Agenda of Environment and Regulatory Committee

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7 Reports

7.1 Group Manager - Environmental Assurance Report

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Authorisers:	Steve Manners, Chief Operating Officer; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RRC24-07-1

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 To update the Environment and Regulatory Committee on environmental and regulatory activity since the last Committee meeting on 6 June 2024.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Group Manager - Environmental Assurance Report RRC24-07-1; and

2. retrospectively approves the Tasman District Council submission to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

3. retrospectively approves the Tasman District Council submission to the Inquiry into the Climate Adaptation Framework in Attachment 2 to the agenda report.

3. Government’s latest 100-day plan

Government’s latest 100-day plan

3.1 At the beginning of July, the Government announced 40 actions to be completed in the following 100 days (by 30 September). A number of those actions have direct implications for Council, including:

3.1.1 Pass the second Local Water Well Done Bill requiring councils to deliver plans for financially sustainable water services, replacing the Three Waters regime

3.1.2 Take Cabinet decisions on a framework for city and regional deals

3.1.3 Sign the new speed limit rule to reverse the previous Government’s blanket speed limit reductions

3.1.4 Take Cabinet decisions on legislation to support time-of-use charging to reduce congestion

3.1.5 Introduce legislation to eliminate barriers to overseas building products being used in New Zealand

3.1.6 Release the draft of the second Emissions Reduction Plan

3.1.7 Take Cabinet decisions to establish a new National Infrastructure Agency

3.1.8 Take Cabinet decisions on the scope of RMA and National Direction amendments to unlock development in infrastructure, housing, and primary industries and drive a more efficient and effective resource management system

3.1.9 Take Cabinet decisions on a work programme to replace the RMA with a system premised on the enjoyment of property rights

3.1.10 Take Cabinet decisions on the final design of the Government’s one stop shop consenting and permitting scheme, incorporating sensible changes suggested through the select committee process

3.1.11 Pass the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill into law to provide certainty to New Zealand’s aquaculture industry

3.1.12 Open the $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund for applications to help reduce New Zealand’s longstanding infrastructure deficit

3.1.13 Take Cabinet decisions on new regulations to remove the GE ban and enable the safe use of gene technology in agriculture, health, science and other sectors

3.1.14 Gazette amendments to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land to specified infrastructure and farming activities on highly productive land

3.1.15 Take Cabinet decisions to amend requirements for farmers in certain areas to have certified Freshwater Farm Plans

Responding to Government proposals

3.2 The Group Manager report for the last Committee meeting set out several active Government processes, some of which required Council responses:

3.2.1 It was noted that the Council had approved a submission to the Fast-track Approvals Bill and the Select Committee had an extended period for hearing submissions. It is apparent from the latest 100-day plan that this initiative is now being referred to as a “one stop shop consenting and permitting scheme”. There is some suggestion from Ministers that there will be substantial changes to the Bill. Of note is that a request for the full list of applicants that applied for scheduling in the Fast-track Approvals Bill has been declined by the Ministry for the Environment.

3.2.2 Council prepared a submission for the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, sent to the Environment Committee on 30 June. It was informed by a submission prepared by Te Uru Kahika, for which the Council’s submission provided support. Retrospective approval of the Council’s submission is sought by this committee. The submission is appended as Attachment 1.

3.2.3 A Council submission to the inquiry into climate adaptation was sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 14 June. This submission built on a previous submission to the Environment and Regulatory Committee, and was informed by submissions from both Te Uru Kahika and Taituarā – both of which were supported by the Council. Retrospective approval of the Council’s submission is sought by this committee. The submission is appended as Attachment 2.

3.2.4 At the last committee meeting of 6 June, a presentation was given by national and regional leaders of the aquaculture sector. As part of that, the significance of Wainui Bay spat catching sites to the national industry was emphasised. The Council did not provide a submission to the Resource Management (extended duration of coastal permits for marine farms) Bill, on the basis that the submission from Te Uru Kahika covered off the higher-level issues that arise under the Bill and Council had previously responded to the Ministry of Primary Industries when the proposal was first floated.

3.2.5 The Te Uru Kahika submission was heard by the Primary Production Select Committee and delivered by our Mayor Tim King, the Regional Sector lead in this area. Prior to appearing before the Committee, our Mayor was briefed on the Bill by Council Staff.

3.2.6 The deadline for submissions to the Government’s proposed Minerals Strategy 2040 is 31 July. Policy staff have received direction from Council to prepare a submission on the strategy.

Recent Government Initiatives – 1) Minor Residential Units (Granny flats)

3.3 The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is seeking feedback on options to make it easier to build small, self-contained and detached houses, commonly known as ‘granny flats’ on properties with an existing home one it. The consultation document associated with this proposal is available and within it the term ‘Minor Residential Units’ (MRU) is used to describe the buildings that are being considered under the proposal. The proposal is appended as Attachment 3.

3.4 Changes are proposed to both the Building Act 2004 and the Resource Management Act 1991, and will likely comprise:

3.4.1 A new schedule in the Building Act to provide an exemption to building consent requirements (but subject to compliance with additional criteria).

3.4.2 New National Environmental Standards (‘NES’) under the RMA that will make MRUs a permitted activity, provided standard requirements are met.

3.5 The policy intention is to support a range of people and circumstances, from young people through to seniors, by providing a more affordable housing choice. The proposals are likely to apply to small (60m2 or less), detached, self-contained residences on-site and the two will be held in common ownership. However, feedback is sought on whether the proposals should also apply to accessory buildings, extensions and attached ‘granny flats’ as well.

3.6 One of the key aims of the proposal is to provide consistency across the country by requiring all councils to permit MRUs without the need for a resource consent, while being subject to the same standards.

3.7 The Regulations and Bylaws Reference Group (RBRG) and Resource Management Reform Reference Group (RMRRG) associated with Taituarā have prepared a draft submission on this proposal and are inviting feedback from Council staff.

3.8 A workshop has been arranged for 25 July to discuss this proposal, and to provide follow up on a previous workshop that considered making changes to the Tasman Resource Management Plan to address related matters. Following the workshop, staff will be able to provide feedback to Taituarā and prepare a submission on behalf of the Council.

Recent Government initiatives – 2) remote inspections

3.9 The Government is progressing a requirement for building consent authorities to use remote inspections as the default approach to conducting building inspections. This change is part of a strategy to make building new homes cheaper and faster.

3.10 The Building Assurance team have been considering remote inspections for some time. Now that Objective BUILD (referred to later in this report) is live, staff will be able to incorporate remote inspection capability into current systems.

3.11 Remote inspections are seen by staff as a good option for remote sites in particular. The main issue has been with connectivity in those areas. In terms of moving to remote inspections as the default, staff’s preliminary view is that for certain inspection types this may not be an option, and some level of in-person inspections will still be required.

3.12 The Government has signalled it will release a discussion document outlining further details of their proposal in the third quarter of this year. This will allow feedback from Councils and the construction sector.

Recent Government initiatives – 3) Going for Housing Growth

3.13 Housing Minister Chris Bishop has unveiled the Government’s plan to “flood the market” with land development in a bid to end New Zealand’s housing crisis. The intent is to make it easier and cheaper to develop land into housing.

3.14 Going for Housing Growth is the first of five interlocking actions in the Government housing agenda. It is structured around three pillars to address housing supply shortages: Freeing up land for urban development and removing unnecessary planning barriers; Improving infrastructure funding and finance to support urban growth; and providing incentives for communities and councils to support growth.

3.15 The system changes required to achieve this will be implemented through amendments to the Resource Management Act and to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Consultation is planned for early 2025, and changes are expected to be in place by mid-2025.

3.16 Based on the available information, the decision on the first pillar has some key policy changes, including requiring:

3.16.1 Zoning for 30 years of feasible housing capacity based on high population growth projections.

3.16.2 Mixed-use development within our urban areas.

3.16.3 Planning for 50 years of growth.

3.16.4 Housing and business capacity assessments and underpinning data to be provided to central government.

4. Maritime Matters

Bylaws and legislation

4.1 The agenda for this meeting includes consideration of a number of draft bylaws. However, a draft Navigation Safety Bylaw first needs to be scrutinised by Maritime NZ and maritime legal experts before being considered by Council. Allowing for this means that it will be on a different timeframe than the wider package of Bylaws. It is anticipated that the draft Navigation Safety Bylaw will be ready for Council review in August.

Incidents and accidents

4.2 The Harbourmaster, along with staff from Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) recently attended a boat fire on a mooring at Māpua. The boat was destroyed, but the person living aboard escaped unharmed. Thankfully there was no fuel onboard the vessel and a combination of staff and contractors were able to clean up the wreckage.

4.3 While this was a successful outcome, staff consider there was some scope for improvement identified with the fire response. The Harbourmaster is following up with FENZ to assess relative responsibilities for vessel fires.

4.4 The channel into Port Motueka lost three navigation safety aids during a recent weather event. The aids were repositioned within three days. This has become somewhat of a recurring problem, but the close proximity of the Harbourmaster office means that we are well-positioned to respond when the weather settles.

5. Building Matters

Objective BUILD

5.1 On 8 July, the Building Assurance Section went live with Objective BUILD (a new online application platform), an upgrade from AlphaOne. This is expected to improve consistency, transparency, quality and efficiency. It has several new features including updated status tracking, organisation management, template applications and more.

MBIE Levy Changes

5.2 As of 1 July, the threshold has changed for the MBIE levy. This will now apply to building consents which have an estimated value of work over $65,000. Consents under the threshold will not incur the levy. The previous threshold was $20,444.

5.3 The levy is paid by the building owners or developers, once Building Consent is granted. Revenue collected is used to fund a range of MBIE functions and activities under the Building Act 2004. This includes policy, technical rules and guidance, operational policy advice and service design, information and education, service delivery (compliance and enforcement) monitoring and reporting.

6. Regulatory Matters

Matters before the Court

6.1 The Group Manager Report for the 6 June Committee meeting set out the matters that are currently going through the court process. Progress has been made with the three matters that are the subject of prosecution:

6.2 Discharge of contaminants from a rural industrial activity at Brightwater:

6.2.1 Guilty pleas have been entered to all charges against the company and the directors. An agreed summary of facts is being prepared for sentencing.

6.3 Indigenous forest clearance near Murchison:

6.3.1 Guilty pleas have been entered for all charges against the company and landowner. Sentencing is set down for 16 July 2024.

6.4 Unauthorised café in Collingwood

6.4.1 The sentencing decision has been released. The owner of the café has been ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within a 12-month period. This means that if there is re-offending within this time and is charged, then the owner may be re-sentenced on the same charges.

7. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Submission on RMA Amendments Bill	10
2.⇩	Submission on Climate Adaptation Framework	18
3.⇩	Consultation Document - MRUs	37

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.2 Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor; Kim Arnold, Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor; Mike Schruer, Waters and Wastes Manager
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RRC24-07-2

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Council to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Public Water Supply Bylaw (Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 The current Water Public Water Supply Bylaw is due to expire in October 2026. Recent there have been changes to the legalisation affecting the water supply service and staff believe that a review of the bylaw to align with the new legislation is required. This Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw has been revised to align with the legislation.

2.2 Staff seek the Environment and Regulatory Committee’s approval to consult on the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw.

2.3 The bylaw will enable the Council to:

· manage and provide public water supply services;

· protect the public water supply network from damage, misuse, and interference;

· protect the environment and the health and safety of the public and persons using the public water supply; and

· provide direction and guidance on water restrictions.

2.4 Changes include a new section regarding bulk water supply station regulations, clarification of definitions, updates to reflect changes in legislation, and clarification around customer responsibility for ensuring sufficient water storage.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw Report RRC24-07-2; and

2. notes that the Public Water Supply Bylaw has been reviewed in accordance with Section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. in accordance with Section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:

a. agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw to manage the public water supply; and

b. notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

4. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw as per Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

5. delegates authority to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to make any amendments to the Draft Bylaw, Statement of Proposal, or Summary of Information that may be agreed to at the Council meeting, and make any minor changes; and

6. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

Councillor _____________ (Chair)

Councillor_____________

Councillor _____________

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The current bylaw is due for review by October 2026. Staff have brought this timeline forward to make the identified necessary changes as listed below:

4.1.1 alignment with the recent legislative changes relating to public water supply, including the Water Services Act 2021 and Drinking Water Quality Assurance Rules;

4.1.2 alignment with the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual (NTLDM);

4.1.3 clarification around backflow prevention device installation and testing requirements;

4.1.4 clarification of who can access and work on public water networks and take water from hydrants; and

4.1.5 further clarification of restricted connections.

4.2 The current bylaw has been reviewed in accordance with Section 160 of the Local Government Act. Consultation plans are aligned with the requirements set out in Section 156 of the Act.

4.3 The Water Services Act and other regulations alone do not give sufficient detail and associated powers for council to manage and enforce compliance in its responsibility in delivering safe drinking water to all users. Therefore a bylaw is the most appropriate mechanism for managing the public water supply.

4.4 Preliminary suggestions for changes to content and rationale were informally discussed with Councillors in October 2023, and again in May 2024 alongside a first draft of the revised bylaw.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 The Council can make water bylaws under section 146 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). A bylaw will provide the Council the regulatory authority to exercise control over the management and regulation of its water supply networks to:

5.1.1 regulate how customers connect to and use the water supply systems; and

5.1.2 prescribe a fair means to recover costs for certain activities.

5.2 The bylaw can contain details of the requirements for connecting to the public water supply network, ensuring consistency and safety, as well as specific guidelines on the permissible use of water, including restrictions during droughts or emergencies.

5.3 Backflow prevention is crucial to prevent contamination of the public water supply and including mechanisms within the bylaw to control and prevent contamination is a key measure to protect the environment and public health and safety.

5.4 The bylaw provides for clear delineation of maintenance duties for both the Council and customers, ensuring the system remains functional and safe.

5.5 The bylaw is intended to reinforce policies promoting efficient water use and conservation practices among customers.

5.6 The bylaw provides mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the bylaw through fines or other enforcement actions and provides guidelines to protect water supply infrastructure from damage or unauthorised access.

5.7 The bylaw provides a means to ensure the water supply meets health and safety regulations, safeguarding public health.

5.8 The process for addressing customer complaints and resolving disputes related to water supply issues is also covered by the bylaw.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	Control over the public water supply network is secured, which is essential for effectively managing the water supply networks, protecting public health and the environment.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer).	Changes to fundamental principles would require legal review to confirm the legality of changes.
3.	The Council does not approve the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.		Control over the public water supply networks is not secured beyond 2026, which creates risk and uncertainty for effectively managing the networks, protecting public health and the environment.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 146 of the LGA allows the Council to make a bylaw to manage, regulate, protect from damage, misuse or loss any infrastructure associated with water supply.

7.2 The current Public Water Supply Bylaw has been reviewed in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 160 of the Local Government Act 2002.

7.3 Section 155(1) of the LGA requires the Council to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing a perceived problem and Section 155(2) requires the Council to determine whether the proposed bylaw:

7.3.1 is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

7.3.2 gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

7.4 Staff consider a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. The perceived problem is that the Water Services Act and other regulations alone do not give sufficient detail and associated powers for council to manage and enforce compliance in its responsibility in delivering safe drinking water to all users. The bylaw provides certainty regarding the Council’s authority to manage, regulate and protect the public water supply network and how customers use it to ensure the system, environment and public health are protected. A bylaw allows the Council to comprehensively outline its public water supply requirements and conditions including:

7.4.1 Water Usage Regulations: Specific guidelines on the permissible use of water, including restrictions during droughts or emergencies.

7.4.2 Connection Standards: Detailed requirements for connecting to the public water supply network, ensuring consistency and safety.

7.4.3 Backflow Prevention: Measures to prevent contamination of the public water supply through backflow incidents.

7.4.4 Maintenance Responsibilities: Clear delineation of maintenance duties for both the Council and customers, ensuring the system remains functional and safe.

7.4.5 Water Conservation Measures: Policies promoting efficient water use and conservation practices among customers.

7.4.6 Penalties and Enforcement: Provisions for penalising violations of the bylaw, ensuring compliance through fines or other enforcement actions.

7.4.7 Infrastructure Protection: Guidelines to protect water supply infrastructure from damage or unauthorised access.

7.4.8 Public Health Safeguards: Standards to ensure the water supply meets health and safety regulations, safeguarding public health.

7.4.9 Complaint and Dispute Resolution: Procedures for addressing customer complaints and resolving disputes related to water supply issues.

7.5 The draft bylaw also meets the following tests:

7.5.1 the bylaw is not repugnant to the general laws of New Zealand;

7.5.2 the bylaw provides certainty and clear direction;

7.5.3 the bylaw is reasonable; and

7.5.4 the bylaw is not overly restrictive, onerous on any person, or impracticable.

7.6 The use of a Public Water Supply Bylaw to manage networks in this way is common across local government.

7.7 Some elements of the bylaw could be adopted in other ways, for example, through various plans, policies, guidelines, or standards. However, the bylaw is considered to provide a more comprehensive set of requirements and certainty regarding the Council’s authority to set or enforce such requirements, minimising the risk of litigation for the Council.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have been notified about the bylaw review through Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission during the consultation period. Iwi, who have indicated that they would like to be involved, will be sent a further email along with other stakeholders to invite them to make a submission.

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

9.1 Staff consider the overall level of significance for the draft bylaw to be of low to moderate interest for the general public. While the public water supply is a critical service, most residents expect regulations to ensure its safety and reliability. The draft bylaw may have a higher level of significance for stakeholders such as industrial water users and bulk water suppliers.

9.2 It is planned to undertake a special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 and as required by Section 156 of the Local Government Act.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Low - Moderate	While the public water supply is a critical service, most residents expect regulations to ensure its safety and reliability.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Low	The bylaw directly affects various aspects of community wellbeing, including public health (social), resource management (environmental), water-related costs (economic), and potentially cultural practices involving water use. However, the changes proposed as opposed to the status quo are not likely to have significant impacts on these aspects of wellbeing.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	The effects of the bylaw will be long-term, influencing how the water supply is managed and protected for the next 10 years. However, the proposed changes will have little bearing on most residents’ day to day life.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	High	The public water supply network is a strategic asset crucial to the community's daily functioning and overall health. Decisions regarding its regulation and management are inherently significant due to their strategic importance.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Nil	The bylaw provides for the continuation of the current process of water supply management and regulation that is currently in practice.
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Nil
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Nil
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?	Nil
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Nil
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?	High	The bylaw must align with Te Mana O Te Wai principles, ensuring the health and wellbeing of freshwater ecosystems are prioritised. Additionally, it needs to comply with current legislation governing water supply, wastewater, and stormwater, making it essential to consider these obligations thoroughly to ensure legal compliance and uphold environmental stewardship.

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the terms of the bylaw have been identified and will receive an email notifying them of the consultation and encouraging them to make a submission.

10.2 The public will be notified about the consultation through Newsline. This will include a brief article outlining the key issues and instructions on how to make a submission.

10.3 The statement of proposal (including the draft bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council offices as libraries throughout the consultation period.

10.4 Background information and a link to the submissions portal will be available through Shape Tasman.

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

11.1 This draft bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council.

11.2 The schedule of fees and charges associated with managing the bylaw are set down and approved annually, during the Annual Plan process, separately to the bylaw.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Not making the necessary changes to the bylaw carries a moderate level of risk. Misalignment with new legislation can cause confusion and inefficiencies in the implementation and enforcement of water supply policies, disrupting service delivery.

12.2 The bylaw provides clarity and guidance for those using water from or connected to Council’s water supply networks, and the bylaw provides staff an approved framework for the decision-making process approving connections of properties to the public water supply network.

12.3 It is considered that there is likely to be a low level of general community interest in the draft bylaw or the proposed updates, and also that there are a limited number of affected parties that are impacted by the updates to the bylaw.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft bylaw is unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft bylaw neither contradicts or detracts from the Council and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 The bylaw has been revised to align with updated legislation from central government and the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual, and is intended to generally align with the Nelson City Council Water Supply Bylaw.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The current Public Water Supply Bylaw expires in October 2026, however the bylaw now does not align with recent changes in legislation, so it needs to be reviewed.

15.2 Staff consider this draft bylaw continues to be the most effective method for managing the public water supply service delivery. The bylaw provides a comprehensive set of requirements and certainty regarding the Council’s authority to set or enforce such requirements. This reduces the risk of contamination affecting the health and wellbeing of users.

15.3 The proposed draft bylaw replaces the existing bylaw and provides for the continuation of the current process of water supply regulation in practice.

15.4 The proposed draft bylaw will undergo a period of public consultation prior to final approval and adoption by the Council.

15.5 Staff recommend that the Council approves the adoption of the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw, along with the Summary of Information, for public consultation.

15.6 Following adoption, the bylaw is next scheduled to be reviewed within ten years.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Date	Process
18 July 2024	The Council adopts the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw, and the Summary of Information for consultation.
26 July – 27 August 2024	Formal Consultation.
23 – 25 September 2024	Hearings.
16 October 2024	Deliberations.
29 November 2024	Final Public Water Supply Bylaw presented to the Council meeting for approval and adoption.
13 December 2024	Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s website advising that the bylaw has been adopted.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal including Draft Public Water Supply Bylaw	75
2.⇩	Summary of Information - Public Water Supply Bylaw	112

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.3 Draft Cat Management Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor; Guinevere Coleman, Team Leader Biosecurity & Biodiversity
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Rob Smith, Environmental Information Manager
Report Number:	RRC24-07-3

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Council to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw (Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff seek the Environment and Regulatory Committee’s approval to consult on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Attachment 1). This bylaw would set out requirements for the keeping of companion cats in the Tasman District.

2.2 The draft bylaw requires all companion cats over the age of six months to be:

2.2.1 microchipped;

2.2.2 registered on the New Zealand Companion Animal Register; and

2.2.3 de-sexed.

