Back to page

Landowners and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council - the fight between David and Goliath

  • Finally some progress - The rules did stop and they are listening

      13 November 2015

    After all the hard work and the generous donations we have SOME progress.

    Thanks to all the work from the people from Protect Rotorua and the contributions to Mai Chen and everyone else that contributed to the additional feedback - this is what we have and here is the process from here - Next Steps

    Staff will refine the Draft Rules on the basis of the feedback and the Draft Rules and any necessary options will be presented to a November Workshop for discussion.

    Following this a decision will be made about the decision-making timeframe towards adoption for notification.

    This is good and showing that council is open to changes to the rules after sending it to Mai she replied

    "Excellent. I look forward to seeing real changes for the better in the next set of Rules, Kind regards Mai"

    Be very careful in reading what they have said here - all the feedback you made and replies you received are summarised here. Be sure that your comments are noted and it is correct.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements

    Executive Summary

    Rules are a part of the packages of initiatives to manage the nitrogen entering Lake Rotorua.

    The Committee has previously considered a number of elements of the Draft Rules and in August this year recommended that additional feedback be sought from the community. The various consultation initiatives that have been engaged in have, over a lengthy period,

    helped to refine the draft rules structure and to test the practicality of the approaches.

    This reflects best practice in ensuring that Regional Council is fully appraised of all of the relevant information before it makes any decision to adopt a plan change for the process of public notification. This report provides a brief overview of previous consultation in 2014, an

    overview of recent engagement for the project, and provides an initial view of feedback being considered.

    1 Recommendations

    That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated

    authority:

    1 Receives the report, Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules

    Engagements.

    2 Notes the feedback received during September/October 2015 and the

    consideration being given to this feedback by staff.

    2 Purpose

    The purpose of this report is to summarise the feedback received on the Draft Lake

    Rotorua Nutrient Rules and to identify next steps.

    3 Introduction

    In developing the Draft Nutrient Rules for Lake Rotorua Council has undertaken a range of consultation and engagement exercises. A variety of technical reviews have also been received on the process and content.

    3.1 Pre-2015 Consultation

    On December 2014 staff reported back on the substantial consultation exercise that was carried out between and December 2014. The themes that were heard from that consultation exercise and responses included:

    Theme Response following previous RDD

    Committee direction Science (the science is uncertain, why can’t alum continue to be used, are there other combinations of nitrogen and

    phosphorus that could be used)

    Science is seen as being robust

    Science reviews built into the draft rules

    Ongoing research into phosphorus

    Social and economic impacts (economic impacts are too high, impact on land value is substantial, undermining of the reason community members choose to live rurally

    Acknowledgement that there is an economic/financial impact

    Further research and modelling undertaken to describe extent of impact

    Managing small properties (impacts ability to use land, variety of land uses, uncertainty about meeting nitrogen level, demands for skills to support resource consent process, unfair to not include <2ha size)

    Permitted activity status for under 10 ha

    2022 timeframe if over permitted levels

    Stocking rate table introduced rather than using a nitrogen loss threshold

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements

    3

    Timeframes, managed reduction and the 2022 target (timeframes unrealistic, explore non-rule options, do not use farm nutrient

    plans as regulatory tool)

    Certainty is needed and therefore a pathway of managed reduction needs to be specified

    Specified mitigation actions (within farm nutrient plans) are a key element of achieving the targets Nitrogen allocation (current nitrogen loss

    levels important for position adopted by submitters, high loss seen as polluters)

    any allocation approach will have relative “winners” and “losers”

    There is no right way to allocate – decision should be based on adopted

    principles

    Regulatory focus (rules are not the answer – explore other solutions, focus on voluntary and collective action, unfair for the rural landowners to pay for a clean lake)

    A regulatory-only solution is not proposed.

    There is by necessity a regulatory component to the Integrated Framework

    Communication of “whole package” important

    The feedback, responses and Council decisions have been incorporated into the development process. A number have led to specific discussions at StAG and then into subsequent community feedback processes. For example, the allocation decision was made by Council based on a StAG recommendation. The allocation methodology has consequently been used in the creation and review of the stocking rate table and over 60 individual property owners have sought their provisional

    NDAs to help understand the impact on their activities. 39 have also taken

    advantage of the Advice and Support process and have requested nutrient management plans.

    3.2 August – September 2015 Consultation Period

    In relation to small block owners and deer farmers the following activities have occurred during late August and September:

    A meeting was held with approximately sixty five Protect Rotorua members (including small block owners and deer farmers) on 1st September. A follow up meeting occurred on 27 October 2015.

    Phone calls to sixty five Protect Rotorua, small block owners and deer

    farmers have occurred to listen to ideas, issues and explain the rules further.

    The provision of detailed project information and responses to questions to Chen Palmer who represents Protect Rotorua including five LGOIMA responses.

    Contact has been made with every known deer farming operation in the

    catchment.

    Analysis on the small block sector was commissioned. This has provided further useful information on the nature of this sector.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements

    4 In relation to wider public involvement the following activities have occurred:

    Drop in days were held on 16th September 12-4pm and 17th September 2-

    7pm. These drop in days were advertised through a rural letter drop to

    1,200 properties, and various advertising through the Daily Post, Eventfinda, Rotorua Review, Lakes and Regional Council website and through an email to 412 key stakeholders.

