Agenda of Council Meeting

Council Meeting item: 6.3

16 June 2020

TITLE:	Rates for the Year 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021
ID:	A1315872
From:	Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence; Casey Mitchell, Assistant Management Accountant and Simon Crabb, Finance Manager

Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga

Under sections 23, 24, 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA), the council is required to set its rates, due dates and penalty regime by resolution.

Under section 55 of the LGRA, the council may provide for a discount on the rates if payment is made by a specified date before the due date or dates, in accordance with a policy made under section 55.

This paper provides for the council to set its rates, due dates, penalty regime and discounts for the year commencing on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021.

This paper has been prepared in accordance with the revenue and financing policy in the LTP 2018-2028 and rates section (including the funding impact statement) contained within the 2020–2021 Annual Plan.

Recommendation(s)

1. That the report ‘Rates for the Year 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021’ by Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence; Casey Mitchell, Assistant Management Accountant and Simon Crabb, Finance Manager and dated 14 May 2020, be received.

2. That council notes that it has had regard to section 100T of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and confirms that its analysis of Section 100T of the Biosecurity Act 1993, as included in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, remains appropriate in relation to setting the Pest Management Rate for 2020/21.

3. That the Northland Regional Council resolves to set the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA) for the financial year commencing 1 July 2020 and ending 30 June 2021:

a. Targeted council services rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is calculated on the total projected capital value, as determined by the certificate of projected valuation of each constituent district in the Northland region. An additional $1.73 (including GST) per each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit is to be assessed across the Whangārei constituency to provide funding for the ongoing maintenance of the Hātea River Channel. The rate is differentiated by location in the Northland region and assessed as a fixed amount per each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit in the Far North and Whangārei districts, and on each rateable rating unit (RU) in the Kaipara district. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $92.40 per SUIP

Kaipara District $125.27 per RU

Whangārei District $120.20 per SUIP

The Whangārei District targeted council services rate amount of $120.20 (including GST) per SUIP includes funding for the Hātea River Channel amount of $1.73 (including GST).

b. Targeted land management rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is assessed on the land value of each rateable rating unit in the region. The rate is set per dollar of land value. The rate per dollar of land value is different for each constituent district because the rate is allocated based on projected land value, as provided for in section 131 of the LGRA. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $0.0000878 per dollar of land value

Kaipara District $0.0000995 per dollar of land value

Whangārei District $0.0000914 per dollar of land value

c. Targeted freshwater management rate

Including GST

Far North District $0.0001887 per dollar of land value

Kaipara District $0.0002137 per dollar of land value

Whangārei District $0.0001966 per dollar of land value

d. Targeted pest management rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is calculated on the total projected capital value, as determined by the certificate of projected valuation of each constituent district in the Northland region. The rate is a fixed amount, differentiated by location in the Northland region. The rate will be assessed on each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit in the Far North and Whangārei districts, and each rateable rating unit (RU) in the Kaipara District. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $46.88 per SUIP

Kaipara District $63.56 per RU

Whangārei District $60.11 per SUIP

e. Targeted flood infrastructure rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is a fixed amount assessed on each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit in the Far North and Whangārei districts, and each rateable rating unit (RU) in the Kaipara District. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $27.05 per SUIP

Kaipara District $27.05 per RU

Whangārei District $27.05 per SUIP

f. Targeted civil defence and hazard management rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is calculated on the total projected capital value, as determined by the certificate of projected valuation of each constituent district in the Northland region. The rate is a fixed amount, differentiated by location in the Northland region. The rate will be assessed on each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit in the Far North and Whangārei districts, and each rateable rating unit (RU) in the Kaipara District. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $16.73 per SUIP

Kaipara District $22.67 per RU

Whangārei District $21.44 per SUIP

g. Targeted emergency services rate

Including GST

Far North District $11.71 per SUIP

Kaipara District $11.71 per RU

Whangārei District $11.71 per SUIP

h. Targeted regional sporting facilities rate

Including GST

Far North District $16.76 per SUIP

Kaipara District $16.76 per RU

Whangārei District $16.76 per SUIP

i. Targeted regional infrastructure rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. This rate is assessed on the land value of each rateable rating unit in the region. The rate is set per dollar of land value. The rate per dollar of land value is different for each constituent district, because the rate is allocated based on projected land value, as provided for in section 131 of the LGRA. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $0.0000230 per dollar of land value

Kaipara District $0.0000261 per dollar of land value

Whangārei District $0.0000240 per dollar of land value

j. Targeted Whangārei transport rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is a fixed amount assessed on each rateable separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) in the Whangārei District. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Whangārei District $23.20 per SUIP

k. Targeted Far North transport rate

A targeted rate as authorised by the LGRA. The rate is a fixed amount assessed on each rateable separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) in the Far North District. The rate is set as follows:

Including GST

Far North District $8.60 per SUIP

l. Targeted Awanui River management rate

A targeted rate set under the LGRA, set differentially by location and area of benefit as defined in the Awanui River Flood Management Plan, and as defined in the following table:

The rate is set differentially as follows:

Category	Description	Rate including GST
UA	Urban rate class UA (floodplain location) $296.23 direct benefit plus $29.89 indirect benefit per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP).	$326.12 per SUIP
UA	Urban rate class UA – commercial differential.	$978.36 per SUIP
UF	Urban rate classes UF (higher ground) $29.89 direct benefit plus $29.89 indirect benefit per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.	$59.78 per SUIP
UF	Urban rate class UF – commercial differential.	$179.34 per SUIP
Rural	Rural rate differentiated by class, $13.18 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit (SUIP) of indirect benefit plus a rate per hectare for each of the following classes of land in the defined Kaitāia flood rating district as illustrated in the following maps and table.	$13.18 per SUIP
Class	Description	Rate including GST
A & B	High benefit; rural land which receives high benefit from the Awanui scheme works due to reduced river flooding risk and/or reduced duration of flooding and/or coastal flooding – all rateable land other that in the commercial differential.	$24.47 per hectare
A & B commercial differential			$73.41 per hectare
C	Moderate benefit; land floods less frequently and water clears quickly – all rateable land other that in the commercial differential.	$11.07 per hectare
C commercial differential			$33.21 per hectare
F	Contributes runoff waters and increases the need for flood protection - all rateable land other that in the commercial differential.	$1.09 per hectare
F commercial differential			$3.27 per hectare

The rating classifications are illustrated in the following maps:

m. Targeted Kaihū River management rate

A targeted rate set under the LGRA, and set differentially by location and area of benefit as defined in the following table:

Class	Description	Rate Including GST
A	Land on the floodplain and side valleys downstream of Rotu Bottleneck.	$23.13 per hectare
B	Land on the floodplain and tributary side valleys between Ahikiwi and the Rotu Bottleneck and in the Mangatara Drain catchment upstream of SH12.	$11.39 per hectare
F	Land within the Kaihū River rating area not falling within Class A and Class B.	$1.60 per hectare
Urban Contribution – A contribution from the Kaipara District Council instead of a separate rate per property:		$5,015 per annum

The rating classifications are illustrated in the following map:

n. Targeted Kaeo-Whangaroa rivers management rate

A targeted rate set under the LGRA, set on a uniform basis in respect of each rateable separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit falling within the former Whangaroa Ward rating rolls of 100-199, as illustrated in the map below:

Including GST

Former Whangaroa Ward $51.36 per SUIP

o. Targeted Whangārei urban rivers management rate

A targeted rate set under the LGRA and assessed on all rateable properties defined by reference to the differential categories and differentiated by location (illustrated in the map below) and, for some categories, land use. It is set as a fixed amount per each rateable separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a rating unit, as follows:

Category		Including GST
1	Commercial properties located in the Whangārei Central Business District flood area:	$353.75 per SUIP
2	Residential properties located in the Whangārei Central Business District flood area:	$174.91 per SUIP
3	Properties located in the contributing water catchment area (including properties falling in the Waiarohia, Raumanga, Kirikiri and Hātea River Catchments):	$43.52 per SUIP

Differential categories for the Whangārei urban rivers management rate:

Residential properties in the Whangārei central business district

Residential properties in the Whangārei central business district (CBD) flood area are defined as all rating units which are used principally for residential or lifestyle residential purposes, including retirement villages, flats etc.

Residential properties also includes multi-unit properties, these being all separate rating units used principally for residential purposes, and on which is situated multi-unit type residential accommodation that is used principally for temporary or permanent residential accommodation and for financial reward, including, but not limited to, hotels, boarding houses, motels, tourist accommodation, residential clubs and hostels but excluding any properties that are licensed under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.

Commercial properties in the Whangārei central business district

Commercial properties in the Whangārei CBD flood area are all separate rating units used principally for commercial, industrial or related purposes or zoned for commercial, industrial or related purposes in accordance with the Whangārei district plan. For the avoidance of doubt, this category includes properties licensed under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol 2012; and private hospitals and private medical centres.

4. Payment dates for rates, discounts, and penalty regime

That the Northland Regional Council resolves the following:

Far North District constituency:

All rates within the Far North District constituency are payable in four equal instalments, on the following dates:

Instalment	Due date for payment
Instalment 1	20 August 2020
Instalment 2	20 November 2020
Instalment 3	22 February 2021
Instalment 4	20 May 2021

The Northland Regional Council resolves to add the following penalties to unpaid Far North District constituency rates:

· In accordance with section 58(1)(a) of the LGRA, a penalty of ten percent (10%) will be added to any portion of each instalment of Far North District constituency rates assessed in the 2020/21 financial year that is unpaid on or by the respective due date for payment as stated above. These penalties will be added on the following dates:

Instalment	Date penalty will be added
Instalment 1	27 August 2020
Instalment 2	27 November 2020
Instalment 3	01 March 2021
Instalment 4	27 May 2021

Kaipara District constituency:

All rates within the Kaipara District constituency are payable in four equal instalments, on the following dates:

Instalment	Due date for payment
Instalment 1	20 August 2020
Instalment 2	20 November 2020
Instalment 3	20 February 2021
Instalment 4	20 May 2021

The Northland Regional Council resolves to add the following penalties to unpaid Kaipara District constituency rates:

· In accordance with section 58(1) (a) of the LGRA, a penalty of ten percent (10%) of so much of each instalment of the Kaipara District constituency rates assessed in the 2020/21 financial year that are unpaid after the relevant due date for each instalment will be added on the relevant penalty date for each instalment stated below, except where a ratepayer has entered into an arrangement by way of direct debit authority, or an automatic payment authority, and honours that arrangement. These penalties will be added on the following dates:

Instalment	Date penalty will be added
Instalment 1	21 August 2020
Instalment 2	21 November 2020
Instalment 3	21 February 2021
Instalment 4	21 May 2021

· In accordance with section 58(1)(b) of the LGRA, a penalty of ten per cent (10%) of the amount of all Kaipara District constituency rates (including any penalties) from any previous financial years that are unpaid on 1 July 2020 will be added on 1 July 2020.

· In accordance with section 58(1)(c) of the LGRA, a penalty of ten per cent (10%) of the amount of all Kaipara District constituency rates to which a penalty has been added under the point immediately above and which remain unpaid on 1 January 2021 will be added on 5 January 2021.

Whangārei District constituency:

All rates within the Whangārei District constituency are payable in four equal instalments, on the following dates:

Instalment	Due date for payment
Instalment 1	20 September 2020
Instalment 2	20 November 2020
Instalment 3	20 February 2021
Instalment 4	20 May 2021

The Northland Regional Council resolves to add the following penalties to unpaid Whangārei District constituency rates:

· In accordance with section 58(1)(a) of the LGA, a penalty of five percent (5%) will be added to any portion of each instalment of Whangārei District constituency rates assessed in the 2020/21 financial year that is unpaid on or by the respective due date for payment as stated above. These penalties will be added on the following dates:

Instalment	Date penalty will be added
Instalment 1	23 September 2020
Instalment 2	25 November 2020
Instalment 3	24 February 2021
Instalment 4	25 May 2021

· In accordance with section 58(1)(b) of the LGRA, a penalty of five per cent (5%) will be added to any Whangārei District constituency rates (including any penalties) from any financial year prior to 1 July 2020 that still remain unpaid as at 1 July 2020. This penalty will be added on 5 October 2020.

The Northland Regional Council resolves to apply the following discount to Whangārei District constituency rates:

· In accordance with section 55(3) of the LGRA, where the total rates assessed for the 2020/21 year and any arrears on a rating unit in the Whangārei District constituency are paid in full on or by the due date of the first instalment, a discount of two percent (2%) of the total rates assessed on that rating unit in the 2020/21 financial year will be applied.

The district councils have advised that their rates adoption dates are as follows:

· Far North District Council – 30 June 2020

· Kaipara District Council – 24 June 2020

· Whangarei District Council – 9 July 2020.

Should their collection and/or penalty dates change through the rate setting process we will need to amend our resolution accordingly.

Background/Tuhinga

The Northland Regional Council is scheduled to adopt its 2020/2021 Annual Plan at the council meeting to be held on 16 June 2020. All formal requirements to resolve the rates for the year ended 30 June 2021 are in place and permit the following resolution to proceed.

The final rates have been calculated in accordance with the resolutions made by council on 6 May 2020; and the updated rating units, separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit (SUIPs), capital values and land values provided by the district councils.

Under section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 (LGRA) the council is required to set its rates by resolution. This paper provides for the council to set rates for the year commencing on 1 July 2020 and ending on 30 June 2021.

Rates for the 2020/21 year are set out on a GST inclusive basis. This means that the amount of the rates stated includes the council’s GST obligations. Penalties are added to the amount of unpaid rates.

Section 24 of the LGRA requires that the council state the due date for payment of the rates in its resolution setting rates.

Section 57 of the LGRA states that a local authority may, by resolution, authorise penalties to be added to rates that are not paid by the due date. The resolution must state how the penalty is calculated and the date the penalty is to be added to the amount of unpaid rates. Section 58 of the LGRA sets out the penalties that may be imposed.

Pursuant to section 23(5) of the LGRA, within 20 working days of the making of this resolution, a copy will be sent to the Secretary of Local Government.

Pursuant to section 28(4) of the LGRA the rating information database was made available for public inspection during May 2020.

Council carries out its pest management activities in accordance with its Northland Regional Pest and Marine Pathway Management Plan 2017–2027. Section 100T of the Biosecurity Act requires that a regional council must decide the extent to which it funds the implementation of its regional pest and/or pathway management plan from a general rate, targeted rate, or a combination of both.

Council gave full regard to Section 100T during the process of developing the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 and adopted the analysis for the purpose of setting the Pest Management Rate. The full analysis was included in the Long Term Plan.

Council also carried out an analysis of funding of the Regional Pest and Marine Pathway Management Plan and in the Cost Benefit Analysis to the plan.

No significant changes have been made to the Pest Management Rate as a result of the Annual Plan 2020/21, and the analysis adopted by council remains applicable. This report confirms council’s adoption of this analysis.

The full details of the rates calculations and rates collected from each constituent district of the Northland region will be as set out in the tables below:

Table One: Valuations by district (including equalised values)

SUIP = Separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit.

	Gross no. rating units (Kaipara) or SUIPs (others)	Net no. rating units (Kaipara) or SUIPs (others)	Capital Value $000's	Land Value $000's	Equalised Capital Value $000's	Equalised Land Value $000's	Equalised CV%	Equalised LV%
Far North District	38,534	37,155	19,484,844	10,252,478	19,484,844	10,252,478	33.05%	33.26%
Kaipara District	14,759	14,130	8,936,389	5,073,386	10,045,512	5,701,343	17.04%	18.50%
Whangārei District	45,071	43,757	28,373,534	14,261,891	29,421,095	14,870,732	49.91%	48.24%
Total Valuation - Northland	98,364	95,042	56,794,767	29,587,755	58,951,451	30,824,553	100.00%	100.00%

Table Two: Northland Regional Council rates for the 2020/21 financial year

Budgeted Rates 2020/21 (including GST)	Far North District	Kaipara District	Whangārei District	Total $ (gross)	Total $ (net)
Targeted council services rate
Rate per SUIP	$92.40			3,560,542	3,433,122
Rate per RU		$125.27		1,848,860	1,770,065
Rate per SUIP			$120.20	5,417,534	5,259,591
				10,826,936	10,462,778
Freshwater management rate
Rate per $ of Actual LV	$0.0001887			1,934,643	1,914,068
Rate per $ of Actual LV		$0.0002137		1,084,183	1,064,160
Rate per $ of Actual LV			$0.0001966	2,803,888	2,775,318
				5,822,714	5,753,546
Targeted pest management rate
Rate per SUIP	$46.88			1,806,474	1,741,826
Rate per RU		$63.56		938,082	898,103
Rate per SUIP			$60.11	2,709,218	2,630,233
				5,453,774	5,270,162
Targeted land management rate
Rate per $ of Actual LV	$0.0000878			900,168	890,067
Rate per $ of Actual LV		$0.0000995		504,802	494,975
Rate per $ of Actual LV			$0.0000914	1,303,537	1,290,782
				2,708,507	2,675,824
Targeted flood infrastructure rate
Rate per SUIP	$27.05			1,042,345	1,005,043
Rate per RU		$27.05		399,231	382,216
Rate per SUIP			$27.05	1,219,171	1,183,627
				2,660,747	2,570,886
Targeted civil defence and hazard management rate
Rate per SUIP	$16.73			644,674	621,603
Rate per RU		$22.67		334,587	320,327
Rate per SUIP			$21.44	966,322	938,150
				1,945,583	1,880,080
Targeted regional sporting facilities rate
Rate per SUIP	$16.76			645,912	622,797
Rate per RU		$16.76		247,392	236,849
Rate per SUIP			$16.76	755,486	733,461
				1,648,790	1,593,107
Targeted regional infrastructure rate
Rate per $ of Actual LV	$0.0000230			236.208	233,640
Rate per $ of Actual LV		$0.0000261		132,422	129,926
Rate per $ of Actual LV			$0.0000240	342,446	338,883
				711,076	702,449
Targeted emergency services rate
Rate per SUIP	$11.71			451,233	435,085
Rate per RU		$11.71		172,828	165,462
Rate per SUIP			$11.71	527,781	512,394
				1,151,842	1,112,941
Targeted Whangārei transport rate
Rate per SUIP			$23.20	1,045,647	1,015,162

Targeted Far North transport rate
Far North District	$8.60			331,392	319,533

Targeted Awanui River management rate
Far North District - Rural				210,494	207,969
Far North District - Urban				893,471	882,383
				1,103,965	1,090,352
Targeted Kaihū River management rate
Kaipara District (Kaihū river area only)				79,869	79,869

Targeted Kaeo-Whangaroa rivers management rate
Far North (Kaeo only)	$51.36			123,983	116,644

Targeted Whangārei urban rivers management rate
Rates per SUIP				1,164,148	1,154,250

Total rates				Gross $	Net $
Far North District				12,781,539	12,423,780
Kaipara District				5,742,256	5,541,953
Whangārei District				18,255,178	17,831,851
TOTAL RATES				36,778,973	35,797,584

Considerations

1. Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the recommendations presented in this report

Legally generate the rating revenue required to fund the council’s 2020/21 work programmes.

None

Do not adopt the recommendations presented in this report

None

Inability to legally strike the 2020/21 rates. Consequently, unless alternative funding streams were obtained, the council would fail to deliver all its 2020/21 work programmes.

The staff’s recommended option is to adopt the recommendations presented in this report.

2. Significance and engagement

The council’s 2020–2021 Annual Plan has been developed in accordance with sections 93 and 93A-93G of the Local Government Act 2002 and contains details of the proposed rates.

The rates being set have been established as part of the 2020/2021 Annual Plan process that included consultation with the public who have had the opportunity to fully consider the issues and present their views to the council, which have in turn been taken into consideration.

Consequently, this resolution is required to enact previous decisions of council through the annual plan process and is an administrative decision that does not itself trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy.

The decisions in this report are in accordance with sections 76 to 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

The public will have access to the final 2020/2021 Annual Plan and rates resolution through the council’s website

3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance

This report has been independently reviewed by Simpson Grierson and meets all the statutory requirements under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the setting of 2020/21 rates.

Further considerations

4. Community views

The impact of the 2020/2021 Annual Plan budgets on council’s rates has been consulted on with the community through the 2020/2021 Annual Plan consultative procedure in accordance with s82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

5. Māori impact statement

Targeted consultation on the council’s rates funding requirement was undertaken with iwi as part of the 2020/2021 Annual Plan consultation process using existing relationship channels.

