Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 June 2017

Subject: Adoption of the 2017-2018 Annual Plan

Reason for Report

1. This item sets out the final changes to the Annual Plan 2017-18 (AP) made subsequent to the decisions Council made at the Annual Plan Hearing meetings held on 12 and 21 June 2017 when submissions on the Consultation Document were heard. Further, to formally adopt this Plan which, as required by the Local Government Act 2002, is to be adopted no later than 30 June 2017.

Background

2. Consistent with the recent amendments of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) Council, at its meeting on Wednesday 29 March 2017, was not required to formally adopt the Draft Annual Plan for 2017-18. However it was required under the Act to adopt a Consultation Document which summarised any issues included in the Annual Plan that were considered to be material and significant changes to the same financial year as included in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP). Council also approved Annual Plan accountability documents to support the Consultation document which were available on Council’s website.

3. Although the Act does not require a draft AP to be issued, it does require that the final AP is to be adopted no later than 30 June 2017, the approval of the final AP being subsequent to the consultation and consideration of submissions on the Consultation Document.

Consultation

4. During the Council meetings on 12 and 21 June 2017 Council considered 137 written submissions and considered presentations from 30 submitters.

5. Subsequent to the adoption of this Plan, letters and/or emails will be sent to all submitters to communicate Council’s resolutions and decisions in response to the submissions.

Changes to the Annual Plan in Response to Internal/External Submissions

6. Amendments have been made to the AP to reflect the resolutions passed and decisions made at the abovementioned Council meetings on both the internal and external submissions.

Final Financials

7. The AP financials and associated rating implications have been amended to reflect:

7.1. The internal submission to the Plan which covered a number of operating and capital carry forwards of expenditure from 2016-17.

7.1.1. The main issue covered in the Consultation Document addressed the extent of a rates increase. The following three options were given:

· Option 1: No rates increase (preferred by 29 submitters).

· Option 2: 4.8% rates increase as per LTP (preferred by 17 submitters).

· Option 3: 9.88% rates increase for environmental hotspots (preferred by 56 submitters).

7.1.2. Council resolved that there would be no change to the Draft Annual Plan and the 9.88% increase in rates would continue to be applied.

8. These adjustments are shown in the table below which reconciles the underlying deficit/surplus from the Consultation Document/supporting accountability documents adopted by Council on 29 March 2017, to the final deficit/surplus to be included in the AP 2017-18.

Annual Plan General Funded Surplus/(Deficit)

	Expenditure	Associated Revenue (Loans/Fees/Reserves etc)	General Funded Surplus/ (Deficit)
2017-18 Draft Annual Plan Surplus/(Deficit)			$10,000
Staff Carry Forwards
Operating
Coastal Planning	($40,000)	-	($40,000)
Strategy & Planning	($135,000)	-	($135,000)
Strategy & Planning (Energy Futures)	($130,000)	$130,000	-
Regional Land Research & Investigation	($133,000)	$46,550	($86,450)
Air Quality	($77,000)	-	($77,000)
Capital Structure Review	($40,000)	-	($40,000)
Proposed Addition to Annual Plan
Capital Structure Review	($50,000)	-	($50,000)
TOTAL OPERATING	($605,000)	$176,550	($428,450)

2017-18 Revised Annual Plan Surplus/(Deficit)			($418,450)

8.1. The increase in deficit for the 2017-18 year that has been brought about to reflect the carry forward of expenditure from 2016-17 to 2017-18 will be directly offset by a reduction in deficit of the same amount to the 2016-17 financial year.

8.2. Decisions were also made to carry forward expenditure relating to capital projects from 2016-17 to 2017-18. A summary of these are outlined in the table below.

Annual Plan Capital

	Expenditure	Associated Revenue (Loans/Fees/Reserves etc)	General Funded Surplus/ (Deficit)
Proposed Carry Forwards
Capital
Bus Service Ticketing System	($250,000)	$250,000	-
Science Capital	($150,000)	$150,000	-
Building Capital	($40,000)	$40,000	-
Forestry Capital	($100,000)	$100,000	-
Total Capital	($540,000)	$540,000	-

Audit of Annual Plan

9. The Act does not require that an Annual Plan be audited.

Final Annual Plan

10. Copies of the final AP documents are attached to this paper for Councillors. This Plan is still being proofread and grammar/spelling and other minor adjustments may be made.

11. The content of the final AP is divided up into three parts, being:

11.1. Part 1 – Introduction (including the Chairman/Chief Executive report).

11.2. Part 2 – HBRC Activities (including Strategic Goals, Service Levels and Performance Targets)

11.3. Part 3 – Financial Information (including RMA and Navigation Safety charges)

12. Where changes have been made in the final Plan from the supporting accountability documents approved by Council on 29 March 2017, these are shown in the documents by coloured italics. It is hoped that, for the most part, this will make it easier for councillors to determine what changes have been made. However this does not apply to Part 1 as this material is new and was not included in the supporting accountability documents and in Part 3 for figures in the financial statements.

13. The in-house production and printing of the final document will commence after approval of this Plan (with changes, if any) from this meeting.

14. Under the Act, the final AP must be published no later than one month after Council’s formal approval. It is envisaged that this Plan will be completed over the next few weeks and sent out by mid July 2017.

Decision Making Process

15. 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:

15.1. Consultation on the Draft Annual Plan has been consistent with section 82(A)(3) of the Act which sets out the consultation that is required through the issue of a Consultation Document where there are significant or material differences between the proposed Annual Plan and the content of the LTP for that financial year to which the Annual Plan relates.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees the decisions to be made on the issues submitted to the 2017-18 Draft Annual Plan Consultation Document are made after the provisions included in section 82(A)(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 have been followed.

2. Agrees to fund the underlying deficit in the Plan, from cash operating balances which are estimated to be at a level which is sufficient to provide such funding.

3. Adopts the following resolutions pursuant to Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002:

3.1. Council raises a loan or loans or facilitate loan funding through banks to fund the borrowing set out in the 2017-18 Annual Plan for the purposes of funding clean heat/ insulation/solar hot water advances to householders, public good capital assets, systems integration programme, Hydrology/Science and investment assets. These loans to be drawn down when required to fund the approved capital programmes.

3.2. Delegates to the Chief Executive, authority to negotiate and agree on the terms of the loan including:

3.2.1. Any future financing needs within the overall terms of borrowing, the interest rate payable by Council.

3.2.2. The frequency of interest payments.

3.2.3. The timing of drawdown.

3.2.4. The institution(s) who will provide the loans.

3.2.5. The number of loans which will make up the borrowing.

3.2.6. All other terms and conditions of such loans and facilities as may be necessary in obtaining such loans and facilities in accordance with the Council’s Liability Management policy to execute any agreements, documents, and certificates in respect of such loans and facilities on behalf of Council.

