Strategy and Policy Committee Agenda

NOTICE IS GIVEN that the next meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee will be held in Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga on:

Tuesday 16 February 2021 COMMENCING AT 9.30 am

This meeting will be recorded.

The Public section of this meeting will be recorded and uploaded to Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s website.  Further details on this can be found after the Terms of Reference within the Agenda.

 

Fiona McTavish

Chief Executive, Bay of Plenty Regional Council Toi Moana

5 February 2021

 


 

Strategy and Policy Committee

Membership

Chairperson

Cr Paula Thompson

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Stuart Crosby

Members

All Councillors

Quorum

Seven members, consisting of half the number of members

Meeting frequency

Six weekly rotation between committee meetings and strategic sessions

Purpose

·                Inform the strategic direction for the Council and implement through approved planning and policy frameworks.

·                Identify regional issues resulting from emerging trends, providing thought leadership on matters of regional significance, analysing implications and developing a strategic response.

Role

·                Develop, implement and review best practice strategy, policy and planning framework for decision making which enables connection across committees of Council.

·                Consider emerging environmental issues and provide advice on the implications for effective resource management within the region.

·                Inform Council’s strategic direction, including prioritisation and policy responses.

·                Enhance awareness and understanding of emerging issues and trends relating to meeting Councils strategic direction.

·                Develop Council’s position on regionally significant issues and provide guidance on sub-regional and regional strategy matters such as spatial planning and SmartGrowth.

·                Approve submissions on matters relating to the committee’s areas of responsibility that are not delegated to staff.

·                The provision of governance oversight into the development and review of policies, plans, and strategies.

·                Approve statutory and non-statutory plans, strategy and policy other than those required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

·                Develop, review and approve Council’s position on regional economic development.

·                Consider any issues delegated by Council that have a regional, environmental, social or economic focus.

·                Develop and review bylaws.

·                Delegate to hearings commissioners under section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 to exercise the powers, functions duties in relation to any authorities that have been delegated by Council to the committee.

Power to Act

To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the committee subject to the limitations imposed.

The Strategy and Policy Committee is not delegated authority to:

·                Approve the Regional Policy Statement and bylaws;

·                Review and adopt the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan;

·                Develop and review funding, financial, Risk and Assurance Policy and frameworks;

·                Approve Council submissions on Maori related matters;

·                Develop, approve or review non statutory policy for co-governance partnerships.

Power to Recommend

To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.


 

Recording of Meetings

Please note the Public section of this meeting is being recorded and uploaded to Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s web site in accordance with Council's Live Streaming and Recording of Meetings Protocols which can be viewed on Council’s website. The recording will be archived and made publicly available on Council's website within 48 hours after the meeting on www.boprc.govt.nz for a period of three years (or as otherwise agreed to by Council).

All care is taken to maintain your privacy; however, as a visitor in the public gallery or as a participant at the meeting, your presence may be recorded. By remaining in the public gallery, it is understood your consent is given if your image is inadvertently broadcast.

Opinions expressed or statements made by individual persons during a meeting are not the opinions or statements of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Council accepts no liability for any opinions or statements made during a meeting.

 


Bay of Plenty Regional Council - Toi Moana

Governance Commitment

mō te taiao, mō ngā tāngata - our environment and our people go hand-in-hand.

 

 

We provide excellent governance when, individually and collectively, we:

·        Trust and respect each other

·        Stay strategic and focused

·        Are courageous and challenge the status quo in all we do

·        Listen to our stakeholders and value their input

·        Listen to each other to understand various perspectives

·        Act as a team who can challenge, change and add value

·        Continually evaluate what we do

 

 

TREAD LIGHTLY, THINK DEEPLY,
ACT WISELY, SPEAK KINDLY.


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                               16 February 2021

Recommendations in reports are not to be construed as Council policy until adopted by Council.

Agenda

1.       Apologies

2.       Public Forum

3.       Items not on the Agenda

4.       Order of Business

5.       Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

6.       Public Excluded Business to be Transferred into the Open

7.       Minutes

Minutes to be Confirmed

7.1      Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes - 3 November 2020              1

8.       Reports

Strategy

8.2      Operating Environment Report                                                              1

Attachment 1 - Strategy and Policy Committee Indicative Work Programme 2021  1

Attachment 2 - RPS and RNRP Changes Programme 2021-2024                                  1

Attachment 3 - Natural Hazards Workstream Indicative Roadmap                              1

Attachment 4 - Gazette Notice Local Government Reorganisation (Tauriko West) Implementation Order 2020                                                                                                1

Attachment 5 - Bay of Plenty Regional Council Submission TCC PC 26, 27 and 30   1

Attachment 6 - BOPRC Submission on TCC PC26, 27 and 30 Appendix 1                  1

Regulatory Policy

8.3      Process to change the Regional Policy Statement to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020                     1

8.4      Mount Maunganui Airshed – Direction and Scope                                1

8.5      Approval of Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead)                            1

Attachment 1 - Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) - Pre-Operative Track Changes version 10                                                                                                    1

Attachment 2 - Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) - Pre-Operative  Clear copy version 10                                                                                                           1

Attachment 3 - 2020-12-15 Determination by the Environment Court [2020] NZEnvC 215 Awatarariki Residents Incorporated - released 21 December 2020                       1

8.6      Change to the Rotorua Airshed Boundary                                            1

Attachment 1 - Option 1 - Current Airshed Boundary                                                    1

Attachment 2 - Option 2 - Potential Airshed Boundary                                                  1

Attachment 3 - Option 3 - Potential Airshed Boundary                                                  1

9.       Public Excluded Section

Resolution to exclude the public

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting as set out below:

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item No.

Subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

When the item can be released into the public

9.1

Public Excluded Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes - 3 November 2020

As noted in the relevant Minutes.

As noted in the relevant Minutes.

To remain in public excluded.

 

Minutes to be Confirmed

9.1      Public Excluded Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes - 3 November 2020

10.     Public Excluded Business to be Transferred into the Open

11.     Readmit the Public

12.     Consideration of Items not on the Agenda


Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes

3 November 2020

 

Strategy and Policy Committee

Open Minutes

Commencing:             Tuesday 3 November 2020, 9.30 am

Venue:                         Council Chambers, Ground Floor, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

Chairperson:               Cr Paula Thompson

Deputy Chairperson:  Cr Stuart Crosby

Members:                    Cr Norm Bruning

Cr Bill Clark

Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti

Chairman Doug Leeder

Cr David Love

Cr Matemoana McDonald

Cr Jane Nees

Cr Stacey Rose

Cr Lyall Thurston

Cr Andrew von Dadelszen

Cr Te Taru White

Cr Kevin Winters

In Attendance:            Fiona McTavish – Chief Executive; Namouta Poutasi – General Manager, Strategy and Policy; Chris Ingle – General Manager, Integrated Catchments; Stephen Lamb – Environmental Strategy Manager; Julie Bevan – Policy & Planning Manager; Anaru Vercoe – Strategic Engagement Manager; Andy Bruere – Lake Operations Manager; Stephanie Macdonald – Community Engagement Team Leader; Karen Parcell – Team Leader Kaiwhakatinana; Nassah Rolleston-Steed – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning; Nicola Green – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning; Santiago Bermeo – Senior Planner; Sandra Barns – Economist; Jessica Durham – Committee Advisor

Apologies:                  Cr Andrew von Dadelszen for lateness

1.     Chair’s Announcement

The Chair announced the meeting would be recorded and available on YouTube, in accordance with Council’s Live Streaming and Recording of Meetings Protocols and as noted within the Agenda.

2.     Order of Business

The Chair announced Agenda Item 7.1, Taumata Arowai – Water Services Regulator Body would be considered at 12.30pm to accommodate the presenter’s availability.

3.     Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil.

4.     Minutes

Minutes to be Confirmed

4.1

Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes - 11 August 2020

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Confirms the Strategy and Policy Committee Minutes - 11 August 2020 as a true and correct record.

Thompson/Rose

CARRIED

5.     Reports

Strategy

5.1

Operating Environment Report

Presented by: Namouta Poutasi – General Manager, Strategy and Policy; Stephen Lamb – Environmental Strategy Manager; Julie Bevan – Policy & Planning Manager; Andy Bruere – Lake Operations Manager

9:36am - Cr von Dadelszen entered the meeting.

 

Key Points - Staff:

·        Wording within the report in the case of Proposed Change 5 (Kaituna River) and the obligation to change the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) to recognise the vision, objectives and desired outcomes of the Kaituna River Document was clarified, and that the objectives did not need revisiting each time Regional Council proposed changes to the RPS.

·        Although Lake Rotorua was within its Trophic Level Index (TLI) target, there had been a recent algal bloom.  Alum dosing was ongoing, but at a reduced rate due to work underway to renew a storage tank.  Long term mitigation such as land use change was ongoing, however it would be decades for leaching to resolve due to long groundwater flow times and nutrients in lake bed sediments recycling.

Key Points - Members:

·        Notification of plans and ongoing engagement should be undertaken through numerous channels, including social media, online, newspapers, and other traditional methods.

 

Items for Staff Follow Up:

·        Provide an update on Plan Change 14 and On-Site Effluent Treatment (OSET) funding replacement for Rotorua Lakes with a holistic overview.

·        Provide information to the Committee outlining various incoming changes to be implemented by Council and implications.

·        Undertake communication and engagement with Rotorua Lakes communities to advise of BOPRC actions underway to prevent future algal blooms and the delayed timelines for land use changes to take effect.

·        Provide Ngāi Tahu proceedings to members as soon as possible with any potential implications noted.

·        Provide to members forecasts of local population growth, particularly within the Western Bay of Plenty, accounting for land availability and productive soil including figures, diagrams, and caveats.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Operating Environment Report.

Thompson/Crosby

CARRIED

2        Requests staff provide a public excluded update of ongoing Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations as part of the Operating Environment Report, following consideration of the other agenda reports and presentations.

Thompson/Thurston

CARRIED

Regulatory Policy

5.2

Essential Freshwater Policy Programme - Implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020

Presentation: Essential freshwater policy programme: Objective ID A3665788   

Presented by: Namouta Poutasi – General Manager, Strategy and Policy; Julie Bevan – Policy & Planning Manager; Anaru Vercoe – Strategic Engagement Manager; Stephanie Macdonald – Community Engagement Team Leader; Nassah Rolleston-Steed – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning; Nicola Green – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning

Key Points - Members:

·    Consider and incorporate lessons from previous processes.

·    Communication and engagement across numerous channels was key.

·    Programme work should commence immediately.

·    Communications and engagement needed to begin as soon as possible to enable the community and stakeholders to understand what was happening, and to have a chance to engage and provide feedback.

Key Points - Staff:

·    Essential Freshwater branding was aligned nationally for consistency.

·    RPS and the Regional Natural Resources Plan (RNRP) were interrelated, aligning the processes for development of both would ensure community engagement was interactive and robust.

·    Staff had given consideration to capability and capacity of iwi partners, stakeholders, and the community to be involved in engagement in the  proposed timelines.

·    Staff would continue work and start early communications to allow communities to understand the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NSPFM) implementation and enable involvement and engagement.

 

Items for Staff Follow Up:

·    Present to the Long Term Plan (LTP) workshop with greater detail on options for notification prior to December 2024, including consequential risks and resourcing requirements.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Essential Freshwater Policy Programme - Implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020.

2        Requests the Chief Executive to provide a presentation for the Long Term Plan discussions (next week) on potential changes to the Policy Programme Plan and the Communications and Engagement Plan.

3        Confirms the decision has a medium level of significance as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council has identified and assessed different options and considered community views as part of making the decision, in proportion to the level of significance.

4        Notes the Regional Natural Resources Plan will be amended (without using the Schedule 1 process) to:

(a)  insert NPSFM 2020 clauses 3.22(1) - Natural Inland Wetlands, 3.24(1) – Rivers and 3.26(1) -Fish Passage of the NPSFM 2020 (or words to the same effect); and

(b)  delete the word ‘secondary’ in both places it appears in RNRP policy DW P6 (Policy 43A).

