Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee



Date:                 Tuesday 14 August 2018

Time:                9.00am


Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street





Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page


1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee meetings held on 2 May 2018 and 20 June 2018

Decision Items

4.         Receipt of the Proposed Draft TANK Plan Change                                                      3  




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


Regional Planning Committee Members



Karauna Brown

Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru

Tania Hopmans

Maungaharuru-Tangitu Incorporated

Nicky Kirikiri

Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana

Jenny Nelson-Smith

Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

Joinella Maihi-Carroll

Mana Ahuriri Trust

Apiata Tapine

Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa

Matiu Heperi Northcroft

Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum

Peter Paku

Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

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 (physically present in the room).


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 present and voting 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




Regional Planning Committee

Tuesday 14 August 2018

Subject: Receipt of the Proposed Draft TANK Plan Change


Reason for Report

1.      This item has been prepared to:

1.1.      provide the RPC with an opportunity to formally acknowledge and thank the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group for completing the task it was set by the RPC; and

1.2.      allow the RPC to resolve to adopt the draft plan change developed by the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group in principle, so that it can now be progressed in accordance with RMA Schedule 1 processes towards consultation, notification and adoption as an operative Plan.

Executive Summary

2.      The Draft TANK Plan Change (Attachment 1) and the accompanying draft Implementation Plan (Attachment 2) is the result of forty two formal TANK Group meetings, numerous TANK working group meetings, the presentation and review of a multitude of scientific, cultural, economic and social reports, and an extraordinary depth of informal engagement between all TANK members, their respective constituencies and Council.

3.      Staff have the highest regard for the effort, commitment and outputs of the TANK Group and firmly believe the combination of the Group’s expression of the breadth of community values, together with their own expertise in land and water science, ecology, land management, consenting, regulatory and planning have resulted in a robust first draft for the RPC’s consideration. The plan has been peer reviewed by an independent expert with more than 40 years planning and resource management experience (Attachment 3).

4.      Staff are now tasked with providing the Council with a programme that progresses the multi-year TANK process into the formal Plan Change process.  This will include a programme of workshops and deliberations that will enable Committee Members to understand the content and intent of the draft plan, make decisions where the TANK Group could not reach a consensus, and ultimately make a recommendation to Council to progress the Plan Change.

5.      Staff are recommending that the Committee resolves to receive the Draft Plan Change as developed by the TANK Group.  This will be followed by workshops with Committee members on the 14th and 15th of August to provide an overview of the issues, objectives and outcomes identified, debated and decided by the TANK Group.

6.      There are a number of issues for which there was no consensus reached by the TANK Group, and further reports will be prepared for the RPC to assist them in making decisions about those items. Committee members may provide further direction on matters for which further information and/or clarification is sought. This could be in the form of further workshops, explanation of existing TANK reports or consultation with TANK Group members. Given the extensive investment into modelling and reporting already made in getting the TANK Plan Change to this point, staff do not recommend that any new report is commissioned. 

7.      For the avoidance of doubt, Committee Members are not at this time being asked to make any decisions in respect of the draft plan change other than to receive it for further progression in the Plan Change process.

8.      Formal recommendation by the RPC to Council for adoption of the plan change will necessarily require committee members to make decisions on matters where the TANK Group could not reach consensus. In the version of the draft plan provided with this report, matters of non-consensus have been highlighted for reference. Where appropriate, the draft plan identifies the range of non-consensus opinions.

9.      A draft plan will be formally brought before the RPC at their September meeting for decisions in relation to the non-consensus items and recommendation for adoption by Council.  At that meeting staff will provide further reports on the nature of the non-consensus, the options considered by the TANK Group and recommendations to the Committee to support its decision making.

Background to TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group

10.    In both the 2009-2019 and 2012-2022 Long Term Plans, Council committed to preparing a regional plan change for the ‘Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Catchment Area’ to review minimum flows and water allocation and to set water quality limits.  In 2011 the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy identified the Heretaunga Plains/Ngaruroro catchment as a priority catchment for the Council’s immediate policy work programmes.

11.    This TANK project was intended to ensure a robust and community led process for understanding the issues and developing solutions facing the freshwater resources and the people in the TANK catchment. In setting up the TANK Group, the Council has enabled a more inclusive approach to water management that reflects the diversity of community views.  It was believed that this had the potential to result in a plan change that more accurately accounts for these views and provide innovative solutions that recognise all of the responsibilities the community holds for water management. It was also anticipated that this process could reduce the areas of contest and result in reduced Environment Court related burdens to all parties.

