Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 March 2017

Subject: Adoption of the Supporting Accountability Documents and Consultation Document for the 2017-18 Draft Annual Plan

Reason for Report

1. Now that Council has completed a number of Annual Plan workshops, there is a need to formally approve the supporting accountability documents covering the Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 and approve the Consultation Document, which covers material changes to the LTP for the Annual Plan.

Process

2. Section 95(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) states that the local authority must prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year.

3. The purpose of an Annual Plan is set out in section 95(5) as:

3.1. Contains the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the Annual Plan relates; and

3.2. Identifies any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s LTP in respect of the year; and

3.3. Provides integrated decision making and coordination of the resources of the local authority; and

3.4. Contributes to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

4. The LGA establishes that where there are material changes in the Plan from the same year as included in the LTP, then to comply with section 82(a)(3) of the LGA the local authority must prepare and adopt a consultation document.

5. This consultation document needs to:

5.1. Identify significant or material differences between the proposed Annual Plan and the content of the LTP for the financial year to which the Annual Plan relates; and

5.2. Explain the matters in paragraph 5.1 that can be readily understood by interested or affected people; and

5.3. Inform discussions between the local authority and its communities about the matters in paragraph 5.1.

6. The LGA states that the content of a consultation document must be concise and presented in a simple manner.

7. Council has discussed the development of the Draft Annual Plan and Consultation Document at workshops on 23 February 2017, 8 March 2017 and 15 March 2017. Discussions at these workshops have concluded that to create a $1M environmental kick start fund to accelerate actions on environmental hot spots, there would be a need to increase the rate level over the level included in the LTP of $5.51% for the 2017-18 financial year. Discussions concluded that the rate level to be consulted on through the Consultation Document would be 9.88%.

8. The Consultation Document will cover a number of options, two of which cover increases in rates. The first option requires a rate increase of 4.88% to fund the “business as usual” delivery of Council services, but would not allow the acceleration of addressing environmental hot spots. The second option is to increase rates a further 5% to 9.88% to fast track environmental projects. The resolutions to this paper will cover both of these rate increases.

9. For the adoption of this Draft Annual Plan it is proposed to undertake the same process as was carried out for the LTP, and adopt the Draft Annual Plan supporting accountability documents (groups of activity performance measures, financial statements, funding impact statement and resource management charges), and then adopt the Consultation Document.

Resource management charges Changes of significance

Table 1

10. Land use application for bore permit $180 to $300 – increased professional input from consent planners to assess risk of contamination, in addition to administrative processing cost.

11. Initial fixed fee increases reflect the average costs that have not been updated for three years. All are based on actual and reasonable costs.

12. Onsite waste water removed - covered by general consent application fixed fee, and based on actual cost.

Table 2, 2a

13. Compliance costs - Decreases based on hourly rate - more staff spreading overhead costs.

14. Incentives for full compliance – compliance monitoring, now superseded by visiting every site, every year.

15. Consents - Increases based on hourly rate – less staff absorbing fixed overhead costs.

16. General increase to hourly rate, staff costs in line with inflation.

3. (Zone based water science charges)

17. 35% of the cost of science work attributable to consent holders is split, twenty per cent of the costs being charged as a fixed portion and distributed uniformly among all current consent holders. The remaining 80% are separately attributed to five categories of relevant consent holders (surface water takes, groundwater takes, (stream depleting – hybrid SW/GW), hydro water takes, discharges to water, or discharges to land). Charges are levied against individual allocated volume m3 for water takes, and a pollution index score for discharge consents. Section 36 charges vary year on year as costs are recovered from consent holders using a zone based approach that reflects the amount of science work done in each of the seven zones. The tables (3 to 5) in the plan show the changes between 2016-17 and 2017-18. Where there is a significant increase in charge, this tends to reflect the cost of work done in the zone being shared with a relatively small number of consent holders. Notable shifts are associated with discharge charges. These draft annual plan charges are indicative estimates based on the 2017 – 2018 science budgets for the year, and could be adjusted for actual expenditure within the zones at year-end. The balance (65%) of science costs fall to the general rate.

Table 10

18. Water Information Services hourly rate costs are covered in table 2a annual charges.

Attachments

19. The documents that provide the detailed information to support the Consultation Document covering the 2017-18 Annual Plan will be made available on Council’s website and there will be links from the Consultation Document (when viewed on the website) to the relevant supporting documents.

20. The proposed supporting accountability documents are:

20.1. Attachment 1: Financial Information including Notes to the Financial Statements, Funding Impact Statements, Sample Rates for Specific Properties and proposed Resource Management Charges amendments

20.2. Attachment 2: The proposed Consultation Document “2017-18 Planning Ahead”

20.3. Attachment 3: Groups of Activities proposed Service Levels and Performance Targets

Local Government Act Audit Requirements and Consultation

21. The LGA does not require that a Draft Annual Plan or the Consultation Document be audited.

22. In addition to social media, public notices in the newspaper, community paper and radio ads, and public meetings, a database of regional stakeholders and interested persons will be emailed, requesting their feedback on the Consultation document “2017-18 Planning Ahead”.

23. Councillors may elect to support the consultative process by using radio and newspaper editorial opportunities, such as Talking Points, interviews and letters to the editor.

Timetable

24. Following are the public consultation and Council process timelines.

Item	Timeline
Public consultation on Consultation Document begins	Monday 10 April 2017
Submissions close at 5.00pm after the five week consultation period	Friday 12 May 2017
Copies of public submissions provided to councillors	Monday 22 May 2017
Staff reports and submissions provided to councillors	Tuesday 6 June 2017
Council meeting to consider public submissions	Monday 12 June and/or Tuesday 13 June 2017
Council meeting to adopt 2017-18 Annual Plan	Wednesday 28 June 2017

Decision Making Process

25. The Local Government Act 2002, section 82(a)(3) sets out the consultation required for an Annual Plan and states that a Consultation Document is required where there are significant or material differences between the proposed Annual Plan and the content of the LTP for the financial year to which the Annual Plan relates.

26. Council has determined that there are some material and significant issues and these are covered in the Consultation Document prepared for the special consultative procedure.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Confirms that Council is complying with section 82(a)(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) in relation to the Consultation Document requirements for a Draft Annual Plan and that a special consultative procedure has been adopted for this consultation.

2. Resolves that for the 2017-18 financial year that rates be increased by 4.88% (on the rates set for 2016-17) to fund a “business as usual” delivery of Council’s services.

3. Resolves to increase total rates by a further 5% (on the rates set for 2016-17) to provide funding for addressing environmental hot spots by fast tracking environment projects. This will have the effect of increasing the rate level by 9.88% (on the rates set for 2016-17).

