Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 20 June 2018

Time:                9.00am

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 2 May 2018

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

5.         Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda                                                            35

Decision Items

6.         Regional Targets for Swimmable Lakes and Rivers                                                  37

7.         Oil & Gas Plan Change Options                                                                                 45

Information or Performance Monitoring

8.         11:00am  Presentation of Central Government and Ministry for the Environment Policy Work Programmes & Priorities

9.         Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda                                                  51

 


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

Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru

Tania Hopmans

Maungaharuru-Tangitu Incorporated

Nicky Kirikiri

Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana

Jenny Nelson-Smith

Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

Joinella Maihi-Carroll

Mana Ahuriri Trust

Apiata Tapine

Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa

Matiu Heperi Northcroft

Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum

Peter Paku

Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

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 (physically present in the room).

 

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 present and voting 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                                                                 14

17                                                                 14

16                                                                 13

15                                                                 12

14                                                                 11

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 20 June 2018

Subject: Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings        

 

Reason for Report

1.    On the list attached are items raised at Regional Planning Committee meetings that staff have followed up. All items indicate who is responsible for follow up, and a brief status comment. Once the items have been reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

2.    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 the report “Follow-up Items from Previous Meetings”.

 

 

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Principal Governance Advisor

 

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

 

 

2

HBRC Memo Updating the Special Tribunal 15 May 2018

 

 

3

1 June 2018 Ngaruroro WCO Tribunal Minute 14

 

 

  


Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

Attachment 1

 




Follow-ups from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings

Attachment 1

 


HBRC Memo Updating the Special Tribunal 15 May 2018

Attachment 2

 
























1 June 2018 Ngaruroro WCO Tribunal Minute 14

Attachment 3

 



HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 20 June 2018

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda        

 

Reason for Report

1.      Standing order 9.12 states:

A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting:

(a)   the reason the item is not on the agenda; and

(b)   the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.

2.      In addition, standing order 9.13 allows “A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.

Recommendations

1.     That the Regional Planning Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 9:

1.1.   Urgent items of Business (supported by tabled CE or Chairpersons’s report)

 

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.           

 

 

 

 

2.           

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.   Minor items for discussion only

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

 

Leeanne Hooper

PRINCIPAL GOVERNANCE ADVISOR

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 20 June 2018

Subject: Regional Targets for Swimmable Lakes and Rivers        

 

Reason for Report

1.      To provide the Committee with information on the swimmability targets set by the Government, and the role of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in achieving these.

Summary

2.      Commitments to improving water quality have already been made across the Hawke’s Bay region and their effect on water quality has been modelled. Based on the existing commitments, staff are recommending that Council agrees to the draft targets of 90 % of rivers that are fourth order or larger to be in the blue, green or yellow category in terms of E. coli) by 2030, and 76% of lakes with perimeters greater than 1.5 kilometres swimmable by 2030.

3.      The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) requires Regional Councils to prepare draft Regional Targets to improve the quality of fresh water (Policy A6). These targets must contribute to achieving the national target for 90% swimmable lakes and rivers by 2040. The draft regional targets must be made publicly available by 31 March 2018, with final regional targets publicly available by 31 December 2018

4.      A governance group and taskforce comprising MfE and MPI officials and staff from regional councils were set up to help councils meet this obligation. The taskforce has compiled information on work committed or underway in each region to improve water quality for swimming, and the associated likely costs. The information for each region was presented in a report made publicly available in March 2018.

5.      The information in the taskforce report indicates that a draft regional target for the Hawke’s Bay region of 90% of rivers and 76% of lakes swimmable by 2030, is realistic and achievable.  The information sheet (attached) fulfils the reporting requirements under the NPSFM.

Background

6.      On 23 February 2017, the Government announced its proposals to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and introduce a national (non-statutory) target for swimmable lakes and rivers (Clean Water: 90% of lakes and rivers swimmable by 2040). The Hon Dr Nick Smith (as Minister for the Environment) wrote to all regional councils on 28 February 2017 to inform them of the national target and to “encourage input and an early start to the implementation of these ambitious goals.”

7.      In that letter, Dr Smith asked regional councils to provide the following information.

7.1.      The rivers and lakes where interventions that are planned or in place will improve water quality so that it is swimmable

7.2.      The rivers and lakes where additional interventions will improve water quality so that they are swimmable more often, the level of improvement those interventions would achieve, and the timeframes to achieve them

7.3.      The likely costs of the interventions described above, and the parties on whom those costs would fall.

8.      After considering submissions to the proposals in Clean Water, the Government made a suite of amendments to the NPSFM, which were gazetted in August 2017. These amendments included setting a national target for water quality improvement in rivers and lakes as follows.