12.    In 2004, the RPC had agreed to have particular regard to any TANK consensus outcome if one emerges and similarly, the Regional Council in 2012 had given a good faith undertaking to implement the recommendations of the TANK Group (provided they were consistent with higher level documents such as a the NPSFM, RMA etc.).  Those commitments have been hugely motivating for members, and will no doubt be something that the TANK Group will be addressing during the RPC’s own decision making processes as the next stage of the process commences.

13.    The RPC-appointed TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group held its final recommendations meeting on 26 July 2018.

The TANK Group Terms of Reference (ToR)

14.    The terms of reference for the TANK Group (Attachment 4) states that the role of the group “is to provide the Council (via the Regional Planning Committee) with consensus recommendations regarding objectives, policies and methods, including rules for a plan change to the RRMP for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchment area.” The Group has operated under an agreed terms of reference since 2012, which has been periodically updated.

15.    It should be noted that the establishment of the TANK Group pre-dates the RMA’s new pathway option for a highly prescriptive ‘Collaborative Planning Process’ when preparing plan changes. Accordingly the RMA provisions for collaborative planning processes, which include restricted grounds for appeal to the Environment Court, do not apply to the TANK plan change.

16.    Of particular note is that during the final stages of the TANK Group work programme, one aspect of the ToR made it difficult for TANK Group members to fully embrace the primary objective of striving towards consensus in some specific instances. Section 7 of the ToR (Protocol for collaborative deliberation) states “Contributions made within the Group will be ‘without prejudice.’ That is, nothing said within the Group may be used in a subsequent planning or legal process except for any recommendations and agreements reached by the Group.” And “If the Group reached a consensus, members will be expected to support that consensus in subsequent public discussion, including appearing at any subsequent hearing if required.”

17.    This aspiration ultimately proved to be counter-productive given the complex nature of the interrelationships between the Issues, Objectives, Policies and Rules that make up the draft plan. Put simply, some parties felt that even though they may be in broad agreement with the TANK Group’s direction on a certain issue, if they nonetheless had a reservation about minor aspect then they were almost obliged to withhold consensus in relation to the entire in order to preserve their rights through the following RMA Schedule 1 consultation, submission and hearing processes.

18.    As a result, following discussion with the Group at the final meeting it was agreed by all members that they would prefer the opportunity to express their support and endorsement of the plan at a broader level while reserving their right to continue to advocate through the formal submissions process for minor technical clarifications and amendments to the Plan.

19.    Note that this does not apply to those matters of significant non-consensus amongst Group members that have been clearly identified in the draft plan and will require deliberation and decision making by the RPC. It is worthwhile recording here that it has not been the ambition of this process to achieve 100% consensus across the board. Put another way, it should in no way be viewed as a failure of the TANK Group that a 100% consensus was not achieved.

20.    The plan change seeks to address and reconcile a complex intersection of climatic, cultural, biological, hydrological, social and economic values against a dynamic backdrop of the future demands of our environment, our communities and our industries. In this respect the notion of ‘non-consensus’ is used to identify those matters of such fundamental disagreement about which individuals feel strongly enough to warrant an appeal to the Environment Court, rather than rely on the submission and hearings process as the preferred resolution pathway.

21.    Accordingly, by sitting across the table from each other and building direct relationships with ‘opposing’ viewpoints, TANK Group members have managed to build and shape outcomes through consensus approval (albeit sometimes subject to further refinement via the RMA Schedule 1 process) or, in the case of non-consensus, TANK Group members have often managed to significantly narrow the range of disagreement (e.g. the Ngaruroro minimum flow proposals).