4. Adopts the following accountability documents and, as amended at this meeting, to the Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 and Consultation Document:

4.1. Group of Activity proposed performance measures

4.2. Financial Information, including Funding Impact Statement, sample rates for specific properties and the Resource Management charges.

5. Approves the proposed scale and schedule of charges as set out in the “Resource Management Charges” as included as part of the Annual Plan supporting accountability documents, and that this is submitted in accordance with section 36(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6. Adopts the Consultation Document, and as amended at this meeting by Council, which covers the Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 material change issues from the LTP.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Trudy Kilkolly

Financial Accountant

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇨1	2017-18 Draft Annual Plan Financial Information	Under Separate Cover
⇩2	2017-18 Annual Plan Consultation Document
3	2017-18 Groups of Activities proposed Service Levels and Performance Targets	Still to come – Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 March 2017

Subject: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council to adopt the 2016 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS2016), with the need for this arising from the scheduled five yearly monitoring and review of the Strategy as provided for in the implementation section of the adopted HPUDS2010.

2. The joint-council HPUDS Implementation Working Group (IWG) has completed its consideration of submissions on the Draft Review document it published in 2016 and is now formally recommending that the amended strategy be adopted by the Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils (i.e. the partner councils). Similar reports are being presented to the respective meetings of the Hastings District Council (23 March) and Napier City Council (19 April).

3. This report concludes by recommending that the Council adopts HPUDS2016 in accordance with recommendations from the IWG, as the regional strategy to direct urban development from 2015 to 2045, conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also resolving to adopt the strategy.

Background

HPUDS2010

4. Before considering the IWG’s recommendations for the review, it is worth recapping on HPUDS2010. A similar recap was presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in February 2017.

5. HPUDS was adopted in August 2010 by the Hastings District, Napier City and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils (the partner councils). The purpose of HPUDS2010 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

6. 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. Other strategies and plans that will influence and be influenced by HPUDS include the Regional Land Transport Strategy, the Regional Land Transport Programme, each of the partner councils’ growth strategies; Long Term Plans (LTPs), district plans and the Regional Policy Statement.

7. HPUDS 2010 stated 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.”

8. HPUDS 2010 is also founded on a series of guiding principles as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - HPUDS2010 guiding principles

9. In implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact development form that was settled on by the partner councils after an initial round of public consultation. At that time, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:

“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

· 35% greenfield

· 5% of population in rural areas.

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

10. This change to a more compact form was envisaged to take the form of a transition from largely greenfields development to intensification over time. HPUDS 2010 therefore identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development largely to these areas. To protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is considered necessary to encourage the shift to intensification of development within the existing urban areas to meet the 60% intensification target by 2045. Table 1 shows this transition.

Table 1: Additional Households for the Heretaunga Plains 2015 – 2045 (HPUDS 2010)

Type of Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	TOTAL 2015-2045
Intensification	45% [1872]	55% [1502]	60% [674]	51% [4048]
Greenfields	45% [1872]	40% [1092]	35% [394]	41% [3358]
Rural Residential	10% [416]	5% [136]	5% [56]	8% [608]
Total	100% [4160]	100% [2730]	100% [1124]	100% [8014]

11. Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view than an ad-hoc market led approach. It 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.

12. These defined growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045 as in Table 1. 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 the ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.

13. 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 and Hastings District Plan Review). For the 2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings continued to apply.

14. Key implementation actions that have been taken since 2010 include:

14.1. Change 4 to the Regional Policy Statement to embed HPUDS policy direction

14.2. Review of the Hastings District Plan and a plan change to Napier City District Plan to incorporate HPUDS policy and zoning initiative (10 years)

14.3. Incorporated HPUDS in land use projections for [then] Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme.

HPUDS Implementation and Review

15. Following adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, a working group (IWG) was formed to oversee its implementation. The IWG has no direct decision-making powers, but can make recommendations to the partner councils. The IWG consists of:

15.1. Two elected members from each partner council

15.2. Mayors of Napier and Hastings councils

15.3. Chairperson of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

15.4. Chief Executives from each partner council

15.5. Two representatives of mana whenua.

16. Councillors Tom Belford, Alan Dick and Fenton Wilson represented HBRC on the IWG during the last triennium which included overseeing the HPUDS2016 Review and hearing submissions on the Draft document. This triennium, the Regional Council appointed Councillors Belford, Dick and the Chairman Clr Graham as members of the IWG. A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprising senior planning staff from each of the three partner councils supports the Working Group. An updated version of the IWG’s terms of reference is set out in Attachment 6 for the Council’s endorsement, subject to similar endorsement from the two other partner councils.

17. HPUDS is based on a number of assumptions about future development and infrastructure trends that will likely change over the next thirty years and the Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time. As such, HPUDS specifically provides that the Strategy be reviewed every five years after the results of the national census are available, to ensure that it is kept up to date and relevant. Due to the Canterbury earthquakes delaying the last census, this first five-year review programmed for 2015 was delayed until 2016.

Current Situation

18. The IWG was charged with undertaking the first regular 5-year review and recommending any changes to HPUDS back to the partner councils. The IWG split the review into three stages as set out in Figure 3.

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

19. The IWG commenced the review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since 2010. Eleven separate reports were completed as part of Stage 1 reports. These reviewed the assumptions upon which the strategy was based with a particular focus on the monitoring of growth drivers and trends of the five years to 2015.

Growth Drivers and Emerging Issues

20. The population growth within the study area from 2009 – 2015, was higher than that projected in 2009 (by 1,080) due to both natural population increase (4,594) and net migration gain (1,106). This migration gain was from internal migration from other parts of New Zealand of 3,172, which more than compensated for a net overseas migration loss of 2,066. However, net migration gains have historically tended to be followed by losses, hence the long term Statistics New Zealand projections assume a migration balance.

21. Similarly, the total number of ‘households’ in the study area has exceeded the projections made six years ago by 545 households. In addition to population increase, this has resulted from demographic and social changes in the community which has reduced the average number of people per household from 2.6 in 2009 to 2.55 in 2016.

22. The HPUDS2016 Review therefore provided updated projections, which resulted in both population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the medium – high growth projection scenarios) compared to the HPUDS 2010 projections.

23. Projected household growth across the HPUDS study area for the 2015 – 2045 study period of 10,610 households is based on a Statistics New Zealand ‘Halfway Medium to High’ growth projection scenario. This is an increase on that projected in 2009 of 8,014 (it should be noted though that this projection was based on a medium-high projection for Napier City, but a ‘middle of the road’ growth projection scenario within the Hastings District). Total population growth in the area over the 2015-24 period is now projected to be 16,455, while average household occupancy falls from 2.55 to 2.38.

