Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 2 August 2017

Time: 10.00am

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 7 June 2017

4. Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 3

5. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

6. Regional Planning Committee 2016-17 Annual Activity Report 9

7. Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Liaison 11

8. Appointments to the HBRC Hearings, Corporate & Strategic, and Environment & Services committees, and the Biosecurity Working Party 17

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters 21

10. Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 Overview (11am) 31

11. Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Project Update 35

12. August 2017 Statutory Advocacy Update 39

13. August 2017 Resource Management Planning Project Update 53

14. Myrtle Rust 57

15. Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda 63

Parking

There are named parking spaces for Tangata Whenua Members in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Liz Munroe	He Toa Takitini
Joinella Maihi-Carroll	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Apiata Tapine	Tātau Tātau O Te Wairoa
Matiu Heperi Northcroft	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Paul Bailey	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Neil Kirton	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 18

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 14 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

18 15

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 August 2017

Subject: Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Liaison

Reason for Report

1. This report proposes that a small number of Regional Planning Committee members be selected to work with staff in liaising with the Special Tribunal appointed to hear the WCO application as this process begins.

2. The WCO process is likely to move at a pace that does not align well with the RPC monthly meeting schedule. For example, during preparation of this paper, on 24^th July, the Tribunal publicly notified the application and submissions close 4pm Thursday 24^th August.

Background

3. The Committee has received several reports about the Water Conservation Order application for the Ngaruroro and Clive Rivers as it has progressed.

4. Previous reports have described concerns about the impact of a WCO process on the TANK process and have resulted in the Committee advocating that the Minister and, more recently, the Special Tribunal provide for the TANK process when establishing the submission and hearing process for the application.

5. The most recent letter was sent to the Special Tribunal on the Committee’s behalf to provide the Tribunal with some background information about water management and plan change processes currently underway in Hawkes Bay. This letter is attached.

6. The Tribunal has since replied and has advised the Committee that it intends to set up a pre-hearing meeting to discuss process issues. Their letter is attached.

7. The Tribunal invites the members of the Committee to this pre-hearing meeting. We were assuming the invitation will be made after the application is notified. As it happened, the Tribunal publicly notified the application on 24 July and submissions close at 4pm Thursday 24 August. The Tribunal is being supported by the EPA, so the EPA website hosts details of the application and submission process:

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/wco/Pages/default.aspx

8. We suggest that selecting a delegation of up to four Committee members to liaise and speak on behalf of the Committee may be a more efficient approach than the entire Committee attending any such pre-hearing meeting. It will also enable a more responsive and timely input into the Tribunal process that may not be provided by the scheduled monthly RPC meeting schedule.

9. Note that the RPC is still to consider its own submission in respect of the WCO application. Staff intend that a draft submission will be presented to the RPC for their consideration and input before the 24^th August deadline.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

10. The interests of Tangata Whenua are accounted for in the decision of the Committee.

Financial and Resource Implications

11. There are no financial implications from this decision.

Decision Making Process

12. 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:

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. While no persons are likely to be directly affected by this decision, anyone with an interest in either the Council’s plan change process or the WCO process may be affected by the Council’s representation to the Special Tribunal.

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

12.6. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Liaison” staff 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. Appoints up to four Regional Planning Committee members to speak on behalf of the Committee with the Special Tribunal about process to be followed in hearing submissions on the WCO application, those appointees being:

2.2.1

2.2.2

2.2.3

2.2.4 .

Authored by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

⇩1	Letter to Tribunal
⇩2	Special Tribunal Letter

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 August 2017

Subject: Appointments to the HBRC Hearings, Corporate & Strategic, and Environment & Services committees, and the Biosecurity Working Party

Reason for Report

1. To seek nominations from the Regional Planning Committee, of suitably qualified tangata whenua representatives to the HBRC Hearings, Corporate and Strategic (C&S) and Environment and Services (E&S) committees, and the Biosecurity Working Party (BWP).

Background

2. It has been Council best practice for a number of years to appoint tangata whenua representatives to the Hearings, Environment & Services, and Corporate & Strategic committees (and their predecessors). The tangata whenua appointees to these committees have speaking and voting rights.

3. Following the 4 July 2016 meeting between RPC tangata whenua representatives and Maori Committee members it was agreed that each committee would appoint one tangata whenua representative on each of the HBRC standing committees. In the past the Maori Committee has appointed two representatives to each of the committees.

4. The Biosecurity Working Party (BWP) was formed as a sub-committee of the E&S committee, and at its inception included 3 tangata whenua representatives nominated by the Regional Planning Committee. With changes of Appointees on the RPC, it is necessary to replace two of the tangata whenua representatives no longer serving on the RPC.

Hearings Committee

5. Interested nominees will either have “Making Good Decisions” RMA certification or be willing to go through the training to achieve certification. Members of the Committee are eligible to then be appointed to a Hearing Panel, which is appointed to hear and decide on specific Resource Consent applications.

6. The Hearings Committee meets as required, usually when the need to appoint a Hearing Panel arises.

Corporate & Strategic and Environment & Services committees

7. Both standing committees consist of all elected representatives, one representative nominated by the Maori Committee, and one tangata whenua representative nominated by the RPC.