4. Adopts the 2017-18 Annual Plan in accordance with Section 95 and Section 82(A)(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, noting that the Consultation Document and supporting accountability documents issued in March 2017 for public consultation were amended:

4.1. By Council at the meeting held on 12 and 21 June 2017.

4.2. By Council at its meeting on 28 June 2017.

5. Approves, in accordance with sections 82 and 150 of the Local Government Act 2002, the resource consent and user charges as adopted in the Annual Plan supporting accountability documents issued for public consultation and amended by Council at its meeting on 12 and 21 June 2017, and today, 28 June 2017.

6. Instructs staff to make any necessary final amendments to the Annual Plan to reflect the changes agreed at the meetings on 12 and 21 June 2017, and today, 28 June 2017, and then to issue the published Plan in its final form.

Authored by:

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Approved by:

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Attachment/s

⇨1	2017-18 Annual Plan Part 1 Introduction	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	2017-18 Annual Plan Part 2 - Groups of Activities Information	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	2017-18 Annual Plan Part 3 Financial Information	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 June 2017

Subject: Matariki Governance Structure Adoption

Reason for Report

1. To seek Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s endorsement of the governance structure, delivery and funding model for Mataraki REDS – Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy.

Background Summary

2. The Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) for Hawke’s Bay was launched by Government Ministers on 27 July 2016. This announcement was the culmination of nearly two years’ work with broad and deep regional engagement. The strategy was developed in partnership, as aspired for in the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Matariki REDS has a vision of ‘Every household and every whanua is actively engaged in, contributing to and benefiting from, a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy.

3. Within the strategic framework, action 1.1 required a stocktake of the organisations involved in economic development in the region and development of a regional economic development delivery model to give effect the Matariki REDS.

4. The governance group overseeing Matariki REDS commissioned Martin Jenkins to draft a report on alternative governance structures, delivery and funding models. The Martin Jenkins report identified some options but the Matariki REDS Governance Group did not believe they provided the right framework to ensure Hawke’s Bay continued to move forward and embrace the partnerships that had been developed.

5. The delivery model was further developed through engagement with key stakeholders, resulting in the model being recommended for endorsement today.

Delivery Model

6. It was agreed that the proposed structure would enable flexible governance, able to accommodate existing and future regional collective action, while at the same time allowing organisations to have an input into critical regional decision-making as appropriate.

7. The structure is also required to provide the ability for central government input to ensure that the Matariki REDS strategy is consistent with central government regional economic growth strategy intentions.

8. The proposed structure is also intended to recognise the desire to merge the functions and governance of Matariki REDS with the Regional Social Inclusion Strategy currently being developed under the auspices of the Intersectoral Leaders Forum.

9. Finally, any structural solution would provide agility, via an open and transparent governance structure, whereby access to resources by those charged with project implementation is willingly aided by those with available and appropriate skill-sets. The identified essential elements of the proposed structure are:

9.1. Flexible governance arrangement

9.2. Meaningful iwi and hapu participation

9.3. Business engagement and participation

9.4. Social and economic inclusion

9.5. Robust management overview of identified projects

9.6. Resourced project management and delivery function

9.7. Project initiation and review structure

9.8. Recognition of democratic process and funding realities

9.9. A distributed and collaborative approach which involves all partners and agencies delivering their contributions

Social Inclusion integration

10. For a few years, Hawke’s Bay has had two groups operating, with one focusing on economic development (Matariki REDS) and the second on improving our social outcomes (this group operates under the name LIFT).

11. It was recognised during this review, that by focusing on economic inclusion in the growing economy of Hawke’s Bay, the opportunity to improve the lives of individuals, households and whānau is genuine and tangible. The work required to deliver this strategy requires all the partners to participate for a shared success. There is therefore an opportunity and a need to bring the components of Matariki and Social Inclusion together to drive equity across Hawke’s Bay and to develop integrated pathways between projects, partnerships and results.

12. Social inclusion is the ability of all individuals, households, whānau and communities to participate in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the community in which they live. This means people have access to some very basic but important things including enough income to sustain an ordinary life, a safe place to live, an education, the opportunity to develop skills that are valued and services that support their health. Collectively these form the basis of the resources and opportunities to progress through life in a way that creates wellbeing for individuals, families, whānau, households and communities.

13. Recognising that adequate income is a significant enabler for social, cultural and civic participation, the central focus of ‘Successful Together’, a social inclusion strategy for Hawke’s Bay, is on economic inclusion and participation to generate improvements in social inclusion.

Structure and Representation of various Stakeholders

14. The proposed structure provides for the creation of an expansive group of stakeholders to provide meaningful engagement between the Matariki Board and the key stakeholder groups.

15. It is proposed that a Forum is created, operating under the name of Matariki Forum (see Figure 1). The establishment of this forum recognises that all stakeholders with a vested interest in the successful outcome of Matariki must be actively engaged and openly participate in project outcomes. Therefore, the ultimate objective of the Forum is to provide a sense of trust between all participating group partnership members.

16. The Forum will provide, via the Governance Group^{^[1]}, both formal and informal communication regarding the status of Matariki projects. This Forum will meet twice a year to debate new project initiatives considered for inclusion under the Matariki umbrella.

Figure 1 – Proposed Matariki Governance Framework

17. The Matariki Forum consists of 31 participants encompassing councils (5), private business (4), iwi/hapu (15) and central government agencies (7). Not all of these potential group members will elect to participate within this forum, however, due to the inclusive nature of the Matariki strategy all members will initially be invited.

18. Iwi/hapu members include Rongomaiwahine (Mahia), Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa, Ruapani, Tuhoe, Ngāti Pahauwera, Maungaharuru-Tangitū, Ngāti Hineuru (NH), Mana Ahuriri, He Toa Takitini, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, Wairarapa and possibly Rangitane.

19. One of the central thrusts of the proposal is to incorporate a unified governance structure to oversee and monitor the progress being made (or not) on each of the identified projects. The process recognises the importance of ongoing coordination, communication and evolution of each project.

20. The entity responsible for the transparent communication of project progress to governors across partnership organisations is the Matariki Board. The Matariki Board will comprise up to 12 participants, including 3 participants from councils, 3 from business, 3 iwi/hapu, 2 from central government and an independent Chair (see Figure 1). It is proposed that selection of the governance board be managed by the respective stakeholder groups.

21. Other governance groups that will provide input to the Matariki Board are Te Kei o Takitimu, Hawke’s Bay Business Leaders Forum, and the five councils through the Mayoral Forum.

