Chapter 7 - Natural Hazards - Hearing Report

Transcription

1 Report Chapter 7 - Natural Hazards - Hearing Report Prepared for Kaipara District Council (Client) By Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca) 05 May 2010 Beca 2010 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing). This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.

2 Revision History Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date 0 Michele Perwick First Draft 1/5/10 A Michele Perwick Final 05 May 2010 Document Acceptance Action Name Signed Date Prepared by Michele Perwick 5 May 2010 Reviewed by Amelia Linzey 5 May 2010 Approved by Amelia Linzey 5 May 2010 on behalf of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd Beca // 19 April 2010

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Statutory Framework Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act Background Analysis of Submissions Introduction Submissions Addressed in this Report Submissions about Issues Analysis and Recommendations Submissions on Objectives and Policies Analysis and Recommendations Submissions about Methods Analysis and Recommendations Minor Amendment Analysis and Recommendations Miscellaneous Amendments Analysis and Recommendations Rules Subdivision Conclusion and Recommendation Chapter Modifications and Consequential Amendments Appendices Appendix 1 Chapter 7 - Natural Hazardous Submitters who wish to be heard Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 1

4 1 Introduction This report considers submissions and further submissions ( submissions ) that were received by Kaipara District Council (Council) in relation to Chapter 7 Natural Hazards of the Kaipara District Plan Proposed The Plan was publicly notified on 21 October The closing date for lodging submissions was 18 December The submissions were publicly notified for further submissions on 1 March The closing date for lodging further submissions was 12 March The report recommends whether each submission should be accepted or rejected (in full or in part) and what amendments (if any) should be made to the Plan to address matters raised in submissions. Further submissions are not addressed separately, but rather are dealt with in conjunction with the submissions to which they relate. 1.1 Statutory Framework This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework within which the Council must consider the submissions. In preparing this report the submissions and in particular, the decisions requested in the submissions, together with the supporting evidence presented at the hearing, have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court 1, which set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans: 1. The objectives of the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they: a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(3)(a)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)). 2. The policies, rules, or other methods in the Plan are to be evaluated by the extent to which they: a. Are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Plan (s32(3)(b)); and b. Assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s72); and c. Are in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the RMA (s74(1)); and d. (If a rule) achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (s76(1)(b)). The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and sustainable management is defined in section 5(2) as meaning: 1 Eldamos Investments Limited v Gisborne District Council W047/05 Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 2

5 managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while (a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. Along with section 5, part 2 of the RMA includes sections 6 (matters of national importance), 7 (other matters) and 8 (Treaty of Waitangi), which set out a range of matters that the council needs to recognise and provide for in achieving the purpose of the RMA. Those matters are also relevant when considering submissions. The Plan must assist the Council to carry out its functions under section 31 of the RMA. These functions are: (a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and (ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and (iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land: (iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: (c) (d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: (e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes. In addition to the matters listed above the following are relevant to considering submissions on the Proposed District Plan: 1. The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75(3)(a) and (b)). 2. The Plan must give effect to the regional policy statement (made operative after 10 August 2005) (s75(3)(c)). 3. The Plan must be not inconsistent with any regional plan (s75(4)). 4. A rule must not be more lenient and can only be more stringent than a national environmental standard if the standard expressly says that a rule may be more stringent than it (s43b(1) and (3)) Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 As part of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009, changes have been introduced to the way Plan Reviews are undertaken. In summary, these changes concern how often Plans are required to be reviewed, the provision of combined Plans, the further submissions process, decisions on submissions, appeals on Plans and when Plan rules Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 3

