Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 31 October 2018

Time: 10.00am, Regional Planning TANK Workshop

Time: 1.00pm, Regional Planning Committee Meeting

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 19 September 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. National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme - Revised Third Edition 13

7. TANK (PC9) Plan Change and Decisions on Plan Change Matters 21

Information or Performance Monitoring

8. TANK (PC9) Consultation, Notification and Hearings Processes 141

9. RPC Performance Review – Summary of Feedback from Appointers 145

10. Three Waters - Matauranga Maori Presentation

11. Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda 155

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 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

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 31 October 2018

Subject: National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme – Revised Third Edition

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present an updated Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (the ‘NPSFM’) to the Regional Planning Committee and for the Committee to consider recommending it to Council for adoption.

2. In August 2017, a number of further amendments to the NPFM came into effect. Policy E1(f) of the NPSFM as amended in 2017 requires that a staged implementation programme be formally adopted by Council and publicly notified by 31 December 2018.

3. The updated implementation programme would replace the existing programme adopted by Council in November 2015 and the original September 2012 edition.

Context

4. NPSFM Policy E1 states:

“(a) This policy applies to the implementation by a regional council of a policy of this national policy statement.

(b) Every regional council is to implement the policy as promptly as is reasonable in the circumstances, and so it is fully completed by no later than 31 December 2025.

(ba) A regional council may extend the date in Policy E1(b) to 31 December 2030 if it considers that:

i. meeting that date would result in lower quality planning; or

ii. it would be impracticable for it to complete implementation of a policy by that date.

…

(e) Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

(f) Any programme adopted under Policy E1(c) of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 or under E1(c) of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 by a regional council is to be reviewed, revised if necessary, and formally adopted by the regional council by 31 December 2018, and publicly notified.

…” (emphasis added).

5. The following are some matters to note as clarification of terms referenced in Policy E1:

5.1. “fully completed” [implementation of NPSFM policies] refers to RMA regional plans and regional policy statements being amended and those amendments being to operative stage (i.e. after submissions, hearings, decisions and any Court appeal proceedings are resolved)

5.2. “publicly notify[ing]” the adopted PIP in this context does not have the same meaning as it does in reference to a proposed plan or a plan change. Notification here merely means giving public notice in media of the fact that Council has adopted its PIP. There is no requirement in the NPSFM or RMA to provide an opportunity for the public to submit on the revised programme.

5.3. Annual reporting on the extent to which HBRC’s PIP has been implemented (i.e. Policy E1(e)) has been, and is intended to continue to be, published every year as part of the Council’s Annual Report.

5.4. Exactly how any Programme looks and what it contains is entirely up to the council’s own discretion. The NPSFM does not prescribe the look, feel, and content of progressive implementation programmes, but does anticipate some degree of flexibility is necessary to say, accommodate changes in dates and resourcing decisions. All that is required is for the PIP to define time-limited stages by which the Council is to fully implement the NPSFM. Consequently, many other councils’ PIPs are typically indicative only and there are no specific sanctions for a council not achieving self-imposed intermediary milestones – notwithstanding the 2025 deadline or 2030 extension.

6. As noted above, amendments were made to the NPSFM and the revised version came into effect in August 2017. The updated [2017] NPSFM has a number of changes from the previous 2014 version. Consequently, Policy E1(f) now requires that HBRC review and revise (as required) its progressive implementation of the NPSFM and that this shall be formally adopted and notified by 31 December 2018. That sixteen month period recognised the pivotal role that councils’ 2018-28 long term plans have in gearing the priorities and appropriate resourcing to deliver full implementation of the NPSFM into the RPS and regional plans.

7. Based on decisions made and features of the Council’s 2018-28 LTP, senior planning staff have prepared a draft revised programme. This draft is set out in Attachment 1. The final formatted publication would be published online.

8. Redefining the 3^rd edition PIP does not happen in a silo. It must be noted that a number of other factors have been heavily influential on defining the PIP’s time-limited stages. Those include:

8.1. The increasing ‘wave’ of new national direction relating to resource management (in the form of amendments to NPSs, amendments to NESs, new NPSs and/or NESs, further amendments to legislation signalled by the Labour-led Government, plus the prospect of new, but undefined, National Planning Standards to prescribe the structure, layout and some content of RMA planning documents.

8.2. The timing of upcoming reviews of all three of the Council’s RMA planning documents (i.e. the Regional Coastal Environment Plan, the Regional Resource Management Plan, which also includes the Regional Policy Statement).

8.3. The corresponding resourcing available from many teams across the council (e.g. environmental science, resource management regulation, catchment services, catchment management, communications, asset management etc).

