Source: http://hawkesbay.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/12/RPC_12122018_AGN_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-01-18 16:16:00
Document Index: 250350721

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'arts 1']

Agenda of Regional Planning Committee - 12 December 2018
3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 31 October 2018
6. TANK Plan Change (version 8) recommendation to Council 9
7. Tangata Whenua Remuneration Review 17
8. RPC Performance Review - Summary of Feedback from Appointers 21
9. Request from the Tukituki Water Taskforce 23
10. Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Pre-Notification Planning Pathway 33
11. Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Update on Supporting Documents 39
12. Resource Management Policy Project Updates 43
13. Statutory Advocacy Update 49
14. Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda 55
Follow-ups for 12 December 2018 RPC meeting
1. That the Regional Planning Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 14.
Subject: TANK Plan Change (version 8) recommendation to Council
1. This report is one of three reports related to the TANK Plan Change (PC9) to be considered by the Committee at this meeting.
2. This report completes the final details of the draft TANK Plan Change so that the RPC can make decisions about the next stage of the plan preparation process in respect of pre-notification consultation. The report addresses a number of minor and consequential amendments, and completes previous direction by the Committee and a couple of unfinished aspects in relation to Schedules 1 and 2 water quality objectives. More comprehensive detail in respect of these issues is provided in the attachments and the material included there will support the plan development.
3. The two other reports on this RPC meeting agenda provide further advice about pre-notification consultation, and an update on progress of the supporting documents (i.e. the Section 32 evaluation report, and the Monitoring and Implementation Plans).
4. This report provides background information about remaining issues, outlines options and makes recommendations. There are a number of editorial and minor amendments also being included to ensure the Plan is internally consistent and provides the clarity necessary.
5. The amendments are included in the TANK Draft Plan Change Version 7 attached to this report (Attachment 6) and shown as tracked changes. The water quality and quantity management planning maps are also included. Once the Committee has made its decisions on these matters, then this version will be rewritten as ‘Version 8’ of PC9.
6. A separate report in this RPC meeting agenda provides further commentary in respect of the pre-notification consultation for Version 8 and associated ‘next-steps’.
7. This report contains information about the following topics. Each issue is provided in summary form, along with any options that were considered. Attachments provide more detailed description for some of the issues. The draft TANK Plan Change in Attachment 6 includes the necessary amendments (shown as tracked changes) to reflect the recommended direction.
7.1. Part 1. High flow allocation for Maori wellbeing (Attachment 1)
7.2. Part 2 Completed Schedule 1 and 2 for freshwater, estuary ecosystems (Attachment 2)
7.3. Part 3 Completed Schedule 1 groundwater (Attachment 3)
7.4. Part 4 Final risk matrix for stormwater
7.5. Part 5 Drinking water quality protection (Attachment 4)
7.6. Part 6 Minor and consequential amendments (Attachment 5)
Part 1: High Flow Allocation for Maori wellbeing
8. The allocation of water for taking at times of high flow for storage and use for activities that improve Māori economic, social and cultural well-being was recommended by TANK as a concept for further consideration and development by the RPC. The background to the issue and a description of the issues and possible management solutions is covered in more detail in Attachment 1. Note that a legal opinion has been recently sought by staff, but not yet received in relation to these draft provisions.
9. The options and costs and benefits for managing allocation of water available at times of high flow that have been considered are summarised below;
Table 1 - Options for Managing High Flow Allocation for Māori Development
1. Status quo (allocation of high flow allocation water on a first in time priority order)
Continues historic approach to water. First application will be processed and decided on according to plan requirements in the order it is received.
Prevents any allocation for any preferred end use activities.
2. Allocate a percentage of the allocatable volume for Māori development. Include policy and rules in the plan.
Enables access to future water resources for specified activities
Addresses historic inequities in relation to access to water
Specifically enables improvement of Māori economic, cultural and social well being
An application (for an activity that does not directly improve Māori values) that might otherwise meet plan requirements is not able to be made for a portion of the available water.
A legal opinion on whether the provisions are within the RMA is pending.
2a Allocate a percentage of the allocatable volume for Māori development. Await a jointly prepared IHMP to guide necessary policy and rules
Has advantage of being driven by local iwi/hapū who could identify thresholds and criteria that guide decisions about what satisfies ‘Māori development’
Process not managed by Council.
Could take a long time to prepare and derail TANK plan change process. Assumes a jointly prepared plan is possible and desired by Māori organisations
10. The changes to objectives, policies and rules that would give effect to option 2 are outlined in more detail in Attachment 1 and are contained within the draft Plan Change in Attachment 6. This includes a high flow allocation provisions for the Tūtaekurī River.
11. The details of these provisions can be further consulted on with Māori organisations in respect of some definitional and process issues that have been identified as part of the pre-notification consultation.
Part 2: Completion of Schedule 1 and 2
Freshwater (surface); Schedule 1 Amendments
12. Schedule 1 of the draft TANK PC9 contains the freshwater quality objectives for the attribute states necessary to enable the needs of the waterbody values to be met. They apply spatially through planning maps and management areas that reflect land use and ecosystem type.
13. Amendments to some of the attributes are recommended. The changes reflect additional data or new development of new guidelines as part of the NPSFM objectives framework. This applies to the objectives for pathogens and temperature.
14. The change to water clarity provides for consistency with the overall direction to ensure water quality meets the needs of the identified values. The trout fishery is highly valued in both the lower mainstem and tributaries.
15. Further information about these changes is provided in Attachment 2.
16. It is also recommended to include additional attribute objectives for; pH, BOD (a measure of oxygen demand) and heavy metals and metalloids, pesticides and organic contaminants, radioactive contaminants.
17. For these attributes, there is little current state information or information about relevant guidelines for the identified values. However, they are particularly relevant for managing point source discharges in relation to their impact on freshwater values. These objectives will be applied to the assessment of applications for contaminant discharges.
18. The changes to Schedule 1, as further described in Attachment 2, are recommended to be included in the Plan Change. They are inserted as tracked changes in Attachment 6.
Completion of Schedule 2
19. Schedule 2 does not have a regulatory function in PC9. It is not a statutory requirement and is an optional provision. However it is being recommended for inclusion because it satisfies cultural and social needs for a long term and more integrated approach to the way freshwater is managed. Schedule 2 will also provide additional direction for the monitoring and research efforts of the Council. This is particularly relevant for the integration of freshwater and estuary ecosystems.
