Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 3 February 2016

Time: 9:30am Tangata Whenua Representatives Hui

10:45am Morning Tea

11:00 am 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 4 November 2015

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

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

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 11

Decision Items

7. Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Science Investigations 13

8. Ngaruroro River and Clive River Water Conservation Order Application 21

9. Future of the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri (TANK) Collaborative Stakeholder Group 27

10. Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro Catchments – Nutrient Limitation of Algal Growth 69

11. Karamu Catchment – Ecological Health of Lowland Streams 75

12. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 83

13. Marine Protected Areas Consultation Document 99

Information or Performance Monitoring

14. 12.00pm Verbal Presentation of NKII Perspectives on RRMP Change 5

15. February 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update 103

16. November 2015 - January 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update 107

17. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 119

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

Follow Ups Feb 2016 Att 1

Attachment 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

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”.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Follow Ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

Follow-ups from previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

Meeting held 4 November 2015

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1.	Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal	Email Committee members part 9 of the RMA	L Lambert	Circulated via email 30/11/15 (attached following)
2.	Matters Arising from 20 May meeting	Committee members requested invitation be extended to Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated to attend RPC meeting to give present NKII’s reasons for taking legal action against HBRC’s Change 5 decisions	L Lambert	Presentation scheduled at 3 February RPC meeting
3.	Minor Items not on the agenda	Provide an update on progress with the appointment of a permanent Maori rep on the HB Tourism Board	Cr Pipe/ L Lambert	February RPC meeting

Meeting held 16 September 2015

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
4.	Clean Air Compliance Strategy	staff to investigate the efficacy of a ‘no visible smoke’ rule	I Maxwell	Work on this is ongoing and will be reported to a future meeting

Meeting held 20 May 2015

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
5	Water Quantity Allocation Policy and Consenting Processes	Workshop for RPC members to be held	L Lambert/ I Maxwell	Staff and committee workloads and recent environmental incidents have prevented this being completed. It will be moved to the April meeting slot

Ref follow-up 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Science Investigations

Reason for Report

1. At the Regional Council Meeting on 25 November 2015, Council received a report on “Heretaunga Aquifer Investigations” and resolved to “instruct staff to bring before Council multiple options for further research including a deep well drilling programme”.

2. This report discusses options for further research including a deep well drilling programme and the estimated costs and potential benefits of each option. These options are provided to enable Council to decide how it wishes to proceed.

Background

3. Deep drilling investigations and geophysical investigations have confirmed the previously-developed conceptual model that the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system is a multi-layered, hydraulically interconnected alluvial aquifer. Staff advised at the November 2015 Council meeting that drilling additional deep exploration bores may provide additional information to improve understanding of the aquifer resource and groundwater modelling.

4. Staff also advised Council that it was not necessary to further explore deeper parts of the aquifer at present, because existing use of the aquifer is focused on the upper units of the system. In addition, the groundwater model did not need further detailed information from deeper parts of the aquifer system, because it is unlikely to improve the accuracy of the model, nor the quality of analysis. However, if the deeper parts of the aquifer are targeted for groundwater use in future, deep drilling and pumping tests are likely to be required to improve the accuracy of model predictions in this domain. Staff noted that although more information is useful for improved scientific understanding, this comes at a cost.

Deep Groundwater Investigation Options

5. In developing the options outlined in this report, staff have obtained information on costs and advice on appropriate methods from GNS Science and from local well drillers. These options have been independently peer-reviewed by an international groundwater expert.

6. For the purposes of developing the programme it has been assumed that the lower boundary of the aquifer system is nominally 300 m deep. This is based on existing petroleum drilling and interpretation of the geological structure from previous studies. In reality, some parts of the aquifer lower boundary may be deeper or shallower.

7. A range of options for further research were considered, including those designed to provide a minimal amount of new information, through to options providing significantly increased levels of information. The following options were examined:

7.1. Option 1 - Drilling 3 deep bores in the Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer area.

7.2. Option 2 - Drilling 3 deep bores in the Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer area and reinterpretation of existing geophysics data.

7.3. Option 2A - Drilling 3 deep bores in Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer area and collection of new geophysics data.

7.4. Option 3 - Drilling deep bores and new geophysics data collection over the full extent of the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System.

7.5. Option 4 - Drilling Deep Bores over the full extent of the Heretaunga Plains System.

Option 1 - Drilling 3 Deep Bores - Heretaunga Plains Unconfined Aquifer Area

8. This option aims to find potential deep water-bearing gravels and to determine the depth of any productive aquifer unit at three locations within the unconfined aquifer area. This option is similar to an approach suggested by a local well drilling company.

9. The scope for Option 1 includes:

9.1. Drilling 3 deep bores, nominally to 300 m, in the unconfined part of the Heretaunga aquifer

9.2. Conducting pumping tests to assess:

9.2.1. the productive capacity of potential deep aquifer units

9.2.2. the hydraulic interaction between shallow and deep aquifer units, and interactions with surface water

9.3. Collecting water quality data and analysis to inform potential use and to assess interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units

9.4. Collecting isotope tracer information and analysis to inform the geological conceptual model and to confirm the assessment of interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units.

Potential Benefits and Limitations and Risks

10. This option only provides information at 3 locations within the unconfined aquifer units. Given the spatial variability of Heretaunga aquifer units already observed, this low number of bores will not provide sufficient information to be confident about conditions even a hundred metres laterally from the observation bores.

11. Previous deep drilling in the unconfined aquifer at Hill Road Twyford has encountered low (‘brackish’) water quality, so it is feasible that the new bores may also intercept brackish water.

Option 1 Estimated Costs

Item	Cost
Investigative Drilling	$ 1,050,000
Bore drilling for pump tests	$ 750,000
Pump tests	$ 16,000
Pumping data interpretation	$ 10,000
Water quality and tracer testing	$ 3,600
Project and contract management	$ 30,000
Geological logging and reporting	$ 15,000
Overall technical interpretation and reporting	$ 30,000
Total Cost	$ 1,904,600

Timeframe

12. This option could be practically undertaken and reported within 1.5 years, but this is dependent upon the availability of equipment, contractors and consultants. This timeframe also assumes that existing staff resources are redeployed from existing committed work programmes to provide project oversight and that consultants are used to project management the investigation programme. If existing work programmes continue together with Option 1, then additional staff resources will be required, which is not included in the costings.

13. If existing staff are used to fully project manage this option whilst maintaining existing work programmes, then this timeframe would need to be extended into a 3 year work programme and will require additional science staff to maintain existing work programmes. Additional science resources are not included in the costings.

Option 2 - Drilling 3 Deep Bores - Unconfined Aquifer Area and Reinterpretation of Existing Geophysics Data

14. This is similar to Option 1, but drill-hole information will also be used to re-interpret existing geophysical data that has been collected for the unconfined aquifer area during previous investigations. Geophysical data collected for the unconfined aquifer area has not yet been confirmed with a high degree of certainty with borehole log information, largely because of the variable nature of the multi-layered depositional environment.

15. The scope for Option 2 includes:

15.1. Drilling 3 deep bores nominally to 300 m across the unconfined part of the Heretaunga aquifer

15.2. Conducting pumping tests to assess:

15.2.1. the productive capacity of potential deep aquifer units

15.2.2. the interaction between shallow and deep aquifer units and interactions with surface water

15.3. Collecting water quality data and analysis to inform potential use and to assess interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units

15.4. Collecting isotope tracer information and analysis to inform geological conceptualisation and to confirm assessment of interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units

15.5. Interpreting geophysics data to delineate potential deep productive aquifer units or to prioritise/target collection of new geophysics data

15.6. Option 2A - would include Transient Electromagnetic (TEM) and seismic reflection data.

Potential Benefits and Limitations

16. This option would provide a higher degree of certainty on the nature and extent of potential deep productive zones within the unconfined aquifer, and help delineate more accurately the boundary of the unconfined aquifer area.

17. Although this option is likely to provide a higher level of spatial certainty, the existing geophysical data may not be of suitable quality or sufficient quantity. Additional geophysical data may be needed (Option 2A), which would increase the costs for this option by 55%.

Option 2 Estimated Costs

Item	Cost
Investigative Drilling	$ 1,050,000
Bore drilling for pumping tests	$ 750,000
Pump tests	$ 16,000
Pumping data interpretation and reporting	$ 10,000
Water quality and tracer testing	$ 3,600
Project and contract management	$ 30,000
Geological logging and reporting	$ 15,000
Interpretation of existing geophysics and reporting	$ 30,000
Overall technical interpretation and reporting	$ 30,000
Total	$ 1,934,600

Option 2A – Option 2 with new geophysics data – Estimated Costs

Item	Costs
Investigative Drilling	$ 1,050,000
Bore drilling for pumping tests	$ 750,000
Pumping tests	$ 16,000
Pumping test data & reporting	$ 10,000
Water quality and tracer testing	$ 3,600
Project and contract management	$ 30,000
Geological logging and reporting	$ 15,000
Geophysics – Transient Electromagnetic (TEM)	$ 400,000
Geophysics - Seismic	$ 558,000
Overall technical interpretation and reporting	$ 30,000
Total Cost	$ 2,862,600

Timeframes

18. Option 2 could be undertaken and reported within 1.5 years, but this is dependent upon the availability of equipment, contractors and consultants. The additional geophysics for Option 2A would require an additional 1.5 years, for a total of an additional 3 years. These timeframes assume that existing staff resources are redeployed from existing committed work programmes to provide project oversight and that consultant’s project manage the investigation programme. If existing work continues under Option 2 and 2A, additional staff resources will be required, which are not included in the costings.

19. If existing staff are used to fully project manage this investigation option whilst maintaining existing work programmes, then this timeframe would need to be extended into a 3 year work programme, and it would require additional science staff resourcing to maintain existing work programmes. Option 2A would require an additional 1.5 years so 4.5 years in total.

Option 3 - Drilling Deep Bores & Geophysics Data Acquisition - Full Extent of Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System

20. Option 3 is designed to explore the full extent of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system using a combination of drilling and capturing new geophysical data to delineate the extent of the aquifer system boundary with the hard rock "basement" and to delineate the spatial extent of any potential productive water-bearing gravels that may be found at depth.

21. The scope of Option 3 includes:

21.1. Drilling 10 deep bores nominally to 300 m throughout the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system, including in both the unconfined and semiconfined aquifer components.