    Website information has also been update and a substantial increase in

    traffic has been observed. For example, from 1st July 2015 – 30th September 2015 there were 4,429 visits to the Rotorua Lakes website with 2,383 being unique visitors.

    During late August and September ongoing liaison with key stakeholders has

    occurred including:

    Executive management has met a number of times with the Rotorua Te

    Arawa Lakes partner organisations (Rotorua Lakes Council and Te Arawa

    Lakes Trust) to discuss the overall framework for addressing water quality

    and a sustainable economy. This issue was also discussed at the Rotorua

    Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group on 16 October 2015.

    A meeting was held with Te Arawa Lakes Trust (TALT) staff on 21 August 2015.

    The Ministry for the Environment has been kept informed of our consultation and project progress.

    Staff met with Waikato Regional Council staff on 18 September 2015 to

    discuss cross boundary issues.

    Response letters were sent to Beef and Lamb NZ, Federated Farmers and the Lake Rotorua Primary Producers Collective.

    A meeting with Rotorua Lakes Council planning staff occurred on 21st

    August to provide an overview and update on the draft rules. Draft rules

    were provided to Rotorua Lakes Council for feedback and responses made to letters. There has been a focus on achieving a joined up approach to economic analysis.

    3.3 Ongoing Key Stakeholder Relationship Management

    The Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group met in March and May and received updates on the Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Project.

    Since the end of 2014 the Stakeholder Advisory Group has continued to meet on a regular basis. Subcommittee meetings have also been held to address specific issues or questions.

    Within the Rotorua Lakes Programme, Workstream Lead and Programme Steering Group meetings involving staff from the partner organisations continued to occur on a regular basis.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements 5

    3.1 Ongoing Tangata Whenua Engagement

    Tangata whenua engagement in the development of the draft Lake Rotorua Nutrient rules is ongoing. During the August/September period the following occurred:

    All Te Arawa Iwi authorities received updated project information and were offered the option of meetings if desired.

    The project was presented to Regional Council’s Komiti Maori on 1st October 2015.

    Offers to engage with iwi/hapu groups were made wherever possible (such as at StAG, Hamurana Reserve open day, and RPSC Project Steering Group (21 October 2015).

    There have been meetings and discussions on the topic of the impact of the rules but not initiated by Council. For example, staff attended but did not present to a meeting of Te Arawa Landowners on 18 September 2015.

    4 Feedback Themes

    The majority of the feedback received came from drystock or deer farmers. In addition, there were a number of dairy farms and horse owners who provided feedback. Over half of the feedback came from lifestyle properties. Appendix 1

    contains a report on the feedback received during the latest round of consultation.

    The following are the main themes of that feedback:

    People who support the overall concept of the draft rules see them as a key part of achieving water quality and recognise it is important that farmers contribute, but generally believe the draft rules as they stand need refining.

    Those who are opposed to the draft rules believe they are not equitable and that polluters will be rewarded. In particular, it was felt that the draft rules are detrimental to farming by small block owners and unfair to those who have previously been good environmental stewards of the land.

    Much of the feedback centred on the resulting loss of options and value for land. It was clearly felt that ultimately the rules will make farming businesses uneconomic, particularly for the small block owners. There was also concern around the constraints on undeveloped land.

    Respondents were concerned with the financial impacts from the cost of

    resource consents and the loss of income from reducing stocking rates. Longer term people identified the lack of flexibility to access new avenues for increasing revenue to face rising costs or environmental factors that affect farming. Some feedback stated the draft rules would mean landowners will no longer be able to run their existing business.

    Feedback identified that people consider land values have already dropped in the area as a result of the draft rules. In addition, there was concern that future land values will be negatively impacted due to restrictions on stocking.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements 6

    A number of people believe the draft rules threaten current lifestyles for small block owners because it will significantly change how they use their land, which also has major implications for the wider Rotorua community.

    People voiced concerns about the confidence they have in the results

    OVERSEER® produces and that the programme is not effective for small block owners or non-mainstream uses. Respondents made suggestions about how OVERSEER® could be improved and identified clarifications needed to assist in improving its usability.

    The reliability of the science behind decision-making was questioned. It was also suggested that the scheduled science review should be completed now prior to the development of the rules.

    A number of small block owners deem that there is a lack of assessment of the economic and social impacts on the small block holders from the draft rules.

    Those consulted with commented on the lack of consultation and that the consultation has been confusing because of the inconsistent messages about a number of issues, such as the changing minimum size of land holding affected.

    The membership of the StAG group was also a key topic, particularly in regards to minimising conflicts of interest and representation for the small block owners.

    There was a range of alternatives suggested during this stage of consultation.

    These included aiming for the 2022 target only, using natural capital for

    allocation, focusing on phosphorous mitigation, using wetland areas to address nutrients, allowing more subdivision, not allowing any more dairy farms and education. A number of landowners wanted the flexibility and freedom to decide which nutrient management practice best fits their farm context.

    4.1 Initial Responses

    A number of the themes are common to previous consultation feedback. For example, there is still criticism of the science that underpins the Integrated Framework and the draft rules and some feedback calls for relying on voluntary approaches rather than rules. There is also concern that the draft rules will bring with them an economic impact. There is also a spread of views on issues for example feedback suggests that the farming sector should not have to bear the cost of cleaning up the lakes as well as feedback that they should.

