Extraordinary Meeting of the Regional Planning
Committee
Date: Wednesday 18 March 2020
Time: 1.00pm
|
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 11 December 2019
Decision Items
4. TANK
Notification 3
Information or Performance Monitoring
5. Tukituki: Request
for Plan Change 9
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
Trust
|
|
Nicky
Kirikiri
|
Te Toi Kura o
Waikaremoana
|
|
Liz Munroe
|
Heretaunga
Tamatea Settlement Trust
|
|
Joinella
Maihi-Carroll
|
Mana Ahuriri
Trust
|
|
Apiata Tapine
|
Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa
|
|
Mike Mohi
|
Ngati
Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
|
|
Peter Paku
|
Heretaunga
Tamatea Settlement Trust
|
|
Toro Waaka
|
Ngati
Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
|
|
Rick Barker
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Will Foley
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Craig Foss
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Rex Graham
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Neil Kirton
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Charles
Lambert
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Hinewai
Ormsby
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Jerf van Beek
|
Hawkes Bay
Regional Council
|
|
Martin
Williams
|
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 18 March 2020
Subject: TANK Notification
Reason for Report
1. This report
seeks a decision from the RPC to amend Policy 37 of the Proposed TANK Plan
Change (PC9) to include an allocation limit for the Heretaunga Plains
groundwater.
2. This report
also seeks the RPC recommendation for a process pathway for the notification of
the Proposed TANK Plan Change.
Officers’ Recommendation(s)
That the
Regional Planning Committee:
3. Receives
this report.
4. 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.
5. Amends
Policy 37 of the Proposed TANK Plan Change to insert reference to 90 million
cubic meters as the interim allocation limit for the Heretaunga Plains
groundwater and amends the section 32 report accordingly.
6. Recommends
that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council notify the Proposed TANK Plan Change
for public submissions on 28 March 2020 for a period of 27 working days ending
8 May 2020.
7. Instructs
staff to identify a shortlist of suitable qualified and experienced Resource
Management Act accredited Hearing Commissioners for consideration by the
Regional Planning Committee for appointment to the Hearing Panel to hear and
make recommendations on the proposed Plan Change 9 in response to submissions
and further submissions received.
Executive Summary
8. The RPC agreed
to publicly notify the TANK Plan Change and its supporting Section 32 report at
their meeting in September 2019. At this meeting, although tangata whenua
members agreed to notify the Plan, they indicated on-going concern with some of
the plan content. No resolution was made in respect of the notification
pathway and this decision was left until December as the first available
opportunity for the new council following the 2019 elections.
9. The RPC agreed
at the December meeting to further workshop TANK Plan Change content to discuss
outstanding issues and notification options and this was undertaken 26 February
2020. The workshop provided the opportunity to revisit issues of
particular concern for tangata whenua, and to explore options for resolving
them.
10. One of the significant
ongoing issues for tangata whenua has centred on management of groundwater
abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains and the management of the consequential
stream flow depletion impact on lowland streams.
11. This report revisits the
allocation limit and a recommendation is made to re-insert an allocation limit
of 90Million cubic metres per year.
12. This report also
re-presents the options for an RPC recommendation to the Council in relation to
the notification pathway.
Background/Discussion
13. The RPC received a draft
Plan change from the TANK collaborative group in August 2018. It made
decisions on non-consensus items and completed provisions relating to a number
of uncompleted items including stormwater management, land use change and
management of drinking water quality.
14. The RPC then provided a
copy of the Proposed Plan Change to iwi authorities and territorial authorities
and Department of Conservation early in 2019 as part of pre-notification
requirements.
15. It considered feedback
received at its meeting in May 2019 and a number of issues were subsequently
debated by the RPC at the following meetings, including through establishment
of an RPC sub-group to consider management options.
16. The RPC had determined the
remaining areas of concern to be related to the allocation limit for
groundwater abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains and how the resulting stream
depletion impact on lowland stream flow would be managed. It also noted concerns
with how Māori values were reflected in the Proposed Plan Change.
Water Management in the Heretaunga Plains
17. The Proposed Plan Change
contains a number of provisions relating to water allocation and use in the
Heretaunga Plains. It includes policies and rules that set out to;
17.1. Prevent any further
allocation of water from the Heretaunga Plains
17.2. Reduce allocations to
reflect actual and reasonable levels of use (in the ten years to 2017)
17.3. Adopt a sinking lid
approach so that any water returned or relinquished would not be re-allocated.
17.4. Impose consistent water
allocation modelling requirements and a new water use efficiency standard.
17.5. Apply additional
restrictions on the site to site transfer of water
17.6. Adopt a prohibited
activity status for new applications where there is not an existing permit
17.7. Calculate requirements
for the stream depletion effect of each water permit and for the permit holder
to contribute to or develop a stream flow maintenance scheme on an equitable
basis with all permit holders.
