Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

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 68

DP 14450

CT G2/725

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 92

DP 13696

CT F2/1339

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 22

DP 9652

CT D1/772

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 34

DP 13692

CT F2/1274

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 41

DP 14224

CT F4/1488

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 14

DP 13111

CT E3/555

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.7 Lot 10

DP 11626

CT C2/604

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.8 Lot 1

DP 18490

CT L1/645

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.9 Lot 144

DP 6598

CT C2/324

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.10 Lot 486

DP 2451

CT 55/118

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

3876

3877

3891

3878

3890

3879

3880

3881

3884

3885

3886

3887

3888

3889

14 December 2015

19 January 2016

16 December 2015

15 January 2016

16 December 2015

17 December 2015

5 January 2016

8 January 2016

12 January 2015

15 January 2015

1.2

Agreement for Lease

Waipukurau Forest Block to Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust

3882

17 December 2015

1.3

Staff Warrants

1.3.1 L. Lambert – Update due to Legislative Change

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

1.3.2 L Lambert – Update due to Legislative Change

(Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

1.3.3 J. Lomas

L. Lambert – Update due to Legislative Change

(Delegations under Biosecurity Act 1993; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

3883

3875

3883

18 December 2015

10 December 2015

18 December 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

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Mana Enhancing Agreement

Reason for Report

1. The Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2014 (the Act) requires HBRC to establish and administer a Catchments Fund and provides that Council from time to time transfer money from the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Operating Reserve to the Catchments Fund if the Council are satisfied that the transfer will not adversely affect its obligations under section 16 (4) of the Soil Conservation Rivers Control Act 1941 to manage and control the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve.

2. Staff have arranged for the establishment of the Catchment Fund (the Fund) as required by the Act in the 2014-15 financial year and determined in conjunction with the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) that $100,000 is available from the Tangoio Soil Conversation Reserve Operating Reserve to transfer to the Fund on an annual basis up to and including the 2017-18 financial year. This amount will need to be reviewed before the commencement of the next HBRC Long Term Plan.

3. Attached to this paper is a Mana Enhancing Agreement between HBRC and MTT setting out roles, responsibilities and protocols for each organisation necessary to fulfil the requirements of the Act and to maintain a constructive working relationship, and seeks Council endorsement of the document.

4. Representatives from MTT will be present at the Regional Council meeting.

Discussion

Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve

5. Management and control of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve was vested in HBRC by the Crown in the late 1980s. The Reserve is approximately 550 ha in area with approximately 300 ha planted in commercial forest. Since control has been vested in HBRC, proceeds from harvesting of commercial forest on the Reserve have exceeded to cost of its ongoing management. As at 30 June 2015, the Reserve operating account held $3,744,384.

6. Staff are currently reviewing the Management Plan for the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve in conjunction with MTT, and expect to seek Council adoption of the reviewed Plan prior to 30 June 2016.

7. Section 23 of the Act states:

7.1. The Council may, from time to time, transfer money from the reserve fund to the catchments fund if the Council is satisfied that the transfer will not adversely affect its obligations under section 16(4) of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 to manage and control the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve in a manner that in its opinion will best conserve the soil of the reserve and prevent injury to other land.

7.2. The Council must, at least once every 3 years after the settlement date, assess whether any money may be transferred from the reserve fund to the catchments fund in accordance with subsection (1).

8. The review of the Management Plan for the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve will enable the amount of money available to be transferred to be determined. Staff have agreed with MTT through discussions held over the past several years that the transfer of an amount of money annually from the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve operating account to the Fund is preferable to the transfer of significant lump sums from time to time. The Management Plan review will include financial modelling to determine an annual amount of money to be transferred.

Catchments Fund

9. Section 22 of the Act states:

9.1. The Council and the trustees must agree on the application of the money in the catchments fund.

9.2. The Council may apply the money in the catchments fund only for the following purposes:

9.2.1. Maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological qualities of the soil in the catchments management area.

9.2.2. Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating soil erosion and its effects on the environment in the catchments management area.

10. Staff are currently working with MTT to develop a programme work to be funded from the Fund. The programme of work will need to meet the requirements of the Act. MTT are keen to seek funding from other sources to augment Fund money.

11. As at 30 June 2015 the fund held approximately $103,000, being the sum deposited in the 2014/15 financial year plus interest. A further $100,000 has been transferred to the fund in this financial year and a further $100,000 is programmed for transfer early in the 2016-17 financial year. Credit balances in the Fund will attract interest.

12. To formalise the relationship between MTT and HBRC the attached Mana Enhancing Agreement has been developed. Council endorsement of this document is now sought.

13. Representatives of MTT will be present at the meeting to support Council’s endorsement of this document and respond to any queries.

14. Over the next two years MTT have indicated it will be seeking money from the Fund for:

14.1. To support a significant project for enhancing the riparian zone around Lake Tutira. MTT has applied for funding from the Ministry for the Environment Te Mana o Te Wai fund to support this project. Details of the project are currently being worked through between MTT and MfE. HBRC staff and MTT have agreed that $200k from the Fund will be used to contribute towards this project.

14.2. $40,000 to fund investigations to develop a schedule of issues, and a programme of mitigation for those issues, meeting the clause 22 criteria under the Act within the 4 catchments forming part of the Maungaharuru-Tangitū rohe.

15. Staff will continue to work with the Trust on both of these projects.

16. In order to facilitate the necessary funding for these projects in accordance with the Act staff seek agreement from Council that staff financial delegations are also applicable to committing expenditure from the Fund.

Decision Making Process

17. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and concluded:

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 policy on significance.

