|
Council Tuesday 22 April 2025 at 10.15am
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council Tuesday 22 April 2025 at 10.15am
|
|
|
|
|
22 April 2025
Northland Regional Council Tabled Agenda
Meeting to be held in the Waipu Surf Club, Cove Road, Waipu
on Tuesday 22 April 2025, commencing at 10.15am
Recommendations contained in the council agenda are NOT council decisions. Please refer to council minutes for resolutions.
Item Page
4.0A Receipt of Tabled Items 3
7.0 Ngā Take / Decision Making Matters
7.10 Proposed Environmental Wastewater Standards - Draft NRC submission 4
7.11 Kaeo Stage Two Flood Mitigation Works 13
22 April 2025
|
TITLE: |
Receipt of Tabled Reports |
|
From: |
Chris Taylor, Governance Specialist |
Executive summary
Due to the short time frames to finalise agenda items, with the Easter period, the following two items were not completed in time to include in the main council agenda. Therefore it is requested that council receives the two tabled items.
Recommendation
That as permitted under section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 the following tabled reports be received:
7.10 Proposed Environmental Wastewater Standards - Draft NRC submission
7.11 Kaeo Stage Two Flood Mitigation Works
22 April 2025
|
TITLE: |
Proposed Environmental Wastewater Standards - Draft NRC submission |
|
From: |
Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist; April Nordstrom, Kaitātari Kaupapa Wai Māori and Tami Woods, Policy and Planning Manager |
|
Authorised by Group Manager: |
Ruben Wylie, Pou Tiaki Taiao, on 17 April 2025 |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
The purpose of this report is to seek council approval to lodge a submission on proposed wastewater standards being consulted on by the Water Services Authority Taumata Arowai (the Authority).
The Authority, on behalf of the Minister of Local Government, is consulting on a set of proposed wastewater environmental performance standards under section 138 of the Water Services Act 2021 that would set national standards on the discharge of wastewater from public treatment networks. There are also associated proposals to change related provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) through the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.
The proposed standards, along with the changes to the RMA brought about by the Local
Government (Water Services) Bill, have the potential to significantly limit a councils discretion to
determine standards for wastewater network discharges.
It is recommended that council lodge a submission on the proposals – a draft submission is attached for council consideration. The consultation closes 24 April 2025.
1. That the report ‘Proposed Environmental Wastewater Standards - Draft NRC submission’ by Justin Murfitt, Strategic Policy Specialist; April Nordstrom, Kaitātari Kaupapa Wai Māori and Tami Woods, Policy and Planning Manager and dated 16 April 2025, be received.
2. That the attached draft submission be approved and lodged with Taumata Arowai on or before 5pm 24 April 2025 (subject to any amendments directed by council).
3. That the submission be signed on behalf of council by the Chair.
Options
|
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
1 |
Council does not approve a submission on the proposed standards |
No staff resource needed |
The government / Taumata Arowai do not have access to council views on the matter or potential implications for Northland.
|
|
2 |
Council approves a submission on the proposed standards |
The government / Taumata Arowai have access to council views on the matter or potential implications for Northland.
|
Staff resource required
|
The staff’s recommended option is 2.
Considerations
1. Climate Impact
Council lodging a submission on the proposed wastewater standards does not have implications for responding to climate change in the region being a procedural matter.
2. Environmental Impact
Council providing advice to Taumata Arowai on the proposed wastewater standards through a submission may improve the management of wastewater and so lead to improved environmental outcomes.
3. Community views
Communities across Northland have a strong interest in the management regime that is applied to wastewater network discharges and in particular, the standards that apply to discharges to water. The cost implications of new standards is also likely to be of interest to many communities. Council lodging a submission on the proposal provides an opportunity to highlight implications for Northland and to represent the interests of Northland. communities.
4. Māori impact statement
Tangata whenua in Northland have particularly strong views opposing the discharge of human wastewater to water and are likely to have a strong interest in the proposed wastewater standards being consulted on by Taumata Arowai. The consultation document by Taumata Arowai also notes their engagement with Māori to date indicates a strong preference for tangata whenua participation in local decision-making, concerns over the discharge of human waste to water and the need for high standards of treatment for such discharges. These matters are address in the draft submission.
5. Financial implications
The proposed wastewater standards could have material financial implications for Northland’s wastewater network operators and ratepayers once in force. However, the council decision to lodge a submission on the proposed standards does not have any material financial implications being largely an administrative matter.