24. Forecast annual average GDP growth for the wider Hawke’s Bay region remains at 1.5% throughout the study period to 2045 with primary industry growth and infrastructural upgrading underpinning this growth outlook. Employment is similarly forecast to grow at average annual rates of 1 - 1.5% during the study period, so industrial and commercial land requirement projections remain similar to those projected in 2009.

25. The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 therefore 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.

26. 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). Nevertheless this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections over the long term, with some amendments (i.e. there is a sufficient buffer).

Scope of Review

27. Despite a long term level of comfort, some immediate supply issues (at Havelock North and Frimley (Lyndhurst) and potentially at Te Awa), suggested further work was needed around current greenfields supply availability issues in some locations.

28. The Market Demand report also identified that the lifestyle residential housing supply appeared to fall short of the likely total demand to the end of the 2045 study period, despite lessening demand beyond the 2020s expected with an aging population requiring better access to amenities and services.

29. After considering matters arising from the initial reporting ‘stock take’, the IWG agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review (i.e. remaining review Stages 2 and 3) would be to:

29.1. consider councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy and make any required or requested changes to the settlement pattern (including reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)

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

29.3. evaluate the retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages

29.4. update natural hazard information

29.5. remove redundant or low value recommended actions from the strategy, and correct omissions and errors.

30. On this basis the IWG commissioned three further reports as follows.

Table 2 - HPUDS2016 Review Additional Reports Commissioned

Report Title

Retirement Sector Housing Demand Forecasts 2016-2045 – A report for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review (2016)

Review of Rural Residential Lifestyle Sites

Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern

Greenfields Sites/Settlement Pattern

31. Opus Consultants undertook an independent evaluation of the comparative suitability of residential greenfield areas (including ‘Reserve’ areas) put forward by the Councils for inclusion in HPUDS. They were assessed against the Regional Policy Statement’s ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria.’

32. Hastings District Council had requested that the following areas land to be considered by the IWG for inclusion in HPUDS as part of this review as follows:

32.1. Brookvale as a short-medium term substitute for Arataki Extension

32.2. Part Romanes Drive as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

32.3. Part Middle/Te Aute Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

32.4. Murdoch Road West as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

32.5. Wall Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.

33. Questions about the viability of future stages of Te Awa, led Napier City Council to put forward Pirimai South as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.

34. The Opus review confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt the Hastings District Council’s preference for Arataki Extension to be removed from the list of Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS (due to reverse sensitivity issues to odour from the neighbouring Te Mata Mushrooms operations) and be replaced with an area fronting Brookvale Road, Havelock North. Further to this, in responding to immediate greenfields supply availability issues the report recommended the inclusion in HPUDS of additional ‘reserve’ growth areas, as requested.

35. It needs to be clearly understood that ‘Reserve areas’ are recommended to act as stand-by replacements for the Greenfield Growth Areas. This ensures that there are identified areas available within HPUDS to ‘bring on’ if, as has happened with Arataki Extension, a Greenfields Growth Area proves to be inappropriate upon closer investigation. Having reserve areas that have passed preliminary ‘pre-screening’ and are ‘on standby’ should a need arise, saves the delay that would be associated with a screening assessment which would otherwise be built into the HPUDS review process to introduce a new replacement area.

36. Other circumstances where a reserve area could be advanced would be if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand, or if for example retirement village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfields areas. It is not however deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District.

37. In addition, a review of ‘Areas Inappropriate for Greenfields Growth’ specifically identified Whirinaki and South Clive for re-consideration. The Opus report subsequently recommended two areas identified in the ‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list in HPUDS 2010 be removed. These are:

37.1. Clive South (an area off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and

37.2. Whirinaki.

38. The report concluded that both areas had originally been identified as inappropriate because of servicing issues, but those big servicing constraints can be overcome. However, while both areas now warrant removal from the ‘inappropriate’ list, neither warranted inclusion as appropriate greenfield growth areas (or reserve areas) in HPUDS.

Rural Residential Supply

39. A specific planning analysis by Cheal Consultants revealed that there is still available zoned, but not yet developed, land supplies for rural residential development in the areas identified as being desired by the market. This conclusion however relies on ongoing subdivision to create new lots in areas of market preference, whereas the HPUDS 2010 assumption was that there was already a surplus of available lots.

40. The creation of new lots in areas of market preference may or may not happen. No action was however deemed necessary at this point in time, but future HPUDS review processes should continue to identify the supply of lifestyle residential sites and monitor whether these are becoming scarce in areas of market preference.

Retirement Sector

41. Given the increasing proportion of the population in the 65+ age group, a specific study was undertaken by EMS Limited on this form of housing and its likely demand, and whether this is likely to be by greenfields or brownfields retirement villages or infill housing (or combinations).

42. The report concluded that retirement units are likely to represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. Sites of sufficient size for this are likely to be found primarily on greenfield land, rather than infill sites within existing urban areas.

43. As retirement housing (with associated higher housing densities) becomes an increasingly significant factor in the overall housing market, it is possible that the amount of greenfield land required for future housing development in the HPUDS study area would be reduced. As these trends develop there will be an increase in supply and potentially a reduction in demand for larger homes as these are sold by older people to help fund their entry into retirement housing. In providing for retirement villages however, there may be a need to reflect on future housing density rules and ways in which greater densities can be achieved in both greenfields and infill areas, without compromising (and ideally enhancing) the urban living environment.

44. No immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern was considered as a result of this report at this stage; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages. Reserve greenfields areas could be used to provide for retirement villages if the aggregation of sufficient areas of greenfields or brownfields land proves to be too difficult in the medium to longer term.

Draft Strategy

45. The other component of Stage 2 of the Review was to prepare a draft HPUDS Review Strategy document, based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the abovementioned Stage 2 reports, for public consultation.

46. The redrafted HPUDS document removed the implementation actions that were either completed or deemed unnecessary (in some cases because they are being actioned through other existing programmes, plans or strategies). In addition the redrafting involved the correction of errors and omissions and incorporated amendments to the HPUDS document arising from the items discussed above.

47. Further, it was decided to separate the implementation sections out from the main strategy document so that it would be more coherent and easier to digest for external audiences. A separate Implementation Plan (Attachment 5) was produced as a companion document, which would then guide the future activities of the IWG and Council staff between the 5 year monitoring and review phases.

