Post on 06-Nov-2021
1
BEFORE GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
UNDER the Resource
Management Act 1991
IN THE MATTER OF the Proposed Natural
Resources Plan for the
Wellington Region
AND
IN THE MATTER OF Submissions by the
Kapiti Coast District
Council
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF EMILY THOMSON
ON BEHALF OF THE KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL
Planning
Hearing Group 6
18 May 2018
2
INTRODUCTION
1.1 My full name is Emily Jane Thomson. I am a Senior Policy Planner at the
Kāpiti Coast District Council (District Council). I have held this position since
October 2004. My qualifications are Master of Resource and Environmental
Planning, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with honours, and a Bachelor of
Science.
1.2 I have 14 years of experience in local government resource management. My
main role as a Senior Policy Planner responsible for the completion of the
Proposed District Plan and to prepare and process District Plan changes and
to provide advice for resource consents sought under the Kāpiti Coast District
Plan. Since 2004, I have written planning evidence for 10 plan changes and
have been involved in the preparation or processing of 16 further plan
changes. I have recently been a section 42A report author for parts of the
review of the Kapiti Coast District Plan.
1.3 I prepared the District Council’s submissions on the Proposed Wellington
Regional Policy Statement and the Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy
Statement (NZCPS) (now operative) and presented the submissions at the
hearing for the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (now operative) and
Board of Inquiry for the NZCPS. I also attended consultation sessions and
provided feedback for the review of the Wellington Regional Plans at the early
stages of development of the plans and assisted in the preparation of the
District Council’s submission on the Draft Regional Plans. In addition I
provided evidence for the District Council to the Boards of Inquiry for the
Transmission Gully Regional Freshwater Plan Change, the Transmission
Gully Motorway Project and MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Project.
1.4 I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in
the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I agree to comply with that Code.
Other than where I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this
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 that I express.
3
2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE
2.1 My evidence is organised under the following headings:
(a) Executive summary.
(b) Background / context
(c) Statutory matters
(d) Response to Section 42A report
(e) Recommended changes to provisions
(f) Conclusion.
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3.1 The Kapiti Coast District sits at the north western extent of the Wellington
Region and includes land north of the Pukerua Bay to north of Otaki.
3.2 The Kapiti Coast District Council (District Council) made a submission, in
relation to matters being considered in this hearing, the submission supported
the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (PNRP) in part and sought
amendments relating to location of mean high water springs and coastal
hazards.
3.3 My evidence focuses on outstanding matters in relation to the District
Council’s submission, following the release of the Regional Council’s Section
42A report. This includes outlining recommended amendments to methods in
the Proposed Regional Plan and the implications of these rules for the
Council’s management of infrastructure on the coast and natural hazards.
4. BACKGROUND / CONTEXT
4.1 The Kapiti Coast District sits at the north western end of the Wellington
Region with a population of approximately 50,000 with approximately 40
kilometres of sandy open coastline, with two large rivers and associated
estuarine areas, and five streams with mouths in the District. At the current
time the Coast is experiencing erosion which in many places has been
occurring consistently over a long period of time.
4
4.2 The District Council made a submission on the PNRP stating that it supported
the PNRP in part, but has concerns about specific methods of the PNRP
relating to the Council’s management of the coast and natural hazards. The
issues for the development of regionally significant infrastructure are
addressed in more detail in the evidence of Rita O’Brien, Stormwater and
Coastal Engineer from the District Council’s Infrastructure Group.
4.3 The District Council’s submission supported the majority of the PNRP
provisions including objectives and policies. The core concern the District
Council has, with a small number of methods in the PNRP is that they are not
assisting in the management of natural hazards and coastal management for
the District Council and its ratepayers.
4.4 The District Council’s submission supported the following objectives and
policies and sought that these objectives and policies be retained as notified.
4.5 Objective O20 as notified was:
Objective O20 Risk from natural hazards
The risk, residual risk, and adverse effects from natural hazards and
climate change on people, the community and infrastructure are
acceptable.
4.6 Objective O21 as notified was:
Objective O21 High hazard areas
Inappropriate use and development in high hazard areas is avoided.
4.7 Objective O22 as notified was:
Objective O22 Hard engineering
Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as a
last practicable option.
4.8 Policy P27 as notified was:
Policy P27 Hard engineering
Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as a
last practicable option.
5
4.9 Policy P28 as notified was:
Policy P28: Hazard mitigation measures
Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods shall be avoided
except where it is necessary to protect existing development from
unacceptable risk, assessed using the risk-based approach, and the
works either form part of a hazard management strategy or the
environmental effects are considered to be no more than minor.
4.10 Policy 29 was notified as:
Policy P29: Climate change
Particular regard shall be given to the potential for climate change to
cause or exacerbate natural hazard events that could adversely affect use
and development including:
(a) coastal erosion and inundation (storm surge), and
(b) river and lake flooding and erosion or aggradation, and
(c) stormwater ponding and impeded drainage, and
(d) sea level rise, using the best available guidance for the Wellington
Region.
4.11 Policy P30 was notified as:
Policy P30: Natural buffers
The adverse effects of use and development on natural features such as
beaches, dunes or wetlands that buffer development from natural hazards
shall be minimised.
4.12 Policy P132 was notified as:
Policy P132: Functional need and efficient use
Use and development in the coastal marine area shall:
(a) have a functional need, or
(b) have an operational requirement to locate within the coastal
marine area, and no reasonable or practicable alternative to
locating in the coastal marine area, or
(c) for any other activity, it shall have no reasonable or practicable
alternative to locating in the coastal marine area, and in respect of
(a), (b) and (c):
6
(d) only use the minimum area necessary, and
(e) be made available for public or multiple use where appropriate, and
(f) result in the removal of structures once redundant, and
(g) concentrate in locations where similar use and development
already.
