MINUTES OF A meeting of the Regional Council
Date: Wednesday 26 November 2014
Time: 9.00am
|
Venue: |
Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street NAPIER |
R Barker
T Belford
A J Dick
R Graham
D Hewitt
D Pipe
C Scott
In Attendance: M Mohi – Chairman – Maori Committee
E Lambert – Chief Executive
P Drury – Group Manager Corporate Services
L Hooper – Governance & Corporate Administration Manager
The Chairman welcomed everyone present and Councillor Hewitt offered the prayer.
Secretarial note: Councillor Peter Beaven absent on leave.
2. Conflict of Interest Declarations
There were no conflict of interest declarations.
3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting Held on 29 October 2014
|
Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on Wednesday 29 October 2014, a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting, were taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record. CARRIED |
4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting Held on 25 November 2014
In relation to the Drain Spraying petition, the Chairman advised that spraying has ceased while alternative solutions are sought.
There were no further matters arising from the minutes.
|
Follow-ups from Previous Council Meetings |
|
|
|
Mrs Lambert advised that the legal review of the HBRIC Water User Agreements will be provided to Council at its December meeting. |
|
1. That Council receives the report “Follow-ups from Previous Council Meetings”.
CARRIED |
|
Affixing of Common Seal 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.
|
|||||||||
|
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. CARRIED |
|
Napier-Gisborne Rail Investment |
|
|
|
Mrs Lambert explained that this paper seeks agreement for development of a detailed Business Case for Council’s investment in the Napier-Gisborne rail line given KiwiRail’s agreement to lease the line to HBRC. Mrs Lambert then provided an overview of the process proposed and resources required to prepare the business case. Discussions traversed qualifications and experience of those to be engaged to prepare the business case, confirmation that a peer review of the engineering design will be carried out, the non negotiable 1 March 2015 deadline for response to KiwiRail, possible involvement of Napier Port in the process and clarification of some details contained in the KiwiRail letter. |
|
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. Approves funding for the expenditure of up to $250,000 (to be offset against any final investment in the proposal) for the preparation of a business case on an investment in the lease of the Napier-Gisborne rail corridor to be considered by Council prior to 1 March 2015. This funding is comprised of up to: 2.1. $125,000 – engineering design 2.2. $75,000 – NGR personnel for business case 2.3. $50,000 – strategic advice. 3. Seeks, from the Napier Port, its advice and views on the proposal to lease the Napier Gisborne rail corridor. For: Dick, Graham, Scott, Pipe, Barker, Belford, Wilson Against: Hewitt CARRIED |
|
Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Councillor Hewitt, C&S Committee Chairman, provided an overview of discussions traversed at the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That Council: 1. Agrees that the following 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. Significance and Engagement Policy 2. Adopts the Significance and Engagement Policy, including amendments agreed at the 12 November 2014 Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting as following resolution 6.8. Hawke's Bay Regional Council Forest Assets 3. Endorses the proposed ongoing maintenance regime for the HBRC forest estate. 4. Requests a paper within the next year, including establishing values other than commercial, that demonstrate the justification for Council maintaining this investment and projects the ongoing programme beyond 10 years to cover the rotation period of the range of species. 2015 Proposed Schedule of Council and Committee Meetings 5. Adopts the 2015 Schedule of Meetings as proposed. Reports Received 6. Notes that the following reports were received at the Corporate and Services Committee meeting: 6.1 Follow-ups from Previous Corporate and Strategic Committee meetings 6.2 Notice of Motion 6.3 Napier Port Presentation 6.4 Implications of Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme for Other Council Work Programmes 6.5 Callaghan Research and Development Fund and Update on Wairoa Primary Sector Opportunities 6.6 The Big Six Community Engagement Feedback 6.7 Minor Items Not on the Agenda 6.8 November 2014 Public Transport Update CARRIED HBRC Significance and Engagement Policy Purpose and Scope Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC, Council or ‘we’) has developed this policy to: 1. Enable Council and our communities to identify the degree of significance attached to particular issues, proposals, assets, decisions and activities 2. Provide clarity about how and when communities can expect to be engaged in decisions made by Council 3. Inform Council from the beginning of a decision-making process about the extent, form and type of engagement required. The Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) has consultation principles to guide HBRC when making decisions. With this in mind, HBRC commits to: · Identify and assess options · Place a value on benefits and costs · Consider an appropriate level of detail · Show evidence of how we comply with this Significance and Engagement Policy · Provide processes to encourage and engage with Māori.
