The Farm Environment Plan (FEP) audit system in Canterbury is a regulatory framework where farmers develop individualized plans to identify and manage environmental risks associated with water, soils, and nutrients, and certified auditors verify that on-farm practices meet agreed expectations to prevent contaminant loss to ground and surface water. The system evolved from voluntary practices in 2008 to a formal regulatory tool under Schedule 7 of the Land and Water Regional Plan, with audits graded A-D based on auditor confidence in risk management, and continuous improvements made through industry collaboration and calibration exercises.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Environment Canterbury LivestreamAdded:
Kat we'll get underway. We just started our live stream. Um this afternoon we have the envir farm environmental plan uh audit program. Uh sitting at the table we have Judith and Mark. So hand over to you Judith.
>> Takoto Cartala. Thanks for having us along today. Um the purpose of this briefing is to just really provide probably most of the newer counselors although not that new now around our current farm environment plan and audit program that we have in place in Canterbury. We've called this part one of two and part two of two will be looking at freshwater farm plans etc. But it'll be probably later in July when we bring that to you. So just really felt it was important for understanding the current system we have and how we got to where we are so that then we're in a really good position when we look at what what does it take to get to where we need to be. So um thanks again for having us here. Look environment Canterbury just as a bit of context has had a long history of looking at the role of farm environment plans for a way of demonstrating practice towards outcomes. I remember back in about 2008 and n having workshops on this in in this area um but very much in an education engagement role as a voluntary practice for enabling land users to identify where there's issues and opportunities and actions to take them um to take action. Um in 2011 we were more formally looking at arrangements around audited self-management where there was overarching management plans um for catchment outcomes and within that the farm plan as a mechanism to demonstrate that practice and then of course it became within the land and water plan and and is part reflected in schedule seven of that plan. So it's been quite a journey and fundamental to that journey has been working with the rural industry and community all along the way. So we're going to describe that that a little bit as we go on, but I just want to hand over to Mark um for the next bit.
>> Uh Tenoto Cartau. So Mark Fitzpatrick, I'm the manager of water and land for those of you uh who I haven't met before. So thank you for having us here today. Definitely the highlight of your day to learn about the the farm environment plan uh system and process.
So the reason I'm presenting to you guys is because I am the manager of the water and land unit. And so just to to reinforce or to remind you of what we do, we're the non-regulatory community facing arm of the operations uh function here uh at ECAN. So we engage directly with land owners and industry to prompt the necessary action for the outcomes that we're seeking that isn't mandated through consent and compliance.
The F system itself is managed by our senior farm plan advisor Melissa Gillespie within my team and she's supported by compliance support officers Chelsea Glee, Gemma Carmichael and Lauren Harvey who you may have encountered along the way. Uh and so here today with me there's a lot of detail within the presentation. Um and so we do have the experts here in the room today. We have Melissa who's run the program now for 5 years. We have Sarah Hedel who's a principal farm systems adviser here as well. And we've also got Zeala Smith, our princing principal uh planning advisor. So if you do have questions uh at the end that um you would like to ask them and they're here to be able to support with the detail if that's what you like.
So there's a few things that we're going to cover today um up on screen, but fundamentally what what we hope you leave with is confidence in the system, recognizing that it is a high quality system, that it's improved over time.
you have any assumptions tested and clarified uh and any questions you might have in queries answered and and fundamentally understand that the F audits team is committed to continuous improvement uh and that has been demonstrated along the journey but we'll demonstrate um we'll go into the future also.
So starting off first with what a farm environment plan actually is. So it is a tool that the farmer uses to identify, manage and mitigate environmental risk associated with water, soils, nutrients on their farm. It's unique to each farm and considers the farm system type management practices and the local environment. It covers risk identification looking at areas on the farm that are vulnerable to nutrient loss, management strategies specific to uh actions for land nutrient and stock management. supporting plans such as effluent biodiversity and irrigation plans and recordkeeping. So it documents the current practices and future environmental goals. In contrast, an FE audit typically involves the auditor obtaining evidence that the audit is meeting the agreed expectations which verifies the actual onfarm practice and assessing how this manages the risk of contaminant loss to ground or surface water. And we'll cover off in a bit of detail as we go through We wanted to put this um slide in to show you that we recognize the place of our our current regulated farm environment plan in the context of the Canterbury community, the farmers in that community and the industries that also are related to those farm activities. So this slide indicates is that the range of um industry good organizations, businesses um etc. and all have had some role to play in both the farm environment plan development um and the audit guidance development over time but also um we were heavily involved back in the day with our good management practice and matrix of good management practice as well. So it's been really important um as a principle that there's buyin to this approach in systems and that there's also the opportunity for those businesses companies to utilize the tool in their own businesses. So hence um the ability to have their templates um verified as meeting the requirements of schedule 7 rather than just being an ean document.
So it's a um so just anything else you want to cover off Mark? Yeah, I think the only thing I'd add is that that again just to reinforce the FE itself is a tool for the farmers which is why they're in a larger font and bolded up there. Um and on top of that, our team continues to engage with the community.
There's an audit reference group that has members from multiple industry bodies uh that meets regularly with our team. Um so we're we're we're continuing to maintain this touch point with the industry as we go forward.
this slide um I me in my introduction I mentioned some of the early work of um just what is the role of a farm plan or a farm management plan they often have different titles um and that would predated the land and water plan even probably before this slide but it does just recognize that it's been in place um in some context within the rural industry for some time back in 2010 Philontier actually began providing environment ment plan um planning tools to farmers um as one example as well as um some of the irrigation schemes um I'm thinking more navy etc having arrangements that were in place where there was environmental scheme consents that had a requirement for farm environment plans within the within there. So we just wanted to highlight that there was a lot of work under way prior to it actually becoming embedded as as schedule 7 in the land and water regional plan. Um and I guess the interesting reflection if we think forward is there'll be that ongoing work as well with a transition to freshwater farm plans and whatever legislative arrangements are around that. So I just really wanted to to highlight those stages. Um one big part of work piece of work that we did do very early on probably around the 201213 period was the develop starting the development of an audit manual. So there were a lot of concern about what would audit look like, what does it mean for farmers and we involved a lot of industry including NPI um in as part of that with the reflection that there might be in the future some more wider application for a farm plan environment um environment system >> and so the only thing to add to the slide is I guess over the last 10 years we've what we have now is an environmental management program that's really well embedded within the Canterbury farming context and it's driven and continues to drive significant behavior change and upskilling across both the regular and community regulator and community alike.
Uh and that has been a long journey.
It's taken us a long time to get to where we are today. Um but today it's just a matter of course as part of the farming the farming space.
Right. So where are we now? So while FEPs and FE audits are excellent tools for managing onfarmm risks, they're also our primary regulatory tool for consent to farming in Canterbury. So schedule 7 management objectives and targets within the land and water regional plan were developed based on industry agreed GMP, but they're not identical to GMP. The key distinction is often overlooked um I guess for ease of communication. Both the industry GMP and schedule 7 have evolved over time to reflect the shifting priorities of each party. For instance, the inclusion of Mahakai into the water bodies management objective under our schedule 7 was an addition.
Crucially regarding schedule 7 development, the legal agreement set out in consents dictates the FE requirements to the specific version of schedule 7 at the time that they got that consent.
So that means that each consent audit criteria are not live and it doesn't change with the release of an updated land and water regional plan change.
Consequently, the FE audit scope will naturally differ across different generations of consents.
Schedule 7 is incorporated into consents through consent conditions that refer to the FE appendix which is located at the bottom of the consent decision documents. And this appendix details the consents relevant management objectives and targets alongside the provisions outlining how the audit should be undertaken.
As of June of this year, we have 1,366 individual FE audits that have been completed by 20 certified audit uh FE auditors with two additional auditor applications currently in progress. And talking to Jude before, there was a perspective that we would early in the day that we were going to end up needing hundreds of auditors across Canterbury to be able to respond to the demand that was going to emerge. We've got 20 that are highly effective and thus far have managed to do 1,366 audits.
So, prior to 2021, the FE audit program focused on engagement and behavior change, introducing a new system and regulatory tool for all of Canterbury.
Once the community had adapted into the system, the senior farm plan adviser was brought in in January uh rather July 2021. And this position sought subject matter expertise in auditing frameworks to further build the robustness of the auditing program. So a range of improvements were undertaken largely behind the scenes and unbeknownst to many in the rural community. They included setting up our internal procedures, the clearer direction and addressing the wide range of consent variations that existed in the individual individually consented farm planning space. From the rural community perspective though the biggest change that impacted auditing was the development and formalization of those auditor guidance documents. So this has an associated interpretation risk of moving the goalposts because there was a shift in the audit standards. However, that was not the intent. The introduction or refinement of those guiding document guidance documents ensured that all auditors were interpreting the expectations consistently. This ensured that an audit undertaken on a property would see less variation with differing auditors. So as a result, we saw auditors auditors learning and adapting their auditing approach in some areas. And this has now been complemented by the addition of calibration exercises that are undertaken on auditor training days. And we'll we'll talk about um a bit of more information uh later on.
In addition to setting those consistent expectations over time, we've seen changes that needed to be adapted for a number of reasons. So one was the response to the overseer peer review which moved us away from absolute resil reliance on the overseer outputs uh which changed how we audited the nitrogen loss and uh limit. There was a shift in uh the development of new tools or removal of common tools like the dairy effluence storage cals uh and the removal of the crop x buck bucket testing. So continuous improvement has been applied. Importantly, once there are we have approved any developments or there are updates on expectations, those are released.
So, anything that impacts the on the ground auditing is made publicly available on the farmers hub. So, that includes guidance documents or the auditor's manual. Otherwise, it's shared with the relevant parties. So, F certifiification SOP was released out to all of the F auditors by way of example.
This is one area that the FP audit team are looking to make improvements in is communications and guidance for the rural community. So, there's already been trial and seen positive engagement with those involved, but they're committed to continuous improvement. And at the end of today's presentation, we'll touch on further further learnings uh from the program evaluation that were undertaken in 2025.
So, what does an audit actually entail?
Well, as as I've already said, the uh the auditor obtains evidence that the auditor is m meeting the agreed expectations on farm. So, it includes verifying actual onfarmm practice and assessing how this manages the risk of contaminant loss to ground or service water. So, a few a few key points that we want to leave you with in this regard. First, our FE auditors verify onfarmm management against the FE appendix management objectives and targets. This requires interpretation.
Hence why we've developed the the guidance documents. This is the audit criteria scope, not the FP document.
It's largely because we did not include an approved, evaluated or certified FP within our regulatory framework. So it's the standards, not the FP itself that get audited or that the actions against the standards. EAN. The second thing is ECAN manages an FE audit framework or program but we don't have a formalized FE document program. So the documents are often seen as a tool for the consent holder to identify their risks and manage those and uh however as they are a requirement under a consent condition that condition can be monitored by a compliance officer if required. They're also used during the consent application process. So the audit doesn't relate to the FP. the FP is required as a consent condition. Because it's required as a consent condition, there can be compliance against it. Um, but that's not part of the FP auditing system. So, there's some a bit of nuance there.
>> Okay. Well, we'll bring up one of the experts to talk in detail if you like that toward the end.
>> All right.
>> Say that again.
Okay. So the FE we don't have a formalized FE document program. The FE documents are a tool for the consent holder to manage their own risks.
They're also a requirement within the consent condition. Yep. So they're tool for the farmer. The farmer needs an FP.
Uh because that condition can is exists within the consent. The condition itself can be monitored by compliance. So have you got an FP? But that compliance itself isn't part of the FP audit process.
every >> and yet everything that sits within my FEP is checked through as part of order compliance. Hence my confusion.
>> The final thing is that the FE appendix itself does not cover the complete suite of land water regional plan rules or the wider environmental regulation. The auditors aren't warranted officers and so the risk may demand a higher degree of management than accounted for in the regulatory frameworks. The key here is that the audit is not equivalent to compliance monitoring.
We'll go a bit more detail on that in one of the upcoming slides.
So this is an overview of the audit process itself and it's got many steps and parties involved all including a touch point within the consent holders.
So when a consent with an FP condition is activated, the FP audit team sets up an audit due date in the system that ensures the audit team can actively monitor the progress of the audits and maintain contact with consent holders across a number of different stages. So the first is that the consent is activated an email sent upon grant or transfer or partial surrender. This outlines the F audit responsibilities, assigns a specific due date, provides direct links to resources, etc. Then there's a four-month pre- audit reminder, another email notification outlining the steps for the upcoming audit.
It includes an SMS reminder as well where mobile details are available and it reshares the FE checklist and website guidance.
Then there's an audit due date, requests a status update on the audit stage and provides tailored next steps based on farmer project uh progress. And finally, a post audit follow-up two months later, which is an initial phone call to verify the audit status or identify barriers to completion. Additionally, the team interacts with consent holders during extension requests, technical guidance requests, audit holds, uh or if there's been any audit decision panel outcomes.
The senior farm plan advisers uh may also communicate with farmers about technical expectations or concerns or disputes uh and uh attend on-site audits roughly once a month for inperson engagement.
When an FP auditor submits the audit report through the online FE audit tool, the data gets saved into a secured cloud. the grade, the audit date and the auditor details are automatically provided to the FE audit team so they can issue the CMR. Only the immediate FE audit team which is our senior PL farm plan adviser and the three compliance officers have access to the full reports, easy access to the full reports. Data from those reports can be provided for fair and proper use when they make an information request following the release procedure.
Only the sen senior farm plan advisor assesses these requests and released information if relevant. So it's quite a secure robust process and there's a lot of people that are involved. It is a collaborative approach. So throughout the order program there's a one ean approach with clear clear roles and uh responsibilities updates interpretations guidance and decision-m includes input from order of land compliance and consents at a minimum and often science and biocurity when required. The greatest strength of the program is the expertise held by those involved in the program and the greatest loss is of course losing those people uh or the engagement itself.
In addition, industry reps are engaged for the development of expectations and guidance, particularly those involved in the audit reference group. For instance, the irrigation auditor to guidance was co-written with Steven McNell from irrigation New Zealand, reviewed and endorsed by the wider ARG, while the compost management project is an example of an FP audit adjacent piece of work supported by members of the audit reference group as well. So, we continue to maintain a very collaborative process within the system.
So there's a bit more detail here about what's actually included in the audit itself. So an auditor shouldn't advise on how a farmer should demonstrate achievement of each target.
Instead, it's up to the audi or the farmer to provide a package of information to demonstrate how they have met each target. This is a key strength of the program because it's not a tickbox exercise. Instead, the auditor proposes a simple question of what are your risks and how do you manage those and leaves the determination of how to manage them in the hands of the farmer and their advisers. For instance, soils and cultivation target one farming activities are managed so as to not exacerbate erosion. An audity must provide evidence that they understand and manage their soil risks of erosion.
