Agenda of Regional Planning Committee - Wednesday, 18 September 2024

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: 18 September 2024

Time: 11:30am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Title Page

1. Welcome/ Karakia/ Housekeeping/ Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declaration

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee meeting held on 13 March 2024

Decision Items

4. Kotahi update 3

5. Regional Policy Statement issues and options development 7

Information or Performance Monitoring

6. TANK update 11

7. PSGE engagement update 13

8. Hawke's Bay Independent Flood Review policy recommendations 17

9. September 2024 Policy Projects update 21

10. September 2024 Statutory Advocacy and Resource Management reform update 25

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
Tania Hopmans (Co-chair)	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Tania Eden (Deputy Co-chair)	Mana Ahuriri Trust
Karauna Brown /Mana Hazel	Te Kopere o te Iwi Hineuru
Laura-Margaret Kele	Tamatea Pōkai Whenua
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Michelle McIlroy	Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa
Mike Mohi	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Jenny Nelson-Smith	Tamatea Pōkai Whenua
Theresa Thornton	Ngati Pahauwera Development & Tiaki Trusts
Hinewai Ormsby (Co-chair)	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Thompson Hokianga (Deputy Co-chair)	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Will Foley	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Xan Harding	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Charles Lambert	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Jock Mackintosh	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Di Roadley	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Martin Williams	Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
Jerf van Beek	Hawke’s 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

18 September 2024

Subject: Kotahi Update

Reason for report

1. This report seeks endorsement on the proposed way of working between the HBRC Policy Team and PSGE Taiao staff on Kotahi, a request for an identity and name for the proposed practitioners’ group, and endorsement on an associated draft timeline.

Executive summary

2. This paper has been co-authored by Dianne Smith (General Manager Te Mātai Ao, Tamatea Pōkai Whenua), Heather Bossleman (Resource Management Technician, Tamatea Pōkai Whenua) and Nichola Nicholson (Policy Manager HBRC). The content has also been informed following hui and input from staff members from Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Hineuru Iwi Trust, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, and Mana Ahuriri Trust. Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board and Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana have also been invited.

3. This paper seeks a decision on the included recommendations endorsing a model of working together between the HBRC Policy Team and PSGE Taiao Staff on the development of Kotahi.

Background

4. At the Regional Planning Committee meeting in March, the Committee supported the request from HBRC Policy staff and PSGE Taiao practitioners to collaborate on a way of working together to progress the Kotahi plan. This paper outlines that proposal and is made up of:

4.1. Way of working together – Practitioners Group

4.2. Selection of a concept for the group’s name and identity

4.3. Proposed timeline.

Discussion

Way of working together

5. From the very beginning of the Kotahi project, it was acknowledged that the contribution to the plan from PSGEs would need to be undertaken in a way that recognised its uniqueness and preserved its integrity. At the time this was conceptualized at a high level through raranga (weaving) or the lashing together of a waka hourua (double-hulled waka). However, the practicalities of such a process were not worked through. As work has continued to progress the question of how this work will be undertaken has come into sharper focus.

6. Following the last RPC workshop the HBRC Policy team and Taiao staff of Tātau Tātau o Te Wairoa, Ngāti Pāhauwera, Hineuru Iwi Trust, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua have met and discussed the best way of working together. Key issues raised were, time constraints, resourcing, upskilling, transparency, and accountability. Counter to these issues was a genuine desire to see the strengthening of partnership, collaboration, the sharing of knowledge, and the building of enduring relationships.

7. As a result, the group proposes that:

7.1. The group continues to meet and is formalised. The group is made up of staff from the HBRC Policy and Planning team and Taiao Staff from each of the PSGEs who hold membership on the RPC and wish to be involved.

7.2. The purpose of this group would be to work together on the development of RMA planning documents including the Kotahi plan ensuring that genuine partnerships and collaboration with mana whenua occurs. The intention is that mana whenua voices, perspectives, and aspirations are integrated into the decision-making processes and project outcomes through co-drafting. Key also to the purpose of this group would be to jointly inform our shared governors on the RPC through decision papers and workshops.

7.3. The group would meet twice monthly. The first meeting would be an informal online hui to discuss what each group is working on, raise issues, and seek and provide support. The second meeting would be an in-person hui hosted at the different members offices to discuss issues and options more fully.

7.4. To support the work undertaken by the group, the HBRC Policy team also welcomes any of the PSGE Taiao staff that would like to spend time working from the HBRC office to support collaboration and the continued development of relationships.

