Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 2 May 2018

Time: 10.15am

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 21 March 2018

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

5. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 11

Decision Items

6. Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference for Adoption 13

7. HB RPC Act 2015, Schedule s.10(2)(a) Review 35

8. List of Candidate Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay – Cultural and Spiritual Value Set 41

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. 1:00pm Dr Anthony Cole Presentation - Economic Theory and Accounting Methods to Support the Goal of Māori Cultural Survival

10. TANK Plan Change Pathways Part 2 45

11. RMA Planning Projects Update and RRMP Effectiveness Review Follow-up 49

12. May 2018 Statutory Advocacy Update 59

13. Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda 65

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	Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Jenny Nelson-Smith	Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
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
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 18

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 14 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

18 14

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

Subject: Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference for Adoption

Reason for Report

1. To provide a marked-up revision of the Terms of Reference to the Committee for approval, subject to some matters being deferred until after the first statutory review of the performance of the Regional Planning Committee.

Discussion

2. At its meeting on 21 March 2018, the Committee made the following resolutions.

“2. The Regional Planning Committee agrees that a fully marked up version of the Terms of Reference as recommended by the Co-Chairs and Deputy Co-Chairs and reflecting the amendments required by the statute, will be brought to the 2 May 2018 Committee meeting for approval, and that the matters identified following be considered as part of the first statutory review of the performance of the Regional Planning Committee.

2.1 Voting and Quorum:

2.1.1 The process by which the number of Council members eligible for voting will be reduced to ensure equal numbers of appointed tāngata whenua representatives

2.1.2 The setting of the Quorum

2.1.3 Consensus decision making and the 80% voting threshold.

2.2 The presumption that the current Standing Orders of Council apply to the operation of the committee unless amended by the committee.

2.3 Confirmation of functions and powers of the committee (noting the legal advice that the broader scope in draft terms of reference is not inconsistent with the specified legislation).

2.4 Refer back provisions and clarification of the options available to Council in the event that no recommendation is received from the Committee. This issue relates in particular to section 12(4) of the Act which provides that “In the event of an inconsistency between the obligations of Council under the terms of reference and its obligations under the specified legislation, the specified legislation prevails.”

3. The Regional Planning Committee agrees that staff will work with the Co-chairs and Deputy Co-chairs and independent advisors to prepare recommendations for the Committee on the terms and scope of the statutory review, including:

3.1 Appointment of review panel including appropriate cultural and legal expertise

3.2 Agreed matters for review

3.3 Consultation and discussion process

3.4 Meeting and reporting timeframes.”

3. The staff report for the Committee’s meeting on 21 March summarised the history of the Committee’s terms of reference and the review process, so that is not repeated here.

4. As per Resolution 2 above, a marked-up document is presented as Attachment 1 for the Committee’s consideration, specifically noting that items with orange-coloured classifications are the matters in sub-clauses 2.1 - 2.4 to be considered as part of the first statutory review of the performance of the Committee.

5. This report deliberately does not deal with anything arising from Resolution 3 above regarding terms of the scope of the statutory review.

Decision Making Process

6. 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:

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

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

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

6.4. 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.

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

6.6. 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 the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference for Adoption” staff report.

2. Approves those parts of the Terms of Reference (with or without amendments as agreed at the meeting) that are not to be considered further as part of the first statutory review of the performance of the Regional Planning Committee.

3. Recommends that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council formally adopts the Terms of Reference for the HB Regional Planning Committee as agreed 2 May 2018.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇩1

Mark-up of RPC Terms of Reference as at Feb 2014 plus post HBPRC Act amendments for discussion

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

Subject: HB RPC Act 2015, Schedule s.10(2)(a) Review

Reason for Report

1. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 Schedule includes the following requirement for review.

10. Reporting and review by RPC

(2) Appointers –

(a) must, no later than 3 years after the date of the first meeting of the RPC, undertake a review of the performance of the RPC;

and

(3) Appointers may, following a review, make recommendations to the RPC on relevant matters arising from the review.

2. This paper provides the scope and processes for the review to be undertaken as per the 21 March 2018 RPC resolution:

2.1. The Regional Planning Committee agrees that staff will work with the Co-chairs and Deputy Co-chairs and independent advisors to prepare recommendations for the Committee on the terms and scope of the statutory review, including:

2.1.1. Appointment of review panel including appropriate cultural and legal expertise

2.1.2. Agreed matters for review

2.1.3. Consultation and discussion process

2.1.4. Meeting and reporting timeframes.

DIscussion

3. Following discussions between the Chairs and Co-Chairs it was agreed that the preferred process for initiating the performance review is to obtain collective feedback from the RPC members at one or more hui, and to seek individual responses from all of the appointers (Post-settlement Governance Entities or mandated treaty groups).