6 take effect 2. Of particular relevance to this part of the Plan Review process is the change to how the further submissions process is undertaken and the process of making decisions on submissions. Further submissions Clause 8 of Schedule 1 now provides that the only persons able to make a further submission are: Persons who are representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or Persons who have an interest in the proposed policy statement or plan or change that is greater that the interest the general public has; or The local authority. Further submissions must also now be lodged within 10 working days from the day on which public notice is given. Grouping of Submissions Under clause 10 of Schedule 1, a decision is not required on each individual submission, and decisions may address submissions by grouping them (according to the plan provisions or the matter to which they relate). Decisions must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions, and may include any consequential changes to the Proposed Plan arising from decisions on submissions. This hearing report has been prepared with regard to these amendments to the Act. 1.2 Background Chapter 7 of the Proposed Plan sets out background information about potential natural hazards in Kaipara and identifies the particular issues facing the District. It describes the objectives, policies and methods to address to these issues. In particular the chapter provides guidance to the public on the location and nature of identified or potential natural hazards. Rules to manage the effects of land use and subdivision in hazard prone areas are provided in Part B Zone chapters of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan identifies the following outcomes for natural hazards: Reduced risk to life, property and the environment from natural hazards. Appropriate control of new development in locations where there is a high risk of significant damage from natural hazards. Increased public awareness of the risks of natural hazards and the role of natural features in natural hazard mitigation. 2 The Ministry for the Environment (2009), Improving Plan Development and Plan Change Processes fact sheet clearly outlines the implications of these amendments with respect to Plan development. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 4

7 2 Analysis of Submissions 2.1 Introduction This section of the report discusses the decisions requested in submissions about Chapter 7- Natural Hazards and recommends how the Panel could respond to the matters raised and decisions requested in submissions. The submissions are addressed under subject headings. Where relevant this report draws from the Section 32 Report 3 prepared to document Council s consideration of the District Plan review. While the relevant statutory matters (identified in Section 1.1 of this report) will not necessarily be referred to directly, the discussion and recommendations have given consideration to these as appropriate and any other relevant matters. This Hearing Report should be read in conjunction with the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April This report can be found on the Reports tab of the Kaipara District Plan website ( and in the District libraries and Council offices. For clarity, original submissions received during the first submission period following notification of the Proposed Plan are referred to as submissions throughout the report, where as submission received during the second submission period and made in respect to the original submissions are referred to as further submissions or FS. 2.2 Submissions Addressed in this Report The Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (pages 474 to 491) provides a summary of submissions that were received on this Chapter. A number of submission points related to other chapters, and have been responded to in the following Hearing Report:- Chapter 1 Structure and Tools Rules - Hearing Report A list of those submitters who wished to be heard, whose submissions are reported on in this report, is included in Appendix Submissions about Issues The submission dealt with in this section is outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (page 474) Analysis and Recommendations Submission 422/1 seeks provision is made for alternative sustainable electricity generation (e.g. tidal turbines) to address climate change and global warming threat arising from the burning of fossil 3 Section 32 Report, October Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 5

8 fuels. Kaipara, with its extensive coastline is regarded as being particularly vulnerable to climate change. Section 7 of the RMA directs territorial authorities in managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources to have particular regard to the effects of climate change and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Recommended amendments to Chapter 2, District Wide Issues have addressed the provision of renewable energy and these amendments are considered to address the matters raised by this submission. It is recognised that Kaipara District has good potential for the development of sustainable energy resources. Notwithstanding the above, it is considered inappropriate to provide for amendments that advocate for particular energy resources which may yet be shown to be unsustainable. In particular, the use of Kaipara Harbour s tidal currents for energy generation may have potential adverse environmental and economic effects at a regional and national level, which are still to be determined. In addition, tidal energy schemes are beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of Kaipara District Council and are the responsibility of regional councils. Having regard to the above, it is recommended that submission 422/1 be accepted in part to the extent that the following amendments recommended to chapter 2 are supported Natural and Physical Resources Renewable Energy Resources Under section 7 of the RMA, the Council must have particular regard for energy efficiency, climate change and the benefits of the use and development of renewable energy. Renewable resources in the District are potentially an important source of energy development in the District. The District has significant potential to develop these renewable energy resources. By way of example, the West Coast of the District offers good wind energy resources. The District also has potential hydro energy, bioenergy and solar energy resources. 2.4 Submissions on Objectives and Policies The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (pages ) Analysis and Recommendations a. General Submissions to Objectives and Policies Submission 98/14 supports the high level objectives and policies of this section as offering robust and clear guidance. No decision is requested. One further submission received in support of submission 98/14. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 6