Schedule 2 Freshwater (surface)
20. Some sites within each management unit currently have a higher water quality state than provided for in the Schedule (the plan requires that current state is maintained if it is already above the specified value in Schedule 1). Because it is possible for water quality to be higher than specified for the various values, Schedule 2 provides a signal that further improvement to existing state for some freshwater bodies to a higher water quality state is envisaged. There are additional costs involved in meeting a higher water quality standard, so it is expected that measures to meet these higher standards and the costs and benefits of this will be assessed in a future plan change process.
21. Further detail about this component of PC9 is provided in Attachment 2 and the recommended changes are incorporated into the draft Plan Change in Attachment 5.
Schedule 2 Estuary
22. Although not directly part of the TANK project scope, the Group also accounted for the freshwater impacts on both the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries. They undertook to understand what estuary values were likely affected by freshwater quality inputs. They were also subject to NPSFM requirements to provide for the integrated management of the effects of land use and development on coastal water. The Group recognised the Ahuriri Estuary in particular as a site of ecological, cultural and recreational significance.
23. The Group also acknowledged that the estuary health was not good and some ecosystem health indicators are trending downwards.
24. The key value sets for the estuary recognised by the TANK Group as pivotal in terms of the impact of freshwater inputs were;
24.1. use of the estuaries for a wide range of recreational activities, including swimming and boating,
24.2. food gathering
24.3. aquatic ecosystem health.
25. Schedule 1’s objectives for the freshwater quality inputs will, in part, provide for the health of the estuaries. Improved freshwater quality will have a beneficial effect on the estuary state.
26. It is recommended that further acknowledgement of the estuary also be provided. The water quality attributes in Schedule 2 will guide understanding about the state of estuary health and underpin monitoring programmes. More detail about how these attributes and their recommended states were developed is provided in Attachment 2 and the report: Proposed Trigger Levels for TANK Estuaries: Waitangi and Ahuriri Estuaries.
27. The options considered were;
27.1. Wait until the coastal plan is reviewed and address estuary water quality objectives then. - This allows a regional view to be taken of estuary management. However, note that in the longer term it will be recommended that the coastal plan become integrated with the RRMP;
27.2. Add estuary ecosystem provisions within PC9 as directions for monitoring and reporting estuary health in relation to freshwater impacts.
28. Content for Option 2 has been provided in the draft plan change. This is because each estuary is impacted by freshwater management decisions and could also be managed within the freshwater management context of the applicable catchments. This approach clearly signals the need to consider coastal environments when managing freshwater quality. These Schedule 2 provisions are likely to be eventually incorporated into a single plan in any case. The changes that would give effect to this option are outlined in more detail in Attachment 2 and are contained within the draft Plan Change in Attachment 6.
Part 3: Groundwater; Schedule 1
29. The TANK Group received information about groundwater quality and considered the values and potential attributes that could be used. However, a lack of time and a cross over with the work of the Joint Drinking Water Working Group meant that attributes or objectives for attribute states in relation to groundwater were not finally decided upon by the TANK Group. (Attachment 3 provides more background information).
30. The groundwater attributes considered by the TANK Group for including into Schedule 1 are E. coli, nitrate nitrogen, and chemical contaminants (including pesticides). The ‘critical values’ for setting the objective for each of the attributes were drinking water in relation to bacteria (E.coli) and chemical contaminants such as pesticides. National drinking water quality standards (DWSNZ) are used to ensure management of groundwater for drinking water in relation to these attributes.
31. Irrigation water and the aesthetic qualities for drinking water are also affected by natural sources or characteristics, including iron, arsenic and hardness. These attributes are related more to geology and natural causes meaning that they cannot be directly managed by Plan provisions. They are still relevant considerations when making decisions about resource consents to discharge. They are therefore provided in Schedule 1 to guide decisions about contaminants in discharge activities through a resource consent process.
32. While dissolved nitrate levels can pose a risk to human health, the level at which this occurs is much higher than the levels at which aquatic ecosystem health is put at risk. Levels for ecosystem health are determined using ecosystem health guidelines such as the ANZECC guidelines.
33. The role of water age in managing groundwater was discussed but, while water age across the aquifer may be affected by activities such as water abstraction, there is still uncertainty about the nature of this relationship, and use of water age as an attribute presently poses challenges in relation to cost effectiveness and practicality, existence of data and implications for management.
Table 2 - Options for managing groundwater quality
1. Remain with the status quo
The RPS has a ‘no degradation’ direction and the RRMP includes environmental guidelines referencing this and the NZ Drinking Water Quality Standards
The existing provisions lack specificity and are open to interpretation
These provisions provide guidance for managing new applications for contaminant discharges
The existing provisions are less helpful in managing cumulative impacts from diffuse contamination or understanding whether they are required to be managed. This approach does not address the ground/surface water connection or the impact on estuary environments.
2. Include specific water quality standards for groundwater related to the needs of identified values.
Consistent with the approach taken for surface water
For both options 1 and 2 there is no spatial differentiation for the groundwater and the water quality objectives apply to all groundwater – with some exceptions according to depth and to naturally occurring groundwater quality.
34. The changes to Schedule 1 that would give effect to Option 2 are outlined in more detail in Attachment 3 and are contained within the draft Plan Change in Attachment 6.
Part 4: Stormwater
35. At the RPC meeting on 31st October, the Committee received information about changes to the stormwater policies following their instructions to be more specific about outcomes and actions within specified timeframes. Those amendments are reflected as tracked changes in Version 7 (Attachment 6).
36. At that time, there was further work required to determine the regulatory regime for land use and stormwater discharge activities that have a higher risk of causing contamination of stormwater.
37. A risk assessment matrix that enables a ranking to be applied to an activity has now been prepared. The matrix is based on a similar tool used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and will aid in determining the consenting requirements according to the level of risk. The matrix is now incorporated into Version 7 of PC9 as a checklist. As reported to RPC, the matrix covers off a number of factors including:
37.1. types of activities carried out
37.2. proximity to source protection zone or provisional protection zone
37.3. stormwater treatment practices onsite
37.4. physical conditions of the premises or buildings.
38. The risk matrix and associated rules are now incorporated by tracked changes in Attachment 6.
Part 5: Drinking Water Quality Protection
39. Also at the 31st October RPC meeting, the Committee was presented with the recommendations of the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Drinking Water Safety regarding rules and policies for drinking water in the draft TANK Plan Change. To briefly recap, the JWG were asked by the wider TANK Group to act as a working group charged with investigating options for protecting drinking water under the plan. Their work investigated:
39.1. identification of key risk activities in catchments
39.2. potential strengthening of current permitted activity rules (in order to assess if they were fit for purpose in the context of protection for registered drinking water sources)
39.3. use of source protection zones (SPZs) and provisional protection zones (PPZs).
