Cr D Minogue Cr F Lichtwark Cr B Quayle Cr S Husband Cr K ... · Page 7. Regional Plan Review...

Waikato Regional Council Regional Plan Review Committee Agenda

Date: Tuesday, 17 September, 2019

Time: 10:00 am

Location: Council Chamber

Waikato Regional Council

401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members: Cr S Kneebone - ChairCr D MinogueCr F LichtwarkCr B QuayleCr S HusbandCr K WhiteE Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust)M Tukere (Waikato Raupatu River Trust)P Majurey (Hauraki Maori Trust Board)G Kettle (Raukawa Charitable Trust)J Kaati (Maniapoto Maori Trust Board)

Notice of Meeting:I hereby give notice that an ordinary Meeting of the Regional Plan Review Committee will be held as detailedabove.

VRJ PayneChief Executive Officer

Pages

1. Apologies

2. Disclosures of Interest

3. Confirmation of Minutes 7

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 21 May 2019.

4. Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional PlanChange 2 - Taupō Overseer

14

To obtain the approval of the Committee to recommend to Council, a Streamlined PlanningProcess (SPP) to progress a plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan.

5. Iwi engagement approach and overview 20

Report to brief the Committee on the approach to iwi engagement for HealthyEnvironments.

6. Healthy Environments He Taiao Mauriora Project Management Process outline,incorporating overview of Essential Freshwater package

25

Report to provide an overview of the project management process and timeline on theHealthy Environments – He Taiao Mauriora project (Regional Plan and Regional Coastal PlanReview).

Regional Plan Review Committee REPORTING TO:


CONSTITUTION:

- Six (6) Councillors, including the Council Chair (ex-officio with full voting rights), one of whom shall be the chair of the Committee

- Six (6) representatives, one (1) from each: o Te Arawa River Iwi Trust o Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board o Raukawa Charitable Trust o Maniapoto Māori Trust Board o Waikato Raupatu River Trust o Pare Hauraki (Hauraki Collective)

Iwi representatives are to be nominated by the relevant iwi and appointed by Council. Iwi representatives need not be Trustees.

DURATION Up until the point of public notification of the last plan change relating to the review of the Operative Waikato Regional Plan and Operative regional Coastal Plan.

QUORUM: Six (6) made up of three (3) Councillors and three (3) Iwi representatives.

ALTERNATES

- Council may appoint two (2) Councillor alternate members - Iwi may each nominate one alternate person to be appointed by

Council as an alternate member for that iwi’s representative - Alternates may attend where the appointed Committee member is

incapacitated or unavailable - Alternate members shall be fully briefed by the relevant appointed

Committee member - The alternate members shall have full voting rights in the absence of

the member they are representing. - To ensure continuity, the named alternate will provide alternate

representation for the full term of the appointed Committee member - The named alternate may be replaced (in the same manner as for their

original appointment) if they are incapacitated to the extent they are unable to attend as an alternate

- Note: this does not affect Council’s power in Schedule 7 Clause 31(1) to discharge committee members.

MEETING FREQUENCY:

Bi-monthly or as required.

OBJECTIVE:

To provide governance oversight of the review the Operative Waikato Regional Coastal Plan and Operative Waikato Regional and to recommend plan changes to Council for notification in accordance with clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

SCOPE OF ACTIVITY:

The scope of the Committee is limited to:

1. Review of the Operative Waikato Regional Coastal Plan and Operative Waikato Regional Plan change(s), up to the point of recommendation to notify plan change(s) to Council.

2. Consideration and recommendation to Council for acceptance of s32 Resource Management Act evaluation report(s) in support of changes to the regional plans.

3. Ensure that legislative obligations and limitations including national directions relating to the review are taken into account and complied with.

Out of Scope 4. To avoid doubt, the scope of the committee does not include (amongst other matters):

a. Matters relating to Plan Change 1, Healthy Rivers Wai Ora plan change relating to the Waikato and Waipa Rivers.

b. Matters affecting Taupō Waters, as defined in the Tūwharetoa-WRC Joint Management Agreement.

Note

a. The scope of “matters affecting Taupō Waters” shall be determined by Council.

b. Plan review “matters affecting Taupō Waters” will be deferred by the Plan Review Committee to the Tūwharetoa-WRC co-governance committee.

c. Any part of the RMA process past the point of public notification of each particular topic, plan change, phase, or package of reviewed provisions.

d. Approval of plans and plan changes. (Approval of matters falling within the Coastal Marine Area rests with the Minister of Conservation. Approval of all other plan review matters rests with full Council).

e. Operational, management or project decisions relating to the day–to-day project management of the plan review process, including operational time, scope and budget.

f. Matters relating to Treaty Settlement negotiations.

g. Transfer of powers in respect of s33 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

POWER TO ACT:

5. The committee is empowered to: a. receive reports and presentations on the matters set out in the Scope of Activity.

b. Establish Plan Review Working Group(s) on a case by case basis, if required, and

determine meeting frequency of the working groups, and membership (refer Appendix 1 for template Terms of Reference).

POWER TO RECOMMEND:

6. The committee is empowered to recommend to Council, changes to the operative Waikato Regional Coastal Plan and Waikato Regional Plan.

PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLES:

7. Council Standing Orders apply to this Committee.

8. Pursuant to s18A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the committee shall take all practicable steps to: a. use timely, efficient, consistent and cost-effective process that are proportionate

to the functions or powers being performed or exercised; b. ensure that regional plan changes

i. include only those matters relevant to the purpose of the Resource Management Act;

ii. are worded in a way that is clear and concise 9. These Terms of reference do not preclude iwi representatives from seeking direction

from their Boards, or having discussions on topics of interest direct with Council, subject to the normal rules regarding conflicts of interest.