9 Several submissions are seeking changes to policies, which are supported in part. For this reason it is considered that submission 98/14 and FS 511/13 be accepted in part to facilitate amendments to policies where required. It is recommended that submission 98/14 and FS511/13 be accepted in part. No amendments to the Proposed Plan are considered necessary. b. Section 7.5 Objectives Submission 98/23 states issue (risk to life, property and the environment from hazards) has been correctly identified and it should be recognised by objectives 7.5.1, and which seek to control subdivision and development activities and to educate the public to avoid natural hazards. The objectives are: Objective To control subdivision and development so that it does not induce natural hazards or exacerbate the effects of natural hazards. Objective To improve public awareness of natural hazards as a means of helping the community to avoid such hazards. Objective To consider natural hazards at the time of any subdivision, land use or development or when there is a significant change in land use proposed (for example a new Growth Area) One further submission was received in support of submission 98/23. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. The framework of the Plan has been designed to make a direct link between an issue and its relevant objective(s). It is a minor oversight that link between Issue and the relevant objectives has not been made. Having reviewed objectives 7.5.1, and it is agreed these are appropriate responses to Issue as they seek to control subdivision and development and to educate the public to avoid natural hazards. It is recommended that the submission 98/23 be accepted and FS511/13 be accepted in part to the extent sought by submission 98/23, with the following text added to the right hand margins of Objective 7.5.1, and Submissions 135/44, 135/45, 135/46, 135/47 and 135/48 are grouped together as a comprehensive recommendation addressing the matters by each submitter is proviced. Submission 135/44 requests the following policy be inserted to section 7.6 (Natural Hazards Policies): Natural systems should be used, maintained, managed, enhanced or protected where they make a significant contribution to avoiding or mitigating natural hazards, especially: (a) indigenous forest, and other vegetation, to limit flooding and erosion; (b) wetlands to manage the effects of flooding; (c) natural coastal features and beach systems such as sand dunes, saltmarsh and mangroves to limit coastal erosion; and (d) natural water bodies and watercourses to prevent flooding. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 7

10 The submitter considers that the proposed plan policies regarding natural control mechanisms will not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and Northland Regional Policy Statement. Policy of the NZCPS states: The ability of natural features such as beaches, sand dunes, mangroves, wetlands and barrier islands, to protect subdivision, and use and development should be recognised and maintained and where appropriate steps taken to enhance that ability. Submission 135/45 requests a further policy be added to Section 7.6, worded as follows: To ensure that mitigation measures in response to natural hazards do not, themselves, produce adverse effects on the environment and are designed and located to achieve their purpose. Submission 144/46 requests a new policy be inserted into Section 7.6 as follows: In the case of flood mitigation and coastal defence works, non-structural methods, such as riparian revegetation, dune stabilisation and beach nourishment, should generally be adopted, in preference to structural methods, such as foreshore protection works (eg. walls, rip rap/gabion baskets and groynes). Structural methods should be permitted only where people, property infrastructure and the environment are subject to unacceptable risk from hazards, the works are the best practicable option, and any adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Submission 135/47 requests a new policy, namely Policy of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement be added to the policy section, as follows: Where existing subdivision use and development is threatened by a coastal hazard, coastal protection works should be permitted only where they are the best practicable option for the future. The abandonment or relocation of existing structures should be considered among the options. Where coastal protection works are the best practicable option they should be located and designed so as to avoid adverse environmental effects to the extent practicable Submission 135/48 seeks that the words or minimised be deleted from Policy The submitter argues that this would give effect to Policy of the NZCPS seeks to avoid the need for hazard protection works and also the NRPS. Having regard to these submissions the following comments are made: Objective of the Proposed Plan clearly recognises the importance of natural features in hazard mitigation. Whilst Policy seeks to avoid or minimise the need for hazard protection works (generally hard engineered works such as walls and rocks) through controlling coastal subdivision and land use, it has not fully recognised the ability of natural features to avoid or mitigate hazards and it would be appropriate to amend the policy to reflect this. It is considered appropriate that Council have regard to the adverse effects of hazard protection works on the wider environment. This would give effect to the policy directive of the Northland Regional Policy Statement (NRPS). The methods in section 7 of the Proposed Plan propose rules in the zone chapters regarding the design and construction of hazard protection works. Section 7.9 directs readers to Part B of the plan and this is considered sufficient to enable people to find the relevant rules in the land use chapters. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 8

