HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 20 June 2018
Subject: Regional Targets for
Swimmable Lakes and Rivers
Reason for Report
1. To provide the
Committee with information on the swimmability targets set by the Government,
and the role of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in achieving these.
Summary
2. Commitments to
improving water quality have already been made across the Hawke’s Bay
region and their effect on water quality has been modelled. Based on the
existing commitments, staff are recommending that Council agrees to the draft
targets of 90 % of rivers that are fourth order or larger to be in the blue,
green or yellow category in terms of E. coli) by 2030, and 76% of lakes
with perimeters greater than 1.5 kilometres swimmable by 2030.
3. The National
Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) requires Regional Councils
to prepare draft Regional Targets to improve the quality of fresh water
(Policy A6). These targets must contribute to achieving the national
target for 90% swimmable lakes and rivers by 2040. The draft regional targets
must be made publicly available by 31 March 2018, with final regional targets
publicly available by 31 December 2018
4. A governance
group and taskforce comprising MfE and MPI officials and staff from regional
councils were set up to help councils meet this obligation. The taskforce has
compiled information on work committed or underway in each region to improve
water quality for swimming, and the associated likely costs. The information
for each region was presented in a report made publicly available in March
2018.
5. The information
in the taskforce report indicates that a draft regional target for the
Hawke’s Bay region of 90% of rivers and 76% of lakes swimmable by 2030,
is realistic and achievable. The information sheet (attached) fulfils the
reporting requirements under the NPSFM.
Background
6. On 23 February
2017, the Government announced its proposals to amend the National Policy Statement
for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and introduce a national (non-statutory)
target for swimmable lakes and rivers (Clean Water: 90% of lakes and rivers
swimmable by 2040). The Hon Dr Nick Smith (as Minister for the Environment)
wrote to all regional councils on 28 February 2017 to inform them of the
national target and to “encourage input and an early start to the
implementation of these ambitious goals.”
7. In that letter,
Dr Smith asked regional councils to provide the following information.
7.1. The rivers
and lakes where interventions that are planned or in place will improve water
quality so that it is swimmable
7.2. The rivers
and lakes where additional interventions will improve water quality so that
they are swimmable more often, the level of improvement those interventions
would achieve, and the timeframes to achieve them
7.3. The likely
costs of the interventions described above, and the parties on whom those costs
would fall.
8. After
considering submissions to the proposals in Clean Water, the Government
made a suite of amendments to the NPSFM, which were gazetted in August 2017.
These amendments included setting a national target for water quality
improvement in rivers and lakes as follows.
8.1. 80% of
specified rivers and lakes are suitable for primary contact (e.g. swimming) by
2030; and
8.2. 90% are
suitable by 2040.
9. The term
“specified rivers and lakes” is defined in the NPSFM as rivers that
are fourth order or above and lakes with a perimeter greater than 1,500 metres.
Primary contact is defined as people’s contact with water that involves
immersion, including swimming.
10. To achieve the national
targets, the NPSFM directs regional councils to set regional targets. Draft
regional targets must be made available to the public by 31 March 2018 and
final targets made available by 31 December 2018. The NPSFM does not specify
whether these regional targets should be for the 2030 or 2040 timeframe.
11. As a result of these
deadlines HBRC resolved the following:
11.1. Agrees to set a draft
target for the Hawke’s Bay region of 90% of rivers and 76% of lakes
swimmable by 2030, and make this target publicly available with the information
sheet provided.
11.2. Agrees to
recommend that the Regional Sector works collaboratively with the Government on
any amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and
requirements to set final regional targets.
12. Some regional councils
have raised concerns with the taskforce about the national targets. The
concerns include:
12.1. The targets focus on E.
coli and cyanobacteria (human health attributes in the NPSFM) as measures
of suitability for swimming. In some regions, the community outcomes sought
will mean other contaminants such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment may be a
higher priority.
12.2. There is a risk that
prioritising actions to achieve the national targets for swimming will affect
the process of identifying other community values (such as irrigation or
mahinga kai) and setting freshwater objectives and limits for those values as
required under the NPSFM.
12.3. The method of assessing
and reporting E. coli takes no account seasonal effects that influence
when people swim, or whether there is any public access to the rivers and lakes
that are part of the target.
