Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Date: Wednesday 29 July 2015

Time: 9.00 am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 24 June 2015

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 24 June 2015

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items not on the Agenda 11

Decision Items

7. Affixing of Common Seal 13

8. Karamu Catchment - In-stream Flows for Oxygen 15

9. Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy 23

10. Notice of Motion from Councillor Peter Beaven 27

11. Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry 29

12. RWSS Resource Consents Legal Opinion 35

13. HBRIC Ltd and RWSS June-July 2015 Update 41

14. Valuation of HBRIC Ltd 51

Information or Performance Monitoring

15. 2015 Regional Residents' Survey 63

16. Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through August 2015 67

17. Minor Items not on the Agenda 73

18. Chairman's Monthly Report - July 2015 (to be tabled)

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

19. Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 24 June 2015 75

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1	Report from the 16 June 2015 Maori Committee meeting	Give Pataka project presentation to RPC	E Powell	Presented to iwi representatives who attended the RPC pre-meeting workshop on 15 July.
2	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Explanation of PC6 rules in relation to DIN and how those are applied to resource consents	I Maxwell	Legal opinion in relation to RWSS consent conditions on today’s agenda
3	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Update on Te Mata Mushrooms enforcement action	I Maxwell	Update was provided as part of item 14 at the meeting on the same day (24 June)
4	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Outline of Otane sewerage discharge consents process	I Maxwell	Consents were lodged 1 July 2015 and have been accepted under section 88 but the consent package is now under review through Beca.
5	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Investigate opportunities for central government ‘primary sector regional resource research centre’ funding	M Adye	Development of a proposal currently underway. HBRC providing supporting role, but opportunity aimed at private sector.
6	Adoption of the 2015-25 LTP	Document to be finalised and published	CE	Published to HBRC website 3 July and hard copies for distribution 10 July
7	Adoption of the 2015-25 LTP	Council’s decisions on submissions to be distributed to submitters	CE/Chairman	Emails & letters sent 9-15 July

Follow-ups from Previous Regional Council Meetings

Attachment 1

LGOIMA Requests Received between 18 June and 21 July 2015

Status	Received	Response Due	Requested By	Request Summary
Completed	9/07/2015	6/08/2015	Ian McIntosh	(1) How does HBRC justify treating the Kaikoura Stream (also called Te Aute Drain) as the "receiving water" for the effluent from the Otane WWTP? (2) Given that the CHBDC application and reports indicate the effluent from the Otane WWTP sinks into groundwater, shouldn't the Papanui Aquifer be acknowledged as the "receiving water"?
Completed	7/07/2015	4/08/2015	Steffan Browing MP	•What guidelines does the Council follow for the application of glyphosate herbicide on Council owned land? •What other weed control methods does the Council use? •Does the Council limit the use of glyphosate in areas that children play? •Does the Council use steam weeding and if so what percentage of weed control is steam weeding? •Does the Council have the equipment to carry out steam weeding? •What quantity of glyphosate herbicide does the Council purchase each year?
Completed	6/07/2015	3/08/2015	Mike McNab, First Union	the Regional Council’s file on TMT Kiln at Pan Pac
Active	3/07/2015	31/07/2015	Peter Fowler, RadioNZ	1. a copy of GNS Sciences (2012a) and (2012b) 2. a copy of Middlemis (2012) of 20 June 2012. 3. all correspondence from HBRC staff and/or its consultants when forwarding GNS Science's (2012a) and (2012b) to Mr Middlemis. 4. In Mr Maxwell's statement contained in Helen's email 24/6 he quotes from Hugh Middlemis's letter ... I can find no reference to Mr Middlemis saying "My initial response is that GNS are being very academic and aspirational." ... Can you please explain this? 5. the full correspondence between HBRC staff and/or consultants with Mr Middlemis, up to and after the letter of 23 October.
Active	3/07/2015	31/07/2015	Pauline Doyle	re the map you gave me in March 2014 A better map which shows whether [or not] the final oil permit area excludes the Ruataniwha aquifer system
Completed	2/07/2015	30/07/2015	Marty Sharpe, DomPost Reporter	Follow-up request last year re dairy prosecutions/abatement notices etc. 1. how many prosecutions, abatement notices and infringement notices HBRC issued for dairy effluent discharges in the year ended June 30, 2015. 2. Names of all prosecuted parties, charges faced & outcomes of court action. Plus following info on inspections HBRC makes of dairy farms. 3. how many dairy farms within HB region. 4. how many dairy farms are inspected each year (ie all of them, half of them, a percentage of them) 5. how the inspections are carried out (ie by foot, by helicopter, or other means) 6. does HBRC advise the farm owner before inspection? If so, how far in advance?
Completed	2/07/2015	30/07/2015	Wayne Bicknell	1/ What affects various out falls into HB have on inshore fish stocks? 2/What affect does phosphate, nitrogen, mercury or any other pollutants flushed down various rivers entering HB have on inshore fish stocks ? 3/Sharp decline in paddle crab population along Westshore/Bayview coast. Could this be related to Napier Port dredging or NCC beach renourishment? - dredging dumpings & renourishment material could be destroying habitat? Any environmental impact Info presented with the resource consent applications in this regard? 4/ Any info on the impact of river sediment washed into HB and its estuaries? Link between sedimentation and declining inshore fish stocks?
Completed	2/07/2015	27/07/2015	Paul Bailey	in what month and year the dam question started being asked in interviews
Completed	29/06/2015	27/07/2015	Ian McIntosh	1. a copy of the current Resource Consent for the Otane WWTP 2. the date that consent was granted 3. Were any public hearings/ environment court hearings held before the grant of the consent 4. Were any legal changes made to the conditions of the original consent, and (a) what were the changed/new conditions? (b) when did they come into force?
Completed	29/06/2015	24/07/2015	Derek Williams	1 Any ground water tests around the overland drain sewage discharges from the Otane plant into the open drain" 2 Are there unlisted primary treatment septic tanks discharging to ground in the area seaward from the open drain then swinging to the East towards the Papaniui Stream discharge to the Tuki with all of that area including under the Papanui Stream from Middle Road bridge to the Tuki confluence" 3 confirm water test can determine human body waste contamination from animals & whether HBRC identifies this

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Affixing of Common Seal

Comment

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 279

DP 10775

CT B2/1134

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 136

DP 2172

CT 55/213

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 87

DP 12780

CT E1/747

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 105

DP 10572

CT E2/395

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 61

DP 14451

CT G2/749

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 198

DP 10728

CT C2/1017

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.7 Lot 186

DP 13217

CT E4/434

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.8 Lot 69

DP 13693

CT F2/11296

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

3859

3689

3860

3861

3862

3863

3864

3685

3686

3687

3688

3690

3691

19 June 2015

3 July 2015

19 June 2015

26 June 2015

2 July 2015

1 July 2015

3 July 2015

15 July 2015

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided

2.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

That 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. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Karamu Catchment - In-stream Flows for Oxygen

Reason for Report

1. This report investigates the relationship between stream flow and dissolved oxygen available in the stream for fish. This information is intended to inform limit selection (e.g. minimum flows) by the TANK (Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu) Stakeholder Group, which was assembled for the Greater Heretaunga Plan Change.

Background

2. Fish and other stream life depend on having sufficient freshwater to survive. Regional Council manages how much water can be abstracted in an effort to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our streams.

3. For example, there is a minimum flow of 300 L/s set for the Raupare Stream, which affords a level of protection to whitebait and eels inhabiting the stream. When stream flow drops below 300 L/s, some Twyford irrigators are required to stop water use until higher flows return. That minimum flow will be revisited for the Greater Heretaunga Plan Change, and this report will help inform that process.

4. Fish and stream invertebrates depend on oxygen to survive. Reduced flow can reduce dissolved oxygen in low-gradient streams that support high abundances of aquatic plants, like the Karamu. This report examines the impact of reduced stream flow on dissolved oxygen for three sites in the Karamu catchment (Raupare, Irongate and Awanui streams).

Discussion

5. The Awanui Stream experienced 77 days of overnight anoxia (no oxygen) during the 2013 drought, coinciding with a period of flows less than 50 L/s. The lack of dissolved oxygen concentrations created stressful conditions for biota in the Awanui Stream.