2.3 The draft bylaw allows for a vet to exempt a cat from procedures that would be detrimental to a cat’s health and welfare.

2.4 The draft bylaw includes a transition period for existing cats, which would expire in June 2027.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Draft Cat Management Bylaw Report RRC24-07-3; and

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

a. agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw for cat management; and

b. notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

4. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw; and

6. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

Councillor _____________ (Chair)

Councillor_____________

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 During the development of the now operative Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (RPMP), the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee received several submissions seeking more responsibility around cat management (e.g., domestic, stray/unowned, and feral cats) within the Tasman-Nelson areas.

4.2 The Joint Regional Pest Management Committee agreed that there was a case for intervention, however resolved that management of domestic and unowned cats was outside the provisions of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and could be better achieved through a bylaw type approach, like that adopted by Wellington City Council. Their bylaw has been operative for over three years (from February 2018) and involves a requirement for all cats over 12 weeks old to be microchipped. It is the best way to differentiate between owned cats and other cats. Other approaches may also be appropriate.

4.3 The Council considered information outlining the issues and a range of options to address cat management at a workshop on 4 August 2020. The information summarised:

4.3.1 cat impacts (beneficial and negative);

4.3.2 RPMP submissions received and recommendations made;

4.3.3 the National Cat Management Strategy;

4.3.4 what is happening in the region, noting distinctions between Nelson (mainly city environs) and Tasman (mainly rural environs) regarding approaches;

4.3.5 what other councils have done regarding cat management;

4.3.6 relevant overseas cat management (e.g., European, Australian experiences); and

4.3.7 advocating for national laws requiring cat management, noting that in 2018 Local Government New Zealand resolved to promote the development of national cat control laws.

4.3.8 Main options for addressing the issues including:

1. do nothing;

2. develop a bylaw similar to Wellington City Council;

3. include non-regulatory advocacy programmes; and

4. integrate a mix of all the above options.

4.4 At the Regulatory Committee meeting on 26 November 2020, Councillors directed staff to contact Local Government New Zealand for an update on the National Cat Management Strategy and associated national cat legislation and to commence development of a Cat Management Bylaw under the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

4.5 Local Government New Zealand advised that there has been no progress with the National Cat Management Strategy which was still in draft form at the time and that they had been unable to get interest from the Government to promulgate national cat legislation.

4.6 In 2021 the Ministry for Primary Industries revised the “Code of Welfare: Companion Cats” (May 2021) which is issued under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and places fundamental obligations related to the care of animals by setting minimum standards and recommending best practice in the care and management of animals.

4.7 The Code of Welfare: Companion Cats largely deals with minimum requirement for housing, feeding and caring for cats at all stages of their life but also includes Part 8 (Methods of Identification) where it states:

4.8 “It is strongly recommended that cats are able to be accurately identified in case of loss, or being held in boarding accommodation. Cats are likely to spend some of their time outside of their owner’s legal property boundary. For the purposes of control, it is necessary to be able to identify whether a cat has an owner or not. Methods of identification include the wearing of a collar and tag, tattooing or microchipping” and recommended best practice is that …a) Cats should be identified with a microchip”.

4.9 Staff drafted a Cat Management Bylaw which was brought to the Environment and Regulatory Committee to seek adoption for consultation on 2 December 2021. This draft bylaw proposed microchipping, registration, and a prohibition on feeding cats in public places. The Committee voted against adopting for consultation at that time.

4.10 On 16 March 2023 the Environment and Regulatory Committee resolved that a report on feral cat management be prepared for a future Committee meeting. Concurrently, the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee resolved to amend their Terms of Reference to include consideration of management of feral cats.

4.11 A report on the options for cat management in Tasman was presented to the Environment and Regulatory Committee on 15 June 2023. This report presented options for cat management under both the Biosecurity Act 1993 in the form of rules in the Regional Pest Management Plan, and under the LGA in the form of a bylaw. This report was supported by local veterinarians and SPCA representatives who spoke in support of a bylaw option. The Committee resolved to include feral cats in the scope of the RPMP joint committee terms of reference, and to have a bylaw option presented to a Full Council meeting.

4.12 Early engagement for the cat management bylaw was carried out in November/December 2023. Options included mandatory microchipping, registration and de-sexing. The results of this early engagement was very supportive of all three options and staff drafted a Draft Cat Management Bylaw in response.

4.13 The Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan partial review is concurrently considering changes to feral cat regulations to include site-led rules in Abel Tasman and St Arnaud. These proposed changes went to public consultation in February 2024. The joint committee is due to deliberate on these changes on 11 July 2024.

4.14 A workshop held with Councillors on 21 May 2024 covered the draft Cat Management Bylaw and sought support for moving to public consultation. A majority of Councillors present showed support.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Early Engagement

5.1 Early engagement was carried out in November/December 2023, using the Shape Tasman platform. This was advertised through Newsline and social media.

5.2 Stakeholders such as local vets, the SPCA and federated farmers were notified about the early engagement by email and invited to participate.

5.3 Early engagement results were circulated to Councillors and put on Shape Tasman for the community. Early engagement results were also revisited along with the first draft of the bylaw in a Council workshop in May. The results were largely supportive of the introduction of a cat management bylaw, with the inclusion of de-sexing as a requirement.

Bylaw Content

Microchipping and Registration

5.4 Microchipping is considered best practice by the Ministry for Primary Industries and is a practice advocated for the New Zealand Veterinary Association and SPCA. A cat with a registered microchip can be much more easily identified and returned to their owner when lost or injured. The presence of a microchip is also a useful indicator in identifying whether a cat is someone’s pet or stray/feral.

5.5 During early engagement 86.13% of respondents supported a requirement to microchip, while 67.78% supported a requirement to register. Based on some of the free text feedback received, it is likely that the support for registration was lower due to a lack of understanding of what this would entail. Some concerns raised were that it was a ‘money grab’ from the Council and that the fees would be increasing and ongoing. Others expressed confusion over what the benefits might be.

5.6 A microchip can only be used to identify an owner at the vet the cat is registered with. However, when the microchip is on the National Companion Animal Register the cat can be identified by any vet or an approved agent such as an SPCA branch. It is a common misconception that microchipping also provides this benefit. Registration is a one-off $15 fee which contributes to the ongoing operational cost of the National Companion Animal Register.

5.7 Microchipping and registration are complimentary measures and have both been included in the draft bylaw.

De-sexing

5.8 While only microchipping and registration were proposed in the early engagement phase, we received significant feedback in support of also adopting a requirement to de-sex in the bylaw (89.03%).

5.9 De-sexing helps address problems with cat over population and unwanted kittens who may end up stray, feral, or living in a colony. De-sexed cats are also less likely to roam in search of a mate. While roaming cats are at higher risk of causing nuisance or health and safety issues such as fighting or potentially spreading toxoplasmosis through faecal matter.

5.10 Staff support what has been advocated for in public feedback and seek inclusion of de-sexing in the Cat Management Bylaw.

5.11 The draft bylaw allows for a vet to exempt a cat from procedures that would be detrimental to a cat’s health and welfare.

5.12 The draft bylaw includes a transition period for existing cats, which would expire in June 2027.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	Councillors gain further public feedback through the consultation phase. Responsible cat ownership is promoted.	The Council would be relying on external agencies to assist with implementation.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer).	Changes to fundamental principles would require legal review to confirm legality of changes.
3.	The Council does not approve the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.		The work leading up to this point would become an inefficient use of staff time. A decision to not proceed would also go against the majority of the submissions who were strongly in support of the bylaw.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 145 of the LGA allows bylaws to be created to:

a) protect the public from nuisance;

b) protect, promote, and maintain public health and safety; and

c) minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

7.2 Section 146 of the LGA allows the Council to make a bylaw to regulate the keeping of animals. Biosecurity and biodiversity matters are not normally managed via the LGA bylaw process but there may be a collateral benefit.

7.3.1 is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

7.3.2 gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

7.4 Staff consider a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. The Council has considered various alternatives to creating a bylaw, such as education campaigns, the funding of third parties and utilising a policy instead. The bylaw provides a clear framework that addresses the issues that cats who are not microchipped, registered or de-sexed may cause. The presence of the bylaw will support vets in their good ownership conversations and will align with the practice of several other councils.

7.5 Cats caught in trapping programmes could be quickly identified as being owned and returned to owners, reducing the risk of owned cats being mis-identified as feral or unowned.

7.6 The bylaw is clear and specific about the requirements for cat owners, including microchipping, registration, and de-sexing. This clarity ensures that cat owners understand their obligations.

7.7 The draft bylaw has been prepared with input from various stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and the general public, ensuring it reflects the community's needs and concerns.

7.8 There are no implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Draft Cat Management Bylaw does not place any limits on freedom of movement, expression or association, and does not isolate any particular social group in terms of the Act. The requirements for microchipping, registration, and de-sexing are reasonable and justifiable measures to address the identified problems related to cat management in the Tasman District.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have been notified about the bylaw review through the Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission during the consultation period. Iwi who have indicated that they would like to be involved will be sent a further email along with other stakeholders to invite them to make a submission.

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

9.1 For a matter of wide public interest such as cat management, staff consider this a high level of significance. A special consultative procedure is planned.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The proposed bylaw attracted significant public attention during the early engagement stage. Most early engagement feedback was supportive of the introduction of a Cat Management Bylaw.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	The proposed bylaw will impact current and future cat owners with the cost of de-sexing and microchipping falling to owners. However, the lead time allows for this cost to be spread across a number of years. The medium term outcome would reduce the stray cat pressure on rehoming organisations, and allow for faster identification and reunion for lost cats. The long term outcome of the bylaw would reduce the number of feral and stray cats impacting on the environment and the community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	There are long term effects of reducing cat nuisance in the community. The bylaw affects the entire Tasman District.
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	Although we will be relying on external agencies to assist with implementation
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the terms of the bylaw have been identified and will receive an email notifying them of the consultation and encouraging them to make a submission.

10.2 The public will be notified about the consultation through Newsline. This will include a brief article outlining the key issues and instructions on how to make a submission.

10.3 The statement of proposal (including the draft bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council offices as libraries throughout the consultation period.

10.4 Background information and a link to the submissions portal will be available through Shape Tasman.

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

11.1 This draft bylaw does not have any material or budgetary implications for the Council. The cost involved is staff time and is covered by existing budgets.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Introducing a bylaw that is not realistically enforceable by the Council carries a level of risk, which could lower trust in local governance or lead to legal ambiguity and potential challenges. Several other councils have introduced cat management bylaws without legal challenge. Staff consider this a low risk.

12.2 There is also a reputational risk if the Council decides not to proceed with the proposed bylaw after receiving significant public feedback in support of what is proposed. There is evidence that cats are involved in trespass and other nuisance behaviour and can pose a threat to other cats and animals through fighting and the spread of toxoplasmosis.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft bylaw is unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft bylaw neither aligns or detracts from the Council and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 This proposed bylaw aligns with the Tasman Biodiversity Strategy and compliments the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.

14.2 The Environment and Regulatory Committee has delegation to adopt draft bylaws for public consultation. The final sign off for a new bylaw will go to Full Council.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Committee is asked to approve the consultation on the Draft Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw, aiming to establish requirements for companion cat care within the District. This bylaw includes microchipping, registration, and de-sexing of cats over six months old, with exemptions for health and welfare concerns. Early engagement revealed substantial support for the bylaw.

15.2 The draft bylaw reflects best practices endorsed by animal welfare organisations, emphasising the importance of microchipping, registration, and de-sexing in managing cat populations and mitigating associated issues.

15.3 Early engagement showed strong community support for the bylaw, with significant backing for the inclusion of de-sexing alongside microchipping and registration. The consultation process will further refine and gather public input to ensure the bylaw meets community needs and expectations.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Date	Process
18 July 2024	The Council adopts the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Cat Management Bylaw, and the Summary of Information for consultation.
26 July – 27 August 2024	Formal consultation.
23 – 25 September 2024	Hearings.
16 October 2024	Deliberations.
29 November 2024	Final Cat Management Bylaw presented to the Council meeting for approval and adoption.
13 December 2024	Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s website advising that the bylaw has been adopted.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal including draft Cat Management Bylaw	126
2.⇩	Summary of Information - Draft Cat Management Bylaw	135

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.4 Draft Dog Control Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor; Shannon Green, Regulatory Support officer; Matt Moss, Ecologist
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RRC24-07-4

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Committee to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Dog Control Bylaw (Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

1.2 A change log (Attachment 3) is attached for information only, detailing the changes to regulations in different locations and the rationale behind the changes.

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff seek the Environment and Regulatory Committee’s approval to consult on the draft dog control bylaw. This bylaw provides Council with the regulatory authority to exercise control over a number of issues regarding the keeping and exercise of dogs.

2.2 The bylaw has been reviewed as part of a regular review cycle.

2.3 The draft bylaw sets out regulations and enforcement pathways for the following areas:

2.3.1 Control of dogs in public places

2.3.2 Leash control areas and leash control operations

2.3.3 Controlled dog exercise areas

2.3.4 Dog prohibited areas

2.3.5 Kennel licence to keep multiple dogs

2.3.6 Infected dogs

2.3.7 Removal of faeces

2.3.8 Welfare of dogs on private or public property

2.3.9 Dogs on vehicles

2.3.10 Causing dogs to become unmanageable

2.3.11 Release from pound

2.3.12 Enforcement

2.4 The draft bylaw continues to allow both infringement and prosecution pathways to enforcement.

2.5 A Cross-Council approach has been taken with the review, including input from Compliance, Biodiversity, and Reserves teams. Further consideration of the effects of dogs on wildlife has been made and particularly sensitive areas have been prioritised.

2.6 At the same time, other locations that are suitable for dog exercise have been introduced to the bylaw.

2.7 The Great Taste Trail bylaw has lapsed, with the intent that parts of it would be incorporated into other relevant bylaws. Provision for dogs along the Tasman’s Great Taste Trail has been included in the draft bylaw, with different requirements at different parts of the trail.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Draft Dog Control Bylaw Report RRC24-07-4; and

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

a. agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw for dog management; and

b. notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

4. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Dog Control Bylaw as per Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

5. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

Councillor _____________ (Chair)

Councillor_____________

Councillor _____________

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The dog control bylaw was last amended in 2020, although this focused on provisions for the Golden Bay area.

4.2 The draft bylaw is scheduled to be adopted in November. This means it will fall just outside the designated review period. Bylaws have a two year ‘grace period’ for which they are still valid and can be enforced. However, the bylaw adopted in November will be considered a new bylaw. As such, Council will be required to review it within five years.

4.3 As a number of changes to zoning are proposed staff consider it best practice to review the new bylaw within five years regardless of the legal requirement to do so.

4.4 The need to review the dog control bylaw was raised with Councillors at a workshop in October 2023, and draft content was subsequently workshopped in May 2024 alongside early engagement results.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Early Engagement

5.1 Early engagement was carried out in November/December 2023, using the Shape Tasman platform. This was advertised through Newsline and Social Media.

5.2 Stakeholders such as DOC, Forest & Bird, local vets and dog interest groups were notified of the early engagement and encouraged to participate.

5.3 Over 500 people contributed to the social map as part of the early engagement, and over 200 offered free text feedback. This feedback was taken into consideration when drafting the bylaw.

Bylaw Content

5.4 There have been some changes made to Part A of the bylaw. This includes a section on the purpose of the bylaw. Including a purpose in a bylaw is best practice because it clarifies the bylaw's intent, guiding interpretation and application, and ensuring that all stakeholders understand its objectives and scope.

5.5 A ‘Scope of Maps’ section has now been included. The coverage of beaches, foreshores, estuaries and mudflats now have an inclusive interpretation to avoid an ambiguity or dispute caused by mapping which may not exactly cover the desired area.

5.6 Dog rangers have the authority to enforce the Dog Control Act. To avoid redundancy, provisions in the bylaw that duplicate the content of the act have been removed in the draft. The Dog Control Act already empowers rangers to enforce its provisions, making repetition in the bylaw unnecessary.

5.7 The current bylaw includes a definition of "effective control." This definition should be removed, and the bylaw should refer to "control" instead. There is no corresponding definition of "effective control" in the Dog Control Act. However, control is implied through various sections of the act and supported by case law, ensuring clarity and consistency.

5.8 The current bylaw includes a section on the seizure of dogs. This section has been removed in the draft. The Dog Control Act provides comprehensive guidelines for the seizure of dogs, making similar provisions in the bylaw redundant and unnecessary.

5.9 The current bylaw addresses the issue of dogs left in vehicles. This section should be removed. This issue is more appropriately managed under the Animal Welfare Act. Including it in the bylaw could create conflicts with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act, potentially rendering it ultra vires.

5.10 The current bylaw has a section addressing dogs that become a nuisance or injurious to health. This section has been removed in the draft. Elements of this section may conflict with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act. The enforceable parts are already covered by the act and do not need to be duplicated in the bylaw.

5.11 The current bylaw includes a section on the burial of dead dogs. This section has been removed in the draft. It is considered unnecessary, does not align with the purpose of the bylaw, and may conflict with Section 20 of the Dog Control Act.

5.12 Part B of the bylaw contains 5 schedules which detail which areas are designated as leash control areas, controlled exercise areas, seasonal or time restricted areas, dogs prohibited areas and Tasman’s Great Taste Trail.

5.13 Several of the locations within Part B have either had their boundaries adjusted or zoning changed. The details of these changes can be found in the attached change log, along with the rationale behind what is proposed.

5.14 The draft bylaw now sets out enforcement measures (offences and penalties) in Part C.

Consultation

5.15 In the online submission form available through Shape Tasman submitters will be asked how much they agree with the proposed plans in each ward. They will also be asked their preference of alternative options being considered in Tata Beach, Ligar Bay Beach and Little Kaiteriteri. This information is available in the Statement of Proposal.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	Council continues to be able to enforce dog control measures. The bylaw progresses to the next stage and will be on track for anticipated time frames for adoption.	No material disadvantages identified.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer).	Changes to fundamental principles would require legal review to confirm legality of changes. Significant changes could disrupt anticipated timeframes.
3.	The Council does not approve the Draft Dog Control Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.		Council will only be able to enforce the bylaw until September 2026, at which point it will be revoked.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 20 of the Dog Control Act allows the Council to make bylaws to regulate following purposes:

(a) prohibiting dogs, whether under control or not, from specified public places:

(b) requiring dogs, other than working dogs, to be controlled on a leash in specified public places, or in public places in specified areas or parts of the district:

(ci) designating specified areas as dog exercise areas:

(e) prescribing minimum standards for the accommodation of dogs:

(f) limiting the number of dogs that may be kept on any land or premises:

(g) requiring dogs in its district to be tied up or otherwise confined during a specified period commencing not earlier than half an hour after sunset, and ending not later than half an hour before sunrise:

(h) requiring the owner of any dog that defecates in a public place or on land or premises other than that occupied by the owner to immediately remove the faeces:

(i) requiring any bitch to be confined but adequately exercised while in season:

(j) providing for the impounding of dogs, whether or not they are wearing a collar having the proper label or disc attached, that are found at large in breach of any bylaw made by the territorial authority under this or any other Act:

(k) requiring the owner of any dog (being a dog that, on a number of occasions, has not been kept under control) to cause that dog to be neutered (whether or not the owner of the dog has been convicted of an offence against section 53):

(l) any other purpose that from time to time is, in the opinion of the territorial authority, necessary or desirable to further the control of dogs.

7.2 The draft bylaw has been prepared with input from various stakeholders, including animal welfare organizations and the general public, ensuring it reflects the community's needs and concerns.

7.3 There are no implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Draft Dog Control Bylaw does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of movement, expression or association, and does not isolate any particular social group in terms of the Act. The requirements are reasonable and justifiable measures to address issues related to dog control in the Tasman District.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Iwi have been notified about the bylaw review through Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission during the consultation period. Iwi who have indicated that they would like to be involved will be sent a further email along with other stakeholders to invite them to make a submission.

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

9.1 Staff consider that the level of significance for the draft bylaw will be of moderate to high interest to the general public. It will have a higher level of significance for people who own dogs and environmental advocates.

9.2 It is planned to undertake a special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	The early engagement attracted a significant response from the community. There are some highly contested areas where community division on the best way to proceed has been identified.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	It impacts community safety, responsible pet ownership, and environmental cleanliness, all of which are important but not critical issues.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	The regulations set out in the bylaw will be in place until the bylaw is next reviewed within 5 years.
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	Dog control activities are entirely covered by registration fees and infringements issued under the Dog Control Act.
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	No
8.	Does the proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?	No
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the terms of the bylaw have been identified and will receive an email notifying them of the consultation and encouraging them to make a submission.

10.2 The public will be notified about the consultation through Newsline. This will include a brief article outlining the key issues and instructions on how to make a submission.

10.3 The statement of proposal (including the draft bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council offices as libraries throughout the consultation period.

10.4 Background information and a link to the submissions portal will be available through Shape Tasman.

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

11.1 The draft bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council. Dog regulation is entirely funded by dog registration fees and infringements issued under the Dog Control Act. Several signs around the district are needing replacement which incurs an expense. It is planned that this will be covered by the Animal Control budget.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Failing to progress with the bylaw review will delay the process and potentially risk a lapse bylaw that is not enforceable. This is considered a low risk as the bylaw would not officially lapse until the end of the two-year grace period, which starts in September 2024.

12.2 The timeline has the bylaw being adopted in late November 2024. This means it will be treated as a new bylaw and as such will need to be reviewed within five years.

