Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 20 April 2016

Time: 9.00 am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 3 February 2016

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 3 February 2016

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

7. Riparian Assessment for Tukituki and TANK catchments 9

8. Groundwater Level Changes in the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Basin from 1994 - 2014 17

9. Revised Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference 23

10. TANK Stakeholder Group: Terms of Reference and Master Plan 45

11. Next Steps for Freshwater Discussion Document 89

Information or Performance Monitoring

12. April 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update 115

13. Verbal Update on the Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Application

14. Verbal Update on Presentation of Pataka - A Resource Management Tool

15. December 2015 - March 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update 119

16. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 125

17. Verbal Update on Iwi - Hapu Engagement Plan for the Development of the TANK Plan Change

1. Free 2-hour on-road parking is available on Vautier Street adjacent to the HBRC Building

2. Public parking in the NCC lots either side of Vautier Street cost $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry of Vautier Street – it would be appropriate that the “visitors” parks be available for the members travelling distances from Waiora and CHB.

NB: Any carparks that have yellow markings are NOT to be parked in.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Nigel Baker	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka (co-chair)	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Allen Smith	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Christine Scott	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Dave Pipe	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson (co-chair)	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 17[1]

Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 13 members.

Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

13 10

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Subject: Riparian Assessment for Tukituki and TANK catchments

Reason for Report

1. This report presents two reports separately detailing the riparian condition (stock access and vegetation condition) of (1) the Tukituki and (2) the TANK (Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu) catchments.

Background

2. Baseline information on the riparian conditions found in the TANK and Tukituki catchments (including the level of stock access to waterways) was needed to inform the HBRC’s proposed TANK plan change and Plan Change 6 implementation processes, respectively.

3. The Tukituki Catchment was assessed first, to assist with the Plan Change 6 process and the subsequent implementation plan. Following the Tukituki project, an assessment of the TANK catchments were carried out to inform that proposed plan change process.

4. The riparian assessment was carried out entirely as a desk-top exercise over several weeks for each study area, visually assessing HBRC’s own aerial imagery. This methodology enabled large areas to be examined quickly. Areas that were unclear in the imagery were examined from the ground.

5. The assessment criteria consist of two parts: 1) stock access and 2) riparian vegetation condition.

6. The classification system used to describe stock access and riparian vegetation condition was developed by Sarrazin & Zimmermann (2003) and was chosen because it had been used in previous riparian studies carried out in Hawke’s Bay and nationally.

Findings

7. The methodology developed and presented in these 2 reports allows us to analyse and report on riparian condition at a sub-catchment level.

8. The riparian condition of the 17 sub-catchments in the Tukituki Catchment can be summarised as follows:

8.1. Overall, results showed correlation between the level of stock disturbance and riparian vegetation condition. For example, where stock disturbance level is low, riparian vegetation with good canopy cover was found.

8.2. The Makaroro sub-catchment has the best riparian conditions, with little stock disturbance and excellent riparian vegetation, consisting mainly of indigenous forest. The canopy is generally fully developed over the waterways, providing plenty of shade to maintain a healthy habitat within the stream. This condition is primarily because a large area of this sub-catchment is conservation estate.

8.3. Most sub-catchments located in the middle to lower part of the Tukituki catchment had relatively high disturbance from stock access and poor riparian vegetation, including the Porangahau, Maharakeke and Mangatarata sub-catchments.

8.4. By contrast, the Hawea sub-catchment has relatively good riparian condition, probably because it contains steep gully systems and a high proportion of its riparian zones are planted with exotic trees.

9. The findings from the assessment of the TANK catchments are summarised below.

9.1. Approximately half of the Ngaruroro catchment occupy montane (mountainous) environments protected by land conservation statuses such as DOC, QEII, Nga Whenua Rahui. Riparian conditions are excellent, with minimum stock disturbance and excellent riparian vegetation, consisting mainly of indigenous forest.

9.2. Riparian condition deteriorates closer to the coast. The level of stock disturbance was worst in the Maraekakaho sub-catchment, while the Tutaekuri-Waimate sub-catchment showed the poorest riparian vegetation condition.

9.3. The Tutaekuri catchment exhibits a similar pattern to the Ngaruroro catchment, where riparian condition is excellent in the upper part of the catchment but declines towards the coast. However, the overall riparian condition outside of conservation estate is better than in other TANK catchments. This is partly due to the presence of exotic forests along many of the stream margins that were assessed.

9.4. The Karamu and Ahuriri catchments showed distinctive patterns and issues. Both catchments are characterised by the presence of major urban areas (Hastings and Napier respectively). Streams in these areas, termed ‘urban streams’, are exposed to minimal or no stock disturbance but generally lack sufficient riparian vegetation to provide shade.