Options Assessment

9. There are essentially two options to consider here. The first is doing nothing which is basically rolling over the Council’s existing PRP which was adopted in November 2015. The second (and recommended) option is to adopt a revised PIP.

Strategic Fit

10. Adopting a revised PIP certainly does fit with the Council’s broader strategic goals and vision for a healthy environment, a vibrant community and a prosperous economy. Progressively implementing the NPSFM into the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans for Hawke’s Bay is central to the Council’s focus and priorities.

11. Nonetheless, it should be noted that on 8^th October 2018, Environment Minister David Parker and Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor announced the Government's blueprint to improve the quality of freshwater waterways in New Zealand. Titled ‘Essential Freshwater,’ the proposals include changes to the NPSFM, new national environmental standards and two sets of amendments to the Resource Management Act (refer Attachment 2 being a 1-page diagram summarising the Government’s proposals and timeframes).

12. Staff do not recommend deferring adoption of a revised PIP pending these future (and currently unspecified) amendments. The Council could choose to make revisions to its PIP once the details of that future NPSFM and any other associated national regulatory instruments (e.g. NESs) are revealed and confirmed.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

13. It’s been stated many times that freshwater is a tāonga. As a tāonga, policy decisions impacting the way freshwater resources are managed are of particular interest to Maori.

14. While the NPSFM PIP per se was not explicitly documented in Council’s (then) Draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan, the programme’s key elements and associated budgets were, which provided the community an opportunity to submit via the consultation document. In parallel with the LTP’s early development, staff shared with the members of the Committee the Policy and Planning work programme which back then reflected the NPSFM PIP components.

15. The decision to adopt (or not) a revised PIP is one to be made in accordance with the Local Government Act. In this instance, the RMA does not prescribe any matters that the Council must consider when adopting its PIP. Consequently there are no obligatory considerations to be given to, for example, iwi planning documents and Treaty settlement legislation.

16. In due course, there will obviously be the typical opportunities for tāngata whenua input into the content of proposed plans/plan changes which are the individual workstreams recorded in the PIP.

Financial and Resource Implications

17. As noted above, the 2017 NPSFM amendments have prompted the need to revise the existing 2015 implementation programme. The 2018-28 Long Term Plan has been fundamental to the revising the programme.

18. In deciding to adopt a third edition PIP, there are no extra financial or resource implications for the Council. It is assumed that the PIP’s time-limited stages of various plan changes is already resourced within the reasonable preliminary estimates required to inform decisions made for the 2018-28 LTP. However, in the event that future detailed project planning reveals a shortfall in resourcing, then options for addressing any such shortfall will be traversed at that time.

Decision Making Process

19. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

19.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation, but the NPSFM does require public notice to be given of the decision to adopt the revised Implementation Programme. There will opportunities in the future for any person to make submissions on the subsequent proposed plan changes to the RPS and regional plans as the Implementation Programme rolls out.

19.3. 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.

19.4. There is no option but to prepare an implementation programme and notify its adoption given that this is a prescribed requirement in the amended 2014 NPSFM.

19.5. 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. If there are material changes to the Programme in future, the drivers for any such changes are likely to have been consulted on directly or indirectly through future LTP and/or Annual Plan processes.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme - Revised Third Edition” staff report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 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 that extending full implementation of the NPSFM’s policies out to 31 December 2030 in Hawke’s Bay is appropriate because:

2.2.1. meeting a 31 December 2025 timeframe would result in lower quality planning and

2.2.2. it would be impracticable for the Council to complete implementation of all of the NPSFM’s policies by 31 December 2025.

2.3. Adopts the updated (3^rd edition) 2018 Progressive Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management as proposed.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager Policy and Planning

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management PIP 3rd edition 2018
⇩2	NZ Government Essential Freshwater Workstream Diagram (Oct 2018)

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 31 October 2018

Subject: TANK (PC9) Plan Change and Decisions on Plan Change Matters

Reason for report

1. To provide information, options considered and recommendations in respect of;

1.1. Issue 1: The management of nutrient loss and the management of risks of nutrient loss arising from land use changes that the TANK Group did not reach consensus on;

1.2. Issue 2: The recommendations in respect of the protection of registered drinking water sources from the Joint Drinking Water Working Group;

1.3. Issue 3: The completion of the policy and rules for managing stormwater discharges;

1.4. Issue 4: The draft s32 evaluation report and update of further work in progress in respect of this.

2. The report follows on from earlier presentations and workshops provided to the Committee in recent months. A number of attachments have been pre-circulated to Committee Members and/or are attached to this paper. The attachments provide more detail and background in support of the topics identified above, in particular:

2.1. Memo re: Land Use Change and Nutrient Management (pre-circulated item 1);

2.2. Drinking water rules and policies (attached);

2.3. Draft drinking water source protection zone (‘SPZ’) location map (attached);

2.4. Stormwater rules and policies (attached);

2.5. Memo re: s32 Evaluation (attached); and

2.6. Draft s32 evaluation report – Mitchell Daysh Limited (attached).

3. In addition to the technical reports prepared for this meeting, there are a number of reports which supported the TANK Group’s decision making. The management of contaminant loss and water quality, and the protection of registered drinking water supply sources referred to in this report are available on the Council’s TANK resources website.

