BUSINESS - Marlborough · 2017. 3. 14. · 29 April 2016 Record No: 1672066 File Ref: D050-001-E01 ... NZKS provided a letter to accompany the Cawthron reports outlining its assessment

M A RL B O R O U G H D I S T RI C T C O U N C I L

P O B O X 4 4 3

B L E N H E I M 7 24 0

N E W Z E A L A N D

T E L E P H O N E ( 0 0 6 4 ) 3 5 2 0 7 4 0 0

F A C S I M I L E ( 0 0 6 4 ) 3 5 2 0 7 4 9 6

E M A I L m d c @ m a r l b o r o u g h .g o v t . n z

W E B w w w .m a r l b o r o u g h .g o v t .n z

29 April 2016 Record No: 1672066

File Ref: D050-001-E01 Ask For: Mr Porter

Notice of Committee Meeting - Thursday 5 May 2016

A meeting of the Environment Committee will be held in the Council Chambers, District Council Administration Building, 15 Seymour Street, Blenheim on Thursday, 5 May 2016 commencing at 1.00 pm.

BUSINESS

As per Agenda attached.

MARK WHEELER CHIEF EXECUTIVE

mailto:[email protected]

Meeting of the ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chambers, District Administration Building, Seymour Street,

on THURSDAY, 5 MAY 2016 commencing at 1.00 pm

Committee Clr P J S Jerram (Chairperson) Clr D D Oddie (Deputy) Clr J A Arbuckle Clr G S Barsanti Clr C J Brooks Clr L M Shenfield Mayor Sowman Mr E R Beech (Rural representative) Mr R Smith (Iwi representative)

Departmental Head Mr H Versteegh (Manager, Regulatory Department)

Staff Kathy Payne (Committee Secretary)

In Public Page

1. Confirmation of Sub-Committee Business ................................................................................. 1 2. New Zealand King Salmon Compliance Monitoring 2015 ........................................................... 2 3. Dairyshed Effluent and Stream Crossing Survey 2015/2016 (also refer to separate

attachment) ............................................................................................................................. 11 4. Alcohol Licencing Functions .................................................................................................... 13 5. Environmental Health Summary of Market and Event Inspections............................................ 15 6. Environmental Health Fees ..................................................................................................... 17 7. Dog Fees for the 2016/2017 Registration Year ........................................................................ 19 8. Review of Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012 - Consistency Check ............................. 20 9. Velvet Leaf Response 2016 .................................................................................................... 26 10. Rabbit Population Monitoring and Research Update ................................................................ 28 11. Soil Quality Monitoring - Technical Report (also refer to separate attachment) ......................... 31 12. Aids to Navigation ................................................................................................................... 33 13. Road Name Request – Omaka Landing (Colonial Vineyard Ltd) .............................................. 34 14. Information Package ............................................................................................................... 48

Environment - 5 May 2016 - Page 1

1. Confirmation of Sub-Committee Business

RECOMMENDED That the following approvals granted by the Swimming Pools Sub-Committee under delegated authority (Environment Committee Minute R.13/14.166) be confirmed:

• P & P Cambie – 20 Isobel Place, Rarangi, Blenheim - approval to use a lockable cover on an unfenced spa pool (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).

• P L & G A Marfell – 867 Rapaura Road, Blenheim - approval to use a lockable cover on an unfenced spa pool (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).

• T McCombe – 18 De Castro Drive, Blenheim - exemption to install a Save-T Cover III automatic pool cover in lieu of a fence (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).

• M Morris – 26A Purkiss Street, Blenheim – exemption to reinstall a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).

• C & J Saggers – 213 Ben Morven Road, Blenheim – exemption to reinstall a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).

• L & J Yank – 10 Severne Street, Blenheim – exemption to reinstall a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).


2. New Zealand King Salmon Compliance Monitoring 2015 (Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Gina Ferguson) MFL456, U040412, U090660,

U040217, U060926, E360-006-001

Purpose 1. Summary of consent compliance and seabed conditions for five New Zealand King Salmon (NZKS)

farms following monitoring by Cawthron Institute.

2. Dan Lees, (Manager Aquaculture) Ministry for Primary Industries, will provide a presentation (10min).

Background 3. NZKS is the principal finfish farming company in the Marlborough Sounds and currently has

consent to operate finfish farms at 11 sites in the region (Figure 1). Five of these sites were active in 2015. The remaining sites either lie fallow, or are newly consented sites yet to be monitored.

4. Each of these finfish farms requires a coastal permit to occupy and operate in public space.

5. Many of the NZKS consents require annual environmental monitoring as a condition of consent. NZKS undertake voluntary annual environmental monitoring of the other site. Sampling by the Cawthron Institute occurred in October-November 2015 and Council received the reports on 29 February 2016.

6. Each farm has a report on the biochemical and biological state of the seabed, and the nutrient status of the water column. Copper and zinc levels in the seabed sediments are also measured.

7. The state of the seabed was assigned an enrichment stage score by Cawthron. Most consents have a maximum permitted level of enrichment. Enrichment is caused by fish waste falling on the seabed and uneaten fish food.

8. Enrichment causes changes in the types and number of organisms which inhabit the sediments. Excessive levels can harm seabed life as oxygen is depleted and anaerobic processes take over.

9. The farms are broadly divided in “low flow” (<10 cm/s) and “high flow” (>10cm/s) sites.

10. Farms in low flow environments receive greater concentrations of organic material beneath the pens, than higher flow farms where particles are more widely dispersed. This makes managing low flow farms challenging as the seabed can be overwhelmed and stop assimilating organic material even under low levels of feed discharge.

11. In late 2014, Council and NZKS agreed to a set of best practice guidelines (guidelines) to manage farms within environmental limits. The objectives of the guideline include:

• To develop a standardised and accepted protocol to assess environmental compliance.

• To support environmentally responsible and profitable aquaculture.

• To minimise impacts on the environment and thereby minimising risks to biodiversity and associated ecosystem processes.

• To ensure sustainable management.


12. The guidelines adopt a quantitative enrichment stage scale to characterise the benthic state. The guidelines specify an industry operational goal enrichment stage ≤ 5.0 described as “very high enrichment” within the zone of maximum effect (ZME).

13. Many of NZKS’s early consents have a more qualitative description of environmental quality standards which equates to a higher permitted enrichment stage than in the current guidelines.

Figure 1: Location of consented areas for salmon farming in the Marlborough Sounds. The location names in brown text are the farm areas consented by the Environmental Protection Authority’s Board of Inquiry in 2012.

Comments 14. This item covers the monitoring results from annual monitoring at five existing farm locations:

Forsyth Bay, Waihinau Bay, Ruakaka Bay, Otanerau Bay (low flow farms) and Clay Point in Tory Channel (high flow). The monitoring covers the period of December 2014 to November 2015.

15. The two farm locations in Crail Bay were not occupied in 2015 and no monitoring was required by the consent. Te Pangu has recently had its consent renewed, and monitoring is to be done in March 2016. The new farms at Ngamahau and Waitata have not been operating long enough to require monitoring. Results from Ngamahau and Waitata will be reported in 2017.

16. NZKS is required to do annual environmental monitoring by most consents. NZKS voluntarily monitor the Waihinau farm, as the consent has no discharge standards.

