HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Tuesday 14 August 2018
Subject: Receipt of the Proposed
Draft TANK Plan Change
Reason for Report
1. This item has
been prepared to:
1.1. provide the
RPC with an opportunity to formally acknowledge and thank the TANK
Collaborative Stakeholder Group for completing the task it was set by the RPC;
and
1.2. allow the RPC
to resolve to adopt the draft plan change developed by the TANK Collaborative
Stakeholder Group in principle, so that it can now be progressed in accordance
with RMA Schedule 1 processes towards consultation, notification and adoption
as an operative Plan.
Executive
Summary
2. The
Draft TANK Plan Change (Attachment 1) and the accompanying draft Implementation
Plan (Attachment 2) is the result of forty two formal TANK Group meetings,
numerous TANK working group meetings, the presentation and review of a
multitude of scientific, cultural, economic and social reports, and an
extraordinary depth of informal engagement between all TANK members, their respective
constituencies and Council.
3. Staff have the
highest regard for the effort, commitment and outputs of the TANK Group and
firmly believe the combination of the Group’s expression of the breadth
of community values, together with their own expertise in land and water
science, ecology, land management, consenting, regulatory and planning have
resulted in a robust first draft for the RPC’s consideration. The plan
has been peer reviewed by an independent expert with more than 40 years
planning and resource management experience (Attachment 3).
4. Staff are now
tasked with providing the Council with a programme that progresses the
multi-year TANK process into the formal Plan Change process. This will
include a programme of workshops and deliberations that will enable Committee
Members to understand the content and intent of the draft plan, make decisions
where the TANK Group could not reach a consensus, and ultimately make a
recommendation to Council to progress the Plan Change.
5. Staff are
recommending that the Committee resolves to receive the Draft Plan Change as
developed by the TANK Group. This will be followed by workshops with
Committee members on the 14th and 15th of August to
provide an overview of the issues, objectives and outcomes identified, debated
and decided by the TANK Group.
6. There are a
number of issues for which there was no consensus reached by the TANK Group,
and further reports will be prepared for the RPC to assist them in making
decisions about those items. Committee members may provide further direction on
matters for which further information and/or clarification is sought. This
could be in the form of further workshops, explanation of existing TANK reports
or consultation with TANK Group members. Given the extensive investment into
modelling and reporting already made in getting the TANK Plan Change to this
point, staff do not recommend that any new report is commissioned.
7. For the
avoidance of doubt, Committee Members are not at this time being asked to make
any decisions in respect of the draft plan change other than to receive it for
further progression in the Plan Change process.
8. Formal
recommendation by the RPC to Council for adoption of the plan change will
necessarily require committee members to make decisions on matters where the
TANK Group could not reach consensus. In the version of the draft plan provided
with this report, matters of non-consensus have been highlighted for reference.
Where appropriate, the draft plan identifies the range of non-consensus opinions.
9. A draft plan
will be formally brought before the RPC at their September meeting for
decisions in relation to the non-consensus items and recommendation for
adoption by Council. At that meeting staff will provide further reports
on the nature of the non-consensus, the options considered by the TANK Group
and recommendations to the Committee to support its decision making.
Background to TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group
10. In both the 2009-2019 and
2012-2022 Long Term Plans, Council committed to preparing a regional plan
change for the ‘Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Catchment Area’ to
review minimum flows and water allocation and to set water quality
limits. In 2011 the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy
identified the Heretaunga Plains/Ngaruroro catchment as a priority catchment
for the Council’s immediate policy work programmes.
11. This TANK project was
intended to ensure a robust and community led process for understanding the
issues and developing solutions facing the freshwater resources and the people
in the TANK catchment. In setting up the TANK Group, the Council has enabled a
more inclusive approach to water management that reflects the diversity of
community views. It was believed that this had the potential to result in
a plan change that more accurately accounts for these views and provide
innovative solutions that recognise all of the responsibilities the community
holds for water management. It was also anticipated that this process could
reduce the areas of contest and result in reduced Environment Court related
burdens to all parties.
