Agenda of Environmental Management Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Opoutama Wastewater Discharge Consent Appeal Mediation

REASON FOR REPORT

1. The decision made by a Hearing Panel on the resource consent application by Wairoa District Council has been appealed. This paper is to seek Council authorisation to enter mediation on these appeals, and if possible, to settle these appeals.

The Appeal

2. On 21 December 2009 a Hearing Panel comprised of Councillor Scott, Mr Morry Black, and Mr Mike Garland issued a decision supporting the reporting officer’s recommendation that consent be granted to Wairoa District Council’s (WDC) application to discharge treated wastewater from a community wastewater scheme proposed to service Opoutama, Mahia.

3. The decision was appealed by the applicant and by A. Wairau / Ngai Te Rakato. Council has sought mediation with a court appointed mediator. This mediation will only relate to the appeal by Ngai Te Rakato as Council is working directly with the applicant to resolve the issues they have raised.

Mediation

4. Council staff strongly support the decision that was made by the hearing panel and affirm that they will act to mediate in a manner that protects the integrity of the decision that was made.

5. The applicant was party to the development of draft conditions of consent prior to the hearing, and largely agreed with the conditions of consent that were recommended to the hearing panel. However, the applicant now has concerns over the costs of implementing the monitoring requirements of the consent.

6. Council staff have been involved in discussions with the applicant over their concerns with the monitoring conditions that are imposed by the consent and are relatively confident that this appeal by the applicant can be settled without a court fixture. A separate paper outlines one approach that is being considered to address some of the applicant’s concerns.

7. Staff will enter mediation with the other appellant and will aim to find a mutually acceptable position that will allow for the resolution of the appeal without the need for an Environment Court hearing. However, given that this appellant seeks that the consents be declined in its entirety, it is less likely that a mediated position will be reached with this party that protects of the intent of the Hearing Panel’s decision.

Costs

8. The Resource Management Act (RMA) imposes significant restrictions on local authorities with respect to recovering costs associated with appeals to the Environment Court. There are no provisions in the act to enable Councils to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred as part of the appeal processes. Council has no control over the initiation of this process and has no choice but to participate in accordance with due process as required by statute.

9. However, staff are attempting to minimise the potential costs of the appeal by limiting the involvement of legal counsel at this stage. Legal counsel will therefore not be attending mediation with Council staff.

10. The cost of resolving the applicant’s appeal via mediation is estimated at $5,000 - $10,000, derived from consents and science staff time. If a court fixture is required, costs are likely to be significantly higher than this estimate as it will require the preparation of evidence by staff and consultants, and will also require the participation of legal counsel.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

11. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

11.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

11.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

11.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

11.4. No person is directly affected by a decision and any person likely to be affected by the matters discussed will be appropriately involved through Resource Management Act processes.

11.5. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

11.6. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Provides delegation to Council staff to engage in the mediation process with appellants, and to settle these appeals prior to an Environment Court hearing if this can be achieved in a manner that upholds the intent of the Hearing Panel’s decision.

Paul Barrett

Consents Officer

Darryl Lew

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Opoutama Wastewater Scheme - Collaborative Approach With Wairoa District Council

REASON FOR REPORT

1. Staff are currently discussing the appeal on monitoring conditions for the recently granted resource consent authorising the discharge of wastewater from a proposed community wastewater scheme at Opoutama, Mahia with Wairoa District Council. Staff believe that a collaborative approach is warranted and will address the appellant’s concerns, but also achieves the Council’s desired outcomes for sustainable wastewater solutions in the Wairoa District.

2. The purpose of this paper is to outline the approach that is being investigated, and seek confirmation from the Environmental Management Committee that it agrees with the approach proposed.

Background

3. A hearing was held on 12-13 August 2010 to consider an application by Wairoa District Council to discharge contaminants (treated municipal domestic effluent) to land and (odour) to air associated with the operation of the Opoutama Community Wastewater Scheme on Ormond Drive, Opoutama, Mahia.

4. Consent for the activities was granted by the Hearings Panel on 14 September 2010, subject to a number of conditions.

5. On 6 October 2010, Council received two separate appeals to the decision, one from Alice Wairau on behalf of Te Rakato Marae and the second appeal was lodged by the applicant, Wairoa District Council.

Proposal

6. The Wairoa District Council (WDC) appeal is ultimately centred on the conditions of consent relating to the monitoring and sampling regime imposed and the cost of complying with these conditions as part of the ongoing operational costs of the scheme.

7. WDC is concerned that the operating costs associated with the scheme may be too high for this small community to bear.

8. Opoutama median household incomes ($23,800) are low compared with to other districts, and even in comparison with other parts of the Wairoa District (the Wairoa median is $37,200 and the regional median is $44,200). Opoutama scores 10 on New Zealand Index of deprivation scale (NZDep2006). This means that Census 2006 data places the Opoutama among the 10% most deprived areas in New Zealand (From: Opoutama Demographic Review, 2008. Provided by Wairoa District Council).

9. In order to reduce the costs to the Opoutama Community, and remove a potential barrier to the implementation of this wastewater scheme, it is proposed that HBRC Science team carry out the sampling and meet the costs associated with WDC’s Opoutama waste water consent at Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s cost.

10. WDC largely agreed to the monitoring conditions at the hearing but have subsequently determined that the monitoring costs, when considered in conjunction with the scheme operating costs, would likely prevent the scheme going ahead. If the required monitoring was undertaken by HBRC, the costs are estimated to be approximately $7,500 (external costs only) per annum. This figure comprises the costs associated with effluent quality, coastal and groundwater quality sampling and the associated laboratory analysis costs. It is estimated that a maximum of 7 weeks of HBRC internal staff time per annum would be required to enable the collection of samples at the required frequency at a cost of $17,250.

11. Thus the total cost to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is estimated to be $25,000 per annum.

12. This estimate assumes that HBRC staff would be undertaking effluent quality sampling on a monthly basis. This function may however be undertaken by a WDC wastewater treatment plant operator, in which case annual HBRC staff costs would be reduced.

13. There will initially be 52 connections to share the collective costs of the proposed wastewater scheme, as well as each property paying for the upgrade (if necessary), maintenance and power costs of its own treatment unit.

14. WDC has estimated the total operational costs at approximately $20,000 per annum. The $20,000 is made up of approximately $14,000 in maintenance costs and $6,000 for power consumption. Maintenance costs include the costs associated with maintenance inspections and servicing of wastewater treatment systems, de-sludging of wastewater tanks and servicing of pumps and UV sterilisation equipment. This averages out to approximately $380 per property, which is comparable to the $350 paid by residents of Wairoa township for their sewerage system. At $25,000 per annum the calculated monitoring costs would add a further $480 per property. An annual cost in excess of $800 per property could well put the community’s support of the proposal in jeopardy.