    Through the feedback process it was clear that there is a challenge in

    communicating the draft rules in a way that allows people to understand the impacts on their lifestyle and business. This challenge was mostly due to the complexity of the framework, changes in the modelling (OVERSEER®) and misinformation that was available in the public arena. This will remain a challenge.

    All feedback is being reviewed by staff for what it is saying about the specific rules the process of developing the rules or the general approach (the Integrated Framework). The following table identifies specific feedback and some initial staff comments.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements 7

    Feedback Initial Staff Comments Reliance on education, voluntary

    reductions and best practice

    The feedback requests that voluntary approaches are used as opposed to regulatory driver supported by incentives to achieve the

    sustainable lake load.

    Generally where the reductions are challenging, reduce profit/revenue or require significant system change then it would be unlikely to occur under a voluntary framework.

    Best practice is another consideration for meeting the required reductions. Best practice would differ between high and low intensity

    operations. Use alternative allocation approach

    A number of principles have been used to guide the decision-making that has arrived at the position used in the consultation process.

    Natural capital, which is supported by the Forestry sector in particular, has a worse economic impact and redistributes a greater impact into the pastoral sector.

    Pastoral averaging, sector averaging and equal allocation were also raised. Impact on future land values of small blocks

    Staff continue to look at the impact of the Draft Rules on property values.

    Work has already been undertaken on this issue. This identifies an impact on land value. Only a very low impact on lifestyle properties

    was identified and there is some uncertainty over this.

    The lifestyle market is reported as being buoyant at present irrespective of the draft rules being imminent. Lack of assessment of the economic

    and social impacts on the small block holders

    A small block report has been commissioned to provide a greater understanding of this sector. Including a threshold to apply to

    smaller property sizes

    Staff are currently considering this idea that has been identified in the feedback and has been specifically raised on a number of

    occasions by StAG.

    StAG’s recommendation from its 10 November 2015 meeting should be available to the Committee.

    As properties increase in size the risk to the catchment increases of un-managed nitrogen. There is a general shift towards commerciality

    as size increases – often with more intensive land use.

    Having a threshold would reduce administration costs and is likely to be at low risk.

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements 8

    Support only the 2022 target to achieve the 70% reductions (known as

    the Opt-In approach)

    Staff have discussed with StAG the Opt- Out/Opt-In approaches. In particular the Opt-In approach of only specifying rules and targets

    to 2022 (as opposed to rules and targets to 2032 and changing if science substantiates this) carries a significant risk to the funding support that underpins the Integrated

    Framework.

    StAG’s recommendation from its 10 November 2015 meeting should be available to the Committee.

    The idea of an accord to support Opt-Out has been raised with stakeholders. Stocking rates too low in stocking rate table

    The stocking rate table has been designed in relation to the typical management system on a lifestyle property. It should adequately allow

    for pasture management

    Staff will consider the level of nitrogen loss/stocking rates further.

    Undeveloped land faces an unduly onerous nitrogen constraint

    Undeveloped land is spread relatively proportionally to total ownership across the catchment (in both Maori and non-Maori ownership). The current capping of nitrogen loss under Rule 11 creates more of the

    constraint then the draft rules.

    Under the draft rules low-intensity drystock land if currently below the range will receive an increase in nitrogen allocation.

    Staff are working to understand this issue further in conjunction with Te Tumu Paeroa. Stocking rate table penalises horses, pony clubs will be unable to operate

    Horses excrete a significant amount of nitrogen and the stocking rate table reflects this. Staff are considering the input data for horses.

    The consenting avenue is available to horse owners/operators. This provides access to an increased level of nitrogen discharge.

    The above considerations are being included within the development process and will form part of the future advice to Council. There is a further RDD workshop proposed for late November 2015 to consider all feedback and staff and external reviews of the proposed response to this feedback.

    4.2 Technical Considerations

    A range of technical feedback has been received from staff, experts and

    organisations. This has also led to refinement of the draft rules such as clarifying definitions and terms, explaining numbers and correcting minor errors (such as incorrect cross references).

    Results of Lake Rotorua Nutrient Rules Engagements 9

    Next Steps

    Staff will refine the Draft Rules on the basis of the feedback and the Draft Rules and any necessary options will be presented to a November Workshop for discussion.

    Following this a decision will be made about the decision-making timeframe towards adoption for notification.

    Stephen Lamb

    Natural Resources Policy Manager

    for General Manager Environmental Delivery

    9 November 2015

    Its important to feedback any specific points you would like to make and contributions that you think need to be added to the workshop.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • Out voted 12 to 1 - we need our 1 vote to be supported by many.

      23 August 2015

    This is what i mean by unfair and why we need transparency

    STAG - Stake holder advisory group. Set up by invitation 2012

    voted 7 to 3 in support of dairy. IWI all voted Dairy.

    Nov 2015 after consultation and 3 seats added for Deer and small blocks voted 8 to 5 in support of dairy. IWI all voted Dairy.

    All minutes recorded majority preferred.

    Dairy NZ contracted to do the economic modelling for the rules.

    Chairman of stag worked for Agresearch owners of overseer. Stag recommended overseer.

    Tuesdays stag meeting voted 12 to 1 to keep stag in control of this process - That 1 vote is protect rotorua. We need your support to make that 1 vote the vote of many.

