the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental and administrative performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the Company, this
report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and administrative performance during the period
under review.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the receiving environment from the
activities during the monitoring year. Administrative performance
consent holders to resource management and, ultimately, through the refinement of methods
and considered responsible resource utilisation, to move closer to achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental and administrative performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the Company, this
report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and administrative performance during the period
utilisation, to move closer to achieving sustainable development of the
region’s resources.
1.1.4 Evaluation of environmental and administrative performance
Besides discussing the various details of the performance and extent of compliance by the Company, this
report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and administrative performance during the period
under review.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the receiving environment from the
of compliance by
the Company, this report also assigns them a rating for their environmental and
administrative performance during the period under review.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the receiving
environment from the activities during the monitoring year. Administrative
performance is concerned with the Company’s approach to demonstrating consent
compliance in site operations and management including the timely provision of
information to
considerable modification, in
particular stream realignment and piping for land improvement purposes.
Anecdotal evidence and observations by Council staff, as well as an increase in the number
of resource consent applications received by the Council for stream modification work, has
indicated an increase in the rate of stream modification in recent years, certainly since
consideration and adoption of the RFWP in 2001. Therefore, the purpose of this report has
been to quantify the extent and
www.trc.govt.nz
www.taranakibus.info
www.tupare.nz
www.hollardgardens.nz
www.pukeiti.nz
www.taranakiplants.net.nz
@TaranakiRC
@TaranakiCD
@TaranakiRG
TaranakiRegionalCouncil
TaranakiCivilDefence
TaranakiRegionalGardens
0800 736 222
0800 900 049
0800 827 287
Total Mobility: 0800 868 662
The Taranaki Regional Council has
adopted a Draft Annual Plan that
foreshadows a 1% rise in general
rates for the 2017-2018 financial
year.
page
138 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan
Appendix 1: Resource Management Act Charging Policy
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES PURSUANT TO
SECTION 36 OF THE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
SCHEDULE 1: SCALE OF CHARGES FOR
STAFF TIME
Rate for
processing
resource
consents and
responding to
pollution
incidents.
Rate for
all other
Council
work.
Level 1 Senior management $338/hr $317/hr
Level 2 Managers/supervisors $157/hr $147/hr
assigns a
rating as to each Company’s environmental and administrative performance.
Environmental performance is concerned with actual or likely effects on the
receiving environment from the activities during the monitoring year.
Administrative performance is concerned with the Company’s approach to
demonstrating consent compliance in site operations and management including the
timely provision of information to Council (such as contingency plans and water take
data) in accordance with
holder is still rated as ‘poor’ in the 2012-2013 year as well. There were three unauthorised
incidents in relation to site activities resulting in the issuing of an abatement notice and an
infringement notice.
The overall rating for this site for the monitoring period is “poor”. Significant improvements
were made during the 2012-2013 year following enforcement action by the Council. However,
the initial mismanagement of the site was significant enough to warrant a poor rating for the
entire
Agenda for Ordinary Council meeting October 2017.