Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, 28 July 2022

28 July 2022

10.2 Stormwater Management Framework

Kaituhi | Author: Rita O'Brien, Stormwater & Coastal Engineer

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Sean Mallon, Group Manager Infrastructure Services

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report to Council:

1.1 provides an overview of the feedback received from submitters on the draft Stormwater Management Framework [SMF] vision, values and outcomes,

1.2 recommends adoption of the SMF vision, values and outcomes, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, and

1.3 provides an update on the next steps for the development and implementation of the SMF.

He whakarāpopoto | Executive summary

2 An executive summary is not required for this report.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 Under the 2019-2022 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations, Council has the authority to consider this matter.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That Council:

A.1 note the feedback received from submitters on the draft Stormwater Management Framework [SMF] vision, values and outcomes;

A.2 adopt the SMF vision, values and outcomes, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, with the following three amendments in response to submitter feedback:

A.2.1 The addition of a new clause in the vision to distinctly incorporate existing stormwater issues;

A.2.2 A minor amendment to the sixth value’s objective aiming to clarify that the value applies to existing developments as well as future developments; and

A.2.3 Reorder the outcomes so the 5^th outcome about resilient neighbourhoods and ecosystems is more prominent.

A.3 note the next steps for the development and implementation of the SMF.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 Increased growth and urban intensification coupled with increased rainfall and rising water levels due to climate change pose difficult and complex challenges for stormwater management in the district. These issues are enduring and unlikely to be affected by the Government’s Three Waters Reform Programme.

5 A locally developed and agreed SMF is needed to provide an overarching structure to:

5.1 give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, which is a cornerstone of the Freshwater National Policy Statement [NPS],

5.2 mitigate [or reduce] the effects from flooding and climate change, and

5.3 provide for growth and urban intensification.

6 On 12 May 2022, the Strategy and Operations Committee approved community engagement on the draft SMF vision, values and outcomes.

7 Engagement occurred from 1 to 30 June 2022 and focused on informing the community about the draft SMF and inviting feedback. A range of communication channels were used to inform key stakeholders and audiences, as outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: SMF engagement and communication, June 2022

Communication	Target audience	Date	Channel
Special information session	Developers and development representatives	1 June 2022	Targeted meeting
Information stand	General public	4 June 2022	Paekākāriki Market
Information stand	General public	18 June 2022	Paraparaumu Beach Market
Information stand	General public	20-30 June 2022	Paraparaumu, Waikanae and Ōtaki libraries
Mass communication	General public	During May and June 2022	Press release, website updates, Everything Kapiti newsletter and advertorial in print media
Social media campaign	General public	During May and June 2022	Facebook, Instagram and Neighbourly

Note: an 11 June 2022 information stand at Waikanae Market was cancelled due to rain.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

8 Submitters were asked to provide feedback on the draft SMF vision, values and outcomes through seven questions. Three of the questions were closed, requesting a simple yes-no response about whether the vision, values, and outcomes reflected the submitters’ expectations. The remaining four questions were open-ended, with three questions asking submitters what they felt was missing from the vision, values, and outcomes and the fourth asking respondents if they had anything further to share.

9 Feedback was invited via Bang the Table [Council’s on-line engagement platform] or via hard copy questionnaires available at the information sessions and public libraries.

DRAFT SMF VISION, VALUES AND OUTCOMES

10 The draft SMF vision for stormwater management in Kāpiti was:

where water is given space to flow from the hills to the sea; the health of our water bodies is enhanced and restored; communities are thoughtfully planned to be protected from flooding and resilient to anticipated climate change impacts; and Council works in partnership with tāngata whenua to give expression to Te Mana o te Wai.

11 The draft SMF included 12 values to support the vision, with six of the values to be shared by the entire community and 6 values to be specific to tangata whenua, as shown in Table 2 below.

12 The five proposed outcomes for the draft SMF were:

12.1 Te Mana o te Wai [including our stormwater network] is cared for and improved for the environment and people

12.2 Knowledge about Te Mana of te Wai and how it is best cared for is increased and shared

12.3 The framework provides a clear and usable plan that delivers quality outcomes and ensures integrity with vision

12.4 Iwi and Council work as partners to jointly made decisions with the support of the community

12.5 Stormwater management practices and stormwater infrastructure improves neighbourhoods and ecosystems, and resilience to anticipated climate change impacts

Table 2: Draft SMF values

Mana whenua Kaupapa (values)		Community values	Huanga (objective)
1	2 Mana whakahaere	3 Governance	4 Power to make decisions is shared by Council and tāngata whenua, with the support of the community
5	6 Kaitiakitanga	7 Stewardship	8 Our role is to be guardians and stewards of our natural resources
9	10 Mauri	11 Care & Respect	12 Our actions recognise, restore, enhance and protect the life of our rivers and seas
13	14 Wairuatanga	15 Holistic	16 We think and act holistically. The well-being of the environment and the well-being of people is intricately connected
17	18 Pūkengatanga	19 Innovation	20 We take an innovative and flexible approach to managing stormwater based on good historical, technical and cultural understanding
21	23 Hapori	24 Community	25 We build resilient communities that are connected to their awa.

SUBMITTER FEEDBACK

13 Thirty (30) submissions were received on the draft SMF vision, values and outcomes. All the submissions were received via Bang the Table; no submissions were received via the hard copy questionnaires.

14 Several of the developer’s representatives were interested in some aspects of the vision for example ‘water is given space to flow from hills to the sea’, and what these meant for flood management.

15 As shown in Table 3, when asked to compare the proposed vision, values and outcomes to their own aspirations for stormwater management in Kāpiti:

15.1 53% replied that the draft vision reflected their aspirations

15.2 60% replied that the draft values reflected their aspirations

15.3 Submitters were evenly split (50-50) about the draft outcomes.

Table 3: Responses to yes-no survey questions

Survey question	Response
Survey question	Yes	No
1. Does this vision reflect your aspirations for stormwater management in Kāpiti?	53%	47%
3. Do these values reflect your aspirations for stormwater management in Kāpiti?	60%	40%
5. Do these outcomes reflect your aspirations for stormwater management in Kāpiti?	50%	50%

16 When asked to provide more information about what was missing from the draft vision, values, outcomes, or SMF in general, 25 responded. The analysis of the feedback provided through these four open-ended questions was so consistent across each question that the responses were combined. They are discussed further in the Issues and Options sections below.

17 The full set of submission responses is attached as Appendix 2.

He take | Issues

18 The feedback was categorised according to 4 primary issue areas, as shown in Table 4. While this section of the report summarises the feedback for each issue area, proposals to address the feedback are discussed further in the Options section below.

Table 4: Primary issue areas identified in the open-ended questions

Primary theme	Number of mentions*
Managing existing stormwater problems	17
National mandates	15
Governance arrangements	11
Implementation tools	21

* Note: more than one theme could be allocated tor each response.

MANAGING EXISTING STORMWATER PROBLEMS

19 Of the 25 submitters that provided additional feedback, 17 (68%) expressed concern about how the draft SMF would manage existing stormwater problems. While 3 submitters expressed a need to protect public infrastructure, all 17 expressed concerns about the protection of private property and the management of existing issues. Examples included:

· I just don’t want my house to flood … there is a literal river flowing into my front yard.

· My property … has been subject to multiple floods since December 2021.

· This [vision] statement talks to ‘new communities being planned’ but what of existing communities?

20 This feedback indicates that the draft SMF vision, values and outcomes as proposed did not provide enough certainty to these submitters that Council will continue its current stormwater management programme focused on existing stormwater flooding issues.

NATIONAL MANDATES

21 For 15 submitters, their feedback touched on national mandates related to:

21.1 Council’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations and Iwi partnership commitments; and/or

21.2 The introduction of environmental protection and water quality requirements through Te Mana o te Wai and the Freshwater NPS.

22 For the submitters that questioned the prominent role of mana whenua in the development and implementation of the SMF, it appeared as if these submitters did not fully understand Council’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, Council’s commitment to its Iwi partnership agreement, and/or the role of the Stormwater Management Steering Group. Examples from the feedback included:

· I am concerned that Council is partnering with iwi despite this not being a democratically elected position.

· Co-governance is not appropriate in all aspects of management and water resources.

23 Similarly, some submitters did not fully understand Council’s obligation to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai and the Freshwater NPS. To these submitters, Council’s primary focus should continue to be flood management to protect homes and people. Examples included:

· Your vision should be to prevent Kapiti from flooding.

· The vision makes no sense. It doesn’t explain what the objective is: Preventing flooding and danger to houses and people’s safety.

24 In both instances, this submitter feedback appeared to be grounded in fears that:

24.1 Co-governance arrangements between Council and iwi partners would not allow for input from the wider community or key stakeholders; and

24.2 A focus on Te Mana o te Wai would mean that private properties would not be protected from flooding.

GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

25 Eleven (11) submitters provided specific feedback on the SMF governance arrangements.

26 Most of these submitters felt that more opportunities for community input were required, while a few (n=3) were more specifically concerned about the shared responsibilities for stormwater management between Council and GWRC.

27 In the first instance, while these submitters understood Council’s Treaty obligations, they still sought assurance that the SMF co-governance arrangements would allow for wider community participation. Examples included:

· Why does Council only ‘partner’ with Iwi, when the Freshwater [NPS] requires local authorities ‘to work with tangata whenua and communities …’

· Currently the strategy treats landowners and land occupiers as people whose ‘safety and wellbeing’ simply needs protecting, yet landowners and land occupiers also want to be involved in how their resources are managed and allocated.

· There is no reflection of Council working in partnership with affected communities.

