Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, 20 June 2024

Additional Kaunihera | Council Meeting Agenda

20 June 2024

7.1 Coastal Advisory Panel Recommendation Report

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Kris Pervan, Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This report:

1.1 Accompanies the Coastal Advisory Panel’s (“the Panel’s”) Recommendation Report to Council (“the Report”), marking the completion of the Takutai Kāpiti project (“the Project”), and dissolution of the Panel at the end of June 2024.

1.2 Seeks initial Council decisions to receive the Panel’s Report; and confirm official completion of the Project.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 Following the completion of the agreed programme of work, which included a structured “dynamic adaptive planning pathway” process involving consideration of technical advice and engagement with coastal communities throughout the Kāpiti district, the Panel has completed its Report. The receipt of this Report by Council marks the conclusion of the Project.

3 The Report’s recommendations cover:

3.1 Multiple adaptation pathway options for 20 different areas (“management units”) along the Kāpiti Coast.

3.2 Ten further recommendations covering a range of matters including (but not limited to) the need for further community engagement and economic analysis of short-term adaptation options, monitoring, and an approach to district planning.

4 The Report also outlines community concerns raised through the Panel’s process relating to:

4.1 Insurability of private properties.

4.2 The uncertainty of evidence, and impact, related to national requirements to take a “100-year perspective” for planning.

5 In addition to receiving the Panel’s Report, thanking Panel members for their work, and officially completing the Project, Officers also recommended that Council seek feedback from the Insurance Council of New Zealand and Department of Conservation (respectively) regarding these community concerns.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

6 Council has authority to consider this matter.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

A. Receives the Coastal Advisory Panel’s Recommendation Report, provided in Appendix 1

B. Acknowledges and thanks the Chair and Members of the Coastal Advisory Panel for their expertise, advice and steadfast work throughout the term of the Takutai Kāpiti project.

C. Confirms that with the tabling of the Recommendation Report and completion of its agreed work programme, that the Coastal Advisory Panel’s role will now also end.

D. Seeks feedback from:

D.1 The Insurance Council of New Zealand regarding the Report’s findings.

D.2 The Department of Conservation regarding Council’s obligations under the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 to “take a 100-year perspective”.

Tūāpapa | Background

Commitments and obligations underpinning Takutai Kāpiti

7 The Project was initiated by Council:

7.1 In recognition of Council’s obligations under the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and Resource Management Act 1991, which requires councils to manage risks from coastal hazards and the effects of climate change.

7.2 To meet commitments arising from past litigation on the coastal hazard provisions of the Proposed District Plan that was publicly notified in 2012, following the withdrawal of its coastal hazard provisions in 2014 and 2017. Those commitments included (among other things) that Council must:

7.2.1 Engage with the community early in the process of addressing coastal hazards;

7.2.2 Evaluate an appropriate range of options for coastal hazards.

8 As a first step in responding to those obligations, in 2019 and 2020 a Co-Design Working Group (“Working Group”) developed recommendations for designing a process to deliver coastal adaptation options for Council’s consideration. The Working Group included iwi, the two past litigants^{^[1]} on coastal hazard issues, other local stakeholders and staff representatives of Council and other key statutory authorities.

9 The Working Group’s recommendations covered Panel design, scope, project governance, and the appointment process for Panel members. In December 2020 Council approved the Working Group’s recommendations on those matters, and it also made decisions regarding the Panel’s composition and fees payable.

The Panel’s approach and Council support

10 Following the Panel’s appointment, it followed a structured process to prepare its recommendations which took into account national guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (“MfE”). Work undertaken by the Panel, supported by the Council, included (but was not limited to):

10.1 over 20 Panel meetings and workshops

10.2 consideration of advice from a Technical Advisory Group (“TAG”)

10.3 engaging with the community to raise awareness of the process and to seek feedback.

11 Panel meetings were regularly attended by Community Board members and Councillors in an “observer” role. While Panel meetings were not open to the public, the meeting agendas, minutes and supporting technical information have been publicly available from the Council’s website throughout the Panel’s process.