10. Committee members will maintain the confidentiality of any confidential information coming before the committee (i.e. confidential reports and/or matters discussed at any “public excluded” meetings).

COSTS:

11. The cost of providing representatives on the Committee will lie where they fall, with each representative agency bearing the costs of appointment of their member(s).

DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

12. Decision making is exercised by the majority of members of the meeting.

13. In the event that the Committee is unable to resolve any matter relating to their purpose or functions, then the Chair will endeavour to resolve the matter.

14. In the case of an equality of votes, the chair or person presiding at the meeting has a casting vote. The Chair or person presiding at the meeting may determine to either use their casting vote or recommend the matter to Council for a decision.


Regional Plan Review Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 21 May, 2019, 1:00 pm

Council Chamber


401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr S Kneebone - Chair

Cr D Minogue

Cr F Lichtwark

Cr B Quayle

Cr T Mahuta

Cr K White

E Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust )

M Tukere (Waikato Raupatu River Trust)

P Majurey (Hauraki Maori Trust Board)

J Kaati (Maniapoto Maori Trust Board)

In Attendance Cr J Hayman

Staff Present: T May (Director Science and Strategy)

T Quickfall (Manager)

L Van Veen (Democracy Advisor)

J Cox (Team Leader Democracy Services)

Regional Plan Review Committee Meeting Minutes 21 May 2019

Doc # 14330135 Page 2

1. Terms of Reference

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Maria Nepia (Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board), Cr A Livingston

and Cr S Husband. Apologies for lateness were also received from E Berryman-Kamp (Te

Arawa River Iwi Trust).

The Chair welcomed R Lewis (Kaiwhakarite) to open the committee with a karakia. The Chair

also presented a mihi and provided all members opportunity to introduce themselves in

acknowledgement of it being the first committee meeting.

RPRC19/1

Moved by: Cr S Kneebone

Seconded by: Cr F Lichtwark

RESOLVED (SECTION A):

1. THAT the apologies of Maria Nepia (Tuwharetoa), Cr A Livingston and Cr Husband be accepted; and

2. THAT the apologies of E Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust) for lateness be accepted.

The motion was put and carried

3. Disclosures of Interest

There were no disclosures of interest for the meeting.

4. Establishment of Regional Plan Review Committee

Report to confirm the operational establishment of the Regional Plan Review Committee,

Council’s standing orders and the draft Terms of Reference.

The report was presented by T May (Director Science and Strategy).

During questions, answers and related discussion the following was noted:

A member referred to inconsistencies between the Terms of Reference included in the cover pages of the agenda compared to the Terms of Reference attached to the report. Staff clarified that the Terms of Reference attached to the report were the up to date version being put to the committee for endorsement.

A member queried the process for confirming iwi members on the committee. Staff advised that they were to confirm in writing to the Committee Democracy Advisor. This applied to situations where iwi members were no longer able to attend committee meetings and needed to reassign their membership status to another representative.

Members were advised that current Council Standing Orders required attendance in person for committee meetings.

In response to a members query regarding whether members were able to suspend standing orders, staff advised that members would need to discuss their proposal to do so with the committee chair outside of committee meeting to determine the merits of what was being sought and the best course of action for resolving.


Doc # 14330135 Page 3

RPRC19/2

Moved by: Cr B Quayle

Seconded by: Cr F Lichtwark


1. THAT the report ‘Establishment of Regional Plan Review Committee’ (Regional Plan

Review Committee 21 May 2019) be received; and

RECOMMENDED (SECTION B):

2. THAT the Terms of Reference for the Regional Plan Review Committee are endorsed as

per Attachment 1 of the report 'Establishment of Regional Plan Review Committee'

provided to the 21 May 2019 Regional Plan Review Committee.


5. National direction, National planning standards and ePlan update

Report to update the committee on the government’s national directions programme,

National Planning Standards and the Waikato Regional Council ePlan project and how these

matters will integrate and influence with the Healthy Environments project.

The report was presented by the Manager Policy (T Quickfall).


The Minister for the Environment intended to place more pressing timeframes on regional

councils to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

(NPSFM ) than what was originally planned for. It was noted that this would fast track the

work to incorporate relevant freshwater provisions within the new regional plan.

V Payne (Chief Executive) arrived at 1.35pm.

V Payne acknowledged the status of the NPSFM and its likely impact on the regional plan

review work. It was also noted that current treaty settlement obligations could

complicate giving effect to the NPSFM, especially given the anticipated direction of more

pressing implementation timeframes. This has signalled the need for smarter ways of

working, to accommodate both treaty settlement and NPS directions.

E Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust ) arrived at 1.40pm.

RPRC19/3

Moved by: Cr S Kneebone

Seconded by: Cr K White


THAT the report ‘National direction, National Planning Standards, and ePlan update’

(Regional Plan Review Committee – 21 May 2019) be received.



Doc # 14330135 Page 4

6. Introduction to Plan Review topics

Report to inform the committee about the topics based approach to the review of the regional

plan and regional coastal plan and to introduce the topics that will be considered in Phase 1

and in Phase 2 of the review.

The report was presented by the Land and Coast Team Leader (M Foreman).


Staff advised that regional plan provisions would be reviewed in two phases - including phase 1 (Regional Coastal Plan provisions) and phase 2 (Regional Plan provisions) respectively. "Lake Taupo Waters" (Chapter 3.10 of the Regional Plan) would be reviewed as part of phase 1 due to Variation 5 obligations. Mangroves provisions would also be reviewed as part of phase 1 to address historical issues relating to mangrove management.

Matauranga Maori would be incorporated into all aspects of the plan review process, instead of being accommodated through a standalone chapter, as is the case with the current regional plan.

