Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 16 September 2015

  Time:                 9.30am – Tangata Whenua Representatives Hui

10.45am – morning tea

11.00am – Public Committee meeting commences

12.30pm – Lunch

1.00pm – Public Committee meeting recommences

 

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 Wednesday 20 May

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

5.         Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings                    3

6.         Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                 7

Decision Items

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

8.         Verbal  Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri Hapu Management Plan – 1:30pm           Te Kaha/Hinewai                                                                                                              27

9.         Clean Air Compliance Strategy                                                                                   73

10.       Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016                                                   81

Information or Performance Monitoring

11.       Verbal Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal – 1:00pm       Greg Carlyon 93

12.       Forestry Policy Issues                                                                                                 95

13.       September 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update                        103

14.       Verbal Matatini 2017 - 3:00pm - Narelle Huata

15.       May-September 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update                                                 107

16.       Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                                113

Please note – Pre Meeting for Tangata whenua members of the committee begins at 9:30am

1.     Two hour on-road parking is available in Vautier Street at the rear of the HBRC Building

2.              The public park in Vautier Street costs $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3.              There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry of Vautier Street – it would be appropriate that the “visitors” parks be available for the members travelling distances from Waiora and CHB

NB:             Any carparks that have yellow markings should NOT be used to park in.

 

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 (co-chair)

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

Fenton Wilson (co-chair)

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

 

 

Total number of members = 17[1]

 

QUORUM AND VOTING ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

 

At the present time, the quorum is 13 members.

 

Voting Entitlement ( clause (j))

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 membes of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

 

Number of Committee members present                    Number required for 80% support

                             17                                                                                  14

                             16                                                                                  13

                             15                                                                                  12                                                               14                                                                                  11                                                               13                                                                                  10


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Subject: Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

 

Reason for Report

1.     On the list attached as Attachment 1 are items raised at previous Regional Planning Committee meetings that require actions or follow-ups.

2.     All items indicate which RPC agenda item it relates to, who is responsible for the follow-up, and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and/or reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

3.     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”.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1

Follow-ups from Previous Meetings

 

 

  


Follow-ups from Previous Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Follow-ups from previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

 

Meeting cancelled 15 July

 

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Status Comment

1.     4

Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

I Maxwell

Hawke's Bay Regional Biodiversity Strategy presented to Council meeting 29 July and endorsed at that meeting

2.     5

NPS for Freshwater Management – 2014-15 Progressive Implementation Report

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

G Ide

Email sent 28 July to RPC members inviting feedback on draft NPSFM Implementation Annual Report.  Draft report has since been presented to Council meeting on 26 August.

3.     6

Regional Planning Committee Annual Activity Report 2014-15

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

G Ide

Email sent 28 July to RPC members inviting feedback on draft Annual Activity report.  Report publishing on hold pending supply of photos/photography of members. See separate item on RPC agenda for 16 Sept meeting.

4.     7

Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

G Ide

Email sent 28 July to RPC members inviting feedback on draft comments.  Staff presented report to Council meeting on 29 July.  HBRC’s submission was lodged on 11 August.
Also refer to separate item on RPC agenda for 16 Sept meeting.

5.     8

Notice of Motion from Councillor Peter Beaven

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

L Lambert

Councillor Beaven’s Notice of Motion was considered at 29 July Council meeting and further reporting by staff presented at Council meeting on 26 August

6.     9

Ngaruroro water Conservation Oder Proposal

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

I Maxwell

Presentation re-scheduled to 16 September 2015 RPC meeting.

7.     10

Karamu Oxygen Report

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

I Maxwell

Karamu Catchment - In-stream Flows for Oxygen technical report was approved at 29 July Council meeting for publication and public release.

8.     11

‘Pataka’ hapu / iwi records tool

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

G Ide

‘Pataka’ online mapping and information storehouse was launched early August.

9.     12

July Resource Management Planning Project update

Nil – Meeting cancelled.

G Ide

Refer revised update separate on RPC Agenda meeting 16 September 2015.

 


Meeting held 20 May 2015, plus cancelled 15 July meeting

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Status Comment

10

Regional Planning Committee - Terms of Reference

Hui to be held to seek agreement to the amended Terms of Reference

L Lambert

 

11

Water Quantity Allocation Policy and Consenting Processes

Workshop for RPC members to be held

L Lambert/
I Maxwell

 

12

State of Our Environment Five-Yearly Summary Report

Not considered due to loss of quorum

I Maxwell

Hard copies of the report distributed with the September RPC agenda

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 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.     

 

 

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning CommitteE

Wednesday 16 September 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.      This version incorporates previous feedback from Committee members and is virtually ready for publication and printing, pending the inclusion of members’ photographs.

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

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives the draft “Regional Planning Committee Annual Report for 1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015” and instructs staff to proceed with the publication and distribution of the finalised report as amended as agreed.

 

 

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Annual Activity Report 2014-15

 

 

  


Annual Activity Report 2014-15

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Subject: Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri Hapu Management Plan

 

Reason for Report

1.      The purpose of this paper is to introduce the report ‘Tutaekuri Awa Management and Enhancement Plan” - an iwi/hapu management plan prepared by Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri (Attachment 1).

2.      Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri is mandated by Waiohiki Marae, Moteo Marae, Wharerangi Marae and Timikara Marae for the development of the iwi/hapu management plan. Representatives from Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri will be giving a presentation on Tutaekuri Awa Management and Enhancement Plan at the meeting.

Relevance of this Iwi Management Plan

3.      This iwi/hapu management plan has been approved by Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated as an iwi authority under the RMA and it therefore has status under the Resource Management Act.

4.      As part of the plan change process for the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchments (aka the ‘TANK plan change’), the Regional Planning Committee must ‘take into account’ iwi management plans that have been approved by an iwi authority and lodged with the Regional Council.

5.      How iwi/hapu management plans are ‘taken into account’ will be demonstrated through various planning reports that will be presented to the Committee as part of future RMA-related policy development processes.

6.      Previously in relation to presentations being delivered to the Committee by representatives of earlier iwi/hapu management plans, the Committee has chosen to recommend Council “acknowledges the role” of IHMPs in relevant resource management policy and plan change processes, over and above just ‘receiving’ the IHMP.

Decision Making Process

7.      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:

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

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

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

7.4.      The persons affected by this decision are members of Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri.

7.5.      There are no alternative options. Once an iwi/hapu management plan is approved by an iwi authority and lodged with Council, the plan must be taken into account in relevant RMA-related policy development initiatives.  There is no option to ‘reject’ a hapu/iwi management plan that has been approved by an iwi authority and then lodged with the council.

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

7.7.      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 presentation on Tutaekuri Awa Management and Enhancement Plan by representatives of Nga Hapu o Tutaekuri.

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.      Acknowledges the role of Tutaekuri Awa Management and Enhancement Plan in the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri policy development process under the Resource Management Act.

 

 

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Management Plan

 

 

  


Management Plan

Attachment 1

 













































HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Subject: Clean Air Compliance Strategy

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report is to inform on the current position for the HBRC Heatsmart programme in terms of effectiveness in meeting NES targets, and to propose a strategy that encourages compliance with the air plan rules.

Background

2.      HBRC aims to improve air quality and meet the National Air Quality Standards. In this report you will read the terms PM10, NES and airsheds.

3.      PM10 is made up of solid or liquid particles less than 10 micrometres in diameter, roughly a fifth of the width of a human hair. PM10 cannot be seen by eye, can remain suspended in air for long periods and is easily inhaled. In 2010 92 -95% of PM10 emissions in urban centres came from domestic fires. The ability to readily inhale PM10 means that it can contribute to respiratory diseases and it has also been associated with cardiovascular problems. Those at most risk are the elderly, young children and people with existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The smaller the particle, the further it can penetrate into the airways and lungs and the ultra-fine particles, less than 0.1 micrometres, may enter the blood stream. There is no known “safe” threshold for PM10 so the NES is designed to provide a set level of protection for human health and the environment.

4.      The Government set a National Environmental Standard (NES) for PM10 in 2005 at an average concentration of no more than 50mg/m3 measured in open air over a 24hour period. Only one exceedance of this level is allowed in an airshed in a twelve month period.

5.      Airsheds are air quality management areas designated by Regional Councils and they are typically where levels of pollutants are known to, or likely to exceed NES. The Napier airshed has to achieve compliance with no more than one exceedance per year by 2016, and Hastings one exceedance by 2020 with an interim target of 3 exceedances by 2016, i.e. next year. The first phase out date banned the use of inefficient open fires in 2012, and in 2014 burners installed before 1996.  The next target is January 2016 where burners from 1996-2005 have to be replaced or not used.