12.3 Given that a significant number of changes are proposed staff consider that a review within five years would be best practice, regardless of the legal requirement to do so.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft bylaw is unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft bylaw neither aligns or detracts from Council and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 The draft bylaw has taken relevant reserve management plans into consideration, including the proposal to prohibit dogs from reserves bordering the Waimea Inlet. This is a result of policy 6 in section 5.1 of the Moutere-Waimea Ward Reserve Management Plan.

14.2 The bylaw is designed to work in conjunction with Council’s enforcement policy, emphasizing an education-first approach for instances of non-compliance that are not serious.

14.3 Staff request that the Environment and Regulatory Committee appoints a hearings and deliberations panel who will make a recommendation to the full Council to adopt the final bylaw.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The draft dog control bylaw aims to provide the Council with the authority to regulate and control the ownership, behaviour, and welfare of dogs within the Tasman District.

15.2 The draft bylaw has taken concerns around wildlife protection into consideration, while also providing additional spaces for controlled exercise.

15.3 The bylaw will be considered a new bylaw, and as such will be reviewed within five years.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Date	Process
18 July 2024	The Council adopts the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Dog Control Bylaw, and the Summary of Information for consultation.
26 July – 27 August 2024	Formal Consultation.
23 – 25 September 2024	Hearings.
16 October 2024	Deliberations.
29 November 2024	Final Dog Control Bylaw presented to the Council meeting for approval and adoption.
13 December 2024	Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s website advising that the bylaw has been adopted.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of Proposal including Draft Dog Control Bylaw	147
2.⇩	Summary of Information Dog Control Bylaw	267
3.⇩	Dog Control Bylaw Change Log	270

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.5 Draft Public Places Bylaw

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Cat Budai, Community Policy Advisor
Report Authorisers:	Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Kim Drummond, Group Manager - Environmental Assurance
Report Number:	RRC24-07-5

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

1.1 This report seeks approval from the Council to consult on the proposed Statement of Proposal and the Draft Tasman District Council Public Places Bylaw (Attachment 1) and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 Staff seek the Environment and Regulatory Committee’s approval to consult on the Draft Public Places Bylaw. This bylaw would provide the Council with regulatory authority to exercise control over certain activities in public places.

2.2 The draft bylaw sets out regulations and enforcement pathways for the following activities:

2.2.1 Trading in Parks and Reserves

2.2.2 Mobile Trading

2.2.3 Commercial Services

2.2.4 Street Fundraising

2.2.5 Busking

2.2.6 Retail Displays on Footpaths (including sandwich boards)

2.2.7 Outdoor Dining.

2.3 The bylaw allows for either prosecution or infringements in the form of fines for specific types of non-compliance.

2.4 The bylaw has been drafted to take a permissive approach. Many of the activities included in the bylaw do not require permits or licences but do require adherence to specified regulations.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Draft Public Places Bylaw Report RRC24-07-5; and

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

a. agrees that the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw to manage activities in public places; and

b. notes that the proposed bylaw does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and

3. approves the Draft Public Places Bylaw and Statement of Proposal (Attachment 1 to the agenda report), and the Summary of Information (Attachment 2 to the agenda report) for public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

4. authorises staff to give public notice of the Council’s intention to consult on the Draft Public Places Bylaw as per Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and

6. appoints a Hearings and Deliberations Panel consisting of:

Councillor _____________ (Chair)

Councillor_____________

Councillor _____________

to hear and consider submissions on the Draft Public Places Bylaw and make recommendations to the Tasman District Council.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 The previous Trading in Public Places Bylaw lapsed. Staff consider a new bylaw to be the most appropriate means of managing potential nuisance and health and safety issues in public places.

4.2 As a new bylaw, this will need to be reviewed again within five years.

4.3 Staff reviewed content from the previous bylaw and also made comparisons with what has been included in other public places bylaws around the country.

4.4 Preliminary content ideas were workshopped with Councillors in October 2023 and again in May 2024 alongside early engagement results.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Early engagement

5.1 Early engagement was carried out in November/December 2023, using the Shape Tasman platform. This was advertised through Newsline and social media.

5.2 Stakeholders representing local businesses including Richmond Unlimited, Our Town Motueka, Golden Bay Promotion Association were notified of the early engagement and invited to participate. Stakeholders representing health and disability groups were also invited to participate, including Blind Citizens Nelson, CCS Disability Action and NMDHB.

5.3 To facilitate accessible ways to provide feedback staff also met with members of Blind Citizens Nelson, and received feedback at the Accessibility for All Forum.

5.4 Early engagement results and the first draft of the bylaw were workshopped with Councillors in May. Direction and feedback given in this workshop has been informed what is proposed in the draft bylaw for consultation.

Bylaw content

Trading in parks and reserves

5.5 The previous bylaw prohibited trading in all Council parks and reserves. While early engagement did include some feedback advocating for trading in these spaces to be permitted the majority were in favour of continuing to retain parks and reserves as commercial free spaces. This aligns with previous feedback received for Reserve Management Plans.

5.6 Early engagement also supported the notion of the Council having the ability to use discretion to approve trading in parks and reserves for special events.

5.7 The draft bylaw prohibits trading in parks and reserves without first gaining written permission from the Council.

Mobile trading

5.8 The previous bylaw required a mobile trading licence before carrying out this activity. Staff suggested a more streamlined approach where online declarations were completed instead.

5.9 Early engagement feedback was supportive of streamlining processes for these businesses. There was also feedback from disability advocates requesting that mobile traders be responsible for ensuring their customers did not unduly obstruct the path of other pedestrians.

5.10 The draft bylaw includes mobile trading as a permitted activity with regulations around the terms of operation such as time limits, not operating within 200 metres of a business selling similar goods in a fixed location, and taking any litter created from the business with them.

5.11 Staff support removing barriers where possible, and consider making mobile trading a permitted activity a positive outcome for both traders and staff time.

5.12 This section of the draft bylaw is made under the Land Transport Act 1998. This enables the Council to issue fines of up to $1,000 for non-compliant mobile trading. The draft bylaw proposes three levels of fines, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

5.13 As per the Council’s enforcement policy, staff will take an education first approach where possible in instances of non-compliance.

Commercial services

5.14 Commercial services in a public place refers to the provision of goods or services from a fixed or semi-fixed location. This may include activities such as permanent or semi-permanent carts, kiosks or stands established on Council property.

5.15 The previous bylaw required a formal agreement with the Council and an appropriate charge for use of the land. Early engagement indicated support for this to continue.

5.16 For clarity, the definition of a commercial service in the draft bylaw states that this does not include honesty boxes, which are outside the scope of the bylaw.

Street fundraising

5.17 The previous trading in public places bylaw referred to begging/soliciting donations and selling lottery tickets. Staff consider these two separate matters which require different approaches.

5.18 In the past, instances of begging have been referred to the Ministry for Social Development to ensure the person is supported in an appropriate way. Staff do not consider it necessary to take an enforcement approach at this time. Begging has not been included in the draft public places bylaw.

5.19 The previous bylaw did not permit soliciting donations or selling lottery tickets without written authority from the Council. This approach was largely supported in early engagement to ensure the legitimacy of those soliciting.

5.20 In the May workshop Councillors requested more information regarding approaches taken by other councils and indicated a preference for a more permissive approach to remove barriers for organisations such as schools and charities.

5.21 Staff have reviewed the practice of several other councils and found that most required permission before undertaking fundraising. However, in light of Councillors’ feedback, the draft bylaw permits street fundraising, provided certain conditions are met, such as not operating after 6.00 pm, ensuring unobstructed passage for pedestrians, and not unduly harassing the public.

Busking

5.22 The previous bylaw required buskers to first obtain a permit from the Council before carrying out this activity. Staff are supportive of removing barriers and making busking a permitted activity with requirements that need to be met such as ensuring unobstructed pedestrian passage, not using language or behaviour that is threatening or abusive and not staying in one place longer than 2 hours.

5.23 Early engagement indicates support for making busking a permitted activity.

Retail displays on footpaths

5.24 The previous bylaw did not allow retail displays on footpaths without permission being granted by the Council. If permission was granted, there was a requirement to maintain a minimum 2 metre wide clear path for pedestrians.

5.25 Sandwich boards had previously been covered by the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), also with a requirement to maintain a minimum 2 metre clear path for pedestrians. A previous TRMP plan change removed sandwich boards, with the intent that they be managed by bylaws instead.

5.26 In an analysis of the TRMP, 16.1.20 indicated the reasons for rules and signals the intent to remove sandwich boards from the TRMP. However, this is a reason for a rule, rather than a rule itself. Under the current TRMP all signage, including flags, on road reserve is not included as a permitted activity. The exclusion of sandwich boards from the TRMP is not reflected in the rules, which still appear to capture all signage.

5.27 Regulating sandwich boards when they are technically not permitted at all under the TRMP will lead to a contradiction between the two documents. However, staff recommend taking a practical view seeking changes to the TRMP to align with the bylaw as staff time permits.

5.28 Early engagement indicated support for the regulation of sandwich boards to ensure unobstructed passage. This was the issue that garnered most attention from blind and disability advocates, who would prefer this type of signage and flags to not be permitted. If this signage is to be permitted there was a preference to align with the RTS 14 Guidelines for facilities blind and vision impaired pedestrians.

5.29 These guidelines advocate for signage to be consistently on the roadside of the footpath. People who use a cane use the building as a guide, and signs on the building side of the footpath present a hazard. Flags and signage that is not easily identifiable at the base also present a hazard for walking into. A continuous accessible path of travel of at least 1.8 metres was supported as being safe and convenient for everyone, especially people with impaired mobility, and those who are blind or have low vision.

5.30 Feedback received in the Accessibility for All Forum emphasised that the primary purpose for a footpath was for pedestrian access. Commercial use of public space is considered a privilege, rather than a right by some other councils, where permits and licences are often required.

5.31 The draft bylaw proposes that sandwich boards must be placed in a manner which ensures a minimum of 2 metres of unobstructed pedestrian access, with regulation sized sandwich boards being placed on the ride side edge of the footpath. If the footpath is not wide enough to allow this clear path, the sign would not be permitted under the bylaw.

5.32 Staff have noted two other options suggested by Councillors during previous workshops;

5.32.1 to prohibit the use of sandwich boards; and

5.32.2 to have different requirements for minimum unobstructed pedestrian access in different parts of the District, depending on footpath width.

5.33 These options will also be presented to the community during consultation.

5.34 Staff note that Nelson City Council is currently consulting on a proposal to prohibit the use of sandwich boards in the City Centre, with similar concerns around disability access prompting the proposal.

5.35 This section of the draft bylaw is made under the Land Transport Act 1998. This enables the Council to issue fines of up to $1,000 for non-compliant retail displays and sandwich boards. The draft bylaw proposes three levels of fines, depending on the seriousness of the offence.

5.36 As per the Council’s enforcement policy, staff will take an education first approach where possible in instances of non-compliance.

Outdoor dining

5.37 The Council requires businesses using public space for outdoor dining to enter into a licence to occupy agreement. This had not been set out in the previous bylaw.

5.38 Early engagement indicated support to continue this arrangement, with concern for businesses tempered with general acknowledgement that it was fair and reasonable for commercial businesses to be paying for use of space that they are profiting from. There was further feedback from disability advocates requesting assurance of unobstructed passage for pedestrians.

5.39 During the early engagement it was also posed that some councils offer a discount on the licence to occupy fee for businesses who voluntarily maintain smoke and vape free outdoor dining. This concept was generally supported. Contributors also frequently expressed that they valued the atmosphere and vibrancy that outdoor dining can bring to a community.

5.40 Staff have considered whether a smoke and vape free discount to potentially be a separate policy rather than included in the bylaw. Councillor indication at workshop was to include this clause in the bylaw.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	The Council approves the Draft Public Places Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.	Activities which have the potential to cause nuisance and public health and safety problems can be regulated and enforced by the Council. The Council can gain a better understanding of public opinion through the consultation process.	No material disadvantages identified.
2.	The Council approves the Draft Public Places Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation, but with amendments.	Opportunity to consider further feedback from the Council (minor amendments are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer).	Changes to fundamental principles would require legal review to confirm legality of changes.
3.	The Council does not approve the Draft Public Places Bylaw and supporting documents for consultation.		The Council will continue to rely on measures such as education and the TRMP. The TRMP is very time consuming to make amendments to and is not well understood by the public.

6.2 Option one is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 Section 145 of the Local Government Act (LGA) allows the Council to make a bylaw to protect the public from nuisance, protecting, promoting, and maintaining public health and safety, and minimising the potential for offensive behaviour in public places.

7.2 Section 22AB of the Land Transport Act allows road controlling authorities to make bylaws to regulate displays including devices for advertising purposes on public pavements, and pedlars, including mobile and travelling shop keeping.

7.3.1 is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

7.3.2 gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

7.4 Staff consider a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. The Council has considered alternatives to creating a bylaw, such as including regulations in the TRMP. The bylaw provides a structured approach to managing public places, ensuring consistency and clarity in regulations and how enforcement will be applied. This information will be more easily communicated to the public through a bylaw, and can occur in a more time efficient manner than through the TRMP. The bylaw also provides more options for enforcement.

7.5 The draft bylaw also meets the following tests:

7.5.1 the bylaw is not repugnant to the general laws of New Zealand;

7.5.2 the bylaw provides certainty and clear direction;

7.5.3 the bylaw is reasonable; and

7.5.4 the bylaw is not overly restrictive, onerous on any person, or impracticable.

7.5.5 The use of a Public Places Bylaw is common practice across many councils.

7.6 Some elements of the bylaw could be adopted in other ways, for example, through various plans, policies, guidelines, or standards. However, the bylaw is considered to provide a more comprehensive set of requirements and certainty regarding the Council’s authority to set or enforce such requirements, minimising the risk of litigation for the Council.

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

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

9.1 Staff consider that the level of significance for the draft bylaw will be of moderate interest to the general public, although unlikely to require dramatic changes in behaviour from most of the community. The draft bylaw will have a high level of significance for some members of the community, such as people with a disability, business owners, and those wishing to fundraise or perform (busking) in a public place.

9.2 It is planned to undertake a special consultative procedure in accordance with section 83 of the LGA.

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	High	While the early engagement garnered modest attention from the general public, there are stakeholders who will be highly invested in the outcome of the bylaw, such as low vision and disability advocates and local businesses.
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Moderate	The proposed bylaw may have an impact on businesses, the way the community interacts in public and how their health and safety is provided for.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	Moderate	As a new bylaw, this will be reviewed within five years.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	Nil
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	Nil
6.	Does the proposal, activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in any one year or more of the LTP?	Nil
7.	Does the decision involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO or CCTO?	Nil
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?	Nil
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	Nil
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?	Nil

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the terms of the bylaw have been identified and will receive an email notifying them of the consultation and encouraging them to make a submission.

10.2 The public will be notified about the consultation through Newsline. This will include a brief article outlining the key issues and instructions on how to make a submission.

10.3 The statement of proposal (including the draft bylaw), and a summary of information will be made available at all Council offices as libraries throughout the consultation period.

10.4 Background information and a link to the submissions portal will be available through Shape Tasman.

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

11.1 This draft bylaw does not have any material financial or budgetary implications for the Council.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Low risk: the overall risk of implementing the proposal is low, involving potential public resistance, compliance challenges, and resource strain for enforcement.

12.2 Public resistance: there may be dissatisfaction among affected groups, leading to negative feedback or media coverage.

12.3 Health and safety concerns: not implementing the bylaw could result in continued public nuisance and health and safety issues.

12.4 Reputational damage: failure to address issues effectively could harm the Council's reputation and public trust.

12.5 Risk mitigation strategies: use consultation as an opportunity to educate public about the bylaw and its purpose, utilise the ‘education first’ approach to enforcement and ensure clear communication.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The draft bylaw is unlikely to have any impact on the Council or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.

13.2 Implementation of the draft bylaw is not likely to be impacted by the effects of climate change.

13.3 The draft bylaw neither aligns or detracts from the Council and Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate change.

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

14.1 As described in section 5, there may be a discrepancy between the TRMP and what is proposed for sandwich boards, which are currently not permitted under the TRMP. To resolve these inconsistencies, staff recommend seeking amendments to the TRMP to better align with the new bylaw when it is adopted.

14.2 The bylaw is designed to work in conjunction with the Council’s enforcement policy, emphasising an education-first approach for instances of non-compliance that are not serious.

14.3 The prohibition of trading in parks and reserves without the Council’s permission aligns with Reserve Management Plans, maintaining these areas as commercial-free spaces except for special events.

14.4 Staff request that the Environment and Regulatory Committee appoints a hearings and deliberations panel who will make a recommendation to the Full Council to adopt the final bylaw.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 The Draft Public Places Bylaw aims to provide the Council with regulatory authority over activities in public places, such as trading, mobile trading, commercial services, street fundraising, busking, retail displays on footpaths, and outdoor dining.

15.2 This bylaw has a permissive approach, allowing many activities without permits but with specific regulations.

15.3 The bylaw will be reviewed within five years to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness.

15.4 Staff consider this bylaw the most effective method for managing public places, offering clarity, consistency, and a structured approach to regulation and enforcement.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

Date	Process
18 July 2024	The Council adopts the Statement of Proposal including the Draft Public Places Bylaw, and the Summary of Information for consultation.
26 July – 27 August 2024	Formal Consultation.
23 – 25 September 2024	Hearings.
16 October 2024	Deliberations.
29 November 2024	Final Public Places Bylaw presented to the Council meeting for approval and adoption.
13 December 2024	Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s website advising that the bylaw has been adopted.

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Statement of proposal including draft Public Places Bylaw	297
2.⇩	Summary of Information - Public Places Bylaw	316

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.6 Granting of Lease to Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association - Treeton Place Wakefield

Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Robert Cant, Programme Leader - Land & Leases
Report Authorisers:	Grant Reburn, Reserves and Facilities Manager; Richard Kirby, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure
Report Number:	RRC24-07-6

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

1.1 To grant a lease to the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association over part of the Local Purpose Reserve at 24 Treeton Place, Wakefield, for an initial term of five years. Subject to the Kindergarten Association establishing a viable Kindergarten on the site, it will be entitled to two further rights of renewal for ten years each (total 25 years).

2. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

2.1 At the Environment and Regulatory Committee on 24 April 2024, the Committee agreed to undertake public consultation on a proposal for the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association to be granted a lease to establish a Kindergarten on Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve land at 24 Treeton Place.

2.2 Public notice was undertaken. The Shape Tasman Website provided information from mid-May 2024, with the notices also published in the Newsline Publication on 14 and 28 June 2024. Submissions closed on 14 July 2024.

2.3 A large number of submissions were received. A total of 70 submissions were received at the time of the drafting of this report. An interim summary of the submissions received to 1 July 2024 is attached as Attachment 2. A final summary will be provided at the meeting, but at the time of drafting, 65 submissions were in favour of the proposal, with five opposing the lease. If there are further significant submissions opposing the proposal received between the time of drafting and the closing date, the committee may decide to defer the decision to its next meeting.

2.4 Given the overwhelming number of submissions are in favour of granting the lease, staff recommend the Committee approves the granting of the lease.

3. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Granting of Lease to Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association - Treeton Place Wakefield report RRC24-07-6; and

2. receives the summary of submissions received as a result of public notification in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and

3. approves the grant of a lease for five (5) years, with two rights of renewal for ten (10) years each, subject to a viable Kindergarten being able to be established, to the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association of part of the Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve at 24 Treeton Place in Wakefield. Part Section 3, SO 348765. Record of Title 534857; and

4. delegates to the Property Services Manager, the ability to sign any documentation required to give effect to this decision to grant the lease.

4. Background / Horopaki

4.1 At the Environment and Regulatory Committee on 24 April 2024, the Committee agreed to undertake public consultation on a proposal for the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association to be granted a lease to establish a Kindergarten on Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve land at 24 Treeton Place. Please note that the report and recommendations incorrectly referred to Nelson Marlborough Kindergarten Association.

5. Analysis and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

5.1 Staff met with the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association on site in early May 2024. Discussions took place on what land was needed for the various aspects of the proposed new Kindergarten.

5.2 A plan is attached which shows the various uses proposed by the Kindergarten Association.

5.3 Area “A” is coloured blue and intended for vehicle access and parking. This would be exclusive use while the Kindergarten is operating, and any other community use for the building. At other times (typically weekends and evenings) this space would be available for public use.

5.4 Area “B” is coloured red and would be a fenced play area for children enrolled at the Kindergarten. This would be exclusive use for the term of the lease.

5.5 Area “C” is coloured yellow and represents the existing former Scout Building, and outdoor decking used by the children enrolled at the Kindergarten. This would be exclusive use for the term of the lease.

5.6 Area “D” is coloured purple and is intended to be a utility area. Use will be determined along with the Council’s Reserves and Facilities staff and is currently uncertain. The reality is that this space is almost permanently shaded and of little attraction. Once the fencing of the play area is completed, it will make access to this space very difficult except through the play area and former Scout Building.

5.7 The spaces labelled “E” will not be included in the lease but are intended to be maintained and enhanced by the Kindergarten Association. The nature of the maintenance and enhancements will be negotiated between the Association and Reserves and Facilities staff from time to time, potentially in conjunction with the wider community involved in enhancing the adjacent Faulkners Bush Scenic Reserve.

5.8 The proposal to grant the lease was available on the Council’s Shape Tasman website from late May 2024. It was also notified in the Newsline editions on 14 and 28 June, with a closing date for submissions of 14 July 2024.

5.9 At the time of drafting this report, a significant number of submissions had been received. 65 were in support of the lease, and five opposed the lease. If a large number of submissions are received between the final drafting of this report and the meeting date of 18 July, (particularly if there are many opposing the lease) the decision can be deferred to the following meeting on 29 August. However, given the strong community support at the time of drafting, the decision can hopefully be considered at the July meeting shortly after the closing date.