A member queried how engagement with iwi was planned to ensure their perspective on Matauranga Maori was appropriately addressed. Staff advised that the Committee included provision for working parties to be established. The intention would be for an iwi working party to be established made up of iwi members, so as to inform the committee on iwi matters, including Matauranga Maori. Members advised that iwi Environmental Management Plans were also a good source for information.

A member requested clarification on the definition of "review". Staff advised the "review" was to reflect current levels of science, direction and community expectations which had evolved since the current regional plan had been enacted.

In response to a members query regarding whether a resolution of council to take into account 1080 effects (December 2015 Council meeting, resolution WRC15/448) would be considered as part of the plan review process, staff advised that Council resolutions of the past 4-5 years had been tabled and were being reviewed as part of the research stage of the project. The member highlighted the need for staff to take into account recent Landcare Research test results for 1080 within waterways.

A member queried regarding the process for reviewing occupation charges. Staff advised that recommendations would be presented to the committee for their endorsement of Council decision. The extent to which occupation charges would apply was undetermined.

Staff undertook to provide a more comprehensive report on project timelines and mechanics at the next committee meeting.

In response to a members query regarding the process for notification to the public for feedback, staff advised they were yet to determine if notification would occur as one bundled package or in separate parts on separate dates. Intention was to notify phase 1 as one package.

In response to a members query regarding how topics for review would be prioritized, staff advised that topics had individual staff "leads" assigned to them and would be reviewed concurrently to accommodate linkages.

A member highlighted that water was the highest priority for their iwi and requested that this be taken into account when prioritising topics for review. Staff advised that prioritisation would be based on the most outstanding matters of the current plans and that water was not considered the highest priority as it had been addressed more recently through Variation 6, compared to other matters in the plans. Prioritisation would need to


Doc # 14330135 Page 5

take into account the interests of the whole community which went broader than water. Some current plan topics had not been reviewed since they first came into effect 20 years ago and therefore required more urgent attention. It was reiterated that pending national direction to improve water quality would likely fast track the review of water quality provisions which could address heightened iwi interest in this space.

A member raised concern that the 2021 notification target for phase 1 was ambitious and that iwi members would find it challenging to ensure engagement with their respective parties within such a short timeframe. Staff assured that they will endeavour to work closely with iwi to determine the best means of engagement.

A member highlighted the need to engage closely with iwi members to ensure up to date views of Matauranga Maori were reflected within the new plan provisions. It was noted that views had evolved since the current plan had been enacted.

In response to a members query regarding whether climate change would be adequately addressed, staff advised that they recognised the high importance of climate change and that provisions for climate change would be worked into all aspects of the plan review process. It was noted that there were also statutory obligations requiring that all council's address sea level rise up to 100 years from now.

A member raised the need for engagement to appeal to various audiences in order to ensure useful feedback was received. Staff assured that they were working closely with communications staff to ensure engagement was tailored to best suit audience needs and tastes.

A member queried the Rena oil spill court case ruling regarding regional council jurisdiction in the creation of marine reserves. Staff undertook to investigate this further and bring back their findings to the committee.

RPRC19/4

Moved by: M Tukere

Seconded by: T Mahuta


That the report ‘Introduction to plan review topics’ (Regional Plan Review Committee – 21

May 2019) be received.


7. Engagement approach and overview

Report to:

Brief committee members on the engagement approach to Healthy Environments – He Taiao Mauriora (Regional Plan and Regional Coastal Plan Review)

Enable committee members to better understand engagement for this project so they can respond to any constituent or registry queries

Provide an overview of our approach, key legislation and engagement principles; and

Provide a forum for questions and input. The report was presented by the Communications Advisor assigned to support the project (A Pihama).


Doc # 14330135 Page 6

A Pihama explained that work to progress project engagement was to be addressed in two parts. The first would involve scoping engagement needs. The second would involve determining topics for engagement. It was noted that project engagement had a set allocated budget.


In response to a member's query regarding how committee feedback on the draft issues discussion document would be sought prior to it being submitted to council for endorsement and then released to the community for engagement purposes, the committee determined that feedback from members would be sought by way of email. Staff undertook to email committee members the draft issues discussion document for their feedback as soon as it was ready for review. A summary of feedback received would be sent to members after feedback had been received.

A member queried regarding the content of the draft issues discussion document. Staff advised that it would be a high level document outlining each specific plan review topic and drafted in a way which would be useful for informing all levels of engagement with varying stakeholders.

A member highlighted the usefulness of social media for engagement with the community and encouraged its use during the plan review engagement work. It was noted that social media attracted specific types of feedback from stakeholders which might not otherwise be easily obtained through other means. Members were mindful that this means of engagement required a high level of active management.

A member advised that media releases would also be a useful tool for public engagement.

It was noted that Senior Policy Advisor (M Graham) had been assigned the role of engagement lead with iwi. Contact with iwi to determine the best means of engagement was planned to occur within the next few weeks.

A member emphasized the need for staff to work with iwi to formulate solutions. Staff assured members that engagement plans were flexible and that a collaborative approach with iwi was possible.

A member requested a programme for engagement, so as to enable iwi to adequately plan for resource needs. This included planned out scheduling of committee meetings with adequate notification of when specific decisions would be sought. Staff undertook to provide this.

Staff advised that they would provide the Field Days engagement plan to committee members in due course.

V Payne highlighted his involvement on the regional sector group for essential freshwater and that this could prompt the need to set up a technical working group in order to feedback to the sector group from a regional perspective.

RPRC19/5

Moved by: Cr K White

Seconded by: Cr B Quayle


That the report ‘Healthy Environments|He Taiao Mauriora – Engagement approach and

overview’ (Regional Plan Review Committee – 21 May 2019) be received.


