Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2017

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

“A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting:

(a) the reason the item is not on the agenda; and

(b) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.”

2. In addition, standing order 9.13 allows “A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.”

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 13:

1.1. Urgent items of Business (supported by tabled CE or Chairpersons’s report)

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2017

Subject: Interim outline of project milestones for preparation of plan change for oil and gas activities

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an indicative outline of next steps associated with the Council’s new project to prepare a plan change for regulation of oil and gas activities. A further fuller report is intended to be presented to the Committee in March.

Background

2. At the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 23 November 2016, the following recommendations were made:

“2.2. Agrees to progress a prohibition of oil and gas exploration activities within productive aquifers, aquifer recharge zones and surface water bodies through a standalone plan change spanning the whole region, and

2.2.1. at the outset, seek an opinion from an expert RMA legal counsel on the extent to which such a prohibition would be justifiable under law.

2.3. Notes that there will be legal, administrative and resourcing costs associated with either option [of what and where the plan change might apply].

2.4. Directs staff to report back to the Regional Planning Committee in early 2017 on details of a process to give effect to the Committee’s preferred option” (Ref RPC61/16).

3. That recommendation was subsequently adopted by the Council at its meeting on 30 November.

4. For the 2017 calendar year, the Council has adopted a schedule of meetings which has timetabled meetings of the Regional Planning Committee to occur on the first Wednesday of every month.

Proposed indicative next steps

5. Committee members will recall that this new plan change project was not part of the Policy Planning Team’s 2016/17 work programme^{^[1]}. However since the November meeting, planning staff have started preliminary work to scope out the likely next steps for preparation of this plan change. The key next steps (or indicative milestones) are set out in Table 1.

Table 1 - Indicative milestones and timeframes for preparation of oil and gas regulation plan change

Ref#	Indicative Milestone	Indicative timing
1	Draft project work programme and stakeholder engagement plan adoption	March 2017
2	Preliminary legal advice on scope and justifiable prohibition	March 2017
3	Engagement of consultant(s) for plan change preparation services	Feb – March
4	Plan change option scoping and evaluation; stakeholder engagement; drafting, etc.	March – September
5	Draft plan change and s32 evaluation report for RPC’s consideration	Late 2017
6	Plan Change public notification	late 2017
7	Submission and further submissions period	Early 2018
8	Submission hearings	Mid 2018
9	Decisions on submissions issued	Mid 2018
10	Appeal phase (if any appeals made)	Late 2018 and beyond

6. It should be noted that Council staff’s earlier advice still stands; that the Council continues to retain an ability to halt further drafting or terminate the project entirely if issues emerge through the pre-notification consultation and s32 evaluation phases that warrant a change of approach.

7. At the Committee’s 1 March meeting, staff intend to present a fuller draft work programme and engagement plan for the Committee’s consideration. That work programme would be based upon these indicative milestones and preliminary legal advice currently being sought on the question of scope and form of a regional planning prohibition.

8. Staff intend that the fuller work programme would also propose incorporation of the small number of amendments which had been suggested in the two earlier reports on this matter (i.e. the October 2015 report by van Voorthuysen Environmental Limited and the 2016 report by Environmental Management Services Limited). Both of those reports were presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 1 June 2016.

Decision Making Process

9. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Interim outline of project milestones for preparation of plan change for oil and gas activities” report from staff and notes that a fuller staff report on this new project’s proposed milestones will be presented to the Committee meeting on 1 March 2017.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2017

Subject: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Overview and Review Process Update

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is twofold:

1.1. To provide a recap of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) adopted in 2010 by the Regional Council, plus both Napier City and Hastings District councils; and

1.2. To provide an update on the review of HPUDS currently being overseen by the joint-council Implementation Working Group.

Recap of HPUDS 2010

2. The 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy was adopted in August 2010 by the three partner Councils – Hastings District, Napier City and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. The Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time through 5 yearly reviews.

3. The purpose of the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy is to provide a comprehensive, integrated and effective growth management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region (refer Figure 1). HPUDS 2010 brought together the separate urban development strategies that both Hastings and Napier had in place covering the period from the 1990s through to 2015.

Figure 1 - Location Map of Heretaunga Plains sub-region

4. HPUDS 2010 takes a long-term view of land use and infrastructure and how growth will be managed in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region for the period 2015-2045. HPUDS will need to adapt and take into account changing circumstances over the 30-year timeframe. The Strategy’s timeframe deliberately started from 2015 in order to provide a lead-in time for establishing policies in statutory planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement). For the 2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings would continue to apply.