    This is Money Vs Environment and money cant win

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • Why this is not fair

      22 August 2015

    Our 38 Ha Deer Farm had a benchmark of 26 under rule 11 - that is now 77 in overseer 6.2. With a 20% reduction that is 62 and an upper range of 54.5. Our current N loss is 22. The potential N for sale is 54.5-22 = 32.5 x 38 ha

    That is 1235 kgs of N that has a value of between $50 and $400 a kg $61,750 to $494,000 - Should we be paid for being one of the larger leaching deer farms.

    We changed our farming system to stop the nitrogen going in the lake - not to make money.

    Another much larger deer farm has a benchmark of 13.8 and has to reduce to 12.3 - 11% reduction but he can buy that 11% from me so he doesn't have to reduce. This farm is a large family farm and has done huge works to protect water ways and native bush that is given no value in the current rules process.

    The current rules suggest long and short term trading of Nitrogen - How does that help the lake?

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • First day of Spring - New Beginnings

      22 August 2015

    We have done it - We have our meeting with council and Mai Chen is coming to spend the day with us. She will listen to all our concerns and we are to make two lists. Everything we want to say to council and Our ideas for a better solution. We are going to have a busy week!

    Meeting will be Monday 1st September - If you have donated you get to come and if your concerns were not attached to your donation then please email me. This is our chance - if you don't speak now its environment court.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • The content of the letter

      20 August 2015

    LAKE ROTORUA DRAFT NITROGEN RULES

    1 We advise Protect Rotorua, a group of land owners from the Lake Rotorua catchment who are concerned with the process undertaken by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (‘the Regional Council’) regarding the development of the Lake Rotorua Draft Nitrogen Rules (‘the Draft Rules’).

    2 Protect Rotorua comprises deer, sheep, beef and dairy farmers, horse owners and small block owners. Appendix A includes a list of current members of Protect Rotorua, although members continue to join every week. While each member has different factual circumstances, all have in common that they have been detrimentally affected by fundamental errors in the preparatory stages of the Draft Rules.

    Summary of concerns and requirements of the Regional Council

    3 Protect Rotorua is concerned that the Regional Council has failed to undertake a lawful consultation process by its refusal and/or failure to provide all relevant information to affected parties to make an informed and intelligent response, before consultation closed on the Draft Rules. In particular:

    (a) At the outset of the consultation process, many landowners were not provided the rate of nitrogen loss for their property (calculated by Overseer), which was required to assess the impact of the Draft Rules on them and to be able to respond in an intelligent and informed manner;

    (b) The data underlying the Draft Rules has materially changed since the consultation closed in October 2014 such that those affected need to be consulted again because what they were consulted on is no longer apposite;

    (c) Despite several land owners seeking information from Land Use Advice and Support as to the rate of nitrogen loss for their property, this information was not provided to them so as to enable them to properly engage in the consultation process prior to the closing date and the consideration of the Draft Rules by the Regional Council with an open mind;

    (d) Although Fiona McTavish (General Manager Strategy, Regional Council) has now informed us last Thursday on 13 August 2015 that the Regional Council has yet to set a date for notification, this is contrary to what key affected parties have been told that notification would happen in early September. Furthermore, the consultation finished almost a year ago in October 2014, so the concern is that the decision on the substance of the Draft Rules has already been made. Thus, any further submissions our clients make to the Regional Council prior to notification will not be received with an open mind, so it won’t have any effect on the substance of the Draft Rules.

    Way Forward

    4 I therefore request on behalf of my clients an urgent without prejudice meeting on 1 September 2015 to discuss these legal concerns and what needs to be done to redress these breaches. Please confirm whether this date is suitable and, if so, a suitable time, or please propose another time if this date is not suitable.

    5 Given the legality concerns raised in this letter, we ask that the Regional Council undertakes not to notify the Draft Rules until after the without prejudice meeting has occurred and any legal breaches have been addressed. Please confirm that will be the case.

    6 If the Regional Council will not provide this undertaking and proceeds to notify the Draft Rules without addressing Protect Rotorua’s legal concerns, my client will consider its legal options including, but not limited to, applying to the Court for interim relief.

    7 Although the Draft Rules have not been notified, the process may still be challenged. As stressed in the cases of Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganui v Hamilton City Council and Ngati Kahu v Tauranga District Council , consultation under the RMA cannot be meaningful and effective unless it takes place before notification. This is because the preparation stage of the plan concludes at the time of notification, at which point the “judicial phase” of determining submissions begins.

    8 I look forward to hearing from you regarding my client’s request for a without prejudice meeting with the Regional Council.

    LGOIMA response required

    9 By letter dated 12 August 2015 to the Chief Executive, we requested the release of information relating to the Draft Rules held by the Regional Council under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (‘LGOIMA’). As the information requested is relevant to the concerns raised in this letter, we asked that the information be provided as soon as possible in order to ensure that all issues could be included in this letter. We have received an initial response from the Regional Council with respect to our request, but we are still working with the Regional Council towards receiving a full response.

    10 Given the upcoming Regional Council meeting, scheduled for 26 August 2015, we have been instructed to raise Protect Rotorua’s concerns with you as soon as possible so that they can be considered at that Regional Council meeting. We anticipate that the full LGOIMA response will result in further matters of relevance to the legality of process concerns raised in this letter. Protect Rotorua will write to you again if it needs to update or amend this letter following receipt of all the requested information.