4. A further version (V8) of the Draft Plan will be prepared following further workshops and any decisions and instructions agreed by the Committee. This is programmed for the RPC meeting of the 12^th December.

5. A further paper for consideration is being presented at the RPC’s meeting on 31^st October, setting out the RMA pathway towards notification of the Draft Plan.

ISSUE 1: MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINANT LOSSES FROM DIFFUSE SOURCES

6. Table 1 provides an outline of the issues and management responses in relation to the loss of nutrients, sediment and other contaminants from land use activities. (Note that this does not address the management of contaminants in urban stormwater as this is dealt with separately in Issue 3 below.)

TABLE 1: summary of issues and management responses for contaminant losses from diffuse sources

Issue	Contaminants (including sediment, nutrients and bacteria) can enter water from diffuse sources particularly from rural land. These contaminants can affect or are affecting the ability of the freshwater body to meet the needs of the agreed values.
What the TANK Group has agreed	§ The desired water quality state for the listed attributes (Schedule 1) § That further improvements for some attributes in some water bodies is required in the longer term (Schedule 2 which is still in preparation) § Policies 15-19 in version 7 of draft PC9 which provide for the following: • Some water bodies do not meet the required water quality states and need to be the focus of further management attention • Agreement that one size will not fit all locations/activities • A priority approach to management based on– o Locations where water quality is not being met o Focus on stressors and pathways that have the biggest effect on ecosystem health and water quality o Measures targeted at specific practices (site specific and through rules) o Milestones for key deliverables • A delay to the development of a property nutrient allocation regime dependent on; o Better information about appropriate catchment load limits, particularly in relation to estuary health o Better information to support development of an equitable nutrient allocation methodology • To regulate land use change where there is a risk that annual nitrogen losses will increase as a result of the land use change
Where RPC decision making is still required	§ The threshold for a consent requirement for land use change. (TANK Rule 4) § The establishment of a property scale nutrient allocation regime in a shorter timeframe
Reporting officers’ recommendation	That TANK Rule 4 be amended to refer to a nitrogen load threshold and that Schedule 4 include information about modelled nitrogen losses for specified activities

Managing Sediment

7. The TANK Group first considered the management framework for addressing the impacts of sediment loss on water quality attributes and ecosystem health. New SedNet modelling provided information about soil loss risk across the TANK catchments. The rate of potential soil loss was very variable across the catchments and between properties.

8. SedNet also provided information about the erosion types and this was used to calculate the potential costs of sediment mitigation to reduce sediment loss by 30%. Note however, that neither SedNet, nor any other model was able to predict the impact of a reduction in sediment loss on the measured water quality attributes or the timeframes within which the water quality improvements would be evident. This is because there are considerable complexities in predicting the actual sediment pathways from land to the receiving waters including in relation to where and when sediment loss occurs (the temporal and spatial lags.)

9. Despite this, the TANK Group agreed to further investigate the impact of reducing sediment loss by the (somewhat arbitrary) 30% because there is sufficient information about both:

9.1. the effectiveness of soil conservation measures in reducing soil loss; and

9.2. the adverse effects between sediment and the water quality and health of freshwater and estuary ecosystems.

10. The TANK Group also agreed that measures to reduce sediment loss had the added advantage of reducing other contaminants such as phosphorus and bacteria. For example, a key measure to reduce erosion from streambanks is stock exclusion from waterbodies. This will also reduce the amount of bacteria entering water from animals. In addition, phosphorus tends to bind to sediment (unlike nitrogen which is soluble and is dissolved in water). If sediment loss is reduced, phosphorus loss is also reduced.

11. The management framework for sediment therefore focuses on activities and locations that have the biggest potential to impact on freshwater and estuary quality. The key mechanism for ensuring soil loss mitigation is through property specific farm plans (either through individual Farm Environment Plans or collectively by landowners in a catchment). Schedule 3 and the associated maps of the draft PC9 provide further information about the priority catchments.