5. The goals for preparing the urban development strategy were to:

5.1. Describe the level of residential and business land growth over the next 30 years and beyond by identifying:

5.1.1. Where growth will go and desired density

5.1.2. What the sequence of development should be and the timetable/or triggers

5.1.3. The criteria for establishing the boundaries to urban growth

5.1.4. What infrastructure is needed, particularly transportation and drainage

5.1.5. The budget implications.

5.2. Propose policies to guide growth through:

5.2.1. Regional Policy Statement

5.2.2. District plans

5.2.3. Councils’ long term plans (LTPs)

5.2.4. The Regional Land Transport Strategy

5.2.5. Infrastructure development planning (including both policy and social infrastructure networks).

6. HPUDS 2010 vision is:

“In 2045, the Heretaunga Plains is a place where there are thriving communities, quality living environments with high levels of amenity, and where mana whenua values and aspirations are recognised and provided for, and where:

· There is a growing and resilient economy which promotes opportunities to live, work, play and invest.

· The productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for, and sustainable use is promoted.

· The urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide complementary living, working and learning opportunities.

· Community and physical infrastructure is integrated, sustainable and affordable.”

7. HPUDS 2010 is founded on a series of guiding principles (refer Figure 2).

Figure 2- HPUDS2010 guiding principles

8. In implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact development form. This development form was settled on by the partner Councils after an initial round of consultation in the development of HPUDS. Back then, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:

8.1. “In the move towards more compact urban form for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within existing residential and rural residential areas, development is expected to transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:

• 60% intensification (10 – 20% intensification of brownfields)

• 35% greenfield

• 5% of population in rural areas.

The Strategy was also developed on the basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”

9. To achieve this change to a more compact form and in avoiding unnecessary urban development on the Heretaunga Plains, HPUDS 2010 identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development to these areas only. As well as seeking to protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is required to encourage the intensification of development within the existing urban areas to ensure that the 60% intensification target can be met.

10. Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view. This approach also ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided as much as possible.

11. The growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045. These projections are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields, infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in a ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.

12. Following adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, partner councils’ efforts have turned to implementing many of the recommended 144 actions. Those actions are listed in the Strategy with specified lead agencies, timing and priority all grouped under the following theme headings derived from the strategy vision.

Governance, Collaboration, Partnership and Community Engagement	Central Government Engagement and Commitment	Land and Soils	Climate Change
Monitoring and Review	Coastal Environment	Water Supply	Transport
Implementation Management	Residential Development	Freshwater	Funding
Development and Integration of Plans and Policies	Open Space, Sport, Recreation and Leisure	Viticulture and Horticulture	Wastewater
Strategy Adaptability	Affordable Housing	Cultural Heritage	Stormwater
Utilities and Infrastructure Delivery	Business	Community Development	Waste Minimisation
Quality Living Environments with High Levels of Amenity & Thriving Communities	Urban Centres	Health and Education	Energy Resources
Air	Mana Whenua	Hazards	Landscape

13. A working group was formed to oversee implementation of HPUDS2010. It has no direct decision-making powers, but can make recommendations to the partner councils. The Implementation Working Group has membership of:

13.1. Two elected members from each partner council.

13.2. Mayors of Napier and Hastings councils

13.3. Chairman of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

13.4. Chief Executives from each partner council

13.5. Two representatives of mana whenua.

14. A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) supports the Working Group. The TAG comprises senior planning staff from each of the three partner councils.

Update on 2016 HPUDS Review process

15. The Strategy is intended to be reviewed every 5 years to ensure that it remains fit for purpose over time and is adapted as necessary to remain relevant. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group commenced the first regular 5-yearly review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since 2010.

16. After considering matters arising from the initial ‘stock take’, the Working Group agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review would be to:

16.1. update hazard information

16.2. make any required or requested changes to settlement pattern (including reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)

16.3. remove redundant or low value recommended actions, and correct omissions and errors

16.4. further investigate the rural residential land supply and regulatory responses

16.5. further evaluate the retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages

16.6. consider councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy.

17. There are three stages to the 2016 Review which is now near completion.

Figure 3 - Representation of the HPUDS Review's key stages

18. The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 generally confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in population during the period 2009 - 2015. The updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting the medium – high growth projections), but this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections.

19. The various reports identified some need for further work around rural residential supply and some action around immediate greenfields supply availability issues. During Stage 2, a further report examined the implications of a growth in demand for retirement housing, given the projected aging of the population.

20. The key findings of the reports from Stage 2 are summarised as:

20.1. There is no short to medium term supply issue with rural residential land, therefore no adjustment is required to the settlement pattern to identify more rural residential land in this review;

20.2. The aging population is going to have a significant effect on the type of housing that the market demands in the future being a move towards smaller dwellings and retirement units. At this stage it is envisaged that the market can provide for such housing through the preferred HPUDS settlement pattern with smaller dwellings helping meet the intensification targets and that some of the greenfields land can provide for retirement village housing;

20.3. Changes should be made to the HPUDS Settlement Pattern to replace a Greenfield Growth Area (Arataki Extension replaced with Brookvale due to reverse sensitivity issues with Te Mata Mushrooms) and introduce ‘reserve areas’ in addressing the current short term supply issue and in avoiding such issues in the future; and

20.4. Two areas (Whirinaki and Clive South (off Read Crescent)) can be removed from the list of inappropriate areas for residential greenfields growth.