4.13 Policy P134 was notified as:
Policy P134: Public open space values and visual amenity
The adverse effects of new use and development on public open space
and visual amenity viewed within, to and from the coastal marine area
shall be minimised by:
(a) having particular regard to any relevant provisions contained in any
bordering territorial authorities’ proposed and/or operative district
plan, and
(b) managing use and development to be of a scale, location, density
and design which is compatible with the natural character, natural
features and landscapes and amenity values of the coastal
environment, and
(c) taking account of the future need for public open space in the
coastal marine area.
4.14 Policy P138 was notified as:
Policy P138: Structures in sites with significant values
New structures, replacement of a structure or any addition or alteration to
a structure in a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule F4
(coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological
features) shall be avoided, except where:
(a) the new structure, replacement of the structure or any addition or
alteration to the structure is for the specific purpose of providing
protection for the values identified in Schedule C (mana whenua),
Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) or
Schedule J (geological features), or
(b) the structure is for educational, scientific or research purposes that
will enhance the understanding and long-term protection of the
coastal marine area, or
(c) the structure will provide for navigational safety, or
7
(d) it is necessary to enable the development, operation, maintenance
and upgrade of regionally significant infrastructure, and in
respect of (a) to (d):
(e) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the
activity.
4.15 Policy P139 as notified as:
Policy P139: Seawalls
The construction of a new seawall is inappropriate except where the
seawall is required to protect:
(a) existing, or upgrades to, infrastructure, or
(b) new regionally significant infrastructure, and in respect of (a)
and (b):
(c) there is no reasonable or practicable alternative means, and
(d) suitably located, designed and certified by a qualified, professional
engineer, and
(e) designed to incorporate the use of soft engineering options
where appropriate.
4.16 Policy P143 as notified was:
Policy P143: Deposition in a site of significance
Deposition of sand, shingle or shell in a site identified in Schedule C
(mana whenua), Schedule E4 (archaeological sites), Schedule F4
(coastal sites),
Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological features) shall
be avoided except where:
(a) the activity is for the specific purpose of providing protection for
the values identified in Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule E4
(archaeological sites), Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5
(coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological features), or
(b) it involves renourishment for the purpose of managing coastal
erosion, or
(c) it provides for public amenity, or
(d) the activity is carried out for the purposes of flood protection
and/or erosion mitigation, or
(e) the activity is carried out by or for local authorities, or
8
(f) it is necessary to enable the efficient development, operation,
maintenance and upgrade of regionally significant
infrastructure, and in respect of (a) to (f):
(g) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the
activity.
4.17 Policy P145 as notified as:
Policy P145: Reclamation, drainage and destruction
Reclamation, drainage or destruction in the coastal marine area shall be
avoided except where:
(a) the reclamation, drainage or destruction is associated with the
development, operation, maintenance and upgrade of regionally
significant infrastructure, and
(b) there are no other locations outside the coastal marine area for the
activity associated with the reclamation, drainage or destruction,
and
(c) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the
associated activity.
4.18 Policy 147 was notified as:
Policy P147: Motor vehicles on the foreshore
District and city councils may restrict the use of motor vehicles on the
foreshore, with the exception of vehicles associated with:
(a) surf lifesaving operations, or
(b) emergency situations, including (but not restricted to) firefighting, oil
spills, rescue operations, salvage of vessels and marine mammal
strandings, or
(c) local authority activities, or
(d) the development, operation, maintenance and upgrade of
regionally significant infrastructure.
4.19 Policy 148 was notified as:
Policy P148: Motor vehicles in sites with significant value
The use of motor vehicles on the foreshore in a site identified in
Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule E4 (archaeological sites),
Schedule F2c
9
(birds-coastal), Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal
habitats) shall be avoided, except when required for surf lifesaving,
emergency, law enforcement, local authority or regionally significant
infrastructure purposes.
4.20 The District Council’s submission requests that rules R189, R191, R193 and
R197 and method M4 be retained as notified.
4.21 Rule 189 was notified as:
Rule R189: Clearance of stormwater pipes - permitted activity
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed from the clearance of a
stormwater pipe in the coastal marine area, including any associated:
(a) occupation of space in the common marine and coastal area,
and
(b) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and
(c) discharge of contaminants is a permitted activity, provided the
following conditions are met:
(d) the disturbance is undertaken by or for a local authority or a road
controlling authority or is required for port maintenance, and
(e) the extent of the foreshore or seabed disturbance is limited to that
required to create a free-draining path from the stormwater outlet
to the sea, and
(f) the disturbance shall not prevent public access to or along the
foreshore, and
(g) all material excavated is retained within the active beach system
except for visibly contaminated material. Any visibly contaminated
material shall be removed from the beach system and disposed of
appropriately, and
(h) excavated material is not mounded, bunded and/or deposited in a
manner that creates ponding or the diversion of water on the
foreshore or seabed, and
(i) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general
conditions specified above in Section 5.7.2.