12 Advice from the TAG covered coastal science, cultural, ecological, human domain (social science), natural character, regulatory and financial/economic matters. Many of the TAG’s reports have already been subject to independent expert peer review (including coastal science), while other reports have been released as “draft” and will be subject to independent expert peer review before any future use by Council for district planning, Long Term Plan or Annual Plan purposes.

13 In addition to advice from the TAG, the Panel also considered information from other sources, including from the Insurance Council of New Zealand.

14 Feedback from the community was sought at two main stages of the Panel’s process.

14.1 Community workshops in Ōtaki, Otaihanga, Raumati and Paekākāriki were held to understand the values held by the community for their coast.

14.2 “Pop-up” style engagement hubs in Ōtaki, Paraparaumu and Paekākāriki provided an opportunity for anyone to provide their feedback on adaptation pathway options, a potential approach to district planning, and optional thresholds.

15 Across these engagements, almost 4,000 pieces of community feedback were received and considered by the Panel^{^[2]} when preparing their recommendations.

16 Further to this, the Panel provided updates to the community on their progress at Community Board meetings on all areas of the District.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

17 The Panel’s Report is attached as Attachment 1 to this report. It is a substantial report comprised of 120 pages plus appendices (listed on p.14). While timeframes have not allowed for analysis of the Report, some highlights are noted below.

17.1 The Panel describe the “vision” of its Report on p.6 as:

Coastal communities, businesses, and critical infrastructure in the Kāpiti District from Ōtaki to Paekākāriki can become resilient to coastal hazard risks (erosion, accretion, inundation) exacerbated by sea level rise and climate change.

17.2 Councillors may be interested to consider the potential utility of this “Vision” in the context of the Vision Kāpiti project which separately seeks community views on priorities for the future.

17.3 The following statements in the Executive Summary (pp.6-8) give a sense of the approach that the Panel is recommending to Council following its consideration of concerns it has heard from some community members. In respect of whether or not Council should act in the face of uncertainty, the Report states (pp. 6 and 7):

While future amounts and the rate of sea level rise remain subject to deep uncertainty, the community should prepare for a range of what may occur, rather than reacting only after damage has been done.

…

[There are] some concerns within parts of the community that the process of creating an adaptation plan may have more negative consequences than the alternative of maintaining the status quo and waiting until a significant event occurs which impacts on housing and/or infrastructure. To alleviate these concerns, we propose potential “pathways” or alternatives (based on community feedback and taking into account of the technical data we have had access to) using the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (“DAPP”) method recommended by the Ministry for the Environment. DAPP is a way to acknowledge the uncertainty of climate change and natural hazard risks, while ensuring communities have the opportunity to adapt and avoid unnecessary loss and damage.

17.4 The DAPP method involves developing “pathways” which are a package comprising a “short-term”, “medium-term” and “long-term” adaptation action. The Panel have chosen in their report to provide multiple adaptation pathways for each of the coastal areas (called “management units”) it has investigated. Their reasoning is described on p.70 of the Report:

While we have considered the option of specifying only one preferred pathway for each management unit, we think this is unnecessary and potentially misleading. This is because many of the management units start with the same “short term action” and the MfE guidance that recommends the DAPP approach is underpinned by the need to not necessarily “lock” in future actions in the medium and longer terms, given the significant uncertainties at play.

17.5 The approach of providing pathway options, rather than specifying one preferred pathway, is consistent with the Scope set for this Project by Council in December 2020 which states:

The Panel is to recommend coastal adaptation options for Council’s consideration.

17.6 The Panel’s recommendations to Council are set out on pp.115 – 118 of the Report. In addition to recommending the short-listed pathway options for the 20 management units, the recommendations include:

· Putting a Kāpiti Coastal Adaptation Plan in place.

· Ensuring ongoing community consultation post-Takutai Kāpiti, including further work with communities post-Takutai Kāpiti on signals, triggers and thresholds.

· 10 yearly reviews of the pathways.

· Integrating the Coastal Adaptation Plan with Greater Wellington work on rivers, streams and groundwater.

· Need for formal regular ongoing monitoring.

· Develop action plans ready for when trigger points are activated.

· Avoid new development in risk areas and, when the time is right, plan ahead for retreat where necessary.

· Council to do more work on the prioritisation of, economic costs, benefits and funding mechanisms for short-term actions across the 20 management units.