Managing Nutrients

12. The freshwaters of the TANK catchments have variable concentrations of nutrients which can affect their freshwater values. In some rivers, nutrients will affect algal growth which then impact on the community values like mauri, swimming and ecosystem health. Guidelines^{^[1]} for nutrient concentrations that indicate where risk of increased algal growth is likely are currently being refined, and have informed the water quality attribute targets.

13. However, where rivers are dominated by macrophyte growth, there are complex relationships between plant growth and ecosystem health and there are currently no guidelines available in relation to managing nutrient concentrations for values affected by macrophyte growth in those rivers. It has been demonstrated that the main stressors on ecosystem health in these sorts of rivers are related to temperature and oxygen which would be improved by riparian shading to reduce macrophyte growth^{^[2]}.

14. The nutrients in freshwaters also contribute a load to the Waitangi and Ahuriri estuaries and are contributing to a poor ecosystem state there^{^[3]}. However further research is required to understand nutrient limits for the estuaries; what the existing loads are and what an appropriate load to maintain estuary ecosystem health would be. This would then enable the calculation of the necessary nutrient reduction into the estuary^{^[4]}.

15. Nutrient concentrations within the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri River mainstems are low, although the higher flows means the total load to the estuary is proportionally high. By contrast, many of the lowland streams in the Karamu catchment have higher nutrient concentrations although their lower flows means total loads to the estuary are lower. Developing an allocation limit for nutrients as well as an equitable property scale allocation regime across the contributing TANK catchments is very complex in these circumstances. One of the very significant limitations of this property based nutrient allowance approach is that many of the possible mitigations cannot be modelled through available tools (Overseer^{^[5]} is key model being used around NZ although it still has limitations for a number of land uses. SPASMO was also used to model water and nutrient mitigation scenarios for irrigated land in the TANK catchments).

16. The TANK Group acknowledged the importance of managing nutrient concentrations in rivers to protect instream values and the need to reduce nutrient loads to the estuary. There is still further research and investigation necessary to determine a defensible nutrient load limit, both for freshwater health and the estuaries health. However, in the interim, the TANK Group have agreed appropriate objectives for concentrations of nutrients within freshwaters and mitigation measures to ensure nutrient losses from land use activities are reduced. There will be an initial priority focus on catchments where nutrient concentrations are not meeting the desired states or where loads are relatively high (Priority order for Catchments is detailed in Schedule 3 of the draft PC9).

17. There is also concern that land use change or changing land use practices will result in further nutrient losses and water quality degradation and that measures are required to prevent such effects. This report contains recommendations for PC9 provisions to address this.

Land Use Change

18. The TANK Group considered the drivers for land use change and the possible risks to water quality (and quantity) as a result of possible change. These are provided in Table 5 of pre-circulated Item 1. Of these, a number that could impact on water quality (not all effects would necessarily be negative) were considered more likely in the short to medium term;

18.1. urban growth and tourism

18.2. forestry establishment

18.3. increased irrigation (if there is new water supply and water quality effects will depend on what the new land uses will be)

18.4. further dairy development in the summer moist areas potentially in the Patoka area

18.5. market changes changing the pattern of primary production activities

18.6. changing land use practices and technologies including as a result of responses to greenhouse gas policies

18.7. increased value-add food processing.

Managing the Effects of Land Use Change

19. While the possibility of land use change is agreed, the level of risk is not agreed. Further, it has proved difficult to accurately define land use change as change occurs both incrementally and through more fundamental farm system changes. While nutrient budgets will be a key requirement where a property is in a ‘priority catchment’, the plan does not currently require a universal approach to nutrient budgets. This means a baseline will not be established across all properties (and which could be used to measure change).

20. The TANK Group acknowledged the need to develop alternative management approaches that would complement the overall management approach and still provide checks and balances to ensure further land use change does not undermine water quality in the future. The following alternatives have been considered:

20.1. A land use change consent requirement could be defined by a threshold such as whether nitrogen losses increase over a defined amount (such as 20kg/ha/year) as a result of the change. This is what is contained in the draft Plan currently – and which is not agreed.

20.2. A land use change consent requirement could be determined by a maximum change to the load across a property (kg increase across a property).

20.3. Effects of land use change might be managed by defining the types of change activities that will be subject to a consent requirement so that effects of the change can be assessed.