Thompson/Leeder

CARRIED

5        Early and consistent communications with the community is imperative in the Communications and Engagement Plan.

Thurston/Rose

CARRIED

 

5.3

Giving effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management through the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement

Presented by: Namouta Poutasi – General Manager, Strategy and Policy; Julie Bevan – Policy & Planning Manager; Nassah Rolleston-Steed – Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning

Key Points:

·    The report proposed aligning the RPS and NPSFM processes to meet the December 2024 notification deadline in order to increase efficiencies whilst regulating pressure and resources.

·    Councillors could consider options through LTP discussions to increase resourcing in order to speed the process up.

·    Partners and the community must be included, and consideration given to their capacity and capability.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Giving effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management through the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.

2        Subject to LTP discussions, agrees to aligning RPS changes to give effect to the NPSFM with the timing of changes to the RNRP no later than December 2024.

3        Notes scope for RPS changes to give effect to the NPSFM to be considered under the Freshwater Planning Process may be limited to provisions within the ‘Land and Freshwater’ domain only.

4        Endorses staff working closely and in partnership with tangata whenua in freshwater policy development consistent with Te Hononga principles.

Thompson/Rose

CARRIED

11:05am - The meeting  adjourned.

11:28am - The meeting  reconvened.

5.4

Adoption of Plan Change 13 (Air Quality)

Presented by: Karen Parcell – Team Leader Kaiwhakatinana

Key Points - Members:

·    Members thanked and applauded Karen for her efforts and support on Plan Change 13.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Adoption of Plan Change 13 (Air Quality).

2        Adopts all provisions of Proposed Plan Change 13 (Air Quality) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan that are beyond appeal and the consequential changes to the Regional Natural Resources Plan, to be effected by affixing the seal of the Regional Council, for reference to the Minister of Conservation for approval.

3        Delegates to the Group Manager Strategy and Science to make minor corrections to Proposed Plan Change 13 (Air Quality) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan that are beyond appeal and the consequential changes if required.

4        Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to set the date to make Proposed Plan Change 13 (Air Quality) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan operative, once approval has been given by the Minister of Conservation.

White/Winters

CARRIED

Non-Regulatory Policy

5.5

Impact investment scheme for energy efficiency: an update

Presentation: Impact investment scheme for energy efficiency: Objective ID A3665789   

Presented by: Stephen Lamb – Environmental Strategy Manager; Santiago Bermeo – Senior Planner; Sandra Barns – Economist

Key Points:

·    The proposals in the report focussed on financial return and the level of impact from investment.

Key Points - Members:

·    Most initiatives had consequential ongoing resourcing and maintenance.

·    A trial could provide clarity of impact.

·    Conceptually in favour of the scheme, however greater detail, evidence, and clarity was required.

·    Impacts across the four well beings should be considered within the scheme.

·    Administration costs should not be recovered.

·    Interests rates in the scheme needed to align with the current lending environment.

·    Must consider disparity of wealth and accessibility for low income households.

·    Should include consultation on the proposals within the Long Term Plan.

·    Details regarding ongoing maintenance costs of proposals were requested.

·    Information on projected electricity needs for New Zealand were also requested.

Key Points - Staff:

·    Insulation was the most cost effective initiative with positive outcomes across the four well beings.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Impact investment scheme for energy efficiency: an update.

2        Notes the proposed scheme will continue to be considered as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2021-31, specifically in relation to the scale of investment.

3        Notes that the proposed scheme can be designed in way to make it more likely to be cost neutral or result in financial returns for Council in the long-term, however this may come at the expense of uptake (and associated social and environmental benefits).

4        Provides feedback to staff on the developing design of the scheme as set out in this report, particularly in relation to the importance to be placed on cost-neutrality/financial return relative to social and environmental impact.

Thurston/White

CARRIED

Other

5.6

Bay of Connections and Toi Kai Rawa Update

Tabled Document 1 - Bay of Connections - Bay of Plenty Regional Recovery Framework - COVID-19 Regional Recovery October 2020: Objective ID A3668261   

Presented by: Stephen Lamb – Environmental Strategy Manager

Key Points:

·    Council’s funding was mostly focussed on milestone delivery.

·    The scope of capital investment would be reported to the Committee once traction was gained.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Bay of Connections and Toi Kai Rawa Update.

Thompson/Iti

CARRIED

12:09pm - The meeting  adjourned.

12:32pm - The meeting  reconvened.

6.     Presentations

 

 

 

6.1

Taumata Arowai - Water Services Regulator Body

Presentation: Taumata Arowai - Bill Bayfield: Objective ID A3665787   

Presented by: Bill Bayfield, Establishment Chief Executive for Taumata Arowai (Water Services Regulator) Establishment Unit

 

Key Points:

·        Taumata Arowai would be the new water services regulator, giving effect to Te Mana o Te Wai.

·        They would oversee affordable, reliable, and safe water services for all and empower the public with accessible data on water quality and regulatory results.

·        Expected progress on the appointment of a board and advisory group by March 2021.

·        The number of unregulated private water supplies was significantly underestimated.

·        Wastewater regulation was becoming a major concern and was expected to be raised in submissions.

·        Oversight of wastewater would only apply to reticulated services.

Key Points - Members:

·    Significant changes were on the way for local government over the next five years.

 

Resolved

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the presentation, Taumata Arowai - Water Services Regulator Body.

Thompson/Rose

CARRIED

7.     Public Excluded Section

Resolved

Resolution to exclude the public

1        Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting as set out below:

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item No.

Subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

When the item can be released into the public

5.1

Operating Environment – Verbal Update regarding Ongoing Treaty Settlements

Withholding the information is necessary as the public disclosure of the information would constitute contempt of court or of the house of representatives.

Section 48(1)(b)(ii)

To remain in Public Excluded.

Thompson/Thurston

CARRIED

1.35pm – the meeting closed.

 

 

Confirmed                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                               Cr Paula Thompson

Chairperson, Strategy and Policy Committee


 

 

 

Report To:

Strategy and Policy Committee

Meeting Date:

16 February 2021

Report Writer:

Julie Bevan, Policy & Planning Manager

Report Authoriser:

Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy & Science

Purpose:

To provide an update on the operating environment and to provide a signal to the Committee of the upcoming workstream.

Operating Environment Report

 

Executive Summary

This report covers operating environment areas that influence and inform Council’s policy direction and work. This report provides information on the operating environment and highlights a number of upcoming workstream delivery decisions that will be required of Council and this Committee.

It covers:

·           Strategy and Policy Committee Indicative Work Programme 2021 and Regional Policy Statement Changes and Regional Natural Resources Plan Changes Programme Summary

·           Natural Hazards Workstream Update

·           National Climate Change Policy Progress

·           Territorial Authority Boundary Change – Tauriko West

·           Submission to TCC Plan Changes 26, 27 and 28

 

Recommendations

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Operating Environment Report.

1.        Introduction

This report provides a summary of the Strategy and Policy Committee Indicative Work Programme 2021 and the current Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and Regional Natural Resources Plan (RNRP) changes and proposed changes to ensure that Councillors are aware of the upcoming reporting and decision making programme.   Also updates are provided on the Natural Hazards workstream, National Climate Change Policy Progress, the Territorial Authority Boundary Change at Tauriko and a copy of the submission to TCC Plan Changes 26, 27 and 28.

1.1      Legislative Framework

Section 79 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires Regional Council to review the RPS and the RNRP at least every 10 years. 

Under the RMA most decisions on how resources are managed are made locally by local authorities. In some cases the Government has determined that it is appropriate to have a nationally consistent approach, i.e. national direction. The range of instruments under the RMA that can be used to develop a nationally consistent approach to resource management issues include national policy statements, national environmental standards, national planning standards and regulations under section 360.

The National Planning Standards (NPStds) are national directions introduced through RMA amendments in 2017. They aim to make RPS, regional and district plans more consistent with each other, easier to use and faster to make.

1.2      Alignment with Strategic Framework

 

A Healthy Environment

We develop and implement regional plans and policy to protect our natural environment.

Freshwater for Life

Good decision making is supported through improving knowledge of our water resources.

We listen to our communities and consider their values and priorities in our regional plans.

We collaborate with others to maintain and improve our water resource for future generations.

We deliver solutions to local problems to improve water quality and manage quantity.

We recognise and provide for Te Mana o Te Wai (intrinsic value of water). We listen to our communities and consider their values and priorities in our regional plans.

Safe and Resilient Communities

We work with communities and others to consider long term views of natural hazard risks through our regional plans and policies.

We provide systems and information to increase understanding of natural hazard risks and climate change impacts.

A Vibrant Region

We contribute to delivering integrated planning and growth management strategies especially for sustainable urban management.

The Way We Work

We honour our obligations to Māori.

The delivery of RPS and RNRP Changes are an integral part of the Long Term Plan’s Regional Planning activity which sets Council’s strategic planning and policy direction. The RPS identifies how the integrated management of the region’s natural and physical resources is to be managed by establishing policy direction for regional and district plans. The RNRP is focussed on promoting the sustainable management of land, water and geothermal resources, achieving integrated management and improving environmental quality in the Bay of Plenty Region. 

2.        Operating Environment

2.1      Strategy and Policy Committee Indicative Work Programme 2021 and RPS Changes and RNRP Changes

The indicative work programme for the Strategy and Policy Committee meetings and Workshops for 2021 are set out in Attachment 1. A number of possible national direction instruments are included in the work programme based on the status of national direction under development noted in the Ministry for the Environment webpage however the final gazettal timelines are not currently confirmed.

The current indicative programme of RPS Changes and RNRP Changes to give effect to the RMA s79 requirements, the gazetted NPS’s and NES’s and the NPStds requirements are set out in Attachment 2. 

These programmes will be updated and reported to Strategy and Policy Committee meetings throughout 2021.

2.2      Natural Hazards Workstream and Natural Hazards Working Group Update

2.2.1    Background

This update follows an earlier item reported at the Strategy and Policy Committee on 5 May 2020. By way of background, an inter council Natural Hazards Working Group[1] (NHWG) was established in June 2020 to address 11 implementation issues that were considered impediments to urban growth as identified by the Natural Hazards Way Forward (NHWF) project.

The majority of the issues have been significantly progressed through a series of 7 meetings. A brief update of this work is outlined below and a possible change to the natural hazard chapter of the RPS will be workshopped with councillors on 23 March 2021.

2.2.2    Mapping and risk assessment

The RPS natural hazards provisions require extensive hazard mapping and risk assessment work to be undertaken by either a territorial authority or Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC). The outputs of this work are used for a range of resilience and climate change adaptation planning purposes that will inform district plan reviews, urban growth structure planning and subdivision/resource consenting undertaken by territorial authorities.

To progress this work, the Natural Hazards Planning Charter (NHPC[2]) led by BOPRC has been reinstated to further integrate delivery of planning and engineering functions across the various councils. This is to ensure the timing of mapping and modelling can be aligned according to priority growth areas and to address implementation concerns i.e. mapping and risk assessment methodology and national climate change guidance. 

An indicative table of the workstream for natural hazards is attached in Attachment 3 to this report. In summary, the focus of the work will be to complete region-wide mapping and began risk assessment for natural hazards[3] assigned to BOPRC to support forthcoming district plan reviews by Tauranga City and Western Bay of Plenty.

To date, Tauranga City Council have made significant progress on the mapping and risk assessment work. Western Bay of Plenty, Rotorua Lakes Council and Whakatāne District council have recently begun to undertake the initial mapping work as a precursor to risk assessment. BOPRC staff will continue to engage with each of the territorial authorities to ensure they meet their obligations under BOP RPS (Regional Policy Statement). 

