Climate Comments Analysis

Quantitative

Does the comment discuss topics related to climate change, climate action or climate change strategy?

168 comments were found to be true for the question "Does the comment discuss topics related to climate change, climate action or climate change strategy?".

Qualitative

Please provide a comprehensive report of the comments that discuss climate change. Include an abstractive summary of the comments, and key themes.

168 comments were used to answer the question "Please provide a comprehensive report of the comments that discuss climate change. Include an abstractive summary of the comments, and key themes.".

Response

In the analysis of the 2877 comments submitted by residents regarding proposed changes to the local area, a total of 168 comments were identified that specifically discussed topics related to climate change, climate action, or climate change strategy. These comments reflect a broad range of concerns and suggestions from the community, emphasizing the importance of integrating climate considerations into local government planning and actions.

Key Themes from the Comments:

  1. Green Spaces and Urban Planning:

  2. Many comments highlighted the importance of preserving and expanding green spaces, such as public parks and urban forests, which contribute to carbon sequestration and provide resilience against climate impacts like urban heat islands and flooding.

  3. Sustainable Transportation:

  4. A significant number of responses advocated for improvements in public transportation and infrastructure for non-motorized transport (cycling and walking) to reduce carbon emissions and promote healthier lifestyles.

  5. Energy and Infrastructure:

  6. Comments included suggestions for using renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency in buildings and other infrastructure to reduce the carbon footprint of the local area.

  7. Waste Management:

  8. There was a strong focus on improving waste management practices, particularly through increased composting and recycling efforts to reduce landfill use and methane emissions from organic waste.

  9. Community Engagement and Education:

  10. Several comments emphasized the need for greater community involvement and education on climate issues to foster a more informed and proactive public.

  11. Policy and Strategic Planning:

  12. Respondents called for the integration of climate strategies into all levels of planning and policy-making, ensuring that climate considerations are a central component of local government decision-making.

Summary of Comments:

The community's feedback underscores a deep concern for climate issues and a strong desire for proactive measures to mitigate climate change impacts. The emphasis on enhancing green infrastructure, promoting sustainable transport, and improving waste management practices reflects a comprehensive approach to tackling climate challenges. Additionally, the call for increased community engagement and strategic integration of climate policies indicates a recognition of the need for systemic change driven by both the community and local governance.

This analysis provides valuable insights into the community's priorities and concerns regarding climate change, which can inform future planning and initiatives by the local government to address these critical issues effectively.

Comments

Point ID Name Option_Selected Comment
1488.2 Sam Newton for New Zealand Recreation Association t/a Recreation Aotearoa None The comment discusses several aspects related to climate change, climate action, and climate change strategy, particularly in the context of recreation and the use of green spaces. Key points include:

1. The importance of public green spaces in contributing to mental well-being and reducing the prevalence of mental health conditions, which is indirectly related to climate action through the promotion of healthier lifestyles and sustainable community practices (Paragraphs 10-12).

2. The role of outdoor recreation in developing pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, highlighting the connection between recreational activities and environmental stewardship (Paragraph 13).

3. The potential of recreation to enhance social cohesion and community identity, which can contribute to collective climate action efforts (Paragraphs 14-15).

4. The emphasis on the role of green spaces in urban areas to enhance resilience to severe weather events, cool urban environments, and promote health and well-being, directly tying the management of these spaces to climate change mitigation strategies (Paragraph 21).

5. The discussion of Te Whai Oranga, a Māori approach to recreation, which includes a strong environmental component, emphasizing the connection with the natural world and fostering environmental stewardship through traditional practices (Paragraphs 25-31).

6. The mention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's report on the importance of urban green spaces, which addresses the role of these spaces in temperature regulation, stormwater management, and habitat provision, all of which are crucial in the context of climate change (Paragraphs 49-58).

These points collectively highlight the intersection of recreation, community well-being, and climate change strategy, emphasizing the importance of green spaces and environmentally conscious recreation practices in mitigating and adapting to climate change.
1229.4 Peter Olorenshaw for The Nelson Transport Strategy Group (NELSUST) Inc. None The comment discusses several topics relevant to climate change and climate action strategies:

1. Urban Tree Planting: The comment advocates for planting trees on streets, especially in densely developed areas, to mitigate the effects of urban heat, provide wildlife corridors, and enhance the living and working environment.

2. Electric Vehicles and Pollution: It notes that while electric vehicles (EVs) reduce brake pad wear due to regenerative braking, they may increase tyre particulates due to their heavier weight. However, the comment points out that the reduction in NOx and diesel particulate emissions from electric buses and other EVs outweighs the slight increase in tyre particulates.

3. Urban Planning and Traffic Reduction: The comment supports urban intensification over peripheral greenfield development to reduce the need for car commuting. It suggests that making non-car commuting options more attractive and implementing congestion charges could help manage travel demand and reduce particulate emissions from vehicles.

4. Public Transport and Congestion: Advocacy for interim solutions to improve safety and accessibility on Rocks Road for non-motorized transport modes like cycling and walking is discussed. The comment also supports the use of congestion charges and bus priority lanes as effective traffic demand management tools to reduce reliance on personal vehicles and lower emissions.

5. Health Impacts of Transport Emissions: The comment highlights the significant health impacts of NOx and particulates from diesel vehicles, emphasizing the need for acknowledging and addressing these pollutants in urban planning and transport management.

These points collectively suggest a strong focus on reducing urban heat, managing pollutants from vehicles, and enhancing public transport and non-motorized transport infrastructure as part of a broader climate action strategy.
956.3 Gillian Wratt None The comment discusses several aspects relevant to climate change and climate action, particularly focusing on the role of cycling and cycle trails in reducing carbon emissions and promoting a low-emissions community. Key points include:

1. Cycling reduces vehicular traffic demands, which helps in easing congestion and deferring costly road upgrades. This contributes to reducing emissions, aligning with local and national policies regarding climate change.

2. The Nelson Tasman Cycle Trail Trust (The Trust) aims to extend the regional trail network, recognizing cycling as a viable transport option that can help suppress the growth in private car use, thereby reducing emissions.

3. The Trust supports cycleway improvements and the development of off-road cycle (and walking) trails as part of the regional transportation network, which is seen as a key component in reducing carbon emissions and fostering a climate-resilient community.

4. Specific projects like the upgrade of Rocks Road include the development of a shared path for cycling and walking, which is essential for reducing carbon emissions by providing safer and more convenient alternatives to car use.

5. The Trust highlights the economic, social, and environmental benefits of cycling, including the reduction of carbon emissions through increased use of bicycles for commuting and recreation.

These points illustrate the Trust's commitment to enhancing cycling infrastructure as a strategy for climate action, promoting environmental sustainability, and reducing the region's carbon footprint.
1056.2 Julie Catchpole for The Suter Art Gallery Te Aratoi o Whakatu Trust None The Suter Art Gallery has sought expert advice from Hans Peter Froeling of WSP on potential infrastructure improvements to mitigate the risks posed by extreme weather events, such as flooding. These measures aim to protect The Suter's assets and ensure business continuity. The proposed mitigations include improvements to stormwater drainage and addressing potential risks from nearby trees. The Suter requests the Council's support in implementing these climate change mitigation measures to ensure the longevity and resilience of its facilities.

In August 2022, a severe weather event caused major flooding at The Suter Art Gallery, damaging the facility and its building services. The Suter has undertaken repairs and implemented preventative measures but seeks further support from the Nelson City Council (NCC) to complete upgrades to stormwater outlets and maintain them to prevent future flooding. The Suter proposes specific mitigations, including completing upgrades to the outfalls into the Maitai River and installing a new stormwater connection to allow better stormwater discharge, potentially preventing future flooding events.
1494.6 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum (NTCF) is a community-based organization focused on climate action, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change effects, and ensuring equitable responses to climate change. The Forum collaborates with local councils, engages in community education, and supports climate-related initiatives like planting programs and waste reduction efforts. They advocate for integrating climate strategy into the local government's Long Term Plan (LTP), suggesting specific actions such as adopting a target for reducing regional carbon emissions by at least 7% annually from 2024 through 2030, and addressing the impacts of sea level rise and flooding due to climate change. The Forum also emphasizes the importance of community involvement in climate action and requests continued funding to support their activities.
1474.11 Fiona Ede for Nature and Climate Group, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None The comment emphasizes the critical importance of addressing climate change in all aspects of Council operations and strategic planning. It criticizes the limited mention and superficial treatment of climate change in the Council's documents, despite acknowledging it as the most significant risk facing the community over the next decade. The comment highlights the need for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate changes, such as increasing storms, sea level rise, and biodiversity risks.

Specific concerns include:
- The proposed reduction in operating funding for climate change strategic planning, which the commenter finds unacceptable given the urgency of the climate threat.
- The lack of deep analysis on climate impacts and alternatives to reduce emissions in the Council's activity summaries.
- Insufficient attention to climate change in the challenges sections of the Environment and Parks and Active Recreation chapters, with minimal mentions of its impact on biodiversity, ecosystems, and park infrastructure.

The commenter applauds the Council's commitment to adopting and implementing a Climate Change Strategy and updating the Climate Change Plan but stresses the need for these to be prioritized and integrated into all areas of Council business with tangible actions.

Suggestions for proactive measures include:
- Encouraging the use of public and active transport, and water conservation.
- Preventing development in flood-prone areas and enhancing flood protection with native plantings.
- Increasing waste reduction targets and implementing community programs to reduce waste.
- Analyzing and mitigating risks to biodiversity from climate change and ensuring the survival of planted species.

The comment also advocates for nature-based solutions to climate risks, such as managed retreat for coastal areas and increasing urban tree cover to mitigate the heat island effect. It urges the Council to base all climate predictions and modeling on the most current data, suggesting the IPCC AR6 as more reliable than AR5.
1482.12 Lindsay Wood for Resilienz Ltd None The comment criticizes the local council for not adequately addressing climate change despite previous commitments such as the 2017 “Local Government Leaders’ Climate Change Declaration” and the declaration of a climate emergency in 2019. It highlights the lack of data in the Long Term Plan (LTP) to show effectiveness in addressing the climate crisis and notes the absence of clear climate response strategies. The comment also points out the need for increased public understanding of climate issues to support council strategies and criticizes the council for not integrating climate action as a key issue in the LTP. It mentions that council policies should consider climate consequences and necessary strategies in areas like urban development and transport. The comment acknowledges some progress in planning and operational emissions reduction but states that the council lacks serious commitments to broader climate change actions. It calls for the adoption of decarbonization targets aligned with New Zealand’s international obligations and criticizes the council for not providing adequate information on the adequacy of proposed climate measures. The comment also touches on the climate impact of housing, referencing research on the high lifetime emissions of typical modern houses compared to Paris Agreement targets.
559.10 Harry Pearson None The comment discusses various aspects of climate change strategy, particularly focusing on waste management and its implications for climate action. The resident expresses strong opposition to the proposed kitchen waste collection scheme, arguing that it is an inefficient use of resources which could be better spent on initiatives that directly contribute to mitigating climate change. They suggest that encouraging residents to compost their own kitchen waste or use community compost bins would be more beneficial for the environment. They emphasize the importance of reducing organic matter in landfills by promoting gardening and local food production, which not only reduces food miles but also increases local food consumption and waste composting. The commenter also mentions the potential for community gardens and better use of council resources to support local composting efforts as a strategy to handle organic waste more effectively and sustainably.
923.10 Patrick Anderson None Patrick Anderson, a resident of Nelson and an environmental enthusiast, advocates for the continuation of kitchen waste composting programs under the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. He highlights the significant environmental benefits of composting, such as reducing waste, regenerating soil, and mitigating climate impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon. Anderson points out that composting not only enriches soil and conserves water but also prevents soil erosion and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers. He references Project Drawdown, noting that composting can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Additionally, he discusses the financial benefits of composting, indicating that it is cost-effective compared to landfilling and can save money for both individuals and the council. Anderson passionately argues for the expansion of composting initiatives to enhance soil quality, reduce the effects of climate change, and improve the overall environmental health of Nelson. He urges the council to maintain and expand composting efforts, emphasizing the community and environmental benefits derived from such programs.
1494.11 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None The comment discusses the implementation of a household food waste collection service to prevent methane gas production from organic waste in landfills and suggests returning nutrients to the soil to support local food production. It highlights the need for facilities to process food waste regionally and suggests a community-managed composting solution. The comment also mentions funding available through the Ministry for the Environment for food scrap collection and processing systems. Additionally, it applauds the installation of more methane capture capacity at the York Valley landfill, which helps reduce methane emissions and supports nutrient restoration for local food production.
945.8 Graeme Ferrier Option two Overview: ‘Basic Assumptions’a) Climate Change: It was of some concern to see the LTP document subtitled“Beyond the Storm”, as if the recent storm events were an exception. However, onfurther reading I was pleased to see climate change is acknowledged as affectingour climate with the probability of more extreme weather events in and aroundNelson. The LTP does recognise the vulnerability of much of Nelson’sinfrastructure to the effects of weather; sea (coastal) and earthquake plus theprobability of regular on-going cost to repair; replace and upgrade infrastructure.This will be an increasing and on-going cost to NCC.b) Demographics: It was good to see the likely ageing population recognised (from21% to 26% over 65). This was stated to provide more on fixed incomes and howthat might affect rate increases. However, it did not make mention of how thatmay affect the housing needs. Older people generally look to downsize to smaller,easy-care dwellings such as apartments or units. This could/should free up largerhouse for younger couples? Plan Change 29 does make provision for this change.Plan Change 29 also states: “Enabling the intensification of development onland…………….that is not within areas potentially affected by significant naturalhazards” [My highlighting] This provision has certainly not hindered, to date, theproposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valley development in the Maitai Valley!c) Vested Assets: These are assets paid for by developers and vested to Council. Theassumption is that “vested assets will remain the same over the term of the plan”.However, is this an accurate assumption? I do not think so!Firstly it is agreed in the LTP that climate events are likely to be more extreme asin a) above. Will not this potentially INCREASE the maintenance of these latervested assets? I would say “YES”Secondly, this assumption makes no provision for the possible/probabledevelopment of Mahitahi/Kaka Valley during the term of the LTP. Thedevelopment area has steep slopes; and a flood-prone valley floor. Back-up waterfrom a large flood can be damaging enough, but stormwater if not contained onsteep slopes can cause serious damage to infrastructure, let alone down-streamdamage. This would all become NCC’s responsibility. It could even create aliability for buying-out houses if the damage was serious enough. Has this beenconsidered? I do not think so!Thirdly, there will be accelerated run-off from the hillside development inMahitahi/Kaka Valley. As we saw in Atawahai in the recent storm events (andpossibly other places) even with holding tanks in place, these only provide a shortdelay until overwhelmed by the water! And what of all the down-stream effects?Pollution; erosion and perhaps more serious flooding along the lower Maitai?Conclusion: I do not want to see NCC take over responsibility for a high-riskvested asset in the form of the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valleydevelopment. We have enough infrastructure at risk. Why take on more?The on-going cost is hard to predict, but it has been dismissed as “similar tocurrent” However other parts of the LTP acknowledge that extreme weather is anincreasing risk. As a ratepayer, I DO NOT want Council to take on more risk if theycan avoid it. That is not smart management in my view!I have objected to the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valley development from thestart. It is the wrong place for an intensive subdivision. It will not enhance thequality of life in Nelson/NCC ; it will in fact detract. The adverse impacts havebeen well-documented such that around 13,000 people have petitioned againstthe development.The storm events of recent times have highlighted the fragility of much of the NCCenvironment.One of the NCC’s Long Term Plans is to phase out commercial forestry from theland surrounding Nelson, and why is that? It was found that the land under pineforest was far more prone to slipping in heavy rain events than under nativeforest. (I was involved in one of the workshops where it was explained anddiscussed). Perhaps this suggests that for consistency, much of the Kaka Valleyshould be replanted into native forest?The Mahitahi/Kaka Valley is a development with very high-risk environmentalconsequences both during its development and once vested to Council. They areforeseeable risks that can and should be avoided. My understanding is that todate, the developers have not provided any modelling to analyse these risks, sohow can NCC simply “accept” that eventually the development will be vested toCouncil?I object to NCC being seen to support the proposed Mahitahi/Kaka Valleydevelopment by allocating funds to provide supporting infrastructure to this highriskdevelopment in a highly sensitive area of the Maitai River.Graeme Ferrier
1482.10 Lindsay Wood for Resilienz Ltd None INTRODUCTION

There is a great deal in the LTP that we endorse, we recognise that this is an unusually complex context in which the LTP is being developed, and we commend Council for much of its work in this regard.

It is also clear that the timing of some matters is tied to significant funding from central Government that may cease to be available in future years.

Even so, there are several items, such as the Tahunanui Beach facilities, Crematorium, and especially climate responses, where we consider the information supplied is inadequate to support well-informed submissions.
There are also some broad perspectives conveyed in the consultation document which we consider frame the LTP in a needlessly narrow manner, and so possibly constraining the breadth of some submissions. We urge Council, in considering the final form of the LTP, to ensure it is not also so constrained.
2. FRAMING THE LTP

2.1 Title: “Beyond the storm”.
We respectfully highlight that this is a euphemistic framing of the LTP and, if the sense of “storm” is used in the final title, it should be worded more along the lines of “Among the storms,” to better convey the context in which the LTP will apply.
While a few places in the LTP do present a greater sense of readying ourselves for future storms (including in the Mayor’s foreword), the last several LTPs have typically been impacted by three or four major storm events during their ten-year cycle. For example the 2008 windstorm; 2011 rain event; 2012 windstorm; 2013 flash flooding, 2018 Cyclones Fehi and Gita; and the 2022 “River of Rain”.
Add that such weather events are escalating due to the climate crisis, and it is doubly important that decisions around the LTP are seen in that ongoing and intensifying context and not, as the current title implies, as the aftermath of a single major event.

2.2 Council’s primary responsibility.
The Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”) makes a clear and relatively simple statement about the purpose of local government:
This purpose covers both process (decision-making and action) and a wide sweep of areas requiring consideration. We urge Council to take such a holistic view and not focus unduly on physical works which, important as they are, tend to claim attention even though in reality they are a means to an end in this context.
In his foreword, the Mayor notes: “Council’s greatest responsibility to our community is in the provision of vital city infrastructure for services such as drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, roads, stopbanks, drains, bridges, cycleways and footpaths.”
See attachment.
In terms of the scale of financial investment and, in some respects, day to day matters, that may well be the case. However, as the above purpose makes clear, there are other critical dimensions of our community that also require consideration, and that may well be equally important, even if the financial implications might be different.
For example, apart from the general desirability of inclusive and caring societies, the strength and connectedness of communities is of critical importance in times of physical disaster. This was borne out in the aftermath of both the Kaikoura Earthquake and Cyclone Gabrielle, when the need for robust communities was doubly important due in part to the widespread failure of physical infrastructure. (That can, of course, also be used as an argument to invest in better physical works – a balance is needed.)
In that regard, as well as expectations of increasingly severe climate effects, we are now in a time zone with high likelihood of an AF8 earthquake (GNS advises greater than 75% probability in the next 50 years) with potentially massive disruption.
A separate but similarly important issue is equipping our communities for excellent participation in democratic processes, an especially significant factor for major and complex issues such large plan changes or climate policy. The 2023 review “The Future for Local Government” (https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Future-for-Local-Government/$file/Te-Arotake_Final-report.pdf ) spelled this out not only as important and worthy in itself, but also as an element that was often missing, and the report urged councils to trial strategies that might help address it.
1047.18 Anna Berthelsen None Summary table included for reference:
Please see my uploaded supporting document for details on my other comments on the LTP.
Summary of key points in my submission




Topic
Submission or request




NCC Climate strategy
Incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:
·        Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
·        Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
·        Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
·        Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
·        Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
·        Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
·        Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.