6. The Raupare Stream recorded higher dissolved oxygen concentration than the Awanui, however, the lowest oxygen concentrations coincided with the lowest flows. As well as higher concentrations of dissolved oxygen, the Raupare Stream also had healthier macroinvertebrate communities than the Awanui.

7. Reduced flows can exacerbate oxygen stress for fish and invertebrates in the Awanui, Raupare and Irongate Streams, and this was confirmed by the observed decline in oxygen with flow and by model predictions. The observations and modeling both indicate that dissolved oxygen is a critical issue to consider when managing flows of these streams to safeguard their life-supporting capacity.

8. The flows predicted to achieve alternative oxygen limits are presented for each site in the technical report (“Karamu catchment: In-stream flows for oxygen” HBRC Report No. RM 13/25 – 4559).

9. Results of the technical report were presented to TANK stakeholders (14 Oct 2014). The process of setting flow limits for the study streams can take place when we have a groundwater model that predicts the consequence of water use for stream flows.

Decision Making Process

10. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Formally approves the Karamu Catchment - In-stream Flows for Oxygen report for publication and public release.

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

Karamu Catchment - In-stream Flows for Oxygen: Report Contents and Executive Summary

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on progress on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy, and seeks Council’s endorsement of the Strategy and the proposed approach for its public release.

Regional Context

2. The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LWMS) 2011 indicated that Council would lead the development of a regional biodiversity strategy. LWMS noted the need for:

2.1. Improved understanding of the ecological services provided by indigenous vegetation and wetlands

2.2. Re-establishment of ecological processes and ecosystems

2.3. Greater variety and diversity of habitats that sustain our most valued species

3. The LWMS was launched at a public symposium in November 2011. During a symposium workshop, all participants agreed that improving biodiversity required better coordination of biodiversity management activities, particularly among the major agencies with key biodiversity roles. A recurring message was that “we need to work better together”.

4. In the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan, Council allocated funding of $103,000 to develop the Biodiversity Strategy.

National Context

5. There are a number of national statutory and non-statutory drivers to the region around biodiversity, such as:

5.1. The Resource Management Act 1991. A range of statutory responsibilities in relation to biodiversity. E.g. s6(c): regional councils to recognise and provide for ‘The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’

5.2. New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000: “halting decline in New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity by 2020”

5.3. The Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land 2007 informs Council (and others) in managing biodiversity on private land. It contains four priorities:

5.3.1. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments less than 20 per cent remaining in indigenous cover

5.3.2. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands

5.3.3. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with ‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystems

5.3.4. Protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened indigenous species

5.4. The Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. If the NPS comes in to effect in its current form, regional councils would be required to: identify areas of significant biodiversity within five years / ensure there is no net loss of significant indigenous biodiversity. The Government intends to consider the report from the Waitangi Tribunal on claim 262 before finalising the NPS.

Strategy Development Process

6. The Strategy is a non-statutory document. It began as noted in paragraph 3 as a better way for the region’s key agencies and their partners to work to achieving better biodiversity outcomes. The Strategy also seeks to recognise the importance of the tangata whenua role in biodiversity management and to engage the wider community to support the Strategy vision. We describe it as a document of opportunity. It has a particular focus on the significant opportunities that exist outside the Conservation Estate by seeking to acknowledge and elevate the important role that the primary industries and farmers in particular have in improving biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.

7. The Strategy has been developed collaboratively by the major groups and agencies, tangata whenua and key individuals involved in biodiversity matters in Hawke’s Bay.

8. HBRC has initiated, led and facilitated the strategy development via a stakeholder group process. Two stakeholder groups have been used: a Core Working Group to work through technical matters; and a Steering Group to review progress, provide feedback and steer the strategy direction. The Steering Group ultimately made the decisions as to the Strategy content.

9. The Core Working Group involved Council staff, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Federated Farmers, HB Forestry Group, QEII, and Te Roopu Kaitiaki Cultural Advisors.

10. The Steering Group involves the Core Working Group members plus Federated Farmers (Wairoa and Hawke’s Bay Branches), Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum, HDC, NCC, WDC, CHBDC, local Forest and Bird branches, TBfreeNZ, DairyNZ, Ministry for Primary Industries, HB Fruitgrowers, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc., Plant Hawke’s Bay. Councillors Belford and Pipe are on the Steering Group (previously Ewan McGregor, Liz Remmerswaal and Neil Kirton represented HBRC).

11. The two groups have held regular meetings since inception in late 2012.

12. A series of public hui were held throughout the region in late 2014. These were well attended and comments from these have helped shape the Strategy. At the Wairoa hui a group of Maori landowners and the Wairoa Branch of Federated Farmers expressed concern about some elements of the strategy and in particular the lack of a section on Farms. Their subsequent input has usefully improved the quality and content of the paper.

13. Following the input from the hui, at its most recent meeting on 04 February 2015, the Steering Group reviewed the draft strategy. The group endorsed the draft subject to a number of edits and additions. The final document has been provided to you and it is largely complete. There are some minor edits and formatting changes to make but these will not materially change the content or direction of the Strategy but staff have brought the Strategy to the RPC to allow it to be ‘endorsed’ so that the preparations can begin for the launch and implementation programme.

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy

14. The strategy is a non-statutory document primarily aimed at improving the effectiveness of biodiversity management among the major parties involved in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay through alignment of programmes and resources. It is not a Regional Council strategy but a Community strategy.

15. This is the first time in Hawke’s Bay’s history that all the agencies involved in biodiversity have agreed to work together to look for improvements in processes and programmes.

16. The Strategy contains an agreed Vision and short and long term Objectives for:

16.1. Improving native species and habitats (and the ecosystem services they provide)

16.2. Integrating Māori values

16.3. Improving partnerships and community involvement

The Structure of the Strategy

17. “What?” - Executive Summary (pp 4-9).

18. “Why?” – International and national context (pp 10-15).

19. “Where are we now?” – The current situation in Hawke’s Bay (based on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory presented to this Committee 13 August 2014) and the ongoing threats to habitats and species (pp 16-27).

20. “How” – are we going to improve things? Objectives, Actions and Outputs. (pp 28-37):

20.1. Work together more effectively

20.2. IdentifyàPrioritiseàStabiliseàEnhanceà Native Habitats and Species are Healthy and Functioning

20.3. Integrate Mātauranga Māori into biodiversity programmes through a cultural framework; Identify and prioritise taonga species and significant biodiversity sites.

20.4. Formalise commitment to the strategy intent through a Biodiversity Accord (2015)

20.5. Develop an Implementation plan (2015)

20.5.1. Prioritisation criteria

20.5.2. Identify specific actions and resources required

20.6. Biodiversity Trust

20.6.1. Seek to attract new funding opportunities, i.e. over and above that currently available (blue sky opportunities)

20.6.2. Allocate funding to priority projects (as determined in implementation plan)

20.7. Biodiversity Forum

20.7.1. Community-based

20.7.2. Anyone can join

20.7.3. Review progress towards objectives

20.7.4. Intention to align agency programmes with community programmes where feasible.

Next steps

21. Upon the Strategy being endorsed staff will plan a launch of the Strategy in conjunction with an accord signing. This will be the public acknowledgement of the Strategy of any organisation or group or individual through signing the accord. It will provide an opportunity for agencies, groups, individuals and tangata whenua to ‘sign up to’ the accord as a public commit to working towards the Strategy vision.

22. In parallel a technical group will then be formed made up of the Core Working Group to begin the development of an Implementation Plan. When developed this will be tested with the Steering Group.

23. The current Council Long Term Plan has provision for the employment of a part time Biodiversity Coordinator. This role will be supported by DoC who have indicated they will provide an office space and resources, with HBRC paying the salary. This role will initially work on the formation of the Biodiversity Forum and the establishment of the Biodiversity Trust. They will then continue to provide support for the Trust and the Forum into the future.

Decision Making Process

24. 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:

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

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

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

24.4. The persons affected by this decision are the community of Hawke’s Bay

24.5. Options that have been considered include to not develop a strategy or wait for other agencies to lead a strategy development.

