IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of Hearing 21A: Significant Natural Areas of the Proposed Waikato District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MARIE-LOUISE (MIFFY) FOLEY For the Waikato Regional Council DATED 29 October 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3 2 Scope of Evidence ......................................................................................................... 3 3 Summary of evidence .................................................................................................... 4 4 Removal of the majority of SNA from the map overlay ................................................... 4 5 Significant habitats of indigenous fauna ....................................................................... 14 6 Removal of Policy 3.2.2 Recognise and identify ........................................................... 16 7 Inclusion of environmental compensation in Policy 3.2.3 Management hierarchy ......... 17 8 Policy 3.2.6 Providing for vegetation clearance ............................................................ 18 9 Other submission points ............................................................................................... 21 10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX ONE ................................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX TWO ................................................................................................................ 23 Doc # 17448893 Page 2 1 Introduction 1.1 My name is Marie-Louise (Miffy) Foley. I am a Senior Policy Advisor in the Integration and Infrastructure Section at the Waikato Regional Council. I have been in this role since February 2019. 1.2 I hold the academic qualifications of a Bachelor of Sciences from the University of Waikato and a Graduate Diploma in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of New England in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. I am an intermediate Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. 1.3 My role with Waikato Regional Council has been as a member of the Policy Implementation Team which involves working with the territorial authorities of the Waikato Region and with neighbouring regional councils to assist in the development of consistent integrated regional policy. I am also involved with Future Proof and a number of the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan work streams. I represent Waikato Regional Council on the Future Proof Technical Implementation Group. 1.4 I have 15 years’ experience working in the planning field. Prior to my role with Waikato Regional Council, I was employed as a policy and strategic planner in local government in NSW for over 13 years. 1.5 I confirm that I am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as set out in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I have read and agree to comply with the Code. Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence or advice of another person, my evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. 2 Scope of Evidence 2.1 My evidence is given on behalf of Waikato Regional Council. 2.2 The submission made by Waikato Regional Council addressed a number of aspects of the proposed District Plan that relate to the significant natural area (SNA) provisions, both in support and opposition, and requested numerous amendments. These were to ensure that the proposed provisions are aligned with the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS), particularly Chapter 11 Indigenous Biodiversity. Some of them also refer to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS). I was not involved in Doc # 17448893 Page 3 the preparation of Waikato Regional Council’s submission, dated 18 September 2018. However, I led the preparation of the further submission, dated 15 July 2019. 2.3 I have read the s42A report prepared by Ms Chibnall as well as the Significant Natural Areas Assessments report dated 17 October 2020 prepared by Mr Turner. 2.4 My evidence reinforces the Waikato Regional Council submission and reflects my professional opinions as a resource management policy advisor. I also rely on the evidence of Dr Deng. The focus of my evidence is on: • Removal of SNAs that have not been ground truthed from map overlay; • Significant habitats of indigenous fauna, • Removal of Policy 3.2.2 Recognise and identify, • Inclusion of environmental compensation in Policy 3.2.3 Management hierarchy, and • Policy 3.2.6 Providing for vegetation clearance. 3 Summary of evidence 3.1 I do not support the s42A report recommendation to remove the majority of SNA from the planning maps and instead rely on the criteria for an SNA contained in Appendix 2 of the proposed plan due to the inaccuracy of the SNA mapping. 3.2 For much of the District’s significant indigenous biodiversity this is maintaining the status quo approach which I do not believe gives effect to the RPS, particularly Section 11 of the RPS which seeks to address declining biodiversity through policies and implementation methods aimed at maintaining or enhance indigenous biodiversity. 3.3 As highlighted in Dr Deng’s evidence, Mr Turner’s report is not adequately robust or comprehensive to be used as the basis for a decision of this magnitude. Further, the plan is progressing through a comprehensive consultation process as per Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), in addition to the multiple opportunities for landowners to be involved in the lead up to the notification of the plan. 3.4 In my experience, plan mapping is a representation of reality rather than a confirmation of the exact location of an item or area on the ground. I note that recent approaches of District Plans notified under the NZ planning standards contain terms Doc # 17448893 Page 4 and conditions to address this matter. The Panel could consider a similar approach here. 3.5 The implications of having a SNA inaccurately identified on a property are minor or could be mitigated to an extent by permitted activity standards. The notified version of Stage 1 was publicly notified on 18 July 2018 and from that date, the rules relating to SNA have had legal effect since Stage 1 was publicly notified on 18 July 2018. It would be useful for the Council to clarify how the notified rule framework has been working and if any issues with the identification of SNAs have been addressed through the consent process. 3.6 As outlined in Dr Deng’s evidence, there are significant risks associated with not showing SNA sites on the planning map in terms of potential further loss of biodiversity across the District. Identifying SNAs on the plan maps provides a clear and certain way of addressing a matter of national importance under the RMA. Not mapping SNAs places a more onerous requirement on landowners who wish to clear or modify indigenous vegetation under permitted activity standards as each one will need to engage specialist ecological services to assess the vegetation which I do not believe would be efficient or effective in meeting Objectives 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 of the Plan of as per the s32 of the RMA. 3.7 Including the mapping in the proposed district plan is preferred as it: (a) ensures that the SNAs are ‘identified’ as per the RPS. (b) is clearer and more targeted than the operative plan which hasn’t necessarily protected SNAs. (c) is more cost effective to fund targeted assessment than assess larger areas. (d) removes uncertainty and unnecessary costs for those outside of mapped areas. 3.8 The Panel could consider a variation to the proposed district plan to allow for this refinement to be completed and then add the mapping to the plan at a later date. I understand that the NPS IB is currently ‘pending approval’ and likely to be released in April 2021 which would allow incorporation of NPS requirements at the same time. 3.9 Further, should the Panel retain the SNA mapping as requested, I request that they also provide a mechanism to manage areas that meet the WRPS 11A criteria and have not been identified and mapped in the Proposed Plan as per WRC submission point 81.20. Doc # 17448893 Page 5 3.10 In relation to identified areas of significant habitat of indigenous fauna, there is the opportunity to include additional matters of control and matters of discretion to ensure that habitat that meets Criterion 3 is considered when activities are proposed that might impact that habitat. This is particularly relevant in relation to bat habitat given the known long tailed bat population within the Waikato District. 3.11 As with my position on the mapping, I request that Policy 3.2.2 Recognise and identify be retained but with amendments to address Ms Chibnall’s concerns about cross- referencing to the RPS. This policy is giving effect to Policy 11.2 of the RPS which in turn addresses the requirements of s6(c) of the RMA to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitat of indigenous fauna in terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine environments. 3.12 Ms Chibnall has recommended an additional subclause to allow for environmental compensation but noted that it would be beneficial for WRC to provide comment on environmental compensation in light of RPS subclause 11.1.8 (b) Plan Development which states