Transport
Support the East-West corridor for cycling
Support New bus hub at Millers Acre
Support Safer speeds around Stoke School
Support The ‘Bridge to Better’ urban revitalisation project
Support Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility
Support Intersection and roundabout safety treatments
Support Car-sharing initiative
Allocate future funding for new buses to cater for higher patronage
Investigate a) the use of congestion charging, b) Active Travel plans for NCC staff, c) replacing NCC vehicles with EVs, and d) providing “bus only” lanes at key intersections.


Solid waste
Support a household food waste collection service
Invest increased revenue from landfill levy into developing a distributed, community-led service to reduce waste from landfill
Include community/business expertise, including NTCF, on the group developing the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Apply for MFE funding to implement a food scrap collection and processing system
Work with other councils to advocate for a national container returns scheme
Allocate funds to plan for and manage the waste from emergency events such as floods, earthquakes.


Property buyout
Support Option 2 - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.


Forestry
Support Option 2 - Exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.


Housing Reserve Fund
Support Option 2 - Broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund and work with partners to deliver social and affordable housing.
Amend criteria for new applications to require alignment with the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Artificial turf
Support Option 1 - Retain current approach of continuing to improve existing sports fields.


Nature and climate
Allocate funds for a review of the Biodiversity Strategy and development of a Biodiversity Plan, both in conjunction with the Tasman District Council
Allocate funds for implementation of the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Economic
Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan.


Corporate
Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.


Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).


Mountain biking trail access
Recommend for NCC to prioritise negotiating a long-term access plan with Ngāti Koata.
1059.15 Allen Berthelsen None Summary of key points in my submission. Please see my Supporting document for full details




Topic
Submission or request




NCC Climate strategy
Incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:
·        Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
·        Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
·        Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
·        Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
·        Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
·        Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
·        Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.


Transport
Support the East-West corridor for cycling
Support New bus hub at Millers Acre
Support Safer speeds around Stoke School
Support The ‘Bridge to Better’ urban revitalisation project
Support Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility
Support Intersection and roundabout safety treatments
Support Car-sharing initiative
Allocate future funding for new buses to cater for higher patronage
Investigate a) the use of congestion charging, b) Active Travel plans for NCC staff, c) replacing NCC vehicles with EVs, and d) providing “bus only” lanes at key intersections.


Solid waste
Support a household food waste collection service
Invest increased revenue from landfill levy into developing a distributed, community-led service to reduce waste from landfill
Include community/business expertise, including NTCF, on the group developing the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Apply for MFE funding to implement a food scrap collection and processing system
Work with other councils to advocate for a national container returns scheme
Allocate funds to plan for and manage the waste from emergency events such as floods, earthquakes.


Property buyout
Support Option 2 - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.


Forestry
Support Option 2 - Exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.


Housing Reserve Fund
Support Option 2 - Broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund and work with partners to deliver social and affordable housing.
Amend criteria for new applications to require alignment with the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Artificial turf
Support Option 1 - Retain current approach of continuing to improve existing sports fields.


Nature and climate
Allocate funds for a review of the Biodiversity Strategy and development of a Biodiversity Plan, both in conjunction with the Tasman District Council
Allocate funds for implementation of the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Economic
Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan.


Corporate
Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.


Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).


Mountain biking trail access
Recommend for NCC to prioritise negotiating a long-term access plan with Ngāti Koata.
1057.15 Cameron Carter None Summary of key points in my submission. Please see my supporting document for full details




Topic
Submission or request




NCC Climate strategy
Incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:
·        Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
·        Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
·        Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
·        Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
·        Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
·        Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
·        Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.


Transport
Support the East-West corridor for cycling
Support New bus hub at Millers Acre
Support Safer speeds around Stoke School
Support The ‘Bridge to Better’ urban revitalisation project
Support Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility
Support Intersection and roundabout safety treatments
Support Car-sharing initiative
Allocate future funding for new buses to cater for higher patronage
Investigate a) the use of congestion charging, b) Active Travel plans for NCC staff, c) replacing NCC vehicles with EVs, and d) providing “bus only” lanes at key intersections.


Solid waste
Support a household food waste collection service
Invest increased revenue from landfill levy into developing a distributed, community-led service to reduce waste from landfill
Include community/business expertise, including NTCF, on the group developing the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan
Apply for MFE funding to implement a food scrap collection and processing system
Work with other councils to advocate for a national container returns scheme
Allocate funds to plan for and manage the waste from emergency events such as floods, earthquakes.


Property buyout
Support Option 2 - Accept the Government’s offer of financial assistance and apply the Council’s draft eligibility principles, while urging the Government to amend criteria for EQC payouts.


Forestry
Support Option 2 - Exit commercial forestry over time and grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.


Housing Reserve Fund
Support Option 2 - Broaden the purpose of the Housing Reserve Fund and work with partners to deliver social and affordable housing.
Amend criteria for new applications to require alignment with the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Artificial turf
Support Option 1 - Retain current approach of continuing to improve existing sports fields.


Nature and climate
Allocate funds for a review of the Biodiversity Strategy and development of a Biodiversity Plan, both in conjunction with the Tasman District Council
Allocate funds for implementation of the Urban Greening Plan 2022.


Economic
Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan.


Corporate
Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.


Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).


Mountain biking trail access
Recommend for NCC to prioritise negotiating a long-term access plan with Ngāti Koata.
882.10 ELEANOR DENTON None A. Kitchen Composting
I have lived in Nelson since 1991. I have been a passionate supporter of the environment
since my teenage years in the 1970’s. I will become a first-time grandmother in June. I am
submitting on behalf of future generations to show I care about how my actions will affect
them. I want Nelson City Council to maintain kitchen waste composting programs in the
Long-Term plan via support to Community Compost.
I live in a small way in The Wood with 15 houses. Like many modern homes the gardens are
small so composting at home is a challenge - plus I do not wish to attract rodents. I joined
to Community compost approx 3 years ago.
I upsized my bucket to one large enough to
cover kitchen waste from other residents in our street. I love the Community Compost service
because it is so convenient. As it is collected weekly there is not enough time for it to become
smelly. Most importantly I know I am making a positive difference to the environment. The
high nutrient compost can be used locally by residents, councils and the horticulture industry.
My garden service has just spread some of this wonderful compost on my garden and the
plants appreciate it. My use of blue plastic rubbish bags has decreased significantly as
volume of waste reduced plus I do not have to put a partly full bag out as I used to because
of the smell of decaying food waste.
With appropriate council support (Nelson and Tasman) the scheme could be extended to
cover all households plus restaurants, food outlets and supermarkets. Later it could be
extended to include green waste from gardening. An expanded volume of material would
generate large quantities of high-quality compost. Given Nelson Tasman is a horticulture
and wine growing region this compost could be used locally. That would reduce the fossil
fuel component of imported compost and provide supply chain security into the future.
I have visited the San Francisco Bay area and seen their service in action. The collection
bins for green waste are twice the size of landfill waste bins. There is a weekly kerbside
(footpath) collection. The finished compost is in high demand in the nearby Napa Valley and
other wine growing regions.
By continuing to support the kitchen compost scheme and related initiatives the Nelson City
Council achieves other goals:

• positive action related its previously declared “Climate Change Emergency”

• a best practice solution for food waste it can refer to under it's “Smart Little City”
branding
Eleanor Denton Submission
Nelson City Council Long Term Plan
24 April 2024

2
• If implemented successfully this could bring positive attention from other councils
around New Zealand and even internationally looking to implement or improve on
similar schemes
• reduction in waste producing methane from landfill(s)

• compost would be available to supply Nelmac or other contractors working on Nelson
City Council parks and reserves at cost or a subsidized rate

• extends the life of the York Valley landfill, a huge cost saving to rate payers

• new landfills are incredibly expensive to build. There are issues around consenting
plus finding an appropriate location that is acceptable to the residents of the city and
earthquake safe.

• when food compost is used on horticulture and viticulture it helps retain moisture in
the soil and would deduces demand for water from dams in Nelson and Tasman
regions. Water supply from dams is likely to come under increasing pressure with
hotter, drier summers as result of climate change combined with population growth.

Kitchen Waste Composting Conclusion
I ask Nelson City Council to vote to retain funding for the Community Compost Kitchen
scheme in both Long Term and Annual Plans. I support the business case proposal being
prepared with Tasman District Council on extensions to the service. My vision is to see a
collection scheme for both Kitchen and green waste Nelson Tasman wide. 
 
1474.10 Fiona Ede for Nature and Climate Group, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None Decreased air quality data reporting (page 14)
We believe that resourcing environmental activities must be considered a priority for the long term wellbeing of all of our communities. To this end, we would encourage Council not only to monitor PM10 levels, but also to include PM2.5 levels. These smaller particles penetrate into the lungs and can cause serious health issues.
We note that PM2.5 emissions from vehicles are a major problem in urban centres. Monitoring of air quality at congested road transport locations around Nelson would allow vehicle pollution to be taken into account in decisions relating to transport infrastructure and policy development in Nelson.
As the frequency of data reporting currently is not provided in the documentation, it is difficult to comment on the wisdom or otherwise of Council’s proposal to decrease the regularity of reporting. 
 Environment and Parks and Active Recreation:

undertake extensive analysis of the risks posed by climate change to indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems;
develop and implement effective strategies to mitigate these risks to ensure that indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems are thriving in the face of a rapidly changing climate;
mandate an 80% survival metric for plants at two years after planting in the Performance Measure table on page 90;
please also refer to our section on funding for weed control.

Adopt-a-Spot initiative
Council currently has around 40 community volunteer groups managed under the Adopt-a-Spot programme, who undertake an immense amount of valuable volunteer conservation work (trapping, weed clearance etc). The programme has been closed to new interest/groups, due to staffing capacity.
 We urge Council to increase the current 0.5 FTE coordination position to 1 FTE, and that the programme be reopened to new groups, with a stronger emphasis on restoration initiatives.
Funding for regional climate and environmental initiatives
We support both the continuation and the extension of funding for climate and environmental initiatives by Council, and request that a collaborative funding model with TDC be established to ensure that Top of the South environmental initiatives are coordinated effectively and efficiently.
Specifically, we request that the invaluable coordination and development work by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum not only continues to be funded, but more resources made available to the organisation to fulfil its vital role, as per the NTCF submission to the LTP.
We also support continued and increased funding for the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance, Tasman Environment Trust and the Environment/Recovery Centres.
Biodiversity Plan
In addition to its Climate Action Plan, Council needs a Biodiversity Plan, building on the Biodiversity Strategy. Given that Nelson City and Tasman District are contiguous biodiversity areas, it is imperative that the two Councils work jointly on biodiversity and ecosystem planning and management. Together they need to undertake a joint biodiversity risk assessment that is incorporated into planning processes and project development. Taking the health of ecosystems and biodiversity as the starting point puts their preservation and restoration at the top of the agenda.
Urban Greening Plan

We are disappointed that there is no reference to Council’s Urban Greening Plan 2022 in the LTP
consultation document nor the Draft Council Activities Summaries document. Its absence appears to be a
major oversight and we advocate that the Plan be incorporated into the LTP process.
The outworkings of the Plan would ‘expand our urban canopy, bringing more CO2 absorbing plants and
trees into our city centre while reducing air and noise pollution, supporting biodiversity and food
resiliency’. As the Plan notes: ‘urban greening is widely recognised as playing a critical role in increasing
the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities living in cities and towns’.
“Urban greening practices like living walls and roofs (where plants grow directly on the structure),
accessible community gardens, expanded urban tree canopies and urban microforests have been shown
to improve air and water quality, absorb carbon emissions, reduce the impact of climatic change,
enhance biodiversity, and support economic development.’
1047.7 Anna Berthelsen None Incorporate key elements of the council ’s climate strategy into the
LTP. These should include the following:

· Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon
emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through
2030

· Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this
target
· Establish a contingency fund for additional climate
measures identified in the NCC climate strategy

· Add a statement on how the Council will respond to
future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it
protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance
for the costs of these choices

· Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in
2027

· Acknowledge that climate change appears to be
occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than
previously understood

· Start a discussion with the Nelson community about
targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk
areas. 
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate
Forum for 2024‐25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the
Climate Action Plan.
Support Car‐sharing initiative
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points from NCC and climate change below:

It is essential
that NCC allocate sufficient funds to implement its Climate Strategy. I note
that Tasman
District’s draft LTP leads with a section on climate change and has allocated
$69 million
over ten years to addressing climate change challenges. I request that NCC establish a contingency
fund for actions to be identified through the Climate Strategy, i.e. in addition to actions
already in the draft LTP.

I would
like NCC to adopt a target of at least a 7% reduction in regional emissions of CO2 and
other long‐lived gases, for each year from 2024 through 2030. I request that the Council adopt
this target (or a more
ambitious target!) and report
on the community’s progress by, in the first instance, publishing quarterly reports on sales of petrol and
diesel, which account for a large share of Nelson’s emissions.

I request
that the Council start a discussion with the Nelson community
about targeted rates in higher risk areas to pay for flood protection. This
will help
prepare the community for more difficult discussions about managed retreat.

Nelson has
areas of low‐lying and/or sinking land, where seawalls are likely to prove
costly and ineffective
responses to sea level rise. Conversion of such areas into indigenous biodiversity
areas could prove a more effective long‐term response, storing carbon as well as
providing a natural, low‐cost buffer from storm surges.

I recommend
that the LTP take into account that climate change appears to be occurring faster,
with more damaging impacts, than scientists previously understood.
Think
global act local.
I support the development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
I recommend allocating funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024‐25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1109.2 c/o Anne Smith for CLIMATE LIBERATION AOTEAROA Whakatu None COUNTING OF EMISSIONS FROM CRUISE SHIPS
VISITING PORT NELSON
We demand that cruise ship emissions while in port and 50% of journey emissions, to and from Nelson, be included in Nelson's total emissions - the total that counts towards our emission targets. The emissions are being released into the atmosphere, so they have to be part of our reduction goals as well. This will bring Nelson into line with the plans for Port Lyttleton and bring New Zealand into line with the EU and UK.
We acknowledge that if cruise ships currently refuel at Port Nelson, the emissions produced by burning this fuel are counted in Nelson's emissions. This method however still allows cruise ships to refuel at ports that use different methods and in so doing, avoid declaring them.
We are requesting this because:
1. Cruise ship passengers bring us less economic benefit than other tourism
2. Cruise ship passengers emit up to four times the greenhouse gas emissions than an equivalent holiday flying and staying in hotels
3. Cruise ships burn fuel that releases carcinogenic particulates into our air
4. Cruise ships are responsible for a quarter of all ocean waste, despite being only 1% of the merchant fleet
Although central government isn't taking action on emissions, you have the power to influence them. Declarations of climate emergency and the nuclear free movement both worked like this, with local government taking the lead. In November, the Climate Commission will be making recommendations  to central government and they will likely recommend the inclusion of cruise ship emissions in our targets.
Whilst the national government doesn't seem to care about the environment, if all councils demand they take this step, we believe they will too. Similar policies are being already picked up around the world. The UK and the EU will include emissions from international shipping and aviation, including cruise ships, in their trading schemes and targets from 2026.
CLIMATE LIBERATION AOTEAROA Whakatu
 
https://www.nzier.org.nz/hubfs/nzier_insight_87_-_tourism_beyond_covid-19.pdf
 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/experiences/cruises/122137147/coronavirus-cruise-industrys-economic-impact-overstated--professor
 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/green-business/129581715/cruise-ships-say-they-are-getting-greener-but-critics-want-faster-change
 
https://newsroom.co.nz/2022/12/11/cruising-for-a-bruising-dollars-v-nature-in-milford-sound/#:~:text=A%20ship's%20daily%20emissions%20have,by%20international%20tourists%2C%20he%20says
 
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/air-pollution-from-fossil-fuel-use-accounts-for-over-5-million-extra-deaths-a-year/#:~:text=deaths%20a%20year-,Air%20pollution%20from%20fossil%20fuel%20use%20accounts%20for,million%20extra%20deaths%20a%20year&text=Air%20pollution%20from%20using%20fossil,published%20by%20The%20BMJ%20today
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308597X07000218
1256.4 Santosha Phillips None Kia Ora Nelson City Council Members,  
 
I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Santosha Phillips, I’ve lived in Whakatū for a total of around 35 years. As a passionate supporter of the environment, I’m reaching out to you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. I’m passionate about keeping composting on the long-term plan because it diverts organic waste from landfill, where it does harm, into a productive and enriching product. Composting is the most important individual action someone can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. I firmly believe in taking positive action for our community and environment, and I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can improve the community by enriching soils, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money in recovering food scraps from landfills.
 
First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.
 
Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).
 
City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.
 
Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly.
 
In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly.
 
I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost.

Nāku noa na,
Santosha Phillips
884.10 James Cimino None Kia Ora Nelson City Council Members,  

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is James and I'm a Computer Science Engineer and mountain enthusiast. As a passionate supporter of the environment, I’m reaching out to you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. I’m passionate about keeping composting on the long-term plan because I'm a young adult and I want to have a healthy environment and town as I get older. I also love fresh vegetables and compost gives me that. Composting is the most important individual action someone can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. I firmly believe in family, hard-work, and the outdoors and I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can improve the community by enriching soils, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money in recovering food scraps from landfills. 
First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.

Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).
City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.
Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly. 

In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly. 
I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 

Sincerely, 
James Cimino
885.10 Carey Doust None Kia Ora Nelson City Council Members,  
I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Carey, my family has had a house in Nelson for the past 20 years. As a passionate supporter of the environment, I’m reaching out to you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. I’m passionate about keeping composting on the long-term plan because I care about future generations wellbeing and creating a regenerative economy that is sustainable and supports food waste use. Composting is the most important individual action someone can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. I firmly believe in helping nonprofits, volunteers, and the community and I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can improve the community by enriching soils, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money in recovering food scraps from landfills. 

First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.

Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).
City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.

Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly. 