9.5. The Karamu catchment encompasses a significant area of horticultural land. Often waterways passing through horticultural land is less subject to stock grazing and stock disturbance due to common management practices found in horticulture. However, the same management practices result in minimal vegetation cover which can provide shade to these waterways.

10. Limitations with the assessment methodology used are identified in both reports, including inadequate resolution of aerial imagery for some areas, lack of current imagery (imagery used in this study was taken in 2010), and criteria not being designed to address disturbance from other land use activities than stock access. But despite those limitations, the information presented in the two reports could assist HBRC with prioritising areas for further investigation and targeting resources.

11. The information provided by these two reports has also formed an integral part of the sediment production and transportation model (SedNetNZ), which predicts sediment loss and movement at a farm scale to a catchment scale. The SedNetNZ modelling is currently being carried out in the TANK area and will eventually cover the entire region.

Summary

12. Pastoral streams in middle to low-lying areas of the Tukituki and TANK catchments have a high level of stock disturbance and poor riparian vegetation condition. Some sub-catchments have been identified as being in a particularly poor condition.

13. Streams in urban and horticultural areas have minimal disturbance from stock access but often have poor riparian vegetation condition, resulting in very little shading over waterways. The current assessment method is unable to identify potential impact from other land uses such as horticulture, but is something that could be examined in future.

Decision Making Process

14. 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:

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

14.5. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Riparian Assessment for Tukituki and Tutaekuri Ahuriri Ngaruroro Karamu (TANK) catchments” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. 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.

2.2. Approves the “Riparian Assessment for Tukituki, and Tutaekuri Ahuriri Ngaruroro Karamu (TANK) catchments” reports for publication and release.

Keiko Hashiba

Resource Analyst - Land

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1	Exec Summary - Tukituki Riparian Assessment
2	Exec Summary TANK Riparian Assessment

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Subject: Groundwater Level Changes in the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Basin from 1994 - 2014

Reason for Report

1. Under Section 35(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) local authorities are required to monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment to the extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under the RMA.

2. HBRC measures groundwater levels to monitor changes in the groundwater resource. Groundwater level monitoring is used to assist with policy development and decision making. This report summarises the state and trends in groundwater levels measured across the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains.

Background

3. The report uses two statistical methods to test and characterise the long-term changes in groundwater levels across the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Basins from 1994 to 2014. The report uses data collected from the State of the Environment network and compares groundwater levels with historic drilling records and patterns in rainfall data.

Key findings

4. Heretaunga Plains

4.1. Over the period 1994-2014 statistically significant monotonic (ie, having a continuous trend) declines were detected near the major recharge area in the unconfined aquifer between Roy’s Hill, Fernhill and Flaxmere. The trends are increasingly lower groundwater levels over summer. Over the winter months, during the same period, groundwater levels generally recovered back to, or near to, normal levels.

4.2. The magnitude of trends between Roy’s Hill, Fernhill and Flaxmere range between approximately 2–10 cm/yr. The maximum total decline, from 1994-2014, is estimated to be about 2.0 m, but varies between wells.

4.3. Over the confined zone no statistically significant trends in groundwater levels were detected. Nonetheless, groundwater levels are generally lower both in the unconfined zone, and to a lesser degree in the confined zone, from 1994 to 2014. However, anecdotal information from drilling in 1867 suggests groundwater levels in the Meeanee area were similar to groundwater levels measured today. This suggests groundwater levels have probably not changed significantly in this area since the mid-19^th century.

4.4. Decomposing the trends in groundwater levels using LOESS (a smoothing regression) indicates the declines are monotonic and linear through time, except for some minor inter-annual fluctuations. The trend direction and patterns of inter-annual fluctuations are consistent across most wells monitored on the Heretaunga Plains, and correlate with abnormally dry or wet periods. However trends in rainfall are different to trends in groundwater levels, which indicates some other factor besides rainfall is causing the declines observed in the groundwater levels.

4.5. The declines observed in groundwater levels probably reflect increased pumping over time. However information about actual pumping is poor, with most information available only for the last 5 years. This makes it difficult to directly examine the impact of pumping on groundwater levels. Another alternative, but less likely cause for groundwater level decline, is a reduction in aquifer recharge.

4.6. Declines in groundwater levels are expected as when groundwater is pumped. Numerical modelling is required to help understand when the declines are likely to stop and at what new level, and to examine what effect will this have on surface water and where.

4.7. Low groundwater levels cause issues in some areas of the Heretaunga Plains for users who rely on surface-based groundwater pumps or those who rely on artesian groundwater. The effects of declining groundwater levels on surface water are unquantified.

5. Ruataniwha Plains

5.1. Over the period 1994-2014 statistically significant monotonic declines in groundwater levels were detected along the western margins of the Ruataniwha Plains near Tikokino and Ongaonga. The trends reflect lower groundwater levels over both summer and winter. This indicates groundwater levels in these monitor wells do not fully recover over winter.