2.2.3    Policy implementation and monitoring

Since becoming operative, the overall RPS policy framework for managing natural hazards to inform urban growth is supported by the NHWG following a review of the NHWF project.

However, a number of implementation shortcomings, informed by the implementation of a number of urban growth related proposals[4], have been identified and workshopped on a without prejudice basis[5] by the NHWG resulting in a number of suggested changes to the RPS (natural hazards).

It is expected that the changes would streamline the implementation of the natural hazard provisions (mapping, risk assessment and risk reduction) by territorial authorities in plan making processes i.e. district plans across the region and, provide clarity on implementing urban development proposals.

2.2.4    Options for RPS review

The resulting recommendations of the NHWG that could be considered for a possible change to the natural hazard chapter of the RPS are as follows:

•    address technical matters associated with the application of Appendix L (risk assessment methodology);

•    explore options to use other risk assessment methodologies other than Appendix L;

•    consider wording amendments to reduce ambiguity and improve clarity; and

•    re-draft the non-statutory user guide, with a focus on risk reduction.

BOPRC staff will workshop the above suggested changes at the Strategy and Policy Committee on 23 March 2021 to seek guidance on the next steps.

2.3      National Climate Change Policy Progress

On Sunday 31 January, the Climate Change Commission released its draft package of advice to government on the steps Aotearoa must take to meet the country’s domestic and international climate change obligations in response to the climate crisis. The document sets out three emissions budgets, covering 15 years to 2035. It also provides advice on the direction policy should take to achieve the country’s 2050 net-zero goal. The commission’s advice is built around 17 recommendations covering key sectors of the economy: land, waste, transport and heat, industry and power.

Key messages include:

•    Current government policies do not put Aotearoa on track to meet the recommended emissions budgets and 2050 targets;

•    The focus needs to be on real cuts in emissions and eliminating the use of fossil fuels and less reliance on planting trees;

•    Priority areas for action are: increasing electric vehicles, accelerated renewable energy generation, climate friendly farming practices and more permanent forests, predominantly natives;

•    Most of the solutions and technologies are already known and available;

•    The cost of action is lower than previously expected - less than 1 per cent of projected annual GDP;

•    Government needs to move faster whilst provide support for business, agriculture and community through the changes;

•    Central and local government need to acknowledge iwi/Māorirights toexerciserangatiratanga andkaitiakitangain a joint plan to reduce emissions;

•    The transition needs to be equitable, with the benefits of climate action shared across society whilst ensuring the costs of the climate transition do not fall unfairly on certain groups or people.

Alongside the emissions budget recommendations, the Commission has provided policy recommendations to inform the direction of policy needed in the Government’s emissions reduction plan.

Public consultation on the draft advice runs from 1 February to Sunday 14 March. Staff are preparing a submission from BOPRC as well as looking to review and potentially support submissions from SOLGM, LGNZ and other Councils. The Commission’s final recommendations will then be released on 31 May and the Government then has until the end of 2021 to formalise the emissions budgets and associated emissions reduction plan.  Staff are currently considering implications of this national direction including the need for bus decarbonisation.

2.4      Territorial Authority Boundary Change – Tauriko West

The reorganisation of the boundary between Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) at Tauriko West was gazetted on 23 November 2020 and came into force on 1 January 2021.

The attached gazette notice (Attachment 4) states that as of 1 January 2021 TCC became the local authority responsible for all constitutional matters for Tauiko West, however rates collection and the annual plan remain with WBOPDC until 30 June 2021.

Although all matters under the RMA for the area at Tauriko West became the responsibility of TCC from 1 January 2021, TCC has up to two years to make any changes their district plan required to cover Tauriko West.

2.5      Submission to TCC Plan Changes 26, 27 and 30

Tauranga City Council notified Plan Changes (PC) 27, 28 and 30 in November 2020 and submissions closed on 1 February 2021.

PC 26 – Housing choice proposes changes to the City Plan to make it easier for people to build a variety of more compact types of homes, like duplexes, terraced houses, townhouses and apartments that better suit their needs.

PC27 – Flooding from Intensive rainfall introduces a new rule framework to manage the effects of flooding in intense rainfall events on people, properties and infrastructure. 

PC30 – Earthworks proposes to clarify wording of existing provisions to ensure that earthworks are undertaken in a safe manner, avoiding negative effects on the environment.

BOPRC’s submission, attached in Attachment 5 and 6, supported the overall intent of the plan changes and addressed the following topics with respect to the three proposed plan changes:

•   Urban growth

•   Natural hazards

•   Stormwater

•   National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

•   Climate change.

3.        Considerations

3.1      Risks and Mitigations

This is an information only report and matters of risk in relation to the indicative programme package of RPS and RNRP changes and the possible Natural Hazards RPS Change will be outlined in the separate reports when reported to the Committee for decision making purposes. 

3.2      Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature. Section 2.3 outlines the latest National Climate Change Policy Progress.   Climate Change is a key matter that will be considered in the implementation policy development and analysis process of the proposed RPS Changes and RNRP Plan Changes and will be reported to the Committee during the process.

3.3      Implications for Māori

The RMA processes, RPS Changes and Plan Changes discussed in this report all involve consideration of implications for Māori, engagement and consideration of iwi planning documents.

3.4      Community Engagement

 

Adobe Systems

CONSULT

Whakauiuia

To obtain input or feedback from affected communities about our analysis, alternatives, and /or proposed decisions.

The RMA processes, RPS Changes and Plan Changes discussed in this report all involve consideration of community engagement undertaken through those processes.

3.5      Financial Implications

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and information only. There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

4.        Next Steps

Further updates on operating environment areas that influence and inform Council’s policy direction and work will be provided at future Strategy and Policy Committee Meetings.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Strategy and Policy Committee Indicative Work Programme 2021

Attachment 2 - RPS and RNRP Changes Programme 2021-2024

Attachment 3 - Natural Hazards Workstream Indicative Roadmap

Attachment 4 - Gazette Notice Local Government Reorganisation (Tauriko West) Implementation Order 2020

Attachment 5 - Bay of Plenty Regional Council Submission TCC PC 26, 27 and 30

Attachment 6 - BOPRC Submission on TCC PC26, 27 and 30 Appendix 1  

 


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                      16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                      16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

 

 

Report To:

Strategy and Policy Committee

Meeting Date:

16 February 2021

Report Writer:

Rebekah Waltham, Planner

Report Authoriser:

Ruth Feist, Team Leader Urban

Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy & Science

Nassah Rolleston-Steed, Principal Advisor, Policy & Planning

Julie Bevan, Policy & Planning Manager

Purpose:

Approve a process to develop a Change to the Regional Policy Statement to implement the responsive planning requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

 

 

Process to change the Regional Policy Statement to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020

 

Executive Summary

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) took effect on the 20 August 2020.  The responsive planning requirements in the NPS-UD seek to ensure that local authorities respond to development proposals that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments, regardless of whether they are planned for or anticipated in existing documents. It applies to development proposals in both greenfield and brownfield locations. Requirements are quite specific and leave little scope for interpretation.

The NPS-UD, Clause 4.1 sets out the timeframes for implementation. As a tier 1 and 2 local authority Regional Council must notify a change to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (RPS) to give effect to the NPS-UD by 20 August 2022.

Staff recommend using Section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to make RPS changes without using the schedule 1 process to implement directive NPS-UD provisions. For those changes to existing operative RPS urban and rural growth management provisions, not within the ambit of Section 55, staff recommend seeking approval from the Minister for the Environment to utilise the Streamlined Planning Process.

Subject to the Committee Draft regional policy statement changes will be developed in consultation and engagement with relevant hapu and iwi, stakeholders, local and central government agencies and infrastructure providers and then workshopped with this committee.

 

Recommendations

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Process to change the Regional Policy Statement to implement the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.

2        Agrees in principle to Council using a combination of both Section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Streamlined Planning process to implement the responsive planning requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.

3        Notes subject to endorsing the above process for RPS changes staff will develop a detailed Project Plan, Communications and Engagement Plan, draft policy framework and a proposal to use the Streamlined Planning Process to be reported the Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration in the first quarter of 2021.  

4        Notes use of the Streamlined Planning Process must be approved by the Minister for the Environment.

1.        Introduction

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) took effect on the 20 August 2020. The NPS-UD requirements were reported to, and received by, the Strategy and Policy Committee on 3 November 2020, in the ‘Operating Environment Report’. Regional Councils are required to implement its direction which requires changes to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The NPS-UD responsive planning requirements are more specific than those in the previous National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016.

The NPS-UD responsive planning requirements seek to ensure local authorities respond to development proposals that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments, regardless of whether they are planned for or anticipated in existing documents. It applies to development proposals in both greenfield and brownfield locations.

The NPS–UD identifies Bay of Plenty Regional Council as both a Tier 1 and Tier 2 local authority.  Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council are Tier 1 local authorities. Rotorua Lakes Council is a Tier 2 local authority.

1.1      Legislative Framework

Section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires local authorities to amend their plans or policy statements if a national policy statement directs so. Amendments must be made as soon as practicable or within the time specified in the National Policy Statement. Amendments that relate to requirements to include specific objectives and policies; or give effect to objectives or policies; or are necessary to make the document consistent with any constraint or limit set out in the statement must be amended without using an RMA Schedule 1 process.

Subpart 5 of the RMA provides for a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) to achieve an expeditious planning process that is proportionate to the complexity and significance of the planning issue being considered. Applications must meet certain criteria, one of which is to implement a national direction. If the Minister agrees, he will issue a direction, setting out the process steps, timeframes and expectations for the RPS change process. Council must follow the steps in the direction instead of the standard Schedule 1 process.

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, Clause 4.1 sets out the timeframes for implementation. Every tier 1, 2 and 3 local authority must amend its RPS or district plan to give effect to the provisions of the NPS-UD as soon as practicable. In addition, an RPS change must be notified no later than 20 August 2022 to give effect to Policies 3 and 4 relating to Tier 1 urban form density to reflect housing and business use demand in city centre and metropolitan centre zones. 

Responsive planning requirements apply to tier 1 and 2 local authorities. The policies need to be implemented continuously, as and when relevant requests for plan changes or consent applications are made. For the purposes of implementing Policy 8 (responsive planning), criteria must be included in RPSs to determine what plan-change requests will be treated as adding significantly to development capacity.

1.2      Alignment with Strategic Framework

 

A Vibrant Region

We contribute to delivering integrated planning and growth management strategies especially for sustainable urban management.

The Way We Work

We look to partnerships for best outcomes.

Delivery of RPS changes is an integral part of the Long Term Plan’s Regional Planning activity which sets Council’s strategic planning and policy direction. The RPS identifies how the integrated management of the region’s natural and physical resources are to be managed by establishing policy direction for regional and district plans.

1.2.1    Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

¨ Environmental

Medium - Positive

¨ Cultural

Low - Positive

¨ Social

Medium - Positive

¨ Economic

Low - Positive

The NPS-UD 2020 recognises the national significance of having well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, now and into the future.  It is part of a broader Urban Growth Agenda that aims to remove barriers to the supply of land and infrastructure and make room for cities to grow. The NPS-UD aims to ensure urban development can enhance and provide for changing amenity to meet changing demands and preferences, and to help local authorities give greater weight to the types of amenity that benefit the whole community and future generations. Encouraging increased indigenous biodiversity in urban areas with too little indigenous biodiversity is one way to achieve this.

2.        NPS-UD Responsive Planning requirements

2.1      Requirements for Regional Councils

The responsive planning requirements in the NPS-UD seek to ensure local authorities respond to development proposals that would add significantly to development capacity and contribute to well-functioning urban environments, regardless of whether they are planned for or anticipated. It applies to development proposals in both greenfield and brownfield locations.

Council’s must review policies relating to unplanned and out-of-sequence development to implement the NPS-UD. For example, the existing RPS urban limits line and hard rural/urban boundary restrictions do not meet NPS-UD requirements.