In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly. 
I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 

Sincerely, 
Carey Doust
886.10 Jim Cimino None Kia Ora Nelson City Council Members,  
I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Jim and I wish to keep composting. As a passionate supporter of the environment, I’m reaching out to you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. I’m passionate about keeping composting on the long-term plan because I care about the environment, healthy soil, food security, and helping the team who do amazing work in Nelson. Composting is the most important individual action someone can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. I firmly believe in small actions making a big differnce, and I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can improve the community by enriching soils, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money in recovering food scraps from landfills. 
First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.
Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).
City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.
Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly. 
In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly. 
I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 
Sincerely, 
Jim Cimino
850.10 Kylie Chebahtah None Kia Ora Nelson City Council Members,  

I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Kylie, I’ve lived in Nelson for 1.5 years. As a passionate supporter of the environment, I’m reaching out to you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan in support of Community Compost. I’m passionate about keeping composting on the long-term plan because climate change and healthy families. Composting is the most important individual action someone can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. I firmly believe in our future as a thriving &self-sustaining community, and I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can improve the community by enriching soils, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and saving money in recovering food scraps from landfills. 

First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.

Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).

City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.

Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly. 

In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly. 

I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 

Sincerely, 
Kylie Chebahtah
1406.10 Luisa Zuppardi-Smith None Kia Ora Nelson City Council, 

My name is Luisa, I’ve lived in Nelson for 1 year. I am writing this to ask you to maintain kitchen waste composting programs on the long-term plan, in support of Community Compost. I care about keeping composting on the long-term plan because it is the best possible way to get value from resource that food waste represents, by nurturing soil and enriching the ecosystem. I know that Community Compost’s initiatives can not only enriching soil, but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and save money in recovering food scraps from landfills. 

First, compost increases the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes. It also conserves water and reduces water use by helping soils retain moisture. Finally, compost helps prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff. Over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms are in just one handful of compost. By letting food scraps go to landfills, we are wasting precious resources and organic matter that can make our veggies grow stronger, the air we breathe cleaner, and the land more resilient to natural disasters, which will cost the council in the future.

Second, according to Project Drawdown, composting reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Compost also sequesters carbon and reduces the demand for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers. In New Zealand, organic waste, like food scraps, accounts for about one-third of household rubbish bins. When these organics end up in landfills, they decompose without oxygen and produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas contributing significantly to climate change (WasteMINZ).

City-wide composting initiatives can tremendously impact the environment and local communities. In 1996, San Francisco began requiring residents and businesses to separate food scraps and yard waste for composting. As a result of this program, the city now diverts 80% of its waste from landfills and has the highest composting rate in the country. This program has been so successful that other cities, such as Seattle, Boston, and New York City, have implemented similar initiatives.

Third, composting saves individuals and the council money. Project Drawdowns research shows that “an increase in the market price of finished compost (driven by the demand of more climate-friendly agricultural practices) and/or a decrease in the operating costs through innovation and process design could create a financial advantage for composting over landfilling.” Organic waste costs Nelson households $3.6m yearly to collect and dump in landfills. The proposed organic waste collection would recover nutrients and energy from the waste for only $1.5m yearly. 

In addition, households use 78 rubbish bags annually, which cost $375. If organic waste is collected separately, households could reduce that to just one bag per week, saving $125 yearly. Waste levies, not households, also cover organic waste collection costs ranging between $56 and $111 yearly. 

I consider that it is vital to keep composting on the long-term plan. This potential change to the current compost plan can not proceed, and instead, constructive steps should be taken to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 

Please take this opportunity to take climate-positive action for the benefit of local residents and our whole environment!

Sincerely, 
Luisa Zuppardi-Smith
1445.13 Iain Sheves for Wakatu Incorporation None Impact on infrastructure by Climate Change
46. Wakatū fully supports the Councils commitment to reduce carbon emissions from its
own activities and to support the community in doing the same.
47. Wakatū believes that a community is stronger acting together and that the risks from
climate change will impact everyone in the community in different ways. Sea level
rise and coastal flooding are often identified as the most significant risk to the
community and they are likely to become more prevalent in the future. Currently the
impact of fires, inland floods and landslips are an annual occurrence. Wakatū is of
the view that only by acting together as a community over a long time frame will it
be possible to build the resilience required to protect and safeguard the population.
We note that in a relatively short timeframe many of the District’s stormwater
infrastructure has been enhanced to deal with higher intensity rain events and as this
continues over the next decades the community will become increasingly resilient.
48. Wakatū, along with the Council, Tasman District Council (TDC) and Whakarewa
Trust have been engaging with the Central Region in Denmark and the Klimatorium
Project in Lemvig. The Klimatorium is Denmark’s International Climate Centre
which acts as a research hub to develop solutions to existing and future climate
challenges as well as an educational resource to inform the community about climate
science and challenges.
49. Wakatū would like to see a Climatorium developed in Te Tauihu, acting as a national
climate centre for Aotearoa and a community asset. Wakatū would call on the
Council, TDC and other local entities to give their support to this project and funnel
their Climate Change and resilience projects through the Climatorium. This will
bring several benefits, a multiplier effect of funding through collaboration, access to
national and international funding to contribute the project workstreams, increased
employment opportunities in the community and attracting green economy
investment into the area. Along with this the creation of a community education
resource and tourist visitor centre. These are all benefits demonstrated in Lemvig
which has added a whole new dimension to the local economy and put this small
community in West Jutland at the centre of the Danish Green Economy.
50. We also note that the two Councils engineering and infrastructure teams expend
considerable time and budget in developing and improving systems to promote
climate resilience. Working on these projects together and sharing this knowledge
nationally and internationally through the Climatorium would provide significant
local cost savings through economies of scale and access to external funding as well
as providing excellent climate resilient local outcomes.
51. Wakatū would look to the Council to join with this work with a view to developing
the Te Tauihu Climatorium as a way to generate best value for budget in the climate
space. We would put down the same challenge to the Council as we have to TDC, to
undertake to divert their budget for Climate mitigation and adaption projects
through the Climatorium in order to access a greater breadth of knowledge and
sources of co-funding and make the delivery of those workstreams more cost
effective.
832.1 paul covell None of the above It is noted that:1.Council has already purchased a number of properties impacted by slips from Council owned land without any liability to do so.2.The criteria for buyouts includes uninsured properties.This will impose extra cost on Council because there will be no EQC or insurance payments to offset the price. 3.Many properties in neighbourhoods affected by slips have had their values substantially reduced by Quotable Value as a result of the weather event. Councils proposal howeveris to purchase at pre event value. Thus,those receiving the buyout would receive relatively more than their neighbours could expect on the open market.4.After removal of buildings the Council would be left with isolated pockets of land that would soon become overgrown with weeds5.It is arguable that removal of houses and driveways etc (which currently direct stormwater safely into the stormwater drainage system) will increase the instability of the land in heavy rain.It is submitted that:(a) Irrespective of comments to the contrary,the proposal would set a precedent and although opposed to the proposal I would expect to be treated equally if the proposal is adopted.(b) With higher rainfall predicted as a result of climate change more houses can be expected to be impacted by slips in the future.(c) The Council has not disclosed which properties are being considered for the buyout, what the "intolerable risk to life" is or what options have been considered to mitigate the risks. It is believed that some of the hoses being considered have received little or no damage and that the risk is from debris or rocks falling from steep land that has been left bare.There are options to mitigate this type of risk including steel/wire mesh fences and rockfall netting drapery systems.The costs are not exorbitant,particularly having regard to the values of some of these properties.(d) Since the Council will need to carry out remedial work to protect roads and other houses if it buys the properties,it would be wiser to assist the owners with the works thereby removing the need for a buyout.(e) Surely it would not be too difficult to negotiate a better use of the government money in carrying out remedial or mitigation works rather than outright purchase of the propertiesIn summary I am opposed to the buyout because:(i) It will create a precedent(ii) In addition to the $12m (50/50 Council/Government) Council is looking at spending upto a further $11.5m for removal of structures,slip remediation works and administration and other costs involved in the buyout. That is a total of $23.5m for upto 14 houses without including ongoing holding costs and loss of rates.(iii) Further investigation is needed to ascertain what options are available to remove the perceived risks. In many cases,even without any remedial works,there have been no further problems since August 1922 although there has been substantial rain events since then.(iv) Since the Council is expecting to spend upto $23.5m (including the government contribution of $6m) on the buyout and subsequent remedial work etc it would be wiser and much more economical to assist the owners with remediation work thereby removing the need for a buyout.
978.10 barbara and tim robson None Firstly we want to congratulate NCC for endeavours so far, to acknowledge that there is a Climate Emergency and to act on this so far, and in developing a Climate Strategy and updating a Climate Action Plan. Hopefully this process and its implementation can be expedited!.  We are also appreciative of Council's recognition that there is real expertise in our community and that NCC has funded the NTCF and consulted with expertise withing that group
Ongoingly, fundamental to NCC having a realistic but also visionary approach to this LTP, it is essential that your every decision accept that Climate Change is upon us and that all future planning should reflect that unpalatable fact. This means that a BAU way of thinking will not serve your and our children and grandchildren. It means that as leaders you must be open and curious and courageous in not just choosing what seem to be  "better economics" decisions. In the long term that will not be so and will contribute to  destabilising the social and environmental fabric of our community and not honour our commitment to emissions reduction.
Some examples of how NCC (frequently in collaboration with TDC) must act is to:
TRANSPORT: prioritise the East-West cycling corridor, allow more public transport development by developing Miller's Acre as a hub, expedite the Bridge to Better project, further support the car-sharing initiative and generally re-inforce safer lower-speed limits to encourage more active-transport  choices for the community. Going forward NCC should infestigate congestion charging, bus lanes at key intersections... These initiatives have all proved effective elsewhere in reducing congestion, reducing emissions and in improving physical and mental health and well-being in communities globally.
WASTE:
We strongly support the retention and expansion of a food waste collection service, and suggest it's important that this be expanded to all businesses in the catering and food handling sectors. This can be argued to be a sound economic and emission-reducing activity in terms of methane output. It would be serious step backwards if Council was to undo the positives that the joint efforts of Community Compost and NCC have resulted in. The scheme has significantly reduced the number of bags sent to landfill. Waste levies can cover the retention and expansion of such a scheme. (CF MOE funding for food scrap and collection processing systems.  Please retain this very important part of our community's fabric and recognise the contribution it makes in terms of wellbeing and positive modelling. It would be a real shame if NCC were to let this go rather than upscaling the model which has proven benefits in other centre. 
In regard to other waste, we hope that NCC cann be pro-active in terms of education of our community's reliance on single-use containers and work with other councils to advocate for a National Container Returns scheme.
 
In conclusion, we highly recommend that NCC continues to financially support and draw on the expertise (in many fields), of the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum, whose proven efforts to create a better, more sustainable community and indeed hope, in our community, are vital.
Thank you for your mahi.
1299.9 Nicole Hecht None Kia ora koutou,

My name is Nicole Hecht. I am originally from Canada, though I travelled internationally for about 10 years since becoming a teacher. I have lived the last 5 years in the Nelson area and intend to settle here with my partner, who is a local. Being a secondary school teacher I care deeply about the future of this city for our youth. Having settled here in my thirties, I’m very invested in the growth of the city and would love it to thrive, sustainably.
 
I have been a part of Community Compost almost as long as I have lived in Nelson and I would like to comment specifically on Nelson’s composting services in relation to the long term plan. To me, the values and ideas of composting are the most logical, ethical, and easy to follow. I value the connection and social engagement of working with the diverse range of volunteers there and the sense of contribution to our community, but even more than that is the shared value that everyone brings; Food scraps making gorgeous, nutrient-rich soil is the only option when the other option is landfill and toxic gasses from anaerobic foodstuffs.

My partner and I have heard council is planning to terminate its current composting services and feel concerned because composting is such an important action every individual (even kids) can take to mitigate their impact on the climate. When done through education and en mass, the improvements to our lives and ecological footprint is enormous.

Like my partner, I especially want to see Community Compost supported to continue the amazing mahi it does for our rohe. This includes:

Educating our community and new generations to do things differently
Reducing carbon emissions
Reducing landfill
Brining people together and giving them a sense of value, meaning and purpose
Enriching soils
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Saving money in rubbish collection

Compost is a precious resource and I realise the value might not seem immediately economically evident, but there are so many benefits that are very hard to measure purely in term of economics. These include

Increasing the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes which,
Decreases the need for chemical fertilisers and makes us less dependent on petrochemical interventions.
This leads to an increase in nutritional value of the food we eat
Conserving water and reducing water use by helping soils retain moisture
Helping to prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff

I’m aware there are people against spending money on composting and I definitely understand that people are really struggling financially. But, to me, this is non-negotiable – we have to take climate action seriously whether we like it or not. There are many examples of successful composting initiatives in large cities overseas, which I believe others have written about in submissions, so it is clearly possible for it to be viable here too.

I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan and taking constructive steps to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 
1324.10 Karen Driver None Food waste.  All organic waste needs to be kept out of landfill.  The Climate Change Commission, Ministry for the Environment etc. all state this.  To do this we need to reduce the organic waste that is created.  This includes construction and demolition waste, cardboard, paper, timber, biosolids etc. as well as food waste.  I know Council is doing some work to address this issue but unless we need to up the game.  There needs to be much more emphasis on reducing the generation of food waste through behaviour change programmes, better design of buildings so that less waste is created and buildings are carbon positive, etc.  But, food waste behaviour change has a limit, and is a commercial issue as well as a household one.  If we had a solution for composting food waste into good quality compost, in our local neighbourhoods, we would then regionally improve our soils for food production, without the need for importing fertilisers, and without the need to truck the food waste around the region.  We would create local community jobs and community hubs.  Some of these hubs could be sited in existing community hubs, if that is what those communities want.  These distributed operations would be scaled to meet local demands and may not all look the same.  A lot of work is being done in other regions to establish such centres and documenting the benefits of such hubs to their communities.  This could be one way of building our local communities and making them more resilient.  The compost service installation would be funded at least partly by central government, but also likely by local businesses.  The service would be provided to businesses for a fee, to help support the operational costs.  Council alongside TDC needs to seriously consider such a system.  Perhaps a separate system to handle biosolids such as that to be trialed by Alimentary Systems would be a good option?  We need to ensure that the business case the the two Councils are to commission has a wide enough scope to cover such a setup.  In the meantime we have a great service from Community Compost in Nelson.  Council needs to support that setup, perhaps through applying for funding from Ministry for the Environment to ensure it can continue and expand to meet more of the needs of our whole community, including the business sector.
Relying on the capture of methane gas from landfill to remove these emissions is not good enough.  It also prevents the nutrients from the food waste going back into our soils and so close that nutrient loop.
I believe a recent report from Eunomia states that costs to households will reduce with a food waste collection system.  With no ratepayer funding needed to install processing systems because funding can be obtained from Ministry for the Environment, it seems obvious that we need to move forward on the implementation of a suitable system, but include the community in identifying what that system should look like, taking into account other benefits such as job creation, strengthening communities, closing the nutrient loop by feeding the nutrients back into our soils etc.
948.4 Greg Street for Eco Design Advisors None This submission is on behalf of the Eco Design Advisors network. Currently this is made up by council officers dedicated to Eco Design Advice in five councils: Auckland, New Plymouth District Council, Lower Hutt (which also covers Upper Hutt), Christchurch and Dunedin.
The Eco Design Advisor network was established by BRANZ in 2009 following research identifying the need for independent advice to support household decisions to improve health and comfort of homes. Whilst this is still at its core the scope has expanded to include advice regarding energy & water efficiency, emissions reduction, and household resilience against a changing climate.
Nelson City Council has offered an Eco Design Advisor service and was included in the 21-31 Long term plan. Following the retirement of a long standing Eco Design Advisor the role has not been backfilled. It is assumed that this is a proposed service level reduction to improve rates affordability.





1.01           Vision, priorities and outcomes



Reference
Our position
Comments


Foster a healthy environment and a climate resilient, low-emissions community.
Comment
We support the council prioritising a climate resilient and low emissions community. However, we feel that removing the Eco Design Advisor service will not help the community to prepare for this outcome.
Households are particularly vulnerable to changing climate conditions. Increases in rainfall intensity and weather events can result in building damage. While increases in temperatures is likely to cause overheating as a summer comfort issue. Eco Design Advice is science based and targeted to specific household issues, enabling households to take action to improve their resilience to a changing climate.
Households consume water & gas & electricity for their operation resulting in significant emissions contribution. However, households are often unclear on which actions they can take to mitigate their contribution to emissions’. Eco Design Advice can create priority and clarity for households to understand and act to reduce their emissions. This is directly linked with household operational cost which would also be reduced improving affordability and alleviating the cost-of-living crisis.
New builds now are required to have increased levels of insulation to improve energy efficiency of new housing. However poorly designed super insulated homes can result in summer overheating issues requiring future retrofits to resolve. Eco Design Advice includes advice for new builds which can support residents and building developers to mitigate the risks of overheating and other climate resilience considerations.








1.02            Our eight community outcomes



Reference
Our position
Comments


Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient
Comment
We support the Councils commitment to the community’s health, safety, and resilience. However, we feel that the removal of the Eco Design Advisor service is not in alignment with this outcome.
Having freely available Eco Design Advisory service enables households access to impartial advice on how they can improve the health and comfort of their homes. This can also include advice to support households to prepare for a changing climate increasing their resilience to climate change.
1057.8 Cameron Carter None Incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:
·        Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
·        Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
·        Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
·        Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
·        Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
·        Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
·        Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points from NCC and climate change below:
It is essential that NCC allocate sufficient funds to implement its Climate Strategy. I note that Tasman District’s draft LTP leads with a section on climate change and has allocated $69 million over ten years to addressing climate change challenges. I request that NCC establish a contingency fund for actions to be identified through the Climate Strategy, i.e. in addition to actions already in the draft LTP.
 
I would like NCC to adopt a target of at least a 7% reduction in regional emissions of CO2 and other long‐lived gases, for each year from 2024 through 2030. I request that the Council adopt this target (or a more ambitious target!) and report on the community’s progress by, in the first instance, publishing quarterly reports on sales of petrol and diesel, which account for a large share of Nelson’s emissions.
 
I request that the Council start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates in higher risk areas to pay for flood protection. This will help prepare the community for more difficult discussions about managed retreat.
 
Nelson has areas of low‐lying and/or sinking land, where seawalls are likely to prove costly and ineffective responses to sea level rise. Conversion of such areas into indigenous biodiversity areas could prove a more effective long‐term response, storing carbon as well as providing a natural, low‐cost buffer from storm surges.
 
I recommend that the LTP take into account that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than scientists previously understood.
 
