Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Project	Regular updates on milestones achieved	AN/ GH	ongoing
2.	Adoption of the audited draft LTP for consultation	Financial reporting – design a report which reports and projects Internal time, Consultants, Contractors, Contributions, and Legal costs per Group of Activity	JP/PD	May 2012	Paper considered at 16 May Corporate & Strategic Committee meeting.
3.	RMA Delegations	Central ‘delegations register’ to be developed	IM/AN		Under development

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Affixing of Common Seal

Comment

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 43

DP 12692

CT E1/59

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 22

DP 14228

CT G1/44

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 22

DP 6391

CT D4/1432

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 14

DP 4488

CT 55/91

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 297

DP 10632

CT B4/416

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 29

DP 12309

CT D2/503

- Transfer

1.1.7 Lot 62

DP 13039

CT E2/1232

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.8 Lot 160

DP 6598

CT C4/387

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.9 Lot 74

DP 6598

CT C2/303

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.10 Lot 29

DP 13693

CT F2/1291

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(cross-lease 2 x 10% discount landlord and 1 x 17.5% discount resides at property)

1.1.11 Lot 94

DP 13039

CT E2/1241

- Transfer

1.1.12 Lot 129

DP 2172

CT 55/190

- Transfer

1.1.13 Lot 1

DP 12517

CT D4/964

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.14 Lot 99

DP 13055

CT E2/1291

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.15 Lot 23

DP 4488

CT 56/286

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.16 Lot 1

DP 13384

CT F1/1022

- Transfer

1.1.17 Lot 78

DP 13695

CT F2/1325

- Transfer

1.1.18 Lot 112

DP 12692

CT E1/70

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

- Transfer

1.1.19 Lot 62

DP 13495

CT F3/185

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

- Transfer

1.1.20 Lot 167

DP 13096

CT E3/537

- Transfer

1.1.21 Lot 83

DP 7201

CT B4/807

- Transfer

1.1.22 Lot 38

DP 12309

CT D2/505

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.23 Lot 2

DP 14972

CT G4/574

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.24 Lot 19

DP 7872

CT D3/879

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.25 Lot 11

DP 4488

CT 55/86

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.26 Lot 442

DP 11447

CT B4/1220

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

- Transfer

1.1.27 Lot 24

DP 11689

CT C3/28

- Transfer

1.1.28 Lot 40

DP 6391

CT E2/1454

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(cross-lease 1 x 10% discount landlord and 2 x 17.5% discount resides at property)

1.1.29 Lot 197

DP 2172

CT G1/524

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.30 Lot 337

DP 11329

CT B3/1312

- Transfer

1.1.31 Lot 1

DP 4318

CT 54/220

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.32 Lot 159

DP 12611

CT D4/1096

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.33 Lot 70

DP 9684

CT B3/1015

- Transfer

1.1.34 Lot 61

DP 11717

CT C3/78

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.35 Lot 232

DP 10728

CT C1/301

- Transfer

1.1.36 Lot 187

DP 7756

CT C2/450

- Transfer

1.1.37 Lot 115

DP 11999

CT D1/456

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)
- Transfer

1.1.38 Lot 63

DP 14224

CT F4/1499

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.39 Lot 3

DP 14665

CT G3/320

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.40 Lot 91

DP 13380

CT F1/612

- Transfer

1.1.41 Lot 4

DP 11626

CT C2/598

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.42 Lot 277

DP 10775

CT 211860

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.43 Lot 60

DP 10121

CT c3/1178

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.44 Lot 33

DP 10513

CT D2/1140

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(cross-lease 1 x 10% discount landlord and 1 x 17.5% discount resides at property)

1.1.45 Lot 44

DP 14448

CT G2/680

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.46 Lot 1

DP 13899

CT F4/425

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.47 Lot 88

DP 13696

CT F2/1337

- Transfer

1.1.48 Lot 3

DP 4531

CT 55/207

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.49 Lot 71

DP 2172

CT 56/251

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.50 Lot 144

DP 2172

CT 55/192

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(cross-lease 1 x 10% discount landlord and 2 x 17.5% discount resides at property)

1.1.51 Lot 110

DP 13039

CT E2/1251

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.52 Lot 10

DP 4221

CT c2/403

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.53 Lot 19

DP 7872

CT D3/879

- Transfer

1.1.54 Lot 17

DP 12780

CT E1/739

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.55 Lot 133

DP 13096

CT E3/529

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

1.1.56 Lot 140

DP 6598

CT C2/322

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

3291

3292

3293

3294

3332

3295

3345

3296

3297

3342

3298

3350

3299

3300

3301

3302

3303

3304

3366

3305

3367

3306

3307

3309

3310

3311

3330

3312

3313

3314

3315

3318

3353

3319

3351

3320

3321

3337

3322

3356

3323

3324

3326

3335

3327

3328

3354

3329

3348

3331

3333

3334

3336

3338

3360

3339

3340

3341

3343

3344

3346

3347

3349

3352

3355

3357

3358

3359

3361

3362

3363

3364

3365

3368

3369

13 April 2012

16 April 2012

7 May 2012

16 April 2012

10 May 2012

17 April 2012

17 Apirl 2012

9 May 2012

17 April 2012

16 May 2012

17 April 2012

19 April 2012

20 April 2012

23 April 2012

22 May 2012

23 April 2012

22 May 2012

23 April 2012

24 April 2012

3 May 2012

24 April 2012

16 May 2012

27 April 2012

16 May 2012

27 April 2012

7 May 2012

30 April 2012

16 May 2012

1 May 2012

7 May 2012

1 May 2012

3 May 2012

16 May 2012

3 May 2012

11 May 2012

4 May 2012

7 May 2012

18 May 2012

9 May 2012

10 May 2012

11 May 2012

16 May 2012

18 May 2012

21 May 2012

22 May 2012

23 May 2012

1.2

Staff Warrants

1.2.1 C. Ormsby

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

1.2.2 J. Shanks

1.2.3 J. Tantrum

(Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

1.2.4 N. Hudson

1.2.5 T. Wilding

3288

3289

3308

3316

3317

13 April 2012

23 April 2012

1.3

Apiculture Harvest Agreement

HBRC and Comvita

(Tutira Country Park)

3290

13 April 2012

1.4

Specification

Waikatuku River Stopbank Upgrading

Whakaki Marae

(Contract No: 11-04-4295C)

3325

1 May 2012

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided;

2.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

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. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Mexted and Williams Resource Consent Appeal

Reason for Report

1. This paper is seeking a new delegation from Council regarding the appeal by Mahanga E Tu of the Mexted, Williams and Malherbe consent application. There have been a number of developments in the case, and the current delegation does not provide staff with sufficient latitude to ensure that the all eventualities at the hearing are authorised.

Background

2. Mexted, Williams and Malherbe applied to the Regional Council for a number of resource consents required to undertake a small residential development at the northern end of Judges Parade, Mahanga. On 26 January 2010 a panel of independent commissioners granted resource consent for all aspects of the development that required authorisation from the Regional Council. As the hearing was run jointly with Wairoa District Council, the same hearing panel also granted resource consent for the District Council aspects of the development. The Wairoa District Council decision has also been appealed by Mahanga E Tu.

