Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 30 May 2012

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 18 April 2012

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Regional Council Meeting held on 18 April 2012

5.         Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

6.         Call for General Business Items

Decision Items

7.         Affixing of Common Seal

8.         Transfer of Port of Napier Ltd Shares to Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company

9.         Replacement Maori Committee Representative

10.       Mexted and Williams Resource Consent Appeal

11.       Resolution of the AFFCO Appeal

12.       Change 3 & Variation 3 (on-site wastewater) - Hearing Panel Recommendations

13.       Variation 1: Rivermouth Hazard Areas - Hearing Panel Recommendation

14.       Recommendations from the Asset Management & Biosecurity Committee

15.       Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

16.       Election of the Environment and Services Committee Chairman


Information or Performance Monitoring

17.       May 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

18.       Systems Integration Project - Web Update

19.       Chairman's Monthly Report (to be tabled)

20.       General Business

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

21.       Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 18 April 2012

22.       Integration of Freshwater Activities - Supporting Information

23.       Public Excluded Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

 

Introduction

1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.

 

Decision Making Process

2.      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 required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council receives the report “Action Items from Previous Meetings”.

 

 

 

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Actions from Previous Council Meetings

 

 

  


Actions from Previous Council Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Actions from Regional Council Meetings

 

 

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

1. 

Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project

Regular updates on milestones achieved

AN/ GH

ongoing

 

2. 

Adoption of the audited draft LTP for consultation

Financial reporting – design a report which reports and projects Internal time, Consultants, Contractors, Contributions, and Legal costs per Group of Activity

JP/PD

May 2012

Paper considered at 16 May Corporate & Strategic Committee meeting.

3. 

RMA Delegations

Central ‘delegations register’ to be developed

IM/AN

 

Under development

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Affixing of Common Seal

 

Comment

1.       The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

 

 

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1     Lot 43

          DP 12692

          CT  E1/59

-     Transfer

 

1.1.2     Lot 22

          DP 14228

          CT  G1/44

-     Transfer

 

1.1.3     Lot 22

          DP 6391

          CT  D4/1432

-     Transfer

 

1.1.4     Lot 14

          DP 4488

          CT  55/91

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.5     Lot 297

          DP 10632

          CT  B4/416

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.6     Lot 29

          DP 12309

          CT  D2/503

-     Transfer

 

1.1.7     Lot 62

          DP 13039

          CT  E2/1232

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.8     Lot 160

          DP 6598

          CT  C4/387

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.9     Lot 74

          DP 6598

          CT  C2/303

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.10  Lot 29

          DP 13693

          CT  F2/1291

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (cross-lease 2 x 10% discount                         landlord and 1 x 17.5% discount                         resides at property)

 

1.1.11  Lot 94

          DP 13039

          CT  E2/1241

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.12  Lot 129

          DP 2172

          CT  55/190

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.13  Lot 1

          DP 12517

          CT  D4/964

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.14  Lot 99

          DP 13055

          CT  E2/1291

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.15  Lot 23

          DP 4488

          CT  56/286

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.16  Lot 1

          DP 13384

          CT  F1/1022

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.17  Lot 78

          DP 13695

          CT  F2/1325

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.18  Lot 112

          DP 12692

          CT  E1/70

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

-     Transfer

 

 

 

1.1.19  Lot 62

          DP 13495

          CT  F3/185

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.20  Lot 167

          DP 13096

          CT  E3/537

      -  Transfer

 

1.1.21  Lot 83

          DP 7201

          CT  B4/807

      -  Transfer

 

1.1.22  Lot 38

          DP 12309

          CT  D2/505

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.23  Lot 2

          DP 14972

          CT  G4/574

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.24  Lot 19

          DP 7872

          CT  D3/879

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

 

1.1.25  Lot 11

          DP 4488

          CT  55/86

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.26  Lot 442

          DP 11447

          CT  B4/1220

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

-     Transfer

 

1.1.27  Lot 24

          DP 11689

          CT  C3/28

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.28  Lot 40

          DP 6391

          CT  E2/1454

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (cross-lease 1 x 10% discount                         landlord and 2 x 17.5% discount                         resides at property)

 

 

1.1.29  Lot 197

          DP 2172

          CT  G1/524

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.30  Lot 337

          DP 11329

          CT  B3/1312

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.31  Lot 1

          DP 4318

          CT  54/220

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.32  Lot 159

          DP 12611

          CT  D4/1096

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.33  Lot 70

          DP 9684

          CT  B3/1015

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.34  Lot 61

          DP 11717

          CT  C3/78

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.35  Lot 232

          DP 10728

          CT  C1/301

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.36  Lot 187

          DP 7756

          CT  C2/450

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.37  Lot 115

          DP 11999

          CT  D1/456

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)
          -     Transfer

 

1.1.38  Lot 63

          DP 14224

          CT  F4/1499

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.39  Lot 3

          DP 14665

          CT  G3/320

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.40  Lot 91

          DP 13380

          CT  F1/612

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.41  Lot 4

          DP 11626

          CT  C2/598

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

 

1.1.42  Lot 277

          DP 10775

          CT  211860

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 10% landlord)

 

1.1.43  Lot 60

          DP 10121

          CT  c3/1178

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.44  Lot 33

          DP 10513

          CT  D2/1140

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (cross-lease 1 x 10% discount                         landlord and 1 x 17.5% discount                         resides at property)

         

1.1.45  Lot 44

          DP 14448

          CT  G2/680

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.46  Lot 1

          DP 13899

          CT  F4/425

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.47  Lot 88

          DP 13696

          CT  F2/1337

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.48  Lot 3

          DP 4531

          CT  55/207

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

 

 

 

 

1.1.49  Lot 71

          DP 2172

          CT  56/251

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

 

1.1.50  Lot 144

          DP 2172

          CT  55/192

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (cross-lease 1 x 10% discount                         landlord and 2 x 17.5% discount                         resides at property)

 

1.1.51  Lot 110

          DP 13039

          CT  E2/1251

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.52  Lot 10

          DP 4221

          CT  c2/403

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.53  Lot 19

          DP 7872

          CT  D3/879

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.54  Lot 17

          DP 12780

          CT  E1/739

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 10% landlord)

 

1.1.55  Lot 133

          DP 13096

          CT  E3/529

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.56  Lot 140

          DP 6598

          CT  C2/322

          -     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

 

 

 

3291

 

 

 

 

3292

 

 

 

 

3293

 

 

 

 

3294

 

3332

 

 

 

 

3295

 

3345

 

 

 

 

3296

 

 

 

 

3297

 

3342

 

 

 

 

3298

 

3350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3299

 

3300

 

 

 

 

3301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3302

 

 

 

 

3303

 

 

 

 

3304

 

3366

 

 

 

 

3305

 

3367

 

 

 

 

3306

 

3307

 

 

 

 

3309

 

 

 

 

3310

 

 

 

 

3311

 

3330

 

 

 

 

 

 

3312

 

3313

 

 

 

 

3314

 

 

 

 

3315

 

 

 

 

3318

 

3353

 

 

 

 

3319

 

3351

 

 

 

 

3320

 

 

 

 

 

3321

 

3337

 

 

 

 

3322

 

3356

 

 

 

 

3323

 

 

 

 

3324

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3326

 

3335

 

 

 

 

3327

 

 

 

 

3328

 

3354

 

 

 

 

3329

 

3348

 

 

 

 

3331

 

 

 

 

3333

 

 

 

 

 

3334

 

 

 

 

3336

 

 

 

 

3338

 

3360

 

 

 

 

 

3339

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3340

 

 

 

 

 

3341

 

 

 

 

3343

 

 

 

 

 

3344

 

 

 

 

 

3346

 

 

 

 

 

3347

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3349

 

 

 

 

 

3352

 

 

 

 

 

3355

 

 

 

 

3357

 

3358

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3359

 

 

 

 

 

3361

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3362

 

 

 

 

 

3363

 

 

 

 

 

3364

 

 

 

 

3365

 

 

 

 

 

3368

 

 

 

 

 

3369

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 April 2012

 

 

 

 

13 April 2012

 

 

 

 

13 April 2012

 

 

 

 

16 April 2012

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

16 April 2012

 

10 May 2012

 

 

 

 

17 April 2012

 

 

 

 

17 Apirl 2012

 

9 May 2012

 

 

 

 

17 April 2012

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 April 2012

 

17 April 2012

 

 

 

 

19 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 April 2012

 

 

 

 

20 April 2012

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

22 May 2012

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

22 May 2012

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

23 April 2012

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

3 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

24 April 2012

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

 

 

 

24 April 2012

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

27 April 2012

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

27 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

27 April 2012

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

30 April 2012

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

1 May 2012

 

 

 

 

1 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 May 2012

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

1 May 2012

 

 

 

 

3 May 2012

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

3 May 2012

 

11 May 2012

 

 

 

 

4 May 2012

 

 

 

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

7 May 2012

 

 

 

 

7 May 2012

 

18 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

9 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

9 May 2012

 

 

 

 

10 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

10 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

11 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

11 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

16 May 2012

 

 

 

 

18 May 2012

 

18 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

21 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

21 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

21 May 2012

 

 

 

 

22 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

23 May 2012

 

 

 

 

 

23 May 2012

 

1.2                                                                                   

 

Staff Warrants

1.2.1   C. Ormsby

             (Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.2   J. Shanks

             (Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

1.2.3   J. Tantrum

             (Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

1.2.4   N. Hudson

          (Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

1.2.5   T. Wilding

             (Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

 

 

3288

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3289

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3308

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3316

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3317

 

 

13 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 April 2012

1.3                                                                                   

Apiculture Harvest Agreement

HBRC and Comvita

(Tutira Country Park)

 

 

 

3290

 

 

13 April 2012

1.4                                                                                   

Specification

Waikatuku River Stopbank Upgrading

Whakaki Marae

(Contract No: 11-04-4295C)

 

3325

1 May 2012

 

Decision Making Process

2.       Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1   Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2   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 due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided;

2.3   That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.


 

Recommendations

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.      Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

 

 

 

 

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Transfer of Port of Napier Ltd Shares to Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company

 

 

Reason for Report

1.      At its meeting on 29 February 2012 Council approved the transfer of its shareholding in Port of Napier Limited (“PONL”) to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (“HBRIC”) at the revalued price determined by Deloitte as at 31 March 2012.