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

24.7. 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 Council:

2. Endorses the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy and signs the Biodiversity Accord at the highest level of commitment possible.

3. Facilitates the Strategy’s launch through a public function in August or September 2015.

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Notice of Motion from Councillor Peter Beaven

Reason for Report

1. In accordance with Standing Order 3.10, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Cr Peter Beaven.

“That this Council instructs staff to:

· investigate options for developing an interim limit for groundwater on the Heretaunga Plains

· report back with options available to achieve this by the end of August 2015.

Purpose of the Motion

The HBRC needs to show leadership on the issue of water and respond to our community’s concerns. The TANK process could take several more years and will make recommendations on priorities for water use. If we want this process to maintain any integrity, we need to place some constraints on the volumes of water allocated in the meantime.

Process for Notice of Motion

2. A notice of motion is, in essence, a written request that can be lodged by an elected representative for consideration at a specified meeting, and in this instance is seeking a specific course of action.

3. The process for dealing with a notice of motion is set out in the Standing Orders adopted by Council.

4. The Chief Executive Officer accepted Councillor Beaven’s Notice of Motion for consideration at the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 15 July, but because that meeting was postponed the Notice of Motion has been brought forward to the Regional Council meeting.

5. In the period leading up to this Agenda being produced, Councillor Beaven requested that the Notice of Motion be amended and so the stated motion above (and its purpose) reflect Councillor Beaven’s amendments made on 22 July.

6. Once the motion has been seconded at the meeting it can be discussed.

Decision Making Process

7. Council is required to make decisions 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:

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

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

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

7.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s groundwater resources and the region’s ratepayers.

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

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

Recommendations

That Council instructs staff to:

1. investigate options for developing an interim limit for groundwater on the Heretaunga Plains

2. report back with options available to achieve this by the end of August 2015.

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

Reason for Report

1. The Ministry for the Environment has released a discussion document seeking views on the proposed subject matter for a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF). The discussion document proposes changes to how plantation forestry activities are managed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Prior to this point, MfE has invited submissions on two earlier versions of a proposed NES-PF (in 2010 and 2011). The Regional Council has made submissions on both of those earlier occasions.

2. The deadline for submissions on the current NES-PF discussion document is Tuesday 11 August 2015. Due to time constraints associated with the scheduling of the Regional Planning Committee and Council meetings, a draft submission does not feature in this report. Instead, staff are seeking delegated authority to make a submission on behalf of Council.

3. Much of this report is a replica of the staff report prepared for the Regional Planning Committee meeting prior to its cancellation on Wednesday 15 July.

National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

4. The Ministry for Primary Industries have prepared a summary of the discussion document. That 12-page summary was previously distributed to Councillors as part of the agenda for the 15^th July Regional Planning Committee meeting and so it not re-attached for this paper.

5. The proposal is for the NES-PF to establish a technical standard for forestry activities and set out when an activity is permitted and when consent is required under regional plans and district plans throughout New Zealand.

6. The NES-PF would also set out the way local authorities must manage activities and resources for forestry activities. If implemented, an NES-PF would replace many of the varied rules in existing regional plans and district plans relating to plantation forestry activities. However, the NES-PF proposes that councils would retain local decision making in some cases, for example:

6.1. matters not regulated by the NES-PF

6.2. matters for which the NES-PF specifically enables regional rules (or district rules where relevant) to be stricter than the NES in relation to:

6.2.1. the coastal marine area (to align with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement)

6.2.2. geothermal and karst protection areas

6.2.3. areas of known cultural or heritage value

6.2.4. significant natural areas and outstanding natural features and landscapes

6.2.5. shallow aquifers (as groundwater systems may be complex in local areas)

6.2.6. meeting the objectives of the NPS for Freshwater Management.

7. The discussion document proposes an NES-PF to cover the whole plantation forest cycle and includes draft activity-specific rules that provide certainty for local authorities, forest owners and communities nationally. The proposed NES-PF has been developed in the form of a set of draft rules, which are based on established good industry and environmental practice in the forestry sector. The draft rules are also underpinned by a set of environmental risk assessment tools that take account of local environmental conditions (particularly relating to erosion susceptibility and fish habitat).

8. The discussion document outlines the objectives of introducing the NES-PF as being to:

8.1. remove unwarranted variation between councils’ planning controls for plantation forestry

8.2. improve certainty of RMA processes and outcomes for plantation forestry stakeholders while maintaining consistency with the purpose of the RMA

8.3. improve certainty about environmental outcomes from plantation forestry stakeholders including communities nationally, and

8.4. contribute to the cost-effectiveness of the resource management system by providing appropriate and fit for purpose planning rules to manage the effects of plantation forestry.

9. The discussion document refers to four principles underpinning the draft rules. These are:

9.1. where appropriate, activities should be “permitted” - that is not need a consent provided conditions are met.

9.2. the level of control associated with each activity should be directly associated with the level of risk of adverse effects on the environment at the location the activity takes place. As the level of risk of adverse effects increases a requirement for consent is introduced.

9.3. understanding the risk of adverse effects on the environment around the country should be informed by up-to-date science.

9.4. the NES-PF should provide a nationally consistent approach, but should also be responsive to local environments.

Implications for HBRC

10. If the NES-PF is implemented as outlined in the discussion document, individual councils will:

10.1. not be required to develop forestry specific rules in plans, unless they choose to do so for matters where they are able to apply greater stringency.

10.2. need to amend existing regional plans to remove and conflict of duplication with the NES-PF. This can be done without any further formality (i.e. no public submission process)

10.3. be required to monitor permitted activity conditions that relate to the council’s own roles and responsibilities under the RMA.

11. Under the RMA territorial and regional authorities will be responsible for giving effect to an NES-PF and enforcing its requirements. Given HBRC’s existing land use controls are reasonably permissive, this may result initially in more resource consent applications and staff resources for compliance monitoring.

12. Currently there are no rules specifically managing ‘plantation forestry’ in the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) or the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP). Instead generic rules apply to plantation forestry activities such as for example vegetation clearance and generic rules on discharges of contaminants – discharges to land/water. The NES-PF does not affect any existing rules applicable to non-plantation forestry activities.

13. Staff have assessed a range of potential implications arising from the discussion document’s proposals. Attachment 1 outlines those implications, plus suggests several themes for what a submission (if indeed one is to be made by the Council) might cover.

Making a submission

14. Any person may make a submission on this, the third published iteration of a proposed NES-PF. Key Council staff have already been in contact with local leaders in the Hawke's Bay plantation forestry sector. That liaison will continue if a submission is indeed to be drafted and lodged on the Council’s behalf.

15. Planning staff do not currently have delegated authority to lodge submissions on behalf of the Council in relation to Bills, national policy statements, nor national environmental standards. That authority remains with the Council.

16. Due to Committee and Council meeting timeframes (and associated deadlines for preparation of agenda papers), planning staff have had limited time to prepare a draft submission for the Council’s consideration. If the Council was to lodge a submission before the 11^th August deadline, then several options have been considered, including:

16.1. Supporting Local Government New Zealand to lodge a submission on behalf of the local government sector;

16.2. Scheduling a special meeting of the Regional Planning Committee or Council for purposes of considering a draft submission prepared by staff;

16.3. Council delegating authority to the Group Manager Strategic Development (Helen Codlin) to lodge a submission on the Council’s behalf. This could be done with or without additional input and direction on submission content from councillors.

17. Given these circumstances, staff’s preference is for authority to be delegated to Ms Codlin in this instance to lodge a submission on the Council’s behalf. Staff welcome feedback from Councillors on the themes and implications outlined in Attachment.

Decision Making Process

18. 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:

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

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

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

18.4. Options that have been considered include not preparing a submission; drafting a very draft submission for the Committee’s consideration (albeit with severe time constraints); preparing a draft submission and presenting that for consideration at the Council meeting on 29 July 2015, and staff drafting a submission in liaison with a small group of committee members.

