Agenda of Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

10 February 2022

8.1 RM Reform Consultation

Kaituhi | Author: Angela Bell, Strategy Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report provides the Strategy and Operations Committee with an overview of the key themes to be included in the Council’s submission on the Government’s resource management reform discussion document: Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system (the discussion document, see Appendix 1).

2 The Government released this discussion document in December, and submissions on the discussion document are due on 28 February 2022. Your direction is sought to assist finalising of the Council submission,

He whakarāpopoto | Executive summary

3 None.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

4 The Strategy and Operations Committee has delegated authority to consider this under section B.1 of the 2019-2022 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations “signing off any submission to an external agency or body”.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Strategy and Operations Committee:

A. Note that the government is consulting on its resource management reform programme through the document Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system and that submissions are due on 28 February 2022.

B. Agree that the key themes to be covered in Council’s submission will be:

B.1 Concerns regarding loss of local decision-making and input

B.2 System alignment isn’t going far enough

B.3 Funding and sector support

B.4 The role of Māori in resource management

B.5 We are doing many of these things already.

C. Delegate final approval of the submission to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Chair of Strategy and Operations.

D. Note that no further consultation is anticipated prior to the Select Committee consideration of the draft legislation, which is expected to occur in the second half of 2022.

Tūāpapa | Background

5 In February 2021, the Government announced it would repeal the RMA and enact new legislation based on the recommendations of the Resource Management Review Panel. The three proposed acts are:

5.1 Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA), as the main replacement for the RMA, to protect and restore the environment while better enabling development

5.2 Strategic Planning Act (SPA), requiring the development of long-term (30 year) regional spatial strategies to help coordinate and integrate decisions made under relevant legislation; and

5.3 Climate Adaptation Act (CAA), to address complex issues associated with managed retreat.

6 The objectives of this reform programme are to:

6.1 protect and restore the environment and its capacity to provide for the wellbeing of present and future generations

6.2 better enable development within natural environmental limits

6.3 give proper recognition to the principles of Te Tiriti of Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao Māori including mātauranga Māori

6.4 better prepare for adapting to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions contributing to climate change

6.5 improve system efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce complexity while retaining appropriate local democratic input.

7 A diagram providing a high-level overview of the proposed resource management system is included as Appendix 2.

8 The proposed NBA is the primary piece of legislation in the reform package and initial consultation on an exposure draft of key sections of the legislation was undertaken in 2021. The feedback was considered by a Select Committee inquiry, which reported back to Parliament in November last year. The Select Committee report is available here.

9 Council’s submission on the exposure draft was made collectively with other Councils in the Wellington region. This submission is available here.

10 The Government intends to introduce both the NBA and SPA in 2022, with the intention of finalising the new laws before the next general election. The discussion document covers the scope and intent of both of these Acts and poses 34 questions for feedback. For our submission we will provide responses to the most pertinent aspects raised in the discussion document, and these responses may be presented in a different way than the high-level themes outlined in this report. However, your direction will inform the development of the detailed submission, which will remain in keeping with the themes discussed here and the feedback received.

11 Further consultation on the detail of this reform package is not expected to occur outside of the standard Select Committee process, which will commence once the draft legislation has been introduced into Parliament. We understand that this is expected to occur in the second half of 2022.

12 The outcome of this reform programme will have a significant impact on our planning and regulatory functions as a Council, as well as on some democratic processes in our district.

13 The reforms sit within a wider reform package being progressed by Government, including three waters, the future for local government review, and reforms of both the health and education systems. Collectively the implications of this suite of reform are extensive, particularly for local governance, and seems to indicate a direction of travel towards greater centralisation.

14 He kōrerorero | Discussion

15 The reform of the resource management system is proposing the following key changes when compared to the existing RMA system:

15.1 Planning for positive outcomes, and managing adverse effects to achieve them: Re-orientates decision-making from principally managing ‘adverse effects’ to seeking to achieve specified positive outcomes across natural and built environments to support intergenerational wellbeing – all within environmental limits (but still also managing adverse effects). Outcomes are to be provided for in decisions, plans and consents.

15.2 A more effective role for Māori and improved recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Strengthens recognition of Te Tiriti and Māori interests, provides new roles for mana whenua in decision-making on plans.

15.3 More integrated and strategic long-term planning: Enable strategic planning about land use, infrastructure and environmental protection by central and local government and mana whenua.

15.4 Moving to equitable and efficient resource allocation within limits: Providing an explicit framework for recognising the allocative impacts of decision-making about land use and environmental protection, and provides tools to improve how access to resources is allocated.

15.5 Effective partnering of central & local government and iwi/Māori in planning and delivery: Focusing decision-making about land use and the environment on a series of regional partnerships between central and local government and mana whenua.

15.6 Improved evidence, monitoring, feedback & oversight: Strengthening system monitoring, reporting and oversight provisions to improve transparency, accountability and delivery of outcomes.

16 Some of the more significant practical changes for Council in the proposals include:

16.1 Plan-making decisions will be made by a joint committee for each region made up of local government, central government, and iwi representatives. Currently these decisions are made by each individual Council.

16.2 Resource management plans (ie the District Plan) will no longer be produced at a district level, but will instead be developed at the regional level, with local input.

16.3 Iwi/hapū/Māori will have a significantly enhanced role in resource management decision making, including plan-making, monitoring and oversight.

