Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting Date	Agenda Item / Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
5 June 2013	9. Update on Taharua/Mohaka Policy Development – copies of relevant reports referring to native fish monitoring in the Mohaka to be distributed to Committee members who have requested it.	EL	7 August	Email with reports attached was sent on Monday 10 June
5 June 2013	5. Update on Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Policy Development – staff to clarify (1) how the values of the Ahuriri Estuary are identified and described in Change 5 as amended by Council’s decisions on submissions and (2) what implications of that are for scope of TNK Group’s policy development options	TS/HC	7 August	Change 5 adds a new chapter to the RPS and amends other existing provisions in the RPS. Table 1 in Change 5 identifies primary and secondary values and uses of freshwater whereas the middle and lower parts of the Ahuriri Estuary are marine environments. Inter-connections between land, water and the coast is something that RMA decision-making must consider (eg. as in Change 5’s Policy LW1.1(c)). Change 5’s provisions are not automatically given any greater or lesser weight than other RPS provisions. The RPS and Change 5 need to be read and applied as a whole. In practice, some parts will inevitably be more relevant than others in any particular instance. Chapter 3.2 of the RPS sets out specific objectives relating to the region’s coastal resources (which includes the Ahuriri Estuary). In addition to RPS Chapter 3.2, the Regional Coastal Environment Plan contains many more specific objectives, policies and rules to manage effects of activities on the Ahuriri Estuary (and other natural and physical resources within the coastal environment). The RCEP identifies the middle and lower parts of the Ahuriri Estuary (upstream of Pandora Road bridge) as a ‘Significant Conservation Area’ within which certain effects and activities are restricted - or even prohibited. The TANK Group will need to consider the totality of the RPS’s provisions (including Change 5’s amendments) as well as the relevant parts of the RCEP. With this in mind, the TANK group’s scope will obviously not start from a ‘blank canvas’ of planning provisions.
5 June 2013	12. General Business – Directory of RPC members	MD/HC	7 August	Completed and included in this agenda

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 07 August 2013

SUBJECT: Change 5 Appeals

Reason for Report

1. Four appeals have been lodged with the Environment Court against the Council’s decisions on Change 5 (‘land and freshwater management’) to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

2. This report provides an overview of those four appeals lodged since Council’s decisions were issued on 5 June 2013. The report also outlines options available regarding the Council’s participation at any Court-assisted mediation of those four appeals.

Comment

3. Change 5 was proposed in order to provide enhanced guidance and direction to decision-makers about how future management decisions will be made in an integrated manner for the sustainable management of the region’s land and fresh water resources. Change 5 did not start with a blank canvas as the RRMP already contains objectives and policies on the management of those resources.

4. The period for lodging appeals against Council’s decisions on Change 5 closed in mid July. Appeals have been lodged by:

4.1. Federated Farmers of New Zealand (FFNZ)

4.2. Hawke's Bay Fish and Game Council (HBF&G)

4.3. Horticulture New Zealand (HortNZ)

4.4. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII)

5. Full copies of the four appeals are attached. Copies have also been posted on the Council’s Change 5 webpage. The appellants were obliged to send a copy of their appeals to all other submitters and further submitters.

6. The Environment Court has already instructed parties to provide a memorandum to the Court (due early September) regarding what steps have been taken to negotiate and/or mediate matters, as well as any jurisdictional matters arising, in each of the respective appeals.

7. It is difficult to summarise each of the appeals without potentially omitting or downplaying one or more individual matters that might prove more complex than the initial screening identifies. Instead, the following table identifies the number of discrete amendments requested by each of the appellants compared to the respective appellants’ number of original submission points. This is provided to give a sense of the ‘order of magnitude’ of the appeals, nothing more.

Appellant name	# of appeal points (as summarised by staff)	# of original submission points
Federated Farmers of NZ	6	27
HB Fish and Game Council	81	83
Horticulture NZ	30	21
Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc.	35	27

Options considered for appeal negotiations

8. At the Committee’s meeting in June, staff presented a report relating to the single appeal received against decisions on Change 4 (‘Managing the built environment’). That report outlined the following options for Council’s participation in Court-assisted mediation:

8.1. Status quo (being planning staff attend mediation, but without authority to sign any agreements);

8.2. Senior staff having authority to negotiate and sign some mediated agreements; and

8.3. Senior staff having authority to sign all mediated agreements.

9. The options in relation to Change 5’s appeals are no different. The ‘status quo’ is not favoured by the Environment Court. Instead, the Court prefers those persons attending mediation have the proper authority to settle there and then at mediation.

10. Authority to sign mediated agreements could be delegated to a staff level, but the use of that delegation could also be guided initial liaison with representative(s) of the decision-making body. However, the Change 5 hearing panel which reported its recommendations back to Council did not include any regional councillors or other members of the Regional Planning Committee.^{^[1]}

11. Matters such as the following could be used to guide negotiations and settlements:

11.1. scope of the appeal;

11.2. relief sought in the appeal;

11.3. number of parties to the appeal;

11.4. Council’s first instance decision(s) on the matter; and

11.5. opinions of any expert witness(es) that may be called to inform Council’s case.

12. The approach whereby senior staff have authority to sign all mediated agreements is preferred by the Environment Court. This option is considered to be the most streamlined and cost effective because it would delegate to the Group Manager Strategic Development (and any legal counsel acting has the Group Manager’s agent) the authority to sign, on behalf of Council, draft consent orders (i.e. agreements between parties to be presented to the Court of ratification). Any mediated agreement would be consistent with the overall intent of Council’s first instance decision(s).

13. This option avoids the need for any specific papers to come back to Council to seek sign off of an in-principle agreement. This will significantly speed up the settlement of appeals.

14. It is clearly important to keep the Committee informed of the progress of appeals and this could be done through the regular appeal updates and through action items or full agenda items.

15. In the event of Court-assisted mediation being unable to settle all of the appeals, then a hearing before the Environment Court will be required.

Legal review

16. The four appeals have yet to be reviewed by legal counsel to assess whether or not there are aspects of the appeals that could be considered ‘beyond the scope’ of Change 5. If there are any such aspects, the Court could be requested to determine the legitimacy of the grounds for those appeals at the outset.

Financial and Resource Implications

17. The Council incurs costs as a result of its involvement with Environment Court appeals. Staff’s proposal to streamline the process for appeals will result in cost and time savings, and therefore has a positive financial impact for Council.

Decision Making Process

16. 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:

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

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

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

16.4. The persons particularly affected are parties involved in Change 5 to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan. 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 5.

16.5. Options that have been considered include maintaining the status quo, staff are authorised to attend mediation but delegation for settlement of appeals remains with Council, staff are authorised to attend mediation and settle some appeals, staff are authorised to attend mediation and sign mediated agreements for all appeals on Change 5 and any other future plan changes.

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

16.7. 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 the Regional Planning Committee recommends 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. Delegates to the Group Manager Strategic Development (and any legal counsel acting as the Group Manager’s agent) the authority to sign, on behalf of Council, any mediated agreement in relation the appeals on Change 5 to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan, providing such mediated agreement as consistent with the overall content of the Council’s original decision.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	HB Federated Farmers
2 View	HB Fish & Game Council
3 View	Horticulture NZ
4 View	Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 07 August 2013

SUBJECT: Draft Annual Report for National Policy Statement (NPS) Freshwater Management Implementation Programmes

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to present a report on the Council’s progressive implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (‘NPSFM’) covering the 2012-13 financial year period.