4.22 Rule R191 was notified as:
Rule R191: Disturbance associated with beach grooming - permitted
activity
10
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for beach grooming including
any removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material in the coastal
marine area, including any associated:
(a) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and
(b) discharge of contaminants on the following beaches: Ōtaki, Te
Horo, Peka Peka, Waikanae, Paraparaumu, Raumati, Paekakariki,
Tītahi Bay (excluding the area of fossil forest shown on Map 35),
Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, Browns Bay, Bradley Point,
Motukaraka Point, Mana Foreshore, Onehunga Bay, Dolly Varden
Beach, Pukerua Bay, Lyall Bay, Island Bay, Princess Bay, Worser
Bay, Scorching Bay, Oriental Bay, Freyberg, Petone, Point Howard,
Sorrento Bay, Days Bay, Rona Bay, Castlepoint, Riversdale
is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met:
(a) the beach grooming shall be carried out for the purpose of
grooming and the removal of marine debris and litter, and
(b) the activity shall be undertaken by or for a local authority, and
(c) the activity shall not occur when shellfish beds are exposed, and
(d) the activity shall not be within a site identified in Schedule C (mana
whenua) or Schedule E4 (archaeological sites), and
(e) the activity shall not be within the Tītahi Bay fossil forest shown on
Map 35.
Note While the removal of natural materials from a marine reserve (unless
authorised for research purposes) is prohibited under the Marine
Reserves Act 1971, a memorandum of understanding between the
Department of Conservation and Wellington City Council enables beach
grooming within Taputeranga Marine Reserve with particular conditions.
4.23 Rule R193 was notified as:
Rule R193: River and stream mouth cutting - permitted activity
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for river and stream mouth
cutting in the coastal marine area, including any associated:
(a) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and
(b) discharge of contaminants, and
(c) diversion of open coastal water, and
(d) discharge of contaminants
11
for the following rivers and lakes:
(e) Waitohu Stream, Ōtaki River, Mangaone Stream, Waimeha
Stream, Waikanae River, Hadfield Drain, Wharemauku Stream,
Whareroa Stream, Wainui Stream, Waikakariki Stream, Makara
Stream, Motuwaireka Stream, Castlepoint Stream, Whakataki
River, Tikotu Stream, and Lake Kohangapiripiri, Lake Kohangatera
and Lake Onoke, and
(g) an unnamed stream approximately 190m south of the seaward end
of Sunrise Way, Riversdale, and
(h) an unnamed stream approximately 145m north of the seaward end
of Sunrise Way, Riversdale, and
(i) an unnamed stream at the seaward end of Karaka Drive,
Riversdale is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions
are met:
(j) the activity shall be carried out for the purposes of flood protection
and/or erosion mitigation, and
(k) the activity shall only be carried out by or for a local authority, and
(l) the activity is only undertaken when the trigger level defined in
Schedule U (river mouth cutting) is equalled or exceeded, and
(m) the foreshore shall not be mechanically disturbed to a depth greater
than required to divert stream flow, and
(n) the activity shall not prevent public access to or along the foreshore
(this condition shall not apply to any restrictions on access arising
from water flowing in any outlet channel), and
(o) any material excavated shall be placed on the immediately adjacent
foreshore area, and no material shall be removed from the site
unless the material is contaminated and/or it contains hazardous
substances, and
(p) for activities undertaken in the mouths of either Lake
Kohangapiripiri or Lake Kohangatera, any cutting operation shall be
in accordance with the Wellington Regional Council Parangarahu
Lakes Area Co-Management Plan (August 2014), and
(q) for activities undertaken in the Lake Onoke mouth, the mechanical
opening shall not occur during the period 1 February to 31 May
12
(inclusive) each year without notification to a nominated
representative (or in their absence, a nominated deputy) from the
Tuhirangi Marae, and
(r) for activities undertaken in the Waikanae River, the Department of
Conservation shall be notified at least two working days prior to the
commencement of the cutting operation, and
(s) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general
conditions specified above in Section 5.7.2.
4.24 Rule R197 as notified was:
Rule R197: Motor vehicles for certain purposes - permitted activity
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed from motor vehicles in the
coastal marine area, for the following purposes:
(a) surf lifesaving operations, or
(b) emergency situations, including firefighting, oil spills, rescue
operations, salvage of vessels and marine mammal strandings, or
(c) local authority activities, including law enforcement, or
(d) the maintenance, upgrade and operation of regionally significant
infrastructure
is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met:
(e) the vehicle shall take the most direct route, and shall only operate
within the area necessary to carry out the activity to ensure minimal
disturbance to the foreshore or seabed, and
(f) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general
conditions specified above in Section 5.7.2.
4.25 The “coastal management general conditions specified above in Section
5.7.2” include the following of particular relevance to relevant to the activities
carried out by the District Council on the Kapiti Coast:
Coastal management general conditions
Coastal management general conditions for activities in the coastal
marine area that apply when specified in a rule.