16.4 Regional spatial strategies will be legislated for through the SPA and created by a joint committee with a broad membership. The direction towards greater spatial planning was already signalled by the requirement for a ‘future development strategy’ in the NPS-UD.

17 In this report, we focus in on 5 key themes for discussion:

17.1 Concerns regarding loss of local decision-making and input

17.2 System alignment isn’t going far enough

17.3 Funding and sector support

17.4 The role of Māori in resource management

17.5 Some of these things are already possible.

He take | Issues

18 Concerns regarding loss of local decision-making and input

19 The reform programme is proposing a shift in resource management decision making, creating a greater involvement of central government at different points in the system, and shifting away from local level decision-making.

20 Proposals include a proposed National Planning Framework (NPF) which will consolidate existing national direction in one place and will also have a broader role to provide strategic and regulatory direction from central government. We expect this will mean more direction from central government. Clarity in the NPF on how to resolve tensions between different pieces of national direction will be a critical role for this, particularly if the reforms are to improve consenting processes.

21 Proposals to create two joint committees in each region, elevating planning decision-making decisions to a regional level, and involving central government representation in joint committees is another example of the greater role for central government in resource management decisions. This change is being proposed in order to create a more efficient system with greater certainty for all parties. The proposals lack detail outlining how local input will be sought and enabled, both at an operational and governance level.

22 The essential connecting role local authorities play between local communities and plan development is acknowledged in the document, and it suggests that input would primarily consist of:

22.1 contributing to plan drafting through the secretariat

22.2 supporting local engagement

22.3 providing feedback on drafts

22.4 local plans produced under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), which would also inform strategy and plan development.

23 In short, the proposed shift to decision-making by joint committees for both NBA plans and Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) leaves much less opportunity for local elected members to influence these key documents. Local appointments to the RSS and NBA committee would need to give effect to the local voice, however at this stage the government is still considering a range of option/proposals relating to the composition and appointment processes for these Committees and is not consulting on a clear preferred option. Proposals being considered include allowing regions to determine the structure and composition of their committees, and a preference (but not a requirement) for all local authorities in the region to be represented.

24 While these changes are likely to create greater certainty and consistency for many in the system, it risks being unresponsive to local needs. Finding ways to provide for local-level issues will be vital. It is challenging enough for our communities to engage with planning processes, even when it is largely undertaken at the local level. The barriers to meaningful participation in decision-making are likely to be higher (or at least perceived to be so) when plans are pitched at a regional level and decision making is undertaken by a regional committee where few appointees are likely to be familiar with our local community context and issues.

25 The discussion document is seeking feedback on ways to ensure community input and local voices in the system are preserved or improved, and on the type of relationship and interactions Councils need with the Joint Committees.

26 The scale of issues in resource management are not uniform – some issues are best dealt with nationally, while some issues benefit from a much more localised approach. Maintaining the flexibility in the system for issues to be resolved at a scale that makes sense for that specific issue is core to an efficient and effective resource management system, however these reforms are largely proposing an escalation of most issues up to the regional level.

27 The proposal lacks significant detail on the role of territorial authorities (TA’s) within the proposed system. While some of the roles and responsibilities are explored in depth (in particular the new expanded role for iwi), others continue to be largely unknown. Beyond their potential inclusion in the joint committees overseeing RSS and NBA plans, how TA’s influence and engage in the system is unclear. For example, the discussion document suggests TAs may be allowed to participate in hearings and submission processes, but it is unclear in what capacity – as a submitter or decision-maker. The nuances of these roles and responsibilities will have a significant impact on the level of influence TA’s will have in the resource management decisions that will affect their districts.

28 System alignment isn’t going far enough

29 The reform programme appears to be seeking to synchronise timeframes as much as possible, which is a positive change. The National Planning Framework (NPF) and Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) will both operate on a nine-year review cycle. It is unclear at this time how often NBA plans (the replacement for district plans) would be reviewed.

30 Creating certainty in the strategic direction set out in the NPF and RSS is both a positive and a negative. While certainty of direction is important, it still needs to be able to be responsive to changing circumstances. Providing adequate mechanisms for ‘course correction’ over that nine-year review period will be incredibly important. Making sure that those corrections are based in evidence gathered from the improved monitoring and reporting systems that are intended to underpin these reforms will also be vital. Likewise, the process to review and update the NBA plans needs to be responsive to new issues and changing circumstances.

31 What is less clear is how the infrastructure funding systems are also going to be synchronised with the planning timeframes. The discussion document suggests Implementation Agreements could underpin RSS initiatives. At present infrastructure funding is funnelled through its own funding processes (e.g LTP for Councils). For regional spatial strategies to be effective they will need to link in with (or modify) existing funding processes so that they are logically sequenced and aligned. For example, RSS will identify where infrastructure investment is needed, and feedback is sought on whether these should have binding implementation agreements to ensure delivery partners meet their obligations. Commitments from such agreement would need to be included in normal LTP processes as well.

32 There is a concern that the addition of the RSS under the SPA is an additional planning layer, which makes for a more complex system. Adding this extra layer may, in fact, create a system that takes longer to implement and has less flexibility and responsiveness. It appears this additional layer doesn’t factor in alignment with the LTMA funding processes, and it is not clear how it will work with 3 Waters entities when these are created.