Selection of a concept for the group’s name and identity

8. While developing a shared way of working there evolved a desire to create an identity to explain the group and its purpose. Different ideas were shared and discussed by the PSGE Taiao staff, the HBRC Māori Partnerships team, and the HBRC Policy team. All options drew on the concept of coming together and working towards a shared outcome while still recognising the importance of maintaining the mana motuhake and rangatiratanga of the individual authorities. The following three options were discussed as being possible concepts that would provide the framework for the group’s identity and possible name:

8.1. Whakamata Korowai – First line of weaving

8.2. A beautiful metaphor that emphasises foundational work and the importance of initial steps in a broader context. It suggests care, precision, and interconnectedness. It also speaks to the principles of collaboration, unity, and community, whilst also recognising the importance of the individual threads to the weaving of the whole. This concept also conveys the idea of laying a strong and foundational basis for future growth and development.

8.3. Te Ra Kei o te Waka – Sail of a vessel

8.4. This concept conveys forward movement and progress, symbolising the driving force behind the group’s shared initiatives and goals. It suggests direction, purpose, and a need to work collaboratively. The navigational aspect of this concept recognises the clear communication and trust required amongst crew. This speaks to the theme of collectivity and self-determination. It also acknowledges the needs to adapt to changing conditions.

8.5. Ki te Matau – To the hook

8.6. This phrase is strong dynamic, implying action and purpose. It is a rallying cry, urging people to contribute to the collective action. Just as paddling requires synchronised effort this concept highlights the need for unity and teamwork. Given its relevancy to Hawke’s Bay and the symbolism of Te Matau a Maui it could be very fitting.

9. Both Whakamata Korowai and Te Ra Kei o te Waka have an element of weaving to them which represents the careful and precise intertwining of individual and unique strands symbolising the coming together of people, ideas, and efforts to achieve a common goal. While the synchronised nature of paddling a waka acknowledges individuals input into a collective effort.

10. All of the concepts appealed to the group in different ways, with the symbolism attached to each speaking to the ideas of collaboration, unity, and teamwork. However, the Te Ra Kei o te Waka, and Ki te Matau concepts resonated specifically within the Te Matau a Maui rohe.

11. The intention of selecting a concept around which to centre this work is twofold. Firstly, to provide a name for the group which clearly identifies the group and its purpose and secondly to outline a way of working together. If desired, further conversation or development of these concepts would be welcome at the RPC meeting from the RPC members.

12. It would also be appreciated to have a tohu image gifted from tangata whenua to help with communication from the group and provide clarity, conveying a deeper meaning in the name that is not captured by the name kupu. It would also act as an immediate visual cue for the group.

Proposed timeline

13. The image below outlines the associated proposed timeline for the work involved in the development and notification of both the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Resource Management Plan. These are indicative times and are subject to changes to the RMA and related legislation by central government.

Decision-making considerations

14. 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:

14.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

14.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

14.4. There are no persons directly affected by this decision.

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the Kotahi update staff report.

2. Approves the proposed way of working together between Post Settlement Governance Entities’ Taiao staff and HBRC Policy Staff.

3. Approves the proposed timeline (Fig. 1).

4. Selects one of the following concepts or a suitable alternative put forward by the committee, to use for naming the practitioners group and to develop a set of working principles.

4.1. Whakamata Korowai – First line of weaving

4.2. Te Ra Kei o te Waka – Sail of a vessel

4.3. Ki te Matau – To the hook

4.4. _____________________

Authored by:

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: Regional Policy Statement issues and options development

Reason for report

1. This report requests a decision and direction from the RPC members as to how they would like to be engaged in the next part of the Kotahi Plan development.

Executive summary

2. The next stage of phase one for Kotahi Plan development is the testing of options to address regionally significant issues. This involves reviewing the issues that were previously identified by the RPC and testing different options for how to deal with them. This is an important stage as it provides direction for policy development for the Regional Policy Statement (RPS).

Background

3. In order to do this work, the Policy and Planning team will engage with the RPC to understand the direction that they wish to take to inform policy. In the past this work has been done through staff led workshops.

4. It is anticipated that there would need to be sessions held on:

4.1. Air

4.2. Coastal

4.3. Land and Freshwater

4.4. Climate Change

4.5. Indigenous Biodiversity and Ecosystems

4.6. Integrated Management

4.7. Energy, Infrastructure and Transport

4.8. Hazards and Risks

4.9. Tangata Whenua

4.10. Urban Form and Development.

5. To meet timeframes associated with this project, these workshops would need to be undertaken by March 2025. It is important to note that this will not be the only time to provide feedback on policy. The worked-up draft policy will be brought back to RPC mid-2025.

6. There is also an opportunity to include the taiao staff from the relevant PSGEs to participate in these sessions to input and support discussions.

