Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting Date	Agenda Item / Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
7 August 2013	Making Good Decisions	G Ide	Ongoing	Foundation course for RMA Hearings Commissioner accreditation held at Hastings in early December 2013. Committee members who participated were Cr Wilson, Cr Beaven, Mr Waaka and Ms Hopmans. Six HBRC staff also participated in the course. Foundation course is scheduled to be held at several main centre venues during 2014.
11 September 2013	Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan ‘Kahungunu ki Utu Kahungunu ki Tai’	H Codlin	19 February	Item was originally left on table due to a lack of quorum. The item followed similar report which was presented to Maori Committee on 27 August 2013. Mr Mike Mohi (as Chair of the Maori Committee) wrote to NKII on 28 August advising that NKII should distribute the Strategic Plan amongst Taiwhenua and the Crown’s large natural Treaty groups to receive their input. NKII has not responded to Mr Mohi’s letter, but the matter has been traversed during the Board of Inquiry’s hearing proceedings on the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ during the last few months.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 19 February 2014

SUBJECT: Greater Heretaunga Ahuriri Plan Change TANK Group Report

Reason for Report

1. This paper provides an update on the TANK collaborative stakeholder group which is deliberating policies for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change. The TANK Group has published a report summarising its work to date. This Report has been circulated to Committee members under a separate cover.

2. The TANK Group has requested that the Regional Planning Committee receive the TANK Report.

3. The TANK Group has also requested that the Regional Planning Committee signal its support for the Group by way of a ‘good faith commitment’ to endorse the group’s recommendations (subject to conditions outlined in this paper).

The TANK Group

4. The TANK Group was convened in October 2012 to discuss land and water management options for the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu (TANK) catchments (surface and ground water). Collectively this area is referred to as Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri.

5. The TANK Group is comprised of 30 people from a range of backgrounds. The Regional Council is represented on the TANK Group by Councillors Beaven, Belford and Scott (Crs Beaven and Belford being new members following 2013 appointments).

6. The TANK Group’s brief is to provide Council (via the Regional Planning Committee) consensus recommendations regarding objectives, policies, limits and rules for a plan change to the RRMP for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri catchment area.

7. As well as making recommendations on values and overall objectives, there are a number of key regional planning provisions that the TANK Group is tasked with making recommendations to Council on. These include:

7.1. flow regime, including low flow restrictions on takes

7.2. water allocation (including for municipal and domestic supply)

7.3. security of water supply for water users

7.4. policies, rules on groundwater /surface water connectivity

7.5. surface water and groundwater quality limits

7.6. tangata whenua involvement in freshwater decision making

7.7. use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting

7.8. wahi tapu register

7.9. policies, rules and incentives on:

7.9.1. riparian management and stock exclusion

7.9.2. water storage

7.9.3. water efficiency

7.9.4. water sharing/transfer

7.9.5. nutrient loss/allocation

7.9.6. good irrigation practices

7.9.7. stormwater management

7.9.8. other agricultural practices.

8. The Group was initially scheduled to hold seven meetings through to July 2013 but due to the Plan Change timeframe extension (adopted in the 2013/14 Annual Plan process), the Group’s schedule was also extended. The Group has now held 11 meetings, the most recent being on 10 December 2013. This makes parts of the existing Terms of Reference obsolete. As a result, it would be appropriate for obsolete parts of the Terms of Reference to be revised and updated. This will be drafted in liaison with the TANK Group and presented to an upcoming Regional Planning Committee meeting.

The TANK Report

9. At the 10 December TANK Group meeting, the Group approved its first report for public release. The TANK Interim Report summarises the TANK Group’s work between October 2012 and December 2013 and provides a platform for the group to proceed with future discussions. The Report was the result of extensive discussion amongst the group over a series of meetings as well as communications with the group’s networks over a three month period between September and December 2013.

10. The TANK Report is not a Council report; rather it is the TANK Group’s report presented to Council and to be available to the wider public. It includes a set of ‘Interim Agreements’ which are “supported in principle” by most (but not all) parties on the Group, including the Regional Council (the Council being a stakeholder).

11. The TANK Report was intended to be publicly released in early January, however in late December, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) expressed that they had a number of significant concerns and would not be endorsing the Report. Due to commitments associated with the Tukituki Board of Inquiry hearing, NKII noted that they would not be able to outline their specific concerns with the TANK Report until that hearing had concluded.