28 Of the few submitters that mentioned GWRC, all did so in relation to GWRC’s proposed Natural Resources Plan and/or the Whaitua process. The general consensus was that Council must align with the pNRP, participate in the Whaitua process and develop a framework that can ultimately sit alongside both.

IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS

29 Twenty-one (21) submitters expressed concerns about the implementation of the proposed SMF. While some simply requested more information about the implementation of the SMF in general, others focused on specific aspects of implementation.

30 Over half of these submitters (n=13) wanted to better understand how the SMF would balance Te Mana o te Wai (protecting the environment and water quality) with protecting homes and people. In essence, these submitters wanted to understand how competing interests would be resolved. Examples included:

· … ‘giving water space to flow’ … looks like existing communities being flooded [and] critical community infrastructure being lost.

· How does the Council prioritise the people’s safety and wellbeing vs. the protection and restoration of Te Mana o te Wai?

· [I am concerned there will be] an imbalance with a very strong focus on the ‘well-being of the environment’ to the exclusion of other values.

31 Other submitters (n=7) wanted to understand how targets would be set under the SMF and what monitoring would occur. In addition, while no submitters used the term ‘climate change’, the few that spoke about timeframes appeared to be referring to the need for urgent action. One submitter stated:

Policies and actions need to be more agile and within shorter timeframes than reflected in Council plans to reflect the realities of what is actually happening. Extreme events are some of the highest ever recorded.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

32 The submitter feedback provides useful insights that must be incorporated into the SMF vision, values and outcomes; the development of the policies and plans that will sit under the SMF; and our ongoing efforts to govern and implement stormwater management in the district.

33 The feedback highlights some of the challenges local governments face as they seek to reconcile Te Mana o te Wai with other directives to minimise flood risk, adapt to climate change, and provide for urban development and growth.

MANAGING EXISTING STORMWATER PROBLEMS

34 Local governments have legislative obligations to manage stormwater and control flooding. As such, the draft SMF does not propose any changes to Council’s 37-year Stormwater Management Programme which focuses on existing stormwater issues, as prioritised by property type.

35 Over half of all submitters (17 out of 30, or 57%), however, requested greater certainty that Council will continue to work towards solutions for existing stormwater issues.

36 To address these submitters’ concerns, four amendments are proposed to the draft SMF vision, values and outcomes:

36.1 An additional clause and modification of clause 4 in the vision, to emphasise the importance of a resilient network and to provide transparency for existing property owners:

The vision for stormwater management in Kāpiti is where:

1. water is given space to flow from the hills to the sea;

2. the health of our water bodies is enhanced and restored;

3. the operation, maintenance, upgrade and renewal of our network contributes to a thriving, resilient community and healthy ecosystem;

4. communities are thoughtfully planned, are ~~to be~~ protected from flooding [to an agreed level of service], and resilient to anticipated climate change impacts; and

5. Council works in partnership with tāngata whenua to give expression to Te Mana o te Wai.

36.2 The current agreed level of service for stormwater management is to have a primary network that conveys up to the 10-year event, and that all dwellings are flood free up to the 50-year event. Any changes or alteration to levels of service are consulted on through the long-term planning process, and are a consideration when planning the capital or operational work programme.

36.3 A minor revision to the values to emphasise the importance of new and existing communities:

Our communities are ~~We build~~ resilient ~~communities that are~~ and connected to their awa.

36.4 A reordering of the outcomes so that the 5th outcome about resilient neighbourhoods and ecosystems is brought up to a more prominent position.

Stormwater management practices and stormwater infrastructure improves neighbourhoods and ecosystems, and resilience to anticipated climate change impacts.

37 A revised version of the SMF vision, values and outcomes marked up to clearly show these three proposed amendments is attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

NATIONAL MANDATES

38 Te Mana o te Wai and co-governance with iwi are legislative requirements that must be included as key features in the development and implementation of the SMF.

39 In an effort to help our communities understand these requirements, Council will seek to disseminate these messages more widely through ongoing communication and engagement.

GOVERNANCE

40 There are two aspects of governance that should be considered in order to address submitter feedback.

41 First, it is important to note that the Stormwater Steering Group is an advisory group that makes recommendations to Council. Council, as elected representatives, are the final decision-making body in respect of stormwater management. To clarify this, a framework validation clause has been added to the attached SMF vision, values and outcomes document.

The Kāpiti Coast District Council Stormwater Management Framework: Vision, Values and Outcomes was adopted at a meeting of the Kāpiti Coast District Council held on 28 July 2022, after completion of a public consultation process.

42 Secondly, it is also important to note that the next step of the SMF will be the development of a suite of policies and plans (including a proposed Stormwater Bylaw) and operational workstreams. The proposed SMF vision, values and outcomes are an important first step as they will promote alignment across the wider SMF.

43 Further public consultation, allowing for wider community input, is planned. In addition, Council’s policy of working with affected communities remains unchanged. In any instances where stormwater management might directly impact specific communities or levels of service, Council will work with affected parties to identify and evaluate a range of feasible options.

44 It is also important to note that Council already works closely with GWRC and will continue to do so. Council has nominated a representative to the Whaitua, and the GWRC Whaitua team have been in involved in the creation of the SMF.

IMPLEMENTATION

45 As the SMF forward work programme progresses, submitter concerns about governance and process (e.g., prioritisation, targets, and timeframes) will be addressed.

46 Table 5 below provides a general overview of the programme. Each workstream will be accompanied by a specific project plan and communication plan.

47 The aim within each workstream will be to foster diverse participation and innovative problem solving. In some instances (as in the proposed development of a new Stormwater Bylaw), formal special consultative processes will be undertaken. Alternatively, in instances where complex issues prove particularly challenging, co-ordination and prioritisation might be established and consulted on through Council’s Long-Term Planning processes.

48 Council will continue to receive further briefings and reports as specific project plans are development and implemented.

Table 5: Overview of the SMF forward works programme

Workstream	Timeframe	Consultation
1. Further communication about legislative mandates a) Te Mana o te Wai and the Freshwater NPS b) Iwi partnership and co-governance c) GWRC alignment (e.g. RPS, pNRP, and Whaitua)	August 2022+	One-way information campaign
2. Strategic policy framework a) Schedule N b) Hydraulic neutrality c) Climate change and resilience, including updated flood maps	In process and ongoing	To be agreed with Council through future briefings and reports. May vary depending on policy type.
3. Stormwater Bylaw	22/23 FY+	Special Consultative Procedure
4. Education – fact sheets and how to look after private networks	22/23 FY+	One-way information campaign
5. Acceptable solutions kits (for developers and property owners)	22/23 FY+	Developed with expert advice and user input
6. GWRC Whaitua process	22/23 FY+	GWRC process
7. Capital works programme	37+ years	Consulted on through the long-term planning process

Tangata whenua

49 The Te Mana o te Wai factsheet for the Freshwater NPS states that “local authorities must actively involve tangata whenua in freshwater management (including decision-making processes and monitoring and preparation of policy statements and plans).”

50 As water is a taonga, the commitment to a Tiriti House approach for stormwater management benefits both Council and local iwi.

51 Council’s Te Tiriti partners – Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga / Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki – are all members of the Stormwater Management Framework Steering Group.

Panonitanga āhuarangi | Climate change

52 Climate change is an important consideration for stormwater management as the predicted impacts of climate change in the district call for more frequent and severe rainfall and storm events.

53 The SMF process aligns with the principles of Council’s Climate Emergency Action Framework. Two principles that are particularly relevant include:

53.1 Council honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its partnership with mana whenua. Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and Ngāti Toa Rangatira will be involved as partners in Council’s climate change response and any projects that arise from this Framework to ensure a mana enhancing partnership is nurtured throughout.

53.2 Decision making is inclusive, transparent, and based on on-going collaboration and consultation with the wider community, business, social service organisations, and key sectors from industry and science.

54 Through the development and implementation of the SMF forward work programme, Council will continue to work with affected communities to address flood risk, and to build resiliency. Ultimately, this is likely to occur through a combination of responses including protect, avoid, accommodate and, in some instances, relocate.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

55 There are no financial or resourcing implications from this proposal. Any financial and resourcing implications for the further development and implementation of stormwater management policies and plans (which will sit under the SMF), will be raised through Council’s standard long-term and annual planning processes.

Ture me ngā Tūraru | Legal and risk

56 There are no legal risks associated with this proposal.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

57 It is anticipated that the SMF vision, values and outcomes will provide an overarching structure that gives effect to Te Mana o te Wai, mitigation [reduction] of effects from flooding and climate change, and provision for growth and urban intensification.

58 As the SMF vision, values and outcomes have been developed, consideration has also been given to how the framework links across all of Council’s planning and strategic work streams (eg, the growth strategy, the open space strategy, and the climate change and resilience framework) as well as other national and regional initiatives (eg, the Kapiti Whaitua, Waikanae ki uta ki tai and the three waters reform).

