal has been filed against certain provisions (c.f. ‘disposed of’) the clause applies to these circumstances because the submissions on those parts have been disposed of and therefore Council may effectively treat them as unchallenged parts of PC79 and approve them. The effect is that part of the plan change will become operative, while preserving the Environment Court’s jurisdiction over the appealed provisions.

4.8 This report addresses whether, and to what extent, provisions of PC79 can be made operative at this stage. It does not reconsider the merits of PC79 or the decisions made by Council on 19 February 2026. Its purpose is solely to enable Council to make those parts of the PC79 decision that are not under appeal operative.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Status of Plan Change 79

5.1 Council adopted the recommendation on Plan Change 79 (PC79) on 19 February 2026, with the decision released on 13 March 2026. At that point, PC79 moved to decision‑stage under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

5.2 An appeal has been lodged against specific provisions of the PC79 decision. The appeal does not relate to all aspects of the plan change. As a consequence, PC79 is now partially subject to the Environment Court’s jurisdiction, which may result in changes to PC79.

Statutory Authority to Make PC79 Operative in Part

5.3 Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides that a local authority may approve part of a plan, where all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. In this case, the appeal to Plan Change 79 is limited in scope, and the provisions proposed to be approved are not subject to appeal.

5.4 Once approved in part under Clause 17, Clause 20 of Schedule 1 provides for Council to publicly notify the date on which those approved provisions become operative.

5.5 This approach reflects established and accepted practice under Schedule 1, allowing provisions that are not subject to further consideration, including Environment Court litigation, to take effect without further delay.

Severability of the Unappealed Provisions

5.6 The appeal to PC79 is limited in scope and is directed at particular objectives, policies and rules that relate to the deferral mechanism. The remaining provisions of PC79 have not been appealed by any party and are discrete from those under appeal.

5.7 The provisions not under appeal are capable of operating independently of the appealed provisions and can be integrated into the operative TRMP without affecting:

· the scope of the appeal; or

· the Environment Court’s ability to determine the appealed matters.

Why approve and make operative in part now?

5.8 In recommending that PC79 be made partially operative, it is important that the appeal is confined to a discrete set of provisions relating to the deferred zoning mechanism and does not extend to the site‑specific rezoning outcomes or the provisions that enable development on land that has been ‘up‑zoned’ (i.e. the zoning has been amended so it is no longer deferred).

5.9 One reason for proceeding to make the provisions not under appeal operative at this stage improves the clarity and usability of the TRMP. This is particularly relevant given the imminent public notification of Plan Change 81. Maintaining a clean and up‑to‑date operative planning framework will assist the public to understand the operative baseline from which Plan Change 81 is proposed, and to make informed submissions, as well as assisting with the usability of the Plan generally.

Advice to Council

5.10 This report does not reconsider the merits of PC79. It is procedural in nature and is confined to implementing Council’s earlier decision to the extent permitted by the RMA.

5.11 It is therefore lawful for Council to approve and make PC79 operative in part, limited to those parts of PC79 where the submissions on those parts have been disposed of. Put another way, it can approve the PC79 provisions that are not subject (directly or indirectly) to appeal.

5.12 Staff are confident that the identified parts of PC79 can be approved and made operative because the provisions and rezonings relate specifically to rezonings and site specific provisions, whereas the appeal is focused on the deferral mechanism.

5.13 This approach gives effect to Council’s decision of 19 February 2026, provides regulatory certainty where possible, improves and assists with the readability and usability of the Plan and preserves the appeal process for the provisions that remain before the Environment Court.

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

6.1 The provisions of Plan Change 79 that are not subject to appeal include those that implement zoning changes and enable development to proceed on sites identified for urban use. These provisions give effect to Council’s decision to release specified locations from deferred zoning where infrastructure is in place and the resulting urban zoning is no longer in dispute. Enabling development on these locations will provide return on investment for Council for the infrastructure it has installed.

6.2 The appealed provisions are discrete and separable from the zoning and development‑enabling provisions proposed to be made operative. Making the provisions not under appeal operative at this stage will enable development to proceed on the up‑zoned sites without prejudicing or constraining the Environment Court’s consideration of the appeal.

6.3 Management of the appeal – being a separate matter – will involve additional legal and staff costs.

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option	Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Make Plan Change 79 operative in part	Gives effect to Council’s decision of 19 February 2026 in respect of the provisions that have been disposed of and are not under appeal. Enables the zoning changes and development‑enabling provisions for the up‑zoned locations to take effect, providing certainty for landowners and consent processing. Approves usability and readability of the Plan. Is consistent with Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and established practice where only part of a plan change decision is under appeal. Preserves the Environment Court’s jurisdiction over the appealed provisions.	None identified. The appealed provisions remain unaffected and are excluded from becoming operative at this time.
2.	Defer making any part of Plan Change 79 operative until the appeal is resolved	Defers implementation of all provisions until the appeal process is complete	Delays the operation of zoning provisions not under appeal that are no longer in dispute. Defers development enabled by the up‑zoned locations, contrary to Council’s earlier decision. Provides no practical benefit where severable provisions can lawfully be made operative in part

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Make Plan Change 79 operative in part

Gives effect to Council’s decision of 19 February 2026 in respect of the provisions that have been disposed of and are not under appeal.

Enables the zoning changes and development‑enabling provisions for the up‑zoned locations to take effect, providing certainty for landowners and consent processing.

Approves usability and readability of the Plan.

Is consistent with Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and established practice where only part of a plan change decision is under appeal.

Preserves the Environment Court’s jurisdiction over the appealed provisions.

None identified. The appealed provisions remain unaffected and are excluded from becoming operative at this time.

Defer making any part of Plan Change 79 operative until the appeal is resolved

Defers implementation of all provisions until the appeal process is complete

Delays the operation of zoning provisions not under appeal that are no longer in dispute.

Defers development enabled by the up‑zoned locations, contrary to Council’s earlier decision.

Provides no practical benefit where severable provisions can lawfully be made operative in part

7.2 Option 1 is recommended.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

8.1 A plan change must be approved by Council before it is made operative by public notification under cl 20 Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991. This is an administrative process rather than a substantive decision. There is a quirk in the Resource Management Act 1991 as it states that rules become operative once they are beyond challenge but then goes on to state in a later clause that to make a plan or change operative requires approval by Council and then it must affix its seal to the change.

8.2 Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides that Council may approve part of a plan where all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. In this case, the provisions proposed to be made operative are not subject to appeal, therefore any submissions on those provisions have been disposed of.

8.3 The appealed provisions of Plan Change 79 remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Environment Court and will not be approved under this process.

8.4 Once approved in part under Clause 17, Clause 20 of Schedule 1 enables Council to publicly notify the date on which the approved PC79 provisions become operative.

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi were engaged through the Schedule 1 process for Plan Change 79, including during pre‑notification and formal consultation stages. That engagement informed Council’s decision on the plan change adopted on 19 February 2026.

9.2 This report does not introduce new policy content or alter the substance of the Plan Change. It is procedural in nature and relates solely to the implementation of provisions of the existing decision not under appeal. As such, no additional iwi engagement is required for the matters addressed in this report.

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

10.1 The Council is not required to undertake further consultation prior to making the decision sought through this report.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low	Procedural step and of little interest to general public
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	Making the plan change operative in part will release deferred zoned land that is serviced, now and in the future for urban development. This will assist to satisfy the residential, housing and business growth demands of the District.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Low	As for 2 above.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	No
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 If Council resolves to make Plan Change 79 operative in part, public notice will be given in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The operative provisions will be incorporated into the Tasman Resource Management Plan, and the appeal status of the remaining provisions will continue to be clearly identified.

11.2 No additional consultation or targeted communications are proposed, as this decision gives effect to Council’s existing decision and does not introduce new policy content.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 The primary risk associated with making Plan Change 79 operative in part is the potential for confusion if operative and non‑operative provisions are not clearly distinguished. This risk will be managed through clear public notice and plan administration, with appealed provisions remaining expressly identified as subject to the Environment Court process.

12.2 There is no legal risk in making Plan Change 79 operative in part where provisions not under appeal are severable from the matters under appeal. This approach is expressly provided for under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and does not prejudice the appeal.

12.3 Deferring implementation of provisions not under appeal would create a risk of unnecessary delay in giving effect to Council’s decision, including delayed uptake of zoning provisions intended to enable development of up‑zoned locations. It also increases the risk of confusion for people seeking to make submissions on PC81 when it is notified due to difficulty in identifying which provisions relate to which plan change.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 Climate change considerations, including natural hazard and sea level rise risks where relevant, were addressed through the Schedule 1 process for Plan Change 79 and informed Council’s decision adopted on 19 February 2026.