21.2. Collection of geophysical data. This would include Transient Electromagnetic (TEM) and seismic reflection data.

21.3. Interpreting geophysical data to delineate potential deep productive aquifer units

21.4. Conducting pumping tests to assess:

21.4.1. the productive capacity of potential deep productive units

21.4.2. the interaction between shallow and deep aquifer units and interactions with surface water

22. Collecting water quality data and analysis to inform potential use and to assess interaction between deep and shallow aquifer units

23. Collecting isotope tracer information and analysis to inform geological conceptualisation, and to confirm the assessment of interaction between deep and shallow aquifer units.

Potential Benefits and/or Limitations

24. Option 3 improves certainty about the nature and extent of any productive water-bearing units that maybe found at depth. It also delineates the boundary of unconsolidated water-bearing sediments with the underlying hard rock. This option also provides a higher level of detail on where potential water-bearing units might exist.

Option 3 Estimated Costs

Item	Cost
Investigative drilling	$ 3,500,000
Bore drilling for pumping tests	$ 2,500,000
Pump tests	$ 160,000
Pumping data interpretation and reporting	$ 30,000
Water quality and tracer testing	$ 12,000
Project and contract management	$ 40,000
Geological logging and reporting	$ 45,000
Overall technical interpretation and reporting	$ 60,000
Geophysical data capture	$ 1,670,000
Total	$ 8,017,000

Timeframes

25. The timeframe that this option could be practically undertaken and reported is estimated to be 3 years, but is dependent upon the availability of equipment, contractors and consultants. This timeframe also assumes that existing staff resources are redeployed from existing committed work programmes to provide project oversight and that consultants are used to project manage the investigation programme. If existing staff are used to project manage investigation options whilst maintaining existing work programmes then this timeframe would be extended into a 5 year work programme and require additional science staff resourcing to maintain existing work programmes.

Option 4 - Drilling Deep Bores - Full Spatial Extent of the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System

26. This option is designed to explore the full extent of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system to identify the productive deep aquifer system boundary with hard rock "basement" and identify potential deep water-bearing gravel units that maybe found at depth by using only drilling. This would require at least 30 bores drilled throughout Heretaunga Plains aquifer system including the unconfined and semiconfined aquifers.

27. The scope of Option 4 includes:

27.1. Drilling at least 30 deep bores nominally to 300 metres in depth located at sites throughout Heretaunga Plains aquifer system

27.2. Conducting pumping tests to assess:

27.2.1. the productive capacity of potential deep productive units

27.2.2. the interaction between shallow and deep productive aquifer units and interactions with surface water

28. Collecting water quality data and analysis to inform potential beneficial use and assess interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units

29. Collecting isotope tracer information and analysis to inform geological conceptualisation and to confirm assessment of interaction between the deep and shallow aquifer units.

Potential Benefits and/or Limitations

30. This option would provide a low to moderate improvement in certainty on the nature and extent of any productive water-bearing units that maybe found at depth. It will also delineate the boundary of the unconsolidated water-bearing sediments with the hard rock basement. It will not identify the spatial extent of potential water-bearing units because there will no data between drilling locations.

Option 4 Estimated Costs

Item	Cost
Investigative drilling	$ 10,500,000
Bore drilling for pumping tests	$ 7,500,000
Pumping tests	$ 480,000
Pumping data interpretation and reporting	$ 30,000
Water quality and tracer testing	$ 36,000
Project and contract management	$ 40,000
Geological logging and reporting	$ 45,000
Overall technical interpretation and reporting	$ 60,000
Total	$ 18,691,000

Timeframes

31. The timeframe that this option could be practically undertaken and reported is estimated to be 5 years, but is dependent upon the availability of equipment, contractors and consultants. This timeframe also assumes that existing staff resources are redeployed from existing committed work programmes to provide project oversite and that consultants are used to project manage the investigation programme. If existing staff are used to project manage investigation options whilst maintaining existing work programmes, then this timeframe would need to be extended into a 7 year work programme and require additional science staff resourcing to maintain existing work programmes.

Discussion and Conclusions

32. Staff have prepared 4 options for assessing the potential deep aquifer resource and to improve delineation of the extent of the productive aquifer boundary.

33. Options 1 and 2 are restricted spatially to the unconfined/semiconfined aquifer in the Roys Hill, Bridge Pa and Twyford areas.

34. Option 2 would provide a substantial improvement in spatial certainty over Option 1 for a modest increase in cost (over the costs of Option 1), assuming the existing geophysics data is of suitable quality and quantity to be used to correlate with any new drill log data.

35. Both Options 1 and 2 have been designed to provide specific information that would be of benefit for:

35.1. assessing alternative productive zones within the unconfined-semiconfined aquifer at depth; and

35.2. improving the certainty associated with numerical model predictions at depth if abstraction from a deeper aquifer occurred in the future.

36. Options 3 and 4 are designed to explore the full spatial extent of the Heretaunga aquifer and would improve certainty about the function of its deeper zones.

37. Option 3 is considered to have the greater benefit for expended cost, compared to Option 4. Option 3 provides higher spatial resolution because it uses a combination of geophysics and drilling methods, whereas Option 4 only uses drilling, which would require at least a 3-fold increase in the number of bores to be drilled to achieve even a modest level of certainty. This is because drilling only provides geological information at each location, whereas geophysical information essentially ‘fills the gaps’ between drilling sites, requiring fewer drill holes.

38. However, Option 4 is likely to cost more than twice as much as Option 3, with a lower level of benefit.

39. Options 3 and 4 would provide more information on the function of deeper parts of both the confined and unconfined areas of the aquifer system and improve model confidence.

40. Options 3 and 4 would have limited benefit for understanding stream depletion, because most of the investigation would target the confined aquifer, which is not connected to surface streams.

41. Option 2 or Option 2A have a high risk that a useful resource would not be found based on available information that has been gathered to date. For example a 120 m deep bore drilled in the unconfined aquifer at Hill Road found brackish water of very poor quality at depth.

42. The view has been expressed by others that deeper aquifer units may provide an alternative supply of groundwater, for situations when use of the unconfined/semi-confined aquifer is restricted. This suggestion by others is based on the concept that existing restrictions on groundwater use are only necessary because these aquifer units are well-connected to springs, streams and the Ngaruroro River: The suggestion made by others is that these restrictions may be reduced if groundwater is instead sourced from deeper units that do not affect surface water bodies.

43. However, although using deep groundwater in the unconfined aquifer will initially reduce impacts on surface water, eventually the hydrological capture zone of the groundwater will extend to include surface water bodies. Pumping from the deeper aquifer units will then affect the surface water bodies.

44. In the longer term there is likely to be merit in exploring specific areas of the deeper aquifer system as the need arises.

45. Proceeding with a major variation in the investigation programme would require a substantial increase in capital and operational budgets. This will also require additional staff resources and/or deferring or cancelling existing programmes of work.

Financial Implications

All 4 options outlined here for investigation of deep aquifer units would require a significant increase in CAPEX and operational expenditure. The options are costed in the table below. Note that additional staff costs are not included in the cost estimates.

Option	Cost	Timeframe	Staff implications
1	$1.90 M	1.5 years 3 years	Redeploy staff Additional staff
2	$1.93 M	1.5 years 3 years	Redeploy staff Additional staff
2A	$2.86 M	3 years 4.5 years	Redeploy staff Additional staff
3	$8.02 M	3 years 5 years	Redeploy staff Additional staff
4	$18.69 M	5 years 7 years	Redeploy staff Additional staff

46. These are estimated costs based on information provided by local well drillers and geophysical costs supplied by GNS Science and their contractors. Full proposals would be required to provide a more definitive cost, including full staff costs, and a contingency provision.

47. If new bores were drilled into the deep aquifer there would be further costs for data capture required for the longer term monitoring and reporting on any new productive zones that maybe found. Depending on the option, this is likely to require further additional staff and equipment resources.

48. The scope of these proposed options does not take into account the impact on rating or Section 36 charges.

Decision Making Process

49. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

49.1. The decision may significantly alter service provisions, depending on which option Council decides to pursue.

49.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation, however consultation through the Annual Plan process may be required if the option chosen varies materially from existing Long Term Plan budgets and service levels.

49.3. The decision falls within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

49.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers of the Region, and water users subject to Section 36 charges.

49.5. Options for Council to consider are detailed in the contents of the report.

49.6. The decision may be inconsistent with the existing Long Term Plan.

49.7. 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 may need to consult directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Science Investigations” report.

2. That the Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council may need to consult directly with the community about these matters.

2.2. Agrees to pursue the option recommended by the Regional Planning Committee.

Dougall Gordon

Principal Scientist,
Groundwater

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Ngaruroro River and Clive River Water Conservation Order Application

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is twofold. Firstly to inform the Committee about a Water Conservation Order application (WCO) for the Ngaruroro River. Secondly to seek a Committee recommendation in relation this application.

2. The Regional Planning Committee meeting on 4th November 2015 received a presentation from Mr Bryce Johnson (NZ Fish and Game Council) and Greg Carlyon (Catalyst Group) about a proposed application for a Water Conservation Order on behalf of several parties.

3. Since the last Committee meeting, the application has been lodged with the Ministry for the Environment. This report focusses on the procedural and resource implications for land and water planning already underway in Hawke’s Bay and its impact on existing Council commitments and processes.

4. This report does not attempt to evaluate or critique the contents of the WCO application.

Form and Scope of the Water Conservation Order (WCO) Application

5. The applicants for this WCO are:

5.1. New Zealand Fish and Game Council

5.2. Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council

5.3. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand

5.4. Jet Boating New Zealand

5.5. White-water NZ Incorporated

5.6. Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki.

6. That application applies to the management of the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers, their tributaries and their connected groundwater, specifically;

6.1. The mainstem of the Ngaruroro River and all of its tributaries and contributing waters (including hydraulically connected groundwater’s and wetlands), to the coastal marine area

6.2. The mainstem of the Clive River from the Raupare Stream confluence to the coastal marine area.

7. The WCO applicants are seeking a range of provisions for these rivers including;

7.1. The preservation of the Upper Ngaruroro Waters in their natural state, by:

7.1.1. Retaining the quality, quantity, level and rate of flow of the Upper Ngaruroro Waters in their natural state

7.1.2. Preventing any damming or further takes or diversion, direct and indirect discharges including those arising from certain types of land use intensification.

