Agenda of Environmental Management Committee

Action Items from Environmental Management Committee

Attachment 1

Actions from Environmental Management Meetings

The following is a list of items raised at Environmental Committee meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment for each action. Once the items have been completed and reported back to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

12 October 2011

Agenda Item		Action	Person Responsible		Due Date	Status Comment
8	Update On Taharua Strategy Feedback And Project Review at February 2012 meeting		CR/HC	Feb		An agenda item at this meeting
11	Workshop to be planned for discussions around Plan Change Process For Heretaunga Zone - Integrated Catchment Management		HC	Feb		Preliminary meeting held with a range of crown research institute staff involved in a national Values, Monitoring and Outcomes project. Potential for Heretaunga Zone to be used as a case study for elements of that project.
14	General Business – Waikoau Stream Update		C Leckie	Feb		The Waihapua property was purchased to demonstrate some sustainable land management practises particularly the integration of forestry and sale of carbon. There is no specific riparian plan as such. However the value of native riparian planting, biodiversity amenity has been discussed by the project team

10 August 2011

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

Draft Wastewater Plan Change

This item was left to lie on the table. Councillors wanted more detailed information about what the options and the costs of those options might be before giving any indication of the direction they want staff to pursue.

No further work has taken place with respect to the draft change for strategic management of onsite wastewater. Will review policy team workloads following notification of RPS Growth and Infrastructure plan change and receipt of submissions. Report of April EMC

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2012

SUBJECT: Recovery of Appeal Costs

Reason for Report

1. In recent years a number of resource consents granted by this Council have been appealed to the Environment Court. There are costs associated with dealing with appeals and to date, the Regional Council has borne the full cost of all appeals it has been involved in.

Background

2. In the 2010/2011 financial year the cost to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council of dealing with appeals was $147,510 (excl GST). In the 2011/2012 year to 30 November 2011, costs of $63,853 (excl GST) have been accrued as a result of the Regional Council’s involvement with Environment Court appeals. Since that time one other appeal has been lodged against a decision issued by the Regional Council.

3. To further illustrate the cost to the Regional Council of involvement with appeals I have examined the costs associated with the AFFCO appeal. This appeal was lodged by AFFCO against the conditions of their consent. In the 2010-2011 financial year the costs accrued by the Regional Council as a result of this appeal were $81,321 (excl GTS). Costs of $20,918 (excl GST) have been incurred in the current financial year (to 30/11/11) and will increase further, even if the appeal can be settled by mediation. If the appeal cannot be settled via meditation, and a hearing is necessary, at which technical experts and legal representation were required, the appeal could realistically cost the Regional Council up to $100,000 in the 2011/12 financial year alone.

4. The costs incurred by the Regional Council in Environment Court appeals are significant, and at present are not budgeted for by the Council.

Options Available

5. The Council needs to make a decision about how they manage the costs associated with appeals going forward. There are several options available, which are to continue with the status quo, seek costs, budget for appeal costs or to seek reform to the processes of the Environment Court. More than one of these options could be selected by Council.

Status Quo

6. The Regional Council can continue to manage the appeals as it has done to date, which is to consider them as unbudgeted expenditure.

7. The disadvantage of this option is that the Regional Council will almost certainly deal with at least one appeal on a decision each financial year. Involvement with appeals does cost money, even if this cost is restricted to legal fees and HBRC staff time (ie. no technical expertise is required). It would therefore seem prudent to provide some budget to cover the expenses associated with appeals.

Seek costs

8. Another option available to the Regional Council is to seek costs. This is done by lodging a claim with the Environment Court within 10 working days of a Court decision being issued.

9. Section 285 of the Resource Management Act states “that the Environment Court may order any party to proceedings before it to pay to any other party the costs and expenses incurred by the other party that the Court considers reasonable.” A party must apply for costs. The Environment Court then has the discretion to determine whether it is reasonable to impose costs, and to determine the appropriate amount.

10. The Environment Court can award costs on two bases, being full costs, or reasonable costs. ‘Full costs’ is when the Environment Court orders one party to pay the full costs of one party incurred in a hearing. This is unusual, but may happen if a party fails to comply with a Court Order, acts in contempt of the Court, fails to give adequate notice of abandonment of proceedings or there are other such exceptional circumstances.

11. A reward of ‘reasonable costs’ is more common. The amount of money required to be paid is based on the Environment Court’s assessment of what is reasonable, based on the circumstances of the case. ‘Reasonable costs’ never provide full cost recovery. Case law indicates that between 25-33 percent of costs are normally within the “comfort zone” of the Environment Court, Emerald Residential Ltd v North Shore CC A05/104.

12. Advice from Council’s counsel supports this case law, indicating that any costs award is only likely to cover approximately a third to a half of Council’s actual costs. Further to this, costs are only likely to be awarded in the event that a Court hearing was required, or that the Regional Council had taken significant steps towards a hearing, such as preparing evidence, and the hearing was abandoned at the last minute. This means that the Environment Court is unlikely to award costs for any appeals settled at mediation. In the last five years, while multiple decisions of the Regional Council have been appealed, all of these appeals have been successfully mediated. Based on the extensive case law related to this issue, and information about costs in the 2011 Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note, it is unlikely that even if the Council has sought costs, that any would have been awarded in these instances.

13. One of the disadvantages of seeking costs is that additional legal fees would be incurred as a result of going through this process.

14. If a decision is made by Council that seeking costs is the best approach to managing the costs associated with appeals, Staff seek direction about how this is to be done. Should an application for costs be routinely lodged with the Environment Court within 10 working days of a decision being issued, or do Council want to maintain control over the parties against whom costs are sought. If this is the case, then a paper to Council would be required seeking authority from the Council to lodge a costs application. This would allow the Council to make a decision about each appeal, based on the likely success of any application for costs given the circumstances of a particular appeal.

15. Another approach Council may wish to consider is establishing a threshold at which an application for costs is lodged. For example, Council could decide that if appeal costs accrued by the Regional Council exceed $100,000 then an application for costs should be lodged.

Budget for appeal costs

16. The other option for the management of appeal costs is to budget for these each year. Unfortunately the Regional Council cannot control whether its decisions are appealed. While working closely with applicants, and aiming to ensure that all resource consent processes are robust and transparent should help reduce the likelihood of a decision being appealed, it does not remove any party’s ability to lodge an appeal.