6.      Since 2009 HBRC has monitored air quality and has had a funding package in place to assist and incentivise home owners and landlords to install insulation and clean forms of heating (i.e. heatpump/aircon or compliant burners).

7.      HBRC has now achieved over half the projected volume targets for the Heatsmart incentive/grants programme and seen a corresponding drop in NESAQ exceedances in the cities. It is now timely to review some key issues.

Will we meet the NES target?

8.      Original estimates suggested that 10,000 fires would have to be replaced in order to meet NES targets assuming that at least 40% would be replaced with fires rather than heatpumps. The programme was anticipated to run for ten years, with an average 1000 fires per annum. We are just over half way to meeting target volumes for converting non-compliant fires. The following table shows that HBRC has supported the replacement of 6932 fires to date with increased activity in the phase out years.

Details

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Total

$

Insulation Loans

150

221

471

809

372

128

2,151

4,122,582

Clean Heat Loans

97

143

297

439

801

548

2,325

7,076,442

Clean Heat Grants

52

124

442

1,074

1,689

1,226

4,607

2,844,011

TOTAL

299

488

1,210

2,322

2,862

1,902

9,083

14,043,035

9.      In the year 2014 – 2015 we met 2020 NES target for the first time, five years early. While this shows we are heading in the right direction and making good progress it doesn’t mean we have solved the problem. Its only one year, and we need five consecutive years of meeting the targets under the current legislation to deregulate the areas, and then we are still required to continue monitoring.

10.    The NES level of 50mg only breached once this winter in Hastings on 9th June but came close on several occasions in both Napier and Hastings. On eight additional days Hastings scored over 40 mg, and in Napier there were 11 days between 30 -50 mg.  Other drivers beyond our control may result in an increase in exceedances. For example a high pressure weather system staying in place with low wind for more than three low temperature days would have a significant impact causing one or more exceedances in a relatively short period of time.

11.    The other major influences on emissions are how and what people burn, whether or not they have a compliant fire. This requires ongoing education, behaviour change strategies and regulation under local bylaws for nuisance burning.

12.    Survey information and an emissions inventories sourced in 2010 and 2015 suggests that we will meet the targets as currently specified.

Fig. 1 - shows how the amount of PM10 has decreased by 50% between 2010 and 2015 in Napier and the proportional sources of PM10

Fig. 2 - shows how Napier is tracking toward NES targets

Fig. 3  - shows how the amount of PM10 has decreased by 56% between 2010 and 2015 in Hastings and the proportional sources of PM10

Fig. 2 - shows how Hastings is tracking toward NES targets

13.    In the five years between 2005 and 2015 there has been a significant gain over the target projections for the air plan and the Heatsmart programme. If the current conversion rate of non-compliant fires continues, combined with a burning behaviour change programme, targets can be achieved.

Where is public perception on this matter?

14.    Since 2010 there has been a positive shift from ‘why’ to ‘when’ as we have moved through the first two phase out dates. The next major phase out date in January 2016 when non-compliant fires installed from 1996 to 2005 (when the legislation was introduced) become prohibited from use. We have no idea how many of these there are as records of installation prior to 2005 are unreliable and fires replaced with heatpumps do not require permits. It is also likely that a number of these older fires have already been replaced prior to the phase out date due to our ‘point of sale’ rule that brings forward the non-compliance date.

Public perceptions that need to be addressed

15.    “I don’t need to do anything now, we’ve met the targets.”

15.1.    Self-congratulation in the media for meeting the target this year could encourage complacency at best, and further resistance at worst. Meeting the target is a ‘good news’ item but doesn’t address the issues of inequity or resistance. Its only one year, and we need five consecutive years of meeting the targets under the current legislation to deregulate the areas, and then we are still required to continue monitoring.

16.    “No one has been fined, or is likely to be. HBRC won’t know if I use a non-compliant fire.”

16.1.    Nobody has yet been fined locally or nationally for use of domestic non-compliant fires and it may be hard to reconcile the first fine being in the year that there were zero exceedances in Napier. There have been 420 smoke complaints to Council since the air plan was enacted. Initial response to complaints was aimed towards education but in the past 9 months Council has issued 4 infringement fines and 1 abatement notice in response to complaints about outdoor burning.

17.    “I don’t have a smokey chimney, it’s all the others in my street and you’re not doing anything about it and ……these new fires aren’t as good as the old ones”

17.1.    Just replacing a fire (unless with a zero emission heatpump or a gas fire) does not address the ‘what and the how’ of burning. Research carried out as part of a project sponsored by MFE shows that people think they aren’t the problem and don’t know how much smoke their fire is generating because they don’t go outside and check. There is a gap between perception and reality where education and training on fire management could have a significant impact on emission levels. HBRC is on the governance group for this project and is working with Environment Canterbury and five other regional councils to develop a behaviour change programme to be used nationally.

18.    HBRC has a communication plan in place for 2015 and is planning for the phase out planned in January 2016. The marketing and communications programme will continue to promote HBRC’s package of Heatsmart loans and grants, and education material. In late 2015 we will inform people about the 1996-2005 burners need for replacement and reinforce key messages to those who have not yet replaced non-compliant burners.

19.    Key target areas are Taradale, Tamatea, Maraenui, Napier South and Raureka, Mayfair and Flaxmere.

Key Public Messages

20.    Hawke’s Bay halfway through the programme, we are halfway to meeting targets and getting cleaner winter air as planned.

21.    HBRC can still help with your smokey burner – loans, grants, replacement advice.

22.    HBRC charges you a rate for cleaning the air – have you claimed what you’ve paid for?

23.    Lower interest rates on loans now available from HBRC =3%

24.    Beat the rush – busiest time for installers is April/May.  Act now to get in for winter as there is up to a 6 weeks wait.

25.    To really improve smoke emissions install heat pumps.

26.    Burn dry wood only.

27.    January 2016 - next phase out date for burners installed 1996-2005.  Anything installed after the clean air legislation came in in 2005 is likely to be compliant.

What do we do about inequity and/or resistance?

28.    It is reasonable to assume that the population is divided into three main groups, those who will, those who might, and those who won’t adopt change.

29.    The Heatsmart programme has to date focused on encouragement, providing financial incentives, education, and promoting of the benefits associated with better air quality. HBRC has primarily targeted increasing affordability for ‘those who will’ and ‘those who might’ to maximize our return on investment. While all ratepayers within the airsheds pay an annual targeted rate to fund the programme, there is a concern regarding inequity between those who have changed and those who are resistant, where the cost of change is being born by those who have met the expense of installing clean heat.

30.    As the programme moves into the second half, the issue of regulation and compliance is going to become more important as the number of those remaining will come from the group that are most resistant to change.

31.    Enforcement of the air rules as they relate to non-compliant domestic fires is problematic in that there is no legal power of entry for officers to enter into dwelling houses to physically check on compliance. I.e. to physically view and check whether or not the installed fire is compliant or actually being used.

32.    This restriction is contained in section 332[1] of the Resource Management Act that allows enforcement officers to enter onto land under certain circumstances, but expressly prohibits entry into a dwelling house. That also precludes an enforcement officer from standing outside the dwelling and looking through a window or door to assess compliance.

33.    While there have been limited reports from the public of people using non-compliant fires, those reports have been followed up by compliance staff. The current manner of follow up is to provide educational material to those involved in an attempt to get them to upgrade their current fireplace and/or take advantage of the Council loans and grants available for that purpose. No data has been collected to measure the success of that approach or otherwise.

34.    There have been 420 smoke complaints to Council since the air plan was enacted. Initial response to complaints was heavily leaned towards education but in the past 9 months Council has issued 4 infringement fines and 1 abatement notice in response to complaints related to outdoor burning. There is every indication that education has had a positive effect.

35.    Under the current rule regime, there is scope to become more active in the enforcement space and the value of doing that needs to be assessed closely.

36.    Without any rule change, it is possible to investigate complaints by observing if excessive smoke is being discharged from a suspected property chimney or flue. There is an ability to check installer records to ascertain if a compliant fire has been installed, Council has access to those records. Should it appear on reasonable grounds [excess smoke and no record of a compliant burner being fitted] that the property owner is operating a non-compliant fire, an abatement notice may be issued requiring them to either cease the use of that fire or replace it with a complying fire.