17. NZKS provided a letter to accompany the Cawthron reports outlining its assessment of compliance and planned management actions, in response to the monitoring results. (Attachment 1)1

1 NZ King Salmon letter to Council – 29 February 2016


18. Council staff completed a preliminary assessment of the Cawthron monitoring reports to assess compliance with consents for each farm, this was peer reviewed in early March by Prof Black.

19. Monitoring results showed that farms are in overall compliance with the environmental quality standards within individual consents, where such standards exist.

20. There was a non-compliance noted at Clay Point. This is an exceedance of the permitted enrichment levels at the seabed sampling station approximately 90 metres east from the salmon pens, the west sample was compliant. This is not considered biologically significant.

21. Table 1: Enrichment stage results summary

Waihinau (Flow 8.4 cm/s)

Enrichment stage ( 95% CI)

2015 Result Compliance

Pen 1 4.6 (0.2) n/a

Pen 2 3.1 (0.1) n/a

Forsyth (Flow 3.0 cm/s)


2015 Result Compliance *

Pen 1 5.8 (0.4) <6.0

Pen 2 6.0 (0.3) <6.0

Pen 3 5.1 (0.1) <6.0

Clay Point (Flow 19.6 cm/s)


2015 Result Compliance

Pen 1 4.7 (0.2) ≤ 5.0

Pen 2 3.6 (0.1) ≤ 5.0

Otanerau (Flow 6.0 cm/s)



Pen 1 5.9 (0.4) <6.0

Pen 2 5.6 (0.1) <6.0

Pen 3 4.8 (0.1) <6.0

Ruakaka (Flow 3.7 cm/s)



Pen 1 5.3 (0.1) <6.0

Pen 2 5.3 (0.1) <6.0 *Based on Consent Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) and proposed equivalent enrichment stage (ES)

22. The Forsyth and Otanerau low flow farms continue to perform poorly with excessively enriched conditions evident underneath the pens, close to, or at ES 6.0.

Forsyth 23. The seabed was heavily polluted underneath the pens at Forsyth (Figure 2). There were a handful

of organisms alive and sulphide levels were very high, with white sulphide-oxidising bacterial mats consistently present. Cawthron described the seabed as “near azoic” which means almost devoid of life.

24. The ES score at Forsyth would require destocking of the site under the guidelines.


25. The Forsyth farm has been fallowed.

Figure 2: Seabed under Forsyth farm showing an excessively enriched environment with little animal life, and extensive bacterial mats - images from the Cawthron Institute report #2631.

Otanerau 26. The seabed underneath the pens at Otanerau shows excessive enrichment with strongly hypoxic

(nearly anoxic) sediment conditions. The ES score would require a “Major” alert response under the guidelines. A management response would be required under the guidelines to improve the enrichment levels within 24 months, with the effectiveness of the management response checked at 12 months.

27. The site is characterised by extremely high levels of sulphides, and zinc concentrations. Cawthron considers that: “Biological effects are expected as a result of high zinc levels”. Cawthron also state that the continued deterioration of the sediment chemistry beneath the pens, which they describe as extremely poor, has resulted in further deterioration of the sediment-dwelling fauna since 2014.

28. NZKS has advised they will move the pen within the consented area as a management response.

29. Cawthron, state: “As noted in previous monitoring reports, by not reducing the feeding intensity within the pens, the same highly enriched conditions continue to occur directly beneath them.”

Ruakaka 30. Whilst the site is not as excessively enriched as other low flow sites, Cawthron made the following

assessment after the most recent monitoring: “Both pen stations appear to have undergone an overall deterioration across sediment chemistry and macrofaunal indicators.” Sulphide levels were extremely high underneath the pens.

31. The ES levels would require a “Minor” alert response under the guidelines. A management response would be required under the guidelines to improve the enrichment levels within 24 months, with the effectiveness of the management response checked at 12 months.

32. NZKS intend to reduce their feed by altering their rearing strategies. They also intend to do more voluntary monitoring between the required annual monitoring events.


33. Figure 3: Enrichment stages

Figure 3. Stylised depiction of a typical enrichment gradient experienced at low flow sites (from Keeley, 2013), showing generally understood responses in commonly measured environmental variables (species richness, infauna abundance, sediment organic content and sulfides and redox). Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity depth (aRPD) and prevalence of bacteria (Beggiatoa sp.) mats and methane / H

2S out-gassing also indicated. The gradient spans from natural or pristine conditions on the right (ES = 1.0) to

highly enriched azoic conditions on the left (ES = 7.0).

Implementation BMP guidelines 34. Council has met with management of NZKS to discuss environmental monitoring results and timely

transition of existing consents to comply with the guidelines.

35. NZKS has provided Council a letter in response to the monitoring results and implementation of the guidelines. (Attachment 2)2

36. Council will continue discussions with NZKS on transition of consents to the guidelines, and consider review of consent conditions in response to excessive enrichment and where management responses do not achieve reduced enrichment results.

Summary 37. Annual monitoring reports for five existing salmon farms have been received by Council. Council’s

assessment has been peer-reviewed by an international expert familiar with NZKS farms. The monitored farms are assessed as compliant with consent conditions with the exception of a minor non-compliance which has been determined at the Clay Point farm.

RECOMMENDED That the information be received.

2 NZ King Salmon letter to Council – 20 April 2016


Attachment 1



Attachment 2



3. Dairyshed Effluent and Stream Crossing Survey 2015/2016 (also refer to separate attachment)

(Clr Barsanti) (Report prepared by Lauren Kensington) E330-001-004 & E330-001-005

Purpose 1. The purpose of this item is to inform the Council of the Compliance Group’s monitoring of

dairyshed effluent and stream crossings during the 2015/16 dairy season (summary report separately attached).

2. Lauren Kensington will provide a 10 minute presentation

Background 3. The dairyshed effluent and stream crossing survey is an annual audit which Council staff undertake

on all of Marlborough’s dairy farms. At the time of the 2015/16 survey, there were 56 operating dairy farms.

4. The purpose of the survey is to ensure compliance with the Resource Management Plan rules for dairy effluent or resource consents; promote good dairy effluent management and to provide information to dairy farmers on effluent systems and best management practices.

5. Stream crossings are also checked during the dairyshed effluent survey. All areas where dairy cattle walk through waterways must be eliminated. Those properties with remaining stream crossings are checked for progress toward elimination.

Comments Dairyshed Effluent in Marlborough 6. A traffic light system is used to indicate compliance with permitted activity rules of the Marlborough

Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP) or the respective resource consent conditions for each farm. A national criteria for assessing dairy effluent compliance has been created and Marlborough District Council work with this criteria.

7. Dairy effluent inspections were undertaken using the ‘cold calling’ method for the 2015/16 survey as recommended by the national auditing guidelines, this is consistent with the 2014/15 survey.

Washdown Collection, Containment and Application Systems 8. Dairy farms in Marlborough have many different forms of solid separators, sumps and storage

facilities for dairyshed effluent. These components are all inspected during the survey.

9. Non-compliance with permitted activity rules or consent conditions in the 2015/16 survey was due to compromised storage facilities or ponding occurring. Significant non-compliance in 2015/16 was due to the application of effluent within 20m of a waterway or the effluent system being located within 20m of a waterway without resource consent.