4. In order to initiate the discussion with the appointers, feedback is sought from the Committee on a draft letter attached. This letter will be sent out to the tangata whenua appointers, setting out the background to the role of the Regional Planning Committee, how it currently operates and outstanding matters for resolution with regards to the Terms of Reference. It then seeks formal written feedback from the appointers on change that may be needed to improve the performance of the Committee.

5. Following the receipt of feedback from the appointers (both tangata whenua members and the Council), further consideration will be given to the need (or not) for legal expertise to assist in the review process.

6. It is proposed that written feedback be sought from all appointers by 6 July 2018 so that a paper setting out the changes sought can be considered at the RPC meeting on 2 August 2018.

Decision Making Process

7. 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:

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

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

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

7.4. The persons affected by this decision are the tangata whenua of the region and the ratepayers.

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

7.6. 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 the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “HB RPC Act 2015, Schedule s.10(2)(a) Review” staff report.

2. Confirms, subject to amendments made at the meeting, the letter from the Council Chairman to the tangata whenua appointing bodies seeking their written feedback on the performance of the Regional Planning Committee.

3. Notes the timeline for feedback during the review process, with the next paper on the review to be brought to the Regional Planning Committee meeting of 2 August 2018.

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇩1

Letter to RPC Appointers

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

Subject: List of Candidate Outstanding Water Bodies in Hawke’s Bay – Cultural and Spiritual Value Set

Reason for Report

1. This report is a follow-up to an item considered by the Committee at its previous meeting on 21 March 2018. The purpose of this report is to discuss the options available for the selection of a list of candidate outstanding water bodies (OWB) for the cultural and spiritual value set, in order to progress the OWB plan change.

2. On 24 April 2018, a hui was held with the Regional Planning Committee tāngata whenua representatives to further explore the identification of a list of candidate OWB for the cultural and spiritual value set.

3. The options and discussions from the 24 April hui will be reported back to the wider committee membership at the 2 May RPC meeting.

Background

4. In June 2017, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) endorsed an approach that was co-designed with the tāngata whenua representatives of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) to identify outstanding water bodies (OWB) in the Hawke’s Bay region.

5. To date, significant progress on this work programme has taken place, and at its meeting on 21 March 2018, the RPC agreed to select the following list (in no particular order) of candidate OWB for the recreation, landscape and ecology value sets.

Table 1: Candidate outstanding water bodies for recreation, landscape & ecology values

Te Whanganui a Orotu (Ahuriri Estuary)

Upper Mohaka River

Lake Waikaremoana

Upper Ngaruroro River

Taruarau River

Ruakituri River

Lake Whakakī

Mangahouanga Stream

Wairoa River

Heretaunga aquifer

Ruataniwha aquifer

Lake Whatuma

Tukituki River

Waipawa River

6. The Committee agreed to defer a decision for the cultural and spiritual value set until the meeting on 2 May 2017. This was intended to provide additional time for the RPC tāngata whenua representatives to consider and confirm a short list for the cultural and spiritual value set.

7. Staff are currently progressing secondary analysis work on those water bodies listed in Table 1. If the RPC is able to agree on water bodies shortlisted for the cultural and spiritual value, then staff can undertake secondary analysis work thereafter.

Summary of key options to determine a candidate list of OWB for the cultural and spiritual value set

8. Following is a summary of the key selection options for the creation of a list of candidate OWB for the cultural and spiritual value set. This content is a virtual replica of an extract from the staff briefing paper presented to the RPC meeting on 21 March.

9. The RPC tāngata whenua representatives will elaborate on these options at the RPC meeting on 2 May following on from their hui on 24 April.

Cultural and spiritual value set

10. Three options have been developed to assist with identifying outstanding water bodies that have significant cultural and spiritual values.

11. Option 1 uses tāngata whenua traditional knowledge of their values related to water bodies, information from the Cultural Values Table and agreed criteria to identify the relevant cultural and spiritual values of water bodies. Option 1 in a picture form is shown Figure 1 below.

Option 1

Draft table of information collated by HBRC

Traditional knowledge of Tangata whenua representatives

Draft criteria considered by Tangata Whenua representatives

Potential list of waterbodies that may be outstanding

Figure 1: Option 1 in picture form

12. Option 2 uses another approach as determined appropriate at the 24 April hui held in Hastings with the RPC tāngata whenua representatives.