Comment

2. In September 2012, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopted an Implementation Programme in accordance with Policy E1 of the NPSFM. The Programme outlines key activities that the Council will undertake to implement the NPSFM by 2030. Policy E1^{^[2]} of the NPSFM requires that Council annually report on the extent to which the Programme has been implemented. The Programme signals that this annual reporting will be published as part of the Council’s ‘Annual Report.’

3. Annual reporting on the Programme is required until the programme is completed (i.e. until the NPSFM is fully implemented as relevant in Hawke's Bay’s regional policy statement and regional plans).

4. Exactly how the Programme looked and what it contained was up to the Council’s own discretion. Similarly, how annual reporting of implementation looks and what it contains is also up to the Council’s own discretion.

5. Staff recommend that the Council’s 2012/13 Annual Report include the content of Attachment 1 in two forms:

5.1. Firstly, a brief bulleted list of key milestones and achievements as part of the Council’s 2012/13 Annual Report ‘performance overview’; and

5.2. secondly, a fuller commentary of activities to implement the NPSFM as an appendix to the Council’s 2012/13 Annual Report.

6. The fuller commentary in Attachment 1 is akin to a ‘stocktake’ of progress and status as set against the Programme’s indicative timelines.

Programme revisions

7. The NPSFM does not specifically require the Programme to be updated, but staff think it would be beneficial to update the Programme from time to time to incorporate and changes or revisions. Revisions to the Programme should correspond to financial and resourcing requirements determined through the Council’s annual plan and/or long term plan review processes. There may also be other factors that influence the timing and completion of implementation activities which warrant revisions to the Programme over time.

8. In the 2013/14 Annual Plan, the Council has already adopted revised timeframes for statutory plan change processes under the RMA for:

8.1. public notification of a plan change for the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri area (and with it, the plan change for urban stormwater);

8.2. public notification of a plan change for the Mohaka River catchment; and

8.3. completion of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, which influences timing of any changes to the RPS and/or regional plans.

9. The Programme assumed Plan Change 6 (Tukituki River Catchment) would be called in via the Environmental Protection Authority. That is now indeed the case so the Programme’s indicative timeframes still hold.

10. Staff recommend that the original 2012 Programme’s Figure 1 (see below) should be revised to incorporate the 2013/14 Annual Plan timeframes. The Gantt chart should then be re-published as an addendum to the original 2012 Programme. Additional revisions arising from future annual reporting could be published in a similar fashion. This would provide a ‘running tally’ of versions compared against earlier versions.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

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

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

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

11.5. Options that have been considered include preparing an annual report on implementation of the NPSFM, revising the original 2013 implementation programme and not revising the original 2012 programme.

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

11.7. 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 the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives the “Draft Annual Report for NPS Freshwater Management Implementation Programme” report.

2. Recommends Council 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.

3. Recommends Council agrees that the content of the report’s attachment be re-formatted and published as part of the Council’s 2012/13 Annual Report.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Draft 2012/13 annual report on progressive implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Draft 2012/13 annual report on progressive implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Attachment 1

Appendix [X] - Key milestones and activities for NPSFM Implementation progress

	Status key (for 2012-2013 period)
	Completed within Programme’s indicative timeframe
	In progress during Programme’s indicative timeframe
	Not started during Programme’s indicative timeframe
	Implementation activity/phase ongoing
	Implementation not programmed in current reporting period

