Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee



Date:                 Wednesday 5 April 2017

Time:                10.00am


Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street





Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page


1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on
1 March 2017

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

5.         Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda                                                              7

Decision Items

6.         Government's "Clean Water" Reform Proposals and Draft Submission                      9

Information or Performance Monitoring

7.         April 2017 Resource Management Planning Project Update                                     19

8.         April 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update                                                                       23

9.         Items of Business Not on the Agenda                                                                        29  




There will be named parking spaces for Tangata Whenua Members in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street.


Regional Planning Committee Members



Karauna Brown

Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc

Pare Hill

Te Uru Taumatua – Ngai Tuhoe

Tania Hopmans

Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust

Nicky Kirikiri

Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana

Roger Maaka

He Toa Takitini

Joinella Maihi-Carroll

Mana Ahuriri Trust

Allen Smith

Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa

Matiu Heperi Northcroft

Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum

Peter Paku

He Toa Takitini

Toro Waaka

Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts

Paul Bailey

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Rick Barker

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Peter Beaven

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Tom Belford

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Alan Dick

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Rex Graham

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Debbie Hewitt

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Neil Kirton

Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Mike Mohi

Hawkes Bay Regional Council  - Maori Committee Chair

Fenton Wilson

Hawkes Bay Regional Council


Total number of members = 20


Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference


Quorum (clause (i))

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


At the present time, the quorum is 15 members.


Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required.  Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.


Number of Committee members present                Number required for 80% support

20                                                                 16

19                                                                 15

18                                                                 14

17                                                                 14

16                                                                 13

15                                                                 12

14                                                                 11




Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 2017

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


Reason for Report

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

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

Decision Making Process

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



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


Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager


Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations





Follow-up Items




Follow-up Items

Attachment 1



Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 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.


1.     That Council accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 9:

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



Councillor / Staff











Leeanne Hooper


Liz Lambert




Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 2017

Subject: Government's "Clean Water" Reform Proposals and Draft Submission        


Reason for Report

1.      On 23 February 2017 the Government announced a further suite of freshwater reforms. These include new policy to improve “swimmability”, stock exclusion regulations, further procedural and monitoring requirements on regional councils, and the announcement of a Freshwater Improvement Fund.

2.      The proposals are generally positive, and reflect closer engagement between officials and regional council staff over the last couple of years.

3.      The main areas of concern relate primarily to the proposed “swimmability” regime and its monitoring and reporting requirements. The greater prescription of resource management processes as well as resource implications for regional councils are also of concern. There is also uncertainty about how the significance of the full range water values is to be accounted for.

4.      In addition, there is a separate Ministerial directive to regional councils about providing information by 2018 on how the target for swimmability can be met along with likely costs and impacts on communities.

5.      Submissions on the Clean Water Package are to be lodged by 28 April 2017. A preliminary draft submission can be prepared by staff based on suggestions in this paper and following RPC direction, a final submission will be further refined and reported to the Council for approval on 26 April 2017.


6.      In February last year the government issued a discussion document; “Next Steps for Freshwater” proposing a number of changes to freshwater management. HBRC lodged a submission[1] on those proposals. The government is now continuing its freshwater reforms with new proposals for amending the NPS for Freshwater Management (‘NPSFM’), a target for improving the swimmability of rivers, a stock exclusion regulation and a Freshwater Improvement Fund.

7.      These proposals are contained in a further document; “Clean Water” and the government is seeking feedback on proposed changes.

8.      There are five key components of the latest freshwater reform Clean Water package;

8.1.      A new target that 90% of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes are swimmable by 2040.

8.2.      New maps and information on the current water quality for swimming.

8.3.      Changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management including:

8.3.1.      replacing the term ‘wadeable’ with ‘swimmable’;

8.3.2.      clarifying interpretation of “maintain or improve overall water quality”;

8.3.3.      adding macroinvertebrate monitoring for ecological health;

8.3.4.      strengthening references to Te Mana o te Wai;

8.3.5.      clarifying the consideration of economic opportunities;

8.3.6.      clarifying inclusion of coastal lakes and lagoons;

8.3.7.      clarifying policy on exceptions; and

8.3.8.      strengthening the requirement for monitoring and improving quality.