3. The decision was appealed by Mahanga E Tu Incorporated, one of the submitters. This group represented those local people who were opposed to the development.

4. On Thursday 10 June 2010 this Council gave staff the delegation to “attend Environment Court mediation but required staff to seek further Council approval for a mediated settlement via consent memorandum or, conversely authorises staff to defend the Hearing Panel’s decision.”

Process to Date

5. Mediation with a court appointed mediator was held on 21 June 2010. At this mediation the applicants presented revised plans for the development. The appellant did not accept the amended proposal so the appeal has progressed through the Environment Court appeal process. An evidence exchange timetable was set by the Court as a hearing appears necessary to resolve the appeal. Further modifications to the applicants proposed development were made and provided to all parties for consideration in October 2011, but these still failed to address the concerns of the appellant.

6. After a series of delays and changes to the timetable, the applicant lodged their primary evidence with the Court on 24 February 2012. The appellants lodged most of their evidence with the Court on 16 March 2012. There were delays in receiving an outstanding appendix to the evidence of their coastal hazard expert. It was lodged on 19 April 2012.

7. One of the main concerns that has been raised by the appellant is the issue of coastal hazards and their potential effects on the proposed development. This is supported by the recent evidence of their coastal expert.

Regional Council’s Role

8. The Regional Council has engaged the following consultants to provide expert evidence on behalf of the Regional Council:

8.1. Senior Coastal Engineer Richard Reinen-Hamill of Tonkin & Taylor Limited in Auckland who will present evidence on the coastal hazard aspects of the applications.

8.2. Environmental Scientist Hamish Lowe of Lowe Environmental Impact in Palmerston North who has provided expert evidence about on-site wastewater.

8.3 Manager Engineering Gary Clode has provided expert evidence about the potential effects of filling parts of the property, and I am also currently preparing expert planning evidence. We all act as expert witnesses whose duty it is to assist the Environment Court impartially within our areas of expertise.

The Court Process

9. The Environment Court has a Code of Conduct that all expert witnesses must comply with. Amongst other things, the code states that an expert witness must not omit to consider material facts know to the witness that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

10. In reviewing the new evidence of the appellant’s coastal hazard expert Dr Roger Shand (received in its entirety on 19 April 2012), Richard Reinen-Hamill found new information that indicated there is a possibility that coastal erosion will affect the applicant’s site far sooner than initially thought. As a result he now believes that the potential effects of the proposed seawall may be more than minor.

11. The erection of a coastal protection structure in coastal hazard zones 1 and 2 is classified in the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan as a non-complying activity. Following the bundling approach, the suite of resource consent applications associated with this development have been assessed as a non-complying activity bundle.

12. The RMA sets out particular restrictions which apply only to non-complying activities. Subsection 1 of section 104D states:

......a consent authority may grant a resource consent for a non-complying activity only if it is satisfied that either—

(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment (other than any effect to which section 104(3)(a)(ii) applies) will be minor; or

(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of—

(i) the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the activity; or

(ii) the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the activity; or

(iii) both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the activity.

13. Based on Richard Reinen-Hamill’s assessment of the current proposal, it appears that the proposed seawall may not protect the development from coastal hazards and that if it is located as proposed will have adverse effects on coastal processes that will be more than minor. This means that (1)(a) of the ‘gateway test’ is not satisfied. My planning assessment has concluded that the proposed development is contrary to some of the objectives and policies of the regional plans relating to coastal hazards. This means that the second part of the ‘gateway test’ is not met either. I am therefore not able to support granting consent for the application as it stands.

14. Mr Reinen-Hamill’s concerns about the proposal were raised with all parties as soon as he became aware of it. Caucusing of the coastal hazard experts is being arranged for the first week of June and may potentially result in sufficient amendments being made to the applicant’s proposal to allow Mr Reinen-Hamill to conclude that the effects of the proposed activity will be no more than minor. I may then be in a position to be able to support granting consent to the amended proposal. However, if the applicants are not willing to amend their proposal, and at the end of caucusing Mr Reinen-Hamill maintains his professional opinion about the effects of the proposed seawall will be more than minor, then I could not support granting resource consent for all aspects of the proposal.

Decision Sought

15. Staff therefore request that Council make a new resolution relating to this appeal which authorises staff to present a case to the Environment Court which is supported by expert evidence. Depending on the outcome of coastal hazard expert caucusing, I may not be able to support granting consent, and the current delegation does not provide for the Council to adopt a position other than supporting the granting of consent. The current delegation is only to defend the hearing panel’s decision which was to grant all resource consents.

Reasons for Change in Approach

16. This potential change in position of the Regional Council is the result of developments since the first instance decision. Almost two and half years has passed since then. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has come into effect and this requires greater consideration of coastal processes including sea level rise. Quite a large amount of further information about coastal hazards, both in general and also in this specific location; has also become available. This in part reflects the increased policy focus on climate change effects and also changes in the scientific understanding of coastal hazards, sea level risk predictions and erosion rates. The design of the development has also changed.

17. One of the specific facts that have changed in this case is the existing rate of erosion. At the time of the first instance hearing this was accepted to be 0.12 m/yr. The appellant’s coastal hazard expert suggests this is now as much as 0.5 m/yr. Richard Reinen-Hamill has accepted the higher rate of erosion, because it is based on a more comprehensive study that has been done recently, and therefore been able to include recent erosion data. A higher rate of erosion has a significant bearing on when the proposed seawall is likely to become exposed.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. The financial implication of this appeal is that it is currently unbudgeted expenditure by the Regional Council, although staff have recommended that some budget be made available for appeals in the 2012 Long Term Plan. The potential change in recommendation by the Regional Council is unlikely to have much impact on the cost of the appeal, because as a respondent the Regional Council is expected to be involved in the appeal for its duration.

Decision Making Process

19. 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:

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

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

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

19.4. The persons affected by this decision are all parties involved in the appeal, being the applicant (Mexted, Williams and Malherbe), the appellants, Wairoa District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

19.5. Options that have been considered include continuing to defend the hearing panel’s decision, irrespective of the expert evidence presented on behalf of the Regional Council, however this could not be done in accordance with the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses.

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

19.7. 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

That Council:

2. Revokes the decision made by Council on 10 June 2010 and acknowledges that staff who attend the Environment Court hearing will adopt a neutral position that is supported by the evidence that the Regional Council’s experts have prepared.

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

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Resolution of the AFFCO Appeal

Reason for Report

1. This paper seeks approval from Council for a draft consent order to be signed on behalf of the Regional Council and lodged with the Environment Court that would settle the AFFCO appeal.

2. The paper also seeks a decision from Council about whether or not an application for costs should be made.

Background

3. An appeal was lodged by AFFCo Limited on 17 August 2009 objecting to the conditions of their resource consent, which had been granted by a Regional Council hearing panel on 24 July 2009. Two parties joined the appeal as s 274 parties, being the Department of Conservation, and Mr David Renouf.