13. The Taskforce will
continue to discuss these wider issues related to setting and achieving the
targets and work with government officials to resolve them. In the meantime, to
address these concerns our draft regional target includes how the draft
targets fit with our regional programme for setting freshwater objectives and
limits under our plan change programme.
Regional targets for
swimmable lakes and rivers
14. The governance group has
interpreted the NPSFM direction as being that the draft targets should be set
for the 2030 target date, with the final targets, which must be made available
by 31 December 2018, to be for both 2030 and 2040. This reflects that there has
been insufficient time for a wider community consultation on where water
quality improvements should be focussed and how quickly any mitigations works
should be implemented. Because of the timing issue the Taskforce modelled the
impact on water quality of commitments that have already been made, most of
which have already been through a public consultation phase and investment
allocated. Our intention is to carry out consultation throughout 2018 to
establish what additional work programmes may be necessary to set realistic
final targets for 2030 and 2040.
15. The taskforce used the
“water quality for swimming map” on the MfE website as a basis for
establishing the extent of water quality improvements that will be required
region by region, and the associated costs. Regional councils provided
information on areas where the maps were inaccurate; the maps were adjusted
accordingly and taken as a baseline of national river
“swimmability”. Councils also provided the taskforce
with information about the commitments to water quality mitigation work in
their region in regional plans, long term plans, annual plans and asset
management plans – the “committed work”. This committed
work included investment in infrastructure and was assumed to include the stock
exclusion requirements proposed by the Government in Clean Water in
February 2017, although these have not yet been promulgated as national
regulations.
16. The National Institute of
Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) used the regional information to model the water
quality improvements in rivers that should be achieved. The modelled
improvements relate only to improvements in E. coli concentrations (a
measure of the risk to human health) in rivers. They do not relate to
improvements in lake water quality (due to modelling limitations) which are
also required as part of achieving the swimmable lakes and rivers target, or to
associated water quality improvements (such as nutrient levels or water
clarity).
17. Estimations of the costs
of the committed work have been modelled by Professor Graeme Doole of Waikato
University.
18. The modelled results of
water quality improvements in rivers and their associated costs are presented
in the taskforce’s report “Regional information for setting draft
targets for swimmable lakes and rivers”.
19. The March 2018 report
relies on scientific modelling by NIWA using a national version of the
Catchment Land Use for Environmental Sustainability (CLUES) water quality
model, which is relevant to rivers only. Water quality improvements
related to point-source discharge upgrades were included in the modelled
estimations. For improvements that will arise from non-point source
discharges, relevant information was provided to a mitigation expert panel who
worked with NIWA to determine the effectiveness of mitigations in our
region. The mitigation interventions largely fell into three categories:
stock exclusion, riparian planting and management of farm dairy effluent.
20. The water quality and
economic modelling provides an estimate of how far each council’s
existing work programmes will go to meet the national targets and provides an
informed interim (draft) target.
21. The assumptions and
limitations of the modelling approaches taken are described in the
report.
22. Copies of the report can
be made available on request for Committee members.
The Hawke’s Bay Region
23. Nearly half of the land
area is used for pastoral farming, primarily sheep and beef with some dairy
farms and deer. One-third of the land cover is native
vegetation, around 12 per cent is exotic forestry and the remainder is
divided among horticulture, urban and industrial and other uses. Although
they represent a relatively small proportion of the land area, the highly
productive Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains are essential to the region’s
strong horticulture industry, known for its orchards, vegetable growing and
viticulture. Agriculture is the largest employer in the region, and also
the basis of much related industry, including fruit and vegetable processing,
wine production, and transport of produce.
24. Hawke’s Bay has
several major river catchments, generally with headwaters in the inland
mountains and hills, leading to fast-flowing gravel-bottomed rivers with
braided lower reaches. The Wairoa and Mōhaka rivers drain catchments
from the northern and western hills into northern Hawke’s Bay. The
Tūtaekurī and Ngaruroro rivers flow from the Kaweka and upper Ruahine
ranges through the Heretaunga Plains, merging just before their mouth near
Clive; and the Tukituki flows from the Ruahine Range across the Ruataniwha
Plains towards Cape Kidnappers.
25. Lakes Whakaki, Rahui,
Oingo, Runanga, Horseshoe, Tutira, Whatuma and Poukawa all have histories of
algal blooms.