13.2 This report does not propose any new zoning, policies or rules, nor does it alter the substantive content of Plan Change 79. It is procedural in nature and relates only to making provisions not under appeal operative.

13.3 As such, there are no additional climate change implications arising from the matters addressed in this report beyond those already considered through the plan change process.

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

14.1 PC79 contributes to implementing the Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy (FDS) and assists the Council in meeting its obligations under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development.

14.2 PC79 also enables development that is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy to ensure that infrastructure that is built by the Council is well utilised.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The appeal to Plan Change 79 is limited in scope and does not relate to all provisions of the plan change. The zoning and development‑enabling provisions proposed to be made operative are not subject to appeal and are clearly severable from the matters before the Environment Court.

15.2 Clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 enables Council to approve part of a plan where all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of. Making Plan Change 79 operative in part gives effect to Council’s decision of 19 February 2026 in respect of the provisions not under appeal, without prejudicing the appeal.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 If Council resolves to make Plan Change 79 operative in part:

· the approved provisions not under appeal will be sealed in accordance with Clause 17 of Schedule 1;

· public notice of the operative provisions and operative date will be given in accordance with Clause 20 of Schedule 1;

· the operative provisions will be incorporated into the Tasman Resource Management Plan and into Plan Change 81 which is due to be publicly notified soon; and

· the appealed provisions will remain subject to the Environment Court process until the appeal is resolved.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Provisions to be approved (not highlighted) and not approved (highlighted in orange)	13
2.⇩	Appeal document	118
3.⇩	Map: Areas Murchison	333
4.⇩	Map: Areas Richmond South	334
5.⇩	Map: Areas Richmond West	335
6.⇩	Map: Zones Brightwater	336
7.⇩	Map: Zones Marahau	337
8.⇩	Map: Zones Moutere	338
9.⇩	Map: Zones Murchison	339
10.⇩	Map: Zones Patons Rock	340
11.⇩	Map: Zones Richmond East	341
12.⇩	Map: Zones Richmond South	342
13.⇩	Map: Zones Richmond West A	343
14.⇩	Map: Zones Richmond West B	344
15.⇩	Map: Discharges Brightwater	345
16.⇩	Map: Discharges Marahau	346
17.⇩	Map: Discharges Murchison	347
18.⇩	Map: Discharges Richmond East	348
19.⇩	Map: Discharges Richmond South	349
20.⇩	Map: Discharges Richmond West A	350
21.⇩	Map: Discharges Richmond West B	351

7.2 Annual Plan 2026/2027 and Schedule of Fees and Charges - Deliberations Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Tasman District Council
Meeting Date:	28 May 2026
Report Author:	Amy Smith, Community Policy Advisor; Emily Garland, Graduate Community Policy Advisor; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Planning & Enterprise Manager; Matthew McGlinchey, Financial Strategy & Planning Manager; Alan Bywater, Team Leader - Community Policy
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Planning & Enterprise Manager; Leonie Rae, Chief Executive Officer
Report Number:	RCN26-05-14

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

1.1 The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1 Provide a summary of submissions received on the Annual Plan 2026/2027 and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2026/2027;

1.1.2 Provide the Mayor and Councilors with an opportunity to discuss and obtain advice from staff on matters raised in the submissions; and

1.1.3 Make decisions on matters to be included in the Annual Plan 226/2027.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At its meeting on 19 March 2026 the Council made a series of decisions on changes from the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP) for 2026/2027.

2.2 The net outcome of these changes was a rates revenue increase of 9.9% (excluding growth) for 2026/2027, and net debt is project to be $320m. This was an increase compared to the 5.2% (excluding growth) planned for Year 3 of the LTP. As a result, the Council agreed to consult on the Annual Plan 2026/2027 and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2026/2027.

2.3 At its meeting on 2 April, the Council adopted a consultation document and supporting material and a public consultation period was open from 2 April until 3 May 2026. The Submissions Hearing meeting was held on 14 May and 44 submitters were heard.

2.4 There were 367 submissions received over the consultation period, including 46 from groups and organisations. Staff have prepared an overview of the submissions (Attachment 1) and all submissions can be accessed and viewed here: TDC Submissions.

2.5 Two other matters have arisen over the last few weeks that staff wish to address in the final Annual Plan:

2.5.1 Estimated operating fuel price impact of $1.8m for 2026/2027 (1.48% additional rates) and a capital impact of roading resealing of $1.05m ($105k loan servicing, or 0.09% additional rates).

2.5.2 A review of the deliverability of the capital programme for 2025/2026 and the proposed capital programme 2026/2027, which has resulted in proposed budget reductions with reduction in rates of 0.14% and a reduction in net debt of $1.7m.

2.6 In the 7 May Council report, the following financial pressures in 2025/2026 were raised:

2.6.1 Three Waters maintenance overspend of $1.85m.

2.6.2 Oil price impact of $328k (a decrease from the previously advised $500k).

2.7 Staff believe these costs can be absorbed within the current financial year without impacting the 2026/2027 Annual Plan. This is due to careful management of costs in some areas to provide temporary relief and additional revenue from gravel extraction and water consumption.

2.8 Staff advise amending the proposed fee structure for property files, as a result of feedback received in submissions. The dog control fees are to be adopted at this meeting as proposed, to enable the statutory notification requirements to be met. The remainder of the schedule of fees and charges will be presented for adoption at the 25 June 2026 Council meeting.

2.9 Overall the impacts of the above listed items is a rates increase for the 2026/2027 of 11.3% (excluding growth), which is an increase of 1.4% on what we consulted on. Debt would be $650k, less than the $320m, consulted on.

2.10 To reduce the impact of this increase on the community at a difficult time, staff have investigated the feasibility of increasing forest harvesting in the short term. We believe we can generate an additional $1.0m (net) for the 2026/2027 year, although advice from PF Olsen will not be finalised when this report is circulated. This will result in a rates revenue increase of 10.5% instead of 11.3% (excluding growth). Note that any lift in revenue for 2026/2027 is only temporary and not sustainable into the future – it will reduce forestry income in future years.

2.11 Elected members may want to consider this option as it increases the proportion of operating expenditure funded from operating revenue, which supports the Council’s objective of improving financial sustainability over time.

2.12 If the Council wants to retain the 9.9% (excluding growth) rates revenue increase it consulted on, it could increase debt funding of operational costs for 2026/2027 by $750k. This would smooth the impact of the oil price shock on the community, assuming it is temporary in nature. This is relativity straightforward but will shift us further from financial sustainability and may put more pressure on the rates increase required for following financial years, especially 2027/2028.

2.13 Staff have not included service reviews as an option to reduce costs. The organisation operates lean for the services it offers, three such reviews have occurred in recent years and another is currently progressing within the LTP, organisation resources are strained, and there is insufficient time or resources to complete this process and undertake any necessary consultation in time to finalise the Annual Plan 2026/2027 in approximately four weeks time.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Tasman District Council

1. receives the Annual Plan 2026/2027 and Schedule of Fees and Charges - Deliberations Report RCN26-05-14; and

Changes and financial impacts

2. approves the revised capital programme for 2026/2027 in Attachment 1 to the agenda report, noting the projects that have been delayed and likely consequences of these changes; and

3. notes that fuel cost increases are estimated to increase operating costs for core services by $1.8m across Council and by $1.05m in the capital transportation activity in 2026/2027, and that this has been included in revised budgets; and

4. notes that staff expect increased maintenance costs in Three Waters activities and contract fuel costs in 2025/2026 will be largely offset by additional revenue or savings within the same activities and have no material bearing on the starting position for the 2026/2027 year; and

Key proposals in the Annual Plan

5. approves the introduction of a recovery rate for five years to repay the costs of the 2025 weather events only, charged as a uniform fixed amount per rating unit in the Annual Plan 2026/2027; and

6. requests staff to amend the Revenue and Financing Policy and Funding Impact Statement to be consistent with resolution 5. (a recovery rate for five years) for adoption at the 25 June 2026 Council meeting; and

7. agrees to the following next steps for the three community facilities projects:

7.1 pause and defer the Tapawera Community Hub project to the next Long Term Plan; and

7.2 continue the Waimea South facilities projects (Wakefield Community Hub and Brightwater facilities), as planned; and

7.3 continue the Motueka Pool project as planned, progressing through the design stage; and

8. agrees to slow funded depreciation for roading assets as proposed in the consultation document, with a target of 21% to be reached by the end of 2026/2027; and

9. agrees to retain most fees and charges as proposed and make the following changes to the fee structure for property files:

9.4 reducing the proposed fee for individual property owners from $30 to $25 per property file; and

9.5 retaining the proposed ‘pay as you go’ charge of $60 per property file; and

9.6 introducing a flat rate of $40 per property file for bulk users, rather than the proposed $3,000 fee for 60 files (equivalent to $50 per file); and