10. Council carried out follow up visits or correspondence with the non-compliant rated dairy farms and is continuing to actively engage with those farms who are currently rated as significant non-compliant.

Stream Crossings 11. It was expected that all stream crossings would have been eliminated by the end of December

2013 to coincide with Fonterra’s condition of supply which required fencing and stream crossing elimination by that date.


12. Council’s stream crossing survey shows that of the 229 stream crossings originally surveyed between 2002 and 2007, there are still 21 crossings remaining in 2015/16.

Summary 13. Council inspected 56 dairy farms in 2015/16. The percentage of farms that were rated as full

compliance was 73%, this increased to 91% following re-inspections.

14. Non-compliance has been consistent with 2014/15, however the rates of compliance following remediation and re-inspection has increased compared with the previous survey which is positive.

15. There was an increase in significant non-compliance compared with the 2014/15 survey this was due to effluent being spread to land within 20m of a waterway and ongoing non-compliance due to the location of the effluent collection and containment system. Council is actively working with the farms which continue to be non-compliant.

16. Stream crossing elimination is continuing to progress albeit slowly. There are a small number of farms with the majority of stream crossings remaining, for example one farm has 10 of the remaining 21 stream crossings.

RECOMMENDED That the “Dairyshed Effluent and Stream Crossing Survey 2015/16” report be received.


4. Alcohol Licencing Functions (Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Rachel Mercer) E350-005-008-02

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an overview of the Council’s Alcohol

Licensing functions and performance under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

2. Rachel Mercer will provide a short presentation on current functions carried out by the Licensing Inspectors for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. (10 minutes).

Background 3. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) came into force on the 18 December 2012

placing onus on Council to perform specific duties related to alcohol licensing.

4. The Act outlines the need for a combined agency approach in the alcohol licensing process. Those agencies include territorial authorities, public health and the police. Licensing inspectors have differing roles when reporting on licences compared with the other agencies.

5. Licensing inspectors have an independent role when reporting to the licensing committee on licence applications and when performing functions and duties under the Act. This allows the licensing inspectors to report on applications in an objective manner without political influence.

6. An improved function of the Act provides emphasis on the right to public objection of all new and renewal licence applications. Objections are only permitted to be considered when the person has a greater interest than the general public and cannot be a result of commercial competition.

7. Public hearings are held when decisions for licences cannot be solely decided on the papers. Reasons are because of agency opposition or public objection. Four hearings have been held in the period of 1 July 2015 until now.

8. The Act has provisions for the licensing committee to impose license conditions for controlling ongoing issues such as nuisance caused from noise. The licensing committee is able to stipulate a variety of conditions such as; restricting hours, installation of CCTV and defining areas of operation.

9. Continuing numbers of applications for On, Off, Club, Special Licences and Manager’s Certificates are processed and decided by the District Licensing Committee. In the year to date from 1 July 2015 there have been 55 applications for On Licences, 41 for Off Licences, 16 for Club Licences, 161 for Special Licences and 300 Manager Certificate applications.

10. Performance measures have been set with the aim of contributing to the reduction of alcohol related harm in Marlborough. Annually the requirement is to inspect 90% of On Licenced premises. This year to date 88% of the inspections have been completed with more to complete before the end of the financial year.

11. The tri-agencies have a responsibility to collaborate to monitor and enforce the Act. This is partly achieved by undertaking Controlled Purchase Operations (CPOs). The last CPO conducted was September 2015 with a further five planned during 2016.

Comments 12. Alcohol Licences continue to be processed in a timely fashion while the Licensing Team’s

collaborative approach with the other agencies is consistent with the Act’s purpose to reduce alcohol related harm.




5. Environmental Health Summary of Market and Event Inspections

(Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Karen Winter & Rachel Mercer) E350-004-009-02

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the inspections undertaken by the

Environmental Health Team of markets and events in Marlborough from 1 July 2015 to April 2016.

Background 2. Under the Health Act 1956, the Local Authority is directed to cause inspection of its district to be

regularly made for the purpose of ascertaining if any conditions likely to be injurious to health or offensive exist in the district.

3. Under the Marlborough District Council Bylaw 2010 a person selling food for human consumption in a public place must hold a licence to do so.

4. Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, a Special Licence is required to sell alcohol at a location where a licence is not held. When a Special Licence is issued it is done so with conditions.

5. Environmental Health Officers inspect all major events where food or alcohol is sold, and inspect regular markets throughout the year.

Comments 6. The Annual Plan 2015/16 performance target is for 12 or more markets and events to be inspected

during the year.

7. To date 14 markets and events have been inspected including:

• Marlborough Wine and Food Festival

• Blues Brews and BBQs

• A&P Show

• Multicultural Festival

• Marlborough Artisan Market

• Sweet-Az Sun Festival

• Marlborough Garden Fête

• Farmers Market

• Rotary Car Boot Sale

• Market Day

• Marlborough Home Show

• Picton Maritime Festival

8. When inspecting food stall sites Environmental Health Officers are looking for compliance with the appropriate legislation including display of their licence, appropriate food safety processes and personal hygiene solutions for hand-washing if they are cooking on site or handling unpackaged food.


9. The visit also gives us an opportunity to talk with operators about any questions or concerns they have and discuss the implementation of the new Food Act 2014 and how this may affect their business.

10. Again, when inspecting alcohol sites legislation compliance is checked. In particular they must display their licence and their duty manager’s name and show compliance with their licence conditions. These conditions may include, for example, fencing and security requirements, availably of food and non-alcoholic options, maximum serve size or drinking vessel type.

11. Of the 14 markets and events inspected, totalling 256 food sites and 52 alcohol sites, no significant non-compliance was noted. An educative approach was able to resolve any minor issues.

Summary 12. Environmental Health Officers continue to routinely inspect markets and events in Marlborough to

ensure compliance with the legislative requirements and provide the public with confidence in the safety of the food they are purchasing from these stalls.

RECOMMENDED That this information be received.


6. Environmental Health Fees (Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Karen Winter) E350-004-002-04

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to review the current fees for the Environmental Health activity and

consider an increase in registration fees for the 2016/17 financial year.

Background 2. Council can set fees for premises registered under the Health (Registration of Premises)

Regulations 1966 by Council resolution. Hairdressers, Offensive trades, Camping-grounds, Funeral directors and Food Hygiene Regulation food premises are required to be registered and inspected by Council under the Health Act 1956.

3. Council operates a fixed fee system for registrations under the Health Act. The fixed fee includes the cost of registration and annual inspection of premises.

