Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, 30 January 2025

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2025

10 Pūrongo | Reports

10.1 Review of coastal provisions in the District Plan

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper seeks Council approval to commence a review of the coastal provisions in the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan 2021 (the District Plan).

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 Council is able to consider this decision.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

A. Approve commencement of a review of the coastal provisions in the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan

B. Note that staff will provide further advice to Council in April 2025 on the likely scope and timing of the review and subsequent coastal plan change.

Tūāpapa | Background

Recent Council decision to prioritise the District Plan Coastal Change:

4 This paper responds to resolution SOF2024/52 (still to be confirmed) by the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee on 5 December 2024 relating to a coastal plan change as set out below:

“That the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

G. Request that Council staff prioritise progressing RMA Schedule 1 Coastal Plan Change.

H. Note that Council staff will come back in January to seek approval for commencing the review of Coastal Plan Change”.

5 This paper specifically seeks that Council approves commencement of its review of the coastal provisions in the District Plan.

Previous history for the coastal provisions of the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan:

6 Council made its first District Plan operative in 1999, and publicly notified the proposed District Plan (PDP) in 2012^{^[1]}. A component of the PDP included coastal provisions.

7 Following notification, due to concerns raised by the community, in 2014:

7.1 An independent review of the coastal erosion hazard assessment was undertaken and the Council withdrew the PDP coastal hazard provisions. By withdrawing this element of the plan, Council effectively reverted back to the 1999 coastal provisions (which continue to apply today).

7.2 Due to ongoing concerns about the coastal provisions, two community groups Coastal Ratepayers United (CRU), and the North Otaki Beach Residents Group (NOBRG) took forward litigation to the Environment Court.

7.3 Council resolved to establish a Coastal Advisory Group to work through the issues related to coastal provisions.

8 In 2016/17, Council settled the appeal NOBRG and the CRU litigation proceeded to the Environment and High Courts. Subsequently, as part of the mediation on PDP, a settlement agreement was reached with both NOBRG and CRU. The settlement agreements required three primary elements to be progressed, related to fulfilling the Councils’ obligations under the RMA. That included undertaking early community engagement around addressing coastal hazards, evaluating a range of management options, and steps for progressing future changes to coastal provisions.

9 In response to this requirement, a co-design Working Group was established to set the scope for work that would progress and to address requirements set through the agreement. The Takutai Kapiti project, led by the Coastal Advisory Panel, progressed some elements of this work from 2019 to 2024. With that initial work now completed, next steps will progress through the upcoming District Plan coastal provision changes which will aim to address these elements. This is noted in the discussion that follows.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

Legislative requirements:

10 While councils are entitled to review their district plans for any reason at any time, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) also prescribes two mandatory district plan review timeframes:

10.1 At intervals of five years: council must compile and make available to the public a review of the results of its monitoring of the efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules and other methods in its district plan (section 35(2A) of the RMA).

10.2 Ten years since a plan provision was last subject to a review or change: councils must review those provisions to inform a decision about whether or not the provisions require alteration. Following that review, the council must then publicly notify the provisions for submissions (section 79(1) of the RMA).

11 In relation to these requirements:

11.1 Scoping work is currently underway on a section 35(2A) review of the Coastal Environment chapter of the District Plan, including but not limited to its coastal hazard provisions.

11.2 The only provisions of the District Plan requiring review under section 79(1) of the RMA are a suite of residual coastal hazard-related provisions from the District Plan 1999. These provisions are set out at the conclusion of the Coastal Environment chapter of the District Plan,^{^[2]} prefaced with the following note:

“As a result of the withdrawal of coastal hazard provisions from the Proposed District Plan in 2014 and 2017, there are specific coastal hazard-related provisions in the District Plan 1999 that remain operative and in force until they are replaced through a Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 process”.

12 Given the previous s79 review of the 1999 provisions occurred in 2008, the Council should undertake another s79 review shortly. That will be a relatively quick process as it was accepted (including by the Courts) that the Council had previously concluded those provided were no longer fit for purpose, and the presumption is that will still be the case. If the Council reaches the same conclusion, it will proceed to a Schedule 1 RMA plan change process to introduce new coastal hazard provisions into the District Plan.

