Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee

Date: Wednesday 11 March 2015

Time: 9.00 am

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 Environment and Services Committee held on 10 December 2014

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 10 December 2014

5. Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 9

Decision Items

7. Upper Tukituki Flood and Drainage Scheme Review Project 11

8. Hawea Park 15

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. Verbal Update on Progress of Upgrading Awanui Stream Stopbanks

10. CHB Wastewater Update 21

11. March 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update 23

12. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 29

Follow ups from meeting on 10 December 2014

Attachment 1

Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings

10 December 2014

	Follow-up/Request	Person Responsible	Status/Comment
1	Circulate copy of the Works Group presentation	M Hulena	Copies distributed to Councillors with Committee minutes
2	CHB Wastewater update	W Wright and I Maxwell	Update to be provided at 11 March 2015 E&S meeting
3	Ongoing discussion with Corrections Department re riparian planting	M Adye	Draft letter to Department of Corrections to be drafted by Mike Adye following discussion with Councillor Barker.
4	Circulate copy of the PCE report on sea level rise	M Hulena	Link to PCE report emailed to Committee members on 18 December 2014
5	Resource consents for bottling plants	I Maxwell	Discussed at 25 February 2015 Council Meeting. A brief email providing update to Councillors is attached. A more fulsome report on water use to be provided at a future meeting.

From: Iain Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:13 a.m.
To: Fenton Wilson; Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe; Debbie Hewitt; Peter Beaven; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford
Cc: Liz Lambert; Monique Hulena
Subject: Water bottling

Hi all

We will prepare a more detailed paper on water use for a future meeting but as I indicated this email provides some background information on water bottling in particular that you may find useful.

The consents team have re-assessed the consent numbers and potential allocated volume for the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System (i.e. unconfined and confined aquifers) as currently defined in the RRMP. This doesn’t pick up some of the smaller aquifers (e.g. Poraiti, Ohiti) and river valley takes. Please note that the aquifer extent might change in the future depending on the outcome of Heretaunga groundwater modelling work.

Because not all consented takes have annual volumes, we have had to make some assumptions to convert the weekly volumes into annual volumes:

Assumptions:

- Irrigation take annual volume where not already specified= weekly volume x 16 weeks

- Frost takes annual volume = 30 hours at the consented rate of take

- Industrial/potable etc. where not specified annual volume = weekly volume x 40 weeks

Total allocation (i.e. including stream depleting takes) = ~ 151 million m3/year

Total groundwater takes = 124 million m3/year

Total stream depleting takes = 26 million m3/year

Total no. of consents (incl stream depleting takes) = 1,687

Total no. groundwater consents = 1,512

Total no. stream depleting takes = 175

Summary by use, note that bottling as a use falls into the potable and this includes the municipal supplies:

cid:image006.png@01D050DD.0819D6D0

There are currently 7 consents within the Heretaunga groundwater zone that have water bottling as a purpose (they may also use water for irrigation). The combined allocation for these is approximately 3 million m3/yr or about 2% of the current allocated volume.

Hopefully this is enough for now, please let me know if there is any other information you need.

Regards

Iain

Iain Maxwell│Group Manager Resource Management

HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
159 Dalton Street | Private Bag 6006 | Napier 4142
Ph (06) 833-8011 | Mob (021) 274 6977 | Fax (06) 835-3601

iain@hbrc.govt.nz | www.hbrc.govt.nz

cid:image001.png@01CC9EB7.59BF1300

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, delete it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Refer to the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Subject: Upper Tukituki Flood and Drainage Scheme Review Project

Reason for Report

1. The Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme was established under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941. The Scheme protects a large portion of the Ruataniwha Plains, including Waipukurau and Waipawa, from frequent flooding. Under the Scheme 76km of stopbanks, 112km of river channel, and 209km of river berms are maintained. The estimated replacement value of Scheme assets is $28.8M.

2. The area covered by the Scheme is shown on the attached map.

3. The Scheme was significantly upgraded in the late 1980’s following a detailed study of the river. The annual work programme associated with the Scheme has focused on maintenance of the Scheme flood capacity. This programme of works is funded 82.5% from targeted rates and 17.5% from general funding.