17. Based on costs incurred to date this financial year, and the cost of appeals in previous financial years, a budget of at least $80,000 (excl GST), and up to $160,000 seems to be a realistic figure. Staff have included a provision in the 2012/13 proposed budget for consideration by Council in setting of the budget.

Environment Court reform

18. One additional avenue that this Council may wish to pursue is to advocate to Central Government the need for reform of the Environment Court. One way to achieve change would be to amend the Resource Management Act. Two particular areas that could be amended are sections 120 and 281 of the RMA. Section 120 outlines who can appeal a decision by a consent authority to the Environment Court. Section 281 is titled ‘Waivers and directions’ and sets out the circumstances in which a waiver can be applied for.

19. Potentially those who can appeal a decision could be restricted through amendments to section 120. The Court seems to be relatively accommodating in granting waivers for lodgement of appeals out of time, and also granting waivers for the payment of fees. This could potentially be reviewed also.

20. While the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 2009 sought to remove frivolous, vexatious and anti-competitive objections from the resource consent and private plan change process, the amendments really only dealt with trade competition. The experience of this Council are that the increase in filing fee and re-introduction to the RMA of the ability to seek security of costs, have not acted as a deterrent to objectors whose appeals are based on what appear to be both frivolous and vexatious grounds.

21. While it is acknowledged that we live in a democratic society, and people have a right to be involved in processes that potentially affect the environment and communities in which they live, however this should not be an unfettered ability to frustrate resource consent or plan development processes. One possible means of improving the quality of appeals that is accepted by the Environment Court is to have all appeals initially reviewed by an Independent Commissioner. The commissioner, based on the consent of the appeal and a brief review of the consents authority’s decision and other relevant documentation, makes a recommendation to the presiding Environment Court judge about whether or not the appeal has any merit, and should be accepted. The judge would then make a decision about whether or not to accept the appeal. The party that has appealed would need to have a means of challenging a decision to reject an appeal. This would need to be considered by another independent commissioner. If this attempt to have their appeal accepted is unsuccessful then that party should be liable for the costs of all parties involved in the process, including the Court.

22. This suggestion is a very broad proposal but has been provided to demonstrate a potential means of limiting the number of appeals that are accepted by the Environment Court. Appeals of limited merit simply result in delays for applicants and incur costs for ratepayers without any positive effect on the environment.

Staff recommendation

23. Staff seek direction from the Committee about how they wish the issue of costs incurred as a result of appeals to be dealt with. Staff recommend the following.

23.1. Council provides an annual budget for the costs associated with appeals

23.2. Council lobbies central government seeking changes to the way the Environment Court operates that will improve the quality and merit of appeals that it accepts

23.3. Council maintains the delegation to make a decision about seeking costs. Council prepares written guidance which outlines circumstances in which they will consider a costs application.

Decision Making Process

24. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

24.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers in the region who ultimately bear the cost of any decisions issued by the Regional Council that are appealed.

24.5. Options that have been considered include maintaining the status quo (not budgeting for the costs associated with appeals), seeking costs through the Environment Court, budgeting for appeal costs or to seek reform to the processes of the Environment Court. .

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

24.7. 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

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 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 due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Gives consideration in the Long Term Plan (LTP) process for the need to provide for costs associated with appeals in the 2012-2013 budget, and in all budgets thereafter.

3. Notes the Staff recommendation to lobby Central Government for reform of the legislation that governs the operation of the Environment Court.

4. Instructs staff to prepare a draft guidance process on the circumstances the Environment and Services Committee will consider when lodging a cost application with the Environment Court for their approval,

5. Instructs staff to bring a paper to the Environment and Services Committee seeking direction about whether to lodge an application for costs when the criteria established by the Council is met.

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2012

SUBJECT: Update Report on Progress of the Tukituki Plan Change

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on progress on policy development for the Tukituki River Catchment and to outline the proposed community engagement and the proposed approach for keeping the Committee and Council informed as it evolves.

Policy Development to Date

2. Information is being collated to inform our understanding of the catchment values. At this stage, the following values are considered to apply across the whole catchment – Life-supporting capacity, Mauri, Contact Recreation (Health), Water Use and Fish Passage. Values which may vary across the catchment include – contact recreation (amenity), natural state, native fish habitat, trout spawning habitat, trout habitat, wetlands, riverine bird habitat and inanga spawning.

3. Some values will directly influence the water allocation framework (fish habitat, water use) while many will influence the water quality framework (e.g. life-supporting capacity, fish habitats, contact recreation, health and amenity, water use and mauri).

4. Others may not directly influence the development of these frameworks but are important from a resource management perspective and would be supported by policy provisions (wetlands, riverine bird habitat, inanga spawning).

5. Some values are obviously competing and the challenge is to develop a fair framework based on the freshwater management objectives.

6. A Cultural Values and Uses Report is being prepared jointly by Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea and Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga and this is expected to be available by mid March.

7. The key focus to date has been on the Water Quantity Framework. Following on from the various science reports that the Committee has received over the past two years on the Tukituki River Catchment, information from these reports are being used to develop various water allocation and minimum flow scenarios and to assess the impacts of the scenarios on the flow regime, habitats and water security.

8. This has involved significant work on the river flow series at the three main flow gauging sites to ensure that the data used to base hydrological statistics is robust, and further work to ensure that the assessment of the different water allocation scenarios on water security (such as number of days on full restriction) is meaningful.

9. In terms of the water quality framework, this is driven in the first instance by the predominant value, which then drives the freshwater objective for the catchment or sub-catchment. This is then translated into either narrative and/or numerical water quality limits. Work is just starting on the water quality framework.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

10. For the Tukituki catchment, community engagement on water management issues has taken a number of forms over the last few years including:

10.1. the Tukituki Liaison Group

10.2. through the consent processes

10.3. the stakeholder and landowner engagement with the pre-feasibility studies for the Ruataniwha Storage study

10.4. the two Water Symposiums

10.5. the External Reference Group involved in the development of Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy.

11. These processes have canvassed the range of interventions, recognising that setting a statutory water allocation framework for water quantity and quality is just part of the solution.