Think global act local.
I support the development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
I recommend allocating funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024‐25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1059.11 Allen Berthelsen None Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re solid waste below:
Household food waste collection I support the implementation on of a household food waste collection service. Food waste and other organic waste create methane gas when disposed of to landfill. The nutrients in this material should be returned to our soils to support local commercial and community food growing capacity. The LTP uses the term “kitchen waste” rather than food waste. We suggest the term “food waste” or “food scraps" would be more accurate, as it would include all food discarded from households (e.g., fruit skins, packed lunch waste), not just that generated in the kitchen. The term “food waste” more explicitly excludes non‐organic kitchen waste such as packaging….. Funding is available now through the Ministry for the Environment for the implementation of a food scrap collection and processing system. I suggest NCC applies for funding so that Council funds for waste minimisation etc. (i.e. its solid waste account) are available for other initiatives such as the prevention of food waste through behaviour change schemes and supporting existing community waste reduction initiatives.
JWMMP - I suggest that community and business experts in waste reduction should also be included in developing the plan.
To reduce the cost of recycling, Council should focus on reducing the use of single use containers within the community.
The Council notes the Risks to NCC in the Solid Waste sec on of the Dra Council Activities Summaries LTP 2024‐34. To manage these risks, NCC should not accept business as usual (BAU). Council needs to be proactive in reducing the genera on of waste which should be a focus of the JWMMP. This is why the community should be involved in the development of the JWMMP, which should include consideration of the following issues:
Increases in receipts from landfill levy
The draft LTP states (page 11) that over the life me of the plan, $47.1 million will be spent on projects to reduce waste to landfill. Where is the information on this spend?
The Activities document notes that the Materials Recovery facility in Tasman is at capacity…… We need to stop the genera on of waste, stop the use of single use containers etc. The Council should work with other councils to gain support for a container return scheme and to develop reuse systems such as a local bottling plant. NCC can work with the community and local businesses to develop these and other options.
Landfill Management – driving the reduction of organic waste and diverting it to composting will further reduce methane emissions.
The solid waste section does not mention any allowance of funds to manage the waste from emergency events such as floods and earthquakes. This risk should be acknowledged and provided for.
1057.10 Cameron Carter None Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re solid waste below:
Household food waste collection I support the implementation on of a household food waste collection service. Food waste and other organic waste create methane gas when disposed of to landfill. The nutrients in this material should be returned to our soils to support local commercial and community food growing capacity. The LTP uses the term “kitchen waste” rather than food waste. We suggest the term “food waste” or “food scraps" would be more accurate, as it would include all food discarded from households (e.g., fruit skins, packed lunch waste), not just that generated in the kitchen. The term “food waste” more explicitly excludes non‐organic kitchen waste such as packaging….. Funding is available now through the Ministry for the Environment for the implementation of a food scrap collection and processing system. I suggest NCC applies for funding so that Council funds for waste minimisation etc. (i.e. its solid waste account) are available for other initiatives such as the prevention of food waste through behaviour change schemes and supporting existing community waste reduction initiatives.
JWMMP - I suggest that community and business experts in waste reduction should also be included in developing the plan.
To reduce the cost of recycling, Council should focus on reducing the use of single use containers within the community.
The Council notes the Risks to NCC in the Solid Waste sec on of the Dra Council Activities Summaries LTP 2024‐34. To manage these risks, NCC should not accept business as usual (BAU). Council needs to be proactive in reducing the genera on of waste which should be a focus of the JWMMP. This is why the community should be involved in the development of the JWMMP, which should include consideration of the following issues:
Increases in receipts from landfill levy
The draft LTP states (page 11) that over the life me of the plan, $47.1 million will be spent on projects to reduce waste to landfill. Where is the information on this spend?
The Activities document notes that the Materials Recovery facility in Tasman is at capacity…… We need to stop the genera on of waste, stop the use of single use containers etc. The Council should work with other councils to gain support for a container return scheme and to develop reuse systems such as a local bottling plant. NCC can work with the community and local businesses to develop these and other options.
Landfill Management – driving the reduction of organic waste and diverting it to composting will further reduce methane emissions.
The solid waste section does not mention any allowance of funds to manage the waste from emergency events such as floods and earthquakes. This risk should be acknowledged and provided for.
1047.16 Anna Berthelsen None Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re solid waste below:
Household food waste collection I support the implementation on of a household food waste collection service. Food waste and other organic waste create methane gas when disposed of to landfill. The nutrients in this material should be returned to our soils to support local commercial and community food growing capacity. The LTP uses the term “kitchen waste” rather than food waste. We suggest the term “food waste” or “food scraps" would be more accurate, as it would include all food discarded from households (e.g., fruit skins, packed lunch waste), not just that generated in the kitchen. The term “food waste” more explicitly excludes non‐organic kitchen waste such as packaging….. Funding is available now through the Ministry for the Environment for the implementation of a food scrap collection and processing system. I suggest NCC applies for funding so that Council funds for waste minimisation etc. (i.e. its solid waste account) are available for other initiatives such as the prevention of food waste through behaviour change schemes and supporting existing community waste reduction initiatives.
JWMMP - I suggest that community and business experts in waste reduction should also be included in developing the plan.
To reduce the cost of recycling, Council should focus on reducing the use of single use containers within the community.
The Council notes the Risks to NCC in the Solid Waste sec on of the Dra Council Activities Summaries LTP 2024‐34. To manage these risks, NCC should not accept business as usual (BAU). Council needs to be proactive in reducing the genera on of waste which should be a focus of the JWMMP. This is why the community should be involved in the development of the JWMMP, which should include consideration of the following issues:
Increases in receipts from landfill levy
The draft LTP states (page 11) that over the life me of the plan, $47.1 million will be spent on projects to reduce waste to landfill. Where is the information on this spend?
The Activities document notes that the Materials Recovery facility in Tasman is at capacity…… We need to stop the genera on of waste, stop the use of single use containers etc. The Council should work with other councils to gain support for a container return scheme and to develop reuse systems such as a local bottling plant. NCC can work with the community and local businesses to develop these and other options.
Landfill Management – driving the reduction of organic waste and diverting it to composting will further reduce methane emissions.
The solid waste section does not mention any allowance of funds to manage the waste from emergency events such as floods and earthquakes. This risk should be acknowledged and provided for.
1474.20 Fiona Ede for Nature and Climate Group, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None Environment and Parks and Active Recreation:

undertake extensive analysis of the risks posed by climate change to indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems;
develop and implement effective strategies to mitigate these risks to ensure that indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems are thriving in the face of a rapidly changing climate;
mandate an 80% survival metric for plants at two years after planting in the Performance Measure table on page 90;
please also refer to our section on funding for weed control

Botanic Gardens

We also advocate an expansion of the Urban Greening Plan to include the development of a Botanic
Garden for the district, in conjunction with TDC, with a potential location in Saxton Fields.

Many New Zealand cities have Botanic Gardens, and one only needs look to Hamilton to see how effective
they can be as a tourism destination, an educational resource and a highly valuable amenity for all the
community.

We would like to see the absence of such an important resource for the Nelson/Tasman community
rectified. A key component would be the development of an indigenous biodiversity area, with other
benefits, including potentially research into the implications of climate change on our local flora and
fauna. The fantastic growing climate locally provides an excellent opportunity to develop a garden
complex, and could draw on the skills of the Horticulture department at NMIT in its planning and
development.
The development of Botanic Gardens locally will provide an education resource for the public, creating
greater understanding of the importance of different types of trees, shrubs and other flora, a relaxing and
pleasant recreational space for locals and tourists to improve their mental and physical well-being,
opportunities for building the further greening of Nelson City, and carbon sequestration.  
Building Community and Environmental Resilience

We urge Council to work with the community to build food security by resourcing and supporting the
development of more community gardens and garden allotments, and for householders to grow more
backyard produce and fruit trees. 
We recommend that Council expands its native plant nursery to develop a scheme to provide low-cost
indigenous plants to the Nelson community.
We urge Council to ensure that funding for improving park assets should also include increasing resourcing
for indigenous plantings. There is a wide range of research that confirms the increased mental wellbeing of
people when able to easily access trees and green spaces. Treed green spaces with accessible walkways
can improve the wellbeing of a wide range of people in our community – not just the fit and active, unlike
sports fields.
887.16 Hana Wilkinson for National Public Health Service None Climate Change and Climate Change Strategy
NPHS-Te Waipounamu commends council for identifying climate change as a key priority. Climate change has been described by the World Health Organization as the biggest threat to health in the 21st century.
NPHS Te Waipounamu has been involved in the climate change risk assessment and we support councils' intention to continue community engagement through the next process. Considering equity in the engagement process will be important as in many cases, the most affected people are those who already experience inequitable health and wellbeing outcomes, including those with physical and mental health needs, disabled people, older adults, children, low-income households, and Māori. Generally, those who have historically contributed the least to current climate change (in terms of emissions) are disproportionately affected. More direct impacts include: mental illness/distress, undernutrition, respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, heat-sensitive diseases, infections diseases/spread of vector-borne illness, allergies, injuries.
NPHS-Te Waipounamu is supportive of the development of a strategy however, given the climate change risk assessment is across both Nelson and Tasman, we strongly recommend council amalgamate with Tasman’s Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan. Climate change is a global issue and requires a collaborative approach between communities, government and non-government agencies to action. This could divert the time and money spent on strategy development to climate action.
In addition, TDC have been explicit in the amount of money they are allocating to climate change challenges over the next 10 years. It is recommended NCC does the same.
Our public health colleagues in Ōtautahi/Christchurch worked with Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury to develop a report Climate Change and Health in Waitaha Canterbury and are looking to expand the report across Te Waipounamu. We would value discussing this opportunity with you and other climate change staff within our Te Tauihu councils.
The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum plays a critical role in our community, bringing people and organisations together for climate action. Most of their workers are volunteers. Volunteer burnout is on the rise and organisations who rely on volunteers' risk being unsustainable.
Recommend NCC adopt a joint Climate Change Strategy with TDC.
Recommend NCC allocate funds for climate change challenges over the next 10 years
Recommend council support the funding application from the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.
1494.8 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None The Forum supports all of the following initiatives in the LTP:

● East-West corridor for cycling

● Improving public transport infrastructure and services, including the Millers Acre Bus
Exchange - The Bridge Street temporary station can’t take the 6 buses required and
has substandard facilities (toilets and waiting areas).

● Implementing safer regulatory speeds around Stoke School

● ‘Bridge to Better’ - Urban revitalization and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities

● Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility 
● Intersection and roundabout safety treatments, including traffic calming and signals

● Car-sharing initiative. 
The Forum also requests that NCC consider the following actions:

a. Allocate funding in future years for new buses as patronage increases.

b. Address congestion and emissions through policies like congestion charging
during peak commuting times. This would raise revenue and lower future
expenditure by reducing wear on existing roads and the need for new roads.
Congestion charging has been successfully implemented in Stockholm (who
trialled the idea over a few months) and other cities. Using a low congestion
charge, Stockholm saw a 20% reduction in peak travel. Public opinion on the
charge flipped from 70% disapproval to 70% approval after implementation.2

c. Implement an Active Travel Plan for council staff and follow an electric-first
policy when replacing or adding cars to the council’s fleet.

d. Provide EV charging stations in public car parks in the Nelson CBD.

e. Provide a “bus only” lane at key intersections to give preference to buses.
This “bus priority” is a valuable tool for making buses faster than driving a
personal vehicle.

f. Publish quarterly reports on regional fuel use and transport emissions.

g. Plan for climate adaptation in infrastructure, e.g. Nelson Airport and Port
Nelson, and include adaptation plans in any new infrastructure spending.

h. Advocate to central government for the National Land Transport Fund to
contribute more to road maintenance and renewal. Road damage is caused
disproportionately by heavy vehicles yet is being paid for by ratepayers.
Transport is the biggest capital item in the NCC budget. Savings here would
reduce the rate burden on ratepayers and enable NCC to afford other
measures to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.
841.10 Benjamin Plows-Kolff None Kia ora Tima! I'm Ben Plows-Kolff. I'm born in Whakatū, grew up here and returned about 15 years ago (after studying in Dunedin and working in other cities) to settle down. I currently run the Dutch coffee cart at the Nelson Saturday Market. Given my connection to the area and intention to stay here, I care deeply about it’s future.

Two points I want to comment on. Firstly, composting. Secondly, the toilets at Montgomery Square carpark in relation to the Saturday market.

Composting

When Ben Bushell first started, Community Compost I went along to help with processing food scraps collected from around the rohe. I have been involved with the organisation ever since. I really value the connection and social engagement of working with the diverse range of volunteers there and the sense of contribution to our community. I’ve heard council is planning to terminate its current composting services and feel concerned because composting is such an important action every individual (even kids) can take to mitigate their impact on the climate.

I especially want to see Community Compost supported to continue the amazing mahi it does for our rohe. This includes:

Educating our community
Brining people together and giving them a sense of value, meaning and purpose
enriching soils
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
saving money in rubbish collection

Compost is a precious resource and I realise the value might not seem immediately economically evident but there are so many benefits that are very hard to measure purely in term of economics. These include

increasing the nutrient content and biodiversity of soil microbes
conserving water and reducing water use by helping soils retain moisture
helping to prevent soil erosion by reducing soil compaction and runoff

I’m aware there are people against spending money on composting and I definitely understand that people are really struggling financially. But, to me, this is non-negotiable – we have to take climate action seriously whether we like it or not. There are many examples of successful composting initiatives in large cities overseas which I believe otherwise have written about in submissions, so it is clearly possible for it to be viable here too.

I recommend keeping composting on the long-term plan and taking constructive steps to support more environmental initiatives like Community Compost. 
932.3 Sam Ng Option two I wholeheartedly support the transition from commercial forestry to replanting the 600 hectares of council-owned land with a continuous canopy of mixed native species. This decision would have a profound impact on our region's biodiversity, conservation efforts, and recreational appeal, while also sending a powerful message about our commitment to environmental stewardship.The benefits of mixed native forests for biodiversity and conservation are well-documented. Research has shown that these forests support a significantly higher variety of native flora and fauna compared to commercial monoculture plantations. By providing a diverse range of habitats and food sources, mixed native forests create a haven for endangered species and contribute to the overall health of our ecosystems. Moreover, these forests play a vital role in regulating water cycles, preventing soil erosion, and sequestering carbon, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of climate change.In addition to the ecological benefits, transitioning to mixed native forests would greatly enhance Nelson's appeal as a destination for outdoor recreation and eco-tourism. The natural beauty of these forests, with their diverse canopy and understory, would attract both locals and visitors seeking to immerse themselves in nature. Additionally, it's important to note that the impact of this decision extends far beyond the 600 hectares directly managed by the council. By taking this step, the council would send a resounding message about the value we place on biodiversity and our commitment to preserving our natural heritage. This leadership would inspire private landowners, businesses, and the wider community to follow suit, creating a ripple effect that amplifies the positive impact on our environment. As more stakeholders prioritize the restoration of native habitats, we can create a network of thriving, interconnected ecosystems that support a rich tapestry of life.Further, securing long-term recreational access to forestry tracks and trails is crucial for our community, visitors, and events. Mountain biking alone has the potential to generate $48.8M in direct spend for Nelson Tasman, but current access limitations result in a significant loss of $18.5M. Beyond the immediate economic benefits, ensuring access to these natural assets provides immeasurable value to our residents' quality of life and attracts visitors seeking unique outdoor experiences. The proposed long-term agreement between the Council and Ngāti Koata for access to the Maitai Valley is a vital step towards unlocking the full potential of our region's recreational offerings.
1495.1 Scott Burnett for Forest & Bird Option two Forest & Bird supports Option 2 – Exit commercial forestry.Forest & Bird support the implementation of the Right Tree Right Place Taskforce recommendations.Although Option 2 is presented as a more expensive option, we would argue that there are externalized costs not accounted for in continuing with commercial forestry and there are clear benefits in transitioning away from commercial forestry.Externalised costs include erosion and sedimentation impacts, fire risk, and wilding conifer risk.Erosion & sedimentation.Forest & Bird see sedimentation as the second highest risk to biodiversity in the Nelson region after climate change. This is because of the impact of sedimentation on our coastal marine environment. A slip on a steep clear-felled slope in the Maitai Valley during the 2022 weather event damaged Nelson’s water supply, necessitating an expensive repair.Indigenous forest reduces the chance of slips and erosion. A study conducted in Marlborough by GNS Science after the 2022 weather event which resulted in severe erosion, found that “Harvest Forest and exotic forest makes up around about 18% of the land cover (in 2021), yet it contributed something in the order of 65% of the landslides”. And “Data showed that indigenous forest made up close to 50% of the land area, yet it's only contributing maybe 5% of the landslides.”11 Hart, M. (2023, Jul 25). ‘The problem is the forestry’: Human activity a ‘dominat factor’ in Marlborough Sounds Slips. Stuff. Retrieved from: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-democracy-reporting/132579430/the-problem-is-the-forestry-human-activity-a-dominant-factor-in-marlborough-sounds-slipsFire risk Exotic forestry has a greater fire risk than indigenous forests. Fire risk will increase with our warming climate. Fire risk also reduces opportunities for public recreation in council’s public reserves when they are closed due to fire risk. In addition, this has an impact upon summer tourism and the economy.Benefits to transitioning away from commercial forestry.•Reduced erosion and sedimentation.•Long term Biodiversity benefits from transition to indigenous forest.•Reduced fire risk and greater year-round public recreational access.•Future ETS income from eligible indigenous afforestation.
1246.7 Daniel Levy None I strongly oppose the Council's proposed allocation of $24 million dollars for infrastructure to support the Bayview/Mahitahi urbanization. The Plan Change on the Maitai Valley side in Kaka Valley was hugely unpopular with Nelson residents as illustrated by the vast majority of submitters in the Commissioners Hearing and the FDS 2022 opposing urbanization in this part of the Maitai. This sentiment was also supported by the 13000 strong petition to the Council opposing PPC28. NCC should act with more regard for public sentiment and definitely should not help fund such an irresponsible and unpopular project.
Council funded infrastructure projects in the Maitai Valley in conjunction with the proposed Kaka Valley urbanization will adversely impact the environment and the highly valued tranquil rural nature of the Maitai Valley, both at the construction phase as well as permanently in future. It would also facilitate further undesirable future urbanization of the Maitai Valley, such as on Orchard Flats. Many of these negative impacts will be impossible to mitigate. These include the enormous increase in traffic as well as noise, air and water pollution and an unacceptable increased flood risk for Nelson residents currently residing flood prone areas downstream. 
The infrastructure funding will contribute to unacceptable disruption to both the Maitai Valley road and utility of the nearby recreation reserves, including the popular swimming holes. Grey water infrastructure beneath or alongside these recreation reserves risk negatively impacting the environment, as much of this would be in the flood zone. For this reason I am also particularly opposed to locating any sewage storage tanks and pumping facilities on the Maitai floodplain. These would carry the additional risks of breaches during floods as well as the risk of foul odors in the reserves during maintenance or malfunctions.
In a declared climate emergency it is also unacceptable for NCC to support Greenfield development that is not contiguous with existing suburbs, such as in Kaka Valley, particularly because of the environmental cost of the required infrastructure.
The rural nature of this part of the Maitai Valley should be upheld and I oppose Council support of it's urbanization, including the proposed $24 million dollar infrastructure funding. This funding would unacceptably contribute to rates increases for a Greenfield urbanization project that in my opinion is not in the best interests of Nelson residents.
1392.8 Lucy Charlesworth None
I strongly oppose the Council's proposed allocation of $24 million dollars for infrastructure to support the Bayview/Mahitahi urbanization. The Plan Change on the Maitai Valley side in Kaka Valley was unpopular at the outset and remains so.  
This was also reflected by the 13000 strong petition to the Council opposing PPC28. NCC should act with more regard for public sentiment and should not help fund such an irresponsible and unpopular project.
Council funded infrastructure projects in the Maitai Valley in conjunction with the proposed Kaka Valley urbanization will adversely impact the environment and the highly valued tranquil rural nature of the Maitai Valley, both at the construction phase as well as permanently in future. It would also facilitate further undesirable future urbanization of the Maitai Valley, such as on Orchard Flats. Many of these negative impacts will be impossible to mitigate. These include the enormous increase in traffic as well as noise, air and water pollution and an unacceptable increased flood risk for Nelson residents currently residing flood prone areas downstream. 
The infrastructure funding will contribute to unacceptable disruption to both the Maitai Valley road and utility of the nearby recreation reserves, including the popular swimming holes. Grey water infrastructure beneath or alongside these recreation reserves risk negatively impacting the environment, as much of this would be in the flood zone. For this reason I am also particularly opposed to locating any sewage storage tanks and pumping facilities on the Maitai floodplain. These would carry the additional risks of breaches during floods as well as the risk of foul odors in the reserves during maintenance or malfunctions.
In a declared climate emergency it is also unacceptable for NCC to support Greenfield development that is not contiguous with existing suburbs, such as in Kaka Valley, particularly because of the environmental cost of the required infrastructure.