Activity	Status	Comment on 2012 – 2013 progress
Change 4 (Built Environment) to Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan - Submissions, hearing and decisions phase		Change 4 was publicly notified on 7 December 2011 and 45 submissions were received. Hearings were held on 7 December 2012 and Council released its decisions 26 March 2013.
- Appeals on decisions phase		Transpower NZ Ltd lodged an appeal with the Environment Court against some of the Council’s decisions on Change 4. Resolution of that appeal will be ongoing into the 2013/14 period.
Change 5 (Land use and Freshwater) to Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan - Submissions, hearing and decisions phase		Change 5 was publicly notified 2 October 2012. 29 submissions were received on Change 5 and hearings were held 10-12 April by a panel of RMA-accredited hearings commissioners. On 5 June 2013, Council issued its decisions on submissions.
- Appeals on decisions phase		Four appeals were lodged with the Environment Court against some of the Council’s decisions on Change 5. Resolution of appeals will be ongoing into the 2013-14 period.
Plan Change 6 (Tukituki Catchment) - Stakeholder engagement and policy drafting		Stakeholder engagement on the Tukituki plan change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage project occurred via the Tukituki Choices discussion document. This set out four land and water management scenarios, with and without storage and the implications of those options. 3 public meetings and 2 breakfast meetings were held. 164 written responses on the Tukituki Choices discussion document were received. Council endorsed key approaches for the development of the plan change.
- Submissions, hearing and decisions phase		Change 6 was publicly notified on 4 May 2013 and 79 submissions were received. The Council requested the Environment Minister to call in proposed Plan Change 6 (via the Environmental Protection Authority) so it is part of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal (in conjunction with applications for the Ruataniwha Water Storage project). The Environment Minister has since determined that the Tukituki Catchment Proposal is to be called in. Change 6 and the RWSS applications were notified on 6 July 2013. Submissions on the proposal will be heard and decided by a Board of Inquiry during the 2013-14 period.
Plan Change: Mohaka River catchment - Stakeholder engagement and policy drafting		A project update was presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 5 September 2012. The Committee supported in-principle the concept of a ‘catchment management plan’ being a key component of the Taharua plan change. In late 2012 the Ministry for the Environment declined HBRC’s application for funding from the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund and nitrification inhibitors (Eco-N) were voluntarily and indefinitely withdrawn from market, due to dicyandiamide (DCD) traces in milk powder. These two events have had significant implications in arriving at a set of policy solutions for the Catchment. A further update report was presented to the Committee’s 5 June 2013 meeting post withdrawal of Eco-N product from market. This reported on further focussed discussions between major landowners about N mitigation options and responsibilities; water quality monitoring trends, science work programmes and a preliminary plan for broader catchment stakeholder engagement. For the wider Mohaka catchment supporting science is progressing and stakeholder engagement commenced during the latter half of the 2012/13 period. This will be elaborated on in the 2013/14 period via a ‘Mohaka choices’ discussion document or similar. At this time Council has directed that staffing and financial resources are diverted into other priority work projects that are considered critical in the short-term.
Plan Change: Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri - Stakeholder engagement and policy drafting		Council has resolved to take an integrated approach to managing the surface and groundwater resources of the Heretaunga zone which includes Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro rivers, Karamu and Clive rivers and the Heretaunga Plains groundwater system. The TANK stakeholder Group has met seven times to date and a field trip has been undertaken. Update report presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 5th June 2013. Group’s terms of reference have been confirmed. Current science understanding of issues in the catchment area was presented to the second group meeting. Extension to the time frame for plan change notification is now signalled in the 2013/14 Annual Plan. Council has directed that staffing and financial resources be diverted into other priority work projects that are considered critical in the short-term.
Plan Change: urban stormwater		This Plan Change aligns with Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri plan change and the policy development will stem from the collaborative process being undertaken by the TANK Group.
RPS and/or plan change: 2010 Coastal Policy Statement implementation		No specific investigations dedicated to solely the coastal environment have been necessary during the period. Gap analysis of RCEP against 2010 NZCPS is yet to be undertaken. Staff resources have been redirected to other projects. Nonetheless, a number of indirectly related investigations have been commissioned in relation to catchment-based regional plan changes (eg: Tukituki and Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri areas) where the coast is ultimately those catchment areas’ receiving environments.
Biodiversity Strategy		Project scoping commenced and completed. Terms of Reference for Working Group have been developed. Working Group’s first meeting held in October 2012 focussing on gaining an understanding of what the individuals in the group were doing in the biodiversity area and how best to work as a group in the future. Steering group have met and begun developing the strategy objectives. Steering group members have been reviewed and Mana Whenua connections made to contribute to the development. Refinement of Biodiversity Accord complete with accord concepts to be further refined through the steering group. Inventory work is nearing completion to inform further field investigations in the coming 2013/14 summer period. Due to staff focus on priority projects the timeline has been revised and the Strategy is now scheduled to be completed in 2014. A programme for work relevant to HBRC for inclusion in the next Long Term Plan will be prepared in 2014-2015.
RPS Change for Biodiversity (significant wetlands)		Policy development is subject to completion of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy.
Identification of outstanding freshwater bodies		Preliminary desktop review and scoping of information regarding possible evaluation criteria commenced. Further criteria development and waterbody assessment is pending development of national guidance on this issue by Ministry for the Environment.
RPS Change for outstanding freshwater bodies		Policy development is subject to timing of MFE’s preparation of national guidance on this issue.
Plan change: rest of region		No specific policy development activity during the 2012-13 period.
Specific plan effectiveness monitoring programmes (Tukituki; Taharua/Mohaka; Heretaunga/Ahuriri)		Specific plan effectiveness monitoring and reporting not yet developed.
RPS/ Plan Effectiveness Reporting/Review		No specific plan effectiveness monitoring and reporting scheduled during the 2012-13 period.
SOE Reporting and Review (5 yearly, annual)		Council undertakes monthly and annual reporting on specific investigations carried out in that reporting period. Every five years Council undertakes State of the Environment Reporting to assess longer term trends. Council is currently compiling the five-yearly state of the environment report due for publication in the 2013/14 period.
Regional Afforestation Scheme		Council proposed to work in partnership with landowners with highly erodible land to promote afforestation of the steepest and least productive portion of their land in return for a share of carbon credit revenue. The afforestation of steep, highly erodible hill country would likely improve water quality in rivers due to reduced sediment from erosion. This project commonly known as ‘Trees on Farms’ has been put on hold indefinitely as the current down turn in carbon prices has significantly reduced the economic viability of the project as a working model. Council has instructed Staff to explore other options and seek other economic drivers for investment.
Water Storage Investigations – Ruataniwha & Ngaruroro/Heretaunga Plains		A pre-feasibility study was completed for the Ngaruroro/Heretaunga Plains catchment in 2011. An on farm economic assessment to determine the viability of water storage for the Ngaruroro catchment needs to be conducted. This will help to establish if the project should proceed to a feasibility investigation. This economic assessment was due for completion in 2012 however it has been deferred due to resource constraints. It is anticipated that recommendations will be made to Council in 2014. This is being considered as part o the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri policy development work. The feasibility investigations for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) were completed in September 2012. Consent applications were lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority on May 2013 and have subsequently been called in by the Environment and Conservation Ministers as part of the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ (alongside Plan Change 6) . The RWSS applications were notified by the EPA on 6 July 2013. Submissions on the proposal will be heard and decided by a Board of Inquiry during the 2013-14 period.
Science investigations to support plan changes including Nutrient modelling; Groundwater modelling; Instream flow assessments; Water quality monitoring; Flow gauging; Surface water/groundwater interactions for the Heretaunga Plains		Targeted water quality investigations are on-going and feed into the Tukituki, TANK and Mohaka Plan Changes. This is over and above Council’s statutory obligations for monitoring surface water quality throughout the region. The objectives of the work is to better define current state; define and understand ecological and physical-chemical conditions and dynamics; and allow for effective limit setting in relation to water quality limits.
Implementation of Water Measuring Regulations		The first phase of the transitional Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 came into force on 10 November 2012. This affected approximately 950 consents of which 450 new water meter installations were required, for consented rates of at 20 litres/second or more. Currently Council is on track to reach 100% compliance with the Regulations by September 2013. The second phase of the transitional Regulations comes into force from 10 November 2014 for water takes of 10 litres/second or more, but less than 20 litres/second.
Facilitation of water user groups		Council is continuing to work with water users to establish efficient water use through alternative water management options. This is on a ‘where and when’ basis due to resourcing limitations (funding & staffing levels). Council has facilitated the establishment of key water user groups such as the Ngaruroro Irrigation Society and the Twyford Irrigators Group. Both of these water user groups are part of the TANK collaborative stakeholder group.
Facilitation of catchment groups for non-point source discharges		Council is working on an adaptive management framework to manage non point source discharges from land into water. A pilot is being developed for the Tukituki Catchment that will comprise an overall facilitation group informed by the primary industry pan sector which then supports six sub-catchment operational groups which comprises landowners, Hapu and HBRC. The objectives of the pilot are to build the capacity within the sub-catchment groups to enable them to self manage to reduce/mitigate contaminant discharges with a focus on nutrients.
Management and mitigation plans		Council is working towards an adaptive management framework with key stakeholders to achieve proposed targets in Tukituki Plan Change 6. Phosphorus management plans within priority sub-catchments are proposed to address phosphorus loads using specific mitigation methods suited to the situation. Methods could include afforestation of hill country to address sediment migration into waterways. The pilot is currently in a development phase.

Draft Regional Planning Annual Report

Attachment 1

1 Background

Management of natural and physical resources is one of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (Council) primary responsibilities. Māori have kaitiakitanga responsibilities relating to the region’s resources and as Mana Whenua, are key stakeholders in the way our region’s resources are managed now and for future generations. Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations resulting in cultural redress, require new partnerships between Hawke’s Bay Treaty claimant groups and Council around the management of natural and physical resources and the exploration of sustainable economic opportunities. The Council is committed to working in partnership with Treaty claimant groups moving into the future.

Ongoing Treaty of Waitangi settlements with Hawke’s Bay Treaty claimant groups have significant implications on Council’s operations and have required a rethink about how we can best work together. Over the past few years, Council and Treaty claimant groups have worked collectively to build strong relationships and develop the capacity of Māori to contribute to decision making processes. One initiative to enable co-governance of the region’s natural resources has been to collectively establish the joint Regional Planning Committee (the Committee). Another initiative is the signing of a Deed of Commitment between Council and Treaty claimant groups formalising the mutual respect and understanding between the parties. In addition, Council is also working with each Treaty claimant group individually, where the specific cultural needs of that group overlap or align with a Council activity.

The Regional Planning Committee will ultimately be permanently established through government legislation to recognise the unique background to the Committee arising from the recognition of cultural redress through Treaty claims. It has, however, been the Council and the Treaty claimant groups, without mandate from the Crown that has established the Committee and developed the Terms of Reference in Hawke’s Bay.

2 Establishment of the Regional Planning Committee

The Council adopted its committee structure after the local body elections in October 2010, with the intention of reviewing that structure in the first half of 2011. Council considered several papers on this matter including papers establishing the Regional Planning Committee. The Committee was established by Council resolution on 27 April 2011. The Committee’s inaugural meeting and Powhiri was held on 10 April 2012^{^[4]}. Unlike other Committee’s the Regional Planning Committee will not be disestablished before the October 2013 local government elections and will continue as a permanent committee.

Table 1 shows the history of Council resolutions in the establishment of the Committee and Terms of Reference development.

3 Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Regional Planning Committee specifically describe the purpose and structure of the Committee and the members’ specific responsibilities. A notable difference in TOR from other Council Committees’ Terms of Reference is that there is no provision for alternate members or short-term replacements. The main reason for this is the need to establish continuity and follow through in the policy programme. A copy of the Terms of Reference is included as Appendix A.

Table 1: Council resolutions establishing the Committee.