12. Given that the TANK Group had undertaken significant effort over three months to get the Report to a form suitable for public release, a short-term resolution to the matter was to add a ‘Report Status’ section to record NKII’s concerns. Earlier concerns that had been raised by Hastings District Council and Matahiwi Marae were relocated to this new section from footnotes. As noted in the Report, these concerns will be the subject of discussion when the TANK Group reconvenes.

TANK Group and Ahuriri

13. At the Council meeting on 28 November 2013, Council committed to engaging with Mana Ahuriri, the Crown and other parties in the formation and function of the Ahuriri Estuary Committee (AEC). An Agreement in Principle was signed that includes addressing the needs of Mana Ahuriri to have a joint management regime for the Ahuriri Estuary.

14. Also on 28 November, Tim Sharp from Council’s Strategic Development Group, met Mana Ahuriri Iwi Inc Board to discuss the TANK Group and TANK Report. It was noted that any outcomes of the TANK process will need to be consistent with AEC. To achieve this most effectively, it may be pertinent that a member of the AEC be nominated to the TANK Group.

TANK Group next steps

15. The intention is for the Group to continue to meet through to, and during, the drafting of the Plan Change. There is still a lot of ground to cover before the Group will be in a position to make well-informed decisions about the form and contents of the Plan Change. There is a wide range of science, cultural and economic information necessary to be provided to the TANK Group to assist their decisions. Much of this work is still to be done.

16. In the immediate future, a number of approaches are currently under consideration for the TANK Group to proceed including:

16.1. exploring the TANK Report ‘matters of concern’ which have been raised by some parties

16.2. reviewing and summarising catchment-specific issues identified to date to hone in the areas the TANK Group needs to focus on

16.3. reviewing the Tukituki Plan Change to see which approaches and provisions may be transferable into Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri

16.4. applying the National Objectives Framework (NOF) to waterways in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area to determine whether preferred waterway ‘states’ (as described in the NOF) can be agreed by TANK members. However, the NOF is only proposed at this stage and hence it may be too early for the TANK Group to consider.

17. To progress the discussions efficiently, it is intended that smaller groups will meet to discuss different topics (e.g. catchment-specific matters which may not impact on the full Group). The full Group is likely to meet every three months to review the findings of these smaller groups.

18. It is recognised that the Tukituki Board of Inquiry (BOI) process has required the significant commitment of resources from many parties, many of whom are also involved with TANK (as well as other Council projects including the Taharua/Mohaka Plan Change). To provide a bit of breathing space, the TANK process has rescheduled its next meeting from early March to mid-April. While the timing means the next meeting would be held after the Tukituki BOI decisions are made, the extension of time given to the BOI means that the final decisions or even the draft decisions may not be available.

Tangata whenua representation on the TANK Group

19. Some of the issues arising through the BOI hearing on the Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 regarding tangata whenua consultation have highlighted the importance of getting the tangata whenua representation on the TANK Group right.

20. Tangata whenua groups were invited to nominate a member to the TANK Group to ensure a broad cross-section of interests from a range of hapu, taiwhenua and iwi was represented. Tangata whenua members on the TANK Group are currently: Terry Wilson (Mana Ahuriri Iwi Incorporated); Ngaio Tiuka (Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated); Marei Apatu (Te Taiwhenua ō Heretaunga); Morry Black (Matahiwi Marae); Peter Paku (Ruahapia Marae); Jenny Mauger (Ngā Kaitiaki ō te Awa a Ngaruroro); Aki Paipper (Ngāti Hori ki Kohupātiki); and Joella Brown (Te Roopu Kaitiaki ō to Wai Māori).

21. What is the Regional Planning Committee’s view on the tangata whenua representation on the TANK Group? Is it right? Is any group missing? TANK project leaders would welcome feedback on this matter from Committee members.

Request for Regional Planning Committee support for the TANK Group

22. Prior to the TANK Group being formally established, Council signalled its support for the approach being taken. At the 29 August 2012 Council meeting, it was noted: “While retaining its responsibility as the decision-maker under the RMA, [Council] give a good faith undertaking to implement any consensus outcome agreed by the HCSG [TANK Group], if one emerges, as long as it is consistent with the RMA, LWMS, Regional Policy Statement and LTCCP”.