22. Delivery of the Strategy will require the ongoing support of councils, while recognising that no one single agency will be responsible for delivery of all the strategy; requiring a networked approach. The delivery of REDS will not require councils to give up their own economic development activities, but will allow councils to leverage off REDS regional initiatives and the central Government financial support attached to many of the proposed actions. Councils will remain responsible for the continuation of economic development services to their own communities.

Transitional arrangements

23. The Matariki approach represents a further step towards a co-ordinated and collaborative approach to the delivery of economic development outcomes by a wide range of stakeholders. Since the wind-up of the ED agency, Venture Hawke’s Bay, the region has established Hawke’s Bay Tourism in its own right and Business Hawke’s Bay (BHB) has been tasked with driving greater collaboration across all stakeholders.

24. BHB’s milestone achievements have been the establishment of the Business Hub in Ahuriri, Napier as well as playing a pivotal role in the development of Matariki. Under the proposed delivery model BHB’s focus, as far as this Council is concerned, is closely tied to the delivery and support of specific Matariki actions and continued management and promotion of the Business Hub.

25. The current Matariki REDS governance group was, in effect, a transitional arrangement until such time as a regional delivery model was established. A Programme Manager is currently employed, on a contract basis, to help oversee the actions and develop a reporting framework for Matariki REDS. Discussions have also occurred with Business Hawke’s Bay to enable this transition to occur. It is envisaged that this new model could be in place by end July 2017.

Strategic Fit

26. Council’s commitment to a regional economic development and social inclusion strategy and delivery model is aligned with the organisation’s stated strategic purpose: “We work with our community and partners to protect and manage the region’s precious taonga of rivers, lakes, soil, air, coast and biodiversity for enhanced environmental, economic, social and cultural wellbeing and connectivity.”

27. With Council’s 7 actions under the strategy reinforcing our unique resource management role together, the work of the Regional Transport Committee, and our support for improving digital connectivity throughout the region, our participation and support of Matariki does not risk being a distraction or diversion from our ‘core business.’

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

28. When compared to other regional strategies and action plans, Matariki stands alone in the level of engagement and support from Iwi and Hapu. Te Kahui Ohanga o Takitimu – a collective of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi and Hapu post-settlement groups – were key partners in the development of Matariki and can take credit for the strategy’s overt ambition to make an impact at an inclusive whanau level across the region.

29. Te Kahui Ohanga o Takitimu have been drivers of the proposed delivery model, have occupied a co-chair role in the interim Matariki Governance board, and will participate at a governance level within the proposed Matariki Board and in their own right alongside all councils and the proposed business leaders forum as advisors to the Matariki Board.

Financial and Resource Implications

30. Councils currently provide funding to Business Hawke’s Bay and to the LIFT programme, and it is proposed that this funding remain in place to support the new delivery model.

31. There is also the opportunity to allocate funding through other funding streams, which will be developed over future months. The funding levels to Business Hawke’s Bay and Matariki REDS are as shown in Table 1. Total additional funding for the new proposed structure, over and above existing funding levels, is expected to be $88,000, including the provision of one additional resource required for the implementation of Social Inclusion (see also Table 1).

Table 1: Current cost versus proposed cost

Existing structures	BHB (000)	Matariki (000)	Additional Required	Proposed structures	Matariki (000)
Cost				Costs
Core including Matariki	431.0	205.0		Core including Matariki	735.0
F & B	100.0			F & B	103.0
B/Hub	256.0			B/Hub	255.0
Total cost	787.0	205.0			1093.0
Total		992.0			1093.0

Funding				Funding
Councils	335.5	135.0		Councils	470.5
Sponsor	155.0			Sponsor	155.0
MBIE*	70.0	70.0		MBIE	140.0
B/Hub (rents etc)	238.0			B/Hub (rents etc)	238.0
Other agency funding			88.0	Other agency funding	88.0
Total funding	798.5	205.0	88.0^{^[2]}	Total funding	1091.5
Total		1003.5		Total	1091.5

32. As a living document, the Action Plan is likely to change in the future as new action items are added. Individual items in the current action plan that are linked to councils will require a commitment at a future date with integration into Long Term Plans / Annual Plans via the existing council planning processes.

33. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is responsible, as lead agency, for the delivery outcomes of 7 project actions inclusive of those actions under the Regional Transport Committee. Additionally, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has co-lead responsibilities on a further 3 actions where the lead agency is defined as Hawke’s Bay Tourism. The reporting of project progress is currently delivered to the Matariki Governance Group on a monthly basis.

34. Should the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council endorse the proposed delivery model, there will be no material change to the Council’s existing funding quantum currently supporting Business Hawke’s Bay and the Matariki programme management functions. However, it is preferable that the funding term is extended to between 3-5 years.

Decision Making Process

35. 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:

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

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

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

35.4. The persons affected by this decision are all residents of the Region.

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

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 adoption of the governance structure, delivery and funding model for the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy (including Social Inclusion).

Authored by:

Alister King

Matariki Programme Manager

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 June 2017

Subject: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Adoption

Reason for Report

1. This report is a virtual replica of an earlier briefing paper presented at the Council meeting on 29 March 2017. At that meeting, the Council opted to leave the matter ‘on the table’ and convene a councillor workshop to explore urban growth issues further before revisiting whether or not to adopt the earlier recommendations from the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group regarding a recent review of the Strategy.

2. This report seeks a decision from the Council to adopt the 2016 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS2016), with the need for this arising from the scheduled five yearly monitoring and review of the Strategy as provided for in the implementation section of the adopted HPUDS2010.

3. The joint-council HPUDS Implementation Working Group (IWG) has completed its consideration of submissions on the Draft Review document it published in 2016 and is now formally recommending that the amended strategy be adopted by the Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils (i.e. the partner councils). Napier City Council has decided to adopt the IWG’s recommendations and revised Strategy. At the time of publishing this paper, Hastings District Council were scheduled to consider those same recommendations and revised Strategy at its meeting on 22 June.

4. This report to HBRC concludes by recommending that the Council adopts HPUDS2016 in accordance with recommendations from the IWG, as the regional strategy to direct urban development from 2015 to 2045, conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also resolving to adopt the strategy.

Background

HPUDS2010

5. Before considering the IWG’s recommendations for the review, it is worth recapping on HPUDS2010. A similar recap was presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting in February 2017.

6. HPUDS was adopted in August 2010 by the Hastings District, Napier City and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils (the partner councils). The purpose of HPUDS2010 is to provide a comprehensive, integrated and effective growth management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region (refer Figure 1). HPUDS 2010 brought together the separate urban development strategies that both Hastings and Napier had in place covering the period from the 1990s through to 2015.