12. In 2004, the RPC had
agreed to have particular regard to any TANK consensus outcome if one emerges
and similarly, the Regional Council in 2012 had given a good faith undertaking
to implement the recommendations of the TANK Group (provided they were
consistent with higher level documents such as a the NPSFM, RMA etc.).
Those commitments have been hugely motivating for members, and will no doubt be
something that the TANK Group will be addressing during the RPC’s own
decision making processes as the next stage of the process commences.
13. The RPC-appointed TANK
Collaborative Stakeholder Group held its final recommendations meeting on 26
July 2018.
The TANK Group Terms of Reference (ToR)
14. The terms of reference for
the TANK Group (Attachment 4) states that the role of the group “is to
provide the Council (via the Regional Planning Committee) with consensus
recommendations regarding objectives, policies and methods, including rules for
a plan change to the RRMP for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchment
area.” The Group has operated under an agreed terms of reference
since 2012, which has been periodically updated.
15. It should be noted that
the establishment of the TANK Group pre-dates the RMA’s new pathway
option for a highly prescriptive ‘Collaborative Planning Process’
when preparing plan changes. Accordingly the RMA provisions for collaborative
planning processes, which include restricted grounds for appeal to the
Environment Court, do not apply to the TANK plan change.
16. Of particular note is that
during the final stages of the TANK Group work programme, one aspect of the ToR
made it difficult for TANK Group members to fully embrace the primary objective
of striving towards consensus in some specific instances. Section 7 of the ToR
(Protocol for collaborative deliberation) states “Contributions made
within the Group will be ‘without prejudice.’ That is, nothing said
within the Group may be used in a subsequent planning or legal process except
for any recommendations and agreements reached by the Group.” And “If
the Group reached a consensus, members will be expected to support that
consensus in subsequent public discussion, including appearing at any
subsequent hearing if required.”
17. This aspiration ultimately
proved to be counter-productive given the complex nature of the
interrelationships between the Issues, Objectives, Policies and Rules that make
up the draft plan. Put simply, some parties felt that even though they may be
in broad agreement with the TANK Group’s direction on a certain issue, if
they nonetheless had a reservation about minor aspect then they were almost
obliged to withhold consensus in relation to the entire in order to preserve
their rights through the following RMA Schedule 1 consultation, submission and
hearing processes.
18. As a result, following
discussion with the Group at the final meeting it was agreed by all members
that they would prefer the opportunity to express their support and endorsement
of the plan at a broader level while reserving their right to continue to
advocate through the formal submissions process for minor technical
clarifications and amendments to the Plan.
19. Note that this does not
apply to those matters of significant non-consensus amongst Group members that
have been clearly identified in the draft plan and will require deliberation
and decision making by the RPC. It is worthwhile recording here that it has not
been the ambition of this process to achieve 100% consensus across the board.
Put another way, it should in no way be viewed as a failure of the TANK Group
that a 100% consensus was not achieved.
20. The plan change seeks to
address and reconcile a complex intersection of climatic, cultural, biological,
hydrological, social and economic values against a dynamic backdrop of the
future demands of our environment, our communities and our industries. In this
respect the notion of ‘non-consensus’ is used to identify those
matters of such fundamental disagreement about which individuals feel strongly
enough to warrant an appeal to the Environment Court, rather than rely on the
submission and hearings process as the preferred resolution pathway.
21. Accordingly, by sitting
across the table from each other and building direct relationships with
‘opposing’ viewpoints, TANK Group members have managed to build and
shape outcomes through consensus approval (albeit sometimes subject to further
refinement via the RMA Schedule 1 process) or, in the case of non-consensus,
TANK Group members have often managed to significantly narrow the range of
disagreement (e.g. the Ngaruroro minimum flow proposals).