37.    Our understanding is that this strategy has had some success in Canterbury and Nelson, where there has been no need to take any further enforcement action beyond abatement. In all probability the same level of success would operate in Hawke’s Bay but there is still a minimal risk that the installer information might be wrong or that the property owner fails to comply with the abatement notice and this Council must decide on whether to take further enforcement action or not. This year Environment Canterbury introduced a new compliance tool to their air plan which could be of significant benefit if adopted in Hawke’s Bay. All fires produce smoke at start up and when re-fuelled (20mins on start-up and 5mins on re-fuel) however, efficient burning produces very little particulate matter and an education programme linked to a ‘No visible smoke’ rule is proving effective in reducing emissions beyond that achieved by replacing non-compliant fires.

38.    The major benefit of the ‘No visible smoke’ rule is that it provides a unambiguous measure for regulatory purposes, it avoids the problem of not being able to enter the property and would encourage public engagement in enforcing bylaw 13 by the Napier and Hastings councils which states:

38.1.    “No occupier of any private residential premises shall permit smoke, noxious fumes or other matter to be emitted from any chimney, fireplace, barbecue, incinerator or other device on such premises to such an extent as to cause a nuisance, to persons residing or being in the neighbourhood. Where in the opinion of a duly authorised officer of Council a nuisance is being caused, the officer may require the nuisance to be abated to his or her satisfaction immediately”

39.    Amending our Air Plan rules to include a ‘No visible smoke’ clause would require planning time and resources that are currently fully committed. It should be noted that the Minister for the Environment has also signalled a review of national emission standards that may involve a move to PM2.5 rather than PM10 and a consequent adjustment in targets that would require an Air Plan Change, which could then include a ‘no visible smoke’ clause.

40.    It is recommended that staff evaluate the Environment Canterbury initiative for possible future implementation in Hawke’s Bay.

41.    In determining whether or not this strategy is appropriate, some issues should be taken into account:

41.1.    Any increased enforcement of the rules are likely to raise community awareness

41.2.    Is this level of enforcement justified yet?

41.3.    If no action is taken against persons complained of, what message does this send to others in the community who have taken active steps to comply with the rules?

41.4.    Is there likely to be a negative public reaction to whichever strategy Council follows?

Regulatory response

42.    All complaint calls are responded to with an on-site inspection.

43.    If there is no evidence to support the complaint the occupier is notified of the complaint, information is offered but no enforcement action is taken.

44.    If there is evidence, depending on severity, an abatement notice may be issued and instruction given to cease or replace as appropriate to a reasonable timeframe. If not, information and advice given. Any future report or inspection that is a repetition following an abatement could be liable for infringement fine at the discretion of the inspecting officer.

45.    Share all complaints and outcomes with relevant territorial authority for action under Bylaw 13.

Proposed non-regulatory interventions

46.    January 2016 direct mail out to all airshed properties that have no record of compliant heating; Inform of air rules; invite to update our records.

47.    Mail drop to areas showing high PM10 averages stating ‘spotter’ inspections will be carried out between stated winter dates; Inspection identifies smoke problems; Letter specifying date observed and corrective action required; Repeat inspection at monthly intervals.

48.    The table below describes the current actions being taken to encourage compliance and in italics, new initiatives proposed

 

 

 

Proposal

Advantage

Disadvantage

Maintain the scheme until target achieved for five years

Meeting current NES target

Cost to ratepayers

Continue with education and new behavior change initiatives

Positive, supportive reputation

 

Promote dry wood scheme

Encourages better burning / less emissions for those who replace fires with fires 

 

Maintain Pollution hot line for reporting Nuisance burning (bylaw 13 Napier and Hastings) and continue with enforcement visits

Public visibility on enforcement response to public requests

Danger of HBRC being seen as the smoke police

Circulate all home owners in targeted areas with reminder letter that records show they are likely to have a non-compliant fire and what action to take

Awareness that HBRC ‘knows’ who may be non-compliant

Updated records

Cost

Perception of harassment

Investigate No visible smoke rule

Objective observation that can provide evidence without entering the property

Cost of plan change and committed work programme

Spotter teams – in house and outsourced

Increased awareness

Cost

 


Decision Making Process

49.    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:

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

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

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

49.4.   The persons affected by this decision are ratepayers in Airsheds

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

49.6.   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

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.      Notes progress to date in meeting NES targets

3.      Approves the proposed actions regarding communication and enforcement

4.      Instructs staff to investigate the efficacy of a ‘no visible smoke’ rule.

 

 

Mark Heaney

Client Services Manager

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

SUBJECT: Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016

 

Reason for Report

1.      New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) has invited the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and other local authorities to provide comments on its proposed Block Offer 2016 for petroleum exploration.  The deadline for comments to be lodged is 30 October 2015.

2.      Staff have prepared draft comments (see Attachment 2) for the Committee to consider and amend as necessary before referring on to the Council for further consideration.

3.      It is worth noting that these draft comments are virtually identical to the Council’s comments made in respect of last year’s 2015 Block Offer which related to slightly different parts of the offshore Pegasus Basin.

Discussion

4.      NZP&M (a branch of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) administers the Block Offer 2016 and is seeking the Council’s comments on specific areas of consultation in and near the Hawke's Bay region (see location map in Attachment 1).

5.      The Block Offer process is a process through which the Government seeks to attract companies that have a demonstrated ability to prospect, explore and mine petroleum in a safe and environmentally responsible way. Exploration won’t necessarily be undertaken in all the blocks on offer.

6.      The Block Offer 2016 requires bidders to submit ‘staged work programme bids’ – where bids are submitted to undertake a work programme to explore for petroleum resources.  The specific exploration activities[2] to be undertaken in a permitted area are not determined as part of the Block Offer process.  The Government is consulting on a total 537,632 square kilometres across four proposed offshore areas and one proposed onshore areas.  The areas being consulted on generally exclude any existing permits, and do not include any World Heritage sites, Marine Reserves or areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

7.      In relation to the Hawke's Bay region, the proposed area for consultation is the Offshore Pegasus East Coast basin (68,661 km2) (see Attachment 1).

8.      Much of this proposed offshore area lays beyond the region’s 12 nautical mile limit.  Provisions of the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan do not apply beyond the 12 nautical mile limit (approximately 22 kilometres offshore).

9.      The Minister says feedback from iwi and local authorities ensures that any areas of sensitivity are carefully considered before the 2016 tender round is finalised. 

10.    Staff have drafted comments on the Block Offer 2016. Those comments are set out in Attachment 2.  It is recommended that the RPC considers and discusses those draft comments for Council consideration.

11.    Following consultation with iwi/hapu about Block Offer 2016, and feedback from local authorities, NZP&M will prepare a report for the Minister.  The Minister will then make a final decision on the blocks to be included in the Block Offer 2016.  No further consultation will be undertaken with iwi/hapu and councils on the Block Offer 2016 and subsequent decisions on the grant of petroleum exploration permits.

 

 

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives the Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016 draft comments and amend as necessary for referral to the Council.

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.      Lodges the comments on Block Offer 2016, including agreed amendments, with New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals by the 30 October 2015 deadline.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1

Location Map - Proposed Block Offer 2016 Offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin area

 

 

2

DRAFT Comments on NZ Petroleum and Minerals proposed Block Offer 2016

 

 

  


Location Map - Proposed Block Offer 2016 Offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin area

Attachment 1

 

 

 



DRAFT Comments on NZ Petroleum and Minerals proposed Block Offer 2016

Attachment 2

 

Our Ref:            RMP 2-2

 

 

xx October 2015

 

 

Josh Adams

New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

PO Box 1473

Wellington 6140

 

via email to: blockoffer2016@mbie.govt.nz

 

 

Dear Mr Adams

Comments on Proposed Block Offer 2016

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Block Offer 2016 (‘BO2016’).

 

You had invited comments on a number of specific matters.  Those comments are provided in section 2.  We note that these comments are virtually a replica of our comments on the Block Offer 2015 because in both 2015 and 2016 Block Offers, the proposed area was the offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin.

 

These comments were considered and agreed by the Council at its meeting on [date].

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

liz lambert

Interim Chief Executive

Phone: (06) 835 9214

Email: liz@hbrc.govt.nz

 

 

Address for Service:                                           Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Private Bag 6006

NAPIER    4142

Attn:  Gavin Ide

e:  gavin@hbrc.govt.nz

p:  (06) 833 8077


 

1. General comments

1.1  Capacity and engagement

In recent years, HBRC has continued to develop capacity and liaise with other councils and central government agencies regarding oil and gas exploration activities in Hawke's Bay. Examples include participation in a public forum event hosted by Hastings District Council on the topic of oil and gas exploration industry.  Another example is the ongoing liaison at various levels with government officials and departments, including NZP&M.