· Council to take a risk-based approach to its future district plan change on coastal hazards, similar to that adopted by Porirua and Wellington, with constraints on subdivision, use and development according to levels of risk.

He take | Issues

18 Concerns have been expressed by some members of the community that the Project may impact insurability of private properties. The Panel expresses a view on this on p.7 of its Report as follows:

The insurance industry undertakes its own research to monitor risk and to decide whether it will or will not insure certain properties or certain areas. They have also made it clear that where communities have an adaptation plan in place to mitigate or reduce risk, this is likely to reduce any impact on insurance premiums. Without an adaptation plan, insurance premiums may be higher. Community feedback has been clear that people want to be able to get insurance and have concerns over the value of their homes decreasing.

19 It is recommended that Council share the Panel’s Report with the Insurance Council of New Zealand (who are responsible for insurance settings) to seek their feedback.

20 Some members of the public have also been critical about viewing risk over a timeframe as long as 100-years, given the inherent uncertainty. In response, the Panel have noted (p.7):

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (“NZCPS”) requires decision-makers to take a precautionary approach when planning for and making any resource management decisions in the coastal environment. It also requires a 100-year perspective to be used for planning.

21 Staff note that it is the Department of Conservation (DOC) who are responsible for administering the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. It is recommended that Council follow up with DOC to confirm Council’s obligations (or otherwise) to take a “100-year perspective for planning.”

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

22 The recommended approach is for Council to receive the Panel’s Report, acknowledge and thank the Panel for their work, to confirm completion of the Project and to direct Council staff to follow up on the concerns raised to the Panel by the community, with relevant authorities.

23 Given the significance of the matters addressed in the Report, it is recommended that further analysis is carried out before Council makes any decisions regarding next steps.

Mana whenua

24 Mana whenua have partnered with Council on this Project through:

24.1 Membership of the Co-Design Working Group which established the Panel’s operating design.

24.2 Membership on the Panel, and inclusion of cultural experts on the TAG.

25 The Panel’s “multi-criteria decision-making analysis” (MCDA) included scoring adaptation options based on Te Ao Māori. Additionally, the Panel benefitted from consideration of cultural reports produced specifically to inform this Project.

Examples:

® Mana

® The matters in this report relate to

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

26 The purpose of this Project, per the Panel’s scope, is to inform Council’s future approach to coastal adaptation. The Panel’s findings were prepared following a comprehensive process, including consideration of technical information and feedback from the community.

Examples:

® .

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

27 It is recommended that Council officially conclude the Project following receipt of the Panel’s Report. This will mean that no further expenditure on the Project will occur. Further, there is no budget for the Project outlined in the Long-Term Plan 2024-34.

28 Expenditure on the Project has been reported in past Annual Reports, with current year expenditure due to be reported as part of the 2023/24 Annual Report.

Examples:

® .

Tūraru ā-Ture me te Whakahaere | Legal and Organisational Risk

29 There are no legal or organisational risks associated with the recommendations noted in this paper.

Examples:

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

30 There are no current or future impacts to Council policies associated with the recommendations noted in this paper.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

31 An engagement plan is being developed to communicate Council’s decisions.

Examples:

Whakatairanga | Publicity

32 Publicity channels will include direct communication with subscribers to the Takutai Kāpiti and “Everything Kāpiti” e-newsletters; and media releases.

Examples:

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Coastal Advisory Panel's Recommendation Report ⇩

[1] The Coastal Ratepayers United; and the North Otaki Beach Residents Group.

[2] The community feedback on “values” also informed TAG advice to the Panel, particularly regarding the human domain.


RĀRANGI TAKE AGENDA Additional Hui Kaunihera \| Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kāpiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Te Rā \| Date:	Thursday, 20 June 2024
Te Wā \| Time:	1.00pm
Te Wāhi \| Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Darren Edwards Chief Executive

Mayor Janet Holborow	Chair
Deputy Mayor Lawrence Kirby	Deputy
Cr Glen Cooper	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Rob Kofoed	Member
Cr Liz Koh	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Kathy Spiers	Member
Cr Shelly Warwick	Member
Cr Nigel Wilson	Member