Meeting closed at 3.13pm


Doc # 14330135 Page 7

_________________________

Chair

Report to Regional Plan Review Committee

Date: 3 September 2019

Author: Sonia Baker, Team Leader Farming Services

Authoriser: Tracey May, Director Science and Strategy

Subject: Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 2 - Taupō Overseer

Section: B (For recommendation to Council)

Purpose 1. To obtain the approval of the Committee to recommend to Council, a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP)

to progress a plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan. The Plan Change is to allow new versions of Overseer to be used to manage Taupō nitrogen leaching. If the Committee recommend and the Council approve the SPP, staff will formally begin the process with the Ministry for the Environment.

Executive Summary 2. Healthy Environments (review of the regional and coastal plans) includes the review of chapter 3.10 of the

Waikato Regional Plan (Lake Taupō).

3. Overseer is the model used to manage nitrogen discharges from farms in the Lake Taupō catchment. The Taupō rules, which became operative in 2011, require the use of Overseer version 5.4.3. This version expires in December 2020.

4. Taupō farming consents and nitrogen trading contracts require farmers to comply with their Nitrogen Discharge Allowance (NDA). If they wish to make changes to farming operations, they need to model the changes through version 5.4.3 to ensure nitrogen leaching does not exceed their NDA. After December 2020 when the version expires, this will not be possible. In effect, consents and nitrogen trading contracts will become unenforceable.

5. The SPP could be used to change the regional plan Taupō provisions to allow use of updated versions of the Overseer model before version 5.4.3 expires.

6. The report seeks approval to proceed with an SPP. The actual proposed plan change will be presented to the Committee separately if the SPP is approved and accepted by the Minister for the Environment. This is likely to be early next year.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan

Change 2 - Taupō Overseer (Regional Plan Review Committee 17 September 2019) be received. 2. That the Committee recommends to Council the use of a Streamlined Planning Process to change the

Regional Plan Taupō provisions to allow updated versions of the Overseer model to be used.

Background 7. Chapter 3.10 of the Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) manages nitrogen discharge from land uses into Lake

Taupō. In the late 1990s and early 2000’s, monitoring of Lake Taupō indicated that water quality was starting to deteriorate, largely due to land use intensification. The Variation 5 process was initiated to respond, and this resulted in the Chapter 3.10 provisions. The provisions sought to cap existing nitrogen discharges from land use, primarily through regional plan rules and farming consents. In addition, an $80 million public fund, was set up to buy out nitrogen from the catchment to counter the load to come off nitrogen from past land use practices, where the nitrogen had yet to arrive at the lake through the soil. The fund was administered by the Lake Taupō Protection Trust, and paid for by central government, Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and Taupō District Council.

8. In July 2011, the Environment Court, following consideration of appeals on Regional Plan Variation 5

(RPV5), determined that Overseer version 5.4.3 was the only version that could be used in the Taupō regional plan provisions. The Environment Court considered that a single Overseer version needed to be used so that the total catchment load of nitrogen, and the 20 percent reduction of that load, could be determined. Use of a single version has provided a simple way of ensuring farmers do not increase nitrogen leaching and to facilitate nitrogen trading.

9. Overseer is used to model farm nitrogen leaching, and to model changes to leaching as a result of nitrogen

trading. In this way, Overseer is used to ensure the nitrogen cap set by the Taupō rules is not exceeded. While Overseer is only a tool that models indicative nitrogen discharges based on input information, it is nationally considered the best available tool to model nitrogen discharges from farms.

Issue 10. Overseer version 5.4.3 expires in December 2020 due to an internal timer end date. After this date farm

NDAs become problematic because it will not be possible to know if changes to farm management can occur while maintaining the farm nitrogen cap. Similarly, it will not be possible to know if changes to farm management would be consistent with nitrogen limitations in existing nitrogen trading contracts. It is necessary therefore that farming consents and nitrogen trading contracts be updated to enable use of the latest versions of Overseer. These updates need to be completed before December 2020 when version 5.4.3 expires. The key statutory means available to achieve this is a plan change, and to achieve the changed consents by December 2020, the plan change needs to be notified by the end of March 2020.

11. Chapter 3.10 of the WRP sets out the N cap and trade objectives, policies and rules. The rules require that

Overseer version 5.4.3 is used to establish each farm’s NDA and Nitrogen Management Plan (NMP). Nitrogen trading is also required to use version 5.4.3 to determine how much nitrogen is traded and how this changes each farm’s NDA. The plan change will need to change the rules so that updated versions of Overseer can be used. The plan change will include a requirement for WRC to review all 83 existing farming consents so that they are changed to refer to updated Overseer versions.

12. The latest version of Overseer (Overseer FM) is very different to version 5.4.3, given a number of changes

in Overseer since 2011. Overseer FM is based on updated science and models a greater range of land uses. It uses more accurate climate and soils data. As a result, if the same inputs are modelled by Overseer FM and version 5.4.3, very different nitrogen leaching estimates are made. Because of the differences between the model versions, Overseer FM cannot accurately model the initial farm benchmark data (which was developed for version 5.4.3). This means that farms need to be re-benchmarked in a way that can be modelled by Overseer FM. Version 5.4.3 needs to be used to re-benchmark each farm in the catchment, to ensure that farms are not able to leach more than during the initial benchmark period. This programme of work is scheduled for 2020.

Resolving the Issue 13. A number of options for resolving the Overseer issue have been considered including asking Overseer

Limited to extend the timeframe until version 5.4.3 expires, keeping a copy of the version on a backdated computer, asking farmers to apply for non-complying consents to replace their existing consents, seeking Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) section 128 reviews of consents and asking farmers to apply for RMA section 127 changes to their consents. Most of these options turned out to be unworkable. Farmers can apply for section 127 changes to consents, but this is not an ideal way to address a problem with our regional plan rules, and has not been supported by legal advice as a way to address the problem.