On every issue requiring a decision, Council will consider the degree of significance and the most appropriate level of engagement. HBRC will refer to the Criteria for significance (page 2) to identify matters, issues or proposals that require a Council decision. Advice on significance and options will come from an HBRC officer or other professional. Council will consider and make decisions, taking into account the degree of significance of the issue and referring to the Criteria for engagement (page 3) to identify the appropriate level and type of engagement. Advice from HBRC officers normally comes through the Council-approved report format. This format specifically alerts elected members to significant impacts and engagement considerations.
Our general approach to significance Significance means the degree of importance of the issue, proposal, decision, or matter – determined by the local authority – relating to its likely impact on and likely consequences for: · The district or region · Any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by or interested in the issue, proposal, decision or matter · The achievement of, or means to achieve, HBRC’s stated levels of service as set out in the current Long Term Plan · The capacity of HBRC to perform its role and carry out its activities, now and in the future · The financial, resource and other costs of the decision, or that these are already included in an approved Long Term Plan. Council will exercise its judgement when assessing the degree of significance for each decision to be made by Council. Significant means that the issue, proposal, decision or other matter is judged by Council to have a high degree of importance. This is typically when the impact is on the regional community, or a large portion of the community or where the financial consequences of a decision are substantial. If the issue, proposal, decision or related matters concerned involve a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, Council will take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga. Council will also take into account the values of the whole community. When making decisions, Council will: · Identify and assess as many options as are practical · Evaluate the costs and benefits resulting from the decision/s to be made · Provide detailed information, which will be accessible to the public · Maintain clear and complete records showing how compliance with this Significance and Engagement Policy was achieved. As part of the engagement process for the adoption of this policy, and subsequent reviews, Council will ask people in the region their engagement preferences and will review those preferences each three-year term. Council will also take into account views already expressed in the community and make judgements on the level of support for those views, when determining the significance of a decision.
Criteria for significance When looking at the significance of a matter, issue, decision or proposal, elected members will assess: · The likely level of community interest · The likely impact or consequences for affected individuals and groups in the region · How much a decision or action promotes community outcomes or other Council priorities · The impact on levels of service identified in the current Long Term Plan · The impact on rates or debt levels · The cost and financial implications of the decision to ratepayers · The involvement of a strategic asset. Strategic assets Strategic assets are owned by Council and defined as ‘an asset or group of assets that the local authority needs to retain to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that it determines to be important to the current or future well-being of the community.’ This does not include strategic natural resources managed by Council. Regionally significant natural resources are served by the Resource Management Act and Regional Resource Management Plan. HBRC considers the following to be strategic assets: · Napier Port · Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme · Upper Tukituki Catchment Control Scheme · Tūtira Regional Park (excluding commercial forestry) · Pekapeka Regional Park · Pākōwhai Regional Park · Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited. HBRC owns a number of assets that, managed as a whole, we consider to be strategic. However not all trading decisions made regarding these assets are regarded as significant nor do they affect the asset’s strategic nature, i.e. the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme is strategic, but small parcels of land that make it up may not be, and the purchase or sale of such parcels of land may not amount to a significant decision.