8.4.      Criteria for allocation of the $100 million Freshwater Improvement Fund.

8.5.      Details of new national stock exclusion regulations.

9.      Aspects of the package have been foreshadowed over the past few months, for example, the Government announced its intention to introduce regulations to exclude livestock from waterways some time ago, and is essentially restating that intention here in the context of a wider set of proposals. Other aspects of the package, for example, NPSFM amendments, have now been outlined in considerably more detail than was previously available.

10.    Full details of the proposed package are provided in the consultation document, which is available

Swimmability Targets

11.    The Clean Water Package includes a non-statutory government target of 90% of New Zealand’s rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040.

12.    Proposed swimmability provisions have attracted much commentary in the media and from some interest groups. The technical detail of the Government’s proposed standard is necessarily complex and the full details are not included in the discussion document. This has not helped public understanding of what its practical effect might be, or how that differs from the status quo.

13.    Government now proposes that regional councils must work to improve water quality towards a newly defined ‘swimmable’ standard over time, and to monitor and report on progress.

14.    A national target to increase the proportion of swimmable waters to 80 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2040, is proposed. This would apply to rivers deep enough to swim in, and to lakes with perimeters over 1500 metres. The government intends that the target E. coli level is to be met “80 percent of the time”. This reflects the natural variability of freshwater systems - bacterial concentrations will, for example, often be higher when a river is in flood (in which event, there are more significant constraints on “suitability for swimming”).

15.    The new approach changes the assessment of whether a river is swimmable or not to one where a water body is swimmable some of the time throughout the year - and that there is an option of increasing the amount of time it is swimmable. It is why the Clean Water package is focussed on the frequency that the water quality meets swimming standards.

16.    The policy applies to rivers that are fourth order or greater. There is some conjecture that smaller rivers are therefore not protected. While the way that the policy is written may give that impression, the practical reality is that the smaller rivers must be managed to ensure water quality in the larger ones. The NPSFM also continues to require identification of swimming values and measures to improve them through local plan change processes.


17.    A number of concerns have been identified with the monitoring and reporting regime for swimmability. Technical staff are particularly concerned about;

18.    Monitoring site selection: The Council operates both a state of the environment water quality monitoring network (SOE) as well as a recreational bathing water monitoring network (RWQ) over summer. Some, but not all of the network sites are the same. Both programmes have different ‘customers’ and uses for the information which is reflected in the sampling strategies.

19.    The swimmability maps published in the Clean Water Package used modelled inputs trained with SOE data, however they did not use the recreational data collected by councils. It is important to understand what data will be used for reassessment of progress towards meeting the government’s “swimmability” targets.

20.    A proposed solution is that MfE identify sites that will be used for future ‘swimmability’ reporting from Councils SOE (monthly/Quarterly) or RWQ data (weekly summer only) stratified by region, land-use, population base, geology etc. This then becomes the national sites for assessing swimmability targets and progress. MfE then simply become another ‘customer’ of the data and sampling strategies can be adapted to suit. In this way, much of the data can be readily supplied to the LAWA portal.

21.    We would note that if swimmability is the key value driving the generation of statistics, comparisons and progress, then the RWQ network is better suited to national reporting for that issue. It also better reflects the seasonal nature of when people swim.

22.    Appendix 5: We suggest that the proposed new Appendix 5 be deleted. As drafted this appendix puts untenable resource requirements on Regional Councils, including in relation to daily monitoring for sites exceeding a threshold. There are also several aspects of the monitoring requirements that do little or nothing in contributing towards a) better management of public health or b) better swimmability.

23.    Inconsistency: The NPSFM, LAWA and the MfE water quality guidelines have some major inconsistencies such as in relation to assessment of risk and use of 3 or 10 year median data. The new proposals provide an opportunity for aligning and updating these aspects.