40. Subsequently, the JWG prepared a number of draft objectives, policies and rules on the basis that it provided improved source protection for registered drinking water supplies within the TANK catchment area. Those registered supplies service 77% of the region’s population, and including policies for source protection would provide decision makers with the ability to have greater visibility as to activities occurring in source protection zones that could potentially pose risks to the water sources of registered drinking water supplies.
41. The RPC meeting on 31 October was attended by several members of the JWG. Those members were able to present maps of SPZs for the Hastings urban supply which demonstrated the affected areas. With regards to Napier, it is understood that they are in the process of developing SPZs for their water supply abstraction points and that SPZ mapping work will be completed in March 2019.
42. A substantial discussion took place at the RPC’s 31 October meeting on the practical implications of these SPZs on existing activities. There was a desire to understand and to quantify how land use activities would be affected and what those activities were. Furthermore, RPC members expressed the view that information was required to better understand the costs for those affected. To that end, staff advised that further analysis on these matters would be addressed in the section 32 evaluation reporting (currently being undertaken by Mitchell Daysh Limited).
43. Further work is also being undertaken by the Council’s hydrological science team using the Integrated Surface and Groundwater Model for the Heretaunga Plains to better understand water movement and pathways within and into the aquifer and better understand risks to groundwater quality. An overview of this new modelling is described in a memo to the Committee (Attachment 4). The findings of this work is will be presented to the JWG in more detail for discussion on 11 December (one day prior to the RPC’s own meeting on 12 December). Any further advice or recommendations received from the JWG in respect of the SPZs and or the Integrated Surface and Groundwater Model for the Heretaunga Plains will be presented verbally to the RPC.
44. It is recommended that any decisions on the extent of the SPZs be subject to the further consideration and advice from the Joint Working Group.
Part 6: Minor Amendments and Corrections
45. Draft Plan Change Version 7 is provided in Attachment 6. It contains amendments (as tracked changes) that would give effect to the previous directions of the Committee and to incorporate the final provisions outlined in this paper and its attachments.
46. In addition to the changes described in Parts 1-5 above, a number of amendments have also been made to ensure clarity and consistency within the draft plan change. These are also shown as tracked changes. A summary of the changes that have some material effect along with a short explanatory statement is provided in Attachment 5.
47. The TANK plan change is necessary as a result of direction of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2017 and the Council’s progressive implementation programme to give effect to the NPSFM.
48. The Council adopted a collaborative or community decision making approach to the preparation of the Plan Change and the RPC has made additional decisions in respect of non-consensus or incomplete items.
49. The water and land management provisions for the TANK catchments in the attached draft plan change reflect the collaborative process. The provisions are now subject to wider tangata whenua, stakeholder and community feedback and submissions as the plan change process enters the next stage of the plan process.
50. There has been involvement by tangata whenua throughout the preparation of this draft Plan Change and further consultation via iwi authorities on draft PC9 prior to notification is required by the RMA. Also refer to the separate report in this RPC meeting agenda regarding pre-notification consultation steps.
51. The development of the TANK Plan Change has been provided for in existing budgets.
52. The implementation of the plan change will also require a change to some Council resources, including staff resources and subsidies, and some council functions may also require review. Implementation is covered in more detail in a separate report to be received at this meeting. Further reporting on the financial and resource implications will be made to the Committee as the plan change is further developed.
53. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:
53.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
53.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
53.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
53.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those people with an interest in how water is managed in the TANK catchments. The consultation and notification pathway for this draft (and reported on separately) will account for those interests.
53.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
53.6. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
1.1 receives and notes the staff report; TANK Plan Change (PC9 Version 8).
1.2 considers making an in-principle decision about the spatial extent of the SPZ for the draft TANK Plan Change 9 following a verbal report of the findings from the Drinking Water Joint Working Group.
1.3 Agrees that the Draft TANK Plan Change 9 as provided in attachment 6 and subject to any directions for amendments by the Committee, be recommended to the Council for adoption as a draft for targeted consultation with relevant iwi authorities, territorial local authorities, and relevant Ministers of the Crown.
1.4 Recommends that Council:
1.4.1 Agrees that consultation should commence early in 2019, and
1.4.2 Agrees to provide for a consultation period of six weeks.
Maori High Flow Water Allocations
Schedules 1 and 2 for Freshwater and Estuaries
Schedule 1 Groundwater
Memo re SPZ Modelling
TANK Draft Plan Change December 2018
Map 1 Ahuriri Freshwater Management Unit
Map 2 Heretauga Plains Groundwater Management Unit
Map 3 Karamu Poukawa Freshwater Management Unit
Map 4 Ngaruroro Freshwater Management Units
Map 5 Tutaekuri Freshwater Management Unit Quantity
⇨12
Map 6 Priority Catchment Nitrate Yield Dec 18
⇨13
Map 7 Priority Catchment Sediment Loss Dec18
⇨14
Map 8 Priority Catchments Total Nitrogen Concentration
⇨15
Map 9 Karamu Poukawa SWMU Quality
Map 10 Ngaruroro SWMU Quality
⇨17
Map 11 Ahurir iSWMU Quality
⇨18
Map 12 Tutaekuri SWMU Quality
1. This report responds to a request from the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) tāngata whenua Co-Chair and Deputy Co-Chair that the level of the current remuneration for tāngata whenua representatives on the RPC be reconsidered due to concerns about workload and inequity with councillor remuneration.
2. Staff recommend that the Committee discuss remuneration for tāngata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and if appropriate recommend to the Council that it instruct the Chief Executive to contract an independent organisation with relevant industry specific experience to conduct a review of the remuneration.
3. An independent review of tāngata whenua remuneration was undertaken in 2017, which resulted in the current remuneration regime, being on a per annum salary replacing the previous remuneration arrangement which was on a ‘per meeting’ basis. This review fed into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan budgets and remuneration for tāngata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee was reset by Council from 1 July 2018 at $12,000 per annum per member, $18,000 for the Deputy Co-Chair and $24,000 for the Co-Chair. This level of remuneration was an increase from the previous remuneration of $400 per meeting, with approximately 16 meetings per annum (8 RPC meetings and 8 tāngata whenua hui). Despite this increase some tāngata whenua members have expressed concern about the methodology used by the previous reviewer, particularly the remuneration comparison with a senior policy analyst.