12. The proposed stakeholder engagement leading up to the notification of the plan change is set out in Attachment 1. Key stakeholder groups include the Tukituki Stakeholder Group, which builds on the existing Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, and a regional/national multi-stakeholder group comprising the key industry and statutory groups that Council is required to consult with under the First Schedule. It is also proposed to meet with the Ruataniwha Water User Group.

13. Written material is also proposed as outlined in Attachment 1, making use of the community papers, including HB Today and a direct consent holder newsletter that will be emailed.

Process of Committee and Council Involvement

14. Traditionally, the policy development process has involved Council adopting a draft plan change for informal consultation with stakeholders, usually following a largely in-house development process.

15. Given the amount of engagement undertaken to date, the proposed engagement schedule, and the timeframe for notifying the plan, it is not proposed to circulate a draft plan change for informal comment. A process therefore needs to be developed to enable Council and the appropriate Committee to be fully briefed on the plan change, to provide feedback on possible policy provisions through the process and to be able to make a fully informed decision in July with respect to notifying the plan change.

16. It is also important that the Council or Committee does not endorse a particular approach too early, when it still needs to be open to changes through the stakeholder engagement process.

17. It is therefore proposed that, in alignment with the stakeholder engagement, staff will report the proposals that have been presented to the stakeholder groups to the Regional Planning Committee and Maori Committee, along with any comments those groups may have made. The recommendation would be to receive the report and to provide any comments on the proposals. All these comments will then be considered by staff as policy is further developed.

18. It is also proposed that prior to the scheduled Regional Planning Committee on 9 May 2012, a one or two day workshop is held for the Regional Planning Committee. The objectives of the workshop will be to ensure Committee members have an adequate understanding of the technical aspects of water management from water quantity and water quality perspectives, to present the new policy provisions for the Tukituki River Catchment with respect to water allocation and water quality limits, and particularly having regard to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and to provide an opportunity for open discussion and debate amongst the Committee members.

19. At the meeting on 9 May 2012, these proposed provisions and the Committee’s consideration of them can be in an open forum.

Risks

20. A number of risks have been identified which may impact on the target timeframe. These include:

20.1. Stakeholders not feeling adequately consulted or having adequate time to consider the ramifications of the proposed policies.

20.2. Regional Planning Committee not feeling as adequately informed on the issues as they would like to be in order to provide feedback on the proposals and make a recommendation the proposed plan change to the Council for adoption.

20.3. Planning and consent staff not having adequate time to fully consider the ramifications of the proposed policies, and particularly any unintended consequences.

21. The implications of publicly notifying the plan change later include:

21.1. Less time to progress the formal process prior to processing the next round of water take applications. However both the operative and the proposed plans will need to be considered in any case, along with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management; it is a question of how much weight could be given to the proposed policy provisions. The plan change will most likely contain transitional provisions so that new rules are phased in over time.

21.2. Less certainty for the Ruataniwha Storage Project in terms of the water quantity but perhaps more so in terms of water quality limits for the catchment given the degree of complexity associated with managing water quality. The water quantity framework will be more advanced and it is likely that the planning project team will be able to indicate sub-catchment minimum flow and allocation limits. For the water quality framework which might require more of an iterative process to finalise, the planning project team would be able to provide indicative limits against which to assess the impacts of the storage proposal.

Financial and Resource Implications

22. This project is one of a number of projects in Project 192 Strategy and Planning. Actual costs are currently tracking behind budgets but there are considerable forward commitments of this budget to the extent that it is likely to be fully committed and possibly overcommitted. For example, the back editing of river flow data for the main gauging sites will be funded from this project. The agenda item for the Taharua / Mohaka Catchment is relevant to this discussion.

23. All external budgets across the resource management planning projects are considered when managing budgets and prior to any reforecasting requests that might be required.

24. Any additional funding requirements will be contained in the reforecasting process scheduled for the March Council meeting.

Decision Making Process

25. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

25.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not applicable as consultation and public participation is prescribed in the Resource Management Act for the resource management policy development.

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

25.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the management of natural resources in the Tukituki River Catchment.

25.5. Options that have been considered include variations to the extent of the consultation undertaken during the policy development process. Doing less is not considered a best practice option under the Resource Management Act; doing more is not considered necessary given the extent of community engagement undertaken to date and it might impact on Council’s ability to notify the plan change by July 2012.

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

25.7. 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

The Committee recommends that Council:

2. Endorses the proposed community engagement and consultation schedule as contained in Attachment 1.

3. Endorses the proposed schedule for reporting to the Regional Planning Committee and Council as contained in Attachment 1.

4. Notes that any additional costs for this financial year will be brought back to the Council as part of the reforecasting process scheduled for the March 2012 Council meeting.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Tukituki Policy Development - Reporting and Community Engagement Schedule

Tukituki Policy Development - Reporting and Community Engagement Schedule

Attachment 1

TUKITUKI POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Reporting schedule to Council

Committee/Council	Date	Probable Topics
EMC	8 February 2012	Progress report
MC	28 February 2012	Progress report, values, minimum flows, allocation limits
RPC	8 March 2012	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits
MC	24 April	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits / water quality framework
RPC Workshop	Late April	Technical aspects of water quantity and water quality management
RPC	9 May	Water Quantity and Water Quality framework
RPC	11 July	Recommend Plan Change for Notification
Council	25 July	Adopt Plan Change for Notification

Community Engagement - meetings

Group	Date	Probable Topics
Tukituki Stakeholder Group	10 February 2012	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits
Tukituki Stakeholder Group	End March 2012	Water Quality framework, implications
Tukituki Stakeholder Group	Mid May	Draft policy
Regional/national multi-stakeholder meeting	End February	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits
Regional/national multi-stakeholder meeting	April	Water Quality framework, implications
Ruataniwha Water User Group	Early March	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits
Ruataniwha Water User Group	April	Water Quality framework, implications
Public meeting - Waipawa	June	Overview of framework and policies
Public meeting – Havelock North	June	Overview of framework and policies

Community Engagement – written

Group	Date	Probable Topic
Community papers	22 February 2012	Overview of why the plan change
Community papers	June	Overview of framework and policies – public meeting
Consentholder email	22 February	Overview of why the plan change
Consentholder email	Mid March	Values, minimum flows, allocation limits
Consentholder email	Mid April	Water Quality framework, implications

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 08 February 2012

SUBJECT: Update on Taharua/Mohaka Strategy

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on progress and issues since October 2011 in developing a robust strategy and plan change for Taharua and upper Mohaka catchments. In particular, staff seek endorsement from the Committee of an integrated, whole Mohaka catchment plan change, covering water quality, land and water quantity issues.