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

18.6. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision. Furthermore, any person has the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Agrees to delegate authority to the Group Manager Strategic Development to lodge a submission on Council’s behalf in relation to the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Key Themes for Possible Submission to the NES for Plantation Forestry

Key Themes for Possible Submission to the NES for Plantation Forestry

Attachment 1

Key themes for possible submission on proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF)

1. Context

1.1 A team of HBRC staff have reviewed the NES-PF discussion document, plus HBRC’s previous submissions made on 2010 and 2011 versions of earlier draft NESs.

1.2 Outlined below are a number of key issues or themes that staff have identified as warranting further comment, or indeed a submission to be made. These points are not intended to be the submission per se – just the key issues/themes that ought to be addressed.

1.3 While the preparation of clear national direction, guidance and standards under the RMA is encouraged, this proposed NES-PF requires further improvement/clarification before it can truly promote sustainable management of New Zealand’s natural and physical resources.

2. Risk management

2.1 Erosion Susceptibility Classification (ESC) has been adapted from Land Use Capability (LUC) mapping for pastoral land use not for plantation forestry.

2.2 ESC resolution is too coarse to effectively manage all risks (i.e. is not site specific). The scale as mapped was appropriate for classifying LUC on a broad scale but is not appropriate for this purpose without allowing for some local discretion.

2.3 The ESC tool alone doesn’t enable careful consideration of localised adverse weather events, particularly in catchments with known vulnerabilities to high or intense rainfall events and downstream consequences on infrastructure and receiving environments. Downstream receiving environments and localised weather are major determinants of risk (particularly for harvesting, quarrying and river crossing activities) and need to be factors in managing high risk forestry activities.

2.4 ESC is shown at a scale which does not reflect the scale of factors influencing harvest operations and their risks i.e. a small catchment with high ESC could lead to major downstream impacts on people, property and infrastructure in a weather event. This might not be captured as a high risk due to scale of ESC or zone bundling. A process to address this is critical and is not forthcoming in the NES-PF.

2.5 While planting and afforestation may aid in arresting hill country erosion, the ESC Orange classification represents steep to very steep hills on erosion prone soft geology prone to soil slipping yet harvesting and planting are permitted activities in this zone.

2.6 NES doesn’t consider the movement of debris and slash offsite and downstream in flood flows and resultant impacts on infrastructure and the environment. These at least need explicit consideration in preparation and approval of management plans.

2.7 NES-PF may be contrary to the NPS for Freshwater Management in its permitted activity conditions (for example, setbacks from wetlands and certain streams).

2.8 While some ability to be more stringent is provided in relation to the coastal marine area, wetlands, shallow aquifers and outstanding freshwater bodies, the sensitivity or vulnerability of other surface water bodies is precluded. Sediment losses and management should be something that regional plans can be more stringent than the NES if that greater stringency means giving effect to the NPS for Freshwater Management and/or the NZ Coastal Policy Statement.

2.9 In relation to forestry ‘management plans’, the role of councils is seemingly restricted to being advised when certain operations (e.g. harvesting) will begin and having management plans made available to them. There is no provision for councils (or any other body) to certify the plans as adequate or appropriate for the circumstances.

3. Management options

3.1 Clarification of various terms used, for example, perennial vs ephemeral streams particularly as they relate to similar terms already defined in the RMA.

3.2 Further reference to tracking procedures in the harvest section is required and guidance should be provided on best practice.

3.3 Guidance on implementation of NES is required sooner rather than later and should be developed in partnership with expertise from the local government sector and forestry sector.

3.4 NES attempts to take an Industry Best Practice (IBP) approach but no guidance on what is IBP is available. Guidance is required.

3.5 Slash, planting and harvesting controls are required when in close proximity to ephemeral streams. Refer to points 2.7 and 2.8 above.

3.6 Councils should have an ability to apply greater stringency in high risk catchments, the ability to manage high ESC (Red and Orange) landscapes and to identify and manage sensitive receiving environments through regulation when appropriate. Again, refer to points 2.7 and 2.8 above.

3.7 Redraft permitted activity conditions so there are controls (especially regarding harvesting, quarrying and river crossings) relating to vulnerable areas i.e. high ESC (Red and Orange) should have higher activity status (e.g. controlled activity) than current proposed.

3.8 A management plan covering the whole of operation of a forest should be necessary before new afforestation is undertaken. This would reveal any local constraints, risks and suitable management responses.

3.9 Clearer requirements are necessary in relation to selective logging operations, as opposed to clear felling operations.

4. Costs and benefits

4.1 Financial burden of implementation falls on councils and ultimately ratepayers.

4.2 Assessment of Management Plans – ESCP, Quarry plan and Harvest plan falls directly on councils. Currently no templates or Industry Best Practice available.

4.3 Non-recoverability of costs unless resource consent is required (i.e. permitted activities are not subject to cost-recovery methods for monitoring and investigations).

4.4 Work will be required to reconcile existing regional plans to NES-PF, but this is unlikely to be a significant task as it can be actioned “without further formality” (i.e. no formal submissions, hearings, decisions or appeals).

4.5 Current NES-PF regulation framework is permissive and weighted towards enabling industry so potentially limited consents to process.

4.6 The NES-PF hasn’t determined Best Practice within the industry. This will be required for the NES-PF to have the intended outcomes.

4.7 The content and quality of templates for management plans, (Harvest and ESCP) are unknown.

4.8 Council may have to increase capacity of resource management staff to implement NES-PF and redirect resources.

4.9 Currently insufficient scope to enable councils to be more stringent in relation to localised catchment management water quality issues and potential impacts of adverse weather events on downstream sensitivities/vulnerabilities.

4.10 The plantation forestry definition needs to specifically exclude flood control plantings.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: RWSS Resource Consents Legal Opinion

Reason for Report

1. The Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) consents have been finalized by a Board of Inquiry (BoI) and are now beyond challenge legally. Council now has a regulatory role to enforce the consent conditions.

2. Following the issuing of the draft decision of the matters referred back to the BoI by the High Court there has been media speculation and questions raised of the RWSS consent conditions with specific reference to the way in which Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) has been set out to be managed. This paper advances a legal opinion from council’s legal advisors to the Regulatory Team, Simpson Grierson.

Background

3. The final report and decision of the BoI on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal in relation to matters referred back to the BoI by the High Court was issued on 19 June 2015 and has now passed the statutory timeframe for appeals with no appeals being lodged.

4. The consent for the RWSS has been granted and the BoI has set out a comprehensive set of consent conditions to manage the construction and operation of the dam, the land use associated with the area irrigated by dam water and the take and use of water.

5. The Resource Use section of the Council now needs to prepare for the possible construction and operation of the dam and the subsequent production land use that is supported by the RWSS. Understanding how to manage matters such as nitrogen loss and the impact that farms within the scheme are having on DIN in streams and rivers and what tools or options the consents package provides for councils regulatory staff is an important consideration.

6. Matt Conway is a Senior Associate in the local government and environment group with Simpson Grierson based in Wellington. Matt is a highly experienced counsel who has particular expertise in the RMA and has appeared before numerous Boards of Inquiry and has represented the regulatory team in Council through the BoI process, particularly in the appeals stage. Matt has an intimate understanding the of the consents package having worked with and advised the regulatory team through the submissions and hearing process.

7. Matt has been asked to provide an opinion on the questions set out in the appendix to this paper. The questions have been developed particularly to understand the relationship between the DIN requirements in the consents package and what obligations fall to HBRIC and HBRC to manage DIN.

8. Staff delayed obtaining this opinion until after the final date for appeals had passed because it was considered that the existence of an opinion for HBRC may prejudice the position of any possible appellants. This has delayed receipt of the opinion, which will be distributed under separate cover via email and hard copy by close of business Friday 24 July 2015.

9. Staff will be looking to develop an implementation approach to the management of the entire RWSS consent package over the coming months and this opinion will assist with the management of the production land use consent.

10. Matt will be present at the meeting to speak to his opinion and answer any questions.

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 decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

12. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives and takes note of the RWSS Resource Consent Legal Opinion received from Simpson Grierson.

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

Request for Simpson Grierson Legal Opinion

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: HBRIC Ltd and RWSS June-July 2015 Update

Reason for Report

1. Attached is the report of HBRIC Ltd to Council on its activities over the June-July 2015 period.

2. The HBRIC Ltd Chief Executive Andrew Newman, Company Manager Heath Caldwell, and Board of Directors Chairman Andy Pearce will be present at the meeting to speak to the Update.