10. adopts the Dog Control fees set out in Attachment 3 to the agenda report, to allow for public notification in the month before the fees take effect, in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996; and

Response to submissions

11. notes in-principle support from the Motueka Community Board to allocate funding from its 2025/2026 Special Projects Fund to the Motueka Heritage Wharf Restoration Project, and this will be considered by the Board at its 16 June 2026 meeting; and

12. notes staff advice at paragraph 0 of this report in response to requests from the Motueka Community Board in its submission; and

13. requests staff further develop funding options for the Eighty Eight Valley Water Scheme based on percentages of the urban metered charge, for further consideration in the Long Term Plan 2027-2037; and

14. notes that a comprehensive rating review for rivers has been initiated; and

15. declines the request to start maintaining the section of Tasman View Road from the junction with Harley Ridge to “the Lookout”; and

16. notes that budget provision for stormwater improvements on Welsh Place, Richmond has been included in the Annual Plan budget; and

17. notes that project scoping for work on the Riuwaka River stopbanks has been initiated and staff are working directly with affected landowners; and

Finalising the Annual Plan

18. notes that the net impact of cost increases of $1.7m to the Annual Plan results in a total rate revenue increase of 11.3% (excluding growth) and end of year net debt of $319.4m for 2026/2027; and

19. agrees that a $1.0m increase in net forestry income is used to reduce the rates revenue requirement for 2026/2027 to 10.5%, noting this lift is not sustainable and will reduce future forestry income; and

20. agrees the remaining impacts of cost increases to the Annual Plan 2026/2027 will be funded via rates, resulting in a 10.5% rates revenue increase;

agrees that the remaining impacts of cost increases to the Annual Plan 2026/2027 will be funded via debts resulting in a rates revenue increase of 9.9%; and

21. notes that the Annual Plan 2026/2027 will be presented for adoption at the Tasman District Council meeting on 25 June 2026.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 Since the adoption of the LTP 2024-2034 and the Annual Plan 2025/2026, there have been a range of factors that have increased the Council’s expected costs for 2026/2027. The primary drivers of these increased costs are:

4.1.1 The impacts of the June/July 2025 weather events;

4.1.2 New costs resulting from water supply and resource management regulation from central government;

4.1.3 Higher than anticipated interest rates, loan repayment and depreciation funding (as a result of increased asset valuations);

4.1.4 Higher than anticipated operating costs for the Regional Sewerage Business Unit, resulting from Council’s increased use (capacity) of the network to support growth;

4.1.5 Higher than anticipated reactive maintenance costs in Three Waters, Transportation and Reserves and Facilities activities; and

4.1.6 Increased Waimea Community Dam costs re settlement $3.8m.

4.2 In addition, expenditure forecasts for the 2025/2026 year indicated that the Council will have a larger net operating deficit than planned (i.e. more unfavourable) because of the impact of the weather event (net impact $14.6m). This affects the financial starting position for the 2026/2027 Annual Plan year.

4.3 We are unable to maintain our current Levels of Service within the planned (LTP) rates increase or indicative rates increase identified in the last Annual Plan process. A forecast rates rise of 11.2% (excluding growth) for the Annual Plan 2026/2027 was identified in November 2025.

4.4 To try and limit the impact of the increasing costs on rate increases for 2026/2027 the Council has:

4.4.1 Sold approximately $0.35m of unencumbered ETS credits to reduce the rates requirement for 2026/2027 by -0.3%.

4.4.2 Proposed reducing planned increases in funding depreciation from operating revenues (i.e.‘cash funding’ depreciation) for roading by 3%, from 24% to 21%, by the end of 2026/202, against our target of 49% by 2030, reducing the rates requirement for 2026/2027 by -0.5% or approximately $650,000.

4.4.3 Proposed a new 2025 Weather Event Recovery Rate to fund the recovery costs (debt) of $14.6m resulting from the 2025 weather events ($2.8m in 2026/2027 rating year).

4.4.4 Proposed pausing and deferring the Tapawera Community Hub project to the next LTP process.

4.4.5 Proposed increasing most fees and charges by 7.0%.

4.4.6 Adjusted operational and capital budgets.

4.5 At its meeting on 19 March 2026, the Council made a series of decisions on changes from the LTP 2024-2034 for inclusion in the Annual Plan for consultation.

4.6 At its meeting on 2 April 2026, the Council adopted a consultation document and supporting material, including the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2026/2027, for a public consultation period that ran from 2 April to 3 May 2026.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 This section:

5.1.1 covers a range of cost impacts that have been identified since consultation began;

5.1.2 summarises the feedback received during consultation;

5.1.3 presents submitter requests, staff advice and recommendations; and

5.1.4 discusses the net impact of these changes to the Annual Plan and sets out the options available to the Council, with recommendations.

Changes and impacts identified since consultation

5.2 A number of changes are proposed by staff that have financial implications and are discussed below. The changes have resulted as further information has come to light since the draft Annual Plan was approved for consultation.

Current year operational position

5.3 Several cost escalations are hitting the current financial year, but staff forecast these will largely offset by additional revenue from gravel extraction and water consumption or reductions elsewhere due to careful management of costs to provide temporary relief, largely within the same activities. Overall, these are not forecast to materially affect the starting position of the 2026/2027 financial year compared to the forecast used to underpin the Annual Plan 2026/2027 position to date.

5.4 Cost increases include additional maintenance costs in Three Waters and additional fuel costs across the board. Areas where there will be savings against budget for the current 2025/2026 financial year include (but is not limited to);

5.4.1 Gravel Income $300k more than planned

5.4.2 Targeted volumetric water: $650k higher than planned (noted earlier)

5.4.3 Operational NRSBU costs: $515k lower than planned

5.4.4 Net interest costs: $250k lower than planned

These savings are indicative.

There is a risk that the forecast savings do not eventuate. If this is the case the deficit position will need to be recovered in the first year of the LTP. An activity report on the final year-end closed account positions will be presented to the Strategic, Finance and Performance Committee when it meets on 17^th September. The required transfers of balances will be submitted for approval at that meeting.

Impact of the fuel crisis

5.5 In a report to the Council on 7May 2026 (refer to RCN26-05-10), the potential cost of the fuel crisis was noted across the Council. These figures have been reviewed and the impacts for 2026/2027 updated in the table below:

The figures in the table are still indicative only; the reality may be better or worse and how this plays out is extremely difficult to predict.

Changes to the 2026/2027 capital programme

5.6 Changes to the proposed capital programme are shown in Attachment 1 and result in a net reduction of approximately $650k for 2026/2027. These changes have resulted from:

5.6.1 Updated delivery forecasting: Ongoing reforecasting of both the current year and Annual Plan year programmes indicates that a number of projects will not be completed this year and have been deferred into 2026/2027. This reduces costs in 2025/2026 but impacts the Annual Plan capital programme. The most significant movements are:

5.6.1.1 River stopbank refurbishment $3.2m (deferral of current year budget).

5.6.1.2 Tākaka wastewater treatment plant compliance $1.57m (deferral of current year budget).

5.6.1.3 Redwood Valley water supply compliance upgrades $2m (deferral of current year budget and budget forward from 2027/2028).

5.6.1.4 Wai-iti Dam augmentation pipeline $2.6m (deferral of current year budget and increase to enable land purchase to complete the project).

There are a range of smaller adjustments reflecting improved cost and timing information.

5.6.2 Three Waters phasing and programme refinement: Initial detailed phasing work in Three Waters has been applied to the Annual Plan, reducing the Three Waters capital programme from $49.0m to $42.6m. Further reductions have been identified in residential green space (-$148k) and tranche 3 of the river stopbank refurbishment (-$513k).

5.6.3 Asset renewals brought forward: Condition assessments previously identified elevator component replacements for the Council main building and Richmond Library were not needed in 2026/2027. Recent failures and the increased risk of further outages mean these renewals are now required earlier and have been added to the Annual Plan capital programme ($260k).

5.6.4 The overall capital programme was $98.0m and reduced by $10.2m once the capital lag was applied. The final capital budget for 2026/2027 is $87.8m.

Further savings to offset cost increases

5.7 Staff have not included service reviews as an option to reduce costs because:

5.7.1 There is not sufficient time before 1 July 2026 Annual Plan to undertake a review and further consultation on any meaningful changes.

5.7.2 The Council runs lean and has also been through three service and budget reviews in recent years. The Council has very limited capacity to respond to further shocks and has exhausted our ability to absorb any increases in operational costs for 2026/2027 without major changes to the business.

5.7.3 The LTP 2027/2037 process is underway, involves consideration by the Council of potential long-term changes, and is already straining organisational capability.

5.8 Options for funding the overall increases in costs and the impact of any submissions are discussed later in this report.

