Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 15 July 2015

Timetable:        10.15am  Morning tea for tangata whenua reps (Mohaka Room)

10.30am  Start for Pre-meeting of tangata whenua reps (Mohaka Room)

12.30pm  Lunch (Ahuriri Room)

1.00pm    Committee meeting starts (Open to public)

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 May 2015

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 20 May 2015

5.         Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meeting                              3

6.         Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                 5

Decision Items

7.         Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy                                                                               7

8.         National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management – Progressive Implementation Report 2014-15                                                                                                            11

9.         Regional Planning Committee Annual Activity Report 2014-15                                 15

10.       Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry                          17

11.       Notice of Motion from Councillor Peter Beaven                                                         21

Information or Performance Monitoring

12.       1.00pm Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal – verbal Greg Carlyon

13.       Karamu Oxygen Report                                                                                              23

14.       ‘Pataka’ hapu / iwi records tool development – verbal Esther-Amy Powell

15.       July 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update                                      25

16.       Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                                  27

 

 

 

Regional Planning Committee Members

 

Name

Represents

Karauna Brown

Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc

Nicky Kirikiri

Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana

Nigel Baker

Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum

Peter Paku

He Toa Takitini

Rangi Spooner

Mana Ahuriri Incorporated

Tania Hopmans

Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust

Toro Waaka

Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts

Walter Wilson

Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa

Alan Dick

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Christine Scott

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Dave Pipe

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Debbie Hewitt

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Chairman Fenton Wilson

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Peter Beaven

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Rex Graham

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Rick Barker

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Tom Belford

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

 

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meeting

 

Reason for Report

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

Decision Making Process

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

 

Recommendation

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives the report “Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings”.

 

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Follow-ups from Meeting on 20 May 2015

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

1.      Under standing orders, SO 3.7.6:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,

(a)     That item may be discussed at that meeting if:

(i)    that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)   the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)     No resolution, decision, or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

2.      The Chairman will request any items committee members wish to be added for discussion at today’s meeting and these will be duly noted, if accepted by the Chairman, for discussion as Agenda Item 16.

 

Recommendations

That Regional Planning Committee accepts the following minor items not on the agenda, for discussion as item 16:

1.     

 

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

 

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Subject: Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report updates the Regional Planning Committee on progress on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy, and seeks the Committee’s recommendation to Council for endorsement of the Strategy and the proposed approach for its public release.

Regional Context

2.      The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LWMS) 2011 indicated that Council would lead the development of a regional biodiversity strategy. LWMS noted the need for:

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

2.2.      Re-establishment of ecological processes and ecosystems

2.3.      Greater variety and diversity of habitats that sustain our most valued species

3.      The LWMS was launched at a public symposium in November 2011. During a symposium workshop, all participants agreed that improving biodiversity required better coordination of biodiversity management activities, particularly among the major agencies with key biodiversity roles. A recurring message was that “we need to work better together”.

4.      In the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan, Council allocated funding of $103,000 to develop the Biodiversity Strategy.

National Context

5.      There are a number of national statutory and non-statutory drivers to the region around biodiversity, such as;

5.1.      The Resource Management Act 1991. A range of statutory responsibilities in relation to biodiversity. E.g.  s6(c): regional councils to recognise and provide for ‘The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’.

5.2.      New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000: “halting decline in New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity by 2020”.

5.3.      The Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land 2007 informs Council (and others) in managing biodiversity on private land. It contains four priorities:

5.3.1.      Protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments less than 20 per cent remaining in indigenous cover.

5.3.2.      Protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands.

5.3.3.      Protect indigenous vegetation associated with ‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystems.

5.3.4.      Protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened indigenous species.

5.4.      The Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. If the NPS comes in to effect in its current form, regional councils would be required to: identify areas of significant biodiversity within five years / ensure there is no net loss of significant indigenous biodiversity. The Government intends to consider the report from the Waitangi Tribunal on claim 262 before finalising the NPS.