Meeting date	Resolution
27 April 2011	Establishes a new Committee for Regional Planning, with membership comprising equal representation of councillors, and non-councillors from the Treaty claimant groups.
25 May 2011	Endorses the draft Terms of Reference as amended at this meeting, with the final wording to be brought back to the special meeting of the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee on 15 June 2011 as a basis for further negotiation with the Treaty Claimant groups.
29 June 2011	Endorses Draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee, including amendments following discussion by Council on 25 May, as the basis for further discussion with Treaty claimant groups.
21 September 2011	§ Resolves to adopt the Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee as amended from discussions at the Corporate and Strategic meeting. § Resolves to endorse the Deed of Commitment and authorises the Chairman of Council to sign it on Council’s behalf. § Invites the Treaty claimant group signatories to advise Council of their appointees to the Regional Planning Committee, for formal approval by Council. § Instructs staff to bring back to Council, the proposals in relation to participation in voting.
14 December 2011	Resolves to adopt the attached revised Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee, noting that this Terms of Reference is interim until the permanent Committee is established through legislation.

4 Role of the Regional Planning Committee

The role of the Regional Planning Committee is to oversee the review and development of the regional policy statement and regional plans for the Hawke’s Bay region, as required under the Resource Management Act 1991. Membership of the Committee comprises equal numbers of elected members and Treaty claimant representatives and all Committee members have full speaking and voting rights. The Committee considers and recommends strategies, policies, rules and other methods for inclusion into the Regional Resource Management Plan (which includes the Regional Policy Statement) and Regional Coastal Environment Plan to Council. The Committee also makes recommendations to Council to ensure the effective implementation of plans, processes, research, monitoring and enforcement to satisfy the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991, National Policy Statements, National Environmental Standards and relevant associated legislation.

As a co-governing body the Regional Planning Committee holds great Mana. Collectively the Committee has a very strong influence on the form of any Proposed Regional Plan, Coastal Plan, Plan Change or Variation may take and is responsible for recommending such documents to Council. Should the Council not adopt all or any part of the Committee’s recommendations the Council must refer the document back to the Committee for further consideration. For this reason each member of the Committee, either Council or Treaty partner has input and influence on the strategic direction and management of regional resources in Hawke’s Bay.

5 Membership Changes

The Committee comprises all nine of the Regional Councillors. Treaty claimant group representatives are nominated by the respective Groups and these are formally appointed to the Committee by Council. There are a total of 18 members of whom 9 are Regional Councillors and 9 are representatives from Treaty Claimant Groups. The principle applies that at any given time the ratio will be an equal number of Councillor to Tangata Whenua representation. However currently there are only 8 Treaty partners who attend meetings as a representative is yet to be nominated by Ngai Tuhoe. While provision is being made in the draft legislation for Ngai Tuhoe to be represented on the Regional Planning Committee, to date they have not taken up a position as they are considering an alternative co-governance model for their rohe which covers a small geographical area of Hawke’s Bay but large parts of other regional government areas. The Committee is serviced by the Council’s secretariat and coordinated by Council’s Group Manager External Relations. Appendix B shows the geographical location and areas of interest of Treaty Claimant Groups in Hawke’s Bay.

The Committee has had a number of changes to its membership over the past 12 months. Two changes to Treaty partner representation occurred at the 10 December 2012 meeting when Peter Paku replaced Dr Roger Maaka as the representative for He Toa Takitini and Nigel Baker replaced Colin Rangi as the representative for Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum.

In April 2013 Councillor Eileen von Dadelszen, stepped down from her role in Council to take up a position as an Environment Court Commissioner. Mrs von Dadelszen’s position within the Committee (and Council) has been filled by Murray Douglas who was officially sworn in to Council on 10 June 2013 to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Mrs von Dadelszen.

Table 2 shows members of the Regional Planning Committee, past and present, their affiliation and the number of meetings attended.

Table 2: Committee members during April 2012 to June 2013 period

Name	Affiliation	Meetings attended
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum	4 / 4
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Incorporated	8 / 9
Alan Dick	Regional Councillor	6 / 9
Murray Douglas	Regional Councillor	0 / 0
Tim Gilbertson	Regional Councillor	7 / 9
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Incorporated	8 / 9
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana	9 / 9
Neil Kirton	Regional Councillor	8 / 9
Dr Roger Maaka	He Toa Takitini	1 / 2
Ewan McGregor	Regional Councillor	9 / 9
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini	2 / 3
Colin Rangi	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum	3 / 6
Liz Remmerswaal	Regional Councillor	7 / 9
Kevin Rose	Regional Councillor	8 / 9
Christine Scott	Regional Councillor	8 / 9
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated	9 / 9
Eileen von Dadelszen	Regional Councillor (now resigned)	8 / 8
Toro Waaka (Co-Chair)	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts	9 / 9
Fenton Wilson (Co-Chair)	Regional Councillor (Chairman)	9 / 9
Walter Wilson	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa	9 / 9

6 Deed of Commitment

The Council’s Long Term Plan 2012 – 2022 identifies the forming of strategic alliances with Māori as critical for improving Council’s performance and effectiveness.

During the development of the Committee’s Terms of Reference, Council and Treaty claimant groups collectively agreed to a strategic alliance to work together for the benefit of the region. It was agreed that a fundamental requirement of any ongoing relationship required a formalising of that relationship. Subsequently and in tandem with the Terms of Reference for the Committee, a Deed of Commitment (included as Appendix C), was jointly agreed upon and signed in good faith by all parties. The Deed formalises the values, principles and protocols that each party will abide by in fulfilling their responsibilities in the sustainable management of regional resources (economic, social, environmental and cultural).

Provision was made to enable Crown recognised mandated groups currently not members of the Committee to become parties to the Deed and subsequently to gain membership of the Regional Planning Committee. These groups will then become part of the strategic alliance and join in the co-governance of regional resources. The Deed involves meeting quarterly to discuss matters of concern to any party in addition to the Committee meetings. The Deed of Commitment was endorsed by Council on 21 September 2011. During the April 2012 to June 2013 period, no meetings were held under the auspices of the Deed of Commitment.

7 Budgets

The Crown made a one-off payment of $100,000 (excl GST) to cover Committee establishment costs and meeting expenses. Any unspent amount is to be transferred to the balance for the following year. Meeting fees for Treaty Claimant Group members is paid from this fund.

Remuneration for the Treaty Claimant Group members is based upon the Crown Fees Framework and particularly Group 4, level 4 (Fees framework for members appointed to bodies in which the Crown has an interest). For 2012/2013, this was a daily rate of $400. In addition, Council meets the travel (standard mileage rate) and other appropriate expenses for all members to attend Committee meetings.

8 2012-2013 Meetings, workshops and topics considered

Between April 2012 and June 2013, the Committee met nine times including the Inaugural meeting. The Committee has also held five workshops which have covered a number of topics providing training to members of the Committee who are not familiar with resource management and regional planning. Appendix D shows the workshop and meeting schedule and gives an indication of the topics covered.

Appendix E shows the location of each of the major river catchments where the Council is currently engaged in resources and environmental planning activities and of which the Committee is actively considering work programmes.

8.1 Workshops and training

In total the Committee has held five workshop training sessions. These sessions are closed (not open to the public). Table 3 summarises the focus of each workshop.

Table 3: Committee workshop schedule.