5.2. Groundwater levels are declining along the western margins of the Ruataniwha Plains near Tikokino and Ongaonga range at a rate of approximately 3–28 cm/yr. The maximum total decline, from 1994-2014, is estimated to be about 5.6 m near Takapau. At other sites the total declines ranges between 0.6-4.8 m.

5.3. Trends in groundwater levels decomposed by LOESS are similar to patterns observed in the Heretaunga Plains. Declines are monotonic and linear with time, except for some minor inter-annual fluctuations.

5.4. The trend direction and patterns of inter-annual fluctuations are consistent across most wells monitored on the Ruataniwha Plains. The inter-annual fluctuations correlate with abnormally dry or wet periods. This suggests that extreme variations in weather patterns affect both the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers in a similar way.

5.5. In a similar way to the Heretaunga, trends in rainfall and in Ruataniwha groundwater levels are not related, suggesting something else is causing observed declines in groundwater levels.

5.6. Declines observed in groundwater levels probably reflect increased groundwater pumping over time. However information about groundwater volumes pumped has been monitored only for the last 5 years, making it difficult to examine the impact of pumping on groundwater levels. Another alternative, but less likely cause for groundwater level declines, is a reduction in aquifer recharge.

Summary

5.7. Areas in both the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains experienced groundwater level declines from 1994 to 2014. In the Heretaunga Plains these are located mainly near the major recharge area between Roy’s Hill, Fernhill and Flaxmere. In the Ruataniwha Plains these are mostly located along the western margins of the Ruataniwha Plains near Tikokino and Ongaonga. Groundwater level declines in the Ruataniwha Plains are generally greater than groundwater level declines in the Heretaunga Plains.

5.8. For many sites no statistically significant trends were detected.

Financial and Resource Implications

6. There are no financial or resource implications from this report.

Decision Making Process

7. Council is not required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002:

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Groundwater Level Changes in the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Basin from 1994-2014”

2. That the RPC recommends that Council:

2.1. Approves the Groundwater Quantity Technical Report for publication.

Simon Harper

Groundwater Scientist

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

Exec Summary - Groundwater Level Changes

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Subject: Revised Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. This report presents a draft Revised Regional Planning Committee (RPC) ‘Terms of Reference.’ The revisions are drafted to align to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 (refer Appendix A) which came into effect in August 2015.

2. RPC members are invited to provide feedback on the draft revised terms of reference (‘ToR’). This report outlines some key milestone to ultimately lead to a revised TOR being agreed and adopted for the RPC’s mode of operating after the 2016 local government elections. To ensure this is achieved, it is intended that a final draft revised version of the ToR would be considered by the RPC at is 3^rd August meeting and referred to the subsequent Council meeting on 31^st August 2016.

Background

3. The RPC was formed in April 2011 by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (Council) for the purposes of overseeing the review and development of the regional planning documents for the Hawke’s Bay region as required by the Resource Management Act 1991. The RPC was established as the Treaty of Waitangi redress for Tangata Whenua groups.

4. There have been a number of revisions of the RPC terms of reference over the past four years; with the expectation that the RPC would be entrenched as a permanent committee of Council through an Act of Parliament, which means that the Committee cannot be disestablished merely by a council resolution.

5. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act came into legislation on 15 August 2015. The purpose of that Act is to:

5.1. improve tāngata whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 [i] for the Hawke’s Bay region;

5.2. to that end, this Act establishes the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee as a joint committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.^{^[ii]}

6. Many of the current RPC members were involved in the development of this proposed legislation. Furthermore, the RPC and Council made submissions to the Select Committee during the Bill’s phase.

7. More recently, several meetings have been held between Council staff, including the CEO Liz Lambert and representatives of the RPC membership; namely Cr Christine Scott, Tangata Whenua members; Tania Hopmans and Toro Waaka accompanied by Robin Hape (CEO Ngati Pahauwera) to review and comment on early drafting of revisions to RPC’s terms of reference.

8. This paper presents an opportunity for the wider RPC membership to add comment and suggest amendments and/or additions on this first draft revised ToR.

9. It should be remembered that the Council has a broad range of obligations to Tangata Whenua, and not all of those are met through the RPC’s activities alone. There is a range of other activities (e.g. operational activities and funding decisions) undertaken by Council through project-specific works and other sub-committees of council. It is anticipated that consideration will be periodically given to the most appropriate allocation of governance of Council functions between the RPC and other Council governance bodies.

Next Steps

10. It is intended that revised ToR will be in place in time for the RPC’s activities post-local government elections (elections in October 2016). Working back form that, key milestones are set out in Table 1 in order to meet the reporting timeframe for the Council meeting on 31^st August 2016.