The TANK Group and TANK Group work programme

22.    In 2018, the TANK Group comprised the following members and/or representative groups.

22.1.    Mana Whenua Group (renamed Treaty Partners Group in 2018)

22.1.1.   Marei Apatu

22.1.2.   Ngaio Tuika

22.1.3.   Joella Brown

22.1.4.   Aki Paipper

22.1.5.   Te Kaha Hawaikirangi

22.1.6.   Jenny Mauger.

22.2.    NGOs

22.2.1.   Forest and Bird

22.2.2.   Vaughn Cooper (National Office) – substituted by Tom Kay

22.2.3.   Neil Eagles (Napier Office)

22.2.4.   Hawke's Bay Fish and Game Council – Nathan Burkepile

22.2.5.   Te Taio Environment Forum – John Cheyne.

22.3.    Horticultural sector (including winegrowers)

22.3.1.   Xan Harding

22.3.2.   Bruce MacKay

22.3.3.   Lesley Wilson

22.3.4.   Tim Herman

22.3.5.   Emma Taylor

22.3.6.   Scott Lawson.

22.4.    Napier City Council and Hastings District Council staff representatives

22.4.1.   Craig Thew (HDC)

22.4.2.   Mark Clews (HDC)

22.4.3.   Chris Dolley (NCC)

22.4.4.   Kim Anstey (NCC).

22.5.    Department of Conservation – Matt Brady.

22.6.    Pastoral sector

22.6.1.   Peter Kay

22.6.2.   Hugh Ritchie

22.6.3.   Ivan Knauf.

22.7.    Other primary sector

22.7.1.   Mike Glazebrook

22.7.2.   Jerf van Beek.

22.8.    Forestry – Keith Dolman.

22.9.    Hawke’s Bay District Health Board – Dr Nick Jones.

22.10. HB RPC (non voting)

22.10.1. Cr Tom Belford

22.10.2. Cr Peter Beaven

22.10.3. Peter Paku.

23.    The TANK Group’s work programme was completed through formal TANK Group meetings, working group meetings, Treaty Partners Group meetings and individual consultation and feedback meetings. These meetings were in turn supported by numerous scientific, cultural, economic and social reports or presentations, including:

23.1.    Science – HBRC, Cawthron, Landcare Research, GNS, Tonkin & Taylor, Isthmus Consulting, Good Earth Matters,

23.2.    Cultural – Dr Anthony Cole, Ngaruroro Values & Attributes Report, Ngā Hapu o Tutaekuri – Tutaekuri Awa report

23.3.    Social – Dr Anthony Cole, Deliberate,

23.4.    Economic – AgFirst, NimmoBell, Market Economics

23.5.    Other, ‘Edge of a Raindrop’ performance, Ministry for the Environment.

24.    The list of reports for the research, modelling and other findings that supported the TANK work is attached (Attachment 5).

25.    This work will support the Section 32 analysis that will accompany the plan change.  The section 32 report is currently under preparation by Mitchell Daysh Limited. An overview of the content of that section s32 report is in Attachment 6.

26.    The TANK working groups consist of HBRC staff and members of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group covering Community Engagement, Stormwater, Lakes and Wetlands, Economic Assessment, Water Augmentation and a Farmer Reference Group.

27.    TANK Group members agreed that the pre-existing Joint Working Group for Drinking Water would be directed to formulate and recommend objectives and rules for the TANK Plan change. These were subsequently received and adopted at the final TANK Group meeting (subject to further refinement and technical review).

The TANK Process and Mana Whenua

28.    The Plan drafting was also guided by an assessment of relevant planning documents recognised by iwi authorities that the council must take into account when preparing any Plan Change. The relevant documents referred to in this step of the Plan Change Process were:

28.1.    Kaitiaki mo nga Taonga Tuku Iho

28.2.    Ngati Kahungunu 25 year vision (Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc 2000)

28.3.    Kahungunuki uta, Kahungunu ki Tai – Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan 2008

28.4.    Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan (2009 -2012)

28.5.    Mana Ake – An Expression of Kaitiakitanga- Nga Hapū o Heretaunga 2015 and

28.6.    Tūtaekurī Awa Management and Enhancement Plan 2015.

29.    The TANK staff project team has recognised the on-going issues surrounding appropriate representation by mana whenua on the TANK Group.  The establishment of the TANK Group in 2012 was also at a time of change for Māori in the region, through Treaty settlements and the establishment of the RPC.  The changes resulting to the roles and responsibilities of the Council and the Treaty Partners have been evolving since then and have also resulted in changes to the TANK Group membership and operation. 

30.    Of course, every process, with the benefit of hindsight is open to criticism. Some of the previous decisions about involvement and membership may not always have been ideal, but the TANK Group has remained strong and committed throughout and the focus should be on the output. There have been learnings throughout this process for all involved.

31.    Changes to TANK Group’s Terms of Reference and membership were made to ensure the relevant Treaty settlement entities and iwi authorities were given the opportunity to attend and also to ensure the plan change development and RPC member roles were properly recognised. 