Date	Workshop topic	Description
10 April 2012	The Resource Management Act 1991	A comprehensive overview of the RMA, process, principles and responsibilities under the Act.
28 May 2012	Standing Orders	An overview of Standing Orders to familiarise the RPC on the conduct and process rules to be followed during meetings including how to raise issues and get resolutions proposed and passed.
2 Nov 2012	Draft Tukituki Plan Change 6	Focus on the first draft changes to the RRMP to address land and water management issues in the Tukituki Catchment (Plan Change 6)
10 Dec 2012	Tukituki Catchment Proposal	Brief on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal (Ruataniwha Water Storage Project and the Tukituki Plan Change) and specifically to provide information underpinning the approach being taken for the Tukituki Plan Change. Brief on non-regulatory and regulatory approach in the Tukituki Catchment and its role in plan change implementation.
5 June 2013	Getting to know the Regional Policy Statement	A comprehensive overview of the issues and content of the Regional Policy Statement. Plan development and Plan change procedures. The Environment Court and Water Conservation Orders.

9 Regional Plan Changes

During the course of the year the Committee has considered and made recommendations to Council on the following Regional Plan Changes.

9.1 Tukituki Catchment

Key Issues and drivers:

· Over allocation of surface water based on current allocation limits

· Excessive periphyton growth adversely affecting swimming and fishing, particularly in the lower Tukituki

· Degraded mauri of the Tukituki River and its tributaries

· The need to understand the groundwater system and its surface water interactions

· Existing minimum flows may be too low to provide for native fish and trout habitat

· Reduced security of supply for existing irrigators if existing minimum flows need to be higher

· Economic impact of any reduced security of supply for irrigators

· Potential land development hindered by lack of water.

Since before 2008, Council has been working on a range of solutions for the Tukituki catchment to achieve positive environmental, social, cultural and economic outcomes that will give effect to the key principles of the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater.

In July 2012 the Committee first considered the delivery of the Tukituki Strategy and the proposed co-ordinated development of a Tukituki Plan Change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage project to achieve the objectives of that Strategy. Furthermore the Committee approved an approach to the Minister for the Environment seeking to have the proposed change for the Tukituki River Catchment and applications for all consents relating to the Ruataniwha Water Storage project considered as matters of national significance and to be determined by a Board of Inquiry.

The Committee supported the preparation of the ‘Tukituki Choices’ document which identified different land and water management scenarios for the Tukituki catchment and instructed staff to undertake specific consultation with Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga.

The Committee has had ongoing input into policy and strategic planning relating to the Tukituki catchment and has made decisions which have influenced and shaped the form of the “Tukituki Choices” document and Tukituki Plan Change 6 to the Regional Resource Management Plan. Plan Change 6 is part of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal which has been called in as a proposal of national significance to be heard and determined by a Board of Inquiry in 2014.

9.2 Taharua/Mohaka Catchment

Key Issues and drivers:

· Declining water quality of a nationally important river system and recognised water conservation order for outstanding fishery, scenic values and water based recreational activity

· Excessive nitrogen (N) loss from intensive land use (Taharua Catchment) adversely affecting outstanding fishery and causing excessive periphyton growth in the upper Mohaka River

· Highly erodible pumice soils in the Taharua Catchment contributing to sediment and phosphorus from land use activities resulting in a reduction of the clarity of the mid to lower Mohaka River.

In September 2012, the Committee gave in-principle support to an outlined Taharua management package and actions developed by major Taharua landowners with DairyNZ and Council staff. The Committee supported the development of a catchment-based plan change for a collaborative and adaptive approach to meet water quality objectives and targets within 15 years. This would be supported by “backstop” regulation (whole farm consenting) for landowners who are not part of the collaborative voluntary process and performance review. The Committee also supported an Eco-n partnership to trial nitrification inhibitors (as a key nitrogen mitigation tool of the Catchment Management Plan) and supported an application to access a Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Clean-up Fund. Late in 2012 MfE declined the Clean-up Fund application and nitrification inhibitors were voluntarily and indefinitely withdrawn from market, due to dicyandiamide (DCD) traces in milk powder. These two events have had significant implications in arriving at a set of policy solutions for the Catchment.

After considering further recommendations made by Council staff in June 2013, the Committee instructed staff to produce a “Taharua-Mohaka Choices” document for a public consultation process similar to, but learning from, the ‘Tukituki Choices’ process in 2012. The Choices document will assist policy-making through to 2014 and be an additional, non-statutory consultation stage.

9.3 Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu Catchment (TANK)

Key Issues and drivers:

· Balancing water demands across competing values and uses

· Setting water quantity and quality limits to meet community aspirations

· Managing water resources efficiently to maximise security of supply

The Committee was informed that a collaborative stakeholder process would be used to assist the Committee with its Plan Change decision making. This stakeholder group (the TANK Group) has now held 7 full day meetings and numerous small group meetings. Freshwater values, objectives, and policy options for the four catchments have been discussed and some interim agreements reached.

The Committee received further updates in February and June 2013 that provided further information on the National and Regional Water Management Context (RPS & NPSFM) and the challenges of balancing competing water demands in the catchments. The Committee was also informed that Fish and Game New Zealand are drafting a Water Conservation Order (WCO) application for the Ngaruroro catchment. The WCO would cover the full Ngaruroro catchment including tributaries (and potentially the lower section of the Karamu). As yet Council staff have not seen any other the details of the WCO application. The TANK Group will publish a summary document of its findings and interim agreements for the Committee to consider before the end of year.

10 Regional Policy Statement

A regional policy statement (RPS) is a mandatory document that sets resource management directions for a region. An RPS identifies the significant regional resource management issues, and sets out objectives, policies and methods for addressing these issues to achieve integrated management of natural and physical resources within the region. Regional policy statements must give effect to national policy statements and be consistent with water conservation orders.

Through the course of the year the Committee has considered and provided recommendations on two changes to the Regional Policy Statement.

10.1 Change 4: Built Environment

Change 4 introduces new provisions relating to the built environment and infrastructure into the Regional Policy Statement parts of the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan and assists in the implementation of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS). Change 4 was notified on 7 December 2011 and decisions issued on 26 March 2013. One appeal was lodged against the Council’s decisions.

The Committee only became involved with Change 4 at the appeals stage of the process and delegated to the Group Manager Strategic Development (and any legal counsel acting as the Group Manager’s agent) the authority to sign, on behalf of Council, any mediated agreement in relation Transpower New Zealand Limited’s appeal.

10.2 Change 5: Land Use and Freshwater Management

Change 5 relates to ‘land use and freshwater management.’ It incorporates relevant elements of the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy to provide a framework for the integrated management of land and water on a catchment basis and sets the regional context for values associated with the region’s freshwater resources. After a series of discussions the Committee recommended to Council that Change 5 and Section 32 report should be publicly notified.

At the Committee meeting in February 2013, Council staff sought the Committee’s recommendations on appointments to form a Panel of accredited RMA hearing commissioners to hear submissions made to Change 5. Professor Roger Maaka and Mike Mohi were appointed as two of the RMA accredited hearings commissioners along with Dennis Nugent (independent Chairman) forming a Panel to hear submissions on Change 5. Council adopted the Panel’s recommendations as its own decisions in May 2013 and these were released on 5 June 2013. As of 18 July 2013, four appeals^{^[5]} against the Council’s decisions had been lodged with the Environment Court.

11 Other matters considered during April 2012 to June 2013 period

Table 4 sets out a number of other matters that have been discussed and considered by the Committee during the April 2012 to June 2013 period.

Table 4: Ongoing Committee business.