18. The Proposed Plan
recognises some of the uncertainties and data gaps in relation to the
management of Heretaunga Plains groundwater and includes a specific review
policy (Policy 42) that;
18.1. Seeks further water allocation
and water use information (including both the allocated amount and used through
water meter data)
18.2. Considers any new
monitoring data about groundwater abstraction, water flows and groundwater
levels
18.3. Assesses the
effectiveness of mitigation measures including extent of streams affected by
flow maintenance and extent of habitat enhancement and water quality trends.
19. As part of the review, the
Council will examine the appropriateness of the allocation limit in view of
this assessment and develop a plan change to ensure any identified
over-allocation is further phased out.
20. The RPC considered 90
million cubic meters as the annual allocation limit in previous drafts of the
Plan Change. The 90 million cubic meters is a modelled assessment of the
amount of water used during the 2012/13 drought season. It doesn’t
reflect the new allocation regime that establishes annual allocations for
permit holders.
21. There was debate as to
whether 80 million cubic meters might be a more appropriate allocation limit as
it more closely represented average use. The RPC then considered having a
non-numerical limit as a means of providing for the adaptive management
signalled by policy 36.
22. The allocation limit
(whether it was the numerical or non-numerical amount) is to be reviewed
according to the policy direction provided in both policies 36 and 42.
23. At the February 26
workshop, the RPC suggested the 90Million cubic meter limit should be
re-instated.
24. The benefit of a numerical
limit is that it shows the extent of the over-allocation from what has been
allocated. It does not impact on current water permit holders as
replacement permits are provided for on an “actual and reasonable”
basis. It remains subject to the review policies and future assessment as
to its appropriateness given the more robust water use data that will be
available at that time, and there will be information about the success of the
specified mitigation measures.
Notification Pathway
25. The RPC has previously
debated the merits of a fast track process (SPP) compared to the more
traditional process that includes an appeal opportunity for all parties.
The choice between these pathways is currently a discretionary matter for
councils.
26. The government has
signalled a change to the RMA that will introduce a mandatory fast track
process for freshwater related plans to remove some of the delay associated
with these freshwater planning processes. This change is anticipated to
be made from April 2020.
27. Environment Court
processes can add years to a plan development process, as well as result in
significant costs for all parties, including for ratepayers.
28. A fast track process
(whether it is as provided as a discretion by the current RMA or as mandatory
by amendments to the RMA) presents both a challenge and an opportunity to the
Council, its ratepayer and stakeholder communities and iwi. A fast track
process requires the submissions and hearing process to be done once and done
well, it also enables the limits to be set in place and actions necessary to
meet environmental objectives to be commenced sooner. Quicker resolution
of the process potentially enables cost savings that can then be directed into
the required actions and mitigations.
29. The Council’s
community and stakeholders are consequentially likely to have a greater
interest in the timing and scope of plan reviews, especially where submissions
express widely different views about Plan content and policy direction.
30. Staff still consider the
advantages delivered by a fast track process outweigh the disadvantages of not
having an appeal process. We are aware that not all stakeholders are in
agreement with this, but note that the government’s own direction is to
adopt a more speedy and nimble approach to plan development (and review) as
evidenced by the proposed RMA amendments.
31. However, given the delays
in notifying the Plan there is now a risk in seeking the Minister’s
direction for an SPP as it runs into the possible introduction of the new
National Policy Statement for Freshwater. If the plan is not notified
before a new NPSFM, it would be subject to further delay as it will need to be
further reviewed to ensure it gives effect to any new provisions of the NPS.
32. We consider that should
any application to the Minister for a streamlined planning process be made, it
should be on the condition that notification is made before any new NPSFM is
introduced.
33. A second possibility is
that the RMA amendment to introduce a mandatory fast track process is
introduced before an SPP application is finalised. In that case, the
mandatory process is likely to apply (depending on how the amendment is worded)
and no other option will be able to be considered by the RPC or the Regional
Council.
34. Despite earlier
recommendations by staff for a fast track process to be adopted, the
convergence of several national processes and the Minister’s support for
and promotion of the new NPSFM, staff consider the risk of delays now likely
with seeking an application from the Minister will mean there is a higher
chance of the Proposed Plan being caught up with the new NPSFM policy
direction.
35. We do not see (early)
notification as a means to avoid giving effect to the NPSFM, but consider it to
be a more efficient use of the Council’s and its communities time and
resources. This is particularly so given the years of work already done on the
plan and the work still to do in other parts of the region. The new NPS
will still have to be given effect to, but in a more staged manner.
36. We also note that should
the RMA be amended in advance of the NPSFM taking effect, the Council might
consider withdrawing the Plan Change and re-notifying it under the new
provisions (with all submissions and further submissions being transferred to
the new process). Staff would provide further advice and seek agreement
from the RPC on this when necessary.
Options Assessment
Allocation Limit
37. The RPC sought to
reconsider its options for the allocation limit. The options include;
37.1. Retain non-numerical
limit
37.2. Re-insert interim
allocation limit of 90 million cubic meters into policy 37.
