HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 14 August 2019
Subject: Proposed TANK Plan
Change 9 – Agree Amendments for Notification
Reason for Report
1. This item seeks
the Committee’s agreement to the content of the Draft TANK Plan Change
version 9.2 so as to provide staff direction for preparing a Proposed Plan
Change 9. This will enable the Committee to make decisions about notification
of the Plan Change at their meeting on 18 September 2019.
2. The RPC
considered a series of recommendations in respect of the TANK Plan Change at
their meeting on 3 July 2019. Some of the recommendations were in respect of
matters considered at the RPC meeting on 15 May and carried over to the July meeting.
3. The Committee
did not make any decisions and instead directed a sub-group of RPC members to
consider and make recommendations on the issues identified by RPC tangata
whenua representatives as still outstanding.
4. The RPC
sub-group and advisors met twice (25 July and 1 August) and this report
accounts for the findings of the sub-group, including recommendations for
further amendments.
5. This item also
encompasses all additions and amendments to Version 9 of the Plan as reported
on at the 3 July meeting but for which a decision is still to be made. These
amendments are provided still as tracked changes in Version 9.2 in Attachment
1. The supporting section 32 report for these changes is attachment 4.
6. The topics
described in more detail in this report as a result of directions by the RPC
are as follows.
6.1. Heretaunga
Plain’s groundwater allocation limit
6.2. Policy
direction for flow maintenance provisions
6.3. Assessment of
TANK Plan Change in relation to Outstanding Waterbodies PC7.
Allocation Limits for the Heretaunga
Plains Aquifer
7. The RPC
considered alternatives to the allocation limit included in PC9.1 for the
Heretaunga Plains at their meeting on the 3rd July. The discussion arose in
relation to concerns about the potential effectiveness of the stream flow
maintenance scheme that has been included to manage effects groundwater
abstraction on stream flow and options for further reducing groundwater
abstraction to address that concern.
8. Members of the
RPC also expressed a view that the combined management provisions did not
adequately provide for the range of instream values held for the Heretaunga
Plains water bodies.
9. The draft plan
contains a number of measures in relation to the management of water
abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains water bodies. These measures are
summarised in Table 1 in Attachment 2.
10. The policy direction
includes management of the Heretaunga Plains aquifers as if it was
over-allocated as it prevents further allocation and re-allocation of water
pending further information about and review of the:
10.1. actual water use
10.2. total allocated amount
following review and replacement of all existing water permits
10.3. stream flow information
10.4. degree of success of the
proposed stream flow management regime
10.5. effectiveness of other
ecosystem improvements, and
10.6. appropriateness of the
interim allocation limit in light of this review.
11. One component for water
management is the establishment of an allocation limit. The draft
includes 90 Mm3 /year as an ‘interim’ allocation limit. It is
substantially less than the currently allocated amount of around 140-160 Mm3
/year.
12. The interim 90Mm3 /year
limit, in combination with Policies 38 and 45 ensures that no new water can be
allocated until the review is undertaken, even if water becomes available
within allocation limits (a minor exception is currently provided for
re-allocation to urban or community use but see further discussion below about
Policy 45).
13. Although not expressed as
such, the policies provide for a ‘sinking lid’ approach to water
allocation until a review occurs following implementation of this plan.
This is made more apparent by suggested amendments listed in Table 1.
14. The management approach in
the draft plan includes offsetting the stream depletion effects by stream flow
maintenance pumping. It enables water users to avoid a cease take
restriction if water is pumped into streams to offset their depletion effect
when flows fall below the specified trigger. In one part of the Plains (the
Paritua/Karewarewa area), the lack of certainty about groundwater and surface
water connections and management opportunities is reflected in specific policy
direction for further investigation and data collection.
15. The draft Plan envisages
that not all adverse effects will be avoided, but that the management solutions
included in the plan will remedy or offset adverse effects on ecosystems and
instream values while still providing for the economic and social values of the
abstracted water.
16. Tangata whenua sought
further reductions in water allocation and use than were indicated by the
modelling based on the 2012-13 year. Attachment 2 provides modelling
information about the extent to which water use would need to be reduced in
order to significantly reduce stream depletion.