3. This report also presents the HBRIC Ltd recommendation relating to Condition Precedent 1., being:

That Council:

8. Resolves to invest up to $80 million in RWSS subject to Council being satisfied with:

8.3. advice from HBRIC Ltd that all Conditions Precedent to Financial Close of the investment by all investing parties in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Limited Partnership (RWLP) have been either satisfied or waived by agreement of the parties. These Conditions Precedent are:

8.3.1. The EPA granting satisfactory resource consent conditions for RWSS infrastructure and operations, which in turn are recommended as being workable by all investors;

4. HBRIC Ltd is recommending that Condition Precedent 1 has been met, subject only to confirmation by other investors.

5. HBRIC Ltd is also advising that the confirmation from other investors will be confirmed at the time HBRIC Ltd recommends its preferred investor to Council, which they anticipate will occur in October 2015.

Decision Making Process

6. 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:

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

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

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

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

6.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, 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 Council:

2. Receives and notes the HBRIC Ltd and RWSS June-July 2015 Update report.

3. Accepts the HBRIC Ltd recommendation that condition precedent:

8.3.1. The EPA granting satisfactory resource consent conditions for RWSS infrastructure and operations, which in turn are recommended as being workable by all investors;

has been met, subject to confirmation by other investors.

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

HBRIC Ltd and RWSS Update Report

HBRIC Ltd and RWSS Update Report

Attachment 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (HBRIC Ltd)

Report to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

29 July 2015

Summary

The focus of this report is on two issues

· The revaluation of Napier Port Shares, and

· Progress with the RWSS with a recommendation on the Consent Condition Precedent being met and also on consequential actions arising.

· Note that the HBRIC Ltd 2015-16 Statement of Intent was approved by the Board at its June meeting and a copy of the document has been included with Councillors’ agenda papers.

NAPIER PORT SHARES REVALUATION

A revaluation of Napier Port Shares by Deloitte as at 30 June 2015 has assessed the value of the shares as being between $219.4 and 257.4 million. The HBRIC Boards recommendation is to adopt the mid-point value of $238.4 million. That recommendation is reflected in a letter from HBRIC Ltd to Council.

In reaching that recommendation the Board took the advice of the valuation team, noting that the process has involved extensive interaction with the Port Company.

The valuation continues to reflect very positively on the performance of the Board, Senior Management Team and Staff of the Port.

Assuming the recommendation is adopted the net gain in Port value on the HBRIC Ltd balance sheet will be $61 million.

RWSS development

Introduction

The final decision of the Board of Inquiry issued on June 25 was not appealed further by any party and as a consequence the Board, Management and the relevant advisors have focused detailed attention on the workability of these consents resulting the recommendation for Council adoption below. We have also reassessed the financial close timeframes taking into account the project plan. On this basis we will be aiming to bring additional condition precedent decision to the Council as they are resolved through the balance of the calendar year, noting that we are aiming to bring a final RWSS decision to the Council at its November 2015 Council meeting.

Consent Work-stream

Recommendation to Council confirming the Condition Precedent regarding satisfactory Resource Consents.

The first of four Conditions Precedent for the RWSS set out in Council’s resolution of 26 June 2014 was:

“1. The EPA granting satisfactory resource consent conditions for the RWSS infrastructure and operations, which are in turn recommended as being workable by all investors;”

HBRIC Ltd now recommends to Council that it:

1. Determines Condition Precedent 1 has been achieved, subject only to confirmation by other investors, and

2. Notes that confirmation by other investors will be confirmed at the time when HBRIC Ltd recommends preferred investors to Council, which is expected to occur in October.

HBRIC Ltd’s recommendation is based on the following considerations.

a) The comprehensive set of conditions, management practices, farm plans and audits required of all farms supplied by the RWSS will create significant environmental enhancements and improvements in environmental health of streams and tributaries in the RWSS-supplied areas. The complete prevention of animal access to all intermittent and permanent streams and all wetlands is one example of such practices.

b) The RRMP (formerly PC 6) requires significant increases in the minimum flows in the main stems of Waipawa and Tukutuki. Substantial economic and social pain would be caused without the RWSS. The RWSS enables irrigation to be supplied from stored water during the natural period of low flow rather than from rivers and connected groundwater. These flow increases, and the flushing flows provided by the RWSS, will make significant improvements in the environmental health of the main rivers in the Tukituki catchment, and other currently degraded waterways such as the Papanui stream.

c) The conditions for the RWSS do not require that the RWSS comply with the DIN target of 0.8 mg/l by December 2030.

d) The BOI’s reasoning regarding whether farmers and consent holders must comply with in-stream limits is set out in the 2014 Final Decision [para 449] and repeated in 2015 Final decision [para 86], most specifically in the last bullet point in each of those paragraphs:

“it is then clear that the responsibility of the farmer is simply to comply with the LUC root zone leaching rates set in a resource consent or as permitted by Rule TT1.” [our emphasis]

e) The 2015 Final BOI decision includes new RWSS conditions 11 c) and 12A that relate to the DIN limits and targets.

f) Condition 12A requires that, if it is triggered by the consent-holder’s assessment of monitoring of DIN required under condition 11 c), the land supplied with water from the RWSS upstream of the specific measurement point must “be managed in a manner consistent with achieving the DIN limits and targets in Table 5.9.1B, by 31 December 2030”; and that specific actions, for such management be identified by the consent holder and be communicated to RWSS landowners upstream, and to HBRC.

g) Condition 11 c) triggers condition 12 A only if the measurements of DIN for a 5-year rolling average of DIN show that it is likely that the RWSS activities are a material (ie significant) contributor to any exceedance of the DIN limits and targets. Otherwise, condition 12A does not come into effect.

h) The RWSS can not be the only party responsible for achieving the DIN limits and targets by 2030. The RWSS will occupy only 10-15% of the total catchment area. Because of the small proportion of land occupied by the RWSS, no actions taken by the RWSS could, by themselves, achieve the limits and targets across the whole catchment. In addition, the RWSS can not legally be held responsible for the actions of other parties. The BoI has recognised this in requiring only that land supplied by the RWSS“… be managed in a manner consistent with……”

i) The RWSS activities will not commence until 2019 or 2020.

j) Even assuming a rapid movement of nitrogen from RWSS farms into surface waterways following commencement of RWSS operation our technical and legal advice indicates that it is unlikely that condition 12A will be triggered much before 2025 because the measurement of DIN in Table 5.9.1B is a rolling 5-year average of monthly DIN samples. The 5-year rolling mean DIN will not be solely or mainly reflecting RWSS land use activities until some date close to 2025.

k) However, our scientific and legal advice also indicates that there is a time-lag of one or more decades before N leached at the root zone reaches downstream DIN monitoring points. This extent of this time lag is acknowledged by the BoI at para 382 of its 2014 Final Decision.

l) The combination of the DIN measurement (5-year rolling average) and the time-lag in N travelling from the root zone to in-stream, means that it is possible that Condition 12A will not be triggered before 2030.

m) We have considered a range of “specific actions” that might be required by condition 12A in two scenarios. The first scenario is that Condition 12A is triggered for a small land area upstream of a single measurement site. The second scenario is the unlikely and “worst case” scenario where Condition 12A is triggered for a large area (being most of the RWWS command area) upstream of a measurement site on the main stem of the Tukituki, which currently has one of the highest current in-stream DIN levels, soon after commencement of the RWSS.

n) In the first scenario, we are confident that there is a range of increasing “specific actions”, using best farm management practices, that can be progressively applied to “…manage in a manner that is consistent with…”

o) In the second scenario, we have good reason to believe that even if Condition 12A is triggered soon after commencement of the RWSS, the RWSS land users in aggregate will be able to make a proportionate and fair contribution to reducing the current over-allocation of in-stream DIN by making reductions in root-zone N-emissions that are feasible. In this scenario, the RWSS area above the measurement point is only a modest fraction of the total area above the measurement point, and thus most of any reduction in DIN will have to be achieved by the efforts of other land users.

p) Condition 12A is expressed in a manner where it effectively ceases to operate after 31 December 2030. The HBRIC Ltd Board has, however, committed to a programme of intensive monitoring and management of ecological health in the streams within it command areas. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has recently (June 2015) confirmed that the impact of changing nutrient concentrations on the health of aquatic ecosystems is best measured using bio-indicators, and that MCI is commonly used for this purpose. HBRIC Ltd suggested to the BoI that conditions focussing on MCI levels and trends be added to the suite of conditions governing the RWSS. The BoI found that the suggested conditions would be beneficial, but that it lacked the power to include them, given the opposition of the environmental interest groups (para [107] of the BoI’s June 2015 Final Decision). HBRIC Ltd intends to apply to HBRC under section 127 of the RMA to vary the conditions of the RWSS consents to include the MCI-focussed conditions the BoI found it was unable to impose.