Te whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

59 As the SMF forward work programme is carried out, further engagement and consultation with Councillors and the community will be required. These workstreams are likely to include:

59.1 The re-build of Council’s flood hazard models to update climate change recommendations and incorporate groundwater, the new state highways and surface models,

59.2 A review of Council’s hydraulic neutrality policy and low impact urban design principles,

59.3 A Stormwater Management Strategy that sets out our approach to meeting GWRC’s proposed Natural Resources Plan Schedule N specifications,

59.4 Council’s stormwater monitoring programme, which includes cultural monitoring,

59.5 Integrated data management, storage, access and reporting protocols and platforms,

59.6 Catchment based objectives for water quality and action plans, including programmes of work [CAPEX and OPEX],

59.7 Consideration of a stormwater bylaw, and

59.8 Community education programmes.

60 Council will have the opportunity to provide input before further instances of community engagement or consultation occur.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

61 Once Council has adopted the proposed SMF vision, values and outcomes, a range of communication channels will be used to inform key stakeholders and audiences, such as:

61.1 Digital: Council webpages and social media updates

61.2 Targeted: An additional meeting for developers [and their representatives] to discuss next steps

61.3 Media: a series of informational updates in local newspapers to not only publicise the SMF vision, values and outcomes, but to also provide more information about legislative mandates such as Te Mana o te Wai.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Stormwater Management Framework: Vision, Values and Outcomes_proposed for adoption ⇩

2. Original submissions (anonymised) ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

28 July 2022

10.3 Seeking Approval for Public Notification of Proposed District Plan Change 2

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Angela Bell, Strategy Manager

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 To seek Council’s approval to publicly notify Proposed Plan Change 2 (‘PC2’ or ‘the Plan Change’) to the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan 2021 (‘the District Plan’) under clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’ or ‘the Act’).

He whakarāpopoto | Executive summary

2 PC2 proposes to amend the District Plan to:

2.1 Incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) into the General Residential Zone;

2.2 Give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD);

2.3 Provide for three new “qualifying matters” in relation to (1) and (2), specifically:

2.3.1 A “Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct”;

2.3.2 Kārewarewa Urupā; and

2.3.3 A “Marae Takiwā Precinct”;

2.4 Provide for tangata whenua to develop papakāinga on ancestral land; and

2.5 Amend existing financial contributions provisions to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.

3 In December 2021, Government passed the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021. This legislation requires all Tier 1 councils (including Kāpiti Coast District Council) to amend their district plans to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. To achieve this, Tier 1 councils must prepare a plan change document called an “Intensification Planning Instrument” (IPI), and amend their district plans using a special process called the “Intensification Streamlined Planning Process” (ISPP).

4 PC2 is the Council’s IPI, and its scope is statutorily defined under s80E of the RMA. In accordance with s80F of the RMA the Council must publicly notify PC2 on or before 20 August 2022.

5 In February 2022 Council adopted Te tupu pai: Growing well, the Council’s growth strategy. PC2 is a key element of the implementation of Te tupu pai, and the approach to enabling intensification in urban areas outlined in PC2 is consistent with Te tupu pai. PC2 also supports the implementation of other Council plans and strategies, including the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021 – 2041 and the Housing Strategy.

6 The preparation of PC2 has involved the participation of the tangata whenua of the district through Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga). In particular, the development of the papakāinga provisions was a collaborative effort by tangata whenua and Council to develop provisions that reflect tangata whenua aspirations for the use and development of papakāinga on their ancestral land. Providing for the development of papakāinga will support the connection between tangata whenua and their ancestral land, and contribute to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of current and future generations of tangata whenua.

7 The constraints placed on Council by the NPS-UD and the Government’s amendments to the RMA have limited the ability for the Council to address some of the concerns raised by tangata whenua during the preparation of PC2 regarding the potential impacts of intensification. The Council has explored ways to address some of these concerns through PC2, and has identified that addressing the broader concerns expressed by tangata whenua will require an ongoing effort beyond PC2.

8 The development of PC2 has also been informed by the input of the community. The initial scoping of PC2 took into account community feedback on Te tupu pai. In April the Council sought public feedback on a full draft of the proposed plan change, with over 200 submitters providing feedback. Evidence of Council consideration of all feedback and amendments made to PC2 in response is provided in Attachment 4.

9 PC2 is likely to have a significant impact on the supply of housing enabled by the District Plan. Not only does this better enable the District to provide for housing to meet the current and future needs of the community, but it also promotes more efficient use of the existing urban environment. The level of development enabled by PC2 is likely to lead to a change in character in existing neighbourhoods and urban areas over time. Such a change is anticipated by the NPS-UD, and PC2 includes measures, such as design guides, to support positive change by encouraging high-quality development.

10 The level of development enabled by PC2 may impact infrastructure capacity in the long-term. This is a matter that needs to be assessed in more detail as part of the preparation of the Council’s next Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) ahead of the next LTP.

11 The public notification of PC2 initiates the special ISPP statutory consultation and decision making process, which involves several steps:

11.1 Public submissions on the Plan Change;

11.2 Council summarises decisions requested by submitters;

11.3 Further submissions on the Plan Change;

11.4 An Independent Hearings Panel holds a hearing on the Plan Change;

11.5 The Independent Hearings Panel makes recommendations on the Plan Change to Council;

11.6 Council must publicly notify its decision on whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the Independent Hearings Panel; and either:

11.6.1 Plan Change 2 becomes operative (if Council accepts the recommendations); or

11.6.2 The Minister for the Environment makes the decision (if the Council rejects the recommendations).

12 As directed by the Minister for the Environment, Council must complete Step 6 by 20 August 2023^{^[1]}.

13 The following documents are attached to this paper:

13.1 Attachment 1: Intensification Planning Instrument. This is the plan change document that identifies the proposed amendments to the District Plan. Following public notification of PC2, it is the amendments to the District Plan contained in this document on which public submissions can be made.

13.2 Attachments 2 through 28: Section 32 Evaluation Report. This report has been prepared under s32 of the RMA. Its purpose is to explain the proposed plan change, and examine whether the plan change is the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of the RMA. Each appendix to the Section 32 Evaluation Report is included as a separate attachment to this paper.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

14 Section 80F(1) of the RMA requires that the Council notify PC2 on or before 20 August 2022.

15 Schedule 1, clause 5 (1)(b)(i) of 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.

16 Council has the authority to consider this matter.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That Council has particular regard to, and endorses the content of, the Section 32 Evaluation Report for Proposed Plan Change 2 (Attachments 2 - 28).

B. That Council agrees to proceed with Proposed Plan Change 2 (Attachment 1), and subject to the correction of any minor errors, approves public notification of Proposed Plan Change 2 in accordance with Clause 5 of Schedule 1, to occur on or before 20 August 2022.

C. That Council agrees that the date for the close of submissions on Proposed Plan Change 2 is 20 working days after public notification.

D. That Council notes that public notice of Proposed Plan Change 2 will be sent to all ratepayers in the district.

Tūāpapa | Background

THE NEED FOR PC2

17 Since the District Plan became operative on 30 June 2021 work has commenced on a series of changes and improvements. In the LTP 2021 – 2041 Council committed to a rolling review programme of changes to the District Plan. PC2 is focussed on urban development and meeting Council’s obligations under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

18 While PC2 is driven by statutory requirements, it is important to recognise that housing supply is a key resource management issue for the district. The district’s population is projected to grow by at least 32,000 people over the next 30 years. At the same time, the Council’s Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (‘HBA’) has identified that there is a shortfall in feasible, realisable, plan-enabled development capacity for housing in the district. This shortfall has increased as demand for housing in the district has grown, and the shortfall is currently estimated to be approximately 8,400 dwellings over 30 years^{^[2]}.

19 As part of addressing this, the Council recently adopted Te tupu pai, Growing well, a 30-year growth strategy that outlines the ways in which the Council plans to provide for this growth in a coordinated and sustainable manner, including through the intensification of existing urban areas. PC2 is part of the implementation of Te tupu pai, and will contribute to addressing the existing shortfall in development capacity by enabling an increase in plan-enabled housing supply in existing urban areas across the District, as well as a small number of new residential areas.

20 Housing and the relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral land is also a significant resource management issue for iwi. Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga) and Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, have expressed aspirations that their members are enabled to live closer to or within their ancestral homes and on their ancestral land, and that iwi, hapū and whānau are enabled to develop papakāinga that meet their needs, and reflects their own history, identity, culture, values and connections to the land.

SCOPE OF PC2

21 PC2 seeks to address these issues within the statutory scope that is defined and limited by s80E of the RMA. Under this provision, the plan change must:

21.1 Incorporate the MDRS; and

21.2 Give effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD.

22 In addition to this, the plan change may also include:

22.1 Provisions to enable papakāinga housing in the District;

22.2 Amendments to financial contributions provisions; and

22.3 Provisions that support or are consequential on incorporating the MDRS or giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

23 Under s80G(1)(b) of the RMA, the plan change cannot be used for any other purpose.

24 PC2 is comprised of three packages of amendments to the District Plan, consistent with the statutory scope of the plan change outlined above. The scope of these packages is outlined in the following paragraphs and described in section 5.0 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report (Attachment 2).

Package 1: housing supply and intensification

25 PC2 incorporates the MDRS into the District Plan and gives effect to policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD. The scope of this package is as follows:

25.1 Incorporating the MDRS into the General Residential Zone. This includes enabling the construction of up to three, 3-storey^{^[3]} residential units on a site as a permitted activity, with no minimum site sizes.