Oil and gas exploration has clearly emerged over recent years as a hot topic in public submissions made on HBRC’s Long Term Plan and 2014-15 Annual Plan.  We are conscious that the issue of oil and gas exploration is one in which there is significant public interest, and there is much debate within our community around the environmental issues and risks associated with these activities. The Oil and Gas Symposium hosted by Hastings District Council just over two years ago confirmed the high level of public interest.

HBRC recognises that significant local and national economic benefits may accrue should oil and gas production develop commercially in the East Coast Region.  We are also conscious of the potential impact on our broader economy and social environment and take this opportunity to provide comments on some additional matters.

HBRC’s work programme adopted in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan indicates HBRC will:

1.    develop a Hawke's Bay Energy Strategy (with a draft strategy adopted by Council by March 2016);

2.    complete a report on the effectiveness of the Regional Resource Management Plan and Regional Coastal Environment Plan in relation to managing the effects of oil and gas exploration and development;

3.    prepare a community engagement plan for potential oil and gas exploration and development in Hawke's Bay;

4.    complete a report for the Regional Planning Committee to consider whether a limited scope regional plan change is necessary and appropriate to address any relevant recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s June 2014 report ‘Drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand: environmental oversight and regulation.”

1.2  Sensitive areas

HBRC has previously indicated to NZP&M in relation to earlier Block Offers that we would be uncomfortable with any offer made across the region’s productive aquifers.  We welcomed the Minister’s decision on the 2014 Block Offer to exclude the aquifers from the finalised areas.

We note that the BO2016 does not propose any onshore areas, so we do not have to revisit exclusions of the region’s productive aquifers.

From the maps available with the BO2016 documentation, it appears that the BO2016 Offshore Pegasus area barely extends into the Hawke's Bay region, with much of the area lying south east of the region beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.  The 2015 Block Offer proposed similar offshore areas which we commented on.

1.3  HBRC’s Tier2 Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan

You will probably be aware that HBRC has a statutory responsibility under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA) to conduct a Tier 2 response to marine oil spills that occur within the coastal marine area under our jurisdiction. As part of this responsibility, and in accordance with the MTA, we are required to maintain a plan which details how a Tier 2 response operation is to be undertaken in response to a marine oil spill.  The Plan can be viewed on HBRC’s website.  Annex 4 of that Plan sets out sensitive areas and twenty priority areas for protection (in the event of an oil spill incident).

2. Comments on particular matters

The following comments are provided in response to your invitation to comment on two particular matters:

(a)  an indication of how HBRC classifies petroleum exploration activities in regional planning documents; and

(b)  wāhi tapu areas and other areas of significance to Maori.

2.1  Classification of petroleum exploration activities in RMA planning documents

In relation to the BO2016, we provide comments only in relation to the region’s coastal plan (i.e. the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan, or ‘RCEP’) and not our other regional plan applicable onshore.

HBRC’s RCEP contains very little policy direction specifically relates to petroleum exploration.  Instead, most RCEP provisions relate to a type of effect or activity generally - they do not allow, restrict or prohibit petroleum exploration or production activities per se.  (We suggest this would be fairly typical of regional planning instruments prepared under the RMA because the RMA focuses on the actual and potential effects (both beneficial and adverse effects) of activities on the environment – not the activities and types of activities themselves).

There are a number of resource consent requirements likely as a result of activities associated with petroleum exploration.  In general terms, the presumption in the RMA is that many activities in the coastal marine area (s12), any discharges of contaminants to water (s15) must either comply with a rule in a regional plan, or gain resource consent[3].

2.2  Consent requirements for petroleum exploration

Table 1 outlines the possible consent requirements for petroleum exploration activities[4]. This is a list of the likely activities that will be involved in their operation.

In some cases, an exploration permit holder may determine that they can comply with all conditions of the relevant permitted activity rules and therefore can carry out those activities without requiring consent. This level of detail is anticipated to be determined by permit holders nearer the time of operations, or when other consent applications are lodged.

TABLE 1: Indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore[5] petroleum exploration in Hawke's Bay CMA

Activity Type

Relevant RCEP rule(s)[6] INDICATIVE ONLY

Rationale for consent requirements

Likely consent requirements

Disturbances, depositions and extractions in CMA

Removal or Deposition of Material

Removal:

Rule 144 [D]

 

Deposition:

Rule 147 [RD]

Rule 151 [D]

Removal of sand or gravel other than small scale.

 

Deposition of any substance on the foreshore or seabed. Relevant threshold 50,000m3 at a site in any 12 month period.

Discretionary activity.

 

 

Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary activity.

Drilling, construction or alteration of bores for gas and oil resources, seabed explorations and geotechnical investigations

Rule 138 [P]

Rule 130 [D]

Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, including location in relation to management areas:

§ Port or Harbour Management Area

§ Significant Conservation Area

§ Historic Heritage Area

§ Aquaculture Management Area

Permitted or Discretionary activity.

Disturbance of foreshore and seabed affecting historic heritage

Rule 141 [RD]

Disturbance in a manner that will destroy, damage or modify an historic heritage feature. Refer to Schedule M and planning maps for locations.

Restricted Discretionary activity.

Disturbances within specified Significant Conservation Areas

Rule 143 [Pr]

Rule 144 [D]

Disturbance or removal of materials in fours SCAs, - exemption for applies scientific purposes.

Prohibited activity.

Disturbances of seabed arising from manoeuvring of ships (e.g. propeller wash)

Rule 135 [P]

Disturbance of foreshore and seabed arising from passage and manoeuvring ships.

Permitted activity.

Discharges to land and water in CMA

Discharge of contaminant or water into water in CMA, or discharge of contaminant into land (e.g. hydraulic fracturing)

Rule 160 [D]

Discharge of contaminant which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water in the CMA

Discretionary activity (unless specifically classed by another rule in the RCEP as non-complying or Prohibited activity).

Discharge of drilling muds, cuttings and fluids for purposes of investigating oil and gas resources

Rule 161 [P]

Rule 160 [D]

Control over location, contamination level and risk of discharge of groundwater to surface water.

Permitted or Discretionary activity.

Discharges to air

Flaring of hydrocarbons from petroleum exploration or mining

Rule79 [C]

Rule 86 [D]

Discharge of contaminants to air impacting surrounding areas.

Controlled or Discretionary activity.

Discharges of contaminants to air in Coastal Environment

Rule 81 [P]

Rule 63 [RD]

Rule 64 [D]

Other discharges of contaminants to air.

Permitted (minor discharges) or Restricted Discretionary (not complying with Permitted activity conditions) or Discretionary (not regulated by other rules).

Structures in CMA

Structures for storage of petroleum products or other contaminants within a SCA

Rule 129 [Pr]

Any activity involving erection or placement of such a structure in, on, under or over the foreshore or seabed within a SCA.

Prohibited activity (consent cannot be applied for).

Removal and demolition of structures in , on, under or over the foreshore or seabed

Rule 121 [P]

Rule 117 [D]

Disturbance and any associated deposition.

Permitted or Discretionary activity.

Occupation of space in CMA

Occupation of space associated with exploration operations and structures

Rule 180 [P]

Rule 178 [D]

Effects of excluding public and other activities from use of coastal space, including potential conflict with other uses and users.

Permitted or Discretionary activity.


Storage and dumping of hazardous substances in CMA

Hazardous substances in the CMA (storage or dumping)

Storage:

Rule 172 [P]

Rule 171 [RD]

Rule 174 [Pr]

Dumping:

Rule 173 [Pr]

Manage risk according to character, scale and intensity of activity and any associated effects of potential spillage or discharge, including sensitivity of environment.

Permitted, Restricted Discretionary or Prohibited activity (in a SCA).

 

 

Prohibited activity.

Noise emissions in CMA

Emission of noise for marine seismic surveying purposes

Rule 176 [P], Rule 175 [RD]

Potential impact of underwater noise (including vibration) on marine life.

Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity.  Rule 176 includes “effects on marine mammals” as a matter for discretion.

Noise emissions in CMA

Rule 176 [P]

Rule 175 [RD]

Level, characteristics and frequency of noise (construction and other) including compatibility with surrounding environment. Rule 175 includes effects on marine mammals as a matter for discretion.

Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity.