13 In addition to satisfying statutory requirements, the review also provides an opportunity for Council to work through any other issues associated with its coastal provisions. For instance, Council has committed to removing the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct through a future coastal plan change.^{^[3]}

14 Staff propose to provide further advice in April 2025 on the scope and timing of the coastal provisions review.

Engagement with key stakeholders:

15 The scope and approach for the coastal provision plan changes will include further engagement with key parties that have interest in this matter. Regarding:

15.1 CRU and NOBRG: we plan to work alongside these parties as early as possible in our process to ensure that we reasonably meet the requirements noted in the settlement agreement.

15.2 Iwi: we will also engage our mana whenua partners as early as possible in our process, as noted in paragraph 18 and 19 of this paper.

He take | Issues

16 There are no issues associated with a decision to approve commencement of a review of the coastal provisions in the District Plan. On the contrary, approving commencement of a review of the coastal provisions in the District Plan:

16.1 Is consistent with previous Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee resolutions;

16.2 Will support the progression of work to enable Council to meet its section 35(2A) review of the efficiency and effectiveness of coastal provisions in the District Plan; and

16.3 Will enable Council to meet its initial section 79(1) requirements to commence a review of the specific coastal hazard-related provisions from the District Plan 1999 which will then lead to an RMA schedule 1 plan change process if the 1999 provisions are found again to be not fit for purpose.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

17 No reasonably practicable options to commencing a review of the coastal provisions in the District Plan have been identified.

Mana whenua

18 The RMA and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) provide direction to councils regarding involvement of iwi. Notably, Policy 2(b) of the NZCPS states that:

In taking account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), and kaitiakitanga, in relation to the coastal environment:

(b) involve iwi authorities or hapū on behalf of tangata whenua in the preparation of regional policy statements, and plans, by undertaking effective consultation with tangata whenua; with such consultation to be early, meaningful, and as far as practicable in accordance with tikanga Māori

19 Subject to Council approval to commence the review, staff will approach Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangātira, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki and Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust representatives to inform further advice to Council around scope and timing and to facilitate their ongoing involvement in the review of the coastal provisions.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

20 Climate change considerations will be particularly relevant to the section 79(1) review of the coastal hazard provisions.

21 The District Plan’s 1999 coastal hazard provisions were prepared under a version of the Resource Management Act 1991 which has since been subject to multiple amendments.^{^[4]} Further, the 1999 provisions predate many higher order planning documents which coastal hazard provisions must now adhere to, many of which make explicit reference to climate change, including but not limited to:

21.1 The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010,^{^[5]} any relevant national policy statement, National Planning Standards, and the Regional Policy Statement 2013 which Council must give effect to;

21.2 Relevant provisions of Proposed Change 1 to the Regional Policy Statement, any national adaptation plan, and Council management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts which Council must have regard to; and

21.3 Iwi management plans which Council must take into account.

22 Further, central government is proposing significant changes to the RMA and various national instruments. The review will need to account for those changes, once known.

23 In addition, the 1999 provisions were prepared using the information available at the time. The information available to Council during this review will include reports that Council has recently commissioned and peer reviewed (including by consultants Jacobs), as well as reports (such as the De Lange report) commissioned by other parties.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

24 Costs associated with the review of the coastal provisions are accounted for within the wider District-Wide Planning budget in the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.

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

25 If and where necessary, legal advice will be sought during the review of the coastal provisions.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

26 A decision to commence review of the coastal provisions does not impact on Council policy.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

27 An engagement plan will be prepared that:

27.1 Seeks to involve iwi, stakeholders and communities in the review of the coastal provisions; and

27.2 Ensures Council’s engagement on the review of the coastal provisions meets all commitments entered into by Council with past litigants on coastal matters.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

28 No publicity is proposed in association with this decision.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

Nil

Council Meeting Agenda

30 January 2025

10.2 Dedicating Local Purpose (Road) Reserve as Road

Kaituhi | Author: Nicole Davey, Principal Advisor Strategy and Growth

Kaiwhakamana | Authoriser: Jason Holland, Acting Group Manager Strategy and Growth

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 Following the Mayor’s request to the Chief Executive on 10 December 2024 that a further report be brought to Council to provide Council an opportunity to further consider whether to designate the Moy Place Local Purpose (Road) Reserve parcel (described as Lot 72 DP 400543) as legal road, this report provides information to inform this decision including clarification on questions raised by Councillors regarding this matter.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required for this report.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 The Council has the delegation under Section A2 of the Governance Structure and Delegations 2022-2025 Triennium.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

A. Notes that Council considered on 28 November 2024 whether to dedicate Lot 72 DP 4000543 as legal road. The motion to move the officer recommendation to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 (held as local purpose reserve (road)) as legal road under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, was lost (with 5 votes in favour and 6 against).

