Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 1 November 2017

Time: 11.15am

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 4 October 2017

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

5. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 9

Decision Items

6. Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters 11

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. TANK Iwi Engagement Plan 19

8. Update on Regional Planning Committee Terms of Reference Review Process, including Remuneration 27

9. Items of Business Not on the Agenda 29

Parking

There will be 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
Mike Mohi	Hawkes Bay Regional Council - Maori Committee Chair
Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 20

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 15 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

20 16

19 15

18 14

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 01 November 2017

Subject: Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters

Reason for Report

1. This report is prepared in response to a request from the Committee arising from its meeting on 2 August 2017:

“Requests that staff take feedback from the meeting in order to 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.” [emphasis added]

2. Committee members will recall (or at least can refer back to) the staff report presented to the 2 August meeting, so that is not repeated here. At the Committee’s meeting on 4 October, a delegation from the Central Hawke's Bay community presented a case for deferral of new increased minimum flows coming into effect from June 2018. Consequently, this report focusses on:

2.1. Part 1 – deferral of new minimum flows.

2.2. Part 2 – potentially urgent implementation challenges and plan change options.

PART 1 – deferral of new minimum flows

3. The community delegates that presented to the Committee on 4October made their case for deferral of new minimum flows based on a wide range of considerations. Those considerations included economic impact on farm businesses and the broader community impact beyond just the water users themselves. Factors for consideration also included:

3.1. the reliance many water users had placed on the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme to mitigate the impact of the new flows rules,

3.2. the short period of adjustment available following the Supreme Court’s RWSS land swap decision in July 2017, and

3.3. the need for a period of time (notionally 5 years) to identify and execute long-term solutions (including land use change) to the challenges brought about by PC6.

4. PC6’s policies, amongst many things, set new minimum flow regime and allocation limits (Policies TT7 & TT8). 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. As identified, PC6 introduced new minimum flow conditions at a number of locations in the catchment:

4.1. For the tributaries these take effect in 2018.

4.2. 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.

4.3. The stage one 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).

4.4. The stage two increase 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.

5. Table 1 compares the predicted frequency of a year with a period of 10 or more consecutive days of restriction during January and February before and after new minimum flow regime comes into effect in July 2018. 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.

Table 1

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

7. Bluntly, what this means is that even if PC6’s new minimum flows were amended and deferred for some period of time, consents with the same minimum flow conditions would also need altering. Amending the RRMP’s new minimum flow limits by a plan change would not automatically remove the need for consent holders to comply with consent conditions. A separate process is required for altering those consent conditions.

8. It is plausible for a plan change to be drafted that would alter one or more of the date(s) from which PC6’s new minimum flows apply. Another plausible scenario is a plan change proposing cancellation (i.e. deletion) of the stage 1 increase at the Red Bridge site at 1 July 2018 but retain the stage 2 increase on 1 July 2023. In the event that the Committee were to agree to proceed with further work on this type of plan change proposal, then a fuller examination of wording options and respective benefits and costs would be necessary prior to public notification of the proposed plan change.

9. Based on a very focussed scope of a possible plan change as outlined above, timing resourcing implications have been broadly estimated. In making those estimations, senior planning staff considered two plan change pathways:

9.1. the standard council-initiated plan change (‘CPC’) and

9.2. the newly introduced streamlined planning pathway (‘SPP’).

10. Estimates of staff time and external expenditure resourcing needs for a standard CPC pathway are at least $120,000 - $200,000 (not including any Environment Court-related appeal costs).^{^[2]} In terms of timing, public notification could occur as early as March 2018, and if appropriately resourced, a hearing could be held by December 2018. Decisions and any appeals would run into 2019 and beyond. This is all subject to the necessary resourcing being in place.

11. In terms of the SPP, the author of this report has had preliminary discussions with MfE officials regarding logistics and realities of the SPP in this situation. Key points to note are:

11.1. the SPP would be an appropriate vehicle for this type of plan change;

11.2. the ‘entry criteria’ for a SPP application to the Minister would be readily satisfied;

11.3. pre-application liaison with MfE officials and the Minister’s office is crucial to testing and designing a streamlined plan change process that meets the Minister’s approval;

11.4. the pre-application liaison phase could alone span 3-5 months given current and ongoing uncertainty for Ministry officials and the incoming Government’s appetite for SPP until fuller briefings of the yet-to-be-named new Minister for the Environment;

11.5. the SPP does not involve an opportunity for submitters to appeal the outcome of the plan change to the Environment Court, and so ‘saves’ a potentially lengthy ‘tail-end’ to a proposed plan change process.