Public Consultation (Stage 3)

48. The third stage featuring public consultation, involved refreshing the long-established website (www.hpuds.co.nz) with the content updated in July 2016. All the 2015 – 2016 Review information, including new maps and information regarding the making of submissions is posted on that website. Full page advertisement/explanations were included in the community newspapers on 3 August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today to advise the opportunity to make submissions on a reviewed HPUDS document.

49. Notices calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late July 2016. The mailing lists included the following:

49.1. HPUDS Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in stakeholder database);

49.2. Te Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas (South Pirimai); and

49.3. Arataki Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners, including land owners within 100m of boundaries of new areas (Brookvale and reserve areas).

50. That consultation phase resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016. Submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/review/#sub .

51. In terms of submission themes the following summary is provided, by location.

51.1. Brookvale / Arataki Area - submissions were received:

51.1.1. supporting Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11 submissions)

51.1.2. opposing Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1)

51.1.3. supporting Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and

51.1.4. seeking the retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1).

52. Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas - submissions were received in relation to:

52.1. supporting and opposing Iona / Havelock Hills (4)

52.2. supporting Middle Road (2)

52.3. supporting Howard Street (1)

52.4. supporting Wall Road (2)

52.5. opposing Murdoch Road (1)

52.6. mapping of Tomoana Industrial (2) and

52.7. mapping of Te Awanga (2).

53. Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve Areas - submissions were received requesting residential development in:

53.1. Ada Street (1)

53.2. Pakowhai Road (2)

53.3. Clive (2)

53.4. Raymond Road (3)

53.5. Waiohiki (1) and

53.6. Whirinaki (1).

54. Issues with Existing Growth Areas, Napier at:

54.1. Te Awa (2)

54.2. Taradale Hills (2) and

54.3. promote infill housing (1).

55. Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / development opportunities at:

55.1. Jervoistown (1)

55.2. Meeanee Road (1)

55.3. cnr Riverbend Road and Bledisloe Road (1) and

55.4. Churchill Drive (1).

56. Another ten general submissions (or parts of submissions) were received with a variety of more general requests, notably three of them strongly support the existing strategy and either oppose or urge caution with regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.

Hearing and Recommendations

57. The IWG held hearings over two days in October last year and resolved to write to all submitters thanking them for their submissions and advising them of the IWG’s recommendations in response to their submissions, together with explanations based on the officer comments as amended by the IWG at the meeting. Submitters were also be advised that final adoption of a revised HPUDS could not occur until after the local body elections.

58. The IWG have now recommended to the individual partner councils the adoption of a revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by recommendations of the IWG as a result of submissions with such consequential amendments to the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 as may be required to give effect to them delegated.

59. The hearings record is attached as Attachment 1, and the appendix referred to in that document is attached to this report as Attachment 2, with details of the changes recommended as a result of the submissions; the most notable of these being:

59.1. Add Romanes Drive as Greenfields Growth Area back to Thompson Road in addition to Brookvale Road, with a yield of around 350 sites

59.2. Remove south Clive from the list of areas classified as inappropriate for growth and identify the 4 hectares at the end of Read Crescent as being appropriate for growth (approximately 40 sites)

59.3. Make reference to assessment of Raymond Road as part of Cape Coast master planning following the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy

59.4. Expand Western Hills (Taradale Hills/Mission Heights) area and increase indicative yield from 350 to 600 sites

59.5. Reclassify Arataki Extension as a Reserve Area and clarify the restricted circumstances for utilising “reserve areas” for development.

60. A number of consequential amendments are required as a result of these changes. All changes both primary and consequential are shown in the tracked changes version of the strategy attached as Attachment 3. Of note is the need to change the intensification targets to reflect the added yield resulting from the inclusion of Romanes Drive and expansion of the Napier Western Hills areas. While the end target percentages between Greenfields, Rural and Intensification remain the same, the transition to those targets (Refer Table 3) has been adjusted to reflect the slower intensification take up implied by the increased greenfields land expected to be made available during the earlier years of the strategy.

Table 3: revised allocation of additional residential households 2015-2045

Type of Development	2015 (%) Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015 (%) Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	TOTAL 2015-2045
Intensification	[35]	40% [2138]	51% [1706]	60% [1152]	47% [4996]
Greenfields	[40]	50% [2673]	42% [1405]	35% [672]	45% [4749]
Rural Residential	[25]	10% [534]	7% [234]	5% [96]	8% [875]
Total	[100]	5345	3345	1920	10610

National Legislative Developments

61. In recommending increases in the greenfield growth areas available and adding ‘Reserve Areas’ to HPUDS, the IWG gave consideration to the then impending ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016’ (NPSUDC), which came into effect on 1 December 2016. In short this NPS places an obligation on councils to meet demand for residential development in the following timeframes:

61.1. short term 1-3years (which must be zoned and serviced)

61.2. medium term 3-10 years (which must be zoned and either serviced or allocated to be serviced in the LTP and

61.3. long term 10-30 years (identified in plans and strategies).

62. There is a potential tension between HPUDS and the NPSUDC. HPUDS seeks to influence the nature of future urban growth (towards greater intensification of existing urban areas) while the NPSUDC seeks that current and future demand is satisfied (with current demand being for greenfield land). Just how far reaching that is will become clearer once the Ministry for the Environment has published its implementation guidance. Further examination of this issue is likely to be a focus of some further work overseen by the new IWG.

63. In the meantime, it is considered beneficial in terms of being able to progress new developments to adopt the revised HPUDS, which at least moves closer towards the NPSUDC’s requirements in relation to greenfields land availability, rather than delaying matters and continuing with the current strategy in an unmodified form.

Options for decision-making

64. Option 1 – adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the Working Group.

65. Option 2 – seek changes to the Strategy or request that additional work be undertaken or technical reports be prepared to be overseen by the new IWG.

66. Option 3 – not adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan; refer back to the new IWG with clear reasons why the revised strategy was not adopted and instructions for further re-workings.

67. The preferred option is adopt the recommendations of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group relating to the 2016 review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy in their entirety (i.e. Option 1).

Significance and Engagement

68. As discussed above the draft strategy has already been consulted on and the substantive 2010 strategy was subject to extensive consultation both prior to its preparation, as a draft document and through its subsequent incorporation where relevant in the Regional Policy Statement, City and District plan reviews and Changes and councils’ Long Term Plans.

69. Any significant financial, operational and/or work programme activities arising out of the reviewed strategy will similarly need to be consulted on through normal resource management and asset management processes before they can be implemented.

Assessment of Options (Including Financial and Resourcing Implications)

70. Option 1 would provide the Council with an up to date framework to assist in the planning for urban development and infrastructure for the next 5 years of the 30 year HPUDS period. It would accord with the delegation given to the IWG to regularly monitor and review HPUDS to ensure its continued relevance and to consult with and hear and recommend changes as a result of submissions.