8.1.      80% of specified rivers and lakes are suitable for primary contact (e.g. swimming) by 2030; and

8.2.      90% are suitable by 2040.

9.      The term “specified rivers and lakes” is defined in the NPSFM as rivers that are fourth order or above and lakes with a perimeter greater than 1,500 metres. Primary contact is defined as people’s contact with water that involves immersion, including swimming.

10.    To achieve the national targets, the NPSFM directs regional councils to set regional targets. Draft regional targets must be made available to the public by 31 March 2018 and final targets made available by 31 December 2018. The NPSFM does not specify whether these regional targets should be for the 2030 or 2040 timeframe.

11.    As a result of these deadlines HBRC resolved the following:

11.1.    Agrees to set a draft target for the Hawke’s Bay region of 90% of rivers and 76% of lakes swimmable by 2030, and make this target publicly available with the information sheet provided.

11.2.    Agrees to recommend that the Regional Sector works collaboratively with the Government on any amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and requirements to set final regional targets.

12.    Some regional councils have raised concerns with the taskforce about the national targets. The concerns include:

12.1.    The targets focus on E. coli and cyanobacteria (human health attributes in the NPSFM) as measures of suitability for swimming. In some regions, the community outcomes sought will mean other contaminants such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment may be a higher priority.

12.2.    There is a risk that prioritising actions to achieve the national targets for swimming will affect the process of identifying other community values (such as irrigation or mahinga kai) and setting freshwater objectives and limits for those values as required under the NPSFM.

12.3.    The method of assessing and reporting E. coli takes no account seasonal effects that influence when people swim, or whether there is any public access to the rivers and lakes that are part of the target.

13.    The Taskforce will continue to discuss these wider issues related to setting and achieving the targets and work with government officials to resolve them. In the meantime, to address these concerns our draft regional target includes how the draft targets fit with our regional programme for setting freshwater objectives and limits under our plan change programme.

Regional targets for swimmable lakes and rivers

14.    The governance group has interpreted the NPSFM direction as being that the draft targets should be set for the 2030 target date, with the final targets, which must be made available by 31 December 2018, to be for both 2030 and 2040. This reflects that there has been insufficient time for a wider community consultation on where water quality improvements should be focussed and how quickly any mitigations works should be implemented. Because of the timing issue the Taskforce modelled the impact on water quality of commitments that have already been made, most of which have already been through a public consultation phase and investment allocated.  Our intention is to carry out consultation throughout 2018 to establish what additional work programmes may be necessary to set realistic final targets for 2030 and 2040.

15.    The taskforce used the “water quality for swimming map” on the MfE website as a basis for establishing the extent of water quality improvements that will be required region by region, and the associated costs. Regional councils provided information on areas where the maps were inaccurate; the maps were adjusted accordingly and taken as a baseline of national river “swimmability”.   Councils also provided the taskforce with information about the commitments to water quality mitigation work in their region in regional plans, long term plans, annual plans and asset management plans – the “committed work”.  This committed work included investment in infrastructure and was assumed to include the stock exclusion requirements proposed by the Government in Clean Water in February 2017, although these have not yet been promulgated as national regulations.

16.    The National Institute of Water and Atmosphere (NIWA) used the regional information to model the water quality improvements in rivers that should be achieved.  The modelled improvements relate only to improvements in E. coli concentrations (a measure of the risk to human health) in rivers.  They do not relate to improvements in lake water quality (due to modelling limitations) which are also required as part of achieving the swimmable lakes and rivers target, or to associated water quality improvements (such as nutrient levels or water clarity).

17.    Estimations of the costs of the committed work have been modelled by Professor Graeme Doole of Waikato University.

18.    The modelled results of water quality improvements in rivers and their associated costs are presented in the taskforce’s report “Regional information for setting draft targets for swimmable lakes and rivers”.

19.    The March 2018 report relies on scientific modelling by NIWA using a national version of the Catchment Land Use for Environmental Sustainability (CLUES) water quality model, which is relevant to rivers only.  Water quality improvements related to point-source discharge upgrades were included in the modelled estimations.  For improvements that will arise from non-point source discharges, relevant information was provided to a mitigation expert panel who worked with NIWA to determine the effectiveness of mitigations in our region.  The mitigation interventions largely fell into three categories: stock exclusion, riparian planting and management of farm dairy effluent.

