Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 13 February 2013

SUBJECT: RPS Change 5 - Appointment of Hearing Commissioners

Reason for report

1. This report seeks the Committee’s recommendations on appointments to form a Panel of accredited RMA hearing commissioners to hear submissions made to ‘Change 5.’ Change 5 is a bundle of proposed amendments to the Regional Policy Statement relating to land and freshwater management.

Background

2. Change 5 was publicly notified (ie: released and submissions invited) on 2^nd October 2012. The period for lodging submissions and further submissions has closed. 29 written submissions and 9 further submissions were received. Now that submissions have been lodged, the next phase is to hold a hearing. Hearings on Change 5 could be held as early as April 2013.

3. Staff presented a report to the Committee in November 2012 outlining the Committee’s responsibilities in recommending appointment of commissioners to hear and decide upon RMA plan hearing matters. Key points to note from that report were:

3.1. the Regional Planning Committee’s responsibilities (as set out in its Terms of Reference) include recommending to Council the membership of hearing panels to hear and decide upon submissions to proposed plan changes.

3.2. a panel may be as big (or as small) in membership as the Council chooses.

3.3. panel members must be appropriately trained and eligible (certified) commissioners, which may include members of the Regional Planning Committee.

3.4. given the scope, purpose and issues arising in Change 5, staff consider that:

3.4.1. it is not essential for the panel to have technical or scientific expertise given Change 5’s high-level policy focus; and

3.4.2. core competencies of the panel should comprise of:

· familiarity of land and water management issues in Hawke's Bay

· understanding of mana whenua resource management principles

· policy development and decision-making in RMA setting.

3.5. members of the Regional Planning Committee that are currently accredited RMA Hearing Commissioners are:

Name	Certificate expiry	Chair endorsement
Cr Ewan McGregor	30 June 2013	No
Cr Christine Scott	30 June 2013	Yes
Cr Eileen von Dadelszen	30 June 2013	Yes
Prof. Roger Maaka	31 Dec 2015	No

3.6. Mr Mike Mohi (Chairman of the Maori Committee) is also an accredited RMA hearing commissioner.

Financial and resource implications

4. Preparation of Change 5 and progressing Change 5 through the submission and hearings phases is provided for in Project 192 (‘Strategy and Planning’). Internal staff time is also already catered for within existing budgets. However, no budget provision has been made for payment to an entire panel of independent commissioners at full market rates. Subject to Council’s preferred payment of commissioner fees, no additional external expenditure budget is needed at this time.

Change 5 hearing panel selection

5. Given the matters noted above, staff consider a pragmatic approach ought to be adopted in selection of commissioners to hear and decide on submissions to RPS Change 5. In this regard, a panel of three commissioners seems appropriate. Subject to their interest and availability for hearing duties sometime in April/May, those three commissioners could be chosen from the names noted above in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6. There are insufficient numbers of committee members currently accredited to recommend appointments for a larger panel.

6. It is anticipated that the appointed commissioners would be paid for their hearing duties. At the time of publishing this report, staff were still awaiting advice from the Remuneration Authority regarding payments to RMA plan hearing commissioners who are also councillors. Payments to commissioners who are not councillors are much more clear cut. Commissioner hearing fees for non-councillors are typically payable on a time-cost basis inclusive of preparation, attendance and decision writing duties (plus travel expenses).^{^[1]}

7. Subject to advice from the Remuneration Authority, possible payments to commissioners who are councillors could take one of several forms as follows:

7.1. a standard rate per ‘meeting day’ or part thereof (ie: excluding time spent preparing for hearing); or

7.2. a standard time-cost rate for all commissioners (ie: a per hour fee for hearing preparation, attendance and post-hearing duties); or

7.3. a rate to be negotiated with each commissioner for their duties.

8. For simplicity and ease of operational management, staff prefer standardised payments to all commissioners appointed to hear and decide on Change 5.

9. These matters have been outlined in relation to the task of hearing and issuing decisions on Change 5 only. It does not automatically follow that whatever panel is appointed for Change 5 will be the same panel selected for every plan change in the future.

RMA hearing commissioner certification programme

10. By way of update, in December MfE awarded ‘Making Good Decisions’ (MGD) commissioner accreditation training programme to a new service provider (Opus Business School). Staff have contacted Opus training coordinators about the prospect of the MGD introductory programme to be hosted at a Napier venue in the coming months. To date, Opus’ coordinators have provided positive interest in offering a MGD introductory programme in Napier, but dates are still to be confirmed. The earliest dates could be mid April, otherwise sometime in July 2013.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

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

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

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA, but nevertheless, they have had opportunities to make submissions when Change 5 was publicly notified or to have made further submissions on Change 5.

11.5. Options that have been considered are limited to the procedures prescribed within the RMA. Options included appointing panel membership now or at a later date. The option of not appointing a Panel at all was not able to be considered. Options regarding fee types for Commissioner payments have also been considered.

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

11.7. 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 because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on Change 5 and to make further submissions in some instances.