17.4. The persons affected by this decision are Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapu and landowners within the catchments listed in the Act that may benefit from work on their land.

17.5. Options will be considered in conjunction with MTT in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

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, 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:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2. Endorses the Mana Enhancing Agreement between Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust and HBRC attached to this briefing paper, and authorises the Chairman to sign the Agreement on behalf of Council.

3. Agrees that staff financial delegations established for financial management within HBRC are applicable to the Catchments Fund established in accordance with the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapu Claims Settlement Act 2014.

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Mana Enhancing Agreement

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: Xuzhou Sister City Relationship

Reason for Report

1. In June 2006 Council resolved to:

1.1. Enter into a sister city relationship with Xuzhou City, Jiangsu province, China.

1.2. Confirms the key purpose of such relationship to be for development of trade and economic opportunities for the benefit of the region and with such conditions relating to the sister city relationship agreement including:

1.2.1. Formal visits to each other every four years i.e. there is formal contact every 2 years with visits to each other's countries every four years.

1.2.2. That any other exchanges (business, students, teachers, Council staff, etc) be supported with no (or limited) financial support.

1.2.3. For formal exchanges, the travellers pay their own travel costs with the hosts meeting the costs of accommodation for Council Government officials (not business or community), meals and local transport costs and so therefore, when specific Councillors travel to Xuzhou this cost would be met by Council.

1.2.4. Council approve the Chairman and at least one other Councillor accepting the trade fair invitation and visit Xuzhou in October 2006 for the formal signing of the sister city relationship.

2. Since the visit to Xuzhou in October 2006, Council has made one other visit in 2011 accompanied by a group of students from Hukarere Girls College and Chamber of Commerce representatives.

3. A delegation from Xuzhou, including the vice mayor, visited Hawke’s Bay in December 2015. The vice mayor, Ms Li Yan, invited a delegation from Council to visit Xuzhou in early April 2016. This briefing paper outlines the potential benefits of such a visit and seeks a decision from Council as to whether or not they support a delegation from HBRC visiting Xuzhou, and if so who wishes to participate.

Background

4. Brief information about Xuzhou:

4.1. Population Xuzhou region: 10 million

4.2. Population Xuzhou city: 1.5 million

4.3. Location: Approx. 600 km north of Shanghai, 700 km south of Beijing, 200 km inland

4.4. Area: 11,000 square kilometres

4.5. Economy: 300 billion yuan GDP per annum (approx. $NZ60 Billion)

4.6. Main industries: machinery, energy, food production, military

4.7. It is the second largest rail hub in China and is at the junction of the major lines North-South (Beijing - Shanghai) and East-West (Lianyungang – Rotterdam).

5. Since the Agreement has been in place:

5.1. There have been approx. 20 delegation visits from Xuzhou including teachers, government officials, and business representatives.

5.2. The Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce undertook a survey of local businesses in 2009 to determine interest in the development of trading relationships with Xuzhou businesses. Following this survey the Chief Executive of the HB Chamber visited Xuzhou to match the interests of HB businesses to opportunities in Xuzhou. During this visit a cooperation/trade relationship Agreement was signed between Xuzhou and Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce. Commodities of most interest are wine, meat (including offal), wool and wood.

5.3. A Hawke’s Bay Trade office was opened in Xuzhou several years ago by a private organisation. Napier City Council has used this office to source various items for Napier City Enterprises and Young Enterprise Companies.

5.4. The importation into China of a container of timber exported from Hawke’s Bay bound for Xuzhou, was only released through border controls after mayoral intervention. Issues with importation documentation had resulted in the container being held. Mayoral interventions of this kind are understood to be not uncommon in China, and only made possible through Sister City Agreements.

5.5. The establishment of a Ginkgo industry in NZ and Hawke’s Bay are a direct result of strong relationships developed at a commercial level between Xuzhou and Hawke’s Bay businesses. While the industry has been through some difficult times, it is currently active and has potential to grow.

5.6. There is strong interest in Xuzhou in the environmental performance of New Zealand and Hawke’s Bay. This resulted in a previous Chairman of HBRC taking up an offer to visit China and present to an Expo in 2008.

6. Should a Council delegation travel to Xuzhou, an itinerary will be arranged to follow up on a number of relationships that have been developed e.g. Chamber of Commerce, as well as to visit large travel agents to promote Hawke’s Bay as a destination.

Financial and Resource Implications

7. Following the Council visit to Xuzhou in 2006, an annual budget provision was included into subsequent annual plans of $9,000. This was increased to $19,500 following the 2011 visit. At the time of preparing budgets for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan, no delegations had been hosted from Xuzhou for over 12 months. Accordingly it was decided to remove an annual provision from future budgets.

8. To date in the 2015/16 year 4 delegations from Xuzhou have visited Hawke’s Bay involving a cost of $4,200 in staff time and $3,250 in external costs.

9. Staff are not aware of any other Xuzhou delegations planned for the remainder of the 2015-16 financial year.

10. For the 2011 visit Council agreed to meet the cost of the Chairman and staff participating in the delegation and to subsidise the cost of Councillors who participated. The subsidy agreed was approx. $2,000 per Councillor which met the cost of their return airfare.

11. If Council agreed to a delegation visiting Xuzhou in April 2016, they would also need to agree on financial arrangements. Staff have sought an indicative quote from a local travel agent. The advice is that the cost could be in the range of $3,500 to $4,200 per person (depending on whether accommodation was on a shared twin or single room basis), for a 10 day visit flying into Shanghai and flying out of Beijing.