4. Targeted rates are allocated to land protected by the Scheme according to a classification system established initially under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.

5. A number of concerns have been raised by ratepayers over the past 12 months regarding the fairness of the way rates are allocated compared to the benefit they receive. Staff have commissioned a review of the Scheme which confirmed that there have been significant changes since the establishment of the classification in both land use and technology (used for assessing areas of benefit) and that a review of the Scheme is justified.

6. This briefing paper, and attachment, outlines the proposed review process, and seeks Council agreement to the review being undertaken.

Comment

7. Attached is a draft brief for the development of a new differential rating system for the Upper Tukituki Scheme. This brief has been prepared by consultant John Philpott and Associates Ltd who have undertaken a number of Scheme reviews – mainly for Horizons Regional Council.

8. This brief sets out the proposed scope of the review.

9. Any system for calculating the rates liability for a property which benefits from a flood control scheme, should be based on:

9.1. The productive potential of each property, or parts of each property

9.2. The level of benefit received by each property or each part of a property, with that benefit based on the reduced flood risk as well as any benefit or disbenefit received as a result of scheme works or other issues associated with the Scheme.

9.3. The cost of maintaining and/or improving the Scheme over time

10. The proposed Scheme review requires that all of these aspects are reviewed.

11. The review will need to be concluded through a Special Consultative Procedure undertaken in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. The review is likely to result in some changes to Upper Tukituki Scheme targeted rates payable by individual properties, and will be of significant interest to ratepayers to the Scheme.

12. Staff propose that a meeting be held in the near future in Central Hawke’s Bay to advise the Scheme ratepayers of HBRC’s intention to undertake a review of the Scheme. Staff would welcome the opportunity of working with a group representing the community as the review process progresses.

13. Staff expect that the review will take the remainder of the 2015 calendar year to complete and expect that the Special Consultative Process would be held early in 2016, with the rating system agreed being implemented in the 2016/17 financial year.

14. Financial and Resource Implications

15. There is a significant amount of work required to undertake the review. Staff believe that the cost of this work can be met through existing budgets, however are unable to confirm this until proposals for work necessary to assess the productive potential of land has been received and assessed.

16. Staff will bring any issues regarding funding necessary to complete this project to the attention of Council.

Decision Making Process

17. 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:

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

17.2. The decision to undertake a review does not require the use of the special consultative procedure, however as stated in the briefing paper staff propose that a special consultative procedure be used to finalise the outcome of the review.

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

17.4. The persons potentially affected by this decision are the ratepayers who contribute to the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme.

17.5. Options will be considered as part of the review.

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

17.7. 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.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services 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. Agrees to proceed with a review of the Upper Tukituki Scheme and the development of a new differential rating Scheme that will provide a fair and equitable rating system to fund 82.5% of the cost of maintaining and improving the Upper Tukituki Scheme.

3. Commits to a Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 prior to implementing the outcome of the review.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Subject: Hawea Park

Reason for Report

1. This report is to inform and update Council on progress with landowner negotiations relating to the Pakowhai / Pakiaka area at the junction of Te Karamu Stream, Raupare Stream and Clive River. Negotiations have reached a stage with Māori landowners (historically linked with the area) where creation of a community place, to be known as Hawea Park, is an agreeable solution to resolve all the associated issues.

2. Progress leading up to this point will be outlined by staff at the ES Committee meeting and salient points are included in this paper

3. The decision being sought is approval from Council to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to enter into commitments with parties associated with the land in question and Ngāti Hawea, to achieve joint ownership of land within the proposed Hawea park area.

Background

4. This project is part of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme, Special Projects (Clive River) and links with project 296-Karamu and Tributaries.

5. The Pakowhai / Pakiaka area is of particular significance to Māori, especially the descendants of Ngāti Hawea. Staff presented an “Update on Karamu Enhancement Work” (paper to Council) on 13 August 2014 in which this matter was discussed. A summary of the relevant points of the paper is reproduced below for ease of reference.