The NPS-UD recognises the national significance of:

•    having well-functioning urban environments that enable all people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and for their health and safety, now and into the future; and

•    providing sufficient development capacity to meet the different needs of people and communities.

2.1.1    RPS Changes

At this early stage it is anticipated the RPS be amended in two stages. The first stage, to give effect to the NPS-UD (the focus of this report) will insert criteria, housing bottom lines and remove the hard line urban limits line policy approach, potentially notified in late 2021.

The second stage will likely be aligned with the broader RPS review in 2023/24 and ensure alignment with the broader policy package to give effect to the NPS-HPL, NPSFM and NPS-IB.

The NPS-UD requires RPS changes to:

1.   amend the Urban and Rural Growth Management policy framework (including transport policies with an urban link) to enable more land and infrastructure supply, growth (up and out) of urban centres and support well-functioning urban environments;

2.   amend the urban limits (ULs) line approach and supporting policies to be more flexible/responsive and enable new urban growth areas (including those provided for by the Urban Form and Transport Initiative 2020 (UFTI));

3.   include criteria for determining what district and city plan changes will be treated as adding significantly to development capacity including out of sequence or unplanned private development proposals; and

4.   set short-medium and long term housing bottom lines for Tier 1 and 2 local authorities based on the most recent Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessments (HBAs).

RPS changes to introduce housing bottom lines can be progressed without using the Schedule 1 process. However, the timing for the release of this information will likely coincide with the RPS Change process to implement the NPS-UD responsive planning framework requirements. Staff consider it best to progress these provisions jointly as a combined change using the SPP.  This wider package includes amendments to the existing RPS urban limits line, associated urban and rural growth management policies, growth area and business land sequencing and timing.  These broader changes must be progressed as soon as practicable.

The exact details of what changes will fall within the ambit of the first stage SPP and what falls within the second stage broader RPS review will become clearer as the policy changes are drafted and consultation is progressed with Ministry for the Environment officials and Council’s legal team.

2.2      High level summary of changes required

This paper seeks approval of a process to progress implementation of the NPS-UD responsive planning requirements through changes to the RPS. Actual draft RPS changes still need to be assessed and drafted in consultation with stakeholders and then workshopped with this Committee. Many RPS changes required are specific and leave little scope for interpretation. However, this level of detail is not yet available.

The table below shows at a high level where review/amendment/addition/deletion of existing operative RPS provisions are required.

Existing operative RPS content required to be reviewed and potentially amended/deleted/new content drafted to implement NPS-UD requirements

Action

Section 2.8 and 2.8.1 Urban and rural growth management and regionally significant issues–

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

Table 8 Urban and Rural Growth Management objectives and titles of policies and methods to achieve the objectives

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

3.1 Policies UG 1A – UG 25B

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

Appendix A – definitions for developable land, development of land, development site, greenfield development, growth area, infrastructure, large-scale, regionally significant infrastructure, social and cultural buildings, urban activities, urban limits

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

Appendix B – High quality urban design principles

Appendix C – Indicative growth area timing and business land provision

Appendix d – Indicative growth area sequencing

Appendix E – Management and growth areas for the western Bay of Plenty

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

References to any of the above in other parts of the RPS

Review, amend/delete/draft new in consultation with stakeholders.

Workshop with Strategy and Policy Committee

2.3      Process options

Regional Council must implement the responsive planning requirements in the NPS-UD. There is limited scope for interpretation of the changes required, most of which must be implemented as soon as practicable. The western Bay of Plenty sub-region is a high growth area (Tier 1) with pressure on Councils to provide more development capacity urgently from central government, stakeholders and the community.

As the RPS changes required are related to national direction, broader and robust public consultation is not viewed as critical for this process. Instead consultation should be focused on key stakeholders including relevant hapu and iwi, territorial authorities, infrastructure providers, the development community and affected landowners. A Communications and Engagement Plan will be developed targeting these stakeholder groups and imbedded into whatever plan change process is used.  If the SPP is granted the Minister will have specific and further consultation requirements stipulated as conditions for approval.

Streamlined Planning Process

Staff recommend using the SPP as it provides more certainty for our stakeholders regarding timeframes, steps and final criteria requirements. There are limited rights of appeal which avoids protracted delays and costs involved with mediation and potential Environment Court appeals. Territorial Authorities are required to implement the NPS-UD through district plan changes which relate to the RPS urban growth policies, a streamlined process would provide greater clarity and certainty for them. Councils may make a request to the Minister to use a streamlined planning process (SPP) for a proposed policy statement, plan, plan change or variation. The process must be "proportional to the issues being addressed" and is intended to provide greater flexibility in planning processes and timeframes and allow these to be tailored to specific issues and circumstances.

The SPP was used for RPS Change 4 (Tauriko West Urban Limit).

The criteria for using the process is as follows:

a)   The proposed planning instrument will implement a national direction;

b)  As a matter of public policy, the preparation of the planning instrument is urgent;

c)   The proposed planning instrument is required to meet significant community need;

d)  A plan or policy instrument raises an issue that has unintended consequences;

e)   The proposed planning instrument will combine several policy statements or plans to develop a combined document prepared under section 80;

f)   The expeditious preparation of a planning instrument is required in any circumstance comparable, or relevant to, those set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 80c.

The following steps are mandatory within the streamlined approach:

a)   Consultation with affected parties and iwi;

b)  Public notification of the proposed Plan Change;

c)   Opportunity for written submissions;

d)  Report showing how the submissions have been considered;

e)   Preparation of an evaluation report under s32 or s32AA; and

f)   Particular regard has been given to the evaluation report.

The direction provided must also specify the timeframe for completion of the streamlined process.

After the Council has undertaken the agreed planning process it must submit the proposed plan change to the Minister for approval. In doing so Council must provide the following information:

•    The proposed Change;

•    A summary report of the written submissions received;

•    A report showing how the submissions have been considered and any modifications to the proposed Change;

•    The section 32 Evaluation Report of the Change;

•    A section 32AA Evaluation Report - if any changes have been made to the proposal subsequent to the evaluation report;

•    A summary document showing how the statement of expectation has been considered

•    A summary document showing how the proposed Change complies with the RMA, any national direction and any regulations;

•    Any other information or documentation required by the direction; and

•    Any additional information.

The Minister may decide to approve the proposed planning document, refer it back to the Council for reconsideration or decline to approve it.

Options

The key difference between the streamlined process and a conventional RMA process is that the Minister for the Environment approves the process and there is no ability to appeal the decision through the Environment Court.

The RPS changes required to implement the NPS-UD are limited in scope and are largely prescribed in the NPS-UD therefore should be relatively the same regardless of the process used.

Council can progress the RPS Change through a Schedule 1 Process with Council making the decision and leave open the opportunity for potential appeals and delays through the Environment Court or use the Streamlined Planning Process, leaving the final decision to be made by the Minister for the Environment.

Staff consider the RPS Change required to implement the NPS-UD responsive planning requirements meet SPP criteria a) by implementing the NPS-UD. Also, managing the western Bay of Plenty sub-region’s growth is required to meet significant and pressing community need, criteria c). Using the SPP approach will mean the timeframes for the rest of the process will be more certain and won’t be delayed as they may if there are any appeals to the Environment Court.

If approved through this paper staff would liaise with Ministry for the Environment officials to determine whether using the SPP would receive favourable consideration. The Minister must grant the request for it to proceed. The Minister has a statutory requirement to consult on the proposal to use the streamlined process.

3.        Considerations

3.1      Risks and Mitigations

The risks for the Schedule 1 (conventional RMA) approach are:

Risk

Explanation

Mitigation

Council’s in the sub-region are unable to meet the timeframes set out in the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 

Our planning processes may be too slow to respond to the population growth that is occurring.

Use the streamlined approach to provide more certainty over timing. 

Appeals to the Environment Court

Most RPS changes result in appeals to the Environment Court. This would generate delays and additional legal and mediation costs.

Using the streamlined approach removes the ability for appeal.

The risks for the streamlined approach are:

Risk

Explanation

Mitigation

Loss of control over the process and decision-making for Regional Council

The approach requires the Minister to make decisions to approve or decline using the process, setting out change specific procedural steps and timeframes and approval before the Change becomes operative.

A well-resourced, consulted on, and drafted RPS change, clearly implementing the requirements of the NPS-UD.

Loss of the community’s ability to appeal the decision through the Environment Court

The Minister will make a decision and the ability to appeal that decision through the Environment Court is not available.

Well resourced, consulted and engaged stakeholders, local authorities, iwi and hapu and infrastructure providers, early and throughout the RPS Change process including clear transparency about process requirements and lack of appeal rights.

3.2      Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

There are no direct implications from climate change on the RPS change. Any new greenfield development will be required to comply with the Natural Hazard provisions of the RPS and have regards to the effects of climate change.

3.3      Implications for Māori

Progressing an RPS change to give effect to the NPS-UD has the potential to help address the under-utilisation of multiple owned Maori land within existing urban growth areas. The utilisation of multiple owned land for housing is the most affordable solution for many Māori whanau with land shareholdings in Tauranga.

In the Tauranga City area, there is a total of 616.5ha of multiple owned Maori land with appropriate residential zone to facilitate housing that could potentially yield 6,165 house sites based on 10 lots/ha or 9,247 lots at a density of 15 lots/ha with the provision of bespoke infrastructure services.  This is a theoretical yield rate that has not been qualified on the ground with any analysis to date by Tauranga City Council.

In the Tauranga City area: the Te Tumu Kaituna Blocks in Papamoa East account for 305.9 ha, the current rural and urban Marae community zones collectively account for 163 ha in total and Māori land zoned residential/rural in Wairoa, Hangarau, Waimapu, Hairini, Ohauiti, Kaitemako, Welcome Bay, Kairua Road, Matapihi and Mangatawa account for 147.6ha in total.

The majority of Māori freehold land in the Western Bay of Plenty District is zoned Rural with a total of 17,633 ha (i.e. 9.6% of total rural land in the district).  Currently there is 97.6ha of multiple owned Maori land zoned residential and rural residential.  This has the potential to yield 976 house sites based on 10 lots/ha or 1,464 lots at 15 lots/ha with the provision of appropriate infrastructure services.   These are potential gross estimates only that don’t take into account any land development constraints such as topography features gullies, streams, drains, as well as harbour coastal setbacks, hazards/flooding zones, access to infrastructure services, communal facilities, open space and or reserves.

Many of these Maori land blocks have considerable housing development potential but lack governance bodies, infrastructure and structure plans.  Lending institutions have stricter criteria for building on Maori land that are often too onerous for many whanau to satisfy. Whanau wanting to building on Maori land must manoeuvre through dual RMA and Maori Land Court processes which complicate.

The NPS-UD 2020 requires councils to plan well for growth and ensure a well-functioning urban environment for all people, communities and future generations. This includes Policy 9 which requires taking into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (te Tiriti o Waitangi), in relation to urban environments, must:

a)   Undertake effective involvement and consultation with hapu and iwi that is early, meaningful and, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Maori;

 

b)  Take into account hapu and iwi values and aspirations for urban development;

 

c)   Provide opportunities for Maori involvement in decision-making on resource consents, designations, heritage orders, and water conservation orders, including in relation to sites of significance to Maori and issues of cultural significance; and

 

d)  Operative in a way that is consistent with iwi participation legislation.

Council will work with Māori to develop the proposed change to the RPS regardless of whether a Schedule 1 or Streamlined Planning process is used.

3.4      Community Engagement

 

Adobe Systems

CONSULT

Whakauiuia

To obtain input or feedback from affected communities about our analysis, alternatives, and /or proposed decisions.

Council will consult and engage with key stakeholders and landowners during development the proposed change to the RPS regardless of whether a Schedule 1 or Streamlined Planning process is used.

3.5      Financial Implications

If the recommendation is adopted by Council, will it result in:

-   Unbudgeted work during the current financial year?