38. Both options support and
are supported by the suite of management measures that aim to limit water
allocation to actual and reasonable use (up to 2017). These measures
include schedules and rules that prohibit new allocations and reduce existing
allocations.
39. A numerical limit is
provides more clarity about the level of over-allocation as demonstrated by the
allocated amount compared to the (modelled) actual and reasonable use.
40. It is recommended that the
interim limit of 90 million cubic meters be re-inserted into policy 37 to
provide additional guidance and direction about the nature of water allocation
in the Heretaunga Plains and that the section 32 report be amended accordingly.
Notification pathway
41. The RPC is considering two
notification pathways available to it under Schedule 1 of the RMA being;
41.1. The traditional plan
change process which includes ability for submitters to appeal decisions to the
Environment Court
41.2. A streamlined process
(SPP) which follows the same pathway except does not include the ability to
appeal decisions to the Environment Court.
42. The traditional process is
recommended by staff for the reasons outlined above.
Strategic Fit
43. The Proposed TANK Plan
Change delivers on several of the Council’s strategic goals especially in
relation to sustainable land and water use and efficient infrastructure.
44. The Plan Change also reflects
Māori values, establishes objectives and limits for water quality and
quantity and adopts policies and methods to improve ecosystem health in TANK
water bodies.
Climate Change Considerations
45. The Proposed TANK Plan
Change takes into account impacts of climate change by establishing limits for
water and adopts provisions for supporting or building community resilience
where water supply and demand might change over time.
46. The Plan Change contains a
specific objective that any decisions made in respect of activities and actions
in the TANK catchment 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
Considerations of Tangata Whenua
47. The TANK Plan Change when
it is notified will have considerable potential impact on tangata whenua and
the values they hold for water. This report arises in relation to their
concerns about the Proposed Plan Change and demonstrates that particular regard
is being given to tangata whenua.
48. The section 32 report
describes how the TANK Plan change and the process of its development involved
iwi and reflects iwi values.
Financial and Resource Implications
49. The notification of the
Proposed TANK Plan Change is a budgeted item already 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
50. 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:
50.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
50.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
50.3. The decision is not
significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted
Significance and Engagement Policy.
50.4. The persons affected by
this decision are any person with an interest in management of the
region’s land and water resources. In any event, those persons will have
an opportunity to make a submission on the proposed TANK Plan Change after it
is publicly notified.
50.5. The decision is not
inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
51. Given the nature and
significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons
likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council
can exercise its discretion and make a decision without
consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in
the decision.
|
Recommendations
That the
Regional Planning Committee:
1. Receives this report.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that 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.
3. Amends Policy 37 of the Proposed TANK
Plan Change to insert reference to 90 million cubic meters as the interim
allocation limit for the Heretaunga Plains groundwater and amends the section
32 report accordingly.
4. Recommends
that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council notify the Proposed TANK Plan Change
for public submissions on 28 March 2020 for a period of 28 working days
ending 8 May 2020
5. Instructs
staff to identify a shortlist of suitable qualified and experienced Resource
Management Act accredited Hearing Commissioners for consideration by the
Regional Planning Committee for appointment to the Hearing Panel to hear and
make recommendations on the proposed Plan Change 9 in response to submissions
and further submissions received.
|
Authored by:
|
Mary-Anne
Baker
Senior Planner
|
|
Approved by:
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 18 March 2020
Subject: Tukituki: Request for
Plan Change
Reason for Report
1. This report discusses a request received from the Federated Farmers
to initiate a streamlined planning process (SPP) to change the Hawke’s
Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) for the Tukituki Catchment to
recalibrate nitrogen leaching rates in Table 5.9.1D using the current version
of Overseer FM.
2. Federated Farmers have highlighted a concern that as Overseer has
been further developed and refined the information on which Table 5.9.1D is
based is well out-dated. The information has been superseded and the
earlier versions are no longer accessible to farmers, consultants or to consent
planners.
3. It would be sensible, more acceptable and practical to be comparing
the numbers generated by farmers who are required to use Overseer FM with
numbers in the plan that are generated using the same and most recent version
of Overseer.
Executive Summary
4. It is important for the RPC to consider this request from Federated
Farmer to maintain the trust and confidence of the Tukituki farming community
users who have acknowledged the need for the change. This will ensure
that the plan prescribes the right ‘tools’ for them to apply for
resource consents, knowing that this will be appropriate and enable them to
adhere to the rules within the Plan.
Background
5. The Tukituki Catchment plan change (Plan Change 6) was developed
using a Board of Inquiry process between 2012 and 2014. The rules
controlling nitrogen leaching within the Tukituki Catchment come into full
effect on 1 June 2020. One of the core features of the nitrogen leaching
rules is the use of Overseer to identify the activity status of a range of
farming land use activities (as permitted, restricted discretionary, or
non-complying activities).