7.2. Preservation of the Lower Ngaruroro River in its current modified state by:

7.2.1. Preventing any damming of the mainstem of the Ngaruroro River. (But not damming of the tributaries)

7.2.2. Preventing any contraction of the active floodplain width of the braided reach (Whanawhana cableway to Fernhill)

7.2.3. Preventing any new water takes during times of low river flow.

7.2.4. Retention of the current water allocation regime through the lower river (including connected groundwater’s), for existing users, for as long as this proves to be sufficient to protect the identified outstanding values.

7.2.5. Preventing any further direct and indirect discharges to water

7.2.6. Preventing the direct and indirect discharges of contaminants including those associated with certain types of land use intensification.

7.3. The application provides recommended numeric water quality limits for the Upper and Lower Ngaruroro Waters and minimum fish screen requirements for surface water takes.

7.4. Preservation of the Clive River in its current modified state by:

7.4.1. Preventing any new water takes in excess of the current allocation

7.4.2. Preventing any further direct discharges to water

7.4.3. Preventing degradation of the water quality of the Clive River as a result of direct and indirect discharges of contaminants associated with land use intensification and runoff from industrial complexes,

8. A WCO can specify restrictions or prohibitions that affect how a regional plan sets limits on water quantity and quality including flow and level of the water body. It can relate also to maximum allocation for abstraction or contaminant loading. A WCO’s scope is somewhat narrower than what could be considered in a regional plan as a regional plan can also consider land use rules to manage water quality as well as integrated water management across connected water bodies.

WCO Process

9. The Minister can either accept or reject the application. The application may also be returned to the applicant where the Minister has identified a need for further information.

10. If the Minister accepts the application, then the Minister appoints a Special Tribunal as soon as practicable to manage the process including public notification, submissions and hearings. Decisions by the Tribunal can be appealed to the Environment Court.

11. The Council’s role in WCO processes is as a submitter with no decision making role. The Regional Council has a right to be heard by the Special Tribunal at any hearing. It gets no special privileges over any other party arising from its functions and duties as the relevant regional council, or its role in implementing the Order if approved.

12. The WCO process follows a more traditional adversarial format with the Tribunal notifying the proposal, calling for submissions then conducting a hearing. The Tribunal makes a recommendation to the Minister about the Order.

13. In comparison, the Council’s TANK plan change process involving the TANK group is a structured and more collaborative decision making process aimed at involving stakeholders in understanding the resource and developing the appropriate limits and management regime collectively. The TANK group makes its recommendations to the RPC for consideration and development into regional plan provisions. All aspects of the water management provisions may not be resolved, but the areas of contestability can be significantly reduced by this process.

WCO Process Implications - Council

14. Any Water Conservation Order process for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers will significantly impact on the TANK process and the Council’s involvement in water management planning for these rivers, as well as the connected groundwater’s and adjacent rivers of the Heretaunga Plains.

15. A WCO process poses a significant risk to the roles and responsibilities of this Regional Planning Committee itself.

16. The HBRC and RPC have little direct influence over how a WCO application is managed as the RMA allows anyone to apply for a WCO and decisions about WCOs are in the hands of the Minister.

17. Given that the WCO process is managed by the Minister for the Environment and a Special Tribunal, it will potentially override the mana of the only recently constituted Regional Planning Committee and its current efforts to develop planning leadership of natural resources in the region.

18. The WCO process would also likely divert the Council’s efforts in progressively implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM2014) before December 2025.

19. The Ministry for the Environment has requested the Council to provide it with its views on the WCO application in light of existing Council commitments in relation to all these initiatives.

WCO Process Implications - Community

20. A WCO process will also directly intersect with and duplicate aspects of the community based TANK process and related stakeholder engagement plans the Council has been involved in.

21. It will create additional effort and cost for any party interested in management of these water bodies.

22. A significant risk is that, should a WCO process be initiated, members of the TANK group may consider further effort in the TANK group process is no longer worthwhile as any decisions or recommendations it makes risk being overturned by the WCO process. (Note that the WCO only covers part of the TANK catchment area).

23. A WCO process alongside a community based TANK process is likely to create significant community confusion, risk diversion of resources from already commenced TANK plan change processes, including the Council’s science programme and affect any already established stakeholder relationships that have developed through the more collaborative TANK group process.

24. An issue of concern is that several of the WCO applicant groups are also represented by local members of the TANK group, and this application is potentially creating risk to the role of the local stakeholder representatives in the TANK group. This is particularly relevant to the Fish and Game Council and Forest and Bird Society (Hastings and Napier branches) and Ngati hori ki Kohupatiki who currently have membership in the TANK Group.

25. The WCO establishes a water management position for some stakeholders that is apparently non-negotiable for the relevant parties within the TANK process as it is to be resolved by a separate process. Further consensus decision making by the local TANK members on these aspects likely becomes increasingly challenging under these conditions.

26. Of further concern is the tension between local involvement in water management decisions making and the influence of national lobby groups. Applications such as this may reflect a wider dissatisfaction with water management across NZ and a resultant undermining of local processes.

WCOs and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

27. There is unresolved tension between the scope, purpose and provisions of a WCO, and aspects of the more recent NPSFM2014.

28. A WCO can only consider a limited range of instream values and management responses, while the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) requires protection of (all) the significant values of outstanding water bodies and integrated management of the land and the water.

29. In addition, the WCO has a more enduring effect than a regional plan. A WCO is protected from change for 2 years after the Order is made and any changes thereafter must have no more than a minor effect and any application to change the Order is made by the Minister. Any other change is considered as a new application.

30. The Ministry for the Environment is contributing funds through the Community Environment Fund (CEF) Project being led by this Council to develop set of criteria that can be applied to the assessment and identification of ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ for the purposes of the NPSFM. A secondary output is a recommended method or methodology for applying the criteria. The development of the criteria and methodology are critical precursors to the preparation of a plan change to identify outstanding freshwater bodies in the region. The plan change is part of the Council’s commitments in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan programme.

31. The Council is committed to implementing the Government’s policy objectives as set out in the NPSFM. This includes recognition and appropriate management of the range of values, including the values of the outstanding water bodies.

32. The WCO application cuts across this work and risks frustrating the Council’s and its Regional Planning Committee’s ability to give effect to the spirit and the letter of the NPSFM.

33. However, because the WCO has a more enduring effect and recognises the importance of values at a national (rather than regional) level, it may be both appropriate and supported by the Council and the TANK group, to further provide for the significant values of the Ngaruroro River through a WCO application following completion of the TANK plan change process.

Current Science Programme and Integrated Management

34. Given that the Ngaruroro River is hydrologically connected (through the Heretaunga Plains aquifer) to the Karamu Stream and Clive River, the Tutaekuri River, the Tukituki River and Ahuriri Estuary the WCO application risks undermining the integrated approach the Council and its stakeholders are taking to the hydrology land and water management of the region.

35. This is a matter which is likely to make a WCO process, as currently proposed, become a default planning exercise for multiple water bodies across the region’s most economically significant resource.

36. The HBRC has a major science programme underway in the Ngaruroro and wider TANK catchments including in particular, to enhance understanding of ground and surface water interactions. Modelling is not yet sufficiently advanced to make prudent informed decisions about flows, allocations and freshwater limits in the catchment.

37. Staff consider that initiating a WCO process as proposed would be premature ahead of this science being completed.

38. Furthermore a WCO process is likely to divert science, planning and policy effort away from its current focus on NPSFM limit setting and allocation, which is currently on a critical path.

WCO limitations

39. In addition to the lack of integration of management of connected water bodies noted above, the WCO application as lodged would potentially affect improved management of existing consents and limit opportunities for creating new water use within sustainable limits yet to be established.

40. In addition, while the WCO provisions (and the proposed application) refer to management of discharges of contaminants to land, it does not provide for the range of methods and tools the RPC and TANK can consider in relation to land management and will potentially frustrate efforts and opportunities to consider and manage land use activities effects on water quality throughout the catchment.

Options considered

41. Doing nothing is not recommended as it means the Minister may not otherwise be informed of the relevant planning, science/investigation and community engagement processes currently in train in the region and the impact this application will have on those.

42. The Council could wait for the Minister to formally invite the Council’s comments on the WCO application, but there are no guarantees he would or wouldn’t do this, let alone when he might seek Council’s comment. Staff have been in communication with senior Ministry officials regarding the WCO application, and those officials have already requested input by the Council on this application.

43. Staff recommend a proactive rather than reactive approach to informing the Ministry and Minister about the state and processes of land and freshwater planning in Hawke's Bay, particularly the TANK catchments; plus concerns regarding procedural issues arising with the WCO application having been lodged.

Financial and Resource Implications

44. There will be some financial and resourcing implications for Council if the Minister accepts the WCO application and refers it to a Special Tribunal. It is likely to divert existing effort in the TANK plan change process including science investigation effort and planning staff time.

45. However, evaluation of those implications has not been undertaken, given the current uncertainty about whether the WCO process will be initiated.

46. Financial and resource implications can be further refined when the fate of the WCO application is known.

Decision Making Process

47. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

47.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in management of land and freshwater resources under the RMA in the TANK catchments.

47.5. Options that have been considered include doing nothing, awaiting an invitation or other opportunity from the Minister to comment on procedural issues associated with the WCO application and TANK regional plan change project’s respective processes, or to act proactively to inform the Minister of a range of procedural concerns as outlined in this paper.

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

47.7. 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 and notes the report titled “Ngaruroro River and Clive River Water Conservation Order Application.”

2. That the Committee’s Co-Chairs, on behalf of the Regional Planning Committee, write to the Minister for the Environment to:

2.1. respectfully request that the Minister decline the WCO application for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers, but note the potential for a future application once the Plan Change process has been completed.

2.2. inform the Minister of the Committee’s concerns described in this report and any other matters arising at the meeting, particularly in relation to:

2.2.1. The Regional Planning Committees’ own roles and responsibilities regarding planning documents prepared under the RMA

2.2.2. the impact of a WCO process on existing council led initiatives including the TANK process and science programme

2.2.3. the desirability of waiting for outputs from the current work programme to better inform land and freshwater management planning decisions

2.2.4. the risk to integrated land and water management of the Ngaruroro and other connected rivers and groundwater’s

2.2.5. the risk to the Council and community efforts to implement the NPSFM2014

2.2.6. the CEF-funded project being led by the Regional Council to develop criteria and methodology for use in identifying values of outstanding water bodies in NPSFM2014 terms.