4. Mediation was held with a Court appointed mediator, as well as a number of other informal meetings in an effort to try and resolve the appeal. Council staff and AFFCo, as well as the Department of Conservation and Mr David Renouf have now agreed on a set of conditions that would allow the appeal to be disposed of by consent.

Staff Delegation

5. At a meeting on Wednesday 9 September 2009 the Environmental Management Committee recommended that Council:

5.1. Authorise staff to attend mediation of the AFFCo appeal;

5.2. Delegate to the Group Manager Resource Management the authority to sign any mediated agreement on behalf of Council in relation to conditions 10 and 17(c) only of the AFFCo discharge permit.

5.3. Retains its existing delegation to sign any mediated agreement in relation to conditions 20 and 28 of the AFFCo discharge permit.

6. The recommendations of the Environmental Management Committee were confirmed at the full Council meeting on 23 September 2009.

7. Agreement has now been reached between all parties on a set of conditions that will allow the appeal to be settled, but because Council did not delegate to staff the authority to sign a mediated agreement on all aspects of the appeal, staff are now seeking approval from Council to sign an agreement covering all aspects of the appeal.

Details of the Appeal

8. AFFCo Limited appealed conditions 10, 17(c), 20 and 28 of their resource consent which related to the following:

8.1. Condition 10: This condition required monthly monitoring. AFFCo wanted it to be reduced to annual.

8.2. Condition 17(c): This condition set an effluent standard for total ammonia-nitrogen. AFFCo believed that this standard was unduly onerous.

8.3. Condition 20: Set an effluent standard for faecal coliforms. AFFCo did not want a standard imposed until a quantitative microbial risk assessment had been carried out.

8.4. Condition 28: Required AFFCo to provide the Council with a report (within 27 months of the consent being issued) detailing the upgrades that will be made to the plant to achieve the standard set in condition 20.

9. Attached is a track changed version of the consent in which text that has been added is underlined, and text which is to be deleted is shown with strikethrough.

10. The following changes have been made in response to the four points of AFFCo’s appeal.

10.1. Condition 10: The condition has been changed to require information to be provided by AFFCo monthly if there is an exceedence of any of the parameters set in the consent, or at any other time upon request. This change ensures that any exceedences are still reported, but decreases the additional work this condition requires when the discharge is occurring in accordance with the conditions of the consent.

10.2. Condition 17(c): The effluent standard has been deleted, and a series of conditions (conditions 17A-17C) included which set an in-river total ammonia-nitrogen standard in the interim, and require AFFCo to carry out sampling to gather data that will allow an appropriate effluent standard to be identified for total ammonia-nitrogen that can be measured at the point of discharge. A specific review condition has been included in the consent that allows an effluent standard for total ammonia-nitrogen to be inserted into the consent.

10.3. Condition 20: This condition has been deleted. AFFCo has now undertaken a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) which has quantified the potential health impact of the AFFCo discharge into the Wairoa River. The QMRA found that the risk of illness as a result of the discharge was generally low but may occasionally be appreciable (such as when swimming occurs late on a summer day when the concentration of effluent is high). The study found that Campylobacter is the pathogen of greatest potential concern in the discharge, and that it would be useful to quantify the magnitude of high concentrations of Campylobacter in the effluent, and feed this data into a re-run of the QMRA. Conditions 16A and 26 now require this.

10.4. Condition 28: This condition has now been deleted, as a consequence of condition 20 also being deleted. Conditions 20 and 28 were originally included in the consent because AFFCo had not provided any site specific information about the potential health risk that the discharge presented. The faecal coliform limit was based on the guideline from the Regional Resource Management Plan which applies to all surface water bodies across the region. In instances where site specific information is provided by an applicant, the broad guidance in the RRMP has effectively been superseded.

11. There have been a number of other changes made which were either necessary to ensure consistency throughout the document, and/or were consequential changes required as a result of changes to other aspects of the consent.

Costs

12. The issue of the cost of the AFFCo appeal has been raised with Council before. In this financial year, the cost to Council of the AFFCo appeal has been $41,132 ($5,890 internal cost and $35,242 external cost). This brings the total cost of the appeal to Council (to date) to $193,757.

13. Earlier this year, Council endorsed the use by staff of the following criteria to guide decisions on whether cost applications were lodged with the Environment Court. Given the level of discussion around the cost of the AFFCo appeal, staff considered it appropriate to seek a decision from Council about whether an application for costs should be made in this instance.

14. Application of the criteria had the following results.

Question	Yes/No
1. Did the appeal proceed to a court hearing?	No
2. Did Council begin to prepare evidence for a court hearing which was subsequently cancelled?	No
3. Is there anything unusual or extraordinary about the appeal?	See discussion
4. Was an application for security of costs made?	No
5. If the Council was awarded costs of 25-30%, would the Council be in a better financial position (taking into account the total cost to Council of the appeal, as well as the cost of legal fees incurred as a result of seeking a cost award)?	Yes
6. Does the party against which the cost award has been made, seem to have the ability to pay?	Yes

15. The AFFCo appeal is unusual in that if came about as a result of the applicant agreeing to a set of consent conditions that they subsequently realised they could not meet. Although the mediation process has taken significant time and effort to reach this point, the appellant agreed to mediation and has been willing to work through the issues which has led to agreement on a set of amended conditions.

16. Guidance provided by the Ministry for the Environment details some reasons why the Court may order a party to pay costs. These include:

16.1. Not following good practice - not particularly relevant in this instance because the case did not proceed to a hearing, therefore there was not an evidence timetable to comply with.

16.2. Failing to narrow the case – AFFCo’s appeal was quite clear about what conditions they were appealing and why. They also identified in their appeal what particular relief they sought.

16.3. Late withdrawal of an appeal – the appeal was not withdrawn therefore this is not relevant

16.4. Using an appeal to argue general issues – AFFCo’s appeal related to specific conditions of consent. Mediation focused on addressing these issues. AFFCo did not try to argue more general issues through the process

16.5. Raising irrelevant matters – As AFFCo’s appeal was about particular conditions of consent all matters raised were relevant and could be dealt with

16.6. Ignoring a warning about costs – The Environment Court did not issue a warning about costs in this case

16.7. Whether the appellant was concerned about environmental effects and whether the case did anything to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects – The appellant was mainly concerned about their ability to comply with the recommended consent conditions, rather than a particular environmental effect.

16.8. Whether the case sought to promote a public good or private benefits – the case largely focused on private benefits for AFFCo, however it must be acknowledged that AFFCo is a large employer in the Wairoa area, and therefore the ongoing operation of the plant is important for the local community.

16.9. Whether particular points raised were overly technical and without merit – The points raised in AFFCo’s appeal were technical but did have merit.

16.10. Whether there has been a failure to explore the possibility of settlement – AFFCo agreed to attend mediation and have always been willing to explore the possibility of settlement

16.11. Where the courts process has been abused – As noted above, AFFCo has complied with any instructions from the Court, and has therefore followed the courts process.

17. Advice from our counsel indicates that it would be extremely unusual to seek costs in a case where an appeal settles as a result of mediation. Exceptional circumstances would need to be identified, and they do not believe they exist in this case. Given that the changes to consent conditions that have been agreed to relate to (both directly and indirectly) the points raised in AFFCo’s appeal, it would be difficult to argue that their appeal had no merit.