11 The national and regional policy directives are to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of natural hazards and the deletion of the words or minimised from Policy would be consistent with these higher order documents. Having regard to the above discussion, it is recommended that submissions 135/44, 135/45, 125/46 135/47 be accepted in part and submission 135/48 be accepted and that the following amendments be made to the text and accompanying explanation of Policy 7.6.2: Policy By controlling the location, intensity and type of new coastal subdivision, and land use and development and also by maintaining and where appropriate enhancing the ability of natural features and ecosystems to protect land, so that the need for hazard protection works are avoided or minimised. Where hazard protection works are necessary, their form, location and design should avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the environment. The following text changes to the explanatory statement of Policy are inserted after the first paragraph: In the case of flood mitigation and coastal defence works, non-structural methods, such as riparian revegetation, dune stabilisation and beach nourishment, should generally be adopted, in preference to structural methods, such as foreshore protection works (eg. walls, rip rap/gabion baskets and groynes). Structural methods should be permitted only where people, property infrastructure and the environment are subject to unacceptable risk from hazards, the works are the best practicable option, and any adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. This is particularly important as physical protection works can have unintended consequences which need to be assessed in any hazard mitigation schemes. 2.5 Submissions about Methods The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (pages ) Analysis and Recommendations a. General Submission 98/16 states that whilst the primary focus of natural hazards is for new development, natural hazards should also be considered in the light of new information or subsequent to the adoption of new national or regional policy. The submission seeks to broaden the scope of circumstances which trigger a consideration of natural hazards. Tools proposed in Section Other Methods to implement Natural Hazard Policies include the maintenance of a Land Information Register on the location and nature of identified and potential natural hazards. Provision is made for new information to be placed on this register from Council commissioned reports. Furthermore, the RMA directs territorial authorities such as Kaipara, that Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 9

12 they must give effect to any national policy statements and regional policy statements (in this case Northland s). The Proposed Plan must also not be inconsistent the objective policies and methods of a regional plan relating to the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. On this basis it is considered the Proposed Plan will be able to consider natural hazards identified by new information and to implement national and regional policy statements. No amendments to the Proposed Plan are considered necessary. Accordingly, it is recommended that submission 98/16 be rejected. b. Flood susceptibility maps Submission 98/20 supports the retention of the flood susceptibility maps. One further submission was received in support of submission 98/20. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. No amendments to the Proposed Plan are considered necessary. It is recommended submission 98/20 is accepted and FS 511/13 be accepted in part, to the extent it supports submission 98/20. Submission 98/24 requests that in areas where natural hazards have been more rigorously identified there is an opportunity to develop a more definitive regulatory framework. Three further submissions were received in response to submission 98/24, two in support and one in opposition. FS 465/93 supports submission 98/24 as it is sound resource management practice to include detailed information on hazards, especially coastal hazards, where this is known. FS 466/35 opposes submission 98/24 because the inclusion of specific provisions would need to be supported by a Section 32 analysis and is dependent on interpretation of 'high degree of certainty'. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. Section Other Methods identifies that Council will work in collaboration with Northland Regional Council to produce up to date flood susceptibility maps and will maintain and update a Land Information Register on natural hazards. It is agreed it is best practice that where new hazard risk information is available it should be incorporated into the District Plan as it comes to hand to avoid unnecessary resource consent applications or inappropriate built form. This may entail Council in the future preparing variations or plan changes to its District Plan to strengthen the natural hazard provisions of the plan. Chapter 23 of the Proposed Plan, Monitoring provides for the monitoring of performance standards and the preparation of State of the Environment reports periodically as required to support changes to or reviews of the District Plan. Thus Council has the appropriate tools to response to manage natural hazard risks as more information comes to light in the future. Accordingly it is recommended that submission 98/24 and FS 465/93, 466/35 and 511/13 be rejected. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 10