4. Council Health Act registration fees were last increased on the 1 July 2014.

Comments 5. A review of the time and hourly rate for Environmental Health activities was undertaken by the

Financial Services and Environmental Health Teams. This has resulted in a proposed increase in fees to cover the cost of annual registration and inspection of the following premises:

Activity Current Fee Proposed Fee

Registration of High Risk food premises $380 $425

Registration of Low Risk food premises $175 $195

Additional inspection of registered premises $130 $145

Inspection on request $130 $145

Camping Grounds Registration $235 $262

Offensive Trades Registration $160 $178

Hairdressers Registrations $160 $178

Funeral Directors Registration $180 $200

6. The following fees are proposed to remain unchanged:

Food Stall Fees - no preparation (fruit/vegetables) (annual) - mobile shop from another district (annual) - food prepared in registered premises with no cooking on site - all/some cooking on site (one off) - all/some cooking on site (annual) - charity

$75 $80 $80 $80 $130 no charge

Penalty charge for late payment of Registration $50 per month


7. The following table provides comparisons of the proposed fees with other similar sized unitary authorities as well as one other larger city council:

Activity Marlborough District Council (proposed fees from 1 July 2016)

Tasman District Council

Gisborne District Council

Christchurch City Council

Food Premises (under the Food Hygiene Regulations)

High Risk $425

Low Risk $195

Up to $588

Up to $820 Up to $1012

Hairdresser $178 $256 $392 $225

Camping Ground $262 $256 $415 $420

Offensive Trade $178 $236 $415 $450

Funeral Director $200 $256 $256 $380

Transfer of Registration

$50 $86 $110 $92

Summary 8. The last increase in these fees was two years ago.

9. The proposed increase in fees is to ensure the cost of registration and inspection of registered premises under the Health Act 1956 by the Environmental Health team is recovered.

RECOMMENDED That Council adopt the proposed fees.


7. Dog Fees for the 2016/2017 Registration Year (Clr Arbuckle) (Report prepared by Shelley Lines) E305-001-001

Purpose 1. This report sets out the proposed fees for the 2016/2017 dog registration year.

Background 2. Council is required under the Dog Control Act 1996 to set fees for dog registration on an annual

basis. The fees must be set by resolution and be publicly notified.

3. Until recently Council employed a full ‘user pays’ model to fund the Dog Control activity.

4. The Animal Control Sub-Committee carried out a review of the Animal Control function and concluded that there was an element of public good associated with the function.

5. The Sub-Committee suggested an 80/20 allocation between dog owners and the community respectively. This matter was discussed at the Environment Committee on the 20 March 2014 and it was recommended that the determination of how the costs of Animal Control are apportioned be introduced into the next Long Term Plan.

6. At the Council Budget Meeting on 19 February 2015 the 80/20 allocation between dog owners and the community respectively was approved. This decision resulted in no increase in dog registration fees for the 2015/2016 registration year.

Review 7. No increase in dog registration fees is proposed for the 2016/2017 registration year.

Proposed Registration Fees for 2016/2017 8. It is proposed to keep the registration fees the same as 2015/2016.

9. The fees for the 2016/2017 registration year are set out in the fee table below.

Dog and Pound Fees Fees 2015/2016

Proposed Fees 2016/2017

Dog registration - non-working (Category 1) $57.00 $57.00

Dog registration - non-working (Category 2) $86.00 $86.00

Dog registration - working $24.50 $24.50

Dog registration - dangerous $129.00 $129.00

Dog registration - duplicate tag $3.60 $3.60

Property Licence - 3 or more dogs $77.00 $77.00

Pound fee - first offence $102.00 $102.00

Pound fee - second offence $153.00 $153.00

RECOMMENDED That the registration fees remain unchanged and the proposed registration fees for 2016/2017 be accepted.


8. Review of Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012 - Consistency Check

(Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Sarah Edmonds) E315-002-005-01

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to present an evaluation showing a consistency check between the

Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012 (the Plan) and the National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). If the check determines that the Plan is inconsistent with the NPD, the inconsistency must be resolved; either by a minor amendment to the Plan or by Council initiating a full review of the Plan.

Comments 2. The Government has made a National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). The direction

was approved by the Governor-General on 24 September 2015.

3. Council is required to carry out a consistency check between the Plan and the NPD within 18 months of the Direction being made. This means that the check has to be completed by 24 March 2017.

4. The Ministry for Primary Industries has provided Council with a checklist to assist Council in undertaking the consistency check. The assessment is attached.

5. If the check determines that Council’s Plan is inconsistent with the Direction, the inconsistency must be resolved; either by a minor amendment to the Plan or by Council initiating a full review of the Plan.

6. The attached report shows that there are a number of inconsistencies between the Plan and the NPD.

Summary 7. A consistency check has been carried out between the Plan and the NPD. Council has determined

that there are some fundamental areas where the Plan does not comply. As a full review of the existing strategy is underway, the consistency review can be undertaken in conjunction with that review.

RECOMMENDED 1. That the information be received.

2. A full review of the Plan (Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012) is necessary to correct the inconsistencies between the Plan and the National Policy Direction.

3. That the consistency review be undertaken in conjunction with the major review that is already underway.

Page 1

Regional Pest Management Plan Consistency Check

Prepared by Marlborough District Council – 14 April 2014

Purpose The purpose is for Marlborough District Council (Council) to make a determination on whether the Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012 (RPMS 2012) is consistent with the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 (the NPD). If Council determines that the RPMS 2012 (the Plan) is inconsistent, we must resolve the inconsistency, either by minor amendment or by initiating a review of the Plan.

Background The last full review of Council’s Regional Pest Management Strategy was undertaken in 2007. The Council intended to undertake a full review of the 2007 Strategy when it expired in 2012. The expiry of the 2007 Strategy coincided with amendments being made to the Biosecurity Act 1993. Council “rolled over” the 2007 Strategy with some very minor amendments to create the current RPMS 2012. It has an expiry of 17 December 2017.

In February 2013, a sub-committee of the Environment Committee of Council was established to commence a major review of the RPMS 2012. An internal review of the existing pest programmes commenced. This work included aligning Council’s approach to the new legislation and policy direction even though it had not been finalised.

The major review work has continued. In March 2016, Council released a Discussion Document that has been made available to the Marlborough community. While this document is not required to be assessed for consistency with the NPD, staff did a check to make sure that the matters required to be covered in the new Plan were addressed in the Discussion Document.

Consistency Check Council is now required to undertake a consistency check of the Plan.

Section 100E of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that, after the NPD is approved, amended or revoked and replaced, the decision maker for a plan must determine whether an existing plan is inconsistent with the NPD. Clause 9 of the NPD requires that this determination be made within 18 months of the date of the Governor-General’s approval of the NPD. The NPD was approved on 24 September 2015, therefore our check must be completed by 24 March 2017. If the decision-maker determines that the Plan is inconsistent, they must resolve the inconsistency, either by minor amendment or initiating a review of the Plan.

Evaluation The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has developed consistency check guidance in the form of a checklist. This is intended to be used in conjunction with the NPD and associated guidance to assist in the consistency determination. Our assessment using the checklist is documented in Table 1.

Page 2

Table 1: Consistency Checklist for Marlborough

Part One - Is the Plan inconsistent? Pest Management Plans (RPMS 2012)

For each subject in the Plan, do the objectives:

State the adverse effects of the subject that the Plan addresses

Yes Each subject has a description of the problem or reasons for the Strategy.

The descriptions and reasons require review to bring them up to date with the current situation.

State the intermediate outcomes that the Plan is seeking to achieve, only including one or more of the following:

• Exclusion

• Eradication

• Progressive containment

• Sustained control

• Protecting values in places

No Each of the current programmes has an objective, means of achievement and performance measures.

The intermediate outcomes are: Total Control Containment Control Surveillance

An ecological threat programme has been included in Part One of the Strategy, not in Part Three as a pest management programme.

The intermediate outcome names need to be changed to meet the requirements of the NPD.