71. The IWG has considered a considerable body of monitoring information and new research to come to considered conclusions as to how HPUDS can be amended to ensure it is fit for purpose over the near term to reflect changes over the last five years. The IWG has recommended some amendments which in their view, do not detract from the essential vision and purpose committed to by the partner Councils when they adopted HPUDS 2010 and signed a Memorandum of Agreement: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation.

72. In respect of Option 2, it is open for Council to require some changes to be made to the document, or request further work. It is important to note that in the event that the Council deems it necessary for further amendments to the strategy, over and above that recommended by the IWG (other than minor editorial amendments), they will need to be endorsed by all three partner councils before the strategy can be formally adopted.

73. It is also worth noting that the strategy is a high-level directional document rather than a detailed implementation plan of each activity the partner councils do or will do to manage urban development in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. The Strategy will however give direction for future work on intensification planning, including changes to district plans, asset management plans, development plans and future LTPs.

74. Option 3 is the opposite of Option 1. Option 3 would mean HPUDS2010 remains unchanged, despite the efforts and findings of the 2016 Review process. It would not be responsive to, nor anticipate, changing circumstances and would risk becoming less relevant in terms of meeting the strategic objectives and community outcomes it aims to achieve. The flexibility and improved residential supply buffers and mechanisms proposed will not be available to assist with a more agile response to market changes over time, nor to assist with the current supply constraints.

Decision Making Process

75. 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:

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

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

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

75.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the region’s urban development and management, particularly within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region.

75.5. Options that have been considered include adopting the IWG’s recommendations; or not adopting the IWG’s recommendations and revised Strategy.

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

75.7. 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. Notwithstanding this, the 2016 Review featured an opportunity for any person to make a submission on the Draft Revised Strategy and present that submission at a hearing before the IWG held in October 2016.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review” report.

2. 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 decision.

3. Receives and notes the HPUDS Implementation Working Group’s:

3.1. Hearing meeting record (Attachment 1)

3.2. Hearing recommendation reports (Attachment 2).

4. Adopts HPUDS2016 as amended by the HPUDS Implementation Working Group, and as set out in Attachment 3, conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also resolving to adopt the strategy.

5. Adopts, in-principle, the HPUDS Revised Implementation Plan as set out in Attachment 5 and agrees that the HPUDS Implementation Working Group shall be responsible for overseeing prioritisation and progress on the Plan during the remainder of the 2016-19 triennium.

6. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment 6), conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇨1	Minutes of the HPUDS Implementation Working Group Meetings 4-5 October 2016	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	HPUDS IWG Recommendations	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	Tracked Changes Version of HPUDS2016	Under Separate Cover
⇨4	Final HPUDS2016 Maps	Under Separate Cover
⇨5	HPUDS2016 Implementation Plan	Under Separate Cover
⇩6	HPUDS Implementation Working Group Terms of Reference

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 March 2017

Subject: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Joint Committee Update and Stage 1 & 2 Recommendations

Reason for Report

1. This report updates the Council on the progress Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) is making on the Coastal Hazards Strategy, and seeks endorsement of their adoption of the following reports at their 28 February 2017 meeting.

1.1. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Hazard Assessment. Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016

1.2. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Risk Assessment. Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016

1.3. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Decision Making Framework Mitchell Daysh, February 2017.

Background

2. In 2014 a decision was made to form a Joint Committee made up of representatives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council together with mana whenua members, to develop a long term strategy response to coastal hazards risks over the period 2016-2120. The Strategy seeks to determine options for managing coastal hazard risks, namely beach erosion, inundation through overtopping and sea level rise and Tsunami.

3. The Strategy is being progressed in four key stages as shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Clifton Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Stages of Work

4. Stage 1 commenced in 2014 with two reports covering “Coastal Hazard Assessment” and “Coastal Risk Assessment”. While the coastal erosion component of the reports was peer reviewed by Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University in 2016, his review of the inundation component has only just been completed.

5. The Peer Reviews have confirmed the adequacy of the scientific reports for the purposes of the Strategy, and at its meeting on 28 February 2017 the Joint Committee received the Stage One Peer Review Update report, and reconfirmed the adoption of both Stage One reports. The Joint Committee also recommended that the peer reviewed Stage One reports be presented to the Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils for their respective adoption.

6. Stage 2 began in May 2016 with Environmental Management Services (EMS) and Maven Consulting Ltd (Maven) working on a “multi criteria decision analysis” model for community engagement. This provides a structured framework for communities to consider different management strategies, i.e. “managed retreat”, “hold the line” or “do nothing” options for specific areas along the coast. An integral part of Stage Two is the establishment of funding guidelines to determine how the costs of protection works, relocation, or other strategies might be funded and allocated between beneficiaries and agencies; before final recommendations are made.

7. As an outcome of stage 2, two main assessment cells have been established; one to the south of Napier Port and one to the north including the Napier Port (See Figure 2 below). This recognises that for coastal processes, a response in one area may well cause impacts in another. These cells themselves represent aggregations of smaller coastal units having distinct characteristics or risk profiles.

Figure 2 Clifton to Tangoio Coast Hazard Assessment Cells

8. These community Assessment Cell Evaluation Panels will be responsible for developing and evaluating response options as Stage 3 of the project. To date each of these panels has held 4 out of a planned 10 workshops. The decision making process being used by the panels was explained to Councillors at a workshop with the partner councils on 29 August along with a proposed funding model.

9. The panels’ work is being supported by technical experts from the three councils and an external team of scientists (The Edge group) from the “Resilience to Nature’s Challenges” science challenge. The Edge group is responsible for the ‘Living at the Edge’ programme focusing on communities living in localities exposed to natural coastal hazards. Their initial case study community and programme has been aligned with the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.

10. Work also continues on developing a funding model and an assessment of the social costs and benefits for key communities with the help of a sub-team of financial staff from the partner councils. It is important that how funding decisions will be made, and in particular how private versus public costs/benefits are to be apportioned, is decided before the panels complete their options assessments.

11. In addition, the mechanism for collecting and funding works over the longer timeframes associated with climate change and sea level rise pose new challenges for funding, highlighting a need for:

11.1. A way for councils to collaborate on funding responses to coastal hazards risks

11.2. Visibility for communities / stakeholders into the organisation whose purpose is to fund coastal hazards adaptation

11.3. Communities to make some appropriate contribution for future works to reflect intergenerational responsibilities

11.4. Funding that is put aside for future responses to be ring fenced and immune to claw back as far as possible

11.5. A funding framework that is durable and able to survive through future successive political cycles over a long timeframe.