Table 1

Key Dates	Action	Principal responsibility
19 April 2016	RPC member workshop: to informally discuss the revised RPC terms of reference.	Liz Lambert, CE
20 April	RPC meeting (i.e. this report) First revision of the terms of reference at RPC meeting.	Liz Lambert, CE
	Feedback invited from all RPC membership including the Tangata Whenua membership in consultation with their respective Trustees to a) endorse the report b) provide further suggestions on first draft revised ToR.	All RPC members
13 May	Deadline for RPC’s Tangata Whenua members’ to provide feedback to HBRC staff on first draft. (NB: Followed by HBRC staff to assimilate feedback into revisions and papers for 1^st June RPC meeting agenda).	Joyce-Anne Raihania, Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor
25 May	Second draft revised ToR published with RPC agenda papers for 1^st June meeting.	Joyce-Anne Raihania, Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor
1 June	RPC meeting to consider second revised draft ToR.	Liz Lambert, CE
	Feedback invited from all RPC membership including the Tangata Whenua membership in consultation with their respective Trustees to a) endorse the report b) provide further suggestions on second draft revised ToR.	All RPC members
8 July	Deadline for RPC members to provide feedback to HBRC staff on second draft ToR. (NB: Followed by HBRC staff to assimilate feedback into revisions and papers for 3^rd Aug RPC meeting agenda).	Joyce-Anne Raihania, Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor
3 Aug	RPC meeting to consider endorsement of final draft ToR and recommend Council adoption.	Liz Lambert, CE
31 Aug	Council meeting to consider final adoption of revised ToR.	Liz Lambert, CE

Financial and Resource Implications

11. Any financial and resource implications arising from a decision to invite feedback on this first draft of revised ToR can be accommodated within exiting project budgets.

Decision Making Process

12. 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:

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

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

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

12.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

12.5. Options that have been considered include revising the RPC terms of reference in alignment to the Act 2015.

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

12.7. 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

The Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Revised Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference” report.

2. Endorses the key milestones set out in Table 1 of the report as the timeframes for work to adopt a revised terms of reference for the RPC so the revised terms of reference are in place and active following the local government elections in October 2016.

3. Agrees that Committee members provide feedback on the first draft revised terms of reference by Friday 13^th May 2016 and that tangata whenua members do so in consultation with their respective trustees.

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference amended 13 April 2016

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Subject: TANK Stakeholder Group: Terms of Reference and Master Plan

Reason for Report

1. This report seeks the Regional Planning Committee’s (RPC) approval of a revised Terms of Reference for the TANK Collaborate Stakeholder Group and a Master Plan for the TANK plan change project.

2. This is in response to a request from the RPC at its meeting on 3 February 2016, instructing the Group Manager Strategic Development to report back to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in April 2016 with:

a) a draft ‘master plan’ for the TANK plan change project outlining critical deliverables and dependencies between now and the plan change becoming operative.

b) a framework to clarify the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee and any collaborative regional plan development processes undertaken in the region, including protocols around membership.

c) a proposed approach to the TANK Group’s operations, including on matters of leadership and facilitation.

d) with an analysis of options for any statutory recognition of past or future collaborative planning within the TANK project

Background

3. The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group was formed in 2012 with its principal purose being to recommend to Council land and water management objectives for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchments (Tutaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū). The TANK Group consists of 30-plus members from tāngata whenua (representing nga hapū and marae), primary sector, council and environmental interests.

4. Meeting 19 of the TANK Group was held on 5^th April 2016. At this meeting, the Group agreed a number of changes to the project approach to improve the general functioning of the Group and to deliver a draft plan change by December 2017. These changes included committing to a detailed work programme mapped out to December 2017 and proposed changes to the Terms of Reference for approval by the Regional Planning Committee.

Master Plan and Work Programme

5. The Master Plan for the TANK plan development process is described in attachment 1. It describes staff resources and science and investigation commitments to the project over the next 2 years and includes the work programme for the TANK Group. It describes key project management requirements and the overall timeframe for the project.

6. The Work Programme describes the outputs required by the TANK Group and the meeting schedule for the required work. It was well received by the TANK Group and addressed a number of previously raised concerns.

7. Key features of the work programme include:

a) adopting a more intensive 6-weekly meeting schedule

b) small Working Groups on ring-fenced topics

c) scheduling of topics reflecting the timing of the GW/SW model

d) regular reporting back to RPC meetings

e) adopting the National Objectives Framework (NOF) for structured decision-making on objectives, limits, and methods (which commenced after the Group was established) by catchment

f) greater focus on wider community engagement and developing awareness

Terms of Reference

8. At the TANK Group meeting on 5^th April 2016, the Group received a discussion paper on topics for review of the current TANK Group Terms of Reference.

9. The Group provided feedback on issues of remuneration and need for a chair. Clarity was sought in relation to the TANK project’s outputs and the role of the Group and the RPC relative to each other. There was also discussion about legal and process related issues for individuals, councillors and RPC members, including the roles of RPC members on the TANK Group in particular.