Take and, use of coastal water

Taking and use of coastal water

Rule 156 [P]

Rule 154 [D]

Effects of water take on SCAs and their values.  Permitted rule does not apply to taking of water in six SCAs.

Permitted or Discretionary activity (in some SCAs).

 

2.3  Additional considerations

Table 1 is intended as an indicative summary of rules in the RCEP.  There are may be other activities that may trigger the need for consent (or compliance with a permitted activity rule).

In relation to offshore installations and ships, we are aware that the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 are applicable within the coastal marine area to some of the operations undertaken during mineral exploration.  For some operations and activities covered by these Regulations, rules in the RCEP also apply.

2.4  Wāhi tapu and other sites of significance to Māori

Wāhi tapu and other sites of significance to Maori above mean high water springs are not identified in regional plans or the regional policy statement.  These are typically identified in district plans.

In relation to the coastal marine area, the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) is the relevant regional planning document.  The RCEP identifies 21 Significant Conservation Areas that have important ecological, historic, scientific and/or cultural value.  The RCEP also identifies a number of historic heritage areas and features.  Some of those historic heritage areas relate to wāhi tapu areas registered on the Historic Places Register.  In addition to these mapped areas in the RCEP, Ngati Kahungunu has proclaimed that the “whole of the coastal marine area is of significance to Ngati Kahungunu.  The Coastal Margin is also of importance to Ngati Kahungunu.” [7]

Based on the map titled ‘Proposed Block Offer 2016 Offshore Pegasus 16PEG-R1’ available from NZP&M, none of the ‘Proposed Release Areas’ appears to be located in any of the RCEP’s Significant Conservation Areas nor Historic Heritage Areas.  We submit that the BO2016 Offshore Pegasus area remains as not extending into any of those Significant Conservation Areas or Historic Heritage Areas.

3.  Attachments:

1.    Location map of Significant Conservation Areas in Hawke's Bay coastal marine area (from RCEP planning maps).


 

ATTACHMENT – Location map of Significant Conservation Areas (‘SCAs’) in Hawke's Bay coastal marine area and proposed Offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin Release Areas in Block Offer 2016.
[Editor’s note, image below is a placeholder only, pending production of a map combining SCAs and Block Offer 2016 area].

 

Text Box: Black outline is extent of Offshore Pegasus East Coast Basin area.
Dark blue shaded squares are proposed areas in Block Offer 2016.
[image] Pegasus and East Coast Basins

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Subject: Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal

 

Reason for Report

1.      A consortium of groups and organisations been working to prepare an application for a ‘Water Conservation Order’ for the Ngaruroro River.  Greg Carlyon from the Catalyst Group is project leader of that WCO application.  Mr Carlyon has been invited to the Committee meeting to give a presentation about the Ngaruroro River WCO application.  At the time of writing, the WCO application was still in draft form and had not been lodged with the Environment Minister.

Background

What is a water conservation order?

2.      A water conservation order recognises the outstanding amenity or intrinsic values that a specific water body provides, in either a natural or modified state.  WCOs can be used to preserve that natural state, or to protect specific characteristics such as:

2.1.      the water body's value as a habitat or fishery

2.2.      its wild and scenic nature

2.3.      its value for recreational, historic, spiritual, cultural or scenic purposes.

3.      WCOs can apply to rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands or aquifers.  They can cover fresh water or geothermal water, but not coastal water.

4.      In Hawke’s Bay, the only current WCO is the Mohaka River Water Conservation Order which was issued in 2004 after a lengthy process.

What can a water conservation order do?

5.      A WCO can prohibit or restrict a regional council from issuing new water and discharge permits, although it cannot affect existing permits.  Once a WCO is made, councils need to ensure that their regional policy statements and regional/district plans are not inconsistent with its provisions.  Councils cannot grant water permits, coastal permits or discharge permits that are contrary to the restrictions, prohibitions or provisions of a WCO.

What can a water conservation order not do?

6.      A WCO cannot affect or restrict any existing resource consent or lawful use established before the order is made.  A WCO cannot affect or restrict land use consenting.

How are water conservation orders developed?

7.      Anyone can apply to the Minister for the Environment for a WCO. If the application meets specific RMA criteria, the Minister appoints a special tribunal to consider and make recommendations on the application.

Decision Making Process

8.      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 “Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal” presentation by Greg Carlyon.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Subject: Forestry Policy Issues

 

Reason for Report

1.      Forestry activities in Hawke’s Bay have had a high profile in the past six months.  This has been in part due to the adverse environmental and social effects of the moblisation of slash and woody debris in the Kopuawhara catchment in northern Hawke’s Bay in May 2015.

2.      There has also been the release of a discussion document on a Draft National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) by the Ministry of Primary Industries.

3.      The Regional Planning Committee was scheduled to consider a paper on the draft NES-PF on 15 July 2015.  However due to a lack of a quorum the Committee meeting was cancelled.  Due to time constraints associated with the scheduling of the Regional Planning Committee meetings, the draft submission was circulated via email to Committee members and Councilors for consideration and to provide their comments.

4.      Having considered those comments provided, a high level strategic submission on the draft NES-PF was submitted to the Ministry for Primary Industries on 11 August 2015.

5.      It is therefore considered timely to present a paper that outlined the current regulatory and non-regulatory framework relating to plantation forestry in Hawke’s Bay, and the Council’s submission on the draft NES-PF.

Background

6.      In the 1960s a significant proportion of steep, highly erodible hill country was afforested by central government primarily to address the depletion of the native forest resource and establish employment opportunities in the provinces.  The majority of the Crown’s plantations were established on regenerating ex-pasture blocks that had otherwise limited commercial opportunities.  In the late 80’s early 90’s there was a progression of corporatizing then privatising of the state forests.  The land was not sold but was envisaged for Treaty of Waitangi settlements.  Today Mohaka and Esk forest land is in iwi ownership.

7.      Concerns around the effects of forestry are not new. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council along with the Hawke's Bay forestry sector invested hundreds of thousands of dollars between 1993 and 2005 into the Pakuratahi – Tamingimingi Landuse Study Report (ISBN 1-877405-05-01) to compare forestry with a pastured catchment. The collaborative venture was initiated in response to public concerns over the potential effects of forestry on water quantity and quality, erosion and sediment generation, and in-stream values. This is one of the few paired catchment studies done in New Zealand.

8.      The key findings of the report are as relevant today as when the report and summary documents were written in 2006.  A selection of these findings include:

8.1.      Commercial forestry is a sustainable land use.

8.2.      Mature pine forests were more effective at moderating storm impacts than pasture.

8.3.      Pasture produced almost 4 times more sediment than mature forest

8.4.      During harvest there was a 6 fold increase in sediment yield

8.5.      Sediment yield reduced to mature forest levels within 2-3 years of harvest.

8.6.      During harvest, native fish and macro-invertebrate communities became similar to pasture but returned to pre-harvest levels within 3 – 5 years.

8.7.      The growth of a post-harvest forest cover substantially reduced the amount of slip erosion, compared to areas in pasture.

8.8.      Over the length of a forest rotation total suspended yields from forested catchments should be considerably less than those in pasture.

9.      As the rotation harvests on steep lands have proceeded, the issue of sediment and woody debris deposition into waterways, onto floodplains and beaches and ultimately the coastal environment have become of increasing public concern, particularly in heavy rain events such as occurred in the Kopuawhara in May  2015.  As other steep lands are harvested these concerns are expected to continue.

10.     Prior to human habitation almost the entire Hawke's Bay region was in forest.  The depletion of the forests was rapid after European arrival. By the 1880’s much of it had already gone. Forests were replaced by pasture even in the least productive grazing locations.  As a result the region has had little woody debris in streams, lagoons and the coastal environment for over a century.

11.     Some coarse woody debris is considered to be a critical habitat for insects and fish in streams.  Council often removes log jams due to flood risk or drainage impediments, but the variability in flow and channel characteristics generated by woody debris also creates geomorphic diversity which supports greater biodiversity.  The coarse woody debris also provides direct habitat and food sources for some species. 

The Forestry Industry in Hawke’s Bay

12.    Forestry is a leading primary sector in Hawke’s Bay and will continue to grow. The projected harvest will likely double to over 2.5 million tonnes within 7 years. This will lead to significantly more direct employment and downstream benefits to its service sector.

13.    Forestry is the largest primary sector exporting out of the Port of Napier. Pan Pac is the port’s largest customer.

14.    There are little or no new forest plantings. This is due to many reasons including the price of land, the ETS uncertainties and liabilities, and policy that has not favoured forestry expansion.