33 Funding and sector support

34 It is difficult to comment on the practical implications of the proposed system when there is little information available on the funding arrangements that will support it. Minor changes to the system – including providing the ability to charge for monitoring of permitted activities – are a positive step, however there are broader funding questions that have not been answered to date. This also links strongly to the broader local government funding issue that is being considered as part of the local government reforms.

35 It is our view that Central Government should provide implementation funding as part of adopting new national direction, including the implementation of the NPF. It may also be appropriate for RSS development to be primarily funded by central government with Council contributions, and with funding of initiatives to align with current/planned responsibilities, while the development of NBA plans would be appropriately funded at a local and regional level.

36 It is proposed in the discussion document to create consistency with existing guidance on charging in the public sector, without specifying what this existing approach is. It would be concerning if this signals a shift away from a cost recovery / user pays system, given the alternative (under the current funding model) would be greater burden on all ratepayers. The LGA already provides a framework for making decisions on fees and charges, and it seems unnecessary to create a separate framework within the resource management system.

37 Investment in on-going training and professional development for the sector is critical to improving performance and outcomes. There is a shortage of resource management professionals and a lack of training and professional development opportunities to continue to support and grow the sector. If a significant shift in delivery to outcomes is sought then a corresponding shift to better investment in implementation of the new system is essential.

38 The role of Māori in resource management

39 The increased role of Māori in the resource management system is a positive change that has potential for significant benefits for both our iwi partners and the performance of the overall resource management system. However, the success of this change will be determined by the support given to iwi to develop the capacity to undertake the increased role. We are aware that iwi have often found it challenging to engage across the range of consultation processes imposed by the current RMA system due to competing priorities, short timeframes and a lack of capacity. Iwi are faced with a deluge of resource consents and plan change processes from multiple councils that intersect with their rohe, in addition to the many other roles they have in the community. Creating the structures for engagement and involvement is positive but risks not working as intended unless it is underpinned by adequate funding, and capacity and capability building support.

40 These funding and capacity issues are not experienced uniformly across all iwi. Iwi which have been through their Treaty Settlement processes are generally better resourced than those which have not. Central government urgently needs to resolve interim funding for iwi that have not yet completed their substantive Treaty of Waitangi settlement as an urgent and pressing equity issue.

41 We are seeking input from our iwi partners on the aspects parts of the reform proposal that relate to the role of Māori in the resource management framework and will use that input to shape our submission.

42 Some of these things are already possible

43 The issues identified with the resource management system are not news to those who have been working within it. Councils across the Wellington region have been working collaboratively at an operational level for years: developing shared plan content, submitting jointly on issues, and more recently creating a regional leadership committee who are responsible for the implementation of a regional spatial plan – the Wellington Regional Growth Framework (WRGF).

44 Kapiti works closely with Horowhenua across its northern boundary to better provide for our communities who live, work, and use services across our borders. Horowhenua is included in the WRGF programme for this same reason. Central government is also involved in this programme to make sure outcomes are aligned.

45 By working in this way, we have sought efficiency across the region, sharing skills and capacity where it makes sense to do so. We understand that a strong region that is working together creates benefits for all of us. However it is not an instant fix for all our issues, and there are challenges in particular in making sure that local issues are adequately understood and considered by the region. The new resource management framework is likely to face those same challenges.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

47 No options are proposed.

Tangata whenua

48 One key aspect of the reform programme is to increase the role of iwi in decision making and other processes and to better reflect the Treaty partnership through the roles and responsibilities set out in the Act.

49 Council is seeking feedback from iwi on the proposed reforms so this can be incorporated into our final response.

50 We anticipate including points in our submission of ensuring that sufficient funding is available for iwi to undertake new roles proposed for them.

Panonitanga āhuarangi | Climate change

51 The aspects of the resource management system relating to climate change are proposed to be addressed through the third piece of legislation in the reform programme – the Climate Adaptation Act. This piece of legislation is running on a slightly longer timeframe than the NBA and SPA and is not expected to be introduced in 2022.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

52 The discussion document notes that “to work effectively, the future system requires appropriate funding mechanisms for its different roles and activities”. However, there is little detail in the discussion document on what this might look like. It notes that the Ministry is “exploring what provisions and guidance can be provided in the future system, to set clear expectations regarding who should pay for what, and to support the availability and use of appropriate funding tools”. This is discussed in paragraphs 33-37.

53 There have long been concerns raised by local government at the imposed costs arising from new national direction falling solely on local government – the ‘unfunded mandate’. In addition, the question of appropriate funding models links strongly with the local government reform programme, where funding has been a strong theme, in particular in relation to infrastructure.

54 Resourcing of our input into the reform process (i.e. select committee engagement) in the short term can be met within existing budgets. Financial and resourcing implications will be reassessed as further details of the reforms becomes clearer. This may require additional budget in the new financial year, which will be discussed through the Annual Plan process.

Ture me ngā Tūraru | Legal and risk

55 There are no legal concerns or risks at this time, as the legislation is still yet to be drafted.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

56 There are no policy implications at this time.

Te whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

57 Council is seeking feedback from iwi so that their views can be incorporated into our final submission, particularly as they relate to the role of Māori in the resource management system.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

58 No publicity is planned. The final submission will be put up on the submissions section of our website.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Transforming Aotearoa New Zealand’s resource management system: Our future resource management system ⇩

2. Proposed Resource Management System Diagram ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

10 February 2022

8.2 Seeking Approval for Public Notification of Proposed Plan Changes 1A, 1B and 1C to the Operative District Plan 2021

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 To seek approval to commence public notification of the following proposed plan changes to the Operative District Plan 2021 (District Plan):

1.1 Proposed Plan Change 1A: Accessible car parking provisions (Attachment 1).

1.2 Proposed Plan Change 1B: Liquefaction risk management for new buildings (Attachment 2).

1.3 Proposed Plan Change 1C: Cycle parking provisions (Attachment 3).

2 The proposed plan changes have been prepared to respond to recent central government directives by removing areas of duplication and filling gaps that have been created.