12. If the same arrangements that were made for the 2011 visit were agreed to, staff expect the cost to be between $10,000 and $15,000 for Council and approx. $1,500 per person, after subsidy, for Councillors wishing to accompany the delegation.

13. If the visit was reduced to one week duration, there would be a reduction in the cost.

Decision Making Process

14. Council is required to make every 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:

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

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

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

14.4. There are no persons affected by this decision.

14.5. Options are that Council agree or decline to visit Xuzhou.

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

14.7. 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:

Either

2. Declines the invitation to visit Xuzhou in April 2016.

2. Agrees to a delegation from HBRC visiting its Chinese Sister City of Xuzhou to maintain potential trade relationships, and the promote Hawke’s Bay as a tourist destination, and agrees to a budget of $15,000 to meet the cost of the trip for the Chairman, an interpreter and staff, and contributes, as funding allows, to the cost of accompanying Councillors.

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: Science and Technology Research Strategy for Adoption

Reason for Report

1. Staff have been working with key partners, stakeholders and interested parties on the development of a Science and Technology Strategy (STS). The STS is intended to provide greater internal alignment and efficiency of the science spend for Council and to provide greater transparency and input to the direction Council science takes for external parties.

2. The risks arising from the lack of an STS include:

2.1. A lack of clarity on research priorities as they relate to Council’s accountabilities and a risk of gaps or duplication

2.2. Delays in delivery of core research

2.3. Lower acceptance and/or lesser utilisation of Council’s science outputs by the broader community

2.4. Challenges to the validity of Council’s science with subsequent delays and costs associated with regulatory processes.

3. The STS sets out initiatives for mitigating (but not eliminating) these risks.

Background

4. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council commissions and undertakes a significant volume of work in science and technology. This work underpins Council’s responsibilities in many areas, including policy development and implementation, resource management, natural hazards, civil defence, drainage management, biodiversity, biosecurity, land management, and others.

5. While strategic documents such as the Regional Resource Management Plan, the Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan articulate goals and programmes for HBRC’s work, there is no consistent, integrated view of the science and technology required as part of these work programmes.

6. As a result of the lack of an overarching strategy, research is often reactive, places unnecessary pressure on science staff, threatens delivery of priority work and often not adequately communicated both internally and externally.

7. The STS is primarily focused on improving internal processes to provide greater internal alignment of the science spend and to ensure that the Council’s priorities for research are delivered.

8. The initiatives proposed in the STS allow greater insight and input for the many external parties who have an interest in Council’s research spend. It will also allow greater future collaboration with external parties and research providers.

9. The STS is a non-statutory document and is primarily an operational document but given the significance of the science spend and the impact that this can have on policy development across all parts of Council it was important to seek and incorporate input from external parties.

10. Workshops were held with internal staff groups and external groups comprising tangata whenua, primary sector groups, environmental groups, research providers and local councils. These workshops were then used to shape the STS and the final document was circulated for comment on 4 December 2015. No comments on the Strategy document were received.

11. The STS was commissioned from Sapere Research Group (SRG), and was undertaken by Douglas Birnie and Joanna Smith. Douglas will be present at the meeting to discuss the strategy and answer questions.

Aims of the Draft Science and Technology Strategy

12. The aims of the draft STS are to:

12.1. Describe the role of science and technology in relation to the Council’s accountabilities including resource management, local government, civil defence, drainage, biosecurity and dams as they apply to the Hawke’s Bay region

12.2. Describe the Council’s relationship with local iwi as Treaty partners in relation to science and technology

12.3. Ensure better alignment of the Council’s science interests with those of other key stakeholder groups in the Hawke’s Bay

12.4. Assess the current state of science and technology usage and delivery relevant to the Council’s accountabilities

12.5. Set out a desired future state for science and technology relevant to the Council’s accountabilities

12.6. Describe how science needs will be prioritised, procured, delivered and then used and communicated going forward

12.7. Identify when the Council should lead science and technology work as opposed to support the efforts of others

12.8. Identify when others should/will be involved and how in the prioritisation, procurement, delivery and uptake of science and technology

12.9. Help minimise overlaps/duplication in research efforts.

Vision of the Draft Science and Technology Strategy

13. The draft STS has the following vision:

13.1. “Robust and understandable science and technology incorporating Mātauranga Māori, that enables a region with a vibrant community, a prosperous economy and a clean and healthy environment, now and for future generations.”

14. Two other potential visions were also provided in the draft STS, as suggested by iwi representatives:

14.1. “All science can provide a foundation for economic and environmental decisions which bring benefits for future generations.”

14.2. “Resource management decision making [that] is supported by robust and understandable science and technology.”

Values of the Draft Science and Technology Strategy

15. Under this vision, the draft STS articulates the following values for science and technology work undertaken by HBRC:

15.1. Inclusive – science and technology will reflect all key economic, environmental, social and cultural values (Māori as well as non-Māori)

15.2. Excellence – science research will be robust, objective, and credible

15.3. Timeliness – science research will aim to provide sufficient information to inform decision making in a timely manner rather than complete information that might take too long to gather

15.4. Communication – the Council will proactively engage key stakeholder groups affected by its science and research work as far as practicable

15.5. Transparency – Council decisions will be informed by objective and up-to-date science where the science is distinct from the decision(s) and justification for decisions is transparent

15.6. Accessibility – science and technology information will be understandable and made available in the easiest searchable manner

15.7. Forward thinking, and innovative – science and technology efforts will be based on current and future needs and will respond to and address emerging issues and open up opportunities to innovate

15.8. Mātauranga Māori – Māori traditional knowledge and values will be understood, respected and incorporated into the science research agenda

15.9. Kaitiakitanga – science information and development will inform the guardianship and/or protection of the environment

15.10. Value for money – science and technology research prioritisation, phasing and procurement decisions will maximise the value of available funding, including by leveraging off work done by others

15.11. Partnerships – science and technology needs will be prioritised, delivered and used collaboratively reflecting the interests and needs of the broader community.

