Agenda of Sustainability Committee - Wednesday, 16 April 2025

Sustainability Committee MEETING

16 April 2025

Order of Business

2. Apologies

Pursuant to Sections 46A(7) and 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, to receive the Chairperson’s explanation that specified item(s), which do not appear on the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded, will be discussed.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7) must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.

Any additions in accordance with Section 46A(7A) may be received or referred to a subsequent meeting for further discussion. No resolution, decision or recommendation can be made in respect of a minor item.

4. Declarations of Interest (if any)

Members are reminded of their duty to give a general notice of any interest of items to be considered on this agenda and the need to declare these interests.

5. Public Comment

To receive comments from members of the public on matters specified on this Agenda or, if time permits, on other Committee matters.

6. Local Water Done Well - Hearing of Submissions Page 7

7. Local Water Done Well - Summary of Submissions Page 11

Memorandum, presented by Olivia Wix, Manager Communications, Mike Monaghan, Manager 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager.

8. Confirmation of Minutes Page 17

That the minutes of the Sustainability Committee meeting of 19 February 2025 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

9. Annual Sector Lead Report: Environment Network Manawatū Page 21

Memorandum, presented by Amy Viles, Community Development Advisor.

10. Wastewater Treatment Plant - Nature Calls; Quarterly Update and Submission to Taumata Arowai on Draft Standards Page 49

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan - Manager 3 Waters.

11. Committee Work Schedule Page 69

12. Karakia Whakamutunga

13. Exclusion of Public

To be moved:

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting listed in the table below.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing this resolution

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public as stated in the above table.

Also that the persons listed below be permitted to remain after the public has been excluded for the reasons stated.

[Add Third Parties], because of their knowledge and ability to assist the meeting in speaking to their report/s [or other matters as specified] and answering questions, noting that such person/s will be present at the meeting only for the items that relate to their respective report/s [or matters as specified].

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 April 2025

TITLE: Local Water Done Well - Summary of Submissions

Presented By: Olivia Wix, Manager Communications, Mike Monaghan, Manager 3 Waters and Julie Keane, Transition Manager

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Local Water Done Well – Summary of Submissions,’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 April 2025.

2. That the Committee note that deliberations will be referred to Council.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Council received 276 submissions on the Local Water Done Well Consultation on future delivery options for water services. Twelve submitters indicated they wish to make an oral submission.

1.2 This memorandum provides an initial summary of the key themes raised in the written submissions. A full analysis of the written and oral submissions is expected to be provided to Council in May.

2. BACkGROUND

2.1 On 5 December 2024, Council approved three options to take to public consultation on the future of Palmerston North’s Water Service Delivery.

2.2 On 12 February 2025, Council approved the consultation document that outlined the options and additional information to assist with community understanding of Local Water Done Well policy.

2.3 The submission period was open from 27 February to 30 March 2025. Council received 276 written submissions during this time. The submissions are included in the Agenda.

2.4 Submitters overwhelmingly supported Option 1, to collaborate with Manawatu, Horowhenua and Kāpiti Coast District Councils. When asked for their second choice, Option 2 came out on top.

2.5 A large number of people chose not to rank the options. Through our conversations at engagement events we had a number of questions about what would happen if Kāpiti Coast or Manawatu didn’t have collaboration as a preferred option, so they didn’t know how they wanted to rank the options. We encouraged them to still submit so we could still capture their values and also their commentary on how they felt about options.

The form also gave submitters the ability to rank which values mattered most to them. They were able to choose 6 out of 11 options.

2.6 To ensure Elected Members have a thorough understanding of community views, at the Council meeting an extensive report will detail how different groups of submitters feel (eg. age groups, trade waste customers, connected to supply), as well as themes for each option and summaries of other comments.

2.7 Overall key themes at this point are:

· That people want an affordable option for the future and are open to collaborating with any councils.

· Most view collaboration positively and recognise the importance of scale. However, some submitters are keen to see us work with a smaller number of councils, eg. 4 or 5, rather than a larger model for ease of governance.

· People are keen to see us collaborate with our closest neighbours as a priority – including Manawatu and Horowhenua. Some submitters are also keen to see us work with Tararua so we’re working with all councils around our boundary.

· Some submitters have raised concerns about Kāpiti and Manawatu councils not having collaboration as their preferred option, and what that means for us.