6. Overseer estimates nitrogen leaching under different situations and
was originally designed to support farm decision-making on fertilizer
use. In recent years Overseer estimates have been used in water quality
regulation in the absence of a tool to measure cumulative discharges of
nitrogen from farming activities.
7. There have been numerous version changes to Overseer since 2012,
when Table 5.9.1D was developed using Overseer V5.4.3. Each new version
incorporates latest available science on nitrogen leaching. Typically, a
higher leaching rate is now estimated from exactly the same farm inputs to the
model. While the amount of nitrogen discharging below the root zone is
better understood, not all of this nitrogen discharges into receiving
water. Some nitrogen is also attenuated/assimilated (i.e.
‘removed’) between the root zone and the receiving water.
8. Changes to the Overseer model do not affect conditions in the water,
as measured by actual monitoring of water quality. There is no direct
link between the numbers in Table 5.9.1D and the limits and targets set for
nitrogen in the receiving water in Table 5.9.1B.
9. Federated Farmers have been working with farmers within the Tukituki
catchment, and have identified Overseer versioning as being a critical issue
for consenting. Federated Farmer representatives met with staff involved
in implementing the Tukituki plan change late last year and again in January
2020. Chief Executive James Palmer agreed to scope a plan change using
the streamlined planning process (Schedule 1, Part 5 of the RMA) to update the
nitrogen leaching rates in Table 5.9.1D, while noting the necessity of the
Regional Planning Committee’s agreement to initiate any such plan change.
Discussion
Issue
summary
10. Table
5.1.9D presents an issue for farmers within the Tukituki Catchment as it
utilises an out-dated version of Overseer which is also unavailable for
use. The issue is compounded by the fact that the current version,
Overseer FM (which is being used for consenting) results in different nitrogen
leaching rates which have the potential to affect the land use activity status.
Should Overseer FM be utilised, there is potential for more farms to require
consents than originally estimated through the Board of Inquiry‘s plan
change process. Of those farms requiring consents it is possible that
more will of these will fall into the ‘non-complying’ activity
status due to earlier versions of Overseer underestimated nitrogen leaching.
11. While
there are a number of other issues with the use of Overseer in regulation, as
identified in the 2018 report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
Environment, Overseer and regulatory oversight: Models, uncertainty and
cleaning up our waterways, Federated Farmers did not see these as being so
critical for the Tukituki in the short term.
12. As
outlined in earlier paragraphs a possible solution sought by Federated Farmers
to rectify this issue is to amend the plan utilising a Streamlined Planning
Process (being a RMA tool to achieve an expeditious planning process that is
proportionate to the complexity and significance of the planning issues being
considered).
13. For any
such plan change request, consideration needs to be had as to how this relates
to the proposed timeline for national freshwater management reforms, including
the enactment of the Resource Management Bill (RM Bill) and commencement of the
2020 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The
Ministry for the Environment (MfE) anticipates that the new freshwater planning
process must be used from enactment, and that all freshwater plan changes
giving effect to the NPSFM 2020 will be required to be notified by 31 December
2023.
Change to the land use
activity status
14. For most
farms (but not all), the new Overseer FM figure will result in higher nitrogen
leaching rates, potentially amending the activity status of the consents, for
example permitted activities may require a consents or restricted
discretionary activities may become non-complying.
15. Non-complying
activities must meet the gateway requirements of S104D, in particular s104D
(1)(b) which require that the application is not contrary to the objectives and
policies of the regional plan in order for a consent to be granted.
16. Notwithstanding
the proposed changes, the plan continues to require the Tukituki instream
nitrogen limits/targets to be met by 2030.
17. In
support of the relief sought, Federated Farmers have prepared a preliminary
assessment of potential costs associated with the use of Overseer FM with
respect to consent activity status (refer to the Attachment of this
report).
18. While the
Board of Inquiry may have considered it unlikely that consents would be
required for the majority of farms, based on the information supplied by
Federated Farmers, it would seem that approximately 64 farms would be assessed
as non-complying activities, and 48 farms would be assessed as restricted
discretionary activities.
19. The
Federated Farmers’ report notes that ‘the cost of applying for a
non-complying activity is likely to be significantly greater than compared with
a restricted discretionary consent (paragraph 20) and that there are likely to
be social and wellbeing costs (paragraphs 22 – 29).
Timeline and national
freshwater reforms
20. Staff
have undertaken a preliminary assessment of the planning pathways to undertake
a plan change to address the relief sought by Federated Farmers to recalibrate
the nitrogen leachate figures of Table 5.9.1D by adopting Overseer FM, using:
20.1. The SPP
pathway (Schedule 1, Part 5);
20.2. The
traditional Schedule 1 plan-making pathway (Schedule 1, Part 1); and
20.3. The
proposed freshwater planning process described in the RM Bill.
21. Each of
the plan-making processes require as a minimum that consultation will be
undertaken with iwi, relevant government agencies and key stakeholders.
