Download District Living Committee Agenda 9 October 2013 PDF

TitleDistrict Living Committee Agenda 9 October 2013
Author
LanguageEnglish
File Size2.9 MB
Total Pages203
Table of Contents
                            Coversheet
Index
1 Minutes District Living Committee 11 September 2013
2 Minutes Creative Communities Assessment Committee 24 September 2013
3 Minutes Community Funding Subcommittee 25 September 2013
4 District Living Group Monthly Report September 2013
5 Kaipara Harbour Joint Political Committee - Terms of Reference
	5-1 Terms of Reference
6 Whangarei Harbour Catchment Group - Membership Update
	6-1 Draft Terms of Reference
7 Proposed Plan Change PC131 - GMOs
	7-1 Plan Change 131
	7-2 Section 32 Report
	7-3 Legal Opnions
	7-4 Draft Proposed Plan Change
8 Surf Life Saving Northern Region additional funding for 2013-14
9 Council Facilitated New Road Name - Resource Consents
	9-1 Application and Map
10 Notice of motion Cr Sutherland
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

District Living Committee


Notice of Meeting
A meeting of the District Living Committee will be held in the Council Chamber, Forum North,
Whangarei on:


Wednesday

9 October 2013
10.00am














Committee
Cr S J Deeming (Chairperson)

His Worship the Mayor
Cr C B Christie
Cr A J Edwards

Cr S M Glen
Cr P R Halse

Cr J S Jongejans
Cr G M Martin

Cr B L McLachlan
Cr S L Morgan

Cr K J Sutherland
Cr W L Syers

Cr M R Williams
Cr J D T Williamson

Page 2

OPEN MEETING

APOLOGIES

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Members are reminded to indicate any items in which they might have a conflict of interest.





INDEX


Item No Page No

1. Minutes of a Meeting of the District Living Committee held 11 September 2013 ..................... 1

2. Minutes of a Meeting of the Creative Communities Committee held 24 September 2013 ....... 3

3. Minutes of a Meeting of the Community Funding Subcommittee held 24September 2013 ..... 5

4. District Living Group Monthly Report September 2013 ..............................................................

5.. Kaipara Harbour Joint Political Committee – Terms of Reference ......................................... 36

6. Whangarei Harbour Catchment Group – Membership Update............................................... 39

7. Proposed Plan Change 131: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) ................................ 46

8. Community Funding – Surf Life Saving Northern Region additional funding

for 2013-2014 ........................................................................................................................ 183

9. Council Facilitated New Road Name – Resource Consents ................................................ 185

10. Notice of Motion Councillor Sutherland ................................................................................. 188



















Recommendations contained in this agenda are NOT final decisions.
Please refer to the minutes for resolutions.



Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 – Decision making
Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2012 in relation to
decision making and in particular the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local
public services and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost effective for households and
businesses. Consideration has also been given to social, economic and cultural interests and the need to maintain and
enhance the quality of the environment in taking a sustainable development approach.

Page 101

40


provisions for potential clean-up costs to be met.

The community has indicated a desire that a liability
regime be implemented that requires those engaging in
a GM release to pay compensation for any harm caused
by an approved release, as this is not provided for under
the HSNO Act.

This policy is designed to avoid the costs for clean-up
being met by the Council or its constituents, and greatly
reduces the burden of proof required by Council to
obtain compensation, as well as the time and costs
involved in doing so.


The benefits of ensuring the consent holder is financially
accountable for any adverse effects associated with a GMO
activity, far exceed the cost. The Objectives and rules have
been designed to ensure the environment is protected from
adverse effects associated with outdoor GMO use. This policy is
efficient and effective in achieving the Objectives.

To ensure that a resource consent granted for the
outdoor field trialling of a GMO is subject to conditions
that serve to avoid, as far as can reasonably be
achieved, risk to the environment from the use,
storage, cultivation, harvesting, processing or
transportation of a GMO.


It is recognised that while GM techniques are expected
to offer benefits in many sectors, there are risks
associated with their use. These risks could be
substantial and certain consequences irreversible. This
policy enables Council to apply more stringent measures
than those required under the provisions of the HSNO
Act, to manage potential risks.

There is a cost to Council to monitor compliance with
conditions. There is an opportunity cost in forgoing the
potential release of GMOs, however traditional non-
GM techniques as well as new techniques (for
example MAS) are currently capable of producing the
same deliverables as GM varieties.

The cost to Council to monitor compliance with consent
conditions is no greater than for other activities that require
resource consent as a discretionary activity. The benefits of
ensuring adverse effects on the environment are avoided,
remedied or mitigated for the community far outweigh these
costs.

This policy is efficient and effective in addressing the Objectives
to protect the environment from potential adverse effects, and
ensures targeted outcomes are achieved.


To ensure that a resource consent granted for the
outdoor field trialling of a GMO is subject to a condition
requiring that monitoring costs are met by the consent
holder.


The EPA is not obligated to set monitoring requirements
(including beyond the consent duration) as a part of its
approval process, and can only require monitoring
where it is relevant to assessing environmental risk.
Under section 35 of the RMA a council has a duty to
monitor, which can be expensive. Requiring the consent
holder to meet the costs of monitoring ensures the costs
aren’t borne by the Council or its constituents.

This policy provides a clear statement of financial
requirements on the consent holder, resulting in
increased certainty for all parties.

The policy is designed to reduce the likelihood that
activities will impact on the environment or the economy,
or financial costs will be borne by the Council or its
constituents.



There are few costs associated with this policy, as
monitoring costs will be borne by the consent holder.
Council’s obligations are limited to ensuring
compliance and auditing the results of monitoring.