· Many submitters think we should be continuing to deliver water services as we are now and are disappointed we cannot. Some also questioned why a Standalone CCO option had not been included in our options for consultation.

· There is some concern regarding lack of community input, and the timeframes involved for such a decision.

· There are also a number of comments supporting iwi involvement in any governance structure.

· Whilst not asking about water meters and water tanks specifically, a large number of submitters have made comments on the pros and cons of these.

· Some submitters are concerned about the use of fluoride in our drinking water.

2.8 Most submitters lived in our district and were connected to our water supply. We only had a small number of people from outside our district submit, and only a small number of people not connected to our supply submit. Based on our conversations with rural communities during consultation we expect this is because they don’t see this as impacting them. We also had around ten of our trade waste customers make submissions.

2.9 We had a wide range of age groups submit during the consultation period. A breakdown is shown in the graph below.

Engagement

2.10 Throughout the consultation period there was a significant amount of community engagement, similar in scale to our Long-Term Plan. A full summary of the methods we used, sessions and themes from each of these will be provided in the report to Council.

2.11 Generally, people said they supported the preferred option and our reasoning, and many commented they wouldn’t make a submission for that reason.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 Officers will provide analysis of all the issues raised in the written and oral submissions and provide advice and recommendations to Council.

4. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 13. Mahere wai 13. Water Plan The objectives are: · Provide safe and readily available water · Manage city wastewater
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Water services have undergone significant reform in the past few years. The National-led Government has repealed the previous government’s Three Waters programme and replaced it with ‘Local Water Done Well’. The Government is still working through the details of what this reform involves including the finalising of key policy, but it does include local government retaining ownership of water assets. Councils are being encouraged to form regional groupings (to get the benefit of scale) and Council-Controlled Organisations (to be able to borrow funds without affecting Council balance sheets).

Attachments

Nil

Palmerston North City Council

Minutes of the Sustainability Committee Meeting Part I Public, held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, Civic Administration Building, 32 The Square, Palmerston North on 19 February 2025, commencing at 9.01am

Members

Present:

Councillors Brent Barrett (in the Chair), Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Debi Marshall-Lobb and Karen Naylor.

Non Members:

Councillors Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay.

Apologies:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) (late arrival, early departure on Council business), Councillor Roly Fitzgerald (early departure).

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 9.21am during consideration of clause 3. He was not present for clauses 1 and 2.

	Karakia Timatanga
	Councillor Brent Barrett opened the meeting with karakia.

1-25

Apologies

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the apologies.

Clause 1-25 above was carried 10 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay.

2-25

Confirmation of Minutes

Moved Kaydee Zabelin, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the minutes of the Sustainability Committee meeting of 4 December 2024 Part I Public be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Clause 2-25 above was carried 8 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Karen Naylor, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay.

Abstained:

Councillors Brent Barrett and Debi Marshall-Lobb.

3-25

Deliberations report on Te kaupapahere mō te tūwhita me te manawaroa o te kai Food security and resilience policy

Report, presented by Julie Macdonald, Strategy and Policy Manager.

The Mayor (Grant Smith) entered the meeting at 9.21am.

Moved Kaydee Zabelin, seconded Patrick Handcock.

The COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS

1. That the Committee recommend Council adopt Te kaupapahere mō te tūwhita me te manawaroa o te kai Food security and resilience Policy, Attachment 2 of this memorandum.

Clause 3-25 above was carried 10 votes to 0, with 1 abstention, the voting being as follows:

For:

Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay.

Abstained:

The Mayor (Grant Smith).

4-25

Wastewater Treatment Plant - Nature Calls: Quarterly Update

Memorandum, presented by Mike Monaghan, Manager Three Waters and Anna Lewis, Project Manager – Wastewater Discharge Consent Programme.

Officers noted an error in the Budget Table in the report (page 48). The amended table follows (figures in red are correct):

Cost Line	FY Revised Budget	Committed	Forecast	Actual
FY25 TOTAL	$2,100,000	$1,214,937	$1,640,000	$529,910
BPO	1,213,857	933,880	1,170,000	302,600
Biosolids Strategy	343,143	1,899	100,000	42,354
Project Management	543,000	279,158	370,000	184,956

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receive the report titled ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant – Nature Calls: Quarterly Update’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 19 February 2025.