Analysis

16. The report from SRG outlines the current state of science and technology work undertaken by and for HBRC, looking at strengths and weaknesses.

17. The report also examines the drivers, challenges and opportunities in the next 10 years from influences both internal and external to HBRC. These drivers, challenges and opportunities include trends in natural environmental conditions, as affected by human impacts, together with anticipated changes in social, cultural and economic conditions.

18. In the context of the report’s analysis, the state desired for science and technology work for the next 10 years, and the key commitments required to achieve this state are outlined. The principle underlying these commitments is that:

18.1. “[S]cience must be seen to be objective, credible, and communicated in a manner that can be easily understood by those affected” (original SRG emphasis provided here).

19. The key commitments identified include:

19.1. Council is committed to ensuring its decisions are based on sound science and that any justification for its decisions is made transparent.

19.2. There needs to a better understand of what the concepts of Mātauranga Māori and Kaitiakitanga mean, and their implications for decision making, and this needs to be applied in its science-related work.

19.3. Measurement and assessment of ‘baseline’ factors is a critical HBRC role. In the context of Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) cutting some of their monitoring functions, HBRC is the only organisation with primary responsibility for providing data relevant to Hawke’s Bay. This is a lead role for HBRC.

19.4. Supporting other’s research efforts in the Hawke’s Bay area is a secondary role for HBRC, in facilitating effective management practices and behaviours that address environmental issues.

19.5. Research areas of interest to HBRC should engage in research areas, particularly at a national level, to fill clear gaps that impact on Hawke’s Bay interests.

19.6. Research will be prioritised by HBRC to fit its lead (core) (14.3) and secondary roles (14.4), and to fit gaps in its knowledge/research base (14.5).

19.7. The highest priorities (in descending order) will be:

19.7.1. Environmental monitoring and related research into baseline environmental data, particularly in resource management and natural hazards

19.7.2. Identification and application of applied mitigation and adaptation options suitable for Hawke’s Bay circumstances

19.7.3. Partnering with industry to develop and apply more sustainable land management practices.

19.8. A 10-year science and technology plan will be developed and consulted on with stakeholders during LTP consultation. Consultation is also proposed during implementation of research work programmes through mechanisms such as email lists and technical advisory groups (TAGs).

19.9. In general, science and technology work programmes requiring ongoing input of specialist knowledge should be undertaken in-house. Contracting out science and technology work is suitable when specific skills or access to costly equipment is required on an infrequent basis.

19.10. Peer review of HBRC science and technology work will continue, and the peer review may be published at the same time as the original work.

19.11. Improvements will be made to the communication of science and technology work, particularly through the HBRC website, including giving more ready access to the back-catalogue of work completed by HBRC.

Financial and Resource Implications

20. There are no financial or resource implications outside the current Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

21. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

21.4. 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. Adopts the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Science and Technology Strategy 2015-2025.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Science and Technology Strategy 2015-2025

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: HBRIC Ltd Funding Request and January 2016 Update

Reason for Report

1. Attached is the report of HBRIC Ltd to Council on its activities over the late November – early December 2015 period (Attachment 1).

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

3. In addition to providing the update the Board is seeking Council approval for an addition to its borrowing facility.

Discussion

4. At its meeting on 25 November 2015 the Council resolved to:

4.1. Approve an increase in the RWSS budget by $1,354,000 of which $922,000 is being sought from the MPI Irrigation Acceleration Fund; and

4.2. Approve HBRIC Ltd. being able to increase its approved borrowing level from $2.0m to $2.5m

5. In the attached HBRIC update report HBRIC advise that they were unable to secure the full $922,000 applied for from the IAF and have been left with a shortfall of $347,000. They are requesting Council approval for a further increase in their approved borrowing by another $500,000 and have set out in their update paper the intended use for these additional funds.

6. On 18 December 2015 HBRIC Ltd notified Council that they had been advised of the outcome of the IAF decision. A copy of the letter received by HBRC is appended as Attachment 2.

7. HBRIC sought confirmation of what it considered to be Council’s intent in approving the increase in the borrowing level. A copy of the reply from Council is appended as Attachment 3.

8. As with existing borrowing provisions any increased borrowing by HBRIC ltd would be required to be reported in by HBRIC Ltd during its regular update reporting to Council.

9. Any additional financing of the RWSS approved by Council will form part of HBRIC Ltd.’s share of equity in the Ruataniwha Water Limited Partnership.

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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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. 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.

Recommendation

That Council:

2. Receives and takes note of the HBRIC Ltd January 2016 update

3. Approves HBRIC Ltd being able to increase its approved borrowing level from $2.5m to $3.0m

4. Notes that, if the proposed borrowing is approved by Council, HBRIC Ltd will report on the extent of drawdown of debt finance and the purpose for which it has been used as part of its regular reporting to Council.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	HBRIC Ltd January 2016 Update
2	Letter re financing request from HBRIC Ltd
3	Reply to financing request letter

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: European Water Quality Conference

Reason for Report

1. I travelled to Austria in September 2015 and attended the International Interdisciplinary Conference on Land Use and Water Quality - Agricultural Production and the Environment (LUWQ). The conference was run over a week in Vienna.