8. The focus of the work programme for the C&S Committee is on considering and recommending to Council strategic planning initiatives including development of the Council’s Strategic Plan, resourcing implications of strategic initiatives, major financial matters, the strategic direction for Council's investment portfolio and, where appropriate, the sale or acquisition of Council investments. Meetings of the C&S Committee are scheduled quarterly.

9. The considering and recommending to Council of policies with regard to Council responsibilities or involvement with land drainage and river control, policies with regard to Council’s responsibilities for biosecurity, Council strategies, policies and by-laws and compliance and enforcement programs relating to maritime and navigational safety, environmental monitoring strategies and research and investigation programmes, including the State of the Environment Reports. Meetings of the E&S Committee are usually held every second month.

Biosecurity Working Party

10. The BWP is currently carrying out the second phase of its work programme, which involves considering submissions received on the Regional Pest Management Plan Discussion Document and giving staff guidance on proposed programmes. Phase 3 will involve providing feedback on the proposal and how it aligns with the objectives of the Hawkes Bay Biodiversity Strategy, and Phase 4 will involve reviewing and giving guidance on submissions received on the proposal.

11. Upcoming meetings of the BWP are scheduled 31 August, 7 November 2017 and 21 March 2018.

Decision Making Process

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 is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Appointments to the HBRC Hearings, Corporate & Strategic, and Environment & Services Committees” staff report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Confirms the appointments of _______________ and ______________ as Regional Planning Committee Tangata Whenua representatives on the HBRC Hearings Committee

2.3. Confirms the appointment of _____________ as the Regional Planning Committee Tangata Whenua representative on the HBRC Corporate and Strategic Committee

2.4. Confirms the appointment of _________________ as the Regional Planning Committee Tangata Whenua representative on the HBRC Environment and Services Committee

2.5. Confirmed the appointments of Karauna Brown, _________________ and ________________ as the tangata whenua representatives on the Biosecurity Working Party.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Mark Mitchell

Principal Biosecurity Officer

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Policy and Strategic Advisor- Maori

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 August 2017

Subject: Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters

Reason for Report

1. To present to the Regional Planning Committee an overview of key Tukituki Plan Change (PC6) implementation matters impacted by the Supreme Court’s RWSS Land-Swap decision, and to introduce and discuss potential plan change and policy reform pathways to manage these matters including highlighting resourcing issues likely to impact on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Background

2. The RWSS was developed as a complementary element of a dual management strategy with PC6 for the Tukituki River Catchment. The combined approach was originally called the Tukituki Catchment Proposal and the challenges in the timing of the implementation of some aspects of PC6 policy is now complicated by the significantly decreased likelihood that the RWSS will proceed, at least in the short to medium term.

3. On 6 July, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling, that the Department of Conservation acted unlawfully in revoking the conservation park status of 22 ha of land necessary to establish the RWSS dam reservoir. The impact of this decision is that the Council’s investment company, HBRIC Ltd, is effectively no longer able to satisfy a key condition precedent necessary for Council’s investment in the RWSS.

4. While Council will now consult with HBRIC Ltd on the future of the RWSS, it is prudent for staff to consider PC6 implementation matters on the basis that the RWSS will not be built in the foreseeable future. This is particularly pressing given various implementation dates in PC6 and the long lead times for actions to achieve or reconsider these.

5. Council recently initiated a joint declaration to the Environment Court with HBRIC Ltd and the Environmental Defence Society and a joint initiative with HBRIC Ltd to work up an environmental condition precedent for Council investment in the RWSS. Both work streams have been indefinitely suspended.

Tukituki River Catchment Management in the Absence of the RWSS

6. Notwithstanding that the RWSS was originally developed as a complementary element of a dual management strategy with PC6 for the Tukituki River Catchment, it is important to note that a failure to establish the RWSS does not automatically mean that PC6 cannot be implemented. In the absence of the RWSS, the policy contained within PC6 stands on its own. That being the case, the PC6 implementation work streams within Council have continued to be developed over the past 24 months or so and continue now.

7. The 105 page document “Tukituki Catchment – Plan Change 6, Working Towards Implementation” dated 3 August 2016 contains the detail of that work. This was presented to the Regional Planning Committee and Council in August 2016, setting out the actions necessary for Council to give effect to parts of the Regional Resource Management Plan Policy TT16.

8. With or without the RWSS, the implementation tasks within PC6 must be delivered within the timeframes outlined in policy. Farm Environment Management Plans, nutrient budgets, phosphorus management plans, higher minimum flow cut offs, stock exclusion, science monitoring framework, and the Monitoring Evaluation Review and Improvement plans are examples of this.

9. Staff are now undertaking a very preliminary assessment of specific issues arising for implementation of PC6 now that the RWSS’s fate is looking increasingly certain. These issues relate to matters where the operation of the RWSS was going to have a measurable impact, or perhaps was perceived by members of the catchment community to have an impact. For example:

9.1. Council communications with CHB community

9.2. Environmental flows and surface water takes

9.3. Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs)

9.4. Consents and Compliance Lower Tukituki Flows and Tranche 2 Water.

10. This list is not definitive nor exhaustive. Advice from staff intimately involved in the Council’s preliminary efforts to implement PC6 is that there are additional matters that arise in relation to the clarity and workability of specific policy wording, but none of those have been presented in detail for the immediate purposes of this paper.

11. Each issue is dealt with in the following sections. Collectively they outline matters that Council may need to consider as matters to be resolved. Some matters could be resolved via technical amendments to PC6 (i.e. via a further plan change) and/or council resourcing implications for consideration through the 2018-28 LTP process.