5.10 Those opposed to the granting of the lease made the following points:

5.11 Opposition: Treeton Place will be under further pressure with the addition of another facility being attended by children. This is a small residential street not designed for significant numbers of vehicles. Comment: Nelson Tasman Kindergartens will operate at different times to the nearby Wakefield School at the corner of Treeton Place and Edward Street. The facility is intended to operate from 8:30am – 2:45pm, compared to the school which is 9am – 3pm. I consider it likely that the additional traffic arising from the new facility is more likely to spread the time when parents are dropping off children, rather than intensifying vehicle use. It is hoped that some families will choose to walk or cycle. The maximum role for the Kindergarten is intended to be 40, compared to a role at the school of 278 (source: www.educationcounts.govt.nz). The Kindergarten Association advises it will seek the resource consent if the decision is to grant the lease. This question will likely be raised as part of the resource consent application process, which will consider these adverse effects and may look to mitigate them if considered necessary. I do not believe the adverse impact on the additional traffic is sufficient to deny the granting of the lease.

5.12 Opposition: One printed newspaper article stated that the waiting list for Brightwater Kindergarten was 1000 (one thousand), and the submitter was concerned that this overstated the problem and may have influenced the committee. There was also concern that other existing childcare facilities in Wakefield would be negatively impacted if the Kindergarten is established. Comment: I contacted the submitter to reassure them that the information provided to Committee Members as based on a waiting list of 100 (one hundred). The error was a fault of the publisher, but by the time it was drawn to my attention a dozen or more days had passed, and seeking a correction didn’t seem necessary. The online version of the same article correctly referenced 100. I do not consider that it is viable to refuse the lease simply to protect the existing alternative facilities available in Wakefield. There is a clear unmet need for pre-school care, as is evidenced by the many dozens of submissions in favour of granting the lease.

5.13 Opposition: The use by the Kindergarten would remove a dog exercise area. Comment: The reserve is set aside for Community Buildings and the Kindergarten is entirely appropriate for this type of reserve. It is a valid point that there are a limited number of designated dog exercise areas in the Tasman District. This space is not set aside for this purpose, even if it has informally been used for dog exercise with the decline of the scout movement in Wakefield.

5.14 Opposition: The noise from the children will impact on the tranquillity of the neighbouring Faulkners Bush Scenic Reserve, and the loss of parking will make it harder to safely visit the Scenic Reserve. Comment. Many of these submitters in support have commented at the wonderful opportunity to have children attend an outstanding natural environment. Most Kindergartens are in urban environments, and this facility will be a point of difference. The loss of tranquillity is a valid concern, but the situation will only exist from circa 8:30 – 2:45, Monday to Friday. The noise is unlikely to impact the entirety of Faulkners Bush.

5.15 Opposition: A couple of submitters in opposition have commented that if the waiting list is for the Brightwater Kindergarten there should be another established there. Comment: without any Kindergarten Facilities in Wakefield, there are no doubt children who are transported from Wakefield (and beyond) to Brightwater to attend. The Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association have pointed out that a Kindergarten in Wakefield will service a wider community than the township itself. Families in rural areas will not have to travel as far if there is a Kindergarten in Wakefield.

5.16 A final comment is that points 5.11 to 5.15 focus on submissions in opposition. There have been many submissions in support of establishing this Kindergarten. When contemplating a proposal, consideration should not be based simply on numbers for and against, but should be based on the merits of the points raised. All those who have submitted in opposition raise valid concerns, but in the view of staff, the points raised do not outweigh the considerable benefits of granting a lease allowing a new Kindergarten to be established in Wakefield.

5.17 A summary of submissions is attached to this report. In an effort to balance those in opposition, the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten’s submission is also attached in full. The Association’s submission summarises pretty much all points raised in the submissions in support of granting the lease.

6. Options / Kōwhiringa

6.1 The options are outlined in the following table:

Option		Advantage	Disadvantage
1.	Grant the lease to Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association	A new Kindergarten, apparently desired by many in the community will be available in time	Impact on Treeton Place from more vehicles dropping off children.
2.	Decline to grant the lease to Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association	The reserve will be available for other community uses, albeit no others are apparent.	Given the significant support for the establishment of the Kindergarten, there are likely to be questions on rationale for refusing the grant the lease.

6.2 Option One is recommended.

7. Legal / Ngā ture

7.1 The land on which the proposal is intended to be developed is Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve. Section 61(2A) of the Act allows:

the administering body, in the case of a local purpose reserve that is vested in the administering body, may lease all or any part of the reserve to any person, body, voluntary organisation, or society (whether incorporated or not) for any of the following purposes:

(a) community building, playcentre, kindergarten, plunket room, or other like purposes (emphasis added):

8. Iwi Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori

8.1 Given the proposal involves the use of a long-established building, albeit one which has been used for a different purpose, the proposal is not considered significant and does not warrant specific consultation with iwi. Given the length of term for the lease, advice was provided to Wakatu of the intention to issue a lease for a potential term of 25 years. No response was received at the time of drafting this report.

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

9.1

	Issue	Level of Significance	Explanation of Assessment
1.	Is there a high level of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?	Medium	Of significant interest to the local community, but of low significance to the overall Tasman District
2.	Are there impacts on the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the community in the present or future?	Medium	Positive social benefits to the local community.
3.	Is there a significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?	None	The proposal involves a re-purposing of an existing building, and additional facilities are of relatively low impact.
4.	Does the decision relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for list of strategic assets)	No	The reserve network is a significant asset, but this is a small local reserve so not considered significant.
5.	Does the decision create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?	No	The Council is only providing a lease for the use of reserve land. The Kindergarten Association is funding the improvements.
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?	Low	Grant of land lease to the Kindergarten Association which is an organisation with community benefit
9.	Does the proposal or decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of activities?	No
10.	Does the proposal require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure and services?	No

10. Communication / Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero

10.1 Staff met with the Kindergarten on site, and developed the plan attached to this report, which specifies what uses are intended for the reserve.

10.2 Once the plan was available, the proposal was notified on the “Shape Tasman” website in mid-May 2024. The proposal was also notified in the “Newsline” publication delivered to residents in the Tasman area. As is mentioned earlier in this report, there was a lot of interest, and many submissions were received, supporting the proposal.

10.3 The Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association has presented to the Wakefield Community Council and School Board of Trustees to answer any questions. The Kindergarten Association advised that feedback was positive from both consultations.

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

11.1 The Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association will be granted a lease at the standard community lease rental ($345 incl GST). This standard rental is not intended to contribute to the Council’s finances but recognises the benefits community groups provide to the wider community. The rental partially offsets the cost of administering community leases.

12. Risks / Ngā Tūraru

12.1 Granting a lease for a likely term of 25 years carries some risk as it ties up public land for a prolonged time. Given the amount of money the Kindergarten Association will need to spend the Kindergarten Association needs certainty the money will not be wasted. As such granting of the lease for up to 25 years is considered justified.

13. Climate Change Considerations / Whakaaro Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi

13.1 The Kindergarten is using an existing building. Having a Kindergarten available in Wakefield is likely to be a positive environmentally. Children who are having to be driven to the Brightwater Kindergarten will not have to travel as far, and it is hoped at least some will be able to walk or cycle to the new facility.

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

14.1 There is no management plan for this reserve, but this is not unexpected, given Local Purpose Reserves are not required to have a management plan. The use of an existing building means that the Reserves General Policy is given effect to as it avoids a new building.

15. Conclusion / Kupu Whakatepe

15.1 Following a public consultation process the feedback was overwhelmingly positive towards the new Kindergarten being established in this location. It is considered appropriate to grant the Nelson Tasman Kindergarten Association a lease for an initial term of five years, with two rights of renewal for 10 years each (total 25 years) conditional upon a viable Kindergarten being established in the initial five year term.

16. Next Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake

16.1 A lease will be provided to the Kindergarten Association in the near future for execution. Once returned, the lease will be signed by the Property Services Manager. Timing for construction is not known, as the Association will need to investigate any requirements of the Building Act and Resource Management Act

17. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩	Plan showing uses for Treeton Place lease to Kindergarten Assn	326
2.⇩	Summary of Submissions - Treeton Place Kindergarten Lease – Under Separate Cover
3.⇩	Nelson Tasman Kindergartens Submission - Treeton Place Lease proposal	327

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

8.3 District-wide Water Monitoring Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Neil Green, Compliance and Investigations Officer
Report Authorisers:	Shane Bruyns, Regulatory Manager
Report Number:	RRC24-07-7

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 Over the reporting year the Regulatory department oversaw the compliance monitoring programme dedicated to monitoring ground and surface water resource use across the district’s water management zones.

1.2 The monitoring targeted resource consented activities as well as certain permitted activity takes subject to obligations imposed through rules in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP).

1.3 Monitoring involved receiving and assessing incoming data, site visits for the purpose of assessing compliance, auditing and reporting.

1.4 All data was managed within a purpose-built data management and reporting system that assisted the Council achieving key objectives including.

1.4.1 Monitoring consent holder compliance with their specified water volume restrictions imposed through their consents.

1.4.2 Supporting the Council in determining an appropriate regulatory response to poor compliance behaviour.

1.4.3 Supporting the Council in decision making around water resource management including during periods of dry weather and rationing implementation.

1.4.4 Assisting the Council to meet regional and national reporting obligations on water resource use and user behaviour.

1.5 All consent holders received a compliance grade depending on their compliance with consent conditions during the year.

1.6 Where consent holders did not meet their obligations, the Council employed a variety of approaches to address that non-compliance. These ranged from giving education and advice, abatement notices and infringement fines.

1.7 These interventions were effective and there was no continuing or repeat offending that required an escalation in enforcement response.

1.8 A summary of the outcomes of the 2023/24 year is as follows:

1.8.1 1310 resource consents were overseen in the monitoring programme.

1.8.2 1027 of those consents were active water users and subject to routine monitoring.

1.8.3 989 (96%) of those active used electronic means to report their water use data.

1.8.4 125 (13%) of those using electronic reporting did so via telemetry. The remainder used councils web-based portal, text or email. 38 (4%) still opted to use prepaid cards despite encouragement to utilise electronic methods.

1.8.5 403 water takes were audited at some point during the 2023-2024 summer season with some receiving multiple, where those zones were under strict rationing.

1.8.6 1012 (98.5%) of active resource consents were rated fully compliant.

1.8.7 One (0.1%) was rated as low risk non-compliant.

1.8.8 14 (1.4%) were rated moderate or significantly non-compliant and required an enforcement response.

1.8.9 Nine abatement notices were issued which remain in force.

1.8.10 Six infringement notices were issued.

1.8.11 No formal written warnings or missing reading invoices were issued this season.

1.9 The regulatory team has been preparing for the declaration of a fully operative dam prior to the start of the next water season. To enable a smooth and seamless as possible transition, guidance material was developed and released to assist consent holders understand the new consent environment including staged rationing and cease take obligations. Individuals were also being written to where possible to outline change processes and provide advice if needed.

1.10 The regulatory team also spent time revising and redeveloping a more fit for purpose consent monitoring system to manage the complex rationing regime in the Waimea zones. In conjunction with Councils IT specialists, design and implementation of a new data management system was a significant part of this task.

1.11 Priority was also given to the implementation of an automated SMS (text message) notification system. Next season consent holders will receive immediate notification when respective river flow and storage level advisories are triggered affecting their consents. They will also receive subsequent notifications when rationing triggers are met. This will be supported by delivery of automated emails advising consent holders of their individual compliance requirements per individual consent conditions for the restriction now in place.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the District-wide Water Monitoring Report RRC24-07-7.

3. Purpose / Kaupapa

3.1 The purpose of this report is to summarise the compliance monitoring and enforcement that occurred as part of the 2023/2024 ground and surface water take compliance monitoring programme.

3.2 The report sets out the parameters around the year’s programme and outlines the performance of individual consent holders’ water use against consent restrictions including during rationing phases. It also describes any enforcement response required where compliance was not being met.

3.3 The report also touches on the significant work undertaken by the regulatory team alongside our I.T specialists to prepare the monitoring and data management system for the operational Waimea Community Dam next season.

4 Introduction / Whakatakī

4.1 Tasman District Council runs a dedicated compliance monitoring programme designed to monitor ground and surface water resource use across the district’s water management zones.

4.2 Although the monitoring programme itself is active throughout the year due to consented winter water use, the bulk of intensive monitoring activity occurs in the six-month summer water season. This is defined as 1 November through to 31 May. This is also where rationing restriction are imposed which influence the monitoring programme and workload.

4.3 Resource consent conditions require users to provide year-round weekly water use information. While a percentage of users report activity across the full year, the majority are however, only active during the summer season and typically cease use in the Autumn, once crops are harvested or cooler low growth conditions prevail.

4.4 Given this, the council applies a pragmatic approach recognising the purpose of the water management regime. Under this principle, if users advise the Council they have ceased irrigation, weekly readings will not be required again until the start of the following season and records are updated accordingly.

4.5 When required, all incoming water use data is managed within a purpose-built data management and reporting system that allows the Council to meet key objectives including.

· Monitoring consent holder compliance with their specified water volume restrictions imposed through their consents.

· Supporting the Council in determining an appropriate regulatory response to poor compliance behaviour.

· Supporting the Council in decision making around water resource management including during periods of dry weather and rationing implementation.

· Assisting the Council to meet regional and national reporting obligations on water resource use and user behaviour.

4.6 There are factors that will always impact on the management and outcomes of the programme over a season including:

§ The season’s weather patterns and water users’ response to those drivers. Drought tends to sharpen users focus but also adds risk of overtakes particularly during rationing. Wet season can create apathy to consent compliance particularly notifications and filing of water return data.

§ Council’s level of communication with resource consent holders. Experience shows that sustained communication and advanced technology around information and notifications positively affects compliance behaviour but comes at cost.

§ Our ability to collect and process data in a timely manner given our current framework as well as technology limitations associated with a diverse water user group and in some areas, connectivity issues.

4.7 Each year, the objectives, structure, and delivery of the compliance monitoring programme are subject to review to ensure that we are meeting our regulatory functions as well as wider water management objectives and community expectations.

5. The 2023-2024 Compliance Monitoring Year in Review

Consent Monitoring Numbers

5.1 There were 1310 resource consents recorded within the monitoring database this year although not all of these were active and taking water.

5.2 The total number of consents in the system are up from last year. This is attributed to new consents and existing consents changing status.

5.3 While there is a base of water users active over the year, the weather, particularly leading up to the start of any season invariably sets the total number of consents requiring active supervision. Wetter springs and summers drive a decline in active users whereas dry springs and summers see inactive consents come online, either at start or during the season at which point they will be expected to provide water use returns.

5.4 This year, due to the early and prolonged drought, there was an increase in active resource consents from the start of the season.

Figure 1 below displays the total number of resource consents, active and inactive as a ratio for the reporting year and across the last five years.

A graph of a graph showing the number of the same graph

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

1. Figure 1: Trend in water take resource consent numbers, active and in-active users across last five years.

2. Weekly Readings Return Types

5.5 The Council provides consent holders with a range of options to submit weekly reading returns to meet their needs ranging from electronic methods through to a postal card-based system. The following graph (figure 2) shows that over the last five years, water user preference has not changed much and while direct entry through the Councils purpose-built website portal is the most preferred option, the other options still make up around 40% of returns received.

A graph showing different types of data

Description automatically generated

Figure 2: Trend in water users preferred method of submitting water use over last five years.

5.6 For the regulator, water meter returns via website and telemetry remain the preferred option for effective management, however any other electronic return method is desirable provided it is sent in a timely fashion.

5.7 While the pre-paid card option has decreased year on year it persists due to its preference with some users and 38 still use this method. Unfortunately, given the cost incurred, difficulty with receipt of timely data, and associated impact on monitoring compliance, especially in times of drought, consideration is now being given to removing this return option. As a number of these users have relatively small takes and likely technology challenges, it is likely that a blanket stoppage policy is inappropriate. However, given many others are significant users with data receipt times critical to robust decision making both in a water management and regulatory space, a framework around eligibility for card returns will need to be worked on prior to the new season.

5.8 In cases where it is not a condition of consent, the regulator where possible will try to encourage telemetry within reason. It is also aware that this is a matter in scope under the current review of the freshwater planning regime. While any final policy setting is yet to be determined, the fact is that both the data management system and the monitoring programme is tested and capable of managing any substantive change to the water management framework.

Compliance Monitoring Results

5.9 Resource consents are graded one to four, according to the level of compliance with conditions of those consents. The overall compliance grade assigned for each Resource Consent is derived from the condition with the worst compliance grade.

5.10 The Council uses a compliance grading system that is described in the Ministry for the Environment’s “Best Practice Guidelines for Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement under the Resource Management Act 1991”.

	COMPLIANCE GRADE
1	Full Compliance: All relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards are complied with.
2	Low Risk Non-Compliance: Compliance with most of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards. Non-compliance carries a low risk of adverse environmental effects or is technical in nature (e.g., failure to submit a report)
3	Moderate Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with some of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards, where there are some environmental consequences and/or there is a moderate risk of adverse environmental effects.
4	Significant Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with many of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards, where there are significant environmental consequences and/or there is a high risk of adverse environmental effects.

Table 1 describes this grading system with explanation.

5.11 A summary of consent holder performance for this reporting year was:

98.5% (1012 out of 1027 active resource consents) were rated fully compliant.

0.1% (1 out of 1027 active resource consents) were rated low risk non-compliant.

1.4% (14 out of 1027 active resource consents) were rated moderate or significantly non- compliant.

5.12 Figure 3 plots this year’s consent holder performance against the previous four seasons.

A graph of a number of different colored bars

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Compliance grading of active water consents as a percentage of total across five years.

Water Meter Audits

5.13 The Council has employed a targeted water meter auditing regime for many years as part of its summer compliance monitoring strategy. This function is typically carried out by a student, employed by the Council between November and February with the primary purpose of conducting field-based auditing of water meters.

5.14 This is a very efficient and cost-effective means of auditing most of the consented water take meters at the start, and during a season.

5.15 Inspections allow meters to be read and reconciled with recorded and incoming data as well as checks of meter and well head integrity.

5.16 The 2023/24 season saw a slight deviation away from normal business as audits were targeted regularly in the areas of the district where ground and surface water were declining due to drought. This response resulted in a lower number of audits across the wider district but allowed an increased council presence in areas of concern. It also provided ability to respond appropriately with additional inspections when issues arose.

Missing Water Meter Readings

5.17 Providing water usage readings at specified frequencies is a condition of consent. Despite this obligation, for many years the failure to furnish on time water use data has provided the basis for sustained levels of non-compliance. In response the Council, particularly in later years, has actively communicated with water users regarding missed readings as well as utilise audit fees to improve this area of behaviour.

5.18 Over recent years there has been a noticeable improvement in this area and the 2023/24 year continued to reflect this change.

5.19 A useful measure in respect to missing readings is the number of invoices issued to consent holders for council responding to missing readings. A consent holder missing one or two readings across the entire season is not uncommon and can often be resolved quickly with a follow up contact. Persistent and unjustified missing readings requires response as poor performance is not only a breach of consent but directly impacts water resource management.

5.20 No invoices were issued in the reporting year and missing readings were able to be resolved in non-regulatory approaches.

5.21 The following graph (Figure 5) also displays the number of audit invoices over the past five seasons. This year’s results support the anecdotal evidence that positive behaviour has been occurring in recent years. It is felt that underpinning this is the proactive education, sustained messaging, as well as voluntary behaviour change within parts of the water user community particularly in dry years.

A graph showing the missing invoices

Description automatically generated

Figure 5: Audit invoices issued over last five years in response to missing readings.

6. Enforcement Over the 2023/24 Irrigation Season

6.1 While consistent messaging and compliance promotion is paramount in achieving positive compliance behaviour, some consent holders fail to achieve the necessary standard at some point in time. In these cases, the Council utilises a range of regulatory tools to gain compliance (depending on the severity of the breach).

6.2 It is accepted that weather also plays a part in water user response. In wetter summers such as the 2020/2021 season, there is typically very little offending at the serious end but there may be a higher level at the minor end as users focus elsewhere. In these cases, enforcement tools such as formal warnings are employed to draw attention to an issue and put consent holders on notice. These formal warnings are kept on record and may be drawn upon when considering any future enforcement action.

6.3 Over the 2023/2024 reporting period the following actions were taken by the Council in response to breaches:

§ No formal warnings were issued.

§ Nine (9) abatement notices were issued.

§ Six (6) infringement notices were issued.

6.4 The level of non-compliance this season was higher than last year. The following graph (Figure 6) compares this season’s enforcement activity against those of the previous four.

A graph with a line and a line graph

Description automatically generated

Figure 6: Specific enforcement actions for breaches as a total over last five years.

6.5 The graph clearly shows a significant number of formal warnings recorded in the 2020/2021 season that were primarily for missing readings. There was also an increase in the number of abatement notices issued that year for those who repeatedly failed to supply water meter readings as well as missed reading audits and associated invoices. Engagement with consent holders at the time revealed apathy promoted by a wet season and limited rationing. Since then, the performance of consent holders has improved despite the relatively wet summers until this year, and this can be seen in the decline in formal enforcement actions.

6.7 The drought of the 2023/24 season saw a rise in non-compliance and the need for a more robust response with the issuing of infringement fines and abatement notices. This occurred mainly where abstraction limits had been breached by water users whilst rationing had been applied to affected water management zones. These abatement notices will remain in force until Council is satisfied that compliance will be maintained.

6.8 Any enforcement action is supported with ongoing dialogue with the affected consent holders to promote change and sustainable outcomes. Education and information delivery is therefore a big part of effective compliance, and the regulatory team will continue messaging with all consent holders in end of season reporting and before the start of next season.