2. This paper outlines the background to the conference and my key findings.

Background

3. This is the third LUWQ conference held in Europe. It has rapidly become the international conference of choice for science practitioners, policy writers, consultancies and government agencies who are grappling with the management of land use and water quality.

4. LUWQ is an international and interdisciplinary conference on the cutting edge of science, management and policy to minimise effects of agriculture and land use changes on the quality of groundwater and surface waters.

5. The objectives of the conference were to:

5.1. provide forum for exchange of scientific knowledge, research on system knowledge, modelling and uncertainty

5.2. discuss the entire policy cycle for water quality improvement

5.3. intensify contacts (a) between soil/water related scientists, agriculture related scientists, social scientists, ecological scientists and economists, and (b) between scientists, water managers and policy makers.

6. The conference attendees were primarily from European countries with a strong contingent from New Zealand with representatives from MfE, MPI, regional councils, universities, CRIs and the private sector.

7. Six oral presentations (out of 106) were from New Zealand based presenters and two (out of 57) poster presentations from New Zealand based presenters. I presented a poster highlighting the ongoing development of the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website.

8. The conference was jointly convened by:

8.1. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Institute of Hydraulics and Rural Water Management (IHLW), Vienna, Austria

8.2. RIVM, Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment

8.3. Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Denmark

8.4. Umweltbundesamt, Environment Agency Austria

8.5. Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Federal Environment Agency, Germany

8.6. Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Conference background, scope, objectives and themes

9. Growing population and increasing wealth are incentives for further growth of agricultural production in all parts of the world. The potential drawback of growth of the agricultural sector is an increase in the pollution of the terrestrial and aquatic environment by nutrients, pesticides and trace elements.

10. Recent studies (National Research Council, 2010; GOS, 2011) show that this problem is not confined to North America and Europe. An example is the Mekong River basin with its rapidly expanding population. This river basin is a microcosm of conflicting drivers and demands, and decisive policy action is needed to arrive at a compromise between short-term growth and sustainable exploitation of aquatic resources in the long term (GOS, 2011, p. 60).

11. In the European Union, environmental directives, aim at reducing the impact of human activities on the aquatic environment. For example, the Nitrates Directive (ND) intends to lessen the impact of agriculture and the Groundwater Directive (GD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to reduce the impact of other sectors also. EU member states are obliged to make programmes of measures to abate and reduce environmental pollution. The European Commission has developed a blueprint to safeguard Europe’s water resources and to clarify what additional actions and tools are needed (EU, 2012).

12. Programmes of measures are the outcome of a political process involving science, policy, stakeholders and interest and pressure groups. Governments use programmes of measures to reach pre-defined environmental goals, such as good water quality. Programmes of measures contain obligation for actors, e.g., farmers, owners of nature areas or drinking water supply companies. Governments evaluate and adapt these programmes regularly. The success of implementation of these programmes depends, amongst others, on the acceptance of the programme of measures by the actors, advice and education, controls and enforcement.

Conference Themes

13. Increasing system knowledge: research to increase understanding and improving modelling of the hydro(geo)logical, geochemical and biochemical reality.

13.1. Tools and methods to describe and increase knowledge about processes (water and mass flux, and chemical and biological reactions of pollutants) are a pre-requisite for sound and effective monitoring, modelling and predicting effectiveness of programmes of measures on water quality.

14. Impact of climate change and hydrological/weather variability: assessment of effect on groundwater and surface water quality and distinguishing from manmade effects

14.1. Trends in water quality depend on two major factors, namely change in land use and climate change. Though climate change is important and was considered in LUWQ, the primary focus of LUWQ was on the effect of land use changes on water quality, on all scales, including the global, national and local scale. Effects from changes on land use due to climate change can interfere with protection measures, especially due to changes in crop patterns and the possibility of a shift toward multiple annual crops in many northern European countries. Also year-to-year variability in weather may mask improvements in water quality, while climate change may hamper or strengthen water quality improvements achieved due to programmes of measures. These effects can lead to wrong conclusions about the effectiveness of the programmes. In addition, well-founded knowledge on effectiveness of climate change on water quality is essential for making science-based predictions of the effectiveness of programmes of measures.

15. Assessment of national policy: effectiveness of programmes of measures on water quality on a regional and national scale

15.1. All EU Member States have to monitor and model water quality in order to assess the effectiveness of Nitrate Directive action programmes and WFD river basin management plans on a national scale and to report to the European Commission. In addition, assessments on an international scale are made for evaluation and renegotiation of international policies. This theme focuses on the discussion of methodologies and approaches for surveillance and operational monitoring, modelling for underpinning monitoring results and modelling to forecast future evolution of water quality.

16. Field research and data interpretation: research (monitoring and modelling) at plot and field scale for quantifying effects of farming practices and changes in land use

16.1. To show effects of specific farming practices (use of catch crops; amount, methods and timing of application of fertilisers and manure; grassland renewal, etcetera) on water quality. It gives the research perspective, approaches and results of investigative monitoring, field studies and modelling (including case studies) to show the effectiveness of specific farming practices incorporated or to be incorporated in programmes of measures. The scale of the studies is often on the plot or field level, but may include studies on farm or catchment scale.

17. Managing protected areas: risk assessment monitoring and modelling of water quality and quantity, for drinking water supply and ecosystem conservation within Habitat and Species Protection Areas

17.1. WFD sets additional monitoring requirements for protected areas. Protected Areas include bodies of surface water and groundwater used for the abstraction of drinking water, and habitat and species protection areas identified under the Birds Directive or the Habitats Directive. This theme also deals with problems of classification of the ecological status of waters.