-   Unbudgeted work for any of the years remaining in the current Long Term Plan?

If the answer is ‘no’ to both questions please select the dropdown option 1 and complete appropriately.

If the answer is ‘yes’ to either question please select “Budget Implications” in the building block below and liaise with your Management Accountant in order to complete the Financial Impact table.

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget for the 2020/2021 year.

The cost of this process relating to the 2020/21 year of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 budget is staff time. From the public notification of the RPS change (expected to be in the second half of 2021), there will be additional costs for the hearing process which have not yet been budgeted for. A change to the RPS urban and rural growth management provisions was not budgeted for ahead of the formal RPS review in 2024. This requirement has resulted from the National Policy Statement – Urban Development.

Staff will ensure the anticipated costs for the all RPS changes previously approved at the Strategy and Policy Committee in November 2020 are included in the relevant years of the Long term Plan 2021-2031. The hearing costs for the NPS-UD change are expected to be similar for both the Schedule 1 process and the Streamlined Planning Process.

4.        Next Steps

Next Steps: What next? What resources are needed? Further analysis? Timeframes ahead. Any consultation planned. Remind Council of the process ahead. Next update to Council?

Conclusion: Short concluding remarks. Referring back to recommendations. No new content.

Subject to the Strategy and Policy Committee agreeing in principle to using a combination of Section 55 and the Streamlined Planning Process to implement the NPS-UD, staff will develop and report back in the first quarter of 2021 a:

1.   Project plan;

2.   Communications and engagement plan;

3.   Draft RPS change; and

4.   SPP application.

Staff will liaise with Council’s legal advisors and Ministry for the Environment officials to refine the scope of RPS changes covered by an application to use the Streamlined Planning Process and those provisions which come within the ambit of Section 55 of the RMA.

Staff will commence developing draft provisions to comply with NPS-UD requirements in consultation and engagement with key stakeholders, iwi and hapu, local authorities and infrastructure providers.  To the extent practicable, consultation will be combined with that being undertaken as part of the Tauranga City Plan and Western Bay of Plenty District Plan reviews.  Particularly with landowners seeking urban rezoning or land use change along the existing RPS urban limits line fringes.

Staff anticipate workshops on the draft RPS changes, issues and options with Strategy and Policy Committee in the second quarter of 2021.

  


 

 

 

Report To:

Strategy and Policy Committee

Meeting Date:

16 February 2021

Report Writer:

Mark Hamilton, Senior Policy Analyst

Report Authoriser:

Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy & Science

Purpose:

To update the Committee on the suggested content of new provisions for the Mount Maunganui Airshed, and to seek approval of their direction and scope.

 

 

Mount Maunganui Airshed – Direction and Scope

 

Executive Summary

The Mount Maunganui Airshed (the Airshed) was established in November 2019. It was introduced following a history of degraded air quality in and around the Mount Maunganui industrial area and Port of Tauranga, resulting in community concern and leading to air quality monitoring and increased regulatory compliance action.

The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) includes an ambient air quality standard for particulate matter (PM10). Due to the number of breaches of the standard prior to being gazetted, the Airshed was declared polluted upon its establishment in November 2019. In 2020, this standard was breached a further 12 times.

At the Strategy and Policy committee workshop on 29 September 2020, Councillors provided guidance for the preferred approach for new plan provisions to improve air quality, as part of a future plan change primarily intended to manage the effects of PM10 within the Airshed.

There was a stated desire for provisions that were equitable for all members of the community within the airshed, based on the following approach.

A relatively small number of specific provisions to manage key dust producing activities, with a policy for cumulative effects to assist with reviewing resource consents in a set timeframe. In addition, a policy response for odour producing activities was also requested.

The matters suggested for inclusion in the provisions are incorporated below. If the Committee approves their direction and scope, staff will draft provisions for Committee approval and then subsequent consultation with the public later in 2021.

 

Recommendations

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Mount Maunganui Airshed – Direction and Scope; and

2        Provides guidance on the matters recommended for inclusion in the draft provisions to be later approved for community engagement.

1.        Introduction

1.1      Background

On 8 October 2004, the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality came into effect. The NESAQ includes an ambient air quality standard for particulate matter (PM10). The deadline for achieving the PM10 standard was initially set at one exceedance per year by 2013, but was subsequently extended to 1 September 2020. 

The NESAQ is currently under review by the Ministry for the Environment (the Ministry). Council made a submission to the draft review and any amendments to the Standards are expected in mid-2021.

At the Regional Direction and Delivery meeting of 10 April 2019, staff sought approval for the creation of a separate airshed at Mount Maunganui to allow its boundary to be used as a compliance tool. It was advised that area-specific rules could then be introduced to manage air discharges in the new airshed, which would be more efficient and effective than utilising region-wide rules.

On 2 May 2019, Council received a letter from the Associate Minister for the Environment querying breaches and exceedances of the NESAQ, and seeking clarification of Council’s intended approach to improve air quality in the Mount Maunganui area. In its reply, Council noted the ongoing work to manage the problem, as well as preparations to apply for the gazettal of a new Mount Maunganui airshed.

The Mount Maunganui Airshed was gazetted in October 2019, and was subsequently declared polluted on its establishment in November 2019 by the Associate Minister.

1.2      Policy Development

At a Strategy and Policy workshop on 29 September 2020, staff gave an overview of the air quality issues within the Airshed. This included:

·      A history of air quality complaints within the Mount Maunganui industrial area leading to the introduction of the current, extensive, monitoring network.

·      Repeated exceedances of the NESAQ, and the main source contaminants.

The following three policy options were presented for consideration: 

1.   Broad Scope – Several inclusive general policies and rules designed to have broad coverage of the dust management issue. This would include a permitted activity rule that would apply to dust transported beyond the boundary of the subject property, with associated conditions. Should the conditions be unable to be complied with, then the activity would revert to another activity status, for example, discretionary.

2.   Focussed Approach – Draft specific, detailed provisions to manage each identified source of dust where specific contaminants are identified and targeted.

3.   Middle Ground – A combination of Options 1 and 2 where  a relatively small number of specific provisions target key dust producing activities, with a “catch-all” rule as backstop to address any activities which are not captured by the specific rules.

Councillors sought a focussed-middle ground Option 3 as an initial preferred approach.

The following feedback was received from Councillors:

·      New provisions must provide fairness for the community, businesses and workers.

·      Specific rules for key issues, as well as a policy for cumulative effects to assist with reviewing resource consents in a set timeframe.

·      In further reporting, provide a list of matters and activities that were out of scope.

·      Provide an overview of non-regulatory responses within the Airshed and how they intersect with regulatory responses.

·      Non-regulatory, incentivised tools and a ‘polluter pays’ component should be considered alongside regulatory tools to encourage voluntary support of cleaning up the Airshed.

1.3      Alignment with Strategic Framework

 

A Healthy Environment

We develop and implement regional plans and policy to protect our natural environment.

Preparation of an air plan is not compulsory under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), however regional councils may choose to prepare one to allow them to carry out their role under the RMA.

In particular, the Regional Council has a role under the RMA to control of discharges of contaminants into air (s30(d)(iv) and if appropriate, establish rules in a regional plan to allocate the capacity of air to assimilate a discharge of a contaminant: (s30(fa)iv).

2.        Direction and Scope

Given Council’s obligation to ensure compliance with the NESAQ, and central Government’s close interest in this airshed, staff investigated options for improving air quality in Mount Maunganui. These options were presented at the 29 September 2020 workshop where Councillors expressed a clear preference for a rules framework to manage this issue.

The matter of whether to use regulations to better manage discharges of contaminants to air in the Mount Maunganui Airshed was extensively canvassed during the Environment Court process for the Regional Natural Resources Plan  Change 13 (Air Quality) (PC13) held in October 2020. As a result, there is general acceptance of the requirement for air quality rules specific to the Airshed.

To date, Councillors have made no formal decision to progress a plan change for the Mount Maunganui Airshed.

Instead of repeating the analyses already presented to Councillors, staff have prepared a draft scope and direction for a plan change, based on the feedback already given for further discussion by the Committee.

2.1      Scope

Staff recommend a plan change to the Regional Natural Resources Plan to better manage all significant sources of particulate matter and odour within the Mount Maunganui Airshed.

The scope of the plan change is limited to the Mount Maunganui Airshed, and to particulate matter and odour; no other contaminant or discharge to air will be included. PC13 will continue to apply to the rest of the region, and to the Mount Maunganui Airshed.

The scope of the plan change will be limited to regulatory matters only. Non-regulatory approaches, such as those raised by Councillors in the September 29 workshop (referred to in the Policy Development section, above) will be developed alongside the plan change.

As PC13 has only recently become operative, any new plan change provisions will be developed independently of those already included in PC13, so that no PC13 provisions will be amended or revisited as part of this plan change.

Tauranga City Council and the Regional Council are currently working with the Whareroa Marae regarding the investigation of a managed retreat of some industrial activities to the north of the Marae. The proposal for the managed retreat is out of scope for this plan change.

2.2      Assumptions

Currently there is one rule of PC13 still subject to appeal in the Environment Court. Rule AQ R22 covers discharges from handling of bulk solid materials above a threshold volume. The scope and direction of the Mount Maunganui Airshed plan change assumes that AQ R22, will remain substantially unchanged from what Council put forward to the Court. AQ R22 doesn’t cover other significant sources of dust such as log handling. Furthermore, it doesn’t cover other smaller sources like permitted boilers, unsealed yards which also all contribute to the cumulative effect of dust.

If AQ R22 changes significantly as a consequence of the Court’s decision, staff will reassess the approach if necessary. However, at this stage the direction will be broad enough to accommodate most decisions made by the Court.

2.3      Direction

New polices and rules will be developed to specifically target the sources of particulates and odour in the Mount Maunganui Airshed. No amendments are recommended for the provisions currently included in PC13 recently made operative. 

Council’s legal submission to the Environment Court in support of AQ R22 is that all industries within the Airshed responsible for emissions to air have a responsibility to contribute to the Airshed’s remediation. Council acknowledged that existing provisions including Rule AQ R22 on its own will not achieve this outcome.

No additional objectives are recommended – the existing objectives in PC13 remain fit for purpose.

It is anticipated that policies are drafted to address the following matters:

·      Build on the existing policies of PC13 to be strengthened and more specific to particulates and odour within Mount Maunganui.

·      Refer to a broader set of contaminants (Health-based Guideline Values in the Ambient Air Quality Guidelines, or other relevant international guidelines for the protection of human health), rather than just the five contaminants included within the NESAQ.

·      Specific Mount Airshed policy – airshed as a control mechanism, prioritise development of air quality management plans where necessary to prevent further degradation of airshed.

·      Duration of air consent is dependent on activities to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on air quality - a longer consent duration may be available to provide ongoing operational certainty. Default becomes 10-12 years, and longer duration available for best practice. Or, if airshed is polluted, maximum consent terms is 10-12 years, and best practice must still apply.

·      Cumulative effects - To assist with reviewing resource consents in a set time frame, activities that require resource consent and contribute to the cumulative discharge of PM within the Airshed shall be required to be reviewed within a set timeframe.

·      Odour – develop a policy to manage odorous industrial emissions to minimise adverse effects on sensitive receptors and manage activities depending on drift.

It is anticipated that rules are drafted to address the following matters:

·      Particulate matter from log handling within Mount Maunganui Airshed.

·      The discharge of contaminants to air from general fugitive (diffuse) discharges and dust sources beyond the boundary of the property.

·      More specific permitted, controlled and restricted discretionary activities.

In the event that the Environment Court does not rule in Council’s favour regarding Rule AQ R22, staff will develop an appropriate rule to address the issue of particulates from bulk solid materials handling.