12. Accordingly, staff would recommend utilising the SPP approach for this plan change only on matters that staff can secure in-principle support from those PC6/consent submitters referred to above. If support is not apparent, then the standard CPC process could still be pursued if that is the Committee’s preference.

13. Assuming a relatively uncontested process, resourcing and timing for a SPP to defer timing of PC6’s new minimum flows have been roughly estimated^{^[3]} to be around $100,000 to $150,000. There are no Environment Court appeal-related costs with a SPP process. In terms of timing, a formal application to the Minister could be made in early 2018, with the remainder of the SPP phases (consultation with specified parties, submissions, decision on submissions and Ministerial approval) likely to extend through the remainder of 2018.

14. Remember, notwithstanding any plan change that the Committee may agree to prepare and notify to alter timing of new minimum flows,

14.1. the timing and actual outcome of a plan change cannot be guaranteed because it is subject to a quasi-judicial process of evidence-based decision-making; and

14.2. existing consent conditions would also need to be modified.

PART 2 - : PC6 Implementation Challenges and Policy Options

15. Following the Committee’s request in August for staff to provide further advice on a “narrow” plan change for “urgent” implementation matters, key staff involved in implementing PC6 have focussed on matters relating to:

15.1. Urgent process alignment

15.2. Urgent process improvement

15.3. Urgent minor/technical fixes.

16. This focus was framed by a number of key questions, including:

16.1. Is the amendment a ‘must have’ or a ‘nice-to-have’ for implementation success?

16.2. Is the amendment required to be in place in the next 1-2 years or something else?

16.3. Is the amendment a substantive alteration in PC6 policy approach, or is it more akin to a fix/tidy-up/process alignment or similar?

17. The staff assessment also considered what degree of community interest (i.e. support or opposition) might exist for the amendment and how that might influence swift passage through a plan change process. The assessment revealed one stand-out candidate for a remedial plan change. That was in relation to how practical implementation of PC6 needs to accommodate version updates to a third-party provider modelling tool called OVERSEER. However, this challenge is not unique to PC6. It is faced in other regions, and it is virtually inevitable that the challenge will also need to be addressed for managing land and water within limits in the region’s other catchments.

18. Taking any of the candidates for technical and process amendments in isolation, costs of a plan change to remedy obsolete dates or improve processes would far outweigh any meaningful benefits for practical implementation. However, planning staff consider that if several process improvements, process alignments and technical fixes were bundled into an ‘omnibus’ 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. For example, if a fix dealing with OVERSEER versions was supported, then a few other technical fixes and improvements could also be bundled with the OVERSEER amendment. The assessment rated the following as the top two ‘add-on’ amendments in the event of an ‘omnibus type plan change being proposed:

18.1. Adding a requirement that when requested by HBRC, a landholder must provide the council with a copy of the landholder’s farm environmental management plan (‘FEMP’)

18.2. Amendment to fill a gap in the stream depletion management regime set in Policy TT1 and Table 5.9.7.

19. Importantly however, as noted in the ‘Financial and Resourcing Implications’ section below, there is no financial budget or staff time allocation in place for any type of PC6 ‘fix’ plan change – no matter how big, small, urgent or otherwise.

20. The prudent course of action would be to first establish the relative priority of an omnibus-type plan change to address relevant PC6 implementation issues^{^[4]}, then Council decide upon the appropriate resourcing if a plan change was indeed a priority in the Council’s overall resource management plan programme. Another option is to ‘park’ potential PC6 fixes and tidy-ups and incorporate into the upcoming wider review of the RRMP (which, in the current 2015-25 LTP is scheduled to commence in the 2020-21 period). A number of other potential RRMP ‘fixes’ have been parked already in anticipation of that upcoming review.^{^[5]}

21. In the event that the Committee were supportive of further work being done on a plan change deferring dates for PC6’s new minimum flows, then our recommendation is that that proposition remains the plan change’s sole focus. That would mean avoiding (as tempting as it might be to some) ‘hitching’ additional fixes and tidy-ups onto the same plan change. We consider doing so would pose large risks to the timely conclusion of amending minimum flow dates because:

21.1. Pre-notification scoping, drafting, s32 evaluation and mandatory consultation requirements lead to delayed notification of a proposed plan change; and

21.2. the quantity and complexity of submissions lodged would stretch the phase between notification and council issuing decisions on those submissions (i.e. the steps of summarising submissions and inviting further submissions, staff evaluating submissions and reporting their recommendations to a hearings panel, a panel hearing submissions and forming recommendations etc); and

21.3. the greater probability of some or all of the plan change being subject to one or more appeals to the Environment Court.