17. The terminology of
‘interim’ is creating some confusion about the nature and role of
this allocation limit. The limit applies for the life of the plan and guides
decision making in respect of new applications for water abstraction. The
90 M m3/year reflects modelled use during the 2012-13
year. New permits issued subject to this plan will only be provided where there
is an existing permit due for expiry and each permit will be subject to an
actual and reasonable assessment of water use that results in a defined annual
or seasonal amount. For irrigators, this is based not only on use in the
ten years up to 2017, it is also now subject to specified reliability of
supply, modelled crop water demand and efficiency standards. Industrial and
commercial water abstraction will also be subject to this actual and reasonable
assessment including demonstration of efficient water use. An exception for
actual and reasonable is provided for urban water supply who must meet demands
of urban growth through savings made in existing networks. This is
further discussed in attachment 2.
18. The allocation limit is
therefore interim because:
18.1. there is some
uncertainty about the current levels of water allocation and water use
18.2. it is not known whether
the interim limit in combination with all the other management measures will
adequately address adverse stream depletion effects,
18.3. the result of the new
allocation regime following the expiry and review of existing consents is not
yet known
18.4. it is unknown what, if
any, measures would be needed to reduce allocation further to that, or some
other limit, and what the associated costs of further reduction might be
18.5. if further reductions in
water use are required, the distribution of costs across existing consent
holders still needs to be determined.
19. Other plan provisions will
also impact on how the sustainable limit is to be more definitively determined
upon review. In particular, the success of the stream flow maintenance and
habitat enhancement schemes will be assessed in relation to their effectiveness
in meeting ecosystem health and water quality objectives. This scheme aims to
offset the stream depletion effects of groundwater abstraction on the lowland
streams and improve ecosystem health and riparian land management.
20. It was previously
suggested that ‘interim’ be deleted because review Policy 39
already indicates it is subject to review. However, stronger direction about
the interim nature of the plan provisions was sought by tangata whenua. This
would better reflect their concerns about the effectiveness of the stream flow
maintenance scheme in adequately protecting ecosystem health in the lowland
streams and its role in the longer term. As a result of their concerns, it is
suggested that use of the term ‘interim’ is helpful although a
further option to delete reference to a specific allocation limit is also
included for consideration.
Springs and connected water bodies
21. The protection of spring
flow and lowland stream ecosystems is of particular concern to tangata whenua
and they note a range of uncertainties and issues with the scheme and in
relation to the modelled management scenarios.
22. The lack of certainty that
the Plan provisions will actually improve current poor state of some lowland
tributaries remains a concern for tangata whenua. For example, it is known that
not all streams affected by depletion can be managed in this way. For some,
losses to groundwater will exceed any flow maintenance pumping (such as for the
Karewarewa). In other circumstances, small tributary waterways may be too far
from a cost effective pumping scheme solution.
23. The required detail for
each scheme cannot be provided for at a Plan level as each scheme will depend
on a range of local and site specific issues including identifying relevant
water permits, abstraction and pumping options, and any other measures that a
water user collective might develop to ensure stream flows are maintained, such
as by rostering or changing points of take. Opportunities and constraints for
stream flow maintenance solutions will need to be addressed in more detail
through subsequent resource consent processes.
Other management options
24. RPC direction at the July
3 meeting, sought consideration of several additional options to reduce overall
allocation of groundwater:
24.1. Status quo (as per draft
PC9.1)
24.2. Reduce the allocation
limit from 90 Mm3 /year to 80 Mm3 /year in policy and rules. Reductions in
water allocation and use to be achieved through new allocation regime
24.3. 2.a Ensure any new takes
above the allocation limit are prohibited, rather than non-complying
24.4. Reduce the actual and
reasonable amount allocated through consents by a further 10% (at 1% further
reduction per year).
25. The costs and benefits of
these options are described in more detail in Attachment 2. The attachment also
provides more information about the modelling that was carried out, including
modelled actual and reasonable water use.
26. In considering these
options a number of other solutions were explored by the RPC sub-group.
RPC sub-group feedback
27. The RPC sub-group
developed a number of amendments to the relevant policies to better reflect the
policy intent and the interim nature of some of the management solutions.
A further option that considers the merits of not having a defined allocation
limit has been added since then as option 5b. The amendments are as described
in Table 1 below.
Table
1: List of issues and amendments
|
|
Issue
|
Amendments
|
Risk and
Opportunities
|
|
1
|
The stream
flow maintenance scheme does not fully remedy impacts on mauri or reflect
tikanga or matauranga Māori.
|
Adverse
effects of groundwater abstraction on mātauranga Māori and tikanga
clearly acknowledged in Policy 34 as over-riding concern.