2.3.1    Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

Medium - Positive

¨ Cultural

Low - Positive

¨ Social

High - Positive

¨ Economic

Low - Negative

Staff have assessed the community well-beings of the matters discussed in this report as follows:

·      Environmental – New plan provisions would be expected to lead to a change in dust management practices at sites currently contributing to the cumulative discharge of fugitive dust within the Airshed. Modified dust management techniques should in turn lead to an improvement in recorded PM10 levels and air quality as a whole.

·      Cultural – A reduction in PM10 recorded in the Airshed is likely to be a positive outcome for local iwi and hapū as the Tauranga Moana Iwi Management Plan refers to the management of air discharges. However, PM10 levels are just one of the air quality issues troubling hapū at Whareroa Marae and the air quality monitor situated at the marae records relatively few PM10 exceedances.

·      Social – Compromised air quality is the leading cause of complaint within both the Airshed, and the region as a whole. Air quality has a high public profile with community groups such as Clear the Air and Whareroa Marae vocal about the presence of various air-borne contaminants within the wider Mount Maunganui area. Reductions to the emissions of odour and PM as the result of new plan provisions will be a positive outcome for residents within and neighbouring the Airshed, as well as workers, customers and sports ground users and spectators. A reduction in the discharge of both odour and PM could well become a source of pride and relief amongst local residents.

·      Economic – New plan change provisions which require non-compliant businesses to introduce physical measures to manage PM and odour emissions will likely have a financial cost for those businesses.

3.        Considerations

3.1      Risks and Mitigations

A considerable cross-section of the population who live, work or engage in recreational activities within the Airshed will be affected by proposed changes to introduce new air quality management provisions. Residents of Whareroa marae, airport residents and passengers, players and spectators at Blake Park, Harbour Bridge marina users and workers within the Airshed are all groups to benefit from any improvement in air quality as a result of new plan provisions to manage PM in accordance with the NESAQ. Some businesses within the Airshed could be affected by requirements to adhere to suggested plan change provisions, or obtain resource consents.

New plan provisions are likely to have a negligible increase on rates, as most costs will be incurred by businesses adhering new requirements and the cost of introducing the plan change.  In the long term, if air quality improves in the Airshed, then the need for monitoring may subside, with a consequent reduction in related costs borne by ratepayers.

Although odour is not a contaminant subject to control by the NESAQ, it is the leading cause of complaints within the Airshed (and region itself) that could benefit from additional, targeted policies.

3.2      Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are not sensitive to the effects of climate change. Staff have also considered the effect of the initiative on greenhouse gas emissions and have determined that there will be no effect.

3.3      Implications for Māori

If new plan provisions to manage odour and PM emissions achieve improved air quality in the Airshed, it may result in positive social and cultural effects for Whareroa marae, and the three iwi partners of the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective.   No consultation has yet been undertaken as the scope and direction of the specific options to manage odour and PM within the Airshed is still to be confirmed.

Once this direction is provided, then local iwi and hapū, and all relevant iwi planning documents and legislation would be consulted with as plan provisions are drafted and refined.

3.4      Community Engagement

 

Adobe Systems

INVOLVE

Whakaura

To work directly with affected communities throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are consistently understood and fully considered in Council’s decision making.

 

We will work with iwi and hapū and other community stakeholders during the process to ensure that their issues are considered as part of Council’s decisions making.

3.5      Financial Implications

If the recommendation is adopted by Council, will it result in:

-   Unbudgeted work during the current financial year?

-   Unbudgeted work for any of the years remaining in the current Long Term Plan?

If the answer is ‘no’ to both questions please select the dropdown option 1 and complete appropriately.

If the answer is ‘yes’ to either question please select “Budget Implications” in the building block below and liaise with your Management Accountant in order to complete the Financial Impact table.

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

4.        Next Steps

Next Steps: What next? What resources are needed? Further analysis? Timeframes ahead. Any consultation planned. Remind Council of the process ahead. Next update to Council?

Conclusion: Short concluding remarks. Referring back to recommendations. No new content.

Councillor commitment to a plan change and associated direction will result in formation of draft provisions based on feedback received from the committee.

Final approval of draft provisions to inform proposed plan change will then be sought from the Committee at a subsequent meeting. Following approval of the draft provisions, feedback will be sought from stakeholders and the community.

Informal Community consultation – we already have diverse array of engaged stakeholders including the Whareroa marae, local residents’ group “Clear the Air” and industry within the Airshed. The wider community will then also be consulted during the notification of a Plan change.

The following diagram is an overview of the plan change process and gives an indication of the steps and high-level timeframe involved:w



  


 

 

 

Report To:

Strategy and Policy Committee

Meeting Date:

16 February 2021

Report Writer:

Karen Parcell, Team Leader Kaiwhakatinana

Report Authoriser:

Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy & Science

Purpose:

Approval of Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead)

 

 

Approval of Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead)

 

 

Executive Summary

On 18 May 2005, a severe rainfall event caused several large debris flows that led to significant damage on the Awatarariki Fanhead. The Whakatāne District Council (WDC) investigated engineering solutions to mitigate the high risk that the destructive force the debris flow poses to life and property. These options were found to be unfeasible.

WDC proposed Plan Change 1 to the Whakatāne District Plan and requested that the Regional Council include provisions in a regional plan to extinguish existing use rights. Regional Council accepted these provisions as Plan Change 17 (PC17) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan which was notified and processed concurrently with Plan Change 1.

A number of houses that were damaged or destroyed during the debris flow had been rebuilt, therefore the notification of PC17 created significant stress and uncertainty for the landowners. The Hearing Panel did not support the submission points in opposition and recommended minor changes to the proposed provisions of PC17.

One appeal was made to the Environment Court on a number of grounds including that the plan change was unlawful, contrary to Part 2, and an abuse of public power. The relief sought was for the plan changes to be withdrawn.

The Environment Court hearing was set down for early December 2020. Prior to the hearing, the councils negotiated an agreement with all but one landowner for a voluntary managed retreat programme to sell their properties. One property owner sought an extension of time to occupy their property for a further year which was accepted by the councils and granted by the Court.

The Court has directed Regional Council to amend PC17 to insert a new rule providing for the time extension for one property. The recommendation is for the Committee to approve the provisions of PC17.

 

Recommendations

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Approval of Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead).

2        Approves all provisions of Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan and any consequential changes to the Regional Natural Resources Plan, to be effected by affixing the seal of the Regional Council.

3        Delegates to the Group Manager Strategy and Science to make minor corrections to Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan and any consequential changes if required.

4        Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to set the date to make Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan operative.

 

1.        Introduction

Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) to the Regional Natural Resources Plan (PC17) was prepared by Whakatāne District Council (WDC) alongside Plan Change 1 to the Whakatāne District Plan.

On 18 May 2005, a severe rainfall event caused several large debris flows that caused significant damage to land, buildings, and road and rail infrastructure on the Awatarariki Fanhead. Although there were no deaths or injuries the destructive force of the debris flow was such that fatalities could have easily occurred.

To avoid this outcome during future events, WDC investigated and consulted on engineering options for debris flow control and concluded that there were no viable engineering solutions to manage the debris flow risk to life and property that meet community engagement outcomes, engineering viability, or feasibility. WDC pursued planning based options instead.

1.1      Legislative Framework

The Natural Hazards chapter of the Regional Policy Statement became operative in 2016 and contains a number of provisions specific to management of natural hazards. In particular Policy NH3B imposes a requirement to reduce the level of risk from high to medium (or lower if reasonably practicable).

A hazard and risk assessment for landslides and debris flow confirms that the risk to life and property on the Awatarariki Fanhead is high. WDC identified managed retreat as the most effective measure to reduce risk, which would require the owners of properties at high risk to relocate out of harm’s way. There are 34 properties within the affected area. At the time this option was identified, 16 of the properties contained houses.

WDC proposed Plan Change 1 to the Whakatāne District Plan to rezone the high risk area from Residential to Coastal Protection Zone, and for residential activity within the high risk area to become a prohibited activity.

However, Plan Change 1 has no effect on existing use rights as s10 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) specifies that land may be used in a manner that contravenes a rule in a District Plan if the use was lawfully established before the notification of a proposed rule, therefore the prohibited activity rule would only apply to new developments.

However, the Regional Council has a function under s30(1)(c) RMA to control the use of land for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards, and s10 does not extend the protection of existing use rights to land controlled under s30(1)(c).

Therefore, WDC prepared PC17 with provisions intended to extinguish existing use rights within the high risk area. The Regional Direction and Delivery Committee accepted PC17 at its meeting on 20 February 2018.

The affected properties are not within the Coastal Marine Area and therefore the additional procedural requirements of the RMA involving the Minister of Conservation do not apply.

1.2      Alignment with Strategic Framework

 

Safe and Resilient Communities

We work with communities and others to consider long term views of natural hazard risks through our regional plans and policies.

PC17 will contribute to the safe and resilient communities outcome. 

Once operative, PC17 will initially be included in the Natural Hazards chapter of the Regional Natural Resources Plan (RNRP). However, when the RNRP is brought into compliance with the National Planning Standards, the provisions of PC17 will move to an Area chapter (Area 2 – Awatarariki Fanhead). This will not result in any substantive changes and will be done without the need for a further Schedule 1 process.

1.2.1    Community Well-beings Assessment

A number of houses were significantly damaged or destroyed during the debris flow on 18 May 2005. As the natural hazard risk was not fully understood in the immediate aftermath of the event, landowners rebuilt their homes, investing “physically, financially, and in some cases emotionally, in their land and buildings in good faith.”[6]

Understandably, the notification of PC17 created significant stress and uncertainty for landowners affected.

WDC, Regional Council and Central Government agreed to provide financial assistance towards managed retreat from the high risk area. This provides landowners with the ability to sell their properties at market value; as though no natural hazard exists and no plan changes notified.

These factors have been considered at various stages of the public notification process required under Schedule 1 of the RMA.

2.        Plan Process

PC17 and Plan Change 1 were processed concurrently and a combined hearing used to hear submissions.

The Regional Council notified PC17 on 19 June 2018, receiving 8 submissions and 2 further submissions. Submitters were heard by an independent panel of hearing commissioners over 3 days.

The diagram below summarises the process.

2.1      Submissions

Key concerns raised by submitters were:

·      Plan provisions contrary to Part 2 of the RMA.

·      Uncertain science and imprecise modelling of risk of landslide and debris flow.

·      Breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

·      Awatarariki community marginalised and discriminated against.

·      Flow hazard decreased if upstream farming and forestry was better managed.

·      Alternative engineering solutions not fully investigated.

·      Guaranteed funding needed in place before existing use rights extinguished.

The Hearing Commissioners considered all submissions and did not support the majority of the concerns. The Commissioners recommended minor changes to the proposed provisions of PC17.

2.2      Appeals

The Environment Court received one appeal from Awatarariki Residents Incorporated. Reasons for the appeal were:

·      Unlawful with no jurisdiction to remove existing use rights.

·      Contrary to Part 2 and s85 of the RMA.

·      Abuse of public power, inconsistent with councils’ statutory functions, adverse impacts disproportionate to the risk being managed, and inappropriate, inefficient or ineffective.

·      Challenging the assessments of adverse effects and of risk on which the hearing commissioners made their decisions.

·      Failure to address reasonable available alternatives.

The relief sought was for the plan changes (PC17 and Plan Change 1) to be withdrawn.

2.3      Environment Court Hearing and Decision

The Environment Court hearing was set down for two weeks in early December 2020. However most of these hearing dates were vacated at the parties’ request to allow for the extensive negotiations between residents and councils.

As a result of these negotiations, all but one landowner signed up to the voluntary managed retreat programme to sell their properties to WDC. One property owner sought an extension of time to occupy their property for a further year and has acknowledged that they have chosen to remain in occupation of the property at their own risk. They have indemnified the councils against any claim for injury or damage suffered as a result of a debris flow hazard.

The Court congratulated the parties on reaching an agreement, acknowledging the difficultly and stress for everyone involved.