It includes an understanding of the inherent risk like the topography and the like proximity to sensitive receptors and how they manage their farming activities, cultivation p uh type, period of fellow shelter belts etc. The auditor then determines what level of confidence the provided evidence gives them that the specific language of the target is being met. To do this, they're expected to undertake a live risk assessment consistently adjusting to the new information provided by the consent holder. The process is then repeated for 21 different targets, give or take a few depending on the applicability.
Not included in the F audit is achievement of national regs or consent conditions not included under the FP audit appendix such as water telemetry.
So once the audit's completed, uh they will get an A or B grade if they're compliant or a C or D grade if they're non-compliant. One common area of contention within the program is the misconception that a compliant grade implies a a property is compliant with all resource consent conditions and relevant regulations. It's not the case.
In general, as long as the auditor has a high level of confidence that farming activities are being managed as required by the specific FP targets, a compliant grade is issued. However, a property may have other resource consent conditions that are being met such as water telemetry data, water body flow rates, distance from silage pits from boundaries and the like. And those elements are often not included within the scope or targets of the FP itself.
It's important to clarify that while a B-grade is technically compliant with the resource consent, the property is not yet fully meeting the FE audit expectations. Both B and C grades are issued to properties where the auditor only has a medium level of confidence for one or more targets. The real distinction between a B compliant and a C non-compliant isn't necessarily the severity of the concerns, but rather how the consent holder engages with those issues. So to achieve a B-grade, the consent holder must acknowledge the gaps and implement a clear plan to address them. And that buyin effectively allows them a two-year window to get things sorted and meet expectations.
Conversely, a C-grade indicates the consent holder requires more formal support to implement the plan. In these cases, the report is shared with a LMA, a land management adviser or a consent officer, a compliance officer rather, who then steps in under their mandate to either educate or enforce the audited expectations.
As you can imagine, with a system as robust as this is a lot of quality assurance and it can be broken down to the QA within the program and of our auditors. Internally, we ensure that any decisions or recommendations are undertaken with the best available information and that these decisions are consistent and documented. So, there's a wide range of subject matter experts engaged with uh without or throughout the FE order program. As we've already covered off, internally the audit decision panel requires decisions on the day-to-day operation of the FP audit program. It may include compliance, legal or interpretation queries, audit extensions and the like. Alongside the experience within the panel, they also draw on senior leadership and legal and coms if required. The FP audit team has built a productive and engaged relationship with the audit reference group which I touched on earlier on. So it includes policy, technical and regional experts from irrigation New Zealand, pork New Zealand, Darian Z beef and lamb, fed farmers, uh, far daring zenz and ISO programs along with auditors and irrigation schemes. The panel is an advisory panel only adhering to a terms of reference. They receive FE audit program improvements prior to their approval so they can provide input into how those improvements could be improved from their point of view.
In addition, they often share information back into ECAN about emerging issues or opportunities that they're hearing on the ground through their networks.
Finally, once uh a piece of work has been developed, it follows an agreed approval process and that identifies where there's a delegated mandate for CE approval or where a lower level of approval is sufficient. It's quite robust.
From an uh auditor quality assurance perspective, FE auditors are expected to not only have well-developed auditor skills, but also the technical expertise required to undertake live risk assessments to determine their level of confidence that the management addresses the risk of contaminant loss to ground and surface water on a wide range of topics. So the competency expectations and the QA relating to auditors must be robust. should in order to demonstrate that they're not meeting expectations, there's a range of penalties that can be applied. Initially, we use educational approaches like a written warning, improvement plans, or a period of supervision. When we have repeated instances of a concern, we also have the opportunity to revoke certification or not improve an auditor at their re-registration.
Last couple of slides talk to the program successes thus far and the improvements that we'd like to make going forward and then we can open up for questions. So there's definitely a number of learnings that we've derived over the course of the program as shown on screen. Three key learnings to take home from our perspective. First, successful uptake from the rural community driving behavior change and FE is now just a part of farming within Canterbury and that was not the case 10 15 odd years ago. Second, we have robust systems to ensure the quality of the FE auditing system. And finally, we have great subject matter experts both inhouse and in the industry that are involved in the decision-m processes and support it to continue to be a robust process.
in terms of improvements going forward and opportunities going forward. The three key ones uh that we that pull out rural comms of FE expectations and implementation of rural guidance campaigns and use of rural matters and social media. So how can we be even better than we are in communicating FE audit expectations out to industry out to farmers making sure that there's no surprises experience for everyone involved in the system.
We uh will continue to strive for improved understanding on the distinct yet complimentary tools you can have to achieve the environmental outcomes. So F auditors, management advisers, compliance officers and the likes. And finally, just to point out that while our F audit team is small, they are impactful. They've done incredible work.
And so while there's opportunities to improve, further improvements are constrained at the end of the day by the amount of resource we have associated with it. And that will always be the case.
Right? A lot of information there. Um, but we'll that's the end of the presentation. Take questions.
>> Uh, thanks for that uh Mark. Yeah, a lot of information. And I can see John Forner itching to go and then I'll go to Sierra and incl can I take you back to slide six and I don't know whether it was just before got in from lunch and uh the brain wasn't quite there and and to me I kind of feel baffled by science.
um a lot of information in your explanation and I would love a copy of that explanation so I can sit down and go through it.
>> Uh that would be really helpful and and one of the one of the pieces that I want to ask you about in slide six there seems to be a confusion on the auditing process.
I've had a couple of questions from up in the huranui in regarding the auditing process and and the understanding of the huranui wire regional plan and how that integrates with the auditing with the independent collectives and and irrigation companies.
So there seems to be an inconsistency in approach taken and and you kind of touched on it um in in your discussion around that slide. Can you go back to that and and try and help me out?
>> Yep. Okay. So we'll go through it and then um if if you've got some specific questions, we go pause and again Sarah and Melissa are here if we need to get into the details. So the the the land and water regional plan schedule 7 has management objectives and targets which have been developed based on agreed GMP industry developed based on doesn't directly reflect so they're not identical to GMP both the industry GMP and the schedule 7 have evolved over time and that reflects the shifting priorities of each party both ECAN and industry for instance Mahakai which is included in ECAN schedule 7 but isn't necessarily reflected in GMP So as a result of schedule 7 development, the legal agreement sets out in set out in the consent dictates that the FP requirements to the specific version of schedule 7 at the time of consenting. So it was consented 10 years ago then schedule 7 10 years ago is what applies not today. So each consent >> no >> just can we come up >> okay >> uh call Melissa Gillespie uh I'm the senior farm plan advisor um some background onto that so we've got two adjacent systems working uh which we do have kind of throughout Waha in the case of the Huranoi region is that we've got the plan up there that does account for permitted activities given that they've got a farm environment audit happening.
At the same time, we've got the land and water regional plan rules that require consented properties and those consented properties have a consented requirement for a FE order.
What we find particularly in that area is it's challenging to communicate because we've got two things running at the same time with really similar names and they get confused.
So when we're talking about the F audit program in this sense we're talking about the FP audit program or the F audit proper noun as per the land and water regional plan for consented properties. So these are the ones that have a consented requirement for an FP and an FP audit. And if they've got a consented requirement, then they need to meet their consent um agreements.
Does that answer >> CLA? Do you have a comment?
>> So clear. No, I think it was helpful just to explain the two FEPs because that's one of my questions here, comments was we've talked a lot about the auditing of it through a land use consent. Um, but we haven't. But what what it's interesting that you say that you have to comply from an auditing perspective, comply with what's on your land use consent. But that's and if it's 5 years old or 10 years old, that's what you comply with. But that's not how it actually happens on practice at the other end because you've got this iterative process that's going on all the time. So what you actually get audited again and maybe John's John's probably the latest one that's been done here is that um it's it's it's greatly amplified from what you have in your consent conditions. My understanding is the land use consent is where they are generally put and the FE is generally the only part of that particular consent. And I know that it doesn't that doesn't mean to say and I'm hopefully at the rest of the councils around the table understand that that doesn't mean you're compliant with the other consents that that you individually hold. So um and that does make it confusing from a compliance perspective because we are now going to uh a risk uh basis and looking at whole farms. So there is a little bit of a complication there. But what we see as users at the end of it is that because of the iterative process and the expectation gets higher and higher year by year and I'm not challenging that it it becomes there's quite a gap between what might be on your consent and and the standards maybe to what actually happens in reality. But I'll pass over to John.
>> I just comment from John. Look, thanks.
And and that's the challenge. And I guess I was there the writing of at the get-go from the initial meetings about four people in a hall. Um and I've just been through mine. I got to be very careful. I'm not challenging what I did on Friday versus the system. And um with luck, I think I got a couple of A's, so that's fine. But the process has definitely changed and the need to rewrite my farm environment plan. So, I've spent $8,000 on having my consultants out on farm looking at my farm environment plan, rewriting my farm environment plan to give effect to the interpretation of environment Canterbury and the audit process today, which is a rewrite from three years ago, giving effect to the implication that was needed then. So, when I hear you Mark saying you give effect to what it was at the time of the consent, that's not how it's applied to us. So I am rewriting a farm environment plan which an order it is then checking that I have uh given effect to the latest iteration of expectation from environment Canterbury as to what the auditors will uh check on. They go yep yep yep that's fine John but we have now been told we need to concentrate on this. So, uh, we need to look at these things because that is now the emphasis environment Canterbury is putting on. And if I'm not giving effect to it, I don't get an A. So, yep, absolutely respect. We we're advertising it. We're putting on the website, but I honestly I don't read the website. I do get the upgrade information when I'm told that uh my process is coming up. I fired into Ravens Down, they come on farm, we rewrite everything, but the the shift is absolutely significant. So that's the challenge of our interpretation. It's a bit like the old Ird um tax information bulletins and you challenge and they go the law has not changed, Mr. Sunle, but our interpretation of the law has changed and therefore you will do what we say.
It feels a bit like that. I'm not challenging the uplift and the need but there is a significant change every time we audit in expectation of what things are >> anything from that m any response mark >> uh no I I guess I would just say that that you know that that's acknowledged that um the there as there has been a effort to ensure consistency across auditors and as the system has become more robust to deliver that calibration and that consistency. Variation has been experienced on the front lines um in engagement with farmers. Um and where there is instances where there is a an experience that is felt unwarranted then the team is there available to engage on that specifically and we are intending to as part of our next stage of continuous improvement explore how we can be more proactive in engaging with shifts over time with fact farmers directly um rather than it being uh reactive and made available on a website for them to find out on their own. So it's on the horizon for us to be exploring that.
>> J John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John John Fner anything else are you happy with that?
I'll probably come back later because I will have more questions I think once I get my lunch digested and >> uh Sarah >> so just going to the um diagram sorry other one um well I suppose it's actually during the refinements of it's really about the evolution of the farm environment plans. So sort of like the adaptability on how they can um address new land uses such as solar farms um coming onto you know maybe a dairy farm. It's sort of how how do you is it uh does anything need to change and yeah how how does the how do you adapt? You mean you might be you might have a wet land on the farm and that has evil harvesting or whatever you know so it's sort of the adaption of different land uses within the >> I have a shot at responding and if I'm wrong Melissa will correct me but um look the the auditor's responsibility is to assess the identification of the risks and how effectively the farmer has managed the in response to those and mitigated those risks and so that does allow for shifts in farm system and changes over time. Um obviously new technologies and new approaches coming into the mix does happen and that's what the order reference group is there for.
Uh so we engage consistently with the industry and as things become more pertinent or change risk profiles then they can be considered and again this is why calibration and the and the process around that is so important.
>> J thanks Sarah Clay did you have any more questions or were you covered before?
Uh, no. Other than this is a big topic and we've had a lot of information and we might have to to go back start of part two and just to rehash it. And look, um, don't take this the wrong way.
This is not about running down FPS. I mean, they've certainly been a very, very useful tool, but it isn't very easy. um some of the expectations out there and composting for an example. I mean I've been involved in a little bit around this when when we had um Jack was in it that set up some of the initial work around this in the organization but by and large other than the news flash that went out I think in rural whatever rural news um I haven't seen a hell of a lot more about it um particularly in North Canterbury. I know there's been I think they're having a field day somewhere or had one up in Ambley but I mean um you know h how do we get those sorts of changes that's the challenge I think that people are on the receiving end of auditors you have to actually pay for somebody to come and do a run through or if you're a shareholder of a irrigation collective or a collective they might do that as part of their responsibilities to make sure that everybody gets by but there is lots of costs at each end of this um that people pick up and we just need to make sure that everybody knows what the expectations are and that I see as our role to get that information out and how we do that effectively.
>> Cool. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah, there is lots of information and we know this is part one of two two-part series. So, we look forward to the recap on the on the start of the part two. Uh I'll go over to Ashley.
Um, I have lots of questions. Um, some of them have been partially answered, but this is actually for those of us who are new to this, this is extremely complex and I'd say a good 60% of it went over here. Um, so we probably need to have FEPS for newbies.
Um, >> that's true. That's true.
>> That's true. Okay. So I'll I'll ask the questions where I actually understand what I'm asking as opposed to um certified FE auditors who certifies them and what are their qualifications?
Uh so I do. Yeah. So uh to be approved as an FP auditor you need five years experience relative um relative qualifications and you also need to prove that or demonstrate competency against the FE audit certification SOP competency criteria which is quite a few pages at the back of that SOP.
That's done through two witnessed on-site audits. So I will follow the auditor around for two audits um covering things from communication and questioning techniques, body language, critical analysis of the technical data and also general rapport building chat.
Then after th those two assessments, they then submit the reports which then undergo the same level of scrutiny. So whenever I'm reviewing the reports, the auditor needs to be able to demonstrate that just based on the report alone, they can justify that audit outcome.
And once that has gone through and I've gone, I believe that this auditor meets all of the competency criteria, it then goes up all the way up to Stephanie for final sign off as the decision maker.
>> Cool. Thanks. I I understood that. Um my next question um which is getting really basic as to what FEPs do and don't measure and this um they measure identification of risks and stated management of those risks.
Do they do they measure whether that management is actually happening or not?
>> Sorry to cut you off. Um yes, so they the FE itself identifies the risks and the measures that the farmer can undertake to manage and mitigate those risks. Then the audit assesses the the actual practice on farm against the criteria.
>> Thank you. That answers one thing. Um and my my final question, audit reference groups. Um has there been any thought given to having independent members on those reference groups who aren't attached to industry? For example, academics gets a bit difficult because industry funds lots of academic studies.
But but um just in terms of you know what we hear as all the time um has some thought been given to alleviating the perception of industry capture?
>> Exactly my question.
No, we haven't had independence before, but it could be explored with the ARG in terms of the discussion.
>> From my point of view, I think that would be a very useful thing to examine to look into because of the very strong perception in some quarters of industry capture. Um and I think that having some and it would be difficult because most academics get a lot of their research paid for by various industries but I think it could be quite useful to for an exercise of how that could happen.
>> Thank you. Yep. That's not for sure.