2.2.7. the potential inefficient use of resources as Council, iwi and stakeholders are diverted by a process that seeks the same outcomes as existing processes to progressively and fully implement the NPSFM before 31 December 2025.

2.2.8. the limitations to consider the full range of management options available under the RMA to manage land and water use in the subject catchments.

3. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

3.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community.

3.2. Notes the Committee’s concerns and supports the Committee’s expression of those concerns in writing to the Minister.

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Future of the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri (TANK) Collaborative Stakeholder Group

Reason for Report

1. At the Regional Council meeting on 16 December 2015, staff presented an update on the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group (the ‘TANK Group’), and several key issues associated with the Council’s preparation of a regional plan change for the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchment area (i.e. the ‘TANK’ catchments). A copy of that report (Attachment 1) and an extract of the unconfirmed minutes for that item (Attachment 2) are attached for ease of reference, and particularly for the benefit of the Committee’s tangata whenua members. Following discussion on that report, the Council resolved to:

“3. Instruct the Group Manager Strategic Development to review the TANK Group process in light of the feedback provided at today’s meeting, and provide a paper outlining his recommendations on the future operation of the TANK Stakeholder Group to the Regional Planning Committee.”

2. This report presents what can be described as only an initial review of the TANK Group process by the new Group Manager Strategic Development. The recommendations in this report clearly signal that further evaluation and review is warranted before the Regional Planning Committee and Council attempt to make any full and final determinations on the future operation of the TANK Group.

Brief background and current setting

3. As described in the attached staff report, the TANK Group is at a cross-roads. The request for greater leadership of the Group clearly overlaps with, and is almost certainly symptomatic of, a number of other issues that impact on the role and effectiveness of the TANK Group. The Council resolution also recognises that any decisions on the future operation of the TANK Group do need to be made in conjunction with the Regional Planning Committee - not just the Council/councillors alone. In February 2014, the Committee had agreed to have particular regard any TANK Group consensus outcome, if one emerges. The Committee clearly has a significant stake in the outcome of this process.

4. Since the Council resolution quoted above in paragraph 1 was passed, several notable events have occurred which have a bearing on the future of the TANK Group:

4.1. Councillor Peter Beaven immediately indicated his intention to resign as a member of the TANK Group.

4.2. Six parties have lodged a joint application with the Minister for the Environment for a Water Conservation Order (WCO) spanning the Ngaruroro River, Clive River and connected groundwater systems. Also refer to separate item on the Committee’s meeting agenda for 3^rd February 2016.

4.3. I started in the role of HBRC’s Group Manger Strategic Development on 18^th January.

5. The TANK Group initially was formed in 2012 and its terms of reference were recalibrated in 2014. In February 2014, the Group’s first report was published containing over 40 interim consensus-based agreements for land and freshwater management in the TANK catchments. More recently, the Group has been refining identification of freshwater values, objectives and indicators by which to assess impacts of various policy options. Much of the past year’s discussions have focussed on the Ngaruroro catchment. These endeavours of the Group need to be acknowledged and appreciated as they form a valuable contribution to progressing development of the TANK regional plan change in the future.

6. The 2015-25 Long Term Plan signals that a draft TANK plan change is timetabled for public notification in December 2017. The Long Term Plan doesn’t prescribe any interim milestones between now and then.

Preliminary Review of TANK Group

7. Agenda papers for this Committee meeting were due on Wednesday 27^th January. This has been a very tight timeframe for reviewing the role of the TANK Group process and proposing the best way to move forward. I have been unable to consult widely on this matter.

8. As noted in the December staff report, there is clearly a level of frustration being experienced with the new style collaborative process in various fora throughout the country, including the TANK Group. Collaborative processes involving a wide range of stakeholders are invariably challenging. Experience elsewhere has shown that such processes require exceptional goodwill and commitment from all participants to finding common ground. It is also vital to have solid and agreed science on which to make decisions. Most importantly the participants need to be prepared to make both ‘gifts and gains’ to accommodate diverse interests.

9. During the course of my review in just a matter of days, I’ve spoken with a number of people who are directly involved in the TANK Group and wider TANK plan change project. I thank those people for sharing their perspectives and wisdom with me. I have also read as much of the written materials on the TANK project that time has allowed.

Summary of key issues

10. Much of the frustration shared by TANK Group members relates to the lack of momentum in the TANK Group’s work, particularly in the last year. The frustrations are driven by a mixture of:

10.1. critical science inputs not yet being available

10.2. the lack of a clear overall programme plan and inadequate programme coordination

10.3. a perceived lack of group leadership and management of background politics

10.4. changing representation within the Group and in council staff supporting the process

10.5. perceived ambiguity in the relationship between the TANK Group and the Regional Planning Committee

10.6. uncertainty about the future statutory role of collaborative processes under the Resource Management Act

10.7. questionable commitment by some participants to a genuinely collaborative approach and the pursuit of a parallel Water Conservation Order (‘WCO’) process.

11. It should be noted that the key science inputs from the science work programme remain a priority for the Science team. Timeframes for critical science delivery are being reviewed and are intended to be provided to the Committee in April. Deep bore drilling investigations and staff replacements have caused some delays. The science work programme cannot be accelerated and therefore it is my view that only limited progress with the Group can be made over the next 4-6 months. It remains critical that the TANK science work programme and the Technical Advisory Group continue their work as a matter of priority for the Council.

12. I concur with the view expressed by some that the overall mapping and coordination of the TANK project’s work has been too light and there is insufficient common understanding of what needs to be done by when, and that this will need to be addressed by HBRC project staff. HBRC is currently recruiting a Programme Manager who will supplement existing support staff and ensure overall planning and coordination is fit for purpose. Further comment is made on this in paragraph 21 below.

13. The theme of Group ‘leadership’ was raised by almost every person I have spoken with. There are likely to be several elements to the ‘leadership’ issue, each deserving of being explored further as immediate reporting timeframes have not permitted this. For example, an independent chair to manage the dialogue both at the TANK Group table and in the background may help, the formation of smaller sub-groups focussed on particular issues and reporting back to the wider group may speed up decision making, and greater definition of and focus on the critical decision points and outputs for the Group, rather than a broad mandate of issues to tackle may also increase momentum. These matters warrant further discussion with TANK Group members and the facilitation team.

14. It is also apparent that a number of uncertainties/unknowns need resolution. The process around the WCO application significantly complicates the TANK project’s work programme. While this will be discussed as a separate item on the agenda, resolution of the WCO application’s status will be important for planning the work programme from here and will have a bearing on what the TANK Group can achieve. On the face of it the lodging of the WCO application appears to demonstrate a lack of good will and commitment from some parties involved in the TANK Group to a collaborative outcome. If the TANK Group is going to continue to operate as a collaborative process, as opposed to a consultative one, then it will be important to secure the commitment of the participants to the principles of collaboration.

15. As was noted in the December staff report (and in another separate item on the Committee’s February meeting agenda), the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill currently before Parliament includes provision for collaborative planning processes to be given statutory recognition and obviate some aspects of the current Schedule 1 plan-making process. If these provisions are enacted there will be significant matters for the Regional Planning Committee to consequently consider with respect to the TANK Group’s past and future work. Given the uncertainties about the timing of the passage of this Bill and its final form it is necessary to defer consideration of these matters until the Bill is enacted. In the meantime the Regional Planning Committee and Council remain the statutory decision maker for regional planning and the TANK Group has no statutory function but can still usefully build common understanding of the issues and stakeholder views, and advise the Committee on points of agreement and disagreement within a proposed plan change.

16. I am aware of concerns amongst some Committee members and the TANK Group that the relationship between the two entities is not entirely clear – in simplistic terms, who is the decision-maker. While the RMA proposals remain before Parliament the current legislation provides clarity, as per the previous paragraph. However, codification of the relative roles in this case and that of any other non-statutory collaborative process in the region is warranted so that all parties have a common understanding of the process, as well as responsibilities and accountabilities. It is also necessary to clarify the role of Committee members in any such collaborative process so that perceptions of conflicts of interest, double dipping in decision-making and pre-determination are appropriately managed. This may ultimately require changes to the Terms of Reference for the TANK Group.

17. The Terms of Reference for the TANK Group are premised on the group being collaborative and working toward consensus wherever possible, and operating on a set of protocols around respect and communication. In my view it is worth establishing whether all participants, and their respective organisations, remain committed to this approach.

Outline of principal options for future of the TANK Group

18. I have formed an initial impression that there are two principal options for the future of the TANK Group. I acknowledge that there may be some variants of these two principal options also worth evaluating.

19. As I currently see it, those two principal options are:

19.1. Discontinue the TANK Group in its current form and purpose, and commence a standard schedule one plan change process

19.2. Reconvene the TANK Group in due course (i.e. akin to the status quo), but with enhanced modes of delivery for programme management and leadership, bio-physical science, freshwater economics, policy package options and consequences, community engagement etc.

20. Both options will have their pros and cons, but in light of the uncertainties and unknowns referred above, I consider it would be premature for the Regional Planning Committee to make any final determinations at this time.

21. I note the TANK Group had agreed at its meeting in November 2015 that HBRC’s TANK Project Team would prepare a ‘master plan’ outlining:

21.1. key matters which the TANK Group needs to consider

21.2. relevant timings for consideration of those matters

21.3. how/when the HBRC science work programme would assist in informing those discussions in a topic-by-topic and/or area-by-area fashion.

22. I consider this ‘master plan’ to be a critical element for informing the future of the TANK Group and wider TANK plan change project. I believe such a plan also needs to include a stronger component of community engagement. Forming the ‘master plan’ requires a bit of time to crystallise what will become critical proposals. I intend that a draft ‘master plan’ prepared by a newly appointed HBRC Programme Manager and would be presented to the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for 6^th April. It is hoped that the fate of the WCO will have been determined by 6^th April and therefore we will have clarity of its impact for project planning purposes, but this cannot be assured at this time.

23. I also propose consulting with TANK Group members before the Committee’s 6^th April meeting on a revised approach to their operations, including matters of leadership and facilitation, and commitment and conduct. I propose reporting back to the Committee on these discussions with a suggested revised approach to the way the TANK Group operates and a framework for the Committee to agree that establishes clearly the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee and any collaborative planning process.