15.    According to the 2014 National Exotic Forest Description (NEFD) survey, the total estimated exotic plantation forestry area is 133,324 hectares or 9.3% of the Hawke’s Bay region. The target population for the 2014 NEFD survey was all known forest owners and managers with at least 40 hectares of planted production forest so this number is likely to be conservative.

16.    The Hawke's Bay forestry sector is dominated by a few large companies. The three largest ones, Pan Pac, Rayonier and Roger Dickie accounts for more than half of the total forest area.

17.    The Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group’s, the sectors’ industry organisation, account for over 100,000 of the 134,000 hectares of forest.

18.    According to the 2010 Hawke’s Bay Annual Economic Profile the forestry sector generated $21 million in economic outputs in 2010.  The sector contributed 0.5% to the region’s economy in 2010 up from 0.1% in 2000.  Hawke’s Bay’s forestry sector grew by 11.9% in 2010 compared with growth of 14.9% in the sector nationally.  Growth in the sector in Hawke’s Bay has averaged 17.8% per annum up to 2010, varying from a low of -7.9% in 2002 to a high of 62.2% in 2001.

19.    Employment growth in the sector averaged 15.6% up to 2010 compared with total employment growth in the region of 1.6%.  Growth in the sector peaked at 91.9% in 2001.

20.    Approximately 240 business units were in operation in the forestry sector in Hawke’s Bay in 2010, which was slightly down from 242 in 2009.  The number of business units peaked at 271 in 2006.

21.    PanPac is one of the largest integrated forestry, sawmilling and pulp operations in New Zealand and has been operating from its Whirinaki site since 1973.  PanPac has a workforce of over 350 permanent staff and over 450 people contracted to assist in forestry, harvesting and transport operations. 

22.    According to a 2005 BERL report, PanPac makes significant economic and social contributions to the region.  For example, through generating 1,683 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs or about 2.7% of employment in the region. This total includes 787 FTEs employed in PanPac’s own operations and 896 FTEs employed in other industries across the region.  Since 2005 Pan Pac has continued to expand its operations so its regional contribution will have likely increased.

Forestry Liaison Group

23.    The Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group - the sectors’ industry organisation - accounts for over 100,000 of the 134,000 hectares of forest.  The membership is around 10 companies and includes the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

24.    The Hawke's Bay Forestry Group (HBFG) was established in 2002.  Its aim is to:

24.1.    Promote best environmental management practices towards maintaining reasonable planning provisions in district and regional plans in Hawke’s Bay

24.2.    Provide a forum for forest managers in Hawke’s Bay to meet to discuss issues of common interest and to develop strategies to achieve common goals

24.3.    Advocate with territorial authorities

24.4.    Communicate with the media and other organisations on forestry issues

24.5.    Promote education, training and careers in forestry

Benefits and Costs of Forestry

25.    Forestry has significant economic and environmental positive benefits.  It employs a significant number of people and generates substantial economic activity in the Hawke’s Bay region.  The soil conservation and water quality benefits of forestry can also be significant.  The key findings of the council’s Pakuratahi study, as mentioned above, provides objective research over a 12 year period, that forestry is a sustainable land use in erosion-prone hill country.

26.    Research suggests that the overall water quality benefits of the 25-30 years in forest outweigh the negative effects of the harvest and approximately five year period when the land is most at risk of erosion events.

27.    The challenge for plantation forestry is woody debris generated at harvest.  Woody debris impacts on the New Zealand Transport Agency and council infrastructure and private property such as culverts and roads. 

28.    The Hawke's Bay geology, mudstone and sandstone, generates mid-slope slips and failures particularly in heavy rain events such as occurred in the Kopuawhara.  As other steep lands are harvested these concerns are expected to continue.  As this potentially impacts licenses to operate, the New Zealand Forest Owners Association and the Farm Forestry Association have been looking at ways to reduce the off-site impacts of woody debris. This has included a global tour by an industry panel to assess how other countries were addressing the challenge.

29.    Sediment is increasingly viewed differently by government agencies and the public from woody debris.  Since wood is no longer a component of the ecosystem due to the deforestation of land to farming, it is viewed as un-natural and a pollutant.  Major debris, like the Kopuawhara, has led to widespread negative sentiment.

30.    These economic and environmental benefits are most significantly seen in land with moderate topography.  Harvesting of the steep land followed by rainfall events at or beyond 25mm in an hour during the length of the risk period can result in landslips and mobilisation of sediment, windblown trees (which are not harvested but left where they fell), forestry slash and other woody debris. In some instances the weight of material is so significant it will crash through remaining native riparian areas or buffers.

31.    Research has not been done on the overall impact of forestry on steep land with very thin soils, and a key question is whether the benefits still outweigh the costs – and whether forestry on a 20-30 year rotation is sustainable in this type of location.

Forestry as a Resource Management Tool

32.    Sixty four percent (approximately 900,000ha) of the region’s rural land is classed as erodible to highly erodible hill country; of that approximately 300,000ha is under a land use that is likely to exceed the sustainable capacity of the soil.  The Pakuratahi Project recognised that commercial forestry is a sustainable land use.

33.    The loss and degradation of soils in Hawkes Bay’s hill country particularly in northern and coastal areas, is considered to be a regionally significant issue in the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

34.    While there is a natural rate of erosion under natural vegetation, accelerated erosion due to the removal of natural forest and pasture establishment, and aggravated erosion due to inappropriate land management practices are of most concern.

35.    Forestry is a key resource management tool to mitigate erosion in landscapes that are highly susceptible to erosion and to also provide key environmental services such as habitat for improved biodiversity and regulating water quality and quantity.

36.    Plantation forests can reduce the amount and degree of erosion by intercepting rainfall, increasing evapotranspiration rates and reinforcing soils through the root network about 25% of a trees mass is underground.  Good forestry practice can reduce the risk of soil erosion that may follow harvesting, particularly when followed by storm events.

37.    The level and extent of erosion that results from the removal of trees is dependent on a number of factors including the tree species, the area felled, the method of felling, the implementation of other forestry management techniques used to minimise runoff and erosion and the underlying geology.

38.    HBRC is currently undertaking work towards an East Coast Hill Country Strategy which will consider in part the environmental and economic sustainability of further development or retirement of the East Coast’s hill country, and forestry is likely to be a significant element of that strategy.

Existing Non-regulatory Framework

39.    The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LAWMS) provides direction and a common focus for the management of land and water for improved economic and environmental outcomes.  It recognises that development potential and pressures vary across the region as do the values associated with the land, rivers, lakes and wetlands and therefore different responses are required. 

40.    Pertinent to plantation forestry is the sustainable land use objective:

40.1.    The future viability and resilience of Hawke’s Bay’s land and landscapes is enhanced and water quality is improved through appropriate land management and land use practices.

41.    Relevant policies include:

41.1.    Re-vegetation of erosion prone hill country pasture with trees and bush species is incentivised; and

41.2.    Research and development investment is aligned to support long term potential including preparing for climate change.

42.    In addition, Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-25 (LTP) contains two relevant strategic goals:

42.1.    Profitable farming systems that adapt to pest threats, greater weather extremes and take advance of new opportunities

42.2.    Smart management links biodiversity, land, freshwater and our coastal marine areas.

43.    The Regional Resource Management Plan including the Regional Policy Statement includes a number of regulatory and non-regulatory, objectives, policies and rules directed towards managing forestry in Hawke’s Bay.

44.    The relevant chapters of the Regional Policy Statement include:

44.1.    Chapter 3.3 Loss and Degradation of Soil

44.2.    Chapter 3.5 Effects of Conflicting Land Use Activities

44.3.    Chapter 3.6 Agrichemical Use

44.4.    Chapter 3.12 Natural Hazards

44.5.    Chapter 3.14 Recognition of Matters of Significance to Iwi/Hapu.

45.    The above chapters of the Regional Policy Statement contain a number of non-regulatory methods that are of relevance to forestry and in particular promote the use of:

45.1.    Economic instruments such as financial incentives. For example the Afforestation Grant Scheme designed to encourage more planting of trees in small forests and on farms; the Regional Landcare Scheme were landowners can apply annually for funds to promote environmental outcomes and the Hill Country Erosion Fund were the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Regional Council jointly fund initiatives for soil conservation and biodiversity outcomes.

45.2.    Education and co-ordination, actively promoting self-regulation by land-owners, assisting with the formation of land care groups, preparing soil conservation farm plans, providing information about sustainable land management practices and responding to requests for advice.

