Regional Council
28 February 2017
Report No.
17-18
Decision Required
REVOCATION OF A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL CONCERNING
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE 14.2 OF THE ONE PLAN
1.
PURPOSE
1.1.
The purpose of this paper is for Members to consider a recommendation from the
Chief Executive that Council revokes a previous resolution, namely resolution 13-500 b. iii.
made by Council on 25 June 2013. The minute recording this resolution is attached as
Annex A.
2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1.
Council passed resolution 13-500 b. iii. at a time when there was considerable concern
about implementation of rules 14-2 and 14-4 (the land use rules for intensive agriculture),
in the community.
2.2.
The resolution reads:
iii. where an activity is considered as a restricted discretionary activity and the numbers in
table 13.2 are no longer applicable then:

An existing intensive farming activity that provides a trajectory of N reduction that
is achievable on the farm or has low N loss or the farm operating system is
economically and environmentally efficient (no low cost options are available) will
be given a consent term of 15 to 20 years.

An existing intensive farming activity where there is no willingness to reduce N
loss but mitigation is both possible and efficient will be given a consent term of 3
to 5 years. Guidance will be provided by HRC to industry who will work with the
farmer to assess mitigation options through the term of the consent, with a view to
incorporating mitigation options at re-consenting time.

A conversion to an intensive farming activity will be assessed against the policies
in Chapter 13.
2.3.
It has not been staff practice to rely on the resolution when considering applications for
resource consent under rule 14-2 of the One Plan. This is because when making
decisions on Restricted Discretionary Activities section 104C of the Resource Management
Act (RMA) means that a consenting authority can only consider those matters over which it
has restricted its discretion (or over which a discretion is restricted in a National
Environmental Standard or other regulations).
2.4.
The matters of discretion are identified in rule 14-2 in the One Plan.
2.5.
The resolution was referenced in a few early consents which also included a broader RMA
based assessment as is required under the Act.
2.6.
The resolution formed part of the series of declarations sought by the Fish & Game Council
(Wellington) and the Environmental Defence Society (EDS), heard by the Environment
Court on 13 - 14 February 2017. These parties asserted that the resolution was unlawful,
invalid and in contravention of the Act. The Act in this case being the Resource
Management Act.
Revocation of a previous resolution of Council concerning implementation of Rule 14.2 of
the One Plan
Page 1
Regional Council
28 February 2017
2.7.
This paper does not deal with the assertion by Fish & Game and EDS as this is being
considered by the Environment Court. Instead this paper deals with the potential for the
resolution to be considered when consent decisions are made.
2.8.
In order to avoid any impression that Council’s consent decisions are based on resolution
13-500 b iii. Dr Peet identified in his affidavit to the Environment Court that ‘I accept that it
would be best to avoid any impression that the Council’s decisions on consent applications
are based on the resolution. For that reason, I intend to recommend that the Council
formally revokes resolution 13-500 b. iii of 25 June 2013 at the next available opportunity’.
2.9.
Under Horizons Regional Council’s Standing Orders (October 2016), the recommendation
to revoke or alter a resolution by recommendation in a report (clause 23.6) can be made by
the Chairperson, Chief Executive or any committee or subcommittee.
2.10. As part of the recommendations below I note that Officers are also in the process of
working with DairyNZ to ensure that the non-statutory DairyNZ publication ‘Dairy Farming
under the One Plan’ does not reflect the resolution.
3.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council:
a.
receives the information contained in Report No. 17-18 and Annex.
b.
notes that officers have relied on the One Plan and the Resource Management Act to
make decisions on resource consents processed under rule 14-2 of the One Plan.
c.
notes that to avoid any impression that Horizons Regional Council is relying on the
resolution 13-500 b. iii of 25 June 2013 as the basis for granting consent, Officers
recommend that Council formally revokes resolution 13-500 b. iii of 25 June 2013.
d.
notes that according to Standing Orders, paragraph 23.6 ‘Revocation or alteration by
recommendation in report’, the local authority may revoke part or all of a resolution
passed by a previous meeting on recommendation by the Chief Executive.
e.
revokes the resolution 13-500 b. iii of 25 June 2013 which reads as follows:
iii.
f.
where an activity is considered as a restricted discretionary activity and the
numbers in table 13.2 are no longer applicable then:

An existing intensive farming activity that provides a trajectory of N reduction
that is achievable on the farm or has low N loss or the farm operating system
is economically and environmentally efficient (no low cost options are
available) will be given a consent term of 15 to 20 years.

An existing intensive farming activity where there is no willingness to reduce
N loss but mitigation is both possible and efficient will be given a consent term
of 3 to 5 years. Guidance will be provided by HRC to industry who will work
with the farmer to assess mitigation options through the term of the consent,
with a view to incorporating mitigation options at re-consenting time.

A conversion to an intensive farming activity will be assessed against the
policies in Chapter 13.
Notes that Officers are working with DairyNZ to ensure that the advice to farmers in
the document ‘Dairy Farming under the One Plan’ does not reflect resolution 13-500 b.
iii of 25 June 2013.
Revocation of a previous resolution of Council concerning implementation of Rule 14.2 of
the One Plan
Page 2
Regional Council
28 February 2017
4.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
4.1.
There is not expected to be a significant financial impact from the recommendations in this
paper.
5.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.1.
Council has engaged extensively with the community around the implementation of
rules 14-2 and 14-4 of the One Plan.
6.
SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT
6.1.
Council’s resolution 13-500 b. iii of 25 June 2013 was part of the declaratory proceedings
taken by the Wellington Fish & Game Council and the Environmental Defence Society.
Business risks from this Court action have previously been identified to Council.
7.
SIGNIFICANCE
7.1.
This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and
Engagement.
Michael McCartney
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
ANNEXES
A
Regional Council Minute of 25 June 2013 - recommendation 13-500 b. iii.
Revocation of a previous resolution of Council concerning implementation of Rule 14.2 of
the One Plan
Page 3