Benefit to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

15. It is proposed that HBRC conduct and pay for the compliance monitoring. While this is an unconventional approach for a regional council to pay a territorial local authority’s consent monitoring costs, this is considered a pragmatic approach that has the following benefits for HBRC.

15.1. The scheme offers a solution to the problems associated with individual on-site wastewater servicing in Opoutama. The implementation of the proposed community scheme is likely to reduce the occurrence of environmental and public health effects.

15.2. The initial capital cost of the scheme is funded through a Ministry of Health subsidy. This subsidy provides funding for up to 90% of the initial capital costs of the scheme. The subsidy must be drawn down by June 2013 or else it will be lost. If this occurred, individual property owners would be required to replace or upgrade their existing on-site system (at their own cost) as failing systems were identified.

15.3. If the scheme goes ahead it negates HBRC having to develop a costly wastewater plan change in relation to this community and using the RMA process to deal with cumulative effects of individual on-site waste water systems, that in reality without the scheme the community cannot afford.

15.4. HBRC has the technical expertise and equipment to undertake the required sampling at less cost than WDC can undertake using consultants. HBRC would collect samples and organize laboratory sampling using our existing contracts which give HBRC’s sample volumes at competitive unit prices. HBRC will not analyse and report against compliance limits, as this avoids any perceived conflict of interest issues with the regulatory arm of HBRC.

15.5. This approach will deliver an environmentally sustainable and good public health outcome for the Opoutama community while ensuring that the HB local government (both WDC and HBRC) shared services are delivered in the most cost effective way for our combined ratepayers.

16. Staff do not believe that this sets a precedent for HBRC carrying out consent monitoring for other communities. This is based on the following principles.

16.1. A key issue with Opoutama is that the operational and monitoring scheme costs would need to be recovered from a small number of houses in a relatively poor community. Other communities (e.g. Mahia) have in excess of 300 properties and the economies of scale make compliance costs more economical.

16.2. Any other request of this type will be considered on its own merits by Council as part of Annual plan funding requirements and is completely at Council’s discretion.

17. It will be made clear to WDC that the HBRC commitment will be reviewed annually as part of the Annual Plan process.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

18. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

18.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

18.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

18.4. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

18.5. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees to a take a collaborative approach to the monitoring of Wairoa District Council’s resource consent for community wastewater discharge from the Opoutama wastewater scheme, by providing technical expertise in sample collection and by meeting the monitoring costs of up to a maximum of $25,000, reviewable annually as part of the Annual Plan Process.

Paul Barrett

Consents Officer

Adam Uytendaal

Principal Scientist

Water Quality & Ecology

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Status of Resource Consent Appeals to the Environment Court

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report provides an update on the progress of appeals currently being dealt with by Council in relation to resource consents.

Resource Consent Appeals

2. Dealing with appeals and objections requires significant resources in terms of staff time, expert witnesses and legal costs, especially as appeals are often technically and legally complex. Consequently, it is desirable to resolve appeals as expeditiously as possible, while still achieving good environmental outcomes that are consistent with Council’s plans and policies, and uphold the intent of Hearing Panel decisions.

Ngaruroro River Catchment

3. Decisions on the 68 Ngaruroro River catchment water permit applications were released on 9 April 2009. Fifty appeals were lodged with the Environment Court with respect to Council’s decisions on the various Ngaruroro water takes by Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, and four appeals were lodged by three applicants who were granted consents to take water from the Maraekakaho Stream Management Zone.

4. A paper entitled ‘Maraekakaho and Ngaruroro Mediation Outcomes’ was presented to Council on Wednesday 25 August 2010, which surmised the outcomes of mediation with respect to these appeals.

5. Council’s Solicitors have now received sealed consent orders for all consents under appeal. As a result, this very large appeal process has now been bought to a close which is a good outcome as a court fixture has been avoided.

AFFCO

6. AFFCO was granted resource consent to discharge stormwater and wastewater into the Wairoa River on 24 July 2009. An appeal of four conditions of the consent was received on 17 August 2009 from the applicant. Mr David Renouf became a section 274 party to the proceedings.

7. A mediation meeting was held with AFFCO on 21 October 2009. During the meeting Council staff were informed by AFFCO that there had been confusion regarding the data required by the previous consent, and that inadvertently the wrong data for ammonia levels had been supplied by the company with the resource consent application. Had there been a proper understanding as to the basis upon which ammonia levels had been reported, the recommendation on the application at the hearing would have been materially different.

8. AFFCO currently have a mean wastewater faecal coliform level of 110,000 cfu/100 ml. AFFCO are appealing a consent condition requiring a reduction to 2,460 cfu/100 ml by December 2012. This will require a wastewater plant upgrade which will cost AFFCO approximately $1-2 Million.

9. The Department of Conservation (DoC) has become a section 274 party to the appeal.

10. Mediation with a Court appointed mediator was held in Napier on 9 September 2010.

11. While the specific details discussed during mediation are legally privileged, work is currently being undertaken by AFFCO to reach agreement on the pH and temperature correction that should be applied to the site specific total ammoniacal nitrogen guideline that has now been agreed by all parties.

12. AFFCO has also developed a protocol with which the qualitative health risk assessment (QHRA) shall be undertaken in accordance with, and sampling has commenced in accordance with this protocol.

13. A joint status report was filed with the Court by AFFCO and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on 17 December 2010. This report confirmed that AFFCO will install a new multi-port diffuser in the first quarter of 2011. The effectiveness of this diffuser is to be assessed once it is installed. Informal discussions are to be held with AFFCO in June and July 2011 to try and resolve any residual issues about the effectiveness of the diffuser and translation of the agreed in river standards to future effluent standards. If this attempt at informal mediation is unsuccessful then formal mediation will be sought in August or September 2011, and a Court date sought in November 2011 if required to resolve the appeal. A joint press release summarising this position has been issued by both parties.

Mexted, Williams and van Breda Malherbe

14. Resource consent was granted on 26 January 2010 by a joint hearing committee (Wairoa District Council and HBRC) for various applications relating to a proposal to subdivide and develop six lots at the northern end of Judges Parade, Mahanga. An appeal was received on 19 February 2010 from Mahanga E Tu Incorporated, a submitter in opposition to the proposal. Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held in Wairoa on 21 June 2010.

15. An offer of settlement was made by the applicant as a result of discussions at the mediation, however this has been rejected by the appellant group. An application by the applicant for security of costs has been declined by the Court and Counsel for all parties have been asked to prepare and submit to the Environment Court an evidence exchange timetable for a Court hearing.