Section 32
report to reflect nature of these concerns
|
Tangata
whenua concerns may not be fully addressed by the plan – but plan
review process will enable reassessment about the extent to which adverse
effects are to be further avoided or remedied and mitigated
|
|
2
|
The proposed
management provisions should be interim and subject to further review.
|
Re-introduce
reference to interim for allocation limit in Policy 34
|
While
interim, the plan nonetheless provides some certainty for existing
investment, while preventing new water use.
|
|
3
|
The
re-allocation of water based on the defined ‘actual and
reasonable’ assessment with a “sinking lid” approach to
further reduce water use.
|
Allocation
for new water use is avoided through the setting of the limit and
non-complying rule and robust policy direction to guide decisions.
Heretaunga
Plains will be managed as over-allocated. No more water to be allocated,
‘sinking lid’ approach adopted.
Policy 34
|
Existing
investment is provided for, although is more constrained than previously to
drive more efficient water use and management systems.
|
|
4
|
Any water
that is unallocated, even if the total allocation is less than the specified
limit, would not be re-allocated to any use until a review had been carried
out
|
If there is
unallocated water it is left unused to provide additional protection for
ecosystem values
Policy 45 deleted.
Policy 34 and 47
|
Avoids
further investment into water that might need to be clawed back if the
allocation limit is further reduced
|
|
Either 5a
|
An interim
allocation limit be set at 80Mm3/year.
|
This
reflects the actual and reasonable reallocation regime to provide for
existing investment with a focus on further reducing water use overall.
Policy 34,
Rule TANK 10, Schedule 6.
|
Version 9.2
currently includes this provision as general guidance that the aquifer is
significantly over-allocated and an indication that significant reductions in
allocation are required.
However, the
limit could provide a starting point for assessing the plan provisions, and
there is a risk that it will be seen as the correct number from which a
debate about an alternative proposition will begin, which is not the policy
intention. .
|
|
or
5b
|
No specific
allocation limit be included but the combination of actions relied on to
prevent new allocations and reduce current allocations
|
Combination
of other provisions means limit is provided by restricting any new allocation
of water to actual and reasonable and otherwise managing the HPs aquifer as
over-allocated until review of plan provisions carried out
|
This more
accurately reflects the uncertainties about the sustainable allocation limit
and the impacts on water abstraction resulting from any changes beyond those
already modelled.
This also
reflects the strong commitment for review of all aspects of water management
for the aquifer because of the nature of the uncertainties and the significant
potential costs and benefits associated with this decision.
|
|
6
|
The stream
flow maintenance and habitat enhancement scheme development and operation
would be more clearly provided for and directed by a new Schedule to the
Plan.
|
Provides
more clarity about obligations and expectations in respect of the design and
operation of such schemes
Policy 36
and new Schedule 12
|
Enables both
flexibility and innovation while establishing minimum requirements.
|
|
7
|
Further
direction included about how success of the stream flow maintenance and
habitat enhancement scheme would be assessed.
|
Assessment
criteria included in the policy and reflected in monitoring requirements for
the schemes
New Policy
37 and Schedule 12
|
Provides
more clarity in relation to expectations and performance.
|
|
8
|
Concern that
new clauses about constraints for developing large infrastructure over time
creates a loophole for new use. (V9.1; Policy 34 Clause (h)(v).
|
The clause
has been removed. More targeted amendment to Rule TANK 7 and glossary.
|
The
provision is not to allow widespread development but to protect existing
authorised commitments to water use. It has very limited application.
|
|
9
|
The
development of the stream maintenance schemes needs to be in advance of water
permit expiry
|
The implementation
plan needs to be more explicit about council’s role in making sure the
schemes are able to be developed and rolled out as consents expire and new
applications are made.
|
Provides
more clarity for consent applicants.
|
Recommendation
28. The RPC sub-group
developed a number of amendments to the Heretaunga Plains policies that reflect
the direction in Table 1 including item 5a. Amendments are shown in
tracked changes in the attached Version 9.2 of the TANK Plan Change (Attachment
1) and include both options 5a and 5b. Option 5b is recommended.
Outstanding Waterbodies in Tank
Catchments
29. The RPC has made decisions
on a change to the RPS for outstanding water bodies. An assessment of the
TANK plan change for these water bodies is provided below.