Clause 4-25 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

The Mayor (Grant Smith) and Councillors Brent Barrett, Kaydee Zabelin, Roly Fitzgerald, Patrick Handcock, Leonie Hapeta, Lorna Johnson, Debi Marshall-Lobb, Karen Naylor, Vaughan Dennison and Lew Findlay.

5-25

Committee Work Schedule

Moved Brent Barrett, seconded Kaydee Zabelin.

The COMMITTEE RESOLVED

1. That the Sustainability Committee receive its Work Schedule dated February 2025.

Clause 5-25 above was carried 11 votes to 0, the voting being as follows:

For:

	Karakia Whakamutunga
	Councillor Brent Barrett closed the meeting with karakia.

The meeting finished at 9.46am

Confirmed 16 April 2025

Chair

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 April 2025

TITLE: Annual Sector Lead Report: Environment Network Manawatū

Presented By: Amy Viles, Community Development Advisor

APPROVED BY: Danelle Whakatihi, General Manager Customer & Community

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the memorandum titled ‘Annual Sector Lead Report: Environment Network Manawatū’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 April 2025.

1. ISSUE

1.1 Environment Network Manawatū (ENM) is delivering its third annual report (January–December 2024) as a Sector Lead organisation, which is appended to this memorandum as Attachment 1.

1.2 Reporting to Council is required under the Sector Lead Partnership Agreement structure.

1.3 Analysis of the performance of ENM against agreed activities and outcomes is included in this memorandum below.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 On 8 June 2022, Council resolved to engage ENM as a Sector Lead organisation.

2.2 The Sector Lead Partnership model was trialled from 1 July 2022 – 30 June 2023, and was approved to continue, as per Council’s resolution of 18 December 2023:

‘That Council approve the continuation of the Sector Leads Partnership model in principle, as per the Support and Funding Policy 2022, and note that appropriate budget will be established for Sector Lead partners within the draft 2024-2034 Long-Term Plan.’

2.3 A three-year Partnership Agreement commenced between ENM and the Council in July 2022. The Agreement stipulates that activities funded contribute to the achievement of priorities 1-3 within the Council’s 2021-2031 Eco City strategic direction.

2.4 Reporting requirements within the Agreement include an annual report to Council covering the activities delivered and outcomes achieved in the preceding period.

3. ANNUAL REPORT ANALYSIS

3.1 ENM are the central environment member-led organisation in the Manawatū. They provide vital leadership, capability and capacity building opportunities for the Palmerston North environmental community and the public, with a particular focus on collective community action with environmental groups. ENM also provide advice, information, advocacy and human resources for the environmental sector within the wider Manawatū.

3.2 ENM have 65+ member groups and are currently funded by Council to deliver two key initiatives (Manawatū Food Action Network and Manawatū River Source to Sea) and to administer the Environmental Initiatives Fund (EIF). Manawatū Food Action Network (MFAN) leads and supports community-led initiatives to address food resilience building in the Manawatū. Manawatū River Source to Sea (S2S) incorporates a network of initiatives focused on the biodiversity of the Manawatū River catchment community.

3.3 Under the ENM Strategic Framework 2024-2027, four pou or key priorities have been identified for future focus and development, introducing a formal widening of scope and include: Climate Action, Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement, Community Food Sovereignty and Circular Economy. The four new pou of ENM align with and sit broadly across Council plans in the 2024-2034 Long-Term Plan including: Climate Change and Sustainability, Biodiversity and the Manawatū River, Resource Recovery plans.

3.4 ENM allocates a portion of their Sector Lead Partnership funding to fund the Environmental Initiatives Fund (EIF), which is administered by ENM to support Palmerston North based community initiatives that improve environmental outcomes. Small grants (up to $1,000) and large grants (between $1,000 to $12,000) are available for projects that align with Council’s 2021-2031 Eco-City Strategy. The EIF also now includes an additional $30,000, allocated to the fund through the Long-Term Plan for kai resilience initiatives, as per Council’s resolution of 29 May 2024:

‘That Council increase the funding provided to Environment Network Manawatū through the Sector Lead Partnership Agreement for the Environmental Initiatives Fund by $30k per annum to support food security projects and inform the development of a city-wide food security and resilience policy.’