Consultation summary

5.9 Public consultation on the Annual Plan 2026/2027, including the draft Schedule of Fees and Charges, commenced on 2 April 2026 and closed 3 May 2027. The Submissions Hearing meeting was held on 14 May and 44 submitters were heard.

5.10 We received 367 submissions over the consultation period including from 46 groups and organisations. We received online submissions via the Shape Tasman engagement page, paper submission forms, email submissions and written submissions.

5.11 We have prepared an overview of the submissions (Attachment 2). All submissions can be viewed here: TDC Submissions.

5.12 Community views were also sought through two quick polls on progressing or the community facilities projects and on the proposed recovery rate. These were promoted via social media channels and Antenno. We received 3,478 votes from 2,856 contributors.

5.13 The submission feedback regarding the proposals in the consultation document has been summarised below.

2025 Weather Events Rating

5.14 The consultation document presented four options for establishing a new rate to fund the $14.6m recovery costs of the 2025 weather events:

5.14.1 Option 1: A targeted district-wide recovery rate for five years to repay the costs of the 2025 weather events only, charged as a uniform amount of $125. This was presented as the Council’s preferred option

5.14.2 Option 2: A targeted district-wide recovery rate for five years to repay the costs of the 2025 weather events only, charged based on capital value.

5.14.3 Option 3: A targeted district-wide recovery and resilience rate, charged as a uniform amount, to repay the initial weather event costs and then continue as an ongoing fund for future natural hazard events.

5.14.4 Option 4: A targeted district-wide recovery and resilience rate, charged based on capital value, to repay the initial weather event costs and then continue as an ongoing fund for future natural hazard events.

5.15 Council received 184 submissions on the proposed 2025 weather events recovery rate, with submitters selecting an option as follows:

5.15.1 Option 1: 78 submissions (42%)

5.15.2 Option 2: 26 submissions (14%)

5.15.3 Option 3: 35 submissions (19%)

5.15.4 Option 4: 24 submissions (13%)

5.15.5 NA or none of the options: 21 (11%)

5.16 The quick poll on the recovery rate options received 346 votes from 309 contributors as follows:

5.16.1 Option 1: 124 votes (36%)

5.16.2 Option 2: 83 votes (24%)

5.16.3 Option 3: 73 votes (21%)

5.16.4 Option 4: 66 votes (19%)

5.17 The main themes across all submissions on the proposed recovery rate were:

5.17.1 Fairness and simplicity

5.17.2 Ability to pay and equity

5.17.3 Risk attribution and responsibility

5.17.4 Trust in council governance and financial management

5.17.5 Time-limited recovery versus ongoing resilience planning

5.18 Submitters who preferred Options 1 and 3 generally supported equal treatment of ratepayers. They considered that the benefits of disaster recovery are shared across the district. Some also supported a time-limited rate rather than an ongoing charge.

5.19 Several submitters who preferred Options 1 and 3 said capital value is not a good measure of a person’s ability to pay. In contrast, submitters who preferred Options 2 and 4 considered that owners of higher-value properties are generally better able to contribute more.

5.20 Some submitters who preferred Option 2 felt that people not directly affected should not be required to help fund the recovery. They also considered that those living in higher-risk areas should meet more of the cost.

5.21 Several submitters who preferred Options 3 and 4 said similar events are likely to happen again and that an ongoing fund is needed to improve future preparedness and response.

5.22 Some submitters across all options raised concerns about Council’s financial management and whether money collected for recovery and resilience would be used only for those purposes. Others said the recovery costs should instead be met through Council savings, insurance, or central government support.

5.23 A small number of submitters suggested hybrid and other rating options, including:

5.23.1 District-wide and targeted components; or

5.23.2 Capital value and uniform rate components; or

5.23.3 Capital value with a cap.

5.24 Submitter 35441 suggested that the establishment of a dedicated extreme weather response fund as a joint Council and charitable trust. A few submitters also raised concerns about the process used to develop and consult on the recovery rate.

5.25 The main arguments raised by submitters reflect the matters already considered by Council during workshops and meetings when the consultation options and preferred option were developed. These issues have already been weighed up by elected members as part of the decision-making process.

5.26 The question of whether ratepayers in higher risk areas of the District should bear all or a higher proportion of the costs for funding was discussed during Annual Plan workshops. However, the idea of hybrid rates was not discussed. At the 19 March 2026 meeting the Council made decisions about its proposals in the Annual Plan. These included proposing a targeted district-wide recovery rate for five years to repay the costs of the 2025 weather events only, charged as a uniform amount. The report stated three other options that would be included in the consultation document. None of these was a hybrid option.

5.27 If the Council was to introduce rating to fund the 2025 weather event which departs from the four options consulted on at this stage in the process, it would open itself up to significant risk of legal challenge. If the Council wants to introduce a hybrid rating model, it will need to re-consult with the community on this new option.

5.28 Based on the number of submitters supporting each option, the feedback received and its consistency with the Council’s Financial Strategy, staff advise proceeding with Option 1: A targeted district-wide recovery rate for five years to repay the costs of the 2025 weather events only, charged as a uniform amount of $125.

5.29 The Council should also critically evaluate the concerns raised about the process used to introduce this rate and use that to help improve future rating processes.

Operating budget movements

5.30 The consultation document invited feedback on the proposed operating budget movements and 74 submitters responded to this question. These views were overwhelmingly unsupportive or critical of the proposals. Dominant concerns include the affordability of rates increases, a perceived lack of cost control, rising debt and long-term financial sustainability.

5.31 A small number of submitters accept the increases as necessary, but question specific areas and delivery efficiency.

5.32 At least 17 submissions were explicitly form-based and a further 11 submissions showing strong evidence of coordinated or near identical content. These submissions raised criticism of the consultation process, claims of misleading financial information and views around fiscal discipline, debt reduction, and staff and consultant cost scrutiny.

Community facilities projects

5.33 The consultation document invited feedback on progressing or pausing the three community facilities projects. 288 submitters responded to this question and the quick polls received 3,132 votes.

5.34 There is strong overall support for progressing community facilities, driven primarily by high levels of support within the directly affected communities that viewed these facilities as essential infrastructure, not “nice to haves”.

5.35 70 submitters explicitly did not support council investment in community facilities projects at this time, or actively seek to pause, defer, or cancel them. This feedback focused on cost-of-living pressures and rates affordability, high and growing Council debt, ongoing operational costs and “non‑essential” spending, and was often framed at a district‑wide level.

Tapawera Community Hub

5.36 48 submitters provide feedback on the Tapawera Community Hub project. The quick poll received 630 votes from 523 contributors. 22% (140 votes) supported contributing with the Tapawera Hub and 78% (490 votes) wanted to pause this project.

5.37 There is strong support to progress the project and that the hub will be well utilised. Pausing the project is viewed by supporters as risking loss of external funding, continued exposure to safety and resilience risks and rural inequity.

5.38 Opposition is limited and focussed on project readiness, consultation quality, and community division. Some submitters argue that existing facilities could instead be refurbished instead.

5.39 The submissions received and views of the submitters that spoke at the hearing meeting reflect mixed views regarding progressing or pausing the Tapawera Community Hub project. The feedback indicates the importance of ensuring that any future investment is well aligned with the needs, priorities, and capacity of the local community.

5.40 We will continue to work alongside the Tapawera community to explore how best to support their ambitions for a Community Hub, recognising the need to balance service provision with affordability and local expectations. Staff advise pausing the Tapawera Community Hub project and deferring it to LTP 2027-2037 discussions, as proposed.

Waimea South Facilities

5.41 43 submitters provided feedback on the Waimea South facilities projects. The quick poll results are as follows:

5.41.1 Wakefield Hub: 953 votes from 714 contributors. 53% (509 votes) supported continuing with the Wakefield Hub and 47% (477 voters) wanted to pause this project.

5.41.2 Brightwater facilities upgrade: 559 votes from 475 contributors. 27% (151 votes) supported continuing with the Brightwater facilities upgrade and 73% (408 votes) wanted to pause this project.

5.42 There is strong local support to progress these projects and submitters noted that pausing now would impose higher future costs, undermine community effort, and damage trust.

5.43 Submitters opposing or wanting this project paused expressed affordability and debt concerns, and preferred refurbishment of existing facilities. Submitter 35579 has concerns about the site location for the Wakefield Hub including parking, SH6 access and flood risk.

5.44 The submissions emphasize the importance of the Waimea South facilities projects for supporting community wellbeing, strengthening local connections and providing fit-for-purposes spaces for community activities. The concerns raised by some submitters regarding costs and alternative options are also acknowledged. Staff advise continuing with the Waimea South facilities projects, as proposed.