12. It is also worth pointing out at this stage that the science resources of Council are almost exclusively focused on supporting the development of TANK policy and that any immediate need to support policy reform in the Tukituki catchment could have a material impact on the delivery of TANK science. This could potentially be overcome with additional resourcing but would require more detailed analysis.

Council Communications with CHB Community

13. A strong ongoing relationship between the Regional Council, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council and our community is crucial to meeting the objectives of the Tukituki Plan. As the future outlook for management of land and water in the Tukituki catchment is different from that proposed in the Tukituki Catchment Proposal it is necessary to re-engage the community in the issues and options that lie ahead. Ongoing uncertainty around the RWSS has created confusion around PC6 and the Council’s approach to managing land and water in the catchment, which will require considerable effort to remedy.

14. A new dialogue between HBRC and CHBDC councillors was established in July. The focus of governors and staff is proposed to be on developing long term water solutions for Central Hawke’s Bay that support environmental and economic development aspirations. Staff are presently exploring a water symposium to be held later in the year in Central Hawke’s Bay in partnership with CHBDC.

15. The Regional Council will develop a programme of more targeted engagement with the Central HB community. Future communication will cover the work already undertaken in the catchment, along with new programmes and the actions that continue beyond key dates in 2018.

Environmental Flows and Surface Water Takes

16. The PC6 policy set new minimum flow regime and allocation limits. Under the policy, minimum flows increase while groundwater and surface water allocation limits are set based on the existing volume of consented allocation. Transition periods are also specified to implement the increased minimum flows.

17. During the PC6 process, groundwater and surface water abstraction was modelled using both the current and new minimum flows now set in PC6, to assess the changes to:

17.1. Security of water supply for water users/abstractors

17.2. River flow

17.3. In-stream habitat availability for critical species.

18. The modelled surface water abstractions include abstractions directly from a river/stream and stream depleting groundwater abstractions. The modelled groundwater abstractions refer to all other groundwater abstractions not classified as stream depleting.

19. Using groundwater and surface water modelling techniques, the likely relative changes in security of supply, river flow and in-stream habitat availability were investigated at three key river flow sites:

19.1. Waipawa River at RDS/SH2

19.2. Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd

19.3. Tukituki River at Red Bridge.

20. To assess the security of supply under the current and new minimum flows, a range of restriction statistics were generated for the three river flow sites.

21. Given that extended periods of restricted abstraction can have detrimental effects on crops that require irrigation, especially during dry summer months when irrigation demand can be high (i.e. January to February), estimates of the potential frequency of extended periods of restriction (e.g. periods of 10 or more consecutive days) were included within the restriction statistics.

22. The modelling results indicated that increasing the minimum flow at each site is likely to increase the time river flow is at or below minimum flow, meaning an increase in abstraction restriction (bans) is likely.

23. The table below presents the predicted frequency of a year with a period of 10 or more consecutive days of restriction during January and February.

Table 1

24. Table 1 shows that an increase from current to new minimum flows at each site is predicted to increase the frequency of a year where abstraction during January and February is restricted for 10 or more consecutive days. The greatest impact is predicted at the Tukituki River at Red Bridge site, with the 4300 l/s representing the 2018 minimum flow and the 5200 l/s to apply in 2023.

25. If the RWSS proceeded and became operational, all water users/abstractors who subscribe to the scheme would have an increased security of supply. Particularly water users who are surface water abstractors, as they would no longer be restricted by minimum flow rules.

26. Surface water abstractors who had not subscribed to the scheme, would continue to have the current level of security of supply associated with current minimum flows, and a reduced security of supply after transition to the new minimum flows set in PC6. The security of supply for surface water abstractors who do not subscribe to the scheme, would be neither adversely nor positively affected by the scheme being in operation, notwithstanding the impact of higher minimum flows.

27. Previous groundwater modelling studies (Baalousha 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011) indicated that groundwater abstraction from the Ruataniwha Aquifer impacts on river flow, reducing the aquifer contribution to river flow in the Waipawa and Tukituki rivers.

28. Groundwater abstraction reduces river flows during low-flow conditions and when combined with surface water abstraction there is the potential to extend the periods of time where a river flow is at or below the minimum flow.

29. The natural availability of physical in-stream habitat in a river is generally limited by the natural mean annual low flow (MALF). The modelling indicated that groundwater abstraction reduces MALF, which in turn means a reduction in available in-stream habitat.

30. The groundwater and surface water modelling undertaken during the PC6 process, utilised available data (e.g. hydrological, hydrogeological, consent, water use, etc.) up to 2010.

31. There is now more recent data available since the modelling was undertaken during the PC6 process, however the hydrology/hydrogeology team does not currently have the capacity to update the previous modelling in the Tukituki Catchment.

32. Although the modelling does not include the most recent available data, the modelling was still undertaken using long-term records. These long-term records account for the inter-annual variability inherent in the past climate and river flow regimes, including extreme dry and wet periods similar to those that have occurred within the last 7 years. This means the statistics calculated using these long-term records are still useful today for providing an estimate of the likely changes resulting from increasing minimum flows to those set in PC6.