The Court granted the orders sought by the parties on the terms sought, which involved a direction that Regional Council amend PC17 to insert a new rule providing for the time extension for one property. The pre-operative version of PC17 is included as Attachments 1 and 2 (shown as track changes and clear copy), and the Environment Court decision as Attachment 3.

3.        Considerations

3.1      Risks and Mitigations

Avoiding the high risk of loss of life and damage to property is at the core of PC17 and has been assessed at every stage of the process.

The WDC considered mitigation options that did not involve extinguishing existing use rights and pursued the provisions in PC17 only when all other mitigation options were exhausted.

3.2      Climate Change

The effect of climate change on the frequency and intensity of rainfall was found to increase the risk of a further debris flow occurring at Matatā, and this was a key factor considered by both the Hearing Commissioners and the Court.

3.3      Implications for Māori

Schedule 1 of the RMA requires consultation with iwi regarding plan changes. WDC consulted with Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Rangitihi, and Ngāti Rangitihi Raupatu Trust who indicated support for the retreat from the Awatarariki Fanhead. Ngāti Awa and Ngāti Rangitihi subsequently lodged submissions supporting the plan changes.

WDC also consulted with Ngāti Hinerangi Trust, Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau and the Mātaatua District Māori Council.

The planner for WDC also considered the relevant iwi and hapū management plan – Ngāti Rangitihi Iwi Environmental Management Plan when making recommendations to the Hearing Commissioners.

3.4      Community Engagement

Community engagement was been carried out extensively during the drafting and notification of PC17, including the submissions process and appeals to Environment Court.

3.5      Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

4.        Next Steps

When the Committee approves the recommendations, staff will publicly release PC17 along with notification of the date on which it will become operative, to be approved by the Chief Executive.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) - Pre-Operative Track Changes version 10 PDF

Attachment 2 - Proposed Plan Change 17 (Awatarariki Fanhead) - Pre-Operative  Clear copy version 10 PDF

Attachment 3 - 2020-12-15 Determination by the Environment Court [2020] NZEnvC 215 Awatarariki Residents Incorporated - released 21 December 2020   


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                      16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                      16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                      16 February 2021

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

 

 

Report To:

Strategy and Policy Committee

Meeting Date:

16 February 2021

Report Writer:

Elsa Weir, Planner

Report Authoriser:

Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy & Science

Purpose:

To  approve an extension to the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include new areas of development that could contribute particulate matter into the Airshed and adversely impact on air quality.

 

 

Change to the Rotorua Airshed Boundary

 

Executive Summary

The Rotorua Airshed was originally gazetted in 2005. The Airshed has breached the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) standards for PM10 every year, until 2020, where only one exceedance was recorded. The main source of particulate matter in the Rotorua Airshed is domestic woodburners i.e. winter fires. The location of the town at the bottom of a caldera allows an inversion layer to form and trap particulate matter from smoke, rather than it being able to disperse.

There has been gradual air quality improvement in the Airshed over the last 15 years, but it is continually at risk of breaching the NESAQ limits. In its current state the Airshed is likely to breach the NESAQ if additional particulate matter flows into the Airshed across the existing Airshed boundary from new development.  

It has always been anticipated that the Airshed boundaries would be extended, however previous advice was that this should be done in conjunction with the implementation of proposed amendments to the NESAQ. However, at the Rotorua Air Quality Working Party (the Working Party) meeting held on 30th November 2020, it was raised that Rotorua Lakes Council is receiving solid fuel burner building consent applications for new dwellings being built in a new subdivision adjacent to the Airshed.  Due to the subdivision’s location smoke emitted from dwellings solid fuel burners will flow into the Airshed and impact its air quality.

This matter was subsequently taken to the Operations and Monitoring Committee in December 2020, so that the issue could be referred to the Strategy and Policy Committee for action at the first meeting in 2021. The Operations and Monitoring Committee recommended that the Airshed boundary be extended, and indicated that the preference would be to future-proof the new boundary as much as possible.

This report therefore puts forward three options to the Strategy and Policy Committee for consideration, being:

Option 1 – Retain the status quo, and leave the boundary as-is.

Option 2 – Extend the Airshed boundary now to be strictly aligned with growth and development areas as defined by Rotorua Lakes Council.

Option 3 – Extend the Airshed boundary now based on a combination of topography, and growth and development areas as defined by the Rotorua Lakes Council.

Option 3 is the recommended option, because it strikes a good balance of future-proofing the Airshed boundary based on topographical reasoning and identified future development, without impacting on more existing properties and dwellings than necessary. Due to the pace of development and its potential to cause adverse effects, retaining the status quo (Option 1) is not considered to be the best option in this instance.

If the Committee approve the recommendations, staff will seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment as to the level of consultation required for the process, and will then begin the re-gazettal process to extend the Rotorua Airshed.

 

Recommendations

That the Strategy and Policy Committee:

1        Receives the report, Change to the Rotorua Airshed Boundary to extend the Rotorua Airshed boundary.

2        Directs staff to seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment as to the level of consultation required prior to beginning the formal re-gazettal process, to ensure the application for re-gazettal is approved by the Minister.

3        Approves either:

Option 1 – Status quo. The Airshed boundary will be retained as-is;

OR

Option 2 – Extend the Airshed boundary now to be strictly aligned with growth and development areas as defined by Rotorua Lakes Council;

OR

Option 3 (recommended) – Extend the Airshed boundary now based on a combination of topography, and growth and development areas as defined by Rotorua Lakes Council (recommended).

 

4        Approves application to the Minister for the Environment to re-gazette the Rotorua Airshed once consultation with affected parties is completed.

 

Introduction

1.1      Rotorua Air Quality

Regional councils monitor air quality in areas (airsheds) where air quality has or could breach the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ).

The Rotorua Airshed was originally gazetted in 2005. The Airshed has breached the NESAQ standards for PM10 every year, until 0, where only one exceedance was recorded. The main source of particulate matter in the Rotorua Airshed is domestic woodburners i.e. winter fires. The location of the town at the bottom of a caldera allows an inversion layer to form and trap particulate matter, rather than it being able to disperse.

Since 2010 the Regional Council and Rotorua Lakes Council have worked collectively to improve Rotorua’s air quality with a combination of solid fuel burner regulations and burner replacement funding assistance. This carrot and stick approached has led to a steady reduction in the number of annual exceedances.

1.2      The Rotorua Airshed

The Airshed boundary was first gazetted in 2005 after the introduction of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ). The Airshed was then re-gazetted in 2018 to include new areas of development, and in alignment with the introduction of the new rules for woodburners being introduced through Plan Change 13. The boundary was generally based on “identified areas of fast growth” in the Rotorua Lakes Council Spatial Plan. Some areas of potential new development were not included in this re-gazettal. It was considered that the best approach would be to hold off amending the Airshed boundary again until proposed amendments to the NESAQ were in place, so that any changes to the boundary could be aligned with any new requirements.

1.3      Legislative Framework

Ensuring that the boundary of the Airshed includes all sources that could potentially increase concentrations of particulates is a key factor in achieving compliance with the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004. 

1.4      Alignment with Strategic Framework

 

A Healthy Environment

We manage our natural resources effectively through regulation, education and action.

1.4.1    Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

High - Positive

þ Cultural

Low - Positive

þ Social

High - Positive

þ Economic

Low - Positive

Solid fuel burner regulations control air pollution within the Rotorua Airshed. Improved air quality in the Airshed:

(1)  Improves the environment;

(2)  Improves the air the community breathes which in turn improves their health (social well-being);

(3)  Is important to Māori as air is a taonga;

(4)  Improves the economy due to decreased medical costs and lost productivity when people are unable to work.

2.        Background

At the Rotorua Air Quality Working Party (the Working Party) meeting held on the 30th November 2020, it was raised that Rotorua Lakes Council is receiving solid fuel burner building consent applications for new dwellings being built in a new subdivision. This subdivision sits just outside the Rotorua Airshed (“the Airshed”). Due to the subdivision’s location, smoke emitted from dwellings solid fuel burners will flow into the Airshed and impact its air quality.

There has been gradual air quality improvement in the Airshed over the last 15 years, but it is continually at risk of breaching the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ). In its current state the Airshed is likely to breach the NESAQ if additional particulate matter (PM) flows into the Airshed across the existing Airshed boundary from new development.  

In order to make immediate progress on the consideration of this matter it was determined that a report should be made to the Operations and Monitoring Committee at the meeting on 15th December, with the intention that the matter would then be referred to the correct committee for action (being the Strategy and Policy Committee).

The Operations and Monitoring Committee resolved to recommend to the Strategy and Policy Committee that the Rotorua Airshed boundary be extended to include any subdivision that could contribute additional particulate matter into the Rotorua Airshed.

Discussion of the matter at the meeting indicated that the most preferable outcome would be to extend the Airshed boundary so that it was as future-proofed as possible, to avoid having to change the boundary multiple times as further development occurs on the periphery of the Rotorua Township.

Staff are therefore now approaching this Committee with an analysis of three options for changes to the Airshed boundary for consideration and decision.

3.        Changing the Airshed

3.1      Re-gazettal process

To make any changes to an Airshed, it must be re-gazetted with the Ministry for the Environment. The process to re-gazette an Airshed is defined in the NESAQ User Guide as follows:

As part of the rationale and justification to the Minister, staff will need to show that we have consulted with the affected property owners. It is unclear from the guidance material as to what level of consultation would be required. It is recommended that staff seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment on the expected level of consultation required prior to beginning the formal request for re-gazettal.

We have received legal advice on this process.

4.        Key context when considering the potential options

4.1      Mapping requirements

The Airshed boundaries must be shown on a ‘Graphic Description Plan’, and must be in a format suitable for Landonline’s database. This includes following existing property boundaries or other accepted cadastral points to ensure that the boundary is clear, easily identifiable, and legally defensible. 

4.2      NESAQ Amendments

The NESAQ is in the process of being amended. The proposed amendments are generally focussed on reducing particulate matter, with the relevant changes being a shift from PM10 to PM2.5 for the standards and amending the design standards for woodburners to a lower emission rate (1.0g/kg instead of 1.5g/kg).

Consultation has been undertaken on the proposed amendments and submissions closed in July 2020. A summary of the submissions was released on 22 December 2020 which advises that MfE intend the amendments to be gazetted by October 2021.

Initial investigation by staff into the implications of these amendments has shown that should the PM2.5 standards be imposed as currently proposed, the Rotorua Airshed would have exceeded the standard 14 times in 2020. Only one exceedance would be permitted under the NESAQ per year.

4.3      Plan change may be required

The Rotorua Airshed map is not included within Plan Change 13. Instead, it is only referenced in the Plan, and defined as “the area of Rotorua specified by the Minister for the Environment as a separate airshed, by notice in the New Zealand Gazette”. Previous changes to the Airshed (and the establishment of the Mount Maunganui Airshed) have been able to proceed without the need for a plan change to also occur in tandem.

However, in this instance, as an extension to the Airshed boundary would apply existing operative rules to additional properties, the Minister may require a plan change process to give legal effect to the re-gazetted Airshed boundaries, and provide a suitable means of public consultation on the matter.

To provide a level of certainty, it is recommended that staff seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment as to the expectations for consultation as part of the process, and whether a plan change will also be required.

4.4      Impact of operative rules

Extending the Airshed boundary will apply existing operative rules to the additional properties included within the Airshed. This includes both Plan Change 13 and the Rotorua Lakes Council Air Quality Control Bylaw 2017. The implications for these properties being within the Airshed include:

·      Woodburners installed prior to 2005 cannot be used.

·      Coal and multi-fuel burners cannot be used.

·      Indoor open fires cannot be used.

·      Pellet burners can continue to be used or installed.

·      Woodburners installed after 2005 can continue to be used (if they meet the NESAQ standards).

·      Replacement woodburners can be installed under certain conditions.