Opoutama Community Wastewater Scheme

16. A hearing was held on 12 – 13 August 2010 to consider an application by Wairoa District Council to discharge contaminants (treated municipal domestic effluent) to land and (odour) to air associated with the operation of the Opoutama Community Wastewater Scheme on Ormond Drive, Opoutama, Mahia.

17. The Hearings Panel, consisting of Christine Scott, Morry Black, and Michael Garland, granted consent on 14 September 2010, subject to a number of conditions.

18. On 6 October 2010, Council received two separate appeals to the decision. The first being from Alice Wairau on behalf of Te Rakato Marae and Hapu, and Ngai Rakato Hapu, and Jim Keil as Chariperson of Te Rakato Marae and representative for Ngai Rakato Hapu for treaty claims. The second appeal was lodged by the applicant, Wairoa District Council.

19. The Te Rakato Marae and Ngai Rakato appeal is against the decision to grant in its entirety and raises concerns over treaty claims, Ngai Rakato’s status, urupa and the land in question, section 6(e) (ancestral relationship), section 7(a) (kaitiakitanga), and section 8 (treaty principles) of the RMA, and the consideration of alternatives.

20. The Wairoa District Council appeal is ultimately centred on the conditions of consent relating to the monitoring and sampling regime imposed to mitigate the effects of the wastewater discharge and the costs associated with complying with these conditions.

21. Council have engaged Simpson Grierson to act on our behalf, and the Environment Court has been advised that Council agrees to mediation. Informal discussions have already occurred between Wairoa District Council and the Regional Council. All parties to the appeal have agreed to mediation with a Court appointed mediator, which is expected to be set down for late February 2011.

Cost Implications

22. It is important to recognise the significant limitations the Resource Management Act (RMA) imposes on local authorities with respect to recovering costs associated with appeals and cost objections. There are no provisions in the act to enable Councils to recover the actual and reasonable costs incurred as part of these processes. Council has no control over the initiation of these processes and has no choice but to participate in accordance with due process as required by statute.

23. The Consents team at HBRC has faced several complex appeals and cost objections this last financial year (2009 / 2010) which has had a substantial impact on bottom line cost recovery. This is largely due to the complexity and the consuming nature of appeals, which often necessitate representation from legal providers and external experts to mediate or litigate Council’s decisions.

24. The impact of such factors needs to be acknowledged and contextualised with respect to financial performance. The following table provides a breakdown of those appeals and objections referred to above in respect of the costs borne by Council in administrating its functions under the RMA represented as non-recoverable costs.

Non-Recoverable Costs Associated with Resource Consent Appeals & Objections

APPEALS	Costs accrued prior to current financial year (From date of receipt to 01 July 2010)	Costs accrued 2010/2011 Financial Year (01 July 2010 to 24 January 2011)	Total Costs accrued to Date
Ngaruroro River Catchment Appeals	$58,734.00	$78,596.79	$137,330.79
AFFCO Appeal	$36,222.00	$63,353.13	$99,575.13
Garrity Land Company Limited Appeal^*	$77,540.00	$5,660.00	$83,200.00
Mexted, Williams and Van Breda Malherbe Appeal	$13,737.00	$1,959.05	$15,696.05
Total	$186,233.00	$149,568.97	$335,801.97
OBJECTIONS
Mexted, Williams and Van Breda Malherbe - Cost Objection	$1,344.71	$941.25	$2,285.96
Huggins DT & M - Cost Objection	$379.00	$761.25	$1,140.25
Affco Limited - Cost Objection	$2,113.94	$1,111.00	$3,224.94
Garrity S - Cost Objection	$4,285.10	$4,693.93	$8,979.03
Sandbrook Trust – Cost Objection		$892.50	$892.50
Total	$8,122.75	$8,399.93	$16,522.68

25. Given the significant financial exposure for Council that cannot be forecast or estimated, staff will continue to regularly update Council on appeals, objections and their associated costs.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

26. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Status of Resource Consent Appeals to the Environment Court”.

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Provision of Resource Consent and Other Public Domain Information on the Internet

REASON FOR REPORT

1. To outline the project that will provide additional public and resource consent information on the Council website in order to:

1.1. increase the transparency and dissemination of public information by Council to the public

1.2. reduce the long-term costs of public enquiries while increasing Council’s service levels.

Background

2. Council staff receive enquiries and information requests from the general public, specifically resource consent applicants, well drillers, environmental consultants, school and university students, lawyers and property developers, who request information such as:

2.1 Resource consents and Section 42a reports, hearing decisions, and specific consent information (e.g. rate of take, location)

2.2 Well log information

2.3 Resource consent compliance information, especially those for water takes

2.4 Regional soil maps, e.g. for designing waste water systems

2.5 Property scale level information for coastal hazard zones and lines

2.6 Aquifer maps showing the unconfined and confined areas

2.7 Groundwater management zones (as per Schedule VI, Rule 53, RRMP)

2.8 Contaminated site information as per ombudsman ruling of 2010.

3. One of the key responsibilities in Council staffs’ job descriptions is “to respond effectively and timely to general enquiries and requests for information from external customers. Requests or enquiries from the public responded to within 5 working days or by a date agreed to with the customer”. Providing this information on the Council website will aid in meeting the ‘5 working day target’ and the cost of providing this information requests would be reduced.

The Future

4. Once completed this project will deliver, to the general public, stakeholders and professionals, the ability to view a map of Hawke’s Bay at a scale of 1:50,000 and view aerial photographs where available. This base information will be able to be ‘zoomed in on’ or expanded using standard internet viewing tools to isolate a catchment, property or point of interest.

5. More selection buttons will allow the selection of different overlays as described in paragraph 2 above. Tabular information will also be available.

6. Eventually, resource consent holders such as those ‘to take water’, will be able to determine compliance with their resource consent conditions by having ‘real time’ water meter and river flow information at their finger tips through the collaboration of Council databases online.

7. In conjunction with industry organisations (e.g. HortNZ) Council’s compliance information can be tailored to a particular style of output for direct inclusion into market based reporting such as Euro or NZ Gap reports. This effectively provides a value proposition to what is a compliance cost.

8. Another important principle that surrounds this project is that information on the private use of a public resource becomes transparent to the entire community. Initially all water takes will be able to be viewed, along with their compliance history and real time usage on any given day as telemetered meters become widespread.

9. Finally, the site will also be the central tool for real time water management by water user groups as seamless navigation around the site will allow real time river flow information to be viewed against actual usage on a sub catchment basis.