20.    The water quality and economic modelling provides an estimate of how far each council’s existing work programmes will go to meet the national targets and provides an informed interim (draft) target.

21.    The assumptions and limitations of the modelling approaches taken are described in the report. 

22.    Copies of the report can be made available on request for Committee members.

The Hawke’s Bay Region

23.    Nearly half of the land area is used for pastoral farming, primarily sheep and beef with some dairy farms and deer.   One-third of the land cover is native vegetation, around 12 per cent is exotic forestry and the remainder is divided among horticulture, urban and industrial and other uses.  Although they represent a relatively small proportion of the land area, the highly productive Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains are essential to the region’s strong horticulture industry, known for its orchards, vegetable growing and viticulture.  Agriculture is the largest employer in the region, and also the basis of much related industry, including fruit and vegetable processing, wine production, and transport of produce.

24.    Hawke’s Bay has several major river catchments, generally with headwaters in the inland mountains and hills, leading to fast-flowing gravel-bottomed rivers with braided lower reaches.  The Wairoa and Mōhaka rivers drain catchments from the northern and western hills into northern Hawke’s Bay.  The Tūtaekurī and Ngaruroro rivers flow from the Kaweka and upper Ruahine ranges through the Heretaunga Plains, merging just before their mouth near Clive; and the Tukituki flows from the Ruahine Range across the Ruataniwha Plains towards Cape Kidnappers.

25.    Lakes Whakaki, Rahui, Oingo, Runanga, Horseshoe, Tutira, Whatuma and Poukawa all have histories of algal blooms.

26.    The main point-source discharges are sewage (Wairoa District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (Waipukurau, Waipawa)) and waste water from an Affco meat works.


Main sources of E. coli

27.    The main source of E. coli throughout the region is ruminant.  The following table provides more detail on the sources of E. coli in different catchments.

Table 1: Sources of E. coli in different catchments

Catchment

Sources of E. coli

Karamu

ruminant (up to 10%), plant, avian

Porangahau

ruminant up to 100%

Kairakau

ruminant (up to 100%), some dog

Wairoa

ruminant (10–50%), plant, avian

Kopuawhara (Maungawhio)

ruminant 10–50%

Kopuawhara (Te Mahia)

ruminant (up to 100%), avian

Kopuawhara (Opoutama)

ruminant up to 100%

Southern Coast (Waipuka stream)

ruminant (up to 50%), avian

Waipatiki

ruminant (up to 10%), plant, wildfowl

 

Planned Work

Point sources

28.    Ongoing upgrades at Waipukurau and Waipawa are expected to overcome existing problems around capacity and design issues.  Takapau Waste Water Treatment Plant is looking to discharge to land, and upgrades are currently occurring at Otane, which will involve ultra-violet treatment.  Consent renewal discussions are currently under way for the Wairoa Affco discharge.

Urban

29.    Stormwater treatment wetlands for the Napier watershed (Ahuriri estuary, Purimu Stream) could reduce E. coli load by 80 per cent, depending on design.

30.    Napier City are investigating options to increase capacity within the sewerage network to prevent blowouts during high-flow events.

Rural

31.    Attention on dairy effluent management will continue, with measures in place to ensure effective storage and deferred irrigation measures are in place (using effluent pond storage calculator).  Appropriate conditions are placed on all dairy consents, and each farm is visited and checked every year by compliance officers.

32.    The Tukituki Plan is currently being implemented (from Plan Change 6), and includes a requirement for 1100 Farm Environmental Management Plans to be completed (240 done so far).  Farm plans include designation of critical source areas, with appropriate mitigation measures identified and a plan of implementation outlined.  Stock exclusion rules (excluding sheep) essentially apply to any flowing waterways that have formed beds, if stocking rate is above 18 stock units, or slope is less than 15 degrees.  The Tukituki Plan is the region’s first to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM), but expectations are that some form of Farm Environmental Management Plan, as well as compulsory stock exclusion rules, will be developed and apply to the rest of the region.

33.    Hawke’s Bay has an ongoing soil conservation control programme which, among other things, has included 2.4 million poles being planted, resulting in the protection of 46,000 hectares of highly erodible land.  This includes stream bank stabilisation by protecting about 50 kilometres of gullies with willow poles each year. Up to 20,000 native plants are planted along streams each year, with fencing subsidies available outside of the Tukituki (where stock exclusion is not mandatory and so no longer subsidised).