25.2 Giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD by enabling:

25.2.1 Building heights of up to 40 metres (12-storeys) within the Metropolitan Centre Zone at Paraparaumu;

25.2.2 Building heights of up to 20 metres (6-storeys) within an 800m (10 minute) walkable catchment of the Metropolitan Centre Zone, and the train stations at Paekākāriki, Paraparaumu and Waikanae;

25.2.3 Building heights of up to 21 metres (6-storeys) within the Town Centre Zone at Ōtaki, Ōtaki Railway, Waikanae, Paraparaumu Beach and Raumati Beach;

25.2.4 Building heights of up to 15 metres (4-storeys) within the Local Centre Zone at Waikanae Beach, Kena Kena, Mazengarb Road, Meadows and Raumati South (6-storeys is enabled in Paekākāriki Local Centre Zone because it is located within 800m of Paekākāriki station); and

25.2.5 Building heights of up to 14 metres (4-storeys) within a 400m walkable catchment of the Town Centre Zone, and a 200m walkable catchment of the Local Centre Zone.[4]

25.3 As part of incorporating the MDRS and giving effect to policy 4 of the NPS-UD, providing for three new “qualifying matters” including:

25.3.1 Providing for a “Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct”, which is an interim measure intended to maintain the status-quo level of development currently provided for by the District Plan, until the management of coastal hazards is addressed through a future coastal environment plan change;

25.3.2 Recognising and providing for Kārewarewa Urupā at Waikanae Beach by adding it as a wāhi tapu site to Schedule 9 of the District Plan; and

25.3.3 Providing for a “Marae Takiwā Precinct”, which recognises that the activities that occur at a marae are likely to be sensitive to the effects of surrounding intensification, by providing for the status-quo building heights currently provided for by the District Plan to be maintained around marae.

25.4 As part of incorporating the MDRS and giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD, some areas have been rezoned as General Residential Zone, where:

25.4.1 they are located next to an urban area that is connected to infrastructure services;

25.4.2 they have a relatively low degree of constraints (and any existing constraints can be managed through existing district plan rules);

25.4.3 they are not sufficiently large or complex enough to require a “structure planned” approach; and

25.4.4 they would provide a notable contribution to plan-enabled housing supply, or where this is not the case, re-zoning is appropriate to regularise the area into the surrounding zoning pattern.

25.5 In order to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD, existing rules that limit building height, density and minimum allotment size in “special character areas” are removed from the District Plan.

25.6 Replacing the existing Medium Density Housing Design Guide with two new design guides, the Residential Design Guide and the Centres Design Guide, which encourage high-quality design of residential and mixed use development. These guidelines function as a matter of discretion for developments in the General Residential and Centres Zones that breach permitted activity standards for buildings.

25.7 Replacing all references to the Council’s Subdivision and Development Principles and Requirements, 2012 document with references to Council’s new Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022. The Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022 is the Council’s document that outlines the requirements for new or upgraded infrastructure to be provided as part of new development.

Package 2: papakāinga

26 PC2 provides for tangata whenua to develop papakāinga on their ancestral land within the District. This includes land held by tangata whenua under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, and general title land owned by tangata whenua where there is an ancestral connection to the land, and the land will be maintained in Māori ownership.

27 For the purposes of PC2, papakāinga are defined as housing and any ancillary activities (including social, cultural, educational, recreational and commercial activities) for tangata whenua on their ancestral land.

28 The papakāinga provisions contained in PC2 are the result of extensive work undertaken with tangata whenua, through Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga) and Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai.

29 The scope of the provisions to enable the development of papakāinga are summarised as follows:

29.1 A new Papakāinga Chapter that outlines the objectives and policies for papakāinga across the district.

29.2 New rules to provide for the development of papakāinga by tangata whenua on their ancestral land in the following zones:

29.2.1 The General Residential Zone;

29.2.2 The Town Centre Zone;

29.2.3 The General Rural Zone;

29.2.4 The Rural Production Zone;

29.2.5 The Rural Lifestyle Zone; and

29.2.6 The Future Urban Zone.

29.3 Rules in the above zones that provide for the development of papakāinga by tangata whenua as:

29.3.1 A permitted activity on land held under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993; and

29.3.2 A restricted discretionary activity on land held in general title, where it can be demonstrated that there is an ancestral/whakapapa connection to the land, and that the land will remain in Māori ownership.

Package 3: amendments to financial contribution provisions

30 PC2 improves the alignment between the existing financial contributions provisions and the requirements for financial contributions outlined in the RMA. The scope of amendments to financial contributions provisions are summarised below:

30.1 A new policy clarifies that financial contributions can be taken for the purpose of ensuring positive effects on the environment to offset any adverse effect; and

30.2 A new set of general rules for financial contributions provide for matters to be considered when taking financial contributions in instances where the Council’s Development Contributions Policy would otherwise not apply.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

He take | Issues

31 Proposed PC2, which is the subject of this paper, is an updated version of draft PC2, which was presented to Council on 24 March 2022^{^[5]}. The following discussion focusses on how tangata whenua participation and community engagement has informed the development of PC2, and in particular how PC2 has changed in response to feedback received on the draft.

32 The discussion then concludes by summarising the key impacts that PC2 is likely to have on the wider community.

Tangata Whenua participation in the development of PC2

33 Preparation of PC2 included engagement with tangata whenua through the iwi authorities of Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga). This is described in section 3.4 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

34 Prior to developing the scope of PC2, the Council received feedback from tangata whenua as part of the preparation of Te tupu pai: Growing well (the District Growth Strategy). This process occurred during late 2021. This feedback provided the Council with a greater understanding of matters of concern to tangata whenua in relation to growth and development, and informed the initial scoping of PC2.

35 Engagement with tangata whenua on the preparation of PC2 began in late 2021, with the Council providing an initial scope of PC2 to iwi for their consideration and to facilitate further discussion and participation. Since then, there have been many engagements with tangata whenua, including nine hui and wānanga that have informed the development of PC2.

36 The following sections discuss key matters related to the involvement of tangata whenua in the development of PC2.

Development of the papakāinga provisions

37 The need for the District Plan to better provide for the development of papakāinga was raised by tangata whenua prior to the development of PC2, including through submissions on the LTP and Te tupu pai. Providing for Māori housing solutions is also one of the objectives of the Council’s Housing Strategy.

38 The papakāinga provisions in PC2 result from a collaborative effort by tangata whenua and Council to develop a set of provisions that reflect tangata whenua aspirations for the use and development of papakāinga on their ancestral land in the District.

39 The overall process for developing the papakāinga provisions involved the following:

39.1 A general approach to the papakāinga provisions was proposed by tangata whenua based on the provisions for papakāinga contained in the proposed Porirua District Plan.

39.2 From this base and after reviewing the papakāinga provisions around the country, tangata whenua developed draft provisions, which included objectives, policies and rules for papakāinga.

39.3 Tangata whenua and Council held a series of working hui to refine the draft provisions and discuss substantive and technical issues. These hui enabled the provisions to be refined so that they reflected the concepts and aspirations sought by tangata whenua, while being in a form that could be incorporated into the Kāpiti Coast District Plan.

39.4 The refined draft papakāinga provisions were incorporated into draft PC2 for community feedback.

40 Tangata whenua have indicated their support for the proposed papakāinga provisions.

41 The Council also received eight submissions from the public on the draft papakāinga provisions, most of which indicated general support for the proposed provisions.

Kārewarewa Urupā

42 Kārewarewa Urupā is located to the east of the confluence of the Waikanae River and the Waimeha Stream, to the south-east of the Waimeha lagoon, in the area of land around Barrett Drive and Marewa Place in Waikanae Beach. The urupā is predominantly zoned General Residential Zone (the northern corner is zoned Natural Open Space). Approximately half of the residential zoned land has been developed for housing, with the remainder of the area being presently undeveloped. Because the land is zoned General Residential Zone, the area would ordinarily be subject to the MDRS. The urupā is not currently recognised as a wāhi tapu site in the District Plan.

43 The urupā is a significant burial ground for Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and the tangata whenua of the district. The potential for further development at the urupā is a matter of significant concern to Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai. The significance of the urupā is also documented in a report published by the Waitangi Tribunal, which traverses the history of the urupā, identifies some Māori and Pākeha who are buried there, the change in ownership of the land, and the changed land-use planning regime associated with the site that has enabled its partial development^{^[6]}. Kārewarewa Urupā is discussed further in section 6.1.4 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

44 The relationship of Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai with Kārewarewa Urupā is a matter that the Council must recognise and provide for under s6(e) of the RMA^{^[7]}. In light of the concerns raised by Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and the information contained in the Waitangi Tribunal report, enabling the level of development provided for by the MDRS to occur on the urupā would not be consistent with this obligation. To meet this obligation, PC2 proposes to restrict new land disturbance and development on the urupā, by recognising Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site in Schedule 9 of the District Plan, and in the District Plan maps.

45 In their written feedback on draft PC2, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai indicated their support for the proposal to recognise Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site in the District Plan. Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki also provided support for this position in their written feedback.

46 Because the proposal to recognise Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site restricts the ability for current and future land owners to disturb or develop the land, feedback was sought from landowners in the area on the proposal, as part of engagement on draft PC2. The Council received 10 submissions on the proposal. Approximately half of these submissions supported the proposal (or supported the intent), but had questions or concerns about their ability to undertake future development, and the future management of the undeveloped portion of the urupā. One submission opposed recognising the urupā as a wāhi tapu site, and the remaining submissions sought further understanding of the proposed provisions. During the process, the Council responded to several queries about the proposed provisions from landowners in the area.

47 The Council considered each of the submissions on the proposal to provide for Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site in the District Plan. In light of the concerns raised by Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai about further disturbance and development of the urupā, and in light of the information about the urupā contained in Waitangi Tribunal report, the Council considers that the most appropriate course of action is to continue with the proposal to recognise Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site in the District Plan.

Iwi feedback on draft PC2

48 Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki provided written feedback on draft PC2. This feedback is included in full in Attachment 3, and is discussed further in section 3.4.4 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

49 Key matters raised by Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai include:

49.1 Draft PC2 addresses elements of Ātiawa’s input into the District Growth Strategy, including the provision of housing, development focussed around transport hubs, and enabling papakāinga development.