10. Staff are also investigating online facilities to pay consent application fees using online credit card payments and bank deposits and eventually applicants will be able to electronically apply for resource consents online. Currently, applicants simply download resource consent application forms from the Council website, fill them in (usually hand written) and then post them with a deposit cheque. These online facilities are already available to many Regional Councils and enable the resource consent process to be cost effective and time efficient for both the applicant and Council by reducing the administrative time for processing paper cheques and hard copy applications

11. The Council IT team is proposing to implement ‘SharePoint 2010’ (Microsoft product for collaborating databases, file sharing and web publishing) as a part of the Systems Integration Project – Phase 2. This implementation is due to commence July 2011 and will provide a single-view platform of Council-wide data and information by collaborating Council’s key systems and applications.

12. As well as an internal work tool, SharePoint will also provide integration directly between internal databases and the public website making key data and information accessible, consistent and accurate. If SharePoint 2010 is approved, Council should ensure they fully leverage the functionality and technology available to enhance the transparency and dissemination of appropriate Council held information to the public. This project is within existing budgets and no additional funds are required.

Legislative Setting

13. Section 35 of the RMA states that Council has the duty to gather information, monitor, and keep records e.g. resource consents.

14. Under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (1987 LGOIMA) and the Privacy Act (1993), Council is required to protect and store the information that it holds, in a secure environment and make it available to the public upon request.

15. Information held by the council is public information, unless there is a good reason for withholding it, (e.g. Section 42 RMA ‘protection of sensitive information’). All information provided online will be quality assured for sensitivity before ‘going live’.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

16. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

Darrel Hall

Team Leader

Technical Support

Kahl Olsen

Systems Integration

Project Manager

Dave Fulton

IT Manager

Fred King

Hazardous Substances Advisor

Bryce Lawrence

Manager Compliance

Sven Exeter

Consents Officer

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Review of Fish Habitat Requirements for the Tukituki and Ngaruroro Rivers

REASON FOR REPORT

1. Minimum flows set within the Resource Management Plan are an important component of surface water management.

2. This report covers the re-assessments of all habitat models in the Tukituki River catchment and a new assessment of the lower Ngaruroro River. Data and conclusions are provided to support future water management in the Ngaruroro and Tukituki catchments.

3. The aim of recent habitat modelling work was to provide accurate, robust, and peer reviewed information on the habitat requirements for fish species in the Tukituki and Ngaruroro Rivers.

4. The flows in this report are based on instream habitat for a range of fish species. There are many other values within each catchment that need to be considered in addition to fish habitat when setting minimum flows.

Model Reviews: Tukituki Catchment

5. A series of instream habitat models were completed for the Waipawa, upper Tukituki, Tukipo, and lower Tukituki Rivers between 1997 and 2007.

6. Full reports on each model were not completed, rather a summary section was written on habitat modelling data from 1997 as part of the report “Sustainable Low Flow Project: Ruataniwha Rivers” (Wood 1998). Subsequent models were completed, but full documentation of data collection and modelling methods was not provided in formal reports.

7. No formal peer reviews were completed for instream habitat models in the Tukituki catchment prior to 2008.

8. The Cawthron Institute was contracted in September 2008 to review the instream habitat model for the lower Tukituki River (Hay 2008). The primary purpose of the review was to determine if the model was sufficiently robust to use for successive modelling and would withstand scrutiny in Environment Court and other RMA processes.

9. The Cawthron review concluded that the model was sufficiently robust if a number of issues were addressed and proper model interpretation methods were employed.

10. The recommendations in the Cawthron review were used to reconstruct the lower Tukituki model. Additional reconstructions were completed for the Waipawa, upper Tukituki, and Tukipo models, using the same considerations highlighted in the Cawthron review.

11. The new versions of models for 2011 in the Tukituki catchment were satisfactorily reviewed by the Cawthron Institute.

Model Reviews: Ngaruroro River

12. The previous instream habitat model for the lower Ngaruroro River suffered from a number of problems. The decision was made to complete a new river survey to construct a new habitat model for the lower Ngaruroro.

13. The Ngaruroro model was completed in January 2011 and has been satisfactorily reviewed by the Cawthron Institute.

Model Results

14. The modelling software RHYHABSIM (River Hydraulics and Habitat Simulation) was used for instream habitat modelling on all five rivers.

15. RHYHABSIM predicts habitat in the form of weighted usable area (WUA). WUA is a metric that incorporates habitat quantity and quality. The data are given per unit of flow and are easily visualised in a graph (Figure 1).

16. The optimum flow and slope of the WUA curve are the most important features when considering minimum flows as this describes ideal flow for a given fish species and the sensitivity of that species to changes in flow. The steeper the curve, the more sensitive the species is to flow changes.

17. Where the optimum flow exceeds the mean annual low flow (MALF), the slope of the curve is used to aid the minimum flow setting process by choosing the flow which provides a particular level of habitat protection. This is described in further sections.

Figure 1: WUA plot for several native species with optimum flows indicated by blue arrows (from Ngaruroro River RHYHABSIM model).

Minimum Flow Considerations

Management Objectives

18. There are many considerations to be made in the minimum flow setting process, not the least of which is defining the values that the community wishes to maintain or enhance. It is not the intention of this report to define those values as that process involves all stakeholders in the Tukituki and Ngaruroro catchments as part of a full assessment of RMA Section II (economic, cultural, social, and environmental matters). However, there are many National and Regional examples to guide minimum flow selection for instream habitat, which have been included in this report.

19. One of the longstanding management objectives in the major Hawke’s Bay catchments is maintaining high quality rainbow trout fisheries. Rainbow trout have been a prominent management species for the Tukituki and Ngaruroro Rivers and have been the primary instream management objective for past minimum flow setting processes.

20. Native fish habitat is becoming an increasingly important topic in minimum flow setting processes. The latest report on the threat status of New Zealand native fish has assigned a heightened threat status of “At Risk – Declining” to several species that occur in Hawke’s Bay rivers (Allibone 2011). This indicates a heightened importance of habitat protection for these species.

Habitat Retention Levels

21. Minimum flow considerations for instream habitat requirements across New Zealand are almost exclusively based on retaining a percentage of the optimum habitat available for the key management species. Where the optimum habitat of a key species occurs at flows greater than the mean annual low flow (MALF), the habitat retention level is based on a percentage of the habitat level available at the MALF.

22. This method incorporates two significant concepts; that the instream environment is built around the natural hydrology of the river (where MALF represents a significant control on fish populations), and that reductions in the annual low flow by use of a minimum flow represent an exercise in risk management, whereby increased reductions in the annual low flow (as a result of water abstraction) represent increased risk to fish populations.

23. The habitat retention levels chosen for the existing lower Tukituki and lower Ngaruroro minimum flows targeted an 80% habitat retention level. The rationale for this level was that given the natural “variability around the MALF, then a reduction of 20% is seen as reasonable to meet both instream and out of stream requirements” (Wood 2004).