Page 4

(As applicable) state the geographic area to which the outcome applies, the extent to which it will be achieved, and the period over which it will be achieved.

Yes and No The RPMS 2012 states the area of jurisdiction is “The Strategy, when operative, will have effect over the entire Marlborough District” as identified in a map included in the Strategy.

Geographic areas have been mapped for broom, gorse, Chilean needle grass, contorta pine, kangaroo grass, white-edged nightshade, rabbits and possums.

The period over which the objective will be achieved are not stated for either the Total Control or Containment Control programmes.

The Total Control programmes state the objective is to eradicate the pest. No timeframe is stated.

The extent for the Containment Control pests is not very specific, e.g. “To prevent any increase in the distribution of [pest] in [area] and reduce infestation levels where possible.”

The Plan needs to more clearly state, for each outcome, the geographic areas, the extent to which the outcomes will be achieved and the period over which it will be achieved.

State what is intended to be achieved within the remaining term of the Plan

Yes Performance measures are stated for each programme. Need to be more specific.

If the outcome for a subject is “protecting values in places”, does the Plan describe with sufficient certainty the places to which the outcome applies, or the criteria by which the places it applies are defined?

We need to assess whether the Plan meets this for those pests which refer to values.

Ecological Threat Programme

Our Ecological Threat programme is mentioned in Part One of the Strategy. It identifies the main known plant and animal species that are actual and potential threats to Marlborough’s ecological and/or biodiversity values. These pests are not included in the pest management programme as they do not pass the cost benefit analysis for intervention across the entire district.

Ecological Threat Programme

There may be an opportunity for our Ecological Threat programme to be considered as a site-led programme. We anticipate some resistance to using regulation for a programme that has been founded on voluntary participation.

We need to test the willingness of community-led programmes to be regulated via the Plan.

Pathway Management Plans Not applicable The Plan has no pathway management objectives. Do not anticipate any being included in the new Plan.

Some pathway management principles may be included as means of achievement for some of our programmes.

Page 4

Directions on Programme Description

Does the Plan only contain one or more of the following programme descriptions? Exclusion Programme Eradication Programme Progressive Containment Programme Sustained Control Programme Site-led Pest Programme Pathway Programme

No The current programme descriptions used in Part Three Pest Management programmes are: Total Control Containment Control Surveillance

An Ecological Threat programme has been included in Part One of the Strategy

The programme names require change to meet the new requirements in the NPD.

Do these programmes conform to the descriptions set out in Part 5 of the NPD?

No The description for Eradication most closely aligns to our Total Control programme. Our Containment Control programmes most closely align to Progressive Containment. Some of our total control and containment control pests may fit better with a Sustained Control programme.

We have not used Exclusion, Site-led or Pathway Management.

The Total Control and Containment Control Pests programmes need to be reviewed and aligned to the new programme descriptions.

The use of Exclusion, Site-led and Pathway programmes require consideration.

Good Neighbour Rules (GNR) None Some of the existing pest programmes contain boundary rules.

An assessment of whether GNR’s should apply to our existing pest programmes needs to be considered.

Page 5

Determination The Plan has several areas of inconsistency with the NPD:

• The programme names, descriptions and intermediate outcomes are not the same.

• The current objectives are not specific enough.

• What is to be achieved needs to be more specific.

• Exclusion is a new requirement. Council considers that there are pests that would be relevant to include in a new plan.

• Site-led programmes are a new requirement. It may be relevant to include new programmes.

• Good neighbour rules are a new requirement. It may be relevant for these rules to apply to our current pest programmes.

Can these inconsistencies be remedied by minor amendment to the Plan?

The inconsistencies are fundamental and require a full reassessment of the Plan to bring it into conformity with the NPD. We have concluded that we are required to initiate a full review of the Plan.

As a full review of the RPMS 2012 is already underway, the review required by the NPD should be done at the same time.

References Biosecurity Act 1993

National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015

Meeting the Requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 - Ministry for Primary Industries

Record Number: 165352


9. Velvet Leaf Response 2016 (Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Jono Underwood) E315-012-004

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the recent and ongoing response led by

the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to the detection of the invasive plant velvet leaf in fodder beet crops.

Background 2. In late February 2016, some unusual plants in fodder beet crops were reported to Environment

Canterbury from the North Canterbury area. After being submitted for identification, they were confirmed as being Abutilon theophrasti, or velvet leaf as it is commonly known.

3. This plant had been detected in New Zealand before in 2011 amongst maize crops in the Waikato region. It is believed to have made its way on to those properties via contaminated chicken feed, ultimately getting onto the paddocks as manure.

4. The fodder beet find in 2016 indicated a link to contaminated seed and this was confirmed when two specific seed lines were found to be contaminated.

5. A major response led by MPI and their contractor, AsureQuality, began regional councils and regional resources running field operations. On 14 March 2016, the National Biosecurity Capability Network was officially triggered which meant all response costs were to be borne by MPI.

Comments 6. The target was to search all fodder beet crops sown with fodder beet seed confirmed to be

contaminated. This involved hundreds of properties and thousands of hectares of fodder beet crop.

7. The active searching, which began in early April, continues in both Otago and Southland in an attempt to visit all properties that received contaminated seed. The active searching is complete in other regions, although investigations from call-ins are continuing.

8. Two Council Biosecurity Officers were provided for a week to support the field teams in Canterbury searching fodder beet crops. No further requests for assistance have been received.

9. A single lot of seed was sold and sown in Marlborough and this resulted in three velvet leaf plants being found and destroyed. A subsequent visit found no further evidence of plants, although the site will need to be under a watching brief.

10. The number of infested properties has been reported as 177 as at 13 April 2016. Regions affected include Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Horizons, Marlborough, Canterbury, West Coast, Otago and Southland.

11. In the Waikato region, as a result of the exposure driven out of the fodder beet response, a number of other infestations amongst other crops, such as maize or linked to maize silage, has been detected. As a result, an active regional response has been instigated alongside the national response.

Summary 12. The very invasive weed velvet leaf, a new threat to New Zealand farming systems, has made its

way into New Zealand via contaminated fodder beet seed.

13. One site has been confirmed in Marlborough linked to contaminated fodder beet seed.


14. MPI has produced some comprehensive guidance for farmers that have had velvet leaf found on their property.

15. Work is continuing on developing long term management options for velvet leaf, although regional councils/unitary authorities are likely to be involved in some capacity.



10. Rabbit Population Monitoring and Research Update (Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Jono Underwood & Jim Herdman) E315-004-012-01#02

Purpose 1. To provide the Committee with an update on the current status of rabbit population monitoring and

also current research initiatives Council is involved with through collaborations.

Background 2. Rabbits have a long history of being a destructive pest in Marlborough’s landscape. While change

in land use has reduced the area of rabbit prone land, large areas of hill and high country, predominantly in South Marlborough, remain prone to rabbits building to destructive levels.

3. For over 20 years, Council staff and predecessors have been carrying out population trend monitoring by way of night counts on set routes in rabbit prone areas. This has been complemented by research initiatives to better understand the relationship between rabbits and the Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease Virus (RHD).