23. The TANK Group’s Terms of Reference notes that while Councillors accept their mandate to support any consensus decision reached by the TANK Group, they cannot speak on behalf of the Treaty Claimant Group representatives of the Regional Planning Committee.

24. The TANK Group has requested that the Regional Planning Committee consider providing a similar level of support to the Group as Council has previously given. This would be in keeping with best-practice in collaborative processes and give the Group confidence that their efforts will not be in vain if the Regional Planning Committee disregard or veto the Group’s significant effort and outputs when a plan change is drafted.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. As noted, Regional Council has seen the TANK Group’s Report and supported, in principle, the Interim Agreements contained in the Report (at 28 November 2013 meeting).

26. Some of the options proposed in the TANK Report would have financial and resource implications for Council were they to be implemented. For example, it is suggested that Council reconvene the Stormwater Working Group and review the Regional Stormwater Strategy which would require resourcing. However, as outlined in this paper, the report should be viewed as an interim summary of the TANK Group’s thinking to date, rather than recommendations to be adopted.

27. There would be no direct financial or resource implications arising from the Committee’s choice to receive the TANK Report at this time.

Decision Making Process

28. 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:

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

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

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

28.4. The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke's Bay community, particularly those in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri areas and those persons with interests in sustainable management of Hawke's Bay’s natural and physical resources.

28.5. Options that have been considered include that the Regional Planning Committee:

28.5.1. does not support the collaborative approach towards policy development for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change.

28.5.2. does not receive the TANK Report 1: Interim Agreements.

28.5.3. does not commit to supporting the TANK Group’s recommendations should they emerge.

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

28.7. 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 Regional Planning Committee:

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. Receives the TANK Report 1: Interim Agreements.

3. Notes the TANK Group’s Terms of Reference need to be revised to account for adjusted Plan Change timeframes.

4. Notes that Councillors on the TANK Group cannot speak on behalf of the Treaty Claimant Group representatives of the Regional Planning Committee in TANK Group discussions. And therefore:

4.1. While acknowledging that Council retains its responsibility as the decision-maker under the RMA, gives a good faith undertaking to support any consensus outcome agreed by the TANK Group, if one emerges, as long as it is consistent with higher level policy and planning documents including the Resource Management Act, Council’s Land and Water Management Strategy, Regional Policy Statement and Long Term Plan and to recommend that Council adopts such recommendations in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri Plan Change.

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 19 February 2014

SUBJECT: Submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for HB Local Government Reorganisation

Reason for Report

1. At its meeting on 18 December 2013 Council resolved to lodge a submission to the Local Government Commission on its Draft Proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Hawke’s Bay, based upon reinforcing the need for any local government structure within Hawke’s Bay to have a specific focus on the management of natural resources in recognition of the region’s strong linkages to its primary production sector.

2. A draft submission has been considered by the Environment and Services Committee and will also be submitted to the Māori Committee on 25 February for their comments and to Council on 26 February for final sign-off. An outline of the submission and key points that will be made is appended to this paper as Attachment 1. Feedback is sought from the Regional Planning Committee to ensure that the issues that RPC wishes the Local Government Commission to address in its final proposal are included.

3. Submissions close on 7 March 2014.

Decision Making Process

4. 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:

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

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

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

4.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the delivery of local government functions in Hawke’s Bay.

4.5. Options previously considered by Council at its Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting 11 December 2013, and resolved at the Regional Council meeting 18 December 2013 included not lodging a submission.

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

4.7. 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. Notwithstanding this, any person may make a submission on the Local Government Commission’s draft reorganisation proposal.

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Considers the key points to be presented in the submission to the Local Government Commission and provides feedback to assist in the finalising of the submission.

The Regional Planning Committee recommends Council:

2. 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.

3. Approves the submission, including any amendments agreed at the Regional Planning Committee meeting, for lodging with the Local Government Commission.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Draft submission

Draft submission

Attachment 1

Draft Submission

To: Local Government Commission

Subject: Draft Proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay

Overview

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Local Government Commission’s draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay.

HBRC requests the opportunity to be heard in support of its submission by the Commission.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the only local authority within the area affected by the draft proposal that represents all the communities within that area.

