Agenda of Hearings Committee

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Hearings Committee

Date: Wednesday 18 May 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 Hearings Committee held on 13 October 2015

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Hearings Committee held on 13 October 2015

Decision Items

5. Appointment of Hearing Panel for hearing Whakatu Wool Scour application DP140591A 3

6. Information and Training Programme for the Hearings Committee Members 5

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. Twyford Global Consents Update 7

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Hearings Committee

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Subject: Appointment of Hearing Panel for hearing Whakatu Wool Scour application DP140591A

Reason for Report

1. An application has been received from Whakatu Wool Scours Ltd for a resource consent to discharge contaminants into air from a wool scouring plant, specifically including discharges of: a) combustion products from two 14.9 HP gas fired package boilers; b) steam and combustion products from a gas fired wool drier; and c) air containing dust.

2. The consent was Limited Notified on 3 March 2016. Ten submissions have been received. A pre-hearing meeting was held on 11 May. At this meeting a number of conditions were proposed by the submitters. The applicant is to discuss these with their Board and respond to these proposals within 10 working days. It is now possible that there will be another pre hearing meeting. In case the issues cannot be resolved via this process and the application proceeds to a full hearing, a Hearing Panel needs to be appointed. At this stage, if there is a hearing it would be scheduled near the end of June.

3. It is recommended that the Hearing Panel consists of one member, that being Councillor Christine Scott.

Financial and Resource Implications

4. All costs associated with the hearing are passed on to the applicant.

Decision Making Process

5. 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 have concluded:

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

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

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

5.4. The persons affected by this decision are Whakatu Wool Scours Ltd, as the applicant for the resource Consent and the ten submitters.

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

Recommendations

That the Hearings Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Appointment of Hearing Panel for hearing Whakatu Wool Scour application DP140591A“ report

2. Appoints, as delegated, a Hearing Panel composed of Councillor Christine Scott, to consider the Whakatu Wool Scour application DP140591A.

Louise McPhail

Hearings Coordinator

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Hearings Committee

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Subject: Information and Training Programme for the Hearings Committee Members

Reason for Report

1. This report is to propose and to discuss ideas for items that could be included on the Hearings Panel Agenda to help inform and upskill committee members on RMA and consent process matters.

2. Currently Hearings Committee meetings are being convened when there is a need to appoint a Hearing Panel. There are not a lot of hearings required and so Hearings Committee meetings can be few and far between. If a list of relevant items can be established then these can be included in a programme of more regular meetings.

Suggested Items for Future Meetings

3. The following is a list of items that can be reported on over subsequent meetings. The Committee may have additional suggestions which can be added.

3.1. RMA processes. Familiarise committee members with processing steps that are followed before, during and after lodging an application, and through to issuing of a resource consent.

3.2. Web site. Changes are pending that will enable lodging of consents online. Once finalised these can be outlined along with other information on the Council’s website.

3.3. Duties and responsibilities in relation to Maori, cultural values, Treaty of Waitangi when processing resource consents.

3.4. Topical cases. Invite lawyers / staff to discuss the findings of topical cases and any implications they may have on how HBRC carry out their consenting functions.

3.5. RMA amendments – keep up to date with changes proposed, pending and introduced to ensure the Committee is familiar with changes to process, timelines etc.

3.6. Recent consents issued. Staff to outline how some topical consent applications have been processed. (Committee may wish to request a report on specific consents)

3.7. Appeals – keep Committee up to date with appeals arising from Hearing Panel decisions.

3.8. Consent tools - Outline some of the tools used by staff to assess the effects on the environment.

3.9. Training needs and opportunities – identify / outline courses or workshops of interest to committee members. (Including the Commissioner accreditation programme),

Financial and Resource Implications

4. There are no significant financial and resource implications. The meetings are part of the Councils normal schedule of meetings.

5. The cost of any external parties presenting to the committee will be borne by existing operating budgets.

Decision Making Process

6. 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 have concluded:

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

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

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

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

6.5. Options that have been considered include do nothing. Doing nothing will not ensure the Committee is adequately informed or trained in RMA resource consenting processes and issues.

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

6.7. 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 Hearings Committee receives and notes the “Information and Training Programme for the Hearings Committee Members” report.

2. The Hearings 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. Agrees to the proposed schedule of items for future Hearings Committee meetings and ensures sufficient budget provision to cover the training requirements of the Committee.