Consideration of the governance role
4. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act requires the Committee to adopt Terms of Reference which include “a procedure for determining the remuneration to be paid to tāngata whenua members and reimbursement of their expenses”. The changes made earlier this year were progressed despite updated Terms of Reference for the Committee not having been agreed.
5. The comparison between the role of the RPC tāngata whenua members and councillors raises some issues that require careful consideration. Councillors are primarily accountable to the electors of the Region through the democratic processes set out in the Local Government Act. Before taking office after election, each declares that he or she will “faithfully and impartially, and according to my best skill and judgment, execute and perform in the interests of the Hawke’s Bay Region the statutory powers, authorities and duties vested in or imposed upon me as a member of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council”.
6. As a councillor for HBRC, during the 2017-18 financial year, each was expected to prepare for (pre-reading of Agendas and reports) and to attend 49 formal Council meetings, including:
6.1. 17 Regional Council meetings (shortest 4 hours, longest 8 hours)
6.2. 20 Environment & Services, Corporate & Strategic and Regional Planning committee meetings
6.3. 12 workshops for development of the LTP, Capital Structure Review, investment manager selection and Napier Port capital funding consultation.
7. Most councillors also serve on a number of additional cross-council Committees, such as HPUDs, Coastal Hazards, Drinking Water, and attend other formal meetings with the community held by the council or other stakeholders. Each councillor represents not only the members of their constituency (between 8220 and 20,850 each), but also takes an oath to consider the best interests of the region as a whole.
8. RPC tāngata whenua members are appointed by their own Treaty Settlement entity and are accountable to that entity. Their reporting and consultation activities outside of the Committee and associated hui are not formally reported to Council and so there is currently limited visibility of the extent of duties. A further independent review could investigate the extent of this.
9. Some concern have been expressed by several RPC tāngata whenua members, including the Co-Chair and Deputy Co-Chair, about the current remuneration arrangements and that this is not comparable to councillors. Staff believe these concerns need to be discussed by the Committee as the current dissatisfaction is a distraction to the effective functioning of the Committee.
10. Should the Committee recommend that a further review of tāngata whenua remuneration to undertaken and the Council agrees, the HBRC Chief Executive will engage an independent organisation with strong experience in remuneration matters for governance roles. The provider will be asked to consider parity with councillor and look at the previous review, examine such things as the number of Council and Committee meetings, volume of papers as examples and weigh these up and provide their feedback accordingly. The findings will be shared with this Committee and Council in due course and any subsequent budget changes can be addressed in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.
11.4. The persons affected by this decision are the tāngata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee and the treaty settlement entities they represent as well as the region’s ratepayers.
1. receives and notes the “Tangata Whenua Remuneration Review” staff report.
2. recommends that the Council instruct the Chief Executive to commission an independent review of the remuneration of RPC tāngata whenua members to consider the issues outlined in this paper.
Subject: RPC Performance Review - Summary of Feedback from Appointers
1. This paper was presented at the previous Committee meeting was not formally considered for lack of a Quorum.
2. Staff believe it is appropriate procure a supporting resolution of the Committee to formally conclude the review.
3. NOTE – Discussion at the previous meeting indicated that the Committee:
3.1. Agreed that statutory obligation in respect of the review had been discharged by the Appointers; and
3.2. Agreed that statutory discretion for the Appointers to provide feedback on matters arising from the review should be led by HBRC’s Te Pou Whakarae.
4. Accordingly, the previous paper is not reproduced in full.
5. Section 10(2) and 10(3) of the Schedule to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act (the Act) provide (emphasis added):
10 Reporting and review by RPC
(2) Appointers—
(a) must, no later than 3 years after the date of the first meeting of the RPC, undertake a review of the performance of the RPC; and
(b) may undertake any subsequent review of the RPC at a time agreed by all appointers.
6. This paper differentiates between the compulsory requirement for Appointers to undertake a review of the RPC and the discretionary option for Appointers to make recommendations to the RPC.
7. The 3 year timeframe required the review to be undertaken prior to 16 September 2018.
8. Councilors met on 6 June to debate and collate Council’s feedback in its capacity as an Appointer under the Act. As at 31 October 2018 formal responses were received from Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua and Ngati Pahauwera.
9. Because the legislation provides no guidance or direction on the form or process of the review, staff believe it is open to the Appointers to conclude that the statutory obligation laid down by s10(2)(a), i.e. the fact of undertaking a review, has been discharged.
Section 10(3) Appointer Recommendations to the RPC
10. As noted above, the Appointers “may, following a review, make recommendations to the RPC on relevant matters arising from the review.”
11. Currently, HBRC’s Te Pou Whakarae is meeting with the PSGE Chairs and Councilors in their capacity as Appointers to discuss the review and seek guidance on any recommendations.
12. Without in any way pre-empting what (if any) formal recommendations will be made by Appointers, it should be noted that the Act provides little or no guidance on how any such recommendations are to be agreed or progressed in the absence of unanimous agreement by all Appointers and/or outside of the current decision making process within the Committee itself.
13. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “RPC Performance Review – Summary of Feedback from Appointers” staff report.
2. That the Regional Planning Committee resolves that the HBRPC Act Section 10(2)(a) review of the performance of the RPC has been completed.
Subject: Request from the Tukituki Water Taskforce
1. On 20 November 2018, HBRC received a letter (Attachment 1) from the Tukituki Water Taskforce addressed to the Regional Planning Committee which included the following request.
“….[t]hat the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Regional Planning Committee urgently reconsider 2018 operative dates for increased minimum flows within the Tukituki Plan to provide two summers (2018-2019 and 2019-2020) to allow the taskforce to work with the community and the Ruataniwha science programme to create a transitional plan for summer water security, subject to Tranche 2 consents being publically notified, to meet Plan Change 6 by 2023.”
2. The letter was signed by all members of the Taskforce.
3. Subsequently, on 23 November, HBRC received a letter from the national office of Forest and Bird (Attachment 2) expressing a range of concerns about their local member’s support for the Taskforce position above.
4. This report provides Committee members with an opportunity to consider the Taskforce’s request and provide guidance to staff on next steps.
5. At the core of the issue is the belief by members of the Tukituki community that it was not unreasonable for the community to place reliance on the alternative water security arrangements available through the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, and that the demise of the scheme in mid-2017 did not provide the community with sufficient time to sensibly and coherently transition to the new PC6 minimum flow regime that was hard-wired to commence in 2018.
6. That new flow regime is now also embedded in the relevant water permits as consent conditions.
7. The Committee has previously considered matters relating to a possible deferral of the Tukituki minimum flows regime on 1 November 2017 and 7 February 2018.