Consents and Compliance Tukituki Flows & Tranche 2 Water

Tukituki River minimum flows

33. As identified, PC6 introduced new minimum flow conditions at a number of locations in the catchment.

33.1. For the tributaries these take effect in 2018.

33.2. For the Tukituki mainstem at the Red Bridge monitoring site the minimum flows are to be raised in two stages. They increase from the current 3,500 L/s to 4,300 L/s in 2018 and to 5,200 L/s in 2023.

33.3. The stage 1 increase at the Red Bridge site affects all takes that are subject to minimum flow conditions. (There can be more than one minimum flow gauging point applying to a take in which case the consent holder must stop taking water when the first minimum flow point is reached).

33.4. The stage two change affects all takes upstream of Red Bridge including the tributaries. Takes downstream of the Red Bridge minimum flow site are only required to step up once, to the 4,300 L/s minimum flow.

34. When resource consents were replaced in 2013 the new minimum flow conditions were included to phase in as per the proposed plan. As it stands these conditions will come into force and be subject to compliance from the 1 July 2018. The consents were granted for seven years and are set to expire in 2020.

35. These consents have been issued consistent with Plan Change 6 and regardless of the RWSS proposal. It was known that the higher minimum flows would affect reliability of supply but it was not known whether holders would seek RWSS water to offset this effect. The RWSS could have supplied water to surface takes on the Ruataniwha Plains but initially it was not anticipated that the RWSS would supply water to the lower catchment. The RWSS consent was however, conditioned to make sure that its operation did not disadvantage existing consents and water may have needed to be released to prevent this.

36. The plan does provide other measures for reducing the impact of these restrictions.

37. Policy TT9(iva) provides an allocation of 200 L/s for “emergency water” for the sole purpose of avoiding the death of horticultural or viticultural rootstock or crops. This is available to consent holders who do not have alternative water sources in low flow events. It is principally intended to allow water to be taken to prevent permanent loss of plants. The use does include crops (but not pasture, animal fodder crops or maize). It only becomes available after five days of full restriction. Only one party has sought to access this water to date. Council staff have sought to canvass interest in this water but there has been limited interest. A proposal has been to allocate this water to a “water user group” and allow them to manage it between members within the rules and limits. This proposal can be discussed again with affected parties if the interest becomes evident.

38. Policy TT10 provides for takes during high flows. An allocation of 2,000 L/s is provided with up to 500 L/s able to be taken from each of the Waipawa River and the Tukituki River above Tapairu Road. This allows consent holders to take water during flows that exceed the median flows. This would be able to be taken into storage and then used when water is not otherwise available. To date 304 L/s is allocated from the Upper Tukituki, 115 L/s is allocated from the Waipawa River and 136 L/s has been allocated from the lower Tukituki area. This totals 555 L/s or about one quarter of what is available.

39. Policy TT11 provides for groundwater takes that are hydraulically connected to the river. It sets a well depth (50 m above Red Bridge and 40 m below Red Bridge) below which takes are determined to not be hydraulically connected. Any takes below this level are not subject to the minimum flows. Some consent holders have already chosen to install a deeper bore to benefit from this provision. All consent holders with hydraulically connected bores that are shallower have been informed of the option to go deeper to avoid the minimum flow restrictions.

40. Policy TT11 also provides for takes which are classified as having a High stream depletion effect to be reduced to half their daily take at times of minimum flow rather than to cease taking as was previously required. Takes classified as Medium or Low are not required to reduce or cease their take at all at times of minimum flow.

41. Policy TT8 (ca) provides for Tranche 2 ground water to be taken. This is water additional to the principal groundwater allocation limit, and amounts to 15 million cubic metres of water. There are applications currently lodged for over the full amount however no consents have been issued. Ten million cubic meters of Tranche 2 water has been sought by HBRIC Ltd; proposed to be taken in conjunction with the RWSS, with the dam providing the offset that is required. If HBRIC Ltd is not able to take this, the 15 million m³ is oversubscribed by others who have applied for it.

42. The HBRIC Ltd application has been on hold pending more information and Consents staff are awaiting advice on whether they wish to proceed with the application. If not, then Council will proceed with processing the other applications. The difficulty with taking this water is that the effects of the take on surface water have to be off-set.

Other Consenting Issues

43. The Production Land Use rules introduce a number of matters that must be complied with if the farming activity is to be a Permitted Activity. Key matters are:

43.1. nutrient budgets (using 2013 – 2017 data)

43.2. FEMP development and implementation

43.3. N leaching limits

43.4. stock exclusion from lakes, wetlands and rivers

43.5. bridging stream crossings, and

43.6. DIN catchment limits.

44. If any of these matters are not met a resource consent will be required.

45. The first matter to trigger a resource consent will be the absence of a FEMP as of 1 June 2018. If a FEMP is not prepared by this date a resource consent will be required. This can be managed by the Consents staff, but there may be a large number depending on the availability and effectiveness of the providers.

46. All other matters need to be complied with by 2020. If they are not then the activity will need a resource consent. It is anticipated that the FEMP will identify these matters, among other things, as tasks and set out a programme to achieve these. If a FEMP programmes these works over a number of years this may mean they are not achieved by 2020. A simplified consenting process could be developed for these or this could be amended through a plan change to allow production land use activities to continue as a permitted activity where they have a suitably verified FEMP that programmes all the necessary improvements within a specified time.

Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs)

47. One of the benefits of the RWSS proceeding was that instead of having to deal with FEMPs for about 200 individual landowners who had signed up to the scheme, HBRC could deal with one consent holder (i.e. HBRIC Ltd). HBRIC Ltd, through its contractual arrangements with water users, potentially had additional leverage and access to resources that are not available to HBRC through the regulatory framework.

48. If the RWSS does not proceed, the importance of establishing and resourcing a thorough and effective FEMP auditing process increases. This is not only because of the increased number of individual FEMPs, but also particularly given that many of the landowners who had signed water user agreements with HBRIC Ltd run intensive and increasingly complex farming systems.

49. External consultants with extensive expertise in farm planning and auditing have been engaged by staff to help develop an accreditation system for FEMP providers, as well as an auditing process for FEMPs. A draft report covering stages 1 and 2 of this project (work has just commenced on the third and final stage of the project) has been received from the consultants and indicates that establishing a robust accreditation and auditing process for FEMPs is going to require substantial investment by HBRC.

50. Having processes in place to enable staff, landowners and the community to have confidence that the quality of the FEMPs being completed is high (and remains so) is absolutely pivotal to the effective implementation of PC6. Further details of what such a process needs to involve will be brought to Council when the project has been completed, but at this time it is important that Council is aware that investment in that process, in the absence of the RWSS, is even more critical.

51. If the RWSS does not proceed, then the increased number of landowners that HBRC will need to work with, and the higher intensity of many of those operations, will likely mean difficulties created by the wording of PC6 become more challenging. Things such as the inability of HBRC to obtain copies of FEMPs unless staff are physically on a property and the lack of clarity about what “appropriate professional qualifications” are for people that prepare FEMPs are two such challenges.

52. Staff believe that difficulties such as these (and others outlined within this paper) could be addressed through a plan change process of limited scope.

Options for HBRC and Resource Implications

Plan Change Options in Amended RMA

53. Recent amendments to the RMA have introduced two alternative ‘planning tracks’ or pathways for the preparation of plan changes, while also retaining the long-standing process. So there are now the following three ‘planning tracks’ and key features of each of these planning tracks are summarised in the attached comparison published by MFE:

53.1. Standard process – RMA Part 1 Schedule 1

53.2. Collaborative planning process (CPP) – RMA Part 4 Schedule 1

53.3. Streamline planning process (SPP) – RMA Part 5 Schedule 1.

54. In addition to these three planning tracks, there is also the ability for councils to prepare a plan change and provide “limited notification” in certain circumstances, as opposed to traditional full public notification.

55. The availability of different ‘planning tracks’ presents opportunities to consider whether any of the alternative planning tracks might be better suited to one or more of the key issues in PC6 that warrant remedial amendments. For example, the streamlined planning process might be better suited to relatively minor technical amendments and tidying up of unintended consequences whereas a more substantive amendments might remain suited to the standard/traditional plan change pathway.

56. Arrangements are being made for Matt Conway of Simpson Grierson solicitors to attend the RPC’s meeting on 2 August and present an overview of the recent Resource Legislation Amendment Act’s amendments, particularly focussing on amendments directly relating to the jurisdiction and preparation of regional policy statements and regional plans (i.e. the RPC’s principal responsibility). Also refer to separate item on RPC agenda for 2 August 2017 meeting.

PC6 Implementation Challenges – Policy Options

57. While most of the challenges of implementing PC6 can be progressively worked through, some could possibly be alleviated by amending the PC6 policy requirements. Amendments could be for one or more reasons, for example:

57.1. process alignment

57.2. process improvement

57.3. minor/technical fixes

57.4. substantive policy changes to objectives, policies, limits and/or methods.

58. As noted above, more substantive policy shifts would be better suited to a traditional RMA Schedule 1 plan change pathway. HBRC’s financial and resource implications are likely to be significant for a substantial alteration of policy approach for land and freshwater management in the Tukituki catchment. Those resourcing and work programme implications are matters that would likely need to be worked through the 2018-28 LTP process.

59. In terms of process improvements and alignments, one of the most obvious candidates for alteration would be the timings specified in Policy TT16. Policy TT16 requires an Engagement Plan and also an Implementation Plan to have been delivered by 31 December 2014. For a variety of reasons, that timeframe was never going to be achieved, most notably because PC6 itself did not become operative until October 2015 following the Board of Inquiry’s final decisions issued in June 2015. It seems that these dates were not extended as an effect of the extended gestation period with the BOI process.

60. Other candidates for possible process improvements, alignments and technical fixes include:

60.1. Enabling greater flexibility in preparation and content of FEMPs (e.g. prospect of national scheme for farm plan provider certification; online farm plan portal; nutrient budget surrogates etc)

60.2. Clarity of what implementation of farm plans is/means and by when and including deferring date by which FEMP need to be implemented (i.e. from 1 June 2020, to two or three further years to aid landholder adaptation to new PC6 land use regulatory regime

60.3. Gap in stream depletion management regime set in Policy TT11 and Table 5.9.7

60.4. Correct groundwater allocation volumes for Ruataniwha Basin Zone 2 due to calculation method errors

60.5. Relook at workability of Tranche 2 water, or at least some additional policy guidance on this concept

60.6. Fix disconnection in allocation between stream depleters and surface water takes

60.7. Practicalities of ‘emergency water’ provisions

60.8. Adding a requirement that when requested, a landholder must provide the Council with a copy of the landholder’s FEMP(s)

60.9. Clarifying some matters in Schedule 22 (nutrient budgeting record keeping and requirements for FEMPs)

60.10. Deferring the introduction of the increased minimum flow limits due to come into effect on May 31 2018 to allow RWSS water users time to implement alternative measures that had otherwise not been progressed in anticipation of securing scheme water

60.11. Accommodating future version changes to OVERSEER, (although this has the potential to involve a more complex/difficult process beyond a technical fix).