4. The other main component of the regional rabbit programme implemented by Council is that of daytime property inspections to assess rabbit levels using the Modified McLean Scale. These inspections are targeted each year on those properties in areas where either there is a long history of being rabbit prone or there has been high numbers observed in recent years. These inspections also provide an opportunity for ongoing dialogue with landholders about their individual maintenance programme to keep numbers down. In rare cases, Council can direct landholders to reduce numbers if this dialogue and subsequent action is not forthcoming.

Comments 5. There are 13 night count routes established for the purpose of trend monitoring. Eleven of these

are in the highly prone areas of Upper Awatere/Molesworth, one located at coastal Ward and one through the Redwood Pass area. Many of these fixed routes have been in place and counted for in excess of 20 years.

6. The long term trend from these night counts has shown rabbit numbers continue to remain at some of the lowest levels seen through the history of the night counts.


Route Name Rabbits per km

2016 High Low

NC01 - Hells Gate 2.0 18.4 (1997) 0.9 (2012)

NC02 - Tone 2.1 39.0 (1996) 1.1 (2013)

NC03 - Alma 3.1 10.3 (2008) 1.5 (2013)

NC04 - Guide 1.6 50.8 (1996) 0.4 (1999)

NC05 - Kiritown 8.6 97.4 (1994) 0.5 (2001)

NC06 - Isolated Redgate 1.4 13.9 (2011) 0.8 (2000)

NC07 - Blicks 1.3 27.7 (1997) 1.0 (2014)

NC08 - Langridge 0.6 26.4 (1998) 0.3 (1999)

NC09 - Top Block 1.9 26.3 (2008) 0.1 (2009)

NC10 - Williams 2.6 41.7 (1996) 0.2 (2014)

NC11 - Honeymoon 0.2 34.9 (2006) 0.2 (2016)

NC12 - Vernon 1.4 35.5 (1996) 1.1 (2014)

NC13 - Coastal Ward 1.9 1.9 (2012) 0.8 (2013)

7. Council is also playing an active role into research related to RHD virus immunity and supporting research into new or ‘mutated’ strains of virus within the calcivirus family specific to rabbits.

8. Each year Council Biosecurity Officers take blood samples from rabbits in Marlborough and extract the serum for further analysis. This analysis can determine whether the level of antibodies would provide immunity to attack from RHD. The age, weight and sex of the rabbits are also recorded. All this data can provide a picture of what is happening in the population.

9. In recent years, samples of small intestine has also be carried out and supplied to Landcare Research. They have been able to identify the strain of virus present and, combining that with other samples from around the country, build a ‘family tree’ of the strains in New Zealand. These strains have all mutated since the introduction of the original strain released some 20 years ago.

10. Some of these strains have shown greater virulence than others, but whether it is enough to overcome existing levels of immunity will depend on whether it could out-compete the strain present in a given area. There is some potential for the more virulent strains to be used as a biocide rather than attempting to trigger an epidemic.

11. Of note has been the recent development in Australia where testing has been carried out and approval being sought to release a strain called “K5” originating from Korea. It is within the calcivirus family and again specific to rabbits. It also appears to lift mortality rates by some 20-30% overcoming some existing level of immunity.

12. A collaboration of councils and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), termed the Rabbit Coordination Group, are currently working on establishing the correct regulatory approvals for importation into New Zealand should the approval in Australia be granted.

13. A Sustainable Farming Fund grant being delivered by Landcare Research relating to RHD virus research has also been recently approved by MPI. Councils will work with Landcare Research to prepare and design a suitable release strategy for any new RHD strains that are suitable to trigger an epidemic or to use as a biocide to achieve maximum effectiveness.


Summary 14. Long term trend monitoring continues to show rabbit numbers are remaining low and steady,

including the highly prone areas of the Upper Awatere/Molesworth.

15. It needs to be noted that these night counts are a long term monitoring tool and the routine property inspections by Council and observations by landholders continue to find small ‘pockets’ of rabbits that build up from time to time that need addressing.

16. Council is involved in an active period of research into RHD virus, immunity levels and also potential new strains to improve effectiveness. There is never any silver bullet, but continuing to support work in this area may see it easier to continue to suppress rabbit populations.



11. Soil Quality Monitoring - Technical Report (also refer to separate attachment)

(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Rachel Rait) E355-001-001-10

Purpose 1. The purpose of the report is to summarise the state of soil quality in the Marlborough region in

2015 by AgResearch Limited (report separately attached).

Background 2. Councils have a responsibility for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and

physical resources of their region. One of the physical resources that the Council has a duty under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor and report on is soil. Specifically to report on the “life supporting capacity of soil” and to determine whether current practices will meet the “foreseeable needs of future generations”. The collection of detailed soil monitoring data is therefore vital because it provides information on what effect current land use activities are having on soil quality and whether we need to change or prioritise the way we manage the land environment.

3. To help meet these goals the councils undertake a soil quality monitoring programme that involves collecting soil samples from a network of sites that represent the main land use activities and soil types within the region and analysing samples for a suite of soil physical, biological and chemical properties that have been shown to be robust indicators of soil quality.

4. The aim of this report is to summarise the current state of soil quality in the Marlborough region as determined by the results of soil analysis for the most recent sampling across a range of land use activities and soil types.

Comments 5. Between 2007-2015, 118 soil quality monitoring sites have been sampled representing four soil

orders (i.e. Brown, Pallic, Gley and Recent) and six land use activities (i.e. dairying, exotic forest, cropping, native vegetation, drystock and viticulture).

6. Soils were sampled from the same sites that were established and sampled in 2010, with two exceptions due to lack of access. Vineyard sites were sampled at three locations; under the vine, under the wheel track and in the middle of the inter-row.

7. It is recommended that to obtain reliable, long term detection and prediction of trends in soil quality, up to five points along a time sequence should be obtained. Because only one set of data has been collected since the sites were established and sampled in 2010, trends cannot be determined. Nonetheless, soil quality values measured at two sample dates can provide a useful snapshot of change over the five year interval.

8. High Olsen P values were found at one vineyard site and two cropping sites. High soil P has the potential to negatively affect water quality if it ends up in surface water bodies. Implementation of nutrient budget plans will help minimise excessive nutrient accumulation in soils, while farm management plans can help identify source areas for P accumulation and present site specific mitigation methods that could be implemented on the farm. These options should be advocated to land managers across all industry sectors. One of the dairy sites, one of the dry stock sites and parts of three of the vineyard sites had Olsen P values below concentrations considered optimal for maximum pasture/crop production. These low values are not of any environmental concern, but may impact on optimal crop or pasture production, but can be increased relatively easily by the application of phosphate fertilisers to soil.


9. Low aggregate stability, high bulk density, along with organic matter concentrations at the lower end of the desired target range, is also a potential issue at the monitored cropping sites. This has resulted in poor soil structure at these sites which may potentially negatively affect crop performance and predispose the soil to surface runoff, nutrient loss, erosion and flooding. Cultural practices which maintain or enhance soil C contents to stabilise and improve soil structure should be encouraged in cropping soils.

10. One cropping, one dairy and three vineyard sites showed signs of soil compaction, i.e. low macroporosity. The low values are likely related to heavy grazing or grazing under wet conditions where animal treading has effectively reduced the large pore fraction in soils. Low macroporposity values have been shown to negatively affect a range of soil physical/chemical processes, which can in turn reduce pasture dry matter production. Furthermore, it can also increase the potential for surface runoff and provide a pathway for nutrient (N and P), and microbe loss to surface waters and reduce water quality. There are a number of potential mitigation methods that can be effectively employed to prevent or minimise the effects of compaction.