3.5 Additional to Council funding, ENM receives multiple and diverse sources of funding across their initiatives, including funding from the Department of Internal Affairs (Lotteries), Ministry for the Environment, Environment Hubs Aotearoa, Horizons Regional Council and Eastern and Central Community Trust (ECCT). ENM works towards meeting several different investment outcomes through its activities and, therefore, their report includes activities that are not solely funded by Council.

3.6 While the Sector Lead Agreement specifically covers initiatives that focus on the city of Palmerston North, staff acknowledge that work completed by ENM initiatives have far broader impacts on the wider Manawatū Region. ENM provide sector leadership in both a citywide and regional capacity.

3.7 The amount of funding ENM receives through the current Sector Lead Partnership Agreement is $165,000 per annum (plus GST). Funding has been adjusted for inflation in years two and three, with an additional pro rata allocation of funding in year three from the increased Strategic Priority Grant funding allocated by Council through the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 deliberations. Funding for the current financial year totals $189,849.

Assessment of agreed activities

Strategic Alignment	Activity	Comment	Assessment (Not met; developing; or met)
Eco City Activities
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Facilitate a membership network of environmental groups and deliver environment related education initiatives.	ENM are performing well in this area. ENM continue to maintain a strong membership base and to grow their reach into the community. Rebalancing the focus within the membership base is being prioritised in the ENM Strategic Framework 2024-2027.	Met
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Umbrella two collective action networks: Manawatū River Source to Sea and Manawatū Food Action Network.	ENM continues to demonstrate strong performance and focus on the Manawatū Food Action Network. Due to limited resourcing, the focus and demand of the Food Action Network has impacted on the ability of ENM to share equal focus on Source to Sea (evidenced by satisfaction of the Source to Sea membership in the annual reported data. See analysis for further commentary). Securing and maintaining sufficient funding to ensure ENM can deliver on all priority outcomes is an ongoing challenge. However, ENM have a strong focus on the development and retention of volunteers to support organisational stability.	Developing
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Administer the Environmental Initiatives Fund in support of community-led environment initiatives.	ENM are performing well in this area. With additional funding from Council, ENM have been able to ensure the scope of the EIF continues to grow. ENM have expressed aspirations to grow the EIF into a regional fund, which is in line with their Sector Leadership.	Met
Sector Leadership activities
Priority 1, 2 & 3	Provide capacity-building and support for other community organisations to develop and connect;	ENM are performing well in this area. ENM work with other environmental organisations in Palmerston North, across neighbouring regions and nationally through the Environment Hubs Aotearoa (EHA) network and other national networks to support the development and promotion of environmental initiatives. ENM continues to deliver the quarterly MFAN hui as an opportunity for food organisations to gather and work collaboratively and have plans to extend this model of collaboration to their other areas of focus (pou) in their strategic plan.	Met
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Deliver the highest level of expertise and highest quality service;	ENM are performing well in this area. ENM have a commitment in their 2024-2027 Strategic Framework to refocus their resourcing on providing the ‘scaffolding’ for project development of member groups rather than delivery and implementation. Strong partnership collaboration. Some examples include leading the Kai Resilience Squad for Ora Konnect and providing advice on a community-led development project at Ahimate Reserve.	Met
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Think, work and advocate strategically;	ENM are performing well in this area. ENM are a subject matter expert for the environment and provide sound information and advice to Council on a regular basis. In the last year this included the consultation for the Ashhurst Domain, the development of Te kaupapahere mō te tūwhita me te manawaroa o te kai Food Security and Resilience Policy and the Food Scraps Collection trial.	Met
Priorities 1, 2 & 3	Have robust strategic and business plans in place.	ENM are performing well in this area. Development of their Strategic Framework 2024-2027, in collaboration with member groups, has formed the foundation of an Action Plan to guide the organisation now and in the future, with a focus on Sector Leadership, building capacity and capability and creating community.	Met

3.8 Alongside an annual report which provides information on the agreed activities, Sector Lead organisations are required to provide six-monthly performance measure data for a range of indicators related to their activities.

3.9 The measures are based on a Results Based Accountability approach, where impact of effort is demonstrated by measurement of who is ‘better off’ as a result of the activities or services, as well as ‘how much’ of the activity or service was delivered and ‘how well’ it was delivered. This performance measure data provides an evidence base to support the information in the annual report. Performance measure data for the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 is appended to this memorandum as Attachment 2.