13. Option 3 does not progress the identification of OWB for the cultural and spiritual value set.

Recommended option for cultural and spiritual value set

14. The preferred option from the 24 April hui will be reported back to the wider committee membership at the 2 May RPC meeting. Staff understand that the RPC tāngata whenua representatives are preparing a supplementary report for consideration at the 2 May meeting. When completed, that supplementary report will be circulated to committee members prior to the meeting.

Next steps

15. The next steps and associated timeline anticipated for the OWB Plan Change were previously outlined to the RPC meeting on 21 March. Those remain fairly similar despite the six-week deferral of the RPC agreeing on a list of candidate waterbodies for the cultural and spiritual value set.

May 2018

16. Secondary analysis by staff of the list of candidate outstanding water bodies will continue.

17. After completion of the secondary analysis by staff, consultation will occur with iwi authorities, territorial authorities and key stakeholder groups (including Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game, Department of Conservation, Hawke’s Bay branches of Forest & Bird Society) regarding the candidate list of OWBs (this was previously agreed by the RPC at its meeting on 21 March). During this period, it is intended that a generic feedback form would be added on to the OWB webpage for other parties or members of the public who wish to provide general comments.

June 2018

18. Findings of the secondary analysis, and associated consultation, will be reported back to the RPC meeting on 20 June. The uninterrupted work programme would lead to recommendations for a draft OWB plan change being ready for the RPC’s consideration and adoption as a ‘draft plan change’ at that same meeting.

July/August 2018

19. As per new requirements of recent amendments to the RMA, a draft plan change will be provided to all iwi authorities in Hawke’s Bay and their comments invited. Thereafter, a finalised plan change will be presented to a RPC meeting in August/September for consideration, and if adopted, then subsequent public notification as a ‘proposed plan change.’

Implications for tāngata whenua

20. Tāngata whenua have special cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations with freshwater. The relationship between Tāngata whenua and freshwater is founded in whakapapa, which is the foundation for an inalienable relationship between Māori and freshwater that is recorded, celebrated and perpetuated across generations. Freshwater is recognised by Māori as a taonga of paramount importance.

21. The approach to identifying OWB in the region has be co-designed with the tāngata whenua representatives of the RPC to ensure tāngata whenua values are addressed as part of a robust process to identify OWB.

22. All waterbodies are important for spiritual, physical and customary reasons. The OWB plan change does not act to lessen the importance of waterbodies that are not labelled ‘outstanding’ or change the way in which these waterbodies are managed. The Plan Change is one of a number of work programmes proposed as part of the Council’s overall NPSFM progressive implementation package that focuses on improving the management of freshwater to protect the life supporting capacity of our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and aquifers.

Decision Making Process

23. 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:

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

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

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

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

23.5. 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.

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

23.7. 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. In any event, there will be an opportunity for any person to make a submission on a proposed plan change once it is adopted and publicly notified.

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends 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.

EITHER:

2. Agrees that a list of outstanding water bodies for the cultural and spiritual value set will not be progressed as part of the outstanding water body plan change

3. Agrees that the following list of candidate outstanding water bodies will be subject to a secondary analysis for the cultural and spiritual value set for potential incorporation in the outstanding water body plan change:

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Authored by:

Belinda Harper

Senior Planner

Approved by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

Subject: TANK Plan Change Pathways Part 2

Reason for Report

1. This report highlights the intended ‘next steps’ in preparing and delivering the TANK plan change to the RPC and follows on from Item 11 ‘Pathway to draft TANK Plan Change Adoption by RPC’, presented 21 March 2018.

2. The report also makes a recommendation as to how the TANK Group’s recommendations (para 42.2) might be conveyed to RPC.

Background

3. The TANK Group members and staff are working toward the development of a robust Draft Plan Change (Plan Change 9) for the TANK catchments. Consideration of the collective values of the freshwater resource and ways in which the land and water is to be managed will be established through objectives, policies, rules/limits, and management frameworks. The TANK Group will present the Draft Plan Change to the RPC, highlighting those areas where consensus has been reached and those where it has not.

4. It will be imperative that prior to consideration by the RPC of the TANK Group recommendations, that the Draft Plan Change be presented and received formally by the RPC and that a workshop be held by staff and TANK members thereby enabling RPC to have an opportunity to understand the key elements of the Draft Plan Change which are before them.