7. Operational Waimea Dam

7.1 The regulatory team has been in preparation for the declaration of a fully operative dam prior to the start of the next water season. At the point where the dam trips to operational, consent holders post dam resource consent conditions will come into effect.

7.2 The team has been preparing for this next phase to enable a smooth and seamless as possible transition. Guidance material has been prepared and released to assist consent holders understand the new consent environment including staged rationing and cease take obligations. The team has also written directly to individuals where possible to outline change processes and provide advice if needed. Further communication updates are likely as change occurs.

8. Water Management Monitoring and System Changes

8.1 The regulatory team is responsible for ensuring a robust and fit for purpose consent monitoring regime in the operative dam environment. In conjunction with Councils I.T specialists, the team has spent considerable time designing and implementing a series of changes to the monitoring regime and data management system. Allied to this has been the development and release of a package of communications and guidance documents to consent holders to assist in the change management.

8.2 This system redesign, while still ongoing and including proposed future change, is important to supervision of resource consents, particularly in the zones of benefit under the Waimea Community Dam.

8.3 Change is occurring around receipt and assessment of water abstraction data to allow more dynamic and responsive consent condition monitoring. More importantly, these changes will assist Council in times of water restriction administering complex staged rationing, particularly in the Waimea Plains.

8.4 Implementation of an automated SMS (text message) notification system is undergoing final testing. Consent holders will now receive immediate notification when respective river flow and storage level advisories are triggered affecting their consents. They will also receive subsequent notifications when rationing triggers are met. This will be supported by delivery of automated emails advising consent holders of their individual compliance requirements per individual consent conditions for the restriction now in place.

8.5 As well as notifications, a lot of work is being done to enhance the receipt and management of real time water abstraction data within the system. This is essential to effective supervision going forward as these changes will allow a more dynamic and responsive monitoring strategy in times of water restriction. This is particularly important for effective oversight of the consent holders with complex staged rationing regimes within the Waimea community dam zones.

9. Conclusions / Whakamutunga

9.1 The 2023/2024 season saw an improvement in water meter reading returns with less need for the regulatory team to respond with customer contacts and audits. The team will still need to promote compliance in order to maintain this level as this has been area were compliance can drop off quickly.

9.2 Despite the drought affecting the region over the summer, behaviour was very good which is reflected in the monitoring data.

9.3 Where non-compliance was detected, the regulatory team responded quicky using a range of enforcement tools. The non-compliance was typically localised to users within catchments heavily impacted on by the drought and under severe restrictions. The need to employ stronger enforcement responses therefore resulted in an uplift in abatement notice and infringement fines issued this year compared to recent years.

9.4 Pleasingly, following enforcement action, compliance was achieved by those affected for the remainder of the season and no repeat offending was detected. Despite that, the decision has been made to leave the abatement notices in force to provide additional deterrence.

9.5 The Waimea Community Dam is expected to be operational at the start of the next water season and all affected consents will be switched over to the new consenting regime. This will impose a significant amount of work on the regulatory team as they deliver a new monitoring regime to manage this changed consented landscape.

9.6 As well as the revised monitoring strategy, an equally important rebuild of the data management system has occurred to provide strength to the regulatory functions. This includes instantaneous automated notifications to users at key triggers, enhanced data receipt processes as well as a raft of additional communications and guidance packages.

9.7 It is anticipated that these efforts will put us in a stronger position managing a new and complex consenting and rationing environment under the operational Waimea dam.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.8 Annual Dairy Farm Effluent Compliance Monitoring

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Jane Stuart, Senior Compliance & Investigations Officer
Report Authorisers:	Shane Bruyns, Regulatory Manager
Report Number:	RRC24-07-8

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 Dairy effluent in Tasman District may be disposed of to land as a permitted activity under specific rules contained in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), or alternatively to water, strictly under the conditions of a resource consent.

1.2 In the 2023/2024 milking season, a total of 111 dairy farms had active discharges in the Tasman District. Of that total, 108 relied solely on it being a permitted activity while three, operating as a permitted activity, retained resource consents to discharge treated effluent to water as a contingency option.

1.3 The goal of inspecting all active farms in Tasman during the season was achieved this year. This has been the case for most of the 19 years the programme has operated.

1.4 The compliance results for the 2023/2024 survey were:

1.4.1 Full Compliance: 103 farms (93%)

1.4.2 Low Risk Non-Compliance: 8 farms (7%)

1.4.3 Moderate Risk Non-Compliance: Nil (0%)

1.4.4 Significant Non-Compliance: Nil (0%)

1.5 The 2023/24 year’s results are in line with the trend of greater than 90% compliance achieved over the last ten years.

1.6 The instances of non-compliance detected were considered minor. Given the nature of these breaches, no formal enforcement action was required but the matters were dealt with.

1.7 In future years, freshwater farm planning regulations will involve significant change to the regulatory regime in farming. Effluent systems and application areas will be identified as an on-farm risk to freshwater within a Freshwater Farm Plan. Subsequent mitigation actions within the plan must, as a minimum, meet all regulatory requirements related to the risk.

1.8 Regional rules and resource consents will remain in effect and the Council will continue to have an obligation to monitor these. The freshwater farm planning regulations are currently under review. We understand that they will remain, with changes focused on producing a cost effective and practical document which is flexible and proportional to the level of risk to freshwater from the farming activity in the location it is being undertaken.

1.9 Dairy effluent disposal, by its very nature, carries risk to freshwater quality, ecosystem health and receiving environments. It is intended to maintain this, essentially permitted activity monitoring programme, as a high priority within the compliance monitoring strategy. Under current settings the cost of the monitoring cannot be recovered.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Annual Dairy Farm Effluent Compliance Monitoring Report RRC24-07-8.

3. Purpose

3.1 Each year the Council assesses all active dairy farms for compliance with regulatory requirements through a dedicated compliance monitoring programme with respect to the disposal of treated dairy shed effluent.

3.2 Dairy shed effluent may be disposed of to land as a permitted activity under specific rules contained in the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP), or alternatively, to water strictly under the conditions of a resource consent.

3.3 The purpose of this report is to present the results of the 2023/2024 compliance monitoring survey of all farms actively disposing dairy shed effluent to land or water.

3.4 The report also outlines any enforcement responses that may have been required where it was established that compliance was not being met.

4. Background

4.1 The ‘all farms’ compliance monitoring programme has been in place since 2005. Prior to 2005, only consented dairy effluent discharges were monitored. The genesis of the current monitoring programme was in response to the regional council’s collective drive for consistent monitoring and enforcement of the dairy sector in New Zealand. One of the fundamental changes for Tasman was the inclusion of those farms disposing of dairy effluent as permitted activities into the monitoring programme.

Dairying in Tasman

4.2 Tasman’s dairy farms are essentially clustered within a number of our designated Freshwater Management Units (FMUs). The largest percentage are situated in the Tākaka and Aorere/West Coast catchments, with the remainder located in the southern river valleys of the Upper Buller /Kawatiri. There are a lesser number scattered around the Upper Moutere, Motueka and Waimea Plains near Richmond.

4.3 Figure 1 illustrates the spatial distribution of dairy farms within the corresponding FMUs in the Tasman Region.

Figure 1: The spatial distribution of dairies within their corresponding Freshwater Management Unit (FMU) in the Tasman Region. DISCLAIMER the FMU boundaries are subject to change.

4.4 Table 1 details the districts’ farms as a number and percentage within the current FMUs.

FMU	Number of Farms	Regional Proportion
*Aorere-West Coast*	33	30%
*Takaka*	34	31%
*Moutere*	1	1%
*Upper Motueka*	14	12%
*Waimea*	3	3%
*Murchison*	26	23%

Table 1. Tasman’s dairy farms as a number and percentage across the Freshwater Management Units.

4.5 Tasman District is relatively small as a dairy farming region and makes up just one percent of the national herd on less than one percent of the total land area. The average farm area, herd size and stocking rates in Tasman are lower than the national average.

4.6 Table 2 provides a statistical breakdown of the Tasman District in comparison to the National and South Island data. The table has also been refined to include a comparison within the subset of FMUs for the same measures.

	Number of Farms	Total Land Area (ha)	Average Farm Area (ha)	Total Dairy Population	Average Herd Size	Average Stocking Rate (cows/ha)
National Statistics (2022-2023)*	10,601	1,659,430	178	4,674,750	486	2.73
South Island Statistics (2022-2023)*	3,157	675,387	203	1,991,911	587	2.90
Tasman Statistics*	111	16126	145	40354	363	2.50

Northern Aorere-West Coast + Takaka^*	67	8,909	133	22,712	339	2.55
Central Moutere + Upper Motueka	18	2,562	142	6770	376	2.64
Southern Upper Buller/Kawatiri*	26	4,655	179	10,872	418	2.34

Table 2. Dairy Farm data New Zealand and Tasman. Source: New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2022-2023

4.7 Since the start of the monitoring regime in 2005, we have observed considerable change in dairy farming in this district.

4.8 One of the principal changes over time has been the steady decline in active farms. There has been a corresponding decline in cow numbers as well as a less prominent change to land area under dairy platform. Figure 2 displays this trend.

A graph with a red line

Figure 2: Trend in dairy herd size, associated land area (ha) and number of farms between the 2005/06 and 2023/24 milking seasons.

4.9 Information gained from monitoring identifies:

4.9.1 Much of this early decline is attributable to amalgamation, as smaller farms become part of bigger entities. This was particularly evident in the first 10 years, when land under dairy remained reasonably consistent while farm numbers fell.

4.9.2 Over recent years dairy farm numbers continue to decline. This is now mainly due to smaller farms ceasing supply with a land use change away from dairying to dairy support, beef and in some areas hop gardens.

4.10 We continue to see a large number of farms milking Full Season Once-a-Day

4.10.1 (FSOAD) milking with 37 farms (33%) currently FSOAD. This is the practice of milking cows only once during a 24-hour period for the entire milking season which differs from the traditional twice a day (TAD) milking regime.

4.10.2 The majority of farms switched to Once-a-Day milking at New Year, with many then transitioning to a hybrid model late summer due in part to the extremely dry conditions experienced this past summer.

4.10.3 Hybrid milking regimes include a 7/10 or 3/2 schedule, that is, seven milkings completed every ten days or three milkings every two days.

4.11 Benefits of reduced milkings are:

4.11.1 Less time spent milking cows

4.11.2 Reduced labour and input costs

4.11.3 Reduced staff pressure

4.11.4 The size of contingency storage is reduced and thus installation costs are reduced as less effluent is collected in the yards and sheds

4.11.5 Improved stock health from less stress and lameness (less walking to and from the farm dairy).

4.11.6 Extend grazing rotation

4.12 This year as part of our dairy effluent monitoring visits we introduced a discussion around Freshwater Farm Plans, this included identifying areas on farm which were likely to be a high risk to freshwater and which would be included in a farm plan.

4.13 This discussion proved very informative giving us an overview of where our Tasman dairy farms sit in relation to current and upcoming regulation, the likely level of risk within these catchments from this sector group and provided us with an insight into the issues and difficulties from a practical and economic perspective.

4.14 Table 3 details some common high-risk activities on farm and the number of farms in each FMU affected.

4.15 Each of these activities produces a contaminant discharge such as effluent or leachate which is potentially toxic to ground and freshwater. Identifying these along with the level of risk allows farms to plan for short term contingencies and upgrades if necessary.

	Central Zone	Golden Bay Zone	Southern Zone
Intensive Winter Grazing	5	2	13
Stock Exclusion	100% permanently fenced	96% permanently fenced	81% permanently fenced
Stock Crossings	1 remain	27 remain	4 remain
Feedlots & Stockholding areas	2	10	2
Silage Pits	10	25	11
Rubbish Pits	7	11	13
Offal Holes	8	25	17

Table 3. Farm activities posing a high risk to freshwater.

Resource Consents to Discharge Treated Effluent to Water

4.16 The discharge of treated dairy effluent to water is not a permitted activity and requires resource consent under the TRMP.

4.17 When the monitoring programme started there were 33 farms that held discharge permits. Many of these were active and being used as the primary method of effluent disposal. Since 2005, there has been a continual surrender of this consent class, to the point where only three farms hold consent. All three of these farms are in high rainfall areas of Golden Bay, their consents are held as contingency for wet weather.

5. The 2023 -2024 Compliance Results

5.1 The dairy farm field inspection process is defined with the intent of being applied consistently each year. The predominant purpose of the inspection is to assess compliance with the individual permitted activity rules and resource consent conditions where relevant.

5.2 At the completion of each inspection, a grade is assigned reflecting the level of compliance achieved at the time of inspection. The overall compliance grade is derived from the condition with the worst compliance grade.

5.3 This Council uses a compliance grading system that is described in the Ministry for the Environment’s “Best Practice Guidelines for Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement under the Resource Management Act 1991”. Table 4 describes this grading system with explanation.

5.4

	COMPLIANCE GRADE
	Full Compliance: All relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards are upheld.
	Low Risk Non-Compliance: Compliance with most of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards. Non-compliance carries a low risk of adverse environmental effects or is technical in nature (e.g., failure to submit a report)
	Moderate Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with some of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards, where there are some environmental consequences and/or there is a moderate risk of adverse environmental effects.
	Significant Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with many of the relevant consent conditions, plan rules, regulations, and national environmental standards, where there are significant environmental consequences and/or there is a high risk of adverse environmental effects.

Table 4: MfE (2018) four-tier compliance monitoring grading categories

5.5 Figure 3 displays the aggregate compliance result from the 2023/2024 dairying effluent monitoring in Tasman District.

A green pie chart with a yellow arrow

Description automatically generated

Figure 3: Compliance gradings of farms inspected during the 2023/2024 milking season with respect to Rule 36.1.2.3 of the TRMP or Resource Consent Conditions.

5.6 Of the 111 active dairy farms inspected during the 2023/2024 season 103 (93%) achieved full compliance at time of inspection.

5.7 Eight farms failed to achieve a full compliance status at the time of inspection. These farms were found with levels of non-compliance that resulted in a low-risk non-compliance grade. No farms received a grade worse than this.

5.8 The farms with non-compliance were graded based on the issues that failed a specific permitted activity rule.

5.9 For seven farms, this involved minor ponding of effluent on the ground.

5.10 For one farm, there was a breach of the 20m set back from waterways when discharging effluent.

5.11 None of the breaches resulted in any risk of environmental contamination either through run off or groundwater contamination.

5.12 Given the nature and scale of the breaches, Council resolved these matters with education around the rules for those operating the system. No reinspection was required.

5.13 The 2023/2024 results continue to indicate a high level of compliance with council’s effluent disposal rules. While slightly below the results of the 2022/2023, they are an improvement on previous seasons in terms of full compliance.

6. 2024/2025 Farm Dairy Effluent Survey and Future Programme

6.1 The next round of dairy effluent monitoring will begin during October this year.

6.2 While the structure and purpose of the effluent monitoring programme will remain the same, there will be changes in how we execute it. Two catchment based freshwater compliance officers’ now split this programme based on farm management units with Aorere-West Coast and Motueka–Riuwaka, forming one compliance area, and Moutere, Waimea, Upper Buller – Kawatiri the other. This has allowed these staff to provide a comprehensive approach to delivering all our monitoring requirements under the various freshwater legislation, as well as the rules framework. This “one stop shop” approach should enhance relationships with the farmers and provide synergy and support of the Catchment Facilitators work in these areas.

6.3 These areas have a wide range of agriculture and horticultural sector types, each with their own specific risks to freshwater and the environment. Staff will concentrate on building relationships within their specific area, creating bespoke work programmes tailored to the regulatory and compliance requirements specific to the various rural industries within these areas.

6.4 Looking to the future, it is evident that freshwater farm planning regulations will change the face of regulation within our agricultural and horticultural sectors. Whilst these regulations are under review, it is believed that this new regime will allow the farm operator to use their freshwater farm plan to meet other freshwater regulatory requirements, such as regional rules and national environment standards, where the regulation specifically allows for a freshwater farm plan pathway to be used. At this stage we are unsure how the compliance monitoring, enforcement function will be integrated into the freshwater farm plan system, direction on this is expected once the review of these regulations is completed.

6.5 Effluent systems and application areas will be identified as an on-farm risk to freshwater within a freshwater farm plan. The subsequent mitigation actions within the plan, must at minimum, meet all regulatory requirements related to the risk and be recognised as fit for purpose.

6.6 Dairy effluent disposal, by its very nature, carries risk to freshwater quality, ecosystem health and receiving environments, therefore it is intended to maintain this essentially permitted activity monitoring programme as a high priority within a broader compliance monitoring strategy.

6.7 Regional rules and resource consents will remain in effect and Council will continue to have an obligation to monitor these.  Further, given the structure and timings of the farm plan process, there is a risk of a disconnect between the farm plan and Council staff on the ground assessing this activity if the new arrangements are not well co-ordinated. 

6.8 Our programme of work will evolve as the regulations change, our focus will be on the high-risk activities to fresh and ground water and working alongside farmers, growers and industry groups, ensuring best management practices are adhered to and farmers and growers are aware of their compliance obligations.

7. Farm Dairy National Audit

7.1 Since 2006, an audit of all Regional Councils’ compliance inspections of farm dairy effluent systems has been undertaken by an appointed peer review panel co-ordinated through Te Uru Kahika. The purpose of this audit has been to determine that consistency exists in the assessment and subsequent application of compliance gradings for farm dairy effluent monitoring by the regional authority.

7.2 The farm dairy audit has been successful over the years (pleasingly Tasman District Council’s farm dairy effluent compliance inspections achieved a 100% pass rate at each audit), a decision has been made to discontinue this process as it is seen to have achieved its objectives.

8. Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

8.1 There is no ability for the Council to recover the costs incurred in the monitoring permitted activity rules as this is governed by section 36 of the Resource Management Act. As most farms within the district operate as a permitted activity, the Council cannot charge for routine inspections.

8.2 Currently mechanisms within Section 36 will allow council to recover costs of monitoring compliance of farm operators with Freshwater Farm Plan regulations and this has been built into our fees and charges schedule for future application.

8.3 It is not clear whether future RMA amendments will change the ability to recover costs of permitted activity monitoring although it has been part of regional councils’ submissions on proposed reform. In the meantime, cost of monitoring permitted activity rules under this programme will fall to council funding.

9. Conclusion

9.1 A total of 111 dairy farms had active discharges in the Tasman District during the 2023/2024 milking season, down from last season.

9.2 Compliance rates were again high this season, and for those that did not achieve full compliance the breach was considered minor and did not require formal enforcement action.

9.3 The specific compliance results were as follows:

· Full Compliance: 93% 

· Low Risk Non-Compliance: 7% 

· Moderate Risk Non-Compliance: 0%

· Significant Non-Compliance: 0% 

9.4 All three farms that hold resource consents fully complied with all conditions of their respective consents.

9.5 Dairy farm inspections for the 2024/2025 season commence in October 2024. The intention is to maintain this programme in its current form now and into the future to ensure we are meeting our statutory monitoring obligations as well as protecting the regions freshwater resource.

10. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.9 Rivers and Coastal Structures Update

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	David Arseneau, Team Leader Rivers & Coastal
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Acting Group Manager - Information, Science & Technology
Report Number:	RRC24-07-9

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The relatively calm and dry weather of the past quarter has allowed the Rivers team to continue with baseline river maintenance activities, some of which has been delayed due to cost and resource pressures from large flooding events in recent years. This has been a welcome respite and will help to prepare us for the next inevitable large event.

1.2 Significant developments in the Rivers team include the assignment of a new Team Leader and the tentative confirmation of central government funding to continue important stopbank strengthening work along the Lower Motueka River.

1.3 The report covers the range of river and coastal operations over the past quarter and provides some clarity to the Committee on the pathway we have available to build a more responsive and resilient River and Coastal response, for both routine maintenance and to emergency events.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Rivers and Coastal Structures Update report.

3. Purpose of the report

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

3.1.1 To update the Environment and Regulatory Committee on the activity in the Rivers and Coastal Structures operations and planning,

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

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

4. General Commentary and Items of Note

4.1 Tasman District Council, along with a number of other Regional and Unitary authorities, submitted an unsolicited funding proposal to central government for the purpose of bolstering flood protection and readiness across the country.

4.1.1 The original proposal, called Before the Deluge, was prepared for the previous Labour government in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. The updated proposal, dubbed Before the Deluge 2.0, was provided to the new government at the end of 2023.

4.1.2 The Council included two projects in the proposal: continuing the refurbishment of the Lower Motueka River stopbanks (including the Brooklyn Stream stopbanks) and undertaking targeted repairs on the Peach Island stopbanks. These works build on the recently completed three-year refurbishment contract of the most critical areas of stopbank. The approximate extents of the already-completed work and the yet-to-be-completed work are shown below.

4.1.3 On 30 May 2024, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones announced that $200 million of the government’s new $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund would be allocated to flood resilience infrastructure, and that $101.1 million of that would be committed to a first tranche of 42 projects selected from the Before the Deluge 2.0 proposal. TDC’s two projects are included in this initial tranche of work.

4.1.4 Central government is currently working with the industry to confirm details of funding structures and amounts, and staff are working closely with MBIE to provide necessary information.

4.1.5 In anticipation of a satisfactory funding arrangement being found, TDC reworked the LTP budgets for the Rivers activity to accommodate Council’s co-pay component of the proposal, anticipated to be 40% of total project cost. This has been confirmed in the adopted LTP, and we are well positioned to move into funding contract negotiations when central government is ready.

4.2 Another significant development for the Rivers and Coastal team has been the assignment of a new Team Leader, David Arseneau. David was previously the Team Leader – Infrastructure Planning in the Strategic Policy group, and before that the Stormwater and Rivers infrastructure planning advisor, and has a professional engineering history working with rivers and urban streams, focused on flood management, erosion control, and risk mitigation.