21. The third stage featuring public consultation resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016.

Next steps

22. Members of the Working Group who heard submissions will need to reconvene in the coming weeks to consider and finalise their overall package of recommendations and revisions to the ‘HPUDS Settlement Pattern’ proposed by the 2016 Strategy Review. At the time of writing this report, a date was yet to be set for that reconvened discussion.

23. Once the overall package is finalised, those recommendations will be presented to each of the three Partner Councils (i.e. Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke's Bay Regional councils). Currently, there are no specific dates yet fixed for the HPUDS recommendations to be presented at upcoming meetings of the three councils, but best intentions are to have that achieved prior to Easter, if not sooner. Upcoming Hawke's Bay Regional Council meeting dates are 22 February and 29 March.

24. The Working Group has previously indicated it would inform each of the submitters about its recommendations once finalised, but clearly the Working Group cannot give any guarantees about what each council might do with those recommendations thereafter.

Decision Making Process

25. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Overview and Review Process Update” report from staff.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2017

Subject: Regional Planning Committee Work Plan 2017-18: Part 1

Reason for Report

1. This report presents an overview of the prospective briefing papers to be presented for the Committee’s consideration during 2017. This report (Part 1) outlines those briefing papers, focusing on development and review of resource management policy. A further report (i.e. Part 2) will be presented at the Committee’s meeting in March, focusing on science reporting.

2. It is intended this report (and Part 2) will assist in informing committee members about the Committee’s work over the next 12 months in particular.

Discussion - RMA Plan Change Processes

3. The Council’s overall work programme and project priorities for RMA plan changes is set out in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan and the 2016-17 Annual Plan. Key ‘milestones’ for RMA plan change projects during the 2016-18 period are set out in Attachment 1. Also refer to separate agenda item for brief update on resource management policy planning projects.

4. The Regional Planning Committee has previously given endorsement to work programmes for two key policy projects, being plan change development work for the Mohaka and TANK catchments.

5. At the Committee’s meeting in March, staff intend to present draft work programmes for development of plan changes regarding:

5.1. Outstanding freshwater bodies and

5.2. Regulation of oil and gas activities.

6. Attachment 2 is an indicative timeline of key plan change project milestones and associated reporting to the Committee. Staff have based the indicative milestones and timeframes on those work programmes. In addition, staff have also assessed a number of additional matters likely to arise during 2017 that the Committee will need to consider. Those matters include:

6.1. Annual reporting on the Committee’s activities

6.2. Annual reporting on the Council’s implementation of the NPS for Freshwater Management

6.3. Proposals for further ‘national direction’ on resource management matters likely to be released for comment by the Ministry for the Environment and/or other government departments.

7. The indicative reporting milestones foreshadowed in Attachment 2 differentiate reporting for:

7.1. information purposes and

7.2. where a decision may need to be made by the Committee.

8. In some cases, reporting timeframes are beyond the control of council and staff as they are subject to external drivers (for example, timing of Central Government’s release of proposals for public comment). Timing of the National Direction workstreams have a large degree of uncertainty following the Kaikoura earthquake. MFE’s office suffered some damage and many MFE officials faced extra post-quake recovery planning work demands.

Science Investigations and Reporting to Support Plan Change Processes

9. Due to senior science team staff’s current commitments, it is intended that an overview of the key science reporting and associated briefing papers will be presented to the Committee at its meeting scheduled on 1 March (i.e. Part 2 of the work plan overview).

Decision Making Process

10. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “Regional Planning Committee Work Plan 2017-18: Part 1” report by staff.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	RMA Project Milestones
2	Indicative Calendar for RPC Activities

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2017

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Project Overview and Update

Reason for Report

1. At the Maori Committee’s inaugural meeting for the 2016-19 triennium, members of the Maori Committee requested further explanation of what the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project is and how that project’s activities are undertaken. This report is a replica of the staff report which will be presented to the Maori Committee meeting on 14 February 2017.

2. The purpose of this report is to twofold:

2.1. To provide a fuller description of the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project (HBRC project code 196) because some clarification was requested by members of the Maori Committee; and

2.2. To provide a summary of those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in. This is what past reports have regularly briefed committee members about.

What is the Statutory Advocacy project?

3. The Council’s Statutory Advocacy project centres on resource management-related proposals (initiated by third parties) upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

3.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a city or district council

3.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a city or district council

3.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a city or district council

3.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

3.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, discussion documents etc prepared by city councils, district councils, government ministries (e.g. Department of Conservation, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Primary Industries) or other agencies involved in resource management

3.6. proposed legislation (e.g. Bills, Regulations, national environmental standards, national policy statements and associated amendments).