2. Staff preference for this extended approach over the current, more limited, plan change approach is explored below.

Preliminary Revised Scope of Project

3. The extensive Mohaka catchment (242,748 hectares) can be divided, for management purposes, into 11 water management zones (WMZs) or sub-catchments. See location map in Attachment 1. In addition the neighbouring Waihua and Waikari catchments should be noted. These are not part of the Mohaka catchment, but are an integral part of Ngati Pahauwera’s rohe.

4. A preliminary assessment (table and summary narratives) of resource management issues and drivers for plan intervention across the WMZs is provided in Attachments 2 and 3.

5. In summary the preliminary assessment shows, in conjunction with public feedback on last year’s Draft Taharua and Upper Mohaka Strategy, that:

5.1. Taharua is the only “hotspot” WMZ requiring a detailed planning framework to ‘clawback’ total nutrient loading to restore ecosystems in the Taharua and upper Mohaka River;

5.2. In all other WMZs, current levels of development/intensification are low, associated water quality is excellent or good (with the exception of the Mohaka mainstem downstream of Taharua) and demand for further intensification is heavily constrained and likely to be low in future;

5.3. Safeguarding the full extent of outstanding characteristics and features of the Mohaka River and tributaries identified within the Mohaka Water Conservation Order (WCO) requires a planning framework that covers all 11 WMZs (see map of WCO coverage in Attachment 4);

5.4. The Mohaka River and its tributaries are all of high ecological, cultural, recreational and scenic significance. There is strong public support for maintaining and, where necessary, enhancing these values. Importantly, it is the quality of the whole river system that is regionally and nationally valued, not just parts. For example, the river is known for its nationally significant multi-day kayak experience; and almost all of the 13+ native fish species and rainbow and brown trout are migratory, their health depending on integrity of the wider Mohaka system;

5.5. Public feedback on the draft strategy has confirmed strong support for an extending the geographic scope of the plan change, supporting, as a minimum, inclusion of the Ripia and, potentially, the Waipunga catchment.

Plan change options

6. There are three main plan change options for the Committee to consider:

6.1. Option 1: Limit plan change scope to the upper Mohaka above Glenfalls monitoring site (State Highway 5).

6.2. Option 2: Extend the plan change to the whole Mohaka catchment;

6.3. Option 3: Extend the plan change to the whole Mohaka catchment, plus the neighbouring Waihua and Waikari catchments.

Option 1

7. In order to manage water quality at Glenfalls, all of the land above that point needs to be included in the water quality policy framework. This is the minimum geographical scope to restore ecosystem health in the upper Mohaka River and cover the outstanding trout fishery in the WCO.

Option 2

8. A whole Mohaka “mountains to sea” approach would have the following merits:

8.1. It would provide the public with confidence that their values associated with this outstanding river system are being managed in an integrated way. It would thereby remove the debate about whether the rest of the catchment should have been included if Council limited itself to Option 1. Mana whenua on the Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG) see “mountains to sea” management as necessary;

8.2. It would safeguard all waters recognised by the Mohaka WCO, not just the upper Mohaka trout fishery;

8.3. It would enable proactive management of potential land use impacts in a high value catchment even though potential intensification is low;

8.4. It would be more consistent with the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy in providing for whole catchment integrated management of land, water quality and water quantity;

8.5. It would meet National Policy for Freshwater Management requirements for the Mohaka catchment;

8.6. It is likely to be more effective and efficient in the longer term than a series of plan changes (uncommitted) to complete Mohaka coverage.

9. It should be noted that there are some knowledge gaps to be considered. However, it is proposed that we rely on broad catchment-level knowledge to set water quality and catchment load parameters for a “status quo” approach that seeks to retain existing values. This approach is considered appropriate due to the low existing level of development in the Mohaka catchment, low potential demand for intensification, and nationally recognised values of the river and many of its tributaries. This approach is likely to be less contentious than the Taharua approach that will require nutrient ‘clawbacks’.

10. Current science gaps include:

10.1. Lack of understanding of the groundwater boundaries in the upper Waipunga and Ripia catchments. This means that nutrient losses from land that contribute to these rivers are difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy. In the upper Waipunga there may be groundwater influence from dairy in neighbouring Bay of Plenty Region. Groundwater investigations could be in the order of $86,000 external costs.

10.2. Auditing of flows to support minimum flow and water quality and catchment load determinations. This could be in the order of $30,000 external costs.

10.3. Concurrent gauging and water quality sampling to provide a minimum of necessary information to support policy development. This is in the order of $30,000 external costs. Advantage needs to be taken of this summer season to gather some of the data.

Option 3

11. The inclusion of the Waihua and Waikari catchments within an extended Mohaka plan change would complete coverage for the Ngati Pahauwera rohe. No discussion has been held with Ngati Pahauwera on this option. Issues require further scoping, but are likely to be soil loss and sediment related issues in the rivers. Strategies for addressing those do not necessarily need to be contained in a regional plan.

12. Addressing the Mohaka catchment first could provide a template for a subsequent plan change, if necessary.

Preferred option

13. Option 2 (a whole Mohaka plan change) is the preferred option for the reasons outlined in paras.8.1-8.6 above.

Possible shape of plan change

14. Staff suggest the following may be an appropriate form for a whole of Mohaka plan change:

14.1. Taharua/upper Mohaka. A detailed framework for the Taharua “hotspot” catchment to address land use issues and restore functioning river ecosystems in the Taharua and upper Mohaka rivers would remain the priority.

14.2. Other catchments. A more basic framework to proactively maintain existing values of the other 10 WMZs by:

14.2.1. Setting specific water quality objectives and, in some WMZs, limits for range of parameters to maintain existing quality. For the Ripia and headwater WMZs above Taharua, data is available to set numerical limits. Elsewhere data deficiencies mean objectives could be set, but not necessarily numerical limits.