HBRC submitted an Alternative Proposal for local government reorganisation when this was called for by the Local Government Commission in March 2013. While the structure in our alternative proposal by HBRC has not been accepted as a reasonably practicable option our submission expresses concern that the principles outlined in that alternative proposal, which are a fundamental of good local governance, have not been addressed in any sense in the draft proposal.

Consequently HBRC does not support the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its current form.

Rationale

The underlying premise of HBRC’s submission is that form should follow function when it comes to determining local government structure. In HBRC’s view the draft proposal has not given adequate consideration of existing local government functions but rather focuses on what local government might potentially do in a unitary authority (noting that this is without supporting evidence).

Natural resource knowledge and management, providing an integrated approach and specialist expertise to natural resource management is a core function regional councils. This is particularly essential to Hawke’s Bay given the region’s significant natural resource base including large areas of land suitable for intensive agriculture or horticulture and given that the region’s economy is driven by primary production.

The region needs to retain a core focus on ensuring the investment funds deliver intergenerational work in the complex natural resource areas and the investment capital is used for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities. A dedicated focus on assisting the primary sector to build resilience, and if possible to expand, also needs to be retained in any future structure.

While it is accepted that any regional council regulatory functions would need to continue irrespective of structure the arguably more important contribution of the regional council is in undertaking scientific investigations of natural resources, particularly freshwater, and in adding value through the use of investment capital for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities.

Draft Proposal

Key elements of the draft proposal are:

· Amalgamation of current councils into one unitary authority.

· Inclusion of small area of Rangitikei district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council into new council

· Exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council from new council HOWEVER the new Hawke’s Bay council would be responsible for regional council functions in these areas (transferred from Bay of Plenty Regional Council)

· Nine councillors would be elected from five wards. The Mayor would be elected at large

· The council would have five community boards with 37 elected members.

· A standing council committee comprising representatives of local iwi and elected members of council would hear the views of Māori

· Existing council debt and financial arrangements would be ring-fenced for at least six years to the communities which incurred them or benefit from them. Current regional assets would be transferred to Hawke’s Bay Council.

Commentary

Regional Council functions

The regional council is particularly focussed on the issues of environmental management, rural land use and primary production, and how this is linked to the performance of the regional economy. This is built upon a focus on freshwater management and soil/land management. The 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) means that regional councils are and will be busy with a number of significant issues in its implementation, including:

· Reviewing key planning documents in order to "give effect to" the NPS

· Developing freshwater objectives and quality and quantity limits

· Grappling with issues of "efficient allocation", "efficient use" and water permit transfer criteria

· Reviewing discharge permit consent conditions

· Increasing the involvement of iwi and hapū and improving the integrated management of fresh water.

This is leading to considerable policy and plan development by regional councils over the next few years on what are very contentious issues. The work required to underpin the setting of limits is complex, quite sophisticated and is going to take the best part of a decade to work through.

Of concern to HBRC in the establishment of a unitary authority is the focus on territorial authority activities. While this is understandable, and is not a criticism, it does lead to questions around the ongoing financial sustainability of the programmes required to be undertaken over long term periods to validate the policies required to be developed, not just in the area of freshwater management but in the management of other public resources such as air, land and the coast.

In recognition of the responsibilities placed on regional councils to manage the “commons” without the ability to recover costs directly, regional councils were transferred ownership of port companies in the 1989 New Zealand-wide local government reorganisation. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council relies on the dividend paid to it annually by the Port of Napier Ltd to allow it to undertake scientific investigations, environmental monitoring and land management activities that would otherwise have to be funded directly by the ratepayer. HBRC’s concern is that the funding of such activities is vulnerable to the more immediate needs often associated with urban based council activities.

We request that the dividend paid by the Port of Napier Ltd be “ring-fenced” for regional council environmental management functions in the final proposal.

A stand-alone regional council

The Draft Proposal dismisses the concept of one Hawke’s Bay District Council and one Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on the basis that it would be seen as creating confusion in the public mind as to who had political mandate to speak for Hawke’s Bay. No other considerations that are required to be assessed by the LGC are presented e.g. whether or not this option facilitates efficiencies and cost savings; productivity improvements and simplified planning processes. More importantly whether or not the proposed authority will enable catchment-based flooding and water management issues to be dealt with effectively by the unitary authority.