The TANK Group and TANK Group work
programme
22. In 2018, the TANK Group
comprised the following members and/or representative groups.
22.1. Mana Whenua Group
(renamed Treaty Partners Group in 2018)
22.1.1. Marei Apatu
22.1.2. Ngaio Tuika
22.1.3. Joella Brown
22.1.4. Aki Paipper
22.1.5. Te Kaha Hawaikirangi
22.1.6. Jenny Mauger.
22.2. NGOs
22.2.1. Forest and Bird
22.2.2. Vaughn Cooper (National
Office) – substituted by Tom Kay
22.2.3. Neil Eagles (Napier Office)
22.2.4. Hawke's Bay Fish and Game
Council – Nathan Burkepile
22.2.5. Te Taio Environment Forum
– John Cheyne.
22.3. Horticultural sector
(including winegrowers)
22.3.1. Xan Harding
22.3.2. Bruce MacKay
22.3.3. Lesley Wilson
22.3.4. Tim Herman
22.3.5. Emma Taylor
22.3.6. Scott Lawson.
22.4. Napier City Council and
Hastings District Council staff representatives
22.4.1. Craig Thew (HDC)
22.4.2. Mark Clews (HDC)
22.4.3. Chris Dolley (NCC)
22.4.4. Kim Anstey (NCC).
22.5. Department of
Conservation – Matt Brady.
22.6. Pastoral sector
22.6.1. Peter Kay
22.6.2. Hugh Ritchie
22.6.3. Ivan Knauf.
22.7. Other primary sector
22.7.1. Mike Glazebrook
22.7.2. Jerf van Beek.
22.8. Forestry – Keith
Dolman.
22.9. Hawke’s Bay
District Health Board – Dr Nick Jones.
22.10. HB RPC (non voting)
22.10.1. Cr Tom Belford
22.10.2. Cr Peter Beaven
22.10.3. Peter Paku.
23. The TANK Group’s
work programme was completed through formal TANK Group meetings, working group
meetings, Treaty Partners Group meetings and individual consultation and
feedback meetings. These meetings were in turn supported by numerous
scientific, cultural, economic and social reports or presentations, including:
23.1. Science – HBRC,
Cawthron, Landcare Research, GNS, Tonkin & Taylor, Isthmus Consulting, Good
Earth Matters,
23.2. Cultural – Dr
Anthony Cole, Ngaruroro Values & Attributes Report, Ngā Hapu o
Tutaekuri – Tutaekuri Awa report
23.3. Social – Dr
Anthony Cole, Deliberate,
23.4. Economic –
AgFirst, NimmoBell, Market Economics
23.5. Other, ‘Edge of a
Raindrop’ performance, Ministry for the Environment.
24. The list of reports for
the research, modelling and other findings that supported the TANK work is
attached (Attachment 5).
25. This work will support the
Section 32 analysis that will accompany the plan change. The section 32
report is currently under preparation by Mitchell Daysh Limited. An overview of
the content of that section s32 report is in Attachment 6.
26. The TANK working groups
consist of HBRC staff and members of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group
covering Community Engagement, Stormwater, Lakes and Wetlands, Economic
Assessment, Water Augmentation and a Farmer Reference Group.
27. TANK Group members agreed
that the pre-existing Joint Working Group for Drinking Water would be directed
to formulate and recommend objectives and rules for the TANK Plan change. These
were subsequently received and adopted at the final TANK Group meeting (subject
to further refinement and technical review).
The TANK Process and Mana Whenua
28. The Plan drafting was also
guided by an assessment of relevant planning documents recognised by iwi
authorities that the council must take into account when preparing any Plan
Change. The relevant documents referred to in this step of the Plan Change
Process were:
28.1. Kaitiaki mo nga Taonga
Tuku Iho
28.2. Ngati Kahungunu 25 year
vision (Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc 2000)
28.3. Kahungunuki uta,
Kahungunu ki Tai – Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan 2008
28.4. Ngati Hori Freshwater
Resources Management Plan (2009 -2012)
28.5. Mana Ake – An
Expression of Kaitiakitanga- Nga Hapū o Heretaunga 2015 and
28.6. Tūtaekurī Awa
Management and Enhancement Plan 2015.