Strategy Development Process

6.      The Strategy is a non-statutory document.  It began as noted in paragraph 3 as a better way for the region’s key agencies and their partners to work to achieving better biodiversity outcomes.  The Strategy also seeks to recognise the importance of the tangata whenua role in biodiversity management and to engage the wider community to support the Strategy vision.  We describe it as a document of opportunity.  It has a particular focus on the significant opportunities that exist outside the Conservation Estate by seeking to acknowledge and elevate the important role that the primary industries and farmers in particular have in improving biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.

7.      The Strategy has been developed collaboratively by the major groups and agencies, tangata whenua and key individuals involved in biodiversity matters in Hawke’s Bay. 

8.      HBRC has initiated, led and facilitated the strategy development via a stakeholder group process. Two stakeholder groups have been used: a Core Working Group to work through technical matters; and a Steering Group to review progress, provide feedback and steer the strategy direction. The Steering Group ultimately made the decisions as to the Strategy content.

9.      The Core Working Group involved Council staff, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Federated Farmers, HB Forestry Group, QEII, and Te Roopu Kaitiaki Cultural Advisors.

10.    The Steering Group involves the Core Working Group members plus Federated Farmers (Wairoa and Hawke’s Bay Branches), Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum, HDC, NCC, WDC, CHBDC, local Forest and Bird branches, TBfreeNZ, DairyNZ, Ministry for Primary Industries, HB Fruitgrowers, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc., Plant Hawke’s Bay. Councillors Belford and Pipe are on the Steering Group (previously Ewan McGregor, Liz Remmerswaal and Neil Kirton represented HBRC).

11.    The two groups have held regular meetings since inception in late 2012.

12.    A series of public hui were held throughout the region in late 2014.  These were well attended and comments from these have helped shape the Strategy.  At the Wairoa hui a group of Maori landowners and the Wairoa Branch of Federated Farmers expressed concern about some elements of the strategy and in particular the lack of a section on Farms.  Their subsequent input has usefully improved the quality and content of the paper.

13.    Following the input from the hui, at its most recent meeting on 04 February 2015, the Steering Group reviewed the draft strategy. The group endorsed the draft subject to a number of edits and additions. The final document has been provided to you and it is largely complete.  There are some minor edits and formatting changes to make but these will not materially change the content or direction of the Strategy but staff have brought the Strategy to the RPC to allow it to be ‘endorsed’ so that the preparations can begin for the launch and implementation programme.

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy

14.    The strategy is a non-statutory document primarily aimed at improving the effectiveness of biodiversity management among the major parties involved in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay through alignment of programmes and resources. It is not a Regional Council strategy but a Community strategy. 

15.    This is the first time in Hawke’s Bay’s history that all the agencies involved in biodiversity have agreed to work together to look for improvements in processes and programmes.

16.    The Strategy contains an agreed Vision and short and long term Objectives for:

16.1.    Improving native species and habitats (and the ecosystem services they provide)

16.2.    Integrating Māori values

16.3.    Improving partnerships and community involvement

 

The Structure of the Strategy

17.    “What?” - Executive Summary (pp 4-9).

18.    “Why?” – International and national context (pp 10-15).

19.    “Where are we now?” – The current situation in Hawke’s Bay (based on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory presented to this Committee 13 August 2014) and the ongoing threats to habitats and species (pp 16-27).

20.    “How” – are we going to improve things? Objectives, Actions and Outputs. (pp 28-37):

20.1.    Work together more effectively

20.2.    IdentifyàPrioritiseàStabiliseàEnhanceà Native Habitats and Species are Healthy and Functioning

20.3.    Integrate Mātauranga Māori into biodiversity programmes through a cultural framework; Identify and prioritise taonga species and significant biodiversity sites.

20.4.    Formalise commitment to the strategy intent through a Biodiversity Accord (2015)

20.5.    Develop an Implementation plan (2015)

20.5.1.   Prioritisation criteria

20.5.2.   Identify specific actions and resources required

20.6.    Biodiversity Trust

20.6.1.   Seek to attract new funding opportunities, i.e. over and above that currently available (blue sky opportunities)

20.6.2.   Allocate funding to priority projects (as determined in implementation plan)

20.7.    Biodiversity Forum

20.7.1.   Community-based

20.7.2.   Anyone can join

20.7.3.   Review progress towards objectives

20.7.4.   Intention to align agency programmes with community programmes where feasible

Next steps

21.    Upon the Strategy being endorsed staff will plan a launch of the Strategy in conjunction with an accord signing.  This will be the public acknowledgement of the Strategy of any organisation or group or individual through signing the accord.  It will provide an opportunity for agencies, groups, individuals and tangata whenua to ‘sign up to’ the accord as a public commit to working towards the Strategy vision.