4.3 With David coming onboard in the Team Leader role, the Engineer’s Representative role on the Rivers Maintenance contract (C1064) has been changed from Rob Smith to David Arseneau, who will provide Council oversight and management of the contract moving forward. Engineer-to-the-Contract services continue to be provided by Avik Halder of Stantec.

5. Operational Work Programme Achievements

5.1 For this report period, we have had Taylors Contracting undertaking river works in the Upper and Lower Motueka Rivers, the Dove River, the Motupiko River, the Waimea River and Powley Creek. The work has been a mixture of rock protection works, gravel relocation, anchored tree protection, fairway spraying and native planting maintenance.

5.2 Other river related maintenance activity during this period included stopbank mowing, rubbish collection, monthly outfall inspections and harvesting of willow poles in preparation for our winter planting season.

5.3 The generally settled weather and low river flows over the past 6-12 months has enabled us to prioritize our attention towards more regular yet critical maintenance that we are sometimes not able to complete as we are reacting to and repairing flood damage.

5.4 We have recently completed assessment of our Golden Bay Rivers, and as reported in the last quarterly report there is a reasonably light programme of works to be undertaken which will be considered for the upcoming early summer season.

5.5 Council staff and Taylors Contracting staff will also be looking to undertake walkovers of our smaller maintained waterways over the coming months to determine a maintenance programme for later in the year. For our larger rivers, drone footage is predominantly used for maintenance programming (with onsite visits for specific sites), however, walkovers are required for smaller maintained streams as sometimes the riparian margin vegetation completely occludes the channel and does not always lend well to capturing good footage with a drone.

5.6 A short summary of the month-to-month work is included below.

5.7 March 2024 works (27 jobs):

5.7.1 Rock Protection – Upper Motueka River

5.7.2 Anchored Tree Protection – Upper Motueka River

5.7.3 Monthly Outfall Inspections

5.7.4 Illegal Dumping Removal – Lower Motueka, Riwaka, Tadmor, Wai-iti and Waimea Rivers

5.8 April 2024 works (47 jobs):

5.8.1 Rock Protection – Dove River

5.8.2 Gravel Management – Dove River

5.8.3 Fairway Spraying – Upper Motueka River

5.8.4 Native Plant Maintenance – Pawley Creek and Waimea River

5.8.5 Monthly and Three-Monthly Outfall Inspections

5.8.6 Illegal Dumping Removal – Lower Motueka, Riwaka, Wai-iti and Waimea Rivers

5.9 May 2024 works (33 jobs)

5.9.1 Rock Protection – Dove and Motupiko Rivers

5.9.2 Gravel Management – Dove River

5.9.3 Fairway Spraying – Anatoki and Motupiko Rivers

5.9.4 Native Plant Maintenance and 2024 site preparation – Lower Motueka and Waimea River

5.9.5 Monthly Outfall Inspections

5.9.6 Illegal Dumping Removal – Waimea River

5.9.7 Second Stopbank Mow

5.10 June 2024 works (44 jobs)

5.10.1 Rock Protection – Motupiko River

5.10.2 Anchored Tree Protection – Motupiko & Upper Motueka Rivers

5.10.3 Willow Layering – Motupiko River

5.10.4 Willow Planting – Motupiko River

5.10.5 Monthly Outfall Inspections

5.10.6 Illegal Dumping Removal – Lower Motueka River

A river flowing through a grassy area

Description automatically generated

Rock groynes and anchored willow trees installed in the Upper Motueka River (Hinetai Hops)

A pond with rocks and bushes

Description automatically generated

Rock groynes in the Motupiko River with integrated willow plantings for additional stability and ecological enhancement

A landscape with trees and bushes

Description automatically generated

Native planting site on the west bank of the Motueka River

6. Nursery (duplicated from El Group report)

6.1 The period between April and June 2024 has seen Council and Taylors Contracting staff preparing for our winter harvest of poplar and willow material for provision to the public. We also supply Nelson City and Marlborough District Councils with tree material. Harvest of material is scheduled for July 2024.

6.2 We’ve had good uptake of tree material in 2024, and we are unable to meet the entire demand from existing stock within our Appleby nursery. This has prompted us to continue increasing the number of trees in our nursery, with an additional 700-800 willow and poplar plantings of several varieties going in the ground this winter. These new trees, in conjunction with those planted over the past few years, will result in Council being able to progressively meet demand in years to come for good quality willow and poplar material for hill country and river/stream bank stabilisation.

6.3 As well as provision of material to the public and other councils, trees from the nursery continue to be used in increasing numbers for Council’s river management programme. Council uses the trees to stabilise river banks and create filter layers which can help reduce the impact of floodwaters that spill from the channel in flood events. Council’s river management team also continues to increase the incorporation of willow tree material amongst rock work protection structures in our rivers. The benefit of trees around rock protection works includes improving the ecological habitat on our rivers, and in some lower risk areas the use of trees can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rock. The range of species grown in the nursery also lends well to being able to use the right tree, in the right place, for the range of different river management applications we have in our toolbox.

6.4 As mentioned in the March 2024 ERC report, in response to recent issues with the water supply bore at the nursery, and to ensure reliable continuity of water for irrigation during the summer months, we are in the process of scoping for the renewal of the existing bore.

A field with trees and blue sky

Description automatically generated

Willows at the TDC nursery planted last year are establishing well.

A white truck driving past a ditch

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Harvested willow poles being soaked prior to use on site for bank stabilisation

7. Gravel Management

7.1 Gravel extractions for the purposes of river management have progressed steadily over the last few months, with majority of the extraction works in reaches of Upper Motueka River around the Tapawera Township.

7.2 Gravel extraction has been applied to river reaches where there are indications of gravel aggradation and where there is a degree of risk to adjacent lands from redirected river activity.

7.3 In early March 2024 an extended green LiDAR survey of the Regions’ rivers was commissioned. The survey reaches were determined as either part of consent requirements or to supply additional information and data in the River Management and Hazards space. The reaches programmed for the 2024 LiDAR survey include:

7.3.1 Waimea and Wai-iti Rivers;

7.3.2 Tākaka, Waingaro and Anatoki Rivers;

7.3.3 Motueka River from the coast to above Kohatu, the lower Tadmor River up to Rākau, and the Motupiko River up to the confluence with the Rainy River; and

7.3.4 the lower Brooklyn River and the Shaggery waterways.

7.4 At the date of writing, we are still awaiting the delivery of the 2024 green LiDAR data, with quality assurance processes currently being undertaken by the contractor. The results from the LiDAR surveys (plus previous LiDAR data) will enable full-surface LiDAR datasets of our four envelope-managed rivers. These will be used to generate accurate annual gravel budgets for future planning and river management activities in the year or two to follow.

7.5 One of the reasons we undertake extraction of aggraded gravels is to create capacity in the river channel for flood flows. Pictured below is one of the Upper Motueka River sites where contractors have extracted gravel for commercial use in concrete materials (May-June 2024), under TDC’s global resource consent. Temporary bunding across the downstream side channel allows access to the works to be carried out in dry conditions whilst maintaining water and life within the waterway.

A river running through a valley

Description automatically generated Upper Motueka River gravel extraction, upstream of the Tapawera Township

7.6 Gravel Extraction Volumes (Invoiced) – 1^st January 2024 – 30^th June 2024

River / Stream	Sum of Solid Volume Taken: (m³)
Anatoki River Total	0
Aorere River Total	0
Buller River Total	210
Howard River Total	180
Lower Motueka River Total	2,017
Middle Motueka River Total	1,154
Tākaka River Total	0
Upper Motueka River Total	13,950
Wai-iti River Total	0
Waimea River Total	0
Riuwaka River Total	100

Grand Total (m³)	17,611

8. Specific River Management Issues/Other River Initiatives

Review of the Environmental Management Plan

8.1 TDC carries out the majority of river works under a suite of global resource consents, obtained in 2016. A key compliance aspect of the consents is the development and regular reviews (no longer than every 2 years) of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to guide the manner in which river works are planned and implemented.

8.2 Staff are nearing completion of the latest review of the EMP, which has seen a significant overhaul to the form and function of the plan to recognise the numerous legislative, national policy, and best practice evolutions that have occurred over the past several years. We are confident that the new EMP will provide a high level of confidence to internal (compliance, natural resource science) and external stakeholders (iwi, DOC, Fish and Game, Federated Farmers, etc.) about the work our Rivers team carries out.

Preparing the New River Works and Maintenance Contract

8.3 The current river maintenance contract, C1064 held by Taylor’s Contracting, is due to expire on 31 March 2025, having been extended several times from the initial 2016 award date. With the new Rivers Team Leader in place, preparations will now begin in earnest to develop suitable contract specifications for a new River Works and Maintenance contract.

8.4 Staff intend to recommend a final extension of the contract to 30 June 2025 (i.e., end of next financial year, after the busy summer/autumn river work season) at the next Tenders and Procurement Panel meeting in August, which will be fully discussed in that future report for consideration by the Panel.

Motueka Integrated Catchment Management engagement with iwi

8.5 Staff are working to collaborate with Te Tau Ihu iwi to develop a shared understanding of Integrated Catchment Management in the Motueka catchment. This is a broad, multi-disciplinary, holistic topic and this initiative is intended to provide an open forum to discuss a wide range of projects, programmes, and concerns throughout the catchment.

8.6 Key staff involved include Helen Forsey, our Motueka Catchment Facilitiator, Alastair Clement, our Hazards Team Leader, and David Arseneau, Rivers Team Leader, along with the essential support and insight of Council’s Te Kāhui Hononga team. They are supported when needed by staff from across Council who are involved in any one of the myriad topics under the integrated catchment management umbrella.

8.7 The origin of this project is from the previous Motueka Stopbank Refurbishment project, which TDC has undertaken since 2020 with central government funding. In November 2022 a hui was held with iwi to discuss how some of the funding could be used to restore areas disturbed by the stopbank work, and a clear message was given to TDC that iwi needs a whole-of-catchment approach rather than a project-by-project approach along the Motueka Awa. As a result, TDC obtained approval from MBIE/Kanoa to use a portion of the stopbank refurbishment funding to undertake comprehensive engagement with iwi on the topic of Integrated Catchment Management, with $235,000 allocated to the Rivers Activity to carry out this work.

8.8 A key objective of this project will be to build off the enormous amount of work that has already been done or is underway in the catchment management space, including the Motueka ICM Project that concluded in 2011, and iwi’s Te Mana O Te Wai statements/strategies.

Fly-Tipping

8.9 Staff continue to manage rubbish/fly-tipping issues along our rivers as they occur, working collaboratively with other staff from Compliance and Waste Management.

8.10 Staff are monitoring and investigating recurring dumping in our Waimea berm land, contrary to lease conditions and common good behaviour. In particular, we are pursuing an issue with a local contractor engaging in these behaviours.

8.11 We also regularly assist with the management of vehicles that end up in the river channel or berm, either accidentally or intentionally. One recent incidence is a vehicle that went off the road along Motueka Valley Highway and ended up on its roof on bedrock beside the river channel (photo below). Typically, this remains a police and car-owner matter for insurance to resolve, but after several weeks it became clear that there was no insurance in place and no interest from the owner in retrieving the car (or from Police in resolving the issue). Staff became concerned at the potential environmental damage if a flood flow were to occur, causing leaking of fluids, and worked quickly with Compliance to remove the car under our RMA powers. Just in time as it rained that next weekend!

A car crashed into a rocky area

Description automatically generated

Crashed vehicle in the Motueka River

Brooklyn Stopbank

8.12 As mentioned in the previous Rivers and Coastal report from the March ERC meeting, we have identified systemic issues with the condition of the Brooklyn Stream stopbanks. One site in particular, upstream of Anderson Road on the true left bank, has been identified as a critical risk. Initial cost estimates for the work also indicated that we would need to approach Council for additional budget to complete the work. However, the opportunity provided through the Before the Deluge 2.0 government funding has meant that this critical area can be addressed as part of the larger package of stopbank work.

8.13 In addition to resolving issues with the critical stopbank location, staff have initiated planning to carry out comprehensive investigations and assessments of the Brooklyn Stream stopbanks. This work is being capably managed through the PDO.

Waimea River Park Plan

8.14 Council adopted staff’s recommended approach for the review of the Waimea River Park Plan during the 28 May Strategy and Policy Committee. First drafted in 2010, the Park Plan provides valuable management direction for Council staff for a wide range of activities along the Waimea River.

8.15 The initial public consultation phase commenced on 18 June with the Shape Tasman page going live. This phase aims to collect ideas from the public on the issues and opportunities in the Park, to better inform a revised Plan moving forward. The initial phase of consultation will run through to 18 August.

8.16 Following this phase of consultation, staff will hold a workshop with Councillors on 26 September to review the public feedback and solicit further input and direction on development of the draft Plan.

Leases

8.17 The most important consideration in our management of river berm leases at the moment is the commencement of the Waimea River Park Plan, which will provide guidance on future use of the Council-owned berm land. In anticipation of this updated plan, several leases that were up for renewal have been renewed for only one year, so we can revisit them once the Park Plan is complete.

8.18 Current issues being managed by the Property, Rivers, and Reserves teams include management of stock across the stopbank in one location (to allow public access along the top of the stopbank), encroachments of private fences/equipment onto Council land, and plantings placed along the toe of the stopbanks.

Stopbank Recompense Policy

8.19 Staff have been steadily refining the proposed Stopbank Recompense Policy since Council approved public consultation on the topic to occur (at the 21 September 2023 Council Meeting). We are close to having a final version to recommend to Council for adoption, with some administrative issues on how payments will be facilitated and will bring it to a future meeting when ready for formal adoption.

8.20 One question that had been raised previously when considering this policy is whether the money would be better spent on fencing for the stopbanks to prevent uncontrolled access by stock. This question has been resolved in part by the Before the Deluge 2.0 funding, which will allow us to continue stopbank strengthening works through the key areas affected by the Stopbank Recompense Policy, including fencing along all lengths of upgraded stopbank. This will provide a robust baseline of stopbank condition and protection for private landowners, providing them with effective tools to be “good neighbours” of the stopbanks.

River Rating System Changes

8.21 The recently adopted LTP 2024 included a change in how we rate our River X and Y areas, shifting from a calculation based on land value to one based on the capital value of a property. This change was accompanied by changes to the River Y rating area maps in many areas, as well as the 2024 QV assessment of Tasman properties. We have received several inquiries on this matter through the LTP consultation process, as well as increased interest from rate payers on the rating system itself and expect that public interest in this area will continue to increase as greater awareness of the change continues to grow (i.e., with the issuing of the first quarterly rates invoice).

River Management Fairways

8.22 The Rivers Team has initiated exploratory work on river management fairways, established through assessment of the geomorphology and historical movements of the river over time; this included a review of aerial imagery from 2022-2023, 1945-1948 as well as a review of the current topography of the river valley. Staff retained geomorphology experts at Tonkin + Taylor to undertake an initial trial of work for the Upper Motueka River as a trial or proof of concept to develop further.

8.23 A sample of the fairway line delineation is shown below, showing both the historical extent of river movement and the active floodplain area based on elevation.

8.24 Staff’s intended use for this information is to serve as a basis for a more comprehensive risk assessment framework to help prioritise future river work, as well as to inform future strategic thinking on “room for the river” approaches to river management.

8.25 Related to the “room for the river” concept, as well as in response to changes in the river rating system, we have seen some interest from river-side ratepayers in innovative ways to enable or incentivise “stepping back” from the river’s edge. Staff will consider any potential mechanisms in future strategic planning work.

A map of a river

Description automatically generated

Sample of river fairway line delineation along the Upper Motueka River

9. Coastal Structures

Best Island Jetty

9.1 The Best Island Jetty is located at the southern end of Best Island on Council reserve land. The structure was built by the community using materials provided by the former Harbour Board. The jetty has been identified to be in very poor condition (some photos below), posing a hazard to the public if using the structure.

9.2 Considering the community involvement/investment in constructing the original jetty, and in occasionally maintaining it since (i.e., records of a community “working bee” in 2013), the Coastal Structures team will solicit feedback from the community on what should be done with the structure.

9.3 We will carry out this consultation through a Shape Tasman page with targeted mail-out communication to the local residents on Best Island and will work with TDC communications team to help facilitate the process. Results from the community feedback will be reported to ERC at a future date along with options and recommendations for the future of the jetty.

Aerial view of a river and a village

Description automatically generated

Location of Best Island Jetty

A rusty metal piece with a bolt

Description automatically generated

A structure in the water

Description automatically generated

Some photos demonstrating current condition of jetty structure

Mārahau Revetment

9.4 An onsite meeting was held on 6 March 2024 to discuss a more permanent option to the frequent erosion to the northern end of the existing rock revetment. The meeting included representatives from Wakatū and Tasman staff.

9.5 The outcome of the meeting was to continue to monitor any changes to beach erosion with the view to continue to relocate sand at the northern end of the existing rock revetement adjacent to the Wakatū Incorporation land. The existing resource consent will expire in the 27/28 financial year, and we have allocated LTP budget to renew the consent at that time, which will include evaluation of further options for this structure.

Tasman District Council Coastal Assets.

9.6 Work is ongoing to determine the ownership of the many coastal assets and what structures the council is responsible for maintaining alone our coastline.

9.7 A project is being advanced with the IS team to develop a database/asset management solution to better house the numerous sources of coastal asset data we currently maintain, including a public-facing coastal asset map.

9.8 While this project is underway, the Coastal Structures team will continue to carry out regular asset condition inspections of key structures around the District.

10. Forward Work Programme

10.1 The work programme planned so far for July and August includes vegetation maintenance (topping, layering, removal of fallen trees) through the Sherry and Tadmor Rivers, willow pole planting through the Sherry River, Tadmor River, Wai-iti River and the Upper Motueka Rivers, and native planting in the Lower Motueka Rivers, Waimea River, and the Moutere River.

10.2 Staff are currently undertaking assessments of some of the Districts smaller managed rivers, such as the Redwoods Valley Stream, Eves Valley Stream, Pawley Creek, Hamilton’s Drain, and Little Sydney Stream. We anticipate maintenance activities on these watercourses to occur in September-October if ground conditions are suitable.

10.3 As we continue to assess the condition of our other rivers over the coming months, more rivers may be identified for willow layering and willow pole planting. We have a relatively short window for being able to undertake willow layering (requires trees to be without leaf) and pole planting (needs good ground moisture levels), therefore when possible we focus our attention on these activities through the winter period. We normally aim to have all pole planting activity completed by the end of August, and the majority of layering complete by the end of September.

11. Aligned Projects

11.1 Alastair Clement and David Arseneau are leading a Ministry For The Environment funded project looking at ‘Nature Based Solutions for Flood Management’. Tasman is one of 16 projects around the country. They were also motivated to use the government funded Envirolink scheme ahead of the nature-based solutions work to get a nationally consistent approach to addressing how ‘nature-based solutions’ are assessed and measured. Work to date has largely consisted of a NIWA-led literature review of potential modelling methods for nature-based solutions. Tasman’s work is underway to prepare a Request for Proposal to retain a consultant for hydrodynamic modelling work who will ultimately deliver a report that we can use for strategic planning of novel flood management opportunities. This work is utilizing $300,000 from the Ministry over this and next year so is a free bonus to Tasman.

11.2 The Natural Hazards team in collaboration with the Rivers team have recently initiated a river modelling project to better understand and characterise the level of service in the Waimea River. This has been identified as a key uncertainty due to the complex upstream hydrology from numerous contributing streams, and brought to front of mind during the August 2022 rain event when a minor stopbank overtopping occurred at the downstream end of the stopbank scheme (later identified to have been an over-design event for the stopbanks, and so not a breach of level of service). This model will help inform staff of the level of service we can expect from the stopbanks in the future, as well as any potential gaps in the level of service along the stopbank lengths.

12. Risks

12.1 The previous ERC report covering the Rivers and Coastal activities outlined the risk profile of Tasman’s flood protection structures (stopbanks), and it is worthwhile including the level of service summary for our stopbanks as a regular feature of this report so it is repeated below, along with the reminder that standard best practice would be a 1% AEP level of protection.

12.2 An important clarification from the previous report, though, is around the Brooklyn Stream stopbanks. Previously the report indicated a 10% AEP level of service for these structures, but in fact our Rivers Activity Management Plan includes no standard at all for the Brooklyn Stream stopbanks. Instead, we consider the Brooklyn stopbanks to be an extension of the Lower Motueka River stopbanks, in as much as they contain the 2% AEP flow from the Motueka River itself and was not specifically designed to provide robust flood protection against flows in the Brooklyn Stream.

12.3 That being said, staff are planning a targeted community education/information package for residents along the Brooklyn stopbanks of the risks they face, and the plans they should make for emergency situations.

12.4 As previously reported, the Level of Service of the Waimea stopbanks is currently being re-evaluated through a joint project with the Rivers and Hazards team. With work underway to update the hydraulic model of the system to confirm this and may lead to future recommendations. The Waimea and the Motueka Levels of Service will be updated at the conclusion of works in the coming months.

Stopbank Scheme	Level of Service standard
Waimea	2% AEP (1:50 year), with estimated 600mm freeboard
Motueka	2% AEP (1:50 year), with 50-600mm freeboard
Riuwaka	Less than 10% AEP (1:10 year)
Brooklyn (not a formal LOS)	Less than 10% AEP (1:10 year)

12.5 In the Coastal activity, work is ongoing to characterise Council’s risk exposure in the matter of derelict or abandoned coastal structures. Currently there are several areas of Council involved in the management and inspection of coastal structures, as well as the tracking of asset condition information, not to mention the risk of orphaned structures with unclear ownership. We will be advising Council of outcomes of this work as they arise and will in the meantime continue to carry out important asset inspections for the structures we are aware of.