>> Y thanks Ashley. So we got uh still got a big afternoon in front of us. So uh we've got seven more people for questions in 15 minutes. So succinct questions straight to the point uh and we'll move on. K Genevie >> um I solely agree with uh councelor Campbell's comments. We need independence on them to give it robustness of process. Um that's exactly what I had lined up. However, um given that audits um are a snapshot um in time, what mechanisms exist to identify I guess poor performance occurring between audits? Is it just the compliance and monitoring or does that feed into the the next audit stage or does it trigger an earlier audit?
Yeah, look the F itself is a is a snapshot and when the audit occurs is at that point in time. Um there's the the amount of work that's required on farm to be able to deliver on the management and mitigation of those risks is not insignificant. And in particular, when you think about the ability to demonstrate that that's what you have achieved over the timeline preceding the audit itself, you've got to be able to provide evidence that you have effectively managed those risks. And so um pending there being um records that don't reflect actual practice, then the the audit is pretty robust and exploring what's occurred over the prior time.
outside of the audit process itself.
Yes, there's general compliance management and the ability to uh respond to events.
>> Just a second um onto that about the the actual 25 auditors.
So they're assessed and um certified through us. Are they our pool of auditors or are they independent?
So they they are set up as independent auditors and they get verified through our process or certified through our process. Uh and then they are available to the market for farmers to be able to utilize to audit to conduct the audit on their property.
>> Thanks Mark. Moving on Megan.
>> Uh that was such a fast run through. I'm going to have to actually listen it back because it just went at such a pace that it was hard to keep up. So you might have answered this um but but starting this process um I the first place I went to was to read schedule 7 and I had confidence once I read it that it was really clear to say what a plan shall include um including the objectives and targets and subregional you know information. I thought okay I'm feeling really confident with this. This is looking good. And then I've looked at it from hearing it from a different perspective. I'm a little bit at the other end of the scale. I'm not worried about industry capture. I'm a little bit worried about the people coming into our system and leaving our system and who's making decisions at what point and it changing. And what I mean by that is the world is not as I thought it was. First of all, I thought an A was better than just you are compliant. Um so that's that's helpful for me today. The other part is I had it in my mind that as a group of governors we would appoint independent commissioners that set our rule framework. Then in that there is delegations to staff at the time that the consent is issued. I did not think for one moment that it was a continuous reiterative ex you know experience for the people who hold those consents to to have a to have a change in audit from year two to year 1 year two year three depending on if they're an A or C. And so I'm wondering like how could that be legally compliant with the planning framework that somebody is making a different decision Um and how how and and where where that sits with me is um anybody who's been part of regulatory hearing um committee recently, we've been talking about quality assurance and how commissioners are appointed and here we're appointing auditors who are who are changing the goalposts, right?
That's what we've heard, changing the goalposts and yet we're the ones that certify them and they we may call them independent but they only get to be auditors through our certification process. So this has got some red flags for me about um who is making the decisions and and why are they changing from the point of consent to the point of the next consent? How do we have confidence in that from our user experience perspective?
Um so the question is how the confidence we have in the in the process itself.
>> I think the first question is is this true from what we've just heard before that the audited so you get your consent you have a farm farm environment plan compliant with schedule 7 you get your audit you got an A. Why would you then need to change something again? Why why does it change next time? That's the part I'm finding hard to follow.
So through the um process of calibration and um seeking consistency among auditors the prior to that there was uh different farms and different locations with different auditors that would have different interpretations of the same thing. And so what we have sought is to achieve a calibration and a consistency across the board so that all auditors as far as close as reasonably possible are consistent with their interpretation of what is required on farm and noted that that is experienced as a shifting of the goalpost but it was a process of calibration.
>> I've got it and I've just got kind of one followup to that which is again the risk lens to it. Um, so what I just heard is, oh, we screwed it up the first time because we didn't have some consistency and now we're actually having better consistency and um, now that means that Mr. Eats has to spend $8,000 to to do their new farm environment plan again because that's really what I heard that in the beginning we didn't have consistency across our auditors which meant that they now we're we're doing it better by having a consistent framework. Well, isn't that on us, not others?
I think this is probably one we'll go away and explore and come back to you if that's all right.
>> No, I'd like to I'd like to I'd like to delve into it in a bit more detail and come back to you.
>> C. Thanks. Um, moving on, Ian.
>> Oh, cool. Can I just comment on Megan's question there because I think it's been lost in the presentation. um the iterative process on the consents is required because on your consent conditions you have to comply with your FEP and so that is an open-ended and that's caught out a lot of people and a lot of individual consent owners understanding that the FE part of the consent condition is actually is iterative depending on which subreional plan you sit under. So, so the so the subregional plans, especially if you're in um uh some of those with with high nitrate areas, require people to reduce their um environmental impact to to meet the catchment plans for the overall outcome of of water quality. So in the Hines Plains, you've got to get down to 6.9 um parts per million of nitrates in the in the surface water as measured in various points across the uh and so if you're above but then there's a there's an exemption for those that are under the limit. So there was a limit of 15 parts per million and if you set under that then you actually don't have to change. So your consent doesn't require to show uh further nitrate losses. But if you're above that, you actually have to come down by 30% or 15% depending on where you sit on the spectrum. So, so, so that is part of the the iterative process of the FE >> known at the time of consent.
>> Known at the time of consent. Yes.
But then then the but then it's confusing because if you have a consent for an affluent discharge for example that has specific consent conditions >> but uh the audit process then says oh you need to have continuous improvement but the consent actually doesn't say that in the and so that's that's but then if they say oh well your farm consent your land your consent to farm actually requires you to meet the requirements of the FE and if for example uh Fonta changes the rules around effluent storage that's part of the requirement to meet those new change rules. So there's a it's a it's a dog's breakfast in terms of from a farmer's perspective trying to keep up with all changes.
>> K. So have you got a question or is it was that >> Yeah. No, I was just answering that because I thought it was a useful interjection. Yeah.
>> Um my question really is though is and I think it's important question is um how much has it cost um Canterbury as a whole implementing the FE program and and it goes to Ashley's question about what are we measuring? Are we measuring the environmental outcomes that have come as a result of this program? because we were told earlier in the this year was it or at the end of last year that we're not measuring the outcomes of this program but we we we're and and we don't know what the total cost is but have we have we done those numbers yet?
>> No, I don't believe I I certainly haven't seen the numbers but we'll take that one away. Um in terms of the cost of the program as a whole and then uh in terms of the outcomes that that the F system is the F system and that's what it is that we manage.
>> Yeah. And I know I understand the FE and you're measuring compliance for the FE.
What I'm interested in is given that it's been this is this program has been implemented at huge cost. I'm not pushing back on the intent of the program. What I'm saying it's come at huge cost. I want to know that we are measuring uh environmental outcomes that are a result of the FE program. Otherwise, we just and if we're not doing that and we can't say this program is working, we we may have just squandered squillions of dollars of other people's money.
>> Yeah, we can explore those questions and come back.
>> Yeah, that would be good on take it away. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um John, was this following on from this or is it separate?
>> It is. It is following on for you. You look up there in the top right hand corner, change in management or significant change in farm systems.
Okay, I've just gone out and spent $2 million on environmental improvement and I fall in the Agrade category 4year um between audits and now I have to have another audit. So, doesn't it seem inconsistent when the auditing process is trying to drive positive change and people that make positive change have to fall into a one-year audit reiting process? And and doesn't that uh seem that things should be reviewed and reooked at again?
>> K. So um with the change of management it is not change in your practices per se or your improvement in practices. The system is designed to allow for decision making to happen on farm in a farm system that works for the farmer. With change in management what we're talking about is when the auditable variables have changed substantially so that the last audit no longer applies. So this is where say the individual who is making management decisions has changed and therefore all the evidence that we collected in the last audit that pertained to knowledge and decision-m is now longer null and void because that person is no longer the one making the decisions. So that's what it means by change of management. It is not when you're making improvements to >> no I'm not >> sorry John what's >> farm system. So farm system, you know, when I say um management, I haven't employed somebody for $2 million to run the farm. Um I'm saying I changed the system and put in a environmental composting bond that will reduce um discharge to water in. So that is a farm system. So I've triggered it by that process. I understand the farm management Uh so the significant change in farm system doesn't pop up through our system very frequently. Um it's usually when someone has reached out to us and contacted us to let us know. And we're talking um again because the system allows you to make substantial changes.
It might be that you've gone from one farm system into a completely different farm system and therefore your risk management needs to change.
>> I think what's clear here is that your changes of practice on farm does not trigger the need for a one-year audit >> has triggered it with AIC.
some something John you can discuss later on. Anyway, moving on. We got two questions left. Andrea, Nick, let's go fast.
>> Um, this is really easy. Those SOPs, is that a national framework? No, just us.
Okay. Um, I did have a question about the digital tools that some of our auditors could use and need. And I've heard other parts of the organization some GIS training for some of these younger people and um I'm wondering if if that's what you mean by that digital tools.
Uh so with the digital tools we are talking about the digital frameworks that the auditors are operating within.
So that is our online submission tool and there are some things that we could do to make it um more streamlined.
Um, I think I want to engage more on this and should I just email Judith or Mark or? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
>> A member member to CC someone in here.
Uh, Nick, >> thanks Mark. Sounds like you're leading some good uh rigorous uh work here. U I'll keep it brief uh in just the high level governance questions really to just a second uh some of the questions we've heard uh around maintaining the independence uh of the farm auditors and the farm auditor process auditing the auditors uh to maintain the public trust and that key 20 people who do the you know 1366 audits and also support councelor McKenzie's questions around uh uh does the do we check that all this work uh is delivering the hope for improvements uh in in water quality and uh and report on that. So maybe questions for part two of the presentation to the flag. Thank you.
>> Oh K, thank you. Thank you for that team. Um as you've heard um you know there was some a lot of learning. Um please reflect on that for the part two with the freshwater uh farm plans and as kind of John said that's what looking at for the future anyway. So kind of understand where we've come from, where we can go to um but also uh just in the presentations just kind of as Ashley said um 101. Um so on that we'll just pause there for a second while we change u Kat, we're back on back online here. Uh we're moving on to uh second briefing this afternoon, air quality management uh in White Canterbury. And over to you, Cam.
>> Excellent. Thank you. Good afternoon, councilors. So, I'm pleased to bring this briefing to you on air quality in Canterbury. Um I see apologies from Amy Ellison who would usually be um leading this and she's um away ill. Um before I get started just a a couple of quick introductions. You've met Tom Scott who's a team leader in the regional strategy space to have Theresa Ebacan who's a principal science analyst um in our science director and Miranda Charles who's a uh strategy adviser in Tom's team. So we're here today to provide you with an overview of the work being done to manage regional air quality and provide context for an upcoming staff report to the strategy and policy committee. Um there is quite a bit of information in here and we will try to get through it noting you've got an important briefing after this. Um however we can come back with further information if required. So the link between air quality and public health is well established and as a council we are required to monitor and report on ambient air quality and manage the localized effects of discharges to air.
We have been making good progress to meet national environmental standards over the past two decades. However, we still face a few challenges in certain areas with certain pollutants. On top of this, dust remains a contested issue around Christ Church quarry zones and today's briefing foreshadows a report to the strategy and policy committee on the 17th of June to seek direction on a potential dust monitoring program. I will hand over to the team. Thank you.
>> Thanks Cam. Uh Kyoto Miranda Ino. Hi, my name is Miranda Charles and I'm a strategy adviser with the regional strategies team. As Cam mentioned, the purpose of today is to provide an overview of the organization's roles and responsibilities for managing air quality uh and to provide a context for an upcoming staff report to the strategy and policy committee on a potential dust monitoring program. You'll see a lot of slides today that read as notes pages.
And we did this so that you could prepare for uh the session or have a good browse through after it and still understand what we're covering. We don't intend to read the slides or expect you to do the same, but we just ask that you focus on some key messages and note down your questions as we go.
So, the briefing is in two parts. We're going to provide an overview of air quality and health and the regulatory context for the organization's roles and responsibilities for air quality interventions and also we're going to uh explain how we perform against national environmental standards and local targets. The second part of the briefing is to provide a background overview of dust in and around Christ Church quarry zones and also to discuss key initiatives and next steps.
So when we speak today about air quality and public health, we're talking about the impact of airborne particulate matter on our bodies.
particulate matter comes from both natural and humanmade sources. And Theresa is going to provide a really good uh overview of that as she discusses our progress on air quality uh standards and trends.
So the slide in front of you shows the different impacts of sources of different sizes um differentiz particles and you're going to hear us talk about PM10 a few times today. that describes particles with a diameter of 10 microns.
Uh and that includes both both coarse and fine particles.
Smaller, finer particles are described as PM2.5.
And it's those particles that are known to cause the most harm to human health uh much more so than coarse particles.
Our legislative mandate largely comes from the resource management act uh called the RMA and related uh national environmental standards which we often refer to as the NISAC.
The RMA speaks to the life supporting capacity of land, water and air. And the NISAC sets out the limits for airborne particles and certain gases. And these are measured over specific time frames such as hourly or daily averages.
This slide also refers to our internal policy framework for measuring our progress and managing ambient air quality and discharges to air from home heating industry and agriculture etc. Chapter 14 of the Canterbury uh regional policy statement, we often refer to that as the RPS, and the Canterbury Air Regional Plan, the CARP, uh as well as the long-term plan have uh policies and and um provisions linked to our role in air quality. Internally, uh our air quality responsibilities cut across all three services, but for the most part, air quality uh activities fall under environmental regulation and protection.
In addition to manage uh monitoring and reporting on air quality, our approach includes a cleaner home heating program which encompasses financial subsidies, uh wood burner and wood supply accredititations and public education and awareness campaigns.
consenting and compliance activities which apply uh our air quality policies and rules and help us to respond to incidents and complaints.
Our approach also includes sector partnerships with a wide range of organizations and we also undertake future planning activities to respond to emerging science uh technology and national policy direction where possible. We endeavor to create strong alignment with transport and urban land use planning to also to achieve air quality outcomes.
Under proposed legislative reform, air quality management could materially change. We're not 100% sure how, but uh our sector leaders and community voices are asking the following questions. Who will govern our air quality system? How much local direction will remain? How strongly might environmental protection compete with development priorities? And will environmental oversight weaken if governance becomes more development focused? And as for other work streams, we will keep you a pace of updates to our current understanding of how reform might affect our responsibilities uh and our priorities, especially uh in the context of any discretionary monitoring programs. So uh I'll hand you now over to Theresa who will discuss some recent air quality trends and performance against national standards.
>> Oh sorry tennoto caua kerresa ao my role is in the science group and I've been involved with monitoring uh general air quality in Canterbury for more than 30 years. So that is the air that's not directly impacted by discharges just um we refer to as ambient air quality.
This graph shows two examples of improvement in air quality over the last 26 years.
These markers show the number of days when the national environmental standard for PM10 was exceeded each year in the Timuru airshed, the green markers, and the Christ Church airshed, the red markers.
There is variation from year to year, but overall the trend shows far fewer days than in the early 2000s.
That is from changes to how we heat our homes.