He whakarāpopoto | Executive summary

3 This report has outlined the issues that the district plan seeks to address in response to recent central government directives, by removing areas of duplication and filling gaps that have been created. The proposed plan changes seek to maintain an efficient and effective district plan, as required by the RMA and the LTP.

4 The proposed plan changes have been thoroughly evaluated and a report has been provided outlining the appropriateness of the provisions in achieving the purpose of the RMA, along with the benefits, costs and risk on the community, the economy and the environment^{^[1]} (Attachment 4). Council is required to have regard to this evaluation when deciding whether to proceed with the plan changes.

5 The proposed plan changes (in their draft form) have been through a stakeholder and public consultation process and amendments have been made in response to the feedback received.

6 The content of Proposed Plan Changes 1A, 1B and 1C and their associated evaluation reports are now ready for public notification on or around 17 February 2022. Public notification of the proposed plan changes will be in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

7 Schedule 1, clause 5 (1)(b)(i) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) requires that if a local authority decides to proceed with a proposed plan change then it must publicly notify the proposed plan change.

8 The Strategy and Operations Committee has delegation for all decision-making in relation to the preparation of district plan changes^{^[2]}.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That the Strategy and Operations Committee has particular regard to, and endorses the content of the Section 32 evaluation report and proposed provisions for the following package of proposed plan changes to the Operative District Plan 2021:

· Proposed Plan Change 1A – Accessible car parking provisions.

· Proposed Plan Change 1B – Liquefaction risk management for new buildings.

· Proposed Plan Change 1C – Cycle parking provisions.

B. The Strategy and Operations Committee approves to proceed with the package of proposed plan changes and approves the public notification of the proposed plan changes in accordance with Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the RMA to occur on or around 17 February 2022.

Tūāpapa | Background

9 Since the District Plan became operative on 30 June 2021 work has commenced on a series of changes and improvements. In the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2041 (LTP) Council committed to a rolling review programme of changes to the District Plan. The first plan change to the District Plan was determined to be an omnibus style of plan change.

10 In addition to this first plan change, a significant priority is the urban development (intensification) plan change, which is required to deliver government policy and new legislation, as well as being necessary to help address housing pressures through enabling additional residential growth and development. This is a large piece of work underway and Council will receive further information on this in the next few months, in advance of consultation and subsequently public notification no later than 20 August 2022. In the meantime there are other changes which also need to be progressed, in part also driven by central government requirements.

11 The potential scope of the omnibus plan changes was discussed by Council’s Strategy and Operations Committee on 21 October 2021. Proposed Plan Changes 1A, 1B and 1C are the first three plan changes from that omnibus package to proceed to this stage of the process.

12 These proposed plan changes are intended for public notification first because they are linked to the implementation date of two significant central government directives. Those directives and implementation dates are:

12.1 a requirement of the NPS-UD 2020^{^[3]} to remove, by 20 February 2022, existing district plan provisions that require minimum numbers of car parks to be provided for new development, new activities and changes of use; and

12.2 changes to the Building Code Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 for building on liquefaction-prone land, which took effect on 29 November 2021^{^[4]}.

13 The timeframes to comply with the NPS-UD requirements and to remove unnecessary duplication between the district plan and the Building Code means that the three proposed plan changes (introducing accessible and cycle parking minimums and removal of duplication of liquefaction risk management), should be publicly notified as a first package of proposed plan changes. The remaining package of proposed plan changes (which were discussed by this Committee on 21 October 2021) are intended for public notification at a later date, subject to further technical evaluation, consultation, and obtaining further approvals from this Committee.

14 The Strategy and Operations Committee is now being asked to approve the content of the proposed plan changes and their supporting evaluation (post-consultation on draft plan changes phase), and to approve the plan changes for public notification and submissions on or around 17 February 2022.

15 Consultation on draft provisions has now been completed. Two responses were received over the November-December consultation period in support of the draft plan changes from Greater Wellington Regional Council, and from Landlink Ltd (land development advisors in Kāpiti). Consideration of this feedback resulted in some changes to the drafting of the proposed plan changes.

16 An evaluation report for the proposed plan changes has been prepared as required by Section 32 of the RMA and is included in Attachment 4.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

Accessible parking

17 The NPS-UD requirement for the removal of all non-accessible minimum car parking requirements will mean that the District Plan’s provisions for accessible parking will no longer function. This is because the accessible parking requirements are reliant on the minimum car parking provisions that require accessible parking be provided as a component of general on-site minimum car parks for specific land use activities.

18 The NPS-UD separates accessible parking from other car parks, stating that local authorities need not remove provisions for accessible parking from district plans. To make this work, Proposed Plan Change 1A seeks to introduce new provisions for accessible parking to reflect the current levels of required accessible parking spaces as minimums, and also ensure that these become stand-alone provisions within the structure of the district plan. A new provision to require accessible parking on sites where multi-unit residential development (4 units and over) is also proposed, as this has been identified as a gap in the district plan.