30. The outstanding water
bodies in the TANK catchments as listed in Proposed Plan Change 7 are:
30.1. Wetlands and lakes
30.2. Kaweka Lakes
30.3. Lake Poukawa and
Pekapeka Swamp
30.4. Ngamatea East Swamp
30.5. Ngaruroro River
30.6. Tūtaekurī
River
30.7. Taruarau River
30.8. Karamu River
30.9. Heretaunga Aquifer.
31. The Ahuriri Estuary is
also identified as an Outstanding Water Body. The TANK Plan Change provides
land and water management provisions in respect of freshwater bodies. The Plan
must also ensure an integrated approach with respect to inputs to coastal
waters and to that extent the TANK Plan Change addresses freshwater inputs to
the Ahuriri Estuary and potential impacts on estuary values.
Background
32. Wetlands and lakes are
assigned high levels of protection already, both as a result of existing RRMP
rules that require no adverse effects as a result of specified activities, and
further within the TANK catchments as all wetlands in the TANK catchments are
recognised for their high natural, ecological and cultural values. With
the exception of Lake Poukawa, the specific wetland/lake water bodies (Listed
above) are not however, separately mentioned in PC9.
33. The indigenous species,
ecosystem health, recreational activities and particularly natural character,
instream values and hydrological functioning values of the mainstem of the
Tūtaekurī and Ngaruroro rivers and 4 of their tributaries are
protected and improved, particularly in relation to:
33.1. the establishment of
freshwater quality objectives
33.2. prohibition on damming
33.3. high flow allocations
33.4. flow triggers for water
abstraction at high and low flows
33.5. riparian land
management.
34. The improvement to the
values provided for by this range of measures will improve the mauri of the water
bodies and is therefore intended to also improve cultural and spiritual
values.
35. The provisions of the TANK
plan go beyond the ‘protection’ of these existing values to
improvement of them.
36. The NPSFM Objectives A2
and B4 require the protection of the significant values of OWB’s while
water quality is maintained or improved and that water is not
over-allocated. The water body values are as they currently are, and
these NPSFM objectives do not require improvement beyond the current state to
enable a water body to become (more) outstanding.
37. Protection does not
necessarily mean no further use or development. Guidance from the Ministry for
the Environment states;
37.1. “The NPSFM
objectives do not require that every aspect of the water body is fully
protected, unless that is necessary to protect the outstanding characteristics.
For example a water body may be outstanding because it is the habitat for an
endemic freshwater fish, but protecting that fish may be possible even if some
water takes and discharges are authorised.”
Water quality
38. Water quality is subject
to new TANK Plan Change objectives for the maintenance or improvement of
freshwater quality. Freshwater quality state objectives are specified for a
large range of water quality attributes. Attribute states are set in
relation to the most critical or sensitive value for that attribute (e.g. E.
coli levels represent maintenance and improvement of water quality for
swimming, while clarity protects water quality for fish that rely on visual
clarity for feeding).
39. The TANK Plan specifies
that ‘maintain’ means ensuring the state of the attribute does not
decline below its present state if it is already above the specified state, and
must be improved if it is below the specified state. It does not allow for
movement to a lower quality within an NPSFM band for that attribute.
40. Both the values identified
in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan
change are therefore being protected and improved.
Water Quantity
41. PC9 introduces new
allocation limits and flow triggers for both high and low flow abstraction, and
includes a new limit for total abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains
aquifer.
42. In particular, damming is
prohibited to protect the natural character, instream values and hydrological
functioning both for the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekurī Rivers and four of
their tributaries. This serves to protect values such as jet boating and
the braided reaches which are essential habitat for some bird species.
43. New allocation limits are
also specified for both the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekurī Rivers at low
flows. The allocation limits have been substantially reduced to reduce impacts
of abstraction on instream values. Further, the Plan seeks to increase
the minimum flow for the Tutaekuri.
44. The TANK Plan Change
recognises and manages a wider range of values in relation to water quantity in
addition to the instream and intrinsic values and also addresses the needs of
people and communities for water.
45. Both the values identified
in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan
change are therefore being protected and improved.
Ecosystem Health
46. A key factor for improving
water quality and ecosystem health is linked to good riparian land management.
PC9 focuses on improved riparian management and includes milestones for both
stock exclusion and riparian planting to provide shade. These provisions
will improve natural character, instream values and water quality and habitat
for indigenous species.
47. Both the values identified
in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan
change are therefore being protected and improved.
48. Table 1 in Attachment 3
shows how TANK refers to the water bodies and what provisions are included to
protect identified values. The following section describes how the TANK gives
effect to the OWB plan change.