2.      Those resolutions formally authorised the transfer of PONL shares to HBRIC.

Share Transfer

3.      Completing the process of transfer in accordance with the decisions of Council and in compliance with the Companies Act 1993, and PONL and HBRIC’s constitutions requires Council to execute standard share transfer documentation.

4.      This report therefore recommends the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Council be authorised to complete this formality by executing the required documentation.

Decision Making Process

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

5.1.      The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

5.2.      Council completed a special consultative process on the proposal to establish an investment company and the proposed transfer of 100% of its shareholding in Port Of Napier Limited to this investment company. This consultation process was undertaken during April and May 2011.

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

5.4.      The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

5.5.      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.

 

 

Recommendations

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.     Notes that a special consultative process was undertaken during April and May 2011 on the proposal to consider the establishment of an investment company and the proposed transfer of its 100% shareholding in the Port of Napier Limited to this investment company.

 

 

3.     Authorises the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Council, acting on the Council’s behalf, to execute the documentation transferring the Council’s shareholding in PONL to HBRIC, in accordance with Council’s decisions made on 29 February and 18 April 2012.

 

 

 

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Replacement Maori Committee Representative

 

Reason for Report

1.      At the April meeting of the Council’s Maori Committee one of the present representatives from the Maori Committee to the Environmental Management Committee, Marei Apatu indicated he is unable to continue as the representative on that Committee.

2.      The Committee decided to appoint a replacement member for the remaining meetings of the Environmental Management Committee.

3.      Accordingly Dr Benita Wakefield was nominated to represent the Maori Committee on the Environmental Management Committee.

Decision Making Process

4.      Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Council has a specified power and mandate to establish committees, sub-committees and other subordinate decision making bodies that it considers appropriate, and to make appointments to those bodies as appropriate.  Therefore, staff do not believe that the decision making process contained within the LGA applies in this instance.

 

 

Recommendations

That Council:

1.    Appoints Dr Benita Wakefield as the Maori Committee representative on the Environmental Management Committee to replace Marei Apatu.

 

 

 

Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Mexted and Williams Resource Consent Appeal

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper is seeking a new delegation from Council regarding the appeal by Mahanga E Tu of the Mexted, Williams and Malherbe consent application.  There have been a number of developments in the case, and the current delegation does not provide staff with sufficient latitude to ensure that the all eventualities at the hearing are authorised.

Background

2.      Mexted, Williams and Malherbe applied to the Regional Council for a number of resource consents required to undertake a small residential development at the northern end of Judges Parade, Mahanga. On 26 January 2010 a panel of independent commissioners granted resource consent for all aspects of the development that required authorisation from the Regional Council.  As the hearing was run jointly with Wairoa District Council, the same hearing panel also granted resource consent for the District Council aspects of the development.  The Wairoa District Council decision has also been appealed by Mahanga E Tu.

3.      The decision was appealed by Mahanga E Tu Incorporated, one of the submitters.  This group represented those local people who were opposed to the development.

4.      On Thursday 10 June 2010 this Council gave staff the delegation to “attend Environment Court mediation but required staff to seek further Council approval for a mediated settlement via consent memorandum or, conversely authorises staff to defend the Hearing Panel’s decision.”

Process to Date

5.      Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held on 21 June 2010.  At this mediation the applicants presented revised plans for the development.  The appellant did not accept the amended proposal so the appeal has progressed through the Environment Court appeal process.  An evidence exchange timetable was set by the Court as a hearing appears necessary to resolve the appeal.  Further modifications to the applicants proposed development were made and provided to all parties for consideration in October 2011, but these still failed to address the concerns of the appellant.

6.      After a series of delays and changes to the timetable, the applicant lodged their primary evidence with the Court on 24 February 2012.  The appellants lodged most of their evidence with the Court on 16 March 2012.  There were delays in receiving an outstanding appendix to the evidence of their coastal hazard expert.  It was lodged on 19 April 2012.

7.      One of the main concerns that has been raised by the appellant is the issue of coastal hazards and their potential effects on the proposed development.  This is supported by the recent evidence of their coastal expert.

Regional Council’s Role

8.      The Regional Council has engaged the following consultants to provide expert evidence on behalf of the Regional Council:

8.1.      Senior Coastal Engineer Richard Reinen-Hamill of Tonkin & Taylor Limited in Auckland who will present evidence on the coastal hazard aspects of the applications.

8.2.      Environmental Scientist Hamish Lowe of Lowe Environmental Impact in Palmerston North who has provided expert evidence about on-site wastewater.

8.3       Manager Engineering Gary Clode has provided expert evidence about the potential effects of filling parts of the property, and I am also currently preparing expert planning evidence.  We all act as expert witnesses whose duty it is to assist the Environment Court impartially within our areas of expertise.

The Court Process

9.      The Environment Court has a Code of Conduct that all expert witnesses must comply with. Amongst other things, the code states that an expert witness must not omit to consider material facts know to the witness that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

10.    In reviewing the new evidence of the appellant’s coastal hazard expert Dr Roger Shand (received in its entirety on 19 April 2012), Richard Reinen-Hamill found new information that indicated there is a possibility that coastal erosion will affect the applicant’s site far sooner than initially thought.  As a result he now believes that the potential effects of the proposed seawall may be more than minor.

11.    The erection of a coastal protection structure in coastal hazard zones 1 and 2 is classified in the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan as a non-complying activity.  Following the bundling approach, the suite of resource consent applications associated with this development have been assessed as a non-complying activity bundle.

12.    The RMA sets out particular restrictions which apply only to non-complying activities.  Subsection 1 of section 104D states:

......a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either—

(a)   the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or

(b)   the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of—

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or

(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or

(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.

13.    Based on Richard Reinen-Hamill’s assessment of the current proposal, it appears that the proposed seawall may not protect the development from coastal hazards and that if it is located as proposed will have adverse effects on coastal processes that will be more than minor.  This means that (1)(a) of the ‘gateway test’ is not satisfied.  My planning assessment has concluded that the proposed development is contrary to some of the objectives and policies of the regional plans relating to coastal hazards.  This means that the second part of the ‘gateway test’ is not met either.  I am therefore not able to support granting consent for the application as it stands.

14.    Mr Reinen-Hamill’s concerns about the proposal were raised with all parties as soon as he became aware of it.  Caucusing of the coastal hazard experts is being arranged for the first week of June and may potentially result in sufficient amendments being made to the applicant’s proposal to allow Mr Reinen-Hamill to conclude that the effects of the proposed activity will be no more than minor.  I may then be in a position to be able to support granting consent to the amended proposal.  However, if the applicants are not willing to amend their proposal, and at the end of caucusing Mr Reinen-Hamill maintains his professional opinion about the effects of the proposed seawall will be more than minor, then I could not support granting resource consent for all aspects of the proposal.


Decision Sought

15.    Staff therefore request that Council make a new resolution relating to this appeal which authorises staff to present a case to the Environment Court which is supported by expert evidence.  Depending on the outcome of coastal hazard expert caucusing, I may not be able to support granting consent, and the current delegation does not provide for the Council to adopt a position other than supporting the granting of consent.  The current delegation is only to defend the hearing panel’s decision which was to grant all resource consents.

Reasons for Change in Approach

16.    This potential change in position of the Regional Council is the result of developments since the first instance decision.  Almost two and half years has passed since then.  The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has come into effect and this requires greater consideration of coastal processes including sea level rise.  Quite a large amount of further information about coastal hazards, both in general and also in this specific location; has also become available.  This in part reflects the increased policy focus on climate change effects and also changes in the scientific understanding of coastal hazards, sea level risk predictions and erosion rates.  The design of the development has also changed.

17.    One of the specific facts that have changed in this case is the existing rate of erosion.  At the time of the first instance hearing this was accepted to be 0.12 m/yr.  The appellant’s coastal hazard expert suggests this is now as much as 0.5 m/yr.  Richard Reinen-Hamill has accepted the higher rate of erosion, because it is based on a more comprehensive study that has been done recently, and therefore been able to include recent erosion data.  A higher rate of erosion has a significant bearing on when the proposed seawall is likely to become exposed.

Financial and Resource Implications

18.    The financial implication of this appeal is that it is currently unbudgeted expenditure by the Regional Council, although staff have recommended that some budget be made available for appeals in the 2012 Long Term Plan.  The potential change in recommendation by the Regional Council is unlikely to have much impact on the cost of the appeal, because as a respondent the Regional Council is expected to be involved in the appeal for its duration.

Decision Making Process

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

19.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

19.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

19.4.   The persons affected by this decision are all parties involved in the appeal, being the applicant (Mexted, Williams and Malherbe), the appellants, Wairoa District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

19.5.   Options that have been considered include continuing to defend the hearing panel’s decision, irrespective of the expert evidence presented on behalf of the Regional Council, however this could not be done in accordance with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses.

19.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

19.7.   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.

 

 

Recommendations

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.    Revokes the decision made by Council on 10 June 2010 and acknowledges that staff who attend the Environment Court hearing will adopt a neutral position that is supported by the evidence that the Regional Council’s experts have prepared.

 

 

 

 

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

 

 

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Resolution of the AFFCO Appeal

 

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper seeks approval from Council for a draft consent order to be signed on behalf of the Regional Council and lodged with the Environment Court that would settle the AFFCO appeal.

2.      The paper also seeks a decision from Council about whether or not an application for costs should be made.

Background

3.      An appeal was lodged by AFFCo Limited on 17 August 2009 objecting to the conditions of their resource consent, which had been granted by a Regional Council hearing panel on 24 July 2009.  Two parties joined the appeal as s 274 parties, being the Department of Conservation, and Mr David Renouf.

4.      Mediation was held with a Court appointed mediator, as well as a number of other informal meetings in an effort to try and resolve the appeal.  Council staff and AFFCo, as well as the Department of Conservation and Mr David Renouf have now agreed on a set of conditions that would allow the appeal to be disposed of by consent.

Staff Delegation

5.      At a meeting on Wednesday 9 September 2009 the Environmental Management Committee recommended that Council:

5.1.      Authorise staff to attend mediation of the AFFCo appeal;

5.2.      Delegate to the Group Manager Resource Management the authority to sign any mediated agreement on behalf of Council in relation to conditions 10 and 17(c) only of the AFFCo discharge permit.