10. A revised draft Terms of Reference (refer attachment 2) was circulated to the TANK Group following the meeting with feedback on the draft changes being sought and has the in-principle approval of the TANK Group. Some suggestions were made for additional amendments, however, they were largely editorial and had less consequential impact and in the interests of minimising the amount of change to the ToR most were not taken up.

11. The TANK group will be challenged to form a robust consensus that they can support as being the best outcome for the environment and the people who live in it.

12. If agreements can only made with reservations (expressed or not), this is not really a consensus and presents a risk in the schedule 1 process for the TANK position. It needs to be clear where there are still any unresolved issues – these are the ones that are clearly identified as requiring further consideration by all parties in the schedule 1 process.

13. The Plan change can include methods other than rules. The council/TANK process will also need to consider monitoring requirements as part of the plan change development.

14. The only areas of concern remaining are the roles of RPC members and councillors and how direction is given to the Group’s work. These issues are further discussed below.

The roles of Council, RPC and collaborative groups

15. The RPC requested clarification of the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee and any collaborative regional plan development processes undertaken in the region.

16. This report focusses on the issues raised through the TANK process and provides some guidance as to how a regional model might be developed.

17. It has become apparent that there is a need to clarify the role of non-statutory collaborative groups, and their outputs in relation to the statutory roles and responsibilities of the Council and the Regional Planning Committee in making resource management decisions. This includes addressing risks to the collaborative group process and its outputs as well as risks to councillors as they make decisions in a judicial capacity (in relation to any related plan notification or schedule 1 process).

18. It is necessary to clarify roles so that perceptions of conflicts of interest, double dipping in decision-making and pre-determination are appropriately managed. This includes consideration of appropriate iwi representation in the various processes to ensure both governance and advisory roles are accounted for. However, in addition to a regional context for this assessment, the issue needs first to be considered in the historic context that applied when the TANK Group was first formed.

19. When the TANK Group was formed, it was around the same time as the RPC was being established. At that time, Council appointed 3 councillors as members of the TANK Group. In addition, representatives from the iwi authorities, marae and hapu groups also joined the Group as it was set up.

20. Since then the RPC has been established to improve the involvement of tangata whenua in regional plan-making under the Resource Management Act, which is achieved by the statutory decision-making functions of the RPC. This development requires that extra care is taken to clearly define who is acting in what capacity and when.

21. Members of the Regional Planning Committee are required to make decisions on regional plans by taking into account a range of statutory considerations both within the Resource Management Act and national regulatory instruments, submissions from territorial authorities, Ministers of the Crown, tangata whenua and agreements with iwi/hapu groups, as well as public submitters. These decisions are complex legal processes that are appealable to the courts and ultimately result in legally enforceable rules and regulations. It is important that when the RPC receives a proposed plan change from a stakeholder-led process, such as the TANK Group, due consideration is given to the full range of required matters, submissions and instruments. Any process weakness or error will result in a risk of judicial review or appeal of the plan.

22. Given these changes and the need to ensure appropriate transparency and accountability in decision making, a review of the TANK Group membership is timely. Options available to the Council include:

a) Continuing with the original appointment by Council of 3 councillors – based on the three wards within the TANK planning area. Members to have voting rights.

b) Changing to a RPC based appointment model with, say, 2 tangata whenua and 2 councillor appointments (or 3 and 3 of each reflecting the areas of interest) and members to have voting rights; or

c) Changing to a model that more clearly distinguishes between advisory and decision making roles and better accounts for tangata whenua participation in both RPC decision making and involvement in the TANK plan development processes. This option (c) would allow for all RPC members that wish to have involvement in the TANK Group as active observers with speaking rights, but not decision rights at the TANK Group table. This option could also involve a smaller number of RPC members, similar to options a) and b), being designated as primary liaison persons with the TANK Group but with a focus on active observation rather than decision rights at the TANK Group table.

Option (c) also complements staff’s recommendation regarding the appointment of a sub-committee of the RPC as the hearing panel for the TANK schedule 1 process.

23. The revised draft ToR is based on option (c). It recognises the interest of the RPC in ensuring the TANK Group is supported and enabled to work in a consensus decision-making way to provide advice about the plan changes required to manage the TANK catchments. The ToR also recognises the need for TANK progress and outputs to be routinely reported to the RPC and the RPC’s need to be kept up to date.

24. Option (c) best addresses concerns raised about legal challenges and risks, perceptions about conflicts of interest, and status in decision making processes. Attachment 3 provides some principles and procedures that support this option and staff recommendations for changes to the TANK Group’s Terms of Reference. This approach can also be considered as a suitable framework for any future collaborative or community based plan development process as it is based on a generic principles based approach.