Disturbance
13
(a) the coastal marine area, including river mouths shall not be
disturbed to an extent greater than that required to undertake the
activity, and
(b) any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed is removed in 48 hours,
and
(c) …
(d) all machinery, equipment and materials used for the activity shall
be removed from the foreshore or seabed at the completion of the
activity, and
Discharges
(a) …
(b) The discharge of sediment to water from an activity in, on, over or
under the foreshore or seabed in the coastal marine area shall
meet the following:
(i) the release of sediment associated with the activity shall not
be undertaken for more than five consecutive days, and for
more than 12 hours per day, and
(ii) it shall not, after reasonable mixing, cause any conspicuous
change in the colour of the water in the receiving water or
any change in horizontal visibility greater than 30% more
than 24 hours after the completion of the activity, and
Erosion and scouring
(c) The activity shall not result in erosion or scouring of river banks
(that are part of the coastal marine area) and shall not result in
flooding of a neighbouring property, and
Diversion
(d) …
(e) Any diversion of open coastal water undertaken as part of an
activity shall only be temporary and for a period no longer than that
required to complete the activity. All work shall be contained within
the coastal marine area, and any diversion channel required must
have sufficient capacity to carry the same flow as the original
channel, so as not to cause flooding or erosion of any neighbouring
property, and
14
Dumping
(f) Demolition materials shall not be used for any purpose in the
coastal marine area, and
Fish passage
(g) Any structure constructed in the coastal marine area shall provide
for fish passage (including between fresh water and coastal water)
at all times, unless a temporary restriction is required for
construction activities, and
Inanga spawning
(h) In any part of the coastal marine area (including any part of a river
in the coastal marine area) identified as inanga spawning habitat in
Schedule F1b (inanga spawning habitat), no disturbance of or
deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed shall occur and
no diversion of open coastal water or sediment discharge shall
occur between 1 March and 31 May, and
Design and maintenance of structures
(i) Any structure shall be designed and maintained so that it does not
reduce the ability of the river (that is part of the coastal marine
area) to convey flood flows, including the management of flood
debris accumulated against the structure, and
Refuelling
(j) …
Lighting and glare
(k) …
Noise in the coastal marine area
(l) …
4.26 Method M4 was notified as:
Method M4: Sea level rise
Wellington Regional Council will develop regional guidance for managing
the impacts from sea level rise. This will include providing the best
available information on the local rates of change using tide gauge
records and continuous GPS records to understand relative sea level
change and forecast estimates using the latest internationally peer-
reviewed science and measurements.
15
Forecasts of sea level rise will be reviewed after each International Panel
of
Climate Change report and a re-analysis of the local rates of sea level
change will be undertaken at least every 10 years.
The purpose of this is to enable a consistent approach between local
authorities to manage climate change related coastal hazards.
4.27 The District Council’s submission sought the following methods and maps be
amended as set out below:
4.28 Method M3 was notified as:
Method M3: Wellington regional hazards management strategy
Wellington Regional Council will work in partnership with city and district
councils and stakeholders to develop and implement a Wellington
regional hazards management strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to
facilitate a consistent approach to managing natural hazards between
local authorities in the region.
4.29 The District Council’s submission sought Method 3 is amended to read as
follows:
Method M3: Wellington regional hazards management strategy
Wellington Regional Council will work in partnership with city and district
councils and stakeholders the community to: (a) identify areas of
significant natural hazards, and (b) develop and implement a Wellington
regional hazard management strategy, and (c) produce maps of areas of
significant natural hazards and other instruments by 2017 for inclusion in
the Plan by change or variation. The purpose of the strategy is to facilitate
a consistent approach to managing natural hazards between local
authorities in the region.
4.30 The reason for this submission is to ensure that the Regional Hazards
Management Strategy takes a more directive approach to providing a
consistent approach to planning for natural hazards across the region. The
notified method does not provide any certainty that the hazard management
strategy (that member councils have provided some funding for) will deliver a
useful outcome to the District Council in terms of natural hazard planning.
16
4.31 The District Council submission sought that Maps 42-48 be amended to
identify the landward extent of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). Maps 42-48
were notified showing the landward extent of the coastal marine area at river
mouths only. The District Council’s submission sought that:
“Council establishes, and includes a mapped boundary to the CMA, and
prepares maps that show the location of coastal protection structures in
relation to the CMA boundary within the Regional Plan”
4.32 The reason these map amendments were sought is the District Council has
found that it is unclear whether or not coastal protection structures and
stormwater outlets are located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and what
parts of the ‘beach’ are outside the CMA.
4.33 The costs incurred and time involved in consent applications under these rules
may prove to be unnecessary if the CMA is located on maps and it is possible
to provide practical access without driving in the CMA to carry out works
outside of the CMA. Alternatively clarity within the rules relating to heavy
vehicles, in associated with permitted activities in the CMA, may provide
some relief in relation to maintenance or upgrade of infrastructure activities
where those activities are permitted by the rules.
4.34 The construction, upgrade and maintenance of regionally significant
infrastructure is a necessity for health and safety of people and communities
within urban areas. Therefore, having impediments to permitted activities for
infrastructure maintenance creates additional unnecessary costs to the
community to carry out essential maintenance of the infrastructure.
5. STATUTORY MATTERS
5.1 Having carefully reviewed the proposed recommendations to provisions and
maps in the relevant Section 42A Reports I am concerned that the proposed
provisions do not meet the purpose and principles of the RMA.
5.2 It is my opinion that these provisions need to be amended or retained as
notified to ensure that sustainable management of natural and physical
17
resources is achieved. This is particularly important given that the purpose of
the RMA is to enable the wellbeing of people and communities to provide for
their health and safety while:
(i) Sustaining the potential of resources to meet the foreseeable needs of
future generations and
(ii) safeguarding the life supporting capacity of water, soil and
ecosystems
5.3 I consider that the provision of regionally significant infrastructure is an
important component of enabling the wellbeing of people and communities
while safeguarding the life supporting capacity of water, soil and ecosystems.
I consider that the provision, upgrading and maintenance of regionally
significant infrastructure, including where there is a functional need for this
infrastructure to occur in the CMA, is important in ensuring that the needs of
people are provided for while maintaining environmental standards.
5.4 The Kapiti Coast’s urban areas, like other areas in the Wellington Region, are
very susceptible to natural hazard risks which are significantly mitigated by
the efficient management of stormwater runoff from urban areas by the
District Council. In my opinion the life supporting capacity of water, would be
significantly compromised if the outlets networks of piped stormwater were
not maintained or fall into disrepair due to an overly onerous consenting
regime. If the water is unable to discharge into the CMA it will cause
significant flood hazards to occur further inland.