Date	Topic	Description
ongoing	Commissioner training and accreditation for RMA hearings	The Regional Planning Committee’s responsibilities include recommending to Council the membership of hearing panels to hear and decide upon submissions on proposed Changes to plans and policy statements. The Panel members must be appropriately trained and eligible (accredited) commissioners, which may include members of the Regional Planning Committee. At the Committee’s meeting in September 2012, many members indicated a positive interest in participating in a programme for becoming certified resource management hearing commissioners. In December 2012, MfE awarded ‘Making Good Decisions’ (MGD) commissioner accreditation training programme to the Opus Business School. Opus has been approached to hold MGD introductory programme in Napier. No dates have been confirmed as yet.
Ongoing	Regional Planning Committee in legislation	The Ministry for the Environment is currently considering drafting legislation to require Joint Planning Committees be established nationally. It is not anticipated that this will have an impact on the Hawke’s Bay RPC as it has already been established by Council as a permanent Committee.

Date

Topic

Description

ongoing

Commissioner training and accreditation for RMA hearings

The Regional Planning Committee’s responsibilities include recommending to Council the membership of hearing panels to hear and decide upon submissions on proposed Changes to plans and policy statements. The Panel members must be appropriately trained and eligible (accredited) commissioners, which may include members of the Regional Planning Committee.

At the Committee’s meeting in September 2012, many members indicated a positive interest in participating in a programme for becoming certified resource management hearing commissioners. In December 2012, MfE awarded ‘Making Good Decisions’ (MGD) commissioner accreditation training programme to the Opus Business School. Opus has been approached to hold MGD introductory programme in Napier. No dates have been confirmed as yet.

Ongoing

Regional Planning Committee in legislation

The Ministry for the Environment is currently considering drafting legislation to require Joint Planning Committees be established nationally. It is not anticipated that this will have an impact on the Hawke’s Bay RPC as it has already been established by Council as a permanent Committee.

12 Work Programme 2013-2014

The Regional Planning Committee’s work programme for the coming year is dependent on when individual work streams complete phases compared to their indicative timeframes. Table 5 sets out the Committee’s anticipated work programme for 2013-2014 based on the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Implementation Programme for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

Table 5: Anticipated Work Programme 2013-2014

Topic	Description
Regional Policy Statement Change 4 (Built Environment)		Appeals on decisions made in 2012-2013
Regional Policy Statement Change 5 (Land use and water)		Appeals on decisions made in 2012-2013
Plan Change: Taharua/Mohaka River catchment		Policy development
Plan Change: Tukituki Catchment (EPA Process)		Information only
Plan Change: Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri (TANK)		Policy development
RPS and/or plan change: 2012 NZ Coastal Policy Statement implementation		Policy development
Biodiversity Strategy		Strategy development
RPS and/or plan change: Biodiversity (significant wetlands)		Policy development
RPS Change for outstanding freshwater bodies		Policy development

Draft Regional Planning Annual Report

Attachment 1

Appendix A Regional Planning Committee – Terms of Reference

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE [adopted 21 March 2012]

a) Introduction

Through its Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations with the tangata whenua of the Hawke’s Bay^{^[6]}, in conjunction with the Council, the Crown has committed to introduce legislation to establish a permanent Regional Planning Committee (Permanent Committee) to draft and recommend to the Council plan and policy changes that affect natural resources in the Hawke’s Bay region.

Legislation will be introduced to make the Permanent Committee permanent. Negotiations on terms of reference of the Permanent Committee are yet to be concluded. However, in the meantime, the Council and the Member Tangata Whenua Groups have agreed to establish the Committee with interim terms of reference to begin working together on the matters set out at b) to d) following. These terms of reference will be superseded by terms of reference of the Permanent Committee when legislation is enacted to give effect to agreements reached in respect of the Permanent Committee. These terms of reference may be amended by the Council and the Member Tangata Whenua Groups in accordance with (n) following.

b) Purpose

To oversee the review and development of the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plans for the Hawke’s Bay region, as required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

c) Process

The Committee is responsible for preparing Proposed Regional Plans and Proposed Regional Policy Statements, or any Plan Changes or Plan Variations, and recommending to the Council the adoption of those documents for public notification, as provided for further in paragraph (d) following. In the event that the Council does not adopt all or any part of any Proposed Regional Plan, Proposed Regional Policy Statement, Plan Change or Plan Variation or other recommendation, the Council shall refer such document or recommendation in its entirety back to the Committee for further consideration, as soon as practicable but not later than two months after receiving a recommendation from the Committee.

d) Specific Responsibilities

§ To implement a work programme for the review of the Council’s Regional Plans and Regional Policy statements prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991.

§ To prepare any changes to the Regional Resource Management Plan, including the Regional Policy Statement.

§ To prepare any Plan Variations to the Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan.

§ To prepare Plan Changes to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan as required, once it is operative.

§ To oversee consultation on any draft Proposed Regional Plan, Proposed Regional Policy Statement, Plan Change or Plan Variation (prior to notification).

§ To recommend to Council for public notification any, Proposed Regional Plans, Proposed Regional Policy Statements, Plan Changes or Plan Variations.

§ In accordance with the process outlined above, to review any documents which the Council may refer back to the Committee for further consideration.

§ To recommend to Council the membership of Hearings Panels, from appropriately trained and eligible commissioners, to hear and decide upon submissions on Proposed Regional Plans, Proposed Regional Policy Statements, Plan Variations and Plan Changes (which may include members of the Committee).

§ To determine the scope for the resolution and settlement of appeals on Proposed Policy Statements, Proposed Regional Plans, Plan Variations and Plan Changes.

§ When required, to recommend to Council that officers be delegated with the authority to resolve and settle any appeals and references through formal mediation before the Environment Court.

§ To monitor the effectiveness of provisions of Regional Policy Statements and Regional Plans in accordance with section 35 of the Resource Management Act and incorporate the monitoring outcomes into a review of the Committee’s work programme

e) Membership

§ Tangata Whenua Representatives, each appointed by Council on nomination by a Member Tangata Whenua Group.

§ Councillor members equal to the number of Tangata Whenua Representatives appointed at any time.

The principle which applies is that there shall be equal numbers of Councillor members and Tangata Whenua Representatives on the Committee at any time.

f) Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson (Transition Period: April 2012 - December

2012)

§ During the transition period the Chair of the Committee will be appointed by Council from Councillor members. The Deputy Chairperson will be appointed by Council on nomination from the Tangata Whenua representatives.

g) Chairperson (January 2013 – enactment of legislation and establishment of the

Permanent Committee)

From the end of the transition period until the establishment of the Permanent Committee the Committee will have two Co-Chairs:

§ a Councillor member of the Committee appointed by the Councillor members; and

§ a Tangata Whenua Representative appointed by Council on nomination from the Tangata Whenua Representatives.

Each Co-Chair shall preside at meetings of the Committee on a pre-arranged basis. This arrangement will presume that the Co-Chairs will be responsible for separate areas of policy development and each will preside over a meeting as their relevant portfolio areas are discussed.

h) Term of Membership

Membership of the Committee (both Councillor members and Tangata Whenua representatives) shall be reviewed following the 2013 triennial election of Councillors, unless the Permanent Committee has already been established. The Council will review the appointment of its Council members, and Member Tangata Whenua Groups will review the appointment of their respective Tangata Whenua representatives. However, it is recognised that the Tangata Whenua representatives are nominated for appointment by their respective Member Tangata Whenua Groups from time to time (and not necessarily triennially), and in accordance with the processes of their respective Member Tangata Whenua Groups.

i) Quorum

75% of the members of the Committee.

j) Voting Entitlement

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements. Standing Orders 2.5.1(2) and 3.14.2 which state: “The Chairperson at any meeting has a deliberative vote and, in the case of equality of votes, also has a casting vote” do NOT apply to the Regional Planning Committee.

k) Special Terms of Reference

§ The role of the Committee, and all members of the Committee, is to objectively overview the development and review of proposed policy statements, plans, variations and plan changes in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991. In particular the Committee must apply the purpose and principles of the Act and section 32 to its decision-making.