14.2.2. Setting nutrient loads from each WMZ to reflect existing levels or a slightly increased level of development if appropriate. The Mohaka model developed by NIWA can be used to establish total load limits for each WMZ;

14.2.3. Encouraging land use within its land use capability.

14.3. Environmental flows. A conservative, “default” approach is suggested, setting environmental flows of, say, 90% to 100% of mean annual low flow for lower Taharua, Glenfalls and Raupunga. Such a default approach can be justified by the quality of the river and minimal demand. Setting environmental flows should be relatively straightforward given current allocation state and low water demand.

Implementation of preferred Option 2

Community engagement and values

15. An effective and efficient engagement strategy for the wider Mohaka community would be an immediate priority to underpin informed plan development. Engaging across a large catchment will require different methods than used in Taharua. However, consideration must also be given to how wider engagement fits with the ongoing work of the TSG.

16. Despite a large number of land interests, initial assessment suggests appropriate engagement is manageable. Firstly, the number of significantly impacted parties is much lower and secondly, the framework should be less contentious (being more proactive maintenance than a ‘clawback’). Landowners/users seeking to intensify should be few in number. Established engagement channels with iwi need developing, along direct involvement of the relatively few marae. Commercial forestry interests need to join the discussion, along with Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Hastings and Wairoa district councils.

17. Community values for the various catchments would need to be better understood. This includes understanding mana whenua values. A suite of regional River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) workshops and reports are due to be completed by March, providing expert panel assessments of how Mohaka rivers and reaches are valued across a range of key parameters (salmonid angling, native fish, natural character, birds, swimming, whitewater kayaking, irrigation, hydro), but direct stakeholder engagement is nevertheless, needed to supplement this.

Timeframes

18. If a Mohaka plan change is endorsed by Council then:

18.1. Staff anticipate a plan change could be ready for Council approval by end 2012 for notification in early 2013; and

18.2. A fuller work programme would be developed and presented to Committee after initial scoping confirms the project scale. Such scoping would involve preliminary discussions with key stakeholders in the mid and lower catchment, particularly forestry representatives.

19. It should be noted that capacity across a number of Council’s teams is likely to be stretched by the running two major catchment plan changes initially in parallel (i.e. the Tukituki and Taharua plan changes). From mid-year, science staff in particular should have more time to focus on the Mohaka issue after the Tukituki plan change is publicly notified.

20. Despite resourcing pressures, it is anticipated that the development of a Mohaka plan change would benefit from the approaches already being applied in Tukituki plan change development. While the Mohaka plan change will be catchment-specific, there will be a process “template” approach that can be adjusted.

Financial

21. Additional funding requirements for this financial year will be contained in the reforecasting process scheduled for the March 2012 Council meeting. The agenda item for the Tukituki catchment is relevant to this discussion.

22. The additional science resourcing being sought through the Long Term Plan process would be critical this project.

Decision Making Process

23. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

23.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources and, in particular, persons with an economic, social, cultural and environmental interest in the future of the Mohaka catchment.

23.5. Options that have been considered include (i) a Taharua-Upper Mohaka plan change focussed on addressing land impacts on water quality in the upper Mohaka; (ii) an integrated plan change for the whole Mohaka catchment; and (iii) an integrated plan change for the whole Mohaka catchment plus the Waihua and Waikari coastal catchments.

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

23.7. 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

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Endorses, the development of Option 2, being an integrated plan change for the Mohaka catchment.

3. Notes that a whole of Mohaka catchment approach will involve timeframes that could see a plan change ready for Council approval by end of 2012 and notification in early 2013.

4. Notes that any additional costs for this financial year will be brought back to Council as part of reforecasting process scheduled for the March 2012 Council meeting.

Chris Reed

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	Mohaka Water Management Zones Map
2 View	Mohaka Water Management Zones
3 View	Mohaka Water Management Zones
4 View	Mohaka Water Management Zones Map

Mohaka Water Management Zones

Attachment 2

Attachment 2: Mohaka Water Management Zones - Summary of Issue and Drivers
Water Management Zones (WMZs)	Water quality and issues	Water use and demand	Land uses	Intensification risks (subjective) · Probability · Potential impact	Property owners (over 4ha) (approx.)
Headwaters (Kaipo and Oamarua)	Excellent. All WCO trout fishery	Both nil.	Indigenous	· Low · High	· 4
Taharua	Degraded (nitrogen). All WCO trout fishery	Limited use (dairy). Limited demand.	Dairy, some forestry, indigenous	· Medium · High	· 13
Upper Mohaka and Otapua	Excellent (tributaries). Degraded (Mohaka d/s Taharua). All WCO trout fishery	No use. Very low demand.	Indigenous, some forestry, very limited pasture	· Low · Medium	· 20
Ripia and Puneketoro	Excellent. All WCO trout fishery	No use. Very low demand.	Indigenous, forestry, limited but significant pasture	· Low · Medium/High	· 19
Waipunga	Excellent. Increasing nitrogen (upper WMZ). Clarity, sediment issues Mohaka mainstem WCO recreation (SH5 to Willowflat)	No use. Very low demand.	Indigenous, forestry, limited but significant pasture	· Low · Medium/High	· 33 (+ various 29ha)
Middle Mohaka	Good (at Glenfalls). All WCO trout fishery (above SH5) Mohaka mainstem WCO recreation (SH5 to Willowflat)	Very limited use. Limited demand.	Pasture, some forestry, limited indigenous	· Low/medium · Medium	· 65 (+ various 9,543ha)
Huatapu	Good. Clarity and sediment issues. Mohaka mainstem WCO recreation to Willowflat	No use. Very low demand.	Indigenous, forestry, very limited pasture	· Low · Medium	· 7 (+ various 9,544ha)
Lower Mohaka	Good. Clarity and sediment issues Mohaka mainstem WCO recreation to Willowflat	Limited use. Limited demand.	Very limited cropping and viticulture, pasture, some forestry	· Low/medium · Medium	· 116 (+ various 1,721ha)
Waihua and Waikari	Issues scoping required with Ngati Pahauwera

Mohaka Water Management Zones

Attachment 3

Attachment 3: Profiles of Mohaka Water Management Zones (WMZs)

Headwater WMZs - Kaipo and Oamarua

Location and overview. These small but important WMZs (11,859ha) cover the Mohaka headwaters above Taharua catchment.