5.1. Part of the physical construction works the Clive / Karamu involves removal of the floodgates at Pakowhai and widening the channel above the floodgates. A favourable opportunity to purchase land on the right bank of the Karamu Stream (from PPCS) was carried out early in the project to enable the widening to take place, sometime in the future. The bulk of this widening will be carried out (once HDC has resource consent finalised) through an agreement reached with HDC as part of the Whakatu Arterial Link Road, using the excavated soil for the proposed bridge approach filling.

5.2. Negotiations have been ongoing over the removal of the floodgates and carrying out work around the Pakiaka urupa. This is a culturally significant area and past grievances over the mishandling of sensitive burial areas still linger. Agreement in principle to carry out flood control works has now been reached subject to the purchase of the link road surplus land provision for an alternative urupa. Negotiations with the landowner and HDC are continuing as is planning for this area. With the goodwill of all involved the Pakowhai area provides an exciting regional development opportunity (as indicated in the Te Karamu report) that provides a link with Pakowhai Country Park together with being able to highlight some of the Māori and early European history in the area. This location is rich in history with some wonderful stories associated with the area.

5.3. Council resolved to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to purchase some land in the vicinity of the confluence of the Karamu and Raupare Streams to enable the facilitation of the removal of the old Karamu flood gate structure, to provide for the possible expansion of the Pakowhai Regional Park, and potentially to enable an area to be set aside for an urupa; with 70% of the funding being sourced from the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Rivers, and 30% from the community facilities borrowing provision.

6. Negotiations have now reached a stage where the Ngāti Hawea landowners agree in principle to the proposed works, new urupa and creation of a community park, subject to the all land being in the joint ownership of HBRC and Ngāti Hawea.

7. The condition is an interesting one, probably the first of its kind in New Zealand. Staff have sought advice and believe that all land in the park area that is controlled by HBRC and previously taken for flood control works can be changed to joint ownership. The name of the new park is to be called Hawea Park.

8. Of course, all is not straightforward and there are several matters that need to be considered and worked through in order for this to happen. A scope of work has been developed to provide a process to achieve joint title. This is outlined below.

Scope of Work (Summary)

9. There are seven parcels of land, six (parcels 1,2,3,5,6,7 in figure below) were acquired under the Public Works Act and one (parcel 4) is held as a local Purpose Reserve for Soil Conservation and River Control purposes.

10. In addition to the above land the proposed realignment and shifting of the Karamu Stream will need to be addressed. As will the ownership of the land proposed to be purchased from HDC, surplus to the requirements for the proposed Whakatu Arterial Link road. It would probably make sense to have all the HBRC titles under joint ownership for the entire park boundary. This may require further discussion.

11. Although we have preliminary advice on the status of the land parcels, this will need to be confirmed. It is important to ensure that HBRC holds the land in fee simple interest and that there are no Crown derived reserves. If there is a Crown interest this adds another layer of difficulty, but we will receive advice on how to revoke this if necessary.

12. Properties will require Section 40 Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) clearance in order for HBRC to ‘dispose’ of part of the land to Ngāti Hawea. The disposal of part of the ownership triggers the offer back obligations under the PWA.

13. The impact of joint ownership and the management structure may impact upon HBRC’s continued ability to apply its legislative and regulatory powers. A clear management plan will be required to address this. A plan similar to that developed for Bridge Pa recently could form part of the solution.

14. It is possible that not all parcels will be able to be exempt from offer back requirements under the PWA and therefore may require being offered back to the former owner before disposal or a half share can be actioned. It is understood that there may be reasonable grounds in this instance on which an exemption may be justified.

15. Parcel 4 (see figure) is a special case as the underlying land is Crown Land under the Reserves Act 1977 and HBRC will require fee simple ownership before joint ownership can be achieved. Agreement is required with Department of Conservation.

16. Once the Section 40 clearance has been confirmed and the Reserve Land transferred to HBRC then it can declare the seven parcels of land surplus to requirements and dispose the half share to Ngāti Hawea.

17. A formal agreement will be required for how the ownership structure and management of the park will operate and assign appropriate authority, power, responsibility and liability accordingly. This agreement needs to be in place before any transfer occurs and certainly before HBRC declares the land surplus to its requirements in order to dispose of the half share.

Additional Matters

18. River Diversion. HBRC will need to specify the exact nature of the ongoing rights and powers of using the land for river diversion in terms of the joint ownership agreement and being satisfied with those powers in terms of being sufficient to meet HBRC statutory responsibilities.