Uptake

As of the time of writing this report the following stats are:

Pipeline stage	Number of Agreements expressed as Farm IDs	Water volume	% of progress towards target uptake*	Cumulative % against target*
Countersigned	53	20,005 mill m3	50%
In contracting process	62	15,767 mill m3	39%	89%
In negotiation & due diligence	173	21,970 mill m3	55%	144%

*Percentages are calculated against the published uptake threshold of 40 mill m3. As discussed previously this threshold quantity is likely to rise based on contracting of additional deep water transfers.

Other relevant stats

Farm IDs in the database have been expanded to 415 with a few more to come

Potential irrigable hectares assessed to date are 39,900 ha. Based on current projections we expect the RWSS to be able to supply between 27,000 to 28,000 ha. These data are relevant for water uptake post financial close.

Current Hectares to irrigate in stage 3 to 6 are 10,136 ha.

If those parties chose to irrigate all their irrigable hectares using RWSS water then a further 20 million m3 of water would be required.

Deep water transfers are running 6.97 million m3 for transactions between stages 3 to 6 or 20%.

To-date approximately 23% of potential properties are not proceeding at this time, representing approximately 5,000 ha of irrigable land. A number of these may well be irrigating in the future under differing tenure. Clearly many are small in size. Identifying parties who do not wish to proceed is of value to us in that we can refocus our attention on parties who either do, or may.

We also continue to see active interest from external parties interested in entering the area and we expect this activity to increase now we are through the consenting phase.

Design and Construct Workstream

The OHL Hawkins Consortium is now gearing up to undertake a price revalidation which we expect to have complete in September.

Financing

We expect to have a reworked base case financial model complete in September – that will update construction data and finance terms as per investor interest. Investor engagement is now ramping up.

HBRIC Ltd Financial REPORT

Table 1 sets out the June 2015 Financial Report for HBRIC Ltd.

The report sets out the actual costs incurred for both the month and the year to date against the full year budget and reforecast to 30 June 2015 (operating) and project budget and reforecast to 31 December 2015 (RWSS phase 2 development expenditure).

A summary of the key elements outlined in the report for the month of June is as follows:

OPERATING INCOME & EXPENDITURE

An interim dividend of $3,900,500 for the year ending 30 September 2015 was received from Napier Port.

There was a total of $48,181 of operating expenditure in the month of June with a breakdown of these costs set out as follows:

- $14,500 for Board Fees for the Chairman and four non-executive Directors.

- $17,961 for Management Services provided by HBRC staff.

- $10,244 for Consultancy Fees which includes costs associated with HBRIC Ltd’s strategic planning and formal risk assessment processes, and fees for the independent RWS Board Committee member for the month of June.

- $5,476 for other expenditure which includes meeting expenses, travel and expenditure for HBRC Internal Staff, Directors and the independent RWS Board Committee member, and accruals for audit fees and insurance.

Payment of HBRIC Ltd’s final dividend to Council for the year ended 30 June 2015 of $4,044,955. Total dividends paid to Council for the year ended 30 June 2015 totaled $7,099,584 which is consistent with the amount reforecast by Council in April 2015.

RWSS PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE

The total RWSS Phase 2 Development Expenditure budget to 31 December 2015 reflects the most recent funding request approved by Council on 25 March 2015.

Details of the expenditure for the month of June are set out below:

RWSS Phase 2 Costs ($180,570)

The $30,996 of HBRC internal staff time for June covers a number of work streams including:

- Input into DOC land exchange and fish dispensation applications and processes.

- Ongoing investor negotiations.

- Work associated with environmental compliance.

- Work associated with identifying and quantifying downstream user opportunities.

- Input into various due diligence studies.

- Ongoing project management.

$10,000 accrual for Commercial Legal & Tax Advisory services for the month of June.

$37,444 of costs for landowner negotiations which relates to work associated with the approvals for land exchange and fisheries dispensation which have been lodged with the Department of Conservation.

$38,437 of costs for environmental compliance mainly relating to costs associated with further analysis of channel efficiencies in the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers as a means of conveying irrigation water to irrigation zones and other potential downstream users.

$4,463 of technical engineering support costs which includes general D&C support, management of the technical due diligence study, and oversight of the O&M review.

$57,166 of Water Contract & Sales Advisory costs which includes work undertaken by the sales team in progressing the water uptake work stream.

$2,064 of Other Consultants & Miscellaneous costs.

EPA Process Costs ($25,159)

$25,159 of costs for the month of June associated with the High Court’s decision to refer the matter back to the Board of Inquiry. The costs for the month reflect services provided by the external RMA project team to undertake this process as well as costs invoiced directly from the EPA.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: Valuation of HBRIC Ltd

Reason for Report

1. The Council currently owns 100% of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) which is valued in the Council’s Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 at $177.50 million.

2. Council policy requires its investment in HBRIC Ltd to be valued every three years by an independent expert in valuing investments of this type.

3. Deloitte has been commissioned to undertake the valuation of shares in HBRIC Ltd and has now valued HBRIC Ltd as an equity investment at between $216.22 million to $254.22 million.

4. The Council now needs to decide what value to adopt for its investment in HBRIC Ltd as at 30 June 2015.

Background

5. Council currently owns 100% of the shares in HBRIC Ltd which was established in February 2012.

6. On 29 February 2012 Council resolved to subscribe to, and fully pay up, 100,000 $1.00 ordinary shares in HBRIC Ltd as an initial capital subscription of $100,000 to fund HBRIC Ltd’s planned working capital requirements.

7. At the same time, Council also resolved to transfer its entire shareholding in the Port of Napier Limited (Napier Port) to HBRIC Ltd subject to the receipt of the revaluation of the Napier Port shares as at 31 March 2012.

8. In April 2012 Council set the value at which its 100% shareholding in Napier Port was to be transferred to HBRIC Ltd at $177.40 million as valued by Deloitte in accordance with the Council’s policy for valuing its shareholding in Napier Port. It is noted that HBRIC Ltd issued 177.40 million $1.00 fully paid ordinary shares to the Council in settlement of this transfer.

9. The current value of the HBRIC Ltd shares of $177.50 million is reflective of the 100,000 $1.00 ordinary shares fully paid up for the initial capital subscription and the 177.40 million $1.00 fully paid shares issued by HBRIC Ltd for the transfer of the shareholding in the Napier Port.

Valuation of Shares in HBRIC Ltd

10. Deloitte has been commissioned by Council to undertake a valuation of the shares of both HBRIC Ltd and the Napier Port as at 30 June 2015.

11. A copy of the letter from Deloitte dated 22 July 2015 outlining the valuation conclusions is set out in Attachment 1.

12. Deloitte’s 2015 valuation of HBRIC Ltd equity is in the range of $216.22 million to $254.22 million.

13. As the value of the shares in Napier Port is the key driver for the overall value of Council’s shares in HBRIC Ltd it is deemed prudent for Council to use HBRIC Ltd’s valuation of its shares in Napier Port for determining where in the valuation range the value of the shares in HBRIC Ltd fall.

14. The valuation of the shares in Napier Port was considered and approved by the HBRIC Ltd Board at its meeting held on 22 July 2015. Set out in Attachment 2 is HBRIC Ltd’s letter dated 22 July 2015, reporting:

14.1. Deloitte’s valuation range for the shares in Napier Port is $219.40 million to $257.40 million

14.2. The Board of Directors have approved a new valuation at the mid-point of Deloitte’s range which is $238.40 million

14.3. The Board of Directors recommend to Council that it uses a mid-point valuation of $238.40 million for HBRIC Ltd’s shares in Napier Port when determining the value of Council’s investment of the shares in HBRIC Ltd.