18. Based on the assessment of staff, the advice of counsel, and also the fact that seeking costs will incur further costs, staff recommend that Council do not seek costs through the Environment Court. It is acknowledged that this has been a costly and drawn out process, but participation in Environment Court appeals is a necessary consequence of the Council’s role in the public RMA process. However based on the advice of our lawyer, and for the reasons outlined above, it seems extremely unlikely that any application for costs would be successful through the Environment Court.

Next Steps

19. If Council agrees to the signing of a consent order (done by the Regional Council’s counsel Matt Conway on behalf), this will be signed by all the other parties and lodged with the Environment Court. Subject to being satisfied, the Environment Court Judge will then make an order in accordance with section 279 of the Resource Management Act that amends the conditions of AFFCo’s consent (DP070670W) in accordance with the changes that have been agreed between the parties to the appeal. The appeal will then be dismissed, and AFFCo will be required to comply with the conditions of the new resource consent.

Financial and Resource Implications

20. Settling the appeal will mean that the Council will not occur any further costs as a result of this appeal. This is a positive financial implication for Council.

Decision Making Process

21. 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:

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

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

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

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are AFFCo Limited, who if the appeal is settled, will now have a new consent to operate under.

21.5. The consideration of options in this context is limited. The options are to either settle the appeal or not, and to make an application to seek costs against AFFCo or not.

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

21.7. 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

That Council:

2. Authorises Regional Council’s counsel to sign a draft consent order on behalf of the Regional Council that will settle the AFFCo appeal.

3. Agrees that an application for costs should not be lodged with the Environment Court in relation to these appeal proceedings.

Charlotte Drury

Senior Consents Officer

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View

DP070670W Agreed Conditions

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: Variation 1: Rivermouth Hazard Areas - Hearing Panel Recommendation

Reason for Report

1. Hearings were held on 23 May 2012 to hear submissions received on Variation 1, which relates to the Rivermouth Hazard Areas in the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

2. Variation 1 was publicly notified on 10 August 2010. A panel of 2 Councillors (the Panel) was delegated the task of hearing those submissions and making recommendations back to Council.

3. This paper provides an overview of the number of submissions heard and presents the Panel's recommendations on submissions to Council for discussion and adoption as decisions.

Comment

4. A total of 28 submissions were lodged by a range of groups and individuals on Variation 1. One of those submissions was received after the submission deadline. There were no further submissions lodged. Over 40 individual submission points were raised in submissions.

5. At the hearing on Wednesday 23 May 2012, the Panel heard five presentations on behalf of submitters. On the same day, the Panel completed its deliberations and formed its recommendations. The Panel's recommendations are set out in Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 2 is a ‘clean copy’ of Variation 1 as recommended by the Panel.

6. In forming its recommendations, the Panel was conscious of the scope of amendments able to be made to Variation 1. Three recommendations made by Council’s technical advisor Tonkin and Taylor Limited related to increasing the extent of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream Rivermouth Hazard Areas.

7. Ultimately, those recommendations by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd were beyond the scope of submissions and consequently not accepted by the Panel. Nevertheless, the Panel has made a ‘stand alone’ recommendation to Council that the increased extents of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream rivermouth hazard areas be considered as part of the Council’s review of coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards. That review is scheduled for the 2014-15 period in the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan.

8. Council has the following options available.

8.1. Adopt the Panel's recommendations as set out in Attachment 1.

8.2. Not adopt the Panel's recommendations either in full or in part. If Council chooses this option for any submission, then the whole Council must arrange to re-hear those matters in accordance with the law.

9. A note from Brookers’ Annotated Resource Management Act 1991 explains the situation regarding the law and the principles of natural justice which apply.

“S34.04 Natural Justice

Where a Council has delegated to a committee, community board, commissioner, or officer power to hear a matter but must itself make the decision, care needs to be taken if the Council is not minded to adopt the recommendations of the delegate which heard the application. The Council should then itself hear the application and any objections, either by viva voce rehearing or, where an adequate report of the hearing by the delegate is available, by members of the Council examining that report. It would infringe natural justice for members of a Council to participate in a decision on an application which differs from that recommended by the delegate which heard the matter unless they have themselves ‘heard’ the application and any objection. See Jeffs v NZ Dairy Board [1967] NZRL 1057 (PC).”

10. This does not prevent Council making amendments that might correct an error, but would prevent Council from making modifications that alter the real substance of one or more of the Panel’s recommendations.

11. If Council chooses to not adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, then arrangements will need to be made to re-hear those matters and issue decisions by 10 August 2012^{^[2]}.

12. If Council resolves to adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, staff intend that Decisions could be issued to submitters in early June (having allowed time for formatting, printing and distribution of decision documents).

Financial and Resource Implications

13. Preparation of Variation 1 and progressing it through the submission > hearing > decisions phases is provided for in Project 191. No additional external expenditure budget is needed at this time. Internal staff time is also already catered for within existing budgets.

Summary

14. It is recommended that Council adopt the Panel's recommendations and reasons. This will then enable officers (acting under previously delegated authority) to issue those recommendations as decisions of Council to the relevant submitters.

Decision-making Process

15. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the LGA2002 in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

15.4. The persons particularly affected are submitters and further submitters on Variation 1 relating to rivermouth hazard areas. The people of the Hawke's Bay region may also be affected but there has already been an opportunity (in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991) for any person to make a submission or further submission on Variation 1.

15.5. Options that have been considered include adopting the Panel’s recommendations; not adopting the Panel’s recommendations; and modifying some of the Panel’s recommendations which might constitute an amendment of substance rather than simply amendments to correct an error.

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

15.7. 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. Submitters affected by the adoption of the Panel's recommendations will have a right of appeal to the Environment Court. Other interested parties have an opportunity under the Resource Management Act 1991 to join any subsequent proceedings.

Recommendations

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 submissions 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. Further, the decisions to be made are part of a public submission process required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. Adopts the recommendations (and reasons stated) of the Hearing Panel as set out in Attachment 1.

3. Agrees that the increased extents of the Taylors Bay, Blackhead Beach and Te Apiti Stream rivermouth hazard areas be considered as part of the Council’s future review of coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards; and notes that that review is scheduled for the 2014-15 period in the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan.

4. Authorises Council officers to undertake the administrative work necessary to issue the decisions of Council to submitters.

Belinda Riley

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Panel Recommendations		Under Separate Cover
2	Location Maps		Under Separate Cover

Land Management Op Plan 2012/13

Attachment 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 3

2. LAND MANAGEMENT TEAM ROLE.......................................................................... 3

3. STRATEGIC DRIVERS............................................................................................... 4

3.1 The re-forestation of eroded coastal hill country......................................... 4

3.2 The impact of intensified land use on water quality..................................... 5

4. LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 6

4.1 Foresight & strategy......................................................................................... 6

4.2 Investment....................................................................................................... 7

4.3 Strategic Alliances........................................................................................... 9

4.4 Fit for purpose organisation............................................................................. 9

5. 2012-13 LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITY............................................ 11

6. MEASURING PERFORMANCE................................................................................. 14

7. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 17

8. APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 18

Image on the front page courtesy of www.abovehawkesbay.co.nz

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This operational plan describes how the Land Management Team (LMT) of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) will meet its objectives as outlined in the Long Term Plan (LTP). The operational plan will be presented to Council for approval prior to each financial year. Performance against the operational plan will be presented to Council within five months of the close of a financial year. This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013. The plan documents the following:

· The role of the Land Management Team in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

· The link between LMT activity for the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 and the community outcomes outlined in the Strategic Plan, Land & Water Management Plan and Long Term Plan.