3.10 Staff have combined the reporting of other additional funding ENM have received from Council (Resource Recovery and Waste Minimisation funding) into the Sector Lead Partnership Agreement. The purpose of this move was for ENM to have one reporting mechanism for all forms of funding from Council, and for Council to be able to monitor and evaluate funded outcomes fully and consistently.

3.11 Concerns raised by staff in the last annual report that the number of respondents to ENM surveys was insufficient to allow for adequate data analysis for many of the ‘How well’ and ‘Better off’ measures has been addressed by ENM and has improved in the last year. Staff will continue to work with ENM going forward to support improved data collection for the next round of funding. ENM are also adapting their data collection methods to be responsive to feedback from participants and ENM members.

3.12 An issue that has been raised from the biodiversity membership base of ENM (and raised for discussion at the last ENM AGM) is also evidenced in the satisfaction data in the last two reporting periods. ENM has been working hard to balance the exponential growth of the organisation with the grass roots foundational values that formed the genesis of ENM. ENM acknowledge that the focus on MFAN and kai resilience initiatives has provided less time and resourcing to focus on other core initiatives of ENM. The board and ENM staff are working to address this balance through their 2024-2027 Strategic Framework and the development and allocation of resourcing for their four pou. Council staff acknowledge that it is testament to the strength of the organisation that ENM members have the foundation to challenge the board and ENM staff on the direction and value base of ENM and that their concerns are heard and responded to, which is balanced with the need for the organisation to deliver an outcomes focus (with accountability to a variety of funders) and steer ENM towards growth and a future focus.

3.13 The performance measure data does demonstrate, however, a steady delivery of events, another significant increase in MFAN membership and project delivery, a sound uptake in the Environmental Initiatives Fund and ongoing collaboration with a range of partners achieving a broad range of outcomes.

3.14 Concern for securing long-term funding for organisational stability and key initiatives continues to be a challenge for ENM (which is a financial challenge not particular to ENM and is familiar to most for-purpose organisations), however the organisation continues to grow their organisation and reach into the community, locally, regionally and nationally. Overall, ENM continue to go from strength to strength in the delivery of their Strategic Framework.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 This memorandum has provided background to and comment on the annual report of Environment Network Manawatū (ENM) for 2024.

4.2 Staff have assessed that ENM are performing well against their agreed activities across the board. The organisation continues to demonstrate significant growth in response to community demand, provide strong advocacy on environmental issues, and has demonstrated that building collaboration across environmental initiatives is a core strength.

5. NEXT STEPS

5.1 Staff will continue to support ENM to deliver the wide-ranging activities and initiatives covered by the Sector Lead Partnership Agreement.

5.2 In September 2024, staff completed an evaluation to determine continued partnership with ENM as a Sector Lead organisation. It was confirmed that ENM continue to demonstrate the six criteria of sector leadership, and they were invited to submit a proposal and budget for negotiation of their 2025-2028 Sector Lead Partnership Agreement. Their proposal details their contribution to achieving outcomes that align with Council’s goals and outcomes in the Oranga Papaioea City Strategy 2024-2034.

5.3 Staff expect to complete negotiation of the 2025-2028 Partnership Agreement with ENM by the end of March 2025, with the new agreement to begin from 1 July 2025.

5.4 ENM will present its next Annual Report in the first quarter of 2026. Further staff commentary on progress will also be provided at that time.

6. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide? If Yes quote relevant clause(s) from Delegations Manual Clause 4.4: Receive or note any report or memorandum or other information submitted to the Committee.		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		No
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		No
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 10. Mahere āhuarangi hurihuri, toitūtanga 10. Climate Change and Sustainability Plan 11. Mahere mō te kanorau koiora me Te Awa o Manawatū 11. Biodiversity and the Manawatū River Plan 12. Mahere taumanu para 12. Resource Recovery Plan The objective is: Encourage and promote sustainable best-practice in Council activities and the wider community; Support and fund for-purpose organisations and local communities working to help achieve nature conservation outcomes; Provide support for for-purpose organisations and local communities to recover, reuse, repurpose or regenerate products.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Sector Lead Organisations contribute to the achievement of Council’s strategic direction, particularly Goals 2, 3 and 4, which seek to enhance the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community.