61. Taking any of these potential technical and process amendments in isolation, costs of a plan change to remedy obsolete dates or improve processes would far outweigh any meaningful benefits. However, staff consider that if several process improvements, process alignments and technical fixes were bundled into a plan change, or several discrete plan changes in parallel, then the collective benefits would more likely outweigh the Council’s costs of preparing and notifying any proposed amendments.

62. The RMA’s new SPP pathway could also be a possibility for a limited scope plan change intended to improve workability of some of the RRMP’s provisions for land and freshwater management in the Tukituki catchment.

63. If any plan change(s) were to be prepared, a fuller evaluation of benefits and costs would need to be undertaken – not only confined to HBRC’s costs and benefits. How much detail that evaluation needs would be relative to the scale, complexity and impact of whatever plan change(s) might be prepared.

Feedlots

64. In addition to the key implementation issues arising for PC6 outlined above, staff have given some consideration to the possibility of a future Tukituki plan change addressing the issue of rules applicable to feedlots, given issues and discussions that have recently occurred at some of the Council’s committee meetings. On balance, the prospect of a one-off plan change amending rules for feedlots within the Tukituki catchment only is not recommended.

65. While most of 2016 winter’s feedlots were known to exist within the Tukituki catchment that is not to say a higher number of these actually operate in other parts of the region. In July, the Environment and Services Committee agreed that staff would report back in Spring on consenting, monitoring and compliance operations regarding feedlots operating throughout the region during the 2016 winter.

Considerations for Tangata Whenua

66. PC6 and the proposed RWSS has effects on Tangata Whenua values and interests that were addressed during the Board of Inquiry hearing and decision-making process (i.e. 2014-2015). Social and economic benefits are expected from involvement in construction of the scheme and possible equity investment. As this paper is for information purposes, no decisions directly on this paper are recommended and so no direct bearing on the interests of Tangata Whenua beyond that of other residents of the region.

Financial and Resource Implications

67. This paper merely signals to the RPC that there are options and opportunities ahead for further detailed consideration of matters relating to the workability and implementation of PC6 for the Tukituki River Catchment. If these issues are indeed to be revisited and addressed by a further round of discrete plan change(s) for the Tukituki catchment, then the resourcing and financial implications would require substantial examination.

68. Even if the Committee favours further examination of options and associated pros and cons (including costs), then it is highly likely that key staff (from planning, land management, consents and science teams) will need to be involved in that evaluation and would be diverted from existing work programmes in much the same way the RWSS Review did during late 2016 and early 2017.

69. There will be implications for the existing resource management policy work programme and work programmes of other sections (e.g. environmental science and land management) if a further round of plan change(s) is to be promulgated in over the next few years. These resourcing and work programme implications are matters that would likely need to be part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process.

Decision Making Process

70. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Tukituki (PC6) Implementation Matters” staff report.

2. Requests that staff report back to the Regional Planning Committee as soon as practicable on options (including scope, timing and resources) for progressing a narrow plan change to address urgent implementation matters in Tukituki Plan Change 6.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Charlotte Drury

Senior Land Management Advisor – Implementation

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Rob Waldron

Hydrology Scientist

Approved by:

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.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 August 2017

Subject: Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 Overview

Reason for Report

1. Matt Conway, a Partner with law firm Simpson Grierson in Wellington, has offered to be in attendance at the meeting to provide an interactive presentation on the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (RLAA).

Background

2. Recent amendments to the RMA came into effect on the 18 April 2017. The RLAA represents the Government’s second phase of reform to the RMA and contains close to 40 amendments. It is the most comprehensive package of reforms to the RMA since its inception in 1991.

3. In particular the amendments aim to provide stronger national direction, a more responsive planning process and better alignment with other legislation.

4. The presentation by Matt Conway will focus on:

4.1. New options for national direction

4.2. Revised functions for RMA decision makers

4.3. Changes to resource consent processes

4.4. Changes to Maori participation

4.5. Changes to policy planning processes

4.6. Changes to charges, notices and strike-out

4.7. Changes to Environment Court powers

4.8. Transitional provisions.

What we anticipate moving forward

5. The amendments to the RMA have been wide ranging and substantial, and in essence are intended to improve alignment and integration across the resource management system, enable more proportional and adaptive processes and promote robust, durable decision making. That being said there are some changes which staff anticipate will significantly alter ‘business as usual’ for the Regional Council. These are outlined below and will be further discussed during the presentation at the Regional Planning Committee’s meeting. The following is not intended as a comprehensive description of the RLAA amendments – rather a snapshot of some of the implications for HBRC, all of which will be discussed in further detail by Matt Conway as part of his presentation at the meeting.

6. A number of the RLAA’s amendments will warrant an updating of several of the delegations currently in place from Council to senior staff. There might be new matters that would seem well suited to delegating to senior staff. Fees and charges for some of the Council’s existing and new services also probably need revisiting in light of the RLAA amendments.