· The key strategic issues for the LMT and its response to address these issues.

· The LMT program areas for 2012-13.

2.0 LAND MANAGEMENT TEAMS ROLE

The land management team plays a key role in influencing uptake of good sustainable land management practise in the Hawke’s Bay Region. The team does this via a non-regulatory approach (collaboration, education, advice, incentive).

The LMT’s areas of focus and objectives are set by the HBRC Strategic Plan and the Land and Water Management Strategy. Actions and performance targets to achieve these strategic objectives are defined by the LTP. The operational plan shows how operational activities will lead to the achievement of long term plan and annual plan performance targets and contribute towards achieving the outcomes of the Strategic Plan and Land & Water Management Strategy as shown in Appendix 1. The consolidated outcomes and outputs of these documents are shown in the appendices 2 and 3. Appropriate indicators to track progress to these outcomes are discussed in section 6.0.

3.0 STRATEGIC DRIVERS

The LMT’s primary focus is around the two key strategic issues of reducing soil erosion in hill country, and managing the impact of land intensification and diffuse source discharge on the water quality of Hawke’s Bay catchments.

Hawke’s Bay has one of the highest rates of hill country erosion in New Zealand. This erosion results in the loss of productive capacity, carbon, nutrients and potential water storage of soils. Offsite impacts include sedimentation of waterways, river aggradation and damage to infrastructure (McKay 2008). These losses equate to:

1) A significant economic cost to the Hawke’s Bay regional economy.

2) The loss of environmental ecosystem services provided by these landscapes.

The rate of recovery of these ecosystem services is typically slow with Rosser & Ross (2011) suggesting even after 60+ years of recovery, pasture production was 80% of uneroded sites. The heavy rains of April 2011, which affected a 10km coastal belt of Hawke’s Bay hill country are estimated to have resulted in 3,700 ha of new bare ground. Climate change is likely to exacerbate this problem into the future.

Water is critical to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the Hawke’s Bay region. The intensification of land use, an increased demand for irrigation and associated intensive sectors of land use, industrial and urban water supply are placing increased pressure on the quantity and quality of water in a number of Hawke’s Bay Rivers.

3.1 The re-forestation of steep highly erodible hill country

Approximately 750,000 ha of the Hawke’s Bay region are hill country pastoral farms. Of this approximately 150,000 ha is on steep erodible farmland.

Economic returns for this farmland have, for a number of years, been marginal as a result of volatile revenue from product sales and steadily increasing input costs. The environmental impacts of pastoral farming on steep to very steep hill country can also be significant, particularly the impacts of erosion and nutrient run off. Forestry can play a valuable role in increasing biodiversity, reducing erosion, nutrient and sediment run off, peak catchment flood flows; and provide greater resilience to storm events.

Appropriately targeted afforestation (i.e. on the steepest 10-20% of hill country farms) can strengthen the hill country farming business. It can increase farm cashflow longer term, allowing landowners to redirect funds into improving the better pastoral areas of the farm and making the farm more resilient to storm events.

3.2 The impact of intensified land use on water quality

The Tukituki Catchment Plan is the HBRC’s first revision of a catchment plan under the auspices of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (2011). The plan will identify and set minimum flows and water quality limits to achieve the priority values identified by the Tukituki catchment community. It is likely that the Tukituki Catchment Plan will identify sub-catchments where significant reduction in nutrient loss from land use is required to meet the new water quality standards. The effectiveness of any mitigation strategy in reducing diffuse source contamination of water is reliant on:

· Programs that are tailored to the physical properties of the landscape.

· The economic and technical ability of the landholders to implement that change.

· The overall policy framework that sets limits or other requirements on water quality or land use.

4.0 PROGRAM AREAS

The program area discussion sets the context for how the LMT will use its programs to achieve the performance targets listed in the LTP. The link between the specific program areas and LTP targets is shown in Table 4 on page 12.

4.1 Foresight and Strategy

Anticipating opportunities and threats is vital to achieving land management related outcomes to the long term achievement of Councils vision. Sustainable land management is key to achieving “A region with a vibrant community, a prosperous economy, a clean and healthy environment, now and for future generations”. The LMT program areas discussed below will be specifically aligned to the strategy enablers as follows:

4.1.1 Research

The LMT’s research investment is based around three key principles –

I. Focus – ensuring its RLS research investment is aligned with the outcomes listed in the strategic plan. The LMT will invest a portion of its RLS budget in research that has the potential to increase knowledge and uptake of best practice on-farm within the context of its strategic issues of hill country erosion and reducing diffuse source pollution effects on water quality.

II. Leverage – the LMT will look for opportunities to add value to its investment through leveraging co-investment and collaboration with other industry sectors and agencies. Through the LMT’s strategic alliances use a co-ordinated approach to attracting more research investment in Hawke’s Bay.

III. Partnerships & collaboration – with industry sectors will enable the LMT to better target its investment to deliver on outcomes. Partnerships with industry also increase the likelihood of applied research being adopted into industry best practice.

Over the next financial year the LMT will be undertaking a review of research priorities in the development of a draft land management research strategy. Listed in table 1 are the current research initiatives above $5,000 for the LMT and their expected outputs and links to community outcomes.

Table 1. 2012-13 Current research initiatives.

Research project	Output	Link to outcomes
HC Erosion	Erosion plans and pole/tree plantings	Economic and environmental through reduced erosion
Huatokitoki	Shade research, farm resource information	Economic and environmental
Dryland Forest	Durable eucalypt species	Economic and environmental
Willow and Poplar	Additional species, management regimes	Economic and environmental

4.1.2 Catchment Planning

The LMT is heavily involved (approximately 0.5 FTE) in catchment planning. Team members are currently assisting in the Taharua/Mohaka catchment and the Tukituki catchment planning processes and will be involved in the Ngaruroro and Tuataekuri reviews. The LMT plays an important role in these planning processes by:

· Providing insight into the practicality and effectiveness of various mitigation strategies at a farm and sub-catchment level.

· The development of implementation strategies to influence the farming community to uptake land use and on-farm management changes to deliver plan and policy objectives.

· The LMT provides linkages to a variety of industry and community groups working in these areas via its strong networks, and skills and experience in collaborative community engagement.

4.2.1 Regional Landcare Scheme

The Regional Landcare Scheme is a significant mechanism through which the LMT affects on-ground change through providing incentives for specific works programmes. The operational activities and the associated outputs for the RLS scheme are shown in table 2.