5.3.      Retains its existing delegation to sign any mediated agreement in relation to conditions 20 and 28 of the AFFCo discharge permit.

6.      The recommendations of the Environmental Management Committee were confirmed at the full Council meeting on 23 September 2009.

7.      Agreement has now been reached between all parties on a set of conditions that will allow the appeal to be settled, but because Council did not delegate to staff the authority to sign a mediated agreement on all aspects of the appeal, staff are now seeking approval from Council to sign an agreement covering all aspects of the appeal.

Details of the Appeal

8.      AFFCo Limited appealed conditions 10, 17(c), 20 and 28 of their resource consent which related to the following:

8.1.      Condition 10: This condition required monthly monitoring.  AFFCo wanted it to be reduced to annual.

8.2.      Condition 17(c): This condition set an effluent standard for total ammonia-nitrogen.  AFFCo believed that this standard was unduly onerous.

8.3.      Condition 20: Set an effluent standard for faecal coliforms.  AFFCo did not want a standard imposed until a quantitative microbial risk assessment had been carried out.

8.4.      Condition 28: Required AFFCo to provide the Council with a report (within 27 months of the consent being issued) detailing the upgrades that will be made to the plant to achieve the standard set in condition 20.

 

9.      Attached is a track changed version of the consent in which text that has been added is underlined, and text which is to be deleted is shown with strikethrough.

10.    The following changes have been made in response to the four points of AFFCo’s appeal. 

10.1.   Condition 10: The condition has been changed to require information to be provided by AFFCo monthly if there is an exceedence of any of the parameters set in the consent, or at any other time upon request.  This change ensures that any exceedences are still reported, but decreases the additional work this condition requires when the discharge is occurring in accordance with the conditions of the consent.

10.2.   Condition 17(c): The effluent standard has been deleted, and a series of conditions (conditions 17A-17C) included which set an in-river total ammonia-nitrogen standard in the interim, and require AFFCo to carry out sampling to gather data that will allow an appropriate effluent standard to be identified for total ammonia-nitrogen that can be measured at the point of discharge.  A specific review condition has been included in the consent that allows an effluent standard for total ammonia-nitrogen to be inserted into the consent.

10.3.   Condition 20: This condition has been deleted. AFFCo has now undertaken a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) which has quantified the potential health impact of the AFFCo discharge into the Wairoa River.  The QMRA found that the risk of illness as a result of the discharge was generally low but may occasionally be appreciable (such as when swimming occurs late on a summer day when the concentration of effluent is high).  The study found that Campylobacter is the pathogen of greatest potential concern in the discharge, and that it would be useful to quantify the magnitude of high concentrations of Campylobacter in the effluent, and feed this data into a re-run of the QMRA.  Conditions 16A and 26 now require this.

10.4.   Condition 28: This condition has now been deleted, as a consequence of condition 20 also being deleted.  Conditions 20 and 28 were originally included in the consent because AFFCo had not provided any site specific information about the potential health risk that the discharge presented.  The faecal coliform limit was based on the guideline from the Regional Resource Management Plan which applies to all surface water bodies across the region.  In instances where site specific information is provided by an applicant, the broad guidance in the RRMP has effectively been superseded. 

11.    There have been a number of other changes made which were either necessary to ensure consistency throughout the document, and/or were consequential changes required as a result of changes to other aspects of the consent.

Costs

12.    The issue of the cost of the AFFCo appeal has been raised with Council before.  In this financial year, the cost to Council of the AFFCo appeal has been $41,132 ($5,890 internal cost and $35,242 external cost).  This brings the total cost of the appeal to Council (to date) to $193,757.

13.    Earlier this year, Council endorsed the use by staff of the following criteria to guide decisions on whether cost applications were lodged with the Environment Court.  Given the level of discussion around the cost of the AFFCo appeal, staff considered it appropriate to seek a decision from Council about whether an application for costs should be made in this instance.

14.    Application of the criteria had the following results.

 

 

Question

Yes/No

1.   Did the appeal proceed to a court hearing?

No

2.   Did Council begin to prepare evidence for a court hearing which was subsequently cancelled?

No

3.   Is there anything unusual or extraordinary about the appeal?

See discussion

4.   Was an application for security of costs made?

No

5.   If the Council was awarded costs of 25-30%, would the Council be in a better financial position (taking into account the total cost to Council of the appeal, as well as the cost of legal fees incurred as a result of seeking a cost award)?

Yes

6.   Does the party against which the cost award has been made, seem to have the ability to pay?

Yes

15.    The AFFCo appeal is unusual in that if came about as a result of the applicant agreeing to a set of consent conditions that they subsequently realised they could not meet.  Although the mediation process has taken significant time and effort to reach this point, the appellant agreed to mediation and has been willing to work through the issues which has led to agreement on a set of amended conditions.

16.    Guidance provided by the Ministry for the Environment details some reasons why the Court may order a party to pay costs.  These include:

16.1.   Not following good practice - not particularly relevant in this instance because the case did not proceed to a hearing, therefore there was not an evidence timetable to comply with. 

16.2.   Failing to narrow the case – AFFCo’s appeal was quite clear about what conditions they were appealing and why.  They also identified in their appeal what particular relief they sought.

16.3.   Late withdrawal of an appeal – the appeal was not withdrawn therefore this is not relevant

16.4.   Using an appeal to argue general issues – AFFCo’s appeal related to specific conditions of consent.  Mediation focused on addressing these issues.  AFFCo did not try to argue more general issues through the process

16.5.   Raising irrelevant matters – As AFFCo’s appeal was about particular conditions of consent all matters raised were relevant and could be dealt with

16.6.   Ignoring a warning about costs – The Environment Court did not issue a warning about costs in this case

16.7.   Whether the appellant was concerned about environmental effects and whether the case did anything to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects – The appellant was mainly concerned about their ability to comply with the recommended consent conditions, rather than a particular environmental effect.

16.8.   Whether the case sought to promote a public good or private benefits – the case largely focused on private benefits for AFFCo, however it must be acknowledged that AFFCo is a large employer in the Wairoa area, and therefore the ongoing operation of the plant is important for the local community.

16.9.   Whether particular points raised were overly technical and without merit – The points raised in AFFCo’s appeal were technical but did have merit.

16.10. Whether there has been a failure to explore the possibility of settlement – AFFCo agreed to attend mediation and have always been willing to explore the possibility of settlement

16.11. Where the courts process has been abused – As noted above, AFFCo has complied with any instructions from the Court, and has therefore followed the courts process.

17.    Advice from our counsel indicates that it would be extremely unusual to seek costs in a case where an appeal settles as a result of mediation.  Exceptional circumstances would need to be identified, and they do not believe they exist in this case.  Given that the changes to consent conditions that have been agreed to relate to (both directly and indirectly) the points raised in AFFCo’s appeal, it would be difficult to argue that their appeal had no merit.

18.    Based on the assessment of staff, the advice of counsel, and also the fact that seeking costs will incur further costs, staff recommend that Council do not seek costs through the Environment Court.  It is acknowledged that this has been a costly and drawn out process, but participation in Environment Court appeals is a necessary consequence of the Council’s role in the public RMA process.  However based on the advice of our lawyer, and for the reasons outlined above, it seems extremely unlikely that any application for costs would be successful through the Environment Court.

Next Steps

19.    If Council agrees to the signing of a consent order (done by the Regional Council’s counsel Matt Conway on behalf), this will be signed by all the other parties and lodged with the Environment Court.  Subject to being satisfied, the Environment Court Judge will then make an order in accordance with section 279 of the Resource Management Act that amends the conditions of AFFCo’s consent (DP070670W) in accordance with the changes that have been agreed between the parties to the appeal.  The appeal will then be dismissed, and AFFCo will be required to comply with the conditions of the new resource consent.

Financial and Resource Implications

20.    Settling the appeal will mean that the Council will not occur any further costs as a result of this appeal.  This is a positive financial implication for Council.

Decision Making Process

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

21.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

21.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

21.4.   The persons affected by this decision are AFFCo Limited, who if the appeal is settled, will now have a new consent to operate under. 

21.5.   The consideration of options in this context is limited.  The options are to either settle the appeal or not, and to make an application to seek costs against AFFCo or not.

21.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

21.7.   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.

 

 

Recommendations

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.    Authorises Regional Council’s counsel to sign a draft consent order on behalf of the Regional Council that will settle the AFFCo appeal.

3.    Agrees that an application for costs should not be lodged with the Environment Court in relation to these appeal proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

 

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

DP070670W Agreed Conditions

 

 

  


DP070670W Agreed Conditions

Attachment 1

 














HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Change 3 & Variation 3 (on-site wastewater) - Hearing Panel Recommendations

 

Reason for Report

1.      Hearings were held on 19 April 2012 to hear submissions received on Change 3 to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), and Variation 3 to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP). Change 3 and Variation 3 propose amendments to rules for on-site wastewater management.

2.      Change 3 and Variation 3 were publicly notified on 13 July 2011. A panel of 2 Councillors and 1 Maori representative (the Panel) was delegated the task of hearing those submissions and making recommendations back to Council.

3.      This paper provides an overview of the number of submissions heard and presents the Panel's recommendations on submissions to Council for discussion and adoption as decisions.

Comment

4.      A total of 12 submissions were lodged by a range of groups and individuals on Change 3 and Variation 3.  One of those submissions was received after the submission deadline.  There were no further submissions lodged. Over 170 individual submission points were raised in submissions.

5.      During the hearing, the Panel heard from three submitters who presented their submissions on Thursday 19th April 2012.  On the same day, the Panel completed its deliberations and formed its recommendations.  A record of the Hearing is set out in Attachment 1.  The Panel's recommendations are set out in Attachment 2 to this report.

6.      Council has the following options available:

6.1.   Adopt the Panel's recommendations as set out in Attachment 2.

6.2.   Not adopt the Panel's recommendations either in full or in part. If Council chooses this option for any submission, then the whole Council must arrange to re-hear those matters in accordance with the law.

7.      A note from Brookers’ Annotated Resource Management Act 1991 explains the situation regarding the law and the principles of natural justice which apply.