18. Decision-making and implementation: role of policy, stakeholder and science in decision-making, and social and economic incentives and constraints for implementation (carrots and sticks)

18.1. Political, social and economic aspects play an important role in designing new programmes of measures, in decision-making, and in implementation of programmes of measures. Scientists evaluate programmes of measures based on results of research, monitoring and modelling. However, it is governments and members of parliament that discuss and decide on new measures and tightening of existing regulations. What is the importance of targets groups and science in this debate in the political arena? Which aspects play an important role in the success or failure of these programmes to realise the goals set in advance? These themes focus on good governance, successful implementation strategies and options to involve farmers and other stakeholders in monitoring and research.

Key findings

19. There was significant value hearing from and discussing land and water management challenges with practitioners from other countries. The connections I have made will be valuable in the future as we continue our work in the development of science and policy for land and water management.

20. By in large water quality in both ground and surface water in New Zealand is comparatively better than many parts of Europe and Asia. In many parts of Europe they are struggling to bring groundwater down to acceptable levels for drinking. In many countries in northern Europe most drinking water is derived from groundwater.

21. One of the current solutions to this involves large scale ‘barn farming’ with stock permanently housed indoors and feed cut and carried to the stock. The effluent and manure is captured from the housed stock is then exported (trucked) to other parts of the country or in some cases to another part of the continent where groundwater quality is still within acceptable limits. Country scale groundwater modelling is used to assess where areas are available for nutrient export. For example manure from Denmark and the Netherlands is being trucked to eastern Germany, and further to Poland and the Ukraine for disposal.

22. There is a significant disconnect between the science, policy makers and implementers of policy in Europe. The system they work to is one of scientists working in apparent isolation from their communities to develop catchment or regional models and to use that science to advocate action (to make policy). Top-down, often highly prescriptive policy such as the Nitrate Directive is set at the EU level, which must be complied with at the National level (the Netherlands was taken to court by the EU because it chose to implement the Nitrate Directive using methods other than those prescribed). The national policy and rules are then developed by policy makers with apparent limited input from the science practitioners and with limited engagement with communities, in particular the primary sector. The regulators are then working with local farmers to deliver the policy often with little or no understanding of the science. Many regulations are based on input controls at the farm scale (eg how much fertilizer and manure you can apply). Large surplus of manure are created by the manure rules in Denmark and the Netherlands, resulting in the need to export it.

23. Policy effectiveness monitoring is virtually absent, except at the national scale to comply with EU directives. For example nitrogen inputs at the farm scale are aggregated, and outputs are measured from produce sampling, which enables countries to demonstrate their progress in meeting the Nitrate Directive. The uptake of required actions via catchment plans is relatively low. The challenges that we face are similar in that we are requiring uptake of farm plans.

24. That said there have been some large but gradual reductions of both N and P losses from farm systems in many countries. For example Denmark has reduced N and P by 50% and 56% respectively, over the period since the 1991 Nitrate Directive. Within Denmark though approximately 50% of the ‘sand farm’ area exceeds the MAV for drinking. The current Dutch government view is that the MAV will be met at large spatial scales (for example a catchment but not at a sub-catchment). The implication of this is that they view an ‘unders and overs’ approach to achieving the limits as acceptable.

25. New Zealand was held up in the conference closing as a good example (particularly the ECAN Canterbury Water Management Strategy) for successful integration of the science/policy/community of interest cycle. This is consistent with the approach that HBRC takes.

26. The sophistication and resourcing of nutrient and groundwater model development is significant and impressive. Some national-level responses to achieve the requirements of the Nitrate Directive to reach 50% of drinking water MAV (ie 5.7 mg/l) in groundwater and in river are also impressive. The challenge is that it seems that the science may not be being correctly or adequately incorporated into policy and most importantly there seems to be little focus on the effectiveness of policy through monitoring and reporting.

27. As a result of presentations from a Denmark based consultancy a group are looking to try and bring some of their staff to New Zealand to share experiences with the development of Farm Planning approaches.

Decision Making Process

28. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives and notes the “European Water Quality Conference” report.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

Subject: Annual Plan Progress Report for Six Months to 31 December 2015

Reason for Report

1. This Annual Plan Progress Report covers the first six months of the 2015-16 financial year and consists of commentary on financial results to 31 December 2015 and summarises performance reporting by Group of Activity.

Summary of the Financial Position to 31 December 2015

2. The actual result covering the Council’s general funded operations for the first six months of 2015-16 is a deficit of $599,000. This is compared to the reforecast pro-rata budget (Annual Plan) deficit of $642,000. The variation for the six months is $43,000 favourable. The variations from pro-rata budgets are covered in this report.

Status of Reforecasting

3. The financial progress report for the first three months of the 2015-16 financial year set out an overview of some of the pressure points on the regional income portion of the Annual Plan budgets. It is now proposed in this six monthly report to more clearly set out the implications on the Plan of changes in regional income, most of which are caused by external factors.

4. The detailed financial report in attachment 1 sets out in some detail, the movements in regional income from Annual Plan figures, however it is pleasing to note that there is no effect on Council’s Annual Plan deficit of $480,000, as the unfavourable variances in regional income are offset by other favourable trends.

5. This six month report does not carry out a reforecasting exercise for Council’s groups of activities expenditure and revenue as this exercise will be carried out for the nine months to 31 March 2016 and reported to Council at the April Council meeting. A current overview of trends in expenditure on groups of activity give no cause for concern because the areas of known over expenditure in Westshore renourishment costs, Maori Committee costs and amalgamation poll costs are offset by, reduced cost of salaries due to difficulty of recruitment of appropriate skilled personnel and also a reduction in ACC levies.