49.2 Ongoing engagement is required to ensure that the District Plan gives life to Te Ātiawa’s values principles and policies outlined in the Kaitiakitanga Plan.

49.3 Support for the inclusion of Kārewarewa Urupā as a wāhi tapu site in the District Plan.

50 Key matters raised by Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki include:

50.1 Concern that imminent intensification in the Ōtaki area will have more negative impacts on the people of Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki and the taiao than positive;

50.2 A range of steps are critical to achieving a well-functioning urban environment before further intensification occurs, including defining the level of growth that can be sustained by waterways and the environment, providing for the development of infrastructure, and better protecting areas of importance to mana whenua (including but not limited to Raukawa marae, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, kohanga and kura, Rangiātea church, and an area of whānau housing close to the marae).

50.3 Support for the proposed papakāinga provisions.

50.4 Support for steps to increase the protection of the Kārewarewa Urupā.

50.5 Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki intend to work towards the protection of a number of wāhi tapu in the Ōtaki area over the coming years.

51 In their written feedback on draft PC2, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki made clear their position that the legislation under which PC2 has been prepared has limited their ability to meaningfully engage in, and for their aspirations to be provided for through, the preparation of PC2. Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki has advised the Council that they have raised these concerns directly with the Ministers of the Crown responsible for the legislation.

52 Opportunities to address these concerns have been explored, within the limitations placed on Council by government legislation, to address some of these matters. As a result, draft PC2 has been amended to provide for the following:

52.1 A “Marae Takiwā Precinct” has been incorporated into the plan change. This precinct recognises that marae are particularly sensitive to the effects caused by intensification on surrounding sites, including overlooking and increased obstruction of views towards significant maunga. Rather than enabling increased height and density, the precinct retains the current building heights provided for by the District Plan in the area surrounding Raukawa Marae in Ōtaki and Whakarongotai Marae in Waikanae. The precinct also requires the Council to consider the owners of marae as affected persons when considering resource consent applications for development on surrounding sites.

52.2 The matters of discretion for development that breaches the MDRS have been strengthened to ensure that effects on cultural values are considered where development is proposed near a site of significance to Māori.

53 Addressing the concerns raised by Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki will require ongoing work by Council in partnership with tangata whenua. Future work programmes that provide for this include (but are not limited to):

53.1 Implementation of the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. Work to implement the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management, in particular the Kāpiti whaitua process led by Greater Wellington Regional Council. This process will provide a greater degree of certainty about the capacity and limitations of Kāpiti’s freshwater catchments in relation to the range of different land uses that occur in the District.

53.2 Infrastructure capacity assessment. The infrastructure capacity assessment undertaken as part of the Council’s next Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) will be prepared ahead of the 2024 LTP. This will identify whether there are any shortfalls in long-term infrastructure capacity needing to be addressed through infrastructure planning.

53.3 Mana whenua district plan change. The Council intends to prepare a Mana Whenua plan change. The plan change will be scoped and prepared in partnership with tangata whenua, providing an opportunity for the District Plan to address a range of resource management issues.

Community engagement in the development of PC2

54 Housing was identified as a key issue for the district in the preparation of the 2021-2024 LTP. Through the LTP, the community sought that Council take a bigger role in supporting and enabling housing development. As part of this, the Council committed to updating the District Plan to ensure that the district is enabling sufficient development capacity. PC2 is a key means of achieving this.

55 Subsequent to the adoption of the LTP, the Council engaged with the community on the development of Te tupu pai, the District Growth Strategy. Consultation with the public on Te tupu pai occurred in October-November 2021, and the strategy was adopted by Council in February 2022. The strategy identifies how the District plans to provide for population growth over the next 30 years in a sustainable manner, and includes direction around the location and level of intensification planned for the District’s existing urban areas. The level of intensification proposed by PC2 is consistent with Te tupu pai.

56 Since the development of Te tupu pai, the Council has also developed, consulted on and adopted a Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy responds to community concern about housing and a desire for Council to take a bigger role in housing solutions. It includes objectives to guide Council actions for housing, in partnership with tangata whenua and alongside central government, the private sector, community housing providers and the community. PC2 responds to a number of actions outlined in the Housing Strategy, including through enabling intensification of existing urban areas, providing additional land zoned for residential development, enabling and encouraging a greater range of dwelling typologies, and providing for the development of papakāinga.

57 The development of PC2 has taken into account the aspirations of the community embodied in each of these documents. Community engagement on the development of PC2 is discussed further in section 3.5 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

Consultation on draft PC2

58 On 4 April 2022, the Council released to the public a draft version of PC2, and sought feedback on this over a 4 week period, with submissions closing on 2 May 2022. Because of the scale and significance of the Plan Change, the Council chose to consult on a complete exposure draft of proposed PC2, which also included explanations of the purpose of each proposed change. This enabled the community to see the extent of changes proposed to the District Plan. The Council was one of the few Tier 1 councils to consult on a draft plan change document, with many other councils opting instead to consult on the broader intent of their plan changes through discussion documents.

59 Draft PC2 was made publicly available through the Council website, with a dedicated webpage that included the consultation document and instructions on how to provide feedback. Feedback was also sought from the following parties, through e-mail or hardcopy letter correspondence:

59.1 The Minister for the Environment;

59.2 The Minister of Housing;

59.3 All territorial authorities within the Wellington Region, the Horowhenua District Council and the Greater Wellington Regional Council;

59.4 Tangata whenua through Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki (Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga):

59.5 Owners of land within the proposed Kārewarewa Urupā wāhi tapu areas; and

59.6 Owners of land proposed to be rezoned as General Residential Zone.

60 Over 200 submissions were received on draft PC2 from individuals, community groups, businesses and state entities. The Council considered all submissions received from the public, and they have been taken into account as part of the development of PC2. Attachment 4 includes a summary of each submission received, and the Council’s response to each submission.

61 The following sections provide a summary of the feedback received on the Plan Change, and where appropriate, how draft PC2 was amended in response to this feedback.

Incorporating the MDRS and giving effect to Policy 3 of the NPS-UD

62 The majority of public submissions (134) were on the topic of intensification. Overall, community views on the proposed approach to intensification were split evenly between submissions in support and opposition.

63 Key themes raised by those opposed to intensification include:

63.1 Impacts on local character;

63.2 Impacts on amenity (in particular outdoor living space)

63.3 Potential impacts of coastal hazards on intensification;

63.4 Impacts on trees, vegetation and open space;

63.5 Impacts on development infrastructure capacity (particularly roads, parking and wastewater); and

63.6 Impacts on social infrastructure availability (schools, medical centres, supermarkets).

64 The consideration given to these matters is detailed in the response to submissions contained in Attachment 4. The following provides a high-level summary of the response to these matters:

64.1 Regarding impacts on character and amenity values, the Council must allow urban environments, including their character and amenity values to develop and change over time, in order to provide for the level of development required by the MDRS and policy 3 of the NPS-UD. Notwithstanding this, where development is proposed of a greater density than the MDRS, the design guides provide a method for ensuring that the effects of development on amenity values are given consideration through the resource consent process. The impacts of PC2 on character and amenity values is discussed in more detail further on in this paper.

64.2 Regarding the potential impacts of coastal hazards on intensification, PC2 recognises this through the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct, as well through providing for a range of other natural hazards (such as flood hazard) as existing qualifying matters, by ensuring that existing District Plan provisions that manage these hazards continue to apply.

64.3 Regarding the impacts on trees, vegetation and open space, PC2 provides for trees and ecological sites that are currently protected by the District Plan to continue to be protected as existing qualifying matters. Existing public open space reserves also continue to be provided for, and it is noted that Council is consulting on a proposal to rezone a number of additional areas as Open Space Zone through Plan Change 1L.

64.4 Regarding the impacts on development infrastructure capacity, the level of development enabled by PC2 will impact on the capacity of existing infrastructure. PC2 addresses some of these impacts through the District Plan, however the Council will need to use a range of tools outside of the District Plan, including development contributions, the Council’s Infrastructure Strategy and LTP, to ensure that sufficient infrastructure capacity is provided for over the long-term. The impacts of PC2 on infrastructure capacity are discussed in more detail further on in this paper.

64.5 Regarding the availability of social infrastructure, by enabling more people to live within the District’s existing urban areas, PC2 supports the viability and growth of existing social infrastructure and the development of new social infrastructure in those same urban areas.

65 Key themes raised by those that supported intensification include:

65.1 More housing is needed, in particular a greater variety of housing and more affordable housing;

65.2 More people want to live on the Kāpiti Coast;

65.3 People want to live closer to centres, services and public transport;

65.4 Using the existing urban environment more efficiently helps address broader growth pressures and promotes lower-impact development; and

65.5 PC2 should provide for bigger walkable catchments, and greater levels of intensification in and around centres and rapid transit stops.

66 Public feedback on the topic of intensification has led to several changes in the proposed plan change. These include:

66.1 Amending a range of existing and proposed policies in the Centres, Mixed Use and Urban Form and Development chapters to improve their clarity and alignment with the requirements of the NPS-UD;

66.2 Submissions on the draft extent of the Residential Intensification Precinct to the south-west of Paraparaumu Metropolitan Centre Zone identified that new footpaths had been constructed in the area that would influence the extent of the walkable catchment. Technical work was undertaken to revise the walkable catchment to recognise the new footpaths, and as a result the proposed Residential Intensification Precinct in this area has been extended;

66.3 Improvements to the proposed design guides, including to recognise and encourage the integration of development with multiple modes of transport, and to recognise the benefits of shading for sun protection;

66.4 Amending the activity status of buildings that breach the restricted discretionary height limit in the Local Centre Zone from non-complying to discretionary; and

66.5 Amendments to ensure that potable water supply and firefighting water supply are provided for new development that occurs in the General Residential Zone at Te Horo Beach^{^[8]}.

The Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct

67 PC2 proposes a Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct, the purpose of which is to maintain the current levels of development provided for by the District Plan in the part of the district that has been identified as being potentially susceptible to coastal erosion hazard, until the management of coastal hazards is addressed through a future coastal environment plan change. The Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct is discussed further in section 6.1.3 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

68 The development of a framework for managing coastal hazards is currently being progressed through the Takutai Kāpiti community planning process. The outputs of this process will inform a future coastal environment plan change to provide for the management of coastal hazards.

69 12 submissions were received on the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct. A number of submitters thought it was a sensible approach, while other submitters thought that the precinct did not go far enough and should be extended to address coastal inundation and tsunami hazard (in addition to coastal erosion hazard). Those submissions that opposed the precinct considered that there was insufficient information to justify the qualifying matter. There was also concern that the precinct may be interpreted as a permanent hazard management solution.

70 The consideration that was given to these matters is detailed in the response to submissions contained in Attachment 4. In summary, regarding whether there is sufficient information to justify the qualifying matter, the Jacobs Assessment^{^[9]}, which has been used to determine the spatial extent of the precinct, is the best available source of information on coastal erosion hazard in the district, and provides sufficient information to justify the qualifying matter. Regarding whether coastal inundation and tsunami hazard should inform the spatial extent of the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct, it was not considered necessary to do so on the basis that both these matters are addressed through existing District Plan provisions.

71 To address concerns around the interpretation of the purpose of the precinct, the description of the precinct has been amended to clarify that the precinct is intended as an interim measure, and that the provisions associated with it will be reviewed as part of the future coastal environment plan change process.

New areas of General Residential Zone

72 As part of incorporating the MDRS and giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD, some smaller areas are proposed to be rezoned as General Residential Zone, where:

72.1 they are located next to an urban area that is connected to infrastructure services;

72.2 they have a relatively low degree of constraints (and any existing constraints can be managed through existing district plan rules);

72.3 they are not sufficiently large or complex enough to require a “structure planned” approach; and

72.4 they would provide a notable contribution to plan-enabled housing supply, or where this is not the case, re-zoning is appropriate to regularise the area into the surrounding zoning pattern.

73 There were 41 submissions on the proposal to rezone these areas as General Residential Zone, a majority of which supported the proposals.

74 Eight submissions opposed the proposal. Some submitters considered certain areas could be better used for commercial development or open space purposes. Some landowners in the Waikanae Future Urban Zone at 174-211 Ngarara Road expressed concerns about the impact of development on the character of the area, and capacity of roads and infrastructure to accommodate growth.

75 The consideration that was given to these matters is detailed in the response to submissions contained in Attachment 4. In summary, it is considered that residential development is a more appropriate use of these areas than commercial development or open space. It is noted that new residential development will be required to incorporate, or provide financial contributions towards the provision of, open space. Further, development in these areas will generally require a subdivision resource consent prior to occurring. This process, on top of development contributions required for new development, will enable the impacts of new development on infrastructure capacity to be addressed.

76 Several submissions sought that additional land be included in the General Residential Zone beyond the areas identified as part of draft PC2. In a number of instances, the information provided by submitters demonstrated that the area proposed met the considerations outlined in paragraph 0 above. As a result, the following additional areas have been included in proposed PC2:

76.1 An area of land currently zoned Future Urban Zone at 269-289 Ngarara Road (to the north of the Kāpiti Expressway);

76.2 An area of land currently zoned Open Space Zone (Private Recreation and Leisure Precinct) at 18 Huiawa Street, Waikanae Beach; and

76.3 An area of land currently zoned Rural Lifestyle Zone at 106-128 Milne Drive, Paraparaumu (this is an extension of the proposal to rezone an area of land at 132-188 Milne Drive).

77 A high-level estimate of the theoretical plan-enabled residential development capacity of the new areas of General Residential Zone proposed as part of draft PC2 was approximately 1,300 dwellings. It is estimated the additional areas identified above would enable 140-150 additional dwellings on top of this.

Potential Impacts of PC2

78 The following sections summarise the key potential impacts of proposed PC2.

Development capacity

79 To provide for projected population growth, there is a long-term demand (out to 2051) for an additional 16,200 dwellings to be built across the District.

80 The Council has undertaken high-level modelling to estimate the additional theoretical residential development capacity that could be enabled by PC2^{^[10]}. This is summarised in the following table:

	Additional theoretical plan-enabled residential development capacity (additional dwellings)	% of capacity that needs to be feasible and realisable in order to meet long-term demand
Existing District Plan (see note 1)	17,983	90% (see note 2)
Proposed Plan Change 2 – Infill Scenario (see note 3)	46,813	34.6% (see note 5)
Proposed Plan Change 2 – Redevelopment Scenario (see note 4)	164,020	9.9% (see note 5)
Notes: Note 1: The additional theoretical plan-enabled residential development capacity under the Operative District Plan is outlined in Council’s current Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA)^{^[11]}. Note 2: The Council’s current HBA identifies that approximately 43% of plan-enabled residential development capacity is feasible and realisable. Note 3: The “Infill Scenario” is based on high-level modelling undertaken as part of the preparation of PC2, and assumes that existing buildings are retained as part of development of the site. Note 4: The “Redevelopment Scenario” is based on high-level modelling undertaken as part of the preparation of PC2, and assumes that existing buildings are removed as part of the redevelopment of the site. Note 5: These figures represent the amount of additional theoretical development that would need to be feasible and realisable in order to meet long term demand. These figures do not represent assessed feasibility and realisability.

81 Under the existing District Plan (i.e. not accounting for PC2), a significant proportion (90%) of additional plan-enabled residential development capacity needs to be realised in order to meet long-term demand for housing. For a range of reasons, including site constraints, market conditions and developer/landowner preferences, not all plan-enabled development capacity is feasible or realisable. The feasibility modelling outlined in the Council’s current Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment (HBA) indicates that about 43% of additional plan‑enabled residential development capacity is likely to be realised over the long-term. Because this is less than what is required to meet demand, there is an anticipated shortfall of around 8,400 dwellings over the long-term.

82 PC2 enables a significant increase in additional plan-enabled residential development capacity. This increases the likelihood that the District Plan will enable sufficient feasible and realisable development capacity to meet long term demand within existing urban areas (and the small number of areas proposed to be rezoned as part of PC2). This contributes to one of the key benefits of PC2, which is enabling more efficient use of the district’s urban areas.

83 The above analysis is based on high-level modelling. The Council’s next HBA, which must be prepared in time to inform the development of the 2024 LTP, will provide a more accurate picture of the impact of PC2 on enabling development capacity. Notwithstanding this it is likely that PC2 will contribute significantly to reducing the shortfall in development capacity over the long-term. To the extent that this occurs, this would potentially reduce the extent to which Council may be required to initiate changes to the District Plan to enable further development in “greenfield” areas (although the Council must still be responsive to private plan change requests that would add significantly to development capacity, and contribute to well-functioning urban environments).

Character and amenity in the urban environment

84 The level of development enabled by PC2 is likely to contribute to a change in character in the District’s urban environments over time. This is consistent with the overall thrust of the NPS-UD. In particular, Objective 4 of the NPS-UD states:

New Zealand’s urban environments, including their amenity values, develop and change over time in response to the diverse and changing needs of people, communities, and future generations.

85 Based on this, it is an expectation of the NPS-UD that the District Plan enable urban environments to develop and change over time in order to provide for the changing needs of the current and future community.

86 PC2 provides for this by amending the objectives, policies and rules in the District Plan that seek to maintain or retain existing character and amenity values in urban environments, where these are inconsistent with the requirement to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

87 An example of this are the amendments to the policies and rules associated with “special character areas”. Special character areas are located at Paekākāriki, Raumati Beach, Waikanae Garden Precinct, Waikanae Beach and Ōtaki Beach. These areas comprise approximately 13% of the District’s General Residential Zone. The purpose of the policies and rules for special character areas in the District Plan is to “protect” or “retain” the existing character of these areas primarily through restricting development density. Such an approach is inconsistent with the requirement to incorporate the MDRS and give effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD and is inconsistent with Objective 4 of the NPS-UD. As part of incorporating the MDRS and giving effect to policy 3 of the NPS-UD, PC2 proposes to remove the rules that restrict density in these areas^{^[12]}. This is discussed further in section 6.1.6 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

88 Higher density development can have adverse impacts on neighbourhoods where development is ill-considered or poorly designed. Council is able to give consideration to amenity values and encourage high-quality development through resource consents for developments that exceed the level of development permitted by the MDRS or policy 3 of the NPS-UD. PC2 achieves this by:

88.1 Including new design guides in the District Plan. The design guides outline principles and guidelines for achieving high quality design for higher-density development. The design guides provide guidance on a range of matters, including:

88.1.1 Site layout (including connectivity; access and parking^{^[13]}; private, communal and public open space; and storage, waste and service areas);

88.1.2 Built form and appearance (including building mass and height; materials and façade articulation; building entrances; and response to context); and

88.1.3 Amenity and sustainability (including landscape treatment and design; sunlight, daylight and wind; energy efficiency; and privacy and safety).