                   “S34.04 Natural Justice

Where a Council has delegated to a committee, community board, commissioner, or officer power to hear a matter but must itself make the decision, care needs to be taken if the Council is not minded to adopt the recommendations of the delegate which heard the application. The Council should then itself hear the application and any objections, either by viva voce rehearing or, where an adequate report of the hearing by the delegate is available, by members of the Council examining that report. It would infringe natural justice for members of a Council to participate in a decision on an application which differs from that recommended by the delegate which heard the matter unless they have themselves ‘heard’ the application and any objection. See Jeffs v NZ Dairy Board [1967] NZRL 1057 (PC).”

8.      This does not prevent Council making amendments that might correct an error, but would prevent Council from making modifications that alter the real substance of one or more of the Panel’s recommendations.

9.      If Council chooses to not adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, then arrangements will need to be made to re-hear those matters and issue decisions by 13 July 2013[1].

 

 

10.    If Council resolves to adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, staff intend that Decisions could be issued to submitters in early June (having allowed time for formatting, printing and distribution of decision documents).

Financial and Resource Implications

11.    Preparation of Change 3/Variation 3 and progressing these through the submission > hearing > decisions phases is provided for in Project 192.  No additional external expenditure budget is needed at this time.  Internal staff time is also already catered for within existing budgets.

Summary

12.    It is recommended that Council adopt the Panel's recommendations and reasons. This will then enable officers (acting under previously delegated authority) to issue those recommendations as decisions of Council to the relevant submitters.

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 (LGA2002). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the LGA2002 in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

13.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

13.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

13.4.   The persons particularly affected are submitters and further submitters on Change 3 and Variation 3 relating to rules for on-site wastewater. The people of the Hawke's Bay region may also be affected but there has already been an opportunity (in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991) for any person to make a submission or further submission on Change 3 and Variation 3.

13.5.   Options that have been considered include adopting the Panel’s recommendations; not adopting the Panel’s recommendations; and modifying some of the Panel’s recommendations which might constitute an amendment of substance rather than simply amendments to correct an error.

13.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

13.7.   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. Submitters affected by the adoption of the Panel's recommendations will have a right of appeal to the Environment Court. Other interested parties have an opportunity under the Resource Management Act 1991 to join any subsequent proceedings.

 

Recommendations

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 submissions 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. Further, the decisions to be made are part of a public submission process required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

 

 

2.      Adopts the recommendations (and reasons stated) of the Hearing Panel as set out in Attachment 2.

3.      Authorises Council officers to undertake the administrative work necessary to issue the decisions of Council to submitters.

4.      Notes that by issuing decisions on submissions, this milestone does not alter Council’s earlier resolution that the modified on-site wastewater rules will only come into force after the completion of the submissions > hearing > decisions > appeal proceedings and declared operative.

 

 

 

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1

19 April 2012 Hearing Panel Meeting Record

 

Under Separate Cover

2

Hearing Panel Recommendations on Change 3 and Variation 3

 

Under Separate Cover

3

Hearing Panel Recommendations Appendix 1 Recommended Rules

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Variation 1: Rivermouth Hazard Areas - Hearing Panel Recommendation

 

Reason for Report

1.      Hearings were held on 23 May 2012 to hear submissions received on Variation 1, which relates to the Rivermouth Hazard Areas in the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

2.      Variation 1 was publicly notified on 10 August 2010. A panel of 2 Councillors (the Panel) was delegated the task of hearing those submissions and making recommendations back to Council.

3.      This paper provides an overview of the number of submissions heard and presents the Panel's recommendations on submissions to Council for discussion and adoption as decisions.

Comment

4.      A total of 28 submissions were lodged by a range of groups and individuals on Variation 1. One of those submissions was received after the submission deadline.  There were no further submissions lodged. Over 40 individual submission points were raised in submissions.

5.      At the hearing on Wednesday 23 May 2012, the Panel heard five presentations on behalf of submitters. On the same day, the Panel completed its deliberations and formed its recommendations.  The Panel's recommendations are set out in Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 2 is a ‘clean copy’ of Variation 1 as recommended by the Panel.

6.      In forming its recommendations, the Panel was conscious of the scope of amendments able to be made to Variation 1. Three recommendations made by Council’s technical advisor Tonkin and Taylor Limited related to increasing the extent of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream Rivermouth Hazard Areas.

7.      Ultimately, those recommendations by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd were beyond the scope of submissions and consequently not accepted by the Panel.  Nevertheless, the Panel has made a ‘stand alone’ recommendation to Council that the increased extents of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream rivermouth hazard areas be considered as part of the Council’s review of coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards. That review is scheduled for the 2014-15 period in the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan.

8.      Council has the following options available.

8.1.      Adopt the Panel's recommendations as set out in Attachment 1.

8.2.      Not adopt the Panel's recommendations either in full or in part. If Council chooses this option for any submission, then the whole Council must arrange to re-hear those matters in accordance with the law.

9.      A note from Brookers’ Annotated Resource Management Act 1991 explains the situation regarding the law and the principles of natural justice which apply.


 

                   “S34.04 Natural Justice

Where a Council has delegated to a committee, community board, commissioner, or officer power to hear a matter but must itself make the decision, care needs to be taken if the Council is not minded to adopt the recommendations of the delegate which heard the application. The Council should then itself hear the application and any objections, either by viva voce rehearing or, where an adequate report of the hearing by the delegate is available, by members of the Council examining that report. It would infringe natural justice for members of a Council to participate in a decision on an application which differs from that recommended by the delegate which heard the matter unless they have themselves ‘heard’ the application and any objection. See Jeffs v NZ Dairy Board [1967] NZRL 1057 (PC).”

10.    This does not prevent Council making amendments that might correct an error, but would prevent Council from making modifications that alter the real substance of one or more of the Panel’s recommendations.

11.    If Council chooses to not adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, then arrangements will need to be made to re-hear those matters and issue decisions by 10 August 2012[2].

12.    If Council resolves to adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, staff intend that Decisions could be issued to submitters in early June (having allowed time for formatting, printing and distribution of decision documents).

Financial and Resource Implications

13.    Preparation of Variation 1 and progressing it through the submission > hearing > decisions phases is provided for in Project 191.  No additional external expenditure budget is needed at this time.  Internal staff time is also already catered for within existing budgets.

Summary

14.    It is recommended that Council adopt the Panel's recommendations and reasons. This will then enable officers (acting under previously delegated authority) to issue those recommendations as decisions of Council to the relevant submitters.

Decision-making Process

15.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the LGA2002 in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

15.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

15.2.   The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

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

15.4.   The persons particularly affected are submitters and further submitters on Variation 1 relating to rivermouth hazard areas. The people of the Hawke's Bay region may also be affected but there has already been an opportunity (in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991) for any person to make a submission or further submission on Variation 1.

15.5.   Options that have been considered include adopting the Panel’s recommendations; not adopting the Panel’s recommendations; and modifying some of the Panel’s recommendations which might constitute an amendment of substance rather than simply amendments to correct an error.

15.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.


15.7.   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. Submitters affected by the adoption of the Panel's recommendations will have a right of appeal to the Environment Court. Other interested parties have an opportunity under the Resource Management Act 1991 to join any subsequent proceedings.

 

Recommendations

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 submissions 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. Further, the decisions to be made are part of a public submission process required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.      Adopts the recommendations (and reasons stated) of the Hearing Panel as set out in Attachment 1.

3.      Agrees that the increased extents of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream rivermouth hazard areas be considered as part of the Council’s future review of coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards; and notes that that review is scheduled for the 2014-15 period in the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan.

4.      Authorises Council officers to undertake the administrative work necessary to issue the decisions of Council to submitters.

 

 

 

Belinda Riley

Senior Planner

 

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Panel Recommendations

 

Under Separate Cover

2

Location Maps

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Asset Management AND Biosecurity Committee

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matters were considered by the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee on Wednesday 9 May 2012 and are now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2.      These items have been specifically considered at Committee level.

 

Recommendations

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.

Biosecurity Operational Plans 2012/2013

2.      Adopts the:

2.1.       Animal Pest Operational Plan 2012/13.

2.2.       Plant Pest Operational Plan 2012/13.

2.3.       Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2012/13.

In accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993; after the inclusion of any amendments made as a result of the Committee’s consideration.

Land Management Operational Plan 2012/13

3.     Approves the proposed 2012/13 Operational Plan for the Land Management section.  Taking into consideration the feedback received at today’s meeting.

 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

 

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1View

Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

 

 

  


 

 

 

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

 

operational plan

Land MANAGEMENT

 

july 2012 – june 2013

L2101121028


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.   INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................   3

2.   LAND MANAGEMENT TEAM ROLE..........................................................................  3

3.   STRATEGIC DRIVERS...............................................................................................  4

3.1  The re-forestation of eroded coastal hill country.........................................      4

3.2 The impact of intensified land use on water quality.....................................       5

4.   LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 6

4.1 Foresight & strategy.........................................................................................   6

4.2 Investment.......................................................................................................    7

4.3 Strategic Alliances...........................................................................................    9

4.4 Fit for purpose organisation.............................................................................    9

5.   2012-13 LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITY............................................  11

6.   MEASURING PERFORMANCE.................................................................................  14

7.   SUMMARY..................................................................................................................   17

8.   APPENDICES.............................................................................................................   18

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image on the front page courtesy of www.abovehawkesbay.co.nz


1.0     INTRODUCTION

This operational plan describes how the Land Management Team (LMT) of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) will meet its objectives as outlined in the Long Term Plan (LTP). The operational plan will be presented to Council for approval prior to each financial year. Performance against the operational plan will be presented to Council within five months of the close of a financial year. This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. The plan documents the following:

·    The role of the Land Management Team in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

·    The link between LMT activity for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 and the community outcomes outlined in the Strategic Plan, Land & Water Management Plan and Long Term Plan.

·    The key strategic issues for the LMT and its response to address these issues.

·    The LMT program areas for 2012-13.

 

2.0     LAND MANAGEMENT TEAMS ROLE

The land management team plays a key role in influencing uptake of good sustainable land management practise in the Hawke’s Bay Region. The team does this via a non-regulatory approach (collaboration, education, advice, incentive).