Cleaner heating rules, wood burner replacement requirements, education campaigns, and support for better burning practices have helped improve air quality across Whita.
That improvement may have plateaued in the more recent years, which we will focus on next in the next slide, and include all eight Canterbury airsheds.
So looking at the table on the left first, this shows how monitoring in each earshade has it compared to the PM10 National Environmental Standard with the green ones compliant and the red ones not.
Washik is an industrial area in the north of Timaru and has the highest ranking for PM10 in the left table. This is followed by Timaru City and Kaio.
The table on the right shows fine particles PM2.5 in comparison to our 2030 regional planning targets. That's the Canterbury Air Regional Plan. You may recall from earlier when Miranda was speaking about particle size that PM 2.5 is a subset of PM10.
In most of our airsides, the majority of PM10 when concentrations are highest are those smaller fine particles with very few coarse particles.
This results in very similar PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
Why we see a difference in these tables is because the PM2.5 guideline is half the amount of the PM10 one and so there are many more exceedences of that value.
There are variations from year to year usually based on the winter weather that is how cold, calm and frosty it was between May and August when the highest concentrations usually occur in most aired.
The one airshed that has the lowest PM2.5 concentrations is wash where coarse particles are the main source of PM10 rather than fine particles.
These coarse particles occur all year round and come from many sources in wash including sea salt fertilizer works ashfelt plant grain silos landscaping suppliers industrial stacks and vehicle movements on dusty unpaved uh surfaces.
Wash dikeke is an example of how PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations could look in the middle of a dusty area. Before 2019, monitoring a moist strike 500 m to the west of the current site only had one PM10 exceedence per year between 2016 and 2018.
With this washdike airshed in mind as an example, let's move to part B of this briefing.
So there are many sources of dust which can create issues either when there are strong winds or an activity that moves dust into the air.
Quarrying is one example with several quarrying activities that can generate different amounts of dust with the potential to cause adverse effects on neighboring properties.
The distance dust particles travel depends on how large they are.
how dry they are and how strong the winds are. Larger particles are more likely to affect visibility and amenity like settling on surfaces or creating visible dust.
Smaller particles can stay in the air longer and are more closely linked to potential health effects, particularly with repeated exposure.
The impacts of dust on amenity and public health are an ongoing concern for our communities, especially for those in residential areas around Christurch quarry zones. I'll now pass on to Tom to continue on.
I'll kato. Um yes, so communities in Yalus and the surrounding uh northwest areas of Christ Church have been raising concerns around dust for a long time uh for several years. Those concerns have generally related to dust on homes and properties, air quality, health, amenity value, etc. Um the regional council has responded to this in a number of different ways including compliance investigation, site inspection, updated consent conditions, um monitoring requirements, engagement with the industry as well as the affected communities. Next slide, please. Thank you. Um so there's already been a significant amount of work done in the space to date um in response to these concerns. So since 2016 this has included air quality monitoring around delta quaries uh monitoring of dust samples inside homes monitoring through a mo study uh more recent beex practice and technical assessment work also the purpose of that work has been to better understand where dust is coming from how it moves through the area what potential health and amenity effects are and what monitoring or management appro approaches might be appropriate in response.
Despite all of this, however, there is still no universally accepted evidence base on the nature of scale of the dust impacts and it it remains an ongoing issue of concern for the community uh in Northwest Christ Church. Uh the the key issue is not that no work has been done to date. Significant amount of work has been done in response to complaints.
The issue is that there's still differing views about what data from previous um investigations shows, whether the right things have been monitored, whether monitoring has occurred in the right place, uh and whether the the results are trusted by the community or others. Concerns have also been raised about the ability of separate quarry related dust uh sorry to separate the understanding of quarry related dust to background levels of dust. Um you'll hear anecdotally Canterbury is a can be a dusty place especially in a prevailing norester. So, so while previous investigations have provided some useful information, they have not resolved the level of concern or created a shared understanding between community, industry, and council. Can you go to the next slide, please?
So in response to those ongoing concerns and that lack of kind of a shared evidence base or understanding, the strategy and policy committee last year asked staff to pro prepare a detailed scope including costs and benefits for a staged dust monitoring program for Northwest Christ Church. Uh the committee requested advice on measuring localized background levels of dust in residential areas through both a short-term and long-term program. uh staff have now progressed this detailed scoping work to support that direction please.
So what is the work that's been undertaken to date? The scoping work has looked at what stage monitoring program would involve including technical options, costs, practical feasibility, data quality, maintenance requirements, and the implications of a short versus long-term program. staff have engaged with local residents and communities particularly in identifying monitoring locations and understanding whether proposed sites would be trusted by the community. This included through mail drops emails via our dust mailing list and then um the validation of sites through site visits.
There's also been discussions with quarry operators and industry representatives about monitoring approaches, access to data, data sharing, and the practical implementation um issues associated with all of those things.
The key point here is that a monitoring program or a proposed monitoring program isn't just a technical exercise. For it to be useful, the process needs to build confidence in the results. Next slide, please. So this um map just for a bit of context shows the wider quarry context around Christ Church RA. Um the key point is that the issue we are discussing sits within a broader network of quaries across the city uh with a particular concentration in the northwest.
If we were to monitor all of these areas, the scale of a potential dust monitoring program would be huge. The cost would be significant. Um if monitoring was to go ahead there's a strong case for selecting a priority area and staff have undertaken to do this and a proposing galus largely due to the history of complaints associated with that area. Can go to the next slide. Thank you.
Um so having set that context the proposed direction is to seek uh the strategy and policy committee's view on the 17th of June about whether a staged monitoring approach should be included as a part of long-term plan deliberations.
Subject to the committee's direction, the next step would be to undertake further community engagement progress detail planning uh consider staged establishment of the monitoring program including the funding process. Um in parallel staff would continue engagement with quarry operators on access to monitoring data finalizing uh best practice query guidance uh developing a query specific addendum to pre-application uh consent guidance and continuing that community wider community communication about dust management.
A key point is that uh we would seek that the there would be a level of community acceptance of the results for from any future u monitoring program as that has been one of the uh key issues in the past. So the bottom line is that there's been a significant amount of work undertaken to date and monitoring over several years, but this hasn't resolved community concern or created that shared evidence base or understanding.
So a stage monitoring program would give council a more structured way to understand background levels of dust, improve confidence in the evidence and support future decision making um around quarry related dust management.
Uh the the decision that we would be seeking or direction we would be seeking from the committee is not to solve the dust issue immediately. It is to confirm whether council wants this work progressed or considered through the LTP. Uh I'll probably leave it there and happy to take any part.
>> Uh C team, thanks for that. You leave that last slide up.
Just just note uh so we'll go to for this we'll go to 245. Uh noting you know what's planned here that it is going to the S&P um committee on the 17th uh and is you know regarding the dust monitoring uh approach u and what can be done in in the future. So just knowing that and we just keep referring back to that. But our first question is to Nick and then to Ashley.
>> Thanks team. Uh can you just go back to the slide with the graph on it please?
The equality trends 2000 to 2025.
Uh great to uh the Yep. Great to see you know a graph like this going in the uh in the right direction. We don't always uh achieve this at Environment Canterbury. And uh my question relates to you know how we achieved this. Uh you know I was staff in the compliance team involved in this project and I understand uh councelor Scott may have been a champion of the project as well.
Excuse me. Must bit of dust still around. Um so can you please explain for those who of us who weren't part of this who might be newer uh the the role that the compliance approach uh played in this the banning of the open fires regulating for improved burn qualities uh and yeah getting these results because he touched on it but I think it's a really solitary lesson to celebrate our success here.
Um, I might ask Paul to come and answer this question.
>> Cure the chair. Yeah, a good question counelor. Um, a little bit before my time as well, but certainly uh there was a dedicated uh compliance approach to the clean heat replacement program back back then. And I think it's fair to say that the compliance approach assisted with the uh with the trend. Um what did also happen uh that there was many unfortunate uh things that happened during the earthquake. Um but one of the things that did happen during the earthquake is a lot of the fires uh that were all the chimneys were um unusable and that assisted in the uh assisted significantly in the reduction of the um the the air qual well improved the air quality as well. So there's a number of factors at the time but there was a dedicated uh clean heat replacement uh compliance approach in those days.
>> Thank you. Do and do we still have that dedicated clean heat compliance uh approach at the moment? Just looking at that Tamaru trend which is going the wrong way the last four years and wondering if we've changed our approach.
>> So we still respond to in uh uh dust and smoky chimneys as part of our incident response service. So we don't have a clean heat uh dedicated team but as part of our compliance approach we do uh manage the clean heat subsidy. I think that's still correct. So that's part of what we do. Uh so we still have officers I think around about five officers that are uh compliance monitoring or incident response officers but focus in uh dust odor and the and the chimney the smoky chimney sort of work. So we still have dedicated officers for that work.
>> J thanks for that.
Um so I realize that this briefing is mainly about dust because of what's coming next but I just want to ask a question too about um gases hydrogen sulfide um which I know there've been questions about from Brmley residents recently from the from the um sewage treatment where does that fit in is that our responsibility or is it teto aura's responsibility when there's spikes in hydrogen and sulfide off the treat treatment plant.
>> Paul, this might be one for you to answer as well given it's an odor >> an odor question. Is that correct, Councelor Campbell?
>> So, question about um I know this is mostly about um dust, but talking about um gases and in particular hydro hydrogen sulfide, which I know there've been complaints from the Brmley community about. I just wondering what's our responsibility in that and where does how do we work with tatu aura um over that issue?
>> Yeah, we certainly do work with tata or over the issue of um order in Brmley and that's been part of our uh response when when did it start? My mind goes back a good number of months ago for sure.
>> We're not talking about odor. We're talking about hydrogen sulfide. Yeah.
Yeah, I would um hydrogen sulfide. Yeah, we've been working with Tata or since the the matters uh arose with the uh the wastewater treatment plant and that's a case of making sure that we're sharing our information with each other respectively. So we've got respect different regulatory functions and ours is obviously uh in relation to uh the effects of hydrogen sulfide which is beyond the boundary as you as you'll know. So our response our job is to uh hold uh those consents uh that that the consent holders are following the terms of those consenting conditions. So there's no offensive order beyond the boundary. That is work that continues to happen. Uh it was a major issue with the with the treatment ponds at the time. That's since subsided. Uh and and as you know that Christ city council have invested in airators as well on the on those um wastewater treatment ponds. Um but that will continue to be a targeted prioritized approach. Uh and we've been very clear that we expect uh those matters to um to be resolved.
Uh the questions have been not about general odor but about the actual health effects of the particular gas hydrogen sulfide um which they have documented and sent to both us and to tear a so I'm just trying to to find out when when we're not talking about generalized odor no matter what's causing it but a particular gas causing particular documented health effects with particular documented spikes in that gas. What is what is our responsibility in terms of um actual levels of that gas not just odor versus teato aura's responsibility in terms of monitoring the health effects >> uh I I believe we that the cris council monitor the levels of uh hydrogen sulfate at the site and that's part of the condition the consent condition um and I'm not I'm I'm a little bit out my depth around the detail of this but I know that um that we would u we would also closely look at that in terms of consent conditions and science science understanding um but but I'll need to come back to you with a little bit more detail but suffice to say there is still a very clear conversation with Tifata or around that and and and and health impacts that we we will have.
A second possibly easier question. Um and talking about dust around quarry sites. Um again talking Brmley um uh Dion and will will know that when we go to the Brmley community liaison group regarding the organics processing plant every time there's uh an issue about dust somewhere in Brmley which is outside this the group's scope but it gets raised the whole time. Um, so I'm just wondering in terms of um, air quality throughout Christ Church, are we focusing purely on quaries or would it be a good idea to start looking at some of those industrial areas where there are there is rock, where there's stone, where there's um, landscaping supplies, things like that.
Uh so the approach we've taken in Christ Church is to monitor in three uh we've got three monitoring sites in Christ Church representing different sources.
One is residential in St. Orbins.
One is uh along a roadside in Rkitan Road and the other in Walston is a mixed industrial and home eating or residential area. So, um, monitoring is expensive and typically we only have one monitoring site in an airshed focusing on the main source that we think is going to breach the national environmental standards. And Christurch is a little bit different because Christurch is so large and there are other possible sources, but we can't have a monitor in every single place where people might be exposed.
three. Yeah. just responded to your Brmley uh just just I thought it might I think the the community of Brmley are concerned about a number of things whether it dust and order and I think and I think quite rightly so need to engage with the c both council and regional councils over those matter that the meeting that you speak to is principally for the composting but that's not to say there couldn't be other ways to engage with that community over the concerns and that's something I have been thinking about >> Ji thanks for those and I think um Paul will take away the hydrogen sulfide um issue. Moving on, uh we have John Forn and Megan.
>> Uh could you bring up slide 16, please?
It's the strategy and policy committee direction. Um and just reading on on that given the issue that we have with Bayan's Road and the community are making um complaints in regards to dust from gravel extraction and it's neither I'm not saying right or wrong but is it something that we should consider monitoring to alleviate any concerns that the community may have because it gravel extraction within residential areas is going to be an ongoing thing and it's not so much a question for presentation or staff. It's more a question for the council members.
>> Anything down anything?
>> Could I could I just chime in? Um so the what we will bring to the strategy and policy committee has a proposal around the way in which we can monitor dust in that area. That method or approach could be taken to other sites and we'll we'll talk to that on the 17th.
My my advice to council is the the biggest barrier to doing that elsewhere is the cost. It's significant. And so if you if you wanted to to monitor all areas or dusty areas, sure you could, but there's a significant cost barrier to that. And so the priority has been in this area because of the history of complaints and that it's been an ongoing issue which the council has asked us to address.
>> K. Um yeah, that's said and it could be put into the LTP if um moving forward.
K. Uh over to you, Megan. So my my first question is going to be slide 10 then jump to slide six the measure and then back to the future um of slide eight. So if we start with 10 um uh my understanding is from what you said before is that carps worse because carps more finer molecules and can can cause more damage or harm to people in human health. Is that correct?
>> The car has a lower concentration which indicates the health impacts. Yes.
Look, I >> um this is not a good news story. It's not getting better, it's getting worse. So, if you look at the top there, wash they've, you know, in the last four years 0 to2 to 36, Kai 28 to 39. This is tracking worse. So, it's not a good news story.
Um it's and for me, I I then want to know, well, what are we doing? what is our current um work program so that we actually can meet those national targets and then from that the so what are we doing and then back to six is our performance measure just thinking forward to the long-term plan is that performance measure H enough to indicate to us and give us comfort that we're tracking in the right The slide that we had with the table for the last 5 years just focuses on the yearby year for the long-term plan. The trend is done by taking out the impact of the weather which what makes those numbers change from year to year really depends on the winter weather. The number of days PM2.5 exceeded changes depending on how how long the frosts when they start uh how long they go on for when they finish. So it really depends on the type of winter weather for the long-term plan. We take that out and we look at the trend and that is decreasing over the last 10 years. So the long-term plan shows that it's decre um reporting against the long-term plan.