49. The Implementation Plan
which has been developed alongside the TANK plan also highlights a number of
measures, actions and targets which will support the delivery of the freshwater
objectives of the plan
Outstanding Waterbodies Policies
Proposed PC7
50. New and amended objective
and policy has been introduced into the RPS to identify and direct management
of outstanding water bodies as per the direction of the NPSFM.
51. The RPS objectives
requires protection of outstanding and significant values and includes several
policies in relation to the preparation of regional plans and the consideration
of resource consents.
52. Table 2 in Attachment 3
provides an assessment of the specific new policies introduced by PC7 in
relation to the provisions of the TANK plan Change. The overall
assessment is that the TANK Plan Change does give effect to the RPS provisions
for outstanding water bodies in the TANK catchments. However a couple of
amendments are suggested to ensure the appropriate connections are made.
Recommendations
53. Objective 2; Amend
clause (e) to read;
“The significant values of the
outstanding water bodies in schedule 25 and the values in the plan objectives
are appropriately protected and provided for.
54. Objective 15
Insert new clause “(f) the
protection of the outstanding values of the Kaweka Lakes, Lake Poukawa and
Pekapeka Swamp and the Ngamatea East Swamp”.
Other Issues
55. It is recommended that
suggested amendments reported in respect of the 3 July report to the RPC are
also incorporated into the Tank Plan Change for notification. A number of
additional minor corrections and amendments have also been made to Version 9.1
and are shown as tracked changes in Version 9.2 (Attachment 2).
Consideration of Tangata Whenua
56. The TANK Plan Change when
it is notified will have considerable potential impact on tanagata whenua and
the values they hold for water. This report arises in relation to their
feedback on the pre-notification draft of the Plan Change and demonstrates that
particular regard is being given to the advice received from iwi authorities.
Consideration of Climate Change
57. The Plan Change contains
an objective that any decisions made about land and water use take into account
effects of climate change. The plan considers long term impacts of
decision making and incorporates the need for developing community resilience
by making land use decisions that address multiple objectives and provides for
the development of longer term water supply and demand strategies.
Strategic Fit
58. The Plan Changes delivers
on several of the Councils strategic goals especially in relation to
sustainable land and water use and efficient infrastructure.
Financial and
Resource Implications
59. The plan preparation
process is incorporated in existing council budgets. The implementation of the
Plan will have significant impact on council staff and other resources that
have yet to be fully assessed.
Decision Making Process
60. Council
is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA). In this case, the decision about content is prior to
the next step of making a decisions about notification as prescribed by the
Resource Management Act and which will be subject to process steps prescribed
by Schedule 1 of the RMA. Staff have assessed the
requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the LGA in relation to this item
and have concluded:
60.1. The decision about the
content of the Proposed Plan Change 9 (TANK) does not significantly alter the
service provision or affect a strategic asset
60.2. The persons affected by
this decision are the Hawke’s Bay regional community
60.3. 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 this specific decision about the content
of the Proposed Plan Change 9 (TANK) without consulting directly with the
community or others having an interest in the decision.
|
Recommendations
1. That the Regional Planning Committee:
1.1. Receives and considers the “Proposed TANK Plan Change 9
– Agree Amendments for Notification” staff report.
1.2. Agrees to the amendments described in the following
recommendations being incorporated into proposed TANK Plan Change 9:
1.2.1. amendments as at paragraph 29
1.2.2. amendments as at paragraphs 54 and 55
1.2.3. amendments as at paragraph 56.
1.3. Requests that staff prepare a Proposed Plan Change with those
amendments as noted in 1.2 above, and provide it to the 18 September 2019
Regional Planning Committee meeting to enable adoption by Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council on 25 September 2019 for notification.
|
Authored by:
|
Mary-Anne
Baker
Senior Planner
|
|
Approved by:
|
Ceri Edmonds
Manager Policy and Planning
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇨1
|
TANK Draft
Plan Change 9 Version 9.2 July 2019 with tracked changes
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨2
|
Modelling
impact of actual and reasonable reallocation
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨3
|
Assessment of
Outstanding Waterbodies and TANK Plan Changes
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨4
|
Section 32 Report
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 14 August 2019
Subject: Decision Making Under
Part 2 of the Resource Management Act
Reason for Report
1. This item provides Regional Planning Committee members with an
overview of their obligations as Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or
the Act) decision-makers in the context of reviewing and amending regional
plans and the Regional Policy Statement.