5.5 In relation to other matters in Section 7 of the RMA it is my opinion that
amendments are required to the rules and their conditions to address
concerns related to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the
environment.
5.6 I consider that the amendments and further provisions proposed in section 7
of this evidence would assist to achieve the purpose of the RMA and more
adequately address these matters. This is because with my recommended
changes, the rules and conditions would provide more guidance and clearer
requirements about how the section 6 of the RMA matters will be recognised
18
and provided for, and about how particular regard has been given to the
section 7 matters.
5.7 In terms of section 32 (and section 32AA) analysis I do not consider that the
Policies (P139, P30) Maps (42-48) and Rule (R191) as recommended in the
Section 42A reports are the most efficient and effective method of giving
effect to the objectives of the plan. In particular I consider that the provisions,
recommended in the Section 42A report, do not implement Objectives 12 and
20-22 of this plan relating to the management of natural hazards and benefits
of regionally significant infrastructure which state:
Objective O12
The social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally
significant infrastructure and renewable energy generation
activities are recognised.
Objective O20
The risk, residual risk, and adverse effects from natural hazards and
climate change on people, the community and infrastructure are
acceptable.
Objective O21
Inappropriate use and development in high hazard areas is avoided.
Objective O22
Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as
a last practicable option.
5.8 It is my view that the amendments to Policies P30 and P139 as recommended
in the section 42a reports, also do not adequately recognise the social,
economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally significant
infrastructure including stormwater networks and the necessary functions
required for it as set out in Policy 12 of the Regional Policy Statement below.
Policy 12: benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and
renewable electricity generation facilities
19
The benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and renewable energy
generation activities are recognised by having regard to:
(a) The strategic integration of infrastructure and land use, and
(b) The location of existing infrastructure and structures, and
(c) The need for renewable energy generation activities to locate
where the renewable energy resources exist, and
(d) the functional need for port activities to be located within the
coastal marine area, and
(e) operational requirements associated with developing, operating,
maintaining and upgrading regionally significant infrastructure
and renewable energy generation activities.
5.9 I consider that the lack of a consistent CMA landward extent also does not
currently recognise and provide for the ‘operational requirements’ of
regionally significant infrastructure. Therefore they do not implement the
objectives or the policies. The District Council’s submission included options
for these rules which would specifically provide for regionally significant
infrastructure and implement these objectives. Recommended amendments
to the provisions are provided in section 7 of this evidence.
The National Policy Statements
5.10 I consider that in addition to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
(NZCPS),and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management,
identified in the Section 42A reports, that the National Policy Statement for
Urban Development Capacity (2016)(NPSUDC) is particularly relevant to this
hearing.
5.11 The NPSUDC is identified in the Part A Section 42A report, provided for
Hearing 1. The Hearing 1 Section 42A report considers that none of these are
“directive as to the amendments required to the proposed plan, the Council
must progress any necessary amendments through the normal RMA
Schedule 1 process”. I agree that any amendments to comply with the
NPSUDC that are not within the scope of submissions will need to be
undertaken via the Schedule 1 process however consideration of the
NPSUDC in relation to submission requests is relevant as part of this hearing.
20
This National Policy Statement has not been considered in the Section 42A
reports for this hearing.
5.12 The Wellington Region is identified as a Medium Growth Area in the NPSUDC
and therefore all the objectives and policies PA1-4, PC1-4 and PD 1-2 must
be given effect to as soon as practicable. The District Council needs to
provide for a growing population within the District under these objectives and
policies, which means that the infrastructure to provide for new urban areas
and intensification in existing urban areas to accommodate growth is a
nationally mandated activity. The PNRP rules which hinder the development
or maintenance of this regionally significant infrastructure are in my opinion
not giving effect to the NPSUDC. The recommended amendments in Section
7 of this evidence seek to give effect to the NPSUDC by enabling efficient
infrastructure development upgrading and maintenance.
6. RESPONSE TO THE SECTION 42A REPORT
6.1 I have read the Section 42A reports dated 4 May 2018. My comments will
focus on the Management of the CMA, Natural Hazards and Activities in the
CMA reports.
6.2 It is disappointing that the Recommended Decisions on Submissions table for
the Natural Hazards Section 42A report contains errors including that it rejects
the District Council's submissions in relation to O20, O21, O22, M3 however
the report agrees with the submission and retains Objectives O20, O21 and
O22 and Method M3 as notified. Similarly the Activities in the Coastal Marine
Area Section 42A report Recommended Decisions on Submissions table also
shows the District Council’s submissions on R191 and R193 to be accepted
however these provisions have been amended as the result of other
submissions. These errors between the tables and the reports make it very
difficult for submitters to focus evidence on the most relevant submission
points.
6.3 The Section 42A report for Management of the CMA recommends changes to
Policy 139 and therefore can only accept the District Council’s submission
point in part. The policy is recommended to be amended as set out below:
21
Policy P139: Seawalls
The construction of a new seawall is inappropriate except where the
seawall is required to protect:
(a) existing, or upgrades to, infrastructure, or
(b) new regionally significant infrastructure, and in respect of (a)
and (b):
(c) there is no reasonable or practicable alternative means, and
(d) suitably located, and designed to minimise adverse effects on the
coastal environment, and certified by a qualified, professional
engineer, and
(e) designed to incorporate the use of soft engineering options
where appropriate.