12. At the conclusion of their processes, each Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel will make final recommendations back to the Joint Committee. Where financial decisions regarding the expenditure of public funds are required, these will be recommended by the Joint Committee back to each partner Council. This relationship is shown in figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Clifton Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Functional Relationships

13. It is planned that the Assessment Panels’ outputs be available for the Joint Committee to make its recommendations back to the councils by the end of this calendar year. This will allow any indicative funding to be included in draft Long Term Plans and 30 Year Infrastructure Strategies for broader community consultation in the first half of 2018.

14. Finally it should be noted the community members who have come forward to sit on the Assessment Cell Evaluation Panels have made a commitment to give up a significant amount of their own time to help the three councils through this process. Those not already in paid employment for representative organisations receive a small acknowledgment per meeting for their time, as a token of appreciation.

Decision Making Process

15. 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:

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

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

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

15.4. No persons are directly affected by this decision however it should be noted that the final output from the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy will be of interest to the public and it is proposed that this be consulted on through a long term plan process.

15.5. Options are being considered by the assessment panels

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

15.7. 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

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy Joint Committee Update and Stage 1 & 2 Recommendations” report.

3. Endorses the decision by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Joint Committee to adopt the following reports:

3.1. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Hazard Assessment. Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016

3.2. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Coastal Risk Assessment. Tonkin & Taylor, May 2016

3.3. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Decision Making Framework Mitchell Daysh, February 2017.

Authored and Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 March 2017

Subject: Capital Structure Review – Scope and Process

Reason for Report

1. Repositioning the Council and its fully owned Holding Company balance sheet(s) and in particular their contribution to regional growth and prosperity on the one hand, and financial contribution to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (Council) on the other, is one of the key challenges facing Council.

2. This paper, in the context of current and likely future state, recommends the initiation and progression of a capital review leading into the Long Term Plan and suggests a governance/sponsorship framework. It would also make sense to set aside budget provision for a review exercise.

3. This proposed review is part of Council’s Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee work plan.

Background

4. Council owns, and in some cases operates, assets that are fundamentally commercial in nature though in more recent times there have been modest investments made in assets with “triple bottom line” or multiple values in mind. The rationale here has been to tie Investments to delivering and or assisting with environmental enhancements where possible whilst maintaining one or both of economic and financial returns.

5. Council has and remains, heavily dependent on dividends to fund its operating budget and this creates a tension between at one extreme purely building the value of the balance sheet versus the other extreme of focusing on assets with a strong yield but are arguably of lesser strategic value.

6. A further point of tension exists in regards to focusing on in-region investments – designed to enhance regional prosperity versus investing beyond the region to spread risk.

7. Over the past 9 years there has been a focus in shifting the balance from the holding of non-strategic assets with modest yield such as Napier leasehold land to investment in development assets such as the RWSS, Carbon and Manuka plantations.

8. The overall portfolio remains imbalanced in as much as Port of Napier Limited (Port) is by far and away the largest asset, though an investment in the RWSS and other water storage schemes in time would even that out. The portfolio is relatively “illiquid” i.e., shifting the balance of assets is a slow and complex process.

9. The Port is proposing a substantial infrastructure development programme in coming years, which is, in part driven by extra seasonal cargo volumes, and servicing bigger ships. There is also consideration of strategic alliances in what is an increasingly competitive market.

10. Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC Ltd) was established with the intent of being an instrument of Council’s strategy through holding Council’s commercial assets, grouping them to spread risk, where applicable, drive efficiencies such as tax efficiency and to provide oversight and championing of the opportunities to grow the Investment portfolio value on the Council’s behalf.

11. To a degree this purpose has been deflected by the need for a singular focus on the development phase of the RWSS. However, depending on the outcomes of the Supreme Court Hearing and the Council’s review there is a strong case for transferring the assets to an Associate Company (RWLP) and completing the remaining work there.

12. Albeit uncertain at this time, it is quite possible that other water infrastructure projects such as the Ngaruroro (which is at prefeasibility stage) will emerge as priorities for investment and possibly Carbon Forestry depending on the Council’s appetite to reduced Hill Country erosion and related stream sedimentation.

13. A Port development may place strain on the dividend stream to HBRIC Ltd and through to Council before any additional investments are contemplated.

14. The current Council is showing an appetite for increased environment remediation investment in high profile waterways and the Regional Planning Committee is driving a substantial increase in demand for regulatory action on issues such as catchment management, oil and gas exploration etc. This means there is no let-up in demand for revenue to fund these activities. Council needs to have a clear understanding of the immediate, medium and long-term contribution investment dividends can make to supporting those activities.

Proposed Scope

15. An analysis of the current and future state of commercial investments/activities both within Council and within HBRIC Ltd:

15.1. Commentary on the strategy and purpose of the Council and how this is and/or could be framed in a conceptual sense to enable adequate integration between the Council, its strategy and the implementation of that strategy by wholly owned entities such as HBRIC Ltd and ultimately subsidiary or associate companies including ensuring that investments fit the Council purpose.

15.2. A summary list of Council’s commercial investments and activities.

15.3. A synopsis of the investment and activities contribution to the Council’s purpose and strategy – in particular contributions to environmental and economic prosperity and resilience.

15.4. Commentary on the skills and competencies required to govern and manage those investments and activities.

15.5. Commentary on the risks and opportunities associated with the Council’s investments and activities.

15.6. Commentary on the balance between building balance sheet and triple bottom line value versus delivering yield.

15.7. Commentary on an appropriate and differing levels of return on equity (RoE) for long run infrastructure assets

15.8. Commentary on future possible commercial investment activities and or expansion.

15.9. The Port – broad assessment of financing options for additional infrastructure, risks to the investment and options for risk mitigation including alliances.

15.10. RWSS – incorporation of any material information arising from the Council’s own review of the RWSS.

15.11. Commentary on the balance between financial returns and wider benefits of investments to the environment and economy including foregoing financial returns.

Financial implications

16. The previous capital structure review undertaken by McDemott Miller in 2008 cost $60,000. A sum of up to $100,000 should be considered for this exercise.

17. There is an opportunity to integrate work across three entities being Council/HBRIC Ltd and the Port and, at minimum, all three parties need to be in alignment to the extent possible in a review process.

18. Source of funds should be – from the annual plan allocation.

Timing

19. Any such review needs initiation by May with a view to providing inputs to the LTP process by no later than August of 2017. There will inevitably be some uncertainty around the precise scale of the Port Infrastructure Investment due to the development being at a scoping or prefeasibility stage.