    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

    11 As you know, the Regional Council approved the Draft Rules for consultation on 24 June 2015. Following this, consultation was purported to be carried out between mid-July and the end of October 2014. To assist in this process, a consultation document was released which gave information on the Draft Rules and invited rural landowners, iwi and the wider community to provide input on the Draft Rules. A feedback form was attached to the consultation document. In November 2014, a report was released summarising the consultation process and all feedback received.

    12 The Regional Council is bound by the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’), and its Regional Policy Statement. Under the RMA, a local authority may consult anyone during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan (schedule 1, clause 3(2)). However, as stated in schedule 1, clause 3(4), where a local authority undertakes consultation, it must do so in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (‘LGA’).

    13 Section 82(1) of the LGA states that the Council must undertake consultation in accordance with the following principles (emphasis added):

    (a) that persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be provided by the local authority with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons;

    (b) that persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be encouraged by the local authority to present their views to the local authority;

    (c) that persons who are invited or encouraged to present their views to the local authority should be given clear information by the local authority concerning the purpose of the consultation and the scope of the decisions to be taken following the consideration of views presented;

    (d) that persons who wish to have their views on the decision or matter considered by the local authority should be provided by the local authority with a reasonable opportunity to present those views to the local authority in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons;

    (e) that the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration; and

    (f) that persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions, which may include, for example, reports relating to the matter that were considered before the decisions were made.

    14 The Regional Council can comply with these principles in “such manner as the local authority considers, in its discretion, to be appropriate in any particular instance” (section 82(3)).

    15 The discretion of the Regional Council however is limited. As stated by Simon France J in Karaka Point Environs Residents Inc v Malborough District Council (at [36]) (emphasis added):

    … how the Council complies with its statutory obligation is a matter for its judgement, but the Act makes it clear that the exercise of its discretion is to be informed by these considerations of notice, information and the opportunity and encouragement to participate. When assessing its consultation obligations in a particular case the Act also requires that the Council have regard to the significance of the decision to the persons affected.

    16 Under method 28 of the Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Council is required to undertake consultation to identify water quality standards and targets for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes. In particular, it must “consult by actively providing for the timely exchange, consideration of and response to relevant information by all parties with an interest in setting water quality standards for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes” (emphasis added). The Regional Council must also (emphasis added):

    As widely as practicable, encourage all parties undertaking resource use, development and protection activities within the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes’ catchments to participate in the preparation and review of relevant water quality standards proposed for inclusion in the regional plan.

    17 In Waikato Tainui Te Kauhanganui v Hamilton City Council where the plaintiff successfully challenged the failure of the City Council to properly consult in the preparatory stage of the proposed variation to the District Plan, the Court found that consultation under schedule 1 of the RMA:

    must be a meaningful process which enables the party consulted to be adequately informed so that it can make intelligent and useful responses….The primary purpose of consultation is to enable decision makers to make informed decisions … Furthermore, the party required to consult must approach the consultation with an open mind.

    18 The Regional Policy Statement also provides specific direction to the Regional Council as to how it would achieve this aim. In particular:

    Policy WL 5B: Allocating the capacity to assimilate contaminants: Allocate among land use activities the capacity of Rotorua Te Arawa lakes and other water bodies in catchments at risk to assimilate contaminants within the limits established in accordance with Policy WL 3B having regard to the following principles and considerations:

    (a) Equity/Fairness, including intergenerational equity;

    (b) Extent of the immediate impact;

    (c) Public and private benefits and costs;

    (d) Iwi land ownership and its status including any Crown obligation;

    (e) Cultural values;

    (f) Resource use efficiency;

    (g) Existing land use;

    (h) Existing on farm capital investment; and

    (i) Ease of transfer of the allocation.

    19 Protect Rotorua’s main concern is that the unlawful process adopted to date means the Draft Rules will fail to meet the above criteria, and especially the need to be fair and equitable in the nitrogen reduction required between affected landowners. Their objection is not making fair and equitable Nitrogen Discharge Allocations to protect Lake Rotorua.

    FAILURE TO PROPERLY CONSULT

    Inadequate information

    20 Protect Rotorua is concerned that, at the outset of the consultation process, many landowners were not provided the rate of nitrogen loss for their particular property (benchmark), and thus could not respond in an informed and intelligent manner.

    21 The impact of the Draft Rules on landowners is based, inter alia, on the rate of nitrogen loss for their property, which is determined by Overseer. We are told that, at present, most people on small blocks do not know what their current rate of nitrogen loss is. If landowners do not know the rate of nitrogen loss for their property, they cannot know how the rules will affect them as this determines whether they will require a resource consent or not, and if so, how much they will have to alter their land use in order to meet the applicable Nitrogen Discharge Allowance.

    22 For example, one member of Protect Rotorua who has a horse breeding property in the Lake Rotorua catchment area which is 7.4 hectares has been informed (in late 2014) by the Regional Council that she will not need to apply for a resource consent until 2022. Until recently, she considered that it was unlikely that she would need to apply for a resource consent at that point, as she runs her horse breeding unit without bringing additional feed onto the land; the property grows all its own winter feed, and sells off the surplus. However, based on the Overseer calculations of a similar property, it appears that the property will have to drastically reduce its operation to remain a permitted activity. Members of Protect Rotorua tell us that most small block owners are in a similar position to this landowner in not knowing how the Draft Rules will affect them. There has also been a lack of clarity about which version of Overseer has applied to the advice given by the Regional Council to affected landowners.