26. The main point-source
discharges are sewage (Wairoa District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay
District Council (Waipukurau, Waipawa)) and waste water from an Affco meat
works.
Main sources of E. coli
27. The main source of E.
coli throughout the region is ruminant. The following table provides
more detail on the sources of E. coli in different catchments.
Table 1:
Sources of E. coli in different catchments
|
Catchment
|
Sources of E. coli
|
|
Karamu
|
ruminant (up to 10%), plant, avian
|
|
Porangahau
|
ruminant up to 100%
|
|
Kairakau
|
ruminant (up to 100%), some dog
|
|
Wairoa
|
ruminant (10–50%), plant, avian
|
|
Kopuawhara (Maungawhio)
|
ruminant 10–50%
|
|
Kopuawhara (Te Mahia)
|
ruminant (up to 100%), avian
|
|
Kopuawhara (Opoutama)
|
ruminant up to 100%
|
|
Southern Coast (Waipuka stream)
|
ruminant (up to 50%), avian
|
|
Waipatiki
|
ruminant (up to 10%), plant, wildfowl
|
Planned Work
Point sources
28. Ongoing upgrades at
Waipukurau and Waipawa are expected to overcome existing problems around
capacity and design issues. Takapau Waste Water Treatment Plant is
looking to discharge to land, and upgrades are currently occurring at Otane,
which will involve ultra-violet treatment. Consent renewal discussions
are currently under way for the Wairoa Affco discharge.
Urban
29. Stormwater treatment
wetlands for the Napier watershed (Ahuriri estuary, Purimu Stream) could reduce
E. coli load by 80 per cent, depending on design.
30. Napier City are
investigating options to increase capacity within the sewerage network to
prevent blowouts during high-flow events.
Rural
31. Attention on dairy
effluent management will continue, with measures in place to ensure effective
storage and deferred irrigation measures are in place (using effluent pond
storage calculator). Appropriate conditions are placed on all dairy
consents, and each farm is visited and checked every year by compliance
officers.
32. The Tukituki Plan is
currently being implemented (from Plan Change 6), and includes a requirement
for 1100 Farm Environmental Management Plans to be completed (240 done so
far). Farm plans include designation of critical source areas, with
appropriate mitigation measures identified and a plan of implementation
outlined. Stock exclusion rules (excluding sheep) essentially apply to
any flowing waterways that have formed beds, if stocking rate is above 18 stock
units, or slope is less than 15 degrees. The Tukituki Plan is the
region’s first to give effect to the National Policy Statement for
Freshwater Management (NPS-FM), but expectations are that some form of Farm
Environmental Management Plan, as well as compulsory stock exclusion rules,
will be developed and apply to the rest of the region.
33. Hawke’s Bay has an
ongoing soil conservation control programme which, among other things, has
included 2.4 million poles being planted, resulting in the protection of 46,000
hectares of highly erodible land. This includes stream bank stabilisation
by protecting about 50 kilometres of gullies with willow poles each year.
Up to 20,000 native plants are planted along streams each year, with fencing
subsidies available outside of the Tukituki (where stock exclusion is not
mandatory and so no longer subsidised).
34. There is currently a major
focus on six ‘hotspots’ in Hawke’s Bay, which include
initiatives to improve overall water quality, including swimmability. The
hotspots include the Ahuriri Estuary, Tutira Lakes, Whakaki Lake and Wairoa,
Tukituki River and Lake Whatuma and the Karamu. Wide-scale stock exclusion and
riparian planting will be a component of each workstream. Council had
committed $1 million across these hotspots in the 2017/18 year, and the Tutira
Lakes and Whakaki Lake have received additional money from the Ministry for the
Environment’s Freshwater Improvement Fund.
35. During the development of
this information Council was deliberating on an Integrated Catchments approach
to its work in catchments alongside a regional scale reforestation programme. This
work has not been included in this draft assessment due to the timing of the
report development and Council’s deliberations. This work will be
included in the assessment and final report.
36. There is a project for
Lake Tutira to develop an Integrated Catchment Management Plan, develop and
implement farm environmental management plans throughout the catchment,
reconnect Papakiri Stream to Lake Tūtira, install an oxygenation system,
and implement a mauri monitoring programme.