·      The current incentive schemes that Council have made available will be ending in April this year, so will not be available for property owners of any additional properties included in an extension to the Airshed.

It is noted that the PC13 rules only control the discharge from burners, so any non-compliant burners themselves will not need to be immediately removed. They will just be unable to be used. The Bylaw then requires the removal of a non-compliant burner at point of sale.

As detailed previously, it is recommended that staff seek clarification from the Ministry as to their expected level of consultation prior to undertaking the re-gazettal process given this unique situation.

5.        Options

5.1      Options for changing the Airshed boundaries

There are many potential options for extending the Airshed boundary. Based on the direction expressed by the Operations and Monitoring Committee to future-proof any change to the boundary, the following three potential options for the Airshed have been identified as the most relevant for consideration.

5.1.1    Option One: Status quo

Option One is to retain the status quo and leave the current Airshed boundary in place. An extension to the Airshed boundary could be reconsidered once the amendments to the NESAQ are in force.

See Attachment A for a copy of the existing Airshed boundary map.

Pros

Cons

·  Approach is consistent with previously received advice (from 2018) to align further changes to the Airshed boundary with the NESAQ amendments.

·  Potentially avoids two changes in quick succession, which could create confusion and frustration for both the public and staff enforcing the rules.

 

 

·  Development will continue in the meantime, and burners may be installed that then may need to be removed or be unable to be used when the Airshed boundary is changed at a later date.

·  Partculates from new burners adjoining the Airshed could negatively impact on the air quality within the Airshed, and the ability to comply with the NESAQ limits.

·  Continued health impacts from additional particulates.

·  Uncertainty for property owners and developers as to when a change may occur.

Given the speed at which development is occurring locally and the demand for housing, Option One is not recommended. Building consents for new dwellings in some of the adjoining developments are already being received by RLC, along with queries from the public as to the methods of domestic heating allowed within these developments.

The Rotorua Airshed has only just managed to meet the NESAQ limit of one PM10 exceedance per year, but will remain a ‘polluted airshed’ until it has maintained an average of one exceedance per year for five consecutive years. The additional particulates from new development adjacent to the Airshed boundaries will jeopardise this compliance, as well as contributing to negative health outcomes.

5.1.2    Option Two: Extend the Airshed boundaries to be strictly aligned with growth and development areas as defined by Rotorua Lakes Council

Option Two is to extend the Rotorua Airshed boundaries now, to cover those areas where residential development is currently zoned or planned (i.e. a Plan Change is proposed or underway). This would extend the current boundary to cover the part of the Pukehangi Heights (Plan Change 2 to the Rotoura District Plan) area not currently included, and the proposed Eastside Wellness Structure Plan area (which includes the Redwood Park subdivision on Tarawera Road).

Additional properties included (approx.)

160

Existing dwellings included (approx.)

91

See Attachment B for map.

Pros

Cons

·    Changing the boundary to include these areas now (rather than waiting for the NESAQ amendments) should avoid many new dwellings being ‘caught out’ by then needing to comply with the PC13 Airshed rules and Rotorua Air Quality Control Bylaw.

·    The additional areas identified are already zoned, or planned to be used for residential development, so the extension to include these areas should be generally accepted by the public.

·    Will reduce the potential for continued exceedances of the NESAQ PM limits within the Airshed.

·    Health benefits of reduced partculates in the Airshed.

 

 

·    This option may not sufficiently future-proof the Airshed boundary, as the zoning could change, or developments may creep beyond the currently identified areas (via resource consents or further Plan Changes).

·    The Airshed boundary may need to change again as a result of NESAQ amendments or additional development, which could be within a short space of time, and is likely to create confusion and frustration for both the public and staff enforcing the rules.

·    The Airshed boundary must be be in a format suitable for the Landonline database. Where zoning is not aligned with defined boundaries (which is the case in both Pukehangi and Eastside), this may create issues in preparing a suitable map for LINZ.

·    The Eastside Wellness Structure Plan is only in very early stages so relying on it’s proposed extent to define the Airshed boundary on the eastern side may not result in a good outcome.

·    This option will cover Rotorua Airport, Rotokawa etc which staff have previously identified as being unlikely to contribute significantly to the air quality in the Airshed, due to prevailing wind direction, lower density of housing, and large areas of business use (where woodburners are unlikely).

·    Impact on existing dwellings within this area.

While Option 2 will provide a level of future-proofing to the Airshed, it is not considered to be the best option. The main reasons for this are because it will include a large number of additional properties and dwellings to the east that will not have any real benefit to air quality within the Airshed. Additionally, strictly aligning the boundaries to development as it is currently zoned or planned now runs the risk of changes to zoning, or development creeping beyond these indicative areas (via resource consent or plan change) which may mean the Airshed boundary would need to be altered again.

5.1.3    Option Three: Extend the Airshed boundaries based on a combination of topography, and growth and development areas as defined by Rotorua Lakes Council

Option Three is to extend the Rotorua Airshed boundary now, but beyond those areas currently zoned or planned for development. Option Three proposes to encompass all areas of proposed residential development that are part of the Rotorua Township (including the Pukehangi Heights area, and the areas within the Eastside Wellness Structure Plan earmarked for residential development) and then extend to the south to align generally with the rim of the Caldera (along the closest property boundaries).

Additional properties included (approx.)

70

Existing dwellings included (approx.)

40

See Attachment C for map.

Pros

Cons

·    Changing the boundary to include these areas now (rather than waiting for the NESAQ amendments) should avoid many new dwellings being ‘caught out’ by then needing to comply with the PC13 Airshed rules and Rotorua Air Quality Control Bylaw.

·  Future-proofs the Airshed boundary. Covering all proposed development areas, and then taking the boundary up to generally align with the Caldera Rim to the south will ensure that the Airshed boundary covers any potential development “creep” outside of areas that are currently zoned, consented or planned for development.

·  Extending the boundary in this way is also likely to future-proof the Airshed boundary in relation to the proposed NESAQ amendments. By taking the boundary to the edge of the topographic boundary (caldera rim) and to the edge of residential development, it is unlikely that further changes would need to be made to the Airshed boundary, as there will be no area left that is likely to significantly contribute particulates to the Airshed. It is more likely that new rules would be required in the Air Plan to address any new NESAQ requirements, rather than any further extension to the Airshed.

·  This option keeps it simple and clear for the public, and gives certainty to developers/potential purchasers that the boundary is very unlikely to change again, given the wide extent.

·  Rotorua’s air quality issue results from the inversion layer created by the topography of the area. Using the Caldera Rim as the general alignment for the southern boundary provides a topographical justification, rather than having to make arbitrary decisions where to draw the line or engage in expensive and time-consuming modelling to decide which properties to include or not include. It is further noted that modelling for this purpose would essentially be an unhelpful exercise.

·  Easier to achieve mapping suitable for Landonline, as the boundary will follow property boundaries rather than indicative zoning boundaries.

·  This option will be in line with the areas of future growth for Rotorua City as shown in the RLC Spatial Plan 2018 (which uses the phrase “further up the caldera behind existing approved subdivisions” multiple times to indicate where future growth is expected).

·  Health benefits of reduced particulates in the Airshed.

·  Will reduce the potential for continued exceedances of the NESAQ particulate limits within the Airshed.

·    This wider approach will include some larger properties over 2ha that currently do not have to meet the NESAQ requirements for woodburners.

·    Impact on existing dwellings within this area.

 

This option is the recommended option as it future-proofs the Rotorua Airshed boundary for future development, and is likely to future-proof the boundary in relation to the proposed NESAQ amendments as well. This option will provide clarity and a degree of certainty to the public as to the requirements for woodburners within the future development of the Rotorua Township. It avoids Council having to make judgement calls or engage in expensive and time consuming modelling to decide on which properties should be included. While it may require some property owners to remove or replace solid fuel burners, the number will be relatively small.

5.2      Recommended option

Option Three is the recommended option because it strikes a good balance of future-proofing the Airshed boundary based on topographical reasoning and identified future development. While Option 2 is more strictly in line with intended development areas, it doubles the approximate number of properties and dwellings that would be added to the Airshed in comparison to Option 3. However, given the location of the additional properties included in Option 2, there would be minimal benefit to the Airshed due to the type of properties (Rotorua Airport, Eastgate Business Park etc.), the lower density and the prevailing south-westerly wind direction.

Staff therefore recommend that the Rotorua Airshed be extended as generally outlined in Option 3.

6.        Considerations

6.1      Risks and Mitigations

6.1.1    Risks

Rotorua Airshed solid fuel burner regulations cannot be applied to properties outside the Airshed. This means that solid fuel burners can be installed as dwellings are built.

The proximity of some new development (currently outside the Airshed) poses a problem for the Airshed as smoke from new solid fuel burners will potentially flow into the Airshed and:

·      Increase the level/concentration of particulate matter

·      Increase the number of particulate matter exceedances.

6.1.2    Mitigations

Gradual air quality improvement has been made in the Rotorua Airshed through staged solid fuel burner regulations, however, the Airshed remains vulnerable to particulate matter exceedances.

Staff advise extending the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include areas of new development that could contribute particulate matter into the Airshed. This would:

·      Protect air quality improvements made to date; and

·      Mitigate against new sources of particulate matter flowing into the Airshed.

6.2      Climate Change

No matter how it burns, a wood fire produces carbon dioxide. From the moment a tree is felled until a mature tree grows to take its place, the carbon released from the fire represents an addition of warming pollution to the atmosphere. There is a lag time for that carbon to be absorbed again by the growth of new trees. It is generally accepted that wood smoke has minimal impact on climate change.

6.3      Implications for Māori

Poor air quality is linked to poor health, particularly respiratory diseases such as asthma. Improved air quality will reduce the number of asthma hospitalisations in the community, of which, according to the Ministry of Health in a 2018 report,  Māori aged 5-34 years were almost twice as likely as non-Māori (in the same age group) to have been hospitalised for asthma.

6.4      Community Engagement

For any change to the Airshed, we will need to, at a minimum, send letters to the affected property owners advising them of Council’s intention to include their property within the Airshed boundary, and what implications this will have for them. It is unclear from the guidance material what level of consultation and feedback from affected parties will be required to satisfy the Minister for the Environment. It is therefore recommended that staff seek clarification from the Ministry as to their expected level of consultation prior to undertaking the formal re-gazettal process.

6.5      Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

9.        Next Steps

If the Committee adopts the recommendations, the next steps are for staff to seek clarification from the Ministry for the Environment as to the level of consultation that will be required to ensure that the request for re-gazettal is approved.

Staff will then finalise the proposed new Airshed boundary plan and consult with affected property owners about the intended change. Due to the pace of development and its potential to cause adverse effects, staff will prioritise this work and liaise with  MfE at the earliest opportunity.

Once they have been advised, the re-gazettal process as outlined above in Section 3 will be followed. MfE generally progress these requests within a few months.

An update to Council on the progress of the extension to the Airshed boundary will be provided at the next Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

Attachments 

Attachment 1 - Option 1 - Current Airshed Boundary                                                                    

Attachment 2 - Option 2 - Potential Airshed Boundary                                                                 

Attachment 3 - Option 3 - Potential Airshed Boundary


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Strategy and Policy Committee                                                                                       16 February 2021

PDF Creator 



[1] Includes planning and engineering from Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council

[2] Same as above

[3] Coastal inundation, coastal erosion, tsunami, liquefaction, active faults and volcanic activity

[4] Plan changes 26 (housing choice) and 27 (flooding from intense rainfall events) by Tauranga City; Plan change 2 (Pukehangi Heights) by Rotorua Lakes Council and pre-notification structure plan proposals including Tauriko West, Te Tumu and Ōmokoroa.

[5] As provided for in the Terms of Reference for the NHWG.

[6] Proposed Plan Change 1 and Plan Change 17: Awatarariki Fanhead Section 42A Planning Report on Submissions and Further Submissions – 20 December 2019