The LMT’s areas of focus and objectives are set by the HBRC Strategic Plan and the Land and Water Management Strategy. Actions and performance targets to achieve these strategic objectives are defined by the LTP. The operational plan shows how operational activities will lead to the achievement of long term plan and annual plan performance targets and contribute towards achieving the outcomes of the Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy as shown in Appendix 1. The consolidated outcomes and outputs of these documents are shown in the appendices 2 and 3. Appropriate indicators to track progress to these outcomes are discussed in section 6.0. 

 

3.0     STRATEGIC DRIVERS

The LMT’s primary focus is around the two key strategic issues of reducing soil erosion in hill country, and managing the impact of land intensification and diffuse source discharge on the water quality of Hawke’s Bay catchments.

Hawke’s Bay has one of the highest rates of hill country erosion in New Zealand. This erosion results in the loss of productive capacity, carbon, nutrients and potential water storage of soils. Offsite impacts include sedimentation of waterways, river aggradation and damage to infrastructure (McKay 2008). These losses equate to:

1)   A significant economic cost to the Hawke’s Bay regional economy.

2)   The loss of environmental ecosystem services provided by these landscapes.

The rate of recovery of these ecosystem services is typically slow with Rosser & Ross (2011) suggesting even after 60+ years of recovery, pasture production was 80% of uneroded sites. The heavy rains of April 2011, which affected a 10km coastal belt of Hawke’s Bay hill country are estimated to have resulted in 3,700 ha of new bare ground. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this problem into the future.

Water is critical to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the Hawke’s Bay region. The intensification of land use, an increased demand for irrigation and associated intensive sectors of land use, industrial and urban water supply are placing increased pressure on the quantity and quality of water in a number of Hawke’s Bay Rivers.

3.1     The re-forestation of steep highly erodible hill country

Approximately 750,000 ha of the Hawke’s Bay region are hill country pastoral farms. Of this approximately 150,000 ha is on steep erodible farmland.

Economic returns for this farmland have, for a number of years, been marginal as a result of volatile revenue from product sales and steadily increasing input costs. The environmental impacts of pastoral farming on steep to very steep hill country can also be significant, particularly the impacts of erosion and nutrient run off. Forestry can play a valuable role in increasing biodiversity, reducing erosion, nutrient and sediment run off, peak catchment flood flows; and provide greater resilience to storm events.

Appropriately targeted afforestation (i.e. on the steepest 10-20% of hill country farms) can strengthen the hill country farming business. It can increase farm cashflow longer term, allowing landowners to redirect funds into improving the better pastoral areas of the farm and making the farm more resilient to storm events.

3.2     The impact of intensified land use on water quality

The Tukituki Catchment Plan is the HBRC’s first revision of a catchment plan under the auspices of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (2011). The plan will identify and set minimum flows and water quality limits to achieve the priority values identified by the Tukituki catchment community. It is likely that the Tukituki Catchment Plan will identify sub-catchments where significant reduction in nutrient loss from land use is required to meet the new water quality standards. The effectiveness of any mitigation strategy in reducing diffuse source contamination of water is reliant on:

·    Programs that are tailored to the physical properties of the landscape.

·    The economic and technical ability of the landholders to implement that change.

·    The overall policy framework that sets limits or other requirements on water quality or land use.

 


4.0     PROGRAM AREAS

The program area discussion sets the context for how the LMT will use its programs to achieve the performance targets listed in the LTP. The link between the specific program areas and LTP targets is shown in Table 4 on page 12.

4.1     Foresight and Strategy

Anticipating opportunities and threats is vital to achieving land management related outcomes to the long term achievement of Councils vision. Sustainable land management is key to achieving “A region with a vibrant community, a prosperous economy, a clean and healthy environment, now and for future generations”. The LMT program areas discussed below will be specifically aligned to the strategy enablers as follows:

4.1.1 Research

The LMT’s research investment is based around three key principles –

I.    Focus – ensuring its RLS research investment is aligned with the outcomes listed in the strategic plan. The LMT will invest a portion of its RLS budget in research that has the potential to increase knowledge and uptake of best practice on-farm within the context of its strategic issues of hill country erosion and reducing diffuse source pollution effects on water quality.

II.   Leverage – the LMT will look for opportunities to add value to its investment through leveraging co-investment and collaboration with other industry sectors and agencies. Through the LMT’s strategic alliances use a co-ordinated approach to attracting more research investment in Hawke’s Bay.

III.  Partnerships & collaboration – with industry sectors will enable the LMT to better target its investment to deliver on outcomes. Partnerships with industry also increase the likelihood of applied research being adopted into industry best practice.

Over the next financial year the LMT will be undertaking a review of research priorities in the development of a draft land management research strategy. Listed in table 1 are the current research initiatives above $5,000 for the LMT and their expected outputs and links to community outcomes.

Table 1. 2012-13 Current research initiatives.

Research project

Output

Link to outcomes

HC Erosion

Erosion plans and pole/tree plantings

Economic and environmental through reduced erosion

Huatokitoki

Shade research,

farm resource information

Economic and environmental

Dryland Forest

Durable eucalypt species

Economic and environmental

Willow and Poplar

Additional species, management regimes

Economic and environmental

 

4.1.2 Catchment Planning

The LMT is heavily involved (approximately 0.5 FTE) in catchment planning. Team members are currently assisting in the Taharua/Mohaka catchment and the Tukituki catchment planning processes and will be involved in the Ngaruroro and Tuataekuri reviews. The LMT plays an important role in these planning processes by:

·    Providing insight into the practicality and effectiveness of various mitigation strategies at a farm and sub-catchment level.

·    The development of implementation strategies to influence the farming community to uptake land use and on-farm management changes to deliver plan and policy objectives.

·    The LMT provides linkages to a variety of industry and community groups working in these areas via its strong networks, and skills and experience in collaborative community engagement.

 

4.2.1           Regional Landcare Scheme

The Regional Landcare Scheme is a significant mechanism through which the LMT affects on-ground change through providing incentives for specific works programmes.  The operational activities and the associated outputs for the RLS scheme are shown in table 2.

There are three areas of focus for the RLS this financial year:

1.   Alignment of the RLS to the key strategic drivers of erosion in hill country and land use impacts on water quality.

Investment will be used to complement the potential benefits of Ruataniwha water storage (RWS) and reforestation projects in the landscape to ensure a whole of farm landscape outcome. The LMT will look to invest approximately 60% of RLS funding into these strategic issues via a consideration of project prioritisation, weighting, funding rates and incentives. Should both the RWS and hill country afforestation projects proceed, RLS investment aligned with these projects is likely to increase.

2.   Increasing the clarity of the linkages and alignment between RLS investment and the outcomes and outputs of the Strategic Plan and Land and Water Management Strategy

The RLS is a tool that enables the LMT to encourage the achievement of outcomes. Within the next 12 months the monitoring evaluation and reporting process (page 14) will make these linkages to the land and water management strategy clearer.

3.   A further refinement of the RLS process and administration.

The LMT has reviewed and refined the processes and administration of the RLS to ensure it is aligned to key HBRC outcomes and administered to efficiently and effectively deliver outputs of RLS investment. The following will be undertaken in further refining the RLS:


I.    The team will be developing an improved information system that enables it to manage and deliver on-ground projects more effectively, input data via the internet and produce spatial GIS maps of project locations and size. This will improve the ability to monitor and report on RLS outputs.

II.   A review of the RLS monitoring, evaluation and reporting process to ensure the collection of information associated with the RLS investment can clearly show how this investment is meeting the outcomes and outputs of the LTP, Strategic Plan and Land and Water Management Plan.

III.  Consider the RLS brand identity and its role in proactively engaging a wider range of landholders.

IV.  Consider further variation of subsidy rates provided under the RLS to continue supporting proactive land owners but enabling more focus on specific strategy objectives.

V.   What extension programmes (if any) may be able to be targeted to outcomes if supported through the RLS.

 

4.2.2  Regional Afforestation Project

The Regional Afforestation Project branded “Trees on Farms” is a significant sustainable land management initiative. Subject to funding, a range of operational aspects will need to be finalised to ensure effective operational delivery. These include:

·    Clearly defined details around on-farm financial benefits.

·    A communication strategy.

·    Legal agreements for joint venture, lease and AGS style investments.

·    Appointment of staff.

·    Operational process from initial land holder contact to establishment of trees.

·    Financial management and reporting process.

·    Establishment of target catchments, project outcomes and baseline monitoring programs.

·    Ongoing review and reporting.

 

The initial target is to have 500 ha committed to planting in the winter of 2013.

 

Through the targeted establishment of trees on erodible hill country, this program will deliver:

·    Improved farm economic performance through a reduction in the amount of productive land lost to erosion.

·    Improved water quality through reduced sediment in streams.

·    Improved biodiversity outcomes.

 


Table 2. RLS operational activities and associated broad outputs are:

RLS Activity

Output

Link to community economic and environmental outcomes

Spaced poplar and willow erosion plantings

Approximately 145-150 properties and 28,000 poles

Both environmental and economic outcomes

Formation of QE2 covenants

Covenanting of approximately 80 -120 ha of QE2 per annum.

Principally environmental outcomes

Applied Research activities

Outputs from 2-5 research programmes annually

Both environmental and economic outcomes

Individual soil conservation or environmental enhancement projects

Delivering around 40-60 projects across 400-600 ha of land.

Both environmental and economic outcomes

Ballance Awards

High profile on SLM activities

Both environmental and economic outcomes

 

4.3     Strategic Alliances

Alliances are important to the achievement of the LMT’s objectives. These partnerships help disseminate and implement the results of investment in research and catchment planning into on-ground and potential industry adopted best practice. The LMT work with a wide range of industry stakeholders and groups, agricultural intermediaries, government agencies, community groups and Iwi to affect change on ground.

The land management team regularly engage with the wider community through a range of mechanisms. The aim of this engagement is to build the human and social capacity of the wider Hawke’s Bay primary productive sector to facilitate the adoption of sustainable land management practices.

 

4.3.1 Strategic farming initiative

The strategic farming initiative is a collaborative programme that aims to improve the productivity and reduce the environmental impacts associated with land use intensification within Hawke’s Bay’s primary sector. There is representation from the majority of agricultural industries in Hawke’s Bay forming a “pan-sector” group that provides overarching governance to the process. The group has significant potential to influence best practice adoption within the context of intensified land use to ensure economic, social and environmental benefits in the region are realised.