Land use and tenure. The area is almost entirely indigenous forest within Department of Conservation (DOC) ownership with some additional Maori ownership. Only 65ha of low producing grassland exists around the Oamarua confluence with the Mohaka mainstem. There are only a few property owners within these combined WMZs.

Water use and demand. There are no current water consents or likely future demand.

Water quality. Existing water quality upstream of Taharua is excellent and serves as the benchmark for restoration of quality in the upper Mohaka below the Taharua confluence.

Potential for development. The extent of DOC ownership means development potential is very low. However there is sustainable land use potential for conversion to forestry or even some minor pastoral extension.

Issues and drivers for intervention. Despite the low risks, there is opportunity to reinforce the level of protection afforded to these pristine headwater catchments and their highly valued natural character. All surface waters are recognized in the Mohaka Water Conservation Order (WCO) as part of the outstanding trout fishery. Any deterioration is likely to be publicly unacceptable and could also undermine restoration of the upper Mohaka River below Taharua.

Taharua WMZ

Location and overview. This small WMZ (13,431ha) lies on the Taupo volcanic plateau. Its pumice flats have seen significant intensification over recent decades.

Land use and tenure. Taharua includes three intensive dairy farms (35% of the catchment), an extensive hunting and fishing station (including large tracts of forestry), and substantial DOC land east of Taharua River. There are also some private forestry interests.

Water use and demand. Existing water take consents provide for dairy shed operations. Maximum allowable total take over a seven day period is 3,529m³. Future water demand is likely to decline if dairy is restricted by the plan, but could increase if not.

Water quality. Addressing recent water quality decline in the Taharua and upper Mohaka downstream of the confluence, due to excessive nutrient loss from Taharua land uses, is the priority issue of concern. This matter is well-documented.

Potential for development. Left unchecked, further intensification of dairy activity is possible and the new overseas owners of Taharua Farm may be looking to increase productivity. The hunting and fishing station are considering returning large areas of unsuccessful eucalypt forest to pasture (some removal has already occurred).

Issues and drivers for intervention. Taharua catchment intervention to restore healthy ecosystems in the Taharua and upper Mohaka Rivers is the primary focus of a Mohaka plan change. At present the outstanding trout fishery of the WCO is compromised, along with important recreational and cultural values and with economic impacts on river related businesses (to be assessed)

Upper Mohaka and Otapua WMZs

Location and overview. The large Upper Mohaka WMZ (34,636ha) supplies surface waters to the Mohaka mainstem from the most lands on the southern side between the Taharua and Ripia confluences. The small Otapua WMZ (3,377ha) is situated immediately downstream of Taharua on the northern side of the Mohaka mainstem.

Land use and tenure. Indigenous forestry and manuka and kanuka are the predominant land covers (approximately 90%) with over half of the Upper Mohaka WMZ in DOC ownership. In addition to some commercial forestry, there is a significant pocket of pastoral farming (around 2,500ha of high producing grassland) in the Makahu River area, upstream of the Mohaka-Ripia confluence. Maori interests, including East Taupo Lands Trust, hold significant land interests in these WMZs. In total there are around 20 owners of properties over 4ha.

Water use and demand. There are no current water take consents. Demand is likely to be extremely low.

Water quality. Water quality in these WCO recognized tributaries is excellent, but the upper Mohaka mainstem below Taharua is currently in a degraded state due to land use impacts from that WMZ (see Taharua above).

Potential for development. Intensification risks are low due to physical limitations of the catchments. However, there may be limited risk of conversion from indigenous vegetation to forestry or some forestry to pasture.

Issues and drivers for intervention. Despite the low risks of intensification, these are key WMZs in which to maintain excellent water quality and high natural character. All tributaries are recognized by the WCO (outstanding trout fishery) in their own right. In addition, any increase in nutrient loads to the Mohaka would undermine restoration of the upper Mohaka River below Taharua and meeting of proposed water quality targets at Glenfalls monitoring site (SH5).

Ripia and Puneketoro WMZs

Location and overview. The lengthy Ripia WMZ (18642ha) and Puneketoro WMZ (9363ha) lie downstream of Taharua and Otapua, joining the Mohaka mainstem above SH5. Like Taharua, the top end of the Ripia includes free-draining pumice flats of the Taupo volcanic plateau.

Land use and tenure. The majority of these WMZs remains in indigenous forest or manuka and kanuka. Commercial forestry is a significant land use, along with significant, but constrained, areas of high producing grassland. DOC land ownership is limited, particularly in the Ripia WMZ. Maori ownership is significant, including forestry interests. In total there are around 19 owners of properties over 4ha. Lochinver Station is the major pastoral farming landholder in the upper Ripia (dairy livestock, no milking). Other more limited areas of pastoral farming are confined to the southern ends of the zones near their Mohaka confluences.

Water use and demand. There are no existing consents to take water and low future demand.

Water quality. Existing water quality of these tributaries is excellent.

Potential for development. Topography and other physical characteristics restrict potential for conversion of additional land to pasture. Intensification risks are primarily from potential conversion of existing high producing pasture to dairy at Lochinver Station. Worst-case modeled dairy scenarios for the Ripia suggest nitrogen loading to the Mohaka could theoretically rise from a current 80 tonnes/year to 260 tonnes/year (c.f. Taharua 358t/yr in 2009). Total catchment phosphorus loss could theoretically rise from current 2.7t/yr to 14t/yr (c.f. Taharua 26.4t/yr in 2009).

Issues and drivers for intervention. With moderate risks of intensification in the upper Ripia, it is important to protect existing excellent water quality. All tributaries are recognized by the WCO (outstanding trout fishery) in their own right. In addition, any increase in nutrient loads to the Mohaka would undermine restoration of the upper Mohaka River below Taharua and meeting of proposed water quality targets at Glenfalls monitoring site (SH5).

Middle Mohaka WMZ

Location and overview. The extensive Middle Mohaka WMZ (36,273ha) includes the majority of the Mohaka River corridor from the Ripia confluence to the Te Hoe confluence. It contributes some flows to the upper Mohaka above SH5 (all waters above SH5 recognized as part of the WCO outstanding trout fishery). It also contributes waters to a substantial reach of the Mohaka mainstem recognized by the WCO or its outstanding recreational value.

Land use and tenure. Pastoral farming (approximately 30%, 9,000ha) is the predominant land use, followed by commercial forestry. Indigenous vegetation is more limited, as is land in DOC ownership. There are 65+ owners of property over 4ha.