Financial and Resource Implications

24. There will undoubtedly be some financial and resourcing implications for whatever future course of action may be adopted. However, evaluation of those implications has not been undertaken, pending a number of matters still to be considered in the coming months. Given staff recommendations in this report signal subsequent reporting and evaluation to be presented to future Committee meetings, it is intended that financial and resource implications will be outlined in those future reports where relevant.

Decision Making Process

25. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

25.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in management of land and freshwater resources under the RMA in the ‘TANK catchments.’

25.5. Options that have been considered include retaining the current meeting schedule for the TANK Group and the Group’s current Terms of Reference and role of Council; proposing a new approach now; or taking a deliberative approach to considering future of the TANK Group relative to timing of various internal and external forces.

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

25.7. 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:

1.1. Receives and takes note of the report titled “Future of the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri (TANK) Collaborative Stakeholder Group.”

1.2. Notes and acknowledges the progress made by the TANK Group, particularly presentation of the Group’s Interim Report, work on identifying freshwater values and objectives, and possible indicators of plan change and policy option effectiveness.

1.3. Notes that an application has been lodged for a Water Conservation Order for the Ngaruroro and Clive rivers, plus their tributaries and connected groundwater systems, and that process will significantly complicate the TANK plan change project’s planning and science work programmes.

1.4. Notes that key science inputs into the TANK Group process remain a priority for the Science Team, and timeframes for critical science delivery will be reviewed and presented to the Committee’s meeting in April.

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 Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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 Future of the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Collaborative Stakeholder Group (a.k.a. the ‘TANK Group’).

2.2. Agree that the TANK science work programme and the TANK Science Technical Advisory Group continue their work as a matter of priority for the Council.

2.3. Instructs the Group Manager Strategic Development to:

2.3.1. report back to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in April 2016 with a draft ‘master plan’ for the TANK plan change project outlining critical deliverables and dependencies between now and the plan change becoming operative.

2.3.2. report back to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in April 2016 with a framework to clarify the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee and any collaborative regional plan development processes undertaken in the region, including protocols around membership.

2.3.3. report back to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in April 2016 with a proposed approach to the TANK Group’s operations, including on matters of leadership and facilitation.

2.3.4. report back to the Regional Planning Committee upon enactment of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill with an analysis of options for the any statutory recognition of past or future collaborative planning within the TANK project.

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	TANK Council Reports December 2015
2	Excerpt of 16 Dec 2015 Council Minutes

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Karamu Catchment – Ecological Health of Lowland Streams

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided to the Committee to enable formal approval by Council for publication. The table of contents and Executive Summary of the report are attached, and hard copies of the complete report have been provided to Committee Members and Councillors only. Hard copies of the report will be provided upon request once the report has been adopted by Council and is no longer ‘draft’.

Background

2. The Karamu/Clive catchment on the Heretaunga Plains is one of New Zealand’s most productive horticultural areas. Streams in the catchment have a low gradient and sandy/silty substrates, which provide ideal growing conditions for aquatic plants (macrophytes). The streams have been extensively modified, channelised and straightened for drainage and flood protection, and are currently suffering from nuisance macrophyte and algal growth.

3. Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) scores here are amongst the lowest in Hawke’s Bay, indicating the life supporting capacity in these streams is compromised. In the summer of 2013-14 an investigation was carried out to identify what particular factors are most detrimental to the ecological health of these streams.

4. Sixteen lowland stream sites in the Karamu and adjacent catchments, with a range of environmental conditions, were chosen for this study. Macroinvertebrates were sampled, and water quality parameters, stream habitat and macrophytes were assessed.

Summary of the Results

5. At many sites macrophytes blocked more than half of the stream channel, and habitat quality was degraded. Temperature in some streams increased above 27°C and dissolved oxygen was extremely low for several hours each day.

6. At times of very low instream dissolved oxygen (at night or early morning hours), ecosystem respiration (by plants, animals and microorganisms) consumes more oxygen in the stream than is produced by photosynthesis or derived from the atmosphere.

7. Analyses indicated that maximum water temperature, minimum dissolved oxygen concentration and habitat quality most strongly affected changes in macroinvertebrate community composition.

8. Abundance of mayflies and caddisflies and MCI scores were lowest at sites with high maximum temperature and low daily oxygen minima. These were the major factors compromising life supporting capacity in the study streams.

Conclusion

9. Following factors need to be dealt with in order to improve ecosystem health across the Heretaunga Plains streams:

10. Water temperature can be reduced by providing shade to the stream channel where it does not exist.

11. Reduction in aquatic plant growth can limit the amount of oxygen depletion. This can be achieved by shading the stream channel, to reduce the light available for plant growth.

12. Habitat complexity is a vital component of a healthy stream ecosystem. In soft sediment lowland streams habitat is typically provided by stable substrate such as root mats, twigs, leaf-packs and large woody debris. These important habitat components are often provided by a healthy, mature overhanging riparian vegetation community.

13. Establishment of overhanging riparian vegetation would be the most effective way to increase and improve the life supporting capacity in these streams and would improve all three related factors of temperature, oxygen and habitat.

Decision Making Process

14. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

14.4. 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.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Karamu Catchment – Ecological Health of Lowland Streams” report.

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 Significance and Engagement Policy and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community.

2.2. Approves the “Karamu Catchment – Ecological Health of Lowland Streams” report for publication.

Alexandra Haidekker

Water Quality & Ecology Scientist

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

Karamu Catchment - Ecological Health of Lowland Streams: Table of Contents and Executive Summary

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Reason for Report

1. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (‘RLA Bill’) had its first reading on 3 December 2015 and was referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee for consideration. This is an opportunity for Council and any member of the public to give input during the select committee process.

2. The RLA Bill proposes reforms in principle to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act 2012 (EEZ Act), and the Environmental Protection Authority Act 2011 (EPA Act). The Bill would also amend the Conservation Act 1987 (Conservation Act), the Reserves Act 1977 (Reserves Act), and the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA).

3. The select committee will be receiving submissions until 14 March 2016. This paper presents the basis of a submission for consideration by the Committee. This is part of the HBRC statutory advocacy role.

Overview of the RLA Bill

4. The RLA Bill contains an explanatory note introducing itself as follows:

“The overarching purpose of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (the Bill) is to create a resource management system that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in an efficient and equitable way.

Sitting beneath this overarching purpose are 3 main objectives. Specifically, the Bill seeks to achieve:

· better alignment and integration across the resource management system, so that—

· duplication within the system is reduced and legislative frameworks are consistent internally and with each other; and

· the tools under the resource management legislation are fit for purpose; and

· resource management legislation is implemented in a consistent way and the hierarchy of planning documents is better aligned:

· proportional and adaptable resource management processes, so that—

· there is increased flexibility and adaptability of processes and decision makers; and

· processes and costs are able to be scaled, where necessary, to reflect specific circumstances:

· robust and durable resource management decisions, so that—

· there is high value participation and engagement, including from iwi and hapū, in resource management processes; and

· decision makers have the evidence, capability, and capacity to make high quality decisions and accountabilities are clear; and

· engagement is focussed on upfront planning decisions rather than individual consent decisions.”

5. The RLA Bill document, including the explanatory notes, is 180 pages long and can be accessed online at:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2015/0101/latest/DLM6669131.html?search=ta_bill_R_bc%40bcur_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1

6. In summary the principle thrust of changes sought by the RLA Bill are to:

A. Broaden the scope for the process of setting national direction through National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards for central government;

B. Enable the development of a national planning template (but not to create or issue one immediately);

C. Enable national direction to support decision making on applications for marine consents under the Exclusive Economic Zone Act (an area beyond the coastal marine area’s 12 nautical mile limit);

D. Make a statutory obligation for councils to invite iwi to form an iwi participation arrangement that will establish engagement expectations when consulting during the early stages of Schedule 1 RMA plan making. This will also include the Iwi arrangement formed to then be involved in the National Planning Template processes and regulation;

E. Provide stronger national importance direction to the management of significant risks from natural hazards;

F. Add two new pathway options as part of Plan making, providing for a Collaborative Plan Change approach and a Streamlined Plan Change approach;

G. Amend Sections 30 and 31 RMA (functions of councils) to make it a function of regional (and territorial) authorities to ensure sufficient residential and business development capacity for long term demand;

H. Remove the function to manage hazardous substances, thus removing duplication with HSNO Act 1996.

I. Exclude stock from waterbodies and provide for the use of infringement notices for contravention of any regulations (use of fines as an alternative to abatement notice/court action), as part of the national regulations;

7. In conjunction with the principle changes sought by the RLA Bill are a number of changes to various parts of each Act, including to:

J. Set fixed fees for processing specific consent types, hearings and remuneration of hearing panels;

K. Set a 10 day limit for simple fast track resource consents;

L. Allow council discretion to waive consent for marginal or temporary non-compliance when the effects are minor;

M. Provide scope for the type of conditions that may be placed on consents;

N. Enabling optional joint process of public notification, hearings and decisions with the RMA and the Reserves Act;

O. Removes presumption of subdivision control in s11 RMA. Enabling subdivision where less controls are in place or sought e.g. permitted activity subdivision can be provided for;

P. Add a new regulation-making power in the RMA to permit specified land uses, and over-ride existing rules set by local authorities;

Q. Set Plan consistency and conciseness requirements e.g. public notices to be in clear and plain language;

R. Enable objection to a consent decision to be referred to an independent commissioner by request;

S. Enable the Environment Court to direct councils to acquire land where land use has been rendered incapable of reasonable use;

T. Seek reductions in duplication across the various Acts – including the Conservation Act;

U. Make changes to the Board Of Inquiry (BOI) process and Environment Protection Agency processes;

V. Direct use of the internet as part of RMA plan making and consent processes.

Discussion

8. The RLA Bill is a large body of work, includes a number of legislative changes and a move towards more centralisation of resource management decision making.

9. In terms of enhancing Māori participation, to expand on how this is proposed to work, the MfE Regulatory Impact Statement confirms the following (p37, paragraphs 201-204):

201. Under this proposal, councils will be required to invite iwi to form an iwi participation arrangement. The iwi participation arrangement will detail how the iwi and the council will work together through the planning process. The iwi participation arrangement will set out the agreed processes for the way in which parties will give effect to Treaty settlement legislation provisions and the way in which iwi authorities can identify resource management issues of concern. If iwi do not respond within a specified timeframe, the council is not required to suspend the preparation of the policy statement or plan, or any other part of the plan making process (as prescribed under Schedule 1 of the RMA).