5. It is suggested by staff that a formal handover presentation of the Draft Plan Change from the TANK members to the RPC take place, followed by a number of workshops including a field trip. It is envisaged that this will provide an important opportunity for the RPC members to familiarise themselves with the critical components of the draft plan, to gain an appreciation of the significant issues which have been discussed, debated and deliberated by the TANK Group and to meet the people who have been working within this collaborative process for the past five years.

Presentation to RPC and Workshops

6. Whilst the details of the presentation of the Draft Plan Change to RPC have yet to be finalised it is intended that a formal handover presentation will be arranged mid-year (2018). This is likely to follow the format of a powhiri, whereby the TANK Group bestow upon the RPC members the Draft Plan.

7. Following the formal ceremony staff will arrange a number of workshops for RPC members. This will be an opportunity for members to understand the issues which have been deliberated by the TANK Group. It is intended that this will demonstrate how the TANK Group have effectively devised a robust draft plan through their collective thought, assessing the options, costs and benefits to achieve and address their community desires for freshwater.

8. The workshops will focus on the critical components of the Draft Plan which have been identified as follows.

8.1. State of the TANK Catchments

8.2. Water values – Information & knowledge, Matauranga Maori

8.3. Water Quality – Nutrients, sediments, stormwater & urban water, mitigations

8.4. Water Quantity – Allocation, conservation and water futures

8.5. Lakes & wetlands.

9. It is intended that two days will be required for the workshop (1 day) and field trip (1 day). The topics identified above will be presented by both staff and TANK Group members and that each topic will be allocated between 1-2 hours each for presentation and discussion. Each topic will be delivered following a consistent format, for example:

9.1. Overview of the issues

9.2. What are the requirements of the NPSFM which are being considered/met?

9.3. Has due process been followed?

9.4. What areas of consensus have the TANK Group reached/have not reached?

9.5. Identification of any significant gaps/areas of concern which have arisen, whereby decisions are required to be made by RPC

9.6. Recommendations by staff to RPC with regards to decision making.

10. The field trip will provide some context to the issues discussed during the first day of workshop. It will enable members a chance to see the real issues which are being faced within the catchments, and meet a cross-section of the TANK members who have been involved in the collaborative process. Again, the finer details of the site visit is yet to be finalised, but is envisaged that the following aspects will be covered:

10.1. Stream flow augmentation and global consents

10.2. Riparian planting and stock exclusion – mitigation measures

10.3. Maori values and matauranga Māori – Te Mana o Te Wai.

Next Steps

11. Following the workshop and field trip it is anticipated that RPC will then have an opportunity to refer matters back to the TANK Group for further advice and/or recommendation prior to recommending the final plan change to the Council for notification. This step has been recorded within the TANK Group Terms of Reference.

12. As stipulated in the previous paper, Council has an option to release a draft plan change for informal public consultation or to go straight to notification. Whilst it would be premature to make this decision now, it is important to bring this to the fore, as RPC will need to make this decision once the TANK Groups drafting and consensus becomes clearer. This may be best resolved following the workshop and field trip.

Decision Making Process

13. 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:

1. Receives and notes the “TANK Plan Change Pathways Part 2” staff report, particularly:

1.1 formal handover of the Draft Plan Change from TANK members to RPC; and

1.2 attendance at a two day workshop/field trip to become familiar with the key components of the Draft Plan Change (prior to consideration of the content).

2. Recognises the option to refer matters back to the TANK Group for further advice/recommendation prior to recommending a TANK plan change to Council for public notification as a proposed plan.

Authored by: Approved by:

Ceri Edmonds

Senior Planner

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

SUBJECT: RMA Planning Projects Update and RRMP Effectiveness Review Follow-Up

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is two-fold:

1.1. to provide an outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently underway (i.e. the regular update reporting presented to every second meeting of the RPC); and

1.2. provide a brief follow-up report in relation to the timetabling of Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) effectiveness review reporting actions arising from the Committee’s meeting on 21 March 2018.

Resource management policy project update

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.

RRMP effectiveness reporting actions and timetabling

6. At the previous meeting on 21 March, the Committee requested staff to report back to the committee “setting out a timetable of next steps to amend the RRMP in order to address the issues raised in the 2004 and 2018 RRMP effectiveness reviews.”

7. In short, staff anticipate the ‘timetable’ of any amendments needs to align with each of the Council’s existing work programme elements outlined later in this paper. This is because the future work programme presents several opportunities for consideration of matters raised in earlier plan effectiveness reporting, and current planned work programme resourcing would not extend to accommodate an extra one-off plan change project.