Background
2. At the 3 July 2019 meeting RPC members requested that staff provide
a report to the 14 August 2019 meeting to assist their understanding of
their obligations as RMA decision-makers. In addition to the general principles
of decision making, committee members requested a particular focus on:
2.1. an overview
of Part 2 of the Act
2.2. further
analysis of the weightings given to each part, and how the requirements to
“recognise and provide for”, “have particular regard
to” and “take into account” in terms of sections 6, 7 and 8
of the Act respectively have been interpreted and applied
2.3. weighting to
be given to higher order planning documents
2.4. a brief
analysis of the matters decision makers must take into consideration,
particularly in relation to Māori interests and values, when making plan
change decisions under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management
2014
2.5. How these
obligations were reflected in the TANK process
3. The attached paper has been authored by HBRC staff and reviewed by
Partners at law firm Simpson Grierson.
TANK Plan Change
4. The process under which the TANK Plan Change was prepared sits in an
RMA hierarchy under the requirements of the National Policy Statement for
Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The way in which Māori values and interests
were to be considered are particularly outlined in Objective D1 and Policy D1
of the NPSFM.
Involving
5. The TANK process ensured iwi and hapū were involved throughout
the process, making specific provisions for membership of mana whenua. While
the process was not always ideal for a range of reasons, the Council responded
to concerns as best it was able (as discussed in the 3 July report to the RPC).
6. This included funding additional input by mana whenua consultants
into the plan making process as well as additional meetings with mana whenua
members of TANK throughout the process to support understanding and enhance
opportunities to provide input.
7. TANK members were supported in properly giving effect to the NPSFM
in their decision making through measures such as the TANK Terms of Reference
and the clear articulation of tangata whenua as more than
‘stakeholders’ in this process.
Identifying
Values
8. The Council provided additional funding to mana whenua to assist
them in clearly identifying their values and corresponding attributes, in the
TANK catchments. These reports were considered and accounted for by TANK
members in making decisions about water quality and quantity objectives. They
also considered iwi management plans and took into account the relevant
provisions of those plans.
Reflecting
9. The NPSFM describes the decision making process that was to be
followed to determine and make decisions about Māori and community values.
10. The Plan
Change contains objectives and policies seeking a higher level of management
effort for improving the ecosystem health of the TANK waterbodies which reflect
the direction provided in the NPSFM. The TANK members adopted an integrated
approach considering connections from the upper catchments to the sea including
impacts on estuary values; ki uta ki tai. It did this while considering
the matters provided in the NPSFM, particularly those in Policy CA2 (f), which
among other things require consideration of:
10.1. the
choices between values and the formulation of freshwater objectives and limits
10.2. any
implications for resource users, people and communities
10.3. timeframes.
Gaps and
Opportunities
11. The
preparation of the Plan Change identified gaps and opportunities in respect of
mana whenua values and interests. These gaps particularly related to matauranga
Māori and how this enables kaitiakitanga. The gaps are reflected as
placeholders in the Plan that are to be filled following further input into and
development of the appropriate measures to satisfy these needs. This
requires both Council support as well as mana whenua involvement and is
included in the Implementation Plan.
12. As noted
in the attached paper, the Council is giving effect to
the NPSFM through this plan change. Evidence of the extent to which the plan
change gives effect to the NPSFM and therefore the purpose of the Act will be
reported on in the section 32 report. This report, together with the
submissions, and evidence prepared in relation to the plan change assist the
decision maker in determining whether, and how, the requirements of the NPSFM
and RMA are being met.
Particular
regard
13. The RPC
has been required to have particular regard to the feedback from iwi on the
pre-notification draft. This imposes an obligation on decision makers to
give particular weight to the feedback and creates a duty on the decision maker
to be on inquiry, in other words passive action is not sufficient. That this
duty was properly carried out is reflected in the direction for further input
by the sub-group of the Committee along with advisors to further explore
resolution of outstanding concerns.
Decision Making
Process
14. 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 considers the “Decision Making Under Part 2 of the
Resource Management Act” staff report.
|
Authored by:
|
Ellen
Humphries
Policy Planner
|
Mary-Anne
Baker
Senior Planner
|
|
|
|
Approved by:
|
Ceri Edmonds
Manager Policy and Planning
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
RMA Decision
Making and Maori interests and obligations under Part 2 and the NPSFM
|
|
|