6. Financial implications

This report discusses setting of rates for the 2020/21 financial year. The financial impacts of the recommendations in this report are significant as it determines council’s ability to collect rate revenue.

7. Implementation issues

There are no implementation issues that the council needs to be aware of.

Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga

Nil

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Dave Tams
Title:	Group Manager, Corporate Excellence
Date:	10 June 2020

Council Meeting ITEM: 6.5

16 June 2020Attachment 1

DECISION OPTION 2 – NO NEW PROVISIONS

Decisions in response to submissions on the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland

Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms

Section 1
Introduction

[1] On 6 September 2017 the Northland Regional Council (‘the Council’ or ‘NRC) notified the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (‘the Plan’ or ‘pRPFN’). This Decision relates specifically to the submissions that were received on Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms (GE / GMO).

[2] The hearing and consideration of submissions on GE / GMO function was a function retained by the Council and was addressed through a separate hearing process to the hearing and consideration of other submissions on the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council affirms that throughout the performance of its duties on this matter it has been objective in considering and making decisions on the submissions.

Hearings Process

[3] A total of 83 submitters made submissions on GE / GMO^{^[1]}. The relevant Council summary of submissions is Part K.1 of the Summary of decisions requested (March 2018). The pRPFN as notified did not contain provisions, including rules, of the scope sought by the primary submitters. While many submissions referred to what had occurred in Northland and Auckland Plans, and previous work that was carried out by a joint council working party, no specific s32 analysis or detailed set of proposed provisions was provided. The Hearing Panel issued Minute 1 on 30 January 2018 which requested that s32 Evaluations be prepared for provisions which were not assessed by the Council. In response to that Minute, s32 evaluations and provisions were submitted by David Badham, consultant planner on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council and Vern Warren, consultant planner on behalf of (originally) the Soil & Health Association, GE Free Tai Tokerau and many other submitters^{^[2]}.

[4] The Council appointed Mr Peter Reaburn, an experienced and independent consultant town planner, to prepare the s42A report. Via Minute 7, the Council set in place a process by which the s42A report was made available to submitters approximately one month in advance of the date by which expert evidence on behalf of submitters was to be provided. It was also encouraged through the Minute that non-expert evidence be provided. In accordance with the Minute, a s42A Addendum report was provided approximately two weeks before the hearing.

[5] The hearing was held at Northland Regional Council, 36 Water Street, Whangārei, on Tuesday 30 October 2018 and Wednesday 31 October 2018. The hearing was then adjourned. During the hearing, Council members asked questions of submitters to enhance the Council’s understanding of their requests, the grounds for them, and advice given in the s42A reports. The Council endeavoured to conduct the hearings with a minimum of formality to an extent that allowed for fairness to all submitters.

[6] In Minute 8 following the hearing the Council indicated that it had, after considering all relevant material, arrived at a preliminary view (that is, not the Council’s final decision), that:

• The Proposed Regional Plan will not include provisions for the management of GMOs on land (outside the coastal marine area).

• The Proposed Regional Plan will include provisions for the management of GMOs in the coastal marine area.

[7] It was further noted that Council had received recommended provisions from each of the expert planners (Vern Warren, David Badham and Peter Reaburn) which were similar. The expert planners were directed to work together with the goal of coming up with an agreed set of provisions. These were subsequently provided to submitters for further comment prior to a reconvened hearing, which was held on 26 February 2019. The planners were invited to attend and answer questions. Submitters were also able to attend, although not to participate.

[8] The hearing was then adjourned for Council to go into public excluded deliberations (on the same day). Following deliberations, Council requested further information and directed Council staff to facilitate them:

Minute 10:

i. A legal opinion to answer the question - would the inclusion of provisions in the Regional Plan to regulate GMOs increase Council’s legal liability to clean-up or otherwise address the illegal use or introduction of a GMO in the coastal marine area?

ii. Advice from Aquaculture New Zealand on any actual or anticipated use by the aquaculture industry of genetically modified veterinary vaccines.

Minute 11:

i. A legal opinion to answer the question: If the Regional Plan included rules regulating GMOs in the coastal marine area, what would council’s responsibility be to monitor and enforce the rules?

ii. Would it increase Council’s legal liability to clean-up or otherwise address the accidental release of a GMO resulting from an ‘act of god’ on an otherwise authorised use of GMOs (for example, a tsunami destroying a contained GMO field trial undertaken on a wharf)?

iii. What have other councils (that have GMO provisions in their respective plans) budgeted for the potential clean-up of the accidental or illegal release of GMOs and the costs (including staff time) of monitoring and enforcement of GMO use?

[9] All responses were placed on the Council’s website, and submitters who submitted on the inclusion of GMO provisions and wished to be heard, were notified of the responses.

[10] Overall, the Council was assisted by all the requests and suggestions by submitters and their witnesses and by the s42A report author which have substantially assisted the Council in its deliberations and in the Council’s decision-making. The submissions and reports have all contributed to an effective and fair process for which Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the RMA provides.

The Decisions report

[11] The Council has no substantial disagreement with the analyses undertaken by the s42A author noting that Mr Reaburn’s conclusions in relation to whether or not provisions should be introduced were “finely balanced” This Decisions report contains a summary only of the conclusions the Council has reached in relation to the issues raised in submissions and highlights matters of particular concern that have led to the decision made. To avoid further unnecessary duplication and repetition the Council affirms that, except where the detailed findings in this Decisions report vary from the s42A Reports, the Council adopts those reports, which should be read as forming part of this Decision report. Further, to the extent that the commentary is relevant to the GE / GMO matter, the Council adopts the following parts of the Hearing Panel’s recommendation report^{^[3]} made on all other submissions to the pRPFN.

· Section 2 The Resource Management Act

· Section 3 Higher Order and other Relevant Instruments

· Section 5 Council’s Approach to the Plan

· Section 6 Tangata Whenua

· Section 7 Additional Objective and Policies (General Approach)

Section 2
Issues Raised in Submissions

[12] All primary submissions supported inclusion of restrictive, precautionary or prohibitive provisions into the pRPFN for managing GE / GMO in the region, or parts of the region. In summary, the submissions sought that the pRPFN be amended to:

· give effect to the GMO 6.1.2 policy in the Northland Regional Policy Statement 2016 (‘RPS’);

· provide a region-specific approach to managing GMOs, taking into account environmental, economic, cultural and social well-being considerations and including strong precautionary and prohibitive GE provisions, policies and rules for all environments - land, inland waterways and coastal – and all possible vectors of such organisms;

· add provisions in the Coastal, Land and Water and Tangata Whenua parts of the PRP to address concerns to tangata whenua and potential adverse effects on biosecurity, indigenous biodiversity, existing non-GM primary producers and public health from outdoor use of GMOs; and

· include provisions consistent with / align with / be the same as provisions in the Auckland Council Unitary Plan, and the Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council plan changes.

[13] With one exception, the further submissions received supported the primary submissions. The one exception was the further submission from Federated Farmers. That further submission opposed all of the primary submissions on the basis that:

· There is no scope to include the provisions sought in the Proposed Regional Plan.

· Even if there was scope, there is no justification (in terms of RMA s32) for including the provisions sought in the Proposed Regional Plan.

[14] The key questions evaluated in this Decisions Report include:

1. Is there a legal basis for including GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

2. Is there a legal constraint to including GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

3. Is there a legal obligation to include GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

4. Is there a sufficient evidential basis to include GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

5. Would the inclusion of provisions in the Regional Plan to regulate GMOs increase Council’s legal liability to clean-up or otherwise address the illegal use or introduction of a GMO in the coastal marine area?

Section 3

Evaluation

Legal Basis for Regional Plan Provisions

[16] There was a consensus amongst the parties, including from Federated Farmers, that s12(3) of the RMA provides a statutory basis for the inclusion of GE/ GMO provisions in the CMA.

[17] There was less certainty in relation to whether GE / GMOs constituted a “contaminant” under s15 of the RMA. The evidence in general concluded that, considering the large range of circumstances that may be presented, a particular form of GE / GMO may or may not be considered a contaminant. While s15 may not apply in all cases, it is likely to in some and on that basis the Council finds that it is appropriate to refer in the provisions to s15 as being a statutory basis for the inclusion of GE/ GMO provisions in the pRPFN.

Legal constraints in relation to Regional Plan Provisions

[18] The Council was referred to a number of Court decisions that have addressed whether there is jurisdiction to include GE / GMO provisions in a regional plan. Consistent with those Court decisions the Council is satisfied that there is no express exemption for consideration of control of new organisms under the RMA in either the RMA or the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (‘HSNO’). The Council notes in particular the High Court’s finding that, while there was an overlap between the HSNO Act and the RMA:

“...there is nothing present in these pieces of legislation to prevent the establishment of objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of natural and physical resources in the broad terms directed by the RMA…. I consider that there is a readily identifiable policy reason for that in these pieces of legislation, read together. Once having been approved for import and release into New Zealand under HSNO, regional authorities can provide for use and protection of them together with other resources in a fully integrated fashion, taking account of regional needs for spatial management that might differ around the country for many reasons, not the least of which might include climatic conditions, temperatures, soils, and other factors that might drive differing rates of growth of new organisms and/or of other organisms, as just a few of perhaps many examples. I agree with the opposition parties that the RMA and HSNO offer significantly different functional approaches to the regulation of GMOs^{^[4]}.”

[19] In relation to the justification required under RMA s32 for including provisions in the pRPFN, the notified pRPFN s32 document did not assess GE / GMO provisions further than noting this was a matter that may be addressed at a later date. As noted in Section 1 above, the Council requested through Minute 1, s32 evaluation reports for the provisions sought to be introduced by submissions, and two s32 reports were subsequently provided. The Council has had particular regard to those Section 32 Reports.^{^[5]} Section 32AA of the RMA requires a further evaluation of any further changes made, which can be the subject of a separate report, or referred to in the decision-making record.^{^[6]} If it is referred to in the decision-making record, it should contain sufficient detail to demonstrate that a further evaluation has been duly undertaken.^{^[7]}

[20] An assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of amendments to the pRPFN must involve identifying and assessing the benefits and costs of the anticipated effects of implementing them, including opportunities for economic growth and employment. If practicable, the assessment should quantify those benefits and costs; and assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject-matter. This Decisions report, including the Section 32 documentation provided, the s42A reports the scientific, economic and cultural evidence provided at the hearing and Appendix A is intended to form part of the Council’s decision-making record. The Council adopts this material as evaluations under s32 and s32AA.

Legal obligations in relation to Regional Plan Provisions

[21] The Council has carefully considered the s42A report, the submissions and the evidence relating to Council’s obligations under Section 67(3) of the RMA, and in particular the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Northland Regional Policy Statement (‘RPS’). A number of submitters considered that there was an obligation under these higher order documents for the regional plan to manage GMOs. However the conclusion reached by the author of the s42A report, informed by legal advice received by the Council, was that there was no legal obligation. In that respect Council notes that the EPA is legislatively mandated to control GMOs, and their role includes having regard to such matters as effects on the natural environment and on issues of concern to tangata whenua. The extent to which the EPA processes would address matters that could only be addressed by the pRPFN was the subject of some debate, including as to whether the EPA process would reach decisions that aligned with community views, or would otherwise be sufficiently robust to avoid environmental risks. Overall, the Council has found that it is for it, as the decision-maker, to consider and determine whether, after taking a precautionary approach in its considerations, it is necessary to add another layer of GMO management as part of the pRPFN.

Evidential Basis for Including Provisions in the Regional Plan

[22] At the hearing scientific evidence was given by Professor Jack Heinemann on behalf of Whangarei District Council / Far North District Council and Professor Andrew Allan on behalf of Federated Farmers. Professor Heinemann and Professor Allan were some distance apart in their views on the risks associated with GMOs, Professor Allan being much more confident that GM is safe. Professor Allan also criticised the evidence to date as not having had regard to gene editing, an issue responded to by Professor Heinemann at the hearing. The evidence indicated that the scientific community does not have consensus on this issue. To the extent that this may suggest a precautionary approach is therefore justified, the Council finds this is a relevant, although not determining factor. Other relevant considerations include the apparent lack of urgency associated with this issue, the comfort that an EPA process must be conducted regardless of any pRPFN provisions and Council’s concerns about the absence of some key information and the process that has been adopted to this point. These are all matters further addressed below.

[23] The only expert economic evidence was from Dr John Small, on behalf of Whangarei District Council / Far North District Council. For the reasons put forward in his evidence Dr Small concluded that introducing GE / GMO provisions into the pRPFN would provide net benefits and should be approved. As a part of this analysis, Dr Small stated that there appears to be no GMO close to release for which there is a realistic prospect of release in the Northland Region over the 10‐year life of the Plan. He was of the view that, if precautionary approach provisions were introduced now, the absence of any likely prospect of GMO applications meant opportunity costs would be very low. While accepting this evidence, as far as it went, Council was left with the question as to why it was necessary to introduce provisions into the pRPFN which would unlikely be used in the life of the plan, particularly considering the process by which those provisions has been arrived at. In that respect, the Council is concerned that the provisions proposed have not been developed through Council’s own RMA section 32 process, are translated provisions rather than bespoke to the Northland CMA, and have not had the robust comment and analysis that may have been conducted through the normal public notification process.

[24] An additional costs concern for Council, not recognised in Dr Small’s evidence, relates to what the introduction of the proposed provisions may mean in respect of Council’s monitoring, compliance and enforcement obligations.

[25] The proposed provisions include imposition of a bond. Council agrees that this would be a key mechanism for addressing the risk of escape of GMOs from approved GMO facilities. However Council finds that calculating a bond is too speculative and could well be so high that it would make proposals untenable.

[26] Expert cultural evidence was given by Dr Benjamin Pittman and Tui Shortland. The iwi and hapū management plans^{^[8]} that exist in relation to Northland iwi and hapū contain a strong signal that GMOs are culturally inappropriate. Dr Pittman explained why the introduction of GE / GMO would be offensive to the principles of tikanga and seriously damage the mauri of the environment. These are relevant and important. The question remaining is the extent to which these concerns would otherwise be satisfactorily addressed as part of the EPA process. The Council finds that there may be benefits in having the opportunity for iwi and hapū input at the regional (as opposed to national) level, and that gives some justification for introducing a management regime at the regional level. This benefit must be weighed against other factors.

[27] The expert planning evidence, from Peter Reaburn, the s42A author, David Badham, consultant planner on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council and Vern Warren, consultant planner on behalf of the Soil & Health Association, was largely in alignment. Informed by the other specialist evidence, all planners considered that it was appropriate to introduce GE / GMO provisions into the CMA for precautionary reasons. Mr Warren additionally referred to parts of the statutory framework, including the NZCPS and RPS, as requiring the introduction of provisions. As noted earlier in this Decision report, the planners were ultimately agreed on the wording of CMA provisions to be introduced into the pRPFN.

[28] The evidence from Gavin Forrest on behalf of Federated Farmers, while not expert planning evidence, raised a number of questions regarding whether there should be GE / GMO provisions at this time, and the reasoning given to date for RMA provisions, at least of the type proposed, being necessary given other options available. Council has made the following findings in relation to the questions Mr Forrest raised:

1. While the pRPFN as notified did not contain provisions, including rules, of the scope sought by primary submitters the Council is satisfied that there is jurisdiction to do so. The general theme of primary submissions was clearly that provisions based on the Auckland Unitary Plan should be introduced into the pRPFN. The Council has attempted to take a careful approach to ensure that submitters and further submitters are aware of what provisions could be introduced, including through inviting submitters in Minute 1 to provide provisions, and s32 analyses of those provisions. This was done, by two major submitter parties and was thus available for all parties from an early stage in the hearings process for the parties to consider and provide comment on. Further information and evidence was sought and provided throughout the hearings process. It is an accepted response to s32 that the process is iterative and includes information provided right up to the stage of final consideration by the decision-maker. However, while Council accepts there is jurisdiction, it also accepts that there may be some doubt as to whether the issue has been thoroughly tested with the public and in that respect greater confidence could have been gained if the pRPFN as notified had contained provisions, including rules, relating to GE / GMOs.

2. The evidence confirmed that there are no current or imminent risks that would require immediate decisions. There is no particular activity or use of GE / GMOs that is currently more than a theoretical possibility in Northland’s CMA. In that respect, while Professor Heinemann identified some possibilities, there is a major question as to whether these are “real” prospects, at least in the foreseeable future. The Council finds that greater specificity of potential activities, uses, risks and effects is required so that provisions, if found to be necessary at all, are devised in a more targeted manner. On the basis of current information that there is no short term risk, the Council finds there is time to further consider whether GMO provisions need to be developed and, if there is that need, how they can be appropriately developed so that they are bespoke to Northland, and then have the robust examination enabled through the normal public notification process.

3. The use of Pest Management Plans and / or Regional Pathway Management Plans prepared under the Biosecurity Act to manage the adverse effects of GE / GMO are not a replacement for provisions considered and introduced under the RMA.

4. It is not accepted that the evidence presented by those favouring pRPFN provisions consistent with other plans is out of date, however it is accepted that the Federated Farmers evidence presents another view, and that has added to the information on which decisions have been considered and made.

[29] A number of submitters continued to seek land-based provisions throughout the hearings process. While acknowledging submitters’ desire that provisions be adopted that are as comprehensive as possible, the Council has determined that it is not appropriate for land-based provisions to be included in the pRPFN, for a number of reasons:

1. As noted by the s42A author, land-based provisions would need to rely on s15 RMA as the statutory basis. Section 15 RMA would apply only if GE / GMOs was regarded as being a contaminant. The consensus in evidence was that, while some GE / GMOs could potentially be defined as a contaminant, this would be case-dependent. In order to provide a statutory basis, it would therefore be necessary to specify what forms of GE / GMO would be a contaminant, and therefore subject to regional plan land-based management. Given the potential range of GE / GMOs (on land) is substantial this would be a very difficult exercise.

2. No submitter proposed provisions to address this concern or indeed any land-based provisions for Council’s consideration.

3. The Council agrees with submitters that concerns relating to GE / GMOs apply as much, or even potentially more, to the land as the CMA, and that GMOs do not recognise CMA / land boundaries. RPS Policy 6.1.2 (Precautionary Approach) applies to both regional and district councils. Method 6.1.5 specifically envisages district councils as taking a role in applying the policy. As an example, the Council was advised that the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions relied upon by many submitters are not regional plan provisions – they are CMA and district plan provisions. In relation to land-based concerns this strongly suggests that provisions are better addressed in district plans, where there is no question that s9 RMA provides a statutory basis. In that respect, Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council already have GE / GMO provisions and the Council was advised that the Kaipara District Council is currently considering introduction of provisions into its district plan. To the extent that land-based GMO proposals may have a potential effect within the CMA, provisions within the CMA are not necessary to ensure those effects are addressed and appropriately managed.

4. The provisions that have been sought for inclusion in the pRPFN are essentially the same as those that have already been introduced by the Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council into their respective district plans. No submitter identified how the same land-based provisions in the pRPFN would provide any additional benefits to sustainable management of the environment. To the contrary, separate processes would be confusing, inefficient and potentially even conflicting which could result in uncertain and costly outcomes for applicants and the community.

[30] In addition to the above, the Council has carefully considered all other evidence presented, including that by lay witnesses.

[31] The Council recognises that it may be shown later that a particular proposal for GE / GMOs will not result in adverse effects or that the EPA process will adequately manage potential adverse effects. It is further recognised, if it is later found that it is appropriate to amend the provisions, including to provide for any GMO that may be found to have benefits without adverse effects, this will incur time and monetary costs. In any case, the evidence is that proposals for GE / GMOs is unlikely over the life of the pRPFN. Council has accordingly found it is not necessary to introduce provisions into the pRPFN at this stage. Further development of the knowledge and science associated with GMOs, and the extent to which regional control may be required, will ensure that there is no unnecessary extra level of management in the meantime.

[32] The response Council received from Aquaculture NZ stated that they see no need in the immediate or foreseeable uptake of GMOs or GMO based vaccines into the NZ aquaculture industry and that a precautionary approach was supported. The response has been taken into account in Council’s considerations, noting that Aquaculture NZ did not make any particular comment about the form proposed provisions should take.