22. In
addition to the draft table recalibrating nitrogen leaching, additional
supporting information will be required in order to assess whether the proposed
change is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act, as
required by Section 32 of the RMA.
23. Staff
consider that the preparatory work and consultation could be completed, with a
proposal to notify such a plan change by August 2020, at the earliest.
24. There are
a number of consents that will be required as a consequence of the rules
controlling nitrogen leaching coming into effect as of the 1 June 2020.
It should be noted that it would not be possible to progress a plan change to
affect resource activity status for the first tranche of consents.
However the content of the plan change can be taken into consideration when
processing the consents. The Regional Planning Committee have the
opportunity to consider whether there is benefit in pursuing this plan change
to update the plan prior to the second tranche of consents.
25. The
following steps are involved in a plan change.
|
Step
|
Action
|
Time
|
|
1
|
Gain
approval from RPC & HBRC to initiate development of a plan change
|
18 March & 25 March
|
|
2
|
Complete
project plan, consultation & communication plans
|
31 March
|
|
3
|
Gain
approval from Minister to use SPP
|
30 April
|
|
4
|
Prepare
essential additional information in support of proposed change
|
15 May
|
|
5
|
Gain
approval to consult on proposal from RPC
|
3 June
|
|
6
|
Complete
consultation
|
30 June
|
|
7
|
Gain
approval to notify proposal from RPC & HBRC
|
19 August & 26 August
|
|
8
|
Notify
proposal
|
Sat 29 August
|
26. While this timeline could be brought forward one month by convening
an additional meeting of the RPC in July (to recommend notification), this does
not resolve the issue relating to the enactment of the RM Bill.
27. MfE staff
have advised that the RM Bill is due to be reported back from the Select
Committee process on 26 March 2020 and it is anticipated that it will be
enacted mid-2020.
28. Staff
have initiated discussion with MfE with regard to the use of the SPP process
for recalibrating the nitrogen leaching figures in Table 5.9.1D. MfE has
advised that once the RM Bill is enacted, any plan change would be required to
use the new freshwater planning process. While this technical plan change
could proceed as an isolated, discrete change, under the proposed Direction
from Government the Council would still have to implement the remainder of the
NPSFM 2020 within the prescribed timelines (currently thought to be December
2023).
29. The 2019
RM Bill proposed Freshwater Commissioners, convened by a Chief Freshwater
Commissioner, would hear and recommend on the proposed freshwater planning
instrument (i.e. the proposed plan change). However, this system cannot
be established until the Bill is passed into legislation.
30. Staff
consider that there are still a number of unknowns with the new freshwater
planning process, and it is unclear how quickly the Freshwater Commissioner
framework would be established and how they would operate.
Options
31. Two
possible options are presented:
31.1. Do not
proceed with a technical plan change to recalibrate the nitrogen figures in
Table 5.9.1D
31.2. Undertake
preliminary consultation on a possible plan change to recalibrate the nitrogen
figures in Table 5.9.1D and proceed if there is clear support from all
interested parties to make such a change.
32. A brief
evaluation of the two options is presented in Table 1, following.
Table 1: Quick
option evaluation
|
Issue
|
Option 1:
Make no change
|
Option 2:
Recalibrate N in Table 5.9.1D to align with OverseerFM
|
|
Cost of Plan
change
|
No cost
|
Unbudgeted
cost to council, estimate up to 9 months additional work. There are unknown
costs as the freshwater planning process has not yet been enacted.
|
|
Resolve
Overseer Update Inequity
|
No. Plan
Change 6 scheduled provided for a review of provisions in 2025.
Note: NPSFM
2020 may require this to be reviewed and notified by 2023.
|
Yes by
recalibrating the cumulative nitrogen leaching maximums with the most
up-to-date version
|
|
Impact on
actual nitrogen leaching
|
None
|
Not expected
to give rise to any increase in nitrogen leaching as it is essentially a
“recalibration” or adjustment to address ‘inflation’
ion the model results
|
|
Impact on
receiving environment
|
No change
|
No change
|
|
Community/stakeholder
interest, including iwi
|
Does not
apply
|
Acknowledges
that this is a technical plan change only which does not alter environmental
targets.
|
|
Council/community
relationship
|
Current
requirements have led to view that HBRC is rigid and inflexible
|
Upgrade to
current Overseer version will enhance the HBRC/community relationship by
showing willingness to consider community concerns around equity.
|
|
Certainty of
consent outcomes
|
Arguably,
makes no practical difference to whether consents are granted and the nature
of conditions applied
|
Possibly
creates a perception of greater certainty that a consent will be
granted (because of fewer Non Complying consents)
|
|
Programme of
Plan Changes, including to give effect to the NPSFM 2020
|
Tukituki
provisions would be reviewed within the broader context of national reforms,
with any changes notified by 31 December 2023 but inconsistency and issues
would remain until that time.
|
Still
uncertainty around final version of the NPSFM 2020 and RM Amendment
legislation.
|
33. Whilst this is, on the face of it, a simple technical change to the
plan the ability to undertake a simple plan change swiftly is challenging.