19. HBRC’s Powers and Authority. HBRC will need to investigate and satisfy itself that jointly owning land and using it as envisaged is authorised under HBRC’s powers and statutory authority as a regional council under the Local Government Act, Soil Conservation and Rovers Control Act and any other Act. This may not be an issue if the purpose is clearly articulated and any agreement still allows HBRC sufficient powers. In other words the park structure must allow for the use of the land to still be held for river control purposes as a public work.

20. Old bed of Ngaruroro River. The diversion of the Karamu Stream will require HBRC to determine how to deal with the old bed of the Ngaruroro River and or Karamu Stream when it becomes dry or is infilled. It could simply remain as a wetland or overflow channel and simply leave as riverbed and administer under statutory river control powers. However if it was to be permanently dry then it needs to be acquired for river control purposes, possibly before diversion occurs and half share transferred to Ngāti Hawea.

21. Land surplus to HDC requirements. The Heads of Agreement (23 October 2014) between HBRC and HDC provides for the transfer to be either under the Public Works Act 1981 or by transfer under the Land Transfer Act 1952. Either way HDC are acquiring the land first and foremost under the Public Works Act and on transfer to HBRC the Section 40 PWA obligations will follow.

22. Rangitane Road. The southern part of Rangitane Road and crossing (floodgates) is no longer used and has been closed for a number of years. Discussion will need to be had with HDC over status and ownership change.

Financial and Resource Implications

23. This work is already budgeted for as part of Project 288, Heretaunga Plains Special Projects. Consultants specialising in crown property have been engaged to provide advice and relevant documentation up to signing stage.

24. Staff resources have been provided for in the project as this work has been ongoing

Decision Making Process

1. 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:

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

(b) The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

(d) The persons affected by this decision are hapū / whānau of Ngāti Hawea and ratepayers in the area concerned.

(e) Options that have been considered include discussions and hui over a number of years with hapū.

(f) The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

(g) Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the ‘Hawea Park’ report.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2. 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.

3. Endorses the approach staff have taken to date and delegates authority to the Chief Executive to enter into commitments with parties associated with the land in question and Ngāti Hawea, to achieve joint ownership of land within the proposed Hawea park area.

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 March 2015

Subject: CHB Wastewater Update

Reason for Report

1. This report is to provide an update on the progress of assisting Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to rectify the problems surrounding the discharge of treated wastewater from their Waipawa and Waipukurau wastewater treatment facilities.

Background

2. The Municipal wastewater treatment plants situated at Waipawa and Waipukurau have resource consents to discharge treated municipal sewage. Those discharges make their way to the Tukituki River.

3. Those resource consents allow for a certain number of limit exceedences over a 12 month period, to remain compliant, however, sampling on the 18 December 2014 determined that the plants were in breach of their respective resource consents.

4. Abatement notices were served on Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to rectify the situation. Those abatement notices outlined an agreed process and timeframe to rectify the situation and to bring the discharges in line with the resource consents granted.

5. CHBDC are employing a two-pronged approach to addressing the issue. The first is to install Lamella clarifiers, that will remove excess organic matter that is preventing the sand filters from operating correctly. The second is to continue working to find other ways to improve the operation of the plants. The other options are expanded on later in this paper.

6. A secondhand Lamella clarifier has been purchased and is in the process of being refitted for installation at the Waipawa plant. The abatement notice requires this to be installed and operational by the 8 May 2015. An independent report on the results of this installation is then to be delivered to HBRC by 8 July 2015.

7. On confirmation of the performance of this clarifier at Waipawa, another Lamella clarifier will be built and installed at the Waipukurau plant. The final date for installment is the 19 June 2015 with a similar independent report provided to HBRC by 19 August 2015.

8. Alongside this process, CHBDC are undertaking investigations to determine whether or not a small number of point source discharges to their sewage system may be contributing adversely to their plant operation. There is no confirmation at this point but the investigations are continuing.

9. Additionally, further modifications at the Waipukurau plant have resulted in an improvement in the ammoniacal nitrogen concentration discharge, attributed to an increase in the efficiency of the curtains installed in the ponds to aid bacterial growth.