There are three areas of focus for the RLS this financial year:

1. Alignment of the RLS to the key strategic drivers of erosion in hill country and land use impacts on water quality.

Investment will be used to complement the potential benefits of Ruataniwha water storage (RWS) and reforestation projects in the landscape to ensure a whole of farm landscape outcome. The LMT will look to invest approximately 60% of RLS funding into these strategic issues via a consideration of project prioritisation, weighting, funding rates and incentives. Should both the RWS and hill country afforestation projects proceed, RLS investment aligned with these projects is likely to increase.

2. Increasing the clarity of the linkages and alignment between RLS investment and the outcomes and outputs of the Strategic Plan and Land and Water Management Strategy

The RLS is a tool that enables the LMT to encourage the achievement of outcomes. Within the next 12 months the monitoring evaluation and reporting process (page 14) will make these linkages to the land and water management strategy clearer.

3. A further refinement of the RLS process and administration.

The LMT has reviewed and refined the processes and administration of the RLS to ensure it is aligned to key HBRC outcomes and administered to efficiently and effectively deliver outputs of RLS investment. The following will be undertaken in further refining the RLS:

I. The team will be developing an improved information system that enables it to manage and deliver on-ground projects more effectively, input data via the internet and produce spatial GIS maps of project locations and size. This will improve the ability to monitor and report on RLS outputs.

II. A review of the RLS monitoring, evaluation and reporting process to ensure the collection of information associated with the RLS investment can clearly show how this investment is meeting the outcomes and outputs of the LTP, Strategic Plan and Land and Water Management Plan.

III. Consider the RLS brand identity and its role in proactively engaging a wider range of landholders.

IV. Consider further variation of subsidy rates provided under the RLS to continue supporting proactive land owners but enabling more focus on specific strategy objectives.

V. What extension programmes (if any) may be able to be targeted to outcomes if supported through the RLS.

4.2.2 Regional Afforestation Project

The Regional Afforestation Project branded “Trees on Farms” is a significant sustainable land management initiative. Subject to funding, a range of operational aspects will need to be finalised to ensure effective operational delivery. These include:

· Clearly defined details around on-farm financial benefits.

· A communication strategy.

· Legal agreements for joint venture, lease and AGS style investments.

· Appointment of staff.

· Operational process from initial land holder contact to establishment of trees.

· Financial management and reporting process.

· Establishment of target catchments, project outcomes and baseline monitoring programs.

· Ongoing review and reporting.

The initial target is to have 500 ha committed to planting in the winter of 2013.

Through the targeted establishment of trees on erodible hill country, this program will deliver:

· Improved farm economic performance through a reduction in the amount of productive land lost to erosion.

· Improved water quality through reduced sediment in streams.

· Improved biodiversity outcomes.

Table 2. RLS operational activities and associated broad outputs are:

RLS Activity	Output	Link to community economic and environmental outcomes
Spaced poplar and willow erosion plantings	Approximately 145-150 properties and 28,000 poles	Both environmental and economic outcomes
Formation of QE2 covenants	Covenanting of approximately 80 -120 ha of QE2 per annum.	Principally environmental outcomes
Applied Research activities	Outputs from 2-5 research programmes annually	Both environmental and economic outcomes
Individual soil conservation or environmental enhancement projects	Delivering around 40-60 projects across 400-600 ha of land.	Both environmental and economic outcomes
Ballance Awards	High profile on SLM activities	Both environmental and economic outcomes

4.3 Strategic Alliances

Alliances are important to the achievement of the LMT’s objectives. These partnerships help disseminate and implement the results of investment in research and catchment planning into on-ground and potential industry adopted best practice. The LMT work with a wide range of industry stakeholders and groups, agricultural intermediaries, government agencies, community groups and Iwi to affect change on ground.

The land management team regularly engage with the wider community through a range of mechanisms. The aim of this engagement is to build the human and social capacity of the wider Hawke’s Bay primary productive sector to facilitate the adoption of sustainable land management practices.

4.3.1 Strategic farming initiative

The strategic farming initiative is a collaborative programme that aims to improve the productivity and reduce the environmental impacts associated with land use intensification within Hawke’s Bay’s primary sector. There is representation from the majority of agricultural industries in Hawke’s Bay forming a “pan-sector” group that provides overarching governance to the process. The group has significant potential to influence best practice adoption within the context of intensified land use to ensure economic, social and environmental benefits in the region are realised.

The group has mandated the HBRC through the LMT and the Economic Development Team to facilitate this process, beginning with the development of strategic action plan. Through a collaborative and coordinated approach the group aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of investment in research, development and information transfer in Hawke’s Bay. It will also assist in the achievement of the goals listed in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Economic Development Strategy.

The principles behind the process is that the pan-sector group will provide a coordination of actions, to sub-groups or clusters based around industry specific sectors i.e.) dairying, arable/horticultural and dryland pastoral. These clusters will work directly with landholders in the design and delivery of technology transfer products and process, coordinate demonstration sites and assist with the implementation of best practice.

4.4 Fit for purpose organisation

The LMT needs to position itself to ensure it is best prepared to proactively meet the challenges of environmental and organisational change. Key to this is a strong focus on monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER). MER provides crucial feedback on the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of its programs. It enables the LMT to better inform Council of the effectiveness of projects and how these relate to the overall outcomes and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan. An MER framework will be developed incorporating land monitoring being undertaken by the HBRC science team by May 2013. This will involve:

I. The review of information systems to better reflect reporting needs and the Draft Land Management MER plan that outlines the MER process and objectives.

II. Strong interaction with the science group, who provide the LMT with an important in-house auditing capacity and provide insight into emerging trends and issues in the Hawke’s Bay region. The science group can also assist the LMT in the design of effective monitoring programs.

III. The LMT will contribute to a range of science group monitoring projects over the next 12 months that include -

a. Wind erosion in the plains areas

b. Soil erosion in hill country

c. Riparian strip health and long term management

d. Wetlands prioritisation

e. Biodiversity monitoring

IV. The LMT have initiated a program to improve the quality of our regional soil information through the addition of Heretaunga and Ruataniwha plains soil maps onto “S-map”, a tool that improves landholder access and interpretive value. The LMT will be investigating alternatives to improving the quality of land and soil information in hill country throughout the region.

V. Which aspects of the work the LMT undertake is measurable in terms of kilometres of riparian strip established or numbers of erosion control poles planted, outcomes and outputs reporting on parameters such as “improved knowledge” or “adoption of best practice” must also be considered. Incorporating these measures into the LMT MER over the next financial year, through the use of social surveying will be a priority.

VI. By taking an adaptive management approach to program design and reporting by ensuring MER is systematically and genuinely embedded into LMT decision making, shown on page 14.

5.0 2012-13 LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITY

Table 3 demonstrates how the 2012-13 LMT activities will align with the proposed approach outlined in the HBRC Strategic Plan. Detail on how the specific outcomes, outputs and activities of its programs achieve this is discussed in more detail in Table 4.