6. Implementation issues
The council decision to lodge a submission on the proposed standards does not create any material implementation issues being largely an administrative matter. Although it should be noted that there may be a risk of not meeting the submission deadline should material changes to the submission be requested by council as part of its decision to endorse the submission.
7. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s significance and engagement policy because it has previously been consulted on and provided for in council’s Long-Term Plan and/or is part of council’s day to day activities. 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.
8. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
There are no known policy, risk management or legislative compliance matters associated with the recommendations contained in this report.
Background/Tuhinga
The Water Services Authority – Taumata Arowai (the Authority), on behalf of the Minister of Local Government, is consulting on a set of proposed wastewater environmental performance standards under section 138 of the Water Services Act 2021 – there are also proposals to change related provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) through the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.
Although the Water Services Act already enables the establishment of wastewater performance standards, there are a series of amendments to the that Act and the RMA currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee via the Local Government (Water Services) Bill. The amendments set out by the Bill, together with the proposed standards, create a significantly different regulatory framework for wastewater that limits the discretion of a consent authority to notify a consent application, set discharge standards through consent conditions, or determine the consent term. The proposed standards have been released before the amendment proposed by the Bill have been determined by Parliament.
Amendments to the Water Services Act through the Local Government (Water Services) Bill include:
· Wastewater standards will be made via Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and following public consultation (with some exceptions).
· Repeals the requirements to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.
· Provides for infrastructure design solutions to be made through regulations.
Amendments to the RMA:
· Regional councils will be unable to impose conditions that are more restrictive or more lenient than the wastewater standards – nor will regional councils be able to apply more restrictive provisions through regional plan rules.
· Specifies the duration of a resource consent to be 35 years where wastewater infrastructure has been renewed or upgraded to meet wastewater standards.
· Clarifies that where there are inconsistencies between a wastewater standard and national direction the standards prevail.
The Authority has proposed wastewater standards in the context of the amendments proposed by the Bill, despite the Bill having not progressed to legislation. The proposed new standards would apply to public network discharges to water (lakes, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters) – these include numeric ‘end of pipe’ standards for key contaminants such as E.coli, nutrients, biological oxygen demand and suspended solids with standards varying based on the ‘sensitivity’ of waterbodies (sensitivity is based on a dilution factor) and the nature of the receiving environment. There would also be a separate (lower) standard for very small treatment plants. Standards are also proposed for discharges to land, beneficial reuse of biosolids and wastewater overflows.
The standards are expected to have equivalent status as a National Environmental Standard under the RMA and could set the activity status for wastewater network discharges and may also include restrictions/direction on public notification of applications. The proposal as it stands would prevent regional councils applying more restrictive or permissive regional plan rules and / or conditions of a resource consent. There are a number of exceptions proposed where standards would not apply and regional councils would have full discretion (e.g. streams with very low dilution or within certain distances of drinking water takes).
Implications
The proposed standards, along with the changes to the RMA brought about by the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, have the potential to significantly limit a councils discretion to determine standards for wastewater networks. For example, where the standard apply, councils would have minimal ability to impose consent conditions to protect specific sensitivities of waterbodies, such as popular swimming areas or mahinga kai sites. Additionally, the default term for consents would typically be 35 years. Regional councils would also be restricted from including more stringent provisions for wastewater network discharges in regional plans, such as setting a more restrictive activity status.
Staff have developed the attached draft submission on the proposed wastewater standards. The draft submission was informed by a workshop with council on 9 April 2025. It is recommended that council approve the draft submission for lodgement with Taumata Arowai on or before 5pm 24 April 2025.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Attachment 1: Submission to Taumata Arowai ⇩ 
22 April 2025
|
TITLE: |
Kaeo Stage Two Flood Mitigation Works |
|
From: |
Joseph Camuso, Rivers & Natural Hazards Manager and Meg Tyler, Rivers Project Manager |
|
Authorised by Group Manager: |
Louisa Gritt, Group Manager - Community Resilience, on 17 April 2025 |
Executive summary/Whakarāpopototanga
This paper is seeking council’s approval to proceed with Kaeo stage Two flood risk mitigation works. The works include realigning a 500m stretch of the Kaeo River and infilling approximately 150m of the old channel to accommodate Waikara Creek in the former Kaeo River channel, closer to State Highway 10 and Kaeo township. This project requires two land purchases and landowners have been engaged since the early stages of the project and have had direct input into the design. The project is endorsed the Kaeo River Liaison Working Group.