Water use and demand. There is only one current water take in this WMZ. Future irrigation demand in the Mohaka catchment as a whole is assessed as low. Only 11,592 hectares are potentially irrigable (less than 5% of Mohaka) for intensifying land use compared with 226,860 hectares in the Tukituki catchment.

Water quality. Water quality at the Mohaka Glenfalls monitoring site (SH5) is deemed good. The proposed nitrogen target for Glenfalls in the Draft Taharua and Upper Mohaka Strategy aims to further reduce levels to 1990s levels. The WMZ is a contributor to low water clarity and high sediment recorded at downstream lower Mohaka monitoring sites as Willowflat and Raupunga.

Potential for development. There is low potential for substantial increases in intensive land uses. However, there may be potential of future conversion of native vegetation and forestry land to pasture.

Issues and drivers for intervention. Any increase in nutrient loads to the Mohaka above SH5 from the upper end of this WMZ would undermine restoration of the upper Mohaka River and meeting of proposed water quality targets at Glenfalls monitoring site (SH5). Below SH5 it is important to at least maintain current water quality and natural character of the middle Mohaka. This catchment has more extensive areas than others and of pastoral farming, few protected areas and could face limited intensification demand on more versatile land on river terraces.

Waipunga WMZ

Location and overview. The largest WMZ (46,467ha), the Waipunga joins the Mohaka below SH5. Of high natural value in its own right, it contributes flows to the mid-Mohaka, recognized by the WCO as having outstanding value for water-based recreation.

Land use and tenure. While the predominant land use is indigenous, there are substantial areas of pine forest at the northern and southern ends of the catchment. Existing pastoral farming is limited to pockets in the north west and south (around 6% of WMZ). Dairy farming occurs on the adjacent Rangitaiki Plains in Bay of Plenty Region (groundwater influence not confirmed). DOC, Maori interests and forestry companies are substantial landholders, along with pastoral farmers. There are 33+ owners of properties over 4ha.

Water use and demand. There are no existing water takes consented in this WMZ. Future demand is deemed low.

Water quality. Turbidity is naturally high given the steep topography of the catchment and erodible soils. This is likely to be exacerbated by land use impacts, particularly during forestry harvesting. The Waipunga contributes to the current zero compliance with the 5m clarity for trout foraging on the Mohaka at Willowflat (SOE report 2009) and 48.0% compliance with suspended solids. To an extent, such issues are a natural part of the change in character in the mid-lower Mohaka. Monitoring in upper Waipunga WMZ (Waiarua Stream at SH5) shows an increasing nitrate trend in recent years, but concentrations are currently a fifth of those in Taharua and around half the most stringent nitrate toxicity guideline applicable to pristine environments with high biodiversity and conservation values (i.e. 99% species protection). Causal links to dairying in neighbouring Bay of Plenty region have not been investigated.

Potential for development. While the potential for development appears limited, a risk assessment needs to be undertaken of potential for conversion to pasture or even dairy, particularly in relation to flatter, privately owner land in the north west of the zone. Extensive forestry operations are likely to remain as existing, or even grow, under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), but areas of native vegetation may be vulnerable to removal. The extent of the upper Waipunga groundwater catchment needs to be confirmed to identify whether there is a link between dairy conversion in Bay of Plenty and rising nitrate trends in the Waiarua Stream.

Issues and drivers for intervention. There is merit in seeking to retain existing quality of this substantial catchment, both in its own right and as a major contributor to the quality of the mid-lower Mohaka mainstem. Further land use intensification could be restricted through a plan change, with encouragement of land use within its land use capability (LUC) and good soil management. The extent of the groundwater catchment should be confirmed as interventions may also be needed by Bay of Plenty Regional Council to address upward nitrate trends.

Hautapu WMZ

Location and overview. The second largest WMZ (36,953ha) includes the Hautapu and Te Hoe river catchments. These rivers are both major tributaries of the lower Mohaka and within the Ngati Pahauwera rohe.

Land use and tenure. Existing land use is almost exclusively indigenous vegetation and pine forestry, with a few hundred hectares of pasture near the Mohaka confluence. Substantial tracts are in DOC and Maori ownership. There are 7+ owners of property over 4ha.

Water use and demand. There are no current water takes. Demand is deemed very low. Damming is restricted by WCO if this could adversely impact the outstanding value for water recreation identified between SH5 and Willowflat in the lower Mohaka.

Water quality. Water quality data for this WMZ is a knowledge gap. SOE monitoring downstream on the Mohaka at Willowflat highlights poor clarity and sediment loading as key issues, influenced by natural character and likely exacerbated by land use/management (e.g. forestry harvesting). Sustainable gravel extraction is managed in conjunction with Ngati Pahauwera.

Potential for development. The vast majority of the catchment is in the most limited LUC classes (6-8) with low potential for other sustainable land uses than conservation or forestry. While some conversion to pasture may be appropriate (in the lower catchment) this would need to be very sensitively managed.

Issues and drivers for intervention. Joint development of a management framework with Ngati Pahauwera is essential. Few landowners, the undeveloped nature and limited development potential of the WMZ should assist an approach that seeks to retain existing high natural character and quality, with an emphasis on improving erosion management and use of additional land within its limited land use capability (i.e. mainly conservation or forestry)

Lower Mohaka WMZ

Location and overview. The extensive Lower Mohaka WMZ (31,945) includes the entire Mohaka River corridor from the Te Hoe confluence to the sea. Below Willowflat, the Mohaka mainstem is not protected by the WCO.

Land use and tenure. This WMZ has the widest range of land uses, including small amounts off cropping and viticulture on river terraces. There are 116+ owners of property over 4ha.

Water use and demand. There are currently only 3 consented surface water takes for irrigation with a maximum weekly take of 27,280m³. Future irrigation demand in the Mohaka catchment as a whole is assessed as low. Only 11,592 hectares are potentially irrigable (less than 5% of Mohaka) for intensifying land use compared with 226,860 hectares in the Tukituki catchment.

Water quality. SOE monitoring downstream on the Mohaka at Willowflat and Raupunga highlight poor clarity and sediment loading as the key issues, influenced by natural character and likely exacerbated land use/management.