13 c. Land Information Register Submission 207/77 and 98/22 supports the maintenance of a Land Information Register although concerns are raised at how this will be managed and the liability implications for Council. Submission 207/77 does not request a decision whilst Submission 98/22 seeks to ensure there is a robust legal process for referencing external data held on the register. One further submission was received in support of 207/77. FS 494/1 seeks that the whole of submission 207/77 be allowed as they have the best interests of the ratepayers at heart and the submission is well written and researched. One further submission was received in support of submission 98/22. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. Having regard to the above submissions and further submissions it is considered that the technical and administrative processes for managing the Land Information Register are outside the scope of the District Plan. It is recommended that submission 207/77 be accepted and FS494/1 be accepted in part to the extent that the Land Information Register is supported. It is recommended that submission 98/22 and FS 511/13 be rejected. d. Miscellaneous Submission 144/7 states parts of the Proposed Plan (such as excavation limits for rural land) are not in accordance with the Northland Regional Plan and seeks that Council eliminates conflict between the two documents. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Proposed Plan must not be inconsistent with a regional plan, the submitter has not stated what decision is being sought. The submitter may wish to elaborate at the hearing as to the specific changes sought. On this basis it is recommended that submission 144/7 be rejected. Submissions 7/2 relates to perceived inadequacies in the Proposed Plan s cross references, as some chapters have no rules and this may cause people to overlook overlays and special feature controls, resulting in inadequate resource consent applications. No decision is requested. Section 7.9 of the Chapter 7 clearly directs readers of this chapter to other relevant chapters and no changes are considered necessary. It is recommended that submission 7/2 be rejected. Submission 98/18 seeks a clear linkage with the relevant sections to the Building Act to address the effects of natural hazards on buildings. One further submission was received in support of submission 98/19. FS 511/13 seeks that all of submission 98 be allowed as the relief sought is appropriate, necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA. Section Other Methods clearly identifies the ability of Council to use the Building Act to refuse to grant a building consent or new buildings or major alterations to buildings in areas subject to natural hazards or where the building work could exacerbate the hazard. It is not considered that the wording of this method needs to be improved as it simply sets out the relationship between natural hazards and the Building Act. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 11

14 It is recommended that submission 98/19 and FS 511/13 be rejected. 2.6 Minor Amendment The submission dealt with in this section is outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (page 480) Analysis and Recommendations a. Section 7.2 Resource Management Act Requirements Submission 118/50 seeks amendments to the text of section 7.2 to replacing the word or with of in the first sentence of the third paragraph. The submission corrects a simple typographical error in the plan and aligns the text with the wording of section 30(1)(c)(iv) of the Resource Management Act. Accordingly it is recommended submission 118/50 be accepted and that section 7.2 be amended as follows: The Northland Regional Council also has a responsibility, under the Act to control the use of land for the purpose or of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. 2.7 Miscellaneous Amendments The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (page ) Analysis and Recommendations b. Section 7.1 Flooding Submission 446/6 requests that this section be amended to allow Council monitoring of activities in adjacent districts and take action to prevent activities that will contribute to flooding in Kaipara. A collaborative approach with the Northland Regional Council is outlined in Section Other Methods, including hazard mapping of high risk flood areas, and the monitoring of effects and the effectiveness of policies in coastal hazard areas. With such methods in place, it is considered the intent of the submission is fulfilled by the Plan. Accordingly it is recommended that submission 446/6 be rejected. c. Fire Hazards Submission 135/43 requests additional issues, objectives, policies and methods (linked to a rule) be inserted into the Proposed Plan to consider the risk posed by fire to both human life and vegetation. From the context of Section 7, fire is seen as posing a secondary threat to the district, distinct from the primary threats of flooding, landslips, coastal erosion and sea level rise. Specific policy provisions for the fire hazard is considered to be unwarranted due to the relatively low risk within the District from what are largely unpredictable events (such as fire caused by lighting strike) which are difficult to plan for. As stated in the Section 32 report, Council has evaluated its policies and methods for natural hazards and found them to be appropriate in terms of being an effective and efficient response to the objectives of the plan. One further submission was received in support of 135/43. FS 485/2 supports submission 135/43 as the prime function of the NZFS is fire safety, fire prevention and fire extinction. Its mission is to reduce the incidence and consequence of fire and provide a professional response to other emergencies. As well as general operations (responding to emergencies) the NZFS works with Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 12