Figure 1 - Location Map of Heretaunga Plains sub-region

7. HPUDS 2010 takes a long-term view of land use and infrastructure and how growth will be managed in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region for the period 2015-2045. Other strategies and plans that will influence and be influenced by HPUDS include the Regional Land Transport Strategy, the Regional Land Transport Programme, each of the partner councils’ growth strategies; Long Term Plans (LTPs), district plans and the Regional Policy Statement.

8. HPUDS 2010 stated vision is:

“In 2045, the Heretaunga Plains is a place where there are thriving communities, quality living environments with high levels of amenity, and where mana whenua values and aspirations are recognised and provided for, and where:

· There is a growing and resilient economy which promotes opportunities to live, work, play and invest.

· The productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for, and sustainable use is promoted.

· The urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide complementary living, working and learning opportunities.

· Community and physical infrastructure is integrated, sustainable and affordable.”

9. HPUDS 2010 is also founded on a series of guiding principles as depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - HPUDS2010 guiding principles

10. In implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact development form that was settled on by the partner councils after an initial round of public consultation. At that time, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:

“In the move towards more compact urban form for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within existing residential and rural residential areas, development is expected to transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:

· 60% intensification

· 35% greenfield

· 5% of population in rural areas.

The Strategy was also developed on the basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”

11. This change to a more compact form was envisaged to take the form of a transition from largely greenfields development to intensification over time. HPUDS 2010 therefore identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development largely to these areas. To protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is considered necessary to encourage the shift to intensification of development within the existing urban areas to meet the 60% intensification target by 2045. Table 1 shows this transition.

Table 1: Additional Households for the Heretaunga Plains 2015 – 2045 (HPUDS 2010)

Type of Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	TOTAL 2015-2045
Intensification	45% [1872]	55% [1502]	60% [674]	51% [4048]
Greenfields	45% [1872]	40% [1092]	35% [394]	41% [3358]
Rural Residential	10% [416]	5% [136]	5% [56]	8% [608]
Total	100% [4160]	100% [2730]	100% [1124]	100% [8014]

12. Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view than an ad-hoc market led approach. It ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided as much as possible.

13. These defined growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045 as in Table 1. These projections are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields, infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in the ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.

14. The Strategy’s timeframe deliberately started from 2015 in order to provide a lead-in time for establishing policies in statutory planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement and Hastings District Plan Review). For the 2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings continued to apply.

15. Key implementation actions that have been taken since 2010 include:

15.1. Change 4 to the Regional Policy Statement to embed HPUDS policy direction

15.2. Review of the Hastings District Plan and a plan change to Napier City District Plan to incorporate HPUDS policy and zoning initiative (10 years)

15.3. Incorporated HPUDS in land use projections for [then] Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme.

HPUDS Implementation and Review

16. Following adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, a working group (IWG) was formed to oversee its implementation. The IWG has no direct decision-making powers, but can make recommendations to the partner councils. The IWG consists of:

16.1. Two elected members from each partner council

16.2. Mayors of Napier and Hastings councils

16.3. Chairperson of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

16.4. Chief Executives from each partner council

16.5. Two representatives of mana whenua.

17. Councillors Tom Belford, Alan Dick and Fenton Wilson represented HBRC on the IWG during the last triennium which included overseeing the HPUDS2016 Review and hearing submissions on the Draft document. This triennium, the Regional Council appointed Councillors Belford, Dick and the Chairman Clr Graham as members of the IWG. A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprising senior planning staff from each of the three partner councils supports the Working Group. An updated version of the IWG’s terms of reference is set out in Attachment 6 for the Council’s endorsement, subject to similar endorsement from the two other partner councils.

18. HPUDS is based on a number of assumptions about future development and infrastructure trends that will likely change over the next thirty years and the Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time. As such, HPUDS specifically provides that the Strategy be reviewed every five years after the results of the national census are available, to ensure that it is kept up to date and relevant. Due to the Canterbury earthquakes delaying the last census, this first five-year review programmed for 2015 was delayed until 2016.

Current Situation

19. The IWG was charged with undertaking the first regular 5-year review and recommending any changes to HPUDS back to the partner councils. The IWG split the review into three stages as set out in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Representation of the HPUDS Review's key stages

20. The IWG commenced the review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since 2010. Eleven separate reports were completed as part of Stage 1 reports. These reviewed the assumptions upon which the strategy was based with a particular focus on the monitoring of growth drivers and trends of the five years to 2015.

Growth Drivers and Emerging Issues

21. The population growth within the study area from 2009 – 2015, was higher than that projected in 2009 (by 1,080) due to both natural population increase (4,594) and net migration gain (1,106). This migration gain was from internal migration from other parts of New Zealand of 3,172, which more than compensated for a net overseas migration loss of 2,066. However, net migration gains have historically tended to be followed by losses, hence the long term Statistics New Zealand projections assume a migration balance.

22. Similarly, the total number of ‘households’ in the study area has exceeded the projections made six years ago by 545 households. In addition to population increase, this has resulted from demographic and social changes in the community which has reduced the average number of people per household from 2.6 in 2009 to 2.55 in 2016.

23. The HPUDS2016 Review therefore provided updated projections, which resulted in both population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the medium – high growth projection scenarios) compared to the HPUDS 2010 projections.

24. Projected household growth across the HPUDS study area for the 2015 – 2045 study period of 10,610 households is based on a Statistics New Zealand ‘Halfway Medium to High’ growth projection scenario. This is an increase on that projected in 2009 of 8,014 (it should be noted though that this projection was based on a medium-high projection for Napier City, but a ‘middle of the road’ growth projection scenario within the Hastings District). Total population growth in the area over the 2015-24 period is now projected to be 16,455, while average household occupancy falls from 2.55 to 2.38.

25. Forecast annual average GDP growth for the wider Hawke’s Bay region remains at 1.5% throughout the study period to 2045 with primary industry growth and infrastructural upgrading underpinning this growth outlook. Employment is similarly forecast to grow at average annual rates of 1 - 1.5% during the study period, so industrial and commercial land requirement projections remain similar to those projected in 2009.

26. The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 therefore generally confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in population during the period 2009 - 2015.

27. The updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting the medium–high growth projections). Nevertheless this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections over the long term, with some amendments (i.e. there is a sufficient buffer).

Scope of Review

28. Despite a long term level of comfort, some immediate supply issues (at Havelock North and Frimley (Lyndhurst) and potentially at Te Awa), suggested further work was needed around current greenfields supply availability issues in some locations.

29. The Market Demand report also identified that the lifestyle residential housing supply appeared to fall short of the likely total demand to the end of the 2045 study period, despite lessening demand beyond the 2020s expected with an aging population requiring better access to amenities and services.