34. As noted
above, initial advice from MfE staff would indicate that a Streamlined Planning
Process is unlikely to be available for use within the timeframes proposed.
35. There are
also a number of uncertainties and unknown factors which lie ahead in terms of
the RM Bill, Essential Freshwater reform and final details within the NPS-FM
2020 which will have implications for any plan change. As a consequence
there is no clear cut pathway.
Considerations of Tangata Whenua
36. The
impact of a plan change to amend Table 5.1.9D on tangata whenua has not yet
been assessed. Tangata whenua would be consulted should the RPC direct staff to proceed to undertake preliminary
consultation.
37. Should
agreement be reached at a later stage to proceed with a plan change, the accompanying
Section 32 report (which would be required at the time of notifying the plan)
would describe how the plan change and the process of its development has
involved iwi and reflects iwi values.
Financial and Resource Implications
38. Should
the RPC agree to proceed to undertake preliminary consultation on a possible
plan change it should be noted that this is an unbudgeted item. As noted
in Table 1 above, should the Council then determine to undertake the plan
change this too is an unbudgeted cost with an estimated 9 months additional
un-programmed work.
39. There are
also potentially other unknown costs arising from the freshwater planning
process that has yet to be enacted. More clarity of the financial and resource implications as a
consequence of the enactment of the RM Bill may be available following the
report back from the Select Committee process on 26 March 2020.
Decision Making
Process
40. 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:
40.1. The decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
40.2. The use of the special
consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
40.3. The decision is not
significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted
Significance and Engagement Policy.
40.4. The persons affected by
this decision are any person with an interest in management of the
region’s land and water resources, in particular within the Tukituki
catchment.
41. The decision is not
inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
42. Given the nature and
significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons
likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council
can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly
with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
|
Recommendations
That the
Regional Planning Committee:
1. Receives the “Tukituki: Request for Plan Change” staff
report.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that 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.
3. Directs staff to proceed to undertake preliminary
consultation on a possible plan change to recalibrate the nitrogen figures in
Table 5.9.1D, or
4. Agrees not to proceed with a technical plan change to recalibrate
the nitrogen figures in Table 5.9.1D.
|
Authored by:
|
Dale Meredith
Senior Policy Planner
|
|
Approved by:
|
Ceri Edmonds
Manager Policy and Planning
|
Liz Lambert
Group Manager Regulation
|
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager Strategic Planning
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇩1
|
Tukituki
Assessment of Potential Costs
|
|
|
|
Tukituki
Assessment of Potential Costs
|
Attachment 1
|
Assessment
of potential economic and social costs associated with impact of Overseer
version change on Table 5.9.1D
Overseer version change
1. The nitrogen leaching limits for
each LUC class in Table 5.9.1D were set using Overseer version 5.4.3.
This is the version of Overseer that was used to assess the costs and benefits
of compliance with these limits at the time of the Board of Inquiry’s
decision on Plan Change 6.[1]
2. The Overseer model is updated
reasonably frequently (with more significant changes typically happening once
per year). These updates respond to improved science or address
identified errors in the model. The observed in-stream nitrogen (measured
in the waterways) does not change as a result of Overseer modelling updates.
The updates to Overseer simply improve the reliability of the modelling.
3. So, while the modelling outputs may
show greater leaching below the rootzone than prior to the Overseer update, the
receiving water quality experiences no change. What these changes in modelled
leaching may do is require water managers to reassess their assumptions about
the rates of attenuation.[2]
That is, if the measured in-stream N concentration remains the same but the
level of modelled leaching increases, any pre-Overseer update assumptions about
the rate that N is being attenuated between the bottom of the root zone and the
receiving water must be incorrect. (For example, if leaching is modelled to be
greater than previously thought the level of attenuation must be greater than
previously thought).
4. In the Lake Rotorua catchment, for
example, Overseer 5.4 was used to model nitrogen losses from farming activities
when the ROTAN catchment model was originally developed. That model
assumed an attenuation rate of zero. When Overseer version 6 was
released, the model was updated and attenuation was assumed to range between
20% and 85% (depending on sub-catchment) and at a catchment level attenuation
was assumed to be 42%.[3]
5. Since the LUC limits were set in Plan Change 6, there
have been many updates to the Overseer model.