24. The report for the Waipawa and upper Tukituki recommended minimum flows that provided for a range of species including trout, native fish, and macroinvertebrates (Wood 1998). A direct comparison cannot be made against new model results as no habitat retention level was specified.

25. The 2011 Cawthron review highlighted that the final minimum flow recommendation from the lower Tukituki model neither met the objective of providing for 80% habitat retention, nor did it align with habitat retention levels currently used across New Zealand for highly valued rainbow trout fisheries.

26. National precedent in minimum flow setting is to assign high habitat retention levels for high valued fisheries. Jowett and Hayes (2004) provide suggested habitat retention levels for trout and native fish. For rivers and streams with brown and rainbow trout fisheries, the suggested habitat retention level provides for 90% of habitat available at the MALF, as per Jowett and Hayes (2004). This level has been adopted by several regional councils.

27. Habitat retention values for native fish have yet to be thoroughly established through precedent as many native fish often have flow requirements less than trout species and native fish do not often comprise significant fisheries (with the exception of eels and whitebait species).

28. The most up-to-date native fish habitat data indicate that in many Hawke’s Bay rivers, the flow requirements of some native species are equal or greater than rainbow trout.

29. Also, the recent increase in threat status of a number of native fish species found in Hawke’s Bay indicates that protection of their habitat would be of regional and national importance.

Summary of Results

30. Data for all the included catchments have been compiled to show the previous minimum flows, the flows required to retain 80% of habitat available at the MALF, and the % of MALF that each minimum flow represents (Table 1). This table has been compiled to present a direct comparison of the current minimum flows and the minimum flows required to meet the original management objective of 80% habitat retention for rainbow trout, based on the updated model results. Please note the minimum flows for the Waipawa and upper Tukituki incorporated a number of species’ habitat requirements, so a direct comparison cannot be made. See Wood (1998) for a full description of the minimum flow recommendations.

Table 1: Compiled minimum flow data for all modelled rivers with comparisons to the mean annual low flow (MALF).

River	Current Minimum Flow	Current Minimum Flow as %MALF	Flow Demanding Species	Flow necessary for 80% habitat retention level*	Flow necessary for 80% habitat retention level as %MALF
Lower Tukituki	3500 l/s	57%	Rainbow trout Torrentfish	4300 l/s 5100 l/s	67% 80%
Waipawa	2300 l/s	77%	Rainbow trout and longfin eel	2000 l/s	67%
Upper Tukituki	1900 l/s	68%	Rainbow trout and longfin eel	1800 l/s	64%
Tukipo	150 l/s	81%	Rainbow trout and bluegill bully	150 l/s	81%
Ngaruroro	2400 l/s	53%	Rainbow trout torrentfish	3400 l/s 3900 l/s	76% 87%

*all habitat retention levels refer to the % of habitat available at MALF

31. Flow requirements for key management species (defined here as the most flow demanding or having high fishery value) have been compiled (Table 2). This table shows the flows necessary to align with current precedent from other New Zealand river systems regarding habitat retention levels.

Table 2: Flows required to maintain 90% of habitat available at the MALF for key management species and the %MALF each flow represents.

River

Key Management Species

Flow necessary for 90% habitat retention level

Flow necessary for 90% habitat retention level as %MALF

Lower Tukituki

Rainbow trout

Torrentfish

5300 l/s

5800 l/s

87%

95%

Waipawa

Rainbow trout

Longfin eel

2400 l/s

2500 l/s

80%

83%

Upper Tukituki

Rainbow trout and longfin eel

2200 l/s

79%

Tukipo

Rainbow trout

Bluegill bully

175 l/s

163 l/s

94%

88%

Ngaruroro

Rainbow trout

torrentfish

3900 l/s

4200 l/s

87%

93%

*all habitat retention levels refer to the % of habitat available at MALF

References

Allibone, R., David, B., Hitchmough, R., Jellyman, D., Ling, N., Ravenscroft, P., Waters, J. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. v44:3, 129-148.

Hay, J. 2008. Review of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Instream Habitat Modelling on the Lower Tukituki River. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Cawthron Report No. 1542.

Jowett I.G., Hayes, J.W. 2004. Review of methods for setting water quantity conditions in the Environment Southland draft Regional Water Plan. Prepared for Southland Regional Council. NIWA Client Report HAM2004-018.

Wood, G. 1998. Sustainable Low Flow Project: Ruataniwha Rivers Waipawa – Tukipo – Tukituki. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report EMT 98/2. ISSN 1174-3077.

Wood, G. 2004. Lower Tukituki IFIM. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Environmental Management Group Technical Report, Unpublished.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

32. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

Kolt Johnson

Scientist

Rob Christie

Team Leader Hydrology

Graham Sevicke-Jones

Manager Enviromental Science

Darryl Lew

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Hastings District Plan Review - Rural Issues

REASON FOR REPORT

1. Hastings District Council (HDC) has released a ‘Rural Issues’ discussion document as the first phase of its district plan review. Comments on the discussion document are invited until Friday 18 March 2011. This paper outlines key opportunities for using HDC’s district plan as a tool for implementing the Council’s broader regional strategic goals and direction.

Relevance of rural land use to Council functions

2. Two of Council’s strategic goals (from the ‘Embracing Futures Thinking’ document) are:

2.1 Land use change - Informing and encouraging optimal land use or economic benefit which maintains and enhances environmental sustainability; and

2.2 Economic development – Deliver strong leadership in sustainable regional economic growth.

3. Many other strategic goals in the ‘Embracing Futures Thinking’ document also relate to rural issues. It is important that the Council’s position on regional land use and rural issues are expressed, so that where appropriate the district plan can be used as a ‘tool’ for implementation.

4. HDC have recognised the value of the Regional Council’s input and intend inviting Council representation on a technical advisory group (or similar) to inform the next phases of the district plan review. Through written comments and the advisory group role, council staff intend promoting the wide range of Council’s projects and activities that are relevant to rural land use and should be taken into account when reviewing the district plan. For example, these include:

4.1 Regional scenarios ‘Land River Us’

4.2 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (both councils were partners in this project already) and associated RRMP ‘growth management’ plan change – including HPUDS implementation, growth management principles, domestic wastewater management, stormwater management, versatile land, etc

4.3 Heretaunga Plains Flood Drainage Scheme Level of Service Review (in progress)

4.4 Land management activities

4.5 Water infrastructure and water demand management

4.6 Regional Water Strategy and Regional Economic Development Strategy (both in progress, but completed prior to draft district plan release)

4.7 Leveraging national mechanisms (e.g. ‘carbon farming’) plus potentially changing market forces and funding sources

4.8 How can the district plan be utilised to assist achieving strong rural productivity and resilience?

Hastings District Plan Review

5. HDC’s district plan review work programme aims towards notification of a second generation district plan in late 2013. HDC has summarised its direction (p23) as:

5.1 Moving toward a more compact urban development

5.2 Protection of the productive land capacity

5.3 Maintaining water quality

5.4 Responding to the future effects of climate change on land use

5.5 Integrating the components needed to plan for growth, such as transport, infrastructure, landscape, etc

5.6 Creating a resilient hill country environment.

6. This direction has been informed by previous community discussions (for example: ten year plan preparation and Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy). The Council has been involved in a number of those earlier discussions.