14. Note that legal advice has been provided on two occasions about how Taupō farmers can use updated versions of Overseer. It was noted in 2013, in response to questions that although farmers could apply for a non-complying consent, or a RMA section 127 change to conditions of consent, to allow new Overseer versions to be used, farmers may face “considerable difficulties” given that different Nitrogen Discharge Allowances would result. The advice was that if the plan contents were causing a problem, the appropriate solution was a plan change. In 2019 further legal advice was sought. Key points were that Council could review consents using RMA section 128 provisions once a plan change has been notified, and that the plan change would satisfy the requirements for a Schedule 1 Streamlined Planning Process.

15. A plan change is therefore recommended as the best solution. Staff have started to review all the Chapter 3.10 Taupō provisions. However, this full review cannot be completed in time to allow existing Taupō consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed before December 2020. It should also be noted that the pending confirmed in Freshwater National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard are expected to be early 2020. Further changes to the Taupō rules are likely to be needed in response. However we cannot wait for the Essential Freshwater provisions before addressing the Overseer version issue. It is therefore necessary that a plan change will be progressed which focuses solely on addressing the Overseer issue, and that a second plan change will be progressed at a later date as part of the wider Healthy Environments plan change process.

16. If a plan change is not progressed to address the issue: a. Current NDAs would become meaningless after December 2020 because they relate to an expired

Overseer version. b. Farmers would not be able to change land use practices in any way (such as changing the fertiliser

regime, changing the mix of stock, or changing the area of cropping) as there would be no way to test if such changes would result in additional nitrogen leaching.

c. Consent conditions relating to the NDA or NMP would become unenforceable. d. Farmers may become technically in breach of the existing rules if the rules require the use of a model

version that they can no longer use. Farmers would not have certainty about what is required of them.

e. Nitrogen trading could not occur because the rules require the use of version 5.4.3 to facilitate trading.

f. It would not be possible to determine compliance with existing nitrogen trading contracts which significantly impacts on the work of the Lake Taupō Protection Trust.

g. The Taupō cap and trade scheme is internationally a high-profile scheme to protect an iconic water body. The success of the scheme would be put at risk if Council does not effectively deal with the Overseer version issue.

17. To effectively address the issue, a plan change needs to be in place early enough to allow changes to be

made to the Taupō land use consents and the nitrogen trading contracts before version 5.4.3 expires in December 2020. Legal advice has stated that Council could begin changing consents as soon as a plan change has been notified. We need to take advantage of this ability in order to meet the December 2020 deadline. The Lake Taupō Protection Trust would prefer that new rules become fully operative before they seek to change the nitrogen trading contracts, to ensure certainty of the new provisions.

Options 18. The Lake Taupō Protection Trust has advised that it could take 12 months to change the nitrogen trading

contracts. WRC staff consider that it could take nine months to change the existing consents. It is therefore necessary that the plan change is progressed as quickly as possible.

19. Staff have reviewed a range of options to progress the plan change within the necessary timeframe. Only two options appear to be viable, a standard RMA Schedule 1 process or a Schedule 1 SPP. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are as follows:

Follow a standard Schedule 1 process 20. A Schedule 1 process involves the standard consultation requirements for a plan change, notification of

the plan change, a call for submissions and further submissions, a hearing process and an appeal period. Given the Council election period and the Christmas RMA definition of a working day, it may not be possible to notify a plan change before February 2020. It is possible that no submitters would call for a hearing given that this would be a relatively minor plan change. However it is likely that a short hearing would be required. Under a standard Schedule 1 plan change it may not be possible to achieve a fully operative plan change before perhaps early 2021.

21. Advantages

Allows for existing consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed after notification in February 2020.

Council makes the decision (rather than the Ministry for the Environment).

If there are no submissions in opposition, or any requests to be heard, or appeals, then the proposed rules may become fully operative around September 2020.

22. Disadvantages

The provisions may not be fully operative by December 2020 due to the submissions, hearings and appeals process.

A full Schedule 1 process would be required, which could cost in the vicinity of $75,000, plus $30,000-$50,000 staff time, depending on submissions and appeals.

Use the Streamlined Planning Process 23. Under the Schedule 1 SPP, Council has some flexibility to design the plan change process. The RMA does

however state:

Normal plan change consultation under the Schedule 1 process needs to occur

Submissions must be called for

A plan change hearing is not required

The Minister for the Environment makes the decision

There are no appeal rights to the decision.

24. Staff consider that after the submission period, meetings should be arranged with submitters to ensure their concerns are well understood. A hearing would not be held.

25. It is possible that using a SPP, the plan change would be notified in February 2020 and an operative plan

change could be in place by mid to late 2020. 26. Advantages

Allows for existing consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed after notification, likely to be February 2020.

Gives more assurance that new rules become fully operative before December 2020, so that new consents, consent changes and nitrogen trading will be possible after December 2020.

Avoids the need for further submissions and hearings/appeal processes, which is estimated to cost at least $75,000 and is currently unbudgeted. Note that the Ministry pays for their own costs in the SPP.

27. Disadvantages

The Minister assumes decision making power instead of Council.

Engagement and application/reporting costs will still accrue to Council – estimated as $30,000-$50,000.

Option Analysis 28. The SPP would likely deliver an operative plan change before a standard Schedule 1 process, and for a

reduced cost to council. Note that implementation costs would likely be similar irrespective of which option was chosen.

29. The Minister for the Environment must agree to a SPP process before it can be initiated, and to qualify,

the plan change must meet the criteria in RMA Section 80C. The SPP was introduced into the RMA in 2017 to provide an expeditious planning process that can be designed so that the process is proportionate to the complexity and significance of the planning issue. One of the Section 80C criteria is that there is some urgency to the issue being addressed. The Overseer plan change would seem to be an ideal plan change for an SPP. Ministry officials and legal advice has confirmed that a plan change to update a reference to an obsolete version of Overseer is likely to meet the criteria for an SPP.