8. HBRC established the Taskforce in conjunction with CHBDC in September 2018 as a community stakeholder group convened to better understand the freshwater quantity issues in the Tukituki catchment, particularly in relation to:
8.1. HBRC current analysis and science programme for the Ruataniwha aquifer
8.2. the impacts of groundwater takes on domestic bores
8.3. the impact of minimum flows on direct and connected (surface) takes
8.4. The opportunities for water sharing and scheduling amongst irrigators to alleviate the impacts of the first step up in the minimum flow.
9. The Taskforce is also tasked with developing solutions to these issues.
10. At its 20 November meeting, members of the Taskforce expressed the view that the immediacy of the imposition of the minimum flow regime created a risk of a “crisis response” – i.e. the need to focus on individual short-term solutions to the detriment of more enduring and collective or community driven outcomes. To this end a discussion and debate amongst the stakeholder’s present at the meeting which resulted in the letter presented as Attachment 1.
11. For the record, the first attempt at a resolution failed to secure the Taskforce members’ unanimous support until the following revisions were made.
11.1. The original resolution requested a delay in the introduction of the first step-up of the minimum flow until 2023, but this was reduced to “two summers”
11.2. The resolution was required to be “subject to” Tranche 2 consents being publicly notified.
12. Note that it is the intention of the resolution to reinforce that the second step up in the minimum flows scheduled for 2023 remains locked in.
Letter from the Forest and Bird National Office
13. The letter from Forest and Bird’s National Office accurately sets out matters relating to:
13.1. the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference
13.2. statements that the Taskforce was not intended to be a policy development group
13.3. The impossibility (and suggested impropriety) of a “deal” in relation to notification of Tranche 2 consents.
14. In relation to para 10.2 of that letter, staff can only comment on the Taskforce’s discussion that the request being made to this Committee is not so much focussed on advancing a new policy agenda, but instead is about the removal of a short-term obstacle to achieving better policy outcomes.
15. In relation to para 10.3 of Forest and Bird’s letter, staff understand and agree with Forest and Bird’s position in relation to the statutory notification process for the Tranche 2 consent applications and the importance of neither interfering nor pre-empting that statutory decision-making process. However, staff note that the Taskforce’s resolution simply records that the members’ collective request to this Committee is “…subject to the Tranche 2 consents being publicly notified.” Whether or not these consents are publicly notified or not remains a decision for the future according to proper process – a process that is not within scope of the RPC’s terms of reference to decide upon. Nevertheless, that does not, in staff’s view, prevent the Committee responding to the request from the Taskforce regarding effective dates for minimum flows in the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).
16. In subsequent correspondence, Forest and Bird’s National Office has expressed a willingness to engage in a discussion about alternative options that would secure its support for minimum flow deferrals, such as including the removal of the entire Tranche 2 allocation in the plan change. This will no doubt be a matter for further discussion within the Taskforce itself.
Feedback sought from the Committee:
17. The Taskforce is requesting that the Committee revisits staff’s earlier (Nov 2017) recommendation to prepare a narrow plan change and seeks only to defer the introduction of the first step up in the Tukituki minimum flows. At the November 2017 meeting, a similar staff recommendation to do that was not passed by the Committee.
18. The nature of the Taskforce’s request suggests that a narrow plan change deferring the minimum flow for 2 years should only be progressed in the event that the Tranche 2 consent applications are themselves publicly notified. It follows that the Committee could either:
18.1. decline the Taskforce’s request; or
18.2. seek further clarification or direction from the Taskforce in light of the position of the national office of Forest and Bird; or
18.3. direct staff to scope out and potentially initiate a narrow plan change process in anticipation of a final decision on Tranche 2 consent application notification i.e. the plan change process is progressed to public notification in the event that the Tranche 2 Consents are publicly notified or shelved in the event they are not (no comment is made in the event of the Tranche 2 consents being withdrawn or indefinitely delayed); or
18.4. direct staff to initiate a plan change process if and only if the Tranche 2 consent applications are publicly notified.
19. These options form the basis of the feedback being sought from the Committee at its meeting on 12 December.
20. To assist Committee members’ consideration of the implications of the request, based on a focussed scope of a possible plan change, timing resource implications were broadly estimated to inform the earlier November 2017 report to the RPC. By way of a brief recap, in making those estimations, senior planning staff considered two plan change pathways.
20.1. the standard council-initiated plan change (CPC) and
20.2. the newly introduced streamlined planning pathway (SPP).
21. In terms of the SPP preliminary discussions with MfE officials regarding logistics and realities of the SPP in this situation. Key points to note are:
21.1. the SPP would be an appropriate vehicle for this type of plan change
21.2. the ‘entry criteria’ for a SPP application to the Minister would be readily satisfied
21.3. pre-application liaison with MfE officials and the Minister’s office is crucial to testing and designing a streamlined plan change process that meets the Minister’s approval
21.4. the pre-application liaison phase could alone span 3-5 months perhaps longer given current limited details of the Government’s proposals for further freshwater management reform
21.5. the SPP does not involve an opportunity for submitters to appeal the outcome of the plan change to the Environment Court, and so ‘saves’ a potentially lengthy ‘tail-end’ to a proposed plan change process.
22. Accordingly, should the Committee resolve to give effect to the Taskforce’s request, then staff would recommend utilising the SPP approach for this narrow plan change assuming there is wider community and stakeholder support for that approach. If support is not apparent, then the standard CPC process could still be pursued if that is the Committee’s preference. But that will almost certainly involve longer timeframes and no guarantee of a timely outcome. In this regard Committee members will need to weigh the representations of the Taskforce alongside those of the national office of Forest and Bird.
23. Assuming a relatively uncontested process, resourcing and timing for a SPP to defer timing of PC6’s new minimum flows have been roughly estimated[1] to be around $100,000 to $150,000 for external (non staff-time) costs. There are no Environment Court appeal-related costs with a SPP process. In terms of timing, a formal application to the Minister could be made in the first half of 2019, with the remainder of the SPP phases (consultation with specified parties, submissions, decision on submissions and Ministerial approval) likely to extend through the remainder of 2019.
24. Estimates of staff time and external expenditure resourcing needs for a standard CPC pathway are at least $120,000 - $200,000 (not including any Environment Court-related appeal costs).[2] In terms of timing, public notification could occur as early as March 2018, and if appropriately resourced, a hearing could be held by July 2019. Decisions and any appeals would run into 2019 and beyond. This is all subject to the necessary resourcing being in place.