20.4. No land use change rules, but emphasis through farm plans and catchment collectives on meeting water quality outcomes

21. The costs and benefits of these options are summarised in Table 2.

TABLE 2: summary of costs and benefits of options for managing effects of land use change

Option	Costs	Benefits
1. Land use change rule based on an increase in the N loss (over 20kg/ha/year)	Could be considered to be the permitted base-line Requires information about existing loss rates Not directly related to water quality state – uncertain effect on water quality with permitted land use changes	Establishes threshold for acceptable loss rates
2. Threshold based on acceptable threshold for changes to a load (170kg/year)	More accurate if information about current loss is available. The impact depends on size of the property – smaller properties are disproportionally affected.	Can be based on modelled data. Is based on the thresholds already within the plan about property size.
3. Include rules for specific activities	Requires good information about nitrogen loss rates across a range of situations/soil types etc. Modelled data doesn’t always reflect actual losses	Could target key risky activities Risk of missing new technology or farm production changes Some risk activities are already regulated
4. No direct regulation of land use change – rely on farm plans/catchment plans to meet water quality	No ability to limit land use change. Could result in catchment or farm plan mitigations being undermined	Outcomes focus for water quality
Note that there will be an implementation challenge for any new rules targeted at land use change. In order to require or apply for a consent, a land use change needs to be identified. However, farm plans and catchment collectives must report land use change where this exceeds 10% of the programme area. Enforcement will also depend on regular catchment land use monitoring to detect changes

22. The recommended approach is based on Option 2. This Option is provided in Table 7 in pre-circulated Item 1 (Recommended rules for managing land use change).

ISSUE 2: JWG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER

23. At the February TANK Group meeting, the TANK Group agreed that the Joint Working Group for Drinking Water Safety (JWG) should be regarded as a TANK working group to be tasked with developing draft policies and rules for consideration. This recognised that the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry had dominated discussion around drinking water and had become the platform for the most comprehensive assessment of the issues relating to drinking water.

24. Given the tight timeframes, the JWG decided to contract this task to consultancy firm Good Earth Matters (GEM) on the basis of their extensive experience with and knowledge of the Resource Management Act (RMA), drinking water matters, and the Hawke’s Bay context.

25. Over the following months GEM, the JWG and the TANK project advisors formulated advice for the TANK Group. This advice was presented back to the TANK Group on several occasions, and feedback was taken on progress. Final recommendations were made by the JWG at the 26 July TANK Group meeting.

Key issues and advice for GEM and the JWG

26. The key issues for consideration in front of the JWG and GEM were:

26.1. Identification of risk activities in the catchments (in order to identify appropriate drinking water source protection planning provisions)

26.2. Strengthening of current permitted activity rules (in order to assess if they were fit for purpose in the context of protection for registered drinking water sources)

26.3. Use of Source Protection Zones (SPZs): used to overcome information gaps for resource users and regulators

27. Several reports traversing the above issues were prepared by GEM, and for the sake of brevity, this paper will not delve into the analysis in great detail. However, those earlier reports are available on the TANK page of the HBRC website.

28. Table 3 summarises the options recommended by the JWG to the TANK Group:

TABLE 3: summary of options recommended by the Joint Working Group to the TANK Group

Option	Detail
A	Include a new objective and supporting policy in the plan change for registered drinking water source protection, minus any spatial definition or additional regulation	Not recommended.
B	Include a new objective and supporting policy for registered drinking water source protection. This included a spatial definition of SPZs (where known) and a default 2km radius applied elsewhere. For information and policy guidance only.	Not recommended.
C	New option and policy for registered drinking water supplies’ source protection. Spatial definition of SPZs (where known) and a default 2km radius applied elsewhere (provisional protection zones, or PPZs). Regulation of specified activities located within mapped SPZ areas.	Recommended.

29. Option C was preferred on the basis that it provided improved source protection for registered drinking water supplies within the TANK catchment. These registered supplies service 77% of the region’s population, and including policies for source protection would provide decision maker with the ability to have greater visibility as to activities occurring in source protection zones that could potentially pose risks to the water sources of registered drinking water supplies.

JWG’s Recommendations to TANK Group

30. At the 26 July TANK meeting, members of the JWG presented the following recommendations to the TANK Group:

30.1. A new objective be included in the draft plan change to provide an explicit statement in the Regional Plan that recognises and provides for SPZs and Provisional Protection Zone (PPZs)

30.2. A new policy to support the above objective and policy to provide guidance as to how the objective was to be implemented

30.3. Several changes to the rules:

30.3.1. For activities that already require a resource consent, adding matters of control/discretion that enable the risk of registered drinking water sources to be considered, where those activities are located in mapped SPZs

30.3.2. Introducing consenting for activities located over SPZs

30.3.3. Amendments to some Permitted Activity rules so that they meet the requirements for the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water

30.3.4. Production Land use in a source protection zone to be a permitted activity as proposed by the TANK Group, but Farm Environmental Plans will need to include consultation with the water supply authority and identify measures to manage risks to drinking water sources.