The rural nature of this part of the Maitai Valley should be upheld and I oppose Council support of it's urbanization, including the proposed $24 million dollar infrastructure funding. This funding would unacceptably contribute to rates increases for a Greenfield urbanization project that in my opinion is not in the best interests of Nelson residents.
i am strongly opposed to rate payer’s funding of this contrioversial project.
1428.5 Carol Webster None 4. I very strongly oppose the proposal to allocate $23.8 million for the Mahitahi Bayview Subdivision for utilities and transport connections. That money can be used towards other City essentials, such as debt repayment or broken infrastructure.
 
Because….
a. A big part of the subdivision is on a natural flood plain. Expert evidence given during the RMA hearing noted that the subdivision is likely to increase the risk of flooding to downstream areas. No catchment wide flood modelling has been done to assess this risk.
b. The massive scale of earthworks and quarrying required for the subdivision is likely to result in increased sedimentation of the Maitai river which will smother the aquatic life in this fragile ecosystem, which Council, the Govt and the community have recently spent millions rehabilitating.
c. Runoff pollutants from the subdivision will poison the water quality of the Maitai River and ruin the swimming holes so many people enjoy.
d. This multi-million dollar spend by the council will support the spoiling of the Maitai Valley and river to make way for 2-3000 people in an area 13 000 people petitioned NCC to keep zoned rural.
e. 6-7000 extra daily car movements agreed by experts during the RMA hearing will result in unsustainable traffic congestion on roads adjoining Nile St, turning quiet neighbourhood streets into busy noisy through roads. There has been no public consultation on this part of the development.
f. The beauty and peaceful characteristics of one of Nelson's most desirable recreation areas and its lovely river will be lost forever.
g. The Nelson 2050 urban planning group have demonstrated that Green field subdivisions are a costly and unsustainable use of land, committing councils to expensive ongoing maintenance and service provision.
h. Permitting housing on a flood zone and exposing nearby households to increased flood risk may make council liable to multi-million-dollar compensation to affected household households should these extra flood risks be realised.
i. If the subdivision does go ahead then it is my opinion that the developer should pay 100% of all utilities and transportation connections on such a publicly contentious development.
1009.10 Mary Hebberd None I would like to request that cruise ship emissions while in port and 50% of journey emissions to and from Nelson be included in Nelson’s total emissions - the ones that count towards our emission targets. The emissions are being released into the atmosphere, so they should be part of our reduction goals as well. This will bring Nelson into line with the plans in Christchurch, and bring New Zealand into line with the EU and UK.

I acknowledge that if cruise ships refuel at Port Nelson currently, the emissions produced by burning this fuel are counted in Nelson’s emissions. This method however still allows cruise ships to refuel at ports that use different methods and, in doing so, avoid declaring them.

I am requesting this because:


Cruise ship passengers bring us less economic benefit than other tourism.


Cruise ship passengers emit up to four times the greenhouse gas emissions of an equivalent holiday flying and staying in hotels.


Cruise ships burn fuel that releases carcinogenic particulates into our air.


Cruise ships are responsible for a quarter of all ocean waste, despite being only 1% of the merchant fleet.



Although central government isn’t taking action on emissions, you have the power to influence them. Declarations of climate emergency, and the nuclear free movement both worked like this, with local government taking the lead. In November, the Climate Commission will be making recommendations to central government and they will likely recommend the inclusion of cruise ship emissions in our targets. Whilst our national government doesn’t seem to care about the environment, if all councils demand they take this step, I believe they will too.

Similar policies are being picked up around the world already. The UK and EU will include emissions from international shipping and aviation, including cruise ships, in their trading schemes and targets from 2026.

The statistics might not be perfect as they are just estimates, but the risks of inaction are far greater. I want you to put in place a serious plan for monitoring, mitigating and reducing the impact cruise ships and their emissions have while visiting Port Nelson.
Refer to submission attachment for Cruise Ship References 
1003.10 David Miles None I would like to request that cruise ship emissions while in port and 50% of journey emissions to and from Nelson be included in Nelson’s total emissions, the ones that count towards our emission targets. The emissions are being released into the atmosphere, they have to be part of our reduction goals as well. This will bring Nelson into line with Christchurch plans and bring New Zealand into line with the EU and UK.
We acknowledge that if cruise ships refuel at Port Nelson, the emissions produced by burning this fuel are counted in Nelson’s emissions. This method however allows cruise ships to refuel at ports that use different methods and avoid declaring them.
We are requesting this because:


Cruise ship passengers bring us less economic benefit than other tourism.


Cruise ship passengers emit four times the greenhouse gas emissions of an equivalent holiday flying and staying in hotels.


Cruise ships burn fuel that releases carcinogenic particulates into our air.


Cruise ships are responsible for a quarter of all ocean waste, despite being only 1% of the merchant fleet.


Although central government isn’t taking action on emissions, you have the power to influence them. Declarations of climate emergency, and the nuclear free movement both worked like this, local government taking the lead. In November the Climate Commission will be making recommendations to central government, they will likely recommend including cruise ship emissions in our targets, and whilst central doesn’t seem to care about the environment, if all Councils demand they take this step, we believe they will too.
Similar policies are being picked up around the world already. The UK and EU will include emissions from international shipping and aviation, including cruise ships, in their trading schemes and targets from 2026.
The statistics might be estimates, not perfect, but the risks of inaction are far greater. We want you to put in place a serious plan for monitoring, mitigating and reducing the impact cruise ships and their emissions  have while visiting Port Nelson.
785.10 Tess Cimino None Hello, my name is Tess and I've been advocating for composting, green initiatives, and a more sustainable future for the past 26 years. I'm originally from California but have been living in sunny Whakatu for the past two years. When I first moved to Nelson, Community Compost was one of the first organizations I was introduced to. Attending their volunteering sessions each Saturday in the community garden and Tuesday at their industrial composting facility allowed me to meet so many amazing, kind, and passionate people. They really introduced me to the Nelson community as a whole and I think without them, the city would not be the same. Whenever I say I work for Community Compost someone always has some connection or positive thing to say. I've never seen so many people care so much about making the environment and the community a better place. I don't know why we would ever want to take away the funds, inspiration, and support for something like that. It also just doesn't make sense as households would actually save $120 yearly if they joined in on the composting scheme. Also, you cant use the waste levies money on anything besides waste minimization and composting is the single most efficient climate action individuals can take according to research from the US Project Drawdown organization. Also, sending food scraps to the landfill is just a waste. We are loosing so much nitrogen rich organic material that could be turned into soil and benefit the entire community. Not just with growing vegetables but actually making soil more prone to slips. Compost is the best resource for so many different things and there really is truly no price you can put on that. I urge you to keep composting in your long-term plan. I know that Community Compost and composting in general is the only solution. There is no way this kitchenwaste issue can be taken away and if you do it will only continue to get worse.
949.2 Annette Le Cren None To whom it may concern

I wish to oppose the Nelson City Council to allocate  $24 million to build water and sewerage services to a private subdivision site in the Maitai Valley.
Ratepayers will basically subsidise this private subdivision which would be built in a flood zone. There is plenty of photographic evidence to suggest that the location of this proposed subdivision is totally unsuitable.

* Any earthworks undertaken will hugely affect the stability of the land. Further flooding of the valley will erode and cause massive silt extraction flowing out to Nelson, then the sea. Silt will potentially build up and cause flooding of Nelson town down stream. Potentially many households would need to be compensated for by the council if properties in this area are affected by this flooding.
Damage to river banks, infrastructure such as roads would be devastating.

New houses in the subdivision will struggle to get insurance.
 Green field subdivisions are a costly and unsustainable use of land with ongoing maintenance and flood repair.  Climate change weather events as we previously experienced will increase in severity and frequency. This development in the Maitai will become an ever increasing liability.

* The land  in this valley should be used for recreation and the enjoyment of tranquility for the people and be further enhanced. Places like these are rare and should be preserved for future generations.

* Between 6000 and 7000 car movements are expected to drive through adjoining roads and will become a traffic hazard. Nile Street, Collingwood St will become major arteries having to accommodate this traffic, making these roads extremely unsafe for its local residents.  Traffic noise and exhaust fumes will be intolerable. Nelson is too small to cope with the extra traffic volume.

I think that Nelson City Council should look after its existing residents, discourage subdivisions like these to be established in a beautiful but flood prone area and spend the $24 million on more desirable projects
1047.5 Anna Berthelsen Option one I consider that Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Embodied carbonNelson needs to look for all opportunities to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and certainly should not be adding new sources of emissions that are not essential. The report Council commissioned from RSL in May 2020 calculated the embodied carbon emissions of plastic turf: 29 kg of C02-e per square metre per year, compared to 1 kg for natural turf.  For a 10,000m2 field that is 290,000kg (290 tonnes) of C02 every year, the equivalent embodied carbon in 707m3 of concrete. Furthermore, artificial turf doesn’t sequester any carbon, whereas a natural grass field of that size will sequester over 7 tonnes of CO2. Installing an artificial turf will also create an expectation by the sports clubs that the turf will be replaced at the end of its life (typically only 8-10 years). The used turf will need to be disposed of in landfill (at high cost) while the new turf would generate still more embodied carbon emissions and microplastics into the environment. MicroplasticsPlastic turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water[5]. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. This has led the European Union and some other jurisdictions to ban some uses of microplastics in artificial turf[6]. These actions reflect rising concern about microplastics in every part of the environment, including our food. Two of NZ’s leading cancer researchers are seeking funding to investigate a potential link between microplastics and a documented rise in bowel cancer. Nelson should not be replacing natural turf with a plastic surface that will generate adverse effects on people and the environment for years to come.
1059.7 Allen Berthelsen None Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points from NCC and climate change below:
It is essential that NCC allocate sufficient funds to implement its Climate Strategy. I note that Tasman District’s draft LTP leads with a section on climate change and has allocated $69 million over ten years to addressing climate change challenges. I request that NCC establish a contingency fund for actions to be identified through the Climate Strategy, i.e. in addition to actions already in the draft LTP.
 
I would like NCC to adopt a target of at least a 7% reduction in regional emissions of CO2 and other long‐lived gases, for each year from 2024 through 2030. I request that the Council adopt this target (or a more ambitious target!) and report on the community’s progress by, in the first instance, publishing quarterly reports on sales of petrol and diesel, which account for a large share of Nelson’s emissions.
 
I request that the Council start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates in higher risk areas to pay for flood protection. This will help prepare the community for more difficult discussions about managed retreat.
 
Nelson has areas of low‐lying and/or sinking land, where seawalls are likely to prove costly and ineffective responses to sea level rise. Conversion of such areas into indigenous biodiversity areas could prove a more effective long‐term response, storing carbon as well as providing a natural, low‐cost buffer from storm surges.
 
I recommend that the LTP take into account that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than scientists previously understood.
 
Think global act local.
I support the development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
I recommend allocating funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024‐25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1394.10 Mckayla Holloway None SUPPORT COMMUNITY COMPOST 
Having resided in Nelson for 35 years, my deep commitment to environmental stewardship compels me to advocate for the continuation of kitchen waste composting programs in the long-term plan, particularly in support of Community Compost. Composting is pivotal in reducing greenhouse gases and enhancing biodiversity, making it the cornerstone of individual climate action. I firmly believe in the transformative impact of Community Compost's initiatives on our community, enriching soil health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting cost-saving measures by diverting food scraps from landfills.
Firstly, composting enriches soil quality and fosters biodiversity, benefiting from a myriad of nutrient-rich microbes while conserving water and mitigating soil erosion. Every handful of compost teems with over 100 million bacteria, insects, and worms, underscoring its value in sustaining ecosystems and fostering resilience against natural disasters.
Secondly, composting emerges as a potent tool in the fight against climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a staggering 50%. By diverting organic waste from landfills, composting not only curbs methane production but also diminishes the need for nitrogen-based and synthetic fertilizers, promoting sustainable agricultural practices.
Thirdly, composting presents substantial cost-saving opportunities for both individuals and the council. Research from Project Drawdown suggests that innovative composting practices could yield financial advantages over traditional landfilling methods. In Nelson, diverting organic waste from landfills could result in significant annual savings, both for households and in waste management costs covered by waste levies.
Given the environmental, economic, and community benefits of composting, I strongly advocate for its inclusion in the long-term plan. Any deviation from current composting practices should be reconsidered, with a concerted effort directed towards supporting initiatives like Community Compost that champion sustainability and environmental responsibility.
Thank-you
1445.3 Iain Sheves for Wakatu Incorporation None Comment: 28. Wakatū is not fully informed on the circumstances of the individual proposed buy-outs
and is therefore not in a position to form a view on this matter.
29. However, we would note that the circumstances that the householders find themselves
in underlines the need for a clear Council strategy to manage climate change impacts
and improve community resilience. There has been discussion of managed retreat
from areas of the City and this has undermined investor confidence in the CBD and
influenced a negative view of the City by the insurance industry.
30. It is imperative that the Council shows decisive leadership in this space and commits
to the protection of the city centre and key infrastructure such as the airport and the
port. Alternatively, if the Council is considering managed retreat from parts of the City
then this must be discussed openly with the potentially impacted communities at the
earliest opportunity.
31. It is Wakatū’s view that a community stands or falls together and that the whole
community is vulnerable to natural hazards, be it flood, coastal impacts, land slips,
earthquake or fire. If one group impacted by natural hazard is singled out for special treatment - positive or negative – then the view of the wider community is likely to be polarised. Parity of treatment in the face of natural hazards is a key requirement.
 
Nelson City Council - Eligibility Buy-out Principles
45. See comments above. Wakatū believes that these challenges are likely to become
more frequent going forward and would strongly recommend that the Council
accelerates the development of their Climate resilience and emergency management
plan so that all parties can make informed decisions and risk assessments. It is
obviously preferable for the Council to make decisions on any future buy-outs in light
of a clear and properly resourced strategy.
1500.2 Tony Haddon None I do not support any Council expenditure towards the 'Mahitahi Bayview' subdivision, for the following reasons:

The subdivision is inappropriate for the locality as has been argued for many years. RMA approval of the subdivision cannot and has not taken into account the grossly detrimental effect urbanization of the Maitai will have on valley and downstream amenity values. Nelson’s last undeveloped valley.
 There are many engineering challenges involved in the development earthworks, none of the solutions are a sure bet, with the Maitai River /Haven/Tasman Bay being the ultimate loser.
 Climate change related risk of rain events exceeding the planning  flood parameters. Insurance companies are emphasizing the risks of building in risk prone areas.
There has been to date no overall detailed subdivision plan, the current structure plan is nothing more than the developer’s wish list…the proposal as put forward may not be physically possible.
Shape Nelson is all about our “smart little city”. There’s nothing smart about supporting this expensive and unnecessary Greenfield development. Who is going to live in these valley houses ? The developers have said there will be no affordable homes built without external funding. So far to my knowledge there has been a Govt. shovel ready funding application turned down along with  two special iwi housing fund applications. What does this indicate about the scheme?
 If housing is to be built in Kaka Valley then the existing  approvals for a 40 lot lifestyle subdivision should proceed. These could all be self sufficient with water and sewerage ,thus negating the need for $24 million LTP funding. And somewhere in NCC policy is stated that people should be provided with a choice of type of property.
171.2 Richard Boodee Option one I submit the council should only apply the buy-out offer as this applies to properties affected by slips from council owned land.  In these instances the council has a clear obligation to recompense property owners affected by slips starting from council owned land.  However extending that buy-out support to slips from private land significantly extends the councils liability into areas where it has no equivalent obligation and creates an unnecessary precedent and future financial burden that reduces council's financial capacity to upgrade infrastructure and mitigate the future impacts of climate change for which the council has real and foreseeable obligations.Private land owners have access to EQC and insurance payouts and the council should not be stepping in to socialise private sector losses due to homeowners choosing not to take out appropriate insurance cover.  That precedence would only encourage the private sector to under and non insure their properties and reduces the market value signals relating to property values that should be responding to the likelihood of losses due to foreseeable climate change impacts.  Nelson is very highly exposed to property losses due to flooding, slips and sea level rise and rates increases and future funding capacity should be targeted at covering the community for those expected losses.It is the council's responsibility to remain within its agreed responsibilities and to ensure that it meets the communities infrastructure needs over the medium to long term.  Previous council's have clearly failed in that requirement leading to the current infrastructure deficit and the need to raise rates significantly this year and in future years.  That was probably caused by council members trying to minimise rates increases while ignoring the impact on future generations.  That failure needs to stop now and the council members accept they can't fund every potential worthwhile request.  Time for the council to be financially disciplined and honest about the likely track of future rates obligations.
1059.8 Allen Berthelsen None Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re transport below:
I support all of the following initiatives in the LTP:
· East‐West corridor for cycling
· Improving public transport infrastructure and services, including the Millers Acre Bus Exchange
· Implementing safer regulatory speeds around Stoke School
· ‘Bridge to Better’ ‐ Urban revitalization and improved pedestrian and cycle facilities
· Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility
· Intersection and roundabout safety treatments, including traffic calming and signals
· Car‐sharing initiative.
 