19 Consultation feedback supports the inclusion of accessible parking minimums in the District Plan. Greater Wellington also noted that Waka Kotahi is considering future research in this space but has yet to develop national guidance on accessible parking provision.

20 Other comments suggested providing greater clarity that minimum car parking standards no longer apply to general residential development. This is not considered necessary as the NPS-UD 2020 already makes it very clear. As discussed later in this report, minimum general carparking requirements for all developments will be removed from the District Plan on or around 17 February 2022, and this will be communicated by website, public notice and other communication channels.

21 A further point was made that the provision of electric vehicle charging stations and spaces should also be a consideration to encourage the use of electric vehicles. In response, it is noted that:

21.1 The electric charging network in Kāpiti is currently being rolled out through trans-regional partnerships and via private companies such as the SparkPlug (trial site) near the Waikanae Train station. Accordingly it is evident there are other methods at play that are successfully delivering electric charging stations.

21.2 Electric vehicles in private developments could potentially use a portable charging lead for charging purposes, or else install electric chargers for high power draw at a cost of approximately $2100 fully installed where power infrastructure is available.

21.3 The complexities around affordability, accessibility, vehicle options and mode choice for disabled people are numerous and further research in this space should be undertaken before the consideration of the introduction of any mandatory minimum standards for charging requirements for accessible car parking into the District Plan. This would need to include the associated costs of requiring high power draw electric chargers for accessible car parks through the District Plan. These issues should form part of any future research to be undertaken by Waka Kotahi and evaluated through any future guidance that they may develop.

22 The timing of the public notification of Proposed Plan Change 1A is planned to occur on or around 17 February 2022 to coincide with the timing of the NPS-UD requirement to remove car parking minimums from the District Plan, which is required no later than 20 February 2022.

23 In order to support the accessible car park user community and ensure that accessible parking is consistently required by the District Plan, the Council has successfully applied to the Environment Court for Proposed Plan Change 1A accessible parking provisions to have earlier legal effect. This means that the proposed new accessible parking provisions in Proposed Plan Change 1A will form part of the District Plan from public notification, and will need to be complied with, whilst still recognising that they are in an early phase of the plan making process. The Environment Court recognised and agreed that this approach would enable people with disabilities and/or limited mobility to provide for their social well-being and their health and safety by requiring the provision of accessible car parking for them where appropriate. A full copy of the Environment Court decision is included in Attachment 5 of this report.

Liquefaction risk management for new buildings

24 From 29 November 2021 changes to the Building Code Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 will require specific design of new buildings to take into account liquefaction risk as part of the building consent process. This will mean some of the district plan’s policies and rules managing building development on liquefaction-prone land will be duplicated by the new B1/AS1 requirements. This will create jurisdictional overlap between the RMA and the Building Code, resulting in potential confusion, additional costs and time delays for customers, and administrative inefficiency.

25 To address this, Proposed Plan Change 1B proposes to remove the provisions duplicated by the amended Building Code. These district plan provisions comprise a district-wide rule that requires resource consent for the construction of multi-occupancy buildings on peat or sandy soils. The district plan will still retain control over the consideration and management of significant risks associated with proposed subdivision of liquefaction-prone land through requiring an evaluation of liquefaction risk when approval for the creation of new allotments is sought from Council via a subdivision consent^{^[5]}.

26 Consultation feedback indicated general support for the removal of the liquefaction provisions. Greater Wellington were interested to understand how additions and already subdivided sections would be impacted by the proposed deletion. This is addressed by the building code liquefaction risk assessment capturing all new buildings (including additions), and the District Plan and RMA will continue to require the assessment of liquefaction risk at the time of subdivision of land (via the subdivision consent process). Any newly created sections that are yet to be built on will have had liquefaction risk assessed at the time of subdivision, and also the Building Code requirements will apply when a building consent is lodged for the new building (via the building consent process). There will be no issue with transitioning the changes as the new building code requirements have already come into force.

Cycle parking

27 The NPS-UD requirement for the removal of provisions that require a minimum number of car parking spaces will mean the District Plan provisions for cycle parking no longer function. This is because the cycle parking requirements in the District Plan are currently in the same rule as the accessible parking requirements, which are reliant on a minimum number of car parks being required by the District Plan. Therefore, if a developer chooses to not provide any car parks on a site, then the need to provide cycle parking will also no longer be triggered by the District Plan rules and standards.

28 Proposed Plan Change 1C proposes cycle parking provisions that will work effectively within the structure of the District Plan post-removal of requirements for a minimum number of car parking spaces.

29 Consultation feedback supported the use of minimum cycle parking requirements in the district plan. Greater Wellington Regional Council commented that the provision of cycle parking along with the removal of car parking requirements will contribute to the regional mode shift target agreed in the Wellington Regional Land Transport Plan 2021.

30 Further measures to support mode shift were suggested by the Regional Council, as follows:

(a) Provide one cycle park per dwelling without a garage for medium density and multi-unit residential land uses.

(b) Consider parking provision for micro-mobility devices.

(d) Make clear that cycle spaces are a minimum and more can be provided if desired.

(e) Use minimum dimensions for cycle parks.

(f) Consider a staff cycle parking minimum for churches, cinemas, halls, conference facilities etc.

(g) Consider using an advisory note directing plan users to Waka Kotahi’s Cycle Parking Planning and Design guidelines 2019.