30. After considering matters arising from the initial reporting ‘stock take’, the IWG agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review (i.e. remaining review Stages 2 and 3) would be to:

30.1. consider councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy and make any required or requested changes to the settlement pattern (including reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)

30.2. further investigate the rural residential land supply and regulatory responses

30.3. evaluate the retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages

30.4. update natural hazard information

30.5. remove redundant or low value recommended actions from the strategy, and correct omissions and errors.

31. On this basis the IWG commissioned three further reports as follows.

Table 2 - HPUDS2016 Review Additional Reports Commissioned

Report Title

Retirement Sector Housing Demand Forecasts 2016-2045 – A report for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review (2016)

Review of Rural Residential Lifestyle Sites

Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern

Greenfields Sites/Settlement Pattern

32. Opus Consultants undertook an independent evaluation of the comparative suitability of residential greenfield areas (including ‘Reserve’ areas) put forward by the Councils for inclusion in HPUDS. They were assessed against the Regional Policy Statement’s ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria.’

33. Hastings District Council had requested that the following areas land to be considered by the IWG for inclusion in HPUDS as part of this review as follows:

33.1. Brookvale as a short-medium term substitute for Arataki Extension

33.2. Part Romanes Drive as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

33.3. Part Middle/Te Aute Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

33.4. Murdoch Road West as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

33.5. Wall Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.

34. Questions about the viability of future stages of Te Awa, led Napier City Council to put forward Pirimai South as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.

35. The Opus review confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt the Hastings District Council’s preference for Arataki Extension to be removed from the list of Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS (due to reverse sensitivity issues to odour from the neighbouring Te Mata Mushrooms operations) and be replaced with an area fronting Brookvale Road, Havelock North. Further to this, in responding to immediate greenfields supply availability issues the report recommended the inclusion in HPUDS of additional ‘reserve’ growth areas, as requested.

36. It needs to be clearly understood that ‘Reserve areas’ are recommended to act as stand-by replacements for the Greenfield Growth Areas. This ensures that there are identified areas available within HPUDS to ‘bring on’ if, as has happened with Arataki Extension, a Greenfields Growth Area proves to be inappropriate upon closer investigation. Having reserve areas that have passed preliminary ‘pre-screening’ and are ‘on standby’ should a need arise, saves the delay that would be associated with a screening assessment which would otherwise be built into the HPUDS review process to introduce a new replacement area.

37. Other circumstances where a reserve area could be advanced would be if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand, or if for example retirement village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfields areas. It is not however deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District.

38. In addition, a review of ‘Areas Inappropriate for Greenfields Growth’ specifically identified Whirinaki and South Clive for re-consideration. The Opus report subsequently recommended two areas identified in the ‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list in HPUDS 2010 be removed. These are:

38.1. Clive South (an area off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and

38.2. Whirinaki.

39. The report concluded that both areas had originally been identified as inappropriate because of servicing issues, but those big servicing constraints can be overcome. However, while both areas now warrant removal from the ‘inappropriate’ list, neither warranted inclusion as appropriate greenfield growth areas (or reserve areas) in HPUDS.

Rural Residential Supply

40. A specific planning analysis by Cheal Consultants revealed that there is still available zoned, but not yet developed, land supplies for rural residential development in the areas identified as being desired by the market. This conclusion however relies on ongoing subdivision to create new lots in areas of market preference, whereas the HPUDS 2010 assumption was that there was already a surplus of available lots.

41. The creation of new lots in areas of market preference may or may not happen. No action was however deemed necessary at this point in time, but future HPUDS review processes should continue to identify the supply of lifestyle residential sites and monitor whether these are becoming scarce in areas of market preference.

Retirement Sector

42. Given the increasing proportion of the population in the 65+ age group, a specific study was undertaken by EMS Limited on this form of housing and its likely demand, and whether this is likely to be by greenfields or brownfields retirement villages or infill housing (or combinations).

43. The report concluded that retirement units are likely to represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. Sites of sufficient size for this are likely to be found primarily on greenfield land, rather than infill sites within existing urban areas.

44. As retirement housing (with associated higher housing densities) becomes an increasingly significant factor in the overall housing market, it is possible that the amount of greenfield land required for future housing development in the HPUDS study area would be reduced. As these trends develop there will be an increase in supply and potentially a reduction in demand for larger homes as these are sold by older people to help fund their entry into retirement housing. In providing for retirement villages however, there may be a need to reflect on future housing density rules and ways in which greater densities can be achieved in both greenfields and infill areas, without compromising (and ideally enhancing) the urban living environment.

45. No immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern was considered as a result of this report at this stage; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages. Reserve greenfields areas could be used to provide for retirement villages if the aggregation of sufficient areas of greenfields or brownfields land proves to be too difficult in the medium to longer term.

Draft Strategy

46. The other component of Stage 2 of the Review was to prepare a draft HPUDS Review Strategy document, based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the abovementioned Stage 2 reports, for public consultation.

47. The redrafted HPUDS document removed the implementation actions that were either completed or deemed unnecessary (in some cases because they are being actioned through other existing programmes, plans or strategies). In addition the redrafting involved the correction of errors and omissions and incorporated amendments to the HPUDS document arising from the items discussed above.

48. Further, it was decided to separate the implementation sections out from the main strategy document so that it would be more coherent and easier to digest for external audiences. A separate Implementation Plan (Attachment 5) was produced as a companion document, which would then guide the future activities of the IWG and Council staff between the 5 year monitoring and review phases.

Public Consultation (Stage 3)

49. The third stage featuring public consultation, involved refreshing the long-established website (www.hpuds.co.nz) with the content updated in July 2016. All the 2015 – 2016 Review information, including new maps and information regarding the making of submissions is posted on that website. Full page advertisement/explanations were included in the community newspapers on 3 August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today to advise the opportunity to make submissions on a reviewed HPUDS document.

50. Notices calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late July 2016. The mailing lists included the following:

50.1. HPUDS Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in stakeholder database);

50.2. Te Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas (South Pirimai); and

50.3. Arataki Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners, including land owners within 100m of boundaries of new areas (Brookvale and reserve areas).

51. That consultation phase resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016. Submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/review/#sub .

52. In terms of submission themes the following summary is provided, by location.

52.1. Brookvale / Arataki Area - submissions were received:

52.1.1. supporting Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11 submissions)

52.1.2. opposing Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1)

52.1.3. supporting Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and

52.1.4. seeking the retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1).

53. Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas submissions were received in relation to:

53.1. supporting and opposing Iona / Havelock Hills (4)

53.2. supporting Middle Road (2)

53.3. supporting Howard Street (1)

53.4. supporting Wall Road (2)

53.5. opposing Murdoch Road (1)

53.6. mapping of Tomoana Industrial (2) and

53.7. mapping of Te Awanga (2).

54. Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve Areas - submissions were received requesting residential development in:

54.1. Ada Street (1)

54.2. Pakowhai Road (2)

54.3. Clive (2)

54.4. Raymond Road (3)

54.5. Waiohiki (1) and

54.6. Whirinaki (1).

55. Issues with Existing Growth Areas, Napier at:

55.1. Te Awa (2)

55.2. Taradale Hills (2) and

55.3. promote infill housing (1).

56. Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / development opportunities at:

56.1. Jervoistown (1)

56.2. Meeanee Road (1)

56.3. cnr Riverbend Road and Bledisloe Road (1) and

56.4. Churchill Drive (1).

57. Another ten general submissions (or parts of submissions) were received with a variety of more general requests, notably three of them strongly support the existing strategy and either oppose or urge caution with regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.

Hearing and Recommendations

58. The IWG held hearings over two days in October last year and resolved to write to all submitters thanking them for their submissions and advising them of the IWG’s recommendations in response to their submissions, together with explanations based on the officer comments as amended by the IWG at the meeting. Submitters were also be advised that final adoption of a revised HPUDS could not occur until after the local body elections.

59. The IWG have now recommended to the individual partner councils the adoption of a revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by recommendations of the IWG as a result of submissions with such consequential amendments to the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 as may be required to give effect to them delegated.

60. The hearings record is attached as Attachment 1, and the appendix referred to in that document is attached to this report as Attachment 2, with details of the changes recommended as a result of the submissions; the most notable of these being:

60.1. Add Romanes Drive as Greenfields Growth Area back to Thompson Road in addition to Brookvale Road, with a yield of around 350 sites

60.2. Remove south Clive from the list of areas classified as inappropriate for growth and identify the 4 hectares at the end of Read Crescent as being appropriate for growth (approximately 40 sites)

60.3. Make reference to assessment of Raymond Road as part of Cape Coast master planning following the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy

60.4. Expand Western Hills (Taradale Hills/Mission Heights) area and increase indicative yield from 350 to 600 sites

60.5. Reclassify Arataki Extension as a Reserve Area and clarify the restricted circumstances for utilising “reserve areas” for development.

61. A number of consequential amendments are required as a result of these changes. All changes both primary and consequential are shown in the tracked changes version of the strategy attached (Attachment 3). Of note is the need to change the intensification targets to reflect the added yield resulting from the inclusion of Romanes Drive and expansion of the Napier Western Hills areas. While the end target percentages between Greenfields, Rural and Intensification remain the same, the transition to those targets (Refer Table 3) has been adjusted to reflect the slower intensification take up implied by the increased greenfields land expected to be made available during the earlier years of the strategy.

Table 3: revised allocation of additional residential households 2015-2045

Type of Development	2015 (%) Development	Proposed of Additional Households [No.]
Type of Development	2015 (%) Development	2015-2025	2025-2035	2035-2045	TOTAL 2015-2045
Intensification	[35]	40% [2138]	51% [1706]	60% [1152]	47% [4996]
Greenfields	[40]	50% [2673]	42% [1405]	35% [672]	45% [4749]
Rural Residential	[25]	10% [534]	7% [234]	5% [96]	8% [875]
Total	[100]	5345	3345	1920	10610

National Legislative Developments

62. In recommending increases in the greenfield growth areas available and adding ‘Reserve Areas’ to HPUDS, the IWG gave consideration to the then impending ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016’ (NPSUDC), which came into effect on 1 December 2016. In short this NPS places an obligation on councils to meet demand for residential development in the following timeframes:

62.1. short term 1-3years (which must be zoned and serviced)

62.2. medium term 3-10 years (which must be zoned and either serviced or allocated to be serviced in the LTP and

62.3. long term 10-30 years (identified in plans and strategies).

63. There is a potential tension between HPUDS and the NPSUDC. HPUDS seeks to influence the nature of future urban growth (towards greater intensification of existing urban areas) while the NPSUDC seeks that current and future demand is satisfied (with current demand being for greenfield land). Just how far reaching that is will become clearer once the Ministry for the Environment has published its implementation guidance. Further examination of this issue is likely to be a focus of some further work overseen by the new IWG.

64. In the meantime, it is considered beneficial in terms of being able to progress new developments to adopt the revised HPUDS, which at least moves closer towards the NPSUDC’s requirements in relation to greenfields land availability, rather than delaying matters and continuing with the current strategy in an unmodified form.

Options for decision-making

65. Option 1 – adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the Working Group.

66. Option 2 – seek changes to the Strategy or request that additional work be undertaken or technical reports be prepared to be overseen by the new IWG.

67. Option 3 – not adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan; refer back to the new IWG with clear reasons why the revised strategy was not adopted and instructions for further re-workings.

68. The preferred option is adopt the recommendations of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group relating to the 2016 review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy in their entirety (i.e. Option 1).

Significance and Engagement

69. As discussed above the draft strategy has already been consulted on and the substantive 2010 strategy was subject to extensive consultation both prior to its preparation, as a draft document and through its subsequent incorporation where relevant in the Regional Policy Statement, City and District plan reviews and Changes and councils’ Long Term Plans.

70. Any significant financial, operational and/or work programme activities arising out of the reviewed strategy will similarly need to be consulted on through normal resource management and asset management processes before they can be implemented.

Assessment of Options (Including Financial and Resourcing Implications)

71. Option 1 would provide the Council with an up to date framework to assist in the planning for urban development and infrastructure for the next 5 years of the 30 year HPUDS period. It would accord with the delegation given to the IWG to regularly monitor and review HPUDS to ensure its continued relevance and to consult with and hear and recommend changes as a result of submissions.

72. The IWG has considered a considerable body of monitoring information and new research to come to considered conclusions as to how HPUDS can be amended to ensure it is fit for purpose over the near term to reflect changes over the last five years. The IWG has recommended some amendments which in their view, do not detract from the essential vision and purpose committed to by the partner Councils when they adopted HPUDS 2010 and signed a Memorandum of Agreement: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation.

73. In respect of Option 2, it is open for Council to require some changes to be made to the document, or request further work. It is important to note that in the event that the Council deems it necessary for further amendments to the strategy, over and above that recommended by the IWG (other than minor editorial amendments), they will need to be endorsed by all three partner councils before the strategy can be formally adopted. Another scenario is that the Review and IWG’s recommendations be adopted as is, with additional conditions that HBRC have particular issues that would be expected to be worked through by the new IWG.

74. It is also worth noting that the strategy is a high-level directional document rather than a detailed implementation plan of each activity the partner councils do or will do to manage urban development in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. The Strategy will however give direction for future work on intensification planning, including changes to district plans, asset management plans, development plans and future LTPs.