I also request that NCC consider the following actions:
1. Allocate funding in future years for new buses as patronage increases.
2. Address congestion and emissions through policies like congestion charging during peak commuting times. This would raise revenue and lower future expenditure by reducing wear on existing roads and the
need for new roads. Congestion charging has been successfully implemented in Stockholm (who trialled the idea over a few months) and other cities. Using a low congestion charge, Stockholm saw a 20% reduction in peak travel. Public opinion on the charge flipped from 70% disapproval to 70% approval after implementation.
3. Implement an Active Travel Plan for council staff and follow an electric‐first policy when replacing or adding cars to the council’s fleet.
4. Provide EV charging stations in public car parks in the Nelson CBD.
5. Provide a “bus only” lane at key intersections to give preference to buses.
6. Publish quarterly reports on regional fuel use and transport emissions.
7. Plan for climate adaptaption in infrastructure, e.g. Nelson Airport and Port Nelson, and include adaptation plans in any new infrastructure spending.
1002.7 David Jackson None Mahitahi Bayview Infrastructure:
I oppose the proposed $23.8m for infrastructure to facilitate the Mahitahi Bayview development.  The Council's own Future Development Strategy (FDS) states it will "prioritise growth in the existing urban areas, and support the uptake of intensification opportunities to promote consolidated urban form and support a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions."   Council's Plan Change 29 clearly is trying to give effect to this through infill and intensification.  The developers have taken a punt on leapfrogging the growth priorities in the previous FDS and the current one, and are in fact undermining the Council's stated objectives, for their commercial gain.  I see no reason that the Council and ratepayers should go as banker to provide out-of-phase infrastructure to this private development when it is diverting badly needed funds from other areas of need in the city, and in particular when it undermines Council's own intensification objectives.
It is important that Council's infrastructure, regulatory and strategic plans all work together, and that Council remains stanch on them.  If someone has a bright idea to rezone and development land on the fringes of the city, where future development is not programmed by Council to occur and be serviced for 10 or 20 years, then the developer should just wait their turn in the queue.  Every time the Council says "fine, we'll just re-jig our strategies to suit you - and we'll go banker for it" it undermines everyone else's confidence in the Council's strategies plans, and it sends the signal to other developers that the Council and the strategy is a soft touch.
1363.6 Ben Bushell for Communtiy Compost Nelson None Food Waste Composting in our Smart Little City

Project Drawdown, a science-based research organization, has recently found that reducing food waste is the most impactful climate action that individuals can take. Composting reduces waste, makes us less dependent on landfills, and decreases greenhouse gas emissions, specifically methane from food rotting in landfills.
Community Compost believes that keeping composting in the LTP will save households money, utilize the waste minimization project budget, and provide a valuable resource to the community.
By participating in this scheme, households can save up to $125 per year, as they would only need one rubbish bag per week instead of 1.5. The cost of collections, around $80 annually, will be funded by waste levies, not the individuals. Even if composting is removed from the LTP, it will not reduce rates as the law states that money can only go to waste minimization projects like this.
Composting strengthens soil, promotes healthy plant growth, and is an invaluable resource for the community. With more organic matter, soil can better retain water, nutrients, and air, thus benefiting the entire ecosystem by reducing runoff and erosion while creating valuable fertilizers for farms. In addition, composting reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. 
In conclusion, composting is a simple yet effective way to reduce waste, cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and create a valuable resource for the community. By participating in this scheme, households can save money while making a positive impact on the environment. Let’s help the environment and our local community today by continuing to support composting. 
I would like to speak my submission.
1342.3 Eugene Whakahoehoe None of the above Ngāti Kuia supports indigenous forestsIn Aotearoa New Zealand, few exotic species are long-lived. To ensure enduring carbon sinks beyond 2050 we need to be planting long-lived tree species that can grow and sequester carbon for hundreds of years. Our indigenous forests demonstrate this capability. Permanent indigenous forests have advantageous co-benefits of enhancing indigenous biodiversity, soil health, stability and conservation, air and water quality, and regulating local climate conditions. They enhance the natural landscape. Our changing climate and biodiversity loss are inextricably linked and need to be addressed simultaneously and synergistically. Using carbon credits generated from indigenous afforestation to achieve biodiversity gains will address both crises in tandem. We recognise the high costs of establishing and maintaining indigenous forests, especially on marginal land, and the currently limited commercial return on investment. Scaling up native afforestation will therefore require up-front financial support. A biodiversity payment or incentive scheme could be that mechanism. We encourage you to support development of a biodiversity incentives scheme in this rohe to help establish a native afforestation sector. In the meantime, Ngāti Kuia supports the new National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry 2023 (NES-CF), particularly insofar as they require better management of slash, including its removal from steep land. We support the Government’s agreement to retain these measures and impose a duty upon harvesters to contain and remove post-harvest slash. However, harvesting and earthworks of plantation and continuous-cover (aka carbon) forest on steep erosion-prone land remains largely permissive. We do not support this practice.
1474.23 Fiona Ede for Nature and Climate Group, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None Rotting waste food (putrescibles) currently makes up ~17% of waste to the joint NCC and TDC York Valley landfill, but contributes ~30% of greenhouse gas emissions from the landfill. Reducing food waste is a very straightforward and practical way to reduce emissions.
We strongly support the retention of the Council’s food waste initiatives, with a strong focus on reducing food waste through public education on food wastage reduction options, food banks, and curb-side food waste recycling. Efficient food waste composting by Council could both provide a useful source of compost for planting initiatives and a source of income to the Council.
We urge Council to bring forward the budget provision for this initiative from the 2027/28 year to the 2024/25 year, particularly as the funding to undertake this programme does not come from rates but from central and local government levies.
We see this as an easy climate win with positive benefits for households as well, in reduced food and rubbish costs, and allows Council to demonstrate both its climate credentials and willingness to address cost-of-living pressures. Win-win!
A Eunomia report gives an example of a household that uses 78 rubbish bags per year (1.5 per week) at a cost of $375 per year. If they reduce this to one bag per week (52 per year) as a result of organic waste being collected separately (as organic waste makes on one-third of domestic waste on average), this would be result in household savings of $124.80 per year based on a bag price of $4.80.
1002.6 David Jackson None The recovery targeted rate for flood repair ought to be based on land value, not being a set fee.  The Mayor (Mail 13.12.13) said this is a fair option.  But a uniform charge like this is not fair as it is a regressive tax, having no regard to ability to pay.  If uniform taxes were fair they'd be used nationally, instead of the progressive tax system that most western governments use.  Progressive taxes recognise people's wealth and ability to pay.  The flood protection rate is proposed to be based on land value saying "it would be fairer...than a uniform charge as larger property owners would pay a fairer share" (p50 Consultation doc).  Surely the same argument should be applied to the proposed flood recovery charge, and it too should be a land value rate designed to bring in the same total amount of money as the proposed uniform charge.
 
In addition, it is widely accepted that our flood events are being exacerbated by climate change (see NIWA statement 25.8.22 and other reports).  Our wealthier citizens are travelling more, especially overseas and have a larger carbon footprint. They should pay a larger share of the climate impacts and this would occur if the necessary funds were raised by a land value rate rather than a uniform charge.  It is unfair that a poorer ratepayer, who is just getting by and never jets off overseas, has to pay the same recovery levy as someone else who is causing greater climate impacts and who manifestly could pay a slightly greater share.
807.3 Henry Hart Option two Commercial forestry on our Nelson hills is ridiculous and an enormous strain on our environment. 1: Monteray pines and Douglas fir forests are vectors for environmental weeds like pampas and old man's beard. These invade natural places like the Maitai and degrade the habitat. Additionally the pine species themselves become weeds.2: siltation, slips and nutrient run off degrades our freshwater ecosystems, landscapes and ocean ecosystems. Silt has major effects on bivalves, seaweeds and biodiverse habitats on the coast. Revegetating pine forests with native vegetation will also allow native coastal ecosystems to recover. Native fish species will also benefit.3: Native forest will be better for carbon sequestration, biodiversity and aesthetics. Forestry does not sequester carbon as well as forever native forests. Biodiversity can be enhanced by creating habitat for endangered birds, plants, lizards and snails that are unique to nelson. The belt of forestry is an eye sore, with horrific scars left by erosion and open felled sections.4: forestry poses a fire risk to biodiverse areas as well as being a danger to people.I ask that you consider the populations of brown creepers that live in forestry sections around marsden valley that may become extirpated by felling. Explore ways to mitigate this damage. I do not wish that this land be reused for housing or farming or other developments, but to be revegetated with native plants and maintained to avoid them becoming weedy or overrun with browsing pests.
828.26 Colin Ratcliffe None
****Climate change
    Don't get me wrong-- "we" are conscious of what we do and how we do it !! ie  our rubbish bag goes out about every 6 weeks---we only drive to supermarket once a week----- etc----
Council is spend hundreds of thousands "fighting" climate change, but realistically what is being achieved is only a drop in the bucket (on a global scale).  Remember ----it is an accepted figure that of the worlds  omissions NZ only produces  about .17 %  and as Nelson has about one hundredth of the population of NZ then our share  is only .0017%.
       Council has spent hundreds of thousands on EV and hybrid vehicles, but what has been achieved---- very little if anything ----as the vehicles you have replaced are still on the road every day, and may even be clocking up more km"s.
        And in the latest news.   The Ruang Volcano in Indonesia just erupted spewing a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.  (there are 114 active volcanos in Indonesia alone)   Compare this with what Nelson City has "saved"   over what period.
Further there are millions of tons of coal burned every day just producing steel and cement
There are almost 4000 thousand of coal fired power stations worldwide
 Russia mines 800 millions of tons of coal annually
360 million tons of heavy fuel used by shipping each year
887.9 Hana Wilkinson for National Public Health Service None Bridge to Better
NPHS Te Waipounamu supports in principle, pending review of the concept design proposed to be consulted on in May 2024.
NPHS Te Waipounamu supports the water infrastructure upgrade that will provide capacity and resilience to cater for hundreds of homes in the city centre. Well-designed inner-city living can provide compact, connected, integrated, resilient and inclusive homes. When done well, theses homes can have positive impacts on health, through social connection and cohesion, civic participation, air quality and promoting physical activity.
Sufficient green and recreational space will need to be considered for Inner city living environments and we support the implementation of the Urban Greening Plan 2022. NPHS Te Waipounamu notes the importance of greenspace and trees in the context of climate change, particularly to reduce potential heat-related illness and mortality from rising temperature and in a heatwave event.11 Urban communities are at risk of the urban heat island effect as many of the materials used in urban settings – brick, concrete and steel – trap heat and increase the overall temperature experienced in urban environments.
NPHS Te Waipounamu recommends that outdoor dining environments support a safe, healthy and cohesive environment and are:
- Alcohol, smokefree and vapefree and free from associated advertising.
- Accessible, encompassing universal design standards
- Pedestrian and cycle friendly.
- Conversant with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.
 
Support in prinicple, subject to review of further consultation.
750.9 yuri aristarco None Shred into pieces the idea of the Matai proposed development and let become Nelson a REAL SMART LITTLE CITY!!!
Like Central PArk for NY City, a piece of wilderness so close to the Nelson CBD is a landmark feature for our city and we cannot loset it.
Use the land to developed a tiny houses project, optimise the space use allowing hundreds of really affordable homes for young families and elderly people!
Use the excess of land to create vegetable and fruit production.
This could become the first city in the world to really fix 2 main issues:
Affordable housing and carbon neutral food production and distribution ( being within the city boundaries ).
All around the world billions of families lives in 60 to 100 sqmt apartments or flats why can't we do it here?
All this with compostable toilets, biogas e compost production and grey water recycling systems all this side products could fuel the on site food production.
The small footprint tiny homes could be build by dozens of small trade companies instead of using few big ones, this will better distribuite the income around our community.
On top of all this the environmental impact will be ZERO preserving our beloved little haven close to the city.
I can go on but I believe that you get the picture.
The entire Nelson community but few rich and influent people will benefit from such a thing.
If your job it's to make something good for the people and for the community then now is the time to show it.
887.8 Hana Wilkinson for National Public Health Service None Civic Investment
NPHS Te Waipounamu supports the review of options for Civic House and the Elma Turner Library. NPHS Te Waipounamu understands that there will be considerable consultation on the topic in future (including the next LTP in 3 years' time) as options get formalised.
In the 2021- 2031 LTP a Library Precinct Redevelopment was proposed to be built to Green Star 5 ratings and be built as a climate change-resilient building. NPHS Te Waipounamu recommends that these standards continue to be in the forefront of all plans going forward. Sea level rise will also need to be factored in as previously commented on, with consideration of NCC’s Coastal Inundation maps.
In 2022, we engaged with NCC on the project exploring the development of a new library/hub. We provided written feedback to NCC in August 2022. This feedback was developed from conversations with staff across the health system and included health and wellbeing considerations. We recommend the detail of this feedback is considered early on in this project. We are happy to provide the feedback again on request.
 
Support in principle 
Recommend new developments are built to:
- Green Star 5 rating 
-Climate change resilient
universal design standards 
Engage NPHS-Te Waipounamu early in the development of this project.
887.21 Hana Wilkinson for National Public Health Service None NPHS-Te Waipounamu commends council on a strategy that
meaningfully considers public health and wellbeing throughout. The
objectives it sets out to achieve related to managing risks associated to
natural hazards and climate change, maintaining, renewing, and
upgrading infrastructure to meet the needs of urban intensification (as
opposed to green field development), iwi engagement, active transport
infrastructure, and the environment, will support public health outcomes.

Under Table 6 Infrastructure Objective 4: Maintain or improve public
health and safety, and environmental outcomes, we commend council
for identifying options which have both health and environmental cobenefits to reduce traffic congestion and are in line with urban
intensification. We recommend council consider the options as system
level changes vs individual behaviour change. System level change
such as: investing in active transport infrastructure, bus priority lanes,
increased parking charges are required to enable individuals' behaviour
change i.e. to shift from driving a car to cycling to work. Whereas, solely
relying on individual behaviour change, without system changes such as
through providing education, will have limited success. Both are required
and we recommend council prioritise solutions to congestion that have
environmental and health co-benefits. 
Recommend council prioritise solutions to congestion
that have environmental and health co-benefits.
946.5 Jim Sinner None Climate change
Climate change will be the defining issue facing our city for the next decade and beyond and will significantly affect the Nelson City Council’s operations. Given this, the Council’s Climate Strategy should be part of the LTP, and should state how the Council will help the Nelson community to reduce emissions and to adapt to climate change. This should be done in conjunction with Tasman District Council for the next LTP in 2027, because we are one community facing the same issues.

Nelson City Council has made a good start in addressing the multiple challenges of climate change, starting with the declaration of a climate emergency in May 2019. The Council should provide leadership for the Nelson community to help meet the agreed goal in the Paris Accords of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Centigrade.

The Council is proposing a major new building to house the library and council offices. This facility should be built in an area that will be well away from inundation caused by sea level rise and severe weather events. I do not support locating this building near the Maitai River.
Funding for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum
I would like to see NCC continue to provide funding for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum so that it can continue its work with the Council (and TDC) and the community.
1229.2 Peter Olorenshaw for The Nelson Transport Strategy Group (NELSUST) Inc. None Why would you even consider spending $24M to help developers to line their pockets, to put to burden on rate payers who have been so actively fighting this development? To push ratepayers into water restrictions earlier each year with the 900 new homes water consumption. Nelson has so many new developments, Marsden Valley, Atawhai etc, in-fill housing, apartment blocks, Kainga Ora etc. Why not look after the rate payers you have with the money they have paid, instead of developers and prospective ratepayers. Nelson City falls short in so many ways and will only worsen with the go ahead of this development. What is unique and prized in Nelson City, is the green belt, the natural beauty of Nelson because it is blatantly obvious there is no architectural beauty. 
and what will be retreated from in the next 50 years and it is clearly stymying development in this city. Whilst we understand it is very hard to have rigid lines in the sand like this with a dynamic and fast moving crisis, having time bound commitments is something we feel the council should be doing. We ask the city council to grasp the nettle on this one and start the hard conversations about what will be protected from sea level rise and what will be retreated from.
948.1 Greg Street for Eco Design Advisors Option one As mentioned above it is presumed that the Eco Design Advisor service is proposed as a service cut under Option 2 to maintain rates affordability. We agree that affordability is a key issue and critical to get right to ensure households in Nelson City are not pushed into financial hardship especially during a cost-of-living crisis. Financial hardship is often linked with a sacrifice of winter heating resulting in unhealthy indoor environments which can lead to poor health outcomes (particularly respiratory illness).Removing the FREE Eco Design Advisor service removes a key support function for households to understand and reduce their energy consumption and alleviate household energy costs. Most Eco Design Advisors also provide advice to support households to reduce their water consumption and in turn reduce water costs. Eco Design Advisors can be empowered with meter data to support their visits and target water efficiency advice where water consumption flags exist.By removing this service, the Council removes a key support function for households to reduce their operational costs exacerbating affordability.Eco Design Advice provided for new build projects supports residents and developers to achieve more energy efficient housing which is resilient to a changing climate. Improved energy efficiency outcomes result in less energy and emissions over the life of the asset. This has the potential to mitigate affordability issues for future generations.
1258.10 Dr Jozef van Rens None I would like to incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:

Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.

Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1265.10 Robin Schiff None I would like to incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:

Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.
Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.

Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1324.11 Karen Driver None Adopt-a-spot.  I understand NCC has this scheme to support local community groups to adopt an area to support the conservation of it.  It would be good to improve the Council's ability to support this programme and the groups by adding more staff resources.
Support for Climate and Environmental groups.  These organisations are fundamental to the protection of our local environment and the support to improve our environment, cope better with climate change and support community engagement in these critical issues.  They act as vital links between the Council (NCC and TDC) and the community, and Councils also make use of the knowledge and research within these organisations.  This is work that Council has some responsibility for but could never do to the extent these organisations achieve.  The organisations include: Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance; Tasman Environment Trust; Nelson Tasman Climate Forum; and Environment/Recovery Centres.  They need greater support from NCC (and TDC) and they need certainty about future funding.  Some of that support could also be in providing seed funding and support for obtaining funding from other parties including central government.
1266.10 Jace Hobbs None I would like to incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:

Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.

Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
1082.4 John-Paul Pochin None Our Environment and the Climate Crisis
It is clear that we’re heading for an ecological disaster. Council has declared a climate
emergency but the response to this has been slow and inadequate, noting that climate
change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously
understood.
An example is a big focus that has been made about six houses caught in limbo by the
floods and whether Council supports those owners. Increasingly people will find that they
can’t insure their homes (what will happen when Council issues notices to everybody in flood
areas like Nile St. and The Wood for example) - will (can?) Council provide the same support
to the thousands of people that may be affected by the next weather event then?
I strongly support the move away from commercial forestry on council land.
I strongly support the target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per
year from 2024 through 2030 as recommended by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum.
I strongly urge Council to continue to support the work of the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum
and increase funding if possible.
1268.10 Dr Gill Harker None I would like to incorporate key elements of the council’s climate strategy into the LTP. These should include the following:

Adopt a target for reductions in regional carbon emissions of at least 7% per year from 2024 through 2030
Report quarterly on progress towards meeting this target
Establish a contingency fund for additional climate measures identified in the NCC climate strategy
Add a statement on how the Council will respond to future sea level rise, specifically which areas will it protect and where will it retreat, and make allowance for the costs of these choices
Integrate climate strategy as part of the next LTP in 2027
Acknowledge that climate change appears to be occurring faster, with more damaging impacts, than previously understood
Start a discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates to pay for flood protection in higher risk areas.

Support development of the Climate Strategy and update of the Climate Action Plan.
Funding for NTCF
Allocate funding of $155,076 for the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum for 2024-25 and subsequent years (adjusted for inflation).
946.6 Jim Sinner None Transport
Transport accounts the bulk of Nelson’s emissions. We need reductions from this sector to meet New Zealand’s commitment of a 43% reduction by 2030.
 