It's showing the work that we have been doing are continuing to do focusing on home heating is um is still working but it is slowing down and it is good to pay attention to those changes in the last years. Last year in particular only in our region there were higher days of extendence. in other regions of New Zealand um it wasn't such a bad air quality story but for Canterbury there were more days it is just a variation from year to year long so how understand that table it shows it shows over the last 5 years things are getting worse not better from the from the worst from the thing that can harm people the most which is carp I'm I'm still really confused why then do We have this green.
>> So, so carps worse.
>> Sorry. Uh through UG. So, so, so carp up there is a Canary regional plan. And so um and and you are dead right um as in we have made good progress um in a lot of areas with regard to u meeting the national requirements requirements in the NSAC on the on the left hand side there and PM10 however the targets that were also set by this council through the um air regional plan um of were also included PM 2.5 and progress hasn't been as good there and so there is still these are some the challenges um that we've got in front of us particularly around PM 2.10 2.5.
>> So does that mean that we set we set the targets wrong or we're monitoring incorrectly because it does show that things are getting worse for that right our own our own measure that we set rather than the national standard.
The target is 2030 to have no exceedences of the PM 2.5 guideline. So we're heading in the right direction in Geraldine and why Maddie and Washtike got a wee way to go in Ashbur things are improving. Um it's hard to see that when you're looking at 5 years but they are improving over time. I guess another thing to consider is the World Health Organization guidelines which are even stricter than these. And so the numbers are even higher when you consider those guidelines. So we're heading in the right direction. We just have to keep going focusing on smoke in the winter time.
Then my my last question then is about slide six no eight the new RMA framework and in that so it it talks about how we're going to have um like the national the environmental limits will be set at a national level for human health and currently under the RMA and ecology set at um at a regional level and so we've I think for the most part a number of councilors have been focusing probably on nitrates for that kind of it's easy to understand well what does that mean from a nitrate perspective but what does it mean from an air perspective and um what I mean by that is when you've got central government setting the limits for human health and then regional council setting the limits for ecology when it comes to dust does that create any issues with the plan of future planning framework >> um through you chair. Um there's a I I think from from today's briefing and we wanted to come to you ahead of the uh strategy and policy committee because that's when we'll be talking about dust and we I acknowledge that this is the first time that we've talked to this council about the broader work. Um so I wonder if we take this opportunity to say we'll come back to you with a fuller explanation particularly of the efforts underway. We tried to cover it off in one slide there with a few bullets um about how we're approaching uh PM um 2.5 and um and and 10 and that will give you a fuller uh picture. We'll make sure we have the right people in the room to talk to all that work uh and then what it means going forward.
>> Good. Thanks for the cam. Um Ian, >> it's the last question.
>> Cool. Thank you. Look, I listening to this conversation. And it seems to me from an equity perspective, if nothing else, we should introduce urban household environmental plans for every household in Christ. But my my question is and and and I imagine that'll cost them $10,000 to implement and set up and um and uh and they'll be audited every uh 6 weeks, especially through the winter. But my question is, are we monitoring u other pollutant other airborne pollutants like microplastics and things like that?
I'm told by learned Connie colleagues and my children and grandchildren that I should be more worried about microplastics and I should be dust and I and because I am depressingly by far the oldest person in the room. I Canterbury is nowhere near as dusty as it used to be when I was a young fellow. I can tell you that with certainty.
So we focus on the national environmental standards which are for particles and gases um sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone.
We are currently working with the University of Canterbury. Um there are a couple of students looking into microplastics on the filters that we are collecting. Um don't know a lot of details about that project as yet. Um, but we are working with the university and we'll know more in time.
>> Good. I'll let the uh the exair portfolio lead have the last question.
He's been putting his hand up for the last half hour. Peter Scott >> been systematically ignored the whole time actually. Um, I think one of the opportunities here is the same opportunity that was had in uh and Tamaru where they moved the wash station. Is there a possibility of moving um to better capture some of the data that Ashley was talking about?
And and you could take Y mattis and Geraldines out of South Canary and you put them anywhere you like because they've met the threshold on PM10 anyway.
Thanks.
>> Chair, we'll come back with further advice on that. Um so, so I think the question was pertaining to can you move some of these monitoring stations in air sheds where we've seen good improvement um to other um areas where we want to see what's happening. Uh we'll come back with further advice on that.
>> Uh K team, thank you for the presentation. As we know, you're coming back on June the 17th. Any questions for who didn't get to ask, please send them to Paul via through governance as well.
Um, and then we'll get back to you. On that note, it's 2:45. We'll have a 5m minute break and then we'll set up for P plan change 8. Uh to provide councilors time to deep dive into the section 32 and process requirements for progressing plan change 8. We've got Amy, Lisa, and Zella at the table. Uh and also Philillip uh who obviously will be providing advice as well. I I understand that you want to take this session in three parts. Uh there's a couple of couple of slides in each part then break for questions and then go into the next section questions next section questions and then we'll be uh done. Sound good?
Excellent. Over to you.
>> Thank you so much. And we've just actually realized that the SL we haven't got the slides up. So we're going to have to um hopefully there's somebody that can help us find the slides. Um anyway, thank thank you uh chair. Um I'm Lisa Jenkins. I'm the planning manager here. I've got with me uh Zeala Smith, principal advisor. I've got Jackie Todd, who's a um planning consultant, and Phil Moore, who's our legal counsel.
Um we're here today to talk about plan change. We briefed you last month after we received um confirmation from the minister that um we have the ability to notify plan change should should you decide to. Um and we're wanting to brief you today on the things that you have to have particular regard to in making that decision.
Um and also along the way sort of recap you on on the process that plan change 8 has taken.
Um plan change 8 was initiated to address specific concerns in the plan that were real problems. Um the plan change has been developed to create a more enabling pathway for changes of use of water for the interception of groundwater and for the development of wetlands.
So to date we've invested around $380,000 in plan change 8 and we're here to make sure that should you progress and continue to invest in plan change 8 that the decisions you make are robust and that the the process is protected.
Um, Plan Change 8 has followed a really robust process to to date, including some significant consultation with stakeholders along the way and with partners. Um, and Jackie is going to walk you through how that has all been documented within the section 32 report.
So we'll run you through the options for notification as well and include in in that sort of run through the differences between the freshwater planning process and the and the schedule one hearings process.
This is a workshop so we want to make sure that there's plenty of time for questions and discussion as we go through. Um but there's still actually quite a lot of information. So it's not just going to be a couple of slides unfortunately. There's going to be um quite a number of slides, but we'll try and rip through them really quickly and make sure that there's plenty of time for questions as we go. Um so I'm just going to go ahead and pass over to Zella. Um and we don't our slides yet.
>> Yeah. Great. Thank you. So um if you've got the papers in front of you'll see the first slide after the um council workshop slides says the framing of the presentation. So basically >> is somebody coming down to get the slides working? Okay, cool. because I imagine there'll be people online that would want to see the presentation as well. But continue on anyway.
>> Should we try over here or are you guys sorting it over?
>> Okay, >> just carry on with the the presentation and the slides will catch up.
framing of the presentation which just runs through the purpose um previous decisions, previous updates, status of the presentation. The key thing to note from that slide is that u council will be required to make two key decisions in the future with some permutations that sit underneath that. Um, next slide is about the purpose of today's briefing in a bit more detail and um, as Lisa said, uh, we've received our exemption which enables us to progress plan change 8.
Um, and we are here to talk about the necessary information to assist you in making your key decisions which are whether you publicly notify the plan change or not and which planning process to use.
And as again as Lisa said, we're going to recap the proposed plan changes and the timeline, give you an overview of the section 32 report and um the notification and options for the hearing process. So the first part of this is a recap. It's going to take about 10 minutes probably just run through the background and purpose, the timeline and the benefits and disadvantages of proceeding. That is stuff that you've heard before. So um we will pause for questions at the end of it but um probably the more exciting stuff is yet to come.
>> Okay so PC8 was um started by the previous council. Um it's a collective term for changes to three regional plans. The Canterbury land and water regional plan, the Herini River regional plan and the wiper catchment environmental flow and allocation regional plan. It addresses specific issues which have been identified as those plans have been implemented. It was initially focused on the taken use of water which we call part A but the scopes expanded as it developed to include wetland construction which we call part B and restrictions on agricultural intensification.
The restrictions on agricultural intensification part subsequently been removed from the plan change on advice that that wouldn't meet exemption criteria. So the bits in front of you are part A taking use of water and part B wetland construction. The overarching purpose of the plan change is to resolve unintended obstacles and regulatory hurdles in the existing planning framework specifically related to the taken use of water and the construction of wetlands.
Okay. So as I've um said before plan change 8 has two parts. Part A the taken use of water and part B wetland construction.
So part A addresses issues arising from coupling the take and use rules that can constrain infrastructure development and prevent people from changing their use of water in some catchments. The way that it tries to address this issue is by introducing policies and rules to enable the introduc interception of groundwater for um infrastructure. For example, storm water retention basins, wetlands with temporary interception of groundwater for bridge building and maintenance.
Um and it provides a consent pathway for existing consent holders to change add water uses. For example, irrigation of pasture to dairy shed washdown or irrigation of orchards for change from industrial use to commercial use such as hot pools. But within that water bottling is specifically prohibited.
Some other examples of what the change in use might enable are things like an existing quarry needing more water for dust suppression or councils developing green fields and changing from sports fields or park irrigation to community drinking water supply or wetlands.
Another thing that it could do is enable um microhydro use on irrigation consents.
Now the um interception of groundwater rules would cover district council storm water treat wetlands. This gets a little bit confusing when we talk about part B which is the wetland construction rule but um the wetland construction rules do not apply to storm water wetlands because those things need more control than other types of wetlands. So the two parts have different purposes.
The um wetland infrastructure part is to remove regulatory barriers for infrastructure whereas the wetlands part is to reduce costs associated with the construction of some wetlands such as wetlands on farms, wetlands for aesthetic purposes but excluding wastewater and storm water wetlands and provides a bespoke permitted activity rule for wetland construction activities and where wetland construction doesn't meet that rule a non-notified consent pathway.
So we are here at the blue arrow. It's May 2026 where we're talking you through the draft section 32 report and the um planning process or actually it's June now missed it by a day or two but you can see through here that um the development over the course of time right a little bit on the um the pros and cons or the advantages of disadvantages of proceeding with plan change 8. Um plan change 8 makes it easier for people to do the right thing.
Um, it supports the work of some of our key stakeholders and removes restrictions on important infrastructure proposals that are prohibited under existing planning provisions, including projects making rail and road network more resilient and supporting housing development. Well, we can't give you a whole lot of examples on these kinds of things because we know that they're prohibited, therefore people can't apply, so we can't tell you what's not happening because of it. Uh but we do know that as when these rules kind of hit, we had people who had to withdraw for example the um Kiwi W or or just put things on hold for example the Kiwi rail bridge which is waiting to see what happens with this. Um both parts of the plan change are enabling and the benefits of the new provisions are likely to be achieved sooner through this plan change process than through waiting for the RM reform process.
Um the proposed changes make the existing plans more consistent with the goals of the resource management reform by removing regulation that unnecessarily impedes growth. That's one reason why we were granted the exemption to be able to proceed to notification.
But additionally, we do provide for environmental enhancement within this as well. The disadvantages of proceeding at the cost of modifying a plan which may have a limited lifespan. We aren't it's it's not clear exactly how long RM reform will take and how long we'll have to keep the land and water plan ticking over. Um and the time and cost to submiters. People who are engaged in this process are already engaged widely in resource management reform and this is another thing that they have to deal with.
Okay. So as I just to reiterate, you're going to have two key decisions to to come. um whether to proceed with the plan change and which hearing process to use. Uh we intend to bring these decisions to you at the council meeting on the 24th of June. Uh but we're going to go through some of the things you need to consider when making these decisions on the rest of this afternoon.
Does anyone have questions at this point?
>> Councelor Fner and then councelor Mai.
Uh just just going back to the disadvantages, are are you able to clarify that or expand on what the actual cost of the disadvantages would be?
Um we estimate that from notification to decision um PCA could cost between 600,000 to a million dollars but that is very much an estimation because it does depend on the level of involvement uh from the community within the process.
Uh that's probably as much detail as I can provide on that.
Megan, >> um, these are all questions I had listed for slide seven, but if they're if you think they're actually better off answered later, then fine, I'm happy with that. Um, what I've been hearing and I look, I just need a couple of levels of high level comfort on a couple of the big questions here when we're looking at um, part A, the taken use.
Um, so when we're talking about an overallocated catchment, I know people have different interpretations of overallocation.
And you know, for me, I'm just using a common sense approach, which is we're taking out too much water. That's how I interpret it. And if that's the case, then I I guess for me, in a real basic sense, it's just asking, does this plan change give anyone um the ability to take more water?
and then just use it for a different purpose. Uh take more water or same water for a different purpose. And also if it's overallocated, does that mean that we want it to be, you know, pull that back so it's not overallocated? And therefore, does this change mean that people water that might otherwise have been stopped being used can now keep being used? Is that quite logical?
Yes, understand the questions. Uh, and I think we we'll just answer them now so we don't forget when we get into the detail. Um, first question, no, this plan change wouldn't allow anyone to take more water than previously. Uh, actually, sorry, I'll start with the ch with the Are you talking about the change in use provisions or the whole plan change >> at the highest level? Because I mean it's easy people who are in RMA we jump into the detail and I'm trying to bring it back up to like the more macro level the the conditions that have been proposed in the draft plan are aimed are reasonably stringent to ensure that that doesn't happen. So for change in use which is the main one I think uh the the conditions uh would only allow people to take within the uh limits of existing consents. So no more water could be taken than is already consented. Uh I'll go to your second question and then you might need to remind me if there was another question. Um in terms of overallocation you're right there's there's several different meanings of that in planning speak. One is simply over a limit. So where a limit is specified say for a groundwater aquifer or for a river although that's more a rate of take um if a number has been set as to what the allocation is from that water body overallocation is over that limit. The second one which hasn't been implemented in Canterbury yet is a is a national policy statement term which is more about the state of the water body and that's where uh say water quality um parameters would indicate that the water body is over its sort of capacity if you like uh and Canterbury through all these various stops and other things that have happened along the way um EAN has not uh yet been able to implement those provisions. So when we talk about overallocated here, we are talking about the Canterbury in the context of Canterbury overallocation at the moment which is over a limit or over a number.
Does that >> that's really helpful because it's it's people's usual understanding of what overallocation means is we're taking out too much water and we're going to end up with no water. You're clearly saying that is not the interpretation here.
It's where we've set a limit. So that's helpful. And then my very last question would mean well if we are well assuming that we we had the limits right to start with assuming it was a perfect rule framework then so and then we're trying to get to a point where we're no longer overallocated then would this change mean that water that would stop being used can now be used that would otherwise have been stopped.
Not necessarily. So, it's it's not water that would be stopped being used. So, the water can continue to be used for the thing that it's been consented for.