202. The council must comply with the processes agreed to under the arrangement when preparing their plans under Schedule 1.

203. Additionally, the following changes to the RMA will increase consultation requirements with iwi on plan making processes:

· require councils to invite iwi to participate in planning processes, as part of an iwi participation arrangement

· require councils to provide a relevant draft policy statement or plan to iwi authorities for comment and advice

· require councils to have particular regard to any advice received on the draft plan, and to allow adequate time and opportunity for the iwi authorities to consider and provide advice;

· require councils to summarise all advice received by iwi authorities and outline their response in section 32 reports

· require councils to consult tangata whenua if it is appropriate to appoint a commissioner with understanding of tikanga Māori and of the perspectives of local iwi or hapū.

204. Membership of the collaborative group must include representatives of tangata whenua (in recognition of the Crown’s partnership obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi) and iwi are to be consulted on the draft plans (unless an applicable iwi participation arrangement provides otherwise). Further, at least one member, who has an understanding of tikanga Māori and the perspective of tangata whenua, must be appointed to the review panel which makes recommendations to council.

10. This approach to enhancing Māori participation may be of interest to the RPC, its role and functions.

11. In 2013, the Regional Council submitted on the Resource Management Discussion Document “Improving our Resource Management System.” That discussion document was a precursor to this Bill. The Regional Council’s 2013 submission was complementary to the submission made by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) at the time, whilst raising particular points of interest or concern from this Council’s local perspective.

12. In terms of the RLA Bill, LGNZ prepared a RMA Sector Position Paper on 15 October 2015 (http://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/RMA-Sector-Position-Paper-15-October-2015.pdf), anticipating the RLA Bill now being considered. LGNZ are currently preparing a comprehensive submission representing interests of the local government sector (regional, city and district councils). At the time of writing this paper, LGNZ’s submission was being drafted and feedback from councils invited before that submission is finalised.

13. As with HBRC’s previous submission in 2013, it is considered advantageous for any submissions made by HBRC and LGNZ to be complementary. The HBRC submission could focus on raising any particular matters from our local perspective, whilst the LGNZ submission can be more comprehensive and detailed on the wider range of matters of common interest across the local government sector. This fits with the LGNZ RMA Sector Position Paper, and provides for a joint approach with the local government sector going through the Bill process.

14. Staff have prepared an initial analysis and key comments on the RLA Bill (Attachment 1, *Note this is a draft version). That analysis could form the basis of a submission by HBRC. There are at least five weeks between the Committee meeting and the submission deadline of 14 March. Planning staff welcome discussion at the Committee’s meeting, but it is worth noting that the March deadline also provides an opportunity for further feedback (e.g. via emails) from Committee members on the Bill and content of a draft HBRC submission before a submission needs to be lodged.

15. Depending on the Committee’s feedback and recommendations, planning staff may also need to report to the Council meeting on 24 February 2016 with a revised and/or final draft submission for approval. If desired, revisions to a draft submission can be circulated amongst the RPC members prior to the Council meeting and decision on 24 February. There are no other RPC or Council meetings scheduled before the deadline of 14 March.

Decision Making Process

16. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

16.4. The persons affected by this decision are all entitled to also make a submission on the Bill.

16.5. Options that have been considered include to make a submission on the Bill or not to make a submission.

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.1. Receives and takes note of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill report.

1.2. Provides feedback at the meeting to planning staff on content of a draft submission to be prepared.

1.3. Members provide feedback via email to planning staff on a draft submission to be prepared following discussion and feedback at the Committee meeting, so that feedback can inform a revised draft submission for consideration by the Council at its meeting on 24^th February 2016.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Makes a submission on the RLA Bill, which is broadly supportive of the LGNZ submission (currently being drafted), and raises points requiring further explanation, and consideration of particular concerns from a local Hawke’s Bay perspective. This submission will be in line with the staff assessment prepared so far and as attached, and with any matters raised by members of the Regional Planning Committee.

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Draft HBRC Submission on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Draft HBRC Submission on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

Attachment 1

Section (by MfE Regulatory Impact Statement numbering)	Support/ Request changes/ More information	Submission
*1.1 Changes in National Environment Standard provisions*	Support, with concern on scope of Ministerial decisions overriding locally prepared plan provisions needing addressing	Regulations relating to “National Environmental Standards” (NES) may be prepared for any specific area of New Zealand, and may specify how affected consent authorities perform their functions to achieve the standard. This is one of a set of measures which, when combined, gives the Minister wide ranging abilities to direct the activities of individual Councils in regard to what must be in Plans, how those Plans are given effect to, how they are monitored, and what their effects are. There appears to be an ability for the Minister to directly manage the activities of any Council in relation to the achievement of one or more NES. HBRC consider that there needs to be a process of discussion or collaboration with individual or collective Councils affected by such changes. Each Councils views should be sought and taken into account, especially where specific issues or areas are going to be targeted by a national instrument.
*1.1 Changes in National Policy Statement provisions*	Support, with concern on scope of Ministerial decisions overriding locally prepared plan provisions needing addressing	This expands the directive powers of a National Policy Statement (NPS), and allows an NPS to be targeted at a specific district, region or any specified area. The scope of the ability for Minister to direct and specify the functions of Councils in respect to developing Plans is widened considerably. For example: methods or requirements that local authorities must, in developing the content of policy statements or plans, apply in the manner specified in the national policy statement, including the use of models and formulas… In effect, provided an NPS states objectives and policies for matters of national significance that are relevant to achieving the purpose of the RMA, it can require any particular Council to insert specific objectives and policies into its Regional or District Plan. HBRC consider that there needs to be a process of discussion or collaboration with individual or collective Councils affected by such changes. Each Councils views should be sought and taken into account, especially where specific issues or areas are going to be targeted by a national instrument.
*1.3 Changes in National Direction including a Mandatory National Planning Template*	Support, with amendments	Clause 34. New National Planning Template (NPT) provisions. The main stated objective of these provisions is to minimize duplication. It will also harmonise and standardise plans. The first of these NPTs must be promulgated within 2 years of enactment. A National Planning Template could be a very useful base on which to provide more streamlined plan making when drafting provisions based on the First Schedule of the RMA. HBRC has concerns about the apparently wide scope of the NPT which may include objectives, polices and rules which the Council considers to be better addressed through other measures such as NPS, NES and regulations. These tools allow better assessment of the appropriate resource management issues and possible solutions than an NPT. The term “template” does not indicate significant resource management content, but rather something to be used as a pattern in formatting plans. A National Planning Template should from HBRC’s perspective enable and allow for local communities to voice their own specific needs to fit into the template framework. The NPT is supported as long as: · Local government is involved in preparing the scope and content of the NTP alongside other stakeholders in the next 2 years, and; · The template has inherent flexibility in its local application, in principle setting a standard layout, format, key headings and sections, and allowing for local RMA matters to be managed.
*1.5 Requirements on councils to improve housing/provide for development capacity*		Clauses 11 & 12. Amendments to Sections 30 & 31. These are new provisions RE objectives, policies, and methods and are intended to ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in relation to residential and business land to meet expected long-term demands. At this stage it is not entirely clear what constitutes “long term”, or what approach might be taken to assess “expected”. Factors to be taken into account include whether the land is serviced with infrastructure, which is generally provided in terms of the LGA through District Councils. There is a question mark on how the relationship between LGA and RMA duties is managed/prioritized, given that infrastructure needs to increase development capacity with serviced land needs to be funded by means governed through LGA decision processes. The council’s urban development planning also recognises the value and significance of the limited high quality, versatile land to the economic well-being of the region and the amendments do not adequately reflect the range of considerations the council accounts for in its regional development programmes. Our Hawke's Bay regional planning documents already adopt a future-focused approach to urban resource management, that ties in with the development contributions approach of Napier City Council and Hastings District Council under the LGA. We note that RMA planning documents can only do so much – they are not a silver bullet for all ills, but together with other council initiatives and other agencies, communities can, and do, adopt future-focussed approaches to housing and business land needs. In Hawke's Bay, a key future-focussed housing strategy is through the jointly prepared 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS). This is a non-statutory document prepared and adopted by Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke's Bay Regional councils. This is an urban growth strategy (including residential and business growth) for the 2015-2045 planning period. Relevant elements from HPUDS have been progressively incorporated into the HBRC RPS (Plan Change 4) and are being implemented where relevant, in regional and district plans (including recent changes to the Hastings District Plan, and the Napier District Plan). This sets out expected future residential and business needs and growth, subject to a regular 5 year review enabling future changes where required. In addition to providing for residential and business growth as part of section 30 and 31, there is some concern about the removal of hazardous substances in terms of function under s30(1)(d)(v) with the following being proposed to be deleted: “and the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances”. At first glance this does not appear to be a particular issue, however thought does need to be considered in terms of land use and the location and relationship to other activities/sensitive land uses. Consideration needs to be given to the provision of infrastructure designed to address risks associated with the use, storage and transport of contaminants/hazardous substances/facilities, including stormwater and roading especially in industrial and related zones. Removal of Hazardous Facilities management from regional control also reduces any opportunity for retrospective/progressive upgrade of hazardous facilities to ensure risks are appropriately managed. It is not clear if and how HSNO deals with this. This could be an issue for HBRC in terms of the control of hazardous substances in terms of the Coastal Environment Plan.
*2.3 Collaborative Planning Process option*		Clause 52. This provides an optional Collaborative Planning process for plan changes. As worded it prescribes a set and locked in approach. There may be some benefits to some Councils in utilising this with some incentives around the process, rights of appeal, cross examination and so on. This does not appear to mean that HBRC or others could not proceed with their own approach to Plan making under the 1^st Schedule of the RMA. Including our own approaches to catchment based collaboration to date. There are many methods that can lead to increases and improvements in community and stakeholder engagement with local planning decisions and systems. There are risks in adopting a cut and paste approach to collaborative planning processes without also reviewing the objectives, purpose and scope of such planning processes. There appear to be a number of models of collaborative planning, some of which aim for consensus building, others at conflict resolution, and others include a fully costed assessment of all of the gains and losses that might be the outcomes associated with a change or proposal. There is a need to clarify the relationship between iwi participation agreements and collaborative processes. Including any obligations or provisions for iwi if the council embarks on such a process. These processes depend on the goodwill of the group members to function effectively. There is no provision for withdrawing from the process if the group itself does not/cannot continue. The use of the proposed Collaboration option process - as an option - is supported. We consider based on this Councils experience that it is supported as a tool option.
*1.4 Improve the management of risks from natural hazards under the RMA* *2.1 Changes to the plan making process to improve efficiency and provide clarity* *2.4 Enhance Māori participation by requiring councils to invite iwi to engage in voluntary iwi participation arrangements and enhancing consultation requirements* *3.1 Consent exemption for low impact activities and minor rule breaches* *3.2 10-day fast track process for simple applications* *3.8 Improve management of risks from natural hazards in decision-making on subdivision applications* *4.1 Enable objections to be heard by an independent commissioner* *4.2 Improve Environment Court processes to support efficient and speedy resolution of appeals* 4.3 Enable the Environment Court to allow councils to acquire land where planning provisions have rendered land incapable of reasonable use and placed an unfair and unreasonable burden on the landowner *6.2 Streamlined and electronic public notification requirements* *7.1 Minor changes to the Public Works Act 1981 to ensure fairer and more efficient land acquisition processes* *7.2 Provide for equal treatment of stock drinking water takes* *7.3 Provide regional councils with discretion to remove abandoned coastal structures* *7.4 Create a new regulation making power to require that stock are excluded from water bodies*	Support	Elevation of natural hazards to section 6 (Matters of National Importance) is considered appropriate. Enhancing Māori participation in the RMA process is supported by HBRC. It is noted that Iwi do not have to participate if they do not wish to. There would be some value in better defining what ‘participation in the preparation of plans’ entails especially in relation to decisions about collaborative processes (or any other process), what is to be notified and the hearing of submissions. We note that the Regional Planning Committee is one model of iwi being involved in plan-making processes, but the Bill is unclear if that model alone would satisfy proposed legal requirements. The ability to exempt low impact activities from requiring a consent is supported. This is not expected to be widely used at HBRC, but the ability to do so could be beneficial. In regard to the 10 day fast track process, it seems unlikely many regional council consents would fit this criteria. Bore permits, possibly transfers of water permits to use surface or groundwater that meet the conditions of the controlled activity rule, and also discharges of domestic wastewater to land on ‘low risk’ sites could be processed within 10 working days. HBRC already endeavours to process simple applications quickly and efficiently with technical conditions applied as required. Quality of applications is a key component for improvement through this process. It is not an issue to enable objections to be heard by an independent commissioner as an option to applicants. Stock exclusion. The ability to use infringement notices are supported as an additional compliance tool. There appears to be some inherent flexibility on how stock are excluded from waterways. HBRC supports in principle the submission of LGNZ in regard to these changes.
*2.2 Provide councils with an option to request a Streamlined Planning Process for developing or amending a particular plan* *2.3 Provide councils with an option to use a Collaborative Planning Process for preparing or changing a policy statement or plan* *3.3 Streamline the notification and hearing process* *3.4 Improve processes for specific types of housing related consents* *3.5 Require fixed remuneration for hearing panels and consent decisions issued with a fixed fee* *3.6 Clarify the scope of consent conditions* *6.6 Simplify charging regimes for new developments by removing financial contributions* 6.7 Remove the ability for Heritage Protection Authorities that are bodies corporate to give notice of a heritage protection order (HPO) over private land and allow for Ministerial transfer of HPOS	Support with changes needing consideration	It is considered by HBRC staff that these provisions whilst supported, do require further work to ensure how they are to be implemented. For example, the streamlined approach could be a very useful tool and presents a ‘ground up’ opportunity to deal with particular matters. Whilst there are some issues in the technicalities of how this works this option is supported in principle at streamlining the RMA process. There is a question mark on whether financial contributions should remain as a tool at regional council level as regional councils do not have access to Development Contributions under the LGA. HBRC supports the submission of LGNZ in regard to these changes.
*5.1 Provide for joint resource consent and recreation reserve exchange processes under the RMA and the Reserves Act 1977* *5.2 Align the notified concessions process under the Conservation Act 1987 with notified resource consents under the RMA* *6.3 Enhanced council monitoring requirements* *6.4 Reduce BOI cost and complexity* *6.5 Enable the EPA to support RMA decision-making processes* *7.4 Create a new regulation making power to require that stock are excluded from water bodies* *7.5 Amendment of section 69 and Schedule 3 – Water Quality Classes*	Support but need more information	It is considered by HBRC staff that these provisions whilst supported in principle, do require further explanation or work to ensure/understand how they are to be implemented. One matter that needs further explanation for example is s360 hp prescribing requirements that apply to the use of models (e.g. farms, catchments and regions). HBRC supports the submission of LGNZ in regard to these changes.
RLA Bill as a whole	Support with changes	Subject to all the assessment in this submission, HBRC supports the submission of LGNZ. HBRC supports the RLA Bill in principle, depending on the incorporation of amendments sought. There is complexity in the changes and there is a need for rigorous cross checking of connections across different parts of the amendments. The apparent increase and wider scope of centralized government powers to manage resources at the local and regional level, does give concern that local decision making could be unbalanced unfavourably. There are issues where the development of some of the new provisions and regulatory tools, are likely to result in an increase in regulatory complexity where existing measures could be improved instead. There is potential for significant costs to result from some of the measures being proposed including concerns arising from the lack of specificity about the NPT. On a final note for consideration, there is some concern at the amount of different options and approaches provided in the RLAB amendments. This is because with the amount of changes sought there are going to be multiple ways for achieving various outcomes that cross over each other, from NPS, NES, to regulations, RMA rules, NPT, national direction for specific provisions, 1^st schedule plan making, collaborative or streamlined plan making and so on. As a euphemism the RLA Bill can be seen to provide seven prescriptive ways to skin a cat. There may also be an issue in using an overly blunt approach or tool in some cases and too fine an approach for others. What could be an issue is that innovation could be stifled by this. Innovation in the RMA and our legislative framework shouldn’t be underestimated. The Regional Planning Committee is a very positive example of innovation with Treaty Settlement Partners.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 03 February 2016

