Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 4 October 2017

Time: 10.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 6 September 2017

4. Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

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

Information or Performance Monitoring

6. CHB Community Delegation presentation - PC6 (11.00am) 9

7. Update on TANK Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Change Timelines 21

8. October 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update 25

9. October 2017 Resource Management Planning Project Update 29

10. Items of Business Not on the Agenda 33

Parking

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

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc

Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Liz Munroe	He Toa Takitini
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Apiata Tapine	Tātau Tātau 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

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 October 2017

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 10.

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

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 October 2017

Subject: CHB Community Delegation presentation - PC6

Executive Summary

1. Representatives of the CHB community have expressed a desire to explore options that will mitigate, offset or delay some of the immediate impacts of PC6 that might have been avoided had the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme proceeded. One of their principal concerns relates to the impact of new minimum flow limits coming into effect next year. Refer to Attachment 1 which is a paper prepared by representatives of the CHB Delegation that will appear and present at the Committee meeting. This report provides Committee members with background information on matters that the delegation have indicated they would like to discuss with Council in relation to Plan Change 6 (PC6).

Background

2. On 2 August 2017 staff updated committee members on PC6 implementation matters. As a result, committee members requested that staff “take feedback from the meeting in order to report back to the Regional Planning Committee as soon as practicable on options (including scope, timing and resources) for progressing a narrow plan change to address urgent implementation matters in Tukituki Plan Change 6.”

3. Staff anticipate presenting that advice at the Committee’s meeting on 1 November 2017. The report will identify what parts of PC6, if any, staff recommend be subject to a plan change, noting the committee’s previous guidance that;

3.1. the review be restricted to urgent implementation matters (predominantly of a technical nature); and

3.2. that quality of water be addressed in the first instance and the quantity as a secondary consideration.

Impact of the new Minimum Flow Rules on existing reliability for irrigators

4. There are 100 consents to take surface water (or stream depleting groundwater) in the Tukituki catchment that have minimum flow conditions set at the Tukituki catchment low flow limits. (There are additional consents with conditions set at higher minimum flows that are unaffected by this discussion see para 14.2). Fifty-two consents are classified as stream depleting/surface connected with minimum flow conditions. Another 4 are classified as having a medium effect so do not have a minimum flow condition assigned. In combination these are allocated 27% of the water allocated/used. Several of these have been assigned a minimum flow condition that will take effect for the first time in 2018. Some of these indicated in 2015 that they will drill deeper bores to avoid any restrictions. In two cases a consent has been granted for water storage.

5. New minimum flow regime and allocation limits were set in the RRMP following PC6 becoming operative. Under PC6’s new policies, minimum flows increase while groundwater and surface water allocation limits are set based on the existing volume of consented allocation. Transition periods are also specified to implement the increased minimum flows:

5.1. For the tributaries, these take effect in May 2018.

5.2. For the Tukituki mainstem at the Red Bridge monitoring site the minimum flows are to be raised in two stages. They increase from the current 3,500 L/s to 4,300 L/s in 2018 and to 5,200 L/s in 2023.

5.3. The stage 1 increase at the Red Bridge site affects all takes that are subject to minimum flow conditions. There can be more than one minimum flow gauging point applying to a take in which case the consent holder must stop taking water when the first minimum flow point is reached.

5.4. The stage two change affects all takes upstream of Red Bridge including the tributaries. Takes downstream of the Red Bridge minimum flow site are only required to step up once, to the 4,300 L/s minimum flow in 2018.

6. Given that extended periods of restricted abstraction can have detrimental effects on crops that require irrigation, especially during dry summer months when irrigation demand can be high (i.e. January to February), estimates of the potential frequency of extended periods of restriction (e.g. periods of 10 or more consecutive days) were included within the restriction statistics.

7. The modelling results indicated that increasing the minimum flow at each site is likely to increase the time river flow is at or below minimum flow, meaning an increase in abstraction restriction (bans on consented takes) is likely.

8. Table 1 presents the predicted frequency of a year with a period of 10 or more consecutive days of restriction during January and February.

Table 1

9. Table 1 shows that an increase from current to new minimum flows at each site is predicted to increase the frequency of a year where abstraction during January and February is restricted for 10 or more consecutive days. The greatest impact is predicted at the Tukituki River at Red Bridge site, with the 4300 l/s representing the 2018 minimum flow and the 5200 l/s to apply in 2023.