    23 This lack of clarity has been compounded by confusion regarding who the Draft Rules will apply to. Protect Rotorua is of the view that many have mistakenly understood that the Draft Rules will not apply to them, when they will. In the consultation material, the Draft Rules were to apply to properties 2 hectares and over. The consultation document specifically noted that “[p]roperties under 2 hectares will have no nutrient limit rules or reporting requirements.” However, in the latest Draft Rules released (and provided to the Lake Rotorua Stakeholder Advisory Group (‘StAG’) on 21 July 2015), the Draft Rules appear to impose nutrient limits and reporting requirements on all properties, including those under 2 hectares. This is a significant change, as owners of properties 2 hectares and under would not have engaged in the consultation process on the understanding that the Draft Rules did not impose limits on their land use.

    Changed proposal

    24 The data underlying the Draft Rules consulted on in 2014 has changed so materially after consultation closed that the consultation process cannot still be considered relevant / useful, and consultation needs to be undertaken again on the new data.

    25 The Regional Council prepared the Draft Rules for consultation by reference to version 5 of Overseer, as noted in the consultation document which states that “[a]ll nitrogen discharge numbers referred to in this document are based on estimates using versions of Overseer 5.” We understand that it was under this version of Overseer that the rate of nitrogen loss for most landowners in the Lake Rotorua catchment was also calculated.

    26 Since commencing the consultation process, the Regional Council has confirmed that recent work with StAG around allocation has used an updated version of Overseer (version 6.1.3), and that the most recent Draft Rules are based around allocation decisions using version 6.2.0. We understand that Land Use Advice and Support consultants are now using Overseer 6.2.0.

    27 The different versions of Overseer have produced significantly different data with respect to the nitrogen assessment of properties in the Lake Rotorua catchment, and thus the amount of nitrogen reduction required.

    28 The extent of the change is illustrated by reference to an example of one property in the Lake Rotorua Catchment, Love Red Deer. The owner of this property sought information regarding the rate of nitrogen loss on her property from both the Regional Council and Land Use Advice and Support. Since the start of the consultation process she has seen an almost 300% increase in her nitrogen assessment by recourse to different versions of Overseer. Using the same base files for each different version, the rates are as follows:

    (a) Overseer 5 – 26;

    (b) Overseer 6.1.3 – 68.7; and

    (c) Overseer 6.2.0 – 77.

    29 As a result, Love Red Deer has been unable to determine with any level of certainty how the Draft Rules will in fact affect its business. I have advised Love Red Deer that the size of the changed nitrogen assessment requires it to be consulted on Overseer 6.2.0 given the material difference to Overseer version 5. I have come to that advice after discussing with Love Red Deer the very different submissions they would make now given the results under Overseer 6.2.0 as compared with the results under Overseer 5.

    30 The change in Overseer has also impacted on the consultation material provided by the Regional Council. I am instructed that a table set out in the Fact Sheet: Stocking table for Lake Rotorua Draft Permitted Rule (‘Stocking Table’) is incorrect as it has not been updated following the updates to Overseer which have significantly impacted on nitrogen benchmarking. The Stocking Table states that the “10 kgN/ha/yr limit is based on Version 5 of the Overseer model and it will change when converted to Version 6. However, the indicative stocking rates above should remain about the same.” As set out in paragraph 28 above, this cannot be factually correct.

    31 Further, when used by a deer farmer to assess permitted stocking levels under the Draft Rules, I am told that the results are clearly inaccurate. For example, with reference to one of the Love Red Deer farms (Kaharoa) (this is one of the only dry stock properties for which Overseer measurements have been provided), it is clear that the nitrogen loss rates estimated in the Stocking Table are wrong. According to the Stocking Table, the property could farm 922 under one-year-old hinds, and remain under the 10 kgN/ha/yr limit. However, based on Overseer readings calculated with the assistance of a consultant from Land Use Advice and Support, a property supporting this amount of deer would only generate a nitrogen loss rate of 38 kg/N/ha/yr for the property – which far exceeds the 10 kgN/ha/yr limit.

    Animals / ha Farm size

    (Kaharoa) Animals on farm Nitrogen Loss

    Stag 4.9 32ha 157 19

    Hind <2 years 8.8 32 ha 282 24

    Hind fawn < 1 year 28.8 32 ha 922 38

    32 The concerns with Overseer raise questions about the probative value of the Draft Rules based on them. It also undermines the probative value of the consultation material, also based on Overseer 5.

    33 If how the Draft Rules will affect landowners has significantly changed for landowners since the commencement of the consultation process, the consultation process must be done again, especially given the significant detrimental impact that the nitrogen reductions under the latest version of Overseer would have on affected landowners in Protect Rotorua. In this instance, the disparity between the Overseer calculations on which the scheme of the Draft Rules are based has so materially changed that the input provided on the Draft Rules cannot be treated as still applicable.

    34 This concern was raised at a meeting of StAG earlier this year, where members were asked to consider the ranges for Nitrogen Discharge Allocations. At this meeting, the minutes record that StAG members “expressed concern at the complexity of information presented and the limited time to absorb and make recommendations.” As recorded in the minutes, it was acknowledged “that time was pressing and StAG should aim to give as much direction as possible, despite complex and incomplete information.” The Regional Council cannot delegate to StAG its obligation to consult properly.