25. Other measures that are recommended to assist in management and operation of the TANK Group to address a particular concern raised in feedback about how the TANK Group is directed include:

a) Commitment to maintaining relationships and providing pathways for addressing them, or issues arising about the work programme (i.e. through the continued support and oversight by HBRC managers working with the Group Facilitator).

b) Regular report backs to the RPC by the TANK Group and opportunity for attendance at TANK Group meetings by RPC members.

c) TANK Group approval of the work programme – and input into the agenda for the next meetings (a new procedural item to be included in planning for each meeting).

Decision making options

26. The draft ToR includes information about the future plan change process and the potential involvement for the TANK Group in that process. It also refers to the RPC in a decision making role. The Council has not yet indicated any preferred option for selecting a hearing panel for this particular plan change process.

27. The RPC would need to recommend to Council that it be appointed to hear and make recommendations to Council about any submissions received on the Plan Change after it is notified should it agree with this aspect of the ToR.

28. An alternative option is to recommend that the Council appoints a sub-committee of, say, 3 councillor and 3 iwi members (possibly based on areas of representation within the TANK planning area) to the hearing panel. This option would potentially be more efficient and cost effective than managing the entire RPC as the hearing panel.

29. This reflects the commitment the RPC has to the collaborative process embarked on with the TANK Group and enables them to more fully participate in the decision making in respect of the TANK catchments. It enables the RPC to be more integrated and involved with the plan making process and is also reflected in the proposed operational changes to the way the TANK Group interacts with the RPC and its members.

30. Some concern was expressed from a TANK Group member by this suggestion, including concerns about the capacity of the RPC members. It would be consistent with legislative requirements to ensure that the membership of any hearing panel in respect of the expected plan change process is also subject to the person having undertaken the “Making Good Decisions” training and hearings commissioner certification provided by the government. This would help address the concern raised.

Options for statutory recognition of collaborative planning

31. The Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 has proposed new provisions aimed at better recognising and providing for collaborative processes, particularly in relation to schedule 1 plan change processes and appeal rights.

32. One of the proposals would see a retrospective acknowledgement of existing collaborative processes. Previous advice has indicated that such a change would be quite a fundamental shift in the understanding, commitment and status of the TANK Group – not just for existing members, but for all stakeholders with an interest in the outcomes of the process and the Council itself.

33. Further consideration of the possible legislation changes and the effect these might have on the TANK Group won’t be possible until this legislation progresses further. In any case, it is possible that any change will come too late to affect this TANK process. No further advice can be provided at this stage.

Financial and Resource Implications

34. The work being carried out by the TANK Group and the related science inputs are within existing budgets. There may be some adjustments required within existing staff projects to meet the priority and timeframes provided for within the Project Plan for the TANK work.

Decision Making Process

35. The 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:

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

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

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

1.4. The persons affected by this decision are councillors and RPC members themselves and members of the TANK Group who have a special interest in continuing the work already undertaken and seeing their commitment to this process through.

1.5. No other options that have been considered here, although a previous report to council did consider and discount the option of discontinuing the TANK process.

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

1.7. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “TANK Stakeholder Group: Terms of Reference and Work Programme” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that the Council:

2.2. Agrees on the Master Plan set out in Attachment 1 as outlining critical deliverables and dependencies between now and the plan change becoming operative.

2.3. Agrees on the changes recommended to the Terms of Reference set out in Attachment 2 for the TANK Group.

2.4. Endorses the principles set out in Attachment 3 as the approach to the relationship between the Council and its committees and any stakeholder-led collaborative planning group for preparation of regional plans/plan changes under the Resource Management Act.

2.5. Agrees in principle to appoint a sub-committee comprised of equal numbers of councillors and tangata whenua members from the RPC, representing the TANK planning area, as members of a hearings commissioner-accredited panel to hear and make recommendations on submissions received as part of any schedule 1 process following the TANK plan development process.

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1	TANK Master Plan 2016 Att 1
2	TANK Terms of Reference Att 2
3	Roles and Respnsibilities Att 3

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 April 2016

Subject: Next Steps for Freshwater Discussion Document

Reason for Report

1. This report seeks the Committee’s adoption of a submission on the discussion document produced by the Ministry for the Environment about government proposals for freshwater management.

Background

2. The Government is continuing to explore ways of improving the management of freshwater in New Zealand. A recently released discussion document continues to build on and improve management measures encompassed in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) 2014 and as a result of work being done by the Land and Water Forum (LAWF).

3. The discussion document ‘Next Steps for Freshwater’ contains the next steps the Government proposes to improve the management of freshwater in the NZ. Feedback on the proposals is being sought and must be received by 22 April 2016.

4. Staff prepared a draft response to the discussion document and this was circulated to members of the RPC for feedback prior to preparation of this report. The feedback received is summarised and reported on below and the draft amended as necessary. The revised draft submission is attachment 1.