10. If the RWSS had proceeded and became operational, all water users/abstractors who subscribed to the scheme would have had an increased security of supply. Particularly water users who were surface water abstractors, as they would have been supplied water from storage and would not have been restricted by minimum flow rules.

11. Meanwhile, surface water abstractors who had not subscribed to the scheme would have continued to have the current level of security of supply associated with current minimum flows, and a reduced security of supply after transition to the new minimum flows set in PC6.

12. There is now more recent data available since the modelling was undertaken during the PC6 process, however the hydrology/hydrogeology team does not currently have the capacity with existing resources available to update the previous modelling in the Tukituki Catchment.

13. When resource consents taking surface water / stream depleting were replaced in 2013 the new minimum flow conditions were included to phase in as per the proposed version of PC6 as it existed then. The minimum flow conditions remain largely the same in the operative PC6 version. As it stands those consent conditions will come into force and be subject to compliance from the 1 July 2018. Those consents were granted for seven years and are set to expire in 2020. When the groundwater consents were replaced in 2015, further consents were determined to be stream depleting and were assigned minimum flow conditions. These were granted for a twenty year period and will expire in 2035.

14. The plan does provide other measures for reducing the impact of these restrictions.

14.1. RRMP Policy TT9(iva) provides an allocation of 200 L/s for “emergency water” for the sole purpose of avoiding the death of horticultural or viticultural rootstock or crops. This is available to consent holders who do not have alternative water sources in low flow events. It is principally intended to allow water to be taken to prevent permanent loss of plants. The use does include crops (but not pasture, animal fodder crops or maize). It only becomes available after five days of full restriction. Only one party has sought to access this water to date. Council staff have sought to canvass interest in this water but there has been limited interest to date. A proposal has been to allocate this water to a ‘water user group’ and enable them to manage it between members within the rules and limits. This proposal can be discussed again with affected parties if the interest becomes evident.

14.2. RRMP Policy TT10 provides for takes during high flows. An allocation of 2,000 L/s is provided with up to 500 L/s able to be taken from each of the Waipawa River and the Tukituki River above Tapairu Road. This enables consent holders to take water during flows that exceed the median flows. This would be able to be taken into storage and then used when water is not otherwise available. To date, 304 L/s is allocated from the Upper Tukituki, 115 L/s is allocated from the Waipawa River and 136 L/s has been allocated from the lower Tukituki area. This totals 555 L/s or about one quarter of what is available.

14.3. RRMP Policy TT11 provides for groundwater takes that are hydraulically connected to the river. It sets a well depth (50 m above Red Bridge and 40 m below Red Bridge) below which takes are determined to not be hydraulically connected. Any takes below this level are not subject to the minimum flows. Some consent holders have already chosen to install a deeper bore to benefit from this provision. All consent holders with hydraulically connected bores that are shallower have been informed of the option to go deeper to avoid the minimum flow restrictions.

14.4. RRMP Policy TT11 also provides for takes which are classified as having a High stream depletion effect to be reduced to half their daily take at times of minimum flow rather than to cease taking as was previously required. Takes classified as Medium or Low are not required to reduce or cease their take at all at times of minimum flow. Takes which are classified as Direct (greater than 90% is drawn from the river within 7 days pumping) are not covered by Policy TT11. Currently there are:

14.4.1. Twelve takes classified as Direct and are therefore subject to cease at the minimum flows.

14.4.2. Forty takes classified as High Stream Depleters and are therefore subject half their daily take at the minimum flow.

14.4.3. Four takes classified as Medium Stream Depleters and not subject to the minimum flow but their stream depletion effect is counted in the surface water allocation.

14.5. RRMP Policy TT8(ca) provides for Tranche 2 ground water to be taken. This is water additional to the principal groundwater allocation limit, and amounts to 15 million cubic metres of water. There are applications currently lodged for over the full amount, however no consents have yet been issued. Ten million cubic metres of Tranche 2 water has been sought by HBRIC Ltd; proposed to be taken in conjunction with the RWSS, with the dam providing the offset that is required. If HBRIC Ltd is not able to take this, the 15 million m³ is oversubscribed by others who have applied for it. The HBRIC Ltd application has been on hold pending more information and Consents staff are awaiting advice on whether the applicant wishes to proceed with the application. If not, then Council will proceed with processing the other applications. The difficulty with taking this water is that the effects of the take on surface water have to be off-set.