Council liability

[33] The Council has obtained legal opinions from its lawyers Wynn Williams in relation to matters of legal liability on the Council arising from the introduction of GE / GMO provisions. The opinion concludes that the inclusion of provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan to regulate GMOs will not increase the Council’s legal liability to clean-up or otherwise address the illegal use or introduction of GMOs in the coastal marine area.

[34] Notwithstanding legal liability Council has remained concerned that there may be an enhanced expectation on the part of the community to address adverse effects arising from unlawful or accidental use of GMOs. This would become a “social cost”. The extent to which that expectation may be enhanced through explicit regulation of GMOs in the pRPFN is a matter of serious concern to the Council, particularly as there is a separate management regime through the EPA that may prove effective itself in managing GMOs and would, in the event of an issue arising, focus responses at the national, rather than regional, level. It would also focus responsibility for monitoring and enforcement on fewer agencies, thus minimising the risk of not having a co-ordinated response.

Conclusion

[35] In summary, the Council finds that:

1. There is no basis or justification for GE / GMOs to be managed by the pRPFN on land, particularly given the district plan management that already exists over most of Northland.

2. The evidence shows that there is no prospect of GE / GMOs being introduced into Northland’s CMA over the expected life of the pRPFN. This gives the opportunity for a more robust analysis of the need for, and means of, addressing regional level regulation of GE / GMOs.

3. Management of GE / GMOs by the EPA, particularly in relation to the CMA, may still be shown to be sufficient, without an extra layer of regional plan management.

4. The proposed provisions have been adapted from other Council’s generic provisions and are not appropriately targeted to what may be a more focused and relevant management regime for Northland’s CMA. Any future plan changes that may be shown to be necessary, including in respect of a GMO that may be shown to have significant benefits, could involve significant cost and time.

5. The proposed provisions requiring imposition of a bond to address the risk of escape of GMOs, while essential, involve significant uncertainties in relation to calculating a sufficient bond amount, and could well be so high that it would make proposals untenable.

6. Further experience of the EPA processes, at least as they relate to the CMA, need more time to evolve to see whether they prove effective itself in managing GMOs. This will, in the event of an issue arising, focus responses at the national, rather than regional, level, including in relation to monitoring and enforcement on fewer agencies, thus minimising the risk of not having a coordinated response.

7. Having regard to the above, and having taken a precautionary approach in its considerations, Council finds there is insufficient basis to introduce further provisions relating to GE / GMOs into the pRPFN at this time.

8. The Council is confident that its findings are not inconsistent with Objective 2 and Policies 2 and 3 of the NZCPS 2010, or Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 of the RPS.

[34] In making this decision Council has given serious consideration to the considerable community interest (addressing social, economic and cultural wellbeing), exhibited by the many submissions and substantial body of evidence supporting regulation. Council recognises, that in making the decision it has, the communities represented by submitters will be disappointed. However, the Council in balancing the weight of community concern with the issues it has identified in this decision has found that there has been insufficient analysis and that there is insufficient justification to introduce further provisions relating to GE / GMOs into the pRPFN at this time. The Council will however continue to monitor this issue and is prepared to review its position in future if further information becomes available.

Section 4

Decision

[35] The Council has considered and deliberated on GE / GMO provisions in the pRPFN; the submissions lodged on it; and the reports, evidence and submissions made and given at the public hearing. In reaching its decisions the Council has sought to comply with all applicable provisions of the RMA. The Council has had particular regard to the evaluations and further evaluations of the amendments to the pRPFN it has decided upon. The relevant matters the Council has considered, and its reasons for them, are summarised in the s42 reports and the main body of this report. The Council is satisfied that its decision is the most appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA and for giving effect to the higher-order instruments, including the RPS and the NZCPS.

[36] Relief sought in submissions is not accepted for the reasons outlined in this Decisions Report.

Council Meeting ITEM: 6.5

16 June 2020Attachment 2

DECISION OPTION 1 – NEW PROVISIONS

Decisions in response to submissions on the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland

Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms

Section 1
Introduction

Hearings Process

[3] A total of 83 submitters made submissions on GE / GMO^{^[9]}. The relevant Council summary of submissions is Part K.1 of the Summary of decisions requested (March 2018). The pRPFN as notified did not contain provisions, including rules, of the scope sought by the primary submitters. While many submissions referred to what had occurred in Northland and Auckland Plans, and previous work that was carried out by a joint council working party, no specific s32 analysis or detailed set of proposed provisions was provided. The Hearing Panel issued Minute 1 on 30 January 2018 which requested that s32 Evaluations be prepared for provisions which were not assessed by the Council. In response to that Minute, s32 evaluations and provisions were submitted by David Badham, consultant planner on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council and Vern Warren, consultant planner on behalf of (originally) the Soil & Health Association, GE Free Tai Tokerau and many other submitters^{^[10]}.

[6] In Minute 8 following the hearing the Council indicated that it had, after considering all relevant material, arrived at a preliminary view (that is, not the Council’s final decision), that:

• The Proposed Regional Plan will not include provisions for the management of GMOs on land (outside the coastal marine area).

• The Proposed Regional Plan will include provisions for the management of GMOs in the coastal marine area.

Minute 10:

ii. Advice from Aquaculture New Zealand on any actual or anticipated use by the aquaculture industry of genetically modified veterinary vaccines.

Minute 11:

i. A legal opinion to answer the question: If the Regional Plan included rules regulating GMOs in the coastal marine area, what would council’s responsibility be to monitor and enforce the rules?

[9] All responses were placed on the Council’s website, and submitters who submitted on the inclusion of GMO provisions and wished to be heard, were notified of the responses.

The Decisions report

[11] At the conclusion to the hearing the Council notes that the expert planners had agreed on the provisions that they supported for inclusion into the pRPFN. The Council has no substantial disagreement with the analyses undertaken by the s42A author. This Decisions report contains a summary only of the conclusions the Council has reached in relation to the issues raised in submissions. To avoid further unnecessary duplication and repetition the Council affirms that, except where the detailed findings in this Decisions report vary from the s42A Reports, the Council adopts those reports, which should be read as forming part of this Decision report. Further, to the extent that the commentary is relevant to the GE / GMO matter, the Council adopts the following parts of the Hearing Panel’s recommendation report^{^[11]} made on all other submissions to the pRPFN.

· Section 2 The Resource Management Act

· Section 3 Higher Order and other Relevant Instruments

· Section 5 Council’s Approach to the Plan

· Section 6 Tangata Whenua

· Section 7 Additional Objective and Policies (General Approach)

[12] Appendix A shows the content of relevant parts of the pRPFN incorporating the Council’s Decisions in relation to it. Having considered the evidence presented to the Council, the Council finds that the provisions recommended by the expert planners are appropriate.

Section 2
Issues Raised in Submissions

[13] All primary submissions supported inclusion of restrictive, precautionary or prohibitive provisions into the pRPFN for managing GE / GMO in the region, or parts of the region. In summary, the submissions sought that the pRPFN be amended to:

· give effect to the GMO 6.1.2 policy in the Northland Regional Policy Statement 2016 (‘RPS’);

· include provisions consistent with / align with / be the same as provisions in the Auckland Council Unitary Plan, and the Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council plan changes.

[14] With one exception, the further submissions received supported the primary submissions. The one exception was the further submission from Federated Farmers. That further submission opposed all of the primary submissions on the basis that:

· There is no scope to include the provisions sought in the Proposed Regional Plan.

· Even if there was scope, there is no justification (in terms of RMA s32) for including the provisions sought in the Proposed Regional Plan.

[15] The key questions evaluated in this Decisions Report include:

1. Is there a legal basis for including GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

2. Is there a legal constraint to including GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

3. Is there a legal obligation to include GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

4. Is there an evidential basis to include GE / GMO provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan?

Section 3

Evaluation

Legal Basis for Regional Plan Provisions

[16] There was a consensus amongst the parties, including from Federated Farmers, that s12(3) of the RMA provides a statutory basis for the inclusion of GE/ GMO provisions in the CMA.

Legal constraints in relation to Regional Plan Provisions

[19] In relation to the justification required under RMA s32 for including provisions in the pRPFN, the notified pRPFN s32 document did not assess GE / GMO provisions further than noting this was a matter that may be addressed at a later date. As noted in Section 1 above, the Council requested through Minute 1, s32 evaluation reports for the provisions sought to be introduced by submissions, and two s32 reports were subsequently provided. The Council has had particular regard to those Section 32 Reports.^{^[13]} Section 32AA of the RMA requires a further evaluation of any further changes made, which can be the subject of a separate report, or referred to in the decision-making record.^{^[14]} If it is referred to in the decision-making record, it should contain sufficient detail to demonstrate that a further evaluation has been duly undertaken.^{^[15]}

Legal obligations in relation to Regional Plan Provisions

[21] The Council has carefully considered the s42A report, the submissions and the evidence relating to Council’s obligations under Section 67(3) of the RMA, and in particular the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Northland Regional Policy Statement (‘RPS’). A number of submitters considered that there was an obligation under these higher order documents for the regional plan to manage GMOs. However, the conclusion reached by the author of the s42A report, informed by legal advice received by the Council, was that there was no legal obligation. In that respect Council notes that the EPA is legislatively mandated to control GMOs, and their role includes having regard such matters as effects on the natural environment and on issues of concern to tangata whenua. However, Council finds that it is necessary to adopt a regional (albeit only CMA) layer of regional management recognising the particular social, cultural and economic concerns that apply specifically to the regional community. There is insufficient confidence that these matters can be adequately addressed solely through the EPA processes. On the basis of the considerable evidence Council heard supporting the inclusion of provisions in the CMA the Council has decided that GE / GMO provisions will be introduced into the pRPFN. While it may not be a legal requirement inclusion of those provisions is nevertheless consistent with the precautionary approach encouraged in the RPS.

Accordingly, it has not been necessary to make a definitive finding on this issue.

Evidential Basis for Including Provisions in the Regional Plan

[24] The proposed provisions include imposition of a bond. Council finds that this is a key mechanism for addressing the risk of escape of GMOs from approved GMO facilities. Council remains concerned that calculating a bond could well be a speculative exercise and to cover off uncertainties could be so high that it would make proposals untenable, thus having an economic consequence that at present is unclear. Council finds that the extent to which this becomes an issue may only be able to be examined through the future administration of the GE / GMO provisions, but is not a reason to not have provisions, including for bonding.

[25] Expert cultural evidence was given by Dr Benjamin Pittman and Tui Shortland. The Iwi and Hapū Management Plans^{^[16]} that exist in relation to Northland iwi and hapū contain a strong signal that GMOs are culturally inappropriate. Dr Pittman explained why the introduction of GE / GMO would be offensive to the principles of tikanga and seriously damage the mauri of the environment.

[26] The expert planning evidence, from the s42A author Peter Reaburn, David Badham, consultant planner on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council and Vern Warren, consultant planner on behalf of the Soil & Health Association, was largely in alignment. Informed by the other specialist evidence, all planners considered that it was appropriate to introduce GE / GMO provisions into the CMA for precautionary reasons. Mr Warren additionally referred to parts of the statutory framework, including the NZCPS and RPS, as requiring the introduction of provisions. As noted earlier in this Decision report, the planners were ultimately agreed on the wording of CMA provisions to be introduced into the pRPFN.

[27] The evidence from Gavin Forrest on behalf of Federated Farmers, while not expert planning evidence, raised a number of questions regarding whether there should be GE / GMO provisions at this time, and the reasoning given to date for RMA provisions, at least of the type proposed, being necessary given other options available. Council has made the following findings in relation to the questions Mr Forrest raised:

1. While the pRPFN as notified did not contain provisions, including rules, of the scope sought by primary submitters the Council is satisfied that there is jurisdiction to do so. The general theme of primary submissions was clearly that provisions based on the Auckland Unitary Plan should be introduced into the pRPFN. The Council has taken a careful approach to ensure that submitters and further submitters are aware of what provisions could be introduced, including through inviting submitters in Minute 1 to provide provisions, and s32 analyses of those provisions. This was done, by two major submitter parties and was thus available for all parties from an early stage in the hearings process for the parties to consider and provide comment on. Further information and evidence was provided throughout the hearings process. It is an accepted response to s32 that the process is iterative and includes information provided right up to the stage of final consideration by the decision-maker. The Council has had sufficient information on which to decide whether further provisions should be included in the pRPFN at this stage and has taken care to ensure that the provisions introduced by this Decision are robust.

2. While the evidence appears to confirm that there are no current or imminent risks that would require immediate decisions, it is clear from other evidence that there may well be risks “on the horizon”. The Council is satisfied, having regard to all of the evidence received, that there is a basis for introducing CMA provisions now.

[28] A number of submitters continued to seek land-based provisions throughout the hearings process. While acknowledging submitters’ desire that provisions be adopted that are as comprehensive as possible, the Council has determined that it is not appropriate for land-based provisions to be included in the pRPFN, for a number of reasons:

1. As noted by the s42A author, land based provisions would need to rely on s15 RMA as the statutory basis. Section 15 RMA would apply only if GE / GMOs was regarded as being a contaminant. The consensus in evidence was that, while some GE / GMOs could potentially be defined as a contaminant, this would be case-dependent. In order to provide a statutory basis, it would therefore be necessary to specify what forms of GE / GMO would be a contaminant, and therefore subject to regional plan land-based management. Given the potential range of GE / GMOs is substantial this would be a very difficult exercise.

2. No submitter proposed provisions to address this concern or indeed any land-based provisions for Council’s consideration.

3. The Council agrees with submitters that concerns relating to GE / GMOs apply as much, or even potentially more, to the land as the CMA, and that GMOs do not recognise CMA / land boundaries. It is appropriate to achieve consistency across the region. RPS Policy 6.1.2 (Precautionary Approach) applies to both regional and district councils. The NRC is solely responsible for the CMA and it is appropriate for the NRC to regulate and monitor any potential contained GMO trials there. However, Method 6.1.5 specifically envisages district councils as taking a role in applying the policy. As an example, the Council was advised that the Auckland Unitary Plan provisions relied upon by many submitters are not regional plan provisions – they are CMA and district plan provisions. In relation to land-based concerns this strongly suggests that provisions are better addressed in district plans, where there is no question that s9 RMA provides a statutory basis. In that respect, Whangarei District Council and Far North District Council already have GE / GMO provisions and the Council was advised that the Kaipara District Council is currently considering introduction of provisions into its district plan.

[29] In addition to the above, the Council has carefully considered all other evidence presented, including that by lay witnesses.

[30] The Council recognises that it may be shown later that a particular proposal for GE / GMOs will not result in adverse effects or that the EPA process will adequately manage potential adverse effects. It is further recognised, if it is later found that it is appropriate to amend the provisions, this will incur time and monetary costs. Council finds however that this must be balanced against the risks of not introducing provisions covering the CMA, consistent with that which has already been adopted on land by two of the three district councils in Northland. In that respect it is of advantage to have, as is proposed, complementary provisions across both land and the CMA. There will always be potential for land-based releases to have consequential effects on the CMA and it is prudent to have such effects addressed in a consistent way. It is also important to note that the provisions to be introduced are based on considerable research. This includes permitting specified use of GMOs and allowing applications to be made for trials. It also provides the opportunity for the NRC to regulate future GMO trials and for the public of Northland to have a say on notified applications.

[31] The response Council received from Aquaculture NZ stated that they see no need in the immediate or foreseeable uptake of GMOs or GMO based vaccines into the NZ aquaculture industry and that a precautionary approach was supported. The response has been taken into account in Council’s considerations, noting that Aquaculture NZ did not make any particular comment about the form proposed provisions should take.

[32] The Council finds overall that the evidence is rational and sufficient in indicating a significant degree of scientific uncertainty, including uncertainties that may not be resolved for some time. Uncertainties include whether possible adverse effects are able to be managed or contained and that there are unknowns, including a potential for irreversible adverse effects. The CMA is part of the public domain and is a threatened environment. Particular areas of the CMA will also be ecologically threatened or otherwise of special value, including to mana whenua. If rules are not included in the pRPFN to regulate the use of GMOs in the coastal marine area, most GMO activities would likely be able to be undertaken without resource consent. This would prevent the Council having any regulatory control over whether or not the activity should be approved or how the potential environmental effects of the activity should be managed. For example, the Council would not be able to assess the sensitivity of the environment in the proposed location and the conditions that might be imposed on any resource consent (including emergency response measures and performance bonds).

[33] Accordingly, in assessing all of the evidence the Council prefers the evidence that seeks the introduction of GE / GMO provisions in the CMA. There is significant community concern, as evidenced by the universal desire for further pRPFN provisions expressed in primary submissions. Taking this into account as well as the important aspects of social, cultural and economic wellbeing, the Council prefers the primary submitter evidence that there is a basis for RMA management through the pRPFN and that a precautionary approach is appropriate.

[34] Having regard to s66(2)(d) of the RMA the Council finds that provisions introduced now will also achieve consistency with the adjoining region, Auckland, which has GE / GMO provisions managing its CMA. The Council further finds that the CMA provisions that have been decided upon are consistent with the statutory framework. This includes Objective 2 and Policies 2 and 3 of the NZCPS 2010, and Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 of the RPS.

Council liability

[35] The Council has obtained legal opinions from its lawyers Wynn Williams in relation to matters of legal liability on the Council arising from the introduction of GE / GMO provisions. The opinion concludes that the inclusion of provisions in the Proposed Regional Plan to regulate GMOs will not increase the Council’s legal liability to clean-up or otherwise address the illegal use or introduction of GMOs in the coastal marine area. Council is satisfied that the potential cost of regulation and monitoring will be carried by the applicant/consent holder.

[36] Notwithstanding legal liability Council remains concerned that there may be an expectation on the part of the community to address adverse effects arising from unlawful or accidental use of GMOs. This would become a “social cost”. The extent to which that expectation may be enhanced through explicit regulation of GMOs in the pRPFN is a matter of concern to the Council, particularly as there is a separate management regime through the EPA that may prove effective itself in managing GMOs and would, in the event of an issue arising, focus responses at the national, rather than regional, level.

[37] Council has also taken into account the substantial community interest (addressing social, economic and cultural wellbeing), exhibited by the large number of submissions and substantial body of evidence supporting regulation. This included:

· Evidence presented by both the Far North and Whangarei district councils, which both currently include GMO provisions in respective district plans, and which sought complementary supported provisions in the CMA. These councils represent the majority of ratepayers in Northland, and their district plan provisions have already been through publicly notified processes.

· Evidence presented by Dr Benjamin Pittman regarding the Māori view of genetic engineering and GMOs, indicating that a significant proportion of Northland’s population is opposed to the use of GMOs in Tai Tokerau.

[38] Council has also considered liability from the perspective of a number of agencies potentially being involved in the management of GMOs, and the risk of conflicts and / or inadequate coverage or co-ordination of compliance, monitoring and enforcement opportunities. While recognising this concern, this situation is not unique to GMOs and Council recognises its obligations to ensure adequate co-ordination on such matters.

[39] After considering and balancing all of the above matters, the Council has concluded that it can rely on its legal advice in relation to liability and is satisfied that having regulation through the pRPFN will unlikely result in any further responsibility or burden on the region, including in relation to “social costs”, than would exist without that regulation. The Council recognises its role as an environmental guardian, often providing leadership in like matters in the region. Marine biosecurity is one area in which NRC is leading by example and regulation adopted by the council is now being used as an opportunity for comprehensive nationwide rules.

Conclusion

[40] In summary, the Council finds that:

1. The evidence is rational and sufficient in indicating a significant degree of scientific uncertainty, including uncertainties that may not be resolved for some time.

2. Adopting a precautionary approach to the uncertainty demonstrated in evidence, rules included in the pRPFN are necessary to enable Council to have regulatory control over whether or not an activity involving GE / GMOs should be approved, or how the potential environmental effects of the activity should be managed, including having regard to the sensitivity of the environment in the proposed location and the conditions that might be imposed on any resource consent (such as emergency response measures and performance bonds).

3. There is no basis or justification for GE / GMOs to be managed by the pRPFN on land, particularly given the district plan management that already exists over most of Northland. However, NRC is the only council body that is able to manage GE / GMOs in the CMA and it is appropriate this be done to complement the existing land-based management frameworks.

4. Inclusion of provisions relating to the management of GE / GMOS in the CMA responds to significant community concern, as evidenced by the widespread desire for further pRPFN provisions expressed in primary submissions.