6.4 I consider that the addition proposed to clause d) of this policy changes the
emphasis of the clause from a focus on an engineering design to withstand
coastal processes to a focus on adverse effects. I note that this clause has
been amended to align with clause 3 of Policy 27 of the NZCPS however I
consider that the emphasis added results in a policy which is less consistent
with Policy 27 of the NZCPS overall as it lacks the balancing included in this
policy regarding the costs and risks of all coastal protection methods and
planning for transition to more sustainable practices. I consider this change of
emphasis is inconsistent with Objective O12 of this plan and Policy 27 of the
NZCPS.
6.5 The Natural Hazards Section 42A report, recommends amending Policies
P27, P28, P29 and P30 as set out below:
Policy P27: High hazard areas
Use and development, including hazard mitigation methods, in high
hazard areas shall be avoided except where:
(a) they have a functional need or operational requirement or there is
no practicable alternative to be so located, and
(b) the risk to the development and/or residual risk after hazard
mitigation measures, assessed using a risk-based approach, is
low acceptable, and
(c) the development does not cause or exacerbate natural hazards in
other areas, and
22
(d) interference with adverse effects on natural processes (coastal,
river and lake fluvial and lacustrine processes) is minimised, and
(e) natural cycles of erosion and accretion and the potential for natural
features to fluctuate in position over time, including movements
due to climate change and sea level rise over at least the next 100
years, are taken
Policy P28
“Hard hazard engineering mitigation and protection shall be avoided except:
(a) where necessary to protect development from unacceptable risk,
assessed using the risk-based approach; and
(b) the development demonstrates a functional need or operational
requirement to locate in a particular location; and
(i) where the environmental effects are more than minor the works
form part of a hazard management strategy; or
(ii) any adverse effects are no more than minor and are otherwise
avoided, remedied or mitigated the environmental effects are
considered to be no more than minor”.
Policy P29: Effects of cClimate change
Particular regard shall be given to the potential for climate change to
threaten biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem health and mahinga kai, or to cause
or exacerbate natural events over at least the next 100 years that could
adversely affect use and development, including:
(a) coastal erosion and inundation (storm surge), and
(b) river and lake flooding and erosion, or aggradation, decreased
minimum flows, and
(c) stormwater ponding and impeded drainage, and
(d) relative sea level rise, using the best available guidance for the
Wellington Region.
Policy P30: Natural buffers
The adverse effects of use and development on natural features such as
beaches, dunes or natural wetlands that buffer development from natural
hazards shall be minimised, and the restoration and enhancement of
natural buffers shall be provided for.
23
6.6 I consider that these recommended amendments to Policies P27 – P29 are
generally helpful to plan users however the recommended amendment to
Policy P30 adds a potentially significant additional cost to the District Council if
any works proposed by the Council would impact on the dunes or beaches.
This Policy amendment could require significant restoration or enhancement
works as a result of the District Council requiring resource consent to drive
heavy vehicles on the beach to access coastal protection structures or
stormwater outlets to carry out routine maintenance. I do not consider
restoration and enhancement is required in this policy and I consider that
these additions to Policy P30 place a significant cost burden on the
maintenance of regionally significant infrastructure.
6.7 The Section 42A report for Activities in the Coastal Marine Area recommends
amending rules R191 and R193 as set out below:
Rule R191: Disturbance associated with beach grooming –
permitted activity
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for beach grooming
including any removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material in
the coastal marine area, including any associated:
(a) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and
(b) discharge of contaminants on the following beaches: Ōtaki, Te
Horo, Peka Peka, Waikanae, Paraparaumu, Raumati, Paekakariki,
Tītahi Bay (excluding the area of fossil forest shown on Map 35),
Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, Browns Bay, Bradley Point,
Motukaraka Point, Mana Foreshore, Onehunga Bay, Dolly Varden
Beach, Pukerua Bay, Lyall Bay, Island Bay, Princess Bay, Worser
Bay, Scorching Bay, Oriental Bay, Freyberg, Petone, Point
Howard, Sorrento Bay, Days Bay, Rona Bay, Castlepoint,
Riversdale
is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met:
(c) the beach grooming shall be carried out for the purpose of
grooming and the removal of marine debris and litter, and
(d) the activity shall be undertaken by or for a local authority, and
(e) the activity shall not occur when shellfish beds are exposed, and
24
(f) the activity shall not be within a site identified in Schedule C (mana
whenua) or Schedule E4 (archaeological sites) or Schedule F4
(significant indigenous biodiversity values in the coastal marine
area), and
(g) the activity shall not be within the Tītahi Bay fossil forest shown on
Map 35., and
(h) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general
conditions specified above in Section 5.7.2.
6.8 I consider the amendments to Rule R191 are intended to have the effect of
achieving consistency with the other permitted activities. However this is not
appropriate for beach grooming as the ‘coastal management general
conditions’ include requirements relating to “disturbance of the foreshore”
being “removed after 48 hours”, which will not occur with grooming and
therefore all grooming will be unable to comply with the general conditions. I
do not consider it is appropriate to add these general conditions to this rule.
These additions would create a situation where it is not possible to undertake
the activity as a permitted activity anywhere in the region.
Rule R193: River and stream and lake mouth cutting - permitted activity
The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for river and stream mouth
cutting in the coastal marine area, including any associated:
(a) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and
(b) discharge of contaminants, and
(c) diversion of open coastal water, and
(d) discharge of contaminants
for the following rivers and lakes:
...
6.9 I consider the amendment to R193 to be minor as it primarily removes
duplication of clause b) and adds lake mouths to the rule. Therefore I consider
these amendments are helpful to the plan user and are generally consistent
with the objectives and higher order documents.