Motueka Pool

5.45 116 submitters provided feedback on the Motueka Pool project and the quick poll received 990 votes from 835 contributors. 58% (574 votes) supported continuing with the Motueka Pool and 42% (416 votes) wanted to pause this project.

5.46 There is extensive support for progressing the Motueka Pool; it is viewed as long overdue and essential for health, wellbeing and safety. Equity of access was frequently raised and submitters noted pausing the project would exacerbate inequity and undermine public trust and community donations. Submissions from five iwi (35452, 35455, 35549, 35553 and 35598) expressed strong support for progressing the Motueka Pool project.

5.47 Limited opposition to this project is largely general rather than Motueka-specific, citing reasons like affordability concerns, and competing priorities. The Motueka Youth Council (35355) does not see the need, citing natural water options and Richmond access.

5.48 It is evident in the submissions received and the views shared by submitters who spoke at the hearing meeting that the Motueka Pool project is of long-standing and considered to be essential local infrastructure that will provide health, safety and social benefits to all of the local community. The Council discussed this project at a confidential workshop on 27 May 2026. Staff advise continuing the Motueka Pool project through the design phase, as proposed.

Changes to the capital programme

5.49 The consultation document invited feedback on the proposed changes to the capital programme. 91 submitters responded to this question, 21 of whom provided no comments.

5.50 There is limited support for the capital programme as a whole, but conditional support for selected high‑value or urgent projects especially in essential infrastructure or specific community facilities. The main sentiment is that the capital programme is too expansive for current economic conditions, lacks clear prioritisation and inadequately demonstrates affordability, necessity, and deliverability. Many submitters are asking Council to slow down, narrow focus, improve transparency and better justify trade‑offs.

5.51 Changes to the proposed capital programme 2026/2027 are discussed in paragraph 0 and shown in Attachment 1.

Slowing planned funding of depreciation for roading assets

5.52 The consultation document invited feedback on the proposed slowing of planned funding of depreciation for roading assets. 91 submitters responded to this question, 22 of whom provided no comments. There was broad consensus that roading is a core council function, but disagreement on whether slowing depreciation is an acceptable mechanism for managing current fiscal pressure.

5.53 Supportive submitters emphasised short‑term financial relief, economic context and/or the view that depreciation is largely an accounting construct that can be adjusted without impacting service delivery. Submitters opposing or arguing against deferred funding of depreciation stressed intergenerational equity and viewed it as short‑term budget optics that undermines asset integrity, increases debt, and unfairly shifts costs to future ratepayers by “kicking the can down the road”.

5.54 The Council began a programme to fully fund depreciation in July 2015. The original goal in the LTP 2015-2025 was to achieve this by June 2025. Subsequent LTPs and Annual Plans have extended the timeframe, and full funding of depreciation is now planned for June 2030. Extending the timeframe reduces rates in the short term but increases the Council’s debt. The Department of Internal Affairs does not require councils to fully fund depreciation by a specific date; Audit New Zealand is satisfied as long as the Council continues to make progress.

5.55 By June 2028, all activities except Roading will have depreciation fully funded. Recent high inflation has significantly increased asset valuations and therefore depreciation costs, which has contributed to pushing out the target date. By pushing out the target date it has meant the Council can reduce the annual increase in rates.

5.56 The decision to aim for full funding by June 2030 was confirmed in the 2024–2034 LTP to help keep rates at manageable levels. The Council considers this approach a prudent balance between rates affordability and long term financial sustainability.

5.57 Feedback from submitters, both supportive and opposed, has been noted and will inform deliberations for the LTP 2027–2037.

Changes to the Council’s fees and charges

5.58 The consultation document invited feedback on the proposed changes to Council’s fees and charges for 2026/2027. 115 submitters responded to this question, 17 of whom said ‘no’.

5.59 Seven submitters support the proposed increases to fees and charges. Opposition to the proposed increases is widespread and strongly expressed, especially where increases exceed inflation. There is qualified support for user‑pays, but only where the costs are transparent and charges are clearly justified and cost reflective. Submitter 35473 advocates further increasing cost recovery levels (~10%).

5.60 Trust and transparency are key issues and many submitters are not convinced fees reflect real costs or do not have confidence in the fee-setting process. Contentious issues included the level of increases, charges for accessing Council-held information particularly property files, and perceived Council inefficiencies driving costs. Suggested alternatives included tiered pricing systems, hourly or proportional charging and flexible bulk pricing.

5.61 Twelve submitters provided feedback on the proposed changes to how property file fees are charged. Submissions were received from both individual property owners and bulk users. Property owners opposed the introduction of a $30 fee to access their property files, stating that this information has already been paid for through rates and they should not be charged for access to their own information. Bulk users opposed the proposed $3,000 fee for access to 60 files. They considered the 60-file threshold to be arbitrary and the increase too large for real estate companies, and suggested a more gradual increase. They also requested tiered pricing by volume access for bulk users, and investment in digital access to property files.

5.62 Staff have considered the feedback and provide the following changes to the proposed fee structure for property files for the Council’s consideration:

5.62.1 charging individual property owners $25 per property file, noting that preparing a file typically requires 30–60 minutes of staff time and that this approach helps reduce the burden on rates by supporting a user-pays model.

5.62.2 retaining the proposed ‘pay as you go’ charge of $60 per file.

5.62.3 In response to feedback on bulk user charges, staff do not recommend proceeding with the proposed $3,000 fee for 60 files (equivalent to $50 per file). Instead, staff recommend a flat rate of $40 per file for bulk users. This would ensure all bulk users are charged a consistent discounted rate, addressing inequities in the current annual fee of $2,750 for unlimited access to files, where some users effectively pay around $40 per file while others pay as little as $4 per file due to higher volumes.

5.63 One submitter commented on the proposed increase to the bulk water take fee, requesting a lower rate for bulk potable delivery operators compared to other commercial users, as they supply water to rural homes. They also compared the charge to those set by regional councils. The Council seeks to balance cost recovery, fairness between users, and minimising impacts on the wider ratepayer base. Bulk water charges reflect the infrastructure costs required to deliver the service and are consistent with a user-pays approach, regardless of user type. Staff advise retaining the proposed bulk water take charge.

5.64 Four submitters commented on the Project Information Memorandum (PIM) fee increase. Views were mixed, with two supporting a user‑pays approach and no rates subsidy, and two opposing the size of the increase. Submitters that opposed suggested differential fees for project sizes or amount of staff time needed. The increase in PIM fee this year is a step towards user pays and has been calculated on the average time spent. PIMs for consent‑exempt small dwellings may require more assessment, but there is currently insufficient data to support differential fees. A single standard fee provides transparency and simplicity during the implementation of the new regulatory setting. Staff advise retaining the proposed PIM fees.

5.65 Seven submissions raised concerns about dog fees including cost, how the three categories are set, and the level of fees for working dogs, with some suggesting a cap of five dogs. Dog registration fees were not proposed to change. The three categories are based on property size to reflect that dogs on larger properties generally require fewer council resources. The ‘working dog’ fee is set at 55% of the ‘category 1’ fee, which staff consider reflects the level of control work required. A cap of five working dogs was considered; however, any reduction in fees would need to be offset by increasing charges for other dog owners to maintain overall cost recovery.

5.66 Staff advise retaining the proposed fees for Animal Control. The Dog Control Act 1996 (s.37[6]) requires that the Council publicly notify the Dog Control fees fixed for the registration year, in a newspaper circulating in the District, at least once during the month preceding the start of every registration year. In addition, pound fees are required to be adopted at least 14 days before the resolution comes into effect and be publicly notified in a newspaper circulating in the District.

5.67 To enable us to meet these notification requirements, this report includes a resolution to adopt the Dog Control fees set out in Attachment 3 at this meeting. The remainder of the schedule of fees and charges will be presented for adoption at the 25 June 2026 Council meeting.

Other matters raised in submissions

5.68 Affordability was a dominant concern, particularly for households already experiencing cost pressures (food, fuel, insurance, housing) and with limited capacity to absorb further increases in rates or fees. Staff acknowledge these concerns and that efforts address the Council’s financial and economic challenges are occurring in the same context of financial pressure being experienced by the community. In developing the proposed Annual Plan, the Council sought to balance affordability with the need to maintain current services levels and business operations.

5.69 Some submitters expressed concern about the level of detail provided in the consultation document and supporting material, noting the information was unclear, potentially misleading, or lacked visibility of underlying cost drivers. The feedback received is acknowledged and staff consider the information provided was appropriate for an Annual Plan consultation (as opposed to more detailed information for a LTP consultation); there is an inherent challenge in balancing sufficient detail with accessible information that supports public engagement.