New Plan Making Pathways

7. There have been a number of new decision making tools made available to councils through the RLAA amendments, for instance ‘Deemed Permitted Activities’ whereby Council can permit activities with marginal or temporary non-compliance with rules. The intent of this amendment is to address the issue that some consents are currently required for activities that have effects that cannot be discerned from those of permitted activities. Certain criteria are required to be met prior to an exemption being provided (at the Council’s discretion via written notice).

8. Limited notification of proposed plan changes has been introduced to provide councils with the option of limiting notification of the proposed policy statement/plan change or variation. This is intended to reduce time and costs as well as reduce uncertainty for plan changes in circumstances where there is an identifiable group of directly affected persons. It is likely that this tool would be most suited to territorial authorities, but has the potential to impact on the statutory advocacy role of the Regional Council, particularly HBRC’s interests as a landholder and management of a variety of regional assets.

9. A ‘Streamlined Planning Process’ has been introduced to enable councils to make a request to the Minister to use a streamlined planning process (‘SPP’) proportional to the issues being addressed, for a proposed policy statement, plan, plan change or variation. The SPP is intended to provide greater flexibility in both planning processes and timeframes and can be tailored to specific issues and circumstances. The RLAA amendments still prescribe some essential elements of the SPP.

10. A Collaborative Planning Process (‘CPP’) will enable councils to adopt a collaborative planning approach when undertaking a plan review or change, or developing a new plan or policy statement. The intent of this amendment is to allow for greater community participation at the front end of the planning process. While the ‘TANK’ plan change project features a collaborative stakeholder group, the TANK project does not automatically qualify for the new CPP approach.

Changes to Maori participation and Mana Whakahono a Rohe (MWR) agreements

11. Consultation with tangata whenua via iwi authorities prior to public notification of a proposed plan/change has been a long-standing requirement of the RMA. The RLAA extends that by requiring councils to send a draft version of a plan/change to iwi authorities, and councils must have “particular regard” to any advice received on the draft from the those iwi authorities. MWR agreements can be initiated by an iwi authority or council, with the purpose of providing a mechanism for councils and iwi to agree on ways in which tangata whenua may participate in the RMA decision-making and to assist the Council with their statutory obligations to tangata whenua under the RMA. Through negotiating the MWR agreements iwi could participate in the preparation and change of a policy statement or plan, agreeing on the consultation process and the development of monitoring methods through these arrangements. The agreements are intended to provide councils with opportunities to better understand iwi aspirations and to consolidate iwi engagement through the development and strengthening of practical and sustainable relationships with iwi. MWR agreements cannot override any existing Treaty settlement legislation arrangements.

12. In relation to resource consents, the RLAA amendments have not altered the statement that there is no duty on an applicant or the consent authority (council) to consult with anyone before lodging a resource consent application. However, future MWR agreements might alter that if that is what the MWR negotiations ultimately conclude.

New National Direction

13. The National Policy Statements have become more directive and can set out how councils should amend regional policy statements and plans. The RLAA amendments now enable councils to charge for monitoring of activities permitted under a National Environmental Standard should the NES allow it. Another RLAA amendment enables an NES to direct regional councils to review their land use consents which they administer. In these circumstances the Council will be able to change land use consent conditions in relation to the requirements of the NES. The intent of this amendment is to allow changes to consents where they affect or threaten the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil or ecosystems or the health and safety of people or communities.

14. Another form of national direction is now mandated through the RLAA amendments. By April 2019, the Government is to issue new national planning standards for the look and feel of policy statements and plans. The national planning standards can also direct mandatory and optional plan content. Councils will have 12 months after the national planning standards are issued to amend plans to incorporate mandatory content and alter layout styles (no public submission process). Councils will have until April 2024 to implement the optional national planning standard directions (with a Schedule 1 process).

Other Useful Information

15. The Ministry for the Environment have developed 16 useful factsheets to provide detailed information on the changes to the RMA. These can be found using the following link https://mfe.govt.nz/node/21411. The topics include (but are not limited to):

15.1. New options for national direction

15.2. Changes to Maori Participation in the Resource Management Act 1991’

15.3. Changes to the Standard Planning Track (and related provisions)

15.4. A new optional streamlined planning process, and

15.5. A new optional collaborative planning process.

16. MfE has also prepared a 5-page glossy pamphlet ‘Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 Overview of the main changes’, which provides a handy synopsis of the amendments to the Act. Copies of that publication are circulated to Committee members with this meeting agenda.

17. LGNZ held a webinar (sponsored by MfE) on the 29 June, a useful interactive presentation targeted to elected members. This is still available to view on demand (and free of charge) on the EquiPTV platform. To gain access to this webinar, Committee members should email Natasha Meynell at equip.pd@lgnz.co.nz. The webinar recording runs for approximately 45 minutes.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 Overview” staff report and presentation.

Authored by:

Ceri Edmonds

Policy Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 02 August 2017

Subject: Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Project Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on progress with the development of the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Catchment Area (TANK) Plan Change project.

Background

2. TANK Group and working group meetings continue to be well attended and discussion and questions by the group indicate a high degree of engagement and understanding of the issues and challenges.

3. After each meeting a summary of the key topics is produced for distribution among the TANK members, their respective organisations, councilors (including now the Napier and Hastings councilors). It is also available on the TANK webpage and our email circulation of the bulletin is growing.