(h) Ensure consistency with accessible parking changes by modifying two policies MUZ-P1 and GIZ-P1 to cover cycle parking and accessible parking.

31 The above feedback from the consultation process is useful and has led to four subsequent changes being made to the proposed plan change provisions. These changes relate to:

• covered and publicly excluded staff parking;

• clarifying the standards are a minimum requirement;

• including an advisory note referring to best practice guidance; and

· changes to policies MUZ-P1 & GIZ-P1 to cover both accessible parking and cycle parking requirements in Proposed Plan Change 1A.

32 The following suggestions have not resulted in changes for the following reasons:

32.1 One cycle park per dwelling without garage for medium density housing and multi-unit residential – no change is recommended because this issue is addressed in design guides currently in the district plan.

32.2 Provision for micro-mobility devices – no change is recommended because there are no current rental operators providing large-scale provision of these devices in Kāpiti, and therefore current and future uptake of these devices is hard to predict with data not currently available to support making changes at this time. Public notification of Proposed Plan Change 1C would provide an opportunity for submitters to provide evidence on this issue if they choose to.

32.3 Minimum dimensions for cycle parks – no change is recommended because dimensions are currently specified within the proposed plan change content.

32.4 Introduce a staff cycle parking minimum for churches, cinemas, halls, conference facilities – no change is recommended because the proposed cycle parking standards have been drafted using Waka Kotahi: NZ Transport Agency – Cycle Parking Planning and Design: Cycling Network Guidance technical note, dated 1 May 2019^{^[6]}. Appendix 1 of the guidance recommends that for a ‘town’ the requirement for long stay cycle parking for places of assembly is ‘nil’. Cycle parking for these facilities is still required for visitors with 1 cycle park required per 50m2 gross floor area of the facility.

He take | Issues

33 The issues for the relevant plan changes have been outlined in the sections above and are further explored in the evaluation report appended to this report as Attachment 4.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

34 Options for the relevant plan changes are outlined above and are further explored in the evaluation report appended to this report as Attachment 4.

Tangata whenua

35 The District Planning team has been engaging with mana whenua on these three proposed plan changes.

36 During early email and face to face conversations prior to consultation on the draft plan change provisions, iwi have indicated they would likely not provide specific feedback on these draft plan changes. Consistent with this early feedback, no specific comment was provided from iwi following circulation of the draft provisions.

37 It is important to note the RMA has specific requirements the Council must follow with respect to consultation and notification with iwi authorities of district plan changes. The District Planning team has and will continue to ensure these requirements are met as part of the notification of this package of proposed plan changes.

Examples:

® Mana

® The matters in this report relate to

Panonitanga āhuarangi | Climate change

38 The decision to approve public notification of Proposed Plan Change 1C enhances Council’s efforts to mitigate climate change effects by supporting cycling as a transport option within the Kāpiti Coast District.

Examples:

® .

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

39 The LTP recognised the Omnibus package of plan changes as part of the activities and services for districtwide planning and regulatory services. The costs of preparing this package of plan changes for notification to the wider public have already been factored into the operating expenses of the district planning team.

40 There are no additional financial considerations resulting from the preparation of the Omnibus plan change package for public notification purposes.

Examples:

® .

Ture me ngā Tūraru | Legal and risk

41 The package of proposed plan changes has gone through the specific evaluation of benefits and costs (see Attachment 4) and consultation on draft plan change provisions has now been completed. The next steps for these plan changes are to proceed through the formal public notification processes as required by Schedule 1 of the RMA.

42 Schedule 1, clause 5(1)(a) and (b)(i) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) requires that if a local authority decides to proceed with a proposed plan change after having particular regard to the section 32 evaluation, then it must publicly notify the proposed plan change. Approval is sought from this Committee to proceed with the proposed plan changes and to publicly notify the proposed plan changes alongside the supporting section 32 evaluation in accordance with the RMA.

43 Following public notification, any future decisions on provisions and matters raised in submissions will also need to be considered by this Committee following a hearing of submissions if a hearing is required. Assuming a hearing is required, this further step in Council’s decision-making process is anticipated to occur in late 2022 or early 2023. This period will allow for the required submission and further submission periods, analysis of submissions, the opportunity for a hearing to be held and hearing panel recommendations on submissions to be prepared for consideration by this Committee.

Examples:

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

44 The following strategy and framework have been considered when assembling the proposed plan change package:

· Kāpiti Coast District Council Sustainable Transport Strategy (current 2008 and draft 2020 versions).

45 Proposed Plan Changes 1A and 1C will contribute to achieving the outcomes intended by the Strategy.

46 Proposed Plan Changes 1A, 1B and 1C also contribute to the following Long Term Plan community outcomes:

46.1 Our communities are resilient, safe, healthy and connected. Everyone has a sense of belonging and can access the resources and services they need. The proposed plan changes for accessible parking and cycle parking will directly support this outcome.

46.2 The proposed amendments to remove duplication with the liquefaction requirements of the Building Code is also consistent with this objective as it will remove a regulatory obstacle to building while ensuring the resilience, health and safety of the community.

46.3 The LTP also requires that Council maintains an up-to-date and effective district plan and that Council retains an up-to-date and fit-for-purpose suite of policies and bylaws. These proposed plan changes will support this requirement.

Te whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

47 The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy does not apply to the engagement or consultation processes that are required under the RMA.