1. That the report ‘Kaeo Stage Two Flood Mitigation Works’ by Joseph Camuso, Rivers & Natural Hazards Manager and Meg Tyler, Rivers Project Manager and dated 16 April 2025, be received.
2. That council approves the Kaeo Stage 2 Flood Risk Mitigation infrastructure project to proceed, as outlined within this report, including the proposed property acquisition and notes the budgeted expenditure of $1,535,000.
Options
|
No. |
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
1 |
Approve implementation of the Kaeo Stage 2 flood risk mitigation project and associated property acquisitions.
|
Kaeo township and adjacent State Highway receives greater level of service during flood events Council is able to leverage 58% funding from central government reducing the impact on rate payers.
|
Nil |
|
2 |
Do not approve implementation of the Kaeo Stage 2 flood risk mitigation project and associated property acquisitions. |
No additional costs to the community to fund the project. |
Flood risk mitigation is not improved for Kaeo township and the state highway network. Council is unable to use the 58% funding from central government and burden for the full cost of the project is passed to the rate payers. |
The staff’s recommended option is option 1, approve implementation of the Kaeo Stage 2 flood risk mitigation project and associated property acquisitions.
Considerations
1. Climate Impact
The proposed works include wetland, planting, and channel enhancement plans for the project site and purchased land blocks, aimed at boosting biodiversity and improving water quality in a publicly accessible area. The property purchases provide greater flexibility for enhancements. The flood protection measures will strengthen resilience for State Highway 10 and Kaeo township amid increasing high-intensity rain events.
2. Environmental Impact
The project involves realigning a 500m stretch of the Kaeo River and infilling approximately 150m of the old channel to accommodate Waikara Creek in the former Kaeo River channel, closer to State Highway 10 and Kaeo township.
Flooding risk at the construction site, located in a floodplain, will be managed through:
· Installing sediment erosion control measures before construction.
· Scheduling works during summer to reduce the likelihood of major flood events.
· Using staged construction phases to stabilise exposed surfaces progressively.
An Ecological Impact Assessment has been completed and recommendations to manage the project's ecological aspects effectively will be implemented.
3. Community views
The Kaeo River Liaison Working Group has supported proceeding with the project. When discussed at the various meeting one participant abstained from the conversation due to a conflict of interest (as a landowner) and one member from Te Rūnanga o Whangaroa was opposed to the project.
The Runanga representative opposed voting to proceed with Kaeo Stage 2, expressing concern that priority should be given to improving route security for Omaunu Road, which floods regularly (2–3 times per year), unlike Kaeo Township, which has not experienced flooding since 2007. In response, the committee made recommendations to Far North District Council (FNDC) to investigate route security for Omaunu Road and collaborate with NRC Rivers Team on potential solutions. At the following committee meeting, three Runanga attendees were present, and there was no opposition to the project.
Business owners in Kaeo and local hapū have expressed their support, with hapū providing cultural impact assessments to guide the resource consent application. NZTA & FNDC has also endorsed the project.
An article for the project has been provided to the local newspaper (Whangaroa Whispers) and one was written by the Northern Advocate on the 18th February 2025. “Kāeo flood scheme aims to alter river and reduce flood levels by 400mm”.
4. Māori impact statement
Three groups expressed interest in providing a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) to accompany the resource consent application.
· The Whanagroa Maori Trust Board: The Whangaroa Māori Trust Board, Ngāti Pakahi, and Ngāti Uru recommend that NRC prioritise cultural values and engage with the groups meaningfully throughout the project. Key suggestions include implementing their Cultural Values Assessment, employing Cultural Monitors for on-site activities, and ensuring the protection of significant cultural sites, such as establishing buffer zones for the Pohue Pā site. They propose developing a cultural impact management plan based on tikanga Māori and consulting on alternative options if significant cultural impacts are identified.
· Miro Taupi . The group emphasises the importance of avoiding and mitigating negative impacts on cultural values associated with the Kaeo River flood works. They advocate for better engagement with the Whangaroa Whakaminenga, culturally informed designs, and thorough archaeological assessments before construction. Recommendations include integrating Mātauranga Māori into planning, enhancing environmental and cultural narratives, and ensuring the project protects and restores the mauri and mana of the river. They also highlight the need for culturally meaningful recreational and educational opportunities, along with recognizing the Whangaroa harbour environment as a living entity.
· Te Rūnanga o Whangaroa. Te Runanga have not yet submitted their CIA. It has been advised this will be provided on the 22nd April.