What would be the effect of any proposed Plan Change?

22. A plan change is an inherently lengthy process, but timeframes can be condensed by careful management of scope, design and drafting to fashion minimal opposition to the proposal. More recently, there is now the potential to apply for Ministerial permission to follow the RMA’s new ‘streamlined’ planning pathway for plan changes. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists regarding a cost-effective ability to conclude any of the potential plan changes discussed in this report within a timeframe that provides practical solutions or relief to affected parties. Consultation with, and support of, key submitters on PC6 and the parties that submitted on the latest consent reviews for Tukituki surface water/depleting groundwater takes will be decisive. These and other external factors present uncertainty and risk of the process and final outcome. Accordingly, should the Committee recommend that Council prepares such a plan change it should be careful to remind stakeholders that both the scope and timing of the outcome cannot be guaranteed.

23. Upon public notification of a plan change, the proposal is something that the consent authority (i.e. HBRC) can consider in its decisions. However, the context of those decisions can have their own additional limitations to this rule of thumb.

24. It is important to note that until such time as the proposed plan change becomes operative there is little scope for Council to ignore, suspend or otherwise act contrary to the scope and timing of the low-flow regime introduced by PC6. While in reality these do not ‘bite’ until the 2018/19 irrigation season, this timeframe still represents a challenge for even the streamlined planning process. Should Committee members agree to proceed with a plan change deferring dates of the new minimum flows, they should also be aware that:

24.1. Under s128 of the RMA, HBRC can only initiate a review of consent conditions (which in this case would be the fact that the new flow regime sits both as a rule under PC6 and also as a condition of most surface and connected groundwater takes) when a plan becomes operative. Notification of a proposed plan change is an insufficient milestone for s128 reviews.

24.2. Consent holders can under s127 of the RMA apply for a review of consent conditions, but it is not certain that the if the notification of a new policy direction via a plan change would be enough of a counterbalance to justify a change to consent conditions until and unless the plan change was all but operative. This would be have to be managed on a case by case basis at the time.

24.3. Council’s approach to the enforcement of irrigation bans that result from the new flow regime remain subject to a matrix of considerations including the legislation, MfE guidelines, Regional Council best practice and HBRC’s enforcement policy. Accordingly, while there is always a common-sense approach to enforcement of consent conditions it is impossible at this juncture to provide any sense of certainty or comfort to affected parties (ahead of a plan change becoming operative) without knowing the timing and circumstances any alleged breach. For example, if the plan change was well advanced by the summer of 2018/19, Council could well exercise a discretion not to enforce irrigations bans in anticipation of the proposed changes becoming operative.

Considerations for Tangata Whenua

25. 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 were expected from involvement in construction of the scheme and possible equity investment. If a plan change was to be prepared, then tāngata whenua interests would need to be considered further, as well as consultation with tāngata whenua through the relevant iwi authorities.

Financial and Resource Implications

26. Financial and resource implications of proceeding with a plan change are not insignificant.

27. In the current 2017/18 Annual Plan and 2015-25 Long Term Plan, there are no budgets in place for staff time allocations nor external expenditure to provide resource to a plan change of any kind to address PC6 implementation challenges – urgent or otherwise. This could potentially be resolved through decisions and choices to be made during the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process currently underway.

28. The significance of the decision will ultimately be influenced by what the decision actually is. Because the staff’s recommendation is for the Committee to consider matters raised in this report, then provide direction to staff according to the Committee’s preference, the precise form and character of the decision cannot be assessed at the time of writing this report.

29. During its discussion and deliberations on matters presented in this report, the Committee should carefully consider whether or not any of its potential decision(s) are indeed verging on significant. If a decision were to be significant, then there are additional procedural requirements regarding decision-making under the Local Government Act, notwithstanding that a plan change is also bound to follow legislative requirements by the RMA.

Decision Making Process

30. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). As noted in paragraphs 26-29 of this report, staff have not fully assessed the requirements in relation to this item. The Committee itself needs to carefully consider LGA’s decision-making requirements.

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters” staff report.