37. Work at Lake Whakaki will
include a recirculating wetland, the establishment of 80 hectares of
mānuka plantation, and complete stock exclusion from the lagoon’s
perimeter.
State of Swimmability in Hawke’s
Bay
38. Overall swimmability for
the Hawke’s Bay is 64 per cent of rivers and 68 per cent of lakes
Lakes
39. This work has not modelled
the projected improvement in water quality for swimming in lakes, but the
current state of water quality for lakes in Hawke’s Bay is represented
following.
Figure
1: Percentage of
Hawke’s Bay lakes currently in each swimming category
Rivers
40. The modelling indicates an
increase in the overall swimmability of rivers of 26 per cent, to 90 per
cent of rivers being swimmable.
Figure
2: Projected improvement in
water quality for swimming in Hawke’s Bay rivers
41. The total annual cost of
committed work in the rural area of the Hawkes Bay region is $14.72 m.
The rural costs of committed work are spread across the dairy (3%), dairy
grazing (1%), sheep and beef (85%), deer (2%), and lifestyle (9%) sectors.
Specific modelling considerations
42. For modelling the implementation
of activities in the Ahuriri catchment, the modelling has assumed uptake of
15–20 per cent riparian planting.
43. Fencing on slopes greater
than 20 degrees will have a >3 metre setback. Eighty per cent of
fencing on dairy farms have <3 metre setback, and 90 per cent of
fencing on cropping land will have a <3 metre setback.
44. Where the regional plan
focuses on stock exclusion or an extension to the Sustainable Dairy Accord, the
modelling approach taken is to extend the stock exclusion provisions to all
streams in that catchment.
Next steps
45. The government is seeking
the implementation of a national target of 90% of rivers and lakes swimmable by
2040. For some regions of New Zealand this will be achieved with relative ease.
For others it will be a distinct challenge.
46. The regional sector of
local government established a Partnership Group to oversee the report produced
in March. This group is now focussing its efforts working on what will be
needed to be achieved collectively to meet the 2040 national targets. The
sector is required to reconcile across boundaries to ensure the national
targets are met.
47. Where regions will be
required to undertake additional work over and above that which they have
programmed consultation with affected communities will be undertaken.
Decision Making
Process
48. 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:
48.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a
strategic asset.
48.2. The use
of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
48.3. The
decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on
significance.
48.4. The
decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
48.5. Given
the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also
the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions
made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without
consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in
the decision.
|
Recommendations
That the Regional Planning Committee:
1. Receives and notes the “Regional Targets for Swimmable
Lakes and Rivers“ staff report.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions
on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons
likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.
3. Instructs staff to provide regular reports to the Committee on
progress towards agreement on meeting the national targets for Swimmable
Lakes and Rivers.
|
Authored by:
|
Liz Lambert
Group Manager External Relations
|
|
Approved by:
|
Iain Maxwell
Group Manager Resource Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 20 June 2018
Subject: Oil & Gas Plan
Change Options
Reason for Report
1. This report
outlines the Government’s recent announcements on oil and gas exploration
in New Zealand in the context of Council’s proposed Oil and Gas plan
change. This report outlines several options for the Committee to
consider (including a summary of pros and cons). Finally, the paper will
seek direction from the Committee as to next steps regarding the Oil and Gas
plan change project.
Background
Government
announcements
2. On 12 April
2018 the Government announced that there will be no further offshore oil and
gas exploration permits granted, with the exception of the 2018 block offer
which will be limited to onshore acreage in Taranaki alone. Onshore block
offers will continue in Taranaki for the next three years and will be reviewed
after that. The announcement does not impact upon the 31 active
exploration and mining permits (22 of which are offshore).
3. Further to this,
on June 5 Government released a series of documents generated by officials in
reaching this decision. This bundle of documents consists of details around the
current state of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand, further information
around the upcoming onshore Taranaki block offer, and emails between officials
released in the Hawke’s Bay.
4. In regards to
Hawke’s Bay, there is only one currently active permit located offshore
that overlaps into the jurisdiction of Council- (permit 57073 held by OMV New
Zealand Limited) as shown in Figure 1 (note that the dotted blue line denotes
Council’s regional boundary out to the 12 nautical mile limit).
That permit is due to expire in 2030.