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee recommends Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance 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 due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Appoint the following persons as Commissioners to hear and decide on submissions relating to RPS Change 5:

2.1. Commissioner ‘A’: (Chair)

2.2. Commissioner ‘B’:

2.3. Commissioner ‘C’:

3. Agree that fees payable to the appointed Commissioners be as follows:

3.1. $265.00 per ‘meeting day’ or part thereof for time spent attending the hearing; OR

3.2. $ per hour for time spent preparing and attending the hearing, including time spent deliberating and writing decisions; and

3.3. a travel allowance of $0.74 per kilometre travelled by the commissioner in fulfilling their duties.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 13 February 2013

SUBJECT: Heretaunga Strategy Update

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on progress of the Heretaunga Strategy being developed to inform the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Land and Water Plan Change (“the Plan Change”). The focus of the update is on the stakeholder engagement process.

Background

2. At the 05 September 2012 Regional Planning Committee meeting, the Committee was informed of the Plan Change and its alignment with other Council documents (Long Term Plan, Land and Water Management Strategy, Regional Policy Statement).

3. The Plan Change will be an integrated approach to managing the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments (colloquially termed the “TANK” catchments, see map in Appendix 1).

4. The Committee was informed that a stakeholder engagement process would be used to assist Council with its Plan Change decision making. Council staff are being supported in the stakeholder process by researchers and facilitators from the Cawthron Institute, Landcare Research and NIWA.

Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Land and Water Plan Change

5. The Plan Change is a significant piece of work as it affects a large number of water abstractors (approximately 2000, many which expire in 2015) and will set the management regime (quantity and quality) for the main rivers (Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri and tributaries) and aquifers. The Plan Change will also address stormwater management and will take into account the receiving environment including estuaries and the near shore marine area. The TANK area includes the entire Heretaunga Plains and the towns of Hastings, Napier and Havelock North.

6. Changes to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) will need to:

6.1. incorporate a review of the water allocation framework (allocation limits and minimum flows)

6.2. set water quality limits

6.3. incorporate policy and any associated land management rules to maintain or meet water quality targets over time.

Stakeholder Engagement Process

7. Because the Plan Change will affect such a large proportion of the Hawke’s Bay community, the process will require a considerable amount of community engagement. To manage this, Council has established a stakeholder group to identify and deliberate on the key issues.

8. The Land and Water Forum (LAWF, established in 2009 to find “A Common Direction for Water Management in New Zealand”) released its third report in November 2012. With regard to water governance and the planning process, the Forum noted that “an improved policy and plan-making process should emphasise the importance of getting the plan right the first time. Issues, relevant information and options should be on the table as early as possible. Trade-offs should be identified, made transparent and resolved collaboratively wherever possible.” The Forum felt this was the best approach “to produce quality outcomes that are resilient, durable and foster community commitment.”

9. The TANK group has been established to address the issues raised by LAWF. The group consists of 35 members representing agricultural and horticultural sectors, government agencies, environmental and community interest groups and mana whenua / tangata whenua (see Appendix 2 for full list of participants and whom they represent).

The first meeting of the TANK group was held on 09 October 2012 and a further two meetings have been held (Meeting 4 on February 12). Because of the diversity of the group (both in interests and knowledge) the group has had a reasonably steep learning curve on the relevant planning framework (e.g. Resource Management Act, National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, Regional Plan, and Regional Policy Statement) and scientific data. Science staff from HBRC have presented information on the surface water and groundwater interactions, water quality and quantity, and ecology of estuaries and streams in the TANK catchments.

10. All members of the TANK group have had the chance to put forward and discuss their Values and Objectives for each of the catchments. There are a number of things which the Regional Council manages which can be altered to meet these Objectives such as minimum flows in rivers and water quality limits. These Management Variables have been identified by the group. To assess whether Objectives are likely to be met, Performance Measures have been agreed upon. Examples in Table below.

Value	Objective/s	Performance measure	Units	Management variable/s
Swimming	Improve conditions for swimming Improve/protect public health	E. coli counts	Days exceeding limit for contact recreation	Riparian management & stock exclusion
Safe drinking water	Maintain public potable water supply	Number of breaches of the potable drinking water standards per year	Breaches of standards/year	Funding for community drinking water. Groundwater and surface water nutrient limits. Riparian management & stock exclusion
Mauri	Restore, maintain, enhance and protect mauri	Mauri as assessed using Mātauranga Māori	Could be a constructed scale (e.g. Poor, Fair, Good). Would need clear criteria to assess policy options in advance. Must be agreed by mana whenua group.	Cultural health index or similar
Food production	Increase output of primary production sector	Water availability for irrigation	Weekly and seasonal water allocation (currently defined by difference between summer 7-day Q95 and minimum flow)	Surface water flow regime. Water allocation (surface and groundwater). Water storage

11. Influence Diagrams have been used to help identify the most important Management Variables which may need to be changed (or stay the same) to meet different Objectives. These Influence Diagrams are being used by NIWA to build a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) which is a tool for assessing the effects of certain decisions on different objectives (e.g. effect of raising minimum flows on aquatic species (or irrigators)). Example BBN for mana whenua / tangata whenua objectives.