45.3.    Encouragement for self-regulation using industry best practice and the adoption of guidelines and codes of practice by resource user groups.

46.    The forestry sector in Hawke's Bay has been pro-active at demonstrating its commitment to the environment. The two largest companies, Pan Pac and Rayonier, which jointly have one third of the forest estate have the Forest Stewardship (FSC) environmental certification. It is considered the gold standard of global forest certification schemes. The initial audit for Pan Pac involved three auditors for five days reviewing criteria that assesses against the environmental, social and economic sustainability pillars. Annual surveillance audits involve a three day visit comprising of about half that time out in the forest. The certificates are valid for 5 years and then need a full re-assessment audit. FSC is in over 80 countries and there is about 190 million hectares certified.

Waterways Design Guidelines

47.    The primary objective of these guidelines is to outline and demonstrate the Council’s preferred waterway design approaches. The guidelines are non-statutory living documents that may be reviewed from time to time as industry standards change and best practice evolves.

48.    In 2008 Council released Draft Forestry Erosion and Sediment Control guidelines for consultation with Hawkes Bay Foresters based on the Auckland Regional Council’s Technical Publication No. 223 “Forestry Operations in the Auckland Region: Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines”.

49.    The intent of these Guidelines is to.

49.1.    provide a comprehensive guideline for erosion and sediment control in forestry situations

49.2.    minimise adverse environmental effects of sediment discharge through the appropriate use and design of specific measures.

Existing Regulatory Controls on Forestry

50.    Currently there are no rules specifically managing ‘plantation forestry’ in the RRMP or the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).  Instead, generic rules apply to forestry activities such as for example vegetation clearance and generic rules on discharges of contaminants – discharges to land/water.

51.    There are a number of effects associated with forestry activities that need to be managed in order to minimise risk to the environment, communities and infrastructure.

52.    Table 1 shows the key activities associated with plantation forestry and the potential adverse effects or risks, with the current method of control through the RRMP.

Table 1: Current Regulatory Controls under the RRMP.

Activity

Potential Adverse Effect

Regulatory Controls through the RRMP

Mechanical Land Preparation

Erosion and sedimentation, related effects on habitats and water quality from sediment run-off.

Permitted (subject to conditions) [Rule 7]

Non-compliance – RDA [Rule 8]

Afforestation

“Wilding” spread, sedimentation from earthworks in erosion-prone areas.

Unregulated – Permitted

Earthworks

Erosion and sedimentation (for example, from construction of roads and infrastructure).

Permitted (subject to conditions) [Rule 7]

Non-compliance – RDA [Rule 8]

Forest Quarrying

Similar to effects from earthworks, impacts on cultural sites, over burden disposal.

Permitted (subject to conditions) [Rule 7]

Non-compliance – RDA [Rule 8]

River Crossings

Erosion and sedimentation, restricting or preventing fish passage bed erosion, accumulation of debris, damage to structures during flooding.

Permitted:

-       Use of existing structures [Rule 63]

-       Maintenance (subject to conditions) [Rule 64].

-       Removal/demolition (subject to conditions) [Rule 66]

-       Dams/weirs etc (subject to conditions) [Rule67]

-       Catch-all for non-specific structures in river/lake beds (subject to conditions) [Rule 72]

-       Small –scale bed disturbance (subject to conditions) [Rule75]

Discretionary:

-       Structures affecting river control and drainage schemes [Rule 71]

-       Non-compliance with conditions [Rule 69]

Pruning and thinning to waste

Usually minor environmental effects, effect on and in water bodies if debris not appropriately managed.

Unregulated – Permitted

Harvesting

Discharge of slash and sediment onto land and into water, soil disturbance and erosion, riparian vegetation disturbance.

Permitted (subject to conditions) [Rule 7]

Non-compliance – RDA [Rule 8]

Replanting

Similar to effects for afforestation, although likely to be less impact from earthworks in second generation forestry because of pre-existing infrastructure.

Unregulated – Permitted

 

A National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF)

53.    On 17th June 2015, the Ministry for Primary Industries released a discussion document containing a draft NES-PF.  Submissions on the draft NES-PF closed on 11th August 2015.

54.    The discussion document proposed an NES-PF to cover the whole plantation forest cycle and included draft activity-specific rules that are intended to provide certainty for local authorities, forest owners and communities.

55.    The draft 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).

56.    Forestry requires a long term view so needs stability. One of the primary goals of the NES-PF was to standardise and stabilise the legislative framework to help forestry flourish.  Currently in the life of a tree there are 10 central government and local body elections cycles and potentially numerous modifications to the RMA.  In order to commit to trees, there needs to be certainty.  An NES–PF would assist the establishment and harvest of trees.

57.    The NES-PF should be considered in the wider legislative landscape.  If the council wants more forests then the message should be one of support.  In discussion with Brett Gilmore, the Chair of the Hawke's Bay Forestry Group, the NES-PF means more hurdles for those wishing to invest in forestry over other land uses because of the potential consent requirements for hill country forestry development.  The HBFG’s view was all primary sectors should have similar base rules. If the NES-PF does eventuate, then the requirements for forestry should be mirrored for other sectors to maintain parity or equity.

58.    Council broadly supported the intent of the draft NES-PF but made specific comments on how the draft NES-PF relies heavily on the preparation and monitoring of various plans for different activities without providing councils with an ability to assess whether such plans adequately address the risks and to not approve them where they don’t.

59.    Furthermore, the Councils submission considered the overall strategic implications of the draft NES-PF in a regional context.  While the intent of the draft NES-PF was supported, the operational aspects were found to require more consideration.  In general, the Council made comments on the following themes:

59.1.    National consistency

59.2.    Erosion Susceptibility Classification

59.3.    Erosion and Sediment Control Plans

59.4.    Genetically modified tree stock

59.5.    National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management implementation.

Case Study – Kopuawhara

60.    During the 23 May 2015 a rain fall event in the Wharerata Ranges in the Gisborne District, recorded rainfall of 105mm in 24 hours and 52mm across two hours – a 1:20 year event.  Large amounts windblown pines, forestry slash, other woody debris and sediment were mobilised ending up on the Kopuawhara flats, and on the nearby beaches resulting in significant impacts on infrastructure and social structures within the Hawke’s Bay region.

61.    The Gisborne District Council requires forestry companies to apply for resource consent for harvesting of plantation forests.  Depending of the type of land to be harvested (based on a land overlay rating) the activity status ranges from controlled to discretionary for non-compliance with conditions.

62.    As part of the post event monitoring, Gisborne District Council staff looked at compliance with resource consents issued for forestry activities in the source catchment and found that in the affected areas, compliance in relation to the resource consents had been good and industry best practice followed.

63.    J & L limited (the forest owner) has since agreed to fund the cleanup in the Hawke’s Bay region from the rain event that caused damage at Kopuawhara.

Case Study - Mission Estate Harvest

64.    This is an example of a complex logging operation that was undertaken successfully and showed exemplary forestry practices. 

65.    22,000 tonnes from 46 hectares was harvested without any public complaints despite being on Napier’s urban fringe.  The logging was undertaken by DG Glenn contracted to Pan Pac. The level of planning and operational compliance with the plan were critical success factors. 

66.    Pan Pac understood the on and off-site risks and planned accordingly. Factors incorporated included managing harvesting around: archaeological sites, power lines, boundary fencing, neighbours (noise, safety and hours of work), general public, traffic control and urban roads. There was also a strong emphasis on aesthetics. Roads and tracks were designed to be out of the city’s view shed, and the harvest method was designed to be low impact with the aim that in 6 months the site would look like a farmland.

Decision Making Process

67.    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 notes the “Forestry Policy Issues” report.

 

 

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

James Powrie

Land Services Advisor

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

SUBJECT: September 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 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 ‘September 2015 Resource Management Planning Projects Update’ report.

 

 

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1

Resource Management Planning Update as at 1 September

 

 

  


Resource Management Planning Update as at 1 September

Attachment 1

 

ATTACHMENT 1 - Resource Management plan Change Status Report    as at 1 September 2015

Current Project

Performance Target as per
2015-25 Long Term Plan

Update

Regional Coastal Environment Plan (‘RCEP’)

2015-17, prepare and complete Coastal Hazards Management Strategy for coastline between Tangoio and Clifton
(see Project 322).  Coastal Hazard Management Strategy (Phase1) to be adopted by Council by June 2016.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Management Strategy project has commenced.  Joint Committee of representatives from NapierCC, HastingsDC, HBRC and iwi has been formed and project work programme is underway with support from a consultant project manager and a Technical Advisory Group (‘TAG’).  Website dedicated to the project has also been established: www.hbhazards.co.nz.