This policy is efficient and ensures that Council obtains the
monitoring it requires to adequately protect against risk, and it is
not burdened with significant expense to achieve this.

This policy is effective and will ensure the consent holder is
financially accountable for any monitoring required.



To require consent holders for a GMO activity to be
liable (to the extent possible) for any adverse effects
caused beyond the site for which consent has been
granted for the activity.

Accidental or unintentional migration of GMOs that result
in GM contamination and require subsequent clean-up
and remediation can be expensive. Further, GM
contamination of non-GM food can trigger product
rejection or other forms of economic loss. Requiring the
consent holder to be liable for any adverse effects
beyond the site the extent possible addresses the
significant Resource Management Issue.



No costs identified with this policy. This policy is efficient and effective in achieving the Objectives
by limiting the area in which GM materials may be used such
that dispersal beyond the area is a breach of consent and costs
of damages are recoverable.

Page 102

41


Policy / Rule / Method
Assessment under section 32(4)(a) of the Act Assessment under section 32(3)(b) of the Act

Benefits Costs Having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the appropriateness in achieving the objective
Proposed Policy 1.4.1.6 and 2.3.1.6
To adopt an adaptive approach to the management of
the outdoor use, storage, cultivation, harvesting,
processing or transportation of a GMO in the district or
region through periodic reviews of these plan
provisions, particularly if new information on the
benefits and/or adverse effects of a GMO activity
becomes available.


Avoids foreclosure of potential opportunities associated
with a GMO development that could benefit the Northern
Peninsula. Can be initiated by either Council or GMO
operator. Must go through plan review process and
timeframes to process are similar to those to obtain
GMO approval from the EPA.

Costs will be incurred by Council to implement a plan
change, unless a private plan change is initiated.

Transaction costs and opportunity costs to the GM
proponent of having to go through two processes (EPA
approval and plan change under the RMA).

This policy ensures that if a particular GMO or group of GMOs
demonstrates potential to provide net benefits then a plan
change could make them subject to discretionary activity status.
This policy is efficient and effective in ensuring any potential
future benefits of GMOs are provided for.

Permitted Activity Rule 1.7.2 and Rule 2.6.2

GMOs that are not specifically provided for in Rules
1.7.3 (2.6.3) and 1.7.4 (2.6.4) are a permitted activity.
These include (but are not limited to):

(a) Research within contained laboratories

involving GMOs.

(b) Medical applications involving the

manufacture and use of non-viable GM
products.


Such activities may require consents and / or permits
under other legislation / plans.


The permitted activity rule provides clear guidance to
plan users and Council alike on what GMO activities can
be undertaken without need for resource consent.

There are no costs identified with this rule. This rule is considered to be efficient as the absence of a
permitted activity rule would mean all GMO activities would
require a consent.

This rule is efficient and effective as it permits medical
applications involving the manufacture and use of non-viable GM
products, and vaccines that tend not to persist in the
environment, appear to be low risk and are difficult to monitor.

This rule is efficient and effective in achieving the Objectives.




Discretionary Activity Rule 1.7.3 and Rule 2.6.3

The following are discretionary activities throughout the
district or region:

(a) GMO field trials.


Providing for field trials as a discretionary activity allows
Council to decide on what GMO activities are suitable for
the district or region, presents a low level of risk to the
community, and provides Council the opportunity to
decline high risk or information poor applications. As an
application requirement is that the EPA has already
approved the activity, Council’s role is limited to
determining whether there are additional conditions
required to make the activity acceptable, or whether to
decline the application.

Assessment criteria under the HSNO Act does not
include liability provisions, therefore the discretionary
activity status enables councils to address liability
through general development and performance
standards.

Activities can be undertaken subject to conditions
designed to avoid more than minor effects on the
environment.

No certainty for GMO operators who may wish to
undertake an activity in the area, even though they
have EPA approval. This may result in an
unwillingness to seek a consent and foreclosure of
potential opportunities that could benefit the district or
region.

Resources and costs required by Council to implement
and administer the rules.

The discretionary rule is effective as conditions can be tailored to
uniquely fit each activity. It is also efficient as it is supported by
a range of compliance and enforcement powers under the RMA.

General Development and Performance Standards
Rule 1.7.4 and Rule 2.6.4

Discretionary activities are to comply with the following
general development and performance standards in
order to establish in the district or region. The general
development and performance standards are in
addition to any controls/conditions imposed by the
EPA.

Council can set higher standards for control than the
EPA has or could be expected to.

Provides clear guidance to applicants and Council alike
on the standards GMO field trials must achieve.

Resources and costs to Council to implement and
administer the standards.

Listing the general development and performance standards that
the consent holder must achieve is efficient in that it provides
clear guidance to applicants of the required standards that must
be met in undertaking the activity.

It is effective to set performance standards under the RMA, such
that certain outcomes are assured. Performance standards are
effective in mitigating risks.


100

Page 202

200

Page 203

District Living Committee 9 October 2013

10. Notice of Motion Councillor Sutherland



Reporting officer C Brindle (Senior Meeting Co ordinator)

Date of meeting 9 October 2013


Vision, mission and values

This item is in accord with Council’s vision, mission and values statement.


Notices of motion

3.10.1 Notice of motion to be in writing

Notices of motion must be in writing signed by the mover, stating the meeting at which it is proposed that the
notice of motion be considered, and must be delivered to the Chief Executive at least 5 clear working days
before such meeting.



Notice of motion Councillor Sutherland

Cr Sutherland in accordance with Standing Order 3.10.1 has given notice that he intends to move the
following motion:


“That marae of the Whangarei District be included and therefore eligible for funding through
the WDC Halls Fund.”

201

Similer Documents