11. Aggregate stability was below what is considered optimal crop growth at five of the six cropping site. These low values are often linked to low total carbon contents in the soils and more tendency for the soil aggregates to break down and have greater impact from water and air movements.

Summary 12. Future work should focus on re-sampling established sites to obtain up to five repeat samples to

determine whether there are any trends in soil quality attributes. Also new sites should be established as resources allow.

13. Many of the trends in declining soil quality can be offset by better land management practices, i.e. nutrient budgets/management plans, changing grazing practices during high soil moisture, etc. Council should continue to educate land managers on strategies to protect the environment while achieving an economic return from the land.

RECOMMENDED That the report, ‘Soil Quality in the Marlborough Region 2015’, be received.


12. Aids to Navigation (Report prepared by the Harbour Master) H100-005-14

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the on-going management of Aids to

Navigation (AtoN).

Background 2. Council is responsible for the provision and servicing of 98 AtoN in the region, which include

beacons, buoys, channel markers and leading lights. The collective replacement cost of these units is estimated at 1.38 million as of May 2015.

3. These AtoN are a critical component of the Harbour Safety Management System and their operation must comply with international standards as set by the International Light House Authority (IALA). Requirements include minimum response times to rectify light failures, prescribed inspection routines and the establishment of an accurate performance data recording programme.

4. The management of AtoNs was brought ‘in house’ and carried out internally by the Harbour Master’s Team.

AtoNs Update: March 2016 5. No failures have been reported since November 2015.

6. Routine checks of AtoNs are running behind schedule due to staff and available time constraints. However, the replacement of the three channel marker poles in the Havelock Channel has been completed.

7. Wherever possible and replacement of lights becomes necessary, new technology is being implemented, for example the introduction of synchronised lights in the Havelock approach channel. A light that has been subject to frequent failure over winter months is located at Shag point, an area that gets little sun in winter. This light will be replaced with GSM capable technology, enabling remote sensing of battery status, within the next month. This in turn will allow early identification of low battery voltages and replacement of the battery prior to failure occurring. It is the intention to progressively introduce this technology, particularly in remote locations.

8. A work programme to address maintenance issues has been developed and maintenance work on AtoNs will continue through the coming months.

9. A ‘final draft’ of AtoN management and monitoring database has been received by Harbours and is still being evaluating before implementation. Note: IALA specifies 3 categories for AtoN. ‘Category 1’ AtoN are defined as being ‘of primary navigational significance’ and have the highest availability requirement. Tory Channel leading lights are the only Category 1 AtoN under Council control. Over 90% of AtoN under Council control are listed Category 2 being defined by IALA as ‘of navigational significance’.

Conclusion 10. IALA standards for all lit navigation aids have been achieved for the past 6 weeks.

11. Three channel markers in the Havelock approach channel have been replaced. New technology will be introduced at Shag Point within the next month.



13. Road Name Request – Omaka Landing (Colonial Vineyard Ltd)

Clr Brooks (Report prepared by Ian Sutherland) U150889

Background 1. The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider officially naming new roads being created

on the Colonial Vineyard Limited subdivision on New Renwick Road which they are marketing as “Omaka Landing”.

2. The subdivision was approved by Council on 18 December 2015 under Resource Consent U150889.

3. New roads are to be created on Stage 1B (Resource Consent U150889.2), and condition 39 required the consent holder to provide two road name options to Council for each of the new roads. The extent of each road to be named was shown on the addressing plans appended to the decision (attached – Appendix A).

4. The addresses shown on the addressing plan (Stage 1 & 2) (attached – Appendix B) have been allocated by Council staff in accordance with AS/NZS 4819:2011 “Rural and urban addressing” This standard provides requirements and guidance for addressing authorities such as the Council to use

5. Council has a responsibility under section 319 of the Local Government Act 1974 to allocate road names and addresses, and have to advise Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) of the allocations. LINZ then have to make sure that the road names and addresses meet the addressing standards contained in AS/NZS 4819:2011 and then update the official national record. Where an address does not meet the required standard, LINZ can require Council to change it under section 319B of the Local Government Act.

Proposal 6. The applicant has presented two road name suggestions for each of the three proposed new

roads, including the background for each of these names. The road name for road D will be sought at a later date. The options and their key attributes are listed below. For a full description please refer to the application (attached – Appendix C).

Road A: • Omaka Drive - This road is the main entrance road to the subdivision and Omaka is a name

associated with the locality, and matches and keys off the name of the subdivision Omaka Landing.

• Colonial Drive – This is the alternative name, and is based on the 10 year ownership of the site by Colonial Vineyards Ltd. The property is often referred to as the Colonial Vineyard site.

Road B • Harvard Crescent – This name is based on the aviation association of the locality as

Harvards were used by the NZ Air Force as training aircraft from the end of World War II until the mid-1970s.

• Wright Street – This is the alternative name which also picks up the aviation theme.

Road C • The Row – This is based on the historic vineyard activity on the site, and the short name

reflects the short street.


• Harvest Row – This is the alternative that has the same attributes.

Evaluation against Road Naming Policy 7. The following are relevant matters from the policy (attached Appendix D) to consider in this

proposal:

Duplication: (Clause 3 - That duplication of names not be allowed where the same or similar name occurs within the Marlborough District).

Omaka Drive – There is an Omaka Downs Road located approximately 12km along Waihopai Valley Road. While the legal road has been stopped and no longer a public road, the actual road name is still legally in use for at least one property for its address.

The Road Naming Policy does not allow for the duplication of similar names in the district.

However this subdivision location seems to be much better known as the Omaka area (e.g. Omaka Classic Cars, Omaka Marae, Omaka Aerodrome, and Omaka Aviation Museum) than the existing road located up the Waihopai Road. Omaka Downs Road only serves one property.

I have discussed this possible conflict with Frank Porter (Marlborough Roads), and it is believed that there would be some confusion between the two names, but that the risks are relatively low. Under these circumstances perhaps it would be practical to allow the new main road to be named Omaka Drive, and Council can consider renaming Omaka Downs Road later if confusion does arise.

There are no duplication issues with the other names proposed.

Common Theme: (Clause 6 – That where more than one road is being created in a subdivision, a common theme is recommended for the names).

The proposed names unfortunately do not have one common theme. They consist of an aviation theme, or themes relating to locality or the previous use.

As can be seen in the overall development plan there are ten or so more roads to be created, therefore if a theme is to be chosen it would need to have the ability to be able to cater for these future roads too.

An aviation theme, such as using the names of aircraft like Harvard, would be most likely be able to achieve this, and would be appropriate due to the closeness of the aerodrome and Aviation Heritage Museum.

However the policy states that a theme is only a recommendation, not a must have. The Committee can still consider the proposed non-themed names if they choose.

Length of Names: (Clauses 7 & 8 - That names to be short (as a guide - 15 characters or less), single words, which are readily pronounced and spelt to satisfy the requirements of emergency services, and chosen in proportion to the length of the road).