34.    There is currently a major focus on six ‘hotspots’ in Hawke’s Bay, which include initiatives to improve overall water quality, including swimmability.  The hotspots include the Ahuriri Estuary, Tutira Lakes, Whakaki Lake and Wairoa, Tukituki River and Lake Whatuma and the Karamu. Wide-scale stock exclusion and riparian planting will be a component of each workstream.  Council had committed $1 million across these hotspots in the 2017/18 year, and the Tutira Lakes and Whakaki Lake have received additional money from the Ministry for the Environment’s Freshwater Improvement Fund.

35.    During the development of this information Council was deliberating on an Integrated Catchments approach to its work in catchments alongside a regional scale reforestation programme.  This work has not been included in this draft assessment due to the timing of the report development and Council’s deliberations.  This work will be included in the assessment and final report.

36.    There is a project for Lake Tutira to develop an Integrated Catchment Management Plan, develop and implement farm environmental management plans throughout the catchment, reconnect Papakiri Stream to Lake Tūtira, install an oxygenation system, and implement a mauri monitoring programme.

37.    Work at Lake Whakaki will include a recirculating wetland, the establishment of 80 hectares of mānuka plantation, and complete stock exclusion from the lagoon’s perimeter.

State of Swimmability in Hawke’s Bay

38.    Overall swimmability for the Hawke’s Bay is 64 per cent of rivers and 68 per cent of lakes

Lakes

39.    This work has not modelled the projected improvement in water quality for swimming in lakes, but the current state of water quality for lakes in Hawke’s Bay is represented following.

Figure 1:  Percentage of Hawke’s Bay lakes currently in each swimming category

Hawkes Bay Lakes


Rivers

40.    The modelling indicates an increase in the overall swimmability of rivers of 26 per cent, to 90 per cent of rivers being swimmable.

Figure 2:  Projected improvement in water quality for swimming in Hawke’s Bay rivers

41.    The total annual cost of committed work in the rural area of the Hawkes Bay region is $14.72 m.  The rural costs of committed work are spread across the dairy (3%), dairy grazing (1%), sheep and beef (85%), deer (2%), and lifestyle (9%) sectors.

Specific modelling considerations

42.    For modelling the implementation of activities in the Ahuriri catchment, the modelling has assumed uptake of 15–20 per cent riparian planting.

43.    Fencing on slopes greater than 20 degrees will have a >3 metre setback.  Eighty per cent of fencing on dairy farms have <3 metre setback, and 90 per cent of fencing on cropping land will have a <3 metre setback.

44.    Where the regional plan focuses on stock exclusion or an extension to the Sustainable Dairy Accord, the modelling approach taken is to extend the stock exclusion provisions to all streams in that catchment.

Next steps

45.    The government is seeking the implementation of a national target of 90% of rivers and lakes swimmable by 2040. For some regions of New Zealand this will be achieved with relative ease. For others it will be a distinct challenge.

46.    The regional sector of local government established a Partnership Group to oversee the report produced in March. This group is now focussing its efforts working on what will be needed to be achieved collectively to meet the 2040 national targets. The sector is required to reconcile across boundaries to ensure the national targets are met.

47.    Where regions will be required to undertake additional work over and above that which they have programmed consultation with affected communities will be undertaken.

Decision Making Process

48.    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:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1.      Receives and notes the “Regional Targets for Swimmable Lakes and Rivers“ staff report.

2.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

3.      Instructs staff to provide regular reports to the Committee on progress towards agreement on meeting the national targets for Swimmable Lakes and Rivers.

 

Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

 

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 20 June 2018

Subject: Oil & Gas Plan Change Options        

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report outlines the Government’s recent announcements on oil and gas exploration in New Zealand in the context of Council’s proposed Oil and Gas plan change.  This report outlines several options for the Committee to consider (including a summary of pros and cons).  Finally, the paper will seek direction from the Committee as to next steps regarding the Oil and Gas plan change project.

Background

Government announcements

2.      On 12 April 2018 the Government announced that there will be no further offshore oil and gas exploration permits granted, with the exception of the 2018 block offer which will be limited to onshore acreage in Taranaki alone.  Onshore block offers will continue in Taranaki for the next three years and will be reviewed after that.  The announcement does not impact upon the 31 active exploration and mining permits (22 of which are offshore).

3.      Further to this, on June 5 Government released a series of documents generated by officials in reaching this decision. This bundle of documents consists of details around the current state of the oil and gas industry in New Zealand, further information around the upcoming onshore Taranaki block offer, and emails between officials released in the Hawke’s Bay.

4.      In regards to Hawke’s Bay, there is only one currently active permit located offshore that overlaps into the jurisdiction of Council- (permit 57073 held by OMV New Zealand Limited) as shown in Figure 1 (note that the dotted blue line denotes Council’s regional boundary out to the 12 nautical mile limit).  That permit is due to expire in 2030.

Figure 1 – location map of Exploration Permit #57073 held by OMV New Zealand Limited

5.      For the avoidance of doubt, in 2012 an exploration permit was granted to TAG Oil limited for onshore exploration in the Central Hawke’s Bay region, but that permit expired in 2017.


What is unknown?

6.      Despite the further release of background information in early June, there is still a level of uncertainty concerning the Government’s announcements. At the time of writing this paper it is understood that officials from New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) continue to hone the details. Council planning staff remain in regular contact with these officials.

7.      A key question is whether or not these announcements will result in amendments to the Crown Minerals Act (the legislation responsible for the ownership and management of Crown- owned minerals such as oil and gas), and its associated regulations. This is a key question as it would elevate the status of the ban from policy decisions to legislation.  Once in legislation, this would be extremely difficult to reverse by future Governments.

8.      Government has acknowledged that no Cabinet paper has been crafted and no vote has been taken on the matter. However, based on the announcements of 6 June it is understood that officials are developing further advice on implementing the decisions.

Current situation

9.      At the March 21 RPC meeting staff provided a recap and update on the Oil and Gas plan change project.  To broadly summarise that recap report, feedback had been sought on the proposals through a series of meetings with targeted stakeholders.  Council also had an online feedback form on its website in order for the public to express views on oil and gas exploration in the region.

10.    In mid- late April, staff in conjunction with relevant tangata whenua representatives were in the process of organising three Hui-a-iwi across the northern, central and southern parts of Hawke’s Bay.  However, in light of the announcements made by the Government and discussions with several RPC members, it was decided not to proceed with the hui until further information about implications of the Government’s announcement were better understood.

11.    Fundamentally, the Government’s announcements would mean no new offshore or onshore oil and gas exploration permits would be granted for the Hawke's Bay region.  That broadly aligns with the Committee’s earlier preferred proposition to prohibit oil and gas exploration activities in specified parts of the region, including marine areas.

12.    It appears that the Committee’s pre-emptive move to propose prohibiting oil and gas exploration activities in the region’s sensitive aquatic and marine areas, is now overtaken by the Government’s broader sweeping policy shift on oil and gas exploration in New Zealand.

Options

13.    Staff are of the view that in light of the announcements there are predominantly two options.  An assessment of each option along with a summary of pros and cons is outlined following.

Option 1:    Proceed with Oil and Gas plan change i.e. ‘status quo’

14.    This option recognises that despite these announcements, Council has embarked on a programme of plan change work that reaches back to a decision by the Regional Planning Committee in November 2016.  In this option, staff would continue with the existing project plan and recommence stakeholder consultation including consultation hui and eventually drafting a stand-alone plan change to notify, call for public submissions, hold hearings, issue Council’s decisions on those submissions and deal with potential Environment Court appeals.

15.    Proceeding with the work would result in unnecessary effort and expenditure, given that the Government has effectively curtailed any such activities in the region.  Furthermore, there is a risk that Council proceeds without having the benefits of more detail from NZP&M regarding the implications of the Government’s announcement.


Option 2:    ‘Shelve’ the current project and incorporate into the future regional plan reviews (preferred option)

16.    This is the preferred option of staff.  Council is scheduled to commence parallel reviews of the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) in 2020.  Under this option, staff would wrap up current work on the plan change and re-purpose the intel for informing the future RRMP and RCEP review projects.

17.    The upside to this approach is that Council does not need to replicate efforts unnecessarily and would avoid further expenditure of Council’s resources to regulate an activity that is already curtailed by Central Government.  This approach also allows for a consideration of the effects of oil and gas exploration within the wider context of the RRMP and RCEP, particularly as they relate to other activities in the plans.  It also allows time for more detail on the Government’s position to emerge, which in turn will ensure Council is better equipped to understand impact and implications of these decisions.

18.    It is noted that the RRMP and RCEP Reviews are not due to commence until 2020.  While it would be several years until any new rules came into effect, the Government’s announcement clearly indicated Block Offer processes over the next three years will be open for onshore Taranaki only.  The likelihood of new oil and gas exploration permits being issued and activities occurring in the Hawke's Bay region in the meantime is considered minimal.