30. Importantly, under an SPP, WRC initiates the process, and if accepted by the Minister, WRC can also

withdraw from the process. WRC is able to withdraw at any point up to a Minister decision on the plan change. This is a significant back-stop that retains full process control with the Council, and enables a switch back to a standard Plan Change Process if this proves to be a better process in terms of allowing earlier changing of consents and nitrogen trading contracts. It is important to note that if the SPP is to meet the required timeframes, the process needs to be started as soon as possible.

31. It is therefore recommended that an SPP be initiated to progress a plan change to address the Overseer

issue. In order to use the SPP, and before applying to the Minister for its use, Council needs to resolve to use the process. It is therefore recommended that the Streamlined Planning Process be recommended to the Council for endorsement.

Communication and Engagement 32. Staff have been discussing the review of Chapter 3.10 with key stakeholders since before September 2017.

These stakeholders therefore are aware that the chapter needs to be changed to allow the use of updated Overseer versions. Consultation about what specific changes will be needed to the rules has only recently begun. Consultation about the proposed use of the SPP process is also beginning.

33. The RMA states that during preparation of a plan change, local authorities must consult: a. The Minister for the Environment b. Other Ministers who may be affected – for example, the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ministry

of Corrections c. Affected Local Authorities d. Tangata whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities.

34. A number of discussions have already occurred with Ministry for the Environment staff. They have

expressed support for the use of the SPP to address the Overseer issue as noted above. Staff have also had an initial discussion with the Tūwharetoa Trust Board about the use of the SPP. Initial discussions have also been had with Te Kotahitanga and other iwi.

35. The RMA states that as well as the four above parties that must be consulted, the Council may consult

other parties. As a minimum in the Taupō case, Taupō farmers (including the Taupō Lake Care farmer group) and the Lake Taupō Protection Trust should also be consulted. Meetings have already been held with these two parties about the potential content of the plan change. Both parties were comfortable with initial thinking about the content.

36. Note that under the provisions of the Tūwharetoa Joint Management Agreement, agreement to use a particular plan change process such as the SPP, is not required from Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

Assessment of Significance 37. Having regard to the decision-making provisions in the LGA 2002 and Council’s Significance Policy, a

decision in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.

Policy Considerations 38. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is anticipated

to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by this local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Conclusion 39. Council adoption of an SPP process to change the reference to Overseer in WRP rules to the updated

version will enable the existing cap and trade provisions to continue to operate as originally intended. The SPP process should ensure new rules are fully operative before the old version of Overseer ceases to function. Council retains the ability to withdraw from the SPP process should other options prove to be achievable within the timeframe required.



Author: Manu Graham, Senior Policy Advisor, Land and Coast


Subject: Iwi engagement approach and overview

Section: A (Committee has delegated authority to make decision)

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to brief the Committee on the approach to iwi engagement for Healthy

Environments.

Executive Summary 2. Engagement is a critical part of the Healthy Environments project. Council has endorsed the formation of

the Regional Plan Review Committee (RPRC) which comprises of six council nominated representatives and six iwi representatives. Council has also endorsed and funded an engagement approach through the Long Term Plan.

3. Engagement is identified as a high-risk area, in terms of managing the competing expectations from different parties around the plan review (process and content). Key messages throughout the engagement will be:

Work smartly within project budget and resourcing as agreed by Council

While we strive for consensus, we recognise that any Resource Management Act (RMA) plan process is not about achieving consensus but developing policies for the best regional outcome.

There will be opportunity to formally test content through statutory processes.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Iwi engagement approach and overview (Regional Plan Review Committee 17 September 2019) be received.

Background 4. As previously presented to the RPRC, resourcing, funding and sizing for any project revolves around a

spectrum ranging from minimal resourcing to maximum resourcing. The spectrum is described as follows:

“Do minimum” - just undertake statutory minimums and no more.

“Do necessary” – undertake the most appropriate mix of best practice, affordability and best policy outcomes.

“Do most” – undertake extensive engagement and resourcing (including collaboration). 5. For a statutory, all-of-region, and all-of-topic project like the review of regional plans, Council has signalled

through previous Long Term Plan discussions and deliberations that a fully collaborative process “do most” would be unsustainable and unaffordable for the regions ratepayers.

6. Council has confirmed funding and sizing of Healthy Environments around “do necessary”. Noting that:

All statutory minimums will be met

The council’s “IAP2” framework will be applied

Engagement across the project will largely take the form of stakeholder consultation or involvement.

The term “engagement” has been adopted for Healthy Environments because it better describes what we will do and covers all different forms of engagement, it does not marry the project to one particular type – rather enabling a more agile approach.

Engagement Principles 7. There are a number of principles which will underline the engagement approach. The key foundation

principles underlying all engagement are the IAP2 framework and stakeholder mapping - inform, consult, involve, collaborate, empower (see Attachment 1).

Statutory iwi engagement 8. In addition to the general public engagement that is planned, the following engagement with iwi, hapu

and marae will be undertaken. Consultation with iwi authorities and customary marine title groups (IAP2 Consult) 9. Staff have compiled an iwi contact list made up of 49 iwi authorities, 29 customary marine title groups,

and marae throughout the region. Contacts details were obtained from the Te Kahui Mangai website and Council’s internal iwi database.

10. From this list staff will contact iwi authorities and customary marine title groups to provide information

about the review and invite these group to engage in the process. Council will obtain feedback on analysis, alternatives and or decisions from these groups. Throughout the process we will keep these groups informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

Marae and hapu (IAP2 Inform) 11. The WRC will provide marae and hapu with information to assist them in understanding the regional

coastal and regional plan reviews, including identification of issues, options, and possible solutions. Marae and hapu will be kept informed throughout the process.