Um, in some instances where where that use is no longer viable, people might want to change change that use. And so, yes, that would be continued to be used where it may have otherwise stopped. But I think you know if we're talking kind of changing from irrigation to dairy she'd wash wash down it's not a it's not something that would have stopped.
>> Yeah. Councelor Robinson, >> mine's a bit of a high level question as well, but um on face value, if someone had um an allocation and they've only been using it for say 80% of their allocation um but knowing that this is coming and that it triggers that 5-year rule and someone went about and actually started using that final 20%. Does that sort of change what's going on here or the assessment of effects?
>> I'll pick that up. So, the five-year rule piece that you're referring to, I think I understand that to mean a consent lapsing if it's unused after a 5year period or the council's ability to cancel a permit unused after 5 years.
Um, that's binary in the sense of whether a permit is used or not. It either has or it hasn't. it doesn't delve down to the level of detail of has all of the permitted use been used. So, as long as uh at a really brutal end of the spectrum, 1% has been used, the consent's been given effect to and couldn't then lapse, it would have to be the entirety of a permit unused for 5 years or a consent never given effect to uh for that to apply. for the reason I ask is that um when we look at environmental effects now that's based on a model of allocated water not the actual use of the water >> um so that's the reason um but so my second question is um you I mean it's probably jumping the gun because it talks about the actual assessment but it acknowledges that there might be some en environmental or allocation risks um going forward but where it specifically has assessed cumulative effects. Um have you looked at I guess the assessment of multiple consent holders utilizing this pathway in the fully allocated catchment and in particular effects associated with taking away part C for intensification.
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand. I did want I wonder if I go back a step first, too, just to add to um to what Philip has clarified. There's another five-year clause which is built into these rules, which is that um you can only apply to change use if the existing water permit has been exercised within the previous 5 years. So, it doesn't fully address what you're raising, but um so if the if the water permit's not been exercised in the last 5 years, can't apply to change the use. So that's just trying to avoid unused consent sitting there uh suddenly being utilized. And then there's also policy guidance that limits the amount of water that would be allocated to the change in use going forward. And it's the lesser of three things. And one of those things is looks at actual use data over the past 10 years. And the recognizing these things will be subject to submissions.
But the the the rate the starting point for the 10 years was to try and uh avoid those sort of um things that we do see when plan changes are coming in where someone might use their consent to try and up how much water they're entitled to change their use of. So averaging over 10 years is oh sorry um disregarding the volume then I guess um has intensification of say dairy farming been considered in this assessment?
Um there's yes in a way that we considered are the existing rules like how do the existing rules interact with these rules. So while this might enable a change of use from a orchard to a dairy farm because you could change the use of water, there's a whole other rule framework that wraps around that in terms of nutrient management that puts other types of restrictions on that process. So it's it's the interreationship between our whole framework which is why this is a targeted plan change and not a full plan review.
Okay. Have we got any further questions on the recap? Uh, councel or Gerard.
>> Um, when we that's based on our consent allocation that's um, isn't it rather than actual effects. So when we have a land use like um say a dairy farm has allocated the the amount of water that would be say for what Hamilton would use um but then it doesn't use it you know it it's it's got that consent um under the the um the water take from the um water entity.
But in reality if we change the land use to say a data center which is a continuous use. So that's just sort of a set amount and it's sort of like I I just think the pattern of use might be quite different and how um and whether how well does the you know does the the planning framework deal with um such a significant type of different land use land uh water take And I'm trying to think yeah sorry it's not a very clear question but I'm just trying to yeah make that a how how would water companies cope with the with these major change in activities and water use. uh >> these these provisions are predominantly related to an individual consent holder who has an individual consent not something like a irrigation company. Um if they wanted to they could go through the same process but would be up to them to manage the rates and volumes within what was considered an efficient use for the water uses that they were requesting to do. And again, we would still have the you can't have any more water than is already being used over the past however long it was kind of thing. So you could get differences in time like they might use the same amount all day whereas a dairy farm would use a certain amount at you know during a certain period you know September to June May or whatever. But um we're still limited by the volumes that were already addressed in there.
>> Yes. cuz the data center would use it throughout the year.
>> Sarah, >> yeah. So, it's sort of different.
>> We need we need to move on to the next section. So, uh we'll go through the section 32 RMA um piece.
>> Uh we'll do all of the slides and then we'll come to the end of that. We'll do questions. So, um if you got a question halfway through to signal and I'll write your name down first.
>> Andrea's first.
>> Yeah.
Prep.
>> Sorry. Sorry. I just wanted to just jump in and before Jackie gets into it and just reframe um the section 32. So the section 32 is an overview of the process that we've taken so far to do to do the analysis and and it sort of sets out all of the all of the analysis that we've done to get to this point. The plan change purpose is to address the barriers in the to constructing.
We've tried to be um around how we so we've as those water coming um used um making sure that we're not we're not exacerbating a problem that already exists. So, so the rules have been very carefully crafted to prevent um additional use where we can while also achieving the purpose of this plan change which is to enable the change of use so that we can get better uses of the water that's allocated. That's really what's driving this. So, I just sorry I just wanted to reframe that before um passing on to Jackie. And I also just acknowledge that Jackie's recovering from a cold, so her voice might just need a rest.
But I'll pass on to you now.
C. Thank you. So, I'm going to talk about uh section 32 of the resource management act and the report uh that was prepared in accordance with that section. Um it's a big report. It's 80 odd pages plus appendices. So, I'm just going to give an overview and then leave plenty of time uh for questions. So, the reason that we're talking to you about it is partly because it's uh when you make the decision on whether to proceed with the plan change and to notify, you must have particular regard to the evaluation that's in the section 32 report. And you must also have particular regard to advice that's being received from relevant EWI authorities and that's in accordance with clause 4A.
Um and that advice and the response to it is summarized in the section 32 report and and I'll come back to that in a bit more detail.
U particular regard uh which Philip is welcome to jump in on that that means that councilors that that you sorry are familiar with the information that's in the report and that you've given genuine thought and attention to it. And so when we come back to you on the 24th of June, there'll be a a a paper that takes into account all of these considerations. But this workshop is an opportunity for us to talk you through the section 32 report so that you become familiar with it. You can ask questions uh so that you can have particular regard to it when making those decisions uh later in the month.
Yep.
So, as well as something you need to have particular regard to, uh section 32 reports are really important. Um and they're something that as a planner I refer back to a lot in my day-to-day uh work. um they're important because they provide transparency for the public and decision makers and they explain the rationale for the proposed new policies and rules. So the purpose of the section 32 report at a really high level is to examine if the proposed plan change provisions so the proposed policies and rules are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the plan change or in this case purposes because there's really two or three purposes of each part.
So, uh, the section 32 report needs to do that. Um, it needs to include an assessment of the different options that could achieve that purpose. And I'll come back to that a little bit. And the the bulk of the section 32 report focuses on assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions. And that includes assessing the costs and benefits across four well-beings. And the report must then summarize the reasons for deciding on the proposed provisions in the draft plan.
Yep. And then I'll just go into a little bit more detail on that. So that efficiency and effective um sorry that evaluation in the section 32 report needs to include quite a few things.
They're all listed in section 32. So as I've just said it needs to include an assessment of the costs and benefits of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects and quant and where practicable quantify these.
The report also needs to consider the risk of acting or not acting if there's an um uncertainty or insufficient information. The report needs to be at a level of detail that's consistent with the scale and significance of the effects of the plan change and uh as I've said it needs to summarize all advice from ewe authorities and that's in both clause 3 and 4a consultation and the response to that advice. So the section 32 report includes all of the required information and as I said it's a lengthy report. Uh so we'll um actually before we go on to the next one, is that slide 14?
Yep. We'll just pause there for a moment. Before we go into the detail, uh I just thought I would take you through the contents of the section 32 report and what's in each section, which I've got too many bits of paper here.
Sorry, I've been logged out.
Right.
So, uh there's five sections in the section 32 report and appendices.
Section one is just the introduction to the report. So, it outlines the purpose of the report and what section 32 uh requires. And then it introduces the plan change, what's in it and the highle reasons for the plan change. It also outlines the scope of the plan change.
So, it uh outlines why it's proposed to change three regional plans and not others.
Section uh two then gives an overview of the development of the plan change from 2024 until now and it includes uh a summary of the changes to the resource management act that have occurred during that development. It also gives an overview of consultation what consultation occurred and when and which parties were consulted.
Section three is a nice short section.
It just provides the actual detail of the plan changes. So it just lists the uh policies and rules that are to be changed and the new policies, rules and definitions that are to be added.
Section four uh evaluates the extent to which the purpose of the plan changes is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the act. So part two of the act and that's a requirement um of section 32. And then section five is the biggest and final section in the report um which is what we'll focus on or what I'll focus on next. So that contains the evaluation of provisions that I've uh to just talked about and evaluates whether the proposed plan change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives and then covers most of the requirements of section 32.
Uh the evaluation includes a discussion on discounted options, reasonably practicable options that were then considered and the efficiency and effectiveness evaluation which includes that um assessment of benefits and costs.
Uh and then section five also includes details of the consultation, the feedback that was received and the response to it.
So we'll now move on to a bit of detail.
Uh so for this we've divided it up. Um there's two parts of the plan change if you recall. There's part A which is relates to the take and use of water and there's part B that relates to wetlands.
And then within part A there's uh there's a set of policies and rules to enable the interception of groundwater uh for infrastructure operation and then a set of rules to enable a change in use of water. So before I get into the detail of the infrastructure rules um right back at the start of the development of the plan change uh we we considered a huge range of options and they were discussed with staff from all over the council. They were tested a number of times internally with the plan change team. they were run past legal advisers and initially uh the thinking was that it would probably be most efficient and easiest to change existing rules just give them a weak tweak to deal with the issues initially that came out of the AWA decision. But actually it became obvious quite quickly that doing that would would have the opposite effect. It would actually create a really broad plan change with the potential for unintended consequences.
And so we quite quickly moved to looking at uh new sets of rules where we could have uh more targeted rules and perhaps manage the effects of these changes uh better including some of the the effects that have come up in questioning already today. So after discounting tweaking the existing taking use rules in the plan uh for infrastructure uh well actually for the taking use rules as a whole we considered three options. The status quo which is your existing plan. So leaving things as they are um a single set of provisions for both infrastructure and change in water use. So that was a new set of policies and rules that tried to address all of the issues that had come up with the take in use. And the sorts of examples we had in front of us were the sorts of things that Zelers talked about. So wetlands that couldn't go ahead because they couldn't intercept groundwater, a bridge that uh couldn't avoid intercepting uh groundwater, um farmers wanting to add dairy shed water to their irrigation permits. And what we um we found was it was really tricky to write one set of rules and address all the effects of that huge range of activities that it was intended to cover. So then that evolved to looking at uh two different sets of provisions which is the preferred option that's been put in front of you. So a single set of provisions for infrastructure because that just kept coming up as the is the most urgent example I think and then a separate set of provisions for change in use or adding an incillary use. So it was quite an evolution. And I think it went over three or four months and all sorts of drafting and testing to get to those um those three options. So that's where we landed that a separate set of policies and rules for the interception of groundwater was um assessed as the best option to achieve the purpose of the plan change while still managing effects. So it allowed us to put policies in place that very um specifically guided when it would be appropriate to grant those consents and then conditions in the rule that had to be met before uh infrastructure operation could be enabled.
So in the assessment in section 32 um as is usually the case all of the options looked at have costs and benefits but the chosen option uh was expected to result in the lowest costs and the greatest benefits.
So moving on to we'll stick with infrastructure and going to consultation. Um so feedback on this part of the plan change was generally supportive both from ewe and uh all stakeholders actually in fact very supportive uh from infrastructure providers as you would imagine so we've focused because you have to have particular regard to it we focused on the advice from ewe in our presentation um yeah so ew we expressed support for the concept but did want to make sure that the effects of the proposal were minimized and managed to the fullest extent possible. um they supported a recognition of adverse effects on Nahu values and sites of significance. So that's something that's mentioned in the policy uh for this activity, but they did request that that wording be quite strong that those effects be avoided rather than managed, which was uh what was in the drafting for a time.
They did have a concern about the range of activities that could be provided for by the the rule and that that was echoed by a number of parties actually expressed that concern and there was obviously some confusion about what the interception of groundwater was and what would be enabled. Um so yeah moving on to how we responded to that. We were able to respond to quite a lot of this feedback. Uh one of the main things we did is we added a definition for groundwater interception to better define what it covered and also to enable us to limit what it covered and minimize unintended adverse effects. And importantly, that definition makes it clear that it's just where groundwater is encountered. It's not where it's physically pumped and abstracted. So that that definition is quite important to limit the scope of this rule. And then we made some other changes uh to uh tighten the policy guidance to restrict where that interception will be exempted from allocation limits, require the interception is minimized as far as possible, recognizing that sometimes it's desirable as part of the functioning of the infrastructure like wetlands for example. Um and as I've talked to, we added or we strengthened that requirement to avoid adverse effects on Nahu values and sites of significance. Uh in response to feedback from other parties, we expanded the permitted activity rule to include rail drainage as well as roads and we expanded the rule to cover all road and rail networks, not just not just strategic ones.
So the changes address most of the concerns raised and the other changes that couldn't be addressed um largely because they went beyond the targeted scope of this part of the plan change.
Moving on to change in water use. Uh so as I've said we did look at uh different ways of tweaking the existing rules and some of those uh options included removing the prohibited activity status of the rules uh changing the conditions of the existing rules. Um I think those were the key options we looked at actually. or or separating the taking and use rules. So having a separate rule for the take and a separate rule for the use. All of those options are very broad and the potential for unintended consequences uh was uh concerning and we felt that all of those options were too lenient uh for fully or overallocated catchments of which there are quite a few in Canterbury.
And so uh that's where we move to this uh bespoke set of policies and rules specifically for uh change in use or adding an incillary use. And that's where we're able to add policy guidance and conditions that are um perhaps address some of the questions that were raised this morning. So policy guidance around the sorts of effects that would need to be managed if a consent is granted and around how much water might be allocated to the consent when the use is changed. And I note that the rules for these are reasonably strict. They're a non-compliant activity which is the strictest activity status you can have before you prohibit something. And so uh it's it's quite a stringent pathway. So it's not just a given that someone would apply to change their water and just get an amount of water without checking that it's reasonable efficient and that it's not more than what's been taken and used in the past.
So coming back to the conclusions in the section 32 report, we do do acknowledge the cultural costs of allowing the change in um water use that was certainly something that EWI uh gave us feedback on in consultation and the potential for more water transfers if water use can be changed and then transferred to another site. However, as I've just kind of said, the preferred option allows the environmental and cultural cost to be minimized while still achieving the purpose of the plan change.
The analysis found that there are a range of social and economic benefits of allowing a change in the use of water.