24.    Exception regime: There is a concern about water body status and management for swimming in all circumstances such as where bird populations (especially valued native species) are present or where swimming is not a primary value (including some land locked or shallow lakes and wetlands) for which the water body is managed.

25.    Methodology: There is an apparent omission in the metrics of the proposed NOF attribute table (refer NPSFM Appendix 2) for E. coli. Importantly, in the MfE supporting information for the Clean Water package there are four tests involved in establishing the attribute states for rivers from A to E. All four tests have been used in determining the categories identified in the NOF attribute but only one is then used in the NOF attribute.

26.    Application: We are uncertain if compliance with the NOF attribute is to be assessed over an entire catchment or just at the identified points at which people currently swim, when they want to swim there. We currently monitor our recreational bathing sites weekly during the bathing season (summer months). The approach as written looks to assess performance against an entire river length, all year around. This is at odds with MfE’s own guidance for assessing the performance of bathing sites (see also para 23).


Appendix 5 should be replaced with something more targeted to the purpose of monitoring for swimmability.

The selection of monitoring sites and data against which progress is to be reported is clarified.

Inconsistencies between NPSFM, LAWA and the MfE in relation to monitoring and reporting for E. coli and swimming values of rivers are addressed.

Allow for an exception regime where E. coli contamination does not pose a risk to human health or where other water body values (such as for native birds) outweigh swimming values.

Ensure the NOF table is complete in relation to all relevant E. coli metrics.

Clarify how compliance with the NOF attributes is to be assessed.

NPSFM Requirements and the Swimmability Targets

27.    The NPSFM does not directly guide decisions about acceptable swimming state and progress towards the specified target. The government’s objective (90% rivers swimmable by 2040) is notably not included in the NPSFM and the NOF does not provide a bottom line.

28.    Instead, the government is using ministerial directions to require (and assess how) the targets are to be met. In his letter to the Chair, Minister Smith has stated;

28.1.    “I want to draw your attention to the new legal requirement in the proposals for every regional council to improve the water quality for swimming in their region. You will note that some regions have swimmability as low as 29% and some as high as 99%. To achieve the nationwide 90% by 2040 target, regional councils will need to take on varied regional targets with many well in excess of 90%. To achieve the national targets, a council with 99% swimmability needs to be focused on growing the proportion of rivers with excellent and good gradings”.

29.    The Minister has made it clear that proportional improvements will be required from all regions to achieve an overall increase to 90% by 2040.  It is worth noting that;

29.1.    The targets have no legal status.

29.2.    The Minister is prepared to see what regions can do without national regulation, but if we cannot do this it is likely national regulation will come next.

29.3.    The Minister is focused on ‘fixing’ the red rivers (below the bottom line).

30.    The regional council sector has been responding to concerns about swimmability and is currently working with MfE and MPI to formulate a collective sectoral response to meeting this national target. This includes formation of a task force comprising various technical experts across a range of disciplines in a two stage process. It is intended that this group produce a national document that sets out how the sector will achieve 2030 and 2040 targets. This will have ‘chapters’ that are regional and that each council will shape but will bring all the regional information together into a coherent national picture. The second part includes modelling effects of actions either planned in policy or likely to be introduced to reduce bacterial loads as well as assessment of financial implications. The process is expected to be somewhat iterative.

31.    The related issues with reassessment and progress reporting as described in paragraphs 18-26 still remain.

32.    While the discussion document indicates that ‘acceptable’ is anything graded “fair” or better, it appears the main requirement is for the council to identify where improvements will be made so they are suitable for immersion more often and over what timeframe (Policy A5).

33.    At the same time, new provisions in Policy CA2 (f) suggest that improving water for swimming is still part of a values based decision making process.

34.    There is a fine line between government direction, and by extension, requirements of councils to meet the targets quickly and the need for robust and fair implementation of the Clean Water Package and NPSFM.