Note – should further commentary be provided here on this option? We have plenty of information to support this but need to know whether to proceed.

Community Boards

The effectiveness of the “local voice” in the draft proposal relies to a large extent on the existence of the community boards. The draft proposal notes that it may be possible that the passing of local government legislation amendments will allow for the provision of local boards in Hawke’s Bay.

A unitary authority with community boards does not guarantee the effective representation of Hawke’s Bay’s communities or the delivery of local services based on communities’ needs. The existence of community boards is subject to a six-yearly representation review at which point the Hawke’s Bay Council could form a view to abolish or reconstitute them. In addition the powers and duties of a community board are largely determined by the governing body (the Hawke’s Bay Council). Such a hierarchical model does not guarantee the sustained, strong, localised governance needed in an area like Hawke’s Bay.

Should the required legislation be passed to allow for local boards the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that the Local Government Commission, as provided for in Clause 21 (1) C) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, identify another preferred option as the basis of a new draft proposal. We do not consider that the issuing of a modified draft proposal would be satisfactorily transparent. The public of Hawke’s Bay need to be able to know what a local board is and what it can do on their behalf, how it and its activities are funded, and the extend of its decision making powers.

Māori representation

The draft proposal provides for the establishment of a standing committee to hear the views of Māori. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, comprising equal representation of elected representatives and mandated treaty groups, will be in place legislatively by the time the Local Government Commission issues its final proposal. HBRC considers it essential that the final proposal, or a new draft proposal, includes clarification of the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee roles and responsibilities and that of the standing committee.

Are there any other points Council wishes to make about Māori representation e.g separate Māori seats?

Taupo

The draft proposal creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty around the exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within the Hawke’s Bay Regional council area from the new unitary authority. These two areas are in the headwaters of the Mohaka River, Hawke’s Bay’s longest river.

It is clear that in the draft proposal the Commission considers that community of interest has primacy over catchment. It proposes that these areas remain with Taupo district, and be included in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, but that the regional council responsibilities in those two areas then be transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council. No direction is given in the draft proposal about how such activities would be funded and by whom, whose resource management act provisions would apply and how any differences could be resolved.

Neither Bay of Plenty Regional Council nor Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are satisfied with this outcome.

This does not meet the requirements of clause 11 (5) (d) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act.

Further analysis

In our view the draft proposal issued by the Local Government Commission in November 2013 is inadequate in terms of detail. Before the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal, or a new draft proposal, it must do much more analysis of the current functions and responsibilities of the councils, the number of FTEs associated with performing those functions and the costs of transition and integration.

Robust data and evidence must be provided in support of the preferred option so that the public can understand what the true costs and benefits of the options are.

Much has been made of the costs and benefits of the creation of the Auckland super-city, with almost as many different accounts put forward as there are commentators. It would be of huge assistance to the people of Hawke’s Bay to have an assessment of the costs and benefits of the preferred option provided by the Commission to assist them make up their minds.

If the Commission determines that local boards are to be included in the local government structure in Hawke’s Bay, and include these in a re-issued draft proposal, it is critical that the cost and resources associated with local board plans and agreements and the administration and support services associated with them are quantified.

Transition arrangements

There is very little detail about the transition phase in the draft proposal and particularly about the resourcing requirements that may be required from councils. Given that HBRC operates in as lean and efficient way as possible this is a potential concern impacting on council functions during transition and the maintenance of current levels of service to Hawke’s Bay.

Should this be included in the submission?

What other factors need to be addressed in HBRC’s submission?

Conclusion

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is of the view that the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay does not provide sufficient certainty for the ongoing resourcing and prioritisation of natural resource management functions in Hawke’s Bay. This is critical for the ongoing economic development prospects of the region.

For this reason we cannot support the draft proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its present form.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 19 February 2014

SUBJECT: Mohaka Plan Change and Stakeholder Engagement Update

Reason for Report

1. This report outlines progress and next steps towards a Mohaka catchment plan change, including a detailed management framework for the Taharua headwater catchment

Background

2. Previously, the Council reiterated its commitment to working with the community to develop a Mohaka catchment plan change which delivers more integrated management of water and land. Notification of the plan change is targeted for end 2014. While Taharua discussions are well advanced, wider Mohaka discussions are less so, but are anticipated to be less contentious based on initial understanding of the catchment.