Um and and uh with the chosen option resulting in more benefits than the status quo. So more benefits than the current plan and similar benefits to the other option considered which was that much broader set of rules to cover all take in use issues. Um but this small bespoke uh set of rules allows more targeted management of effects.
And then I think might move on to wetlands.
No, sorry, feedback. I'm getting ahead of myself. Um, yeah. So, as we've we've discussed in briefings with you before, this part of the plan change uh received a large amount of feedback both in support and opposition. And so, again, focusing on the advice from Manafinoa, there was opposition from Runanga, most Ruanga to this proposal. Uh there was a concern that water take and use should be considered together and that reuse should consider the needs of the source water body first. Uh there was um concern that allowing a change in water and then the associated uh sight to sight transfers is not consistent with manif.
They were concerned that the language used initially implies that all swaps are beneficial.
And then there was some other concern about lack of guidance on concenturation, reliance on water use records and lack of industry guidelines on efficient use for some uses of water.
And then finally um water bottling came up as an issue and there was a a concern that water bottling wouldn't be well tested by the reasonable and efficient use test and we were asked why uh there wasn't a rule prohibiting a change to water bottling. So moving on to the response um the provisions were changed substantially in response to clause 3 feedback and then again in response to the clause 4 ae we feedback on the change in water use and so uh some of the key changes we made because there were a lot uh was changing how the policies and rules work together to provide more guidance and discretion in the consent process. Uh we added a condition to prevent a change from non-conumptive to consumptive use to change that um increase in actual use.
uh we added a condition to prohibit a change to the use of water for water bottling. We changed that terminology to remove that suggestion that all changes in use are beneficial to the environment. And we made quite a few other wording changes um for clarity where changes uh weren't made. It was largely because the purpose of the plan change couldn't be achieved or the changes requested are outside the scope of the plan change and that that would include sight to sight transfers that came up a lot in feedback. the the ability to transfer a water permit to another site comes from the RMA and then from the um the regional plans which then place restrictions on them. So this plan change isn't touching those provisions for transfers at all.
Okay, I better keep moving. I'm not sure how I'm doing with time. So we'll move on to uh yeah, we'll move on to part B and then we'll go to questions at the end, I think, if that's okay. Um so part B wetlands uh again we looked at uh various tweaks and realized that to be more enabling of wetlands um probably the most logical option was to pull all of the sorry have a bespoke set of rules that pulled all of the activities that are typically involved in wetland construction into one uh set of policies and rules. And so in addition to the existing plan or the status quo, we looked at a new set of rules with a permitted activity path pathway and a new set of rules where resource consent would still be required um but as a controlled activity. A controlled activity consent has to be granted and the matters for control are limited. So it's kind of intended to be the easiest if you like uh consent to obtain.
However, what the section 32 analysis found is that uh that controlled activity pathway probably doesn't really achieve the purpose uh of the plan change, which is to reduce the cost and regulator regulatory barriers to wetland construction and still requiring a resource consent. Uh that that cost is still there, the regulatory barriers are still there. And so it's pretty similar to the status quo and probably doesn't um doesn't really achieve much. And so that's uh why the preferred option in the section 32 uh is a new set of rules with a permitted activity pathway and where resource consent is required uh no public notification of that consent. So, oh sorry, just go back a bit. That's okay.
>> You did. Um, so that uh that analysis found that wetlands do have a range of benefits and introducing a rule framework specifically for wetland construction with a permitted activity pathway is an effective and efficient way uh to achieve the purpose. Sorry, you can go now. Uh so feedback on wetland construction was generally supportive both from manifenua and uh from from all parties actually. uh the the feedback was more focused on details of the policies and the rules and particular conditions to manage the adverse effects. Um so there was a concern from EWI that the permitted activity rule could be too enabling and that could result in damaging effects and they listed those. There was particular concerns about works um associated works in the bed of a river to construct a wetland. Uh that came up and also a concern about the potential for constructed wetlands to be used as de facto storage dams. So use the wetland to put your water in and then effectively operate it like a storage dam and take that water back out again.
And then there was a concern about effects on water quality mainly during construction if there was a discharge of sediment from the the constructed wetland.
Yep.
So we did make quite a few changes to address that. Uh there was some minor changes to the definition of constructed wetland. uh bearing in mind that for the definition we have to be very careful not to conflict with any other provisions in the plan any other definitions for wetlands in the RMA and also the national policy statement and the national environmental standard. So that had to be fairly carefully considered. Uh we did add some restrictions on activities within the beds of larger rivers to try and address those concerns. Uh we but but I do acknowledge that the the concern is still there that any activities at all can occur in any uh beds of rivers.
We did add a condition to prevent wetlands being used uh to take water from a storage facility to address that concern about de facto storage dams and we um there was already a condition about discharges but we strengthened it to manage the effects of discharges uh from um to water bodies from wetland construction. So the changes did address most of the concerns raised. And again um similar for other parts of the plan change where the changes weren't made.
It was because the changes wouldn't achieve the purpose of the plan change.
And so that's particularly in regard to that concern about activities in the beds of rivers. If we prohibit any wetland construction that um is in the bed of a river would would probably be back to the plan we've got now where most wetlands would need a consent. So that that concern sort of conflicted with the purpose of the provisions.
Ah, okay. That's the end of the section 32, which is good. So, I'm happy to take questions if >> Yeah, absolutely. So, I've got councelor Davis, Campbell, Megan, Mai, McKenzie, then Gerard at this stage. Uh, Moody, anybody else? Council Ward. Okay, we'll start with that. Council Davis, >> I'll start. Um, you've covered so much.
Um, you've done a very thorough job. And the thing that jumped out at me was the water bottle thing cuz all you say is bottling but not sale.
And then I thought, Alpine Fault 8, what if we all of a sudden need to bottle water to survive?
What do we do? And I just noticed that um Wiccott Regional Council does have a they have a water shortage risk mitigation plan up there and and it says clearly with these risks like um natural disasters, we can do certain things. So I don't know if we need to future proof anything like that in here, but we could be making a rod for our backs.
>> Um good question. And the RMA and replacement legislation will squarely deal with this in that there are emergency powers that would simply kick in and enable repurposing of water for example uh to be used to put into uh water bottles in the event of an emergency. Hard to hardwire protection in a plan in terms of thinking of all of the emergencies and so there are those powers that would be available.
>> Fantastic. That's what I thought. Um most of it's my questions are in wetland. Um, you say the same or different temperatures going back in. You're allowed to do that. But why wouldn't we just say the same? I mean, we're leaving it very wide open here. And I I know that with this uh groundwater thing, it's an 8° um difference cuz most groundwater is about 13° 14° and there you're allowed eight. But I don't know if we really want to say the same or different temperature. You can think about that. The other one is where did you get the umif five lers per second or 100 cummex per day for the wetlands? Where did we get that amount of water from for this? It's it's quite specific and I just wonder if we should not really be that specific.
>> I think I think that one's already in the plan. Um that's an existing rule.
But I'd also say all of these are the sorts of issues that will come up in submissions and can be and we will we will note your comments. Um wetlands is the sort of thing that we do get uh a lot of people who are quite experienced in wetland design who will more than likely submit and these are all things that can be considered and changed as part of that process.
>> Yeah. And that's the the point is that there's such good guidelines out there by land darians that everyone wouldn't we just say you must follow one of these guidelines.
We did look at that and we've had a I've even been on some courses for those guidelines to better understand them.
They're very hard to enforce because they can be quite broad and so sometimes it's better to try and pull out the key aspects of the guidelines that then need to be monitored and enforced. And you did that in um 5.16A page 16, but I was wondering if there's 60 different points you've got in there. And I wonder if you could put that into a table. It's page 16 of the 32 um section 32 report. 60 different things that you um conditions are met. 60 conditions.
And I'm wondering could that just be a table for the punters to make it easier?
>> I'm sorry. What part of the section?
It's um it's page 16 of your um proposed PCA land and water plan and it's um 5.160A and it's um conditions provided these conditions are met for the wetlands and >> sorry >> um within the section 32 report we could definitely tabulate things uh within the plan itself, we're kind of constrained by the structure of the plan. And so, while we could potentially do that, um it would then probably mean that we'd need to put it into a schedule at the back of the plan, >> uh because the formatting would go absolutely haywire as it's a potential option. It's just not a particularly efficient one given the the structure that we're working within.
>> Councelor Campbell.
>> Okay. So, my first question's just been answered. Um, first of all, I want to say thank you.
This is a really good briefing and I'm actually following it. So, that's an improvement.
Um page 20 where changes suggested by Manafena were not made. It's because the purpose of the plan change could not be achieved or changes requested are outside the scope of the plan change including sightto-sight transfers.
Can you just clarify that a wee bit for me? I'm um uh the notes that I've written down are ability to transfer to another site through the RMA. Can you just flesh that out a wee bit for me?
>> Specifically in regard to the sight to sight transfers. Um there was we received a lot of feedback about concern about the potential for sight to sight transfers after the change in water use.
And what I was just trying to clarify there is that we we couldn't really well we we haven't touched the sight to sight transfer provisions that are in the plan which are actually quite strict in what they allow. So you can't change across a catchment. You can't change across an allocation zone. And in some fully uh sorry overallocated catchments in Canterbury, 50% of the water has to be surrendered um if there's a transfer. So we didn't want to touch those because we don't want to open those up to become more lenient. So what what I'm not sure if this fully answers your question, but what we're alluding to there is we didn't make any changes in in direct regard to this the concerns about transfers because they're not part of this plan change. That said, we did try and lock down the change in use policies and rules to make sure that people can't get more water or take more water and then transfer it. Councelor Megan Mai.
>> Um Koda, I just wanted to say first um the section 32A report, AA aa report a a um really good um so I thought it it did a really good job in explaining um position. Some time ago um earlier in the May um the chair and I went and met with Nito Houdidi and um at that stage they said what would be really helpful for us from um plan change 8 is first of all to understand the section 32A analysis and I think that's been shared but actually they said what would be helpful is to know what what was said what we asked for what changed what was listened to like just a quick table and I thought oh well I'm doing I'm reading section 32A I can probably do that myself and I started to do it and then I thought I want to do this. Um and so so at that time we kind of made a commitment that we might look into doing something really simple um to go and I think the section the section 32A does a really good basis to just go these are the points that weren't quite given effect to but this is how we've dealt with it. I mean I'm really quite comfortable with how it's been explained. Um and I do also note that we had that conversation on the 11th of May and since then um you know the direction from the mural forum of the regional spatial planning committee actually having manafino a voice and saying say in there might actually remove a lot of that concern in any event um because the RMA framework is moving away from from decisions at that consent level and up at the front loing at the plan making stage and I think that this region saying well even though EWI don't have a power to appoint to those committees but we we're going to do it anyway is a really clear signal that um manifed um because what I've certainly heard when I've gone out and tried to talk and engage on plan change 8 is um the taken you set that some uses are perfectly fine but there are some uses that are not fine and when I read through paragraph 176 in particular that says we're going to actually prohibit water bottling things have been dealt with like systematically dealt with. Um so that is my long-winded way of saying a table or a very simple table something really simple would be helpful and if I could get help in in getting that together but in any event I just need to check in with them one more time because after Friday you know the it might have changed again. Yep.
We can absolutely provide that.
>> Councelor McKenzie.
>> Um, look, if I can just make a comment then ask a question. But the my comment is that I support the tough provisions on transfer of take points and I've always thought that enabling transfer of tape because of the implications for the effect on other people's take points it it's fraught with problems and it and refers a degree of ownership of the consent which I think is inappropriate in New Zealand's uh law setting. Um but I do support the uh flexible approach to taking use to being able to change use.
And my question really is in your section 32 analysis when you were considering the various options did you consider and I asked this question of Andrew Parish when he was working here and I'm not sure I ever got a straight answer from it but um whether in fact it was part of the problem part of our problem with the change of use is that we're too um what's the word polite word for anal retentive analy retentive um about considering what is a change of So for and and you you've consistently in this presentation talked about a change from orchards to dairy to orchards.
Well, actually if you're irrigating crops, what's the difference? I mean, is that a really a change of use? And you also talk about um wash down water.
Well, if the wash down if my irrigation water goes washes down my dairy dairy shed and then goes out through my irrigator, is that a change in use? And I would argue and probably if if somebody suggested it was, I would argue through whatever court processes I needed to to say it's it's not a change of use. But so so yeah, question 32. Did you consider whether we just been too prescriptive in our definition of what is a change of use in the first place? I mean, clearly if you're going to from um wool scarring to water bottling, that is a significant change of use. I'm not questioning that.
But I'm talking about more the subtle changes.
We did consider it and we did talk about it and Zeller and I both spent a considerable time in consents and I would agree with you the the criteria around change of use is fairly stringent. um we didn't go too far down the path of trying to define change in use and I think I understand what you're saying but I think it's a practice and that's been formed over a very long time at EAN and I think it would be quite challenging to change that via this plan change and I think off the top of my head a change in sorry a definition for change in use would be um pretty challenging to find that line um so so we we didn't we didn't go too far down the path of considering an option of addressing the scope of what a change in use or what is considered to be a change of use and what isn't.
>> So what are the rules? What are the what are the rules and regulations or where is it in the plan uh that you are you you've formed your definition of what is a change of use where other people might challenge that.
>> Uh I'm going to jump in here. there's a an inconvenient legal overlay at play around what a use is and the way the courts interpret the scope of the use of a permit uh is on a consent by consent basis and often informed by the scope of the application originally lodged. So you might see on its face a resource consent for irrigation but when you read the application it's precise about irrigation of a particular crop on a particular paddic. the court will take a more stringent view on changing that use to uh something than they might a consent that is again on its face irrigation uh with no restraint in the underlying application documents. So the challenge that arises from a regulatory perspective is needing to understand each and every time what the scope of the use is on an individual permit relative to a change in use. And that's where there's an efficiency introduced into the system because every consent is effectively unique relative to its application. What this change is trying to do is to provide a pathway through taking away the focus from the underlying permit to to a a planning response to say you can change. You need to meet some requirements, but it's to to avoid that individual consent by consent interpretation exercise that's required.
>> Look, that's a really good explanation because you're right. every I've got few farms and a few consents for irrigation purposes and they all have a slightly different um uh use purpose. So actually being able to take away that complexity is really cool. Yeah.
>> Councelor Gerard, >> I've got um two two issues. I I guess it's again uh allocation. Um >> I stand by councelor Gerard. Councelor Scott, did you have a question?
>> You don't want to ask your question before? Yeah, ask a question now and then then you can go.
>> So, Philillip um just following on from or somebody just following on from what Ian McKenzie was saying regarding the dairy consent one being irrigation and there's a distinction between that and wash down. Uh so if you look at from a farming perspective it's it's like a holistic use of of the water on your farm. Is is the separation because of volume?
I think it's actually more to do with efficiency. So when when we're looking at a consent for for a particular use, we've got to make a call around whether or not that water is going to be used efficiently and what's used efficiently on a dairy farm is going to be different to an apple orchard.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you, Councelor Gerard, for letting that happen. Councelor Gerard.