35.    Achieving the targets as specified will have resourcing implications or costs to our community, both in terms of plan change processes as well as costs of the physical works required and possible assistance programmes. This will be particularly true in relation to changes that require public participation at the regional level or where issues of fairness are likely to arise, such as in relation to existing activities.

36.    We note also, that the proposed stock exclusion regulation will be one of the tools for managing bacterial contamination.

37.    The changes to the NPS and the government objective do not clearly show how that tension between rapid compliance with the new swimmability targets and the new stock exclusion requirements and good public process is to be addressed by councils in their RMA Plan Change and LGA processes. Some alignment between this initiative and the progressive implementation programme for giving effect to the NPS is also required.

Improvement Timeframe

38.    The work required to fully understand what improvements can be made to allow draft targets to be reported to the Minister by October is significant.

39.    We will need to be able to model the impact of any changes (such as land use change or stock exclusion) on improving microbiological indicators, how long improvements will take, and what the costs of the required changes are, both in physical works and impact on our economy and communities.

40.    There are significant resourcing needs implicit in meeting the Minister’s directive and the uncertainties in the technical aspects of modelling effectiveness and costs of mitigation measures.

41.    The final date for reporting to the Minister on how targets are to be met is March 2018.  We suggest that this date be delayed to later in the year to take into account the council’s Long Term Plan and reporting process.


Delay the March 2018 date for reporting on the swimmability target and the new progressive implementation plan provision in the NPS until after the Long Term Plan process is completed.

Freshwater Management

42.    The NPSFM amendments include requirements to state objectives for nutrient concentrations.


43.    There is no question that nutrient loads are an important factor in managing for freshwater outcomes.

44.    More broadly, however, many in the sector are concerned about a growing emphasis in freshwater management on those aspects of freshwater systems that are amenable to measurement.

45.    The relationship between the objective being pursued (limiting periphyton growth) and nitrogen or phosphorus is probabilistic, however, not directly causal. How much slime actually coats a river bed depends on a complex set of factors. Focussing on two of those for which numerical measures can be established may not only be a poor use of limited resource, but may invite misunderstanding of the challenge to be addressed.

46.    We recommend expressing reservations about the growing degree of prescription, and risk of reductionism, in how councils manage for freshwater outcomes.

47.    The inclusion of new MCI monitoring is noted and this Council already carries out MCI monitoring across the region. Senior science staff continue to be involved in nationwide practitioner initiatives through the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting project to enhance the utility and monitoring effectiveness of MCI and similar indicators of macroinvertebrates.

48.    We query the inclusion of “measures of the health of indigenous flora and fauna”. As proposed, it is unclear if this is reference to only aquatic flora and fauna – being a NPS for freshwater- or whether the intent extends to terrestrial flora and fauna too. We note this will have potentially significant financial impacts on Council’s activities.

49.    Methods for inclusion of Matauranga Maori should be subject to the needs and interest of the local iwi in councils’ freshwater decision-making. Council also notes the added financial implications of this requirement.



There is a concern about the growing degree of national prescription in how councils manage for freshwater outcomes. The council notes the particular focus on nutrient concentrations could lead to perverse outcomes.

The requirement for monitoring MCI is supported where this is appropriate.

Further clarity about what is meant by monitoring measures of health of indigenous flora and fauna is required, including restricting the requirement to aquatic species.

Requirements for monitoring Matauranga Māori need also to be subject to the needs of local Māori.

Shallow Lakes and ICOLLS

50.    Targets for shallow lakes are quite ambitious for shallow North Island lakes. We are failing those bottom lines even in areas without intensive agriculture. Given that the values for those shallow lakes may relate to things other than water clarity (e.g. wetland values, bird habitat, etc.), it seems like this may unintentionally force the council to prioritise a lot of spend (monitoring, land management, mitigation, policy) on shallow lake systems without consideration of the priorities that exist for other water bodies. Those shallow lakes may already be fulfilling objectives in terms of how most of how the community values them.