32.    While some unresolved issues about mana whenua involvement around the table still remain, there has been wide acceptance of the need to provide the TANK project with the best available mana whenua input and involvement as possible.

33.    The Council has supported mana whenua to produce reports documenting values and attributes for surface water resources for the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri Rivers. The task involved holding a series of workshops, wananga, hui-a-hapu with mana whenua, to consolidate views and the values they held within various areas and reaches of the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri catchments. 

34.    During these workshops the TANK plan change process was explained and key Maori concepts and values relating to the rivers were explored and agreed.  Then specific areas where these values apply were discussed, researched and spatially prescribed.  Attributes were confined to water quality and water quantity measures.  This work complements but does not replace, the iwi/hapū management plans previously received by the Council relating to the TANK catchment area (i.e. those listed in paragraph 26). An Ahuriri Estuary Cultural Values Report was provided by to Council staff by the Mana Ahuriri Trust in July 2018.

35.    The TANK Mana Whenua group has typically met before each TANK Group meeting to prepare for efficient collective engagement during the TANK stakeholder discussions. To avoid confusion with the role and mahi of mana whenua groups not involved in the TANK project, the TANK Mana Whenua Group in early 2018 renamed itself to become known as the TANK Treaty Partners Working Group.  Members of this group often engage with their ‘parent’ organisations. For example, the Heretaunga mana whenua engage with Te Runanganui ō Heretaunga to inform marae representatives of progress and receive feedback on a six weekly basis. The TANK Treaty Partners Working Group met regularly with HBRC project staff between TANK stakeholder meetings to progress and advance drafting of the plan change.

36.    Joella Brown (TANK Advisory Support – Māori Research Advisor) was engaged as an independent contractor the Council in January 2018 and has developed, amongst other things the Cultural Values Alignment with TANK draft plan report, valuable input into the Social and Cultural Impacts Assessment with Dr Anthony Cole including organising the Community Reference Group meetings and generally providing in house advice specifically around tikanga and matauranga Māori.

37.    Funding has also been provided to Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga for the appointment of Mr Morry Black (Māuri Protection Agency) to provide provide feedback and advice on the inclusion and provision for tāngata whenua in the draft plan. Financial support has also been provided to Mana Ahuriri Trust for the appointment of independent consultant Diana McDonald at the request of Mana Ahuriri Trust to review the Plan alignment with the Mana Ahuriri values.

Role of the RPC in Plan Changes

38.    The purpose of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 is to improve tangata whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in accordance with the RMA for the Hawke’s Bay Region (section 3). By extension, the Act confirms that the purpose of the Regional Planning Committee is to oversee the development and review of those same documents (section 9(1)).

39.    The Regional Policy Statement (RPS), which is combined into the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) are the Council’s three most important RMA planning documents.  Preparation, review and changes to those planning documents are not only a core function of the Regional Council, but one that is essential for Council to carry out its functions under section 30 of the RMA.

40.    Since its formation in 2012, the RPC has yet to fully complete a journey with overseeing a proposed change to either the RPS, RRMP or the RCEP.  However, the RPC has had involvement in Plan Change 6 before and after PC6 was called-in and heard by a Minister-appointed Board of Inquiry.  Similarly, the RPC had overseen preparation of Change 5 which remains partly subject to an appeal in the Environment Court and has not yet fully completed its ‘journey’ to an operative state.

RPS and National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

41.    Committee members are no doubt aware that TANK plan change doesn’t start from a blank canvas.  The TANK plan change will need to be designed to fit amongst the RRMP’s existing regulatory provisions and be consistent with the Regional Policy Statement.  It also needs to be considered alongside a number of existing national policies and standards.  In particular, Central Government has also adopted a National Policy Statement for Freshwater which specified how it expects councils to achieve outcomes under the RMA. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, as amended in August 2017 (NPSFM) must be given effect to.

42.    The NPSFM requires regional councils to make or change regional plans to ensure they establish freshwater objectives and limits – and establish methods (including rules) to achieve them. HBRC must give effect to the NPSFM in its RPS and its RRMP. Where existing plans and policy statements do not already give full effect to the NPSFM, they must be amended by 31 December 2025 (or by 2030 if the 2025 timeframe will affect plan quality or it would be impracticable for the council to fully implement the NPSFM by 2025).  The 2025-2030 deadline is not only for completing the TANK plan change, but for completing all the remaining catchment area plan changes across the region (Tukituki being the exception because PC6 has been completed).