Requests received from submitters

The Motueka Heritage Wharf

5.70 The Heritage Wharf Restoration Group (35396) is seeking funding of $60,000 to assist with the re-construction of the Motueka Heritage Wharf, which is a significant Council historical structure.

5.71 The Council was updated on the Group’s proposal and presented with its business case for the restoration work and associated funding request at the Environment, Regulatory and Operations Committee meeting on 12 May. The project and funding options were discussed but no decision was made and the matter is to be covered at this meeting.

5.72 At its meeting on 19 May, the Motueka Community Board also discussed the project and indicated in-principle support to allocate funding from its 2025/2026 Special Projects Fund. Staff will present a report at the next Board meeting on 16 June.

5.73 Staff advise that Motueka Reserve Facilities Contributions are already allocated to other projects, including the Motueka Pool. Council may wish to allocate capital budget to this request but, given the indicative funding support from the Motueka Community Board, this is not recommended by staff as funding is not currently included in the Annual Plan budgets.

Motueka Community Board

5.74 The Motueka Community Board (35426) makes a range of requests to the Council, listed below along with staff advice:

5.74.1 Motueka Beautification and Public Spaces: Request that the Motueka High Street upgrade identified in the LTP 2021-2031 be reinstated in future planning, particularly following the removal of several Golden Elm trees.

5.74.2 This would be a matter for Council. At present, there has been no indication from the Mayor and Councillors to include a project of this nature in the next LTP, and it would likely be challenging to accommodate given current financial constraints.

5.74.3 Road safety review: Requests that a safety review be undertaken for the intersection of King Edward Street, College Street, and Queen Victoria Street.

5.74.4 Staff will revisit this intersection, noting that a range of measures have previously been implemented to improve signage and visibility. More substantive safety improvements would likely require a full upgrade, such as a roundabout, and this is estimated to cost up to $1m and require land purchase. At this stage, it is unclear whether there is capacity within the LTP and Council’s financial constraints to accommodate a project of this scale

5.74.5 Coastal Protection Investigation: Requests that Council investigate the coastal rock wall protection along the Motueka ward foreshore.

5.74.6 The Council’s Coastal Assets activity does not have records of significant coastal rock protection infrastructure along the Motueka ward foreshore, other than the wall at Marahau. Existing coastal rock protection features will need to be identified and investigated on a case-by-case basis to determine history, ownership, and maintenance responsibility. Staff note there is informal fill/erosion protection along the coastline, including in some road reserve. These will continue to be monitored to ensure that the road and cycle trail network are not adversely affected by coastal erosion.

5.74.7 Motueka Library Big Meeting Room: Mitigate the challenges of the library meeting room with IT issues and lack of sound. Investigate set up of microphones and adequate speaker system.

5.74.8 Staff agree with the Board’s concerns and will investigate the matters raised.

5.74.9 Motueka Historical Wharf Restoration: The Motueka Community Board requests that Tasman District Council endorse the Motueka Historical Wharf Restoration in principle. The Board acknowledge current funding constraints may limit direct support.

5.74.10 Stormwater: Prioritise improvements to stormwater resilience, including consideration of a modern automated gate at Thorp Drain similar to Woodlands Drain. Target known problem areas such as Woodlands Avenue, and review drainage limitations from Wratt Street through to Monahan Street, including additional soak pits where appropriate.

5.74.11 Staff advise that replacement of the Thorp Drain tide gate is under consideration, alongside related work Woodlands Drain tide gate near the Recreation Centre. Minor improvements for Woodlands Avenue are being priced, however capacity in this area is very limited due to low ground levels. In addition, high groundwater levels mean soakage solutions may not be effective for the design storm events.

5.74.12 Motueka i-SITE: Support the continued operation of the Motueka i-SITE as a key asset for the district’s growing visitor economy. Request that Council maintain its annual contribution to preserve current service levels, staffing, and opening hours.

5.74.13 Staff advise that the annual contribution to the i-SITE has been allocated in the Annual Plan budget.

5.74.14 Wallace Street: Advocate for pedestrianisation of Wallace Street, from the High Street end to the Decks Reserve car park entrance, creating a plaza-style public space similar to Sundial Square in Richmond and upper Trafalgar Street in Nelson.

5.74.15 Staff consider that this proposal would best be contemplated as part of a town centre upgrade project, as requested above by the Board.

5.74.16 Rivers: Review flood protection measures for the Little Sydney stream including Factory Road, Swamp Road and Umukuri Road catchment extending from Brooklyn, also the Dehra Doon catchment and the Riuwaka River to better protect residents and productive land.

5.74.17 There is currently no flood protection level of service for the Little Sydney stream and associated drains around the Factory Road, Swamp Road, and Umukuri Road areas, other than the benefit received from the Lower Motueka and Riuwaka stopbank systems. However, a scheme-plan for this area has been prepared in the past (1972) and it is the intention of staff to revisit this plan and develop improvement options for this area.

5.74.18 Otuwhero and Marahau Rivers Catchments: There is no River Management Plan for the Marahau/Otuwhero catchments, which needs to be addressed. Coastal, inlet and land use (forestry) issues for the area similarly.

5.74.19 Council does not provide any river management level of service to the Otuwhero and Marahau Rivers; there is no River X or River Y rating area at these locations and Council provides no active river management service in unmanaged/River Z areas. However, staff have initiated a comprehensive review of the current river rating system, which will include an assessment of existing unrated areas like Otuwhero and Marahau, to see if the current system is fit for purpose and to provide greater clarity around river management levels of service. Our Catchments and Land Use team can work with landowners in these catchments to improve river and land management over time.

5.74.20 Memorial Park Reserve Management Plan: Request that this Reserve Management Plan be reviewed in the coming 2026-2027 year. The previous review for Memorial Park occurred in 1997 and is a high priority. The Motueka Ward Reserves Plan was reviewed in 2019 but the Memorial Park Reserve was not included.

5.74.21 Staff advise that the review of the Memorial Park Management Plan is scheduled to begin in 2027/2028, with no capacity to bring this work forward into the already committed 2026/2027 work programme.

5.75 Submitter 35571 provides a wide range of recommended actions for the Council to consider for 2026/2027, including requests marked as priority by the submitter. These matters are covered in the Motueka Community Board requests above.

Eighty Eight Valley Water Scheme

5.76 The Eighty Eight Valley Rural Water Supply Committee (35505) suggests a tiered rating system for users of this scheme, when the scheme joins the urban water club. This would be a departure from the rating for similar urban extensions. The submission argues that:

5.76.1 Rural users of the scheme have additional infrastructure costs not provided by the Council (e.g. tanks and pipework).

5.76.2 Existing users have sought to retain the rural stockwater scheme rather than become part of the urban reticulation but the Council has made other decisions.

5.76.3 Holders of larger numbers of units are required to use highly treated potable water for their stockwater and other non-potable rural needs.

5.76.4 Holders of larger numbers of units will likely relinquish some of their units because of cost increases.

5.76.5 Users have already paid for the existing reticulation (some through helping to install the scheme, unpaid in 1981) and installed internal reticulation on their farms and properties which require upgrades if their source of water is changed

5.77 During the 2027/2028 year the Eighty Eight Valley water scheme will be split into two parts:

5.77.1 Lower part – north of Totara View water tanks will effectively become an urban extension receiving treated water from the Wakefield urban supply.

5.77.2 Upper part – Parkes Stream to Totara View will effectively become stock water with staff investigating different models for its ongoing operation.

5.78 Staff consider that many of the arguments being advanced are valid and are concerned that applying the full urban extension charges will result in some (more) users leaving the scheme and the number of units others use being reduced. This in turn will increase the costs to those in the water club.

5.79 Staff support in general terms adopting a rating schedule based on percentages of the urban metered charge for the Eighty Eight Valley Scheme and seek an indication today from elected members about developing this further for consideration in the LTP 2027-2037.

5.80 The submission also raised potential resilience issues for the scheme and staff will investigate options to improve resilience of the supply from the existing Eighty Eight Valley intake, as part of the rationalisation of the Brightwater, Wakefield and Eighty Eight Vally schemes

5.81 Submitter 35468 opposes proposed changes to the 88 Valley Rural Water Supply Scheme, arguing they will significantly increase costs for users who only need untreated stock water and undermine the scheme’s original purpose. The submitter notes existing dissatisfaction with chlorination and price increases, and raises concern that proposed bulk charges could make some higher-allocation farms uneconomic if required to take fully treated water. They also suggest that the changes could reduce property values and requests that affected users be given the free option to leave the scheme or reduce allocation, along with Council subsidisation for any required on-farm infrastructure changes to separate stock and domestic supplies. The submitter further seeks longer-term planning, including consideration of ageing infrastructure and potential rezoning toward rural residential if potable supply reduces the viability of grazing, with early landowner involvement in planning.