51.    Sampling stipulations for ICOLLs need to be removed (Note at bottom of on p 31) to allow flexibility in sampling. For example, Whakaki Lake may only be open for about 5-10 days per year, haphazardly. So monthly sampling will not capture ‘12 samples’ of an ‘open’ state within a reasonable time frame.

52.    The infrequent nature of ICOLL openings completely negates the idea of having an annual statistic for these systems in terms of both and open and closed state.


Review the targets for shallow lakes.

Remove sampling stipulations for ICOLLs.

Economic Well-being

53.    The discussion paper notes concerns that the NPSFM does not specifically oblige councils to consider implications for economic well-being before establishing limits. It proposes some additional text in relation to this in the NPSFM.


54.    The decision making processes under the NPSFM have raised the focus of environmental bottom lines and management objectives in the limit setting exercises, but the NPSFM still clearly recognises extractive activities as national values for which water quality and quantity is to be managed. For example, national values of fresh water (in the existing 2014 NPSFM) include mahi mara/cultivation and au putea/economic or commercial development.

55.    This is potentially an issue of perception and requires some attention to detail as the NPSFM clearly requires assessment of the implications for resource users including implications for “actions, investments, on-going management changes and any social cultural and economic implications” (Policy CA2).

56.    In addition, Section 32 still guides the preparation of regional plans. Section 32 requires an extensive examination of the costs and benefits of any proposal including cultural, social, environmental and economic effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including the opportunities for:

56.1.    economic growth that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and

56.2.    employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced.

57.    Additional references to economic wellbeing appear to be unnecessary.

58.    Furthermore, the additional text proposed for objectives A2 and B1 create confusion and overlap. The purpose of the Act is repeated in an inconsistent and potentially conflicting way in these NPSFM amendments. Section 5 of the RMA already states that sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. The plans developed as a result of the NPSFM requirements give effect to the purpose of the Act.

59.    A second inconsistency and potential internal conflict is also created by the new text proposed for Objective A2. The definition for ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ does not contain a limited list of values that might be considered outstanding.  There remains ambiguity whether or not extractive/economic values and uses of water can be recognised and protected as ‘outstanding’ values. At its March meeting, the Committee received some advice on identification of outstanding values and outstanding water bodies as required by the NPSFM and a further report on this is due next month.

60.    The NPSFM remains unclear and uncertain on this matter. Research into how the NPSFM has evolved indicates that there was unlikely to have been an intention to allow for extractive values to be considered ‘outstanding’. However, this issue is not yet resolved and there remains considerable debate as to how the NPSFM should be interpreted.

61.    It is possible that by allowing extractive values to be considered outstanding, there might be better and more rigorous attention to the economic and social well-being values of water use and results in the additional text becoming redundant.. However, it may also increase confusion and complexity where values are competing. 

62.    This does not mean that extractive values will in any way trump ecological values or Te Mana o Te Wai as both the NPSFM and the RMA require sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems. The NPSFM also specifically notes that aquatic ecosystem health is a compulsory value that must be provided for. Allowing all values to be potentially considered outstanding does however, mean that lower levels of protection for ecological values are able to be considered.

63.    We suggest that these new references to economic well-being be deleted. We also suggest that further clarity in relation to the status of all water values and any assessment of their significance be provided by the Ministry.


Delete additional references to economic well-being.

Clarify how significance of the national values in the NPS are to be considered, especially in relation to ‘outstanding values’.

Freshwater Improvement Fund

64.    The Council supports the financial assistance being provided by the government to address some of the legacy issues around water quality.  It is grateful for the opportunity to apply for this funding for some valued but highly vulnerable water bodies in Hawkes Bay.


Support financial assistance being provided by the government.

Stock Exclusion

65.    The government proposes new regulations to exclude most stock from waterways.


66.    The council supported this concept in principle in its submission in 2016, but expressed misgivings about the lack of flexibility such a regulation could entail.

67.    The regulation allows progressive movement towards stock exclusion according to stock and farming system and land slope. Where exclusion does not provide sufficient benefit for the costs involved or where there are practical constraints, farmers can prepare a stock exclusion plan that is approved by the council.