29. The TANK staff project
team has recognised the on-going issues surrounding appropriate representation
by mana whenua on the TANK Group. The establishment of the TANK Group in
2012 was also at a time of change for Māori in the region, through Treaty
settlements and the establishment of the RPC. The changes resulting to
the roles and responsibilities of the Council and the Treaty Partners have been
evolving since then and have also resulted in changes to the TANK Group
membership and operation.
30. Of course, every process,
with the benefit of hindsight is open to criticism. Some of the previous
decisions about involvement and membership may not always have been ideal, but
the TANK Group has remained strong and committed throughout and the focus
should be on the output. There have been learnings throughout this process for
all involved.
31. Changes to TANK
Group’s Terms of Reference and membership were made to ensure the
relevant Treaty settlement entities and iwi authorities were given the
opportunity to attend and also to ensure the plan change development and RPC
member roles were properly recognised.
32. While some unresolved
issues about mana whenua involvement around the table still remain, there has
been wide acceptance of the need to provide the TANK project with the best
available mana whenua input and involvement as possible.
33. The Council has supported
mana whenua to produce reports documenting values and attributes for surface
water resources for the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri Rivers. The task involved
holding a series of workshops, wananga, hui-a-hapu with mana whenua, to
consolidate views and the values they held within various areas and reaches of
the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekuri catchments.
34. During these workshops the
TANK plan change process was explained and key Maori concepts and values
relating to the rivers were explored and agreed. Then specific areas
where these values apply were discussed, researched and spatially
prescribed. Attributes were confined to water quality and water quantity
measures. This work complements but does not replace, the iwi/hapū
management plans previously received by the Council relating to the TANK
catchment area (i.e. those listed in paragraph 26). An Ahuriri Estuary Cultural
Values Report was provided by to Council staff by the Mana Ahuriri Trust in
July 2018.
35. The TANK Mana Whenua group
has typically met before each TANK Group meeting to prepare for efficient
collective engagement during the TANK stakeholder discussions. To avoid
confusion with the role and mahi of mana whenua groups not involved in the TANK
project, the TANK Mana Whenua Group in early 2018 renamed itself to become
known as the TANK Treaty Partners Working Group. Members of this group
often engage with their ‘parent’ organisations. For example, the
Heretaunga mana whenua engage with Te Runanganui ō Heretaunga to inform
marae representatives of progress and receive feedback on a six weekly basis.
The TANK Treaty Partners Working Group met regularly with HBRC project staff
between TANK stakeholder meetings to progress and advance drafting of the plan
change.
36. Joella Brown (TANK
Advisory Support – Māori Research Advisor) was engaged as an
independent contractor the Council in January 2018 and has developed, amongst
other things the Cultural Values Alignment with TANK draft plan report,
valuable input into the Social and Cultural Impacts Assessment with Dr Anthony
Cole including organising the Community Reference Group meetings and generally
providing in house advice specifically around tikanga and matauranga
Māori.
37. Funding has also been
provided to Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga for the appointment of Mr Morry Black (Māuri
Protection Agency) to provide provide feedback and advice on the inclusion and
provision for tāngata whenua in the draft plan.
Financial support has also been provided to Mana Ahuriri Trust for the
appointment of independent consultant Diana McDonald at the request of Mana
Ahuriri Trust to review the Plan alignment with the Mana Ahuriri values.
Role of the RPC in Plan Changes
38. The purpose of the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 is to improve tangata
whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in
accordance with the RMA for the Hawke’s Bay Region (section 3). By
extension, the Act confirms that the purpose of the Regional Planning Committee
is to oversee the development and review of those same documents (section
9(1)).