5. Financial implications
This project is included in the long-term plan with a budget of $1,535,000 for completion of the project including any property purchases. This project is part funded by regionwide (29%) and targeted rates (13%) and NIFF (58%).
6. Implementation issues
In accordance with the council funding agreement with NIFF, works must be completed by 31 December 2025. This deadline has been extended to provide time for an archaeological assessment of the earthworks sites.
The Resource Consent (RC) is ready to be issued by both FNDC and NRC but remains on hold pending receipt of Te Runanga's Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). While detailed designs and tender documents are prepared and ready for release, the tendering process is postponed until the property purchases and RC approvals are finalised. With the construction season starting in October, the tender process is scheduled to begin no later than early September to ensure timely implementation of the project.
7. Significance and engagement
In relation to section 79 of the Local Government Act 2002, this decision is considered to be of low significance when assessed against council’s significance and engagement policy because it has previously been consulted on and provided for in council’s Long-Term Plan. 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.
8. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance
This paper provides governance an overview of the proposed project and seeks council approval to proceed. Policy, risk management and legislative compliance matters will be managed on an ongoing basis as the project proceeds. All necessary budgets are in place to enable this decision and project to proceed.
Please refer below where key risks are highlighted and mitigation measures discussed.
Background/Tuhinga
Kaeo Phase 2
After the March and July floods of 2007 NRC developed a flood mitigation plan for Kaeo Township. A two phased plan was developed. Kaeo Phase 1 consisted of a deflection bank to deflect the fast-moving water away from Kaeo township and SH-10, but it was acknowledged that Phase 1 would not reduce the backwater flow from the confluence of the Waikara and Kaeo Rivers affecting the township and State Highway 10. Kaeo Phase 1 was constructed in 2014. The goal of Kaeo Phase 2 is to reduce the backwater affect by moving the confluence of the two rivers 500m downstream and reducing the residual flood level in the township by approximately 400 mm in a 100yr +climate change event. The proposed works are shown below:
Kaeo Stage 2 Proposed Works
The Whangaroa Catchment-Kaeo River Liaison Working Group is a long-standing flood working group established in 2007. Kaeo Phase 2 is part of the Northland Regional Council 2024-2034 Long Term Plan. In October 2024, NRC was successful with an application to Crown Infrastructure Partners (now NIFF) for funding 58% or ($885,000) of the estimated $1.535 M project. The remaining local share funding will be split between the Regional Flood Infrastructure Rate and local targeted rate at the specified 70/30 spilt, i.e., 70% Regional FIR and 30% local targeted rate. The project was due to be completed by 30 June 2025 but ongoing discussions amongst the River Liaison Working Group to ensure that the best solution for the community was developed, plus the requirement for an archaeological assessment has delayed completion to the end of 2025.
Hydraulic modelling, peer review, geotechnical exploration and detailed design has been completed, and the project is on track and within budget. Resource consent is pending an outstanding CIA (due 22nd April) from Te Rūnanga o Whangaroa, two other CIA’s have been received from local hapu. Land purchase will proceed once council approval is received. Following land purchase a more comprehensive geotechnical investigation will be completed. The construction is scheduled to proceed in October 2025 and estimated 8 weeks to complete.
Land Purchases
Two landowners are impacted by the works and both sit on the Kaeo River Liaison Working Group and as such have been engaged from the early stages of the project. The design of the stage 2 works have been modified following feedback from the landowners. On one the blocks to be purchased the landowner has requested that the whole block be purchased as the project footprint would take up too much of the paddock which would make it impractical for grazing. This purchase will have the added benefit of improving access to the site and will make the resale of the block more attractive once the work has been completed. The second block has only 1.6ha of affected farmland on the edge of the farm so it is intended that this will be purchased this through a subdivision consent.
Key Risks
Key risks for the delivery of the project include:
1. The earthworks disturb an archaeological site and work is delayed. An archaeological assessment report has been commissioned to make an application for an Archaeological Authority to mitigate this risk. Should earthworks disturb an unknown archaeological site, staff will work with the archaeologist to progress works with least impact to the site. If there are any significant changes needed to the work programme, these will be taken back to the River Laision Working Group for consideration.
2. The construction season starts later than expected due to poor weather conditions. The deadline for completion of the work is 31 December 2025 driven by the funding agreement with NIFF. Work is planned to start in early October giving three weeks contingency in December should the start of the construction season be delayed.
Attachments/Ngā tapirihanga
Nil