Figure
1 – location map of Exploration Permit #57073 held by OMV New Zealand
Limited
5. For the
avoidance of doubt, in 2012 an exploration permit was granted to TAG Oil
limited for onshore exploration in the Central Hawke’s Bay region, but
that permit expired in 2017.
What is
unknown?
6. Despite the
further release of background information in early June, there is still a level
of uncertainty concerning the Government’s announcements. At the time of
writing this paper it is understood that officials from New Zealand Petroleum
and Minerals (NZP&M) continue to hone the details. Council planning staff
remain in regular contact with these officials.
7. A key question
is whether or not these announcements will result in amendments to the Crown
Minerals Act (the legislation responsible for the ownership and management of
Crown- owned minerals such as oil and gas), and its associated regulations.
This is a key question as it would elevate the status of the ban from policy
decisions to legislation. Once in legislation, this would be extremely
difficult to reverse by future Governments.
8. Government has
acknowledged that no Cabinet paper has been crafted and no vote has been taken
on the matter. However, based on the announcements of 6 June it is understood
that officials are developing further advice on implementing the decisions.
Current
situation
9. At the March 21
RPC meeting staff provided a recap and update on the Oil and Gas plan change
project. To broadly summarise that recap report, feedback had been sought
on the proposals through a series of meetings with targeted stakeholders.
Council also had an online feedback form on its website in order for the public
to express views on oil and gas exploration in the region.
10. In mid- late April, staff
in conjunction with relevant tangata whenua representatives were in the process
of organising three Hui-a-iwi across the northern, central and southern parts
of Hawke’s Bay. However, in light of the announcements made by the
Government and discussions with several RPC members, it was decided not to
proceed with the hui until further information about implications of the
Government’s announcement were better understood.
11. Fundamentally, the
Government’s announcements would mean no new offshore or onshore oil and
gas exploration permits would be granted for the Hawke's Bay region. That
broadly aligns with the Committee’s earlier preferred proposition to
prohibit oil and gas exploration activities in specified parts of the region,
including marine areas.
12. It appears that the
Committee’s pre-emptive move to propose prohibiting oil and gas
exploration activities in the region’s sensitive aquatic and marine
areas, is now overtaken by the Government’s broader sweeping policy shift
on oil and gas exploration in New Zealand.
Options
13. Staff are of the view that
in light of the announcements there are predominantly two options. An
assessment of each option along with a summary of pros and cons is outlined
following.
Option 1: Proceed
with Oil and Gas plan change i.e. ‘status quo’
14. This option recognises
that despite these announcements, Council has embarked on a programme of plan
change work that reaches back to a decision by the Regional Planning Committee
in November 2016. In this option, staff would continue with the existing
project plan and recommence stakeholder consultation including consultation hui
and eventually drafting a stand-alone plan change to notify, call for public
submissions, hold hearings, issue Council’s decisions on those
submissions and deal with potential Environment Court appeals.
15. Proceeding with the work
would result in unnecessary effort and expenditure, given that the Government
has effectively curtailed any such activities in the region. Furthermore,
there is a risk that Council proceeds without having the benefits of more
detail from NZP&M regarding the implications of the Government’s
announcement.
Option 2: ‘Shelve’
the current project and incorporate into the future regional plan reviews
(preferred option)
16. This is the preferred
option of staff. Council is scheduled to commence parallel reviews of the
Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and Regional Coastal Environment Plan
(RCEP) in 2020. Under this option, staff would wrap up current work on
the plan change and re-purpose the intel for informing the future RRMP and RCEP
review projects.
17. The upside to this
approach is that Council does not need to replicate efforts unnecessarily and
would avoid further expenditure of Council’s resources to regulate an
activity that is already curtailed by Central Government. This approach
also allows for a consideration of the effects of oil and gas exploration
within the wider context of the RRMP and RCEP, particularly as they relate to
other activities in the plans. It also allows time for more detail on the
Government’s position to emerge, which in turn will ensure Council is
better equipped to understand impact and implications of these decisions.
18. It is noted that the RRMP
and RCEP Reviews are not due to commence until 2020. While it would be
several years until any new rules came into effect, the Government’s
announcement clearly indicated Block Offer processes over the next three years
will be open for onshore Taranaki only. The likelihood of new oil and gas
exploration permits being issued and activities occurring in the Hawke's Bay region
in the meantime is considered minimal.