4. To be clear, in all cases of the Statutory Advocacy activity, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is only an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on proposals put forward by others.

5. The regular Statutory Advocacy Update reports presented to the Maori Committee and Regional Planning Committee focus on formal submission stages of matters in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5 above.

How is the Council’s position formed?

6. Essentially, ‘Statutory Advocacy’ is a cluster of initiatives to assist in implementing the Council’s own policies. This advocacy is highlighted in Figure 1 which is an illustration of the planning cycle and how different parts of the Council are involved in that process.

Figure 1 - Planning cycle highlighting 'advocacy' activities as part of implementing HBRC's plans

7. The Council’s ‘statutory advocacy’ position is typically informed by the Council’s own existing plans, policies and strategies, plus its land ownership and/or asset management interests.

8. There is quite a list of HBRC’s plans, policies and strategies (refer Attachment 1 which is graphical illustration of the list as previously presented to the Maori Committee meeting in December 2015). Each of those policy documents has a particular purpose. Consequently, for any particular proposal, those policy documents will have more or less relevance which is considered on a case by case basis.

9. The Strategic Development Group is responsible for coordinating the formation of Council’s position on resource management-related statutory advocacy proposals. For local proposals, planning staff liaise with staff from a variety of other sections to establish:

9.1. whether or not the Council has any relevant policy, asset management and/or land ownership interests relating to a proposal; and

9.2. if there are interests, then whether those interests warrant an advocacy response.

10. In relation to proposed legislation, relevant staff will typically review the proposal in the first instance. Where relevant, planning staff will seek input from various teams to formulate a draft submission for consideration by councillors.

How is advocacy expressed?

11. Expression of HBRC’s policy advocacy is typically communicated in the following ways:

11.1. Pre-application/during drafting phases of the proposal through relevant staff engaging with the proponent. This is typically in the form of face to face meetings and exchanges of written correspondence/comments. For example, staff liaising with city and district councils regarding draft versions of district plans, or liaison with developers before they lodge land use and subdivision consent proposals with the relevant city or district council.

11.2. Formal written submissions made to the administering authority and associated hearings and appeal processes (if relevant).

11.3. Joining court proceedings as an interested party (e.g. High Court proceedings regarding applications for Customary Marine Title and/or Protected Customary Rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act);

12. For many years now, the Council has delegated authority to lodge submissions on various resource management-related proposals to the Group Manager Strategic Development. In relation to Council making formal submissions on national legislation (i.e. as paragraph 3.6 above refers), the Council has not fully delegated that authority to senior staff.

13. At some stage during development of new legislation, the relevant Minister/Ministry of the Crown will typically invite submissions from any person. It is worth noting that these sorts of opportunities are extended to not only local authorities, but other interests too. Any person, group, organisation or company will have a chance to make their own submission on Bills, proposed NPSs, proposed NES etc.

14. On some occasions, opportunities exist to ‘share’ positions and impressions of proposed legislation with sector representative groups such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), and/or the collective of 16 regional councils and unitary authorities.

15. Preparation and lodgement of joint submissions with two or more like-minded agencies (for example, a joint submission on proposed NPS on Urban Development Capacity by HBRC, HB territorial authorities and the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group; joint submission on a proposed NES for Plantation Forestry by HBRC, PanPac Limited and Hawke's Bay Forestry Group).

16. Best endeavours are made to present draft submissions on proposed legislation to the Council for consideration. Some of those draft submissions would be presented to the Regional Planning Committee for consideration when they directly relate to proposed amendments to the RMA, national policy statements, national environmental standards or similar national regulations. However, this is all very dependent on submission deadlines relative to committee and council meeting schedules.

17. In the past, due to timing constraints, some submissions on proposed legislation have needed to be made with only authorisation from the Chief Executive, Council Chairman and/or co-chairs of the Regional Planning Committee. Some of these challenges will be mitigated by the Regional Planning Committee meeting far more frequently (i.e. monthly) during 2017.

18. Copies of any formal submissions made by the Council on resource management-related proposals under the banner of the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project are routinely uploaded and can be accessed from the Council’s website^{^[2]}.

Statutory Advocacy Update

19. A summary of those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in is outlined in Attachment 2. This update covers the period 1 November 2016 to 31 January 2017. During 2017, similar reports are intended to be presented bi-monthly, rather than every monthly Committee meeting.

Decision Making Process

20. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Project Overview and Update report.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

February 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update

[1] No internal staff time was budgeted, but external costs were budgeted (up to $145,000 of unspent funds borrowed by the previous council in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan to consider oil and gas regulatory matters) albeit that some of those funds have been used during 2016-17 for work on Regional Energy Futures and the regional energy strategy initiatives.