Peter Thom |
Group Manager - Planning & Environmental Services
ddi:
(07) 862 5032 | mob:
021 851 274 | email:
[email address]
Hauraki District Council | William Street Paeroa 3600 | PO Box 17 Paeroa 3640 | NZ
ph:
(07) 862 8609 or 0800 734 834 (from within district)
web:
www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz
| email: [Hauraki District Council request email]
| HDC Libraries
P
Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Sandra Goudie [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2018 10:59 AM
To: 'Robert McClean' <[email address]>; Peter Thom <[email address]>; Ben Bunting <[email address]>
Cc: Vicki Addison <[email address]>; Christina Wells <[email address]>; Sam Miles <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Draft outcomes from Mangroves meeting, 29 May 2018
Robert,
Thank you for a very timely response back.
In response to the Regional Council assertion regarding a plan change, apart from the targeted areas within a management plan, they (WRC) continue to be responsible for all other areas including the west coast of the region which they seem to have forgotten about, and will have to do a plan change anyway.
The argument is flimsy at best.
I have made some suggested changes which are indicative of how I viewed the discussion.
RMA processes are not an option.
Refer to the bullet points…
Bullet points 2 & 3 need to begin with the word 'Clarify…'
This is because the legal advice has not satisfied to readers the clear intent of the Bill.
Bullet point 4. Ministerial oversight can be with either Minister - Local Govt or Conservation and can take various forms.
It was to give some confidence that a Minister could intervene if the situation arose for the requirement to do so.
This is all due to the lack of trust in communities and the local authorities.
Bullet point 5. This is also to placate in response to concerns.
Bullet point 6. This is not what was agreed. Categorically no. What was agreed was to clarify that the plan developed under the Local Govt Act was clearly separate and stood alone from other legislative interventions. Some better wording to reflect this was required to avoid the all encompassing clause that is currently there.
It was recommended that the officials might like to talk with Bob Roache.
My thanks once again for all your efforts to find a workable outcome.
My thanks also to Mayor Tregidga for his excellent contribution toward finding a way forward.
Outstanding work.
Thanking you.
Best regards,
Sandra.
Mayor Sandra Goudie
Thames-Coromandel District Council
Private Bag, 515 Mackay Street, Thames
p: 07 868 0200 f: 07 868 0234
e: [email address]
w: www.tcdc.govt.nz
The content of this e-mail may be CONFIDENTIAL OR LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, and is intended only for the persons named above. If this e-mail is not addressed to you, you must not use, read, distribute or copy this document. If you have received this document by mistake, please call us and destroy the original.
From: Robert McClean [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 31 May 2018 11:25
To: Sandra Goudie; Peter Thom; Ben Bunting
Cc: Vicki Addison; Christina Wells; Sam Miles
Subject: Draft outcomes from Mangroves meeting, 29 May 2018
Dear councils
Thank you for meeting together on Tuesday
Both Sam and I felt it was a really a positive meeting and we covered a range of suggestions on moving forward for Mangroves
Please see draft outcomes below
Please provide any comments on the draft outcomes or any other feedback by 15 June
Thanks
Robert and Sam
----------------------------------------------------------------
29 May 2018
Venue: Trust Waitato, Hamilton
Mangroves Bill
John Tregidga – Mayor, Hauraki DC
Peter Thom – Planning Group Manager, Hauraki DC
Mark Buttimore, Strategic Planning Project Manager, Hauraki DC
Sandra Goudie – Mayor, TCDC
Ben Bunting – Principal Advisor, Science and Strategy, WRC
Sam Miles (DIA) and Robert McClean (MfE)
Key outcome/points:
Councils are willing to consider changes to the bill, but important that the mangrove management plan enables a freestanding statutory plan.
Acknowledging uncertainty is preventing progress for the desired community outcome of effectively managing mangroves. While the bill is going through the Parliamentary process, no progress is being made to reduce the prevalence of mangroves in the harbours which all parties agree is the desired outcome. Timeframes, whether under an amended bill or under a RMA process are likely to take 18 months from this point. The Regional Council is reluctant to spend resources now on preparing a plan change which may be removed from their responsibility by the local bill. The Regional Council is also wary of progressing a plan change if it is going to be actively opposed by the district councils.
Progressing the bill (whether or not Parliament decides to pass the bill, which cannot be pre-determined) and providing certainty is an essential step. Given the recent history of animosity and mistrust between the communities seeking more permissive mangrove removal and the Regional Council, a standard plan change process is unlikely to be effective while the bill remains live (although there are other RMA options that should be left on the table, for example a Streamlined Planning Process which also excludes Environment Court oversight). Ongoing support of central government for the mangrove management plan process is likely to be helpful to the successful outcome of the plan.
Key options being ways to improve the Mangroves Bill by:
§ Waikato Regional Council be invited to join TCDC and Hauraki as councils jointly responsible for preparing the mangroves management plan.
§ That the Mangroves Management Plan is prepared under the Local Government Act 2002
§ The Mangroves Management Plan is designed to address mangroves management in specific areas (ie, Whangamata) but also would need to be applicable to other coastal areas as required
§ Introduce some form of Ministerial oversight (ie, Minister for Conservation approve so to ensure the mangroves plan is compliant with the NZCPS)
§ Introduce a sunset clause – provide for the review of the Mangroves legislation (in 5 years) and/or lapsing. So to constrain any damaging long term effect.
§ Clarifying the relationship between the Mangroves Management Plan prepared under the Bill and the RMA – so that a Mangroves Management Plan could become part of the regional coastal plan without unintended effects that might impact on, or conflict with, statutory functions.
§ As part of the relationship with the RMA, avoiding ability for Environment Court to review or override the plan
Next steps:
Councils to provide feedback
Regional Council to consider if they are willing to support this approach
Following receiving feedback, official to brief Select Committee on way forward
Robert
Robert McClean – Manager, RMA Practice
Ministry for the Environment – Manatū Mō Te Taiao
[mobile number] Email: [email address] Website:
www.mfe.govt.nz
No.3 The Terrace, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143
|
|
|
|
*********************************************************************************************
Please Note: The information contained in this e-mail message and any attached files may be confid*ential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. It is not necessarily the official view of the Ministry for the Environment. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this e-mail is unauthorised. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete the original. Thank you.
*********************************************************************************************