The TANK Plan Change Journey

43.    During these past 5 years, in excess of twenty verbal or written reports have been presented at RPC meetings, ranging from scientific presentations, discussions around the TANK/WCO process, and general updates on the process and progress being made under the collaborative framework.

44.    The TANK Group also resolved in early 2016 to commence a programme of wider community engagement so that there would be better appreciation and understanding by the community about the issues and options they were considering for the TANK catchments.

45.    There has also been an on-going expectation that each of the stakeholder representatives endeavour to share the findings and decisions of the TANK with their respective organisations.  The ‘Think TANK’ was partly developed in order to support the TANK members with this task.  Staff have also assisted TANK members’ separate briefings to stakeholder organisations about TANK progress and plan development.

46.    All information and presentations given to the TANK Group since the beginning of 2016 has been publicly available on the Council’s TANK webpage.  Feedback from people through the ‘Think TANK’ and the TANK webpage has been regularly received.  In addition to the regular ‘Think TANK’ updates and meeting records, all RPC members have had a standing invitation to attend all TANK Group meetings as active observers.

Consultation prior to public notification of a proposed plan change

47.    There are requirements for the Council to consult a range of specified organisations in the preparation of a plan change including the MfE, local authorities and tangata whenua through iwi authorities in the subject area. These obligations have been met in a large part through the TANK collaborative process and the adequacy of this will be subject to RPC oversight.  Discussion of plan change matters by the RPC alone does not constitute proper consultation with tangata whenua through iwi authorities.  The formal Schedule 1 process also now includes additional specific consultation steps in relation to the draft prepared for notification, including pre-notification requirements concerning iwi authorities.  This extra requirement emerged through RMA amendments in 2017.

48.    Specifically in relation to consultation with iwi authorities, schedule 1 of the RMA further provides:

48.1.    3B Consultation with iwi authorities

For the purposes of clause 3(1)(d), a local authority is to be treated as having consulted with iwi authorities in relation to those whose details are entered in the record kept under section 35A, if the local authority—

(a) considers ways in which it may foster the development of their capacity to respond to an invitation to consult; and

(b) establishes and maintains processes to provide opportunities for those iwi authorities to consult it; and

(c) consults with those iwi authorities; and

(d) enables those iwi authorities to identify resource management issues of concern to them; and

(e) indicates how those issues have been or are to be addressed.

49.    The significant mahi shouldered by the TANK mana whenua representatives not only during the TANK Group meetings but also in relation to the additional values research, numerous Treaty Partners meetings (both separately and with council staff) and their sharing of their findings with their marae/hapū and other Māori organisations needs to be explicitly acknowledged.  Their willingness to support both the TANK Group members and Council staff to assist in meeting the consultation requirements has been invaluable.

50.    Their work has also provided a connection between the TANK process and the wider Māori community in a way that reduces the overall burden on Māori to themselves become involved. This is relevant not just in terms of the TANK Group’s draft plan change, but also in anticipation of the wider, RMA-mandated, consultation with iwi authorities. 

51.    Schedule 1 of the RMA further specifies consultation with iwi authorities in respect of pre-notification requirements.  The Council must have regard to any advice received as a result of this consultation.

52.    Releasing the Draft Plan Change for wider informal public feedback is an entirely optional action for the Council.  In the case of this TANK Plan Change, the Council will need to consider whether there is merit in undertaking any further wide consultation on the draft Plan Change or further targeted consultation, or whether to skip directly to public notification of the TANK Plan Change and the formal submission phases that follow.  Staff will provide further information on the options at subsequent RPC meetings.

Summary and next steps

53.    Given the scale and complexity of the TANK catchment area, its extreme degree of modification over many years (including the significant impact of urban environments), the competitive tension for access to and the use of natural resources, and the significance of the cultural and spiritual values throughout the catchment, it must be noted that the first draft of the plan change, as reviewed and approved by the RPC, will be the subject of considerable local, regional and national scrutiny.

54.    It is critical to emphasise that the Council and its staff must operate under the statutory obligations laid down by the RMA, the NPSFM and other national direction which requires Council to advance a plan change to those address the challenges and issues around freshwater.  The Council must manage our freshwater to provide for all the values which are listed as national values and they include compulsory values for ecosystem health and human health and a range of other values including; cultural, social, environmental, quality, health, availability and economic values.