The group has mandated the HBRC through the LMT and the Economic Development Team to facilitate this process, beginning with the development of strategic action plan. Through a collaborative and coordinated approach the group aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of investment in research, development and information transfer in Hawke’s Bay. It will also assist in the achievement of the goals listed in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy.

The principles behind the process is that the pan-sector group will provide a coordination of actions, to sub-groups or clusters based around industry specific sectors i.e.) dairying, arable/horticultural and dryland pastoral. These clusters will work directly with landholders in the design and delivery of technology transfer products and process, coordinate demonstration sites and assist with the implementation of best practice.

 

4.4     Fit for purpose organisation

The LMT needs to position itself to ensure it is best prepared to proactively meet the challenges of environmental and organisational change. Key to this is a strong focus on monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER). MER provides crucial feedback on the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of its programs. It enables the LMT to better inform Council of the effectiveness of projects and how these relate to the overall outcomes and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. An MER framework will be developed incorporating land monitoring being undertaken by the HBRC science team by May 2013. This will involve:

I.    The review of information systems to better reflect reporting needs and the Draft Land Management MER plan that outlines the MER process and objectives.

II.   Strong interaction with the science group, who provide the LMT with an important in-house auditing capacity and provide insight into emerging trends and issues in the Hawke’s Bay region. The science group can also assist the LMT in the design of effective monitoring programs.

III.  The LMT will contribute to a range of science group monitoring projects over the next 12 months that include -

a.   Wind erosion in the plains areas

b.   Soil erosion in hill country

c.   Riparian strip health and long term management

d.   Wetlands prioritisation

e.   Biodiversity monitoring

IV.  The LMT have initiated a program to improve the quality of our regional soil information through the addition of Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains soil maps onto “S-map”, a tool that improves landholder access and interpretive value. The LMT will be investigating alternatives to improving the quality of land and soil information in hill country throughout the region.

V.   Which aspects of the work the LMT undertake is measurable in terms of kilometres of riparian strip established or numbers of erosion control poles planted, outcomes and outputs reporting on parameters such as “improved knowledge” or “adoption of best practice” must also be considered. Incorporating these measures into the LMT MER over the next financial year, through the use of social surveying will be a priority.

VI.  By taking an adaptive management approach to program design and reporting by ensuring MER is systematically and genuinely embedded into LMT decision making, shown on page 14.

 

5.0      2012-13 LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITY

Table 3 demonstrates how the 2012-13 LMT activities will align with the proposed approach outlined in the HBRC Strategic Plan. Detail on how the specific outcomes, outputs and activities of its programs achieve this is discussed in more detail in Table 4.

 

Table 3. Alignment of LMT Program activity with the strategic goals and strategic enablers of the HBRC Strategic Plan

 

Targeted investment in and improved focus of the RLS

Encourage more applied research in Hawke’s Bay

More focus on intensive land use associated with irrigation

More emphasis on afforestation of steep, low productivity hill country

Increased investment in land use diversification

 

Foresight & strategy

RLS Refinement

Information Systems Review

Research Program

Mohaka-Taharua / Tukituki catchment Plans

Huatokitoki Research Project

Trees on Farms

Research Program

Knowledge dissemination – eg Balance awards

Investment

Regional Landcare Scheme

Regional Landcare Scheme

Regional Landcare Scheme

Regional Landcare Scheme

 Trees on Farms

Regional Landcare Scheme

Trees on Farms

Strategic Alliances

Strategic Farming Initiative

Strategic Farming Initiative

 

Strategic Farming Initiative

 

Strategic Farming Initiative

Pastoral Steering Committee

Wairoa Hill Country Erosion Project

Strategic Farming Initiative

 

Fit for purpose organisation

 

 

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

 

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

 

Through the strategic enablers of foresight and strategy, investment, strategic alliances and a fit for purpose organisation the LMT has defined its LTP performance targets and 2012-13 outputs. These performance targets are shown below in Table 4.


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

Table 4. 2012-13 LTP performance targets and outputs as defined through the HBRC Strategic enablers.

Strategic Enabler

Program area

LTP 2012-13 performance targets

2012-13 Outputs

 

 

 

Foresight & Strategy

 

Research Program

 

 

·      Develop a research strategy.

·      Continue a program of research and knowledge transfer to investigate and field trial issues relevant to sustainable land management in Hawke’s Bay.

·      LMT Draft Research Strategy completed 31 May 2013.

·      Initiate at least one new research or research extension initiative annually.

·      Dissemination of knowledge through field days and farmer seminars

 

Catchment Planning

 

·      Catchment models developed for Taharua and Mohaka catchment.

·      Begin modelling of Heretaunga catchments.

·      Continue Tukituki Catchment investigations.

·      Minimum 18 weeks of LMT staff time participating in the catchment planning process for Taharua/Mohaka and Tukituki catchments.

·      Participate in 6 community catchment related workshops.

 

 

 

 

 

Investment

 

 

 

Regional Landcare Scheme

 

 

·      Regional Landcare Scheme (RLS) reviewed outcomes to be implemented by June 2014.

·      Report in the operation plan how RLS activity directly contributes to sustainable land management outcomes.

·      Annual output targets delivered from the RLS investment to be established and implemented as part of annual operating plan.

·      A portion of RLS subsidy will be targeted and level of subsidy varied to encourage initiatives that result in rapid change to environmental signals.

·      Continued refinement of the RLS.

·      The operational plan documents RLS contribution to sustainable land management targets 31 May 2013.

·      60% of RLS funding is targeted to strategic investment initiatives ie. eroded hill country reforestation and reducing the impact of land use intensification on water quality.

·      Dissemination of benefits through balance environmental awards

 

Trees on Farms

 

·      Regional afforrestation program will be finalised & promoted 2012-13.

·      500 ha of new forestry committed to planting winter 2013.

 

Strategic Alliances

 

Strategic Farming Initiative

 

·      Actively seek collaboration with other primary productive sector organisations undertaking research relevant to Hawke’s Bay.

 

·      Draft Pan-sector strategic plan considered by SFI 30 April 2013.

·      3 industry cluster group focus farms formed 30 June 2013.

 

Fit for purpose organisation

 

Monitoring, evaluation and reporting

 

·      Develop and monitor indicators for plains soil erosion and riparian enhancements by June 2013

·      Regional baseline hill country erosion survey & report to be completed by Dec 2012

 

·      Draft Land Management MER framework produced 31 May 2013.

·      Develop and monitor indicators for plains soil erosion and riparian enhancements by June 2013.

·      Regional baseline hill country erosion survey and report to be completed by Dec 2012.

 

 

 


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

6.0     MEASURING PERFORMANCE

The objectives, goals and outcomes listed in the HBRC Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy have resulted in the requirement for new LMT performance targets to be established. These revised performance targets will enable the team to better report on the programs contribution to the achievement of the new outcomes and provide feedback to enable an adaptive management approach to program planning, implementation and evaluation, illustrated below.

Figure 1. Land Management Team MER Framework

 

 
 Cycle Diagram

 

During 2012-13 the LMT will work towards establishing this framework into its programs and activities. To achieve this the team will be undertaking the following –

·    Developing a Land Management MER framework by 31 May 2013.

·    Continuing the refinement of the RLS.

·    Incorporating in the operational plan the RLS contribution to sustainable land management targets.

·    Developing an improved information system to enable clearer and more rapid reporting on progress towards targets and outcomes.

·    Investigating in conjunction with the Science Group, options for more targeted outcome monitoring, social surveying and land use practice surveying.

The measurement of outcomes defines the success of the HBRC program in achieving its strategic objectives. These indicators can be time consuming, expensive to establish and maintain, require long term measurement to establish trends, can be influenced by multiple factors beyond the control of the organisation and will require a coordinated across-organisation approach to their use. Key indicators of the LMT outcomes are shown in Table 3, and include:

·    The monitoring of water quality indicators.

·    The monitoring of soil quality indicators.

·    Measurement of land use practice change.

·    The measurement of erosion incidence.

·    Social surveying and benchmarking.

·    The development and use of farm economic indicators

·    KASA (knowledge, attitudes, skills & aspiration) monitoring.

How well the LMT programs, investment and projects are progressing towards the achievement of the outcomes above is a key component for consideration in the LMT MER plan. Measurement will consider:

·    Appropriateness – did the program reach the right audience

·    Impact – were the expected outcomes/outputs achieved

·    Effectiveness – to what extent did the project activities contribute to practice change

·    Efficiency – were the outcomes good value for money

Table 5 outlines the linkages between the LMT consolidated outcomes, the indicators that can be used to measure these outcomes, the activities of the LMT that contribute to the achievement of these outcomes, potential indicators for measuring the performance of the LMT program and activities and through the annual plan outputs, how these will be developed and delivered over the next financial year.


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

Table 5. Proposed performance indicators for consideration in the LMT Draft MER Plan

Community Outcomes

Strong prosperous and thriving economy by maximising sustainable use of natural and physical resources

An environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for future generations by encouraging sustainable land management practises

A lifetime of good health and wellbeing by protecting fresh and coastal bathing water quality

 

 

Intermediate outcomes

·  Sustainable use of intensive lands

·  Sustainable use of fragile hill country and steeplands

·  Improved understanding of ecological servicing

 

· Improved community understanding of landscape appropriate best practice

Intermediate outcome indicators

·  Farm economic performance

·  Land use practice change

·  Water quality indicators

·  Soil quality indicators

·  Erosion incidence monitoring

·  Biodiversity indicators

 

 

 

 

· Social surveying / benchmarking

· KASA (knowledge, attitudes, skills & aspiration) monitoring

2012-13 outputs

·  The 2013/14 operational plan documents RLS contribution to sustainable land management targets by 31 May 2013

·  Draft Land management Monitoring/Evaluation/Reporting  plan produced 31 May 2013

· 60% of RLS funding is targeted to strategic investment initiatives ie. eroded hill country reforestation & reducing the impact of land use intensification on water quality

· 500 ha of new forestry planted 2013 winter

·  Ha of land protected from erosion (minimum of 25,000 poles planted)

· Five completed farm erosion plans

 

·  LMT draft Research Strategy completed 30 June 2013.