5. Social, cultural and economic effects particular to the Northland community are better addressed through regional management, rather than relying on the EPA processes alone.

6. Having regard to s66(2)(d) of the RMA provisions introduced now will also achieve consistency with the adjoining region, Auckland, which has GE / GMO provisions managing its CMA.

7. The CMA provisions that have been decided upon are consistent with the statutory framework. This includes Objective 2 and Policies 2 and 3 of the NZCPS 2010, and Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 of the RPS.

Section 4

Decision

[40] The Council has considered and deliberated on GE / GMO provisions in the pRPFN; the submissions lodged on it; and the reports, evidence and submissions made and given at the public hearing. In reaching its decisions the Council has sought to comply with all applicable provisions of the RMA. The Council has had particular regard to the evaluations and further evaluations of the amendments to the pRPFN it has decided upon. The relevant matters the Council has considered, and its reasons for them, are summarised in the s42 reports, the main body of this report and in Appendix A. The Council is satisfied that the amendments decided upon are the most appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA and for giving effect to the higher-order instruments, including the RPS and the NZCPS.

[40] The Council makes amendments to the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland contained in Appendix A for the reasons set out in the main body of this Decisions report. Relief sought in submissions is accepted or accepted in part to the extent incorporated in Appendix A.

Appendix A – Provisions to be introduced into the Proposed Regional Plan for Northland Relating to Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms

B Definitions

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)

Unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations, any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material:

(a) have been modified by in-vitro techniques; or

(b) are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in-vitro techniques.

This does not apply to genetically modified products that are not viable and are no longer genetically modified organisms, or products that are dominantly non-genetically modified but contain non-viable genetically modified ingredients, such as processed foods.

Genetically Modified Organism Field Trials

The carrying on of outdoor trials, on the effects of the organism under conditions similar to those of the environment into which the organism is likely to be released, but from which the organism, or any heritable material arising from it, could be retrieved or destroyed at the end of the trials.

Genetically modified organism release

To allow the organism to move within New Zealand free of any restrictions other than those imposed in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 1993 or the Conservation Act 1987.

A Release may be without conditions (s34, HSNO Act) or subject to conditions set out in s38A of the HSNO Act.

Genetically Modified Veterinary Vaccine

A veterinary vaccine that is a genetically modified organism as defined in this Plan.

Genetically modified medical applications

The manufacture, trialling or use of viable and/or non-viable genetically modified organisms for medical purposes recognised as medicines under the Medicines Act 1981 and approved as safe to use by the Ministry of Health, including Environmental Protection Authority approved releases, except for the outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical producing organisms.

Viable Genetically Modified Veterinary Vaccine

A genetically modified veterinary vaccine that could survive or replicate in the environment or be transmitted from the inoculated recipient.

C Rules

C.1.8 Genetically Modified Organisms

C.1.8.1 Genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area – permitted activities

The following activities in the coastal marine area involving genetically modified organisms are permitted activities:

1. research and trials within bio-contained laboratories, and

2. medical applications (including vaccines) involving the use of viable and / or non-viable genetically modified organisms, and

3. veterinary applications of genetically modified organisms (including vaccines) provided that any veterinary application of viable genetically modified organism vaccines is supervised by a veterinarian.

For the avoidance of doubt this rule covers the following RMA activities:

• Use of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area (s12(3)).

• Discharge of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area that are “contaminants” under the definition in s2 of the RMA (s15(1)).

C.1.8.2 Genetically modified organism field trials - discretionary activity

A genetically modified organism field trial in the coastal marine area is a discretionary activity provided:

1. The genetically modified organism field trial has the relevant approval from the Environmental Protection Authority and the application is consistent with Environmental Protection Authority approval conditions for the activity.

2. A Risk Management Plan is provided that addresses all matters set out in Policy D.5.33.

3. Details of a performance bond, with an approved trading bank guarantee, is provided that addresses all matters set out in Policy D.5.32.

Notification:

Any application for resource consent under rule C.1.8.2 must be publicly notified.

For the avoidance of doubt this rule covers the following RMA activities:

• Use of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area (s12(3)).

• Discharge of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area that are “contaminants” under the definition in s2 of the RMA (s15(1)).

C.1.8.3 Viable genetically modified veterinary vaccines - discretionary activity

The use of any viable genetically modified veterinary vaccine that is not a permitted activity under rule C.1.8.1 Genetically modified organisms in the Coastal Marine Area – permitted activities, is a discretionary activity, provided:

1. The genetically modified veterinary vaccine has the relevant approval from the Environmental Protection Authority and the application is consistent with Environmental Protection Authority approval conditions for the activity.

2. Details of a performance bond, with an approved trading bank guarantee, is provided that addresses all matters set out in Policy D.5.32.

Notification:

Any application for resource consent under rule C.1.8.3 must be publicly notified.

For the avoidance of doubt this rule covers the following RMA activities:

• Use of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area (s12(3)).

• Discharge of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area that are “contaminants” under the definition in s2 of the RMA (s15(1)).

C.1.8.4 Genetically modified organism releases – prohibited activity

Any:

1. genetically modified organism release (conditional or full), or

2. genetically modified organism field trial, or

3. use of any viable genetically modified veterinary vaccine,

that is not a permitted or discretionary activity in Section C.1.8 of this Plan, is a prohibited activity.

For the avoidance of doubt this rule covers the following RMA activities:

• Use of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area (s12(3)).

• Discharge of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area that are “contaminants” under the definition in s2 of the RMA (s15(1)).

D Policies

D.5 Coastal

D.5.28 Precautionary approach to managing genetically modified organisms

Adopt a precautionary approach to assessing and managing the:

1. risks, and

2. uncertainty and lack of information, and

3. significance, scale and nature of potential adverse effects,

associated with the use of genetic engineering or the release of genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area.

D.5.29 Adaptive approach to the management of genetically modified organism

Adopt an adaptive approach to the management of the outdoor use, storage, cultivation, harvesting, processing or transportation of a genetically modified organism, including through periodic reviews of the genetically modified organism provisions, particularly if new information on the benefits and/or adverse effects of a genetically modified organism activity becomes available.

D.5.30 Avoiding adverse effects of genetically modified organism field trials

Ensure that any resource consent granted for genetically modified organism field trials avoids, as far as can reasonably be achieved, risk to the environment, adverse effects on indigenous flora and fauna, and the relationship of tangata whenua with flora and fauna from the use, storage, cultivation, harvesting, processing or transportation of a genetically modified organism.

D.5.31 Liability for adverse effects from genetically modified organism activities

Require consent holders for a genetically modified organism activity to be liable, including financial accountability, (to the extent possible) for any adverse effects caused beyond the site for which consent has been granted for the activity.

D.5.32 Bonds for genetically modified organism activities

Require bonds as a condition of resource consents for the use of genetically modified organisms to provide for the redress of any adverse effects (including any adverse economic effects on third parties) that become apparent during or after expiration of a consent, including consideration of (but not limited to) the following:

1. (a) the significance, scale, nature and timescale of potential adverse effects, and

2. (b) the proposed measures to be taken to avoid those effects, and

3. (c) the monitoring proposed to establish whether an adverse effect has occurred or whether any adverse effect has been appropriately remedied, and

4. (d) the likely scale of costs associated with remediating any adverse effects that may occur.

D.5.33 Risk management plan for genetically modified organism field trials

A Risk Management Plan for genetically modified organism field trials must include, but is not limited to, the following:

1. The species, characteristics and lifecycle of the genetically modified organism.

2. All research undertaken that characterises and tests the genetically modified organism, and the certainty associated with the accuracy of that information.

3. The areas in which the genetically modified organism, including discharges, is to be confined.

4. Proposed containment measures for the commencement, duration and completion of the proposed field trial.

5. The actual and potential adverse effects to the environment, cultural values and economy associated with the field trial, including in the event the genetically modified organism escapes from the contained area.

6. The proposed measures, including contingency measures, that will be taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate actual and potential adverse effects.

7. Details of the monitoring to be undertaken, including how and by whom monitoring will be undertaken.

8. Reporting requirements.

9. Recommended conditions of resource consent covering the matters listed above.

10. Provision for the systematic review and approval of any amendments to the Risk Management Plan by Council.

F Objectives

F.0.15 Use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified organisms

The coastal marine area is protected from adverse effects on the environment associated with the use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified organisms.

Council Meeting item: 6.9

16 June 2020

TITLE:	Regional Economic Development: Progress Towards a Joint Delivery Model
ID:	A1323190
From:	Darryl Jones, Economist and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement

Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga

The purpose of this paper is to seek council approval of the recommendations put forward by the Northland Mayoral Forum for the future delivery of regional economic development services in Northland. These recommendations are listed in this paper and the full proposal and recommendations can be found in Attachment One. All four Northland councils are being asked to approve these recommendations and proposed way forward.

For the coming financial year 2020/21, the Mayoral Forum is proposing an enhancement of the current model, whereby financial support is provided from the three district councils for Northland Inc. Limited (NInc) in return for an opportunity to have input into the development of the NInc Statement of Intent for 2021–2024, and the appointment of directors.

The major change will occur from 2021/22 onwards. It is proposed that Northland Inc. will be jointly owned by the four councils with an equal shareholding. Councils’ legislative governance oversight responsibilities will be undertaken through our appointment of councillor representatives onto a Joint Committee of Council (which would also include representatives from each district council). Funding from the three district councils for economic development activities will be increased over a six-year period to reach a 40/60 split in funding between total district council contribution and regional council’s current forecast commitment. This additional funding will be used to support both the operations of the jointly owned council-controlled organisation (CCO) and project investment through the Investment and Growth Reserve (IGR). It is proposed that the Joint Committee will be responsible for the allocation of funding from the IGR.

The proposal does not require any additional funding commitment from council, with the exception of co-funding for the development of a regional economic development strategy. The scope of this strategy and the quantum of funding still needs to be worked out in more detail.

Staff recommend that council approve the recommendations of the Mayoral Forum.

Recommendation(s)

1. That the report ‘Regional Economic Development: Progress Towards a Joint Delivery Model’ by Darryl Jones, Economist and Jonathan Gibbard, Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement and dated 4 June 2020, be received.

2. That council approve the recommendations of the Mayoral Forum for the delivery of regional economic development services as set out in Attachment One of Agenda Item 6.9 of the 16 June 2020 Council Meeting. This approval is given subject to:

a. District council approval of the same recommendations / proposal;

b. Consideration be given to increasing the number of councillor representatives on the Joint Committee from one to two for each council;

c. Progress the Regional Economic Development Strategy as a priority and, if funding allows, ahead of the formal establishment of the joint CCO (i.e. during the 2020/21 financial year); and

d. Public consultation on the establishment of Northland Inc. as a jointly owned CCO, through council’s 2021–2031 Long Term Plan process, and council’s subsequent decision-making process.

Background/Tuhinga

In 2017, MartinJenkins completed a review of economic development activities carried out jointly by the four Northland local authorities in accordance with section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002. A key recommendation of this review was that NInc, currently a council-controlled organisation (CCO) that is 100% owned by council, transition to become a CCO jointly owned and governed by all four Taitokerau local authorities. The full report and summary of the MartinJenkins review is available online at https://www.nrc.govt.nz/your-council/economic-development/northland-inc/.

Since that time, the Northland Mayoral Forum and the Chief Executives of their respective local authorities have been developing the most appropriate form and structure of a joint ownership model, considering, among other things, the current and potential levels of funding able to be provided. This process has also included updates and feedback sought from respective councils’ governance through council specific workshops and the Northland Forward Together forum.

At its meeting on 24 February 2020, the Mayoral Forum endorsed the proposed regional economic development service delivery model set out in detail in Attachment One which is prepared as a standard agenda paper going to each respective council for endorsement. A high-level summary of the proposal is also provided in Attachment Two.

The attachments cover the rationale for joint ownership, the key costs and risks, and sets out a two-stage process: an initial enhanced model in 2020/21 that moves to joint ownership from 2021/22 onwards after a process of public consultation as part of the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Council is being requested to approve the recommendations of the Mayoral Forum. These are outlined below and cover the main elements of the proposal, highlighting the funding and joint governance arrangements (details of the proposal are provided in Attachment One):

1. That Council approve the proposal that recommends Northland Regional Council share the appointment of directors and input to the Statement of Intent process with Whangarei, Far North and Kaipara District Councils, in return for agreed funding for the 2020/2021 Annual Plan Year. The agreed funding for the 2020/2021 Annual Plan is:

a. Northland Regional Council – Continue to fund Northland Inc. and the IGR per their current Long Term Plan

b. Whangarei District Council – One hundred and five thousand dollars ($105K) plus the contribution of up to one FTE to Northland Inc.

c. Kaipara District Council – Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25K)

d. Far North District Council – Eighty-two thousand dollars ($82K)

2. And support the proposal that recommends Northland Inc. be modified to become a joint regional CCO;

a. with a formal joint committee to provide oversight;

b. a funding arrangement that Northland Regional Council contribute 60% and Whangarei, Far North and Kaipara District Councils contribute 40%;

c. this is achieved over a six-year time frame aligned to the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan Cycle; and

d. public consultation to establish Northland Inc. as a joint regional CCO is included and aligned to the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan consultation process of each Northland council.

3. And support, in principle, the development of a Regional Economic Development Strategy for inclusion in the 2021–2031 Long Term Plan Cycle, subject to scope, resources and funding.

Approving these recommendations will enable staff from all four councils to fully develop the details of the proposal so that public consultation can occur through the 2021–2031 LTP process to progress the jointly owned CCO and put in place interim procedures for the coming financial year.

Council have been briefed on the development of the proposal at several workshop sessions, most recently on 3 June 2020. During this session, councillors requested that in refining the details of the proposal that consideration be given to: (a) increasing the number of councillor appointments to the Joint Committee from one to two for each council; (b) providing for increased funding in the IGR to ensure that future investment into projects can occur; and (c) ensuring the development of the regional economic development strategy is prioritised and progressed at pace.

It should be noted that the Mayoral Forum recommendations were developed prior to the COVID-19 crisis. The regional economic recovery group, stood up as part of the COVID-19 emergency response in Northland, is looking to develop an economic strategy for the region to help guide the economic recovery. The group, which is co-chaired by Northland Inc. and Te Taitokerau iwi leaders, is seeking to complete this in the next few months. The outcome of this process will need to be considered in developing the proposed Regional Economic Development strategy referred to in recommendation 3 of the Mayoral Forum paper (Attachment One).

Considerations

1. Options

No.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Approve recommendations from the Mayoral Forum

Significantly strengthens inter-council coordination and alignment on regional economic development.

Provides additional funding for regional economic development in 2020/21 and potential beyond.

Allows staff to further prepare the proposal with some certainty of political commitment.

Begins a process through which council control over Northland Inc. and the IGR will be reduced.

Not approve recommendations from the Mayoral Forum

Council maintains complete control over Northland Inc. and the allocation of funding from the IGR.

Reduces the chance of developing a joint council economic development delivery mechanism (it has taken three years to develop the current proposal).

Reduces the likelihood of the development of a single coordinated Regional Economic Development Strategy.

Reduces the likelihood of increase district council financial contribution to economic development activities – through Northland Inc.

The staff’s recommended option is Option 1, to approve the recommendations from the Mayoral Forum on the future delivery of regional economic development services. However, staff recommend that this approval be subject to the following conditions:

a) Agreement from other councils to the proposal;

b) Consideration to increase respective council representation on the joint committee from one to two;

c) Consideration to progress the Regional Economic Development Strategy in the 2020/21 financial year; and

d) Consultation on the establishment of Northland Inc. as a joint CCO through the 2021–2031 LTP development process.

2. Significance and engagement

Section 56 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to undertake public consultation before establishing, or becomes a shareholder in, a CCO. While district councils will need to undertake public consultation to comply with section 56, technically, council is unlikely to have to undertake public consultation. Council is already delivering economic development activities through a CCO and transitioning Northland Inc. to a jointly owned CCO is unlikely to trigger our Significance and Engagement Policy and hence does not require public consultation prior to making this decision. Staff, however, recommend that council agree, at this point, to progress this proposal on the basis that it will undertake public consultation, regardless of whether there is a statutory requirement to do so or not. This is because there will likely be considerable public interest in this decision, and it will be important to communicate a coordinated approach to the community, through respective councils’ LTP consultation material.

On this basis, this report presents a decision in principle to establish a jointly owned Northland Inc. and that the actual decision to do so will follow public consultation through the LTP process.

Therefore, in relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, the decisions in this report are of low significance when assessed against council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This does not mean that this matter is not of significance to tangata whenua and/or individual communities, but that council is able to make decisions relating to this matter without undertaking further consultation or engagement.

The actual decision being made, through this report, is to approve the interim 2020/21 (Stage 1) proposal and approve the proposal and intention to establishment of a jointly owned Northland Inc. (this being subject to public consultation through the 2021–2031 LTP consultation process).

3. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance

This decision complies with council’s policy and legislative requirements (as outlined elsewhere in this report). However, future changes to council policies will be required if the proposals are implemented, including but not limited to council’s policy for appointing directors and the settings for the IGR as outlined in council’s Financial Strategy.

Further considerations

4. Community views

While council has received ongoing support for providing regional economic development functions provided through Northland Inc., community views have not previously been sought on a jointly owned CCO model for regional economic development in Northland. As previously discussed, it is proposed that community views be specifically sought through the 2021–2031 LTP consultation process.

5. Māori impact statement

Economic development and prosperity for Taitokerau is a significant issue of importance to Māori, as evidence by the release of He Tangata, He Whenua, He Oranga, an economic growth strategy for the Taitokerau Māori economy produced by the Iwi Chief Executives’ Consortium in 2015. Māori are likely to have a strong interest, among other things, in providing direction on the activities of the joint CCO and the scope, content and direction of the proposed Regional Economic Development Strategy.

While Māori have not been engaged in the development of the detail of this proposal, feedback from Māori leaders and Te Taitokerau Māori and Council Working Party (TTMAC) was sought during the Section17A assessment of local government’s provision of economic development activities. The results of the Section 17A report, including the proposal to establish a joint economic development agency, were presented back to TTMAC with no opposition to the proposal recorded at that time.

It is recommended that, should council approve the proposal to establish joint ownership of Northland Inc., that specific input is sought from TTMAC and other Māori leaders, in addition to council’s LTP consultation process, to inform council’s final decision.

In addition, Northland Inc. has also recently undertaken a review of Māori economic development in Te Taitokerau. It is anticipated that this report will be available shortly and may provide further valuable input into this decision.

6. Financial implications

It is anticipated there will be some specific expenditure required to progress the proposal to establish a jointly owned CCO, for example legal advice, however staff consider that these can be met within existing budgets.

The proposal does not envisage any change to council’s current funding commitments from 2021/22 onwards apart from an as yet unconfirmed quantum of additional co-funding required to support the development of a regional economic development strategy. The scope of this work and the quantum of funding required will need to be considered as part of a separate council decision once these details are further refined.

7. Implementation issues

The development of the joint economic development delivery proposal into a form for public consultation by four councils through the 2021–2031 LTP process and eventual implementation (assuming positive public support and council future decisions) will require significant staff time and resource. While it is proposed that this can be met from within existing resources, it will necessitate giving priority to this project above other activities.

Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga

Attachment 1: Mayoral Forum - Standard Agenda Item ⇩

Attachment 2: Mayoral Forum - Regional Economic Development on a page ⇩

Authorised by Group Manager

Name:	Jonathan Gibbard
Title:	Group Manager - Strategy, Governance and Engagement
Date:	10 June 2020

Council Meeting ITEM: 6.9

16 June 2020Attachment 1

TITLE:	Standard Agenda Paper - Proposal for Future Regional Economic Development Service Delivery for Northland
ID:	{Objective ID}
To:	Council Meeting of Individual Councils
From:
Date:	20^th May 2020

Executive Summary

This purpose of this report is to propose a Regional Economic Development service delivery model, governance arrangements and indicative funding model to the Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District Council, Kaipara District Council and Far North District Council following endorsement by the Mayoral Forum at their meeting on the 24^th February 2020.

The Mayoral Forum tasked the Chief Executives of Northland’s four Council’s to develop an appropriate business model for consideration by Northlands’ Councils following the formal S17A Service Delivery Review completed by Marin Jenkins Consultants in XXX.