22.    In parallel a technical group will then be formed made up of the Core Working Group to begin the development of an Implementation Plan.  When developed this will be tested with the Steering Group.

23.    The current Council Long Term Plan has provision for the employment of a part time Biodiversity Coordinator.  This role will be supported by DoC who have indicated they will provide an office space and resources with HBRC paying the salary.  This role will initially work the formation of the Biodiversity Forum and the establishment of the Biodiversity Trust.  They will then continue to provide support for the Trust and the Forum into the future.

Decision Making Process

24.    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:

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

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

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

24.4.   The persons affected by this decision are the community of Hawke’s Bay

24.5.   Options that have been considered include to not develop a strategy or wait for other agencies to lead a strategy development.

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

24.7.   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

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee endorses the “Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy”.

2.      The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Endorses the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy and signs the Biodiversity Accord at the highest level of commitment possible.

2.3.      Facilitates the Strategy’s launch through a public function in August or September 2015.

 

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

Attachment will be sent out separately to this Agenda.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management – Progressive Implementation Report 2014-15

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper presents a report on the Council’s progressive implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (‘NPSFM’) covering the 2014-15 financial year period.

NPSFM Annual Reporting

2.      In September 2012, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopted an Implementation Programme in accordance with Policy E1 of the NPSFM.  A Gantt chart from that adopted 2012 programme is set out in Figure 1.  The Programme outlines key activities that the Council will undertake to implement the NPSFM by 2030.  Policy E1[1] 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’ to be prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act.

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 2014-15 Annual Report includes 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 2014-15 Annual Report ‘performance overview’; and

5.2.   secondly, a fuller commentary of activities to implement the NPSFM as an appendix to the Council’s 2014-15 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 2011 NPSFM did not specifically require the Programme to be updated after its original adoption.  The amended 2014 NPSFM which came into effect on 1 August specifically provides for councils amending their respective Programmes to accommodate revisions to the NPSFM, in particular the introduction of the National Objectives Framework (‘NOF’) and amended requirements for councils to fully implement the NPSFM by 2025 rather than the original 2030 timeframe.

8.      Councils are required to have adopted revised progressive implementation programmes before 31 December 2015.  The recently completed 2015-25 Long Term Planning process will be crucial to properly informing the Council’s revised Programme.

9.      In the recently adopted 2015-25 Long Term Plan, the Council has confirmed key milestones for a number of resource management policy projects that relate to land and freshwater management in Hawke's Bay.  Those projects and milestones include:

Resource management policy project milestone

Timeframe

Adopt and notify revised Programme for progressive implementation of 2014 NPSFM

by 31 Dec 2015

Notification of a plan change identifying outstanding freshwater bodies

July 2016

Adopt a plan change ready for public notification relating to the Mohaka River catchment

Dec 2017

Adopt a plan change ready for public notification relating to the ‘TANK’ catchment area

Dec 2017

Commence a review of the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (‘RRMP’)

2020-21 period

Commence preparation of regional plan changes for the region’s remaining catchments (i.e. not covered by Tukituki, Mohaka, TANK)

2020-21 period

Commence a review of the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (‘RCEP’)

2020-21 period

 

10.    Staff propose presenting a revised progressive implementation programme for consideration by the Regional Planning Committee at its meeting in August.

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 2012 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

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management – Progressive Implementation Report 2014-15” report.

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.      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.      Agrees that the content of the report’s attachment be re-formatted and published as part of the Council’s 2014-15 Annual Report.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1

Draft Annual Report NPSFM Implementation Reporting 2014-2015

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: Regional Planning Committee Annual Activity Report 2014-15

 

Reason for Report

1.      The attached Draft Report “Regional Planning Committee – Annual Report for the 1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015 period” provides an overview of the form and function of the Regional Planning Committee and reports on its activities over the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015.