75. Option 3 is the opposite of Option 1. Option 3 would mean HPUDS2010 remains unchanged, despite the efforts and findings of the 2016 Review process. It would not be responsive to, nor anticipate, changing circumstances and would risk becoming less relevant in terms of meeting the strategic objectives and community outcomes it aims to achieve. The flexibility and improved residential supply buffers and mechanisms proposed will not be available to assist with a more agile response to market changes over time, nor to assist with the current supply constraints.

Decision Making Process

76. 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:

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

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

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

76.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the region’s urban development and management, particularly within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region.

76.5. Options that have been considered include adopting the IWG’s recommendations; or not adopting the IWG’s recommendations and revised Strategy.

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

76.7. 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. Notwithstanding this, the 2016 Review featured an opportunity for any person to make a submission on the Draft Revised Strategy and present that submission at a hearing before the IWG held in October 2016.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the “Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Review” staff report.

2. 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.

3. Receives and notes the HPUDS Implementation Working Group’s:

3.1. Hearing meeting record (Attachment 1)

3.2. Hearing recommendation reports (Attachment 2).

4. Adopts HPUDS2016 as amended by the HPUDS Implementation Working Group (Attachment 3) conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also resolving to adopt the strategy.

5. Adopts, in-principle, the HPUDS Revised Implementation Plan (Attachment 5) and agrees that the HPUDS Implementation Working Group shall be responsible for overseeing prioritisation and progress on the Plan during the remainder of the 2016-19 triennium.

6. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group for the 2016-19 Triennium (Attachment 6), conditional on the other two partner councils (Napier City Council and Hastings District Council) also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.

7. Agrees that the HBRC’s representatives on the HPUDS Implementation Working Group will encourage the IWG to:

7.1. Re-prioritise Strategy implementation planning to:

7.1.1. focus on actions required by HPUDS Partner Councils to give effect to the 2016 NPS on Urban Development Capacity (NPSUDC);

7.1.2. review HPUDS 2016 to align with the first three-yearly assessment of housing needs as required by the NPSUDC.

7.2. Accommodate new and emerging information regarding the following matters in the course of implementing HPUDs and future reviews:

7.2.1. Natural hazards, in particular liquefaction, coastal erosion, coastal storm surge inundation and tsunami inundation

7.2.2. Appropriateness of large-scale semi-industrial and non-rural land use activities locating on productive land.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇨1	HPUDS Implementation Working Group Hearing Meeting Record	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	HPUDS Implementation Working Group Hearing Recommendations	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	HPUDS 2016 with Tracked Changes	Under Separate Cover
⇨4	HPUDS2016 Maps	Under Separate Cover
⇨5	HPUDS Implementation Plan	Under Separate Cover
⇨6	HPUDS Implementation Working Group Terms of Reference	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 28 June 2017