Discussion

7. Staff are keen to understand how RPC members would like this process to be undertaken. Feedback on the following is sought:

7.1. How would the sessions best be run i.e. workshop style, topics to be discussed one by one, or combined?

7.2. How much time would you like to allocate to this work, and is there any priority for the topics listed above?

7.3. How and when would you like the supporting information presented to the committee, i.e. would having a copy of the presentation prior to the workshop be helpful? Are slides enough or would a more thorough briefing paper be preferred?

7.4. Are there any other resources that would help support this work?

Next steps

8. It is proposed that following discussion of the above points, staff will develop a programme of work for RPC engagement on issues and options for approval at the next RPC meeting in December.

Decision-making considerations

9. 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:

9.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

9.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

9.4. There are no persons directly affected by this decision.

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

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives and notes the Regional Policy Statement issues and options development staff report.

2. Requests that staff develop a programme of work to engage with the Committee members on issues and options for the development of the Kotahi Plan through:

2.1. A series of workshops

2.2. __________________

and

2.3. Discussing each of the ten topics in no particular order

2.4. Discussing each of the ten topics in the following priority order:

2.4.1. Air

2.4.2. Coastal

2.4.3. Land and Freshwater

2.4.4. Climate Change

2.4.5. Indigenous Biodiversity and Ecosystems

2.4.6. Integrated Management

2.4.7. Energy, Infrastructure and Transport

2.4.8. Hazards and Risks

2.4.9. Tangata Whenua

2.4.10. Urban Form and Development.

Authored by:

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: TANK update

Reason for report

1. This paper provides an update to the RPC on Plan Change 9 (PPC9) – TANK, as requested by members.

Executive summary

2. The Tūtaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū (TANK) Plan Change is currently under appeal, with mediation directed by the Environment Court in the first instance to try resolve and reduce the overall number of appeals.

3. Mediation is anticipated to conclude in February 2024, with an Environment Court hearing to follow accordingly (no dates set).

Background

4. PPC9 proposes amendments to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) to manage water quality and quantity for the Tūtaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū (TANK) catchments.

5. It was notified on 2 May 2020 and received over 6,000 submission points from 240 parties. These submission points were heard by an Independent Hearing Panel and a decision was issued 9 September 2022. Following this there were appeals on the decision from 16 parties and the Environment Court directed that these appeals be discussed in mediation to try and resolve any issues where possible.

6. A critical provision of PPC9, is the allocation methodology termed ‘actual and reasonable use’ which sets out an approach to review how much water each applicant can be allocated and seeks to ‘claw back’ water that has previously been allocated to consent holders, but unused.

7. The RRMP rules remain operative, but the PPC9 rules have legal effect and must also be applied in decision making. PPC9 objectives and policies are also relevant.

8. Since notification over 800 replacement resource consent applications have been made in the TANK catchments with another 200 applications expected soon. The processing of these consents was paused at the request of consent applicants.

Discussion

9. Mediation began in December 2023 and 25 were set down through to December 2024. All mediation undertaken is on a confidential and without prejudice basis, with any mediated agreements reported back to the court.

10. During this time Council officers began considering the replacement resource consent applications and informed applicants of their estimated ‘actual and reasonable use’ amounts. Applicants were informed that, if they disagreed with the ‘actual and reasonable use’ amount they would need to provide supporting information as to why they were requesting more water by Sep 2024.

11. The topic of actual and reasonable was mediated earlier this year with no agreement reached, however there was a broad desire to explore additional mediation dates on this topic. The Court has now granted three additional days for further mediation on actual and reasonable to be heard in December 2024.

12. The deadline for consent holders has now been extended to December 2024.

13. Mediation will now continue into 2025 and is anticipated to conclude in February 2025.

Next steps

14. Staff will continue to update RPC as mediation and subsequent court hearing progress.

Decision-making considerations

15. 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 update staff report.

Authored by:

Sarah Wynands

Intermediate Policy Planner

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: PSGE engagement update

Reason for report

1. This item updates the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) on engagement with Post Settlement Governance Entities (PSGE) on the Kotahi plan.

Executive summary

2. Under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) Council is required to identify long-term visions and values for freshwater in the region. These visions and values for freshwater must be developed through engagement with tangata whenua.

3. As part of this engagement contracts have been signed with PSGEs to articulate their long-term visions and values for freshwater. These expressions will help inform the development of the Land and Freshwater, and Catchment chapters of the Kotahi plan.

4. Contract deliverables with PSGEs are at varying stages due to differences in timeframes and commencement dates. All current contracts are on track to provide expressions of long-term visions and values for freshwater within the desired timeframe.