Subject: Marine Protected Areas Consultation Document

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to provide a short overview of the proposed Marine Protected Areas Act (MPA Act) Consultation Document for the Committee, and for the Committee to consider whether or not to make a submission on the Consultation Document. What is being consulted on currently is not a Bill – that would emerge in the future if the Government chooses to progress its current proposals.

Background

2. The Consultation Document sets out the Government’s proposal for a new approach to marine protection in New Zealand. If agreed the policy recommendations would form a new Marine Protected Areas Act. This new act would replace the Marine Reserves Act 1971.

3. The purpose of the proposed MPA Act is to provide an improved system of representative networked Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in New Zealand’s territorial sea. The territorial sea extends from mean high water springs to 12 nautical miles (approximately 22.2km) offshore extending to, but not including the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone. The territorial sea is essentially the same marine area to which the Hawke's Bay regional coastal plan applies.

4. The three Government departments driving the law reform are the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the Environment all of which have different roles and responsibilities relating to the coast. For example, MPI administers the Quota Management System under the Fisheries Act 1996.

5. The deadline for submissions on the Consultation Document is Friday 11th March 2016. There are no other scheduled meetings of the Regional Planning Committee closer to that deadline. Staff considered it worthwhile that the Committee has an opportunity to guide and direct staff as to what it might think are the key issues for Hawke's Bay and HBRC regarding the Government’s proposals for a new MPA Act as outlined in the Consultation Document.

A New Marine Protected Areas Act

6. The reform proposes four different types of marine protected areas within the territorial sea. These are:

6.1. Marine Reserves: would be the same as under the current Marine Reserves Act 1971, being protected with the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

6.2. Species-specific Sanctuaries: would be similar to marine mammal sanctuaries but would also be available to other marine life like albatross or great white sharks. Rules within these sanctuaries would focus on the specific protection needs of the nominated species.

6.3. Seabed Reserves: would protect areas of the sea floor and would include prohibitions on seabed mining, bottom trawl fishing and dredging.

6.4. Recreational Fishing Parks: would recognise that there are areas where the recreational fishing experience could be improved by limiting commercial fishing for some species. The consultation document proposes two recreational fishing parks (in the Hauraki Gulf and Marlborough Sounds) at this time.

7. The Consultation Document states a clear intention that “no change will occur to the levels of protection afforded to any marine reserve.” In the Hawke's Bay region, the only existing marine reserve is Te Angiangi Marine Reserve – a reserve established in 1997 of approximately 446 hectares located along the coastline between Aramoana and Blackhead.

Impacts on Regional Council

8. Council staff have reviewed the Consultation Document with particular regard to key implications that the new MPA Act might have for HBRC’s roles and responsibilities along the coast. That review has highlighted the following key issues:

8.1. ambiguity over the process of aligning legislation

8.2. how key documents such as the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan will be aligned with the new MPA Act and the costs that Council might incur associated with amendments to the RCEP brought about by a newly enacted MPA Act

8.3. whether Council will be notified and engaged as a principal stakeholder in the consultation process for any new proposed MPAs in the Hawke's Bay region

8.4. the role Council might be expected to have in compliance and enforcement of the new MPA Act

8.5. the role Council might be expected to have regarding monitoring and reporting against the MPA Act’s content.

9. The Regional Council has statutory roles and responsibilities under the RMA for some activities occurring within the territorial sea (i.e. the coastal marine area (CMA)) from Mahanga in the north, to south of Porangahau). Many of those roles and responsibilities are delivered through preparation and administration of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

10. As noted above, it is anticipated that the new MPA Act will have implications for regional councils’ management of resources and the undertaking of activities in the CMA. The Consultation Document states that the new MPA Act will provide for MPAs in the territorial sea to be recognised in regional coastal plans and that decision-makers under the RMA will be required to take MPAs into account when making decisions on proposed activities.

11. It is anticipated that to effect these changes it will be necessary for the Government to enact amendments to the RMA and for Council to amend the RCEP to reflect the new legislative MPA requirements. This could take the form of a formal plan change process to the RCEP or a Ministerial Direction. It is most likely that the direct costs of any changes to the RCEP will fall on Council.

12. Central Government anticipates that over time decision makers will be able to consider whether the MPA network provides sufficient protection for elements of the marine environment affected by the application before them. For example, activities that will affect a particular species in an application area could be allowed if the overall integrity of the species was maintained across its range. The Consultation Document is not clear on who or how monitoring and reporting will be undertaken. If Council is tasked to fulfil these duties, it’s likely to require further investment in staff time and resources.