8. While both the 2004 and 2018 Effectiveness Review reports had identified a number of matters where the plan could be improved, nothing within scope of the 2018 review by Mitchell Daysh Limited was classified as warranting an urgent and immediate fix by way of a special one-off plan change. Consequently, the 21 March staff briefing paper on the RRMP Effectiveness Review reported that there were no immediate next steps being recommended. That still remains the view of policy planning staff.

9. On balance, the RRMP is not perfect, but it is still functioning reasonably well overall. Perhaps its greatest weaknesses are in relation to managing land use intensification and diffuse discharges of contaminants. None of that was within scope of the 2018 RRMP effectiveness review because the Council already has a work programme involving a series of catchment-based plan changes to establish freshwater objectives and set limits. Plan Change 6 for the Tukituki River catchment and the TANK plan change are two examples of such catchment-based plan changes.

10. In terms of matters that were within scope of the 2018 RRMP Effectiveness review, there are opportunities to improve the RRMP’s content (and thereby its effectiveness) already within the Council’s substantial work programme for preparation and review of RMA planning documents over the next ten years. Attachment 2 is a Gantt-chart styled illustration of the various indicative workstreams and timings within the Council’s ten year resource management policy programme. While much of the current plan review priorities are focussed on land and freshwater provisions, there are other workstreams in the future work programme that could be used to incorporate suitable ‘refurbishments’ of RRMP content. Most notably, a review of the RRMP is scheduled to commence in 2020/21 (refer rows 8 & 9 in Attachment 2).

11. Table 1 is an indicative illustration of the RRMP’s individual chapters and the likely relevant opportunities for ‘refurbishing’ plan/policy content. Clearly the programmed review of the RRMP (scheduled to commence in 2020/21) emerges as the most far-reaching occasion to propose amendments and improve much of the RRMP’s content so it is more effective in future. There remains a high degree of uncertainty about what new and revised national direction (i.e. NPSs and NESs) might mean for RRMP content.

Table 1: Indicative broad-scale representation of parts of RRMP and upcoming plan amendments as opportunities to improve effectiveness of policy and RRMP

RRMP Chapter	Programmed region-wide plan change(s)	Programmed catchment-based plan change(s)	Programmed review of RRMP	Amendments to implement new NPSs and NESs	Amendments to implement revised NPSs and NESs
1 - Introduction	-	-	Yes	-	-
2 - Key RPS objectives	-	-	Yes	-	-
3 - RPS issues, objectives & policies	-	-	Yes	?	?
4 - Non-regulatory methods	-	In part	Yes	?	?
5 - Regional plan objectives & policies	In part	In part	Yes	?	?
6 - Regional rules	In part	In part	Yes	?	?
7 - Information requirements for resource consent applications	In part	In part	Yes	?	-
8 - Administrative matters	-	-	Yes	?	-
9 - Glossary	In part	In part	Yes	?	?
Schedules \| appendices \| maps	In part	In part	Yes	?	?

12. Realistically, the overall scale and complexity of the current resource management plan and policy work programme means little likelihood of an extra plan change being accommodated to solely focus on making the amendments identified in the earlier plan effectiveness reports. So on that basis, staff have not presented a timetable of how we anticipate the 2004 and 2018 RRMP effectiveness reports might be actioned using an extra one-off plan change approach.

13. Instead, staff anticipate the ‘timetable’ of any amendments should align with relevant elements of the future work programme. The relevance and size of those opportunities will be small for some work streams, and larger for others.

14. In addition to this programmed ‘refurbishment’ of the RRMP, every plan change project presents an opportunity to invoke some degree of continuous improvement in plan content and policy direction, but only insofar as the scope of each plan change project allows. Generally, the bigger the scope of any plan change grows, then more time and resourcing is required to cope with the growing scale (and often complexity) of plan content being proposed for amendment.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the ‘RMA Planning Projects Update and RRMP Effectiveness Review Follow-Up’ staff report.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇩1	HBRC RMA Plan Change Preparation & Review Projects Update May 2018
⇩2	Indicative Resource Management Policy Planning Programme summary for RPC information

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 May 2018

SUBJECT: May 2018 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 2018.

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 May 2018 Statutory Advocacy Update staff report.

Authored by:

Ceri Edmonds

Senior Planner

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

⇩1

Statutory Advocacy Update May 2018