Water Models

4. The group has recently been focusing on the Heretaunga Plains MODFLOW groundwater model.

5. The model has shown high transmissivity within the aquifer, along with high connectivity between the Heretaunga Plains aquifer, rivers and lowland streams. This has led to the group exploring alternatives to restrictions on abstractions, including flow augmentation of lowland streams. Other management approaches are being developed and tested as more is understood about how groundwater levels and surface flows respond. Testing the effect of abstraction using historic data for previous drought years will assist understanding about long terms effects on aquifer levels.

Up-coming Work Programme

6. Other work streams are addressing freshwater management in relation to the Ahuriri estuary and understanding the state and stressors in the Karamu catchment.

7. Future work will focus on nutrient management, management objectives for the Clive/Karamu catchment.

8. There is further model development as the surface water component is introduced and the group begins to examine surface water abstraction impacts in combination with groundwater takes.

9. The combined surface/groundwater model will also assist in understanding the nutrient pathways and management options.

Working Groups

10. The working groups have been meeting regularly in addition to the main TANK meetings.

Stormwater Working Group

11. Significant effort is being invested into understanding stormwater management issues and opportunities for better management. Key inputs into this discussion are provided by the two local authorities, with TANK presentations by them scheduled for upcoming meetings.

12. The work of the stormwater group has included discussions with the TLAs about:

12.1. contingency planning for the management of unexpected and emergency discharges from stormwater networks

12.2. retrofitting existing networks to improve the ecosystem state and quality of stormwater discharges

12.3. management of actual and potential sources of contamination (particularly from industrial sites)

12.4. improved on-site and infrastructure design and management for stormwater systems in new urban developments

12.5. There is also a particular focus on good integration between city, district and regional council roles and looking for opportunities for improvements, including in relation to resource consent requirements, engineering standards and flooding and drainage management and levels of service.

13. The RPC has previously requested a report on stormwater consents held by Napier and Hastings councils, the state of urban waterways and potential policy for urban stormwater management being developed by TANK.

14. The review of existing provisions and the potential for an improved policy and regulatory framework for the TANK catchments (includes Napier, Havelock North and Hastings urban areas) is work in progress by this stormwater group. A discussion document containing alternative management approaches for stormwater management for discussion by the TANK group (provisionally at their 27 July meeting) is being drafted.

Economic Assessment Working Group

15. The economic assessment working group is meeting regularly to discuss a range of issues including:

15.1. the economic assessment model being developed by Agfirst

15.2. the role of different types of farm systems (prompted by questions about the relative performance of biological farming, organic farming and other farming systems) and how to address environmental impacts related to soil health and function

15.3. the form and development of industry good agricultural practice systems and

15.4. initial discussions about nutrient management (the wider TANK group is yet to determine specific objectives for dissolved nutrients in TANK rivers).

16. Also being supervised by the economic assessment group is work initiated by the pastoral farmers to engage the farming community more actively in the TANK work. A separate Farmer Reference Group has been established following a series of public meetings to assist with this.

17. The farmer group has now met three times and is fully engaged in contributing their solutions for meeting targets, especially sediment and phosphorous reduction targets. Their commitment to better understanding the issues and challenges and effective management responses is at the core of their involvement.

Engagement Working Group

18. The Engagement Working Group is very aware of the challenges of wider community engagement. Their regular production of the excellent “Think TANK” bulletins after every meeting is a good base on which they are now launching more frequent and targeted communications. “Talk TANK” is their latest initiative where key messages about TANK progress will be shared via social media and regular media notices.

19. All TANK meeting presentations and notes are placed on the TANK website as notes from the Farmer Reference Group meetings.

Mana Whenua Group

20. This group meets under their own direction as well as in response to key questions arising out of the TANK group. A significant work stream managed by this group has included the Ngaruroro River Values to Attributes report and application of findings to the Tutaekuri awa.

21. Targeted science briefings to the group have meant a good opportunity for more in depth understanding and enables more effective contribution to TANK discussions. These will continue as and when necessary.

22. The group has also been tasked with an initial examination of the first draft of issues and objectives to be included in the TANK Plan Change.

23. In April the group identified particular challenges with the TANK process and management which the project team and the Mana Whenua group are working through. Specific concerns about initial programme set-up and representation cannot be resolved retrospectively, but it is hoped that efforts to mitigate the impact of those shortcomings will be sufficient to build the collective TANK group’s strength and commitment to consensus decision making and avoid future challenges about process that will undermine the TANK Group’s work.

Risks and challenges

24. Some of the challenges being managed include the complexity and amount of information being generated and received by TANK, the challenging issues being addressed across the range of the TANK catchment aquatic ecosystems and the various expectations of the group members.

25. Some of this complexity may result in slower progress as the group wishes to fully understand and debate potential management options before making decisions.

26. The development of the groundwater and surface water model has taken longer than expected and there are also some issues with choice of data sets at different stages of the physical and the economic models.

27. The looming Water Conservation Order application process poses a separate challenge to the TANK work. This is also referred to in a separate report to council. At this stage it is difficult to predict what fall out there will be in relation to TANK timeframes, but given progress on the Order, there will be pressure on staff resources and there will also be pressure on stakeholder resources that may impact on the TANK project.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Project Update” staff report.

Authored by: Approved by:

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy