|
After loss of the motion to defer the
item to the April meeting, consideration of the item commenced, with
discussions covering:
·
Forest & Bird frustrations are with
HBRC’s management of the process and not with the CHB community
·
Forest & Bird national office has
submitted formal confirmation of the CHB branch opposition to the proposed
plan change and unhappiness with the Tukituki Taskforce advocating for policy
change when the terms of reference for the group clearly state that it is not
a policy advocacy group.
·
The terms of reference for Tukituki Taskforce
also contains provisions similar to the TANK stakeholder group, to give
people an opportunity to link back to their organisations with discussions
and decisions taken at meetings
·
Initial proposal to extend minimum flow
effective dates for 2 years (summers) as staff view that 2 years is the
minimum time required to allow the community to meet the objectives
·
Of the 55 responses to the request for
feedback received, 21 generally supported the proposal to defer, 29
generally opposed the proposal and 5 took a neutral position
·
Request for the feedback was part of the fast
fail approach, where if significant opposition encountered at the outset then
plan change process does not progress
·
Approximately 50 surface water consents are
affected by the low flow limits, with opinion expressed that this group wants
the deferral and not the community. That view was disputed with statement
that others affected by the minimum flow limits include Medallion Meats which
hires 120 staff, 65% of which are Māori, the consent is not for
irrigation, nor held by a grower.
·
The view expressed by staff for example is
that a streamlined plan change process would have to clear a very high bar
with significant support for the current Minister for the Environment to look
favourably on agreeing to use a streamlined planning pathway.
·
Indications are that the current Government
and Minister do not generally support use of the streamlined Planning pathway
as that was something the previous government had introduced.
·
Request for a copy of the Taskforce
Group’s Water Conservation Plan to be circulated to the Committee
members
·
James Palmer explained that if the motion is
passed, staff would bring further advice back to the Committee on whether the
standard or streamlined planning track is the best option to achieve desired
outcomes
·
opposing views of whether to proceed with a
plan change were expressed during debate on the recommendations
|