Additional iwi engagement 12. Council has established a RPRC which includes representatives from the six iwi partners. The RPRC will

provide governance direction and make recommendations to Council on any proposed changes to the regional coastal and regional plans. This arrangement ensures iwi perspectives, concerns and aspirations are better understood and considered throughout the review process.

13. It is understood that one standard approach will not work in all situations so Waikato Regional Council

(WRC) is prepared to be agile and alter our approach to suit individual or collective circumstances. As such council staff are in the process of having discussions with iwi staff to determine what will work best for each iwi. The main purpose is to align Healthy Environments engagement with activities that may already being undertaken by those entities or to strategically align and arrange hui with clusters of hapu/marae within a geographical catchment. We will endeavour to accommodate individual marae, hapu, Māori entities, trusts, interest groups or individuals that choose an alternative to the above options.

14. To date some hapu and marae leaders have also indicated they wish to discuss other Council work areas

or to re-establish an ongoing working relationship with the Council so staff from across the council may also attend these hui for the purpose of reconnecting and establishing ongoing working relationships.

15. Council are currently in the processes of developing a public awareness campaign that will also inform people of the review, direct them to our website which will have constant updates regarding the review and also inform them of public drop in sessions and other engagement activities they can attend.

16. Prior to formal notification under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act, community, partner and

stakeholder engagement undertaken in three stages – ‘Issues’, ‘Options’ and ‘Testing’. This approach will be applied separately to the review of the regional coastal plan (Phase 1 – notification planned for mid-2021) and the review of the regional plan (Phase 2 - notification proposed for mid-2023).

Stage 1 - Issues Identification 17. Feedback will be sought on the issues that need to be considered in the plan review and the communities

views will be sought on possible solutions to those issues. 18. Given the varying levels of understanding of iwi, Māori, stakeholders and impacted communities about the

review of the Regional Coastal Plan, a range of engagement tools will be produced to assist the communities understanding including:

A discussion paper which will be the primary document used to seek feedback, consisting of a summary of each of the topics, the legislative drivers and the issues that have been identified with the Regional Coastal. It is intended this will be the main resource to inform marae, hapu, community members and stakeholders.

A range of support documents and web-based tools that will be developed based on the discussion paper targeted at different audiences.

19. Stage 1 Issues engagement will reach impacted communities in the region, as well as iwi partners,

iwi/Māori entities and stakeholder groups. We will seek to do this by running a series of workshops and specific engagements throughout the region.

20. Stakeholder (including industry groups), iwi entities and organisations will also be briefed so they can

inform their members and provide feedback.

21. The results of this engagement will be summarised and provided to the RPRC and then made publicly available.

Stage 2 - Options Engagement 22. Options engagement will consist of seeking views on options (including a preferred option) to address the

issues identified in Stage 1. 23. Engagement for this stage will be targeted to impacted communities. It is expected that it will be mainly

interested parties (from Stage 1 engagement) and stakeholder groups who will be providing feedback. Direct approaches will be made to stakeholder and industry groups and Iwi partners.

24. Feedback received through Stage 2 engagement will be collated and a report will be made publicly

available.

Stage 3 - Testing 25. Stage 3 testing will consist of seeking feedback on specific wording of the draft plan changes from partners

and selected key stakeholders with the necessary skills and capacity, including Council implementation staff. If testing is undertaken we expect to provide proposed drafts of amended provisions, for technical feedback.

Plan Change notification 26. Following the three stage feedback processes, the draft plan change(s) will be provided to the RPRC for a

briefing on the changes, then for recommendation to Council for endorsement prior to being notified in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

Engagement methods 27. The following engagement methods will be used:

WRC web portal

Iwi focussed public awareness campaign

Web updates

Email/letter

Workshops

Kanohi ki te kanohi.

Conclusion 28. Engagement is a critical part of the Healthy Environments project and Council has also endorsed and

funded a “do necessary” engagement approach. Council will be engaging with iwi and Māori across the region and employing a range of approaches to ensure we have as wide a reach as we can. As the Healthy Environment Review progresses staff will adapt this approach where necessary to ensure we are agile enough to meet the iwi engagement needs required for such a long and extensive process.

Attachments 1. IAP2 framework and stakeholder mapping.

Attachment 1: IAP2 framework and stakeholder mapping

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjO4J78nojjAhVOfH0KHYlUDpEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https://www.researchgate.net/figure/IAP2-Spectrum-of-Participation-From-the-International-Association-for-Public_fig3_301627763&psig=AOvVaw3fDRxOHn88YY_8ZsAOLUVr&ust=1561676099952423



Author: Katherine Browne, Project Manager


Subject: Healthy Environments He Taiao Mauriora Project Management Process outline, incorporating overview of Essential Freshwater package

Section: A (Committee has delegated authority to make decision)

Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the project management process and timeline on

the Healthy Environments – He Taiao Mauriora project (Regional Plan and Regional Coastal Plan Review). This paper also overviews the implications of the government’s recently released Essential Freshwater Package, including the Draft National Policy Statement, National Environmental Standard, and Stock Exclusion Regulations.

Executive Summary 2. Healthy Environments is a statutory review of the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan (WRCP) and the Waikato

Regional Plan (WRP) that will ultimately combine the two plans into one single Resource Management Act (RMA) document. The review will update plan objectives, policies and rules which have been identified as needing reviewing, as well as ensuring latest legislative updates have been incorporated.