I support the following projects identified in the LTP, which will further enhance Nelson’s active transport network:
●       The Millers Acre Bus Exchange
●       Safer speeds around Stoke School
●       Improving the St Vincent St cycle facility
●       Intersection and roundabout safety treatments
●       Car-sharing initiative.
 
I would also like to see NCC consider the following actions:                                                   


More buses as patronage increases.
Congestion charging during peak commuting times. In addition to reducing emissions, it would raise revenue and reduce wear on existing roads, and reduce the need for new roads.
Provide for “bus priority” at key intersections to give preference to buses, to make taking the bus a faster option than driving a personal vehicle.
Publish quarterly reports on regional fuel use and transport emissions.      
534.2 L H Option two Support the council's proposed approach. The current extent of, and approach to, commercial forestry is an environmental travesty. It would be fantastic to see the council lead a transition to predominantly native forests. Native forests wield improved biodiversity, landscape, and possible carbon value (pending changes to ETS). They also wield economic value through supporting recreational opportunities, building resilience and reducing risk on property and environment associated with fire and extreme weather events, improving nearby property values, and supporting product markets like rongoā. I support the recommendations in the Right Tree Right Place Taskforce Report. The transition should happen at pace, starting with currently bare harvested land. I question the assumption of expense and long-term loss of income. Accounting should consider the current (not easily monetised) cost of commercial forestry on society and the environment. It should also capture the full range of benefits (economic and otherwise) of a predominantly native forest canopy. Council should lead the way. It would be fantastic to see the LTP acknowledge the role of council in supporting private/iwi/other commercial forestry enterprises in transitioning to improved land use.
252.2 Ali Jamieson for Th NZ MTB Rally Option two I am flabbergasted that any other approach than this would even be an option to any sane individual with a long term view!  It is clear to me that Nelson's social and commercial value (via tourism) lies in its exceptional natural beauty and close proximity to pristine natural environments.   This is all put at risk by running commercial logging right on our doorstep that scars the landscape, pollutes our rivers, and ruins our natural environment.    But an even bigger issue than that, is protecting our homes and our very lives from the ever-increasing risk of fire in this changing climate.   We know that longer hot, dry spells are coming, and that means elevated fire risk.   We are now seriously at risk of most or all of Nelson going up in flames, and probability tells us the fire will start in a pine forest on the city limits.   Its a complete no-brainer to protect our city by removing the pines and replacing them with a protective barrier of native forest.  Surely the insurance premium savings alone, would cover the cost to do this!
978.14 barbara and tim robson None We strongly support the retention and expansion of a food waste collection service, and suggest it's important that this be expanded to all businesses in the catering and food handling sectors. This can be argued to be a sound economic and emission-reducing activity in terms of methane output. It would be serious step backwards if Council was to undo the positives that the joint efforts of Community Compost and NCC have resulted in. The scheme has significantly reduced the number of bags sent to landfill. Waste levies can cover the retention and expansion of such a scheme. (CF MOE funding for food scrap and collection processing systems.  Please retain this very important part of our community's fabric and recognise the contribution it makes in terms of wellbeing and positive modelling. It would be a real shame if NCC were to let this go rather than upscaling the model which has proven benefits in other centre. 
In regard to other waste, we hope that NCC cann be pro-active in terms of education of our community's reliance on single-use containers and work with other councils to advocate for a National Container Returns scheme.
1474.33 Fiona Ede for Nature and Climate Group, Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None We strongly advocate that the ‘Environment’ operating funding budget be expanded from 10% to at least 15%, and that it specifically includes in its mandate the restoration and protection of Nelson’s indigenous biodiversity and ecosystems. Environmental issues have been confirmed by Nelson’s population as a priority – that needs to be reflected in budget allocations.  
Funding for regional climate and environmental initiatives
We support both the continuation and the extension of funding for climate and environmental initiatives by Council, and request that a collaborative funding model with TDC be established to ensure that Top of the South environmental initiatives are coordinated effectively and efficiently.
Specifically, we request that the invaluable coordination and development work by the Nelson Tasman Climate Forum not only continues to be funded, but more resources made available to the organisation to fulfil its vital role, as per the NTCF submission to the LTP.
We also support continued and increased funding for the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance, Tasman Environment Trust and the Environment/Recovery Centres.
1082.5 John-Paul Pochin None Waste
I strongly urge the Council to support initiatives that encourage a circular economy. For
example the work by Community Compost in diverting organic waste from landfill and
making compost that can be used by the community to grow food locally. A scheme that
helps our community support itself.
I also urge the council to support initiatives that reuse and recycle materials, through the
Environment Centre for example and also the work of the Climate forum and the Repair
Cafes.
Every attempt should be made to keep and repurpose buildings, but if buildings are to be
demolished then every attempt should be made to recycle materials and similarly any waste
materials from construction of new buildings should be recycled where possible (I strongly
support the current initiatives here but the goals need to be set higher).
It is worth noting that in New Zealand we have already past our Overshoot Day (April 11th -
https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/country-overshoot-days/)
1324.6 Karen Driver Option one If Council decisions are based on reducing carbon emissions, then the question shouldn't even be in this consultation.  The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum's submission details the emissions footprint of artificial turf in comparison to grass.  In addition the leaching of microplastics into the environment from the turf is unacceptable, and again shouldn't even be considered.  The need to landfill the turf is yet another nail in the coffin for this bad proposal. The acts of installing, replacing and then removing the turf will create microplastics, again, a bad decision for the environment.Even if we had this all weather turf, it would not meet the needs of all the sports clubs, and so would still require many games to be played on existing sports grounds.  I think all sports fields should be upgraded to improve their drainage over time, if that is the reason for some fields being worse than others.  Also the issue of sea level rise needs to be considered in terms of best use of investment funds.
820.1 Roy Elgar None I am recording my objection to the Long Term plan provision to allocate $24 million to build water and sewerage services to the Kaka Valley/Maitai subdivision, and for road building to accommodate projected extra traffic movements from the subdivision into Nelson City.

Run-off and surface flooding of the parts of the subdivision on the natural flood plain will not be fully remediated - expert advice to the RMA hearing made it clear that the proposals to manage increased flooding are inadequate.
Increasing the housing in a flood zone may also make the council liable to multi-million compensation claims from residents impacted by increased floods - increases in both frequency and intensity.

I object to any new subdivision that does not include significant developer investment in public transport for residents: both the improve quality of life and to remediate increased traffic impacts (roading and water management costs, air and water pollution). The council has a duty to work towards reducing, not increasing the environmental impacts of (needed - no doubt of that) new housing projects.
1082.3 John-Paul Pochin None
Growth
Council states that “approximately 5,000 more people are likely to be living in Nelson by
2034”, however Council is actively encouraging more people to move here (through the
Nelson Tasman Economic Agency, through events such as Te Ramaroa, through the
support, including large amounts of infrastructure funding, for developments such as Kaka
Valley for example).
It feels that the Climate Emergency has been used to support the status quo - to keep
growing. Council is running a pyramid scheme that is only sustainable by encouraging more
and more people to move here to bring in more rates to fund what we need now, using more
and more resources, requiring more roads, more land turned to housing. Each successive
generation becomes more dependent and continues to perpetuate the same scheme due to
an ever increasing debt and a deteriorating environment. When will Nelson be big enough,
what is the long term plan?
1047.13 Anna Berthelsen None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon
footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or
its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan. 
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re economic activity below:
This sec on includes “Supporting our visitor economy by implementing the actions in the Nelson Tasman Destination on Management Plan”. I request that proposals for Events funding need to identify the carbon footprint of the event, including travel by participants and spectators, and indicate how these will be minimised. In addition, all events on Council land, or that receive funding from Council or its related entities, should be required to have a waste minimisation plan, sufficiently funded to not rely on volunteer labour. If all events had to do this, food stall holders would work to the same rules at each event and the public would understand their responsibilities.
773.10 Adam Burwell None You sure did pack a lot into "Additional Comments"... Where to begin: 
Civic investment - Whatever you do, these two projects need to be built with climate adaptation and mitigation in mind. Spaces that can support future weather - rain, heat, fire, floods and droughts, healthy interior spaces that efficiently support human life in a changing world.  Ideas like first floor spaces to survive flooding, fresh air mixing/filtration, fully electric heating/cooling, water, future looking spaces with adaptable uses for the changing requirements of city government and knowledge sharing. These spaces don't have to be complex or overly bespoke either to accomplish this, off site construction, modular walls or volumes of space can provide sustainable easy to assemble solutions. The library especially will become more about physical connection, knowledge sharing and a place to receive a free 'education' to the worlds writings, trainings and tools in a world changing quickly in the times of AI.
1059.13 Allen Berthelsen None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan. 
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re economic activity below:
This sec on includes “Supporting our visitor economy by implementing the actions in the Nelson Tasman Destination on Management Plan”. I request that proposals for Events funding need to identify the carbon footprint of the event, including travel by participants and spectators, and indicate how these will be minimised. In addition, all events on Council land, or that receive funding from Council or its related entities, should be required to have a waste minimisation plan, sufficiently funded to not rely on volunteer labour. If all events had to do this, food stall holders would work to the same rules at each event and the public would understand their responsibilities.
1057.13 Cameron Carter None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan. 
Refer to 10 page submission for further information - key points re economic activity below:
This sec on includes “Supporting our visitor economy by implementing the actions in the Nelson Tasman Destination on Management Plan”. I request that proposals for Events funding need to identify the carbon footprint of the event, including travel by participants and spectators, and indicate how these will be minimised. In addition, all events on Council land, or that receive funding from Council or its related entities, should be required to have a waste minimisation plan, sufficiently funded to not rely on volunteer labour. If all events had to do this, food stall holders would work to the same rules at each event and the public would understand their responsibilities.
199.1 Tom Kennedy Option two I commend the council on its option two as it sets an example for private commercial foresters to transition to continuous canopy practices.  At present , large clear felled areas of harvested pine forest pose an extreme risk to Nelson of flooding during high rainfall events.  These events are occurring more often as a result of climate change.  A forest with a continuous canopy absorbs up to 60% of the rainfall.  The other negative impact of large clear felled areas is the increase in soil and sediment loss during rainfall events.  This material ends up in the river, estuaries and Tasman Bay , and its associated problems are well documented by numerous studies by Cawthron and other reports.  I would encourage Council to strongly lobby central government to overhaul the present  NES-PF rules and consent conditions as they  are totally out of date with current scientific evidence and best practice overseas.
1074.7 Augusta van Wijk None I would like to see more projects that address climate change and becoming a more sustainable city, including future investment in active transport infrastructure and separated cycle ways especially as Nelson is becoming a cycling city and E bike use is increasing.  Having shared walking cycling pathways is no longer a really safe solution - so not only do we need to link up the gaps in the current network we need to look to upgrade current infrastructure to the next level to separate people on bikes and pedestrians. I also note that Rocks Road has not been address in the draft LTP and given the latest announcement by the Government we need to come up with a plan B that is cost effective and able to be actioned now as we have waited long enough for a solution.  Clearly the current plan is over ambitious so we need a more cost effective and environmentally friendly solution that can be implemented relatively quickly.  Doing nothing is not an option!
92.3 Nicola Gabelich Option two I think option 2 (exit commercial forestry over time) is definitely the right direction for Nelson as the hills surrounding the city  and up the adjacent valleys, are subject to slips and erosion , causing flooding and sedimentation in the valleys which has severe adverse consequences for nelson property and people, as we have seen in the 2022 flooding event.  Commercial forestry in these areas adds to the risks by leaving large amount of slash which have caused significant damage in previous weather events.  Restoring a  canopy, particularly natives,  over time  also enhances our biodiversity, (adding to the halo effect from the Waimarama Brook sanctuary),  is  also a postive response to climate change and  allows greater opportunities for outdoor recreation close to the city. This change would enhance the city overall  and make Nelson a better place to live.
977.11 Lynn Cadenhead None Central Nelson Stormwater Strategy
We strongly support proposed stormwater work in the Draft Council Activity Summaries for the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 as all this work would reduce future storm damage and support the work which individual property owners can do on their own behalf, or collectively to support community response to climate change. 
We request that the Central Nelson Stormwater Strategy implementation be brought forward a year to 2027/28 so it starts in the same year as the Tahunanui Stormwater Strategy implementation. The sooner these projects are finished the less likely to have to cleanup future stormwater damage.
As part of this project we request that the Elliott Street Heritage Precinct's stormwater be connected to the Pumping Station so that surface water will run out of the stormwater system at all states of the tide.
1147.5 Ayla Turner for Nelson Youth Council None Comment: Council’s Forestry Approach
The Nelson Youth council agrees and supports the Council proposed approach on Commercial forestry, as outlined in the LTP. We believe that Nelson exiting out of commercial forestry, while it will lead to losses financially, will be beneficial towards the climate and environment, in that this course of action will not only directly reduce carbon emissions but help set a precedent for other councils to do the same. This freed up space also allows for new areas to be installed in Nelson, such as native forestry, other greenery, along with attractions such as a small mountain biking track, and more. It is for these reasons we propose to follow council’s proposal and exit commercial forestry, replacing previous forestry areas with any of the listed suggestions and more.
958.9 Sophie Young None Kia ora, im Sophie, born and bred nelsonian, i love the place and want it to be looked after for many generations to come, i am a keen volleyball player and love the beach court set up. Also want to ensure we minimise our emissions and contributions to the climate crisis, a great way to do this is continue contributing to things like community compost that already do great work and have systems in place and when possible it would be great to see council work with them to upscale and have even more benefits for the nelson region and the world by diverting organics from landfill using them for their nature intended purpose of giving nutrients back to the soil and in doing so decreasing space taken up in landfill and collection cost as well as harmful methane and other gases released from landfill decomposition.
1216.2 Peter Taylor Option two Council must rely on householders having insurance. Where householders do not insure their property risk should not fall to Council.I do not support Council investing $24m in the private Kaka/Mahitahi subdivision. Expert testimony at the RMA hearing stated that the subdivsion will increase flood risk for downstream properties. This risk has not been quantified as no whole of catchment flood risk assessment has been done.Nelson rainfall in the age of climate change looks set to increase. By supporting this massive subdivision Council is exposing itself and Nelson ratepayers to millions of dollars in future compensation claims should a major flood occur that is exacerbated by the loss of a natural flood plain and the huge increase in run-off due to the increase in hard surfaces from the subdivisions housing and roads etc..
1226.10 Sarah Wild None I would like to see the Council continue to support the Community Compost Hub. Keeping waste out of landfill is a major issue we need to be tackling. I know that NCC does promote the importance of composting but, like many other councils around NZ and the World, NCC could and should be doing even more to promote the benefits of composting. This is a critical project we need to retain in the LTP, to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to keep the Council's costs of dealing with waste down, to promote a healthy environment by ensuring we recycle food scraps in a sustainable way, turning them to beautiful compost that can be used to grow healthy food rather than burying them underground in an anaerobic environment, contributing to the production of methane.
1028.1 Erin Parry Option one Although many Nelsonians are currently grappling with the cost of living crisis, I worry that lowering services will derail Nelson's long term goals and objectives.  We have a lot of work to do before we can really call ourselves: 'The Smartest Little City,' we have a CBD that lacks vibrancy and we're losing businesses to the Tasman region. Revitalising the CBD is going to take a lot of resources before we can have a bustling city centre.  We do not have a curbside composting solution, diverting food waste is one of the easiest and most effective way to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Becoming a more sustainable community, with a more developed CBD will make Nelson a more desirable place to live, but will require investment.
939.9 Bridget Dadds None The next 10 years will see significant climate events. The Council will need to focus its efforts on ensuring the basics will withstand. Water, sewerage, drains etc. 
Nelson is full of smart people who, if asked, would be happy to contribute ideas on how difficult situations can be managed. As an example, the contaminated sawdust at Tahuna Beach. I'm sure there are people here in Nelson with great ideas on how this can be managed, but we pay consultants a lot of money instead. Perhaps provide a portal inviting people to offer their expertise, on the NCC website somewhere? It would be ideal if Council could view the residents of this city as a resource of information and contribution, and not just as a wallet.
1324.2 Karen Driver Option two The draft eligibility principles need wider consultation.  Hiding them within this already daunting process for many ratepayers is not good enough.  It needs to be clear that this is a one off.  I think too many people are still buying property in areas that will flood believing that someone will buy them out.  It will be unaffordable.  Serious engagement with central government is needed to come up with a national strategy.  Also Council needs to ensure you have the power to stop new development in areas that are already highlighted as future flood zones (due to sea level rising or river flooding).  In the meantime we need to move forward and give these ratepayers certainty and also accept the money from central government.
1108.10 Jenny Kelso None 1. NTCF recommendations: I fully endorse all of their recommendations. Please prioritise the natural environment in ALL council decisions. Our health is directly linked to the health of our natural environment. We have neglected it for far too long.  Please protect our biodiversity and waterways as best we can. Please stop the fishing industry from bottom trawling especially close to the coastline if possible.  Also we are in a rapidly deteriorating climate emergency. Lets really take this seriously and make sure we reduce all greenhouse gases to the best of our ability.
6. And RE the entrance to Nelson, can we eliminate the hideous stench which assails our nostrils at the entrance to Nelson from the East?
909.3 Tim Fraser-Harris Option two The downstream impacts of commercial forestry in the catchments behind our wee city were clear to me as one of many who sought to try and clean up the water and the beaches after the August 2022 rainfall event. The increased sedimentation in our rivers and estuaries from clear-felling practices cause further issues. I also have concerns around what happens when exotic pinus radiata plantations become uneconomic to harvest due to the price of carbon. These monoculture biodiversity 'deserts' are not what we want on the fringes of our city in the future. The proposed continuous canopy mixed species forestry provides a fantastic opportunity to bring a recreational focus to the councils forested areas.
1494.14 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None This section includes “Supporting our visitor economy by implementing the actions in the
Nelson Tasman Destination Management Plan”. We request that proposals for Events
funding need to identify the carbon footprint of the event, including travel by participants
and spectators, and indicate how these will be minimised.