>> Yeah. Um just back to the um dairy farming versus um uh data centers, I guess. Um, I've got two things. Um, the point I'm trying to make is that dairy farms need their water the most during a critical drought period. You know, so, you know, it may be a prolonged drought and Canterbury's water is, you know, at its stress levels. But if we take you think of of a bath, you know, we've got the other allocation overallocation and some of that bath is taken up by data centers and that needs water every day, not just during the drought period is so and just it's that you know what what land use.
Yeah, it's sort of Yeah, it's cuz we've got that allocation, but the allocation's not fully used until we've got a drought.
I think there's a couple of things um at play here. So, our allocation limits are are about the amount of water that partially was already allocated. So, we just kind of added that up and called it an allocation block and partially about what the um environment can handle. And they don't pick winners. It's very much a first in first served option and then we try to manage the effects of that activity and this plan change isn't going to change that at all. Long term if the resource management reform allows us to a regional conversation about winners might be appropriate and having that discussion about water allocated to different activities where we could in a bucket that then people could choose which bucket they take from could occur.
But um it's not a function of this plan change cuz that would really unpick the whole knitting of the way that we've done the planning. Is that about where you're heading?
>> Yeah.
>> And just on just on that, councelor Gerard, the newer models of data centers that are around are called a closed loop just like your car with its radiator. It goes around and around and around and around and they don't need to draw water all the time. So there are there are innovations in >> Yeah. Hopefully in time for us. Um, so just a comment really. Um, and it's quite a sad comment. Um, I I've done a lot of constructed wetlands. You sort of mainly doing the roading ones where you have it to um to treat runoff from the roads and you um treat for heavy metals before discharge into waterways. But another um wetland we were doing was on the Komu stream and that was in the bed and um it was under land management and one of the guys said go out and have a have a look. And the poor digger driver was hands in the air going, "Oh my god."
There was thousands and thousands of elves everywhere and we had disturbed the bed and disturbed a whole >> Yeah. And it was a Yeah, it was something I'll never forget and I think you know >> can you ask? It's not a question. It's just Well, there's no compliance in there.
>> I've got other people who >> So, it's just >> questions. So, council Moody, please.
Thank you. Uh, yep. I support a simple table, please, of what's shown, uh, changed um, based on feedback. Uh, I've got three points. Number two, um, so yeah, I assume we'll we'll vote on each part separately. So, looking at part A, uh, the claw sort of clawback provisions and the overallocated catchment. So, uh that was in some previous briefings and it sounds like it's still there in terms of uh if it's in a catchment uh which is uh 50% of the water has to be surrendered if there's a transfer you were saying in some overallocated catchments. Can you just um talk a little more about this or maybe um you know point me to the part of section 32A report that talks to it as well because that's the the real number of it in terms of if it's overallocated there's not enough water there. what I want to change from my orchard to uh um to a sheep farm. Let's pick on something else. And uh I can't. Okay, so that water might go back in the river or now I can. So that water isn't getting back in the river. I'm curious about this point. That's the question. Uh the water being surrendered the clawback. Is there a claw back here?
So there's there's policy guidance for the change in use which uh states bearing in mind that is a non-compliant activity the policy guidance is quite important to guiding uh the granting the consent or the decision on the consent.
So the policy guidance uh states that the amount of water allocated needs to be the lesser of three things. Um one is the volume of water that's assessed as being reasonable and efficient. So making sure that whatever the new use is the amount of water allocated isn't too much. The second one is a small clawback which answers your question 90% of the rate of previously consented rate of take. And the third one um is is a maximum annual or seasonal volume BL based on actual use over the past 10 years. So it's a it's a very small clawback. Um it is there as policy guidance. I I would stress that the the 50% reduction I was talking about is the existing transfer provisions in the plan. It's not a part of this plan change. My point there was more that if the concern is that change in use would enable or encourage more sight to sight transfers, there are already some pretty strict limits in the plan. In my experience in consenting those clawback provisions, I don't think particularly result in a reduction in allocation in Canterbury. What they do is stop people doing what they might otherwise have done. And so based on Zeller and I both spent a lengthy time deciding consents, we got a pretty good overview of the sorts of consent applications that came through Environment Canterbury for a fairly lengthy period of time and it stops people transferring. They don't they don't transfer and surrender 50%.
They go, "Oh, I'm not going to transfer if I have to give up 50%." So I just want to stress I don't think these rules or policies will necessarily result in much of a clawback. that was just there as a bit of a nice to have that we might be able to at least reduce a little bit of the amount of water allocated. I think clawing back overallocation in Canterbury is a much bigger problem that will need to be addressed in the next uh next regional plan.
>> Thank you. Well, that's uh how we address big problems though, one bite at a time like how do you eat the elephant, right? Um and yeah, I support this individual consent by consent application process. uh you know it's how we manage consents and and use of scarce resources under the RMA isn't it?
Uh we might get to a permitted activity model uh from central government but >> be careful what you say >> with with putting a position out there like that.
>> It's a workshop aren't we meant to uh don't don't want you to be predetermined in your in your views.
>> Um that does that does raise me a question that I have around the planning framework that we're moving into.
By 2028, if we aren't existing as a regional council and there's some other entities, who inherits these rules or do they exist any further or is there something else that needs to needs to take over? And it kind of then lead into this next section because that's about the money and time that this will take.
>> Yes. I don't think that there's real a really clear answer to to how the transition will actually work, but the plans that we'll have will um will stay in effect until the transition is complete and and the new system takes over. So for so but there two different types of transitions. So there's a transition around our governance and then there's a transition for the resource management stuff and the resource management stuff. We'll have our plans until we have the new plans and then the new plans will take effect for the governance and who's actually um who's implementing those plans that will change.
>> Yes. at whatever time.
>> But I think what I'm saying is that in Canterbury, if we do break into two separate entities outside of the planning system that we've got that we're moving into, do those entities then both inherit the existing rules until they change them respectively?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, that sounds that that's okay.
Cool. Thank you. What we'll do is we'll move into this next section. If you can run through that and then we'll do a general question wrap up at the end of it. Thank you.
>> Do you want to or should I just >> Excellent. So, now we're going to talk about um your decisions around notification and the hearing process. Um we've scheduled 40 minutes for that, but we'll see how we go.
>> Okay. Okay. So, when making your um notification decision, um you'll be considering whether part or all of PCH should use the freshwater planning process. Um I I think I confused myself and everybody else in the room last time I spoke to you by indicating that you had to use part of the freshwater the freshwater planning process for part of this. You don't. You have a choice schedule one or freshwater planning process. So, you've got a full choice over which process that you choose to use there. Um, you'll also be deciding what date notification will take effect and how long the submission period will be. Um, our recommendations will consider all of those things. The most um, appropriate option considering the delivery, the cost, legal robustness and natural justice.
So, just to um make it clear, public notification is a formal step in the planning process. It's a chance for all stakeholders and interested parties to have their say on the proposal. So that's the any anyone anywhere in the region and outside. Um once notified the proposed plan change rules will operate in parallel with the existing rules. So the existing land and water regional plan rules and the plan change 8 rules will both be in play. So that creates some complexity for our consenting and compliance teams, but they've done it before and they're really good at navigating through those processes. Um, conveniently, because the these plan changes have been on our website for quite some time, um, those teams have had a good opportunity to look through and see what um, they might need to do.
When we're looking at your notification options, you've got being able to notify both parts of the plan change. um you could notify part A or part B or you could decide not to notify any of it. So a range of options.
So when you're um choosing your the planning process that you may wish to go through, we have the RMA schedule one process. That's the traditional process uh and the freshwater planning process.
So the both planning processes involve the same steps after public notification. There's a submission period, a hearing decision and appeals.
In terms of time saving, the um appeal rights is where the key time saving is.
For example, um plan change 7 took just over four years for a decision to fully operative. Um plan change 5 took about one and a half years. Um if you go through the freshwater planning process, there's much more limited appeal rights.
So that could narrow down that amount of time. Um the other area where things differ is in terms of the ability for council to appoint a hearings panel. So if you use the freshwater planning process, the freshwater commissioner appoints the hearing panel including members nominated by council and tanginoa. If we if you use the schedule one process, you get to fully appoint the hearing panel.
So the um kind of touched on that alluded to that in the in my previous conversation, but the um key benefits is your control over the uh process and hearing panel appointments if you use a schedule one process. But the drawback is that the process is generally longer.
Um freshwater hearing process, limited appeal rights could be operative sooner.
Drawback, less council control over the process and hearing panel appointments.
However, you do still get to um adopt the decision at the end of the process.
Okay. And this is a slide about costs. So, as I um Lisa and I both kind of touched on in our discussion, PCA for notification decisions could cost between 600,000 and a million dollars. Um, this doesn't include responding to appeals. Costs can be covered within the existing planning budget, but it will come down to um if you think that that is a good use of our rate payer money for the time that we have left to operate under this planning framework. Um we we our the section 32 evaluation has pointed to it being a good efficient use of um rate payer money because partially because of the uncertainty of the um amount of time reform may take but also because we know that there are things that infrastructure projects in particular that can't happen right now.
Um and this is the next step slide. So this is what happens next. Uh council decisions, then public notification.
Um and so once we get into public notification, we have specific amounts of time that we are able to do each thing within.
>> Um so therefore, we'd be notifying a summary of submissions in October 2026.
So people submit on the plan, we read through the um the plan change. We read through all the submissions. We summarize them. Then people get a chance to look at that summary and decide if they want to further submit on those submission points. Uh then we'd be looking at a um hearing in early 2027 and then decision on plan change in July 2028, >> no later >> or no later than July 2028.
That's with the freshwater planning process.
Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> Both and that's it.
>> Thank you. It's a long time.
>> It is. Yeah. Planning takes a long time.
>> The decisions. Sorry.
>> The decisions could potentially be earlier if the hear, you know, if there's not much in contention in the hearing. um we could get a hear a decision out much earlier than two years but there's a limit on we need to have a decision sort of within two years of having notified it.
>> Uh councelor Campbell then councelor Robinson >> I have two questions both of which are clarifying that I remember correctly what you said in the last briefing. Um one the first is that if notified and both are in play the planning decision is to go with the most restrictive option. Is that correct?
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> Okay. And my second question that I also just want to clarify is um last time you said that because of the costs involved you would come back to us after receiving submissions before for us to decide whether we want to continue. Is that still your intention?
>> Um there's a nuance to the answer here.
The council retains the ability to withdraw a plan change up until the point at which appeals start being heard and those are appeals either to the environment court or to the high court.
So as a governing body you have the power to withdraw a plan change right the way through that process. There is not though a formal step in schedule one that requires a positive decision from the council to continue on with a plan change. effectively your decision to notify means you continue on unless or until you then say no we want to withdraw. So you've got that ability. Um sometimes it happens something changes and there's a need to reconsider. Uh so you have that ability effectively council would then send a signal saying we want to consider this again and you would then receive a paper and some advice from staff and you could make the decision to withdraw but it's not a formal step in the process itself. So, just to make sure I've got that clear, if after reading submissions, we all looked at them and thought this is going to take forever or words to that effect, it would be up to us to say to staff, give us a paper on whether it's wise to continue or withdraw, but we could do that.
>> Yes, you could. That's the the type of thing you might raise through the chair with the chief executive and seek some further advice on that. Um >> that would only be through schedule one planning process, not through the other the freshwater planning process.
>> I my understanding is you've got the right to withdraw a plan change and that that survives that freshwater planning process as well. Um I I will check that but I I didn't understand it. It was a right to >> that'd be good to know. Yeah, >> Genevieve or Council Robinson.
>> Um, just a just a question for clarification on public notification.
Um, it says here on page 26, once notified, the proposed plan change rules will operate in parallel with existing rules. Does that mean that it takes effect at that moment?
Uh yes, but you've got to comply with both sets of rules and it's the most stringent that will apply from an activity status perspective. And then there's a waiting exercise in relation to matters of policy that those uh giving effect or considering applications for consent need to uh need to undertake.
So in effect they they legally take effect but have no effect because the prohibited activity status I think in most cases would I know it's crazy planning speak but um the the prohibited activity status would stop applications I think for sorry for some activities >> it's just going back to that because there isn't there element somewhere in the law that says that if something has been tested and it's wants you know, like it's questionable. You only have like 3 months or something in which to test it or challenge it.
Yes, there is that section 83 and it relates to things that aren't the things we're managing here. If the concern is whether this the notification of this plan change overrides for example the Supreme Court decision in AWA immediately, it does not. So what happens for activities that are currently prohibited in the plan? The activity status of those will not change until or unless or until plan change 8 is made operative having followed a hearing process. But we've got other activities and I might pick on some of the wetlands where let's say it's currently a non-complying activity in the plan uh and the notified rule is a restricted discretionary. It's still non-complying. Uh but the new policy guidance would become relevant when assessing that application.
>> John, anything? Nick, Claire, Andrea, M Ian, anything?
Uh Megan, Sarah?
So instead of um you know you went for permitted uh wetlands instead of like controlled wetlands is that quite what what was the basis of I mean yeah going permitted I know I largely because one of the well the the purpose of that part of the plan changes to try to reduce the cost of constructing wetlands and reduce the regul barriers and a controlled activity means that a consent's still required and once you're in the consent process, it's pretty hard to minimize costs no matter what you say in the rule. So, it was really that a controlled activity pathway isn't all that much different or better than the existing plan. I should say I think that's still the sort of thing that will be considered through submissions and it will be useful to see what the feedback is on that proposal.
Ashley, anything else?
Genevieve, anything else? And Nick, anything else? Okay, you're all good.
Well, it looks like we're um we've gone through and uh finished that. So, thank you so much for the the presentation. A lot of information that section 32 report like Megan was saying was really good. So, thank you for uh for providing that, doing that, and giving us the information today. Appreciate it. Who was on Kataka to close the day? I'll invite councelor Campbell to close us with kataka.
Kina Tina T. K.
Related Videos
Taking $10,000 Cash To Green the Driest Barrio in Bolivia
LeafofLifeEarth
528 views•2026-05-29
They Laughed When She Let the Weeds Grow Between the Fences — Then Her Cattle Outweighed Every Herd
BackroadHarvest
117 views•2026-05-28
Mozambique RELEASES AFRICA'S MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL - After 2 Months, The Results Shock Scientists
SimpleDiscovery24
541 views•2026-05-29
Cute Seals Spotted On Remote UK Island | Our Tiny Islands
Channel4OnTour
141 views•2026-05-29
The Bay Poisoned by Mercury #shorts
harmedino
289 views•2026-06-01
Calgary Flood Watch Day 4 🚨 Bow River Not Expected to Peak Until Tomorrow
RealtorDhirYYC
103 views•2026-06-01
This Jamaican Pond Has A Deadly Reputation
MyEyesAreYours-i3s
656 views•2026-05-28
You must see this..My narrowboat journey continues to the end of the Bridgewater canal..#945
NarrowboatWill
2K views•2026-06-03