§ The Committee, when recommending the appointment of hearings panels, shall recommend members for their particular skills, attributes or knowledge relevant to the work of the panel and shall so far as possible ensure that no member is open to perceptions or allegations of bias or predetermination.

§ It is not intended that the participation of Tangata Whenua representatives on the Committee be a substitute for any consultation with iwi required under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

l) Meeting Frequency and Notice

As required in order to achieve the Plan and Policy Development work programmes. Notice of meetings will be given well in advance in writing to all Committee members, and not later than 1 month prior to the meeting.

m) Review of these Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the Committee will be reviewed by the Councillor members and the Tangata Whenua representatives in April 2013 to determine whether the Committee is fulfilling the objectives of the Council and Tangata Whenua.

n) Amendments to these Terms of Reference

The Councillor members or Tangata Whenua representatives may request changes to the Terms of Reference. Amendments to the Terms of Reference may only be made with the approval of:

§ the Councillors at a Council meeting; and

§ the Tangata Whenua representatives at a hui called for that purpose.

o) Technical support

The Committee will have full access to Council staff, through the relevant Group Managers, to provide any technical support required in order to achieve the Committee’s purpose, as set out in paragraph (b) above.

q) Terms of Reference Interim

These Terms of Reference are interim only and will be superseded by the Terms of Reference for the Permanent Committee.

r) Officer Responsible

Group Manager Strategic Development

GLOSSARY

Proposed Regional Plan / Proposed Regional Policy Statement

A proposed regional plan or proposed regional policy statement is a document that has been issued by the Council and ‘proposed’ as the Council’s official position. To be legally proposed, a document must be publicly notified so people can make submissions.

Plan Variation A plan variation is when a Council proposes a further change to a plan or policy statement that is still in the ‘proposed stage’ and has yet to be finalised.

Operative Regional Plan /Operative Regional Policy Statement

In relation to a regional plan or a regional policy statement, means that it has been through the public submission, hearings and Court processes and has full effect.

Plan Change Is when a Council proposes changes to an operative plan or policy

statement.

Hearings Panel Is a panel appointed to hear public submissions on any Proposed Plan, Proposed Policy Statement, Plan Change or Plan Variation. It may be made up of any number of people, and may include Committee members,independent commissioners, or a mix of the two.

Member Tangata Whenua Group

Means a Crown recognised mandated group representing tangata whenua interests within the Hawke’s Bay region, mandated for the purpose of negotiating with the Crown for a settlement of claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, being:

§ Mana Ahuriri Incorporated (representing the Ahuriri Hapu);

§ Maungaharuru-Tangitu Incorporated (representing the

§ Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu);

§ Ngati Hineuru Iwi Incorporated (representing Ngati Hineuru);

§ on an interim basis and only to the extent set out in the Deed of Commitment [ ] between HBRC, Tangata Whenua Parties and the Crown, Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana (representing Ruapani ki Waikaremoana); and

§ Any other group which becomes a Tangata Whenua Party to the Deed of Commitment dated [ ] between HBRC, Tangata Whenua Parties and the Crown by executing a Deed of Accession set out in Schedule 1 of that Deed.

PSGE Means a post settlement governance entity which has taken over responsibility from a Member Tangata Whenua Group for representing tangata whenua interests, being:

§ The Trustees of the Ngati Pahauwera Development Trust (representing Ngati Pahauwera); and

§ Any other entity which becomes a Tangata Whenua Party to the Deed of Commitment dated [ ] between HBRC, Tangata Whenua Parties and the Crown by executing a Deed of Replacement set out in Schedule 2 of that Deed

Tangata Whenua Representative

Means each representative nominated by:

a. a Member Tangata Whenua Group; or

b. a PSGE.

The Council Means the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

The Permanent Committee

Means the Permanent Regional Planning Committee referred to in the Deed of Settlement with Ngati Pahauwera signed 17 December 2010 (clause 5.22 and clauses 3.19-3.28 of the Provisions Schedule) and Agreement in Principle with Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu signed 22 September 2011 (clause 5.41 and Schedule 4).

Regional Resource Management Plan

Includes the Regional Policy Statement which relates to air, fresh water, gravel and land.

Regional Policy Statement

Is the document that sets the basic direction for environmental management in the region. This also includes the Māori Dimension. It does not include rules.

Regional Plan A document that sets out how the Council will manage a particular aspect of the environment, like the coast, soil, rivers or the air. Can include rules.

Regional Coastal Environment Plan

A document that sets out how the Council will manage the coast. Can include rules.

Appendix B Geographical Location of Treaty Claimant Groups

Description: Iwi Hapu Groups with interests in natural resources

Appendix C Deed of Commitment

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 07 August 2013

SUBJECT: Update on RMA Reform

Reason for Report

1. This report provides a brief update on the Government’s work programme regarding reforms of the resource management system, particularly amendments to the Resource Management Act (‘the RMA’). This paper does not attempt to describe the various proposals or their merits, but merely provide a ‘situation report’ of planning staff’s understanding of the Government progressing further reforms.

Background

2. When the Government came into office in 2008 it began a significant programme of resource management reform. These have included improvements to streamline and simplify the resource management system such as establishing the EPA and a national consenting regime. Penalties for non-compliance and for delays in consent processing by councils have been increased. Disincentives for anti-competitive behaviours have been created. New national policies and/or standards are in place for freshwater management, renewable energy, electricity transmission and soil contaminants. Changes to the resource management system have also been required as part of establishing the Auckland Council and reforming the aquaculture regime.

3. More recently, the Government has focused on tackling more complex challenges, some of which are addressed in the 2012 Resource Management Reform Bill. Others are being addressed in a more systemic review of the RMA and New Zealand’s freshwater management system.

4. These changes are being formed and released in a progressive fashion, consequently some of the Government’s proposals have progressed further than others.

Resource Management Reform Bill 2012

5. This Bill was released in December 2012 and submissions closed on 28 February 2013. The Council did make a submission on elements of the Bill. The Bill’s introductory commentary described itself as “an omnibus bill, which proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The bill is intended to streamline the delivery of Auckland’s first combined plan, streamline the resource consent regime, boost the quality of local decision-making, and generally improve the Resource Management Act.”

6. The Local Government and Environment Select Committee has examined the Bill and reported back to Parliament. The Bill had its second reading on 25 June 2013. If the Bill passes its third reading (exact timing of this is not known), then the Bill would soon become law. The Bill proposes that some amendments would come into immediate effect, while others would come into effect after a 3-month lead-in period.

Section 32 proposals

7. Revisions to section 32 of the RMA are perhaps the amendments of most relevance to the Regional Planning Committee’s purview. The Bill’s proposed repeal and replacement of s32 would take effect three months after the Act receives royal asset (i.e. sign-off by the Governor General). At present, the Bill does not appear to apply retrospectively, so the new s32 provisions would not retrospectively apply to plan Changes 4, 5 and 6 that have been publicly notified, but are yet to complete their respective submission> hearing> decision> appeal> approval phases.

8. The following is an extract from Ministry officials’ advice to the Select Committee regarding submissions on the Bill’s proposed amendments to s32 of the RMA:

9. “The key features of section 32 that remain unchanged are:

9.1. an evaluation must examine whether an objective is most appropriate to achieve the purpose of the Act;

9.2. an evaluation must examine whether provisions to achieve the objective are most appropriate having regard to efficiency and effectiveness;

9.3. an evaluation must take into account the risk of acting or not acting where there is uncertain or insufficient information;

9.4. the report must give reasons for the evaluation which is proposed to be expressed as a requirement to summarise the reasons for deciding on the provisions;

9.5. further evaluations are required before final decisions are made; and

9.6. reports must be made public.