In addition, all events on Council land, or that receive funding from Council or its related
entities, should be required to have a waste minimisation plan, sufficiently funded to not
rely on volunteer labour. If all events had to do this, food stall holders would work to the
same rules at each event and the public would understand their responsibilities.
353.5 Jill Ford Option two Its often very hard for people to find homes in Nelson region.  As a result more have to live further out and as a result there is urban sprawl, more congestion, and homes being built on low lieing land that with climate change is likely to get flooded.  There needs to be greater density of housing, with 3 story town houses, with an emphasis on low cost and social housing.  Its also a poor reflection on Nelson that you have NO night shelter.  I have moved from Wellington where I donate to the Wellington Mission and was very suprised that there was no such support in Nelson.So I definitely support Option 2.
330.3 Frank Saxton Option one I think that the cost of replanting a native forests is a very high liability it's very difficult to do the release clearing the slow growth rates of the trees, it's not easy and the cost and difficulty grossly underestimated by most people. The other thing with exotic forests is that they grow bigger and taller and sequester more carbon per hectare than a mature native forest. I think in a lot of cases one should plant the commercial forest species and run them on very long rotations or maybe never harvest them at all. The emissions trading scheme would I think support this approach. (depends of the ETS category of the land of course.)
1324.1 Karen Driver Option three Core service need to be maintained, and we need to have a plan in place for how the city is going to survive with the expected sea level rise and increased floods.  This needs to happen before plans are developed for revitalising the city.  What land will we have available, what areas will we need to retreat from?  Locking current and future ratepayers into the need to build bigger and better sea wall/defences is not the answer, and ignoring this issue until the future is also not acceptable.  This needs to be done with the community onside, and not just those that have more money or shout louder.
188.2 Bridgette Wraight Option two No one wishes for their home to be affected by a natural disaster.  In our changing environment where weather events are becoming more common, it is important that as a community we take steps to protect our natural environment for future generations.  I am supporting this submission because those who lost their homes should be granted the opportunity move on from this weather event and receive a fair value for their home. But I also strongly believe the remediation work needs to occur on the impacted land. This will mean that neighbours and others in the community can trust that remediations have occurred to protect others in the community from future weather events.
987.3 Laura Fear for Victory Community Centre Option two We concur with the findings of the Right Tree Right Place Task Force that all current NCC commercial forests should be transitioned into continuous-canopy forest systems, mostly of mixed species, that best meet community values and address climate risks.  We support the exit of commercial forestry and the development of a climate friendly regional economy in parallel to manage the impact on job losses. Cyclone Gabrielle has demonstrated the horrific environmental impact of commercial forestry in the event of a weather event. Moving our community towards climate resilience should be considered a high priority, and commercial forestry holds us back from this.
898.8 Debs Martin None However I strongly support retaining the current provisions for weed control, all biodiversity work, and action on climate change. Infrastructure can be fixed later, and markings on roads can as well.  But weeds grow, biodiversity continues to decline, and we face both a biodiversity and climate crisis.  We can't pause action on those as we pass the costs of them onto future generations otherwise, and face losing critical ecosystems, habitats, and potentially irreversible outcomes result.  
I am concerned about current proposed reductions in weed control and other biodiversity and climate spending.  These are issues for the future and must be maintained.
309.1 Brad Chandler Option two This is the only way to help future safe Nelson and the Nelson community from adverse weather events and it is also a better, more financially viable (given status quo is not returning any profit/rate relief to ratepayers) and more environmentally responsible land use for the Nelson owned forestry estate. We are a community full of people the value recreation and the more opportunities we can provide the better. It will provide Nelson with more environmental resilience over time and will actually provide meaningful value to the Nelson community and wider environment.Well done to the taskforce and councillors for taking this on and accepting the taskforce recommendations.
138.2 Jesse Williams Option two I would like to see the Council move to a forestry transition model as recommended by the taskforce. Maintaining a continuous canopy of forests is essential to build more resilient land management systems that have native bush at the heart of them. Transitioning to thriving, biodiverse continuous canopy forests would (eventually) enhance the conservation and recreation value of our forested areas for future generations. This is key to ensuring robust forests of the future that are better placed to help us cope with a changing climate and future catastrophic weather events. They also just look, sound and feel so much healthier than mono-forested areas
946.3 Jim Sinner Option one Isupport Option 1: Continue to upgrade our existing sports fields. Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Plastic turf has a lifetime of only 8-10 years, so the council would be contributing to on-going carbon emissions if it installs a plastic turf. In addition, artificial turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. Let’s improve drainage on our existing sports fields.
1043.2 Shalom Levy None I strongly oppose the Council's proposed allocation of $24 million Infrastructure funding as I believe
that the rural nature of this part of the Maitai Valley must be preserved. The environmental cost is totally incompatible with the climate emergency that our Council cannot lose sight of and must take
into account the potential risk of flooding, air pollution, increased level of water pollution and road congestion that will not be confined to the Maitai area but could adversely affect the Nelson area at large. We expect our Council to safeguard the valuable assets that we truly cherish in our highly prized living environment.
1432.2 Richard Popenhagen None Please reinstate the provision of an Eco Design Advice service for residents and ratepayers. 
This valued service previously assisted a wide range of our community, including some of the most vulnerable.
There is still strong demand for it, and it contributes to Councils Vision:Our community is inclusive, resilient, and connected – we care for each other and our environment, and to Councils Priority to: Foster a healthy environment and a climate resilient, low-emissions community.
It also aligns with several Councils goals stated in the Community Outcomes document.
1009.7 Mary Hebberd Option one I'm rather unsure that this is the best thing to spend money on, considering where things are. I would not want the council to skimp on support for social (and accessible) housing, public transport, rewilding initiatives -  and other necessities - before doing this. I am also concerned that the council has not taken full account of how the climate crisis may impact the Tahunanui Beach area. I think it would be better if our funds were put into areas which have a surer chance of holding up through increased weather events and sea level rise.
435.1 Grace Sutherland Option two The soil types and erosive nature of the slopes mean that any clear- felling of forests is always going to result in flooding and slips downstream. Current methods of logging where logs are left to rot or get washed down stream are irresponsible in an environment of residential and urban properties and activity. In an era of warming climate and more rain we need to keep an evergreen forest cover to absorb the rainfall and prevent massive slips of silt and topsoil and slow the pace of rainfall entering the streams and rivers in the valley below, to avoid the consequences of flooding.
898.1 Debs Martin Option one I think some of the options for cutting the budgets are sensible, e.g. road marking, etc.  However I strongly support retaining the current provisions for weed control, all biodiversity work, and action on climate change. Infrastructure can be fixed later, and markings on roads can as well.  But weeds grow, biodiversity continues to decline, and we face both a biodiversity and climate crisis.  We can't pause action on those as we pass the costs of them onto future generations otherwise, and face losing critical ecosystems, habitats, and potentially irreversible outcomes result.
1324.12 Karen Driver None Climate change resilience.  Council has developed a good team to work on the issues around climate change.  That works needs to be continued and funding for climate change initiatives and resilience also needs to be ring fenced.  It is a massive issue that has already start to affect the region.  We know much worse is to come and your team are supporting that research and solutions.  Let's make sure that the investment is made into solutions that make our region resilient over the next 100 years, and not just for the next 10 years.
119.3 Derek Walker Option two I believe there are many reasons why this is the correct approach for Nelson. The restoration of native forest would help reduce biodiversity loss, sequester carbon (which is absolutely urgently required as one essential strategy to slow clinate change), provide a natural visual backdrop to more parts of Nelson ( the aesthetics of which would benefit tourism), provide healthier recreational opportunities, improve soils and reduce slip danger (which is an obvious major concern with increasingly more extreme weather events).There is the possibility of revenue from recreational us of the restored native forests by tourists.
441.2 Andrew Hamilton Option one It makes no sense for Council to set the precedent of buying out flood/slip damaged private properties - as the damage from climate change continues to mount in the years to come NC will have it's hands full dealing with damage to its own infrastructure, let alone bailing out private housing. For example at some point in the future when the housing in Monaco gets inundated (again) there is no way that NC should be offering financial support. The council should be engaged in managed retreat, not looking at bail outs.
1089.9 Malcolm Fisher None To relieve road congestion all-day parking areas need to be established near key bus stops so that people can use the bus instead of driving to their destination. Having a bus service till 11pm will also help reduce road traffic. Using alternative forms of transport takes pressure off the roads and reduces emissions. Council needs to remind the public about the importance of less car driving.
Long term
it would be great to establish a rail link to the Picton-Christchurch line, as planned in the late 1950's
416.1 Roger May Option two Currently most commercial forestry on steepland involves the clearcutting of Radiata pine as is the case for NCC commercial plantations. Radiata is a relatively low value timber which requires clearcutting to be economic. However, this clearcutting inevitably results in externalised costs such as sedimentation of waterways, and the risks of landslides and flooding. Nelson and a number of other places have experienced this recently and the risks are increasing as the effects of climate change increase.
353.11 Jill Ford None Reducing congestion and carbon emissions should be priorities for NCC.  Given that Nelson has best weather in NZ so is great for cycling, there needs to be good cycle infrastructure going East West.  Every extra person on a bike is one less car on the road = less congestion and less CO2 emissions.  I thereore urge NCC to prioritise the East West connection, Wellington CC has been doing a great job of fast tracking cycle ways, and Nelson needs to do the same.
1333.3 Stephen Palmer Option two I strongly support the council transitioning away from commercial forestry. Although council commercial forests represent only a small percentage of commercial forests they are strategically placed being close to urban areas and sensitive, unique ecological areas such as the mineral belt. Permanet forests offer some protection from climate change risks, reducing flooding and fire hazards. There are also considerable recreational and aesrthetic advantages.     Assuming the council proceeds with option there are significant opportunities to partner with community groups which would offer both financial and social rewards.
171.10 Richard Boodee None The council needs to be more honest with ratepayers about the future track of rates increases, services reductions and future spending obligations.  Future infrastructure and climate change mitigation costs will inevitably be higher than current forecasts.  Council should re-forecast once the government passes the managed retreat act when the scale of those climate change adaptation can be better forecast. Until then minimise all new spending plans (e.g. buying out private land owners, new buildings for arts and the surf club etc)
882.3 ELEANOR DENTON Option two For the past two years I have been a director of a 320ha family-owned forestry block in Otago.  In that role I have learned a lot about plantation forests. I support the council’s change away from plantation forests.  I support more planting of natives and permanent species.  Hopefully the Nelson City Council can register in the ETS and get some economic benefit from carbon credits.  This could be used to offset cost of managing such areas.
785.3 Tess Cimino Option two Commercial forestry creates monocultures and pine tree farms not native, biodiverse forests. Wildlife and the environment will benefit from adding more native and mixed species. In addition, silt will be reduces and our waters will be cleaner and land more resilient to flooding, storms, and climate change which is continually getting worse. If you chose to exit out of forestry, this can have monumental impacts for future generations that will be so grateful in the long-term.
353.12 Jill Ford None Kitchen waste - methane from food waste is big contributor to climate change, and approx 30% of land fill is organic waste.  All of which could be composted and then used by both NCC as well as residents etc.  Kitchen waste collection has been in places like Timaru, Christchurch for over 15 years, and more recently introduced successfully to Auckland.  No good reason why Nelson CC shouldnt do the same.
441.10 Andrew Hamilton None NC should be laser focused on the economic damage and dislocation that is coming our way due to climate change. Spending on core infrastructure and the future proofing thereof should be an absolute priority. To prevent rate payers being overwhelmed by the costs of this cuts should be made in all non-essential services - you can't expect people to swallow even 7% rate rises every year (that means a doubling in rates every 10 years).
1057.3 Cameron Carter Option two I support the Council’s proposal to exit from commercial forestry. Although the consultation documents highlight the costs of transitioning from commercial forests, there are also considerable benefits of doing so, which I consider more than justifies the costs. Having permanently forested area around Nelson will reduce risk from high rainfall events and reduce sedimentation of local waterways and estuaries, increasing Nelson’s resilience to climate change.
1047.3 Anna Berthelsen Option two I support the Council’s proposal to exit from commercial forestry. Although the consultation documents highlight the costs of transitioning from commercial forests, there are also considerable benefits of doing so, which I consider more than justifies the costs. Having permanently forested area around Nelson will reduce risk from high rainfall events and reduce sedimentation of local waterways and estuaries, increasing Nelson’s resilience to climate change.
542.1 Thalassa Kawachi Option two Kia ora, Considering the current state of the environment and degradation trends we need to take action before it is too late.  For this reason option 2 is best for our future.  Not changing over to mixed canopy is shortsighted and result in further erosion/flooding issues.  I believe any consideration of costs needs to include the downstream effects of harvesting sediment and flooding.Nga mihi,Thalassa
1494.13 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None The Forum supports the funding request from the Te Tauihu Regional Community
Development Agency. An NTCF representative has been an active member of the
establishment working group for this new agency. We are convinced that, if adequately
resourced, this agency can support and facilitate community action on climate change
mitigation and adaptation as well as a just transition towards a more resilient and
sustainable future.
1034.3 Colleen Shaw Option two I support the Council's recommendation that they change their practice to grow a continuous canopy of mixed species.  This outcome will help mitigate the effects of severe storms as seen in August 2022 when pine forest slash were washed down the slopes and caused damage. It also will support keeping the hillsides intact from erosion and our declining biodiversity as well as sequestering carbon.  It is the choice for the times.
695.3 Kate Prebble Option two I strongly support the planting of a variety of native and exotic trees to replace the pine forests. This will help stabilize our hillsides and reduce forestry slash which can have devastating effects on private/ public land and also our waterways. Forestry slash ends up on our beaches. It is important that our community works toward reducing our carbon emissions and these permanent forests would absorb and store carbon. They also provide recreational opportunities.
1494.15 Joanna Santa-Barbara for Nelson Tasman Climate Forum None See comments in section 2 (climate change) regarding flood protection. We request that the Council start a
discussion with the Nelson community about targeted rates in higher risk areas to pay for
flood protection. In some areas of low-lying and/or sinking land, conversion into indigenous
biodiversity areas could prove a more effective long-term response than seawalls or other
protection devices.
977.13 Lynn Cadenhead None We own 14 Elliott Street and will be living there again within the next three years. We currently live in Wellington and experience three water problems on a daily basis including no drinking water, low pressure drinking water and sewage leaks in our stream. Upgrading  three waters infrastructure as fast as possible and timely maintenance is vital to maintaining a functioning city and manage climate change induced storm events.
1085.3 Ian Wells Option two I enthusiastically support the Council's approach. It is forward looking and helps meet our climate goals. A diverse native forest is less likely to catch fire. It is less susceptible to disease. It is a smart investment of my tax money.  I am not an expert on forestry. I appreciate and recognise the research carried on to produce the Right Tree, RIght Place task force.
887.2 Hana Wilkinson for National Public Health Service Option two NPHS Te Waipounamu supports the exit of commercial forestry as it provides for a holistic approach to the management of NCC’s native and exotic forests. This option proposes to develop a long-term asset for the community with improved environmental, recreational and social outcomes. Trees are good for our natural environment as they absorb carbon from the atmosphere, support flood mitigation and encourage biodiversity
864.3 Tanya Nock for Cultural Conversations Option two We support the exit of commercial forestry and the development of a climate friendly regional economy in parallel to manage the impact on job losses.Cyclone Gabrielle has demonstrated the horrific environmental impact of commercial forestry in the event of a weather event. Moving our community towards climate resilience should be considered a high priority, and commercial forestry hold us back from this.
160.3 Katrina MARWICK for Nelson Tasman Branch Forest and Bird Option two Climate events are increasing and the cause of significant rain and flooding in the Nelson Tasman regions. Evidence of increased sedimentation in the Waimea Estuary and rivers originating from cleared forest land has affected the quality of substrate and native habitat. Clear felling forests is a significant cause of the increased sedimentation.
978.1 barbara and tim robson Option two Frequency of Extreme Weather Events (Climate change induced) means Council will have greater costs - building resilience, adaptation and also in reparation. Further rates increases will be necessary, but we're aware of many doing it hard. If it could be means tested, we'd support Option 1!.
184.5 Lionel Solly Option two The Surf Life Saving Club plays an important role in enabling safe use of our most popular beach, and does require fit-for-purpose facilities.  I would though ask that the facilities are designed and built to be resilient to the effects of climate change and sea level rise.
1009.3 Mary Hebberd Option two I would prefer us to exit it as quickly as possible. Allowing our native bush to regenerate would help lessen disruption due to the climate crisis, and would provide some defence against the extreme weather events we can expect from our refusal to stop burning fossil fuels.
978.8 barbara and tim robson Option two A thriving arts community is vital for community well-being. So we support this again, but as with previous comments - that all projects are viewed through a climate lens and therefore all steps of the procurement and modification process be as low-emission as possible.
1266.17 Jace Hobbs None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimized 
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimization plan.
1265.11 Robin Schiff None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimized 
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimization plan.
1258.17 Dr Jozef van Rens None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimized 
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimization plan.
1272.3 Stephen McLuckie Option two I agree with the findings of the Right Tree Right Place Task Force that all current NCC commercial forests should be transitioned into continuous-canopy forest systems, mostly of mixed species, that best meet community values and address climate risks.
1268.17 Dr Gill Harker None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimized 
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimization plan.
1034.8 Colleen Shaw None Require those seeking Major Events funding to identify the carbon footprint of the event and indicate how these will be minimised.
Require events on Council land, or receiving funding from Council or its related entities, to have a waste minimisation plan.
946.9 Jim Sinner None Solid Waste
I support the implementation of a household food waste collection service. Food waste and other organic waste create methane gas when disposed of to landfill. These emissions can be reduced if organic waste is diverted away from landfill.
1212.3 Curtis Moore Option two Absolutely necessary given climate change, flood potential, and declining soil productivity for commercial mono-culture.  The costs to do this over time are well under the benefits to people and the environment over a longer period of time.
1495.6 Scott Burnett for Forest & Bird None Forest & Bird support the priority climate action – Adopt and implement a Climate Change Strategy and update and action the Climate Change Plan. We would like to see funding for the implementation of this provided in the LTP.
978.6 barbara and tim robson Option one In this Climate Emergency Council should be viewing all projects through a Climate Lens. This project would involve huge amounts of embodied carbon - the emissions toll over the whole project would be huge and not justifiable.
87.2 Adam Stanyer None of the above I don't have any information regarding what the current offers are. I can foresee more issues in future with locations of houses near rivers or encroaching sea rises so this could become extremely expensive.
1003.3 David Miles Option two Regrowing native bush both works against climate disruption generally and also helps to shore up Nelson's defences against the extreme weather events we can expect from our refusal to stop burning fossil fuels.
144.1 Simon Ashby Option two So many positives in this initiative. Clean water, climate change resilience, supporting the brook sanctuary, thriving forests-tourism....pine is dead to us in 2024.
54.5 John Conly Option two Please encourage land use for tiny homes - set good laws allowing that. They are perfect for areas that in 50 years may not be habitable due to climate change etc.
464.11 Lucy Byrne None Please consider climate change and the environment in all aspects of the long-term plan. It will pay off in the long run. 

Thanks, Lucy
898.9 Debs Martin None I am concerned about current proposed reductions in weed control and other biodiversity and climate spending.  These are issues for the future and must be maintained.
904.3 Lesley Kuykendall Option two I agree with stopping planting pines and move to planting native trees which absorb more carbon and hold onto the soil better than pines.
1495.5 Scott Burnett for Forest & Bird None We support planned renewals of the wastewater network and forward planning to move the wastewater treatment plant away from its current climate vulnerable location.
919.3 libby slack None of the above use the forest as carbon credits. No more logging, better management of current species and more phased planting. More pest control.
943.5 Yuki Fukuda Option two whatever you do, please do not build more houses in zones where flooding is likely to occur due to climate change.
883.11 Tama Easton None
Please continue to invest in infrastructure & managed retreat so we are more the resilient in the face of climate change.
503.10 Carol Anderson None Leave the Maitai Valley alone. It is too unstable & vulnerable to global warming to support housing.
885.3 Carey Doust Option two Create more native bush and support biodiversity to fight climate change.
1085.7 Ian Wells Option two do so and take into account climate change and rising sea levels