2.      Comments are sought from Committee members on this draft Annual Report. Following the receipt of the Committee’s comments, a final report will be published and distributed.

Decision Making Process

3.      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:

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

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

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

3.4.   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 report and provides feedback and suggested amendments to staff.

2.      Instructs staff to proceed with the publication and distribution of the finalised report as amended.

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Draft Annual Report 2014-2015

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Subject:      Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

 

Reason for Report

1.      The Ministry for the Environment has released a discussion document seeking views on the proposed subject matter for a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (‘NES-PF’).  The discussion document proposes changes to how plantation forestry activities are managed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).  Prior to this point, MfE has invited submissions on two earlier versions of a proposed NES-PF (in 2010 and 2011).  The Regional Council has made submissions on both of those earlier occasions.

2.      The deadline for submissions on the current NES-PF discussion document is Tuesday 11th August 2015.  Due to time constraints associated with the scheduling of the Regional Planning Committee meetings and pre-circulation of agenda papers, a draft submission does not feature in this report.  Instead, staff are seeking delegated authority to make a submission on behalf of Council.

3.      In order for the Committee to have input into the submission, staff propose that a focus group is formed of four Committee members to consider the draft submission and provide input into finalising the submission prior to lodgement.

National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

4.      The Ministry for Primary Industries have prepared a summary of the discussion document.  This summary is set out in Attachment 1.  The proposal is for the NES-PF to establish a technical standard for forestry activities and set out when an activity is permitted and when consent is required under regional plans and district plans throughout New Zealand.  The NES-PF would also set out the way local authorities must manage activities and resources for forestry activities.  If implemented, an NES-PF would replace many of the varied rules in existing regional plans and district plans relating to plantation forestry activities.  However, the NES-PF proposes that councils would retain local decision making in some cases, for example:

4.1.   matters not regulated by the NES-PF;

4.2.   matters for which the NES-PF specifically enables regional rules (or district rules where relevant) to be stricter than the NES in relation to:

4.2.1.      the coastal marine area (to align with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement);

4.2.2.      geothermal and karst protection areas;

4.2.3.      areas of known cultural or heritage value;

4.2.4.      significant natural areas and outstanding natural features and landscapes;

4.2.5.      shallow aquifers (as groundwater systems may be complex in local areas);

4.2.6.      meeting the objectives of the NPS for Freshwater Management.

5.      The discussion document proposes a NES-PF to cover the whole plantation forest cycle and include draft activity-specific rules that provide certainty for local authorities, forest owners and communities nationally.  The proposed NES-PF has been developed in the form of a set of draft rules, which are based on established good industry and environmental practice in the forestry sector.  The draft rules are also underpinned by a set of environmental risk assessment tools that take account of local environmental conditions (particularly relating to erosion susceptibility and fish habitat).

6.      The discussion document outlines the objectives of introducing the NES-PF as being to:

6.1.   remove unwarranted variation between councils planning controls for plantation forestry;

6.2.   improve certainty of RMA processes and outcomes for plantation forestry stakeholders while maintaining consistency with the purpose of the RMA

6.3.   improve certainty about environmental outcomes from plantation forestry stakeholders including communities nationally, and

6.4.   contribute to the cost-effectiveness of the resource management system by providing appropriate and fit for purpose planning rules to manage the effects of plantation forestry.

7.      The discussion document refers to four principles underpinning the draft rules.  These are:

7.1.   where appropriate, activities should be “permitted” - that is not need a consent provided conditions are met.

7.2.   the level of control associated with each activity should be directly associated with the level of risk of adverse effects on the environment at the location the activity takes place.  As the level of risk of adverse effects increases a requirement for consent is introduced.

7.3.   understanding the risk of adverse effects on the environment around the country should be informed by up-to-date science.

7.4.   the NES-PF should provide a nationally consistent approach, but should also be responsive to local environments.