39. The Regional Policy
Statement (RPS), which is combined into the Regional Resource Management Plan
(RRMP), and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) are the
Council’s three most important RMA planning documents. Preparation,
review and changes to those planning documents are not only a core function of
the Regional Council, but one that is essential for Council to carry out its
functions under section 30 of the RMA.
40. Since its formation in
2012, the RPC has yet to fully complete a journey with overseeing a proposed
change to either the RPS, RRMP or the RCEP. However, the RPC has had
involvement in Plan Change 6 before and after PC6 was called-in and heard by a
Minister-appointed Board of Inquiry. Similarly, the RPC had overseen preparation
of Change 5 which remains partly subject to an appeal in the Environment Court
and has not yet fully completed its ‘journey’ to an operative
state.
RPS and National Policy Statement for
Freshwater Management
41. Committee members are no
doubt aware that TANK plan change doesn’t start from a blank
canvas. The TANK plan change will need to be designed to fit amongst the
RRMP’s existing regulatory provisions and be consistent with the Regional
Policy Statement. It also needs to be considered alongside a number of
existing national policies and standards. In particular, Central
Government has also adopted a National Policy Statement for Freshwater which
specified how it expects councils to achieve outcomes under the RMA. The
National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, as amended in August
2017 (NPSFM) must be given effect to.
42. The NPSFM requires
regional councils to make or change regional plans to ensure they establish
freshwater objectives and limits – and establish methods (including
rules) to achieve them. HBRC must give effect to the NPSFM in its RPS and its
RRMP. Where existing plans and policy statements do not already give full
effect to the NPSFM, they must be amended by 31 December 2025 (or by 2030 if
the 2025 timeframe will affect plan quality or it would be impracticable for
the council to fully implement the NPSFM by 2025). The 2025-2030 deadline
is not only for completing the TANK plan change, but for completing all the
remaining catchment area plan changes across the region (Tukituki being the
exception because PC6 has been completed).
The TANK Plan Change Journey
43. During these past 5 years,
in excess of twenty verbal or written reports have been presented at RPC
meetings, ranging from scientific presentations, discussions around the
TANK/WCO process, and general updates on the process and progress being made
under the collaborative framework.
44. The TANK Group also
resolved in early 2016 to commence a programme of wider community engagement so
that there would be better appreciation and understanding by the community
about the issues and options they were considering for the TANK catchments.
45. There has also been an
on-going expectation that each of the stakeholder representatives endeavour to
share the findings and decisions of the TANK with their respective
organisations. The ‘Think TANK’ was partly developed in order
to support the TANK members with this task. Staff have also assisted TANK
members’ separate briefings to stakeholder organisations about TANK progress
and plan development.
46. All information and
presentations given to the TANK Group since the beginning of 2016 has been
publicly available on the Council’s TANK webpage. Feedback from
people through the ‘Think TANK’ and the TANK webpage has been regularly
received. In addition to the regular ‘Think TANK’ updates and
meeting records, all RPC members have had a standing invitation to attend all
TANK Group meetings as active observers.
Consultation prior to public
notification of a proposed plan change
47. There are requirements for
the Council to consult a range of specified organisations in the preparation of
a plan change including the MfE, local authorities and tangata whenua through
iwi authorities in the subject area. These obligations have been met in a large
part through the TANK collaborative process and the adequacy of this will be
subject to RPC oversight. Discussion of plan change matters by the RPC
alone does not constitute proper consultation with tangata whenua through iwi
authorities. The formal Schedule 1 process also now includes additional
specific consultation steps in relation to the draft prepared for notification,
including pre-notification requirements concerning iwi authorities. This
extra requirement emerged through RMA amendments in 2017.