3. In June 2013, this Committee instructed staff to prepare to undertake a ‘Taharua-Mohaka Choices’ consultation process in early 2014. ‘Choices’ should be designed to help stakeholders explore possible future catchment management options and assist the choice of a preferred way forward. To enable transparent discussions it should be supported by environmental, economic, social and cultural analysis commensurate with the scale and significance of issues and risks.

Process overview

4. Attachment 1 gives a simple outline of the proposed plan change development process suggested by staff. Key elements and indicative timeframes are set out in Table 1:

Table 1. Key process steps and indicative timeframes to plan change notification
Key actions	Indicative timeframe (2014)
Initial focused stakeholder discussions	Nov 2013 - Feb
Complete initial stakeholder talks (NKII, angling, recreation)	Feb – Mar
Ongoing science work to support ‘Choices’ and policy	Feb - Jun
Cultural and socio-economic stock takes to assist discussion	Feb - May
Mohaka Stakeholder Group (x4-5) and tangata whenua hui	Mar - Nov
Tangata whenua hui	Mar - Nov
Mohaka ‘Choices’ consultation	Jun - Jul
Plan change drafting Section 32 evaluation	Aug – Dec Mar - Dec
Seek Regional Planning Committee and Council approval to notify proposed plan change	Dec

5. A Mohaka Stakeholder Group (‘MSG’) is proposed to be formed by extending the existing Taharua Stakeholder Group (‘TSG’). It will provide a high level reference forum for testing of options and reviewing draft provisions. Realistically, the timeframe means a maximum of 4-5 meetings.

6. Overall, progress is tracking a couple of months behind the timeframe anticipated last June. This is due to Tukituki resourcing impacts and illness of a key staff member (pneumonia). Whether plan notification by end of 2014 is realistic is difficult to judge prior to MSG discussions, but the timeframe is tight.

Mohaka discussions to date

7. The initial phase of discussions with key individuals and interests groups is almost complete. This has included: two meetings with tangata whenua leaders; 13 interviews with individual key farmers and forestry companies and discussions with Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group, Taharua landowners and Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environmental Forum. Also planned are a priority hui with Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (‘NKII’) and initial talks with angling and other recreation interests.

8. Key matters arising from discussions to date are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary Feedback from Phase 1 Stakeholder Discussions
Engagement Process	Catchment Management
An MSG process and “Choices” consultation are beneficial, but Taharua landowners wish to retain a level of control. Keep the public informed.	The Mohaka is an iconic catchment where water quality should be maintained or enhanced.
MSG terms of reference must be clear with tight timeframes borne in mind for size, scope, purpose and stakeholders’ various commitments	Taharua nutrient loss is the priority catchment issue to be addressed. Timeframes for meeting targets may be contentious.
Notification by end 2014 is supported, but may be optimistic. This is a “special” catchment with limited, but significant issues.	Future land use change / intensification risks are limited, but potentially significant given catchment sensitivity and economic shifts. The plan must deal with such risks.
Discussion through tangata whenua groups’ regular hui-a-iwi programmes should support the MSG programme. NKII talks will clarify arrangements.	Farming and forestry practices should be sensitive to physical characteristics (and often are). Soil erosion and riparian health are wider catchment issues
Issues raised during the recent hearings on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal may apply to the Mohaka. A flexible, responsive approach by Council will be useful.	How the plan should manage farming and forestry activity across the catchment may be a possible “sticking point”.

Supporting investigations

9. The 2013 Resource Management Act amendments strengthen the requirements of the Section 32 evaluation that must accompany any plan change. The evaluation must be commensurate with the scale (large) and significance (high, particularly Taharua-upper Mohaka) of the plan change. It must identify and assess the benefits and costs of environmental, economic, social and cultural effects anticipated. Where practicable these must be quantified (numerical if not monetary).

10. A Mohaka Catchment Characterisation Report is currently being drafted to support MSG discussions and ‘Choices’ development. This pulls together the existing state of traditional science knowledge and highlights the key characteristics that will inform stakeholder discussions. At the Committee meeting, science staff will give a brief presentation of catchment issues and recent trends.