Louise McPhail

Hearings Coordinator

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Hearings Committee

Wednesday 18 May 2016

Subject: Twyford Global Consents Update

Reason for Report

1. This is an update on the Twyford global consent process.

Background

2. Consents were issued in 2011, replacing consents which had expired in the Twyford unconfined and semi confined groundwater zone areas. The takes were regarded as stream depleting and takes that were previously consented (p permits) were made subject to minimum flow conditions that applied:

2.1. on the Ngaruroro River for the unconfined groundwater zone

2.2. on the Raupare Stream for the semi-confined groundwater zone.

3. Any applications for new water (including some that had been taking more than had been consented) were issued as x permits and made subject to higher minimum flow conditions.

4. The Hearing Panel decision in relation to the x permits was appealed, however those appeals were withdrawn prior to an Environment Court hearing. Out of this, the Regional Council agreed to work with consent holders to find improved ways to manage the groundwater in the Twyford area. Twyford Irrigation Group representatives and Regional Council staff have been meeting since 2013 with this aim. A number of tasks have been discussed and progressed through this forum, including:

4.1. Investigating alternative water sources

4.2. Installing a deeper bore to determine if there is a deeper confined aquifer

4.3. Reporting on and advancing the Heretaunga Plains groundwater model

4.4. Investigating options for investigation funding from Government sources

4.5. Analysing actual water usage from metering

4.6. Investigation and trialing of augmentation strategies for the Raupare Stream

4.7. Discussing and developing a global consent approach for each zone.

5. These tasks have been progressed in a variety of ways over the subsequent years. The global consents are now at the point of taking effect.

Global Consents

6. A cooperative company has been established to hold and manage the global consents. This is the Twyford Cooperative Company Limited (TCCL).

7. Today there is an operative global consent for the semi-confined zone which includes 23 of the previous consents. These consents have brought in a rate of 1,027 L/s, a 28 day volume of 475,974 cubic metres and an annual volume of 1,876,770 cubic metres.

8. There is also provision for the group to use some of this water for augmentation of the flow in the Raupare Stream in order to hold the flow above the minimum flow at the monitoring site at Ormond Road.

9. There are also conditions requiring maintenance of the dissolved oxygen content of the water being discharged to Raupare stream at no less than 80% and for TCCL to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the augmentation and on the overall use and management of the group’s water.

10. When this consent was set up it was processed as a non-notified application. There was considered to be no change in effect arising from the modified approach.

11. The unconfined-zone global consent is not finally operative and remains on hold pending applications to transfer the water into it. This consent was limited notified because of the inclusion of the proposal to be able to take emergency water.

12. Two parties submitted on the application; those being the Fish & Game Council and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga. A pre-hearing meeting was held and following further discussion the parties advised that they accepted the proposal with agreed conditions and did not wish to be heard. Therefore a hearing was not required.

13. Subsequent to this FreshMax (formerly Crasborn) has carried out aquifer tests and analysis to demonstrate that a deeper more distant bore on one of their blocks has a lesser hydraulic connection to the Ngaruroro than other bores on this and adjacent blocks.

14. The degree of hydraulic connection for that particular bore puts that (FreshMax) take in the “medium” stream depletion effect range as applied in the Tukituki catchment, and also indicates that the effect of that take is delayed. As in the Tuktuki catchment, this is a reason to not require a minimum flow condition in the consent.

15. With this new information the applicant had applied for a new consent, asked that this different effect be recognised and that the take be managed without minimum flow conditions as a consequence.

16. Officers have reviewed the FreshMax work and subsequently issued a resource consent that does not include a condition requiring the take to cease at the minimum flow, because of the demonstrated delay in effects.

17. This result means that there are fewer consents in the Twyford unconfined aquifer area that are subject to the minimum flow condition and is, I consider, a reason for the delay in parties joining the global consent. Those that do join will have the benefit of the emergency water entitlement that has been included in this consent.

18. In both of the global consents, no x permit water is allowed to be taken. The available water has to come from the p water consents, and can be used across the properties of any member of the TCCL within the zone.

19. All consents are subject to review, and so if the TANK project introduces changes to how the community and Council wishes to manage this water the consents’ conditions can be reviewed and changed in accordance with the new rules in the Plan.

Decision Making Process

20. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with 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 only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Hearings Committee receives and notes the “Twyford Global Consents Update” report.

Paul Barrett

Senior Consents Planner

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

HB Today Article