Potential for development. Much of the land that can sustain more intensive uses is being utilized. The lower Mohaka is a principal source for high-quality river gravels for the central East Coast region. Sustainable allocation, monitoring and management of extraction activities are jointly overseen by the Regional Council and Ngati Pahauwera within their rohe. This arrangement is documented in a formal Agreement and consequently need not be a feature of a wider Mohaka catchment plan change. While hydro-damming on much of the river is prevented by the WCO, opportunity currently exists in the lower Mohaka below Willowflat.

Issues and drivers for intervention. Joint development of a management framework with Ngati Pahauwera is essential. Existing levels and diversity of activity need to be recognized. However, relatively low demand for intensification may assist an approach that seeks to retain existing water quality and natural character, while possibly allowing for a slightly increased level of development if required.

Waikari and Waihua WMZs

Scoping of issues is required in conjunction with Ngati Pahauwera.

20120208 Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 30 January 2012)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
23 November 2011	WDC	5	Resource Consent – Subdivision Proposal to subdivide a property at 790 Mahia East Coast Road to create 48 residential lots, 1 undeveloped farm lot, 1 lifestyle lot, 3 balance lots, 2 lots to vest as road, 2 access lots and 1 lot for the purpose of establishing a campground to accommodate 400 people.	Pongaroa Land Co. Limited Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified Non-complying (hearing pending)	30 January 2012 · Lodged a neutral submission on 11 January 2012. Submission made various comments relating to proposed servicing of the subdivision, public access to the coast, natural character and landscape values. In particular the submission sought: 1. further geotechnical assessment be undertaken with respect to ability of the site to dispose of wastewater on-site and conditions should be imposed on owners to enter into a waste management contract, or alternative arrangement, and 2. an independent peer review be undertaken on natural character and visual effects of the subdivision on the Mahia Peninsula coastline.
12 August 2011	NCC	4	Draft Plan Change 7 – Jervoistown The purpose of the plan change is to create a new zone with new policies and rules for Jervoistown. The plan change seeks to counteract the effects of adhoc development within Jervoistown.	NCC	Draft	17 November 2011 · NCC held an “informal” hearing for the Hearing Committee to informally discuss the comments received on the draft plan change. HBRC staff gave brief presentation at ‘hearing’ and responded to NCC’s questions. 19 September 2011 · Council staff provided comments to NCC on the draft plan change. In general the Council is supportive of the broad intention of the plan change however noted servicing constraints as a limiting factor. In particular a high water table contributing to the cross contamination of wastewater and stormwater, at capacity stormwater drains and cross boundary runoff and flooding. · Council staff noted that Jervoistown is not included in the preferred settlement pattern included in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy.
5 November 2010	NCC	3	Notice of Requirement – Te Awa Structure Plan Notice of requirement for designation to allow for the construction of public works in the Te Awa Structure Plan area by Napier City Council.	NCC	Notified by NCC (hearing pending)	30 January 2012 · Hearing by NCC’s independent commissioner scheduled for 31 January. NCC’s hearing report makes recommendations that adequately take Regional Council’s concerns into account. Commissioner’s decision anticipated late February. 6 December 2010 · Submission lodged. Submission generally supportive, other than commenting that the proposed second pump station is unnecessary due to sufficient infrastructure already available in that there is scope to utilise infrastructure previously built for the Cross Country drain.
5 November 2010	NCC	3	Plan Change 6 – Te Awa Structure Plan The purpose of the plan change is to rezone the area from Main Rural to Main Residential and incorporate the outcomes sought in the Te Awa Structure Plan into the District Plan.	NCC	Notified by NCC (hearing pending)	30 January 2012 · Hearing by NCC’s independent commissioner scheduled for 31 January. NCC’s hearing report makes recommendations that adequately take Regional Council’s concerns into account. Commissioner’s decision anticipated late February. 6 December 2010 · Submission lodged. Submission generally supportive, and also suggested some design principles that NCC could take into account when further developing the proposal. In particular, the submission recommended: 1. that decision making criteria and/or guidance be added that supports and encourages the principles of Low Impact Urban Design, and 2. that NCC develop a landscape plan that includes aspects to enhance the ecology, culture, recreation. Health and safety along Willowbank Avenue and the Serpentine Drain drainage corridor
24 May 2010	NCC	1	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on 66 Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Brian Nicholls	Notified Restricted Discretionary (hearing pending)	6 December 2011 Planning staff have met with the applicant and NCC planning staff to discuss stormwater and wastewater design for the proposed subdivision. Further information is required from the applicant as applicant now likely to modify his proposal. 26 July 2011 · Almost 12 months since Planning staff met with the applicant’s consultant. Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration. NCC Planning staff have requested further information from the applicant. 14 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced. 12 June 2010 · Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams. The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils. The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment. Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application. Submissions close 24 June 2010.
23 August 2010	NCC	2	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified Restricted Discretionary (subject to appeal)	14 November 2011 · Further mediation held 3 November. No immediate resolution. · Mediator has stated that the next step is to appeal to the Environment Court. Applicant to decide whether to uphold the appeal by February 2012. 24 May 2011 · Mediation with the applicant and NCC held. · Regional Council position maintained that: o No further discharge of stormwater will be accepted into the Jervois Drain, and o the option of discharging stormwater via the neighbouring ‘Claudatos scheme’ is only viable if a number of conditions are met. 27 January 2011 · Council has become a party to the appeal lodged by the applicant under Section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The Council is interested in all of the proceedings but in particular is interested in issues relating to the effects of increased site coverage and stormwater collection, treatment and disposal. 17 November 2010 · Application was declined at Hearing held 17 November 2010 as it was decided that the creation of two 2000m²lots was contrary to the intent of the Napier District Plan. Applicant subsequently appealed NCC’s decision. 20 September 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. · Reasons include: o No provision for stormwater disposal and will likely result in adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding at a local level and the wider Jervoistown community. o Proposal to increase maximum site coverage from 10% to 25%. Concern that this will also increase adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding. · A 2009 report prepared by this Council (Jervoistown Drainage Analysis, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, April 2009) outlines the drainage issues and provides the conclusion that incremental development at Jervoistown will continue to result in reduced drainage standard for the existing houses. A copy of this report was provided to Napier CC shortly after its publication.

1 View	20120208 Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	20120208 Statutory Advocacy Map