Two design guides are proposed, a Residential Design Guide and a Centres Design Guide, recognising development in the General Residential Zone is likely to be residential only, whereas development in the Centres Zones is likely to be mixed use. The design guides only apply to higher-density development^{^[14]} that requires a resource consent, and are given statutory weight as a matter of discretion under rules proposed by PC2. The proposed design guides are contained in Appendix C and D of PC2 (Attachment 1).

88.2 Requiring higher density development to give consideration to identified values in special character areas. PC2 removes the rules that restrict development density in existing special character areas. As a result, the level of development provided for by the MDRS and policy 3 of the NPS-UD will be permitted in these areas. However, the policies for these areas have been amended to require that where development exceeds the level of development permitted by the MDRS or policy 3 of the NPS-UD, the development needs to consider the identified values that have contributed to the character of these areas, which includes the relationship of development to existing landforms and (in some cases) vegetation and historic subdivision pattern.^{^[15]}

Infrastructure

89 The demands of projected population growth in the district over the next 30 years will impact the capacity of existing infrastructure, as well as the demand for new infrastructure. The Council’s current HBA identifies that there is sufficient existing or planned infrastructure capacity to cater for growth in the short-medium- term (10 years). The impact of PC2 on long-term infrastructure capacity will be quantified as part of the Council’s next review of the HBA, and any shortfalls identified would need to be considered as part of Council’s on-going infrastructure planning processes, including the Council’s Infrastructure Strategy and LTP.

90 Provisions proposed as part of PC2, as well as Council methods that sit outside of the District Plan, seek to manage the impact of new development on infrastructure capacity. These include:

90.1 Development contributions and financial contributions. All new development, even where a resource consent is not needed, is required to pay development contributions (under the Council’s Development Contributions Policy) and/or Financial Contributions (under the District Plan’s Financial Contributions provisions) to contribute to the upgrading of existing infrastructure, the development of new infrastructure and the provision of reserves;

90.2 Council’s Land Development Minimum Requirements. All new development must meet the requirements of the Council’s Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022^{^[16]}. This is the Council’s technical document that sets out minimum standards when designing and constructing infrastructure assets that support new development in the District. This document has been recently updated to provide for matters relevant to medium density development.

91 Some parts of the District’s General Residential Zone (where the MDRS and policy 3 of the NPS-UD are required to be applied) are not connected to the Council’s reticulated wastewater network. These areas are:

91.1 Paekākāriki;

91.2 Peka Peka Beach; and

91.3 Te Horo Beach.

92 In general, wastewater treatment and disposal in these areas is managed through septic tanks or similar systems on a site-by-site basis.

93 A lack of infrastructure is not a prescribed qualifying matter under the RMA. The Council sought advice on whether a lack of infrastructure could be considered as an “other” qualifying matter. Given the strong focus of the NPS-UD on providing infrastructure to enabled development capacity, it was considered that in order to treat a lack of infrastructure as a qualifying matter, a strong evidence base would be required to demonstrate that providing infrastructure to an area would lead to an absurd or illogical outcome. After seeking advice on this matter, the Council found that it would be possible to plan for reticulated wastewater infrastructure to service these areas (although such an undertaking involves risk and uncertainty that would need to be resolved, and would require time and resources to be realised). On this basis, it was determined that there was not a sufficient basis to consider a lack of infrastructure as a qualifying matter. This is discussed further in section 6.1.6 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

94 Until such time as these areas are connected to reticulated infrastructure, rules associated with wastewater servicing in both the District Plan and the Regional Plan, alongside the requirements of the New Zealand Building Code, will place practical constraints on the level of development likely to be realised in these areas.

Papakāinga

95 The objectives, policies and rules that provide for tangata whenua to develop papakāinga on their ancestral land are anticipated to provide for a range of positive impacts for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of tangata whenua. These include:

95.1 Strengthening the connections between tangata whenua and their ancestral land;

95.2 Enabling tangata whenua to live on and be sustained by their ancestral land, in accordance with kaupapa and tikanga Māori;

95.3 Improving the access that tangata whenua have to affordable, warm, dry and safe housing in their own communities, with secure tenure that better enables tangata whenua to participate in their community;

95.4 Removing barriers that tangata whenua face to the development of papakāinga on their ancestral land;

95.5 Providing for tangata whenua to exercise greater control over the use and development of ancestral land;

95.6 Increasing the visibility of tangata whenua in their communities and the wider District through the development of papakāinga; and

95.7 Enabling tangata whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga over their ancestral land, through papakāinga development.

96 However, it may take time for the papakāinga provisions to have an impact on tangata whenua particularly if other challenges to their development are not identified and steps taken to address them. While PC2 provides for the development of papakāinga, the Council may need to explore opportunities outside of the District Plan to support tangata whenua to develop papakāinga. This could include (but may not be limited to)

96.1 Considering the role that the LTP (and the Council policies that sit under the LTP) can play in supporting and enabling tangata whenua to develop papakāinga;

96.2 Considering the role that the range of other Council strategies and plans can play in supporting the development of papakāinga; and

96.3 Providing support and advice to tangata whenua on development processes.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

97 The evaluation of options considered as part of the preparation of PC2 is outlined in section 8.0 of the Section 32 Evaluation Report (Attachment 2).

Tangata whenua

98 Please refer to paragraphs 0 to 0 for the discussion on tangata whenua participation in the development of PC2.

Panonitanga āhuarangi | Climate change

99 Climate change is a particular matter that has been considered in the preparation of draft PC2. In particular, Objective 8 of the NPS-UD requires that:

urban environments:

(a) support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; and

(b) are resilient to the current and future effects of climate change.

100 PC2 recognises the issue of climate change by:

100.1 enabling a greater degree of development within existing urban environments that are well serviced by public and active modes of transport, or have access to commercial activities and community facilities;

100.2 enabling more efficient land use and development in existing urban areas;

100.3 providing for a “Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct” in the part of the District that has been identified as potentially susceptible to coastal erosion hazard, which is a hazard influenced by the effects of climate change; and

100.4 including design guides that promote energy efficient design and provision for active modes of transport as part of higher density development.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

101 Resourcing for an urban development plan change was provided for in Council’s LTP.

102 Over time, the increased level of development enabled by PC2 will lead to increased demands on the District's transport, wastewater, stormwater, potable water supply and open space infrastructure. A corresponding investment in maintaining and upgrading existing infrastructure, as well as developing new infrastructure, will be required to meet the demands of increased levels of development and a growing population. Costs associated with increased investment in infrastructure are managed through development contributions (under the Council's Development Contributions Policy), financial contributions under the District Plan, and through future Long-Term Plan infrastructure planning processes.

Ture me ngā Tūraru | Legal and risk

103 PC2 is an Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) under the RMA. This is a novel planning instrument that has not been used before, and can only be used once. As a result, there is no precedent for how an IPI should be prepared.

104 Because of this, the primary legal risk associated with the preparation of PC2 has been determining the correct interpretation of the provisions of the Act that define the statutory scope of the plan change (specifically, what must be included, what may be included, and what cannot be included). To mitigate this risk, the Council has sought legal advice on the interpretation of these provisions and has taken this advice into account when preparing PC2 and the Section 32 Evaluation Report.

105 The Council must use the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP) to process PC2. The Council is required to have substantively completed this process by 20 August 2023. This is a relatively short amount of time for a plan change of this nature. Should there be a large quantity of submissions, or a high degree of complexity in submissions, there is a risk that this timeframe could become unreasonable. If this is the case, the Council may be required to seek an extension of the timeframe from the Minister for the Environment.

106 Under the ISPP there is no scope to appeal any decision or action taken by the Council or the Independent Hearings Panel as part of the preparation of PC2 to the Environment Court (Schedule 1 clause 107 of the RMA). However, the right to seek a judicial review is preserved (Schedule 1 clause 108 of the RMA).

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

107 PC2 supports the implementation of a range of Council strategies, plans and policies, including:

107.1 The LTP 2021-2024. PC2 assists with achieving the Community Outcomes identified in the LTP, in particular Outcome 5: Our people have access to suitable housing in Kāpiti so that they can live and thrive.

107.2 Te tupu pai: Growing Well, the District Growth Strategy. PC2 is a key action as part of implementing Te tupu pai, and PC2 is consistent with the direction for growth outlined in Te tupu pai.

107.3 The Housing Strategy. PC2 assists the Council with achieving all five objectives for housing outlined in the Housing Strategy.

Te whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

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

109 PC2 is subject to a special “Intensification Streamlined Planning Process” outlined in amendments to Schedule 1 of the RMA. The RMA requires that the Council publicly notify PC2 on or before 20 August 2022. As described below, public notification of PC2 initiates a statutory consultation and decision making process comprised of several steps.

Step	Timeframe
Step 1: Public submissions. Once the Plan Change is notified, the public may make submissions on the Plan Change under clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.	Closing date for submissions must be at least 20 working days after public notification (clause 5(3)(b) of Schedule 1).
Step 2: Summary of submissions. Following the closing date for submissions, Council must summarise the submissions and the decisions requested by submitters, and then publicly notify the summary.	No statutory timeframe. The amount of time required will vary depending on the quantity and complexity of submissions.
Step 3: Further submissions. Some people or groups (including Council) can make further submissions on the Plan Change.	No more than 10 working days after public notification of summary of submissions (clause 7(1)(c) of Schedule 1).
Step 4: Hearing by Independent Hearing Panel. Following any pre-hearing dispute resolution that may occur, the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) conducts a hearing of submitters who wish to be heard.	No statutory timeframe, except that the panel must give at least 10 working days notice of the place and time of the hearing (clause 8B of Schedule 1).
Step 5: IHP makes recommendations. Following the hearing, the IHP must make recommendations on the Plan Change in a written report.	No statutory timeframe.
Step 6: Council decision on IHP recommendations. Following receipt of the recommendations from the IHP, Council must decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the IHP. Council must then publicly notify its decision(s).	Council must notify its decision(s) on or before 20 August 2023.
*Step 7 (if Council accepts* IHP recommendations): Plan change becomes operative.** If Council accepts all decisions made by the IHP, then the Plan Change (as altered by the recommendations) becomes operative once Council notifies its decisions.	Aligns with step 6.
*Step 7 (if Council rejects* IHP recommendations): Ministerial decision on rejected recommendations.** If Council rejects any or all of the recommendations made by the IHP, then the rejected recommendations are sent to the Minister for the Environment, who makes the decision. Once the Minister notifies their decision, the Plan Change (as altered by the recommendations that are accepted by the Minister) becomes operative.	No statutory timeframe.