13. Consideration of Financial or Budgetary Implications

13.1 Our focus for the last quarter of the 23/24 financial year has been undertaking important baseline maintenance on rivers that may not have received enough attention over the past few years during our flood response work: lots of willow layering and planting, rock top-ups, and some gravel extraction. The lack of severe weather event since May 2023 has allowed us to start transitioning back to BAU.

13.2 Moving into the 24/25 financial year and the new LTP, there remains the open question if central government will provide funding for Council to continue stopbank refurbishment work along the Lower Motueka River. Council’s co-pay component for this funding was anticipated in the approved LTP, but in the event that funding is not provided we will need to discuss walking back the budget changes with Council.

13.3 Regardless of the government funding outcome, we will continue to apply a high level of discretion and judgement on high-cost intervention work, and will be ring-fencing as best as possible sufficient budget to ensure baseline maintenance is carried out across the District. This has been challenging in past years due to the large amount of flood-response work required, particularly in the Upper Motueka River.

13.4 The new financial year also sees adoption of the new Schedule of Fees and Charges, which has unified gravel extraction fees to a single rate. The previous schedule had differing rates which risked miss interpretation. Considering the legal challenge experienced this past year around the recovery of gravel fees, we will be managing this space very closely moving forward.

14. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

Nil

Environment and Regulatory Committee Agenda – 18 July 2024

7.10 Environmental Information Manager's Report

Information Only - No Decision Required

Report To:	Environment and Regulatory Committee
Meeting Date:	18 July 2024
Report Author:	Mirka Langford, Acting Environmental Information Manager
Report Authorisers:	Rob Smith, Acting Group Manager - Information, Science & Technology
Report Number:	RRC24-07-10

1. Summary / Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto

1.1 The report covers the last quarter of the financial year and continues the regular reporting to the committee on the operations of the Environmental Information team.

2. Recommendation/s / Ngā Tūtohunga

That the Environment and Regulatory Committee

1. receives the Environmental Information Manager's Report report

3. Purpose of the Report

3.1 To update the Environment and Regulatory Committee on the activity areas of the Environmental Information team. While we do not have an extensive capital programme we do have a large operational aspect, undertaking State of the Environment monitoring, resource management monitoring and survey to enable support and advice to the wider Council and to ensure Tasman’s compliance with national reporting requirements.

4. Commentary

4.1 To cover the range of activities of the section, the broad areas are split up into activities the Environmental Information team carries out in each of the FMUs, as well as district wide activities within their functions.

FMU Specific Work

Mohua (Aorere & Takaka)

5. Biosecurity

5.1 The wasp hoverfly was successfully released at Wainui Inlet in Golden Bay on 30 April by Manaaki Whenua research scientist Dr Bob Brown. This was only the second release site in New Zealand after a release had taken place at Rai Valley the week before. The other proposed release site in the Howard Valley was not able to be considered this year for introduction of the hoverflies as wasp numbers were not sufficiently high enough to guarantee a successful establishment. Wasp nests at the two release sites will be monitored to ascertain infestation levels.

A person standing next to a car and a bee

Description automatically generated

5.2 Biosecurity staff from Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council, and Bruce Lines from Diving Services attended a fab dock training day on 31 May. The fab dock is deployed when unwanted marine organisms are detected on the hull of a vessel from another port. Chlorine is used to kill the organisms while the vessel is positioned inside the fab dock. Once the chlorine has killed any unwanted organisms it is then neutralised. The fab dock is owned by the three councils and the Ministry of Primary Industries.

A collage of boats and a boat

Description automatically generated

5.3 While undertaking our yearly marine biosecurity surveillance at Port Tarakohe, the dive team discovered Sabella spallanzanii (Mediterranean fanworm) on a vessel. This vessel recently re-located from Auckland, a known hot spot for this pest marine worm.

5.4 Tasman District Council, Nelson City Council, Marlborough District Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries work collaboratively on Sabella management in the Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership. Sabella can form dense colonies and compete for nutrients with commercial crops (e.g. mussels) and native marine organisms.

5.5 As a dive team was already on site at Port Tarakohe, it was decided to “wrap” the vessel rather than deploy the fab dock mentioned above. Wrapping works on the same principle as the fab dock but can be actioned promptly if this resource is available.

5.6 Samples of Sabella were sent to NIWA for analysis to determine if the worms were of spawning age. Results revealed that some of the samples sent were of spawning age, but fortunately they had not yet spawned. Surveillance is key in keeping this pest out of our region and is scheduled to continue over the coming season.

A comparison of a boat and a plant

Description automatically generated

A white ruler on a metal surface

Description automatically generated

Mediterranean fan worm tube

6. Biodiversity

6.1 The Native Habitat Tasman project is working its way through the far corners of our District with ecologists working with landowners West Whanganui and Buller (discussed below). The west coast in particular supports some of our most undisturbed natural environments in our Region. Think towering podocarp and rata trees and sporadic development – and talking to landowners, this is the main reason for moving out there and anyone whose walked the Heaphy Track will understand. Eleven landowners have granted access to Michael North, our contract ecologist, who provides in-depth reports about the flora & fauna on their property and the importance of these sites for our native biodiversity. On the surveys Tasman’s ecologist Matt Moss attended, several landowners were keen to accompany us and hear about what’s present and show us some hidden gems they’ve been managing over the years.

A view of a forest and mountains from a hill

Description automatically generated

View out towards the Whanganui estuary from the gravel roads

A close-up of a forest

Description automatically generated

Michael North capturing the epiphytes perched on a remnant west-coast giant

7. Groundwater/Water Resources

7.1 Te Waikoropupū Springs Water Conservation Order (WCO) – monthly sampling for nitrate and Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) has been ongoing since started in mid-2023. The two WCO sites re Main Spring and Fish Creek Spring WCO site and another site Fish Creek Springs – TDC site are being sampled. With the dry summer the Fish Creek Spring Sites were dry for several of the sample sampling runs between February and May 2024. The pictures (May 24) show the Dry Fish Creek and the Blue folder in the first picture is where the Fish Creek WCO site is. The subsequent photo is the walkway past part of Fish Creek Springs. This drying is a common occurrence when the Takaka River gets low, and the conditions are dry in the catchment.

7.2 Council has also progressed and commissioned the peer review work on the catchment monitoring as required in the WCO recommendations. Murray Close a well-recognized – Scientist from ESR would be undertaking the work and is starting in July with a final report due to Council by December 2024. There is an extensive amount of information to review and there is a preliminary catchment familiarisation in early July which also includes meeting various parties that have been involved in the WCO. Council is also progressing the specialized Dissolved Oxygen and Clarity monitoring for a consecutive three-month period to be undertaken from October this year to January 2025.

Position of Blue folder indicates where the Fish Creek WCO site is

A curved walkway in the middle of a forest

Description automatically generated

Walkway past part of Fish Creek Springs

8. Catchment Facilitator

8.1 The initial draft of the Te Waikoropupū Water Quality Action Plan is progressing.

8.2 One specific initiative emerging from this plan is the mapping and classification of doline-sinkholes in the Takaka Valley. Doline-sinkholes serve as conduits for surface water and contaminants, such as nitrates, to reach the underlying aquifer. Currently, the extent of this impact is not well understood. This project aims to address this knowledge gap.

8.3 The project is in its early stages, beginning with a desk-top exercise using GIS tools to locate sinkholes on the valley floor and walls. Once identified, they will be broadly classified in terms of their connectivity and potential risk to the aquifer. Each sinkhole will be assessed for its drainage characteristics and potential impact on water quality. This assessment will be validated through on-site verification and collaboration with landowners to gather local insights and mitigation practices.

8.4 A key deliverable will be a GIS layer depicting sinkhole locations and their risk classifications, aiding landowners in understanding and managing risks through their Freshwater Farm Plans.

9. Environmental Monitoring

9.1 A new Network site has been installed on the lower Aorere River, designed to support water resource management it measures flow, temperature and electrical conductivity. The site was installed with the support of the Nalder’s providing access and land, which is very much appreciated.

A couple of people sitting on a bench

Description automatically generated

Environmental Monitoring Network site Aorere River at Ferntown mid construction, installed by Environmental Monitoring Officers Therese Wells (Trainee) and Tessa Dreadon, assisted by Martin Doyle.

10. Hazards

10.1 The Takaka flood modelling project is almost complete, with staff working with E2 Environmental to finish off the last few modelling scenarios needed for this project. When finalised this modelling will update Council’s 2010 Takaka flood modelling, including providing updated climate change scenarios. The modelling will include information on key flood events including a 1% AEP event (a ‘one-in-100 year’ event) and a 2% AEP event (a ‘one-in-50 year' event), both important for informing ground and floor levels to ensure that development in the valley is resilient to inundation hazard.

11. Freshwater Improvement Fund Projects

11.1 For the Freshwater Improvement Fund Wetlands Project, planting started early despite the drought given the high moisture content in wetlands. Ball Constructed Wetland planting (shown below) is now complete with 3300 stems in the water/ground. The site is primarily stocked with Lake Clubrush to help reduce nutrient and open water to disinfect disease causing organisms in this feeder tributary to Fish Creek.

A person walking on a grassy hill next to a body of water

Description automatically generated

11.2 Wharariki wetland planting (shown in the photo below) was set back a little due to frost in May - the week after the plantings went in. According to Pūponga Farm Park Manager Shane Ricketts “earliest and heaviest frosts I’ve seen here in Pūponga”. Plant mortality could be as high as 500, but will be confirmed in Spring. These will be replaced if they don’t pull through.

A field with plants and trees

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

11.3 Stage 3 of Reilly Constructed Wetland (shown below) is also now complete following the planting of 3485 stems. The previous 2 stages of work are looking stunning (presented to Council in April) and we are confident that Stage 3 will look the same in years to come.

A group of people standing in a field

Description automatically generated

12. Coastal & Estuarine

Seagrass in the Whanganui Inlet

12.1 The sad story of the loss of seagrass in the Whanganui Inlet continues. Between 2021 and 2024, there was an 83% (152ha) reduction in dense (≥50%) seagrass cover (reduced from 183ha to 31ha). Between 1948 and 2024 a 96.6% (871ha) reduction in dense (≥50%) seagrass cover (reduced from 902ha to 31ha).

12.2 The total extent of seagrass remaining is 165ha in total, with the breakdown by cover classes indicating at a lot of this is now getting quite sparse (see table below).

Percent cover category	ha	%
Very sparse (1 to <10%)	43.9	26.7
Sparse (10 to <30%)	42.4	25.8
Low-Moderate (30 to <50%)	45.1	27.4
High-Moderate (50 to <70%)	16.9	10.3
Dense (70 to <90%)	14.7	8.9
Complete (>=90%)	1.5	0.9
Total	164.5	100

For more information on this see: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/b2032c2666c648e7a3908a06062d5d8c

Abel Tasman

13. Bathing Water Quality

13.1 A technical report has been produced regarding faecal source tracking investigations at Pohara, Kaiteriteri, and Stephens Bay Lagoon. While some faecal pathogens were found the investigations are no closer to finding a clear source. A summary of this report will be available the August 29 Council meeting.

14. Catchment Facilitator

14.1 As a consequence of Cyclone Gita, willows have spread throughout the Otuwhero catchment, infesting the land area as well as continuously reinfesting the Otuwhero Wetland, which is actively managed. The local trust has been supported with advice on TRMP rules and options for willow removal. Tasman’s Helen Forsey is also collaborating with Landcare Trust who is hoping to establish a catchment group in the Otuwhero. Tasman Bay Guardians held an inanga spawning event in May on the Otuwhero River.

15. Groundwater

15.1 In March and April 2023, a groundwater quality survey was undertaken, the technical report summarising the results is attached. This groundwater quality survey focused on the upper catchment of the Motueka Gravel Aquifer between Motueka Gorge and Woodman’s Bend (prior to the Motueka and Riuwaka Plains). Water bearing gravels are mostly down to 10 m deep in this area. The aquifer is recharged primarily by the Motueka River and its tributaries. Infiltration of rainfall through hillslope fan gravels and overland also occurs away from the main river stem. Most of the bores and wells are between 4 to 8 m below ground level. Groundwater in the Motueka Gravel Aquifer is young (between 0 - 12 months in age).

15.2 Overall, groundwater was found to be of good quality with regards to water chemistry. The 2023 survey found all the chemical parameters were well below the Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022 and Aesthetic Values for Drinking Water Notice 2022 (referred jointly as the DWSNZ) for both the health significant and aesthetic factors. River water quality, which is the main source of recharge for the Motueka Gravel Aquifer is also of good quality.

15.3 Groundwater in the southeastern part of the Motueka Gravel aquifer, near the source of the Motueka River, is higher in magnesium due to the influence of the ultramafic dunite. Groundwater in the western part of the Motueka Aquifer, near the Wharepapa Arthur Range is higher in calcium due to the influence of marble and limestone in western tributary headwaters. The limestone and marble raise the pH for the surface water however this does not appear to translate in alkaline pH in the groundwater.

15.4 There appears to be seasonal trends identified in the long-term monitoring, with increases in dissolved calcium and magnesium (and consequently increases in hardness and conductivity) during spring. Hardness during spring is between 70 and 100 g/m3 as CaCO3 which is still considered “soft water”. Outside of springtime, the water hardness is low (around 70 g/m3 as CaCO3) despite the mineral input of weathering limestone and ultramafic dunite. There does not appear to be any seasonal trend in pH, which is slightly acidic across the whole study area. Soft water (low hardness) in combination with slightly acidic groundwater means the groundwater in the Motueka Gravel Aquifer can be corrosive.

15.5 Nitrate-N was well below half of the MAV (below 5.6 g/m3-N), though it does appear to be highest between the Tapawera township and the Wangapeka river confluence (between 2 - 3 g/m3-N). This is likely due to the narrowing of the aquifer downstream of the Wangapeka River confluence as the Motueka River (and underlying aquifer) is constrained between hill ranges through Woodstock to Woodman’s Bend. The narrowing of the aquifer is thought to concentrate the nitrates in this area.

15.6 Groundwater in the Motueka Gravel Aquifer is well oxygenated (above 50%), which was expected due to the young groundwater age. Manganese was detected in all groundwater sites sampled in the survey area, however none exceeded the DWSNZ. Iron was mostly at concentrations below the limits of detection. The low concentrations/detections of manganese and iron is expected due to the oxygenation of the aquifer.

15.7 There were no pesticides, glyphosate (commonly known as RoundUp or Drexel), pre- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) or emerging organic contaminants (EOCs) detected by ESR in 2018 and 2022 in the long-term monitoring bore located immediately upstream of the Tapawera township. Note, Council is still waiting on the EOC results from the 2022 sampling.

15.8 Comparisons to bores/wells in the study area which have been sampled in a previous synoptic survey remain of good quality, with no significant changes throughout the years.

15.9 The 2023 water quality investigation did identify various risks to the security of the unconfined/semiconfined (leaky) aquifer which could have health risks to public health. These include inappropriate sitting of bores/wells and bore/well heads not fully sealed. In most instances, these were not intentional but more a lack of knowledge.

15.10 Localised contamination of E.coli was common in the shallow groundwater sites. E.coli contamination is likely occurring due to inappropriate bore/well siting where the bore/well was in close proximity with activities involving faecal matter. Poor bore/well head protection where the bore/well head was not sealed could also be a pathway for contamination to enter into the aquifer.

Science Officer – Groundwater (Melanie Westley) and Environmental Monitoring Officer (Trainee) (Therese Wells) taking a water quality sample from GW 4617-Hyatt in Upper Motueka near Tapawera as part of the 2023 groundwater quality survey.

16. Environmental Monitoring

16.1 The Tadmor at Mudstone flow monitoring site weir structure enables the collection of accurate low flow data. This summer’s low flow conditions enabled essential weir repairs to be carried out by Taylors Contractors following flood damage in 2022 and recent years.

A crane lifting a pile of rocks

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Tadmor at Mudstone flow monitoring site weir repair by Taylors Contracting, project lead by Environmental Monitoring Officer James Townshend. Land and access for flow and rainfall monitoring site provided by Jack and Rob Anglesea.

16.2 Maintenance for flood related erosion was also carried out at the Riuwaka North Branch at Littles flow recording site.

A measuring stick in a stream

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Rock protection carried out by Taylors Contracting, project Lead Therese Wells. Land and access for flow and rainfall monitoring site provided by Simon and Tanya Carney.

16.3 We really appreciate the ongoing support of local landowners like the Angleseas and Carneys in operating Environmental Monitoring Network sites on their private property. These sites provide water resource and flood warning information to the Tapawera, Motueka and Riwaka communities.

17. Catchment Facilitator

17.1 The Motueka Catchment Collective (MCC) is currently halfway through their 3-year MPI funding. They have a well-established Biodiversity group supporting restoration projects and 4 community nurseries; a Pest and Weed group running workshops and about to support weed control on a few key QEII blocks and other native areas; a Forestry group; a River Access group and a recently started Freshwater group who aims to support sub-catchment groups wanting to do citizen science water quality monitoring. It is hoped that these sub-catchment freshwater groups will then build the foundation for other sub-catchment work on the other subjects – pests/weeds/biodiversity etc. MCC is hopeful they will be able to secure further funding as other sub-catchment groups from and the needs for each sub catchment are identified. Tasman Bay Guardians is working closely with MCC and is currently supporting 5 sub-catchments with freshwater citizen science monitoring.

18. Biosecurity

18.1 Tench (Tinca tinca) are a pest fish species that had been reported as being present in Easton pond on the Motueka causeway in 2018. Tench is an eradication pest in the Regional Pest Management Plan, and efforts were made last month to ascertain numbers in this waterway. With the assistance of DOC and Fish & Game, TDC staff netted the pond, but no fish were found on the day. It is suspected that the fish that were present in the pond may have all died during the drought of 2018, when water temperatures in the pond increased. The photo below is of dead tench that had been washed up during this drought period. Water samples were collected at the time and sent away for eDNA analysis. These have subsequently returned a negative result for the presence of tench, perch and goldfish. Inspections of surrounding ponds and waterways for pest fish will be undertaken over the coming 12 months.

A person standing on grass with fish

Description automatically generated

Tench from Easton Pond 2018

19. Biodiversity

19.1 The wetland mapping program is nearing the final chapter with a new polygon layer submitted for wetlands desktop mapped for the Motueka, Moutere, and Waimea FMU’s. This area has been scheduled last due to the few remaining wetlands present in these areas and relatively low susceptibility to drainage compared to the Golden Bay / Mohua and Buller / Kawatiri regions. Approximately 4300 draft polygons have been identified across these regions, and our methodology has captured potential wetlands and non-pine vegetated gullies for land-use analysis. Next steps are to review these before determining potential wetlands and beginning landowner engagement around this.

Moutere

20. Dry Weather

20.1 The last of the water restrictions in the deep Moutere Eastern Aquifer Zone have just been lifted. The dry conditions setting in from January and right through to May this year has required Dry Weather Task Force meetings regularly to keep abreast of restrictions, ongoing monitoring and compliance. This has consumed considerable staff time over this period for a range of involved staff.

20.2 The Deep Moutere aquifers in particular the Eastern Zone is only slowly recovering, this is due to its rainfall recharge nature, and low rainfall in parts of the areas related to its recharge. Overall, the region is still well behind rainfall averages in many areas.

21. Catchment Facilitator

21.1 The Moutere Catchment Group having planted 500,000 native plants in the catchment since 2019 and won a Freshwater Champions award at the Land and Water symposium held in May. Tasman has contributed significantly to the work in the Moutere providing co-funding to the Billon Dollar Tree funding that was the launching pad for the group. Tasman Bay Guardians are now supporting the work by doing citizen science water quality monitoring in some of the smaller streams of the catchment to help monitor any changes to water quality that come out of this work.

22. Coastal & Estuarine

Opportunities for Saltmarsh Restoration in the Moutere Inlet

22.1 Following on from work in the Waimea Inlet, we have undertaken work to look at the opportunities that exist for saltmarsh restoration in the Moutere Inlet and rank them according to potential success and benefit for a given cost. A report on this will be available later in the year and a workshop with people keen on this subject in this estuary.

Waimea

23. Environmental Data

23.1 Waimea Dam outflows and allocation allowance reports for both affiliated and unaffiliated users has been developed. These overlay the derived natural flow in the lower Wairoa River with the actual flow and the changes in the allocation allowance that occur as river flows lower. This allows a record of the situation as it occurred at the time to be tracked to ensure the triggers automatically passed through to the water consent management system correctly reflect the flow conditions. Having the periods of low flows through April and again into early June have allowed us to test this system prior to full implementation.

A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated

24. Dry Weather

24.1 Of particular concern is also the dry conditions in parts of the Wai-iti. The Wai-iti Dam was crucial in abating more severe restrictions in the Wai-it Zone over the past summer. We drew the dam down to approximately 12 % and with the lack of rainfall and the nature of the small catchment geology the dam storage has only risen to 17.3 % on 27/06/24. The picture shows the Wai-iti Dam on 21/06/24 prior the weekend rain of 22/23 June ‘24 and it was about 14 % full then.

A reflection of a lake in a field

Description automatically generated

A river running through a grassy area

Description automatically generated

Environmental Monitoring Network - Wai-iti River at Livingstone Road flow monitoring site

25. Catchment Facilitator

25.1 The initial draft of the Waimea Plains Action Plan is progressing. The plan is being developed in response to water quality trends identified through groundwater monitoring.

25.2 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2020) requires the development of an Action Plan when a deterioration in water quality is observed. The Council resolved on 1 June 2023 to initiate this Action Plan to enhance understanding of the Waimea Plains. This includes identifying causes and potential actions to address nitrate concentrations.