Table 3. Alignment of LMT Program activity with the strategic goals and strategic enablers of the HBRC Strategic Plan

	Targeted investment in and improved focus of the RLS	Encourage more applied research in Hawke’s Bay	More focus on intensive land use associated with irrigation	More emphasis on afforestation of steep, low productivity hill country	Increased investment in land use diversification
Foresight & strategy	RLS Refinement Information Systems Review	Research Program	Mohaka-Taharua / Tukituki catchment Plans	Huatokitoki Research Project Trees on Farms	Research Program Knowledge dissemination – eg Balance awards
Investment	Regional Landcare Scheme	Regional Landcare Scheme	Regional Landcare Scheme	Regional Landcare Scheme Trees on Farms	Regional Landcare Scheme Trees on Farms
Strategic Alliances	Strategic Farming Initiative	Strategic Farming Initiative	Strategic Farming Initiative	Strategic Farming Initiative Pastoral Steering Committee Wairoa Hill Country Erosion Project	Strategic Farming Initiative
Fit for purpose organisation	Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program	Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program	Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program	Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program	Monitoring, evaluation & reporting program

Through the strategic enablers of foresight and strategy, investment, strategic alliances and a fit for purpose organisation the LMT has defined its LTP performance targets and 2012-13 outputs. These performance targets are shown below in Table 4.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 30 May 2012

SUBJECT: May 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management	· Asset Management Plan reviews	Reviews of Asset Management Plans substantially complete for HPFCS and UTTS. Peer reviews and audit completed. Some modification required to align AMP’s with LTP financials and levels of service. These will be finalised following adoption of the LTP.
	· Biosecurity	Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy Hearing held 15 February 2012. Council adopted Hearings Panel recommendations 29Feb. One reference made to Environment Court. Both parties have agrred to mediation. Awaiting date for mediation from Environment Court.
	· Land Management	A number of strategies to improve effectiveness of Council land management investment have been developed and included in the LTP 2012-22. Operation plan for 2012/1 considered by AM&B Committee in May and being considered for adoption by Council at this meeting. Regional afforestation project will be considered by Council as part of adoption of LTP.
	· CHB District Council Wastewater project	Resource consent application notified 28 January 2012, submissions closed 29 February. CHBDC has subsequently stopped this project. A submission is being prepared by HBRC on this issue. CHBDC have extended the submission period until 1 June for waste water projects.
	· Mahia Beach wastewater project	Staff working with WDC, their consultants and other stakeholders on detailed design issues and catchment planning associated with the Whangawehi catchment as required by the resource consent conditions.
	· Infrastructure disaster insurance	A review of infrastructure disaster insurance arrangements is underway. LAPP trustees held a meeting of Members during May to seek feedback on future of LAPP. Staff awaiting notification of outcome of that meeting before progressing with review.
	· The right debate	Progress on the regional afforestation project, Heretaunga Plains levels of service, improved focus of Regional landcare scheme, transfer of Tutira properties will be reactivated depending on the outcome of the draft LTP.
Asset Management	· Regional open spaces review	A project to identify and record HBRC open space sites and their values, articulate the management principles and levels of service for those spaces, and identify opportunities for the development of those spaces for public enjoyment is underway.
Resource Management	· Appeal mediation processes underway for · Large Consent processes/ applications	Twyford Court appointed mediation held on 2 November, attended by the appellants (Watering Society) HBRC, Fish and Game, DOC, and Te Taiwhenua of Heretaunga. Appellants advised that a report is being prepared for them by Aqualinc, but will not be ready until next year. Appellants will advise the Court before June 2012 if they intend to progress the appeals. AFFCO Further work and discussion is concluded. Paper to Council this month to accept mediated solution. Mexted & Williams Mexted et al have proposed a reduced no of lots as a solution to resolve the appeal. The appeal has not been resolved by mediation. It is about to be heard by the Environment Court. Paper to Council in May seeking change in delegation. The effects of the proposed seawall are now considered to be more than minor. NCC BTF plant High court deciding whether to accept Submitter W. Church appeal or not, decision expected July. Bridgeman Decision to grant consent issued 5/4/12, no appeals received. CHBDC waste water Application on hold awaiting decision from applicant to proceed. Poukawa Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders pre notification decision, Limited notification likely May - June 2012
Resource Management	· Science Activities	Groundwater Staff continue to work closely the planning team on policy development for water allocation and water quality for the Tukituki plan change. Also work has completed on groundwater model scenarios for the water storage project. New monitoring wells are being drilled in the Esk Valley to establish monitoring sites in this area. Staff are continuing working closely with the consents team on draft consent application for Apache Oil drilling consent applications. To date an application has not been received Surface Water Allocation modelling for plan change and storage project still progressing. Mohaka concurrent gauging underway. NIWA contracted to back edit Glenfalls, Raupunga, Kuripapaingo and Chesterhope flow records. Finalising Tutaekuri River Instream Flow Assessment report, Permitted Use report and a report on the ‘Assessment of potential effects of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme on groundwater and surface water resources in the Tukituki River Catchment’. Progressing a joint Science Heretaunga Resource Summary Report for consents. Installing Ruakituri Climate Site by end of June Ecology Work continues to focus on Tukituki plan change support and Karamu consent renewals.
Strategic Development	· Land and Water Management Strategy	Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22 LTP preparation.
	· Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment	Ongoing, but subject to Council decisions elsewhere in 30 May 2012 agenda. Technical reports being used to develop the water allocation framework. Stakeholder engagement as per adoption by Council in February.
	· Rivermouth Hazard Areas in proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Variation 1)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Hearing held 23 May 2012. Hearing Panel’s recommendations to Council meeting on 27 June 2012.
	· Onsite Wastewater change (Change 3 + Variation 3)	Schedule 1 RMA process Hearing held 19 April 2012. Hearing Panel’s recommendations to Council meeting 30 May 2012.
	· RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters (Change 4)	Schedule 1 RMA process. 45 submissions and 6 further submissions received. Hearing by end of 2012.
	Ÿ Taharua Strategy and plan change.	Ongoing. Broadened scope to cover whole Mohaka River catchment. Preliminary stakeholder engagement commenced with wider Mohaka River interests. Further liaison with Taharua Stakeholder Group on options.
Strategic Development	Ÿ Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan plus Change 1 to RRMP	Ongoing. Environment Court soon to ratify settlement of all appeals. RCEP to be approved by Council (report to E&S Committee in June), then referred to Minister of Conservation for approval of provisions relating to coastal marine area.
	Ÿ Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)	Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.
	Ÿ Regional Land Transport Programme and Regional Land Transport Strategy.	Public Consultation on the Regional Land Transport Strategy, incorporating the Regional Land Transport Programme closes on 31 May. The Regional Transport Committee will hear submissions on Friday, 8 June.
	Ÿ Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce	Over $2m in funding year to date.
	Ÿ Strategic Farming Initiative	Pan Sector cluster held in early May reviewed first draft of strategy document. Next step is to work with individual organisations to expand scope of projects and prioritise.
	Ÿ Massey Strategic Relationship	Discussions ongoing about locating a Massey staff member in Hawke’s Bay to coordinate activities in the region.
Corporate Services	· Hearing of submissions for draft LTP.	11-13 June 2012
	· Adoption of Final LTP	27 June 2012
	· Setting of rates	August 2012
	· Assessment of selling cash flows from Napier leasehold land.	To be undertaken in August 2012.
	· New website go live date.	Late mid June 2012.
External Relations	· Statutory advocacy and liaison	Coordination of submission to CHBDC on wastewater treatment options in response to extended consultation period to 1 June Liaison with consultant on Prosperity Study
	· Training of Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee	Standing Orders Training held on 28 May. Discussions with representatives at that time on their further training needs.
	· Long Term Plan	Preparation of staff responses to submissions
	· Community engagement / environmental education	Draft of July edition of “Our Place” in preparation Ongoing liaison with HB Tourism on Cycle Trail promotion opportunities
	· HeatSmart	Processing of significant number of applications for both insulation and clean heat, above specified target
Operations/ Water Group	· Ruataniwha Water storage	Work over the next month involves: · Analysing draft Final Project Description document and feedback to Engineering consultants. · Review of environmental and non science reports completed and feedback provided to consultants. · Continue with Nutrient and Mitigation modelling works. · On-Farm Economic Studies to be updated by Macfarlane Rural Business. · National & Regional Economic Impact Assessments about to commence. · Stakeholder, leadership and landowner meetings to host.
	· Cycleways	· Finalise detail with HDC for remaining Craggy Range section of trail of the Landscapes trail. · Input into final detail for Taipo and Pandora sections of the Water trail. · Continue with construction of Ngatarawa and Roys hill section of trail of Winery trail.
	· Ngaruroro Water storage project	Complete and lodge MAF IAF application for on-farm economic study.
CE’s Office	Ÿ Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”	Draft recommendations on limit setting and collaborative governance delivered to Ministers and publicly released. Focus continues on rights of appeal, water allocation methods, etc.
	Ÿ Treaty Settlements –Claimant Groups	Regional Planning Committee focus on Land and Water management strategy insertion into Regional Policy Statement
	Ÿ Regional Prosperity study	Study leader appointed. Final project scoping and budget being developed. Initial visit to Hawke’s Bay undertaken by Study Leader.
	Ÿ Ruataniwha Water Storage	Ongoing oversight. Procurement of financial advisory services completed. Detailed work on what may happen post feasibility under way. Meetings with Federation of Maori Authorities.
	Ÿ HB Regional Investment Company establishment	Statement of Intent to be adopted by Council at 30 May 2012 meeting.
	Ÿ Hill Country Afforestation Proposal	Further oversight of business plan under way.
	Ÿ Continue work with Regional Sector CEs at Horizons and Greater Wellington plus Government Department CEs as appropriate on southern North Island partnership	Ongoing Initial due diligence due end of June.
CE’s Office	Ÿ LTP Submissions	Staff comments and recommendations being formulated for distribution to Councillors and submitters 1 June.
	Ÿ Continue involvement with Ministry for Primary Industries Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS	Ongoing
	Ÿ Advisory Committee on Official Statistics	Ongoing