Proposed Framework for sponsorship and governance of the review

20. Review initiated under the auspices of the Corporate and Strategic Committee.

21. Establish an Advisory Group with skills and experience in Investment, Infrastructure and publicly owned assets comprising four members including the Chairman of HBRIC Ltd and one Councillor member being the Chair of the Corporate & Strategic Committee and two independent members.

22. Adoption of and/or amendment of the Review Scope and Terms of Reference

23. Provision of up to $100,000 for the review with the detail to be determined by the Advisory Group once formed.

Decision Making Process

24. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

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 decision.

2. Agrees the scope of a review as outlined above subject to any input HBRIC Ltd Directors may wish to have.

3. Forms an Advisory Committee comprising the Chairman of the Corporate & Strategic Committee, the Chairman of Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd Board of Directors and two independent Committee members to be determined.

4. Sets aside a financial provision for $100,000 to be further refined once the Committee is established.

Authored and Approved by:

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 March 2017

SUBJECT: HBRC Staff Work Programme through April 2017

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities of interest over the next couple of months in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
External Relations	Communications	1. March monthly focus: Annual Plan 2017-18, supported with social media, video, print media, radio & meetings 2. Water Quality poster, Tūtira infosheet, Tukituki billboard - CHB, HBCDEM support for region wide public alerting system test, TANK comms, etc. 3. Planning underway with HDC, NCC, NKII and HBDHB on Water Symposium aimed for mid-late May.
	Transport	4. RTC’s focussed on review of the Regional Land Transport Plan (sets the strategic direction for land transport in the region & contains the region’s 2018-21 funding request for transport activities and works. 5. The recent Tairawhiti economic development plan announcement was accompanied by the allocation of funding for a business case for SH 2 between Opotiki and Napier, which has been a high priority for both RTCs. The committees met in Wairoa and agreed on governance representation for the business case, to commence in 2017. 6. After the successful introduction of free patient travel on all bus services, we are in discussions with HBDHB about options for subsidised staff travel as part of their GoWell travel plan. 7. Picking up work on electric vehicles and planning an upcoming stakeholder meeting.
	Governance	8. Publication of Council’s 2017 Governance Statement 9. Continued support for the review of the Maori Committee Charter and Terms of Reference expected to be considered for adoption at the 11 April Maori Committee meeting. 10. Continued support for adoption of updated RPC’s Terms of Reference now expected to be presented to the 3 May 2017 RPC meeting for adoption. 11. Receipt and recording of submissions received on Council’s draft 2017-18 Annual Plan
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal Hazards Strategy Development	12. The community panel process has established broad adaptation options for the most vulnerable communities at risk. These options will be further developed by the TAG group for discussion with the panels at their next workshops in May.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management	13. The East Coast Farming Expo is being held on the 5-6^th April in Wairoa. The LM team with support from staff in the Science Group, the Whangawehi Catchment Group and potentially MPI will be in attendance. 14. Nicola McHaffie is joining the team on April 10 as a new Senior Land Management Advisor – Catchment Management. She will be involved in providing support to our priority catchment program. Advertising for a Senior Land Management Advisor to replace Colin Tyler and a Land Management Advisor to provide maternity leave cover for Maddy McLean has just been initiated. 15. Members of the LM team are providing considerable support to the RWSS review and TANK Planning process currently. 16. Freshwater Improvement Fund applications are being developed for a number of catchments in the region, with LM staff providing significant support.
	Engineering, Asset Management and Open Spaces	17. Tutira Maungaharu Forum Wednesday 29 March 10am to 12pm at Blue McMillans Woolshed. 18. Waitangi Regional Park Estuary Enhancement formally opened, stage 2 underway which includes more pou, plantings, signage and boardwalks to be progressed over the next 12months. 19. Pakowhai Regional Park open day 25 March “Paws in the Park” 9am to 11am. 20. Tutira Regional Park HB Trail Running Event Sunday 23^rd April 21. Freshwater Improvement Fund application for Lake Tutira Catchment in draft and to be completed by 13 April. 22. Tutira Regional Park post pine harvest planting options presently being prepared. 23. Open Spaces staff collaborating with HDC engineers to upgrade the Richmond Rd carpark, Waitangi Regional Park. Works to commence April. 24. Tentative community open space planting dates over winter 2017: • Waitangi Estuary wetlands (Waitangi Regional Park) – The Great Give Planting Day – Sat 6 May 2017, 300 plants • Waiohiki – Community Planting Day – TBC Sat 10 or Sun 11 June, 2000 plants • Whakatu – date TBC Sat 17 June, 2000 plants • Waitangi Estuary wetlands (Waitangi Regional Park) – Napier Forest and Bird (Sat 24 June 2017), 2500 plants • Waitangi Estuary wetlands (Waitangi Regional Park) – Clive School Planting Day – date TBC, 350-400 plants .• Waitangi Estuary wetlands (Waitangi Regional Park) – Porse Planting Day – Wed 28 June 2017 • Havelock North (TBC Sat 1 Jul 2017), 2000 plants. • Pukahu – Hastings-Havelock North Forest and Bird (TBC Sat 8 Jul 2017), 1400 plants.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Biosecurity	25. Cape to City project continues with a number of draft research reports or monitoring programmes to be delivered across habitat, pest management, outcomes and community engagement in preparation for June 30 close off. 26. Third wireless monitoring trial underway to provide data for ultra low cost farmland predator pest template 27. Sarah Kafka from the Aotearoa Foundation and Nature Conservancy staff to visit in early April 28. The Regional Pest Plan review continues with ongoing work on the cost benefit analysis, marine biosecurity, goat management, hort and pip fruit sector and Chilean needle grass.
Resource Management	Compliance	29. Ongoing work in relation to bore security in the Region.
	Harbour Master	30. Navigational Safety Bylaw review currently underway and will be reported to Council within the next month.
	Consents	Notified or limited notified consent applications in process 31. Twyford WP140331T – awaiting transfer of consents into global consent. 32. PanPac application to continue with the current discolouration – notified submission period closed 19 December. One submission received. Staff have met and discussed concerns and the need for a hearing with the submitter. Application on hold at applicants’ request. 33. Fulton Hogan to establish an asphalt plant in Pandora Industrial area – notified - submission period closed 19 December. Three submissions were received. Applicant to provide further information. 34. CHBDC Otane waste water discharge. Five submissions lodged. Initial discussions being held with submitters to see if it possible to resolve issues without hearing. Environment Court Appeals 35. Pan Pac (CD96033Wf to extend their outfall and discharge further out to sea) – Process concluded. Decision in favour of HBRC approach. Actual consent documents still to be signed off by Environment Court. 36. Whakatu Wool Scours Ltd has been appealed to the Environment Court. Mediation held 14 March in resolved issues. A consent order has been lodged for approval by Environment Court. 37. HBRIC extended production land use area Judicial Review lodged by Greenpeace. This has now been withdrawn. Costs are to lay where they fall.