48. Specifically in relation
to consultation with iwi authorities, schedule 1 of the RMA further provides:
48.1. 3B Consultation with
iwi authorities
For the purposes of clause 3(1)(d), a local authority is
to be treated as having consulted with iwi authorities in relation to those
whose details are entered in the record kept under section 35A, if the local
authority—
(a) considers ways in which it may foster the
development of their capacity to respond to an invitation to consult; and
(b) establishes and maintains processes to provide
opportunities for those iwi authorities to consult it; and
(c) consults with those iwi authorities; and
(d) enables those iwi authorities to identify resource
management issues of concern to them; and
(e) indicates how those issues have been or are to be
addressed.
49. The significant mahi
shouldered by the TANK mana whenua representatives not only during the TANK
Group meetings but also in relation to the additional values research, numerous
Treaty Partners meetings (both separately and with council staff) and their
sharing of their findings with their marae/hapū and other Māori
organisations needs to be explicitly acknowledged. Their willingness to
support both the TANK Group members and Council staff to assist in meeting the
consultation requirements has been invaluable.
50. Their work has also
provided a connection between the TANK process and the wider Māori
community in a way that reduces the overall burden on Māori to themselves
become involved. This is relevant not just in terms of the TANK Group’s
draft plan change, but also in anticipation of the wider, RMA-mandated,
consultation with iwi authorities.
51. Schedule 1 of the RMA
further specifies consultation with iwi authorities in respect of pre-notification
requirements. The Council must have regard to any advice received as a
result of this consultation.
52. Releasing the Draft Plan
Change for wider informal public feedback is an entirely optional action for
the Council. In the case of this TANK Plan Change, the Council will need
to consider whether there is merit in undertaking any further wide consultation
on the draft Plan Change or further targeted consultation, or whether to skip
directly to public notification of the TANK Plan Change and the formal
submission phases that follow. Staff will provide further information on
the options at subsequent RPC meetings.
Summary and
next steps
53. Given the scale and
complexity of the TANK catchment area, its extreme degree of modification over
many years (including the significant impact of urban environments), the
competitive tension for access to and the use of natural resources, and the
significance of the cultural and spiritual values throughout the catchment, it
must be noted that the first draft of the plan change, as reviewed and approved
by the RPC, will be the subject of considerable local, regional and national
scrutiny.
54. It is critical to
emphasise that the Council and its staff must operate under the statutory
obligations laid down by the RMA, the NPSFM and other national direction which
requires Council to advance a plan change to those address the challenges and
issues around freshwater. The Council must manage our freshwater to
provide for all the values which are listed as national values and they include
compulsory values for ecosystem health and human health and a range of other
values including; cultural, social, environmental, quality, health,
availability and economic values.
55. The NPSFM also requires
management of freshwater in a way that considers and recognises Te Mana o te
Wai. The NPSFM and Section 32 of the RMA both require that in developing the
Plan Change, there is also consideration of the impacts of any choices made and
their implications for resource users and people and communities. The
requirements to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of ecosystems provide
environmental bottom lines, but in making decisions above these minimums, one
interest group cannot dominate the plan change without creating an inevitability
of lengthy and expensive appeals to the Environment Court.
56. Staff recognise that the
community (including RPC members) are anxious and impatient for Council to
progress the necessary changes to its regional management and planning
frameworks (via the likes of the Tukituki and TANK plan changes) so that the
communities’ aspirations, as manifested in national policy instruments
like the NPSFM, can be implemented at ground level. Furthermore, the setting of
limits provides certainty and clarity for resource users and supports community
confidence. In this regard the importance of the role of the RPC in
progressing this and other NPSFM plan changes cannot be understated, because
these types of regional plan changes are fundamental to setting out clear policy
direction for the Council’s functions under the RMA.
57. The TANK Group can and
should take considerable pride in the statements contained in Peter
Constantine’s independent and expert peer review of the draft plan, which
states:
57.1. “[t]he plan change meets the requirements of the
Resource Management Act 1991.”