Our general approach to engagement Engagement is a term used to describe the process of seeking information from the community to inform and assist decision-making. There is a spectrum of community involvement, and HBRC follows these general principles: · We conduct our business in an open, transparent, democratically accountable manner · We stay aware of, and have regard to, the views of all of our communities · When making a decision, we consider: the diversity of the community and the community’s interests in its district or region; the interests of future as well as current communities; and the likely impact of any decision on these interests · We provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to our decision-making processes. HBRC seeks authentic engagement with our community and applies a Criteria for engagement. We acknowledge that “community” may be ‘communities of place’ or ‘communities of issue’ and will use appropriate tools and techniques to make meaningful and timely connections that result in feedback. Formal consultation is one of many approaches that can be used. Guidance on obligations and timing to respond to public correspondence is addressed in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA or OIA), which sets a maximum of 20 working days. HBRC will prepare an Engagement Plan for each major decision or group of interrelated decisions. Decisions are not usually delegated to those involved in the engagement processes, however they are likely to be informed by community and stakeholder engagement. An Engagement Plan will outline: · Engagement objectives – the feedback that is sought from communities · Timeframe and completion date · Communities to be engaged with · Engagement tools and techniques to be used · Resources needed to complete the engagement · Communication planning needed · Basis of assessment and feedback to the communities involved · Project team roles and responsibilities. Engagement is not solely about providing information, is not always about reaching an agreement or consensus and is not always about negotiation. Engagement is not appropriate when outweighed by commercial sensitivity or when there is a threat to public health and safety.
Criteria for engagement Community engagement is a process. It involves all or some of the public and is focused on decision-making or problem-solving. HBRC considers the significance of a decision to be made and uses a table of criteria to assess the approach we might take to engage the community. In some circumstances HBRC is required to use the special consultative procedure, set out in section 83 of the Act and described in a separate section below. Decisions will be “informed” as a minimum standard. Decisions of high significance will be at the very least informed to wider communities, and will use engagement tools and techniques beyond “inform” for affected communities. While community and stakeholder engagement improves decision-making, it is not the sole input into a decision. There are a wide range of information sources and perspectives that will inform a council decision. All the input gathered is harnessed and collated to help make a ‘sustainable’ decision (i.e. unlikely to require re-visiting because it is well-informed and well-considered). Decisions made by Council may differ from the prevailing public opinion. The level of engagement will be agreed on a case-by-case basis. The significance of the decision will guide the selection of appropriate engagement tools and techniques to be used. A low level of engagement does not mean that engagement is diminished, inappropriate or necessarily that a decision is of lesser significance. Time and money may limit what is possible on some occasions. Engagement Spectrum[1] – our approach
HBRC engages with communities in many ways, from face-to-face to meetings, forums and surveys. Preferences for community engagement are periodically evaluated through regional surveys.
Special Consultative Procedure In some cases, and as we are required under the Act, HBRC will use the special consultative procedure to issue a proposal. When that happens, the proposal will be open to the community to provide their views for at least a month. The process we will follow is to: · Prepare and adopt a statement of proposal, and in some cases a summary of the statement of proposal which is: o a fair representation of the statement of proposal o in a form determined by HBRC, i.e. published online, in the newspaper and/ or in HBRC’s regional newsletter, so long as it is distributed as widely as reasonably practical o indicates where it is available o states how long it is open for public submission · Make publicly available (at Council offices, through interest group distribution lists, at Public Libraries, on HBRC’s website): o the statement of proposal o a description of how people can present their views o a statement of the period the proposal is open for comments · Make the summary of proposal widely available · Allow people to present their views to HBRC ensuring that they have a reasonable opportunity to do so and know how and when this opportunity will be available to them · Allow people to present their views by audio link or audio-visual link, or as agreed. HBRC may also request advice or comment from a Council officer or any other person. Where HBRC is required to use the special consultative procedure as part of making or amending bylaws, the statement of proposal must include: · A draft of the proposed bylaw, or the proposed amendment of the bylaw · The reasons for the proposal · A report on any determinations made under the Act on whether a bylaw is appropriate. Where HBRC is required to or chooses to use the special consultative procedure, the statement of proposal is a draft of any plan, policy or similar document or in any other case a detailed statement of the proposal which must include: · The reasons for the proposal · An analysis of options · Any other relevant information. Review of this policy This policy will be reviewed at least once every five years, when it will involve community engagement. It may also be amended from time to time. |