Attachments

1.	ENM Annual Sector Lead Report ⇩
2.	ENM Performance Measure Data 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 ⇩

Memorandum

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 April 2025

TITLE: Wastewater Treatment Plant - Nature Calls; Quarterly Update and Submission to Taumata Arowai on Draft Standards

Presented By: Mike Monaghan - Manager 3 Waters

APPROVED BY: Chris Dyhrberg, General Manager Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Committee receive the report titled ‘Wastewater Treatment Plant – Nature Calls; Quarterly Update’ presented to the Sustainability Committee on 16 April 2025.

2. That the Committee note the matters to be included in the submission on the Draft National Wastewater Standards.

1. ISSUE

1.1 The Nature Calls Project Team completed the concept design and development of the resource consent application to Horizons Regional Council (Horizons) in late 2022. This was the culmination of four years of work developing the Best Practicable Option (BPO), which comprises highly treated wastewater being discharged to the Manawatū River or to land.

1.2 Quarterly updates for the project were requested by Council. This report provides an update on the project for the period from December to April 2025.

2. summary

2.1 The Project Team have reviewed the Draft Wastewater Standards (‘draft standards’) released by Taumata Arowai in February 2025 and have assessed these in relation to the Nature Calls Projects.

2.2 A submission on the draft standards is being prepared to be submitted to Taumata Arowai by 24 April 2025 (Attachment 1).

2.3 The project team met with Horizons this quarter to discuss future options for the disposal of biosolids.

3. Best Practicable Option (bpo) update

Submission to Taumata Arowai on Draft Standards

3.1 The draft standards were released on 26 February 2025. Submissions on the draft standards are due 24 April 2025 to Taumata Arowai (TA).

3.2 Given the significance of the Draft Wastewater Standards, the draft submission has been presented to this Committee for consideration. The draft submission is included as Attachment 1. Due to timing, the final submission will be approved by the Chief Executive, taking into account any feedback received.

3.3 A summary of the key matters that the submission will focus on, and the initial response, is outlined below (note that TA has requested feedback around key questions).

3.4 Agreement with the first set of draft standards

Overall, it is recommended to support the draft standards as they provide a clear and consistent approach to provide regulatory certainty, allowing Council to plan for future infrastructure investments. However, the draft standards currently do not provide for:

· A streamlined consenting pathway – the project team encourage TA to consider providing a clearer framework (particularly in the Nature Calls situation when considering discharge to water in hard-bottomed rivers); or

· A proactive approach to consider future wastewater technology for managing emerging organic contaminants and other pollutants.

3.5 How factors such as climate change, population growth, or consumer complaints be addressed when considering a 35-year consent term

· Council suggests an adaptive management approach could be considered that allows for periodic reviews and adjustments of wastewater management practices over time. This approach would:

o Encourage integration of emerging technologies and evolving community expectations into long-term planning; and

o Ensure infrastructure investments remain viable and effective considering climate change and population growth.

· Customer complaints and public health concerns should be considered as key indicators for reviewing system performance and a structured feedback mechanism would allow councils to address issues proactively.

3.6 Discharge to water standards

Overall, Council supports the strategy of defining sensitive receiving environments and setting appropriate discharge standards for them. Council is comfortable in the main with the thresholds suggested, but there are concerns with the lack of any thresholds for open ocean discharges. Further, we seek clarifications for the following:

· Flow monitoring measurements;

· How the standard would apply when considering dual discharge seasonally (i.e. discharge to water in high flows (winter) and to land in low flows (summer));

· The lack of identifying a consenting activity status for discharges to land and water;

· How discharges to land and water would be managed (i.e dual discharges) and the regulator retaining discretion for both discharges under the proposed standards; and

· How compliance with the wastewater standards will be integrated with the ‘other’ matters and will be managed by the regulator (e.g. emerging contaminants).

3.7 Managing periphyton

Council understands the consideration given to hard-bottomed rivers in the draft standards, however, the submission seeks clarification on the following:

· The periphyton risk assessment – guidance from TA is requested to provide a consistent approach to be used and how the regulator could assess this;

· How the risk assessment for periphyton integrates with the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) noting that the regulator cannot grant a resource consent for discharges that do not meet the standards; and

· Clarity on how this approach could be considered annually to consider seasonal variability.