15 government and communities to reduce fire risks though education. NZFS Support an additional paragraph on fire risk in Chapter 7, and additional issue, objective, policies and methods to address fire hazards, including the education on fire hazards. Having regard to this submission and further submission, it is noted that Policy specifically addresses part of the submission request by encouraging public education to improve people s awareness of natural hazards, including fire, and to assist them in making informed decisions. Section Other Methods also states Council will undertake further research on atmospheric risks such as fire. In addition, the Proposed Plan provides rules, in the zone chapters, controlling the location of buildings in relation to each other to avoid fire risk et al. Building performance is covered by the Building Code under the Building Act. It is considered this approach is appropriate in terms of striking a balance between the degree of risk a hazard poses and the level of response warranted under the District Plan. Accordingly it is recommended that submission 135/43 and FS 485/2 be rejected. Submission 135/42 seeks to have coastal hazard areas identified in the Plan, to give effect to Policy of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Strict rules relating to earthworks, vegetation clearance and structures are also sought. As stated in the Section 32 report the higher costs to be incurred by providing accurate hazard maps was not found to be warranted for the additional certainty and management direction it would provide. This evaluation has lead to the decision for Council to work in collaboration with Northland Regional Council to carry out studies with respect to natural hazards, including flood susceptibility maps. Current indicative flood susceptibility maps are provided for information purposes only in the Land Information Register to provide some understanding of flooding hazards in the absence of accurate mapped information. The Council has developed other methods in the zone chapters, to provide for the prevention of natural hazards, including; detailed assessment criteria for subdivision and land use in proximity to flood hazard areas, performance standards to control earthworks, vegetation clearance and building setbacks from water bodies, and the requirement for specialised engineering reports where development is likely to be affected by coastal erosion, flooding or areas of instability. From the above discussion it is concluded that no change is necessary to the Proposed Plan. Accordingly it is recommended that submission 135/2 be rejected. Submission 117/40 seeks that objective be replaced with a more scientifically based statement and states that a precautionary approach has no place in an effects based Plan. Objective reads: By taking into account Climate Change and sea level rise, as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or Royal Society of NZ, when assessing development in areas potentially affected. Four further submissions were received in response to 117/40, one in opposition and three in support. FS 465/13 seeks that 117/40 be disallowed as Policy adequately recognises climate change and associated sea level rise. It is necessary in order to give effect to the New Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 13