|
Draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2015-25 |
|
|
|
Mrs Redgrave, HBRC Transport Manager, explained the purpose and intent of the Regional Public Transport Plan as well as highlights from its contents. It was suggested that a question be included on the customer survey to gather data on whether passengers are choosing to use public transport as an alternative to private vehicle use to enable some documentation of how public transport contributes to Council’s climate change activities. There was discussion about options for providing some public transport in CHB and Wairoa using a non-commercial (fare recovery only) model. |
|
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. Adopts the draft Regional Public Transport Plan 2015-25 for public consultation. CARRIED |
The meeting adjourned at 10.28am and reconvened at 10.47am
|
Recommendations from the Regional Transport Committee |
|
|
|
Clarification was given on the location of the Hastings Southern Arterial Route south of Hastings and that the reason for the removal of this proposed route from the Transport Plan was that there was no longer an intention for this to proceed. |
|
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. Hastings District Council Southern Arterial Route 2. Instructs staff to write to Hastings District Council in support of removal of the Southern Arterial Route from its transport plans, noting that the Regional Land Transport Strategy cannot be varied but will cease to exist on 30 June 2015. Reports Received 3. That Council notes that the following reports were received by the Regional Transport Committee. 3.1 Ministry of Transport Update 3.2 Draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-25 3.3 Draft Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) 3.4 Transport Manager's Report 3.5 Roadsafe Update Report 3.6 NZTA Central Region - Regional Director's Report 3.7 Verbal Reports from Advisors. CARRIED |
|
Hawke's Bay Local Government Reorganisation - Update November 2014 |
|
|
|
Mrs Lambert explained that the paper was to formally advise Council of the Local Government Commission’s recently released position paper and next steps in the reorganisation process under way. |
|
1. That the Council receives the “Hawke’s Bay Local Government Reorganisation- Update November 2014” report. CARRIED |
|
Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through December 2014 |
|
|
|
Discussions covered the Dairy Compliance Awards, the Te Awahohonu Forest Trust application for tranche 2 water, the upcoming Environment Court PC5 appeal hearing, the Pan Pac application to extend its outfall pipe, the workshop on development of an improved framework for reporting on land user behavioural change, and the Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) refresh. |
|
1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through December 2014 report. CARRIED |
|
Chairman's Monthly Report |
|
|
|
The Chairman provided comment, highlighting his participation in a meeting with East Coast Leaders, a “Big 6” presentation to Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and the “Nature Space” launch. Councillor Pipe attended Basketball Hawke’s Bay open day and the official opening of Napier Menz Shed on behalf of the Chairman. In addition, the Chairman provided and explanation of the discussions he’s recently participated in in relation to the Stoneycroft archives. |
|
That the Chairman’s monthly report for November 2014 be received. CARRIED |
|
Minor Items Not on the Agenda |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Appointment of Napier Port Director |
|||||||
|
1. That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 16 Appointment of Napier Port Director 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:
2. That Dr Andy Pearce, HBRIC Ltd Chairman, be present for this item as the representative of the Board of Directors making the subject recommendation. CARRIED |
|
Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting Held on 29 October 2014 |
|||||||
|
That the Council exclude the public from this section of the meeting being Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes Agenda Item 17 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:
CARRIED |
The meeting went into public excluded session at 11.30am and out of public excluded session at 11.45am
Closure:
There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11.45am on Wednesday 26 November 2014.
Signed as a true and correct record.
DATE: ................................................ CHAIRMAN: ...............................................