3.8 Discharge to land standards

Overall, Council supports the consideration of discharge to land standards. However, there is very little information available to support this standard as currently drafted. Additional clarity is required on the following matters:

· The risk assessment approach proposed for land discharge – guidance from TA is requested to provide a consistent approach to be used and how the regulator could assess this;

· The lack of identifying a consenting activity status for discharges to land and water;

· How discharges to land and water would be managed (i.e dual discharges) and the regulator retaining discretion for both discharges under the proposed standards;

· How the risk assessment for land discharge integrates with the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) noting that the regulator cannot grant a resource consent for discharges that do not meet the standards; and

· How compliance with the wastewater standards will be integrated with the ‘other’ matters and will be managed by the regulator (e.g. emerging contaminants).

3.9 Biosolids grading system best practice and barrier to implement

Overall, Council recognises the biosolids standards have been in production for a number of years and supports the consideration and approach to biosolids in the proposed standards. However, additional clarity is required on:

· The definition of biosolids vs compost; and

· When a biosolid is no longer considered a biosolid.

3.10 Whether the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements for overflows are sufficient

Overall, Council supports the risk-based approach to managing overflows and the proposal for all overflows (that meet the criteria) as a controlled activity. Council does request that TA specifies the matters that the regulator will retain control over and consequently impose conditions on.

3.11 Implementation and Compliance

There are no matters recommended to submit on relating to implementation and compliance.

4. HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL

4.1 The project team met with Horizons Regional Council to discuss the use of biosolids at Awapuni southern slopes on 27 February 2025. It was agreed that the application of composted biosolids on the Awapuni southern slopes is within the current consent.

4.2 A quarterly update was provided to Horizons on 21 March 2025.

5. IWI ENVOLVEMENT

5.1 Regular meetings continue with representatives from Rangitāne, Te Tūmatakahuki and Ngāti Whakatere. The focus has been on understanding the draft standard release and the general progress of the project.

6. BIOSOLIDS STRATEGY update

6.1 The project team has met with Horizons and confirmed that the southern slope can be used within the current consent. Work is being prepared to design and scope the construction required on the slope to allow safe and compliant disposal of composted biosolids.

7. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

7.1 Work has continued to set up technical services independent from the delivery team to support the Project Oversight Committee. The independent advice will be used to provide assurance of project strategy and delivery as required.

8. RISK

8.1 The following top risks have been identified and are being actively managed by the project team.

Risk	Risk Level	Mitigations	Residual Risk
Long-Term Plan budget  The project may fail to secure funding or be unable to proceed due to exceeding the Long-Term Plan FY24-34 budget allocation.	VERY HIGH	· Introduce fatal flaw screening on estimated option cost.  · Adjustment of weighting of BPO selection considered with input from EMs.	HIGH
Ratepayer affordability  The project may face public opposition, delays, or inability to proceed due to ratepayers being unable to afford the proposed scheme. This could lead to reputational damage for the Council.	VERY HIGH	· Council has set Long-Term Plan budget cap, with instructions to reduce further if possible.  · BPO process introduced fatal flaw screen based on budget and BPO selection weightings to be adjusted.	HIGH
National Wastewater Standards  Additional cost and time incurred due to standards release. Standards could affect how the project can be consented and require high levels of rework to options.	HIGH	· Rework programme timeline and accept time delays, continuing with no regrets works only.   · Analyse impact of draft standard.	HIGH
Iwi relationships  The project risks damaging relationships with Iwi and breaching obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, potentially leading to reputational harm and project disruptions.	HIGH	· Iwi represented on Project Oversight Committee. · Iwi involvement and consultation in operational project activities to be determined by Council and Iwi agreement.	HIGH
Programme Delays  Additional costs (overhead and project management) may be incurred due to schedule slippages. Some slippages are outside the control of the project team.	HIGH	· Planning possible programme scenarios.  · Conversations with governance about available slots this year.  · Booked in relevant Council Meetings.	MEDIUM

9. BUDGET

9.1 At the end of February 2025, a total of $571,706 has been spent YTD from the revised $1.82M Nature Calls budget for 2024/25.