48 Consultation on draft provisions has been carried out in accordance with Clauses 3 and 4A of Schedule 1 of the RMA. The Minister for the Environment and neighbouring territorial authorities have been consulted, and tāngata whenua have been consulted through iwi authorities. With respect to these statutory consultees, feedback on the draft provisions was only received from the Regional Council.

49 Targeted consultation on draft Plan Change 1A occurred with the Kapiti Accessibility Advisory Group in August 2021. As noted in the section 32 report, feedback from the Advisory Group included that public transport in Kapiti did not always meet the needs of people with disabilities; that specially designed accessible parking spots were required to accommodate specialist equipment; and that future demand for accessible parking will increase with population growth.

50 District-wide consultation was undertaken for all three draft plan changes in November and December 2021, involving a media advisory release and a three-week consultation period with information available on the Council’s website. Everything Kāpiti e-newsletter contained an article advising of the draft plan changes and inviting feedback. Four of the largest planning consultant firms in the district were also directly approached for their feedback on the draft plan changes. This further consultation collectively resulted in supportive feedback from one planning consultant firm (Landlink Ltd) which was considered during preparation of the proposed plan changes. Another consultancy (Brown and Pemberton) provided brief feedback on Proposed Plan Change 1C several weeks after the closing date for feedback which was unfortunately too late to allow consideration of the matter raised.

51 All providers of feedback have been contacted thanking them for their contributions, and in Brown and Pemberton’s case also clarifying that while their feedback on the draft was unable to be considered due to lateness, public notification of Proposed Plan Change 1C will provide an opportunity to make a submission.

Examples:

Whakatairanga | Publicity

52 Subject to obtaining Council approval as per the recommendations in this report, next steps of public notification, submissions and further submissions, and hearings for the proposed plan changes will occur in accordance with the requirements of the RMA.

Examples:

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Proposed Plan Change 1A Accessible Parking Provisions ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Proposed Plan Change 1B Liquefaction Management ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Proposed Plan Change 1C Cycle parking provisions ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Section 32 evaluation report on proposed plan changes 1A 1B 1C ⇩

5. Attachment 4 - Appendix 1 - Plan Amendment 1 to KCDC Non Schedule 1 Amendments Carparking ⇩

6. Attachment 4 - Appendix 2 - Proposed Plan Change 1A Accessible Parking Provisions ⇩

7. Attachment 4 - Appendix 3 - Proposed Plan Change 1B Liquefaction Management ⇩

8. Attachment 4 - Appendix 4 - Proposed Plan Change 1C Cycle parking provisions ⇩

9. Attachment 4 - Appendix 5 - Relevant Plan Objectives and Policies for PC1A and PC1C ⇩

10. Attachment 4 - Appendix 6 - Relevant Plan Objectives and Policies for PC1B ⇩

11. Attachment 5 - Env Court Decision 2021 NZEnvC 191 Kapiti Coast District Council ⇩

Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting Agenda

10 February 2022

8.3 Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022

Author: Laura Bertelsen, Contractor

Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks the Strategy and Operations Committee approval of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022

Delegation

2 The Strategy and Operations Committee has delegated authority to consider this report.

Background

3 The Kāpiti Coast Economic Development Strategy and Implementation Plan 2020-2023 was adopted by Council on 30 July 2020. Delivery is being led by the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board. The Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 is a key action under the ‘Whānau – Growing skills and Capability’ Pou of the Strategy and was identified as a priority deliverable in year one of the implementation plan.

4 The Kāpiti Recovery Plan was approved by Council on 1 October 2020. The Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 is also identified as a key action under the ‘Growing skills and Capability’ action of the Kāpiti Recovery Plan.

5 Completion of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, with a number of planned stakeholder engagements delayed as a result of the various lockdowns that occurred in 2021.

6 A Workforce Plan is a planned approach for developing, attracting, and retaining a skilled and competitive workforce to support the local community and economy. It involves understanding the current workforce needs, the skills required to fill the gaps and shortages, and informs the development of the right education and training pathways to support the future workforce needs.

7 To assist with the development of the plan, Martin Jenkins who have assisted with the development of other workforce plans in the Wellington Region, including Porirua City Council, was contracted via a Request for Proposal process.

8 Council has previously received briefings on this plan on 29 June, 14 September, and 2 November 2021.

9 Partners and stakeholders were invited to participate in the process of developing this Workforce Plan including:

· iwi partners

· education and training providers

· national and regional agencies

· organisations and advisory groups working with young people, people with disabilities, and older people

· business support organisations such as Te Rōpū Pakihi, Work Ready Kāpiti, and the Kāpiti Coast Chamber of Commerce

· local businesses

10 Attached in Appendix One is the final version of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022.

Issues and Options

11 A desktop analysis showed that Kāpiti currently has a mismatch of workforce needs and available skills, meaning that some residents need to leave the district for work, while Kāpiti imports people from neighbouring districts to support key sectors such as health and aged care.

12 Further desktop analysis shows that Kāpiti has a low mean earning level, with opportunities for Māori, youth, people with disabilities and older people often limited by external factors such as access to training and education.

13 The Kāpiti Coast has a 23 percent population of 15-44 year olds in comparison to 34 percent of New Zealand’s population. This structural difference means that Kāpiti has a much lower proportion of working age population (defined as 15-64) compared to New Zealand as a whole.

14 The Kāpiti Coast District has high levels of underemployment which, at 18 percent, is nearly double that of Wellington City. This suggests that nearly one in five people participating in the labour market would like to work more than they currently do.