15. Taking into consideration the recommendation from HBRIC Ltd on the Napier Port valuation, it is proposed that Council adopt a new valuation at the mid-point of Deloitte’s range for the value of Council’s investment in HBRIC Ltd would be $235.22 million.

Valuation of Shares in HBRIC Ltd

16. Increasing the Council’s valuation of its investment in HBRIC Ltd to the recommended $235.22m will result in a surplus on revaluation of $57.72 million, (being $235.22 million 2015 valuation less $177.50 million 2012 valuation), which will increase the Council’s equity to the same extent in its current 2014/15 financial year.

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

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

17.4. No persons are directly affected by the decision.

17.5. The Council has no option but to complete the valuation of assets to comply with standard accounting policy.

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 Council:

2. Agrees to revalue its shareholding in HBRIC Ltd from $177.50 million to $235.22 million as valued by Deloitte in accordance with Council’s policy for valuing its shareholding in HBRIC Ltd.

Heath Caldwell

Management Accountant

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1	Deloitte HBRIC Ltd Valuatino
2	HBRIC Ltd Valuation letter to HBRC

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Subject: 2015 Regional Residents' Survey

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this item is to update Council on the outcome of a recent region-wide Resident Survey.

Background

2. Every two years, HBRC conducts an independent survey of residents in the region, to understand the general awareness of the work carried out by council, satisfaction levels, and how we are performing in specific areas, such as Civil Defence and HeatSmart.

3. 500 residents aged 18+ years in HBRC’s territorial area were interviewed by phone over six weeks from mid-April 2015. A randomised resident sample was weighted by area over Hawke’s Bay. Across 73,952 rateable properties, this survey has a 95% confidence level +/- 3.5-4.3%.

4. Staff are pleased with the results, which show that HBRC is valued for the quality of its work, delivers important services and generally communicates well with our community.

5. Page references in square brackets [ ] indicate a specific page number in the final survey report, which can be accessed at hbrc.govt.nz, keyword search: survey.

Survey Results

Awareness of HBRC and the Environment

6. When asked which main organisation residents think of regarding the environment in Hawke’s Bay, 51% said HBRC. This is similar to survey findings in 2013.

7. Awareness of paying rates to HBRC was at its highest level, 95%. The most-named main role of HBRC was Water management (39%), followed by Environmental management (24%). Also, 95% of residents stated they care ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’ about the environment, as in 2013.

Top 10 Environmental Issues In Hawke’s Bay

Importance and Satisfaction with HBRC services

8. All HBRC services were rated ‘somewhat’ to ‘very’ important and residents were ‘somewhat’ to ‘very’ satisfied with all services.

9. The 2015 response level was higher than 2013 for every service (by between 4% for providing public transport to Hastings/ Napier and 15% for controlling smells and odours). This likely indicates a more engaged population in the 2015 survey [pg 16].

Importance of and Satisfaction with HBRC Services

Heat Smart Initiatives

10. 48% used Clean heat for home heating (up from 44% in 2013) compared to 51% (56%) who use a Wood burner /open fire. Significantly more of those who use a Wood burner/ Open fire to heat their home in 2015 have replaced it in the last 5 years.

11. The replacement rate in 2015 was 43% (well up from 28% in 2013). 94% of those who replaced their Wood burner/ Open fire in the last 5 years (87% in 2013) replaced it with another Wood burner.

Recreational Water Usage

12. Residents named their favourite places near Wairoa, Napier, Hastings and Central HB.

Civil Defence Emergency Preparedness

13. 94% of people had enough food stored (and in their freezer) for three days; 89% had some way to cook without electricity; 67% had enough water stored.

14. 42% (44% in 2013) had NOT completed a household emergency plan and checklist, while 58% (56%) had either completed or somewhat completed one.

15. The threat or disaster most recalled was Earthquake - 93% of respondents listing this as one of the three primary risks to Hawke’s Bay people. Second was Flooding/ heavy rainfall, third was Local Tsunami.

Dealing with HBRC

16. 76% of people have had NO Dealings or DK (don’t know) with HBRC in the last year – that’s ¾ of the region.

17. Of those respondents that did have a direct dealing/ contact with HBRC in the past 12 months, 71% were Somewhat/ Very satisfied with the way it was dealt with; 29% (about 3 in 10) were Somewhat/ Totally dissatisfied – which is an opportunity for improvement [pg 31].

Satisfaction with the way HBRC top 10 best ways for HBRC to
dealt with the matter or inquiry communicate

HBRC Communications

18. In 2015 of those needing council information, 49% would go to council’s website, though phone was also popular at 46%.

19. There appeared to be a lot more interest in HBRC matters in general in 2015, compared to 2013.

20. The most effective way for the HBRC to communicate information to residents was, in order: Post/ Mail (up to 40% from 29% in 2013), Email (26% compared with 14% in 2013), Council Website (25%), Regional Council Brochures (21%), and Newspaper Articles (20%) [pg 33].

21. 59% recalled receiving “Our Place” at their home, 52% stating the content was of some interest, a further 24% stated it was of Great interest (altogether 76%).

Final thoughts, Wish List of spending areas

22. 41% (38% in 2013) said they receive acceptable value from their HBRC rates. 28% (24%) said they received Good value and 7% (5%) Very good value (a total of 76%). 16% noted Poor/ Very poor value [pg 36].

23. Across all respondents, when asked if they could afford to pay more HBRC rates and had a wish list, 26% said No response/ don’t know, while a further 17% stated Water issues.

Regional Parks

24. Tūtira (86%) was the most known and River reserves (62%) were the least well known. Parks in closest proximity to urban centres were better known than others, although Tūtira was very well known to all regions.

25. 66% favoured maintaining and developing existing regional parks, compared to those who supported the establishment of new ones (34%).

Decision Making Process

26. 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.

Recommendations

That Council receives and notes the “2015 Regional Residents' Survey” report.