16 Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to recognise and provide policy direction on anthropic climate change and sea level rise. FS' 478/1, 504/1 and 511/21 seeks that 117/40 be allowed. The respective reasons for this support are to defer review costs until the Regional Policy Statement review is complete, to facilitate further consultation and because the relief sought is appropriate necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA,. Policy development by Kaipara District Council has been guided by the Ministry for the Environment which has in turn relied upon the integrity of the International Panel on Climate Change predictions. It is not considered that sufficient information has been provided in this submission to justify rejecting the findings of the IPCC. Additional studies and investigations on coastal hazards proposed by Kaipara District Council and Northland Regional Council will also inform the development of specific coastal hazard policies and controls in the future. The principles on which the Section 7 Natural Hazards is based upon have been aligned with the purpose of the Act (i.e. to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources). Furthermore, the pre-cautionary principle is endorsed by the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (Policy 3.3). An informed but cautious approach is justified for Kaipara District given the considerable threat that coastal hazards pose to life and property and the environment. Based on the above discussion it is recommended that submission 117/40 and FS 478/1,504/1 and 511/21 be rejected and FS 465/13 be accepted. Submission 187/8 seeks that only minor amendments are made to the existing Operative Plan. The submitter states that the Proposed Plan is going to have a huge cost to ratepayers and the existing plan only needed to be adjusted and the use of consultants and engineers kept to a minimum. Three further submissions were received in opposition to submission 187/8. FS 465/42 seeks that 187/8 be disallowed as the Kaipara District Council needed to replace the operative Plan as it is outdated, no longer achieves the purpose of the Act and does not give effect to national or regional policy statements. FS 509/5 and FS 510/5 oppose submission 187/8 as the relief sought would not achieve the purpose and principles of the RMA. The Council is required to review its District Plan under and in accordance with the RMA. The Proposed Plan has been prepared to meet the Council s obligations under the RMA. The Section 32 report states that the retention of the operative plan has only limited environmental, social and economic benefits and greater potential environmental, social and economic costs and was not the most effective method of addressing natural hazard issues nor of achieving the objectives of Section 7. Accordingly, it is recommended that the submission 187/8 be rejected and FS 465/2 and 509/5 and 510/5 be accepted. Submission 117/10 opposes Chapter 7 as the principles on which the chapter is based are inappropriate for Kaipara District. Four further submissions were received in response to submission 117/10, one in opposition and three in support. FS 465/12, seeks that 117/10 be rejected. Chapter 7 is appropriate and necessary to give effect to the natural hazard policies in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and Regional Policy Statement for Northland. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 14

17 FS/s 478/1, 504/1 and 511/21 seeks that 117/10 be allowed. The respective reasons for this support are to defer review costs until the Regional Policy Statement review is complete, to facilitate further consultation and because the relief sought is appropriate necessary and consistent with the provisions of the RMA,. Section 7 was informed by the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and also by the principles within the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. The submitter does not expand on what principles are considered inappropriate for Kaipara District and they may wish to enlarge on this matter at the hearing. No decision is requested and it and it recommended that the submission 117/10 and FS 478/1, 504/1 and 511/21 be rejected and submitter 465/12 be accepted. 2.8 Rules The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (page ). There are no rules in the Natural Hazards chapter as they are addressed in the land use chapters of Part B of the Proposed Plan. For submissions that raise issues related to rules, please refer to section 2.2 of this report for direction. 2.9 Subdivision The submissions dealt with in this section are outlined in the Summary of Submissions and Further Submissions Report dated April 2010 (page ). There are no rules in the Natural Hazards chapter as they are addressed in the land use chapters of Part B of the Proposed Plan. For submissions that raise issues related to rules, please refer to section 2.2 of this report for direction Conclusion and Recommendation This report has considered the decisions requested in submissions lodged regarding to chapter 7 Natural Hazards of the Proposed Kaipara District Plan The report recommends whether submissions should be accepted or rejected and how associated further submissions should be dealt with and how the Plan should be modified as a result. It is concluded that the recommendations set out in the above sections should be implemented for the reasons also set out in that section Chapter Modifications and Consequential Amendments A number of sections of the Plan are likely to have consequential amendments as a result of submissions received on this Chapter of the Plan. A final report on Consequential Amendments will be prepared once decisions have been made on each Hearing Report, which will identify any consequential amendments that are required as a result of decisions. This will be reported to Council for approval prior to the final Decisions Version of the Plan being notified. Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 15

18 Beca // 19 April 2010 // Page 16

19 Appendix 1 Chapter 7- Natural Hazards Submitters who wish to be heard

20 Sub No. Name 7 Rodney District Council 66, 504 Harris, Peter and Raewyn 85, 510 Harbour View Investments Limited Northland Regional Council 99, 478 Larsen, Jonathan 117 McShane, Owen 118 Kaipara District Council 144 Simpkin, Ben Chapter 7 Submitters who wish to be heard 135, 465 Department of Conservation (Northland Conservancy) 183, 472, 494 Hogan, Jonathen 207, 511 Farmers of New Zealand Inc., Kaipara Citizens and Ratepayers Association Inc, Pouto Topu a Trust 422 Searle, Kenneth David 446 Drake, Richard 466 Horticulture NZ Beca // 5 May // NZ