Farm-gate production impacts

15. The recent RWSS Review report included an assessment completed by Aqualinc Research Limited that investigated the impact of irrigation security and resultant farm-gate production in the Tukituki catchment arising from the increased minimum flows in PC6 if the supplementary flows required under RWSS Consents are not available. The report concluded:

15.1. From 2023 all surface water takes will experience restrictions of more than 10 days duration about six times more frequently than the Plan objective of 1 event in 10 years on average.

15.2. The economic impact of raising the cease-take flows per se from 2023 onwards is to reduce the weighted average Cash Farm Surplus by about 23% and the total on-farm economic output, expressed in EBIT, by about 18%. Aqualinc also considered the additional impact brought about by the absence of the RWSS supplementary minimum flows, and estimated that Cash Farm Surplus and EBIT would reduce by 35% and 27% respectively.

15.3. The reduction in farm earnings in the catchment is estimated to be $900,000 pa on average with reductions of up to $4.7M in the worst years.

Considerations for Tangata Whenua

16. PC6 and the proposed RWSS has effects on tangata whenua values and interests that were addressed during the Board of Inquiry hearing and decision-making process (i.e. 2014-2015). As this paper is for information purposes, no decisions directly on this paper are recommended and so no direct bearing on the interests of tangata whenua beyond that of other residents of the region.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Potential Impacts of Plan Change 6 Tukituki Increased Minimum Flows” staff report and Central Hawke’s Bay Community Delegation.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

⇩1

CHB Community Delegation

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 October 2017

Subject: Update on TANK Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Change Timelines

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with an update on the TANK plan change timeline and in particular the need to extend the target date for notification.

Background

2. The current timeframe for notifying the TANK plan change, as signaled in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan, is December 2017.

3. The complex ground and surface water model informing the plan change, is only now producing scenario results to assist the TANK Group to make choices on limits for abstractions and discharges. The scenario testing is an iterative process that will require further modelling as scenarios are refined and socio-economic and cultural impacts are assessed.

4. To complete the scenario testing and agree the subsequent details of the plan change, the TANK Group are scheduled to meet on 10 October, 18 October, 22 November and possibly three times in the first half of the new year (dates to be confirmed). The final meeting to sign off the plan change is proposed for May 2018.

5. The necessary extension of the TANK Group meeting schedule was verbally signaled to the TANK Group at its last meeting. This was not a surprise to the members and there was general acceptance and support for keeping the momentum going now that the science is available. However, it is noted that the Group has been meeting since October 2012 and the current monthly meeting schedule with additional topic based sub-group meetings is a heavy burden on the individual members and their organisations or stakeholder groups.

New timeline for TANK plan change

6. The new timeline below aims for notification of the plan change in August 2018. This date is subject to the process decisions of the Special Tribunal for the Water Conservation Order of the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers.

* RPC may consider further input from the TANK Group (i.e. possible feedback loops).

** Council to decide whether to consult on draft plan change or notify directly.

Implications

7. A major timing driver for the TANK plan change was the pending expiry of resource consents for current water takes and the need to provide certainty to consent holders and submitters. The consent team is considering how best to manage the new consent applications in a way that minimises cost and disruption to consent holders and council and enables alignment with the TANK plan change provisions.

8. The Special Tribunal appointed to make decision on the Water Conservation Order has sought feedback from submitters about how they should manage that process. This includes whether to split their hearing process to account for the TANK outputs. Their decision may still impact on how Council’s resources, especially staff time and science inputs, can remain focused on the TANK plan change project.

9. The Special Tribunal’s decision about WCO hearing process is expected by early October.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Update on TANK Stakeholder Engagement and Plan Change Timelines” staff report.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 October 2017

SUBJECT: October 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 April 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 outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in. This period’s update report excludes the numerous Marine and Coastal Area Act proceedings little has changed since the previous update.

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.

Recommendation

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

Authored by:

Ceri Edmonds

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

⇩1

Statutory Advocacy Update

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 04 October 2017

SUBJECT: October 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.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

4. The table in Attachment 1 repeats the relevant parts of the resource management planning work programme’s required actions from the 2017-18 Annual 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.

Recommendation

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

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

⇩1

Resource Management Update