10. At the date of this report, the Waipawa Lamella clarifier is on target for completion and transport to Waipawa. Site works at the Waipawa site are well advanced in preparation for the start of installation by 27 March 2015.

11. The supplier of the new Waipukurau Lamella clarifier has provided a quote and the order has been placed by CHBDC. There is a 10 week delivery timeframe [air freight].

12. Design work is underway for preparation of the Waipukurau site for the clarifier.

13. There are estimated timeframes of 2 days for supplier on site assembly at Waipukurau and 1 week for CHBDC to install the remainder of the system.

14. There has been some comment made to the effect that an abatement notice is not a sufficiently strong course of action being employed by HBRC. An abatement notice is an official legal document issued under section 322, of the Resource Management Act and is enforceable by law. It is more than an ‘angry letter’ from HBRC. A failure to adhere to the requirements of an abatement notice is punishable by either an infringement fine of $750 or on conviction by way of prosecution of 2 years imprisonment or $300,000 fine for a person or a $600,000 fine for an organisation. If the offending is continuous there is provision for a further fine of $10,000 for every day the offence continues.

Decision Making Process

15. 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 Environmental Services Committee receives the report.

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 March 2015

SUBJECT: March 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 30 November 2014 and 1 March 2015.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project (Project 192) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4. The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5. 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 Environment and Services Committee receives the March 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 28 February 2015)
2	Statutory Advocacy Map

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 28 February 2015)

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 28 February 2015)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
23 October 2014	HDC	1	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to subdivide part of the property at 996 State Highway 2, Whirinaki into 15 residential sites.	Applicant The Evans Family Trust Agent Cardno	HDC decision issued, subject to appeal	28 February 2015 · HDC held a hearing on 15^th December 2014 and HDC issued its decision on 19^thJanuary 2015. HDC decided to grant consent subject to various conditions and consequently declined HBRC’s submission. · HBRC lodged an appeal to the Environment Court against the HDC decision on 12^th February 2015. · HBRC’s submission and subsequent appeal opposes the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. The precedent of HDC’s decision is also a concern. 30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Monday 24^th November 2014. · A submission was lodged opposing the application. A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions
18 July 2014	HDC	2	Notice of Requirement A Notice of Requirement for the Whakatu Arterial Link project to provide a road between Havelock North, State Highway 2 North, Pakowhai Road, the Expressway and the Port of Napier.	HDC	Notified HDC decision pending	28 February 2015 · HDC held a hearing on 2^nd -3^rd February 2015. HBRC and Regional Transport Committee appeared at the hearing in support of the Notice of Requirement. 30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Wednesday 20^th August 2014. · A submission was lodged supporting the Notice of Requirement and in support of the supporting submission lodged by the Regional Transport Committee. Both submissions can be found at HBRC Submissions · Details of the application can be found here Notice of Requirement
5 December 2013	NCC	3	Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan. A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Notified NCC hearing pending	28 February 2015 · Submissions closed on Friday 14^th February 2014. The HBRC submission can be found at HBRC Submissions · Details of Hearings timetables are yet to be publicised by Napier City Council.
8 November 2013	HDC	4	Proposed Hastings District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.	HDC	Notified HDC hearings in progress	28 February 2015 · HDC are continuing hearings on a topic by topic basis. HDC’s hearings programme scheduled to run through remainder of 2014 into first half of 2015. · The HBRC Submission and Further Submission on the HDC Plan Review can be found here HBRC Submissions http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC Document Library/20140214 Submission HDC District Plan.pdf
1 August 2013	NA	5	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)	Notified High Court hearing pending	28 February 2015 · Applicant has filed revised details of the subject area and purpose of the application. Next step as directed by the High Court is for the Applicant to prepare evidence and circulate to parties. High Court yet to set hearing date. · Council has opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought. Submissions were also made by the Crown and Gisborne District Council, both seeking clearer specificity of the scope and nature of the orders being applied for. · On 26^th Sept 2014, the High Court released a timetable for the provision of evidence by the applicant and other interested parties. The filing of evidence is expected to be complete by early 2015. No High Court hearing date has been set yet.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.