Background

5. In early 2024, the RPC gave direction to establish contracts with PSGEs that sit on the RPC. These contracts were to provide Council with expressions of Māori freshwater values and aspirations to help inform the development of the Kotahi plan. Written expressions of Māori freshwater values and aspirations will provide a framework for values that need to be restored, protected, or enhanced.

6. The Policy and Planning team alongside Māori Partnerships approached PSGE representatives to establish contracts and offer support for the delivery of freshwater visions and values for their area of interest. Once articulated, long-term visions and values for freshwater would then be integrated into the Kotahi plan using an agreed process worked through collectively with PSGE taiao staff.

7. Currently three PSGEs have signed contracts: Mana Ahuriri Trust, Tātau Tātau o te Wairoa, and Tamatea Pōkai whenua. Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust had previously signed a contract to for the delivery of the Māori led workstream for the Mohaka plan change on behalf of themselves, Hineuru Iwi Trust, and Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The original contract has since been varied to align with the Kotahi plan. Contract negotiations with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust are underway. Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana has been contacted to understand the extent to which they wish to be involved in this process.

8. Regular progress updates have been scheduled throughout the duration of the contracts. These updates include milestone reports that are provided to HBRC’s Policy and Planning staff summarising contract status and work to date.

9. PSGEs are expected to collaborate with hapū, marae, and taiwhenua within their rohe when undertaking this kaupapa.

10. It is intended that values compiled by PSGEs they will inform Freshwater Management Units (FMUs). Any other information on environmental issues identified, other than freshwater, may be used with agreement by both PSGEs and Council to inform the Kotahi plan.

Discussion.

11. PSGE engagement contracts are summarised in the table below:

	PSGE	Comments	Deliverables	Status
1	Mana Ahuriri Trust	Project is close to completion; draft version has been prepared and is awaiting final approval	Final milestone report and completed deliverables to be provided in September	l
2	Tātau Tātau o te Wairoa	Project is overall on track; project team expects to complete the project workplan and deliverables on time and within budget. The main focus recently has been on the planning and delivery of wānanga-ā-kāhui and the collation of information	Next milestone report to be provided in late November	l
3	Tamatea Pōkai Whenua	Project is overall on track; the main focus recently has been wānanga with marae, Taiwhenua, and hapū representatives, and revisiting values	Final milestone report and completed deliverables to be provided in September	l
4	Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust	Contract negotiations are underway
5	Ngāti Pāhauwera Development Trust	Project is overall on track; Iwi and hapū engagement had occurred prior to contract variation. drafting of objectives, Te Mana o te Wai statements, visions and values is underway and ongoing	Next milestone report to be provided in September, and final deliverable in October	l
6	Hineuru Iwi Trust
7	Ngāti Tūwharetoa
8	Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana	Contact has been made to understand the extent to which they wish to be involved in this process

Next steps

12. Council Policy and Planning staff will continue to work collaboratively with PSGE taiao staff to develop a pathway forward. This will ensure once contract deliverables are completed that Māori freshwater values and long-term visions will be integrated into the Kotahi plan using a robust process that upholds the mana of PSGE expressions.

13. Where contracts are currently not in place, Council staff will continue to progress those discussions.

Decision-making considerations

14. 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 PSGE engagement update staff report.

Authored by:

Saul Gudsell

Policy Planner

Bianca Burns

Policy Planner

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: Hawke's Bay Independent Flood Review policy recommendations

Reason for report

1. This report is to update the RPC members on the recommendations from the HBRC Independent Flood Review in relation to relevant regional planning documents and associated implications.

Executive summary

2. Staff have undertaken an initial analysis of the recommendations from the independent reviews arising from Cyclone Gabrielle to understand what actions are required. The independent reviews currently include:

2.1 HB Independent Flood Review (HBIFR)

2.2 Government Inquiry into the Response to the North Island Severe Weather Events, and

2.3 HBCDEM Response to Cyclone Gabrielle.

3. There are five recommendations directly related to the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Resource Management Plan.

Background/ Discussion

4. The HBIFR was commissioned by HBRC to investigate the circumstances and contributing factors that led to the flooding in the Hawke’s Bay region during Cyclone Gabrielle. The report was received by the Regional Council on 31 July 2024. It is a comprehensive 249-page document, with 47 recommendations split into 7 focus areas.

5. One such focus area is dedicated to recommendations regarding planning controls, five of which are directly related to the Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Resource Management Plan. These are:

5.1. FRHBRC-22. HBRC should urgently review the Regional Policy Statement so that it includes clear and directive objectives and policies regarding land use management in flood hazard areas.