Over the course of 2019 to February 2020, the Chief Executives proposed a two staged approach for the future delivery of regional economic development services:

1. An enhanced Northland Inc. with the District Councils having input into Northland Inc’s Statement of Expectations and input in the appointment of directors in return for a modest investment that is aligned to the 2020 – 2021 Annual Plan year.

2. A joint regional CCO, with equal shareholding, governance via a joint committee, with 60% of funding from Northland Regional Council and 40% from the three District Councils, that is aligned to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan Cycle.

The proposal considers the level funding by the Northland and District Councils, the timing of public consultation and the consideration of the development of a regional economic development strategy be completed under Northland|Forward Together.

The proposed regional economic development service delivery model considers:

a. The structure of each service delivery model.

b. The governance features of each model.

c. The proposed funding from Northland Regional Council targeting 60% contribution over six years, whilst targeting a 40% funding contribution from the District Councils over six years.

d. The advantages, disadvantages and overall benefits.

e. An indicative timeline for implementing both stages and the alignment to the 2020-2021 Annual Plan Cycle and the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan Cycle which will incorporate the special consultation process required to establish a joint CCO.

The Mayoral Forum endorsed their support of the proposal at the Mayoral Forum on the 24^th February 2020.

The proposed recommendation for the future delivery of regional economic development services is for Northland Regional Council and Whangarei, Kaipara and Far North District Councils’ consideration and approval for inclusion and community consultation in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Recommendation

That Council approve the recommendations listed below for the future delivery of regional economic development services:

1. That Council approve the proposal that recommends Northland Regional Council share the appointment of directors and input to the Statement of Intent process with Whangarei, Far North and Kaipara District Councils, in return for agreed funding for the 2020-2021 Annual Plan Year. The agreed funding for the 2020-2021 Annual Plan is:

a. Northland Regional Council – Continue to fund Northland Inc. and the IGR per their current Long-Term Plan

b. Whangarei District Council – One hundred and five thousand dollars ($105K) plus the contribution of up to one FTE to Northland Inc.

c. Kaipara District Council – Twenty-five thousand dollars ($25K)

d. Far North District Council – Eighty-two thousand dollars ($82K)

2. And support the proposal that recommends Northland Inc. be modified to become a joint regional CCO;

a. with a formal joint committee to provide oversight,

b. a funding arrangement that Northland Regional Council contribute 60% and Whangarei, Far North and Kaipara District Councils contribute 40% and

c. this is achieved over a six-year time frame aligned to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan Cycle and

d. public consultation to establish Northland Inc. as a joint regional CCO is included and aligned to the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation process of each Northland Council.

3. And support, in principle, the development of a Regional Economic Development Strategy for inclusion in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan Cycle, subject to scope, resources and funding.

Background

Martin Jenkins Consultants undertook the review of Northland Council economic development functions and activities in 2017. The subsequent report highlighted:

· There are no major gaps in the types of economic development activities provided by Northland Councils and Northland Inc.

· There is little overlap of economic development activities

· There are five key opportunities for the Councils to work more efficiently and effectively together to increase the collective impact.

o A regional economic development strategy, goals and priorities that would provide clear guidance on the activities that should be delivered in the region.

o Regional destination marketing

o Regional events promotion guided by a regional visitor and events strategy

o Maori/Iwi economic development

o Greater reach of services into the Far North and Kaipara through a hub and spoke delivery model

The Martin Jenkins report recommended that Northland Inc. currently a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) of Northland Regional Council, become a jointly owned CCO, with a joint shareholding across the four Councils and a Joint Committee to provide direction and oversee Northland Inc.’s performance and resourcing.

The Martin Jenkins report highlighted the key benefits of the recommendation are:

· Greater alignment of economic development priorities and outcomes across Councils and Northland Inc.

· Better opportunity to leverage the resources of all to achieve common goals and objectives

· Minimal disruption to Northland Inc, or Council operations and delivery as a result of the changes.

· Opportunity to implement a hub and spoke business model with presence in the Far North and Kaipara.

· Increased flexibility / agility to being able to make decisions about changes to activities across Councils and Northland Inc. through a joint committee structure.

· Ability for individual Councils to have input into the Expectation of Purpose and Statement of Intent process.

· Ability for individual Councils to have input into the programme of work and projects being delivered by Northland Inc, via the Statement of Intent process.

· Increased opportunity to identify efficiencies in the delivering activities across all Councils and Northland Inc. as a result of increased engagement.

There are key costs and risks associated with the implementation of a jointly owned CCO.

· Time and costs associated with public consultation on the changes to the existing CCO arrangements.

· The legal re-arrangement

· An increase in staff and elected members time required to develop and agree on: priorities with Northland Inc., the Shareholders Agreement, the Joint Committee role and structure, out-put and out-come framework and the performance and reporting framework.

· An increase in Northland Inc. staff to work with individual Councils to achieve the outcomes and outputs determined by the formal Joint Committee.

· Costs with extending Northland Inc’s services into the districts (set-up and co-ordination costs), although some costs could be minimised by sharing with others.

To date Northland Regional Council and Northland Inc. have implemented recommendations from the Martin Jenkins review regarding the operations of the Investment and Growth Fund, the process for developing the statement of intent, improved reporting and connection with the District Councils. Minimal progress has been made on the five opportunities for Councils to work together.

The Mayoral Forum tasked the Chief Executives to develop an appropriate business model for consideration by all Councils. For clarification, this proposal has not been presented to the Northland Regional Council or Northland Inc. for consideration.

The Chief Executives and senior management held a workshop on the 23^rd January 2019 and took a fresh approach to developing a regional delivery model, building on the success of Northland Inc. and incorporating the recommendations of the Martin Jenkins Review. The Chief Executives agreed:

· The principles for the development of a model and subsequent report

· The key drivers and priorities for economic development in Northland

· The report will recommend a preferred service delivery option to the Mayoral Forum prior to the October Local Body election.

· The new Councils and Mayoral Forum will make any decisions to implement or otherwise, post the October Local Body elections.

A cross- council team has been brought together to propose a service delivery model for consideration by all Councils and build on the strengths of Northland Inc. and the recommendations of the Martin Jenkins Review.

The cross-council team undertook a short study of three regional economic entities and arrived at the same conclusions as the Martin Jenkins study, that a joint regional CCO is the most suitable vehicle to deliver a regional service.

The first draft of the Regional Economic Development Service Delivery Options Report was presented to the CEs Forum May 2019 and the Mayoral Forum May 2019. However, the recommendations of the report were left on the table and further work was required.

Several workshops and discussions with the CEs Forum and the Mayoral Forum post October 2019 elections discussed support for regional economic development and the development of a regional economic development strategy.

Key points are:

· The final entity must be stable for performance not to be compromised

· The CEs to propose a long-term vision regarding funding and representation

· Commitment from all four Councils to be actively participating and contributing for regional economic development to be successful

· Commitment to one economic development services agency in Northland

Discussion

At present, the main economic development services being delivered by Northland Inc. and Northland Councils are:

3. Delivered by Northland Inc. for the Region	4. Delivered by Councils for respective districts
5. Business development, business start-up advisory	6. Event and tourism promotion - WDC
7. Promotion of innovation, including the digital enablement plan and broadband extension	8. Business attraction – industry, developers, regulatory advice
9. Investment attraction and facilitation including investment in Northland focused events, Provincial Growth Fund infrastructure and district and regional projects	10. Community Development – Community and district focused support, funding and facilitation
11. Skills support, provision of support for IGR applications and funding	12. I-Sites (WDC and FNDC)
13. Destination marketing and management re international trade and tourism	14. Provincial Growth Fund initiatives and applications
15. Industry development and support to major projects and TTNEAP projects	16.

17.

At this point in time, further work would be required to determine what functions and services would be undertaken by the joint CCO and the District Councils.

I.e. whether (any) district focused development, event and tourism promotions, PGF and funding applications would be better being a function of the joint CCO.

Northland Inc. have recently commissioned two studies to be completed regarding:

· Feasibility of increasing the level of delivery of Northland Inc. to the Far North and West Coast

· Maori Economic Development

A new Board is in place chaired by Sarah Peterson and Murray Reade joined Northland Inc. as Chief Executive in 2019, with a wealth of leadership experience, tourism sector experience and a strong history of working with community and stakeholders.

Given the combination of the newly appointed Northland Inc. Board of Directors and a recently appointed Chief Executive for Northland Inc. coupled with new Councils and elected members, it’s time to consider what the future delivery of regional economic development services has the potential to be over the next three to four months in order to meet the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan timeframes.

Post the 2019 local government elections, progress has focused on:

· The equitability and affordability of financial contributions from the District Councils.

· Shareholding and Voting Rights

· Timeframes and 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation

· Risks, obstacles and issues from preventing progress

The proposal builds on the Martin Jenkins recommendation that a joint regional CCO is the most suitable business model to deliver economic development services to Northland. Not only does this follow best practice, but would also likely gain support from Central Government, where government would be communicating at a regional level and Northland

effectively harnessing available central government funding and support.

Funding of Northland Inc.

Currently Northland Regional Council fund Northland Inc. and the Investment Growth Reserve Fund (IGR) through their commercial activities and Whangarei District Council fund a cash contribution of circa $105,000 per annum plus up to one FTE that is seconded to Northland Inc. Far North and Kaipara District Council currently do not make any contribution but have done in the past.

The proposal recommends Northland Regional Council continue to fund Northland Inc. and the IGR in line with the level of funding committed in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. From the commencement of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan Cycle the District Councils will progressively build up their contribution until it represents 40% of the total funding allocation made to these two functions.

The IGR was established in 2011-2012 to help fund economic projects that will increase jobs and economic performance in Northland. The reserve is financed by income from Northland Regional Council’s various investments and potential projects are scoped and assessed by Northland Inc.

The objective of the IGR is to provide a fund that enables Northland Regional Council make strategic investments that lift the long-term growth of Northland. Allocations from the fund must be one of the following:

· Operational expenditure for Northland Inc.

· Project development

· Enabling investment

The option of the District Councils building their contribution to 40% over a three-year time period was deemed unaffordable in such a short timeframe, despite their being less risk if the transition is completed in one Long Term Plan cycle. To ease the impact of economic development expenditure on the District Councils a six-year transition is recommended.

Joint Regional CCO – Aligned to the 2021-2031 LTP and a transition period of six years

· Target Funding: NRC funding 60% of Northland Inc. and the IGR from commercial activity and the balance of 40% would be funded by the District Councils

· The methodology for the proportion of funds that will be funded from each Council was also given further thought. The proposed funding ratio for the District Councils is based on population numbers in each district.

18.

19.

Council	Current Population	Percentage of Contribution
Whangarei District Council	91,400	51%
Far North District Council	64,400	36%
Kaipara District Council	23,200	13%

These proportions will be reviewed at each Long-Term Plan Cycle. Based on the above table the proposed contribution required from each Council over a six-year period would be:

		51%	36%	13%
Year	NRC	WDC	FNDC	KDC	Total
Population		91400	64400	23200	179000
2021/22	89%	6%	4%	1%	100%
2022/23	80%	10%	7%	3%	100%
2023/24	74%	13%	9%	3%	100%
2024/25	68%	16%	12%	4%	100%
2025/26	64%	18%	13%	5%	100%
2026/27	60%	20%	14%	5%	100%

Whilst Northland Regional Council maintain funding Northland Inc. per their current Long-Term Plan commitments, it’s proposed the three District Councils contribute a further 40% over the six-year transition period. The indicative share of financial contribution would be:

Year	NRC	WDC	FNDC	KDC	Total
2021/22	$1.811M	$117K	$82K	$29K	$2,082M
2022/23	$1.852M	$241K	$169K	$61K	$2,357M
2023/24	$1.937M	$349K	$246K	$89K	$2,632M
2024/25	$1.984M	$475K	$335K	$121K	$2,910M
2025/26	$2.033M	$587K	$413K	$149K	$3,191M
2026/27	$2.084M	$709K	$500K	$180K	$3,473M

The six-year transition period represents two LTP cycles and two election cycles. Maintaining political support through this transition period, whilst progressively increasing financial contributions, may be challenging and does represent a risk to the longevity of the model. However, a three-year transition period was deemed unaffordable by the District Councils.

The allocation of the total level of funding provided from the District Councils and Northland Regional Council between Northland Inc. operations and the IGR will determined by requirements of the Northland Inc’s Statement of Intent and supporting budgets, with the differences being transferred to the IGR and available to support the priorities and projects agreed by the four Councils.

Shareholding and Governance Arrangements

The Martin Jenkins report recommends establishing a formal joint committee across the four Councils to provide direction to Northland Inc. and jointly recommend Northland Inc’s Board appointments. The report also recommends establishing a Shareholders Agreement between the four Councils to govern the relationship and developing a joint Statement of Intent and service agreements with individual Councils. Further consideration has been given to options for shareholding and voting rights based on:

· Weighted Rights Model Based on the level of financial contribution from each Council

20. This is where a formal joint committee is established, and the representation and votes are based on the level of financial contribution.

21.	22. Formal Joint Committee Membership	23. NRC	24. FNDC	25. WDC	26. KDC
27. Years 1 - 3	28. 7 members	29. 4	30. 1	31. 1	32. 1
33. Years 4 - 6	34. 11 members	35. 6	36. 2	37. 2	38. 1

39.

40. With this model Northland Regional Council retains the deciding vote as the District Councils contribute 40% of the financial contribution and Northland Regional Council 60%.

Or in the alternative

· Consensus Model: Based on equal shareholding across the four Councils

41. This is based on the shareholding being equal i.e. each Council having an equal shareholding in Northland Inc. and the formal joint committee membership is made up of one representative from each Council (one vote).

42. Decision making is to be consensus building. In the event that consensus cannot be reached then a vote would be taken with votes weighted proportional to the funds provided in that particular year.

43.

The proposed governance model features are:

Equal shareholding by Northland Regional Council selling twenty-five shares at one dollar each to Whangarei, Far North and Kaipara District Councils. This will provide the four Councils with an equal shareholding of 25 shares each.

Governance would be via a formal Joint Committee

The Formal Joint Committee would appoint the commercial focused Northland Inc. Board of Directors on merit.

All Councils to contribute and have input through setting the Statement of Expectations regarding, the objectives, priorities, deliverables, performance and reporting framework and outcomes for the region

Allocation of Investment Growth Reserve delegated to the formal Joint Committee. This would enable the District Councils input into the decision making around the allocation of the IGR from the outset.

Consultation

Establishing Northland Inc. as a joint regional CCO will require public consultation, therefore this is proposed to be aligned with the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process across the region provided the four Northland Councils give agreement to do so.

44.

Obstacles and Sensitivities Preventing Progress

An assessment has been completed regarding the obstacles and sensitivities preventing progress at an individual Council level.

The main issues are:

· The new entity must have stability to last a decade or more and the need for a secure financial baseline

· Political buy-in, Councils must agree to the “new” Northland Inc. being the provider of economic development services in Northland

· The lack of a regional economic development strategy

· Building trust and stability, monitoring effort and distribution of benefit

· Equitability by medium term equitable distribution in proportion to contribution

The proposal addresses each of these issues, either through the business model being proposed, the long-term funding contributions from NRC and the District Councils, the commitment from Northland Councils that the ‘new’ Northland Inc will be the one organisation that delivers economic development services for the region.

The Councils also have input to the Statement of Intent process via the formal Joint Committee, and the Consensus Voting model promotes building trust. The out-put out-come framework together with the performance and reporting framework enable the monitoring of effort and measurement of the distribution of benefit.

Regional Economic Development Strategy

The Martin Jenkins report highlighted the lack of an overarching regional economic development plan that brings together TTNEAP, NorthlandForward Together, He Tangata, Northland Councils Plans and Northland Inc. priorities. The aim should be for the strategy and plan to be more aspirational about the future of the region and to provide greater direction about how economic development activities will support the future vision.

The development of a regional strategy is estimated to be a two-year process, that will require external consultants together with funding and resources from Northland Councils. The development of the strategy should be led by Northland Councils, rather than Northland Inc. and be completed under Northland Forward Together. A scope of work, together with funding and resourcing requirements will need to be completed to inform the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process.

The Future

The proposed regional joint CCO together with the proposed governance and funding model provides a greater level of stability, where the individual Councils are actively engaged via a joint committee and coupled with the development of a regional economic development strategy that would underpin the objectives, priorities, funding requirements and outcomes to be delivered by Northland Inc.

By converting Northland Inc. into a regional joint CCO it should enable:

· Greater reach of services into the Far North and Kaipara via a hub and spoke model in accordance with contribution, where economic investment is most needed to lift the economy and standard of living for the community.

· Greater engagement and participation of Maori/Iwi. This is a priority for all four Northland Councils.

· Central Government will be communicating with one agency for Northland, and this would likely gain support from Central Government, where government would be communicating at a regional level and Northland Inc. effectively harnessing available central government funding and support.

· The District Councils would have greater control and insight into the monitoring of performance and the distribution of benefit throughout the region. This could be done by: regular meetings between Northland Inc. and the formal Joint Committee, Annual strategy sessions with individual Councils, regular meetings between CEs of Councils and CE of Northland Inc., and overall reporting of progress to Northland Councils.

· There should be greater alignment of economic development priorities and outcomes across Councils and Northland Inc. even more so with the development of the regional economic development strategy.

· Specialisation/centre of excellence approach regional economic development that could potentially be more attractive.

· Support the Covid-19 state of emergency economic recovery

Some examples of specific tangible benefits associated with increased economic development funding are:

· Greater ability to help councils develop funding applications for projects

· Development of a regional destination marketing and event strategy

· Resourcing to champion and improve digital (broadband and mobile phone) connectivity

· Increased funds in the IGR to be able to allocate as Project Investment co-funding for new initiatives

The proposal means that there will be a call on resources and funding:

· The conversion of the existing Northland Inc. to a regional joint CCO, would require public consultation, but it should have little disruption to Northland Inc. and Council operations. The implementation will require increased resources regarding the governance arrangements i.e.

o Shareholders Agreement

o Joint Committee role

o Performance and reporting framework

o Output and Outcome framework

· The time and costs associated with public consultation via the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan

· The costs associated with extending Northland Inc’s services into the Far North and Kaipara

The Martin Jenkins report discusses that the costs and risks are manageable and will not outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Recommendation

1. Stage One – Aligned to the 2020/2021 Annual Plan

The proposal recommends Northland Inc. should increase its governance participation with the District Councils, in return for a commitment to funding and resourcing.

The proposal recommends:

· Shared appointment of directors by a formal Appointment Board made up of four representatives from NRC and one representative each from WDC, FNDC and KDC.

· Each representative to the Appointment Board will have one vote, thus the majority vote is with NRC.

· Each Council would appoint their representative to the Appointment Board for a term of one year, commencing 1 July 2020.

· WDC, FNDC and KDC would have input into the Statement of Intent process.

· Contribution of funding:

o Whangarei District Council $105K p.a.

o Far North District Council $82K p.a.

o Kaipara District Council $25K p.a.

o WDC will continue to contribute up to one FTE to Northland Inc.

o NRC will continue to fund Northland Inc. and the IGR Fund per their current Long-Term Plan

2. Stage Two – Regional Joint CCO – Aligned to the 2021/2022 LTP Cycle

The proposal recommends that Northland Inc. be converted to a jointly owned CCO, overseen by a Formal Joint Committee of council representatives.

The proposal recommends:

· Equal shareholding by NRC selling 25 shares at one dollar each to WDC, FNDC and KDC, providing the four Northland Council with an equal shareholding of 25 shares each.

· Governance via a formal Joint Committee with representation from each of the four Councils, by each Council having one representative.

· Formal Joint Committee to appoint Directors to Northland Inc. based on merit.

· Retainment of the current policy of rotation for appointment of directors.

· Northland Councils all have input into to the Statement of Intent process via the Joint Committee.

· Allocation of the Investment Growth Reserve delegated to the Joint Committee

· Decision making on the Joint Committee to be made by consensus and failing that by vote proportionally weighted to the funds provided in that particular year.

The proposal recommends funding the regional joint CCO over a transition period of six years, whereby Northland Regional Council maintain funding levels per their 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, and the District Councils increase their funding contributions to a total combined value of 40% over the same period.