Considerations for Tangata Whenua
25. PC6 and the [then] proposed RWSS have effects on tangata whenua values and interests that were addressed during the Board of Inquiry hearing and decision-making process (i.e. 2014-2015). Social and economic benefits were expected from involvement in construction of the scheme and possible equity investment. If a plan change was to be prepared to alter dates for minimum flows, then tāngata whenua interests would need to be considered further, as well as consultation with tāngata whenua through the relevant iwi authorities.
26. Financial and resource implications of proceeding with a plan change are not insignificant.
27. In the current 2018-28 Long Term Plan, there are no budgets in place for staff time allocations nor external expenditure to provide resource to a plan change of any kind to address PC6 – urgent or otherwise.
28. The significance of the decision will ultimately be influenced by what the decision actually is. Because the staff’s recommendation is for the Committee to consider matters raised in this report, then provide direction to staff according to the Committee’s preference, the precise form and character of the decision cannot be assessed at the time of writing this report.
29. During its discussion and deliberations on matters presented in this report, the Committee should carefully consider whether or not any of its potential decision(s) are indeed verging on significant. If a decision were to be significant, then there are additional procedural requirements regarding decision-making under the Local Government Act, notwithstanding that a plan change is also bound to follow legislative requirements by the RMA.
30. If, at the meeting on 12 December, the Committee were to provide guidance to staff to scope preparation of a plan change, then two key components of that scoping work will be:
30.1. examining how any such plan change would be funded, and
30.2. what might be the ‘opportunity costs’ of advancing a narrow plan change for Tukituki catchment (i.e. what pre-existing and budgeted work programmes might slow or shrink if resources are drawn upon to supply a new Tukituki plan change effort).
31. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). As noted in paragraphs 26-29 of this report, staff have not fully assessed the requirements in relation to this item. The Committee itself needs to carefully consider LGA’s decision-making requirements.
1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the request from the Tukituki Water Taskforce and the letter from the national office of Forest and Bird.
2. The Regional Planning Committee provides guidance to staff in respect of the following response to the correspondence received above.
2.1 decline the Taskforce’s request; or
2.2 seek further clarification or direction from the Taskforce in light of the position of the national office of Forest and Bird; or
2.3 direct staff to scope and initiate a preliminary plan change process in anticipation of a final decision on Tranche 2 Consent notification such that the plan change process is progressed to notification in the event that the Tranche 2 Consents are publicly notified or shelved in the event they are not (no comment is made in the event of the Tranche 2 consents being withdrawn or indefinitely delayed); or
2.4 direct staff to scope and initiate a plan change process if and only if the Tranche 2 consents are publicly notified.
Letter to Regional Planning Committee
Forest and Bird letter to HBRC re Tukituki taskforce
Subject: Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Pre-Notification Planning Pathway
1. This report focusses on the RMA consultative steps of the draft TANK Plan Change prior to public notification of the plan change. This is the next step in the planning process where approval is being sought from the RPC to further progress the Plan Change (PC9).
2. This reports builds upon earlier reports to the committee regarding PC9’s per-notification steps and complements the separate report on the TANK Plan Change content and the related report on supporting documents contained in this agenda.
3. Previously, the Committee has received briefing papers from staff on ‘pathways to draft TANK plan change adoption by the RPC’, most recently on the 31 October.
4. As noted in the October paper there are three principal phases to preparation of a plan change, these are:
4.1. Drafting and pre-notification consultation.
4.2. Post-notification submissions and hearings
4.3. Decisions (and potential Court appeals).
5. As set down in its Terms of Reference, the TANK draft Plan Change has been developed around those items that the TANK stakeholder Group were able to reach consensus. Subsequently, the draft plan has been presented to the RPC over the course of the number of meetings and workshop with a particular focus on those areas of non-consensus which have been discussed in detail, and presented to the RPC with staff recommendations.
6. Version 8 of the TANK draft Plan Change has been provided to the RPC in a separate report at this meeting. Staff believe represents a well-considered and balanced approach to the integrated management of the freshwater and land resources within the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu Catchments. Importantly, Version 8 of the draft TANK Plan Change expands upon and encompasses the Committee’s ‘in-principle’ decisions (including TANK group non-consensus matters) from the previous meetings (14 and 15 August, 12 September, 19 September and 31 October).
7. With the TANK stakeholder group having provided its recommendations to this Committee in the form of version 7 of the draft plan, and with the Committee itself having now reviewed the draft plan and made its “in principle” recommendations on outstanding matters, staff now consider it appropriate to now undertake the further mandatory consultative steps required under Schedule 1 of the RMA, prior to the preparation of the TANK Plan Change being publicly notified.
8. As noted above, the purpose of the paper is to set out the requirements of the RMA and the pre-notification steps which are required to be undertaken, and which will support the RPC’s recommendation to the Regional Council that the pre-notification process commences.
Consultation During the preparation of the TANK Plan Change – Who
9. As noted in the 31 October Committee briefing paper, there are requirements under Schedule 1 Clause 3(1) of the RMA for the Council to consult the following parties in the preparation of the TANK Plan Change prior to public notification:
9.1. The Minister for the Environment and any other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the proposed plan change;
9.2. Local authorities who may be affected (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council, Taupo District Council and Rangitikei District Council)
9.3. Tāngata whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities.
10. As defined by the RMA ‘iwi authority means the authority which represents iwi and which is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so’. For the purposes of determining those iwi authorities affected by the Plan Change clarification has been sought from information held by the online tool, Te Kāhui Māngai. Te Kāhui Māngai has been developed by the Crown (Te Puni Kōkiri – the Ministry of Māori Development) to meet the requirements of the RMA in terms of the information the Crown must provide to local authorities. Whilst staff are aware that there is debate regarding the accuracy of the information provided within the online tool it is, for the purposes of meeting the statutory obligations of the RMA appropriate for the Council to refer to this to establish the iwi authorities within the TANK catchments whom should be consulted.
11. As presented in the briefing paper in October those iwi authorities identified within the TANK catchments (using Te Kāhui Māngai online records) are as follows:
11.1. Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
11.2. Mana Ahuriri Trust
11.3. Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
11.4. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated
11.5. Ngati Parau Hapu Trust
11.6. Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga
11.7. Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea
11.8. Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui a Orotu
11.9. Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.
12. The Council may also choose to consult anyone else, in addition to those requirements above.
Consultation During the preparation of the TANK Plan Change – What this looks like
13. It is important to note that the TANK Plan Change is still at the early stages within the planning process. As noted above the draft plan is still within the first phase of the process - Drafting and pre-notification consultation. As indicated in the image below, there is considerable work beyond the notification of the Plan Change for the remaining two phases; post-notification submissions and hearings and decisions (and potential Court appeals).