110 A key decision for the Council is the time for submissions under Step 1. The minimum statutory timeframe for submissions is 20 working days, however it can be extended to a greater amount of time, at the Council’s discretion.

111 It is recommended that the Council proceed with a 20 working day submission period for the following reasons:

111.1 Council is bound to complete step 6 on or before 20 August 2023, regardless of how much time is spent on earlier steps in the process. Providing for an extended submission period at step 1 risks constraining the amount of time available for the remaining steps in the process (in particular the hearing and any pre-hearing dispute resolution).

111.2 Because Council recently consulted with the public on a full exposure draft of PC2 (rather than a discussion document), the community has already had a reasonable opportunity to become familiar with PC2 and provide feedback on it. In addition to this, Council also consulted with the public on the development of Te tupu pai, which is implemented in part by PC2.

112 Council will proactively communicate its decision to notify PC2 to the public, to encourage public awareness of proposed PC2 prior to it being publicly notified.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

113 The publicity required for a plan change notified under Schedule 1 of the RMA is outlined under clause 5 of that Schedule, to be read in conjunction with Section 2AC of the Act.

114 Under clause 5(1A) of Schedule 1 of the RMA, Council is required to either:

(a) send a copy of the public notice, and such further information as the territorial authority thinks fit relating to the proposed plan, to every ratepayer for the area of the territorial authority where that person, in the territorial authority’s opinion, is likely to be directly affected by the proposed plan; or

(b) include the public notice, and such further information as the territorial authority thinks fit relating to the proposed plan, in any publication or circular which is issued or sent to all residential properties and Post Office box addresses located in the affected area.

115 Because of the scale of proposed PC2, and the fact that it potentially affects all land in the urban environment as well as the majority of the rural environment (in relation to the papakāinga provisions), to satisfy the requirements of clause 5(1A), staff intend to exercise their delegated authority to send a copy of the public notice to all ratepayers in the District.

116 Clause 5() requires Council to send a copy of the proposed plan change to:

116.1 The Minister for the Environment;

116.2 All territorial authorities within the Wellington Region, the Horowhenua District Council and the Greater Wellington Regional Council; and

116.3 Iwi authorities.

117 Clause 5(5) relates to the availability of plan change documents at libraries and other places (e.g., service centres). In response to COVID, in 2020 Section 2AC was introduced to the RMA enabling councils to satisfy this requirement by:

117.1 Making proposed plan changes available in electronic form free of charge on an internet site; and

117.2 Providing advice on how proposed plan changes may be obtained or accessed.

118 Consistent with Section 2AC of the RMA, PC2 will be made available on Council’s website, and advice on how to access PC2 will be provided through the public notice and via a range of other communications. As noted above, this public notice will be sent to all ratepayers in the District.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Proposed Plan Change 2 (Intensification) (under separate cover)

2. Attachment 2 - Section 32 Evaluation Report for Proposed Plan Change 2 (Intensification) (under separate cover)

3. Attachment 3 - Appendix A to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Written feedback received from iwi authorities on Draft PC2 (under separate cover)

4. Attachment 4 - Appendix B to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Summary of Public Feedback on Draft PC2 (under separate cover)

5. Attachment 5 - Appendix C to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Summary of Proposed Amendments to the District Plan (under separate cover)

6. Attachment 6 - Appendix D to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Schedule of Existing Qualifying Matters (under separate cover)

7. Attachment 7 - Appendix E to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Spatial Application of NPS_UD Intensification Policies (Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

8. Attachment 8 - Appendix F to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Kāpiti Coast Intensification Evaluation: Bulk and location analysis (Boffa Miskell, 2021) (under separate cover)

9. Attachment 9 - Appendix G to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Beach Residential Precincts - Paekākāriki: Character Assessment Update (Urban Perspectives in association with Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

10. Attachment 10 - Appendix H to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Beach Residential Precincts – Raumati: Character Assessment Update (Urban Perspectives in association with Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

11. Attachment 11 - Appendix I to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Beach Residential Precincts – Waikanae Beach: Character Assessment Update (Urban Perspectives in association with Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

12. Attachment 12 - Appendix J to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Beach Residential Precincts – Ōtaki: Character Assessment Update (Urban Perspectives in association with Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

13. Attachment 13 - Appendix K to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Waikanae Garden Precinct: Character Assessment (Urban Perspectives in association with Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

14. Attachment 14 - Appendix L to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Kāpiti Coast Urban Development Intensification
Assessment (Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

15. Attachment 15 - Appendix M to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Assessment of Kāpiti Coast Residential Intensification Area Feasibilities (Property Economics, 2022) (under separate cover)

16. Attachment 16 - Appendix N to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Kāpiti Coast Urban Development Greenfield Assessment (Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

17. Attachment 17 - Appendix O to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Waikanae Future Urban Zone High-level Issues Analysis (Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

18. Attachment 18 - Appendix P to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Kāpiti Coast District Council – Intensification Plan Change Infrastructure Input – Stormwater (Memo) (Awa Environmental, 2022) (under separate cover)

19. Attachment 19 - Appendix Q to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Paekākāriki, Peka Peka and Te Horo Wastewater Servicing Assessment (Aecom, 2022) (under separate cover)

20. Attachment 20 - Appendix R to Section 32 Evaluation Report - The Kārewarewa Urupā Report (Waitangi Tribunal, 2020 (under separate cover)

21. Attachment 21 - Appendix S to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Kāpiti Coast Papakāinga Commercial Land Use Economic Memorandum (Property Economics, 2022) (under separate cover)

22. Attachment 22 - Appendix T to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Marae Takiwā Precinct Studies (Boffa Miskell, 2022) (under separate cover)

23. Attachment 23 - Appendix U to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Alternative Sources of Information Considered for the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct (under separate cover)

24. Attachment 24 - Appendix V to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Schedule of proposed new areas of General Residential Zone (under separate cover)

25. Attachment 25 - Appendix W to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Spatial extent of proposed additions to Schedule 9 of the District Plan (Wāhi tapu) (under separate cover)

26. Attachment 26 - Appendix X to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Proposed document to be incorporated by reference: Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022 (under separate cover)

27. Attachment 27 - Appendix Y to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Record of changes made to the Subdivision and Development Principles and Requirements, 2012, through the Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022 (under separate cover)

28. Attachment 28 - Appendix Z to Section 32 Evaluation Report - Alternatives considered to including the Land Development Minimum Requirements, April 2022 as a document incorporated by reference (under separate cover)

[1] The direction was published in the New Zealand Gazette on 27 April 2022. See: https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2022-sl1594?stageDraft

[2] Kāpiti Coast District Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council (2022). Kāpiti Coast District Council Regional Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessment. See: https://wrlc.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/HBA-Chapt-5-KCDC-with-Appendices_web.pdf

[3] The MDRS requires an 11 metre height limit, except that 50% of a building’s roof in elevation may exceed this by 1 metre where the entire roof slopes 15 degrees or more.

[4] An extra metre has been provided for building heights in the centres zones to provide for commercial activities at the ground floor, which typically requires a higher floor-to-floor height than residential activities.

[7] Which requires that the Council recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.

[8] The General Residential Zone at Te Horo Beach is not connected to a Council water supply network.

[10] Note that this modelling is high-level only and will be superceded by modelling prepared for the Council’s next review of the HBA, which will be undertaken prior to the 2024 Long-term Plan.

[12] Except within the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct, based on the principle that the precinct is an interrim measure to maintain the current level of development provided for by the operative District Plan.

[13] The access and parking considerations contained in the design guides will only apply where developments are required by the District Plan to provide on-site accessible parking, or where developers choose to provide on-site parking.

[14] The design guides do not apply to papakāinga development enabled by PC2. As part of the policies for papakāinga proposed by PC2, the Council will actively partner with tangata whenua to prepare separate design guides for papakāinga.

[15] The policies referenced here are identified as policies GRZ-P4, GRZ-P5 and GRZ-P6 in PC2. Because these policies only apply to development that exceeds the level of development permitted by the MDRS or policy 3 of the NPS-UD, they do not prevent the level of development permitted by the MDRS or policy 3 of the NPS-UD from being achieved. Additionally, because these policies require consideration, it is possible to undertake development that exceeds the levels of development permitted by the MDRS or policy 3 of the NPS-UD, so long as the matters outlined in the policies have been given due consideration as part of the design of the development.

[16] This document has been recently updated, and was formerly referred to as the Subdivision and Development Principles and Requirements 2012.


AGENDA Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kāpiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 28 July 2022
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Gary Simpson Acting Chief Executive

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

Paekākāriki Community Board	28 June 2022
Paraparaumu-Raumati Community Board	5 July 2022

Kāpiti Coast Older Persons’ Council	29 June 2022
Kāpiti Coast Youth Council	4 July 2022