	Groundwater Science	38. Additional scenarios to predict effects of water allocation and land management options are being developed using the Heretaunga groundwater model and SOURCE surface water model for presentation to the March and April TANK meetings. 39. Heretaunga groundwater contaminant transport modelling to simulate the transport and fate of nutrients in groundwater continues, with delivery expected April 2017 40. SoE monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality sampling continues 41. Repairs and upgrades to SoE monitoring bores are underway, including replacement of bore 10496 at Brookvale in Havelock North 42. Shallow nitrate sampling (regional survey) will be completed by Easter 2017 43. Development of a Leapfrog geophysical model for Ruataniwha aquifers is underway
Resource Management	Hydrology	44. Tukituki priority subcatchment sampling programme is underway, with 5 runs completed to date. 45. New water quality and flow sites will be installed on the Papanui Stream at Middle Road. 46. Heretaunga Springs report is in preparation. 47. A monitoring structure will be installed by the Operations Group, in the Tutaekuri-Waimate Stream at Goods Bridge.
	Water Quality and Ecology	48. Investigating potential for internal phosphorus release from Papanui sediments as a potential pathway for approaching instream DRP targets in Papanui 49. Finalising Karamu Solutions Report that collates science information and options for improving ecosystem health 50. Shading trials continue to demonstrate strong effect on aquatic plants from shading. Trials of options for riparian species were hit hard by extended dry conditions, but enough have survived for trial to continue. 51. Options for dealing with algal blooms in Lake Tutira are being communicated with partners and stakeholders 52. Options for collaboration on management of Whakaki Lake issues will be developed with the Lake trustees
	Marine & Coastal Science	53 Recreational Water Quality programme results will be updated to HBRC and LAWA websites on a weekly basis. 54. Compiling a work plan looking at requirements to improve ecological health of the Ahuriri Estuary 55. Annual monitoring of estuaries is being undertaken as per SOE programme 56. Development of a Marine Information Strategy is progressing
	Air & Climate Science	57. One further climate briefing with primary industry representatives (in HBRC Council Chamber and open to the public) is scheduled for April 58. The collection of filters at Awatoto for a source apportionment study will finish and GNS will provide a report on the analysis of the filters in the coming months 59. Planning is underway for roadside air quality monitoring in Napier and Hastings this winter
	Land Science and Terrestrial Ecology	60. The Ahuriri Catchment investigation will continue to map critical source areas (CSA) of nutrients and sediments 61. Critical source areas will also be mapped in the Lake Tutira catchment 62. Sediment modelling will continue in the TANK catchments 63. The new Heretaunga land use map and report will be reviewed 64. Soil quality monitopring report for extensive pasture will be completed 65. A plains wind erosion monitoring programme will be formulated with Landcare Research 66. A riparian assessment/mapping collaboration will commence in collaboration with Waikato Regional council 67. Wetland inventory and monitoring programme continues 68. Smap (soil mapping) continues in to the north of the region. The whole region will be completed by June 2018. 69. SedNetNZ (sediment modelling) will commence from north of TANK to Mahia (TANK southwards already complete) giving full regional coverage by June 2017
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	70. Next TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group meetings scheduled 27 April (#28) and 14 June (#29). 71. Minister for the Environment has appointed a Special Tribunal to determine application for Ngaruroro/Clive Rivers Water Conservation Order. Tribunal is yet to advise what its next steps are. Staff have offered to engage with the co-applicants (via their agent) on basis of draft submission previously endorsed by RPC in November, but co-applicants so far unwilling to do so until Tribunal initiates their process. 72. Staff reports to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 5 April covering: a. Framework for outstanding waterbodies in HB b. Preliminary evaluation of Government’s ‘Clean Water’ proposals released on 23 Feb 2017 c. Resource management policy projects update d. Statutory advocacy update. 73. Part of the last remaining appeal (by Fish & Game) relating to wetlands in the RRMP and Plan Change 5 is unresolved. Experts’ evidence has been prepared and exchanged, but Environment Court has yet to set hearing date(s). 74. Ongoing involvement in 6 appeal proceedings for proposed Hastings District Plan review, involving further negotiations amongst parties intending to resolve the last of those appeals. 75. Supporting Stage 3 community engagement programme on Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Management Strategy project as required. 76. Providing support for adoption of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review by three Partner Councils, and subsequent oversight of Strategy implementation by HPUDS Implementation Working Group’s new membership for 2016-19 term. 77. Collaborative development of Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Implementation Plan, charitable trust and community forum 78. Supporting preparation of planning to implement PC6 for the Tukituki River catchment (in parallel to RWSS Review). 79. Supporting Group Manager’s lead on RWSS Review plus coordinating evaluation and reporting on several key work streams within that Review, particularly in relation to Plan Change 6 and environmental considerations 80. Engaging consultant to prepare regional plan change for regulation of oil and gas activities in the region. Work will be largely undertaken by consultants with staff coordination. 81. Continuing engagement with Councillors on the refresh of the HBRC Strategic Plan and feedback is sought on the Strategy on A Page document. Work is underway on possible goals and quantitative targets to support the Plan. Planning is being undertaken for engaging the Maori Committee and Tangata Whenua representatives on the Regional Planning Committee in the development of the Plan.
Strategic Development	Economic Development	82. Regional Business Partner – Post RBP and Callaghan Conference assessment. Forthcoming visit to region by new Callaghan CEO and exec team. 83. Matariki Economic Development Delivery model – Independent review recommendations received and Governance Group sub-committee is consulting on a model with key Economic Development and Social Inclusion stakeholders. 86. RWSS Review – Various work streams in progress on legal, commercial and economic aspects. 87. Rocket Lab – Delays in test launch window will have implications for HBRC’s support of stakeholder committee as we approach agreed funding limits.
Corporate Services	Finance /ICT/Corporate Support	88. Financial report for the nine months to 31 March 2017, which will include reforecasting up to 30 June 2017.

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required, the decision making requirements of the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

That Council receives the HBRC Staff Work Programme through April 2017 report.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Steve Cave

Asset Manager Open Spaces

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Peter Davis

Team Leader Hydrometric Network

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager – Land Management

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Tom Skerman

Economic Development Manager

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist – Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Oliver Wade

Environmental Scientist WQ&E

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist / Team Leader - Land

Mark Heaney

Client Services Manager

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.