31. The TANK Group agreed to these recommendations, subject to some further work to be done on the detail (largely in relation to finalisation of planning maps detailing SPZs and PPZs).

32. Tonkin & Taylor Ltd were commissioned by Hastings District Council to prepare SPZs for its own public water supplies located in the Hastings Urban area. This has only been recently completed, and at the time of writing this paper staff have not yet been able to fully consider the content and recommendations presented within the report. However, draft SPZ maps have been attached (along with the rules and policies) at Attachment 2. It is noted that there may still be some refinement of these maps.

ISSUE 3: STORMWATER POLICIES & RULES

33. Council staff presented to RPC members the draft stormwater policies and rules at its workshop of 14 August.

34. Feedback from the RPC during the workshop centered on the desire to see more time bound and measureable outcomes. In order to give effect to this, staff have met with their counterparts in the district councils to discuss greater specificity. Based on these discussions, several further changes which are directly specific changes to the policies are outlined shown below:

Policy	Update	Rationale
Policy 26: New Urban Infrastructure	Adoption of an Integrated Catchment Management approach by 1 January 2025	This date recognises that although some Integrated Catchment Plans have been completed, others are yet to be commenced. The date also allows TLAs to ensure that site management plans are in place for relevant activities, prior to finalisation of these plans.
Policy 26: New Urban Infrastructure	District plans, design standards, codes of practice, bylaws to be amended and updated by 1 January 2025 to specify design standards	This date recognises the process and timeframes required to amend these instruments, particularly bylaws.
Policy 26: New Urban infrastructure	When making decisions about urban infrastructure all councils will from 1 January 2020 reduce or remedy the effects of stormwater quality and quantity by the factors listed in (a) – (f)	Following discussions with TLAs staff consider that the requirements set out in Policy 26 are achievable by 2020. Some are already occurring, for example, public awareness programmes.
Policy 27: Source Control	Sources of stormwater contamination will from 1 January 2023 be reduced by local authorities using the methods specified in (a) –(c)	Again this links to site management plans being rolled out and implemented across the board. 2023 is considered to be a pragmatic target in light of this.
Policy 28: Dealing with the Legacy	Improvements will be achieved by 1 January 2020 through implementation of site management plans and good practice on existing and new commercial sites	This date recognises the urgency required to address legacy issues. In implementing site management plans, TLAs will be assisted by the decision making matrix which will assist with determining whether or not a commercial activity is low, medium, risk.
Policy 29: Consistency and collaboration; Integration of city, district and regional council rules and processes	To achieve the freshwater objectives set out in the TANK plan all councils, will by 1 January 2023 adopt similar performance standards as set out in points (a)- (g)	In discussing with TLA counterparts it is agreed that this is adequate time to allow for this integration to take place.

35. Council staff also discussed the inclusion of a decision making matrix for determining if an activity was low, medium or high risk. At the time of the August workshop, this was still being developed.

36. A copy of the decision making matrix (in addition to the updated rules) is still be finalised and will be shared with the RPC upon completion. It is envisioned that along with the draft rules and policies, minor tweaks around the detail to the decision making matrix are likely as discussions with the TLAs continue.

ISSUE 4: DRAFT S32 EVALUATION REPORT

37. Mitchell Daysh Limited have been appointed to undertake the s32 evaluation reporting on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. In doing so they have had access to the suite of documents, reports, TANK Group minutes, meeting records, papers and PowerPoint presentations which have informed the development of the draft TANK Plan Change PC9 thus far.

38. The RMA requires the Regional Council in preparing PC9 to evaluate the extent to which the objectives of the plan change proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act. It should be noted that case law has interpreted ‘most appropriate’ to mean “suitable, but not necessarily superior” (Rational Transport Soc. Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency HC Wellington). In order to determine whether the most appropriate objectives have been proposed it should be demonstrated that the purpose of the RMA is met efficiently and effectively, and also that the proposed policies, methods and rules are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives.

39. At the time of writing this paper, Mitchell Daysh Ltd had prepared a partial draft s32 report which is appended to this paper (Attachment 5). The report cannot be completed until PC9’s drafting has been finalised. In order to fulfil the requirements of the s32 evaluation reporting, decisions are required to be made on those items of non-consensus by the RPC.

40. A memo has also been appended to this paper (Attachment 4) to provide further detail and clarity regarding the requirements of a s32 evaluation report, what the evaluation should give regard to and equally what the s32 reporting does not do.

41. It is intended to provide a further review of the s32 Evaluation at the RPC’s meeting on 12^th December 2018. Further reporting may be required beyond that date to evaluate the appropriateness of the decisions made by the Committee should this stage in the process extend into 2019, and to also provide a summary of advice from iwi authorities in respect of the pre-notified version of PC9.