14. Whilst there may be some desire to consult affected parties with a polished ‘final’ version of the plan this would not be in the best interests of the plan development or effective consultation.
"Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done." West Coast United Council v Prebble 1988 12 NZTPA 399 (HC).
15. Version 8 of the TANK draft Plan Change is sufficiently robust to enable those affected parties to understand the direction and content of the draft TANK Plan Change and to communicate their views, whether for or against the objectives, policies and rules which are proposed within it. Whilst it is acknowledged that there has already been substantial consultation with the TANK Stakeholder Group, in essence this has provided the foundation, around which the draft TANK Plan has been developed and has identified the values which are important to the community and established a management framework. With the incorporation of the advice and input received from the RPC over the past months it is now considered appropriate to now undertake further socialising of the draft TANK Plan Change, to obtain views and in respect of the iwi authorities, advice to which particular regard must be given. This is discussed further below.
Further pre-notification consultation requirements – Iwi authorities
16. The April 2017 amendments to the RMA require the Council to provide a copy of the relevant draft plan change to iwi authorities affected by the plan change (Schedule 1 Clause 4A). As noted in the earlier 31 October staff report to the Committee, this new step in the planning process is in addition to the consultation required under Schedule 1 Clause 3(1), but can be undertaken in tandem.
17. The Council is required to provide “adequate time and opportunity” for the iwi authorities to consider the draft plan change and provide advice back to the Council. The Council are required to have particular regard to any advice received in the final drafting of the plan.
18. There are no specified timeframes within the RMA for either consultation under Schedule 1 Clause 3 or Clause 4A. The legislation goes so far as to state that under Schedule 1 Clause 4A (2) that the Council must allow “adequate time and opportunity” for the iwi authorities to consider the draft plan and to respond to it. At the RPC meeting held on the 31 October what might be considered to be ‘adequate time’ was discussed by members. From that discussion was a suggestion that six weeks would be a ‘reasonable’ timeframe for consultation with iwi and seeking their views on a draft version of PC9.
19. It is anticipated that the consultation phase would commence late January/early February 2019. The timing would allow preparation and circulation of the appropriate resources and to account for holidays.
20. Council planning staff intend to provide the Draft PC9 document to the territorial authorities and the Crown including the Department of Conservation and invite their feedback. Given that key staff within those organisations are intimately familiar with these processes simply providing the draft and asking for feedback is acceptable.
21. HBRC’s planning staff will provide the Draft PC9 document to iwi authorities but will accompany this with background and explanatory material (in plain language) to explain the content and intent of the Plan Change. Support to iwi authorities through direct dialogue will also be offered on request. Staff will work with the RPC tāngata whenua representatives’ technical advisers and/or the affected PSGEs at the RPC table to further refine this consultation pathway with iwi authorities, subject to the timing and resource constraints.
22. HBRC planning staff also intend to make the draft PC9 documentation to be made available online during that time for other stakeholders and interested people to view and offer informal comment via general correspondence.
23. At the completion of this targeted consultation stage, staff will summarise and evaluate the feedback received, and will then make further recommendations to the RPC for any amendments and the preparation of a possible ‘Version 9’ of PC9.
24. Only once the RPC has considered the consultation feedback and staff recommendations will the Committee be asked to consider the TANK Plan Change in its entirety and make its final decision about what it may recommend to Council on the version of PC9 to be publicly notified.
25. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Pre-Notification Planning Pathway” report.
Subject: Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Update on Supporting Documents
1. This paper provides an update to the RPC on the status of the reports that support the draft TANK Plan Change, namely the Monitoring Plan, the s32 Evaluation Report and the Implementation Plan.
2. As noted in the paper of the previous RPC meeting (31 October), Mitchell Daysh Limited have been appointed to undertake the s32 evaluation reporting on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.
3. The RMA requires the Regional Council in preparing PC9 to evaluate the extent to which the objectives of the plan change proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act. It should be noted that case law has interpreted ‘most appropriate’ to mean “suitable, but not necessarily superior” (Rational Transport Soc. Inc. v New Zealand Transport Agency HC Wellington). In order to determine whether the most appropriate objectives have been proposed it should be demonstrated that the purpose of the RMA is met efficiently and effectively, and also that the proposed policies, methods and rules are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives.
4. Since the RPC meeting last month Mitchell Daysh have turned a significant proportion of their focus to the Source Protection Zone Provisions including costs and benefits associated with this on landowners within the zone. This has been in direct response to queries raised by the RPC. A copy of the draft s32 report is appended to this paper (attachment 1)[3]. The appropriateness of the provision of the draft TANK Plan Change in respect of the SPZ’s can be found in Section 8.7.
5. The key findings of this evaluation is as follows.
5.1. Given the need to comply with regulation 10 of the Drinking Water NES the assessment concludes that any reasonably practicable option for source protection provisions will need to include regulation.
5.2. An appropriately mapped SPZ would ensure that regulation is effective, by reducing risk of contaminants entering any registered drinking water supply’s source water, and efficient by not applying regulation to areas where there is no pathway to the source water.
5.3. Effectiveness Assessment - The assessment demonstrates that the proposed policies are an effective way of achieving the relevant objectives of the draft TANK Plan Change, noting however that the policies are specific to the source of water of Registered Drinking Water Supplies rather than to source water of drinking water generally. This is based on the direction of the Drinking Water NES which focusses on drinking water supply sources. Amending the policies to have a more general application to protecting drinking water would be possible but would reduce the efficiency of the provisions.
5.4. Determinative Rules Effectiveness Assessment – as with the effectiveness of the policies the assessment demonstrates that the determinative rules as a collective are an effective way of achieving the objectives of the Plan, however the rules are specific to the mapped SPZs in protecting the source water of Registered Drinking Water Supplies;
5.5. Effectiveness Assessment of Matters for Assessment – these rules are (collectively) more general in that they apply to the source water of all Registered Drinking Water Supplies and not just the mapped SPZ’s and are considered to be appropriate provisions;
5.6. In general, the suite of policies and determinative rules are considered efficient in having a predominance of benefits over costs in achieving the objectives of the plan; and
5.7. There is a general consistency when comparing those activities proposed to be regulated by SPZ’s with that of the recently developed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan and the Greater Wellington Proposed Natural Resources Plan. For this reason the proposed determinative rules are considered appropriate having regard to efficiency in terms of benefits and costs;
5.8. There are expected costs related to economic effects in terms of additional inputs and time required in the preparation and assessment of resource consent applications;
5.9. In conclusion the assessment demonstrates that the proposed provisions relating to protecting the source water of Registered Drinking Water Supplies, are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives of Change 9.