15 More than two thirds of businesses surveyed indicated difficulty in being able to recruit locally for their businesses. One of the key issues surrounding these recruitment challenges was availability of relevant experience.

Development of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022

16 The creation of the Wellington Regional Skills Leadership Group, a Regional Workforce Plan, and the network of Workforce Development Councils presented an opportunity for the Kāpiti Coast to deliver a Workforce Plan that can be used to advocate for the Kāpiti Coast community in these important regional pieces of work.

17 The purpose of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 is to ensure that the district and its people, places and businesses thrive and that the opportunities are accessible to all residents. Specific initiatives for Māori, youth, older people, and people with disabilities are a priority.

18 The process of developing the Plan has involved:

· review of the local, regional, and national strategic context for workforce development and employment

· analysis of the districts labour market performance, outcomes and forecasts

· interviews with system stakeholders including national and regional agencies

· input from a wide range of partners and stakeholders

· a business survey to understand employment, skills and workforce issues

· partner and stakeholder workshops in Ōtaki and Paraparaumu

· opportunities to review the draft strategic framework and activities for partners and stakeholders

· ongoing input and feedback from the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board

19 Input received from partners and stakeholders informed the strategic framework and helped the development of the activities outlined in the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022.

20 An assessment was made on the impact and timeframe for delivery of the activities. Priority has been given to initial actions that are able to begin in the current financial year and align with regionally and nationally significant priorities.

21 The strategic framework below in figure 1 outlines the purpose, goals, objectives, and actions for the Plan.

Figure 1

Implementation of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022

22 To support the delivery of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 activities it is proposed that the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board are mandated to lead the implementation of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022. This aligns with their current mandate in relation to the Kāpiti Coast Economic Development Strategy and the Kāpiti Recovery Plan

23 The implementation of the Kāpiti Workforce Plan will be enabled as follows:

23.1 Funding from the existing Economic Development budget. Specific funding was allocated in the 2021-41 Long Term Plan to support this.

23.2 Funding and resource from Wellington NZ. Wellington NZ have committed funding to a key priority action for the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board – the investigation of the feasibility of establishing an education and learning hub for the Kāpiti Coast District.

24 In addition to the above, it is noted that there are several activities already underway that are identified in the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022. These include:

24.1 Work with existing organisations, such as Work Ready Kāpiti, to connect residents to employment opportunities.

24.2 Work with Work Ready Kāpiti to delivery job fairs to connect schools, local employers and local workers together.

24.3 Supporting access to drivers licencing and providing holistic support to rangatahi through the Te Hunga Rangatahi programme which is being delivered by Te Puna Oranga o Ōtaki in Ōtaki.

24.4 Development of the Food and Beverage Sector Strategy.

24.5 Promoting quality job opportunities and career pathways by advocating for Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan activities to be considered in the Wellington Region Workforce Plan currently being developed by the Wellington Skills Leadership Group.

Considerations

Policy considerations

25 There are no additional policy considerations to that outlined under the background section of this report.

Legal considerations

26 There are no known legal considerations.

Financial considerations

27 The implementation of the Kāpiti Workforce Plan will be funded from existing Economic Development Budget. Specific funding was allocated in the 2021-41 Long Term Plan to support this.

Tāngata whenua considerations

28 During the development of the Kāpiti Workforce Plan Iwi representatives’ input was sought at the following stages:

· preliminary discussions

· input for the proposed strategic framework

· input for the proposed activities

29 Iwi are represented on the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board and will therefore be responsible for jointly ensuring that the outcomes of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 are achieved.

30 The Kāpiti Workforce Plan key actions were presented to Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti for feedback on 7 December 2021.

Strategic considerations

31 Key outcomes this piece of work contributes to in the Long-Term Plan 2021-41 are:

· Vibrant economy: Mana Whenua and Council have a mutually mana-enhancing partnership.

· Strong communities: our communities are resilient, safe, healthy and connected. Everyone has a sense of belonging and can access the resources and services they need.

· Vibrant economy: our local economy is prosperous with ample opportunities for people to work and learn in Kāpiti.

Significance and Engagement

Significance policy

32 This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement planning

33 An engagement plan is not needed to implement this decision.

Publicity

34 Should Council agree to adopt the proposed Plan then we will implement a communications plan to ensure iwi partners, key stakeholders, and the community are informed and aware of next steps.

Recommendations

35 The Strategy and Operations Committee approves the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022, subject to minor editorial changes.

36 The Strategy and Operations Committee mandates the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board to lead the implementation of the Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 and provide a progress report of the plan in the six-monthly board report.

Appendices

1. Kāpiti Coast Workforce Plan 2022 ⇩

[2] Clause B.1 – Strategy and Operations Committee, Governance Structure and Delegations 2019-2022 Triennium.

[3] National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Subpart 8 – Car parking, clause 3.38, and Part 4: Timing, subclause 4.1 (2): Timeframes for implementation. Link: AA-Gazetted-NPSUD-17.07.2020-pdf.pdf (environment.govt.nz)

[5] As required by Section 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991.


AGENDA Strategy and Operations Committee Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Strategy and Operations Committee will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 10 February 2022
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Online via Zoom
Sean Mallon Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Cr James Cootes	Chair
Cr Gwynn Compton	Deputy
Mayor K Gurunathan	Member
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Member
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member