Decision Making Process

42. 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 that if the Committee were indeed to make a decision similar to those being recommended by the authors, then:

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

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

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

42.4. The persons affected by this decision all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA, particularly land and freshwater resources in the TANK catchment area.

42.5. Staff have considered a number of different approaches to the issues discussed in this report.

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

43. 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. Once a plan change is publicly notified, any person may make a submission on that plan change.

44. Note that the Committee will be provided with further briefing reports about options and timeframes for further steps in this Plan Change process. This will include options for further consultation on a draft and notification of the Proposed Plan Change.

Decision Making Process

45. 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:

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

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

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

45.4. The persons affected by this decision are <Type text here>

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

45.6. 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 “TANK Plan Change and Decisions on Plan Change Matters” staff report.

2. That the Regional Planning Committee adopts in principle the following provisions to be included into the draft TANK Plan Change (PC9) Version 8.

2.1 Include rules for managing contaminant loss effects from land use change as provided in Table 7 of pre-circulated Item 1 and to amend Schedule 4 as provided in section 129 and Table 8 of pre-circulated Item 1 (page 30).

2.2 Include provisions for managing drinking water as outlined in Attachment 1.

2.3 Include provisions for managing stormwater as outlined in Attachment 3.

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Ceri Edmonds

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager Policy and Planning

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

⇩1	JWG recommended rules
⇩2	Draft SPZ map
⇩3	Stormwater rules and policies
⇩4	Section 32 Memo
⇩5	Mitchell Daysh Section 32 Report Draft Objectives Assessment

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 31 October 2018

Subject: TANK (PC9) Consultation, Notification and Hearings Processes

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the Regional Planning Committee with a further outline of the RMA’s processes around publicly notifying a plan change for the TANK catchment area. This paper particularly focusses on the necessary steps just prior to notification of the proposed plan change, and also key features of the submission and hearing phase.

Background

2. Previously, the Committee has received briefing papers from staff on ‘pathways to draft TANK plan change adoption by the RPC’ on 21^st March and 2^nd May 2018. During the second half of 2018, the Committee has been briefed by staff on a number of matters relating to content of the TANK plan change (‘PC9’) including:

2.1. draft provisions agreed by consensus of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group and

2.2. some choices for policy approaches to matters that the TANK Group were unable to reach full consensus on.

3. There are three principal phases to preparation of a plan change, but each have numerous sub-parts:

3.1. Drafting (pre-notification)

3.2. Post-notification submissions and hearings

3.3. Decisions (and potential Court appeals).

4. This report focusses on steps prior to public notification of a proposed plan change, and provides an overview of the submission/hearing phase.

5. Committee members will be aware that the purpose of the Committee is to oversee the development and review of plan changes such as PC9. In particular, one of the Committee’s functions is to “recommend to Council for public notification, any … proposed plan changes.”

6. Over the past few months, the RPC has been considering content of a draft version 7 of PC9, with a view to producing a draft version 8 by the end of 2018 which would incorporate options agreed in-principle by the RPC on those matters that the TANK Group did not fully settle on.

7. As it currently stands, there are some mandatory steps still required to be completed before the Council (based on a recommendation from the RPC) can adopt a ‘proposed’ PC9 for public notification and invite formal submissions on PC9 from any person. These are outlined below.

Steps prior to public notification of a proposed plan change

8. As noted in the 21 March 2018 Committee briefing paper, there are requirements for the council to consult a range of parties in the preparation of PC9 prior to public notification of a proposed PC9 (refer RMA Schedule 1 Clause 3(1)). Specifically, those parties are:

8.1. Territorial local authorities in the subject area (i.e. Napier City Council and Hastings District Council)

8.2. Minister for the Environment (though his Ministry officials) and any other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the proposed plan change.

8.3. Tāngata whenua of the area through iwi authorities. According to Te Kahui Mangai’s online records of iwi authorities for RMA purposes in the region, those in the TANK catchment area are:

8.3.1. Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

8.3.2. Mana Ahuriri Trust

8.3.3. Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust

8.3.4. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated

8.3.5. Ngati Parau Hapu Trust

8.3.6. Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga

8.3.7. Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea

8.3.8. Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui a Orotu

8.3.9. Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

9. The Council may choose to consult anyone else during preparation of a proposed plan change.

10. The RMA does not prescribe how any such consultation prior to notification of PC9 shall occur. Similarly, the public-wide release of a draft (or multiple drafts) of a plan change is not mandatory. Releasing a draft plan change for informal public comment is an entirely optional action that councils may take.