7. The Rural Issues discussion paper presents an opportunity for many of Council’s activities and interests to be highlighted.

8. HDC has done some initial thinking and consider the following to be a viable list (p24) of initiatives that the district plan could address:

8.1 minimising rural land fragmentation – by further restricting the three year lifestyle subdivision rule

8.2 limiting scale of operation – by placing tighter limitations on the scale of industrial and commercial developments and possibly wineries which would be better located in dedicated and centralised zones

8.3 limiting community facility use – by restricting the ability of places of assembly to be developed in rural areas

8.4 promoting the management and regeneration of indigenous vegetation – by placing incentives for regeneration programmes and controls over existing areas

8.5 minimise the effects of buildings on the versatile soil resource – by further restricting the site density and coverage rules for buildings in the Plains Zone

8.6 provide more compact rural lifestyle areas - by allowing for more dense development within the existing rural residential zones

8.7 promote energy efficient and compact living environments - by providing for very limited growth of the rural settlement living environments

8.8 minimise the effects of land use on water quality in the streams, rivers and lakes – by further restricting riparian vegetation modification on the significant rivers, lakes and streams

8.9 ensure that the hill country of the district can be resilient in the face of climate and economic changes - by providing for flexibility in the type of land use that can be undertaken

8.10 provide for proper recognition of waahi tapu sites in the district – by receiving further nominations of sites not currently listed in the plan, to be considered for verification.

What next?

9. Next steps are for staff to draft comments on the Rural Issues discussion paper and submit those before the 18 March 2011 deadline. Staff will compile draft comments and circulate those to Councillors (via email) for further feedback before staff submit final comments. Our comments will include a summary of the initiatives that Council is undertaking in relation to rural land use.

10. HDC will consider the comments but does not intend to hold hearings. HDC is about to prepare and release two further discussion documents as part of the preliminary phases of HDC’s district plan review. Those two documents will focus on the urban and coastal environments.

11. Council’s representation on the technical advisory group will bolster any written comments made on the rural issues paper and soon to be released urban and coastal papers.

12. HDC is aiming to release a draft district plan for further informal public comment toward the end of 2012.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

13. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Environmental Management Committee:

1. receives the report titled ‘Hastings District Plan Review – Rural Issues.’

2. endorses involvement of Council staff in Hastings District Council’s District Plan Technical Advisory Group.

3. provides feedback to staff on what comments should be submitted on the Hastings District Council’s ‘Rural Issues’ document.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report. A copy of the ‘Rural Issues’ discussion document was previously circulated to Councillors by email on 7 February 2011.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 16 February 2011

SUBJECT: Revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality

REASON FOR REPORT

1. This report presents an overview of the revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NES), as announced by the Government on 29 January 2011. Specific details of the revised Regulations are still being drafted. The amended regulations are expected to come into force in March 2011.

Background

2. On 10 June 2009, the Minister for the Environment announced a review of the NES. The review focused on the following key aspects of the regulations relating to particulate matter:

2.1 The cost of the regulations

2.2 Appropriateness of the 2013 deadline, should it be extended

2.3 The number of permitted exceedances allowed annually, and

2.4 Other measures that can be used to encourage regional councils to meet the standards.

3. An independent technical advisory group (TAG) was appointed to oversee the review, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was engaged to review and update the cost benefit analysis undertaken on the air quality standards. The findings of the review were published on 10 June 2010.

Key amendments

4. The Government has decided on five key changes to the NES.

5. Attachment 1 outlines the amendments and also sets out previous NES requirements, requests made in submissions by the Council, and comments on likely implications of the revisions.

6. While the changes give Council more time to reduce PM₁₀ levels within the region, and lessens the impacts on existing industry, it is important to note that the value of the PM₁₀ standard will not change.

Other proposals

7. Mandatory reporting (PM₁₀ monitoring data) - the previous NES regulations require regional councils to give public notice when the standard is breached. MfE announcements propose that the revised NES will contain an expanded version of this requirement, however exact reporting requirements will not be known till a later date.

8. Use of existing ministerial powers under the RMA (section 27) - the Minister has indicated that regional councils will be requested to provide regular updates on their region’s progress towards meeting the NES. Requiring regular updates will enable the Minister to determine each council’s performance towards meeting standards. The assessment will highlight those councils who are not taking steps to address air quality issues within their region.

9. Establish an air quality compliance strategy - to support the implementation of the revised standards, MfE will develop and implement a national compliance strategy setting out practices councils should adopt in order to meet the NES. The strategy will include:

9.1 education on health impacts of PM₁₀

9.2 provide best practice guidelines for airshed action plans and for managing offsets

9.3 outline a suite of options the Minister may take into account when a council fails to take action to address non-compliance and airsheds continue to breach the NES. Powers currently available to the Minister under sections 24 and 25 of the RMA, include directing a council review, requiring a plan change, or appointing a person(s) to undertake some of the local authority’s functions where a local authority fails to adequately carry them out. Intention of this requirement is to ensure councils take appropriate steps to reduce pollution levels in their airsheds, and to provide a clear indication of the possible sanctions non-compliance may have.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

10. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report titled “Revised National Environmental Standards for Air Quality”.