5.2. FRHBRC-24. HBRC should ensure that Regional Policy Statement Provisions:

5.2.1. Identify and map areas subject to flood hazard risks, including scenarios that exceed the levels of service provided by flood management assets

5.2.2. Direct how the effects of climate change are to be taken into consideration when identifying flood hazard areas and assessing subdivision and land use applications

5.2.3. Define unacceptable flood hazard risk

5.2.4. Direct that district plans avoid unacceptable flood hazard risks, including, for example through the use of prohibited activity rules

5.2.5. Define when mitigation measures to manage flood hazard risks are appropriate and the types of mitigation that are appropriate

5.2.6. Identify areas of high flood hazard risk where managed retreat is required.

5.3. FRHBRC-25. The review of the Regional Policy Statement should ensure that new and intensified residential development and subdivision is prohibited in areas subject to unacceptable flood hazard.

5.4. FRHBRC-26. The review of the Regional Policy Statement should ensure that direction is provided for the identification and management of residual flood risks resulting from ponding, stopbank breaches and overflow. The Panel recommends that the approach to residual risk adopted by Kāpiti Coast District Council is taken as best practice.

5.5. FRHBRC-27. HBRC should urgently review the provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan to ensure that the design of new structures, particularly bridges, minimises to the extent practicable the extent to which they constrict flood flows and act as debris barriers during floods. An example would be to explore options not involving/minimizing the use of piles and raising bridge deck levels well above extreme flood levels.

Discussion

6. Work had begun prior to Cyclone Gabrielle to review and update the Regional Policy Statement and the Regional Resource Management Plan.

7. A draft of the updated Regional Policy Statement is anticipated to be brought to Council in early-2025, with issues and options being discussed prior to this date.

8. The below table discusses each of the recommendations as outlined above.

	Recommendation	Discussion	Status
1	FRHBRC-22 RPS Review	Review and rewrite of the Regional Policy Statement is currently underway and will include objectives and policies regarding land use management in flood hazard areas.	Underway
2	FRHBRC-24 RPS Provision Inclusions	Acknowledge the provisions suggested for inclusion. These will need to be worked through in the	Included through Kotahi
3	FRHBRC-25 Prohibited Subdivision	This recommendation is accepted, noting that work will have to be done first to define the term ‘unacceptable flood hazard’ and then further work to identify where this risk exists.	Included through Kotahi
4	FRHBRC-25 Residual Flood Risk	Initial thinking around residual risk has begun through as part of the Natural Hazards and Risks topic in Kotahi.	Undertake review of Kāpiti Coast District Council’s approach as best practice.
5	FRHBRC-27 Minimizing debris barriers	This recommendation is accepted and will be incorporated into Kotahi, acknowledging the constraint that this will only apply to new structures.	Underway

Decision-making considerations

9. 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 Hawke's Bay Independent Flood Review policy recommendations staff report.

Authored by:

Louise McPhail

Manager Regulatory Implementation

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: September 2024 Policy Projects update

Reason for report

1. This report provides an outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently under way.

Resource management policy project update

2. The projects covered in this report are those involving reviews and/or changes under the Resource Management Act to one or more of the following planning documents:

2.1. the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP)

2.2. the Hawke's Bay Regional Policy Statement (RPS) which is incorporated into the RRMP

2.3. the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

3. From time to time, separate reports additional to this one may be presented to the Committee for fuller updates on specific plan change projects.

4. Similar periodical reporting is also presented to the Council as part of the quarterly reporting and end of year Annual Plan reporting requirements.

Decision-making considerations

5. 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 September 2024 Policy Projects update.

Authored by:

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩

August 2024 RMA policy projects update

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Regional Planning Committee

18 September 2024

Subject: September 2024 Statutory Advocacy and Resource Management reform update

Reason for report

1. This item updates the status of reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project. This edition features a new-look style and feedback on this new style is invited.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project centres on local resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. reviews and changes to district plans overseen by a territorial authority

2.3. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. From time to time, the Statutory Advocacy project also coordinates the Regional Council’s feedback on resource management-related proposals from central government agencies such as Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Primary Industries and Parliamentary Committees etc.

4. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent.

5. Copies of formal submissions made by the Regional Council on resource management-related proposals can be viewed online at www.hbrc.govt.nz (keyword #hbrcsubmissions).

Decision-making considerations

6. 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 September 2024 Statutory Advocacy and Resource Management reform update.

Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Principal Advisor Strategic Planning

Nichola Nicholson

Acting Manager Policy & Planning

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1 ⇩