Comments on
risks
19. There are both perceived
and actual risks associated with closing the Oil and Gas plan change
project. Firstly, a perceived risk is that if the plan change is halted,
a company may still be granted a permit by NZP&M to explore in
Hawke’s Bay for oil and gas onshore, albeit granting any such
permit would be contrary to the Government’s own recent
announcements. However, it is important to recognise that the only method
to apply for exploration permits is to bid in the Block Offer process
administered by NZP&M.
20. The proposed release area
for Block Offer 2018 is limited to the onshore Taranaki Basin, owing to its
known productivity. Under current rules in the RCEP and RRMP, it is also
very likely that oil and gas drilling exploration activities would need to
obtain a resource consent from the Regional Council in addition to any
exploration permits from NZP&M.
21. It follows that the only
feasible way for exploration permits to be granted in Hawke’s Bay is if
in the first instance, the Government was to hold a block offer offering
acreage in this region. It is fair to say that the chances of this
occurring are relatively low, given that onshore Taranaki has been specifically
targeted due to its known productivity (in comparison with Hawke’s
Bay). It would also run counter to the Government’s widely
signalled aspirations for addressing climate change, namely through the Zero
Carbon Bill, which would set a new 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction
target in law.
22. As noted above, NZP&M
officials have pointed out that there is still further detail to come.
For now, it remains uncertain if the Crown will move to amend the Crown
Minerals Act and associated regulations to reflect the Government’s
recent policy announcements.
Financial and resourcing implications
23. If the Committee prefers
to proceed with option 1 (the status quo project plan), then there are no
further extraordinary financial and resourcing implications arising from a
decision in favour of Option 1.
24. However, there are two
notable financial and resourcing implications for Council to consider if the
Committee were to decide that Option 2 is its preferred approach.
25. Firstly, Option 2 would
effectively cease further work on preparing a stand-alone oil and gas plan
change. The ‘ring-fenced’ financial resourcing for this
project originates from a Council loan specifically targeting regional
strategic energy initiatives. The current unspent budget stands at
approximately $85,000 (from the original $200,000 loan).
26. Secondly, ceasing further
work on a stand-alone plan change would require an amendment to the
Council’s Long Term Plan to remove the plan change from the Strategic
Planning Group of Activities. Assuming the Committee agrees to Option 2, then
both of these financial and resourcing matters can be ‘tidied-up’
at the Council meeting on 27 June (when the Council will consider both the
RPC’s recommendations on this matter and, in a separate item, adoption of
the 2018-28 Long Term Plan).
Considerations of Tangata Whenua interests
27. In considering whether or
not to proceed with the consultation hui discussed in paragraph 7, staff
conferred with relevant tangata whenua RPC representatives. The two principal
options outlined in this report have considered the interests of tāngata
whenua. It should be noted that the Crown (i.e. central government and
its ministries) has its own duties and obligations regarding partnerships with
tāngata whenua. Furthermore, section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act requires
NZP&M and the Minister of Energy and Resources when exercising functions
and powers under the Crown Minerals Act to have regard to the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi.
28. Those duties are not to be
confused with the duties and responsibilities on regional councils (for example
under the RMA and the Local Government Act). Having considered the matter in
its entirety it is the view of council staff that there are no extra special
considerations for interests of tāngata whenua in this matter that need to
be addressed at this stage.
Decision Making Process
29. 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:
29.1. The decision
does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
29.2. The use of
the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
29.3. The decision
does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
29.4. 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;
29.5. The decision
is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
29.6. 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
1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Oil
& Gas Plan Change Options” staff report.
2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends
that Council:
2.1. Agree that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that the Committee 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. Agrees to cease further work on preparation of the Oil and Gas
plan change with a view to incorporating this work, as appropriate, in future
upcoming reviews of the Regional Resource Management Plan and Regional
Coastal Environment Plans, except that:
2.2.1. Staff may wrap-up and close works on the current stand-alone oil
and gas plan change project to enable smooth assignment of the
project’s current intelligence over to the future plan review projects.
2.3. Amends the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to remove the oil and gas plan
change project from the Strategic Planning Group of Activities.
|
Authored by:
|
Rina Douglas
Senior Planner
|
Gavin Ide
Manager, Strategy and Policy
|
Approved by:
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager Strategic Development
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