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 July 2015

SUBJECT: Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through August 2015

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities coming up over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Corporate Services		- Setting of Rates. - End of Year Financial Reporting to 30 June 2015. - Annual Report 2014/15.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal Biosecurity	- Coastal strategy development continues. Risk assessment phase is underway. The next Governance Group meeting programmed for 18 September will receive an update on hazard evaluation which is currently being peer reviewed. - The second tranche of biosecurity contracts for the 15-16 financial year will be assessed and awarded - The Cape to City widescale predator control project is underway. The first interim report to the Aotearoa Foundation for the first six months of the project will be presented to them in August. Preparation for the next stage of wireless predator trapping trials continue to be developed. The 15-16 research meeting with Landcare research will be held the week 10th August covering research on toxoplasmosis, social surveys, predator modelling and biodiversity outcomes. - HBRC staff continue to help lead a collective Regional Pest Management Plan process. This is focusing on agreement to a collective RPMP template or shop front, aligning RPMP rules for some RPMP pests and working on collective agreement around good neighbour rules. - High performance manuka PGP progresses with the 15-16 annual plan for Manuka Research Partnership limited being finalised.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Engineering	- The gravel resource and supply and demand assessment reports expected to be completed and circulated to gravel extractors once they are to hand. Meeting to be organised August/September. - A programme for levels of service reviews for the Heretaunga Plains drainage areas is progressing. - Upper Tukituki Scheme review programme is being progressed.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management	- LM is facilitating the development of a formal FEMP provider accreditation process, involving a number of staff across the organisation. A specific working group is being set up to progress the framework for wider consideration. - A movie event to recognise International Year of the Soil has been organised for 25 August @ 6:30pm. We will be hosting the movie “Symphony of the Soil” at the MTG. - The Land Management Operational Plan will be presented to the E&S Committee on 12 August 2015. - An HBRC forest estate plan has been prepared for presentation to the E&S committee on 12 August. - A number of significant forestry program activities over the next month including, contributing to the HBRC response to the NES on Plantation Forestry, supporting the development of field trials looking at the use of various manuka species for riparian strip vegetation, follow up work with the Kopuawhara community post the storm event, meetings with the HB forestry group.
Resource Management	Compliance	- The CHB District Council Wastewater Treatment plant at Waipawa has had a new clarifier refitted and installed. An independent engineers report on the performance has been completed and the terms of the abatement notice, issued, have been achieved. - The CHB District Council Wastewater Treatment plant at Waipukurau is required to install a new clarifier by 26 June. This was not achieved by that date, due to issues with the supplier concerning 1 of the 2 clarifiers purchased. 1 clarifier is installed and working and the 2^nd will be working by 24 July. An Independent engineers report on the performance was to be provided by 19 August 2015 but the report would only be based on a small number of sample results. We have extended this date to 19 September as to enable a month’s supply of sampling results data to be used by the engineers to provide a more robust report to be made. - Te Mata Mushrooms have ongoing odour discharge problems and have not completed the construction of an enclosed building as required by their resource consent. 6 charges have been laid against the company for unlawful odour discharges. A date of hearing has not been set at the time of writing this report. An expected date of 12^th August is when the company is expected to make a plea at the Hastings District Court.
Resource Management	Science	- Planning work continues to reconfigure the Awatoto and St John’s College PM₁₀ monitoring sites to allow additional PM_2.5 monitoring. - An Air Emissions Inventory quantifying residential, industrial and traffic related emissions to air is due for completion at the end of July. - Work on the 5 year State of the Environment Air Quality report continues. - Land use and land use change satellite mapping continues in the TANK catchments - S-mapping (soil mapping) continues in the TANK catchments - Sediment modelling continuing in the TANK catchments - Land science’s regional wetland inventory continuing into the Mohaka catchment. - Papanui catchment phosphorus investigation continues - Upgrade of iQuest loggers continues - Tukipo gauging weir will be repaired and refurbished - Upgrade of Modems to Radio telemetry continues - Upgrade Climate sites with HBRC loggers and radios - Mohaka at Raupunga site to be transferred from NIWA to HBRC - Install new Raingauge site at Poporangi - Cawthron Institute is continuing to work on MCI regional optimisation, improving current MCI predictive models to suit regional studies and regional limit-setting. Reference site sampling to occur in early summer 2015/16 - Cawthron have completed analysis and reporting on impacts of Taharua outflows on trout food availability in the upper Mohaka River - Fieldwork investigating water quality and salinity of Whakaki Lake will continue - Work on State of Environment 5 year Water Quality and Ecology technical reports will continue. Mohaka Water Quality SoE technical report to be finalised - Targeted study of the Ahuriri estuary identifying sources of high phosphorus and looking at salinity and dissolved oxygen fluctuations will continue - Work continues on developing the TANK steady-state groundwater model, including updating to a coupled groundwater/surface water flow model - The report on groundwater level changes, part of the 5 yearly SoE technical reporting is under review - Preparation of data and reviewing of reports for surface water and groundwater State of the Environment technical reports continues
Resource Management	Consents	· NCC Thames Tyne stormwater consent application process – 13 submissions received. Prehearings held 26 February and 9 July. Agreement reached between parties. Consent to be issued without hearing. Conditions include the preparation of a Catchment Management Plan to progressively improve the quality of the stormwater and the amenity of the stormwater drains. · Twyford Global consent applications. Raupare semi-confined global issued. Ngaruroro – unconfined aquifer limited notified received 2 submissions. Placed on hold. An alternative application has been lodged which has removed the provision for emergency water. Issued on 19^th May. Applicants have asked that the emergency water application be proceeded with. A further report is being carried out to assess the impact of the emergency water take. A hearing may follow completion of this report. · Pan Pac application to extend their outfall from 440m to over 2,000 m off shore limited notified and received 3 submissions. Four prehearing meetings have been held from March to July. Arising from these Pan Pac have undertaking tests of mussels found on, and in the vicinity of the current pipeline and have commissioned a Cultural Impact Assessment. The latest meeting did not lead to agreements so Panpac have requested a hearing. This is scheduled for 20^th and 21^st August. Hearing panel is Clr Scott, Clr Hewitt and Roger Maaka (subject to availability). · Application by MLBH Family Trust to take groundwater from the Bridge PA Pakipaki groundwater area. Hearing scheduled for 4 August. Hearing panel is Clr Scott and Brian Gregory. · “Tranche 2” water. Applications have been received from HBRIC, Bostocks, Te Awahohonu Forest Trust (Gwavas Station), Ingleton Farms and R Jensen for Tukituki Tranche 2 water and are on hold. · Replacement and review of Ruataniwha groundwater consents is in process. 10 have requested a review of annual volumes calculated. This has been completed and annual volumes determined for each consent. Notices of review will be sent in May and July. · Ngaruroro catchment consents that have Ngaruroro River minimum flow conditions expired at the end of May. All current consent holders have lodged applications to replace these. Staff will process these as a group. The consents have been notified with submissions closing 1 July. 12 submissions were received. Staff to initiate prehearing discussions. · CHBDC, Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater treatment consents change of conditions and review in process but awaiting detail on additions to treatment. · Otane wastewater treatment consents replacement consents have been lodged and are currently being technically reviewed. · NCC application for coastal protection structure at Whakareri Ave remains on hold. TAG application for an oil exploration bore at Boar Hill remains on hold.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	- High Court appeal period has closed on Board of Inquiry’s final decision on Tukituki Plan Change 6 regarding the reconsideration of Rule TT1(j). The Final Tukituki Plan Change will be brought to Council in August for adoption. - Work continues on PC6 Implementation Plan across Council groups. - In relation to last points of Hawke's Bay Fish and Game’s appeal on Change 5 regarding wetland provisions, a wetland expert is to undertake mapping extent of six ephemeral wetlands over next few months completed by October. - TANK Group meeting #17 being scheduled for 1 Sept 2015. Further meetings (Oct and Nov 2015 and into 2016) are being scheduled to fit work programme and refining freshwater objectives for each of the four principal catchments. - Report on HBRC’s progressive implementation of the NPS for Freshwater Management during 2014-15 period is drafted for inclusion in HBRC Annual Report consideration at Council’s August 2015 meeting. Staff have invited feedback from Councillors and tangata whenua members of the Regional Planning Committee. - Work programme and funding deed ($80k) now signed by MfE for project to develop criteria and methodology for the identification of ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ in the context of the NPSFM2014. Project team in procurement phase for consultant to lead project. - The Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group has reviewed final draft of Strategy and Strategy now to be presented at Council’s July meeting (refer separate item on July meeting agenda). - Submission being drafted by staff in response to discussion document on proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. Refer separate item on July Council meeting agenda. - Hastings DC’s district plan hearings now complete. HDC’s decisions on all plan topics and submission are anticipated to be issued in late August. - Napier CC has issued its decisions on District Plan Change 10. Staff are still reviewing decisions, but unlikely an appeal will be necessary on decisions relating to HBRC’s submission points. - All parties involved in HBRC’s appeal against Hastings DC’s decision to grant consent for 15 lot subdivision at Whirinaki attended Environment Court-assisted mediation on 3 July. Judge is to convene a teleconference to timetable preparation and exchange of evidence ahead of a formal court hearing. Hearing date not yet fixed. - Online mapping tool called ‘Pataka’ has undergone final user testing. Official ‘launch’ is scheduled for mid-August with publicity in ‘Our Place’ and a variety of other networks. ‘Pataka’ is HBRC’s record of iwi authorities, hapu groups, hapu planning documents, marae contacts and various other forms of information about tangata whenua areas of interest etc. - Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) Implementation Working Group meeting is scheduled for 8 September. This will be the first meeting of the Group’s new membership since 2013 local body elections.
Strategic Development	Economic Development	The focus for this month will be on the review of the Regional Economic Development Strategy. A Councillor workshop is to be organised. Other initiatives around Wairoa Agribusiness and Infant Formula (Non-bovine Dairy) are continuing. RWSS – continue supporting RWSS workstreams where appropriate.
	Transport	Work is progressing on the tendering for bus services.

Decision Making Process

2. 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 required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through August 2015 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE and
Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.