2. That the Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Considers the LGA’s decision-making requirements in relation to what approach(es) may be preferred.

2.2. Directs staff to undertake further discussions with MfE officials, relevant iwi authorities and key stakeholders (namely HB Fish and Game Council, NZ Royal Forest and Bird Society and the Department of Conservation) regarding:

2.2.1. The potential of an application from the Council to use a streamlined plan change pathway for a plan change proposing to defer dates from which Plan Change 6’s new minimum flows take effect; and

2.2.2. The potential of a standard council-initiated plan change in relation to a short list of other potential amendments to ease challenges with implementing elements of PC6 subject to relevant resourcing being provided through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

2.3. In relation to 2.2.1 above, requests staff report back to the Regional Planning Committee’s meeting on 6 December 2017 outlining preliminary responses from the parties.

Authored by:

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 01 November 2017

Subject: TANK Iwi Engagement Plan

“Kaitiakitanga in Ngati Kahungunu terms seeks balance in sustaining our natural resources as the basis for our wellbeing- rather than as limitless commodities to use at our will”

Dr Pita Sharples, former Minister of Māori Affairs.

Kaitiakitanga is an inherent obligation we have to our tūpuna and to our mokopuna; an obligation to safeguard and care for the environment for future generations. It is a link between the past and the future, the old and the new, between taonga of the natural environment and tangata whenua.^{^[6]}

Reason for Report

1. This report was requested by the Tangata Whenua RPC membership, to provide an overview of engagement with Tangata Whenua during the TANK plan change project and processes to date.

2. As an overview, this report is not a comprehensive account of every event or action of engagement and consultation with tangata whenua regarding the TANK plan change project and the Council’s related workstreams.

Background

3. The TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group was originally formed in 2012. In the establishment of the TANK collaborative Group, the Council recognised that it would need to engage with Tangata Whenua as a key partner in ensuring the sustainable management of the land and water resources in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchment area.

4. The initial members were invited by the former Chair of the Council, Fenton Wilson to join the Regional Plan Change Collaborative Stakeholder group (1/10/12).

5. The first meeting held on Tuesday 9 October 2012 saw all TANK stakeholders and Tangata Whenua members, provided with a detailed overview of the purpose, intent and proposed outcome of working collaboratively within the TANK project. Minutes from this meeting showed that Tangata Whenua members actively participated and contributed.

6. Mātauranga Māori discussions came through very early in the meetings’ minutes with clear expectations placed on the process to consider the values and attributes of those waterways within the TANK catchment.

7. Initial membership of the TANK Group could be described as a ‘mixed model’ of membership, meaning some members participate as representatives of their respective organisation, sector or constituency while other members participate not as representatives, but rather experienced ‘voices’ of particular interests. TANK Mana Whenua membership is equally ‘mixed’ with some members representing their organisations while others carry a kaupapa of their people but are not ‘representatives’ per se.

8. TANK Mana Whenua members participate for:

8.1. an individual marae

8.2. a marae/hapu collective

8.3. an iwi authority

8.4. tangata whenua groups, etc.

Meanwhile, some iwi authorities have chosen not to appoint a person to the TANK Group (e.g. Mana Ahuriri).

9. The authors of this report are aware that there has been some dissatisfaction expressed about the TANK mana whenua representation and also wider TANK Group membership. In brief response, decisions of the past cannot be easily undone, but actions taken and good faith initiatives since are one means of overcoming some of that dissatisfaction.

10. Over time, key strategic reports were alsonoted, as sitting alongside this process, which included Iwi management plans that held relevance in the TANK area. These being:

10.1. Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai, Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan, NKII (2008)

10.2. Mana Ake –Ngā Hapū o Heretaunga,- An Expression of Kaitiakitanga (2015)

10.3. Ngāti Hori Management Plan, Kohupatiki Marae (2012) and the;

10.4. Tūtaekurī Management Plan, Ngā Hapū o Tūtaekurī (2014)

Draft engagement plans

11. The Council has adopted a ‘Significance and Engagement Policy”. Elements of that policy relating to community engagement is based on a widely recognised ‘spectrum’ attributed to the International Association of Public Participation (‘IAP2’). One performance measure of resource management plan change projects is preparation of ‘stakeholder engagement plans’.

12. In 2014 the Committee endorsed a stakeholder engagement plan for the TANK plan change project. It was intended a separate and complementary iwi engagement plan would be prepared.