The development of a regional economic strategy would better inform the priorities, deliverables and outcomes to be achieved by Northland Inc. The proposal recommends the strategy is developed under Northland Forward Together and to develop a brief including resources, funding and timeframes for consideration.

The proposal recommends that total funding of Northland Inc. and IGR progresses to $3.473M by 2026/2027.

Year	NRC	WDC	FNDC	KDC	Total
2021/22	$1.811M	$117K	$82K	$29K	$2,082M
2022/23	$1.852M	$241K	$169K	$61K	$2,357M
2023/24	$1.937M	$349K	$246K	$89K	$2,632M
2024/25	$1.984M	$475K	$335K	$121K	$2,910M
2025/26	$2.033M	$587K	$413K	$149K	$3,191M
2026/27	$2.084M	$709K	$500K	$180K	$3,473M

Note: 2% inflationary adjustment has been applied.

Timeframes

An indicative timeline is included in Attachment One, page 2. There are key timeframes that would need to be met regarding:

· Individual Council approval for Stage One funding to be included in the 2020/21 Annual Plans

· Individual Council approval to support Stage Two, the development of a regional economic development strategy and the required funding go to each Council for their approval to be included in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation process.

· The 2021-2031 Long Term Plan consultation process

· Planning for the transition and have all preparation in plans to implement prior to July 2021 (Subject to consultation and individual Council adoption)

45.

Next Steps

Should the recommendations be supported by the Mayoral Forum at their meeting on the 24^th February 2020, then discussion with Northland Inc. and Northland Regional Council in the first instance, followed by a standard agenda paper will be prepared for each Council. This is to consider the merits of the proposed service delivery model and the development of a regional economic development strategy, funding and resourcing for inclusion in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process.

Authorised by: (Each Northland Council)

Attachment One	Summary on a page of proposed Northland Regional Economic Development Delivery

Council Meeting ITEM: 6.9

16 June 2020Attachment 2

Stages

Proposed Regional Economic Development Service Delivery Models

Governance Features

Proposed Funding Requirements

Advantages/Dis-advantages

Stage One

1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021

Enhancing the governance participation with the existing Northland Inc.

WDC FNDC KDC NRC

STATEMENT

OF INTENT

PROCESS

NORTHLAND INC.

FUNDING

REPORTING AND FROM

TRANSPARANCY COUNCILS

*Shared Appointment of Directors, by a formal Appointment Board made up of four NRC representatives and one representative each from WDC, KDC and FNDC.

*Each representative will have one vote

*Each Council would appoint their representative to the Appointment Board for a term of one year commencing 1.07.20

*WDC, KDC and FNDC would have input into the Statement of Intent process

Financial commitment required from all Councils. NRC would continue to fund Northland Inc. per the 2018/19 to 2021 Statement of Intent.

The proposed funding is highly discretionary, and individual Councils may need to make a greater financial commitment subject to the specific projects that the being delivered by Northland Inc.

WDC	$105,000
FNDC	$82,000
KDC	$25,000
NRC	$1,935,000

WDC also contribute up to 1 FTE seconded to Northland Inc.

Advantages

*First step to continuum of change, easy to implement at minimal cost and minimal change to Northland Inc. structure.

*No disruption to existing services

*District Councils have input and voting rights re appointment of directors. *NRC have the controlling vote

*District Councils have input into Statement of Intent process

*NRC agree and approve the Statement of Intent

*District Councils can put forward specific projects relative to their specific priorities

*Opportunity to extend reach in return for a relatively small investment

Dis-advantages

*Lack of sustained commitment from District Councils – Opt-in Opt-out a short-term option

*Benefits of projects may not be visible

*May be a higher cost for Northland Inc.

Stage Two

Six-year transition

1 July 2021 to 30 June 2024

And

1 July 2014 to 30 June 2027

Extending Northland Inc. to a Joint Regional CCO

FNDC WDC KDC NRC

GOVERNANCE VIA FORMAL JOINT COMMITTEE

NORTHLAND INC STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF INTENT IGR FUND

PROCESS

TRANSPARENCY NORTHLAND INC. FUNDING

REPORTING FROM

COUNCILS

Benefits of Northland Inc. moving to a Joint Regional CCO

· Provides a greater level of stability, formal governance, individual councils actively engaged via a formal joint committee

· Formal Joint Committee appoints the directors, allocates the IGR Fund, negotiates the Statement of Intent, monitors performance and is the key communication link between individual Councils and Northland Inc.

· Enables a reach of services into the Far North and Kaipara

· Undertakes all economic development services on behalf of the Northland Councils

· Attractive model to central government – dealing with a region

· Regional engagement with Maori/Iwi

· Greater alignment of priorities

· The District Council would have greater insight into performance, outcomes and spread of benefit

· Specialisation/centre of excellence being more attractive to potential employees

· Delivery of a regional economic development strategy

*Equal shareholding by NRC selling 25 shares, at one dollar each to WDC, FNDC and KDC thus providing the district Councils with a 25% shareholding each in Northland Inc.

*Governance via a formal joint committee with representation from the four Northland Councils, each Council having one representative.

*Formal Joint Committee to appoint Board of Directors on merit.

*Retainment of current policy of rotation to appoint directors.

* Individual Councils input into the statement of intent process via the Formal Joint Committee

*Allocation of the Investment Growth Reserve delegated to the Formal Joint Committee

*NRC propose to maintain its current 2018-2028 LTP contribution, which over a six-year period will be 60% of the total Northland Inc/IGR funding.

*WDC, FNDC and KDC would contribute the remaining 40% that is apportioned by population statistics.

*A six-year transition period for WDC, FNDC and KDC to fully fund the 40% share.

Below sets out the targeted financial contributions over a six-year transition period for the proposed funding requirements of Northland Inc and the IGR.

Indicative Share of Contribution		51%	36%	13%
Year	NRC	WDC	FNDC	KDC	Total
Population		91400	64400	23200	179000
2021/22	89%	6%	4%	1%	100%
2022/23	80%	10%	7%	3%	100%
2023/24	74%	13%	9%	3%	100%
2024/25	68%	16%	12%	4%	100%
2025/26	64%	18%	13%	5%	100%
2026/27	60%	20%	14%	5%	100%

Indicative Target Share of Financial Contribution

Year	NRC	WDC	FNDC	KDC	Total
2021/22	$1.811M	$117K	$82K	$29K	$2,082M
2022/23	$1.852M	$241K	$169K	$61K	$2,357M
2023/24	$1.937M	$349K	$246K	$89K	$2,632M
2024/25	$1.984M	$475K	$335K	$121K	$2,910M
2025/26	$2.033M	$587K	$413K	$149K	$3,191M
2026/27	$2.084M	$709K	$500K	$180K	$3,473M

Advantages

*True arms-length with individual Council influence via Formal Joint Committee, the appointment of directors and input into the development of the statement of intent.

*Governance by Formal Joint Committee

*Regional decision making re Investment Growth Reserve via the Formal Joint Committee.

*Best model practice – Martin Jenkins Reviews and other regional initiatives in NZ

Dis-advantages

*Commitment required from all Northland Councils

*Substantially less opportunity to opt in and out - affordability

*Subject to public consultation aligned with the 2021-31 LTP cycle

*Lack of political appetite

*Ease and cost of implementation,

* Staff re-location

*Affordability for District Councils regarding funding

Timeline for the Implementation of Stages One and Two – Taking Northland Inc. from their current governance and funding model structure to a full joint regional CCO and proportional funding over a transitional six-year period

Date	Action	Forum	Date	Action	Forum
3 February 2020	Agreement of recommendations, funding, shareholding and timeline	CEs Forum	June 2020	Adoption of each Council Annual Plans re: Stage Two – Joint Regional CCO for public consultation in 2021-2031 LTP and the development of a regional economic development strategy and associated funding
25 February 2020	Agreement from Mayors and Chair for Stage One inclusion in draft Annual Plans and support for Stage Two to be included in the 2021-2031 LTP Process	Mayoral Forum	July 2020 – August 2020	Agreed message/wording and information for regional consultation Funding requirements for each Council to be included in the draft 2021-2031 LTP
March/April 2020	Discussion with NRC and Northland Inc.	Northland Inc Board and NRC Council Meeting	September 2020 to March 2021	Consultation period
March/April 2020	Draft TOR, project brief for the development of a Regional Economic Development Strategy	CEs Forum Mayoral Forum	By November 2020 By March 2021	Transition Plan for moving Northland Inc to Joint Regional CCO All transition preparation completed ready to put in place for 1 July 2021.	CEs Forum
April 2020	Discussion and approval by individual Councils for Stage 1, Stage 2, and ED Strategy and inclusion in the 2021-2031 LTP	Each Council	April 2021 - May 2021	Feedback from consultation	CEs Forum
April May 2020	Transition Plan Developed Stage One including Northland Inc. involvement Appointment Board Expectations of Purpose input	Northland\|Forward Together Team	June 2021	Adoption of 2021-2031 LTP by Councils Joint Regional CCO and Development of a Regional Economic Development Strategy	Individual Councils
June 2020	Annual Plan adoption for WDC, KDC and FNDC re funding	KDC and FNDC Council meetings	July 2021	Joint CCO be established, Transition and Engagement of Consultants re regional strategy
July	Transition	Northland Inc. NRC

Council Meeting item: 7.2

16 June 2020

TITLE:	Chief Executive’s Report to Council
ID:	A1319422
From:	Malcolm Nicolson, Chief Executive Officer

Recommendation

That the report ‘Chief Executive’s Report to Council’ by Malcolm Nicolson, Chief Executive Officer and dated 31 May 2020, be received.

7.2.1 Highlights

NATIONAL INITIATIVES – HEALTHY WATERWAYS

The Government has announced decisions on action for healthy waterways designed to stop further degradation of freshwater and reverse past damage. As previously signalled, the national direction on freshwater is to be delivered through a revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM), National Environmental Standards (NES) and regulations requiring certain classes of stock be excluded from waterways.

Changes to the RMA are also proposed to include requirements for freshwater modules in farm plans and a new freshwater planning process. Actual text of the NPS-FM, NES and stock exclusion regulations have yet to be released but key features announced for each are summarised below:

The National Environmental Standard (NES) includes measures to:

Ÿ prevent further loss of natural wetlands and streams

Ÿ preserve connectivity of fish habitat

Ÿ address high-risk farming activities including intensive winter grazing, stock-holding areas/feedlots, agricultural intensification and nitrogen fertiliser use

Ÿ require councils to monitor levels of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser use reported by dairy farms, and assess consent applications for fertiliser use above a new cap of 190 kg N/ha/year.

The NES is expected to be gazetted in July 2020 and to take effect 28 days after gazettal.

The NPS for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) includes:

Ÿ requirement for all components of ecosystem health be managed

Ÿ new compulsory values for threatened species and mahinga kai

Ÿ prevention of further destruction of wetlands and stream loss and that new structures provide for fish passage

Ÿ 22 attributes/indicators of freshwater health to be maintained or improved (including new attributes for fine sediment and tighter standards for E.coli at bathing sites)

Ÿ strengthened requirements relating to Te Mana o Te Wai.

Regional councils will have to notify new or updated regional policy statements and plans to give effect to the NPS-FM by December 2024.

Stock Exclusion Regulations include:

Ÿ All dairy cattle (except dairy support cattle) and pigs must be excluded from lakes and rivers more than a metre wide (bank-to-bank) by 1 July 2023, regardless of land slope.

Ÿ All dairy support cattle must be excluded from lakes and rivers more than a metre wide (bank to-bank) by 1 July 2025, regardless of land slope.

Ÿ All cattle and deer must be excluded from lakes and rivers more than a metre wide (bank-to bank) where land is used for fodder-cropping, break-feeding or grazing on irrigated pasture by 1 July 2023, regardless of land slope

Ÿ On land less than 10-degrees slope, beef cattle and deer must be excluded from lakes and rivers more than a metre wide (bank-to-bank) by 1 July 2025.

Ÿ All cattle, deer and pigs to be excluded from wetlands already identified in a regional or district plan by 1 July 2023 (once additional wetlands are identified in regional plans, stock are to be excluded from these by 2025).

Ÿ Dairy and beef cattle and pigs will be prohibited from crossing waterbodies more than twice per month unless they cross by way of a dedicated culvert or bridge.

For all stock exclusion, there must be a minimum setback of three metres from the edge of the waterway, except where an existing permanent fence or existing riparian planting already effectively excludes stock. This means existing permanent fences will not have to be moved under the new regulations.

Changes to the RMA include:

Ÿ A new freshwater planning process

Ÿ New regulations setting out mandatory requirements for freshwater modules in farm environment plans (to be developed over the next 12 months).

More detail on the proposals, including a summary by sector is available here: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/action-for-healthy-waterways

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION MONITORING

Almost no customer feedback has been recorded, although all teams have been working throughout the lockdown period.

Compliments received

Total

Service provided by a specific person / people

· V Lepper, W Morunga, K McElrea, P Graham – Biosecurity

Total compliments recorded

The compliment (as shown below) spoke of the support provided by the Biosecurity team throughout lockdown.

“Hi Don,

I just wanted to say thankyou to you, Viv, Warren, Kane and Pete for all their work through Covid and for supporting us. You have been a breath of fresh air amongst an awful lot of other people who have just laid down more and more barriers and over complicated the situation. I am sure there are also a bunch of other staff there behind the scenes that have been helping as well.

The team has been agile, intuitive, flexible and pragmatic throughout. NRC has been the first agency to get work up and running again during challenging times and it is a credit to your teams resolve to stay on their feet and adapt.

Cheers again
Glen”

7.2.2 CEO’s Office

Council Property Update

Ÿ The total commercial tenant rent and outgoing relief extended over the Alert Level 3 and 4 periods was approximately $63,500 + GST. The opportunity for ground lease tenants to submit applications for rent relief for their subtenants have closed. Council’s rent relief policy has received exceptionally positive feedback from both commercial and ground lease tenants.

Ÿ Kensington Crossing construction work is well underway again. An official opening of the medical hub is likely in August 2020.

Ÿ The Kaipara Service Centre Head Contract tender has closed with five companies providing submissions. The building consent is due late June 2020.

Ÿ The final design, budget and KDC lease is now being finalised (refer Item 9.4).

Ÿ Kiwirail and the Chief Executive are in the final agreement stages on the transfer of Marsden Point Rail Link properties from Council to full Kiwirail ownership.

Current Legal Proceedings

Department	Description	Status
Consent decision appeal	Replacement consents for, and new consents for an expansion of, Doug’s Ōpua Boat Yard in Walls Bay, Ōpua.	The court has asked for a set of agreed conditions. The case has been handed to a new Judge who will determine whether a hearing is required, or a decision can be made on the papers.
Consent decision appeal	Replacement discharge consents for East Coast Bays Wastewater Treatment Plant (Taipā)	No further update.

7.2.3 Corporate Excellence

Cyber Security

Council’s security software detected thirty events during May, mainly caused from the distributed working from home configuration increasing the risk. Twenty-six events were classified as actual threats and three categorised with a severity of high.

Some small tactical security measures have been applied to address immediate risks during the COVID-19 period.

Fraud Declaration

I am not aware of any fraud nor am I investigating any incidence or suspected incidence of fraud at this time.

Rogan Update

Mr and Mrs Rogan have settled all outstanding rates and charges to the Kaipara District and Northland Regional Councils. Consequently, council has authorised the release of the charging orders against their property.

7.2.4 Regulatory Services

Consents in Process

During May 2020, a total of 58 decisions were issued. These decisions comprised:

Ÿ Moorings 3

Ÿ Coastal Permits 27

Ÿ Air Discharge Permits 0

Ÿ Land Discharge Permits 11

Ÿ Water Discharge Permits 1

Ÿ Land Use Consents 4

Ÿ Water Permits 10

Ÿ Bore Consents 2

The processing timeframes for the May 2020 consents ranged from:

Ÿ 591 to 11 calendar days, with the median time being 33 days;

Ÿ 274 to 4 working days, with the median time being 20 days.

Thirty-seven applications were received in May 2020.

Of the 115 applications in progress at the end of May 2020:

Ÿ 57 were received more than 12 months ago (most awaiting further information from the applicant);

Ÿ 13 were received between 6 and 12 months ago (most awaiting further information from the applicant);

Ÿ 45 less than 6 months.

Appointment of Hearing Commissioners

No commissioners were appointed in May 2020.

Consents Decisions and Progress on Notified Applications in Process, Objections and Appeals

The current level of notified application processing activities at the end of May 2020 is (by number):

Ÿ Applications Publicly/Limited Notified During Previous Month 3

Ÿ Progress on Applications Previously Notified 5

Ÿ Hearings and Decisions 0

Ÿ Appeals/Objections 2

COMPLIANCE MONITORING

The results of compliance monitoring for the period 1 – 31 May 2020 (and year-to-date figures) are summarised in the following table and discussed below.

Classification	Total	Full compliance	Low risk non-compliance	Moderate non-compliance	Significant non-compliance	Not exercised during period
Air discharges	23	12	7	2	0	2
Coastal permit	154	78	41	23	5	7
Discharge permit	91	56	20	5	0	10
Land use consent	50	37	3	1	0	9
Water permit	106	71	26	7	0	2
Total	424	254	97	38	5	30
Percentage		59.3%	22.9%	9.0%	1.2%	7.1%
YTD	7,721	5,842	790	494	240	355
Percentage		75.7%	10.2%	6.4%	3.1%	4.6%

Coastal

The consents monitored during the reporting period related to coastal discharges and coastal structures.

Water, Waste, Air and Land Use (WWALU) compliance monitoring

Ÿ Water use

Staff were still very busy monitoring streams and low flows; however, base flows are starting to pick up which is relieving pressure in most areas.

Ÿ Aupōuri groundwater monitoring

Staff were able to fly into the wetland toward the end of May to retrieve data from the sentinel bore located there. The data is important because it enables another review to confirm the interim trigger levels for the existing consents to take groundwater for avocado developments.

Ÿ Wastewater

Wastewater site visits resumed in May with staff able to get out and about more freely.

Ÿ Forestry and Earthworks

Over the past two weeks staff have conducted around 30 visits to forestry sites. In general, the standard of compliance has been high. The dry conditions experienced this summer, while not favourable for water supply, provided favourable conditions for earthworks and forestry, with most sites coming through the COVID-19 lockdown in pretty good shape.

Visits to other higher risk earthworks sites were also undertaken to ensure contractors are securing their sites prior to winter or putting in the necessary controls in preparation to enable ongoing work. Winter works extensions are being granted for sites that have adequate controls in place for the work contractors are requesting to do.

Ÿ Waste management

Three incidents involving the discharge of hazardous substances and 13 enquiries regarding contaminated land were received and responded to. 608kg of hazardous waste was disposed of during the reporting period.

Environmental Incidents

There were no incidents recorded during the reporting period that resulted in a significant environmental impact.

ENFORCEMENT

Abatement notices, infringement notices and formal warnings

The following enforcement actions were taken during the period:

	Infringement Notice		Abatement Notice		Total*
Nature of Offence	No. Offences	No. Notices	No. Offences	No. Notices	No. Offences	No. Notices
Burning & smoke nuisance	0	0	1	2	1	2
Illegal activity in coastal marine area	1	1	1	1	2	2
No offence	0	0	1	1	1	1
Other air discharge	0	0	1	3	1	3
Total	1	1	4	7	5	8

*An infringement notice and an abatement notice may be issued for the same offence. This means that in the above table, Column 5 (Total No. Offences) is not necessarily the sum of Column 1 (Infringement Notice No. Offences) + Column 3 (Abatement Notice No. Offences).

Other Enforcement

Ÿ Farm dairy effluent – Pūrua

Charges were laid against a farm owner and his company, as well as the farm manager and his company, for offences which occurred in August 2019. There are five charges against each of the four defendants. The farm has a poor history of compliance with regional rules for animal effluent disposal. The first appearance date in the Whangārei District Court has been adjourned to 2 June 2020.

Ÿ Sand dune removal – Tokerau Beach

Charges have been laid against two parties – an individual and his company, for offending which occurred in July 2019. The alleged offences include the removal of a sand dune at Tokerau Beach. There are four charges against each of the two defendants. The first appearance date in the Kaitāia District Court was on 22 May 2020. Pleas were not entered, and the case has been adjourned until 4 June 2020.