Comment on Financial Results for Six Months to 31 December 2015

6. The report is provided in the following format.

Attachment 1: Financial Reports for the Six Months to 31 December 2015 contains:

Section A – Operating Account

Section B – Balance Sheet

Section C – Cashflow Statement

Section D – Capital

Attachment 2: Narrative Project Performance Updates

Decision Making Process

7. 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 Council receives and notes of the “Annual Plan Progress Report for the first six months to 31 December 2015“.

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	Financial Reports for Six Months to 31 December 2015
2	Narrative Project Performance Updates		Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 January 2016

SUBJECT: Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through February 2016

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
CE’s Office		1. Consultant continues to develop HBRC/HBRIC Alternative Proposal for Rail Freight service Napier-Wairoa. If service is feasible paper will be brought to February Council meeting. 2. Ongoing liaison with Eastland Group on repair of Waihi Dam 3. LGNZ Zone 3 meeting to be hosted by CHBDC on 11-12 February 4. February Maori Committee meeting to be held at Wairoa Taiwhenua
External Relations	Communications	5. Our Place is migrating to a bi-monthly one-page newsletter, targeted to CHB Mail, Napier-Hastings Mail and Wairoa Star - the pilot release date is 16 February. 6. Staff are assisting with resource development for Waitangi Estuary Enhancement, Tukituki implementation, Water Symposium, Biodiversity Strategy launch, Share the Road campaign, ‘We Are.’ LGNZ campaign.
	Transport	7. Investigations are underway into potential bus service improvements to be implemented starting with new contract in August 2016, with focus on improving journey times and reliability on Route 12 between Napier and Hastings. 8. Progress made with potential re-direction of unused road safety funding into driver licensing programmes. A proposal has been prepared and circulated to the Intersectoral Group. Member organisations have agreed in principle to fund the local share, and permission will now be sought from NZTA to use its allocation for this purpose. 9. Cycle Trails Manager role is being established as a shared resource between HBRC, HDC and NCC to coordinate infrastructure, draw funding investment to HB, promote the network and advocate behaviour change. 10. Nationwide consultation is underway on changes to : · the allocation of funding for the SuperGold card transport scheme · rules for the operation of small passenger services such as taxis, shuttles and private hire services (e.g. Driving Miss Daisy, Uber). Draft submissions will be prepared for consideration at the Corporate and Strategic Committee in February.
Corporate Services		11. Annual Plan to be covered in Council workshop on 17 February 2016.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal	12. Coastal Strategy Joint Committee meetings scheduled 10 February and 10 March. The Committee expects to receive the finalised technical report quantifying the hazards and risks associated with those hazards, and agree to the process for completing the Strategy document and developing a range of options for mitigating the hazards.
	Biosecurity	13. Eight wireless trapping trials underway with community groups or individuals, which will further refine our ability to deliver wide scale predator control at very low cost. 14. Final report on 2015 deliverables completed for the Cape to City project and will be provided to the Aotearoa Foundation. All but 2 minor milestones achieved. 15. Conversations continue with Comvita about the potential for a partnership in high performance manuka plantations as a tool for driving better hill country economic and environmental outcomes.
	Land Management	16. Staff proactively visiting larger land owners and those with higher nutrient loss risk farming enterprises in priority sub-catchments (Papanui, Porangahau stream/Maharakeke, Tukipo & Kahahakuri) to inform them of the implications of being in a priority sub-catchment and to promote early uptake of Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs) through an offer of a 25% grant toward the cost of a FEMP this financial year. 17. Three staff (Brendan Powell, Ian Millner & Nathan Heath) are presenting papers at the annual Fertiliser & Lime Research Conference, which this year focusses on “Integrated nutrient and water management for sustainable farming” and typically attracts an audience of 200-300 professionals from a variety of agencies and organisations. 18. Judging for the Ballance Farm Environment Awards has been completed and winners will be announced at the awards dinner on 25 February. 19. Two FEMP workshops have been planned for February in collaboration with Beef & Lamb.
	Engineering	20. Complete the Taipo Stream realignment and enhancement contract. 21. Complete the design and contract documentation for Ebbett’s stopbank (2.5 km) on the Tutaekuri River ready for construction this summer. 22. Prepare contract documents for the Kopuawhara Stopbank rebuilding. 23. Project management for $M15 Waipoa River stopbank upgrade programme (Gisborne DC). Presentation to Council and risk workshop Jan/Feb. Other smaller projects for GDC. 24. Upper Tukituki scheme rating review ongoing. 25. Coastal inundation mapping to be completed for the Coastal Strategy. 26. Stormwater modelling for NZTA at Links Road, Pakowhai. 27. Urban growth stormwater modelling overview for HDC. 28. Stormwater modelling at Bayview for NCC. 29. Complete the Rotokare Lake level control works. 30. Complete the river audits.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Open Spaces	31. Te Karamu Enhancement Strategy Review and Draft Implementation Plan nearing completion. 32. Lotteries application being prepared to support the Waitangi Estuary Enhancement. Appx value 300k. 33. Pakowhai Regional Park toilet construction underway expected completion late February. 34. Tutira Regional Park stakeholder field trip scheduled for 18^th February. 35. Waitangi Regional Park bird hide and track construction commencing February. 36. HDC / Te Mata Park Trust have completed draft Te Mata Park plan. 37. Staff presenting at National Wetland Symposia in Nelson, February 12^th on constructing the Pekapeka Wetland interpretation site. 38. 15 of 21 Walnut Trees adjacent to Mary Doyle to be felled March 2016. Consultation process has been followed.