13. During this time Council staff leading the TANK project worked with TANK Mana Whenua members to finalise the TANK Tangata Whenua engagement plan. To follow is a brief account of the interaction regarding the development of a TANK Tangata Whenua Engagement Plan.

13.1. Working with Te Manaaki Taiao (the environmental unit) of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (TTOH). The proposed engagement plan flowed on from the 2015 TTOH Iwi Management Plan “Mana Ake- Ngā Hapū o Heretaunga – An Expression of Kaitiakitanga”. Following numerous emails and calls, the draft plan was never completed. It is important to also note that many changes were occurring at that time within the TTOH and the focus for TTOH had then moved to the development of the Ngaruroro Values to Attributes report.

13.2. To revive developing plans for clearer iwi engagement on the TANK plan change in 2016, Mr Wayne Ormsby was contracted by the Council to redraft and attempt to finalise the engagement plan. At that time, Mr Ormsby was a TANK Group member and a representative of Kohupatiki Marae. Mr Ormsby’s draft engagement plan was completed and presented to the TANK Mana Whenua group, but it’s members didn’t support that proposal.

13.3. A meeting held on the 5 April 2016, the Mana Whenua group explained the following;

13.3.1. That this group is not 100% representative of every interested Mana Whenua group.

13.3.2. The challenges of communicating TANK terminology with whanau.

13.3.3. The issues relating to the process of communication between whanau and back to this representative body; and;

13.3.4. That Mana Whenua have both environmental and commercial interest.

13.4. The Ngaruroro Values to Attributes Report was then contracted (3/6/17) with Tangata Whenua seeking leave from the business of TANK to complete this significant piece of work.

13.5. A meeting was held in April 2017 which Council and Mana Whenua members looked to create a central place for collective discussion with other Tangata Whenua within this catchment.

Key outputs to date

14. In early 2016, the TANK plan change project was reviewed by James Palmer. This coincided with substantial re-resourcing of the TANK project in terms of senior staff leadership. This in turn led to preparation of an enhanced project ‘masterplan’ and TANK Group work programme.

15. Letters were forwarded to the three Post Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs) extending invitations to also attend the TANK meetings (2/5/16).

15.1. Mana Ahuriri Trust reiterated its original letter of 4/6/14 that they decline the invitation to be represented at this committee.

15.2. Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust had informed that they would be sending a representative (still waiting).

15.3. He Toa Takitini had not yet formally responded.

16. The RPC approved RPC members attending the TANK meetings in which they could contribute but not vote.

16.1. Currently RPC Tangata Whenua member Mr Peter Paku regularly attends, with Mr Apiata Tapine attending one meeting. In addition, both Councillor Belford and Councillor Beaven also regularly attend these meetings as RPC members.

16.2. Formerly, Mr Allen Smith would also regularly attend these TANK meetings.

16.3. It is important to note that invitations and TANK Group materials (agendas, minutes) and associated communications are regularly circulated to all RPC members.

17. The development and agreement by all parties including the Tangata Whenua membership, of the TANK Decision Making Framework- the TANK wiring diagram as part of the revised project structure and new masterplan (5/5/16). The intent of this plan was to strengthen the collaborative approach, allowing clarification of the roles and responsibilities for each party within the TANK decision making process. Attachment A

18. In order to address the communication challenges stated by the Tangata Whenua membership, the THINKTANK publication was developed for all parties to further explain the complexities of the process and language used for all those interested in the project. This has proven to be a success and the TANK Core Project Team have been informed that these have been used at hui to update the wider Māori community of the significance and progress of TANK.

19. The Ngaruroro Values to Attributes Report (published 28/10/16). This report articulated the cultural values and their connected attributes of the Ngaruroro Awa to assist the wider TANK project in formulating a plan change that effectively addressed all values. A formal presentation to the RPC members by the authors occurred late last year.

19.1. To follow is a statement taken from the Executive Summary:

Through this project, Wāriu (values) and Hūanga (attributes) for freshwater have been expressed by tangata whenua within the Ngaruroro catchment. The values and supporting attributes recommended for use in the TANK Plan Change process are a practical and contemporary expression of holistic hapū and whanau values for the waterways of the catchment, within an RMA context.

A robust process was utilised to involve tangata whenua in prescribing their values and where these applied. Research, workshops, wananga and hui-a-hapū were the main methods used, with regular updates provided to Te Runanganui o Heretaunga, who have representatives from all the Heretaunga Marae and convene monthly to discuss issues of importance, with a strong interest in Te Ao Turoa matters.