6. Further additions to the s32 report include (in draft):
6.1. Section 4 – Community Engagement Process
6.2. Section 5 – Background to Plan Change
6.3. Section 6 – Plan Change Matters to be Addressed
6.4. Section 8 – Appropriateness of Provisions.
7. It should be observed that the document remains in draft as there are still outstanding areas requiring evaluation. In particular further detail is required to reference the background to the development of Schedule 1 Freshwater quality objectives and attributes.
8. As noted above, the s32 provides an assessment of the appropriateness of the provisions for the protection of drinking water and the associated SPZ’s. However, not all aspects of the draft plan have been assessed for the appropriateness of the provisions for achieving the objectives. As such Sections 8.2 – 8.7 are blank placeholder sections for evaluations still to be completed. It is intended to provide a further iteration of the s32 Evaluation at the RPC’s meetings in early 2019 in respect of the appropriateness of the balance of the draft Plan Change.
9. In addition to this, any advice received from iwi authorities in respect of the response to pre-notification consultation on the Draft Plan (Schedule 1 Clause 4A) will also need to be incorporated into the s32 Evaluation Report. The timing of this summary will be dependent on when the pre-notification consultation occurs, the timeframe for receipt of advice and also the extent of the responses received. At present it is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when this will be reported back to the RPC, but it is likely to be beyond the 20 February 2019 meeting.
10. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management requires every regional council to provide a monitoring plan to establish methods for monitoring progress towards the achievement of freshwater objectives and to establish methods monitoring the extent to which values are being provided for in a freshwater management unit. The monitoring plan should also identify the location of the monitoring sites which will be representative for each freshwater management unit and should also recognise the importance of the long term trends of results.
11. The methods must include at least the following:
11.1. Surveillance microbial health risks to people at primary contact sites
11.2. The monitoring of macroinvertebrate communities
11.3. Measures of the health of indigenous flora and fauna
11.4. Information obtained in respect of Policy CB1(a) and Policy CC1, being the methods for monitoring progress towards the achievement of freshwater objectives; and establishing, operating and maintaining a freshwater quality and quantity accounting system;
11.5. Mātauranga Māori.
12. A draft monitoring plan has been developed and is appended to this paper as Attachment 2. The monitoring plan does not need to be finalised prior to public notification of PC9. In fact, it is quite possible that amendments may be made to PC9 after notification that require corresponding revisions of the monitoring plan. Like the TANK PC implementation plan, the monitoring plan can be regarded as a ‘living’ document.
13. It is important to highlight that whilst the draft monitoring plan is shaping up to fulfil the requirements of the NPSFM, there are no significant additions proposed to HBRC’s existing environmental monitoring programmes, which already largely meet the requirements of the NPSFM. There is an extensive monitoring programme which is currently undertaken as ‘business as usual’ for State of Environment reporting.
14. However it is proposed to introduce several additional monitoring sites and new monitoring for indigenous fish and estuary ecosystems within the TANK catchments in response to the consultation which has taken place with the TANK Stakeholder Group, in particular the Treaty Partner Working Group. The monitoring plan also acknowledges that monitoring can occur at local scales such as by landowners and marae.
15. The programme which will accompany the TANK Plan Change will be robust and effectively monitor the progress the Plan Change makes towards achieving the identified freshwater objectives and meet the requirements of the NPSFM.
16. The Implementation Plan has previously been presented to the RPC at the workshop held on the 15th August. Since introducing the implementation plan further refinement to the listed actions has occurred following advice from RPC. It is worth noting that there has not been any significant amendments to the overall content or direction of the implementation plan as a result of those amendments in recent months.
17. Development of an implementation plan is not a statutory requirement (as it is for the s32 Evaluation report or the monitoring plan), but rather it provides a useful tool in identifying the future actions which enable the delivery of the outcomes sought through the TANK Plan Change. The implementation plan is intended to provide a further degree of detail as to how the outcomes could be achieved. It is intended to avoid ambiguity as to who needs to undertake what type of action to ensure the plan objectives are being met. The implementation plan is a flexible ‘live’ document and will evolve over the lifetime of the TANK plan.
18. Given that the Implementation Plan document is a non-regulatory tool there is no requirement under the RMA to consult the community or seek their views on the plan content. That being said there has been direct engagement with, and feedback from the TANK Stakeholder Group (including the TLA’s and Treaty Partner Working Group), various Industry organisations such as HortNZ, HBRC staff and the Regional Planning Committee which has been valuable to the plan development.
19. It is important to note that whilst there is significant reliance on community and stakeholder ‘buy-in’ to make the Implementation Plan a success, it is imperative that there is support from the Council, not just in terms of the programme of work and direction outlined within the actions, but more importantly in terms of resourcing.
20. As highlighted at the workshop in August, there are a number of commitments on HBRC staff and the council to ensure that the Plan can be implemented and the outcomes achieved effectively and in a timely manner. This in short, will require commitments to be made through the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan. Many of the requirements which have been signaled as requiring staff input fall outside of the ‘business as usual’ capabilities. It is highly likely that some teams will require extra staffing resources; funding towards project development/completion; and for development of tools and resources which will be shared with stakeholders to enable them to meet their commitments to improving freshwater in the TANK catchments. It is anticipated that as the draft TANK Plan Change is further refined through the planning process (consultation, submissions, hearing etc.) the Implementation Plan will also be fine-tuned to reflect the plan content. Further reports will be provided in time to the RPC and Council in respect of the anticipated and actual resourcing requirements.
21. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) – Update on Supporting Documents” report.
Draft Section 32 Evaluation Report
TANK Update Attachment 2 TANK Monitoring Plan
Subject: Resource Management Policy Project Updates
That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Resource Management Policy Project Updates” report.
RMA Plan Change Preparation & Review Projects December 2018 Update
That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the Statutory Advocacy Update staff report.
Statutory Advocacy December 2018 Update
Minor items (for discussion only)
[1] There are very few experiences with the SPP anywhere in New Zealand from which approximate costs and timeframes could be assumed. The SPP option only came into effect in mid 2017.
[2] Estimates of Environment Court appeal proceedings have not been attempted - not because an appeal is considered unlikely, but rather there are so many variables which could influence costs of responding to one or more appeals.
[3]This further iteration of the s32 Evaluation Report has been prepared against Version 7 of the draft TANK Plan Change, and does not evaluate the amendments which are being presented to the RPC at this meeting.