·  Initiate at least 1 new research or project

·  Dissemination of knowledge

 

· Minimum 18 weeks of LMT staff time participating in the catchment planning process for Taharua/Mohaka & Tukituki catchments

· Participate in 6 community catchment planning  workshops

· Draft pan sector strategic action plan developed 30 April 2013,

· One industry cluster group focus farms formed 30 June 2013

LMT activities contributing to the achievement of outcomes

·  RLS Incentives for projects assisting best practice adoption

·  Technical advice and assistance

·  Community capacity building

·  Strategic alliances and collaborative relationships with key stakeholders

·  Research

 

 

 

 


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

7.0 SUMMARY

The Land Management Operational Plan provides the HBRC with an outline of how the Land Management Team will achieve the objectives outlined in the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan. The plan describes how the activities listed in the LTP contribute to the objectives, goals and outcomes listed in both the HBRC Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy.

The primary focus of the LMT is around the two key strategic drivers of reducing soil erosion in the hill country and the impact of intensification and diffuse source discharge on the water quality of Hawke’s Bay catchments. The operational plan outlines how LMT programs and activities are strongly aligned to positively influence these strategic drivers.

The program for 2012-13 is aligned around the strategic enablers of foresight and strategy, investment, strategic alliances and a fit for purpose organisation. The operational plan discusses how the 2012-13 LMT programs and activities will contribute to the achievement of key performance targets.

The HBRC Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy have defined a strong and new direction for the LMT. The team is actively working towards incorporating this new direction into our annual planning, review and reporting cycle.

 


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

Appendix 2. LMT consolidated outcomes from the HBRC Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy

HBRC Strategic Plan land outcomes

Most farmers achieving improved economic return from their property with a reduced environmental footprint.

The impact of diffuse runoff from farms is reduced and managed through best on farm practice.

Progress in achieving sustainable land use over 150,000 ha of fragile hill country land and soils has trebled over the current rate and is delivered in partnership with farmers.

Land and Water Management Strategy Outcomes

·      Adoption of land & water management practices that meet economic and environmental goals.

·      Improved understanding of the ecological services provided by indigenous vegetation and wetlands.

·      Improved community understanding of resource availability and issues through better distribution of knowledge and information.

 

·      Farm and catchment management that minimises nutrient losses into rivers, lakes and groundwater.

 

·      Farm and catchment management that minimises erosion risk, particularly in areas of vulnerable sedimentary hill country and on wind erodible soils.

 

Consolidated outcomes

·      Improved economic return with reduced environmental impact via best practice adoption.

·      Diffuse runoff from farms reduced.

·      Sustainable use of fragile hill country and steeplands.

·      Improved understanding of ecological servicing.

·      Improved community understanding of landscape appropriate best practice.

 


Appendix 3. Consolidated outputs from the HBRC Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy

HBRC Strategic Plan land outputs

10  Year

We will have strong links with the research community, using these through a ‘centre of excellence’ to improve understanding of the impact of farming on water quality and soil retention.

We will be using robust knowledge of the links between land use and water quality in prioritised catchments to influencing farming practices.

$30M will be invested in afforesting 15,000 ha of class Vle & Vlle hill country land. A further 15,000 ha is in high UMF manuka plantings or similar and private sector establishment of timber/carbon forestry.

3 Year

Establish strong links with research community together with a joint strategy to apply science/knowledge within Hawke’s Bay for the benefit of the primary productive sector with a demonstrated positive return on investment.

Implement a program to improve knowledge of the impact of farming activities on land and water resources.

Potentially implement a forestry initiative integrating carbon/commercial forestry into hill country farming and commit to invest $5M.

Land & Water Management Strategy performance monitoring indicators

Uptake of site specific land management practices (right decision for the land) – includes use of wetland services, riparian management and fencing, use of precision agriculture tools, water & nutrient plans, changes to existing cropping and farming systems.

Areas of indigenous bush and wetlands under formal protection.

Number of integrated catchment management initiatives underway.

 

Land use change – includes area (ha) of new forest plantings.

Consolidated outputs

·      Strong links with research community.

·      Improved knowledge of the impact of farming activities on land & water.

·      Land use change – ha new forest plantings.

·      Land use change – ha improved land management.

·      Adoption of best practice.

·      Areas of indigenous bush & wetlands under formal protection.

·      Number of integrated catchment management initiatives underway.

 


Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

 

Appendix 4. Regional Landcare Scheme 2012-13 Summary

The Regional Landcare scheme provides funding for landowners to assist with the implementation of sustainable land management programmes and works. It is also available for community demonstration and research projects. Grants rates are generally offered at 50% but can be less by LMO discretion and up to 90% for covenanted riparian projects in priority catchments. QEII assisted bush preservation projects are funded at 33.33%. From 2012 winter, ‘pole only’ projects will be offered a 40% grant.

Around $850,000 is available each year for funding these projects. The fund is managed by the LM section and all applications (except for ‘pole only’) are assessed and scored for their worthiness. Completed projects are inspected and reported on before payments are made. Documentation of every project (except ‘pole only’) is checked by the Team Leader – Hill Country.

RLS Review – Prioritisation & Ranking Process

Project

Description

Outcomes/Issues

Client, Type of Project

 

 

Criterion

Rank (1-4)

Explanation

Soil – (conservation, function)

 

 

Water (quality, retention)

 

 

Does it relate to key priorities for the Council ?

 

 

Size: Is it large or part of a larger programme? Does it provide linkages with other projects or create corridors?

 

 

Biodiversity/Ecosystem function:

Are there existing values to protect or values that will be enhanced?

 

 

Wider Community benefits: Community group involvement, public access, demonstration, advertising, public profile.

 

 

Total Score

____ x  4.17 =         %

 

RLS Funding Support (%)

%

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matters were considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on Wednesday 16 May 2012 and are now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2.      These items have all been specifically considered at the Committee level.

 

Recommendations

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.

Risk Assessment

2.    Notes the top ten risks currently facing Council; the current and planned future position of the risk issue; the current situation and risk; the proposed mitigation approach; and the impact that mitigation approach will have on the level of risk.

3.    Approves the risk mitigation approach to each of the ten risk issues as set out.

Additional Expense Disclosures in the Long Term Plan 2012-22

4.       Does not include additional expense disclosures, as detailed and discussed at the 16 May 2012 Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting, in the final Long Term Plan document.

 

 

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Election of the Environment and Services Committee Chairman

 

Reason for Report

1.      The Council considered its committee structure in April 2011 as a result of an assessment of the potential changes to committee functions created by the establishment of a Regional Planning Committee, and recognition of the need to maintain a “fit for purpose” organisation.

2.      Following feedback from Councillors Council decided to create an Environment and Services Committee to bring together the operational aspects of the Environmental Management and Asset Management and Biosecurity Committees in recognition of the significant overlap in activity and purposes of a number of these functions.

3.      The existing Committee structure has continued while the Regional Planning Committee was being established. It is now appropriate to appoint a Chairman for the Environment and Services Committee to allow it to being operating after 1 July.

Discussion

4.      The first scheduled meeting of the Environment and Services Committee is 15 August 2012. The appointment of the two Māori Committee representatives on the Committee will be determined at the Māori Committee meeting on 26 June 2012.

5.      It is important given the upcoming policy development programme that momentum is not lost through the establishment of the Regional Planning Committee. The treaty claimant members of the Committee are well aware of the need for them to have greater familiarity with the significant issues and have requested additional presentations outside of the Committee meetings. The focus of these presentations is on preparing them for the Regional Policy Statement Change on Freshwater Management. This will be the principal work focus for the Regional Planning Committee for the remainder of 2012.  As freshwater management is a key issue for Māori it is essential that the Regional Planning Committee has oversight of this RPS Change.

6.      The Terms of Reference have been adopted previously for the Environment and Services Committee.

 

    ENVIRONMENT AND SERVICES COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

a)   Policy

·     To consider and recommend to Council policies with regard to Council responsibilities or involvement with land drainage and river control under the Local Government Act 2002, Land Drainage and Rivers Control Act 19541 and Land Drainage Act 1908

·     To consider and recommend to Council polices with regard to Council’s responsibilities for biosecurity under the Local Government Act 2001 and the Biosecurity Act 1993.

·     To consider and recommend to Council strategies, policies and by-laws and compliance and enforcement programs relating to maritime and navigational safety under the Maritime Transport Act.


b)         Environmental Monitoring and Research

·     To consider and recommend to Council environmental monitoring strategies and research and investigation programmes, including the State of the Environment Reports.

·     To consider technical reports on the findings of research and investigations into the impact of activities and recommend to Council the development of new policy frameworks based around such information.

c)  Implementation

·     To periodically review the effectiveness of Council's work programmes within the ambit of the Committee and make recommendations to Council for any changes.

·     To recommend to Council management plans or any similar such documents for the effective implementation of these programmes of Council.

·     To assist staff, where appropriate, in identifying a preferred option and funding mechanism for Council consideration for any biosecurity initiative or infrastructure asset construction or improvement work and in promoting the preferred option to the beneficiaries.

·     To consider and recommend to Council all other policy implementation issues of Council.

d)      Compliance and enforcement

·     To consider reports on the effectiveness of Council’s compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, and to recommend to Council the response to issues arising from such reports.

e)      Financial Authority

·     To recommend to the Strategic Planning and Investment Committee consideration of possible financial implications of specific initiatives.

f)       Advocacy and Liaison

·     To receive reports and liaise with Territorial Authorities on any issues dealt with through the Environment and Services Committee, as necessary.

·     To assist with the co-ordination of services between the Regional Council, other relevant local authorities and other entities/groups.

g)      Statutory Process

·     To consider and authorise the lodging of an appeal or reference to the Environment Court against a decision of a territorial authority or an application or designation or proposed plan or plan change or variation on which the Regional Council had lodged a formal submission.

 

Decision Making Process

7.      Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Council has a specified power and mandate to establish such committees, sub-committees and other subordinate decision making bodies that it considers appropriate.  Therefore, staff do not believe that the decision making process contained within the LGA apply in such instance.

 


 

Recommendations

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.    Appoints all members of the Council to the Environment and Services Committee.