6.10 In relation to the District Council’s submission point seeking amendments to
Method M3 the Natural Hazards Section 42A report states:
25
“KCDC’s concern is that while the proposed Plan does confirm a hazard
management strategy will be developed, it does not commit to a
timeframe to develop the strategy. …
451. Since that submission was made, Council has developed, drafted
and made operational a Hazards Management Strategy (in consultation
with the region’s territorial authorities, including KCDC). I consider that
this largely addresses the concerns raised by the Kāpiti Coast District
Council.
…
454. I consider that the development of the Hazard Management
Strategy by the Council has addressed the concerns articulated by the
Kāpiti Coast District Council, and my recommendation is therefore that
this submission point is accepted in part. No amendment is required.”
6.11 I concur with the Section 42A Report writers’ comments that the Regional
Natural Hazards Strategy work has now been completed therefore the
submission point is no longer necessary.
6.12 The District Council sought that Maps 42-48 be amended Maps 42-48 were
notified showing the landward extent of the coastal marine area at river
mouths only. The District Council’s submission sought that:
“Council establishes, and includes a mapped boundary to the CMA, and
prepares maps that show the location of coastal protection structures in
relation to the CMA boundary within the Regional Plan”
6.13 The Activities in the CMA Section 42A report responded to this request as
follows:
“In response to the first request, for the reasons set out earlier in
response to a similar request by Wellington City Council (286/002) (see
paragraph 746), I also recommend that this request within submission
point S117/084 is rejected.
771. In response to the second request, I note that Councils GIS tool
maps the CMA throughout the Wellington region and this mapping tool is
on a recent aerial photograph, which allows you to identify coastal
protection structures. In my view, it is not effective or efficient to replicate
26
this information in the proposed Plan. Accordingly, I also recommend that
this request by Kapiti Coast District Council (S117/084) is rejected.”
6.14 Paragraph 746 states that:
“746. I agree that this would be useful from plan user’s perspective,
particularly to determine when an activity is within a site of significance.
However, the GWRC GIS tool maps the CMA (and the MHWS)
throughout the region.
Further to this, Map 42 – 48 also identify the CMA on a number of river
and stream mouths. I do not see how duplicating this information would
provide any additional benefit for plan users. Accordingly, I recommend
that the requested amendment by Wellington City Council (S286/022) is
rejected.”
6.15 It is my understanding that mapping of MHWS is now proposed to be
undertaken, by Greater Wellington, in the 2018-2019 financial year for the
Kapiti Coast and adjacent areas of the coast, therefore I was surprised by the
Section 42A Report indicating that this has already been completed and is
publicly available.
6.16 I have spent a significant amount of time trying to locate this information within
the Greater Wellington Web GIS system and am unable to find Mean High
Water Springs (MHWS) on the mapping tool, apart from at major river mouth
locations as shown on Maps 42-48. The tool is very difficult to find on the
Greater Wellington website and I have tried looking for MHWS or the extent
of the CMA in many of the ‘galleries’ without success. If this information is
available it would greatly assist plan users to include it as part of the
Proposed Natural Resources Plan data set (where the stream mouth CMA
extent is included) for completeness. The District Council’s submission
sought clarity in the form of mapping of the landward extent of the CMA along
the whole coast. I consider that this certainty is required to enable the PNRP
rules to be implemented.
6.17 It is important to have clarity about the landward extent of the CMA as many
permitted activities such as clearing stormwater outlets (R189) may require
27
resource consent for the vehicles in the CMA in relation to Policy P147 and
Rules R196 and R197 and the definition of ‘motor vehicles’.
6.18 The regional council advice to the district council about the location of MHWS
(the landward extent of the CMA) has been on a case by case basis. The
most recent advice in relation to a specific project was:
“... MHWS is a mobile boundary rather than a fixed one and it is highly
variable on sandy beaches, particularly in places like this that are tightly
constrained along the backshore with development and structures that
inhibit or prevent the normal cut and fill cycles that result in the transfer of
sediments between the backshore, foreshore and nearshore. There can
be vertical fluctuations of 1.0 m or more in the beach sediment volumes
along this stretch of coast and this significantly alters the horizontal limit of
the MHWS, to the degree that it can vary from week to week by many
metres in the foreshore. Therefore, it is more realistic to consider the
MHWS has having an envelope within which it fluctuates from week to
week and month to month.
When the winter storms of 2016 caused severe erosion damage along
this stretch of coast the MHWS moved inland and wave activity was
eroding a vertical scarp in the backshore. The block wall was put in place
as an emergency response to this and at the time, was emplaced within
the CMA. During this period, the volume of the beach of the beach was
low, as you might expect after an erosion event. Some sand volume has
subsequently returned and the MHWS has moved slightly seaward. This
is part of the normal fluctuation of the beach. Another storm cycle will
lower the beach again and the MHWS will migrate inland again as a
response.
Over time however, the general trend will be for the MHWS to move
inland due to sea level rise (2.1 mm/yr) and regional subsidence that is
currently measured at rates equal to and higher than the long term rate of
sea level rise (1-3 mm/yr), effectively doubling the relative rate of sea
level rise to over 4.0 mm/yr. This subsidence has been occurring for as
long as records show (over 17 yrs) and feasibly longer as it is thought to
28
relate to regional tectonics of which a measurable effect is the slow slip
earthquake events that occur off the Kapiti Coast.
Taking this into account, MHWS runs along the toe of the Marine Parade
revetment then moves inland to run within +/- 1.0 m of the toe of the
seawall structures on average. The toe of these structures can be
considered as within the MHWS envelope.”
6.19 I accept that MHWS is a moving boundary however it can be calculated over a
specific time period therefore the District Council is keen to have clarity about
the location of MHWS at this time to enable the PNRP rules to be used. The
CMA rules only apply below MHWS and other rules including the Kapiti Coast
District Plan rules apply above MHWS.