Ÿ Timber treatment plant

Charges were filed in court on 12 March 2020 for a company and an individual for discharges from a timber treatment processing plant. The plant has a history of poor compliance with resource consent conditions. Disclosure has not yet been done. The first appearance date in the Whangārei District Court is set down for 2 June 2020. Our lawyer and the Counsel for the defence are filing a joint memorandum in court seeking a case review hearing and administrative adjournment for the appearance on 2 June 2020.

Ÿ Earthworks without erosion and sediment controls – Totara North

Council arranged for the installation of erosion and sediment controls under Section 330 of the RMA. A decision on prosecution is pending legal advice. Recuperation of costs will be sought under RMA provisions, either in conjunction with a prosecution or separately.

Ÿ Water Shortage Directions (WSDs)

WSDs were issued during May in relation to the following water resources. (Those in italics are not being reissued at this stage).

- Far North district east coast coastal catchments

- Whangārei district east coast coastal catchments

- Awanui River (Kaitāia public water supply)

- Okahu stream (Kaitāia public water supply)

- Wairoro Stream (Kaikohe public water supply)

- Waiotemarama and Waiarohia Streams (Opononi and Ōmāpere public water supply)

- Petaka Stream (Rāwene public water supply)

- Hātea River (Whangārei city public water supply)

- Tirohanga Stream/bores (Kawakawa public water supply)

- Mangaharuru Stream (Fonterra Kauri site water supply and Piano Hill domestic water supply)

Another WSD for the Piroa Stream (Maungaturoto public water supply/Fonterra plant) was requested by KDC but is on hold due to recent rain raising the level of the stream.

COASTAL / WATER QUALITY FIELD OPERATIONS

Ÿ State of the Environment monitoring resumed when COVID-19 Level 3 restrictions came into force, with all thirteen river-water quality/periphyton runs, four coastal runs and the quarterly lake sampling being undertaken.

Ÿ Artificial spawning habitat was placed in the Ngunguru River as part of the īnanga spawning monitoring programme. The use of these helps validate the location of the spawning site, allowing for better protection.

Ÿ The quarterly coastal litter monitoring programme was undertaken at Pohe Island,
Whangārei Harbour. As with previous results, plastics account for the majority of the litter collected.

HYDROLOGY

Rainfall

Ÿ There was a large contrast in rainfall from east to west during May, with the west coast receiving a lot less rainfall than typically for the month, while the east received near normal rainfall, and in some areas, much higher than normal rainfall.

Ÿ The areas with higher than normal rainfall are all due to the rainfall that fell during the Queen’s Birthday weekend. The deep low-pressure system delivered some high rainfall to Maungaturoto (180mm), Glenbervie / Whakapara (150mm) and Touwai near Kāeo (130mm).

Ÿ Some very intense rainfall was recorded during this event, with provisional 1-hour totals at our Hakuru gauge equating to a 1:50 year event and at the Maungaturoto gauge, a 1:100-year event. This is the kind of weather event our region needed to bring it out of drought.

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

River Flows

Ÿ The rainfall over Queen’s Birthday weekend gave a big reprieve to Northland’s low river flows. No major flood flows were observed, with most rivers recording their highest water levels so far this calendar year and all rivers were well above MALF.

Weather Forecast

Ÿ Another low approaches New Zealand from the Tasman on Wednesday (3 June 2020), which should deliver further rain across the region, which is unlikely to reach the rainfall totals recorded recently over Queen’s Birthday.

Ÿ The high-pressure systems have finally given way for lows to pass over the country, so frequent rain events thorough the month are likely. However, it is noted that the NIWA seasonal outlook suggests that rainfall will be below normal for the three months June to August 2020.

Hydrology Projects

Ÿ Flow data processing for steady-state modelling continued and 17 out of 29 sites had been completed by the end of May.

Ÿ Testing is underway for a flow camera that will enable flow measurements to be carried out remotely by video image processing, allowing the capture of measurements in locations difficult for staff to access during a flood event

Ÿ Contractors undertook survey work on groundwater bores in Taipā, Taupo Bay, Russell, Kaikohe and Ōākura to validate and update existing level measurements.

Natural Resources Data

Ÿ The Data Team is processing a number of large data requests linked to the drought response and the Aupōuri aquifer model update 2020.

Ÿ At a national level, the “Data Mobility (Electronic Field Capture) Working Group” was formed as part of RECOCO projects to improve New Zealand’s environmental data.

Ÿ The Data Team is working with the Online Services Team to update the platform for displaying environmental data on council’s website.

Ÿ The water use reporting season has begun, and an increasing number of records are received via the online water meter system and telemetry. The new NPSFM, released on 28 May 2020, highlights that water users with consents taking more than five litres per second must install a telemetry unit on their water meters to electronically record water use every 15 minutes and then transmit this data to council daily. The council already has a system set up to receive the records real-time.

Ÿ The implementation of the ecological database (KiEco) progressed and a consultant will be providing further training to staff on the use of the database in June 2020.

Ÿ LAWA is now live with the new “Groundwater Quality” module.

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE

Marine

Ÿ The last “Takou awa” water quality samples were collected by Ngāti Rehia. The “Te Awa o Takou Water Monitoring Programme” is a year-long joint project between Ngāti Rehia and the council investigating water quality in the Takou Estuary. Now that sampling is complete, Council staff will work with Ngāti Rehia to analyse the data and create a report card on the health of the estuary.

Ÿ Our remote sensing project to map all saltmarsh and mangrove habitat in the Northland is now complete. We used an enhanced vegetation index (EVI) algorithm and LiDAR intensity data to identify different vegetation features and improve the quality of spatial intertidal habitat data available. A total of 14,750 hectares of mangrove and 3,893 hectares of saltmarsh has been mapped. The outputs from this project will be made publicly available later this year – see the following examples for Mangawhai Harbour:


An enhanced vegetation index raster layer of saltmarsh and mangrove habitat	A LiDAR intensity raster image of saltmarsh and mangrove habitat	An oblique aerial image of saltmarsh and mangrove habitat

Air Quality

Ÿ Ambient PM₁₀ monitoring results for April 2020 for the Whangārei and Marsden Point airsheds and Kawakawa township show that compliance was met with the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality. Ambient PM_2.5 monitoring results for Whangārei were within the ambient air quality guideline value.

FRESHWATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGY

Ÿ COVID -19 restrictions have impacted on several ecological monitoring programmes. The laboratory which processes our macroinvertebrate samples has indicated that there will be a delay in receiving the results this year due to staff working from home under lockdown. Likewise, Chlorophyll-a test results for the periphyton monitoring programmes are slightly behind schedule. The fish monitoring programme, which had just got underway prior to lockdown, was unable to be completed. This is likely to impact on our reporting ability, particularly as the data would have been beneficial in completing a comprehensive assessment of the ecological impact of the drought.

Ÿ The National Environmental Monitoring Standards (NEMS) macroinvertebrate working group has nearly completed and a draft NEMS-macroinvertebrates document is to be submitted to the NEMS Steering Group on 1 June 2020 for feedback, revision and final approval.

Ÿ The focus of the working group has been on current SoE and NPSFM requirements and providing best practice guidelines (for sampling, processing, quality assurance and quality coding) as well as providing brief commentary on considerations for non-wadeable streams, biodiversity monitoring, impact assessments, and potential future monitoring needs.

Ÿ Its work highlighted several areas needing further research and/or development. In particular, the original macroinvertebrate index was developed almost 20 years ago for Taranaki streams as a measure of organic enrichment and needs to be updated to reflect advances in scientific knowledge and acknowledge variations between different ecosystems and regions.

Water Quality Modelling

Ÿ NIWA and Land & Water Science (L&WS) are in the process of finalising their reports on Northland’s current state water quality model after considering feedback from staff. The Northland current state model by L&WS is also getting externally reviewed by Dr Ton Snelder, a nationally renowned water quality modelling and statistician expert.

Ÿ NIWA has started working on developing Northland specific CLUES (Catchment Land Use for Environmental Sustainability) future state nutrient loading model by incorporating regional point source discharge data (ie. farm dairy effluent ponds and wastewater treatment plants) and regionally calibrated E. coli parameters from earlier regional modelling. NIWA will use the most recent land use layer LCDB5 (landcover database version 5), which will enable them to calibrate the model to up to date land use data. A future state model in terms of catchment nutrient loads will be developed by using different land management practices or mitigation scenarios. As part of the future state model, NIWA will also collate the Northland SedNet model and NZ Sediment Estimator sediment load estimates for creation of erosion mitigation scenarios. A draft report of the CLUES model is due to be ready by the end of November 2020.

NIWA Recommendations on Northland Dune Lakes

Ÿ NRC received the final report on Northland dune lakes review from NIWA in April 2020. The report has made some strong recommendations, including:

Ÿ Prioritising our efforts on high value lakes;

Ÿ Detailed lake catchment mapping for those focus catchments with high value lakes;

Ÿ Frequent (monthly) monitoring of temperature and dissolved oxygen profile for high value lakes;

Ÿ Refine our understanding on relationships between lake water quality and ecological indicators;

Ÿ Investigate risks associated with pine forest;

Ÿ Focus catchment remediation activities in high risk areas including monitoring run-off from ephemeral gullies;

Ÿ Prioritising reduction of phosphorus (P) over nitrogen (N), but at the same time managing both P and N; and

Ÿ Trialling dynamic lake-catchment and in-lake nutrient load modelling for some of our high value lakes.

Ÿ Staff are currently discussing and prioritising some of these NIWA recommendations.

Network Review for River and Lake Monitoring

Ÿ More progress was made on the network review for our surface water quality monitoring.

Freshwater Quantity

Ÿ Meteorological and hydrological drought indication maps for May 2020 and July 2018 – May 2020 are due to be delivered shortly pending the availability of the input data.

Ÿ A prediction module of the drought system is currently being scoped, with plans to be operational by late spring 2020.

Ÿ Current water allocation enquiries indicate the need to better understand naturalise flow. There are significant issues with estimation of allocation limits and availability in catchments with complex water uses.

Ÿ Envirolink project proposals are being prepared for the potential use of remote sensing for environmental and natural hazard monitoring, and to re-run hydrological models for Awanui using rain radar.

Groundwater

Ÿ The Ruawai Drought Risk Assessment Report has been finalised. Key findings of this report are that the public drinking water supply is unlikely to be at immediate risk due to the current drought. However, there may be potential for reduced water quality in the moderate to long term if there is an increase in demand or if the low recharge rainfall trend continues. The report makes several recommendations that should be implemented to reduce this risk in the future.

Ÿ The Russell Drought Risk Assessment Report has also been finalised. The key findings of this report also indicate that existing water supply bores are not being adversely impacted by the current drought conditions. This report recommends a future drought management plan for the aquifer which is based around trigger levels in existing monitoring bores.

7.2.5 Environmental Services

land management

Farm Plan and Environmental Fund Update

Farm Environment Plans 2019/2020		Environment Funds 2019/2020
FEP’s Commenced 2019/20	FEP’s Completed 2019/20	No of Environment Funds Granted	Amount Granted
125	147	147	$1,010,755*
*This includes MfE fund proportion of Hātea projects

Waimā Waitai Waiora – Freshwater Improvement Fund

Objective	Status
Te Kawa Waiora	Ÿ Research project plan and associated budget change request has been accepted by NRC. Ÿ Extended timeframes to new start date 1 January 2020 and finish date 31 December 2021. Ÿ Associated budget savings reallocated to data collection.
Farm Environment Plans	Ÿ 50 Farm Environment Plans (FEP’s) have been completed, exceeding the 40 FEP annual KPI.
Landowner grants	Ÿ Tender for planting 65,000 natives across six sites has closed and contract awarded. Ÿ Planting will begin 1 July 2020
Communication and engagement	Ÿ Video series – on track. Ÿ Signed contract in place for web page development - due late Sept
Water quality monitoring	Ÿ Signed contract in place with Manaaki Whenua for mātauranga monitoring app development. Ÿ Set to establish more monitoring sites to further monitor mātauranga, feeding information into app development.

Sustainable Hill Country and Regional Priorities

Milestones	Status
Research
Coastal erosion buffers	A research plan has been approved by MPI and a coastal erosion tool utilising remote sensing and LiDAR data is in development.
Mature poplar / willow	A research plan has been approved by MPI and poplar is being milled into a range of products for treatment and mechanical testing.
Farm Environment Plans
	All 112 plans (100%) have been completed in the 2019 - 20 year.
Stakeholder Engagement
	A project engagement strategy has been approved by MPI. Promotional material is in development including a ‘planting hub’ on the NRC website.
Land Treatments
Retirement fencing	Sixteen fencing projects with retirement fencing of highly erodible land have been approved. The $84k budget is fully allocated.
Contractor capacity development	A list of contractors interested in planting work has been prepared. Contractor training is delayed until next financial year due to COVID-19.

Hātea Project

The new deed confirming the extension of the project to 30 September 2020 and final milestone spends is due within the next three weeks. Site preparation for two new riparian planting projects on properties previously fenced has begun for planting in July.

Flyger Road Nursery

The harvest and planting tender has now been awarded. Harvest postponed for two weeks due to drought - set to begin harvest 8 June 2020. Orders and contracts set in place to deliver 3,000 poplar poles and 1,000 willow poles to 35 properties across the region, which is an average of 100 poles per property. Reducing the amount of landowners we were working with this year has been a strategic decision. We wanted to target efforts into larger, higher risk areas to create a more meaningful impact.

After audit was carried out this year, it was identified there were a possible 7,000 poles in total that could be harvested. Due to this year’s drought conditions, a lack of external subsidies pushing pole prices up and the COVID-19 situation, interest in poles has been slightly lower than previous years.

With this in mind, it was decided to carry smaller poles over that would still be viable for next year’s harvest, reducing total numbers to 4,000. Approximately 10,000 poles should be available for harvest next year.

biodiversity

FIF Dune Lakes Project

Objective	Status
Aquatic weed and pest fish control	Ÿ Grass carp removal has been put on hold until Spring Ÿ Other pest fish removal operations have been postponed until June 2020, weather dependent
Sediment and nutrient mitigation	Ÿ A draft resource consent has been developed and discussion with stakeholder agencies is underway and ongoing Ÿ Research towards plan development has included contacting and learning from other councils who have recently completed constructed wetlands
Māori Lakes Strategy	Ÿ Iwi partners were updated on the progress with the project during lockdown Ÿ COVID-19 restrictions forced a cancellation of a planned hui which will be rescheduled in June once restrictions lift.
Fencing	Ÿ The section of fence at Lake Ngatu is awaiting a licence to occupy agreement between Far North District Council and DoC Ÿ DoC are working with the landowner to gain agreement
General	Ÿ An Herbicide Post Operation Monitoring Plan for three lakes has been written and peer reviewed by NIWA

CoastCare

The Karikari Peninsula Kaitiaki ranger programme has been re-started due to concerns of environmental damage caused by the high level of activity seen since moving into Alert Level 2.

Wetlands

Biodiversity information was provided to ‘Te Papa Paorooro – the echoing wetlands of Kawakawa’ project on the top wetlands and significant natural areas within the Taumarere / Kawakawa catchment.

This collaborative project between Ngāti Hine Health Trust, Kawakawa Hundertwasser Memorial Park Charitable Trust and Ngāti Hine Forestry aims to restore wetlands, through connecting the health and wellbeing of local community and mauri of the awa and waterways.

biosecurity

Wild Animal Control

Ÿ Sika Deer Response

The deer response team conducted a search and destroy operation in Russell Forest. One sika deer was destroyed on a private property where landowner permission had been obtained.

Ÿ Deer Incursion – Oruawharo and Kaiwaka

Follow up of the deer incursions around Oruawharo and Kaiwaka has seen the deer response team destroy five fallow deer.

PArtnerships

Kiwi Coast Trust

The Trust has successfully completed their first version of the Kiwi Coast Kiwi Listening App – just in time for the 2020 Annual Northland Kiwi Call Count Survey which is now underway. The app upgrades and simplifies a pencil- and paper-based monitoring method into an electronic, easy to use application. It also removes the subsequent transfer of data from paper sheets to an electronic spreadsheet as required by the Department of Conservation, dramatically reducing the data entry burden on community groups.

The app is free for groups and projects linked into Kiwi Coast and has been met with widespread approval. More information is available at this link https://kiwicoast.org.nz/new-kiwi-coast-listening-app-now-out/

Predator Free Whangārei

Council has secured a six-year, $6 million grant from Predator Free 2050 Limited to deliver the Whangārei Predator Free Project. Whangārei Predator Free will be working alongside well-established community led predator control groups, mana whenua / tangata whenua, Department of Conservation, Kiwi Coast Trust and the Whangārei District Council. The programme will build on the region’s success to date in predator control and further strengthen efforts to remove and eradicate possums, rats and mustelids from the Whangārei Heads and wider Whangārei area. This is scheduled to officially start over the coming months follow further community consultation and engagement

marine biosecurity

Hull Surveillance Programme

In the month to 25 May 2020, the 2019/2020 Hull Surveillance Programme was completed – refer Table 1 for results. Vessel checks were conducted in Ōpua, Tutukaka and Doves Bay marinas and in mooring fields around the inner Bay of Islands.

Three incidents of Mediterranean fanworm occurred in Tutukaka; all worms were immature, and the vessels were cleaned within 24 hours. The remaining seven incidents occurred in and adjacent to Ōpua marina and all vessels were cleaned within three working days - either in-water by an approved dive contractor or by owner directed haul-outs.

Compliance with the Pathway Plan was lower than expected because the COVID-19 related lockdown meant vessels were unable to move for several weeks.

Table 1: Hull Surveillance Programme Results (25/04/2020 – 25/05/2020)

Hull Surveillance Programme Results (25-04 to 25-05-2020)	Total this period	Total YTD
Pathways Plan Compliance
Number of vessels surveyed this period	521	2,002
% Pathways Plan Compliance*	43%	49.6%
Vessels found with Marine Pests
Sabella spallanzanii (fanworm)	10	105
Styela clava (clubbed tunicate)	29	200
Undaria pinnatifida (Japanese kelp)	0	1
Eudistoma elongatum (Australian droplet tunicate)	5	7
Pyura doppelgangera (sea squirt)	0	0

* This is the percentage of vessels surveyed that complied with the acceptable level of ‘light fouling’ as defined in the Marine Pathway Plan. Note: actual compliance is higher given not all these vessels will move from one designated place to another.

rivers and natural hazards

Long Term Plan Projects

Rivers	Comments
Awanui	Ÿ Earthworks recommenced on 28 April. Ÿ Great progress was made with nearly 85% of works completed. Ÿ Archaeology authority, resource consenting, detailed design work and landowner engagement continues under Level 2.
Rivers	Comments
Awanui	Ÿ Problem tree removal has been progressing under the MPI contact.
Panguru	Ÿ The job has reached practical completion.
Kerikeri-Waipapa	Ÿ Desktop analysis work is progressing, field work will commence after restriction are lifted.

Natural Hazards

Work Streams	Status	Comments
Awanui and Kerikeri Flood Model	95%	The review is complete, and maps have been sent to GIS for formatting and release in June.
Coastal erosion hazard mapping	80% complete	Erosion assessments and updates are underway by Tonkin and Taylor
Coastal erosion hazard mapping	75% complete	Auckland University is mapping Northland historic shorelines and erosion risk
Coastal flood hazard mapping	Kaipara Project is 80% complete	DHI developing flood model for the Northern Kaipara Harbour
Coastal flood hazard mapping	Regional coastal flood project - 30% complete	Tonkin and Taylor are doing region-wide coastal flood hazard assessment. Tide gauge processing and sea level rise contours now complete.
Region-wide flood mapping	Design storm project - 20% complete	Project to develop area-specific design storm rainfall characteristics to improve the accuracy of flood models is being led by Auckland University.
	Hydro-enforced DEM project - 10% complete	The tender for a hydro-enforced digital elevation model awarded to Water Technology, and work is underway.
	Region-wide flood model - tender phase	The tender for a region wide river flood model was advertised on GETS; project to be awarded early June.

CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE

Climate Adaptation Te Taitokerau (Regional joint adaptation group)

Ÿ Adaptation Planning

Cost estimates for adaptation planning costs for NRC and TA’s are being developed (70% complete).

Ÿ Regional Climate Adaptation Strategy

Components of strategy on track to be delivered August 2020. Components being developed by NRC staff include a Regional risk assessment (60% complete) and Adaptation Options Framework (70% complete). Consultants working on GIS climate risk analysis (50% complete).