11. While public-wide release of a draft plan change is not mandatory, last year’s amendments to the RMA now require the council to provide a copy of the relevant draft plan change to iwi authorities affected by the plan change. In the case of PC9, iwi authorities would be those named in paragraph 8.3. The council is required to provide “adequate time and opportunity” for the iwi authorities to consider the draft plan change and provide advice on it back to the council (refer RMA Schedule 1 Clause 4A).

12. What is the “relevant draft plan” is for the council to determine. It could be PC9 version 7, version 8, or something else. Whatever that may be, it does seem sensible to consult with the parties named in paragraphs 8.1-8.3 on the basis of something written – not just concepts and conversations. One option could be for the two specific requirements to engage with iwi authorities prior to PC9’s public notification (under Clause 3 and Clause 4A of RMA Schedule 1) to be blended. The consultation requirements with affected Ministers and TLAs would typically take the form of circulating a draft proposal to agency officials and extending an invitation for meetings and/or written feedback from those agencies.

13. Whatever the case may be, the RPC would need to consider any such feedback received from the Ministers, the TLAs and also have particular regard to any feedback received from iwi authorities (under Clause 4A) as part of PC9’s final drafting phases. Only after that, could the RPC make a recommendation to Council that Council adopts a proposed version of PC9 for formal notification and subsequent public submissions.

14. Another step to complete prior to public notification of proposed PC9 is the finalisation of the s32 evaluation report. More on the s32 report is presented in a separate paper for the RPC’s meeting on 31 October 2018.

Submissions and hearing phase

15. This formal submission phase commences upon public notification of the proposed plan change. For a regular Schedule 1 plan change process, the formal submission period must be at least 20 working days’ duration. Submissions on proposed PC9 would be summarised by council staff. The length of time that takes is very dependent on the number and complexity of submissions received. Table 1 sets out a summary of those milestones and others along with a brief descriptor of the associated activities.

TABLE 1: Summary of key post-notification milestones in a regular Schedule 1 plan change process

Milestone	Activities
Public notification	Public submissions invited on proposed PC9
Submission deadline	At least 20WD after public notification date
…	Staff summarise submissions received Staff report to RPC with options for appointment of Commissioners to form a Panel to hear submissions
Public notice of Summary of submissions	Further submissions invited in support or opposition to original submissions received.
Further submission deadline	10WD after public notice of the Summary
…	Staff prepare hearing reports Staff make logistical arrangements for hearing (dates, venues, Panel availability etc)
Prior to Hearing commencing	Panel may direct submitters and other parties (e.g. Council staff) to pre-circulate written evidence and any legal submissions Pre-circulation of council staff hearing reports and recommendations
Hearing	Submitters make presentations to the Panel
Post-hearing closure	Panel does its deliberations. Panel prepares its report and recommendations on submissions.

16. The milestones summarised in Table 1 would differ somewhat in relation to a streamlined planning pathway process (one of the two new planning pathways introduced into the RMA last year – the other being a collaborative planning pathway).

17. Another of the RPC’s functions is recommending to council the membership of hearings panels. Candidates must be appropriately trained and qualified commissioners to be eligible for Hearing Panel membership that hears and decides upon submissions on proposed RMA planning documents.

18. It is premature to make decisions about the precise make-up of a Panel to hear submissions on proposed PC9. Factors to consider in making that decision in the future will include the type and complexity of issues raised in submissions (therefore the types of technical expertise required in the Panel’s membership); any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest/bias based on would-be Panel members’ interests and associations with the issues to be considered, the parties involved, landholdings etc. Only once submissions are received will those potential issues be better understood.

Decision Making Process

19. 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 “TANK (PC9) Consultation, Notification and Hearings Processes” staff report.

Authored by: Approved by:

Gavin Ide

Manager Policy and Planning

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Planning

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] This is currently in preparation by HBRC senior scientist Sandy Haidekker

[4] A further report will be presented to the RPC by Anna Madarasz-Smith at the meeting on the 12^th December in respect of this.

[5] Further advances have been made to the Overseer model since this was presented to the TANK Group. A meeting was held by Overseer Limited (9 October 2018) with Regional Councils to discuss the Overseer model and its appropriate use in planning policy and plan implementation. This meeting has highlighted a number of potential actions for the Council which could further shape the refinement of the TANK Plan Change. However, at present staff are unable to report to the RPC on these updates. That being said it is deemed important to draw attention to the fact that Overseer Limited are due to release a report on their recommendations imminently. The implications of this, if any are yet to be explored by staff.

⇩1	HBRC RPC Performance Review Feedback Summary
⇩2	Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua RPC Review Feedback
⇩3	Ngati Pahauwera RPC Review Feedback

Item	Topic	Raised Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.