19.2. The introduction of a table format starting with wider values for the Ngaruroro River catchment (“Awa-wide wariu”) then “Site/reach specific wariu” to try to begin to introduce the western science alongside the Te Ao Māori view in a linear format (see below).

19.3. This table identifies four main value groups which are holistic. Western science can provide some information about these values but there are parts of these values that are beyond the biophysical. It has also been identified that there is a need to develop mātauranga Māori (specifically for Ngāti Kahungunu) tools to measure and monitor the values over time. There are still parts of the values that the planning framework can only provide some recognition for and some narrative around them because some aspects sit essentially beyond the resource management realm.

20. The Ngā Hapū o Tūtaekurī produced another document to identify and describe the values, views and intentions of their awa and their long-term aspirations for the Tūtaekurī Awa in the future. This document will form part of a larger research report but key themes that emerged included:

20.1. Their aspirations pertaining to the roles and obligations sought by the Māori guardians, Papatūānuku,Tāne Mahuta and Tangaroa.

20.2. The enhancement of mana whenua connection to and authority over the Tūtaekurī awa.

20.3. In consultation with Ngā Hapū o Tūtaekurī they want to ensure water quality limits are set for: within-streams; the awa body; and in its groundwater, at limits targeted towards restoring the mauri, and therefore ecological health for all life, of their wai.

20.4. Development of a rehabilitation strategy targeted towards the protection and restoration of all wetland habitats; rare and threatened habitats; and habitats considered outstanding, located throughout their awa’s catchments.

20.5. Ngā Hapū o Tūtaekurī further aim to realise their role of kaitiakitanga in regards to the management of the Tūtaekurī Awa. They want to ensure that their aspirations for the Tūtaekurī Awa are realised and that all decision making regarding the development of policy that affects the Tūtaekurī Awa requires the Council to consult with Ngā Hapū o Tūtaekurī.

21. This document builds on the information located within the Ngaruroro report articulating the relationship between the land and its people - the Kaitiaki! These reports and others will be used to inform the drafting of the TANK Plan Change.

Next steps

22. The Council’s current Core Project Team recognises that there have been difficulties and challenges particularly within the complexities associated with Tangata Whenua representation at the TANK table. However both the TANK Core Project Team and Tangata Whenua members are committed to working closely together to ensure a more productive relationship occurs to support a successful plan change.

23. This is being managed by the introduction of bi-monthly meetings to discuss outstanding tasks including assigning those who may be able to complete within a kaupapa Māori context (wananga) and general discussion as to what issues lie in forefront for the Tangata Whenua membership and the greater TANK project.

24. The TANK Core Project Team recognizes its statutory obligations to work with Tangata Whenua in this process, specifically in relation to the NPSFM Policy D1; which requires the Council to involve and work with Iwi and Hapū in the management of freshwater.

25. TANK Core Project Team is committed to also ensure that it has provided the opportunity to enable Tangata Whenua to have their voice and views recognized in their role and responsibilities as Kaitiaki.

Decision Making Process

26. 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 “TANK Iwi Engagement Plan” staff report.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner Governance and Iwi Liaison

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

⇩1

Tank Decision Making Process

[1] There are currently 76 consents with minimum flow conditions and these include the transition to the higher PC6 minimum flows in 2018. Of these 48 are surface takes and 28 are groundwater takes in the upper Tukituki with stream depletion effects. Of the 28, eight are classified as direct and twenty are classified as high. Direct stream depletion effect takes must cease taking entirely at the minimum flow. High stream depletion effect takes must reduce to half their daily allocation at the minimum flow.

[2] Estimates of Environment Court appeal proceedings have not been attempted - not because an appeal is considered unlikely, but rather there are so many variables which could influence costs of responding to one or more appeals.

[3] There are no previous experiences with the SPP anywhere in New Zealand from which approximate costs and timeframes could be assumed. The SPP option only came into effect in mid 2017.

[4] Not all challenges with implementing PC6 are capable of being resolved by a change to the regional plan.

[5] For example, updating the classification of appropriate, inappropriate and ‘reserve’ residential greenfield growth areas following adoption of the 2017 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Chapter 3.1B of the RRMP currently retains the classifications as described in the original 2010 HPUDS.

[6] Maori and the Environment: KAITIAKI Edited by Selby et al. 2010

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.