Comments on risks

19.    There are both perceived and actual risks associated with closing the Oil and Gas plan change project.  Firstly, a perceived risk is that if the plan change is halted, a company may still be granted a permit by NZP&M to explore in Hawke’s Bay for oil and gas onshore, albeit granting any such permit would be contrary to the Government’s own recent announcements.  However, it is important to recognise that the only method to apply for exploration permits is to bid in the Block Offer process administered by NZP&M.

20.    The proposed release area for Block Offer 2018 is limited to the onshore Taranaki Basin, owing to its known productivity.  Under current rules in the RCEP and RRMP, it is also very likely that oil and gas drilling exploration activities would need to obtain a resource consent from the Regional Council in addition to any exploration permits from NZP&M.

21.    It follows that the only feasible way for exploration permits to be granted in Hawke’s Bay is if in the first instance, the Government was to hold a block offer offering acreage in this region.  It is fair to say that the chances of this occurring are relatively low, given that onshore Taranaki has been specifically targeted due to its known productivity (in comparison with Hawke’s Bay).  It would also run counter to the Government’s widely signalled aspirations for addressing climate change, namely through the Zero Carbon Bill, which would set a new 2050 greenhouse gas emission reduction target in law.

22.    As noted above, NZP&M officials have pointed out that there is still further detail to come.  For now, it remains uncertain if the Crown will move to amend the Crown Minerals Act and associated regulations to reflect the Government’s recent policy announcements.

Financial and resourcing implications

23.    If the Committee prefers to proceed with option 1 (the status quo project plan), then there are no further extraordinary financial and resourcing implications arising from a decision in favour of Option 1.

24.    However, there are two notable financial and resourcing implications for Council to consider if the Committee were to decide that Option 2 is its preferred approach.

25.    Firstly, Option 2 would effectively cease further work on preparing a stand-alone oil and gas plan change.  The ‘ring-fenced’ financial resourcing for this project originates from a Council loan specifically targeting regional strategic energy initiatives. The current unspent budget stands at approximately $85,000 (from the original $200,000 loan).

26.    Secondly, ceasing further work on a stand-alone plan change would require an amendment to the Council’s Long Term Plan to remove the plan change from the Strategic Planning Group of Activities. Assuming the Committee agrees to Option 2, then both of these financial and resourcing matters can be ‘tidied-up’ at the Council meeting on 27 June (when the Council will consider both the RPC’s recommendations on this matter and, in a separate item, adoption of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan).

Considerations of Tangata Whenua interests

27.    In considering whether or not to proceed with the consultation hui discussed in paragraph 7, staff conferred with relevant tangata whenua RPC representatives. The two principal options outlined in this report have considered the interests of tāngata whenua.  It should be noted that the Crown (i.e. central government and its ministries) has its own duties and obligations regarding partnerships with tāngata whenua. Furthermore, section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act requires NZP&M and the Minister of Energy and Resources when exercising functions and powers under the Crown Minerals Act to have regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

28.    Those duties are not to be confused with the duties and responsibilities on regional councils (for example under the RMA and the Local Government Act). Having considered the matter in its entirety it is the view of council staff that there are no extra special considerations for interests of tāngata whenua in this matter that need to be addressed at this stage.

Decision Making Process

29.    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:

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

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

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

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

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

29.6.    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 “Oil & Gas Plan Change Options” staff report.

2.      The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      Agree that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2.      Agrees to cease further work on preparation of the Oil and Gas plan change with a view to incorporating this work, as appropriate, in future upcoming reviews of the Regional Resource Management Plan and Regional Coastal Environment Plans, except that:

2.2.1.      Staff may wrap-up and close works on the current stand-alone oil and gas plan change project to enable smooth assignment of the project’s current intelligence over to the future plan review projects.

2.3.      Amends the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to remove the oil and gas plan change project from the Strategic Planning Group of Activities.

 

 

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager Strategic Development

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.     


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee  

Wednesday 20 June 2018

Subject: Discussion of Items of Business Not on the Agenda        

 

Reason for Report

1.     This document has been prepared to assist Committee Members to note the Items of Business Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 5.

1.1.   Urgent items of Business (supported by report tabled by CE or Chair)

 

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.           

 

 

 

 

2.           

 

 

 

 

 

1.2.   Minor items (for discussion only)

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.