3. A phased approach has been adopted to the plan review, with the coastal plan being undertaken first,

followed by the regional plan. 4. Engagement is a critical part of the Healthy Environments project. Council has endorsed, and funded

through the Long Term Plan (LTP), a focused, inclusive and targeted engagement approach. Council has resolved to do more than what is statutorily required, in the interests of best practice, however this will be achieved within budgeted resources.

5. With the advent of the recently released Essential Freshwater package a refresh of the project process and

timelines is presently being undertaken. Staff are presently working through the proposal, and whilst noting that it is only a proposal, are undertaking an analysis of the implications for the plan review project.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Healthy Environments He Taiao Mauriora Project Management Process outline, incorporating overview of Essential Freshwater package (Regional Plan Review Committee 17 September 2019) be received.

Background 6. Healthy Environments is a significant project for Council, which will combine the Regional Plan and

Regional Coastal Plan into one single Resource Management Plan. It will implement the first set of National Planning Standards and also provide an ePlan platform. The diagram below provides and overview of the project structure and linkages. The timing of the regional plans review will enable the ability to respond to central government directives recently signalled in regard to:

Indigenous biodiversity management

Urban development

Highly productive land

Freshwater management

As well as other topics that the Ministry for the Environment has indicated are likely to be crafted in the next few months.

7. Engagement is a critical part of the Healthy Environments project. Council has resourced through the LTP an approach that centres on a Focused, Inclusive and Targeted (FIT) engagement approach. Council has resolved to do more than what is statutorily required, in the interests of best practice, however this will remain within budget provided.

8. As part of the engagement that the project team will undertake, it is envisaged that the establishment of a Regional Plan Review Committee (RPRC) Working Group (as outlined in the RPRC Terms of Reference) will have a significant role to play. It is anticipated that working group will be established in early 2020, in the interim it is proposed that discussions will proceed on a ‘staff to staff’ basis between Waikato Regional Council and iwi organisations so as to maintain momentum on understanding and exploring issues and possible options.

9. Healthy Environments is a statutory review of the WRCP and the WRP. The RMA requires by law these plans are reviewed every 10 years. The review will update plan objectives, policies and rules which have been identified as needing reviewing, as well as ensuring latest legislative updates have been incorporated.

10. Under this project, the review will involve the following: a. A combined review of both the WRCP and the WRP to achieve integrated resource management b. Implementing government’s first set of National Planning Standards which come into force on the 4

May 2019 c. Implementing various National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards which are

either being amended or being developed d. Implementing any Treaty Settlement legislation obligations.

11. The project is complex with many different aspects, and in order to achieve successful delivery it will be important to follow a structured project management framework. Applying this process will ensure that the project is kept on track, on time, to scope, and within budget. Lessons learned from other complex projects show that it is essential to: a. Have good project management b. Follow a clear project management structure and process c. Create clear separation between governance functions and management (operational) functions.

Project Governance 12. Council and Iwi governors will provide project governance and oversight through the RPRC, which will be

complemented by co-governance committee reporting and updating.

Review process 13. In order to maximise the efficient use of resources, smooth impact of the region’s ratepayers, and reflect

current capacity of the Policy team a phased approach to the review of the regional plan is proposed.

14. The project is currently split into the following workstreams:

Taupo Overseer Version rules separate plan change

Phase 1 (Coastal Plan review and Lake Taupo Catchment)

Phase 2 (Regional Plan including West Coast Catchment)

Hauraki/Coromandel Catchment Plan Change

Regional Policy Statement changes. 15. It is worth noting that this phased approach was determined prior to the government’s Freshwater

Management Package, and as previously stated, staff are presently reviewing the package and the present project plan. Workstreams and priorities may well be adjusted in order to ensure compliance with the ambitious timeframe that has been signalled. This information will be brought back to the Committee at its first meeting of the 2019-2022 Triennium.

16. The project areas being refreshed in particular include the internal project governance focus, revisiting of

timelines and integrating the ability to balance resource and budget demands across the project. Whilst the refresh is undertaken there will be a degree of flux inherent in all timelines as currently communicated.

17. Whilst recognising the level of certainty on timeframes is reduced, the below is the current schedule for Phase 1 and 2.

18. The process for developing new provisions is illustrated below:

19. From considering the review approach, the project team at this stage would be looking at RPRC decision

points and workshops at the following times (note: subject to change).

Decision point Draft expected timeframe (subject to change)

1. Taupo Overseer plan change direction September 2019

2. Coastal Plan options papers review Feb 2020

3. Coastal Plan options paper sign off (Phase 1) March 2020

4. Preferred options workshop (Phase 1) October 2020

5. Workshop on plan change wording (Phase 1) Feb 2021

6. Approval of final content for notification (Phase 1) April/May 2021

7. Phase 2 Options papers review Feb 2020

8. Options paper sign off (Phase 2) March 2022

9. Preferred options workshop (Phase 1) October 2022

10. Workshop on plan change wording (Phase 2) Feb 2023

11. Approval of final content for notification (Phase 2) April/May 2023

Conclusion 20. Healthy Environments is a statutory review of the WRCP and the WRP and will also combine the two plans

into one single Resource Management Plan. The review will update plan objectives, policies and rules which have been identified as needing reviewing, as well as ensuring latest legislative updates have been incorporated.

21. A phased approach has been adopted to the plan review, with the coastal plan being undertaken first, followed by the Regional Plan.

22. Over the next few months the project will be refreshed and an analysis against the Essential Freshwater

Proposals, and other national direction will be undertaken. The project plan will need to be agile, and ever changing, in order to adapt to the provisions of new National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard on Freshwater Management.

Cr D Minogue Cr F Lichtwark Cr B Quayle Cr S Husband Cr K ... · Page 7. Regional Plan Review...

Documents

Transcript of Cr D Minogue Cr F Lichtwark Cr B Quayle Cr S Husband Cr K ... · Page 7. Regional Plan Review...