Belinda Riley

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Revised, Previous and HBRC requested NES amendments

Revised, Previous and HBRC requested NES amendments

Attachment 1

Revised NES, previous NES and HBRC’s requested NES amendments

Ref	Revised NES (2011)	Previous NES (2004)	Previous HBRC requests	Implications / Comments
1	Split compliance date depending on the state of air quality in each Airshed. Airsheds with more than 10 exceedances per year: by September 2016 - no more than 3 exceedances per year, by September 2020 no more than 1 exceedance per year (eg: Hastings Airshed). Airsheds with less than 10 exceedances per year: by September 2016 no more than 1 exceedance per year (eg: Napier Airshed)	NES compliance date: 1 September 2013	NES compliance date extended to 2020	Current RRMP objectives aim for a regional NES compliance date of 2020. Open fire and burner phase out rules geared to comply with NES in Napier and Hastings by 2018. Current rule structure provides a two year ‘buffer’ so additional measures can be implemented to meet the NES by 2020 if by 2018 it hadn’t been met. The new 2016 deadline doesn’t fully reflect RRMP objectives or rule structure. However, it is highly likely that with current management measures in place, Napier will meet the NES by 2016, and Hastings will meet the NES by 2020. NB: the current RRMP rule structure does not provide a buffer if the NES is not met by 2016.
2	Number of exceedances: one per annum	Number of exceedances: one per annum	Number of exceedances increased to five	One exceedance is consistent with RRMP objectives and rules. With removal of ‘exceptional events,’ one exceedance is more achievable than under previous NES, but is still stringent.
3	Exceptional events (e.g. dust storms, volcanic eruptions) not counted as an exceedance	Exceptional events counted as an exceedance	No specific request by HBRC on this issue	MfE officials have advised that further information will be provided at a later date on types of events to be classed as ‘exceptional’ and which events will be counted as an ‘exceedance.’
4	Mandatory offsets^{^[1]} for significant discharges from new industry in non-complying Airsheds after September 2012	No new consents for discharges of PM₁₀ in non complying Airsheds after September 2013	Remove penalty provisions on industry	Proposal does not apply to existing industry seeking to renew existing consents, but would apply to any existing industry expanding their activities. Proposal does not fully satisfy Council’s requests as mandatory offsets for new industry not fair or equitable given primary source of PM₁₀ concentrations is domestic heating. (ie: In Napier and Hastings domestic heating contributes to around 87% of total wintertime PM₁₀ concentrations, while industrial PM₁₀ contribution is approx. 2%). Proposal is slight improvement on previous NES, but any new industries will incur costly offsets while NES does not impose penalties on homeowners installing solid fuel heating appliances.
5	Prohibits new solid fuel open fires in homes in non-complying Airsheds from September 2012	Solid fuel open fires excluded from standard	No specific request by HBRC on this issue	Prohibition will apply regardless - even if Airshed eventually complies with PM₁₀ standard in future. This is more equitable than previous NES where despite having higher PM₁₀ emissions, open fires were not subject to the same restrictions as enclosed woodburners.
6	Natural sources of PM₁₀ still contribute towards exceedances (unless classed as ‘exceptional’)	Natural sources of PM₁₀ contribute towards exceedances	Take into account natural incidences of PM₁₀ (e.g. sea salt)	Proposals do not accommodate Council’s request. ‘Exceptional events’ are excluded, but unlikely that ambient natural sources (eg: sea salt and dust) will be classed as an ‘exceptional event.’ Natural contributions to PM₁₀ concentrations will have an impact on achieving NES compliance by 2016, particularly in the Awatoto Airshed where NES levels are exceeded approx. 41 times a year.
7	Diffuse sources of PM₁₀ still contribute towards exceedances	Diffuse sources of PM₁₀ contribute towards exceedances	Take into account the impact of diffuse sources of PM₁₀ (e.g. unsealed industrial yards and roads)	Like natural sources, Council’s request has not been accommodated in proposals. Diffuse sources of PM₁₀ are still included in the measurement, monitoring and reporting requirements of the NES.