68.    The Council’s experiences with the Plan Change 6 implementation in the Tukituki Rover catchment show a number of potential issues that might arise with the national regulation proposal.

69.    The number of variables contained within the proposed regulation will add considerable complexity to interpretation and compliance. We note that this sort of regulation will have considerable resourcing requirements in respect of compliance.

70.    Making farm scale decisions about fencing based on a national slope database such as LRI is complex and results in significant uncertainty. Paddock size is an important component and the council has found that it needs to be taken into account when deciding on the need for fencing.

71.    The council has been required to develop detailed slope maps based on LIDAR information to provide sufficient slope information at a property scale to enable decisions to be made by landowners. The Council has LIDAR slope information over approximately 20% of the region.

72.    The Council has also determined that a concept of predominant slope in relation to a paddock area through which a stream is flowing is also required in order to assist interpretation and decision making.

73.    Further, the use of slope is not always a good indication of sediment or other contamination sources.

74.    In addition to this, the Council is currently engaged with the farming community in a collaborative plan change process in relation to meeting objectives set for water quality within the TANK catchments. A national approach to regulation in this context undermines local solutions and innovative approaches to meeting freshwater objectives.


We propose an alternative approach to stock exclusion;

          Councils to be required to adopt stock exclusion policies by 2025 (consistent with the NPSFM timeframe and consistent with work underway to meet the government’s swimmability targets,

          Wetlands, lakes, rivers subject to water conservation orders and their tributaries and coastal areas be required by national regulation (or national environmental standard) to exclude stock by 2020,

The proposed stock exclusion plan provision remains,

          Include the new infringement fees and ensure they are applicable for non-compliance with national as well as regional rules,

          Regional councils (in consultation with the primary industries) be required to work out a local timetable for the remaining rivers based on the identified risks and river values.

Financial and Resource Implications

75.    There are no financial implications for council considering this report and potentially lodging a submission on the Clean Water Package proposed by government.

76.    However, some of the implications for council resources (financial and staffing) are significant in terms of what the ‘Clean Water’ package currently proposes. These have been alluded to in the commentary above.

Decision Making Process

77.    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:

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

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

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

77.4.    The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA including iwi.

77.5.   The council might consider not making a submission, but given the significance of the proposed changes to the NPS for Council resources this is not recommended.

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

77.7.    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, any person may make their own submission on the government’s “Clean Water” package proposals.



1.      That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Government's "Clean Water" Reform Proposals and Draft Submission” report.

2.      The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2.      Make a submission to the Ministry for the Environment in respect of the Clean Water discussion document as outlined in this report and as further directed by the committee.


Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy


Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development



There are no attachments for this report.     


Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 2017

SUBJECT: April 2017 Resource Management Planning Project Update        


Reason for Report

1.      To provide a brief outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently underway.


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

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

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

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

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

4.      The table in Attachment 1 repeats the relevant parts of the resource management planning work programme from the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

5.      Similar periodical reporting will also be presented to the Council as part of the quarterly reporting and end of year Annual Plan reporting requirements.

Decision Making Process

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



That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the ‘April 2017 Resource Management Planning Projects Update’ report.



Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy


Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development





Resource Management Planning Work Programme




Resource Management Planning Work Programme

Attachment 1



Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 2017

SUBJECT: April 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update         


Reason for Report

1.      To report on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project since the last update in February 2017.

2.      The Statutory Advocacy project (Project 196) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1.      resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

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

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

2.4.      notices of requirements for designations in district plans

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

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

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

Decision Making Process

5.      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.



That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the April 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update report.


Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy


Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development




April 2017 - Statutory Advocacy Update




April 2017 - Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1



Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 05 April 2017

Subject: Items of Business Not on the Agenda        


Reason for Report

1.     This document has been prepared to assist Committee Members to note the Items of Business Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 5.

1.1.   Urgent items of Business (supported by report tabled by CE or Chair)


Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed












1.2.   Minor items (for discussion only)



Councillor / Staff