5.82 Staff acknowledge concerns about potential cost increases for users, particularly those reliant on stock water, and note the issues raised regarding subsidies and equity. However, the scheme operates as a closed account, with all costs borne by its users. Accordingly, any changes required to meet current and future regulatory requirements, including drinking water standards, must be funded through the scheme.

5.83 The proposal to incorporate part of the scheme into the urban supply network is intended to spread costs across a wider user base. This is expected to improve resilience and support compliance, while reducing the extent of costs that would otherwise fall solely on existing scheme users. Staff also acknowledge the importance of long-term planning for the scheme, including asset condition and potential land use change. These matters will continue to be considered through ongoing planning processes

Other requests

5.84 Federated Farmers – Golden Bay and Nelson (35597) requests that the Council reviews the river management and river rating system to develop a more simple, transparent and effective system to fund and carry out crucial river work for the benefit of the whole community. Staff advise they are initiating a comprehensive rating review for rivers. Any changes would be informed by consultation with the community and likely implemented in phases over several years

5.85 Submitter 35340 requests that the Council maintains part of Tasman View Road and notes that residents have agreed to fund 50% of the cost of bringing this section of the road up to an acceptable standard.

5.86 The Council’s Policy for requests to maintain unmaintained roads states that maintenance will not be undertaken unless sufficient funding is available. It also provides that landowners may be required to meet upgrade costs where Council has not approved funding. Staff advise there is no available maintenance funding to support this request and no funding has been approved for an upgrade.

5.87 In addition to the upfront upgrade costs, this proposal would require increased current and future budgets to cover ongoing maintenance costs. While the individual cost increase may be relatively small, there is a risk that it could set a precedent. Staff advise there are approximately 15 similar requests covering around 34km of road), which could require around $100,000 per annum in additional maintenance funding. There may also be further latent demand if such requests are supported. Staff recommend declining the request to maintain part of Tasman View Road.

5.88 Submitter 35398 request that the Council proceeds with the stormwater improvements on Welsh Place, Richmond. Their home has been flooded twice due to insufficient stormwater drainage in the area and are concerned that it will happen again when there is significant rain. Staff advise that the design and consent for this work are complete and prices are currently being sought. Budget provision has been included in the Annual Plan and, subject to approval, the work is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.

5.89 Submitter 35558 requests that a flood bank is constructed upstream from SH60 Bridge on the north side of the Riuwaka River to contain the tributary and connect with the lower end of the existing flood bank. Residential properties and others in this area are sustaining serious damage almost annually and horticulture land is being restricted in use.

5.90 There is an existing flood bank on the north side of the Riuwaka River upstream of SH60, but it is in poor condition with deficiencies that need to be addressed. Staff are working directly with the submitter and other affected landowners on this matter. The short-term repairs will be undertaken within existing river maintenance budgets. Scoping for a more comprehensive refurbishment or upgrade of the Riuwaka stopbanks has commenced, with the aim of having a “shovel-ready” project for future government funding opportunities. No capital funding is proposed for this work in the Annual Plan 2026/2027, however it is expected to be considered as part of the LTP 2027-2037.

5.91 Staff advice regarding requests made by the Marahau Sandy Bay Residents Association (35591) and the Split Apple Rock Owners Association (35586) in their submissions will be tabled for this meeting.

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

6.1 The net outcome of the fuel costs increases, capital programme changes, and recommended changes in response to submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2026/2027 is a revised rates revenue increase (excluding growth) of 11.3% and net debt of $319.4m.

6.2 If the Council wants to retain the rates revenue increase it consulted on of 9.9% (excluding growth), its options are to plan additional forestry revenue of circa $1.0m, or debt fund more of our operational cost for 2026/2027. Both are relativity straightforward but will push us further from being financially sustainable and put more pressure on the rates increase required for following financial year (2027/2028).

6.3 Increasing net proceeds from forestry by $1.0m in 2026/2027 appears feasible although advice from PF Olsen will not be finalised when this report is circulated. Staff will update Council at the meeting. Note that any lift in revenue for 2026/2027 is only temporary and not sustainable into the future – it will reduce forestry income in future years.

6.4 This would leave a rates revenue increase of 10.5% (excluding growth). Staff recommend Council strike rates at this level to ensure we move closer to financial sustainability.

6.5 Alternatively, the Council could elect to further loan fund operations to keep the rates revenue increase at 9.9%.

6.6 Using additional forestry revenue or debt funding options to lower rates are relativity straightforward but will push us further from being financially sustainable and put more pressure on the rates increase required for later financial years, especially 2027/2028.

6.7 The table below summarises the impacts:

7. Options / Kōwhiringa

7.1 The main options available to the Council are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1	Accept all the recommended changes and increase forestry revenue and rates in 2026/2027 to help meet some of the additional fuel costs.	Retains the Council’s service levels. Reflects the cost to maintain current business operations. Enables the Annual Plan process to progress and strike rates by 1 July 2026. Responds to some requests for funding in submissions and other changes since the consultation was adopted. Maintains trajectory toward financial sustainability.	Results in a 10.5% rates revenue increase (excluding growth), a relatively high increase for our community to bear and higher than we consulted on.
2	Accept all the recommended changes and increase forestry revenue and debt in 2026/2027 to meet additional fuel costs.	Retains the Council’s service levels. Reflects the cost to maintain current business operations. Enables the Annual Plan process to progress and strike rates by 1 July 2026. Responds to some requests for funding in submissions and other changes since the consultation was adopted. More affordable in short term to the community.	Results in a 9.9% rates revenue increase (excluding growth), a relatively high increase for our community to bear. Council will increase borrowing to meet the cost of current business operations, pushing the organisational further away from financial sustainability in the short term.
3.	Accept some or none of the recommended changes.	Depends on changes rejected – could increase or decrease rates and net debt.	Depends on the changes rejected. May compromise Annual Plan timeline, risking striking the rates by 1 July 2026. This would have a very significant impact on the Council’s Finances for 2026/2027 as our system would require expensive and difficult changes to enable retrospective application of rates increases. This process would likely impact the Council’s reputation.

7.2 Option 1 is recommended. Note that there is not sufficient time before 1 July 2026 to undertake further consultation on any new proposals or on proposals that significantly and/or materially differ from the proposals that the Council has consulted on.

8. Legal / Ngā ture

Requirements for the Annual Plan

8.1 Under section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002 (‘the LGA’) the Council must prepare an Annual Plan for each financial year and consult in a way that meets the requirements of section 82 before adopting the Annual Plan.

8.2 The general presumption is that the Council will consult on its Annual Plan. This requirement does not apply if the Annual Plan does not include significant or material differences from the content of the LTP for the year in question.

8.3 At its meeting on 2 April 2026 the Council concluded that the changes it proposed in its Annual Plan 2026/2027 were material and that consultation should be carried out under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

8.4 Section 82(1) contains several principles for consultation that the Council is required to meet summarised below:

8.4.1 Interested or affected persons should be provided with reasonable access to relevant information in a form that is appropriate for their preferences.

8.4.2 Interested or affected persons should be encouraged to present their views.

8.4.3 Interested or affected persons should be given clear information about the purpose of the consultation and scope of decisions.

8.4.4 Persons invited or encouraged to present their views should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so in a manner and format that meets their preferences and needs

8.4.5 The views presented should be received by the Council with an open mind and should be given due consideration.

8.4.6 Persons who present views should be given access to a description of relevant decisions and explanatory material relating to the decisions

8.5 Section 82(3) provides discretion to the Council about how it observes these principles.

8.6 Section 97 of the LGA identifies specific decisions that can only be taken if provided for in an LTP, meaning that in this case an LTP amendment would have to be made. Decisions that alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by the Council can only be made through an LTP.

8.7 In this case, several of the proposed changes will have an impact on services but don’t affect levels of service that are formally stated in the LTP 2024-2034. At least some of these will be in significant activities but staff do not consider them to be significant changes and therefore do not trigger the need to amend the LTP.

Effect of not adopting an annual plan

8.8 To operate lawfully beyond 30 June 2026, the Council must adopt an annual plan. While year three of the Council’s LTP provides some mandate for the work and projects anticipated in year three to be completed, there will be no rates revenue to fund the activity.

8.9 The late adoption, after 30 June 2026, is a statutory breach. If the if the delay impacts the rate setting and assessment process, and particularly if it led to cashflow impacts, this would be of concern to the Auditor General and the Minster of Local Government.

8.10 Part 10 of the LGA sets out the powers of the Minister of Local Government to intervene in the affairs of local authorities in certain circumstances.

8.11 An ongoing failure to adopt the annual plan in the circumstances would undoubtedly constitute a “problem” for the purposes of section 256 of the LGA which could trigger Ministerial intervention.