12. TANK outputs to date:

12.1. Terms of Reference confirmed. The TOR notes that the aim of TANK is to prepare a document with an agreed policy response (as well as any areas where agreement could not be reached) for presentation to the Regional Planning Committee (“who ultimately makes recommendations on the plan change to Council”) by June 2013. The TOR also notes that the three Councillors who are members of the TANK group will support any consensus decision reached but recognise that they cannot speak on behalf of the Treaty Claimant Group representatives of the Regional Planning Committee.

12.2. Member representation confirmed (i.e. which sector, group or agency that individuals represent)

12.3. Values, Objectives, Management variables, Performance Measures recorded (and partially agreed)

12.4. Influence Diagrams and BBNs constructed.

13. During Meeting 4 (12 February), the major ecological, economic, cultural and social factors likely to be affected by the group’s decisions will be discussed. Presentations from TANK members and external experts will be used to build the broad context so that the group can better understand the possible consequences of their decisions.

14. The meetings to date have proven to be very productive and it is expected that by Meeting 5 (09 April) the group will be ready to assess policy options with an understanding of their consequences. Meetings 6 and 7 will refine these policies and it is hoped that by June the group will be ready to make policy recommendations to Council.

15. A few challenges have arisen:

15.1. It is important that TANK participants are there as representatives (e.g. of a particular sector) but getting a formal mandate has been difficult for some. This has also been difficult for some of the mana whenua / tangata whenua representatives but it is felt this has largely been resolved.

15.2. In the initial stages it was difficult to determine who from mana whenua / tangata whenua needed to be represented and there was poor representation at the first meeting. To resolve this, a mana whenua group was established where TANK matters (and other things) are discussed in between TANK meetings. Values, Objectives, Performance Measures and Management Variables have been produced by this group.

15.3. The disparity in levels of knowledge (e.g. ecology, planning, farming) has caused a few issues with some wanting to progress more quickly and others wanting to slow down. An example of this is the policy and planning framework e.g. RMA, NPS, RRMP, RPS which can be a real headache for people not familiar with these documents. Small groups and one-on-one sessions have helped to bring people up to speed.

15.4. Stakeholder engagement is time-consuming and concern has been raised at the level of commitment required in particular from those members who are on other groups led by Council (e.g. Ruataniwha Stakeholder Groups, Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group).

15.5. The scope of the Plan Change is wide-ranging and there will be significant demand on Council staff to produce the required information (including scientific and economic) by the proposed timeframes of June 2013 (TANK recommendations) and 2014 (draft Plan Change).

Decision Making Process

16. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the report titled “Heretaunga Strategy Update”.

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	Tank map
2 View	List of TANK Representatives

List of TANK Representatives

Attachment 2

TANK Group Representation (confirmed 18 December 2012)

NAME	ORGANISATION
Adele Whyte	Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc.
Aki Paipper / Margie Maguire	Mana whenua, Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki
Brett Gilmore	Panpac/HB Forestry
Bruce Mackay / Nikola Bass	Heinz-Watties
Chris Staite	Dept of Conservation
Christine Scott	HBRC Councillor
Dale Moffatt	Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga
Joella Brown	Te Roopu Kaitiaki o to Wai Maori
Diane Vesty / Leon Stallard	HB Fruitgrowers Assn
Eileen von Dadelszen	HBRC Councillor
Wayne Ormsby	Mana Ahuriri Iwi Inc.
Hugh Ritchie	Federated Farmers
Ivan Knauf	HB Dairies, Patoka Dairy farmers (+liaising with DairyNZ and Fonterra)
Jenny Mauger	Nga Kaitiaki o te Awa a Ngaruoro
Jerf van Beek	Twyford Irrigators Group
Johan Ehlers	Napier City Council
John Cheyne	Te Taiao HB Environment Forum
Marei Apatu	Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga
Mark Clews	Hastings District Council
Mike Glazebrook	Ngaruroro Water Users Group
Mike Butcher	Pipfruit NZ
Morry Black	Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc.
Neil Eagles	Forest and Bird
Neil Kirton	HBRC Councillor
Ngaio Tiuka	Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc.
Nick Jones	HB District Health Board
Peter McIntosh	Fish and Game Hawke's Bay
Peter Paku	Mana Whenua
Phil Holden	Gimblett Gravels Grape Growers Association
Revell Wise	Maori Trustee
Scott Lawson	HB Vege growers
Vaughan Cooper	Royal Forest and Bird Soc (Hastings/Havelock)
Xan Harding	HB Winegrowers
tbc	Chamber of Commerce

[1] By way of example, in May 2010 for Plan Change 2 (Air Quality) hearings, fee payable to the then HBRC Hearings Committee Maori representative was $68 per hour for time spent preparing for and attending hearing, plus travel allowance at $0.70 per kilometre.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.