55.    The NPSFM also requires management of freshwater in a way that considers and recognises Te Mana o te Wai. The NPSFM and Section 32 of the RMA both require that in developing the Plan Change, there is also consideration of the impacts of any choices made and their implications for resource users and people and communities.  The requirements to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems provide environmental bottom lines, but in making decisions above these minimums, one interest group cannot dominate the plan change without creating an inevitability of lengthy and expensive appeals to the Environment Court.

56.    Staff recognise that the community (including RPC members) are anxious and impatient for Council to progress the necessary changes to its regional management and planning frameworks (via the likes of the Tukituki and TANK plan changes) so that the communities’ aspirations, as manifested in national policy instruments like the NPSFM, can be implemented at ground level. Furthermore, the setting of limits provides certainty and clarity for resource users and supports community confidence.  In this regard the importance of the role of the RPC in progressing this and other NPSFM plan changes cannot be understated, because these types of regional plan changes are fundamental to setting out clear policy direction for the Council’s functions under the RMA.

57.    The TANK Group can and should take considerable pride in the statements contained in Peter Constantine’s independent and expert peer review of the draft plan, which states:

57.1.    “[t]he plan change meets the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991.”

57.2.    “[t]he rules as they are presently drafted are fit for purpose and should, if implemented as intended and supported by non-statutory interventions and actions, achieve the objectives of the plan change.”

57.3.    “The result is a suite of policies that tell the story of how the objectives will be achieved, signal what involvement can be expected from the Council in this process, and provide direction to consent authorities when called upon to assess an application for resource consent. The language is certain, concise and clear…”

57.4.    “The TANK Plan Change is consistent with the parent plan, is likely to achieve the environmental outcomes sought, and will therefore achieve the project objectives.”

57.5.    “Any remaining significant drafting issues can be resolved through the submission process but as a general observation, the plan change provisions are internally consistent, there are no obvious gaps, and there is consistency with the parent plan.”

Upcoming matters for RPC’s consideration

58.    In terms of upcoming RPC meetings, staff anticipate further briefing papers will be presented covering a number of matters, including:

58.1.    the outstanding areas of non-consensus so that decisions can be made by the RPC on those and other outstanding technical refinements

58.2.    options about whether it proceeds to formal public notification, limited circulation of a draft plan change or some far wider release of the draft plan change for general public feedback

58.3.    section 32 evaluation report

58.4.    implementation planning

58.5.    mandatory pre-notification consultation requirements with iwi authorities, local authorities and certain Ministers of the Crown, etc

58.6.    timeframes and arrangements for the hearing phase of the plan change process.

Decision Making Process

59.    Council and its committees are 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:

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

59.2.    The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation for the receipt of the draft plan change.

59.3.    The decision to receive the draft plan change does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

59.4.    The persons affected by this decision are the members of the TANK collaborative stakeholder and working groups, members of the Regional Planning Committee and HBRC staff.

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

59.6.    Given the nature and significance of decision being made, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make this 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 the TANK Plan Change (PC9) after it is adopted by Council and subsequently publicly notified as a proposed plan change.



That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.      Formally thanks past and present members of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group for their individual and collective contributions to the creation of the draft TANK Plan Change presented to the Committee today.

2.      Adopts in principle the draft TANK Plan Change (subject to the Committee’s final decisions in relation to the identified matters of non-consensus and outstanding technical provisions) and recommends that Council adopt and publicly notify the plan change in early 2019.

3.      Requests that Staff prepare and present the further reports as listed following, to the Committee:

3.1.      the outstanding areas of non-consensus so that decisions can be made by the RPC on those and other outstanding technical refinements

3.2.      options about whether it proceeds to formal public notification, limited circulation of a draft plan change or some far wider release of the draft plan change for general public feedback

3.3.      section 32 evaluation report

3.4.      implementation planning

3.5.      mandatory pre-notification consultation requirements with iwi authorities, local authorities and certain Ministers of the Crown, etc

3.6.      timeframes and arrangements for the hearing phase of the plan change process.



Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Ceri Edmonds

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager Policy and Planning


Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

James Palmer

Chief Executive




Draft TANK Plan Change


Under Separate Cover


Draft TANK Implementation Plan


Under Separate Cover


PlanWrite Peer Review Findings Report


Under Separate Cover


TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group Terms of Reference Update 3


Under Separate Cover


Documents Referred to in TANK Process


Under Separate Cover


Mitchell Daysh Potential S32 Report Outline


Under Separate Cover