Implications for HBRC

8.      If the NES-PF is implemented as outlined in the discussion document, individual councils will:

8.1.   not be required to develop forestry specific rules in plans, unless they choose to do so for matters where they are able to apply greater stringency;

8.2.   need to amend existing regional plans to remove and conflict of duplication with the NES-PF.  This can be done without any further formality (i.e. no public submission process)

8.3.   be required to monitor permitted activity conditions that relate to the council’s own roles and responsibilities under the RMA.

9.      Under the RMA territorial and regional authorities will be responsible for giving effect to an NES-PF and enforcing its requirements.  Given HBRC’s existing land use controls are reasonably permissive, this may result initially in more resource consent applications and staff resources for compliance monitoring.  Staff have yet to undertake a fuller assessment of potential implications arising from the discussion document’s proposals.

10.    Currently there are no rules specifically managing ‘plantation forestry’ in the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) or the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).  Instead generic rules apply to plantation forestry activities such as for example vegetation clearance and generic rules on discharges of contaminants – discharges to land/water.  The NES-PF does not affect any existing rules applicable to non-plantation forestry activities.

Making a submission

11.    Any person may make a submission on this, the third published iteration of a proposed NES-PF.  Key Council staff have already been in contact with local leaders in the Hawke's Bay plantation forestry sector.  That liaison will continue if a submission is indeed to be drafted and lodged on the Council’s behalf.

12.    Planning staff do not currently have delegated authority to lodge submissions on behalf of the Council in relation to Bills, national policy statements, nor national environmental standards.  That authority remains with the Council.

13.    Due to the Committee meeting timeframes (and associated deadlines for preparation of agenda papers), planning staff have had very limited time to prepare a draft submission for the Committee to consider at its meeting on Wednesday 15th July.  If the Council was to lodge a submission before the 11th August deadline, then several options have been considered, including:

13.1. Supporting Local Government New Zealand to lodge a submission on behalf of the local government sector;

13.2. Staff preparing a draft submission for the Council’s consideration at its next scheduled meeting on 29 July;

13.3. Scheduling a special meeting of the Regional Planning Committee for purposes of considering a draft submission prepared by staff;

13.4. Council delegating authority to the Group Manager Strategic Development (Helen Codlin) to lodge a submission on the Council’s behalf.  This could be done with or without additional input and direction on submission content from councillors and/or tangata whenua members.

14.    Given these circumstances, staff’s preference is to liaise with a small number of nominated committee members to draft a submission and have authority delegated to Ms Codlin in this instance to lodge a submission on the Council’s behalf.

Decision Making Process

15.    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:

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

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

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

15.4.   Options that have been considered include not preparing a submission; drafting a very draft submission for the Committee’s consideration (albeit with severe time constraints); preparing a draft submission and presenting that for consideration at the Council meeting on 29 July 2015, and staff drafting a submission in liaison with a small group of committee members.

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

15.6.   Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.  Furthermore, any person has the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

 

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

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

2.    Forms a focus group of four (4) members of the Regional Planning Committee to liaise with the Group Manager Strategic Development to review and provide input on a submission on the Council’s behalf in relation to the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

3.    Delegates authority to the Group Manager Strategic Development to lodge a submission on Council’s behalf in relation to proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1

A National Enviromental Standard for Plantation Forestry Summary

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Subject: Notice of Motion from Councillor Peter Beaven

 

Reason for Report

1.      In accordance with Standing Order 3.10, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Cr Peter Beaven for inclusion on the agenda for the Regional Planning Committee meeting scheduled on Wednesday, 15 July 2015:

“That this Council instructs staff:

To prepare and file an application or applications for Resource Consents to take water up to 30 million cubic metres to be used for environmental flows for rivers, waterways and wetlands on the Heretaunga Plains

That to give effect to 2) above, staff where necessary enter into discussions with landowners in appropriate locations with a view to establishing appropriate sites for bores

That any consents issued be held pending the completion of the TANK process so that the water can be used for environmental flows or other priorities once decided.

Purpose of the Motion

All councillors will understand the intent of this notice, which is to ensure that we have a buffer of water available while the TANK process proceeds, which could take several more years. I believe the HBRC needs to show leadership on the issue of water and respond to our community’s concerns”

Process for Notice of Motion

2.      A notice of motion is, in essence, a written request that can be lodged by an elected representative for consideration at a specified meeting, and in this instance is seeking a specific course of action.