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
16 November 2010	RDC	1	Proposed District Plan The Proposed Rangitikei District Council Plan October 2010.	RDC	Proposed	6 December 2010 · Proposed District Plan received for Councils review. Plan reviewed no further action required.
5 November 2010	NCC	2	Notice of Requirement – Te Awa Structure Plan Notice of requirement for designation to allow for the construction of public works in the Te Awa Structure Plan area by Napier City Council.	NCC	Notified by NCC	6 December 2010 · The Council’s Engineering Team has provided comment. The Engineering Team believes that the proposed second pump station is unnecessary due to sufficient infrastructure already available in that there is scope to utilise infrastructure previously built for the Cross Country drain. · Council will submit in support but provide further comments on the above.
5 November 2010	NCC	2	Plan Change 6 – Te Awa Structure Plan The purpose of the plan change is to rezone the area from Main Rural to Main Residential and incorporate the outcomes sought in the Te Awa Structure Plan into the District Plan.	NCC	Notified by NCC	6 December 2010 · Engineering Team has provided comments. The proposed stormwater solution does not consider Low Impact Urban Design principles. It also appears that the four Wellbeings of Economic, Social. Cultural and Environment have not adequately been considered in the Structure Plan. · Council will submit in support of the application but provide comment on the above.
7 October 2010	HDC	3	Notice of Requirement – Arataki School The applicant seeks to designate land at 139 Arataki Road for Education purposes. The designation will provide land to construct a Primary School and early childcare facility. The site is currently owned by the Arataki Campground.	Ministry of Education Consultant – OPUS International Consultants	Notified by HDC	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · Detailed site development plans for site layout and configuration yet to be prepared by MOE. Detailed plans to follow if designation approved.
20 September 2010	NCC	4	Resource Consent – Subdivision The applicant proposes to subdivide an area of land currently part of the Snapper Holiday Park for a 2 lot residential subdivision. The address of the property is 10 Gill Road and the legal description is Lot 2 DP 28507.	J.A. & J.S. Coyle Consultant – Wallis Consultants	Notified Restricted Discretionary	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · Resource consent for the discharge of wastewater from proposed lots previously granted.
17 September 2010	NZTA	5	State Highway 2 & State Highway 5 Intersection The purpose of the project is to improve the safety and efficiency of this section of State Highway network.	NZTA Consultant - MWH	Pre-application	15 October 2010 · Comments received from Operations Group. No preliminary issues of concern from Engineering and Operations sections. · Council has no land within the proposed area. Access for maintenance is through Wairoa Road (SH2).
17 September 2010	NCC	6	Resource Consent – Land Use The applicant proposes to establish a Napier Plunket Centre to be located within Lot 6 DP 10462 Recreation Reserve (1983/4071) which forms Onekawa Park in Napier.	Royal NZ Plunket Society Consultant – Eos Design	Notified Discretionary	15 October 2010 · Proposal has been assessed. No issues warrant lodging a submission. · HAIL database records site as location of a historical landfill and that there maybe contamination issues. · In lieu of submission, letter sent to Napier CC and applicant advising HAIL classification. Napier CC already has this information. Letter suggested further investigation be undertaken to confirm landfill situation.
17 September 2010	CHBDC	7	Resource Consent – Subdivision The applicant’s agent sought information relating to the wastewater requirements for Lot 2 DP 430476 Pt Lot A DEEDS 16 DCDB Document ID: CT M2/629 or 793 SH2 Otane should an application for subdivision be sought.	Consultant - Dagg & Thorn Surveyors	Pre-Application	20 September 2010 · Land elevation contour information was provided to the consultant by the Engineering section. Policy provided regulatory advice on the RRMP. · Applicant yet to lodge formal application.
9 September 2010	NCC	8	Resource Consent - Subdivision The applicant seeks to undertake a 2 Lot subdivision to create one (1) 0.178 hectare residential Lot (being proposed Lot 1) and a balance Lot which will be 3.31 hectares (being proposed Lot 2). The address for the subdivision is 45 Rogers Road, Bay View, legal description Lot 4 DP 7344.	Cindy McKinnie Consultant – Consult Plus	Notified Restricted Discretionary	7 December 2010 · Application Hearing held on 24th November, Application declined by NCC. 8 October 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. Consent should be declined unless the proposed 2 residential lots are fully serviced or sufficient information is provided to show that adverse effects of on-site wastewater discharges (particularly in combination with the proposed soak-pit means of stormwater disposal), will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. · Submission stated installation of a reticulated sewage system for the Bay View community to be a sustainable long-term solution for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. · Submission also seeks clarification of floor level for flooding risk also requested.
23 August 2010	NCC	9	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus	Notified Restricted Discretionary	27 January 2011 · Council has become a party to the appeal lodged by the applicant under Section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The Council is interested in all of the proceedings but in particular is interested in issues relating to the effects of increased site coverage and stormwater collection, treatment and disposal. 16 December 2010 · Council has received a Notice of Appeal from the applicant on the NCC decision. 17 November 2010 · Application was declined at Hearing held 17 November 2010 as it was decided that the creation of two 2000m²lots was contrary to the intent of the Napier District Plan. 20 September 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. · Reasons include: o No provision for stormwater disposal and will likely result in adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding at a local level and the wider Jervoistown community. o Proposal to increase maximum site coverage from 10% to 25%. Concern that this will also increase adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding. · A 2009 report prepared by this Council (Jervoistown Drainage Analysis, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, April 2009) outlines the drainage issues and provides the conclusion that incremental development at Jervoistown will continue to result in reduced drainage standard for the existing houses. A copy of this report was provided to Napier CC shortly after its publication.
12 July 2010	NCC	10	Resource Consent – Land use The application seeks to locate two existing facilities to one building located at 82 Taradale Road, Napier, where an extensive refurbishment and revitalisation project is proposed.	Department of Corrections Consultants – MWH	Limited Notification Discretionary	15 October 2010 · Applicant further reviewing options prior to hearing. 13 July 2010 · HBRC lodged submission in opposing application. Decision requested that application be declined unless the bus stop which the applicant proposes to remove is replaced with a new in-set bus stop on Taradale Road, midway between Carnegie Road and Austin Street.
24 May 2010	NCC	11	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Gerald Howe Consultant – Alan Petersen	Notified Restricted Discretionary	15 October 2010 · No recent activity. 2 August 2010 · Policy staff have met with the applicant’s consultant. Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration. 14 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced. 12 June 2010 · Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams. The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils. The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment. Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application. Submissions closed 24 June 2010.
18 January 2010	CHBDC	12	Plan Change 1 – Fault lines This change identifies more accurately the fault lines that Waipukurau, Waipawa and Otane and introduces new rules which reflect the expected level of risk associated with earthquakes.	CHBDC	Notified by CHBDC	14 December 2010 · CHBDC has placed the application on hold while further feasibility investigations are carried out. 15 October 2010 · Awaiting CHBDC to confirm hearing arrangements. 15 March 2010 · Further submissions invited. HBRC further submission unnecessary. 16 February 2010 · Submission lodged in support of the Plan Change. 4 February 2010 · This Plan Change is a result of work undertaken by Geological Nuclear Science (GNS) to locate and define fault lines in Central Hawke’s Bay at the instigation of HBRC and CHBDC. · The Study “Earthquake Fault Trace Survey: Central Hawke’s Bay District” (GNS Science Consultancy Report 2006/98) has been received and accepted buy Council Staff. · As HBRC instigated the work it is likely that a submission will be lodged in favour of the Plan Change.
26 June 09	HDC	n/a	Plan Change 49 – Rural Zone Subdivision The plan change seeks to amend the rules regarding the creation of lifestyle sites to ensure that the issues associated with applications for multiple lifestyle sites being created at once can be managed more effectively.	HDC	Notified by HDC	27 August 2010 · Hastings DC issued decisions on submissions. No decisions warrant appeal by HBRC. 3 February 2010 · Further submissions closed 29/010/10. · Council spoke with HDC staff no need for further submission as original submission supports PC in its entirety. 7 August 2009 · Council has submitted in support of PC49 as it considers that the PC will contribute to the sustainable management of the rural zone by restricting the current rate of rural subdivision for residential purposes. 17 July 2009 · PC 49 under evaluation.
20 January 2009	HDC	13	Proposed Private Plan Change The plan change will seek to rezone land at Elwood Road, Tomoana from Plains to Industrial. The subject land comprises 16.4286 hectares and is legally described as Lot 3 DP 27427 and Lot 1 DP 27890. The site directly adjoins land zoned Industrial 2 known as the Tomoana Industrial Area.	Elwood Road Holdings Consultant - MWH	Pre-Application	3 June 2010 · Council receives the applicant’s stormwater and water proposal for its comments. A meeting between Council and the applicant is scheduled for in late June. 23 March 2009 · Council provided comments to MWH on stormwater and the historical Tomoana Freezing Works offal disposal sites (pye holes). 20 January 2009 · MWH request Councils comments on the proposed Plan Change
14 March 2008	NCC	14	Plan Change 2 – Business Park Zone The plan change proposes to rezone 30 hectares located immediately north of Prebensen Drive and west of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway Legal Description (Lot 114 DP 377350) and backing onto the Southern Marsh, part of the Ahuriri Estuary.	NCC	Notified by NCC	31 May 2010 · Council’s Engineering Team assessed stormwater management plan and found contaminant solution acceptable. Council’s concerns would be satisfied by management plan’s proposals. · Napier CC to confirm hearing arrangements. 30 April 2010 · Council received stormwater management plan for the business park. 23 April 2010 · Letter received confirming Council’s submission and inviting further submissions. No further submission is lodged. 14 March 2008 · The Council opposes the Plan Change due to concerns related to the discharge of contaminants from stormwater into the Ahuriri Estuary.

[1] ‘ Offsets’ are mitigation measures to manage predicted PM₁₀ emissions from a new activity by permanently reducing PM₁₀ emissions from an existing source elsewhere in the same airshed.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Property Update	7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	Statutory Advocacy Map