    35 The StAG meetings are also not a fulfilment of the Regional Council’s obligation to consult with affected landowners because:

    (a) StAG was formed by a shoulder tap exercise and is not representative or proportionate in terms of those most seriously affected. For example, despite small block holders (being properties between 10-40 hectares) representing 25% of the properties affected by the Draft Rules, there was only one small block representative on StAG (Karl Weaver) until October 2014 (after consultation on the Draft Rules had already been completed). In October 2014, Karl Weaver resigned because he was concerned that he was not democratically appointed and that StAG was not representative of the sector. In addition, on 31 October 2014, small block owners wrote to the Regional Council (along with other Te Arawa Lakes Programme partners) stating that they did not feel that small block owners had been adequately represented on StAG. Subsequently, Sharon Love and two other small block holders were appointed to StAG, but this was too late as consultation was already closed.

    (b) We understand that StAG initially considered the appropriateness of the Draft Rules on the basis of Overseer 5, but that version has been overtaken by Overseer 6.1.3 and 6.2.0, which yield significant materially different results concerning nitrogen reduction.

    Failure to adequately respond to request for information

    36 In July 2014, Land Use Advice and Support was offered in the feedback document provided to the general public at the outset of the consultation process. This service was only made available to landowners from March 2015. On 10 March 2015, Ms Love, on behalf of several affected land owners, sought assistance from Land Use Advice and Support on behalf of the Deer Association and Protect Rotorua, to determine the rate of nitrogen loss for four ‘sample properties’ to enable them to properly engage in the consultation process.

    37 The allocated consultant from Land Use Advice and Support was only available from June this year to provide the assistance sought, well after consultation closed in October 2014. As at 16 June 2015, the parties still did not know the rate of nitrogen loss on their properties. Ms Love now has an indication of what the rate of nitrogen loss is for one of her properties, but the process is still being done, and they are the first dry stock farm in the advice process to receive assistance.

    38 However, the consultation period on the Draft Rules closed in October 2014, and the Draft Rules have now substantively been determined by the Regional Council – making it impossible for these persons to properly engage in the consultation process.

    39 The Regional Council would need to show genuine evidence that it still retained an open mind on the substance of the Draft Rules to render any further consultation effective in August 2015. Obviously relevant information would also have to be provided.

    ECONOMIC REPORT

    40 Finally, Protect Rotorua puts the Regional Council on notice of its concerns with the report commissioned by the Regional Council, ‘Economic Impacts of Rotorua Nitrogen Reduction’ (‘the Economic Report’).

    41 The Economic Report appears to exclude relevant economic data from the region. Protect Rotorua is therefore concerned that the Economic Report is incomplete and thus misrepresents the economic impact of the Draft Rules. For example, we are instructed that data regarding deer farms in the Lake Rotorua catchment has not been included in the economic modelling.

    42 Protect Rotorua understands that the Economic Report may still be in draft, but the draft Evaluation Report prepared under section 32 of the RMA relies on the Economic Report. The draft Evaluation Report has already been released to affected parties. Thus, it is critical that the Regional Council remedies the mistakes in the Economic Report to prevent further legal concerns as the process moves to the judicial phase.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • Signing the letter today

      18 August 2015

    This morning I will be sending through the final list of names for the letter going to council asking to stop the rules process. The next step will be a meeting with council on finding a way positive way forward for our lake and our economy.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • The horse page is galloping along

      16 August 2015

    Great to see the horse cause page gearing up - $500 from the Rotorua show jumping group and the individual donations starting to come in. The great thing about this is we are all on the same side trying to make it right for everyone.

    How important is this group to the local community and what do their events do for our tourism economy. This is about everyone working together to protect our community and our lake.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • No local media coverage - that's interesting?

      16 August 2015

    It was really disappointing to see no coverage in Saturdays paper after giving a press release Friday at 5am. We have asked council for some serious information and it wasn't even local news - maybe that just happens everyday or may be they don't think we are serious about this.

    Are the local press only allowed to help try and smooth this over.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • Information has been officially requested of council

      14 August 2015

    The process has started and a letter has been sent requesting information for Mai Chen to complete the letter on our behalf.

    When she gets the documentation and completes the main letter next week it will be requesting a without prejudice meeting with council and she is suggesting this meeting to be after the councils 26 August meeting.

    The letter requested to any details regarding the Council’s use of funds during this process.

    2 This includes (but is not limited to) any information held by the Council relating to:

    (a) The Council’s expenditure of funds during the preparation of the Draft Rules;

    (b) Iterations of the Draft Rules prepared and considered by the Council to date and provided to the Lake Rotorua Stakeholder Advisory Group (“StAG”) or any other entity; (c) The formation of StAG (including the appointment process for members), and all minutes of StAG meetings;

    (d) Overseer including:

    (i) What versions have been used by the Council in drafting or considering the Draft Rules, and when;

    (ii) How Overseer was used by the Council or StAG in drafting or considering the Draft Rules;

    (iii) The results of any tests carried out by the Council (or on the instruction of the Council) to determine whether each version of Overseer impacted on the benchmarking system or benchmarking ranges;

    (e) Rule 11, and how compliance and / or non-compliance with Rule 11 was or was not taken into account during the preparation of the Draft Rules;

    (f) The ‘Incentives Scheme’, and the allocation process for this scheme;

    (g) The preparation of the Economic Impacts of Rotorua Nitrogen Reduction: District, Regional and National Evaluation (prepared for the Regional Council, dated June 2015), and in particular:

    (i) any information regarding the funding of this report; and

    (ii) the data used in the economic modelling of this report.