SUBJECT: HBRC Staff Work Programme through July 2017

Reason for Report

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

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
External Relations	Community Engagement	1. July monthly focus: Pest management 2. Our Place Country – region wide rural distribution 3. Leaders Briefing newsletter 4. Public planting events at Karamū, Whakatu and Tūtira 5. HBRC LEAF fund applications open
	Transport	6. Year-end subsidy claims and reporting for NZ Transport Agency across all areas of subsidised transport activity. 7. Work with the 8 other councils in the regional consortium to implement the new bus ticketing system. 8. Preparation of the Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 continues. All councils in the region must submit initial funding bids for 2018-21 transport activities to the NZ Transport Agency by mid-August.
	Governance	9. Admin associated with publication and distribution of Council’s decisions on submissions and the 2017-18 Annual Plan. 10. Continued support for adoption of updated Regional Planning Committee and Maori Committee Terms of Reference and Maori Charter 11. Receipt, registration and collation of LGOIMA requests 12. Initiate Representation Review
	Consents	13. Significant applications in process/pending a. Te Mata Mushroom discharge to air - notified - 318 submissions received plus 3 late submission) b. HBRC - gravel extraction. Ngaruroro river consent on hold 4 others still to be lodged c. Port of Napier new berth, deepening channel – in pre-application stage. d. PanPac ocean discharge due to be lodged 14. Staff preparing information for Havelock North BOI – Stage 2 15. Staff assisting with RWSS condition 12A Declaration to Environment Court. 16. Resource Management Information System (RMIS) implementation
	Compliance	17. Resource Management Information System (RMIS) implementation. 18. Ongoing follow up and identification of insecure and abandoned bores in the region. 19. Follow up on reports of contaminated bores from scientific sampling, in conjunction with the work being done on the region-wide survey of shallow groundwater quality – undertaken by the Science Group.
Resource Management	Hydrology	20. Installation of rising bubble method gauging at Tutaekuri-Waimate stream. 21. Install Water Quality Sondes at selected sites 22. Collect, analyse and archive Water, Rain and Climate data. 23. Calibrate and maintain instruments at all SOE sites. 24. Update remaining loggers to GDSP communication pathway.
	Surface Water Science	To support the TANK plan change process: 25. The Heretaunga Plains SOURCE model (of surface water flows) is being recalibrated. This model will be integrated with the groundwater model and scenarios will be run for water management scenarios 26. A draft report on Heretaunga Springs will be reviewed in July. This report will quantify gains and losses of stream flow to groundwater on the Heretaunga Plains
	Groundwater Science	To support the TANK plan change process: 27. The groundwater model has been recalibrated and will be used for predictive modelling of options to manage stream depletion in the Heretaunga Plains. This includes augmentation of lowland streams from groundwater during periods of low flow 28. The groundwater model will also be used for evaluating long-term sustainability of the groundwater resource in terms of the effects of allocation on groundwater levels and drawdown impacts 29. The Heretaunga groundwater nutrient transport model will be calibrated using the NeSI supercomputer cluster during June/July and will then be available for scenario modelling 30. A draft report on the region-wide survey of shallow groundwater quality will be reviewed in July
	Water Quality and Ecology	31. Developing a toolbox of planting configurations that would achieve effective shading under different bank and channel geometries 32. Objectives and options for Clive and Karamu being considered via TANK stakeholder discussions 33. Maintenance and fill-in planting of shading trial sites, along with development of weeping willow pole trial along Louisa drain 34. LAWA update for rivers and lakes is on track 35. US interns have arrived and will be helping with monitoring riparian plantings and identifying fish barriers 36. Discussions on Whakaki with and without FIF funding 37. Investigating water quality trends in Taharua 38. Evaluating data collected following a series of sewerage spill events post cyclonic weather 39. Investigating water quality patterns around potential winter hotspots such as tile drain discharges and feedlots
Resource Management	Marine & Coastal Science	40. Several compliance and consenting work requests for activities occurring in the coastal marine space, including controlled sewage overflows, and stormwater assessments. 41. Sediment monitoring to be undertaken late June/early July with a focus on soft-sediment community associations. 42. Support TANK stakeholder discussions around estuarine health. 43. Discussions on Ahuriri Estuary management with, and without FIF funds. 44. Working with Land Science to develop a programme of work for Ahuriri Estuary. 45. HBMaC Group Meeting in July to discuss draft strategy. 46. Continued support for NCC stormwater team, and TANK Stormwater working group. 47. Continued lead agency role in the redevelopment of LAWA ‘Can I Swim Here?’ module.
	Air & Climate Science	48. Roadside air quality monitoring of traffic related pollutants is underway during July and August. 49. Monitoring of ambient concentrations of arsenic and lead at Marewa Park continues.
	Land Science	50. S-map (new regional soil data base/soil map) continues to be rolled out in to northern Hawke’s Bay 51. SedNetNZ (Sediment model) now completed for region and being review 52. Annual soil quality monitoring report under review before presentation to RPC 53. Regional wetland inventory 2017 survey 54. Regional wetland summary report under review before presentation to RPC 55. Regional peat/organic soil characterisation project under development 56. Regional ecosystem mapping and prioritisation project ... 57. Frost flat (northern Mohaka catchment) survey under development
	Land Management	58. Significant work is currently being undertaken by staff to ensure the standards of FEMP’s being done in the region are as good as they can be. The team are currently working closely with 5 providers to lift standards and an external consultant to develop a formalised accreditation process. 59. With Tukituki regulatory deadlines looming in just over 12 months Council will notice a shift in key messaging to landholders from “Here to Help” to more compliance oriented. 60. Whakaki Sustainable Land Use Project will be undertaking interviews in July with the community to better understand how Central Government funding can be aligned to best effect to achieve the overarching objectives for the catchment. 61. There is another Porangahau Stream & Maharakeke priority catchment community to be held in July.
Strategic Development	RMA Planning	62. Next TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group meeting scheduled for 27 July. 63. Announcements from Special Tribunal for the Ngaruroro/Clive Rivers Water Conservation Order application are anticipated in July. 64. July staff reports to RPC likely to include: a. Overview of recent amendments to the RMA by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act. b. Overview of matters arising from RWSS Review for plan change 6 implications. 65. Coordinating HBRC’s involvement and interests in 25+ applications within Hawke's Bay coastal marine area to High Court and/or Crown for recognition of customary associations under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. 66. Strategic Plan - Revising the Strategic Plan to reflect direction provided at June Council workshop. Consultation with RPC tangata whenua representatives and the Maori Standing Committee. Adoption at July Council meeting.
	Economic Development	67. Matariki Governance Group seeking Council’s support of proposed delivery model for the Regional Economic Development Strategy. 68. Participation in UNESCO gastronomy designation application (2018) opportunity. 69. (Placeholder) – Capital Structure Review. Finalisation of Scope and Terms of Reference and other actions arising from inaugural meeting of review panel in late June.
Asset Management	Engineering	70. Draft Works Group Asset Maintenance Contract completed. Finishing 2016/17 works maintenance programme. 71. Gravel Management Plan and Code of Practice resolve outstanding issues to avoid need to go to a formal hearing. 72. Awapuni Lagoon modelling for GDC. 73. Waipaoa Stopbank consent application and contract documents for GDC 74. Flood hazard study for Otene / Ruahapia. 75. Flood hazard study for Howard St HDC growth area. 76. Iona triangle flood and drainage study and other flooding/drainage issues for HDC. 77. Wharerangi Stream flood modelling. 78. Levels of service for Meeanee catchment, drain capacity through Napier City. 79. Upgrades to HBRC flood forecasting system. 80. Ngaruroro levels of service hydrological update. 81. Complete coastal profile monitoring report. 82. Continue with river assets condition and risk assessment.
Asset Management	Open Spaces	83. Facilitating community plantings on the Karamu Stream, Waitangi, Pakowhai, Tutira and Pekapeka Regional Parks. These are being well advertised on HBRC’s website and social media. Good public attendance. 84. Waitangi Estuary Enhancement progressing per plan. Additional 12 Pou being installed on the compass 21^st June. Boardwalks being installed presently. Whitebaiter access road construction underway. Colenso signage in draft. Additional funding received for celestial compass from HDC and NCC. 85. Pakowhai Regional Park dog agility equipment being installed. 86. Richmond Road carpark construction progressing in conjunction with Hastings District Council. 87. Tutira mai nga iwi project, planting day, Saturday 15^th July. Starting time to be advised. 88. Pukahu concept plan completed. (St Georges Rd Karamu Access) 89. HBLASS first workshop on HB open space shared services completed. Report to HBLASS board due 4^th September.
	Biosecurity / Pest Management	90. Regional pest plan discussion document submissions will be received and collated. 91. Discussions with Zero Invasive Predators on a possum eradication trial in Hawkes Bay will continue 92. Seventeen individual research projects across biodiversity and biosecurity are due for completion within the Cape to City research programme. 93. Cape to City initial predator control continues with a ratio of 5-6 feral cats caught for each mustelid within the control area 94. Preparation for the national conference “Transforming Biodiversity – Challenging the Boundaries” in Napier continues with registrations open 95. Regional rabbit blood sample (15 sites) and night count line monitoring (20 sites) will be underway.
	Coastal Project	96. This project is progressing well, with workshop 6 of 10 completed with the Northern panel and workshop 7 of 10 completed for the Southern panel. 97. To date the project has involved an introduction and establishment of TOR’s, site visits, technical presentations and knowledge gathering, public feedback sessions, identifying solutions and pathways and is currently up to the options evaluations stage. 98. A range of other concurrent work is also being carried out on Cultural Values, Social Impact and Funding options. 99. This phase of the project is timed for completion by the end of September 2017. 100. A separate verbal update on this project will be provided at the meeting
Operations		101. The primary work focus over the next month is the seasonal planting programme of exotic and native plantings within the various flood control and drainage schemes, regional parks and public access areas. 102. A project of scale will be the construction of boardwalks within the Waitangi wetlands.

Decision Making Process

2. 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 required, the decision making requirements of the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

That Council receives the HBRC Staff Work Programme through July 2017 report.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Steve Cave

Asset Manager Open Spaces

Sally Chandler

Community Engagement Coordinator

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager – Land Management

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist / Team Leader - Land

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist – Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Note: The Governance Board does not report to the Matariki Forum but is responsible for regular communication updates and liaison.

[2] This figure represents a funding shortfall (differential between current state and the proposed structure). Assumptions include additional funding (88.0k) made available for social inclusion resource.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.