8.12 Intervention would likely initially take the form of a request for information/explanation (section 257). If the failure continued, this could escalate into more intrusive interventions such as the appointment of a Crown review team (section 258) or Crown manager (section 258D).

8.13 There would also be serious reputational damage to the Council.

Requirements for setting a new rate

8.14 The Council has the authority to set a new targeted rate under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. Rates set by Council must relate to a financial year and be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the local authority’s long-term plan and funding impact statement for that financial year.

8.15 The proposed 2025 Weather Events Recovery Rate is not currently enabled by the existing Revenue and Financing Policy; the policy must be amended in accordance with section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002 and consulted on in accordance with section 82.

8.16 Section 102(4)(a) requires consultation before adopting or amending a Revenue & Financing Policy

8.17 Section 102(4)(b) allows a council to amend its Revenue & Financing Policy at any time, provided it consults in accordance with section 82 of the LGA before adopting the amendment

8.18 When deciding to introduce a new rate and amend the Revenue & Financing Policy, Council must comply with section 101(3) of the LGA.

8.19 Section 101 (3) (a) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires the Council to consider:

8.19.1 the community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes; and

8.19.2 the distribution of benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable part of the community, and individuals; and

8.19.3 the period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur; and

8.19.4 the extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and

8.19.5 the costs and benefits, including consequences for transparency and accountability, of funding the activity distinctly from other activities; and

8.20 Followed by Section 101(3)(b):

8.20.1 the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of the community.

8.21 An assessment of the options for the 2025 weather events rate including a consideration of these legal requirements was attached to report RCN26-03-14 at the Council meeting on 19 March 2026.

Effect of not setting the rates

8.22 As noted above, the Council cannot set rates without the annual plan being adopted.

8.23 Section 95(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that the purpose of an annual plan is to contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement (FIS) for the relevant financial year.

8.24 Section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 provides that rates must be set for each year in accordance with the relevant provisions of a council's long-term plan and FIS for that financial year (which is the annual plan FIS for the purposes of the 2026/2027 year).

8.25 This means that rates cannot be set for any financial year until the annual plan is adopted.

8.26 There is a mechanism in section 50 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for an interim one-off rate invoice calculated at up to 25% of the previous year’s rates. Staff advice is that this is complicated and very rarely used. The current financial system would make this option expensive to do and manage the ongoing consequences,

8.27 As noted above, failure to strike the rate would be a concern to the Auditor-General and Minister.

Requirements for fees and charges

8.28 The Council can set charges and fees:

8.28.1 under section 12 of the LGA, which is a global empowering provision that enables the Council to make decisions and undertake acts and activities in pursuit of its functions;

8.28.2 under section 150 of the LGA for certain functions provided for in bylaws or in enactments that do not already explicitly provide for fees to be charged;

8.28.3 and under other government legislation, for example, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Building Act 2004.

8.29 The Council is required to consult on most fees in a manner that meets the general requirements of section 82 of the LGA, which grants the Council flexibility in choosing the most effective way to engage with the community. However, the Council must consult on some charges using the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP) as set out in section 83 of the LGA. This includes Resource Consent fees (section 36(3) of the RMA 1991).

9. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

9.1 Iwi were notified of the consultation on the Annual Plan and changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges via email from the Council’s Kaihautū and offered the opportunity to provide feedback.

9.2 Submissions were received from five iwi – Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust (35452), Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (35455), Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rārua (35549), Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira (35553), Te Ātiawa o Te Waka‑a‑Māui (35598) – and strongly support progressing the Motueka Pool project.

9.3 Whakarewa - Ngāti Rārua Ātiawa Iwi Trust (35612) submit that whenua Māori be explicitly considered, rather than implicitly absorbed, as Tasman responds to increasing financial and climate pressures. The Trust support pausing the Tapawera Community Hub, Wakefield Hub and the Brightwater facilities, but recommend the Council continue with the Motueka Pool project.

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

10.1 At the Council meeting on 2 April 2026 (refer to RCN26-04-11), the Council determined that the decisions to be made in the Annual Plan, including the change to the rates revenue increase, were significant. In addition, the changes collectively were considered material. As a result, public consultation has been carried out with the submissions period between 2 April and 3 May 2026 to meet the requirements under the Local Government Act 2002.

10.2 At the same Council meeting, the Council determined that the changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges had a low/medium level of significance to most members of the public, while some charges may have a high level of significance to others, for example, those residents on fixed incomes and who use services that the Council charges for. The Council decided to carry out a special consultative procedure on the draft schedule of fees and charges.

10.3 Managers across the organisation were encouraged to communicate any of the changes in their area of activity included in the Annual Plan consultation document with parties affected or interested.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	There are multiple changes proposed in the Annual Plan relating to different topics; it is likely that one or more of them will be of higher public interest to a reasonable proportion of the community, particularly the proposed 2025 Weather Event Recovery Rate. The rates revenue increase level is also likely to be of high public interest, particularly those receiving Three Waters services.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	There are multiple changes in the Annual Plan that could have a range of wellbeing impacts; in general the scale of the changes are not considered likely to have high impact on wellbeing.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Medium	For most of the changes proposed in the Annual Plan the Council could choose to reverse them at any point. There are a minority of changes that once implemented, reversing them would be very difficult e.g. a one-off increase in forestry income. The proposed 2025 Weather Event Recovery Rate is a five year commitment.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Low	A number of the proposed changes impact strategic assets, but there is no proposal to change the control or ownership of these assets.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Low	The changes have minor or negligible impacts on current levels of service.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	High	The changes are intended to reduce the rates revenue requirement by several percent for the 2026/2027 year.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No	This decision does not have any impact on a CCO or CCTO.
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No	This decision does not involve a private sector partnership or contract.
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No	This decision does not involve the Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities.
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No	This decision does not require consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW).

11. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

11.1 The Annual Plan consultation was publicised in Newsline, newspaper advertising, Shape Tasman and through social media.

11.2 The Council’s decisions on the Annual Plan 2026/2027 will be communicated through the media, Newsline, Shape Tasman and through social media.

11.3 Once the Annual Plan has been adopted, staff will write to the submitters to inform them of the decision made.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 As noted in the 2 April 2026 report to adopt the Annual Plan consultation document, carrying out a 35-day consultation period and providing for submitters to be heard at the submissions hearing meeting helps moderate the legal risk that the Council’s decisions on the Annual Plan will be challenged through a judicial review.

12.2 There remains potential reputational risk if the Council decides to pause the Tapawera Community Hub project and defer it to LTP discussions. The two options considered by the Council – to either continue the project as planned, or to pause and defer the project – were presented in the Annual Plan consultation document, enabling people to share their views for elected members to consider and deliberate at this meeting.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The overall impact on climate resilience and adaptation of the decisions regarding proposed budgets for 2026/2027 will be minimal.

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

14.1 The Council is attempting to deliver on its vision Thriving and Resilient Tasman and the strategic priorities in the LTP 2024-2034, whilst avoiding the cost of rates being unaffordable.

14.2 The Council has considered some changes to help reduce the burden on ratepayers. Some of these are not proposed for inclusion in the Annual Plan because of the perceived substantial impact they will have on this vision and strategic priorities.

14.3 The introduction of a rate to fund the costs of the 2025 weather events is consistent with the Council’s current Financial Strategy and approach to unplanned events. Setting a new targeted rate requires an amendment to the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy and Financial Impact Statement.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Council has had to confront considerable cost increases in the development of the Annual Plan 2026/2027. A range of changes and initiatives have been identified to provide some savings, but these have not been enough to offset the cost increases. As a result, the rates revenue requirement and debt for 2026/2027 is higher than planned in the LTP.

15.2 To keep the Annual Plan process progressing in time to strike rates by 30 June 2026, Council adopted an Annual Plan consultation document and carried out consultation between 2 April and 3 May 2026. 367 submissions were received and X submitters heard at the Submissions Hearing meeting on 14 May 2026.

15.3 This report enables the Council to consider those submissions and seeks decisions on what to include in its Annual Plan 2026/2027.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 The final Annual Plan 2026/2027 is to be adopted on 25 June 2026.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Annual Plan 2026/2027 Capital Programme	380
2.⇩	Overview of submissions from the Annual Plan 2026/2027 consultation	389
3.⇩	Dog Control Fees 2026/2027	399

Mayor	Mayor T King
Deputy Mayor	Deputy Mayor B Maru
Councillors	Councillor C Butler
	Councillor J Ellis	Councillor K Maling
	Councillor K Ferneyhough	Councillor D McNamara
	Councillor M Greening	Councillor P Morgan
	Councillor J Gully	Councillor T Neubauer
	Councillor M Hume	Councillor T Walker
	Councillor M Kininmonth	Councillor D Woods