9.2 Prior to the Long-Term Plan 24-34 budget set in June 2024 the project has spent $11.7M which includes $5.8M of operational costs and $5.9M of capital costs incurred between FY17/18 and FY23/24

10. Compliance and administration

Does the Committee have delegated authority to decide?		Yes
Are the decisions significant?		Yes
If they are significant do they affect land or a body of water?		Yes
Can this decision only be made through a 10 Year Plan?		No
Does this decision require consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?		No
Is there funding in the current Annual Plan for these objectives?		Yes
Are the recommendations inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?		No
The recommendations contribute to: Whāinga 4: He tāone toitū, he tāone manawaroa Goal 4: A sustainable and resilient city
The recommendations contribute to this plan: 13. Mahere wai 13. Water Plan The objective is: Lodge resource consent application for future discharge of Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Contribution to strategic direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being	Lodging for resource consent allows Council to continue to provide its wastewater services and allows for future proofing the city.

Attachments

Palmerston North City Council Draft Response to Wastewater Standards ⇩

Committee Work Schedule

TO: Sustainability Committee

MEETING DATE: 16 April 2025

TITLE: Committee Work Schedule

RECOMMENDATION TO Sustainability Committee

1. That the Sustainability Committee receive its Work Schedule dated April 2025.

Sustainability Committee Work Schedule – APRIL 2025

Estimated Report Date	Subject	Officer Responsible	Current Position	Date of Instruction & Clause number
~~16 April 2025~~	~~Annual Sector Lead Report: Environment Network Manawatū~~	~~General Manager Customer & Community~~	~~Deferred to allow for adequate data collection~~	~~Terms of Reference~~
~~16 April 2025~~	~~Local Water Done Well – hearings~~	~~General Manager Infrastructure~~		~~Terms of Reference~~
	Local Water Done Well – deliberations	General Manager Infrastructure	Council 7 May
~~16 April 2025~~ 18 June 2025	Wastewater Treatment Plant -Nature Calls: Quarterly Report	General Manager Infrastructure		Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.11 -25 (rec 2)
As required	Manawatū-Whanganui Climate Joint Action Committee Update	General Manager Strategic Planning	Subject to agenda of Joint Committee or any changes at a national level	Climate change plan ongoing
18 June 2025	Draft community-focused city-wide climate action plan	General Manager Strategic Planning		Climate change plan ongoing action #5 16 October 2024 Clause 34-24
18 June 2025	Resource Recovery Services Review	General Manager Infrastructure		21 August 2024 Clause 28-24
	PNCC Organisational Emissions Inventory 2024/25 Annual Report	General Manager Strategic Planning	Council 8 October	Climate change plan ongoing action #1
	Waste management and minimisation plan 2019 - annual progress update for 2024/25 FY	General Manager Infrastructure	Council 8 October	9 Sept 2020 Clause 17-20
	Citywide Emissions Inventory 2024 Annual Report	General Manager Strategic Planning	Council 8 October	Climate change plan ongoing action #3
	Low Carbon Fund Allocations 2024/25	General Manager Strategic Planning	Council 8 October	21 August 2024 Clause 24-24
2025	Options to enable inclusion of organisational and community-wide sustainability indicators in the 2026 Sustainability Review	General Manager Strategic Planning/ General Manager Customer & Community		22 May 2024 Clause 15
2025	Progress report on the city-wide stormwater strategy	General Manager Strategic Planning		16 October 2024 Clause 42-24
TBC 2026	Develop a city-wide stormwater strategy	General Manager Strategic Planning	Prior to the development of 2027 FDS	Council 29 May 2024 Clause 95.7 -24 2F(3)

Brent Barrett (Chair)
Kaydee Zabelin (Deputy Chair)
Grant Smith (The Mayor)
Roly Fitzgerald	Lorna Johnson
Patrick Handcock (ONZM)	Debi Marshall-Lobb
Leonie Hapeta	Karen Naylor

Submission No.	Submitter
159	Susan Hodge
172	Steve Allan
186	Chris Teo-Sherrell
188	William Bent
194	Tom Santing
195	Janet Darragh
196	Christine Staples

1.	Submissions - Local Water Done Well (attached separately)
2.	Tānenuiārangi Manawatū Charitable Trust submission (attached separately)
3.	Procedure Sheet ⇩