    The letter written with be on behalf of everyone who has donated to this fund here and the other donations options. The more people the stronger the voice.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • Who Is Mai Chen

      12 August 2015

    Mai Chen

    Managing Partner, Chen Palmer Public and Employment law Specialists, New Zealand

    Adjunct Professor at University of Auckland School of Law

    Director on the BNZ Board

    Chair, New Zealand Asian Leaders

    Chen Palmer won the Best Boutique Law Firm in 2010, and Best Public Law Firm in the New Zealand Law Awards from 2007-2011, and 2013, and was a finalist in the Employment Law Awards in 2011. The Firm has offices in Wellington and Auckland and celebrated its 20th Anniversary in November 2014. Chen Palmer was one of NZ’s first boutique law firms and was Australasia’s first “Washington-style” law firm specialising in legislation and public policy. Mai is a thought leader, a direction setter and a futures thinker. She is one of NZ’s top constitutional and administrative law experts, specialising in central and local Government policy and legislation, especially as it applies to business, and litigating major public law cases.

    Mai is Adjunct Professor at the University of Auckland School of Law. She was previously Adjunct Professor in Commercial and Public Law at the University of Auckland Business School.

    Mai is the best-selling author of Public Law Toolbox published in 2012 and Transforming Auckland: The Creation of Auckland Council published in 2014, both by LexisNexis. The second edition of Public Law Toolbox was published in 2014.

    Mai is the inaugural Chair of NZ Global Women, including NZ’s top 200 women leaders, and founded and is the inaugural Chair of NZ Asian Leaders connecting top Asian NZ CEOs and emerging leaders with New Zealand companies doing business in Asia to enhance their success to help NZ Inc. She also helped to establish the Pacifica Leadership Academy at BEST Pacific Institute of Education, formerly led by Olympic medallist Beatrice Faumuina.

    Mai was in the Top 10 finalists for 2014 New Zealander of the Year. She won the supreme Judges Panel Award and the Professional Excellence Award at the New Zealand Chinese Business Elite Awards in 2012, and also the Business and Entrepreneur Women of Influence Award in 2013. Mai won Next Magazine's Business Woman of the Year in 2011, and is a World’s Best New Zealander in the Kiwi Expatriates Network. Mai was listed in the 2009 and 2010 unlimited magazine’s top Influencers List. Mai is a member of Legals Finest for Public and Administrative Law.

    Mai sat on the Securities Commission, on the NZ Board of Trade and Enterprise’s Beachheads Programme, the Asia New Zealand Foundation, the Advisory Board of AMP Life Limited (NZ), and was President of the Harvard New Zealand Alumni Association (NZ) for ten years. Mai sits on the board of directors of the Bank of New Zealand, and will be taking on more governance appointments.

    Mai has a First Class Law Honours degree from Otago University, a Masters degree from Harvard Law School, is a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Management, and an Honorary Associate of Auckland University of Technology. She was born in Taiwan and emigrated to NZ in 1970 with her family. She became a NZ citizen in 1977.

    Mai launched willtolive.co.nz in July 2013, a site which allows the making of wills to be easy and which helps New Zealanders to live life to the full. The site was rebranded as www.my-Bucketlist.co.nz, and has just been bought by Perpetual Guardian.

    She is currently working on a Superdiversity Stocktake of law, public policy and business implications using NZ’s experience with its biggest city Auckland as an example, since it already has about a 50% Maori, Pacifica and Asian population. The Superdiversity Stocktake will be published in October.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • JUST $ 10

      11 August 2015

    Its taken the generous donations of just 33 people to have Mai Chen coming for council to fight for what is fair for everyone and the lake. Now all its going to take is a donation of $10 or less from everyone else and we can make very sure our council is completely transparent and NO MORE MONEY is wasted. We need to have the advice and support fund being spent on helping us look after our land this has to be about a community coming together and because of the generous donations behind this its only going to cost you $ 10.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • All of Rotorua are affected by these rules.

      9 August 2015

    Ms Chen told the Rotorua Daily Post she would be writing to the council next week about "illegalities in the process to date on behalf of affected Rotorua people".

    If you are one of the affected Rotorua people or want to support anyone that is - then please donate and share this page.

    Interesting that now they want to consult widely and don't even have the letter yet, looking forward to the next headline when they do have the letter! Get behind this people its not just small block owners behind this. There might be some big donations on the page and you might not have much to give but lots of small donations soon add up.

    Be a part of this letter ALL OF ROTORUA are affected by these rules. Please make a donation and join us on facebook.

    Join us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectrotorua/

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment
  • This is the only chance we will get.

      8 August 2015

    These donations are for Mai Chen to talk to council on our behalf, this is not the expensive RMA process which will cost Council and anyone wanting to challenge the rules huge money. As a community we don't have the money to fight this in environment court. We just want the process done properly and fairly. It needs to consider everyone's needs and be about the health of the lake. No one would have to fight in environment court if the rules are what the public want.

      0 comments  |  Login to leave a comment