10. Where clause 69 [of the Bill] differs is by:

10.1. providing clarity that costs and benefits are environmental, economic, social and cultural with explicit reference that costs and benefits are inclusive the opportunity costs of economic growth and employment (32(2)(a));

10.2. requiring the quantification, if practicable, of the costs and benefits that are identified under proposed 32(2)(a), in the proposed section 32(2)(b);

10.3. including the requirement that evaluations must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of proposals (32(1)(c)); and

10.4. expressly allowing for further evaluations to be referred to in the decision-making record (32AA(1)(d)(ii)).

11. The inclusion of scale and significance has near unanimous support [in submissions made on the Bill] while allowing the further report to be contained in the decision report removes uncertainty around current practice.”

12. The Select Committee has recommended that s32 evaluation reports include reference to opportunities for economic growth that are “anticipated to be provided or reduced” rather than those that are expected to “cease to be available”. The Select Committee anticipates this would cover both positive and negative change.

13. Council staff note that the Bill does not provide any additional legal weighting provided to economic issues compared to environmental, social and culture costs and benefits, however evaluations will be expected to include more detail than previously (and quantified if practicable) on economic issues. This alone will increase costs of RMA-related plan review and policy development which was not anticipated at the time of developing the 2012-22 Long Term Plan.

14. At this time, it is unclear what the implications of the new s32 requirements might be on the Council’s increasing practice of collaborative planning processes with multi-stakeholder groups.

15. Officials’ advice to the Select Committee also alluded to the preparation of guidance material to support Council’s preparation of s32 reports. This guidance is essential, but timeliness of it is currently uncertain. Sooner rather than later is always preferable.

Proposals for improving the resource management system

16. In March 2013, the Ministry for the Environment released a discussion document proposing a package of six elements for reforming the resource management system in New Zealand. Due to the short submission period, the submission prepared and lodged on behalf of the Regional Council was unable to be put before the Regional Planning Committee or any other Council meeting.

17. The discussion document’s package is proposed so that (in the discussion document’s own words):

17.1. central government makes clearer decisions about national issues and how the system should run

17.2. regional and local government make fewer and better plans, with planning processes that are well-informed, identify the big questions and resolve the key tensions upfront to provide certainty for all parties

17.3. clear rules determine what can be done so that fewer resource consents are needed, and can be processed more quickly where they are needed

17.4. iwi/Māori are enabled to engage more effectively in resource management processes

17.5. local councils are motivated to perform in a ‘customer-centric’ way with appropriate checks and balances in place

17.6. the regulatory environment (including national tools and rules in plans, and the resource consent process) is clearer and more predictable

17.7. natural hazards are better managed over time.

18. The six key elements of the proposed package looked like this:

19. An additional discussion document titled ‘Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond’ was released in March 2013 to outline measures that will be taken immediately and also signal reforms that will be progressed over time to improve the way fresh water is managed in New Zealand. The Regional Council’s submission reflected the views of staff again, because of time constraints and Committee meeting schedules.

20. Following feedback on those discussion documents, on 10 July, Environment Minister Amy Adams and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy announced that the Government has finalised the first stage of an action plan to improve water quality and the way freshwater is managed. Fuller details on the action plan’s first stage are not yet publicly available and so the following items have been taken from the Ministers’ own media release. The announcements included:

20.1. creation of a new freshwater collaborative planning option which will give communities and iwi a greater say in planning what they want for their local waterways and how they should be managed;

20.2. improvements to the way in which iwi/Māori engage in freshwater planning, no matter whether councils decide to choose the collaborative option or the existing process;

20.3. not to progress plans at this time to review how Water Conservation Orders work with regional planning processes and plans;

20.4. immediate steps for the freshwater reforms include the creation of a National Objectives Framework (NOF) and better water accounting; and

20.5. statements that the Government will work closely with regional councils to provide guidance and other support to help them implement the changes.

21. The Ministers’ announcement on 10 July went on to say that other reforms in the freshwater package will be tackled over the next few years. These include:

21.1. rules and tools to support the improved planning system and the National Objectives Framework (NOF)

21.2. a review of the Water Research Strategy across the whole of Government

21.3. national direction and guidance on accounting for sources of contaminants and the use of models for nutrient budgeting

21.4. national guidance on dealing with over-allocation, transition issues, and compliance and enforcement; and

21.5. more work on allocation of water on expiry of permits, the transfer and trade of water, and incentives for efficient water use.

22. Exact timing of when an ‘omnibus’ Bill containing these immediate reforms is not known, but the Environment Minister and her officials have indicated “later this year.” When the Bill is released, staff will review it and (if timing of submission deadlines permit) prepare and present a draft submission for the Council’s consideration in due course.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the report titled ‘Update on Resource Management Reforms’.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] The Change 5 hearing panel was comprised of three RMA-accredited hearing commissioners (Denis Nugent (Chair), Roger Maaka and Mike Mohi).

[2] NPSFM Policy E1(e) reads:

Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

[3] NPSFM Policy E1(e) reads:

Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

[4] The Powhiri was attended by the Honourable Christopher Finlayson Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chief Crown Negotiators Pat Snedden and Paul Swain and members of the Regional Planning Committee.

[5] Appeals lodged by Federated Farmers of NZ; Hawke's Bay Fish and Game Council; Horticulture NZ; and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

[6] 1 See Deed of Settlement with Ngati Pahauwera signed 17 December 2010, clause 5.22 and clauses 3.19-3.28 of the Provisions Schedule to the Deed; and Agreement in Principle with Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu signed 22 September 2011, clause 5.41 and Schedule 4. In addition, the Crown has made commitments to other Tangata Whenua Representatives to establish the Committee, including Mana Ahuriri Incorporated (for the Ahuriri Hapu and Ngati Hineuru Iwi Incorporated (for Ngati Hineuru).

Meeting Date		Decision Items	Information & Performance Monitoring	General Business
10/04/12	Workshop	The Resource Management Act 1991
10/04/12	Inaugural Meeting
09/05/12	Committee Meeting		· Joint Planning Committee - Proposed Legislation · Policy Development Work Programme
28/05/12	Workshop	Standing Orders
11/07/12	Committee Meeting	Delivering the Tukituki Strategy	· Introduction to Managing Non Point Source Discharge (using the Taharua/Mohaka Catchment as a case Study)	· Tangata Whenua Consultation Process
05/09/12	Committee Meeting	Taharua Catchment Strategy	· Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Land & Water Plan Change · Tukituki Choices Update · Regional Policy Statement – Change 5 Update
19/09/12	Committee Meeting	Regional Policy Statement – Change 5
01/11/12	Workshop	Draft Tukituki Plan Change 6
07/11/12	Committee Meeting	· Regional Policy Statement – Change 5 · Tukituki Choices - Responses
10/12/12	Workshop	Tukituki Catchment Proposal
10/12/12	Committee Meeting	Tukituki Choices - Responses
13/02/13	Committee Meeting	Regional Policy Statement Change 5 – Appointment of Commissioners	· Tukituki Plan Change Update · Heretaunga/Ahuriri Strategy Update	Taharua/Mohaka Update
05/06/13	Workshop	The Regional Policy Statement		· Tamatea Taiwhenua Overview of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme
05/06/13	Committee Meeting	Appeals on Change 4	· Taharua/Mohaka Policy Development Update · Heretaunga/Ahuriri Policy Development Update · Biodiversity Strategy Update

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.