6. The largest update was the update from
Overseer version 5.4 to 6.0 as a result of an overhaul of the drainage model (a
core element of the Overseer model). This resulted in significant
increases in estimated nitrogen leaching from farms, for no change to farm
system (or in stream nitrogen concentration). For example, Horizons
Regional Council has reported an increase of the cumulative nitrogen leaching
maximums in Table 14 (the LUC table in the One Plan) of 41% to 66% because the
older version of Overseer underestimated nitrogen leaching, with no increase in
dissolved nitrogen in the rivers and no increase in adverse effects on
waterways.[4]
7. When considering the Overseer model
and version change, the consistent advice or
recommendations
are:[5]
a. The latest version of Overseer should used
because it will incorporate the latest science
(particularly
providing for changes in water management science) or will have addressed identified
errors. The latest version is also often the only version available
because updates
of
Overseer result in earlier versions becoming unavailable.
b. The same version of Overseer should be used to
estimate nitrogen leaching as is used to
set
the limits.
c. Overseer should be used to assess
relative change in nitrogen leaching rather than
compliance
with an absolute number.
d. What is important when setting limits is the
principle or underlying rationale for setting the
limit
at a particular level, not the number Overseer models the N loss to be (because
the
number
is just the best estimate given current modelling capability). Where
Overseer sets a
benchmark
based on a stable farm system, a different version of Overseer will set a
different
benchmark,
despite there being no change in the actual nutrient losses from the
farm
system.
8. Table 5.9.1D of Plan Change 6 has
not been updated as Overseer versions have changed. The result is that N
leaching from farms is being assessed against an out of date version of Overseer.
Due to more recent versions of Overseer estimating higher nitrogen leaching
than older versions (for no change in farm system or change to water quality),
more farms fail to comply with Table 5.9.1D than when the table was assessed by
the Board of Inquiry (“BOI”).
9. There are currently 64 farms that
are more than 30% above the LUC table, and 48 are less than 30% above the LUC
table. This is not what the BOI intended. The BOI’s view was
that it was unlikely that resource consent would be required for the majority
of the catchment and consent would only be required by those farms that fail to
adopt sustainable farm management practices or want to intensify beyond the
natural capacity of the land.[6]
Economic impacts
10. There have been some case studies, which help
to understand the likely impact of the LUC limits on farmers, where their N
leaching is being estimated in a different version of Overseer from Table
5.9.1D.
11. In October 2018, a report was published about
four farms (two dairy and two drystock and cropping, two of which were
irrigated and two were not) who could not meet their LUC limits (three were
>30% above, one was <30% above).[7]
12. That assessment was based on Overseer version
6.2.2. While that version is now out of date (with that version being
replaced with subsequent versions),[8]
it was also significantly different from Overseer version 5.4.3, which was used
to calculate the limits in Table 5.9.1D.
13. For all of the case study farms, irrespective
of how intensive the system,[9]
significant capital investment (including constructing composting barns and
feed pads) and/or farm system change (including de-stocking, reducing
irrigation area, changing stock class or type and discontinuing cropping) was
required in order to achieve N limits. Such changes had significant
economic cost, and it was unlikely that the existing business would remain
viable. The only other option was to rely on technology advances (such as
plantain) and hope that those mitigations (which are not part of the Overseer
model) are accepted by HBRC.
14. The most drastic option for reducing nitrogen
(short of land use change) is the construction of composting barns to house
stock during autumn and winter months. The capital cost is significant
($2,700/ha), as are the operating costs ($177/ha). This would also
necessitate significant changes in farm management, herd management, animal
welfare and upskilling by the farmer (none of which are considered by the
report). However, for one of the case studies, even this infrastructure
(coupled with drastic reductions in stocking rates) would not be sufficient to
achieve the reductions needed to fall within 30% of the LUC limit.
15. The report also considered the social impacts
of such mitigations, including reduced spending (impacting on local businesses)
and employing less staff (as a result of reduced stocking rates and a need to
cut costs to meet higher operating costs). The construction of the
composting barn would be a positive outcome for the construction sector, but
this is a one off benefit (compared to the ongoing social costs as a result of
employing less staff, for example).
16. These costs far exceed the costs assessed at
the time the BOI assessed the costs, risks and benefits of Table 5.9.1D, with
the BOI anticipating that it would be the “poorer performing resource
users” that are impacted, and that there would not be a “major
problem for the majority of farmers.”[10]
By contrast, currently 64 farms are more than 30% above the LUC table, and 48
are less than 30% above the LUC table.
Impact of updating LUC
table
17. If the LUC table was updated, it is likely
that two or three of the four case study farms
referred
to above would be at or below their LUC limit (compared to being non complying
at
present).[11] The one or
two farmers that would not achieve it would be less than 30% over the
LUC limit i.e. restricted discretionary activities (compared to being non
complying at present).
18. The economic
implications would be that:
a. Two or three of the four case study
farms would not need to undertake any mitigations to reduce
nitrogen.
b. One or two of the four case study farms
would have to undertake some mitigations or make some farm system changes to
reduce to the LUC limit, but the mitigations are unlikely to involve
significant capital investment in infrastructure and are more likely to be farm
management type actions.