Climate Change Strategy

NRC climate change strategy proposal in early stages of development

Northland Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) Capture

Final dataset was received by NRC on 15 May 2020. The Team is conducting final QA/QC before releasing the data.

7.2.6 STRATEGY, Governance And Engagement

PROPOSED REGIONAL PLAN

During May, the presiding Judge approved 14 “consent orders” and these have now been received by council. A consent order is an Environment Court order that endorses agreements reached by appellants and s274 parties during mediation and any subsequent negotiations on appeals to a plan.

Each consent order contains the specific provisions (in each topic) that have been agreed between the parties. When a consent order contains rules, these rules must now be treated as operative (and any previous rule as inoperative).

The consent orders are available to view here: https://www.nrc.govt.nz/newregionalplan

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Investment and Growth Reserve – Projects Report

Project	Update	Future developments/ reporting
Northland Water Storage and Use	Selection of technical provider completed, additional funding request and programme of work developed for central government, development of public information documentation.	Continue preparing for next phase, including the transition from NRC to a new project delivery vehicle and governance structure.
REL	Worked with legal representation to prepare for court hearing.	Court hearing set for Tuesday 23 June.
Hundertwasser Art Centre (Whangārei)	Updated project report received.
Extension 350	Attended project evaluation meeting.

Other work undertaken

Ÿ Letter to Northland Inc. Ltd. informing them that the Project Development budget for 2020/21 has been cut.

Ÿ Analysis of impact of COVID-19 crisis on Northland economy for a variety of audiences including councillors, trainers and TTNEAP working group.

ONLINE CHANNELS

As a result of COVID-19 restrictions, Council live-streamed several of its meetings over the period. Several meetings are scheduled for live-streaming in the coming weeks, as feedback from the public showed appreciation for the format.

Most popular content on Facebook – Media release outlining the extent of the drought in Northland and how much more rain is needed this coming winter to get the region back on its feet. The post reached more than 1,000 people and engaged with over 200.

*Engaged – number of people who ‘reacted’, commented or shared the post

Key Performance Indicators	Jan-20	*Feb-20	Mar-20	Apr-20	May-20
WEB
# Visits to the NRC website	31,900	35,500	30,300	25,100	27,900
E-payments made	5	12	8	5	6
# subscription customers (cumulative)	1,172	1,176	1,171	1,182	1,210
SOCIAL MEDIA (CUMULATIVE)
# Twitter followers	1,503	1,515	1,523	1,525	1,517
# NRC Facebook fans	9,231	9,976	9,553	9,599	9,627
# NRC Overall Facebook Reach	250,500	327,700	172,300	60,300	75,400
# NRC Engaged Daily Users	6,132	23,500	14,900	6,529	5,164
# CDEM Facebook fans	17,400	18,000	17,900	18,000	18,000
# CDEM Overall Facebook Reach	75,500	404,200	161,900	172,800	114,300
# CDEM Engaged Daily Users	5,969	42,500	20,600	19,200	11,800
# Instagram followers	1,033	1,103	1,137	1,163	1,172

NOTES:

* February 2020 - Significant increase in usual Facebook reach and engagement due to the number of posts communicating key messages about drought management.

ENVIROSCHOOLS / EDUCATION

Dune Lakes Education Presentation

On 14 May an online presentation was made to Enviroschools regional co-ordinators and facilitators throughout Aotearoa. The presentation entitled ‘Let’s get to know our dune lakes!’ explained the education events held as part of the Freshwater Improvement Fund Dune Lakes Project.

WaiFencing Assessment Workshops

On 28 and 29 May WaiFencing assessment workshops were held at Donagh Farms in Waiotira, Whangārei. Fifty-three senior students from Dargaville High, Otamatea High, Tauraroa Area School, Whangarei Boys’ and Whangarei Girls’ High attended. Farm owner, Sue Skelton, gave a heart-warming speech regarding the importance of fencing off waterways and native bush.

School Communities Facilitated

Within COVID-19 protocols, Enviroschools facilitators are in contact with all their schools and early childhood centres, with 40 on-line specific supports taken place during May.

MARKETING AND ENGAGEMENT

Environmental Leaders Fund

The Environmental Leaders Fund closed on Friday 29 May. This year the fund was extended to include Early Childhood Education centres. A total of 48 applications have been received, significantly up on the 27 applications submitted in 2019. Applications will be processed and a further update provided in the July work report, detailing the amount applied for by schools and the number of schools who successfully received some of the remaining $20,000 fund.

MĀORI ENGAGEMENT

Our team are involved in several projects and strategies across the organisation and are providing Māori technical advice and leadership as listed below:

Ÿ Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and assisting to develop the strategy so it accounts of the significant impact of climate change on Māori communities

Ÿ Regional Fresh Water Strategy and the incorporation of the Māori world view

Ÿ Māori Engagement Wilding Pine Project – Te Rewa Rewa (Whenua Māori – Whanau Led) and supporting the bio-security team to build relationships with hapū, iwi, Māori landowners and industries

Ÿ Continued investigation and discovery of council models across the country to inform a consistent approach of Mātauranga Māori to council programmes of works and operations

Ÿ Organisational Development Strategy and shaping the new normal and uphold our values of Manaakitanga, Kotahitanga and Whanaungatanga within Te Whāriki (Māori Responsiveness Strategy)

Ÿ Kawa Waiora Research project in partnership with Reconnecting Northland being led by Dr. Charles Royal and Professor Te Kawehau Hoskins

In response to COVID-19 and the drought we are working with Te Puni Kokiri and other agencies to investigate how we can share data and GIS mapping information to gain an understanding of a more regionalised approach. This incorporates the discussions of how we configure data and reports so it can be shared at an aggregate level internally and with Te Kahu o Taonui.

Our team continue to respond to issues raised by iwi and hapū through the resource consents processes. We work closely with the Resource Consents team to address challenges whilst providing information to those that represent mana whenua. Our priorities in this area continue to focus on the Assessment of Environmental Effects and the CIA process, PRP D.1.1. Tāngata Whenua, the relevance of IHEMPs and how tāngata whenua are engaged or consulted. There are concerns about the fast-tracking of resource consent processes and how this impacts consultation with mana whenua.

Positive relationships continue with TTMAC and MTAG as we commenced documenting high-level timelines / processes for key TTMAC information flows (ie. Terms of Reference review) and have identified the strategic priorities and work programmes for this triennium. Tāngata whenua members have adapted well to the virtual meetings.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL INFORMATION (LGOIMA) REQUESTS

Month	LGOIMA requests received 2018/19	LGOIMA requests received 2019/20
July	15	15
August	20	22
September	7	16
October	5	29
November	10	11
December	9	12
January	11	14
February	15	21
March	9	13
April	12	12
May	19	13
June	11
TOTAL LGOIMA REQUESTS RECEIVED	143	178
LGOIMA requests not responded to within 20 working days*	1	17

* REQ599300 – Request for information on what Northland Shovel Ready Projects were submitted to Infrastructure Reference Group. This correspondence was not originally registered as a LGOIMA when it came through the Mailroom.

* REQ598780 – Request for information on roads blocked, or checkpoints by individuals re COVID‑19. Response delayed in amongst COVID-19 activities.

7.2.7 Customer Service – Community Resilience

CUSTOMER SERVICES

Telephone Inbound Call Statistics & Enquiries

	May 2020 (as at 28 May)	Target
Call volume via Customer Services	1,923
Conversion rate	98.2%	> 95%
Average wait time	6 sec
Calls answered in under 30 sec	97.0%	> 90%

Full inbound phone service was maintained throughout lockdown by customer services officers working remotely. Daily call volumes have been gradually increasing since moving to Level 2, but overall call numbers are approximately 75% of the same month last year.

Satisfaction Monitoring

Ÿ Feedback Cards, Compliments and Complaints

Complaints received	Total
No complaints received	0
Total complaints recorded	0

COVID-19 Response

The Water Street reception re-opened to the public the day restrictions moved to Level 2 and the regional offices re-opened the following Monday. Contact tracing, social distancing and cleaning protocols are in place in all public facing areas.

CIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

The Northland CDEM Group are transitioning from the COVID-19 response into recovery. This transition to recovery will be mostly complete by close of business on Friday 29 May 2020. Several CDEM response operations will transition to partner agencies business as usual operations, some operations will cease and several response workstreams will become recovery workstreams of which Northland CDEM will be a partner agency supporting recovery arrangements moving forward.

The Northland CDEM Group has contingency planning in place if COVID-19 Alert Levels return to 3 or 4 and response operations are resumed. The final COVID-19 sitrep for the Northland region was distributed, together with a COVID-19 transition pathway to recovery plan, on Friday 29 May.

The welfare and household goods and services 0800 number will remain active in Northland until 3 June 2020. Call numbers have become increasingly low as the change in Alert Levels progressed and the number has now tranisoned to MSD who are the lead agency for social recovery.

Throughout the COVID-19 response the Northland CDEM Foodbanks and Community support fund has distributed $1,434,970 to foodbanks and community organisations. The funding is fully reimbursable from central government and there are strict guidelines about how the funding has been distributed and used.

With regard to the drought response, central government has made funding available to pay costs associated with filling and cleaning tanks in the rural community. As at 29 May, 305 deliveries had been completed with 105 tank cleans completed at a total cost of ~$150,000.

To date, four claims for reimbursement of costs associated with the drought and COVID-19 have been forwarded to central government, with two claims having been settled. Further claims are being prepared for processing.

The next meeting of the Northland CDEM Group and CEG is scheduled for 17 June.

TRANSPORT

Regional Transport Planning

Work on both the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) and the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) continues on schedule. A progress report on both plans will be tabled at the 10 June 2020 Regional Land Transport (RTC) meeting.

NZTA have indicated that there may be a delay in their Transport Agency Investment Proposal (TAIP). This may impact on the ability of the RTC to have early input into this document.

The Investment Logic Mapping workshop has been planned for 10 June 2020 following the RTC meeting.

Passenger Transport Administration

Bus Link stats for May (revenue ex GST)	Actual	Budget	Variance	Year/Date Actual	Year/Date Budgeted
CityLink Passengers	14,448	36,888	-22,440	281,181	319,040
CityLink Revenue	$13,349	$49,799	-$36,450	$354,387	$430,704

Promotions – BusLink services

Now that bus services have resumed normal timetabled operations, there is a strong focus on advertising the BusLink services to increase passenger numbers.

Total Mobility

Total Mobility (TM) figures are reported one month in arrears, due to the required information being unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline.

	Total Clients	Monthly Actual Expend	Monthly Budgeted Expend	Monthly Variance	Year/Date Actual Expend	Year/Date Budgeted Expend	Annual Variance
Mar 2020	1,612	$13,858	$25,000	-$11,142	$171,062	$225,000	-$53,938
Apr 2020	1,621	$2,612	$25,000	-$22,388	$173,674	$225,000	-$76,326

COVID- 19 Response
Total Mobility trips increased once the country went from Level 4 to Level 3. NZTA have made the decision to continue free travel on Total Mobility till 30 June 2020. With the introduction of Level 2, along with free travel, there has been a marked increase in travel.

National Total Mobility Card
Northland continues to lead the way in designing a new national Total Mobility card, in conjunction with the other Total Mobility Coordinators around New Zealand. On 8/9 June 2020 the new card will come into circulation in Whangārei for new clients and replacement cards.

Ridewise TWO Testing

Ridewise Two UAT (User Accepting Testing) has started – Northland is part of the testing team with Otago and Greater Wellington Regional Council. The UAT testing team is working with Eyde - our software development company - to improve our current electronic swipe card system Ridewise One.

ROAD SAFETY UPDATE

Motorcycle Safety

Ÿ Ride Forever (R4E) Rider Training Update:

Ride Forever training courses were cancelled during the COVID-19 lockdown. They are planned to resume under Alert Level 2. For the 2019/20 financial year (up to and including April), 217 riders participated in the Ride Forever (R4E). These included: -

Ÿ Bronze course 54

Ÿ Silver course 107

Ÿ Gold course 56

Ÿ Motorcycle Awareness Month (MAM):

Motorcycle Awareness Month planning for September 2020 has started. This project will focus on the importance of motorcycle rider training and motorcycle maintenance. This is important as increasing numbers of motorcyclists return to the road as the weather improves and the long Labour Weekend which is historically a popular motorcycling weekend.

Road Safety Week

Work has commenced on the planning activities for the national ‘Road Safety Week’ scheduled to take place from 9-15 November 2020. Because of COVID-19, this annual event had to be postponed from May 2020 until November 2020. Australia will also be promoting Road Safety Week during this time.

The theme of this year’s road safety week is ‘Step Up for Safe Streets’ and the road safety week’s colour is ‘Yellow’. The ‘Not for Profit’ road safety charity ‘Brake’, is the key driver promoting this annual event nationally and encourages local road safety partnerships to engage in local promotions and events helping raise awareness about road safety.

Road Safety Planning

The Northland Road Safety Issues 2015-2019 document is currently being updated.

National Radio Award: Best Radio Creative

Northland Road Safety had three of its road safety radio messages selected as finalists in two categories of the Annual National Radio Awards. The two categories were – ‘Best Commercial Production’ and ‘Best Single Commercial’. ‘12 Days’ a pre-Christmas radio commercial campaign targeting distraction as the road safety message won the ‘Best Commercial Production’ category.

Northland Road Safety radio messages have now won national Awards four years running including an International Safety Award in Bangkok two years ago, and many more finalist placings over a much longer period.

Road Safety Promotion

Road safety promotion work is presently centred on supporting Police with road safety promotional items for the increasing numbers of motorists returning to the region’s roads. The promotional material highlights the need for:

Ÿ Safe driving / riding practices;

Ÿ Awareness;

Ÿ Courtesy; and

Ÿ Reinforcing the importance of seatbelt wearing.

Road Trauma Update: 2020 Year to Date Road Death Statistics

National 106 deaths compared to 156 in 2019

Northland 14 deaths compared to 13 in 2019

Whilst the national level has reflected a positive reduction in deaths and casualties, Northland unfortunately has bucked this trend.

It is unfortunate that during the Alert Level 4 and 3 lockdown period with fewer vehicles on the roads, Police were busy with both crashes and breaching of road rules across the network. This resulted in four fatal crashes during this period in Northland.

MARITIME

Seven incidents were received during the month of May - most notably the Whale Rock Beacon breaking free and washing ashore in seven metre swells. This was recovered safely the next day. The remainder of the incidents were minor in nature, comprising of offenses against the bylaw, abandoned and derelict vessels and minor oil spills.

Challenges continue around the management of mooring piracy, and non-compliance regarding those living aboard their vessels and spending extended periods at anchor in one position. One vessel affected being a large square-rigged sailing vessel which is unable to leave under the current COVID -19 situation, due to refusal of entry into foreign ports. The vessel is cooperating and working with Harbourmaster and Coastal Monitoring staff.

Field project work is ongoing, the contract for maintenance to AtoN was awarded to NRC for the Portland Channel with work currently in progress. The usual rolling maintenance regime for AtoN throughout the remainder of the region has been ongoing. Surveying of the Hātea River has been completed in-house by the Maritime Team with dredging work commencing on 18 May. Tagging of moorings within the Whangārei Harbour is ongoing.

The Whangārei Harbour Safety Meeting continues to be held via video conferencing. The simulator model for the Bay of Islands has been completed and is ready for initial testing. Several tankers remain at anchor off Marsden Point waiting for available tank space at the refinery. An updated Harbourmaster’s Advisory has been sent out containing advice for vessels anchoring for prolonged periods of time whilst awaiting berths. The self review of the Safety Management System and risk assessments have been completed for both Whangārei and the Bay of Islands. A meeting is to be scheduled with Northport and North Tugz stakeholders to finalise the review.

Maritime staff continue to assist the Civil Defence response for both the drought and COVID-19. The Maritime team are back working from the offices in both Ōpua and Whangārei as of Monday 25 May.

Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga

Nil

[1] Noting that there was some doubling-up of submissions in the submission’s summary

[2] The submitters are listed in Vern Warren’s s32 evaluation report.

[3] The hearing of all other submissions (all but the GE/GMO submissions) was delegated to a Hearing Panel to make recommendations to Council.

[4] Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council CIV-2015-488-0064 [2016] NZHC 2036 Paragraphs 48 and 49

[9] Noting that there was some doubling-up of submissions in the submissions summary

[10] The submitters are listed in Vern Warren’s s32 evaluation report.

[11] The hearing of all other submissions (all but the GE/GMO submissions) was delegated to a Hearing Panel to make recommendations to Council.

[12] Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council CIV-2015-488-0064 [2016] NZHC 2036 Paragraphs 48 and 49

[17] https://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-protected-areas/coastal-marine-habitats-marine-protected-areas.pdf

			Injury Related						Hazards
Period	Loss time Injury (LTI)	Accident Work (ACC W)		Accident Not Work (ACC NW)	Discomfort, Pain, Injury (DPI)	Medical Treatment Incident (MTI)	First Aid Treatment Incident (FTI)	No Medical Treatment Incident (NMTI)	Near Miss	Hazard (HAZ)	Incident (INC)	Security (SEC)
2018	7	8		0	0	2	4	0	13	35	17	6
2019	1	20		1	0	0	2	1	18	15	8	1
2020	1	2		0	3	0	5	62	12	8	2	0
Apr	0	0		0	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
May	0	1		0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0

Training forecasted June 2020	Pax
First Aid Revalidation	1
Total	1

No.	Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Council endorse the recommendations	Support Māori engagement.	Minor cost.
2	Council does not endorse recommendations	Minor cost saving.	Does not support Māori engagement.

TITLE:	Health and Safety Report
ID:	A1321836
From:	Beryl Steele, Human Resources Manager

TITLE:	Confirmation of Minutes - 19 May 2020
ID:	A1320505
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager

Name:	Chris Taylor
Title:	Governance Support Manager
Date:	09 June 2020

TITLE:	Receipt of Action Sheet
ID:	A1322542
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager

TITLE:	Working Party Updates and Chairpersons' Briefings
ID:	A1311976

TITLE:	Financial Report to 31 May 2020
ID:	A1322797
From:	Vincent McColl, Financial Accountant

TITLE:	Adoption of User Fees and Charges 2020/21 \| Kaupapa Here a Utu
ID:	A1314750
From:	Robyn Broadhurst, Policy Specialist and Kyla Carlier, Corporate Planning Manager

TITLE:	Adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21 \| Mahere-a-Tau 2020/21
ID:	A1318940
From:	Kyla Carlier, Corporate Planning Manager

TITLE:	Changes to delegations
ID:	A1316427
From:	Dave Tams, Group Manager, Corporate Excellence

TITLE:	GMO Appeals - Proposed Regional Plan
ID:	A1320126
From:	Ben Lee, Strategic Policy and Planning Manager

TITLE:	TTMAC Draft Terms of Reference
ID:	A1321986
From:	Sheila Taylor, Kaiarahi - Kaupapa Māori

TITLE:	Appointed Members' Allowance Payment to Iwi Representatives on the Northland CDEM Coordinating Executive Group
ID:	A1322448
From:	Evania Arani, Executive Assistant Customer Services - Community Resilience

Name:	Tony Phipps
Title:	Group Manager - Customer Services - Community Resilience
Date:	03 June 2020

TITLE:	Draft NRC Submission - Extension to Manganui Bay Temporary Fisheries Closure
ID:	A1322867
From:	Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist

TITLE:	Chair's Report to Council
ID:	A1320214
From:	Penny Smart, Chair

TITLE:	Northland Inc. Limited: Reporting Against Statement of Intent - Quarter Three 2019/20
ID:	A1322952
From:	Darryl Jones, Economist

TITLE:	Receipt of Committee Minutes
ID:	A1321159
From:	Chris Taylor, Governance Support Manager

Item No.	Item Issue	Reasons/Grounds
9.1	Confirmation of Confidential Minutes - 19 May 2020	The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, as stated in the open section of the meeting.
9.2	Human Resources Report	The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(a).
9.3	Land and Leaseholders' Easement and Covenant Requests	The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(b)(ii) and the withholding of which is necessary to enable council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(h).
9.4	Kaipara Service Centre	The public conduct of the proceedings would be likely to result in disclosure of information, the withholding of which is necessary to enable council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(h) and the withholding of which is necessary to enable council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(i).