Feedback on a draft

5. A number of councillors provided feedback on the draft submission, proposals in the discussion document and other matters not covered in the discussion document. Some councillors have suggested adding additional text in relation to water ownership and water allocation priority to the submission document.

6. The issues raised were as follows:

6.1. Ownership of water and local decision making about water allocation

6.2. Allocation of water on a first-in; first-served basis

6.3. Maintain or improve

6.4. MCI (macroinvertebrate community index)

6.5. Stock exclusion

6.6. Technical efficiency

6.7. Good practice

6.8. Funding

6.9. Swimming

These issues are discussed further below.

Ownership of Water

7. The MfE discussion document does not address the issue of water ownership. Some HBRC councillors have been part of recent informal community discussions about water ownership but the Council has not received any formal advice or report about the concept of water ownership, and whether changes to the law surrounding either ownership or charges for water are needed.

8. The issues are complex involving existing rights, legal definitional issues (such as ownership of water in farm dams or captured in rain tanks etc.), the rights and interests for Maori, and potentially significant costs and benefits. A council submission on this issue is therefore unlikely to be able to be formulated in the time available for considered council debate and necessary analysis to support making a definitive position in a submission on the discussion document.

9. Staff recommend that, should the Council wish to provide advice to the government on this issue, a report describing the issues and options be sought before proceeding with this. Staff recommend working with LGNZ and the Regional Sector on a coordinated approach to these issues (see also the draft submission section 8 in respect of funding for water management).

10. No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission. However, should the RPC wish to highlight the need for further consideration be given to the issue of ownership this can be flagged in the submission.

End Use Priority

11. The allocation of water on the basis of priority in time (first-in; first-served) continues to be the underlying presumption of the RMA, however, there is some scope for councils to alter this. The Act (in section 30) provides councils with some discretion in allocating water, including in anticipation of existing consents expiring, to specific activities or among competing types of activities.

12. The Council can therefore determine at a local level the priority for water based on activity (end use) using appropriate criteria or reasons (including social or cultural reasons) and manage re-allocation of water in light of any changes in priority.

13. The Council must first establish the allocatable amount of water – i.e the amount that can be sustainably taken within the limits set to protect environmental values. It can then allocate water between activities in a way that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.

14. For example, in the Waitaki Catchment, the water allocation plan provides annual allocations to irrigation and hydro-electric power generation and reflects the existing and foreseeable needs of water in that catchment. That plan recognises that there are competing demands and tensions for the water resource and between users, particularly hydro-electricity generation, town and community water supplies and agricultural and horticultural users. The provisions recognise both the local and national net benefits associated with different activities as well as beneficial and adverse effects on the environment.

15. In allocating water to activities, the Council must first develop a full understanding about how the community’s social, economic and cultural well-being is to be provided for by an allocation regime that provides for specific end uses or types of activities. This analysis must be based on the types of activities, not on who the applicant is or on any particular characteristics of the applicant. It should be noted that in considering water takes for bottling, the social, economic and cultural effects of such takes would need to be considered alongside other commercial and industrial uses of water in an equitable manner.

16. If there is no applicable allocation limit when an application is made, the water can only be allocated subject to appropriate assessment of the effects of the take. i.e the take must be sustainable and (scientific and other) investigation about effects of the abstraction may be required to confirm this.

17. A plan change, including the one anticipated for the TANK catchments, can address equitable allocation of water between competing end uses in these terms and any such provisions would need to be accompanied by a robust section 32 analysis.

18. The Council also remains bound by legal requirements regarding the issuing of resource consents and recovery of costs (see also section 8 of the draft submission).

19. No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission.

Maintain or Improve

20. Feedback requests that the submission is clarified to state that once limits or objectives have been set for any attribute, Council should be obliged to ensure all attributes are maintained at the specified levels. This approach would not provide for any degradation, even if the agreed community value for the water body is still provided for. An example could be groundwater where the community value is drinking/potable and yet the levels of some chemical parameter, such as nitrogen, can be increased without it being harmful to health. Managing for all attributes to be maintained or improvement everywhere, all of the time is likely to be more costly and technically challenging to achieve than simply maintaining agreed values.

21. The suggestion in the MfE discussion document is that ‘overall’ quality might be assessed in relation to the provision for the stated value rather than in relation to each attribute for which a management objective has been set. This suggestion provides some flexibility in managing individual attribute state and changes in state from time to time however it seems more to provide for the government’s intention to prevent undue constraints on economic growth or inadequate protection of water quality. There is still a lack of clarity in what the government intends. The difficulties surrounding interpretation of ‘overall’ was evidenced in the Kahungunu decision and despite this, the discussion document still does not provide sufficient clarity.

22. The Council position could be clarified to seek that the NPS is not amended to allow 'trade' so that environmental requirements do not become secondary economic benefit.