Resource consent costs
19. In addition to the economic costs associated
with mitigations to achieve the limits in Table 5.9.1D, there are the economic
costs associated with applying for resource consent. This is particularly
an issue for those farms that are required to obtain a non-complying consent
rather than the restricted discretionary consent they would require (or the
permitted activity status they would have) if the LUC table was updated (i.e.
based on the same version of Overseer as is currently used to estimate their
leaching).
20. The cost of applying for a non-complying
activity consent is likely to be significantly greater than compared with a
restricted discretionary consent:
a. The cost of engaging consultants to prepare a
non-complying activity consent application will vary depending on the
particular farm, but are likely to be tens of thousands of dollars (maybe even
as high as $100,000). This is due to additional work (when compared with
a restricted discretionary consent application) involved in completing matters
such as the planning assessment component of the application (e.g. there is a
need to assess the application against a greater range of objectives and
policies, including those relating to erosion and biodiversity), greater farm
planning advice (e.g. assessment of actions relating to erosion and
biodiversity, more detailed farm visits and assessments), a more robust and
thorough FEMP would be required, and there would be a need to consider the
receiving water and cumulative effects. It is difficult to estimate the
cost of a restricted discretionary consent application (as it will vary depending
on the particular farm and existing FEMP), but it could be closer to $10,000 to
$20,000.
b. Council
processing costs will be significantly higher for non-complying
activities. HBRC’s current estimate of the cost of processing
restricted discretionary activity consents is $1,300 to $3,000 (depending on
whether they are in a DIN exceeding sub-catchment). The estimated fee for
non-complying activities is exceeding $5,000. Horizons Regional Council
estimated that the likely fee would be $45,500 to $55,500 for notified
non-complying consent applications.[12]
c. A
non-complying activity consent application is more likely to be notified than a
restricted discretionary consent application (all other things being equal). If
notified, an applicant would not only incur Council’s hearing costs but
need to engage experts and have legal representation. The
applicant’s own costs would again be in the high tens of thousands of
dollars (in addition to the above costs).
District, catchment and
regional impacts
21. In addition to the on farm implications there
will be aggregated and flow on implications at a district, catchment and
regional level and these will be different from what was assumed or assessed at
the time of the BOI decision.
Social impacts
22. In addition to the economic costs associated
with mitigations to achieve the limits in Table 5.9.1D, there are likely to be
social costs (and these will be different from those considered at the time
Table 5.9.1D was considered). At an individual farmer level, these are
likely to relate mainly to the uncertainty about the level of mitigations
required to achieve the LUC limits, the ability to continue an economically
viable farm business, and the ability to employ staff (and flow on effects for
things like families, schools, community groups, viability of school bus routes
and other services able to be supported and sustained by the community).
23. Banks are likely to be reluctant to lend to
farmers who cannot comply with their LUC limits and may re-assess risk margins
or loan to valuation ratios if significant farm system changes or land use
change is required to achieve the LUC limits and that impacts on the
profitability or risk profile of the business, or the land value.
24. Being classified as a non-complying activity
is also likely to cause more stress for farmers due to the greater uncertainty
about whether the consent will be granted, the conditions imposed on the
consent and the uncertainty about whether they will remain financially viable
and resilient (in terms of being able to respond to unforeseeable events like
drought) under the conditions of the consent.
25. The social impact assessment for Horizons
(regarding farmers who need to obtain consents as
non-complying activities because they exceed the LUC limits) found that many of
those surveyed described the One Plan policy framework in terms of:[13]
a. Vulnerability
– being “in-limbo,” unable to make choices.
b. Uncertainty
– loss of control, risk, in ability to make long term decisions.
This included that banks were unwilling to lend to unconsented ventures,
and uncertainty for farmers wanting to transition to retirement or
sell their farms.
c. Anxiety
– long term state of stress, fear of forced exit.
d. Stigma
– seen as “environmentally unfriendly” and
“illegal.”
26. At a district, catchment or regional level,
the long term social impacts will likely depend on whether
alternative uses for land that cannot comply with the LUC limits (based on
Table 5.9.1D and assuming it is not updated) can be found
that can sustain the same size communities
and the same level of prosperity. There can be short term dislocation but
also long term decline and retrenchment
when intensive uses are not able to be replaced by uses that
are as productive or profitable.
27. Historic examples are hill country areas that
were prosperous during the wool boom but are not now, or communities which were
once based around pastoral farming but were converted to forestry in the
1980s. These areas now experience things like high unemployment, low
median incomes, higher crime rates and lower decile schools.
28. It is always possible that an existing land
use could be replaced with a higher value land use but this is not always the
case, and this is less likely if nitrogen in the catchment or sub-catchment is
constrained. The nitrogen constraints will affect a lot of potential land
uses, not just existing dairy or irrigated sheep and beef.
29. Any large scale land use change would likely
have significant impacts on the community and society as a whole, as it would
likely change the local population in terms of factors such as skill sets,
demographics and tenure (in terms how long people intend to live in the area
e.g. seasonal workers vs permanent, temporary accommodation vs people investing
and setting in for the long term).