6.20 The mapping is of particular relevance to the Council in relation to seawalls
and other coastal hazard management structures but it is also relevant to
stormwater outlets onto the coast. The general conditions clause (k) as
recommended in the Section 42A report requires fish passage be provided if
a structure in the existing reticulated netorrks (such as a stormwater pipe) is
constructed in the CMA. Stormwater pipes on sandy coasts are commonly
designed with one way valves, socks or flaps which allow water out but do not
allow sand or other debris to enter the pipe. These types of mechanisms
would also prevent fish passage in these systems. Therefore certainty about
the location of the CMA in relation to this infrastructure is critical.
6.21 This issue has become even more important in the context of rule
interpretations the District Council has received from the Regional Council
staff. As a practical example of the need for clarity Rule R196 would
potentially require non-complying activity resource consent for vehicles
required to clear debris from stormwater outlets in the CMA at Waikanae
Beach and Estuary, Paraparaumu Beach, Waitohu Stream mouth and the
Otaki River mouth as these are scheduled areas excluded in the permitted
activity standards. However the stormwater outlets in these areas may be
outside of the CMA and heavy vehicle access could potentially occur in some
or all locations without entering the CMA if the outlets are located outside the
CMA.
29
6.22 The District Council is further concerned that due to the definition of “motor
vehicle” being “…limited to cars,…weighing up to 3,500kg.” means machinery
for cleaning stormwater outlets and other necessary coastal activities will be
excluded from the vehicle rules and therefore the vehicles driving along the
foreshore will need to be considered under other rules. I consider that the
rules that should be used for this ‘heavy vehicle’ driving are Rule R185 - R187
however the advice the District Council has received from consent officers is
that rules R194 and R195 should be used. The Regional Council resource
consent staff have advised in relation to works on the foreshore that:
“The tracking of the digger for approximately 1km along the beach and
through the Wharemauku Stream estuary is a discretionary and a non-
complying activity (respectively on the beach and in the estuary).
The Sumitoto SH120 digger is not classed as a motor vehicle under the
PNRP as it is ~12,700kg and a motor vehicle needs to be 3000kg or
under according to the interpretation.
Therefore, the relevant rules for the disturbance of the beach (for the
transit along approx. 1km of beach and through the Wharemauku
Estuary, not the disturbance associated with its construction in the
vicinity of the structure) are:
R194 – Discretionary activity – Disturbance of the CMA outside of a site
of significance
R195 – Non complying activity - Disturbance of the CMA inside of a site
of significance”
6.23 It is unclear to me why rules R194 and R195 are cited when rule R185 applies
to “general foreshore and seabed activities” and includes “disturbance of the
foreshore or seabed” this rule appears to more appropriately relate to driving
along the foreshore than rule R195 as the disturbance by driving a vehicle is
not necessarily “damage of the foreshore” which appears to be the reason
this interpretation has been made. The District Council did not anticipate the
rules being applied in this way when making a submission on this proposed
plan. The interpretation of these rules as set out above will add considerable
costs to the maintenance of infrastructure including stormwater outlets.
30
6.24 Any equipment used for these purposes can comply with best practice
standards including complying with the following guidance for heavy vehicles
on the beach provided by the Greater Wellington Resource Consent staff:
a. light vehicles should be used in preference over heavier vehicles
(reduce weight to reduce disturbance)
b. wide tyres or tracks should be used in preference over narrow tyres (disperse weight to reduce disturbance)
c. vehicles should take the shortest and most direct route to the work site (reduce area of disturbance)
d. vehicles should make as few movements along the beach as possible (reduce the amount of vehicle traffic to reduce disturbance)
e. vehicles should be driven over the same tracks - the first vehicle passage does the most damage (reduce the area of disturbance)
f. vehicles should be driven immediately below MHWS - high up the tidal zone of the beach (movement can occur at any time of the tidal cycle, will not disturb bird-nesting sites or foredunes, and the disturbance is removed by the tide within 48 hours)
g. particular care should be taken in estuaries, river mouths and dunes to reduce disturbance to areas with high biodiversity values.
6.25 It is my view that regionally significant infrastructure has tight functional
requirements in relation to the maintenance and upgrading of the systems,
especially when these systems are located on a coast with significant
fluctuation in sand movement. These functional requirements mean
infrastructure maintenance or upgrading needs to occur frequently on the
coast without unnecessary restrictions and easily accessible information
about the extent of the CMA is required to enable this efficiency.
7. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROVISIONS
7.1 I therefore recommend the following amendments to Maps 42 to 48 (or
electronically) provide an entire coast map of the CMA extent accessible to
plan users. If this is to be electronic provide guidance (eg a weblink) to get to
this information in the coastal rules section.
31
7.2 I recommend that Policy P30, Policy P139 and Rule R191 are not amended
as recommended and the notified wording is retained. The amendments
recommended in the Section 42A reports would in my opinion result in
inconsistencies with objectives of this plan and provisions of higher order
documents identified in section 6 of this evidence.
8. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 In conclusion, I recommend that Maps 42-48 be amended and as set out in
section 7 of this evidence and Policy P30, Policy P139 and Rule R191 are
retained as notified. I consider that the inclusion of these provisions, or similar
amendments, will better implement the Objectives of the Plan than the
amendments recommended in the Section 42A reports to ensure that the
PNRP provides for regionally significant infrastructure provided by the District
Council for the community of Kapiti.
Emily Thomson
Senior Policy Planner
Kapiti Coast District Council
18 May 2018