3.      The process for dealing with a notice of motion is set out in the Standing Orders adopted by Council.

4.      The Chief Executive Officer has accepted Councillor Beaven’s Notice of Motion for consideration at the Regional Planning Committee meeting.

5.      Once the motion has been seconded at the meeting it can be discussed.

Decision Making Process

6.      Council is required to make decisions 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:

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

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

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

6.4.      The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s groundwater resources and the region’s ratepayers.

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

6.6.      Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

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

2.     Acts on the Notice of Motion and requests staff prepare a report for consideration by Council on the costs, legal implications and any other requirements for preparing a resource consent application as sought.

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.     


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

Subject: Karamu Oxygen Report

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report investigates the relationship between stream flow and dissolved oxygen available in the stream for fish. This information is intended to inform limit selection (e.g. minimum flows) by the TANK (Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu) Stakeholder Group, which was assembled for the Greater Heretaunga Plan Change.

Background

2.      Fish and other stream life depend on having sufficient freshwater to survive. Regional Council manages how much water can be abstracted in an effort to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our streams.

3.      For example, there is a minimum flow of 300 L/s set for the Raupare Stream, which affords a level of protection to whitebait and eels inhabiting the stream. When stream flow drops below 300 L/s, some Twyford irrigators are required to stop water use until higher flows return. That minimum flow will be revisited for the Greater Heretaunga Plan Change, and this report will help inform that process.

4.      Fish and stream invertebrates depend on oxygen to survive. Reduced flow can reduce dissolved oxygen in low-gradient streams that support high abundances of aquatic plants, like the Karamu. This report examines the impact of reduced stream flow on dissolved oxygen for three sites in the Karamu catchment (Raupare, Irongate and Awanui streams).

Discussion

5.      The Awanui Stream experienced 77 days of overnight anoxia (no oxygen) during the 2013 drought, coinciding with a period of flows less than 50 L/s. The lack of dissolved oxygen concentrations created stressful conditions for biota in the Awanui Stream.

6.      The Raupare Stream recorded higher dissolved oxygen concentration than the Awanui, however, the lowest oxygen concentrations coincided with the lowest flows. As well as higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen, the Raupare Stream also had healthier macroinvertebrate communities than the Awanui.

7.      Reduced flows can exacerbate oxygen stress for fish and invertebrates in the Awanui, Raupare and Irongate Streams, and this was confirmed by the observed decline in oxygen with flow and by model predictions. The observations and modeling both indicate that dissolved oxygen is a critical issue to consider when managing flows of these streams to safeguard their life-supporting capacity.

8.      The flows predicted to achieve alternative oxygen limits are presented for each site in the technical report (“Karamu catchment: In-stream flows for oxygen” HBRC Report No.  RM 13/25 – 4559).

9.      Results of the technical report were presented to TANK stakeholders (14 Oct 2014). The process of setting flow limits for the study streams can take place when we have a groundwater model that predicts the consequence of water use for stream flows.

Decision Making Process

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

 

 

Recommendation

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “Karamu Oxygen Report“.

 

 

 

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: July 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report provides a brief outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently underway.

Discussion

2.      The projects covered in this report are those involving reviews and/or changes under the Resource Management Act to one or more of the following planning documents:

2.1.      the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP)

2.2.      the Hawke's Bay Regional Policy Statement (RPS) which is incorporated into the RRMP

2.3.      the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

3.      From time to time, separate reports additional to this one may be presented to the Committee for fuller updates on specific plan change projects.

4.      The table in Attachment 1 repeats the relevant parts of the resource management planning work programme from the 2012-22 Long Term Plan and/or current 2014-15 Annual Plan.  It should be noted that future updates will report against performance targets as adopted in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

5.      Similar periodical reporting will also be presented to the Council as part of the ‘Period 5’, ‘Period 9’ and end of year Annual Plan reporting requirements.

Decision Making Process

6.      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 and takes note of the ‘July 2015 Resource Management Planning Projects Update’ report.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

1

Resource Management Policy Update July 15

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 15 July 2015

SUBJECT: Minor Items Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the Minor Items Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

 

     



[1] 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.