All names comply with these clauses.

Personal Names: (Clause 9 - That personal names be discouraged unless the name submitted has an historical connection with the property being subdivided, or is that of a well know local identity or prominent Marlburian or New Zealander).

Colonial Drive is based on the name of the company that owns and is developing the property. They have only owned the land since July 2006 which is a short period of time when compared to an “historical connection” which infers a much longer period. However overall this will be part of a large residential development, much larger than most other subdivisions in Blenheim, and I agree


that because of its size and the publicity relating to the rezoning issues it is reasonably well known by the community as being the “Colonial Vineyard” site and therefore may be an acceptable option.

Road Type: (Clause 11 - That road type terms be used in circumstances appropriate to the physical situation with the definitions acting as a guide).

The use of ‘Drive’ as proposed for the main Road A meets the definition of “A main connecting route in a suburb.”

The use of ‘Crescent’ or ‘Street’ for road B also complies with the definitions. ‘Crescent’ is a crescent shaped street generally with both ends intersecting with the same street. ‘Street’ is any road.

The use of ‘Row’ for road C however as pointed out in the application does not comply with the definitions. There is no ‘Row’ in the definition, nor is it provided for as an option in the New Zealand standards AS/NZS 4819:2011. Even though it may have been used elsewhere in the world, to use Row would still be inconsistent with the policy and standards. There is also the possibility that it could be confused for a private right of way (ROW). Of greater concern would be the precedent that it would set for future road name requests.

More appropriate options from the Policy and AS/NZS 4819:2011 to use would be “Lane”, “Mews”, “Road”, “Street”, or “Walk”. (AS/NZS 4819:2011 attached – Appendix E).

Consultation 8. Following receipt of the initial road naming application the applicant was provided with feedback

pointing out the potential conflicts with the policy, as identified above, to allow them an opportunity to reconsider the proposed road names. They still wish to have the same names considered, but did modify their application a little by adding comment that they believe that the road naming policy are just guidelines, and have requested that the names be submitted to the Committee at the earliest occasion.

9. The proposed names were subsequently circulated by Council to all iwi, local historians, and Marlborough Roads for comment.

10. Due to the urgency request these organisations have not had time to respond prior to the preparation of this report.

11. The only response received at time of preparing this report was from the Megan Ross as Archives Manager of the Marlborough Museum who commented that they could find no issue with any of the names, although ‘Wright’ might be a bit tenuous in a New Zealand context.

12. Any further responses received by Council will be presented to the Committee at the meeting.

Conclusion Road A

13. “Omaka Drive” does have a conflict as it there is a similar name in use up the Waihopai Valley, however the name appears to have a very strong connection to the locality that the subdivision is within, and the risks of confusion are low as only one property uses Omaka Downs Road as its address. It also more or less meets an aviation theme associated with the nearby aerodrome and museum. The Committee needs to consider whether there is a risk from Road A being named similar to an existing road name “Omaka Downs Road”.

14. “Colonial Drive” is the second name option by the developer. This complies with most of the policy, but is not aviation themed.

Road B 15. “Harvard Crescent” complies in every way with the policy, and is also aviation themed.


16. “Wright Street” also complies in every way with the policy and aviation theme, however the Marlborough Museum has some concerns as it is not in a New Zealand context.

Road C 17. “The Row” is nice and short and reflects the short street, however the type “Row” is not listed as a

street type option in the policy or AS/NZS 4819:2011. To use another road type would lose the meaning or linkage to the vineyard that the applicant had intended, and it would not be aviation themed.

18. “Harvest Row” could have one of the complying types added to it, such as “Lane”, and still retain its intended meaning or linkage to the vineyard, but would not be aviation themed.

RECOMMENDED 1. That Road A be named “Omaka Drive”, pending discussion by the Committee.

2. That Road B be named “Harvard Crescent”.

3. That “The Row” and “Harvest Row” be declined as names for Road C and that the applicant provides two new options for the Council to consider that comply with the Road Naming Policy, and are also aviation themed.


Appendix A – Omaka Landing Subdivision Addressing – Plan of Roads to be Named


Appendix B - Omaka Landing Subdivision Addressing - Plan of Stages 1 and 2 Addresses


Appendix C – Road Name Application





Appendix D – Council’s Road Naming Policy

R.02/03.68 Planning Road Naming Policy R855-05 At the May Environment Committee meeting a recommendation was made that a new policy be developed to enable a more consistent approach to road naming. A draft policy had been prepared and was before the Committee for consideration and approval. Clrs Cairns/Barker: That a new road naming policy be adopted, as follows: ROAD NAMING POLICY 1. That proposed road names are to be referred to all Marlborough iwi and a copy sent to the

Maori Advisory Komiti.

2. That proposed names be submitted with the application for subdivision consent, in order that names are approved prior to the 224 certification.

3. That duplication of names not be allowed where the same or similar name occurs within the Marlborough District. (Reference is to be made to a current street list when selecting names to avoid duplication.)

4. That two suggested names for each proposed public or private road be submitted. (The names are to be listed in order of preference.)

5. That the background to the names, their origins and their link with the area be supplied.

6. That where more than one road is being created in a subdivision, a common theme is recommended for the names.

7. That names be chosen in proportion to the length of the road. (Long names on short cul-de-sacs can be very difficult to display on a map.)

8. That road names be short (as a guide, 15 characters of less), single words, which are readily pronounced and spelt to satisfy the requirements of emergency services.

9. That personal names be discouraged unless the name submitted has an historical connection with the property being subdivided, or is that of a well known local identity or prominent Marlburian or New Zealander.

10. That the policy in Picton for using native tree and bird names be continued where appropriate.

11. That road type terms such as “road”, “street”, “lane” etc be used in circumstances appropriate to the physical situation with the following definitions acting as a guide:

Avenue Wide straight roadway or street planted both sides with trees.

Close A no exit road, short in length serving a small number of properties, similar to a Place.

Crescent A crescent shaped street generally with both ends intersecting with the same street.


Drive A main connecting route in a suburb. A road with scenic attraction - a scenic road.

Esplanade Levelled ground for a public promenade.

Gardens An attractively landscaped cul-de-sac or crescent. (New definition approved 29 April 2004 R.03/04.654)

Glade Tree covered street or passage between trees.

Glen In a narrow valley.

Grove An alleyway cut in a wood but not extensive.

Heights A road with an elevated view.

Hill Applies to a feature rather than the route.

Lane A narrow passage between hedges or buildings, an alley.

Mews A court or close - a paved area surrounded by buildings.

Parade A road for marching or public thoroughfare.

Place A no exit road, longer than a Close with a turning circle at its blind end.

Quay Along a waterfront.

Rise An elevated street.

Road Route or way between places.

Street Any road.

Terrace A street along the face or top of a slope.

View Street with a view.

Walk A narrow passage similar to a Lane.

Way A private access way or right of way.


Appendix E - Appendix B from AS/NZS 4819:2011



14. Information Package

RECOMMENDED That the Regulatory Department Information Package dated 5 May 2016 be received and noted.

Documents

BUSINESS - Marlborough · 2017. 3. 14. · 29 April 2016 Record No: 1672066 File Ref: D050-001-E01 ... NZKS provided a letter to accompany the Cawthron reports outlining its assessment