13. The proposed MPA Act Consultation Document states that offence provisions will be consistent with other relevant legislation and will be managed via the existing combined maritime law enforcement network. This could require further action from Regional Council in its capacity as a maritime law enforcer. The Consultation Document is not clear on the roles and responsibilities that Council will have and where the costs will fall.

14. The Consultation Document does not elaborate on how much of the above will be achieved. It seems that details of these proposals is yet to be developed. Presumably those details would emerge in a Bill if one is progressed in future. If a Bill is released, then the public and Council will have the opportunity to make submissions at that time.

Interests of Tangata Whenua

15. The existing Marine Reserves Act does not recognise the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua. However, the Consultation Document does propose specific recognition of kaitiakitanga and its role in the new MPA Act.

16. In relation to Māori, the Consultation Document proposes that the new MPA Act will:

16.1. contain a Treaty clause (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)

16.2. provide for meaningful engagement with Māori at all stages of the process

16.3. maintain the integrity of all rights and interests under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

16.4. ensure existing arrangements for non-commercial customary fishing, including taiapure and mataitai reserves are fully recognised and maintained

16.5. enable customary fishing activities and the management of important customary fishing areas to be included in integrated marine protection packages

16.6. require that any advisory committees on MPAs include representation of Māori.

Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)

17. LGNZ has indicated that they will be preparing a submission on the MPA Act Consultation Document to represent the interests of all local government (i.e. regional, district and city councils). At the time of writing this paper, LGNZ’s submission was being drafted and feedback from councils invited before that submission is finalised. It is considered advantageous for any submissions made by HBRC and LGNZ to be complementary.

18. Given that the Consultation Document contains limited details about mechanics of the proposals and associated processes, staff consider there to be little ‘added value’ at this time for the Regional Council to make its own submission over and above what LGNZ’s submission is most likely to cover.

19. Staff recommend that the Council lend its support to LGNZ’s preparation of a comprehensive submission on behalf of the local government sector.

Financial and Resource Implications

20. There are very few financial and resource implications for the Council to make its own submission or to indicate any support for a submission by LGNZ on behalf of the local government sector. The Statutory Advocacy Project (196) is in place for this purpose.

Decision Making Process

21. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are those people with an interest in the region’s coastal resources, but those same people all have an opportunity themselves to make submissions on the Consultation Document.

21.5. Options that have been considered include to make a submission and not to make a submission on the Consultation Document.

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Marine Protected Areas Consultation Document” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Supports Local Government New Zealand’s preparation of a submission on the MPA Consultation Document, on behalf of the local government sector.

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

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	Revised draft Progressive Implementation Programme was presented to RPC’s November meeting and subsequently adopted by Council in November. Revised progressive implementation programme (‘PIP’) was notified and can now be viewed on HBRC’s website.
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 meeting #18 was held on 10^th November. Update on TANK Group and TANK plan change project was presented to Council meeting in December. Council resolved to have further report presented to Regional Planning Committee’s February meeting (refer separate item).
Taharua/Mohaka Catchment plan change	December 2017, plan change for Mohaka River catchment adopted for public notification.	A Mohaka catchment ‘characterisation report’ is virtually complete to complement two technical reports previously presented to RPC at November meeting. 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, but the ‘characterisation report’ will be a useful source of information to share with the soon-to-be-formed Mohaka Consultation Group. On 28 November, meeting was held to present key information in the two technical reports to a room full of people representing Mohaka stakeholders and interest groups.
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’. Golder Associates Ltd have been contracted 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. Two interim literature reviews have emerged from the project work to date, but substantive project outputs not expected until May 2016.

Current Project	Performance Target as per 2015-25 Long Term Plan	Update
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 intend presenting a report to the RPC on necessity for a ‘limited scope’ plan change after the plan effectiveness reporting is completed. The Consultant’s plan effectiveness assessment will be presented to the Regional Planning Committee before July 2016. 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.

Statutory Advocacy Att 1

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 22 January 2016)

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	Update… · Environment Court has directed that subdivision consent appeal and the related rezoning appeal proceedings be heard jointly. The Court is revising the timetable for evidence exchange and hearing, pending a date being set for mediation. New hearing dates are yet to be confirmed. Previously… · Evans Family Trust had lodged appeals against zoning decisions issued by the Hastings District Council. Prior to that, HBRC had lodged an appeal to the Environment Court against the HDC’s subdivision consent 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, subject to appeal	NEW… · Council staff have produced a table that outlines where NCC intends to harmonised PC10 with similar provisions in the proposed HDC District Plan. This table is attached as Appendix 3. This table is in response to one Committee member’s request at the previous meeting in November. Previously… · NCC issued decisions on PC10 on the 24^th 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. Parties are currently negotiating a possible resolution to the appeal. · 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 decisions issued, subject to appeals	NEW… · Council staff have produced a table that outlines where HDC intends to harmonised their proposed District Plan provisions with the similar provisions in NCC PC10. This table is attached as Appendix 3. This table is in response to one Committee member’s request at the previous meeting in November. Previously… · Over 40 separate appeals were lodged against HDC’s decisions by other groups and individuals. Council staff determined HBRC should join as a section 274 interested party to proceedings on eleven (11) of those appeals. It is anticipated that mediation of those appeals will likely occur during 2016. · HBRC did not lodge an appeal against any of HDC’s decisions made on HBRC’s own submissions and further submissions. · HDC issued its decisions on 12 September 2015. Council staff have reviewed the decisions and are satisfied that HBRC’s submission has been appropriately reflected. · 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 proceedings on-hold at applicant’s request	NEW… · The Office of Treaty Settlements has confirmed that Rongomaiwahine Iwi are pursuing their application in direct negotiation with the Minister. Previously… · The Applicant asked the High Court to ‘park’ the proceedings while Rongomaiwahine Iwi attempted to enter into direct negotiations with the Minister of Treaty Settlements. · 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.
9 June 2015	NCC	5	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to create four additional lots (total 5) to subdivide Lots 7-10 Deeds Plan 96 (1.8919 ha) into five (5) lots.at 258 Meeanee Road.	Applicant A & F Partnership Agent OPUS	Notified NCC hearing pending	Previously… · HBRC opposed 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 and it is in an area with limiting physical characteristics and limited infrastructure and servicing · A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions

Appendix Three - Harmonisation of the Napier Plan Change 10 and the Hastings District Plan Review Provisions

Attachment 3

Appendix Three – Harmonisation of the Napier Plan Change 10 and Hastings District Plan Review Provisions

What is not being harmonised (as previously agreed by HDC and NCC):

1. Heretaunga Plains unconfined aquifer chapter

2. Outstanding Landscapes

3. Waahi Tapu

4. Trees

5. Papakinga

6. Mineral, Aggregate and Hydrocarbon extraction

7. Indigenous Vegetation

8. Subdivision

9. Financial Contributions

10. Contaminated Sites

11. Temporary Events.

What is being harmonised:

		Napier District Plan (PC 10) Pre Notification	Hastings District Plan (Review) Pre Notification	Harmonisation actions agreed in Principle
1	Volumes	Four volumes	Two Volumes	NCC intends to incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan into the District Plan.
2	Natural Hazards	Recognises Coastal, Earthquake, Flooding and Slippage/Hill Erosion Hazard. However the rule framework only imposes restrictions on activities in the Coastal Hazard Area.	In addition to what NCC identifies, HDC also identifies Fire Hazard and River Hazard and provides information about liquefaction and amplification.	NCC intends to adopt Hazard rules for Esk River. HDC, NCC and HBRC are currently working together to determine what rules should apply to flooding hazard.
3	Network Utilities	Similar provisions to HDC.	Similar Provisions to NCC.	NCC intends to adopt HDC revised set of provisions. This will be of benefit for network utilities providers.
4	Activities on the Surface of Water	Currently has rules for activities on the surface of water within the OPEN SPACES section of the District Plan.	Separate chapter relating specifically to Activities on the Surface of Water.	Harmonise as applicable to district waterbodies. NCC intends to adopt HDC provisions for Tukaekuri and Esk Rivers. Only Passive, non-motorised recreation to be permitted on the Ahuriri Estuary.
5	Definitions	Some terms defined in one plan but not the other.	Some terms defined in one plan but not the other.	Harmonise definitions where possible.
6	Earthworks	Earthworks dealt with in the ‘Code of Practice’ with no specific chapter in the District Plan.	Specific chapter for earthworks.	NCC will consider changing the provisions in the ‘Code of Practice’ to the same approach as HDC.
7	Maps	NCC maps are black and white A3 portrait with a key on each page.	HDC have coloured A4 landscape with no key.	NCC & HDC GIS staff are working together to produce consistent maps.
8	Hazardous Substances	NCC and HDC provisions appear very similar and based on the Hazardous Substances Facilities Planning matrix (HSFP matrix).	NCC and HDC provisions appear very similar and based on the HSFP matrix.	Both Councils are moving away from the HSFP matrix and adopting a new aligned approach. HDC has reviewed this chapter and NCC intends to adopt similar provisions.
9	Noise	Zone based provisions and references to outdated standards.	References outdated standards. Key difference is that HDC noise limits are embedded within a matrix which limits the noise in the zone that it originates and in the receiving zone.	Councils to align provisions to reflect new standards.
10	Transport	Chapter relates mainly to carparking requirements. Other requirements are within a Code of Practice.	Chapter entitled Traffic Sightlines Carparking and Access.	Councils to align carparking ratios only where practicable.
11	Structure of ‘District Wide’ Sections	All non-zone-based provisions are contained within on ‘District Wide’ section.	Provisions that are not zoned-based are separated into three sections: Resource Management Units (RMU’s), District Wide Activities and General Provisions.	HDC moving towards having a ‘District Wide’ section.
12	Riparian Land Management and Public Access	Relies on RMA provisions for Esplanade Reserves and Strips (where required) No limit on vegetation removal.	Specific chapter on Riparian Land Management and Public Access. Limits on vegetation clearance.	HDC is moving towards NCC RMA approach.
13	Scheduled Sites	NCC has a number of scheduled sites throughout the district. These identify a use and schedule that site for that specific use.	HDC do not schedule sites.	HDC are introducing scheduled sites.

[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.

1	Statutory Advocacy Att 1
2	Statutory Advocacy Map Att 2
3	Appendix Three - Harmonisation of the Napier Plan Change 10 and the Hastings District Plan Review Provisions