Implementation of, and reporting on, NPS for Freshwater Management (‘NPSFM’)

2015-16, Adopt and notify progressive implementation plan for 2014 NPSFM.

Each year, prepare report on implementation of NPSFM

Following adoption of 2015-25 Long Term Plan, current progressive implementation programme (previously adopted in 2011) is being revised.  Revised draft Progressive Implementation Programme will be presented to Regional Planning Committee at 4th November meeting.

Report on NPSFM implementation activities during 2014-15 report was circulated to RPC members (by email due to cancellation of July RPC meeting) for feedback before being presented to Council meeting on 26 August 2015 as part of the Council’s full draft Annual Report for the 2014-15 period.

‘Change 6’ to RRMP
(Tukituki River Catchment)

No target stated in 2015-25 LTP.

Proposed Change 6 was part of the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ for which a Board of Inquiry has now issued its Final Decisions on PC6 and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme consents.  Council adopted PC6 on 26 August and PC^ will become operative from 1 October 2015.  Meanwhile, work continues across many HBRC teams on developing PC6 Implementation Plan (refer separate item on RPC Agenda for 16 Sept meeting).

Greater Heretaunga/ Ahuriri catchment area plan change
(a.k.a. ‘TANK’ project)

December 2017, plan change for Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchment area adopted for public notification.

Under preparation.  Not yet notified.

TANK Group meetings #16 and #17 held on 30th June and 1st September respectively.  Discussions briefly recapped identification of freshwater values and HBRC’s other resource management policy initiatives.  Small group sessions also discussed potentially suitable objectives, indicators and policy options focussing on the Ngaruroro River catchment.

The next meeting (tentatively 20th October) will further refine those objectives, indicators and policy options for the Ngaruroro catchment.

Taharua/Mohaka Catchment plan change

December 2017, plan change for Mohaka River catchment adopted for public notification.

A Mohaka catchment ‘characterisation report’ is nearing completion.  The Characterisation report documents what HBRC knows about the catchment’s climate, geo-physical characteristics, land use, water use and several other matters.  Previously, a draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan was prepared and received in-principle agreement from the Regional Planning Committee in February.  The ‘Mohaka Consultation Group’ is yet to be formed and Terms of Reference drafted.


 

Current Project

Performance Target as per
2015-25 Long Term Plan

Update

Outstanding freshwater bodies plan change

July 2016, notify change for outstanding freshwater bodies

Funding contracts (upto $80,000 from MfE) now completed and signed between HBRC and MfE for development of national criteria on ‘outstanding-ness’. A work programme has also been agreed between MfE and HBRC.  Consultant procurement is near complete to run and coordinate the project because existing planning staff resources have insufficient capacity. The Project’s work programme extends to May 2016 for delivery of all criteria and methodology outputs before Hawke's Bay-specific plan change preparation likely to commence.

Oil and gas policy development

2015-16

1. complete report on effectiveness of the RRMP and RCEP in relation to managing the effects of oil and gas exploration and development

2. Complete a report for RPC to consider whether a limited scope regional plan change is necessary and appropriate to address any relevant recommendations from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s June 2014 report ‘Drilling for oil and gas in NZ: environmental oversight and regulation.’

A consultant has been engaged to undertake the plan effectiveness assessment and reporting.  Staff do not intend presenting a report to the RPC on necessity for a ‘limited scope’ plan change until the plan effectiveness reporting is completed.

Meanwhile, a separate and broader ‘Energy Futures’ community engagement initiative continues.

Senior planning staff continue to engage with representatives of MfE and MBIE on petroleum exploration and development issues.

Statutory Acknowledgements of Treaty settlements

n/a

No further update since 1 May report.

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 2015

SUBJECT: May-September 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 20 May and 8 September 2015.

2.      The Statutory Advocacy project (Project 192) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission.  These include, but are not limited to:

2.1.      resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2.      district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3.      private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4.      notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5.      non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3.      In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent.  In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4.      The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5.      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 May-September 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update report.

 

 

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

 Attachment/s

1

Statutory Advocacy Update as at 16 September

 

 

2

Statutory Advocacy Map

 

 

  


Statutory Advocacy Update as at 16 September

Attachment 1

 

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 8 September 2015)

Received

TLA

Map Ref

Activity

Applicant/ Agency

Status

Current Situation

23 October 2014

HDC

1

Resource Consent Application

Consent is sought to subdivide part of the property at 996 State Highway 2, Whirinaki into 15 residential sites.

Applicant

The Evans Family Trust

 

Agent

Cardno

HDC decision issued, subject to appeal

 

8 September 2015

·  HBRC has been granted a joint hearing of the appeal and any district plan appeal by the Environment Court.  Tentative hearing date has been set for November 2015.

10 August 2015

·  HDC held a hearing on 15th December 2014 and HDC issued its decision on 19th January 2015.  HDC decided to grant consent subject to various conditions and consequently declined HBRC’s submission.

·  HBRC lodged an appeal to the Environment Court against the HDC decision on 12th February 2015.  Environment Court assisted mediation took place on 3rd July 2015 with each party maintaining its position. 

·  HBRC’s submission and subsequent appeal opposes the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy.  The precedent of HDC’s decision is also a concern.  A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions

5 December 2013

NCC

2

Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan.

A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.

NCC

Notified

NCC decisions issued

8 September 2015

·   NCC issued decisions on PC10 on the 24th June 2015.  Council staff have reviewed the decisions and are satisfied that HBRC’s submission has been appropriately reflected in changes to the District Plan.

·   Appeals have been lodged by Surveying the Bay Ltd and the NZ Transport Agency.  HBRC has joined as a party to the appeal by Surveying the Bay as it potentially raises issues about implementation of the Regional Policy Statement (esp. Chapter 3.1B) and the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy regarding subdivisions in rural areas.

9 June 2015

·   NCC held a hearing on 23rd March 2015.  HBRC appeared at the hearing in support of its submission.  The HBRC’s original submission can be found at HBRC Submissions

8 November 2013

HDC

3

Proposed Hastings District Plan

Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety.  Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.

HDC

Notified

HDC hearings completed

8 September 2015

·   HDC has completed hearings and is expected to issue decisions in mid-September.

9 June 2015

·  HDC held hearings on a topic by topic basis.  The HBRC Submission and Further Submission on the HDC Plan Review can be found here HBRC Submissions http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC Document Library/20140214 Submission HDC District Plan.pdf

1 August 2013

NA

4

Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)

Notified

High Court hearing pending

10 August 2015

·  The Applicant has asked the High Court to ‘park’ the proceedings while Rongomaiwahine iwi attempt to enter into direct negotiations with the Miniter of Treaty Settlements.  Crown Counsel have indicated that the direct negotiations pathway will take at least until early 2016 to determine it the iwi can negotiate directly with the Minister.

·  Originally, Council opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought.  Submissions were also made by the Crown and Gisborne District Council, both seeking clearer specificity of the scope and nature of the orders being applied for.

 


Statutory Advocacy Map

Attachment 2

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 16 September 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] Ngai Tuhoe has chose not to appoint a member to the Committee at this time, although they have the right to at any time.  Once the Regional Planning Committee is passed He Toa Takitini will have the ability to appoint a second member to the Committee bringing the total number of appointees to 18.

[2]     Activities generally include seismic surveys, sampling, aeromagnetic surveys, geological mapping, geochemical surveys, geophysical surveys, compiling reports and analysing data, and exploratory drilling (which is not the same as petroleum production).

[3]     Activities can also occur if they can comply with a relevant National Environmental Standard, but in this case there are none likely to apply.  The Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 may also apply to ships and offshore installations in the coastal marine area.

[4]     This summary is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible consent requirements, nor details of every rule and associated conditions. The purpose is to provide an outline of the likely consents required based on HBRC’s understanding of exploration activities. Final consent requirements will be determined once applications are lodged.

[5]     Table 1 is an indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore exploration within the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area (i.e. between mean high water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit).  Rules in the HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan would apply to any offshore exploration activities in the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area.  The proposed Offshore Pegasus Block Offer 2016 area appears to be largely beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

[6]     Letters in square brackets refers to classification of activity in each rule as follows: [P] permitted; [C] controlled; [RD] restricted discretionary; [D] discretionary; [NC] non-complying; and [Pr] prohibited.

[7]     See, inter alia, Chapter 6 of HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan - explanations and reasons for objectives and policies.