11. Council’s science programme to support policy making was outlined in Attachment 3 of the update report presented to the Committee in June 2013. Science Team resourcing has been stretched by the Tukituki hearings and the TANK process with some delays. The programme remains on track to support policymaking, but the programme does need to be given priority over 2014. This is particularly critical in relation to groundwater investigations and refinement of the Mohaka catchment model by NIWA populated by Council’s updated data.

12. Initial discussions with tangata whenua leaders have highlighted the need to share the wealth of existing cultural information and pull this together in a comprehensive summary report. This baseline information is a priority to inform talks.

13. A recreation and river uses stocktake report is also priority, particularly given the importance of these values in the Mohaka. This will provide baseline information for socio-economic assessment of ‘Choices’ once some scenarios are agreed.

Taharua update

14. The Science Team has recently reappraised monitoring data and there now appears to be a significant decrease in Taharua River and groundwater nitrate-nitrogen concentrations at monitoring sites in the upper Taharua that are in direct proximity to the dairy farms (see Attachment 2). Groundwater lag times at river monitoring sites range from 6.5 to 8 years on average, so what we are measuring in-stream ‘today’ is influenced by land use practices dating back to around 2006 to 2008. There have been significant farm management improvements since then so we are confident the improvement trend will continue. Dissolved reactive phosphorus is also trending down with Taharua River concentrations averaging 0.013 mg/L over 2013.

15. Staff met with Taharua landowners in December. All the major landowners continue to be fully engaged in adaptive catchment management. This encompasses both:

15.1. positive improvements in farm management over the last 6 months or so to continue to improve Nitrogen and Phosphorus levels. Examples include: continued riparian fencing and planting; reduced winter crop areas; and a precision approach to fertiliser management to reduce soil Phosphorus levels in areas where they are too high and

15.2. in principle agreements that strengthen the draft catchment management plan: a group membership commitment to “active communication”; agreement to release nutrient budget input data for consistency auditing; and commitment to 2014 meeting dates to focus on nutrient management plans and winter cropping plans.

16. Instability in land ownership continues with Lochinver Station for sale. This highlights the need for a planning framework that can prevail irrespective of changes in landownership. Lochinver Station continues to actively engage with the group. Major restructuring of the Station’s operations are considered unlikely in the short term.

17. Taharua landowners have reservations about opening the Taharua process to a wider MSG. They accept that the community’s support for the Taharua proposal (supported in principle by Council in September 2012) needs to be tested alongside other realistic options. However, there is concern the MSG could unravel or slow the constructive work made by Taharua landowners over recent years. They wish to keep as much control of the Taharua process as possible and to actively participate on the MSG.

Way forward

18. Indicative timeframes for the key steps towards plan change notification at end of 2014 were set out above in Table 1. The timeframes are tight and the risks of some delay are high. To achieve this timeframe the Mohaka work will need: consistently high priority of staff resourcing; timely delivery of information to support stakeholder discussions; and a relatively uncontentious stakeholder process dealing with issues in the wider Mohaka catchment (i.e. not the Taharua sub-catchment).

19. Positively, there is a desire among stakeholders to see a Mohaka policy framework in place as soon as possible, particularly to address Taharua issues. Yet speed ought to be weighed against the need for a robust policymaking process which will withstand the scrutiny of potential Environment Court proceedings.

Decision Making Process

20. 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 the Regional Planning Committee receives the report titled “Mohaka Plan Change and Stakeholder Engagement Update”.

Chris Reed

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	Mohaka Catchment Plan Change - Outline of Suggested Process
2 View	Taharua River Nutrient Trends - Twin Culverts

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 19 February 2014

SUBJECT: Resource Management Planning Project Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper is a new initiative intended to become a regular feature on Regional Planning Committee meeting agendas. This report provides a brief outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently underway.

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

4. The table in Attachment 1 repeats the relevant parts of the resource management planning work programme from the 2012-22 Long Term Plan and/or current 2013/14 Annual Plan.

5. Similar periodical reporting will also be presented to the Council as part of the ‘Period 5’, ‘Period 9’ and end of year Annual Plan reporting requirements.