Waimea Plains Nitrate Project

25.3 We are continuing our monthly catch up with key HortNZ policy staff. Council’s Brigid Graney (Catchment Facilitator – Waimea), Mirka Langford (Team Leader – Land use and Soils) and Lisa McGlinchey (Principal Planner – Environmental Policy) attend these on-line meetings. This is developing into a valuable session. At times HortNZ have invited others to assist our understanding of research and tools that are developing to support growers nationally, and how these are being applied locally.

25.4 HortNZ confirm that the Growing Change project, which has been supported by funding through the Ministry for the Environment, has now concluded on the Waimea Plains (natural conclusion rather than funding related). To recap, the growing change project supported growers on the Waimea Plains through the process of adopting the Environmental Management System (EMS) add-on to the horticultural NZGAP certification programme. The EMS add-on was designed to meet both the national Industry-agreed Good Management Practices relating to water quality and the Freshwater Farm Plan regulations under RMA Part 9A.

25.5 HortNZ are working with NZGAP to finalise the aggregate data from the project, as it relates to the Waimea Plains. We will continue to work with them to ensure that the aggregate reporting is providing the level of detail required to inform outcomes relevant to nutrient management. The local response to the Growing Change project has seen a 40% uptake, where 18 of the 45 registered growers on the Waimea Plains have completed the EMS add-on to the NZGAP programme. The project has also supported the presentation of research and training in the Sustainable Vegetable Systems nutrient management tool.

25.6 It is important to note that the gains the Growing Change project has made locally is even more pronounced now the coalition Government has paused the rollout of the Freshwater Farm Plan Regulations (FWFP). The adoption of good and best management practices in advance of the regulations is voluntary, and local growers are acknowledged for this early buy-in to changing practices to meet freshwater outcomes.

Other:

25.7 HortNZ have produced a story map that describes how New Zealand’s fruit industry is managing water use, and freshwater issues. It can be viewed at: Fresh fruit from freshwater (arcgis.com). This complements the previously released story map for the vegetable industry: Fresh produce and freshwater (arcgis.com).

Waimea Catchment Groups

25.8 An inaugural Catchment Forum, run by NZ Landcare Trust, was recently held in Richmond with the goal of sharing experiences and attracting new groups. Existing catchment groups from Nelson, Moutere, Motueka and the Roding presented on their experiences. There was interest in holding a specific wider-Waimea catchment event to spark interest in forming smaller groups throughout the wider catchment, with the potential to have an umbrella ‘collective’ approach for these groups to sit under similar to the Moutere and Motueka catchment collectives. The Catchment Facilitator (Waimea) is supporting this.

Roding River Catchment Group:

25.9 A new catchment group has formed in the Aniseed Valley. The group has a good level of landowner support in the catchment and are taking a strategic approach to their planning. They are currently applying for funding to get a weed management plan drawn up. Council’s Catchment Facilitator (Waimea) is providing support and connection as required, and a number of Council staff have provided direction to the group.

26. Biosecurity

26.1 The fungal biocontrol agent known as “Tradescantia yellow leaf spot fungus”, which infects wandering willy was introduced to three new areas in Tasman in April. Two of these releases were in reserves in Richmond, and the third release was in a reserve at Ruby Bay. This fungus requires some moisture to be present and works well in cooler climatic conditions. The fungus penetrates the leaves and causes yellow spotting which leads to the leaves browning-off and dying. The first release in the region of this biocontrol agent was made in 2019 in Nelson.

A close-up of a plant

Description automatically generated A close-up of a plant with a spot on it

Description automatically generated

26.2 A Queensland water dragon was successfully captured by the Biosecurity team in Jimmy Lee Creek in April. Natureland kept the water dragon for a week while attempts were made to track down the owner, who did not come forward to claim the reptile. A registered reptile keeper in Westport was able to take the water dragon and provide it with a suitable enclosure.

A person holding a lizard

Description automatically generated

Queensland Water Dragon

27. Jobs for Nature (J4N)

Wilding Conifer Control – Mount Richmond Management Unit

27.1 Great progress has been made in recent months on control of the worst wilding conifer species – Douglas Fir and Pinus contorta. Control has been undertaken in the Red Hills, above Inwoods Lookout and on faces of Gordon’s Knob. Ground work has also been undertaken in high conservation value areas in Porters Flat and close to Starveall Hut.

27.2 The wilding control work will take a break for the winter period. Funding for the next financial year will be at lower levels than the past few as the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme has a reduced budget going forward.

A landscape with trees and mountains

Description automatically generated

Controlled wilding pines in the Porters Flat area – April 2024.

Waimea Inlet Enhancement Project

27.3 Salt marsh restoration has commenced at Rough Island, next to the Equestrian Park. The project aims to re-establish salt marsh by increasing the culvert capacity (from one 300mm culvert to three 300mm culverts). The limited culvert capacity is limiting the survival and proliferation of natural re-establishment of salt marsh vegetation.

27.4 The work will also include, planting of areas with appropriate salt-tolerant plants, as well as planting in terrestrial zones around the salt marsh to help to screen the area for typically shy marsh bird species. Trial plots (transects) will be set up to measure the natural regeneration of salt marsh vegetation.

A landscape with a river and trees

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Drone imagery taken following the upgrade of the culvert capacity at Rough Island.

27.5 Waimea Inlet Pest Plant Control - Work is well underway in both Nelson and Tasman. Control of species including Tamarisk, Juncus gerardii, Boneseed, Carex divisa all well underway. Over 50 ha of the estuary has been covered since January 2024. The final year of the project will see a number of areas revisited and control work expanded into other areas.

Waimea Inlet 1 Billion Trees (Phase 2)

27.6 20,000 + plants to be planted in winter 2024. This is mostly focused upon existing sites to infill and add further diversity. Soil moisture levels until recently presented some issues. Certain sites have seen some quite high mortality in drier spots, namely the Waimea Bermlands area.

Planting from 2023 at Neimann Creek – establishing very well

Coastal & Estuarine

27.7 Presentations were given to the Waimea Inlet Forum and Waimea Inlet Working Group about the estuarine fish survey of 2022 and the recently published report on Opportunities for Saltmarsh Restoration. Staff also supported and presented about estuary restoration on a Hikoi with Ngati Kuia around the Waimea Inlet as well as presented to a Kiwi Conservation Club event on the Waimea estuary and Pearl Creek.

Buller

28. Groundwater

28.1 Two exploratory bores were drilled by Waimea Drilling in April 2024 to understand groundwater resources in the Buller Gravel Aquifer. The first bore was drilled in the floodplains of the Buller River downstream of Lake Rotoiti near Kawatiri. The lithology at this site was primarily moraine from the historic glaciation and appears to be on the very edge of the aquifer. The second site is located downstream of Murchison and hit the Buller Gravel Aquifer.

28.2 In the 24/25 financial year, aquifer testing will be undertaken at these sites to determine the aquifer characteristics including flow and transmissivity. Water level monitoring equipment will be inserted into the Hinehaka Rd site to provide real-time groundwater level data for this area.

28.3 Thank you again to the adjacent landowners for their involvement and engagement regarding locations for these sites and providing access for the drilling rig to undertake the bore installation.

A construction worker standing next to a tall metal structure

Description automatically generated

GW 24702 – Kawatiri downstream of Lake Rotoiti being drilled by Waimea Drilling- April ‘24.

A large metal tower with a blue sky

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Lowering the PVC slotted screen into a newly drilled bore GW 24701 – Hinehaka Rd.

29. Freshwater Improvement Fund: Wetlands

29.1 After re-wetting much of the wetland in April by plugging several of the drains at Mangatāwhai / Black Valley Wetland (see photo below) we have begun planting with 685 stems added in 7 “seed islands” spread across the site. For more information on seed islands, check out this project in Tairāwhiti Landmark “seed island” trial to turbocharge large-scale regeneration efforts | Trees That Count.

29.2 The restoration work at Mangatāwhai has also been captured in the following video Mangatāwhai/ Black Valley Wetland 2024 (youtube.com).

A tree growing in a dry field

Description automatically generated

Seedling counting at one of the earthbunds

30. Biodiversity

30.1 The Native Habitat Tasman surveys have also been progressing through the Buller area, from Glenhope down to the Matakitaki regions. These surveys have identified a number of populations of rare & threated small-leaved shrubs species that are listed in our plan for protection. All-in-all adding to the understanding of biodiversity across private land in our District.

Function Specific Work

31. Land and Freshwater Plan Change

31.1 About 16 staff across all EI functions are currently assisting with the technical input into the Land and Freshwater Plan change. Technical memos across EI are being drafted on the following topics:

· Margin Space Management

· River Works and Activities

· Gravel Extraction

· Sensitive Geologies

· Sensitive Freshwater Environments

· Nutrient Management

· Water Allocation and Takes

· Land disturbance and Forestry

· National Objectives Framework (NOF) attributes

· Contaminated Soils and Landfill

31.2 In addition to the staff mentioned above, 4 external contractors are also being utilized to support the EI team.

31.3 This work is currently being prioritised to meet the deadlines for council workshops and taking up nearly all available time, which means that some of the work EI is usually working on is being delayed or dropped.

32. Hazards

32.1 The natural hazards team has been providing substantial support to the Environmental Policy team with the many plan changes and structure plans that are currently underway. This has included the Deferred Zoning Plan Change, the Urban Growth Plan Change, the Richmond Spatial Plan, Mapua Structure Plan, the Natural Hazards Plan Change, and the Land and Freshwater Plan Change. Examples of the types of work the natural hazards team has been undertaking to support these policy projects includes: summaries of the natural hazards affecting different areas of the district; advice on the effects of coastal storms and sea-level rise; input on the natural hazards issues that are significant to the district and potential options for addressing these hazards; and advice on the effects of gravel extraction from the District’s rivers.

33. Catchment Facilitators

33.1 Whilst the Freshwater Farm Plan (FWGP) regulations are currently being reviewed and ‘tweaked’ by the government, the catchment team is carrying on with their various projects in their catchments as well as continuing to develop the foundations for a risk based FWFP framework. This involves developing, defining and refining catchment issues, biophysical and land management risks and adequate response expectations.

33.2 Hops: Councils Catchment Facilitators Brigid Graney and Helen Forsey are joining MPI on-farm support (Richard Clarkson) to visit hop growers in the District to better understand the industry generally, what good management practice looks like and the challenges that the industry is facing.

34. Biosecurity

34.1 The Regional Pest Management Joint Committee meeting was held at the end of May to facilitate in-person submissions. The Committee heard from members of the public and from those organisations with a vested interest in the proposals. There was some opposition from forestry companies regarding the proposed rules for wilding conifers.

34.2 There was good support for the proposed introduction of feral cat control areas in Tasman as well as the other pest plants suggested for this plan change.

35. Biodiversity

35.1 Tasman’s Dog Control bylaw is currently being reviewed by staff across the Policy, Compliance, and Biodiversity. Feedback was collated through ShapeTasman and mapped using GIS software and supported with survey data from a comprehensive survey of coastal birds (McArthur et al, 2020). The intended outcome is a modernized policy that promotes responsible ownership, ensures protection of both public & wildlife, and promotes the welfare of dogs within the Tasman District.

36. Groundwater/Water Resources

36.1 The Tasman State of the Environment groundwater quality report has been completed and is undergoing review. This report presents a comprehensive analysis of results of the regional “State of the Environment” groundwater quality monitoring programme. It draws upon various monitoring data collected by Tasman District Council, including several synoptic investigations since the last report in 2010 and wider quality investigations undertaken for the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd as part of the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research as part of the national survey of pesticides, glyphosate, emerging organic contaminants and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

36.2 The report will be presented in the October Committee meeting.

A person in an orange jacket pouring water from a pipe

Description automatically generated

Science Officer – Groundwater (Melanie Westley) taking a water chemistry sample from the irrigational bore in Motueka, GW 3393 - Kildrummy, which is also a regularly sampled site as part of the Council State of the Environment groundwater monitoring programme.

37. Nursery

37.1 The period between April and June 2024 has seen Council and Taylors Contracting staff preparing for our winter harvest of poplar and willow material for provision to the public. We also supply Nelson City and Marlborough District Councils with tree material. Harvest of material is scheduled for July 2024.

37.2 We’ve had good uptake of tree material in 2024, and we are unable to meet the entire demand from existing stock within our Appleby nursery. This has prompted us to continue increasing the number of trees in our nursery, with an additional 700-800 willow and poplar plantings of several varieties going in the ground this winter. These new trees, in conjunction with those planted over the past few years, will result in Council being able to progressively meet demand in years to come for good quality willow and poplar material for hill country and river/stream bank stabilisation.

37.3 As well as provision of material to the public and other councils, trees from the nursery continue to be used in increasing numbers for Council’s river management programme. Council uses the trees to stabilise river banks and create filter layers which can help reduce the impact of floodwaters that spill from the channel in flood events. Council’s river management team also continues to increase the incorporation of willow tree material amongst rock work protection structures in our rivers. The benefit of trees around rock protection works includes improving the ecological habitat on our rivers, and in some lower risk areas the use of trees can serve as a cost-effective alternative to rock. The range of species grown in the nursery also lends well to being able to use the right tree, in the right place, for the range of different river management applications we have in our toolbox.

37.4 As mentioned in the March 2024 Rivers report, in response to recent issues with the water supply bore at the nursery, and to ensure reliable continuity of water for irrigation during the summer months, we are in the process of scoping for the renewal of the existing bore.

38. Environmental Monitoring

38.1 Biannual River Safety training occurred in March for staff to develop and refresh competencies in assessing the situation, wading techniques, techniques to use if swept of your feet, river rescue and equipment use. The team went to the Buller River to find suitable flow for training, and it was also participated by NCC and NIWA staff.

River Safety training near Kawatiri Junction on the Buller River

39. Environmental Data

39.1 TDC-NCC shared service agreement for environmental monitoring and data management is coming to an end from July this year. Tasman has performed much of the hydrological monitoring work for NCC for many years. Over the last several years NCC have been building their capacity in this area and Tasman has been steadily reducing our input. From 1 July, all responsibility for collecting and storing this information will be the sole responsibility of NCC. However, we will be maintaining our regional flood warning service covering both regions. Database transfer systems have been established to allow real-time views of data collected in the Nelson network to be available to the Tasman flood warning staff to facilitate this service. There will also be a continuation of the use of Tasman’s website platform to provide access to NCC’s data, allowing for a more seamless view of this data across the wider region.

39.2 Website development continues to build a robust system capable to meet periods of high demand experienced during adverse weather events. Initial work has added the ability to cache website requests to limit the load on the background data servers, evidence from recent rain events has shown a 75% reduction in load through this method. Next stage will to be to build a similar system for the website itself. This will combine with a new flood viewer portal to create a fully robust system that can scale to meet peaks in demand during flood events.

39.3 A recent addition to Environmental data available to the public via the Tasman website is discrete River Water Quality sampling results. River Water Quality Data | Tasman District Council

39.4 25 sites sampled monthly as part of the State of Environment (SOE) program are included, with data for 10 key water quality indicators available. Data extends back as far as 1986 at some locations, with users able to choose a time range to see a graph of the data, and a summary statistics table. Additional graphs allow users to plot indicators vs river flow and group the data by month to see if trends exist in the data.

39.5 The data is a mix of laboratory results (6 indicators: Nitrate, Total Phosphorus, DRP, Total Ammonia, pH, E.coli), and field measurements (4 indicators: Conductivity, Water Temperature, Water Clarity, Flow) taken at sampling. This data is stored in an Azure SQL database, with data compilation and presentation using the Microsoft product Power Bi.

39.6 As lab results are automatically received back at Tasman they are ingested into the database, with the Power BI report automatically updating and incorporating any new data three times daily.

Other environmental data types using this style of reporting on the website include Groundwater Levels, Tidal Data, Te Waikoropupu Springs WCO WQ reporting, historic rainfall data, Swimming WQ, and the Environmental Data Summary report. The next dataset to be made publicly available in this way will be data from 22 Groundwater SOE/GNS quarterly sampled site.

39.8 Low Summer Rainfall led to reduced river flows across the region, most noticeably in the Upper Motueka/Tapawera area where some river sites had 10-20 year low flow return periods. Rainfall in April coupled with reduction in water abstraction pressure halted the continued drop in river levels, however low rainfall amounts continued through the rest of autumn. This has given record summer/autumn rainfall totals across the district, in some cases the lowest total recording in this period in over 50 years of monitored rainfall records.

39.9 Air Quality Data for Richmond for the 2023 year has been quality assessed and archived to allow for the annual update of the LAWA data portal. Additional data has also been added to archived database for additional monitoring undertaken in the 2023 year for Motueka and Murchison. The Richmond Air Quality site is the only long-term monitoring site in the region and is displayed on the LAWA data portal. Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) - Plunket AQ

A screenshot of a map

Description automatically generated

40. River and Lake Health (surface water)

40.1 Lakes: A new report on lakes in Tasman has been produced for the up-coming freshwater plan change. This report details the Baseline Attribute States, Current Attribute States and Target Attribute States for each lake.

40.2 Rivers: Staff involved in river health (water quality, water quantity, habitat, aquatic life) have been supporting policy staff preparing evidence for the Land and Freshwater Plan Change.

40.3 Staff responded to two high-profile complaints about the impact of the Waimea Community Dam on water quality (particularly water clarity and sediment).

41. Biodiversity Data

41.1 Biodiversity Data is currently the focus of updates to our environmental data & applications. A new database and user-facing application are being developed to help store and analyse existing data collected under the Native Habitat Tasman project. This platform will centralise ecological information, making data management and access easier. It will include tools for analysis, allowing staff to identify trends and make informed decisions to support conservation & policy efforts. Most recently, staff joined our contract ecologist in the field to understand what is involved in field work and assist the development of our database.

42. Catchment Enhancement Programme

42.1 We welcome our new Catchment Enhancement Officer, Heath Melville, who comes with over 5.5 years of experience doing similar work with Environment Canterbury (our previous CEO resigned in February). The absence of this role has meant relatively little progress has been made on the ground.

42.2 Trevor and Mirka have nearly completed a Catchment Enhancement Strategy to direct the Catchment Enhancement Programme into the future.

42.3 The Vision of the Strategy is to “Deliver the most appropriate and effective interventions on land and in waterways that lead to the maximum benefit for the health of the catchment”. The strategy sets a clear path to the way we prioritise projects and seeks ways to maximise value for money, in line with integrated catchment management and ki uta ki tai.

42.4 Next step is to socialize the Strategy with the relevant EI functions.

42.5 Several staff attended an internationally-recognised course on managing ecological rehabilitation and restoration projects. This will improve our project management skills related to this work area and hopefully help attract funding in the future.

43. Freshwater Improvement Fund: Fish Passage

43.1 As the project hits the end of year three, it has already achieved the five-year target for assessments of fish passage at in-stream structures. In mutual agreement with the supplier and with funder awareness, we over-delivered on year three to make significant regional progress while landowner support is strong and to make full use of a skilled field team. This means there is greater time to use the data to identify additional opportunities while the project is still active.

43.2 Assessment/remediation work have slowed for the winter season and the team leader and project manager are focusing on year’s four & five planning and data insights now that nearly 5,000 structures have been assessed by the project.

A screenshot of a data report

Description automatically generated

Recent project outputs include:

1. A short film outtake released for World Fish Migration Day highlighted the importance of free-flowing waterways and the journey of our indigenous fish species. A longer film is anticipated later this year. View here: https://fb.watch/snukhfB5Vy/

2. A significant evaluation report (May 2024) on “Fish Passage Remediation Methods Used in Tasman District’s Freshwater Improvement Fund Programme”. More evaluation work planned in spring 2024 and 2025 will build on this.

3. Several public communications highlighting support from landowners to the project and raising awareness about work in different parts of the region.

A person in a pipe with a crocodile in it

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

44. Flood Warning

44.1 Discussion on the ability of Councils to provide an effective flood warning service has been on-going post Cyclone Gabrielle with a national workshop being held in Christchurch late July on this topic. A central Government report titled ”Report of the Government Inquiry into the Response to the North Island Severe Weather Events” provided insight into the issues faced. The report focussed heavily on the CDEM functions, but some key issues highlighted for flood warning included:

· the wide discrepancy in preparedness and ability seen between Councils, with some regions actively deciding NOT to prioritise preparedness for emergencies

· the importance of having situational awareness to allow good advice to be provided, and

· from the previous point, the failure of rainfall and river monitoring stations, or the inability to communicate with them in a number of floods around NZ since 2021 has been an ongoing and very key reason for hampered or no flood warning

· having a competent level of readiness and response can only do so much. If homes are built on floodplains, they will flood. If infrastructure is not maintained, it will fail.

· the strong need for centralised funding to address some of the hard and soft infrastructure needs of Councils

· that specialised skills are needed in emergencies, with flood prediction specifically identified – and the potential for a pool of key people to be made available nationally

· To allow the previous point, better standardization of systems across NZ is needed.

44.2 While Tasman has done an adequate job providing warnings in the past, the difficulties that a well-resourced Council with competent staff such as Hawkes Bay faced, show that continual improvement is required. This is especially so given the certainty that floods will once again flow through Takaka, Brightwater, Motueka, Tapawera and other heavily populated areas at some point in the future.

44.3 Recent work has included strengthening the ties between Marlborough, Nelson, Tasman and the West Coast, and looking at better options to provide messaging when key triggers are reached. The rainfall and river flow pages of our Council website remain vulnerable to overloading during a large flood, but thankfully work on addressing this is well underway. This latter issue is key to many landowners across the district, as they often use this service day to day, and expect the service to be operating when they need it most.

45. Attachments / Tuhinga tāpiri

1.⇩

Motueka Gravel Aquifer Groundwater Quality Survey 2023

401

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