Resource Management	Compliance	39. The prosecution of the Te Mata Mushroom Company for discharge of odour continues with the defended hearing set down for April 2016. 40. The investigation into the discharge of silt into the Waihi Stream from the Waihi Dam will continue. Running parallel to this will be the repair of the dam and the mitigation of any possible continuing discharge. 41. The Navigation Safety Review will be peer reviewed by an outside party and that will be completed by the end of February 2016.
Resource Management	Science	General Science 42. New approach for discovering Regional Council publications on HBRC website being developed by Science & ICT. Water Quality and Ecology 43. Working towards completing 6 SOE reports by June 2016 44. Macroinvertebrate community invertebrate (MCI) sampling is being undertaken alongside the regular SOE water quality sampling. 45. Measuring ecological response to the Waihi Dam incident – looking at water clarity and sedimentation effects downstream of the discharging slurry. 46. Shading experiments with operations – measuring weed growth under artificial shade to see whether shade can be used to reduce weed growth. 47. Science support for TANK as the plan change process continues, and potentially takes a new direction 48. Science support for the Tukituki Plan Change – longitudinal investigation in the Porangahau & Maharakeke, and preparing interpretation material for farm environmental management plans 49. Interviewing for an environmental scientist (to backfill Andy Hicks’ appointment as Team Leader) 50. Multi Criteria Decision Analysis development for Whakaki Lake catchment, with Land Management and Otago University. Simone Langhans and Marc Schallenberg will be visiting. 51. Finalising Tutira water quality modelling with University of Waikato, to identify potential remediation options to avoid algal blooms 52. Twin investigations by summer interns at Massey University – investigating materials suitable for absorbing phosphorus, and evaluating options for treatment wetlands at sites with high DIN (with Land Science) Coastal 53. The Recreational Water Quality Monitoring programme continues. Recent cyanobacteria growths on the Tukituki River and in Lake Tutira continue to be the focus for some monitoring and liaison. 54. SoE 5-yearly reporting is being completed to draft stage. 55. Upper Ahuriri Estuary investigations being scoped. Land Science 56. Review of new Land Science strategy 57. Annual review of Silver Fern Farms compliance data Hydrology 58. Install Water levels sites on the upper Mohaka and Maharakeke rivers 59. Service all back country rain gauge sites 60. Repair Tukipo weir. Groundwater 61. Continued development of groundwater model for Heretaunga Plains 62. Compiling and analysing water use data 63. Commissioning of nutrient loading modelling for TANK catchments 64. Commissioning of upper TANK catchment surface water modelling
Resource Management	Consents	65. Consent applications in process = 234 66. Notified or limited notified consents in process. a. Terry Longley and Son Limited (DP150280A - to discharge to air from a crematorium - Havelock North - submissions close 26 January 2016.) b. Twyford (WP140331T - global consent to take emergency water from groundwater with stream depletion effect on the Ngaruroro), Ngaruroro group (expiring consents taking from Ngaruroro surface water or adjacent stream depleting groundwater). Prehearings have been held for the latter two applications and are near resolving without the need for a hearing. 67. Environment Court Appeals a. Pan Pac (CD96033Wf to extend their outfall and discharge further out to sea). Mediation was held in December and HBRC are awaiting a response from Maungaharuru Tangitu Trust on whether they are willing to settle via a Consent Order. Tentative hearing date – May if not resolved. b. CPM Asphalt (DP150070A to discharge to air from an asphalt plant). 68. RMA Bill. Assess and prepare submissions if necessary on changes to or affecting consenting processes.
	Heatsmart	69. With effect from 1 January 2016 fires manufactured and installed prior to 2005 (that are no compliant with MfE emission standards) became prohibited from use under the HBRC Air Plan. HBRC is working with suppliers and through the media to encourage conversion to clean heating. Regulatory tools are in place to enforce compliance. It is expected that demand for the HBRC financial assistance programme will increase from February onwards, peaking in May/June
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	70. Update and review of TANK Group and wider TANK plan change project to be presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting in February. 71. Submissions invited on Resource Management Amendment Bill. Staff will prepare and present draft submission on the Bill for the RPC’s consideration at its meeting in February (submission deadline is 14 March). 72. MfE invited public submissions on proposed amendments to Marine Protected Areas legislation, with deadline being 11 March 2016. 73. Review of Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) is underway. Consultant has been engaged to project manage Phase 1 of the Review. HPUDS Implementation Working Group meeting is scheduled 23 Feb 2016 to cover preliminary Review Phase 1 outputs. 74. Ongoing involvement in 11 appeal proceedings for proposed Hastings District Plan review. 2016 likely to involve Environment Court-assisted mediation for several of those appeals.
Strategic Development	Economic Development	75. Recruitment of 0.5FTE Business Advisor under Regional Business Partner program. Work with NZT&E and Callaghan to implement new RBP initiatives and establish new operational protocols with HB Chamber now that it is sub-contracted to HBRC do provide services for the program. 76. Review first draft of Frost & Sullivan report on future value-add F&B opportunities for the region (BHB project with HBRC support) 77. Support REDS process, particularly recent Maori-led engagement initiative. 78. Support RWSS work streams as required.
Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group	Developing Capability	79. Three new staff members commencing over the next month and the focus will be on inducting them into HBRC and the CDEM Group. 80. Work will also begin on implementing the Group Work Program, in particular a program for the development of Community Response Plans has commenced. 81. The Group is also focused on implementing changes to the National CDEM Plan in the roles and responsibilities for the provision of welfare. These changes have increased the role of the Group in this area.

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 February 2016 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
HBRIC Ltd 2015 Board Performance Review	7(2)(a) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.