Decision Making Process

6. 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 the Regional Planning Committee receives the report titled ‘Resource Management Planning Projects Update’.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Plan Change Sitrep

Plan Change Sitrep

Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT 1 - Resource Management plan Change Status Report as at 1 February 2014

Current Project	LTP/AP Performance Target	Update
Regional Coastal Environment Plan	In 2013-14, scope and prioritise any plan changes required to give effect to the 2010 NZ Coastal Policy Statement (‘NZCPS’). 2014-15, commence a review of the RCEP’s coastal hazard zones if technical reassessment (Project 322) reveals review is necessary. 2014-15, notify plan change(s) to give effect to 2010 NZCPS.	Almost operative, pending Minister of Conservation’s approval of coastal marine area-related provisions. RCEP (incorporating amendments arising from appeals etc) was adopted by Council in October 2012. Coastal marine area-related provisions have been referred to the Minister of Conservation for his approval. Minister’s approval is still pending. RCEP (and associated Variations 1 to 3, plus Change 1 to RRMP) will be made operative following Ministerial approval. Work yet to commence on scoping possible plan change(s) necessary to give effect to 2010 NZCPS.
‘Change 1’ to RRMP (Geographic coverage of coastal environment)	Nil	Change 1 is closely related to the RCEP. Change 1 is to be made operative at same time RCEP is made operative.
‘Change 4’ to the RRMP (Managing the built environment)	In 2013-14, issue decisions on submissions.	Operative 1 January 2014. Change to RPS to incorporate principles and direction from joint-council Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Also features general principles of urban development management for wider Hawke's Bay region. Council’s decisions on submissions were issued on 26 March 2013. One appeal lodged and resolved by negotiation.
‘Change 5’ to RRMP (land and freshwater management)	Nil. Need for Change 5 project emerged after 2012-22 LTP was completed.	Council’s decisions subject to 4 appeals. Change 5 provides enhanced guidance and direction as precursor to catchment-based regional plan changes and topic-based plan changes. Change 5 embeds principles and direction from the Hawke's Bay Land and Water Management Strategy. Change 5 was Notified on 2 October 2012. Council’s decisions on submissions were issued on 5 June 2013. Four appeals lodged (Federated Farmers, Hawke's Bay Region Fish and Game Council, Horticulture NZ, and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc). One Court-assisted mediation session was held in Oct 2013. Further mediation session April(?) 2014, subject to willingness of parties to participate.

Current Project	LTP/AP Performance Target	Update
‘Change 6’ to RRMP (Tukituki River Catchment)	May 2013, notify plan change for Tukituki River catchment.	Hearing closed. Decisions pending from Board of Inquiry. Notified on 4 May 2013. 80 submissions received. Ministers of Conservation and Environment called-in Change 6 and Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications and directed the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ to a Board of Inquiry. Tukituki Catchment Proposal notified by the EPA. 398 submissions (including the original 80) and 22 further submissions were lodged on Change 6. On 21 January, the Board of Inquiry hearing finished after 29 hearing days. A draft decision from the Board is expected then followed by final decision in May.
Taharua/Mohaka Catchment plan change	December 2014, notify plan change for Taharua/ upper Mohaka River catchment.	Under preparation. Not yet notified. Primarily a water quality/land use issue in upper Mohaka and Taharua catchments, although project has broadened to cover whole Mohaka River catchment. Refer to separate item on 19 February 2014 meeting agenda for Regional Planning Committee.
Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area plan change (a.k.a. ‘TANK’ project)	December 2016, notify plan change for Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Catchment Area.	Under preparation. Not yet notified. Another catchment-based plan change project taking an integrated approach for the Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro rivers, Karamu and Clive rivers, Ahuriri Estuary catchment and the Heretaunga Plains groundwater system. Group Manager Resource Management is canvassing formation of a ‘TANK Science Technical Advisory Group.’ Refer to separate item on 19 February 2014 meeting agenda for Regional Planning Committee.
Natural hazards and land use management plan change	July 2014, notify plan change for natural hazards.	Under preparation. Not yet notified. This is a proposal to improve the RPS’s provisions relating to the way land use and natural hazards are managed in Hawke's Bay. The Change would embed initiatives from the Regional Land Use and Natural Hazards Management Strategy 2011 (strategy along with a Strategy Implementation Plan endorsed by CDEM Group Joint Committee late 2012). Plan change scoping completed. First draft of plan change near complete, pending maternity leave of lead senior planner.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.