23. The draft submission has been amended to reflect this.

MCI

24. The MfE website provides a number of supporting reports used in the preparation of the Next Steps discussion document and refers to a Cawthron report which discusses in some detail the benefits and issues surrounding the use of the Macro-Invertebrate Community Index as a national attribute. The quote in the draft submission is from that report.

25. The Cawthron report indicates that MCI can be managed - but at an appropriate local catchment (or sub-catchment) scale and in a way that reflects the catchment specific relationships between MCI scores and catchment land and water uses.

26. The way in which land and water use could be managed to meet a national MCI attribute state cannot however, be predicted or modelled at a national scale and therefore costs of setting a national bottom line cannot be assessed. The Council submission seeks to reflect the value of MCI as an attribute in assessing and measuring ecosystem health. It seeks that any objectives in relation to MCI (especially in respect of improving MCI) should however, only be done at a local scale to enable costs and benefits to be properly assessed.

27. No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission.

Stock Exclusion

28. Feedback requests that the submission does not recommend anything that suggested leniency in respect of requirements for stock exclusion, including with respect to flood and drainage schemes. It was suggested that the full costs of meeting objectives for both water quality and flood/drainage should made transparent and funded.

29. The issue being addressed in the submission is the need to allow for flexibility to assess the costs and benefits, especially where fencing costs might exceed the water quality benefits that might arise, and including where other public benefits such as flood control are being provided for.

30. However, as the councillor alluded to, the need for Council to take a clear leadership role in managing stock access to important water ways such as along berm land along the Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro rivers may over-ride other considerations.

31. No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission, but Councillors may wish to debate further the degree to which they seek stock exclusion specified by national regulation.

Technical efficiency

32. Support was expressed for standardising specifications for wastewater treatment to prevent poor practice being adopted by TLAs.

Good management

33. There was support for the submission to endorse centralised, national level development/identification of best farming practices, but with a concern also expressed about process capture by vested interests. It was feared that this approach might lead to obstruction or prevention of independent development of better practice.

34. Concern was also expressed that a sector-driven approach might lead to early discounting of approaches that are deemed to be 'too costly' in terms of meeting environmental objectives.

35. The processes (both under the NPS and the suggestions surrounding development and adoption of good agricultural practice) provide for transparency about water quality and quantity objectives, the methods adopted to provide for them and the timeframes in which to achieve them. They ensure there is proper consideration of the costs, and that they are reasonable and reflect appropriate timeframes.

36. This submission was more about encouraging the government and Regional Councils to work with industry in finding better and more innovative ways than plan rules and resource consents to get ‘good practice’ adopted across NZ in a cost effective and consistent way.

No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission.

Funding

37. Feedback suggested that although not the focus of the discussion document, HBRC should speak to the issue of funding environmental advocates at the local level with respect to participation in formal policy-making -- e.g. plan changes. An example was given in relation to PC6 - where environmental groups made applications for EPA funding to help fund their expert witness input to support their cases and which were denied. The consequence of this was involvement by the national lobby groups at a point in the plan process where litigation became costly and drawn out.

38. The collaborative approach to decision making is in part a response to the need to make resource management decisions through less litigious processes and ensure greater, more inclusive community involvement. The Council’s approach to supporting involvement by local environmental groups in this process is by contributing funding to cover costs where a group member is not supported by an organisation.

39. Within this collaborative process, decisions, including where there isn’t complete information, are also made by consensus. Where more investigation or research is required, the entire group operates within the financial constraints of the HBRC. The aim is to reduce the areas of contest – the burden of carrying out further investigation (by any party including the council) as part of the schedule 1 process (where there is a lack of consensus) can be greatly reduced.

40. The Ministry for the Environment operates a Legal Assistance Fund to support particular cases to be taken to the environment court.

41. No amendments or additions were made to the draft submission.

Swimming

42. The submission has been amended to clarify the Council’s view that the NPS needs to clearly recognise swimming as a national value which must be provided for in regional plans.

Financial and Resource Implications

43. The submission has no financial or resource implications for council. It seeks to provide feedback to the government about its proposals and includes information about how they might affect the Hawkes Bay region.

Decision Making Process

44. 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:

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

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

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

44.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the council’s management of water and land resources.

44.5. Options that have been considered include not making a submission, however, input by the Council into government processes ensures the regions interests are accounted for in national decision making.

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

44.7. No consultation is necessary in respect of this submission. However, a draft of the submission has been shared with key iwi organisations and territorial authorities.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Next Steps for Freshwater Discussion Document” report and the attached draft submission and provides feedback to staff as to amendments required.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Send the submission as attached with any amendments necessary to the Ministry for the Environment.

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Next Steps for Fresh Water Consultation

[1] Ngai Tuhoe has chosen not to appoint a member to the Committee at this time, although they have the right to at any time. Once the Regional Planning Committee Bill is passed He Toa Takitini will have the ability to appoint a second member to the Committee, bringing the total number of appointees to 18.