3.    Appoints Cllr______________ as Chairman of the Environment and Services Committee.

 

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

Group Manager

External Relations

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT:  May 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

 

Group

Area of Activity

Activity Status Update

Asset Management

·     Asset Management Plan reviews

Reviews of Asset Management Plans substantially complete for HPFCS and UTTS. Peer reviews and audit completed.  Some modification required to align AMP’s with LTP financials and levels of service.  These will be finalised following adoption of the LTP.

 

·     Biosecurity

Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy Hearing held 15 February 2012.  Council adopted Hearings Panel recommendations 29Feb.  One reference made to Environment Court.  Both parties have agrred to mediation.  Awaiting date for mediation from Environment Court.

 

·     Land Management

A number of strategies to improve effectiveness of Council land management investment have been developed and included in the LTP 2012-22.  Operation plan for 2012/1 considered by AM&B Committee in May and being considered for adoption by Council at this meeting.  Regional afforestation project will be considered by Council as part of adoption of LTP.

 

·     CHB District Council Wastewater project

Resource consent application notified 28 January 2012, submissions closed 29 February.  CHBDC has subsequently stopped this project.  A submission is being prepared by HBRC on this issue.  CHBDC have extended the submission period until 1 June for waste water projects.

 

·     Mahia Beach wastewater project

Staff working with WDC, their consultants and other stakeholders on detailed design issues and catchment planning associated with the Whangawehi catchment as required by the resource consent conditions.

 

·     Infrastructure disaster insurance

A review of infrastructure disaster insurance arrangements is underway.  LAPP trustees held a meeting of Members during May to seek feedback on future of LAPP.  Staff awaiting notification of outcome of that meeting before progressing with review.

 

·     The right debate

Progress on the regional afforestation project, Heretaunga Plains levels of service, improved focus of Regional landcare scheme, transfer of Tutira properties will be reactivated depending on the outcome of the draft LTP.

Asset Management

·     Regional open spaces review

A project to identify and record HBRC open space sites and their values, articulate the management principles and levels of service for those spaces, and identify opportunities for the development of those spaces for public enjoyment is underway.

Resource Management

 

·     Appeal mediation processes underway for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    Large Consent processes/ applications

Twyford

Court appointed mediation held on 2 November, attended by the appellants (Watering Society) HBRC, Fish and Game, DOC, and Te Taiwhenua of Heretaunga. Appellants advised that a report is being prepared for them by Aqualinc, but will not be ready until next year. Appellants will advise the Court before June 2012 if they intend to progress the appeals.

AFFCO

Further work and discussion is concluded. Paper to Council this month to accept mediated solution.

Mexted & Williams

Mexted et al have proposed a reduced no of lots as a solution to resolve the appeal. The appeal has not been resolved by mediation. It is about to be heard by the Environment Court. Paper to Council in May seeking change in delegation. The effects of the proposed seawall are now considered to be more than minor.

 

NCC BTF plant

High court deciding whether to accept Submitter W. Church appeal or not, decision expected July.

 

Bridgeman

Decision to grant consent issued 5/4/12, no appeals received.

CHBDC waste water

Application on hold awaiting decision from applicant to proceed.

Poukawa

Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders pre notification decision, Limited notification likely May - June 2012

Resource Management

 

·    Science Activities

Groundwater

Staff continue to work closely the planning team on policy development for water allocation and water quality for the Tukituki plan change. Also work has completed on groundwater model scenarios for the water storage project.

New monitoring wells are being drilled in the Esk Valley to establish monitoring sites in this area.

Staff are continuing working closely with the consents team on draft consent application for Apache Oil drilling consent applications. To date an application has not been received

Surface Water

Allocation modelling for plan change and storage project still progressing. Mohaka concurrent gauging underway. NIWA contracted to back edit Glenfalls, Raupunga, Kuripapaingo and Chesterhope flow records.

Finalising Tutaekuri River Instream Flow Assessment report, Permitted Use report and a report on the ‘Assessment of potential effects of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme on groundwater and surface water resources in the Tukituki River Catchment’.

Progressing a joint Science Heretaunga Resource Summary Report for consents. Installing Ruakituri Climate Site by end of June

Ecology

Work continues to focus on Tukituki plan change support and Karamu consent renewals.

Strategic Development

·     Land and Water Management Strategy

Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22 LTP preparation.

 

·     Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment

Ongoing, but subject to Council decisions elsewhere in 30 May 2012 agenda. Technical reports being used to develop the water allocation framework. Stakeholder engagement as per adoption by Council in February.

 

·     Rivermouth Hazard Areas in proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Variation 1)

Schedule 1 RMA process.

Hearing held 23 May 2012.

Hearing Panel’s recommendations to Council meeting on 27 June 2012.

 

·     Onsite Wastewater change (Change 3 + Variation 3)

Schedule 1 RMA process

Hearing held 19 April 2012.  Hearing Panel’s recommendations to Council meeting 30 May 2012.

 

·     RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters
(Change 4)

Schedule 1 RMA process.

45 submissions and 6 further submissions received.  Hearing by end of 2012.

 

Ÿ    Taharua Strategy and plan change.

Ongoing. Broadened scope to cover whole Mohaka River catchment.  Preliminary stakeholder engagement commenced with wider Mohaka River interests.  Further liaison with Taharua Stakeholder Group on options.

Strategic Development

Ÿ    Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan plus Change 1 to RRMP

Ongoing. Environment Court soon to ratify settlement of all appeals.  RCEP to be approved by Council (report to E&S Committee in June), then referred to Minister of Conservation for approval of provisions relating to coastal marine area.

 

Ÿ    Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)

Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.

 

Ÿ    Regional Land Transport Programme and Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Public Consultation on the Regional Land Transport Strategy, incorporating the Regional Land Transport Programme closes on 31 May. The Regional Transport Committee will hear submissions on Friday, 8 June.

 

Ÿ    Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce

Over $2m in funding year to date.

 

 

Ÿ    Strategic Farming Initiative

Pan Sector cluster held in early May reviewed first draft of strategy document. Next step is to work with individual organisations to expand scope of projects and prioritise.

 

Ÿ    Massey Strategic Relationship

Discussions ongoing about locating a Massey staff member in Hawke’s Bay to coordinate activities in the region.

Corporate Services

·     Hearing of submissions for draft LTP.

11-13 June 2012

 

 

·     Adoption of Final LTP

27 June 2012

 

·     Setting of rates

August 2012

 

·     Assessment of selling cash flows from Napier leasehold land.

To be undertaken in August 2012.

 

·     New website go live date.

Late mid June 2012.

External Relations

·     Statutory advocacy and liaison

Coordination of submission to CHBDC on wastewater treatment options in response to extended consultation period to 1 June

Liaison with consultant on Prosperity Study

 

·     Training of Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee

Standing Orders Training held on 28 May. Discussions with representatives at that time on their further training needs.

 

·     Long Term Plan

Preparation of staff responses to submissions

 

·     Community engagement / environmental education

Draft of July edition of “Our Place” in preparation

Ongoing liaison with HB Tourism on Cycle Trail promotion opportunities

 

·     HeatSmart

Processing of significant number of applications for both insulation and clean heat, above specified target

Operations/

Water Group

·     Ruataniwha Water storage

Work over the next month involves:

·     Analysing draft Final Project Description document and feedback to Engineering consultants.

·     Review of environmental and non science reports completed and feedback provided to consultants.

·     Continue with Nutrient and Mitigation modelling works.

·     On-Farm Economic Studies to be updated by Macfarlane Rural Business.

·     National & Regional Economic Impact Assessments about to commence.

·     Stakeholder, leadership and landowner meetings to host.

 

·     Cycleways

·     Finalise detail with HDC for remaining Craggy Range section of trail of the Landscapes trail.

·     Input into final detail for Taipo and Pandora sections of the Water trail.

·     Continue with construction of Ngatarawa and Roys hill section of trail of Winery trail.

 

·     Ngaruroro Water storage project

Complete and lodge MAF IAF application for on-farm economic study.

CE’s Office

Ÿ    Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”

Draft recommendations on limit setting and collaborative governance delivered to Ministers and publicly released. Focus continues on rights of appeal, water allocation methods, etc.

 

Ÿ    Treaty Settlements –Claimant Groups

Regional Planning Committee focus on Land and Water management strategy insertion into Regional Policy Statement

 

 

Ÿ    Regional Prosperity study

Study leader appointed.

Final project scoping and budget being developed.

Initial visit to Hawke’s Bay undertaken by Study Leader.

 

Ÿ Ruataniwha Water Storage

Ongoing oversight. Procurement of financial advisory services completed.

Detailed work on what may happen post feasibility under way.

Meetings with Federation of Maori Authorities.

 

Ÿ HB Regional Investment Company establishment

Statement of Intent to be adopted by Council at 30 May 2012 meeting.

 

Ÿ Hill Country Afforestation Proposal

Further oversight of business plan under way.

 

Ÿ    Continue work with Regional Sector CEs at Horizons and Greater Wellington plus Government Department CEs as appropriate on southern North Island partnership

Ongoing

Initial due diligence due end of June.

CE’s Office

Ÿ    LTP Submissions

Staff comments and recommendations being formulated for distribution to Councillors and submitters 1 June.

 

Ÿ    Continue involvement with Ministry for Primary Industries Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS

Ongoing

 

Ÿ    Advisory Committee on Official Statistics

Ongoing

 

Decision Making Process

2.      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 Council receives the May 2012 Work Plan Looking Forward report.

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

 

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager

Water Initiatives

 

Liz Lambert

Group Manager

External Relations

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: General Business

 

Introduction

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

6.   

 

 

7.   

 

 

8.   

 

 

9.   

 

 

10. 

 

 

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 18 April 2012

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Confirmation  of Public Excluded Minutes of the Meeting held on 18 April 2012

7(2)(i) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

7(2)(j) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Integration of Freshwater Activities - Supporting Information

That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 22 Integration of Freshwater Activities - Supporting Information with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being as follows:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Integration of Freshwater Activities - Supporting Information

7(2)(i) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

7(2)(j) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager

Water Initiatives

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Public Excluded Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 23 Public Excluded Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being as follows:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Public Excluded Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

7(2)(i) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

7(2)(j) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

    



[1] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.

[2] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.