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the May 2012 Work Plan Looking Forward report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager

Water Initiatives

Liz Lambert

Group Manager

External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.

[2] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.

Community Outcomes	Strong prosperous and thriving economy by maximising sustainable use of natural and physical resources	An environment that is appreciated, protected and sustained for future generations by encouraging sustainable land management practises	A lifetime of good health and wellbeing by protecting fresh and coastal bathing water quality
Intermediate outcomes	· Sustainable use of intensive lands	· Sustainable use of fragile hill country and steeplands	· Improved understanding of ecological servicing		· Improved community understanding of landscape appropriate best practice
Intermediate outcome indicators	· Farm economic performance · Land use practice change · Water quality indicators · Soil quality indicators · Erosion incidence monitoring · Biodiversity indicators				· Social surveying / benchmarking · KASA (knowledge, attitudes, skills & aspiration) monitoring
2012-13 outputs	· The 2013/14 operational plan documents RLS contribution to sustainable land management targets by 31 May 2013 · Draft Land management Monitoring/Evaluation/Reporting plan produced 31 May 2013	· 60% of RLS funding is targeted to strategic investment initiatives ie. eroded hill country reforestation & reducing the impact of land use intensification on water quality	· 500 ha of new forestry planted 2013 winter · Ha of land protected from erosion (minimum of 25,000 poles planted) · Five completed farm erosion plans	· LMT draft Research Strategy completed 30 June 2013. · Initiate at least 1 new research or project · Dissemination of knowledge	· Minimum 18 weeks of LMT staff time participating in the catchment planning process for Taharua/Mohaka & Tukituki catchments · Participate in 6 community catchment planning workshops · Draft pan sector strategic action plan developed 30 April 2013, · One industry cluster group focus farms formed 30 June 2013
LMT activities contributing to the achievement of outcomes	· RLS Incentives for projects assisting best practice adoption · Technical advice and assistance · Community capacity building · Strategic alliances and collaborative relationships with key stakeholders · Research

HBRC Strategic Plan land outputs	10 Year	We will have strong links with the research community, using these through a ‘centre of excellence’ to improve understanding of the impact of farming on water quality and soil retention.	We will be using robust knowledge of the links between land use and water quality in prioritised catchments to influencing farming practices.	$30M will be invested in afforesting 15,000 ha of class Vle & Vlle hill country land. A further 15,000 ha is in high UMF manuka plantings or similar and private sector establishment of timber/carbon forestry.
	3 Year	Establish strong links with research community together with a joint strategy to apply science/knowledge within Hawke’s Bay for the benefit of the primary productive sector with a demonstrated positive return on investment.	Implement a program to improve knowledge of the impact of farming activities on land and water resources.	Potentially implement a forestry initiative integrating carbon/commercial forestry into hill country farming and commit to invest $5M.
Land & Water Management Strategy performance monitoring indicators		Uptake of site specific land management practices (right decision for the land) – includes use of wetland services, riparian management and fencing, use of precision agriculture tools, water & nutrient plans, changes to existing cropping and farming systems. Areas of indigenous bush and wetlands under formal protection. Number of integrated catchment management initiatives underway.		Land use change – includes area (ha) of new forest plantings.
Consolidated outputs		· Strong links with research community. · Improved knowledge of the impact of farming activities on land & water. · Land use change – ha new forest plantings. · Land use change – ha improved land management. · Adoption of best practice. · Areas of indigenous bush & wetlands under formal protection. · Number of integrated catchment management initiatives underway.

Project	Description	Outcomes/Issues
Client, Type of Project
Criterion	Rank (1-4)	Explanation
Soil – (conservation, function)
Water (quality, retention)
Does it relate to key priorities for the Council ?
Size: Is it large or part of a larger programme? Does it provide linkages with other projects or create corridors?
Biodiversity/Ecosystem function: Are there existing values to protect or values that will be enhanced?
Wider Community benefits: Community group involvement, public access, demonstration, advertising, public profile.
Total Score	____ x 4.17 = %
RLS Funding Support (%)	%

1	19 April 2012 Hearing Panel Meeting Record	Under Separate Cover
2	Hearing Panel Recommendations on Change 3 and Variation 3	Under Separate Cover
3	Hearing Panel Recommendations Appendix 1 Recommended Rules	Under Separate Cover

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.