57.2. “[t]he rules as they are presently drafted are fit
for purpose and should, if implemented as intended and supported by
non-statutory interventions and actions, achieve the objectives of the plan
change.”
57.3. “The result is a suite of policies that tell the
story of how the objectives will be achieved, signal what involvement can be
expected from the Council in this process, and provide direction to consent
authorities when called upon to assess an application for resource consent. The
language is certain, concise and clear…”
57.4. “The TANK Plan Change is consistent with the parent
plan, is likely to achieve the environmental outcomes sought, and will
therefore achieve the project objectives.”
57.5. “Any remaining significant drafting issues can be
resolved through the submission process but as a general observation, the plan
change provisions are internally consistent, there are no obvious gaps, and
there is consistency with the parent plan.”
Upcoming
matters for RPC’s consideration
58. In terms of upcoming RPC
meetings, staff anticipate further briefing papers will be presented covering a
number of matters, including:
58.1. the outstanding areas of
non-consensus so that decisions can be made by the RPC on those and other
outstanding technical refinements
58.2. options about whether it
proceeds to formal public notification, limited circulation of a draft plan
change or some far wider release of the draft plan change for general public
feedback
58.3. section 32 evaluation
report
58.4. implementation planning
58.5. mandatory
pre-notification consultation requirements with iwi authorities, local
authorities and certain Ministers of the Crown, etc
58.6. timeframes and
arrangements for the hearing phase of the plan change process.
Decision Making
Process
59. Council
and its committees are 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:
59.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a
strategic asset.
59.2. The use
of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation for the
receipt of the draft plan change.
59.3. The
decision to receive the draft plan change does not fall within the definition
of Council’s policy on significance.
59.4. The persons affected by
this decision are the members of the TANK collaborative stakeholder and working
groups, members of the Regional Planning Committee and HBRC staff.
59.5. The
decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
59.6. Given
the nature and significance of decision being made, the Committee can exercise
its discretion and make this decision without consulting directly with the
community or others having an interest in the decision. In any
event, there will be an opportunity for any person to make a submission on the
TANK Plan Change (PC9) after it is adopted by Council and subsequently publicly
notified as a proposed plan change.
|
Recommendations
That the Regional Planning Committee:
1. Formally thanks past and present members of the TANK Collaborative
Stakeholder Group for their individual and collective contributions to the
creation of the draft TANK Plan Change presented to the Committee today.
2. Adopts in principle the draft TANK Plan Change (subject to the
Committee’s final decisions in relation to the identified matters of
non-consensus and outstanding technical provisions) and recommends that
Council adopt and publicly notify the plan change in early 2019.
3. Requests that Staff prepare and present the further reports as
listed following, to the Committee:
3.1. the
outstanding areas of non-consensus so that decisions can be made by the RPC
on those and other outstanding technical refinements
3.2. options
about whether it proceeds to formal public notification, limited circulation
of a draft plan change or some far wider release of the draft plan change for
general public feedback
3.3. section 32
evaluation report
3.4. implementation
planning
3.5. mandatory
pre-notification consultation requirements with iwi authorities, local
authorities and certain Ministers of the Crown, etc
3.6. timeframes
and arrangements for the hearing phase of the plan change process.
|
Authored by:
|
Mary-Anne
Baker
Senior Planner
|
Ceri Edmonds
Senior Planner
|
|
Gavin Ide
Manager Policy and Planning
|
|
Approved by:
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager
Strategic Planning
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
Attachment/s
|
⇨1
|
Draft TANK
Plan Change
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨2
|
Draft TANK
Implementation Plan
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨3
|
PlanWrite
Peer Review Findings Report
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨4
|
TANK
Collaborative Stakeholder Group Terms of Reference Update 3
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨5
|
Documents
Referred to in TANK Process
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
|
⇨6
|
Mitchell
Daysh Potential S32 Report Outline
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