B. Notes that, notwithstanding the failed motion on 28 November 2024, it remains open to Council to further consider whether to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543, held as local purpose reserve (road), as legal road pursuant to section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977.

C. Notes the legal action lodged with the High Court on 12 December 2024 by the developer, Wakefield Group Holdings Limited, in relation to Council’s consideration of Item 11.2 of the Council agenda on 28 November 2024 on whether to dedicate Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road.

D. Notes the previous information provided by Council officers to support Council’s consideration of whether to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543, held as local purpose reserve (road), as legal road pursuant to section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, is attached to this report and continues to be relevant.

E. Considers the information in this report dated 30 January 2025 regarding the status of Lot 72 DP 400543, including clarified information on the number of lots considered by traffic modelling advice, and the possibility of a dual access alternative option raised by the developer in recent communication with Council.

F. Discusses the failed motion of Council pursuant to Item 11.2 of the Council meeting on 28 November 2024 where the motion to move the officer recommendation to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 (held as local purpose reserve (road)) as legal road under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, was lost (with 5 votes in favour and 6 against).

G. Notes the legislative requirements for a decision either to decline to approve (recommendation H) or approve (recommendation I) have been met under the Reserves Act 1977 and through the engagement approach undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 requirements.

EITHER

H. Declines to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road (currently held as Local Purpose Reserve (Road)) at this time. The location of the road reserve is shown in an attachment to the previous Council report which is provided as Attachment 1.

I. Approves the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road (currently held as Local Purpose Reserve (Road)). The location of the road reserve is shown in an attachment to the previous Council report which is provided as Attachment 1.

J. Authorises the Chief Executive to take all necessary steps to give effect to this resolution.

Tūāpapa | Background

Previous Council Decision

4 On 28 November 2024, a report was presented to Council asking Council to consider whether to transfer a parcel of land at the end of Moy Place from Local Purpose Reserve (Road) (under the Reserves Act) to legal road. This report is provided as Attachment 1. The 28 November 2024 report included officer recommendations for Council as follows:

A. Notes the legislative requirements for this decision had been met through the engagement approach undertaken.

B. Notes the assessment undertaken by Council officers regarding the criteria relevant to the decision on the application for dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road (currently held as Local Purpose Reserve (Road).

C. Approves the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road (currently held as Local Purpose Reserve (Road).

D. Authorises the Chief Executive to take all necessary steps to give effect to this resolution.

5 At that meeting, the motion to move the officer recommendations at paragraph 4 above including to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 (held as local purpose reserve (road)) as legal road under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, was lost (with 5 votes in favour and 6 against). No other resolution was made by Council in relation to Item 11.2 of the agenda on 28 November 2024.

6 The effect of the failed motion was that:

6.1 Lot 72 DP 400543 was not dedicated as legal road;

6.2 the development’s resource consent condition relating to the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as road was not satisfied; and

6.3 the development is currently unable to proceed to completion under the existing resource consent.

7 Following the Council meeting on 28 November 2024, with advance notice of a potential judicial review by the developer, and in light of Councillor requests to clarify some key points (including the number of lots considered in traffic modelling advice), the Mayor requested a further report be brought to Council to provide Councillors with the opportunity to further consider whether to convert Lot 72 DP 400543 to legal road under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977. This report also includes information on an alternative hybrid access model which the developer advised Council it would explore following the 28 November meeting.

Receipt of Judicial Review

8 On 12 December 2024, Council was notified that the developer, Wakefield Group Holdings Limited, has applied for the High Court to judicially review Council’s consideration of Item 11.2 of the Council agenda on 28 November 2024 on whether to dedicate Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road.

9 Further advice on legal risk is provide in the legal and organisational risk section below.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

10 In relation to Council’s consideration of whether to approve the dedication of Lot 72 DP 4000543 (held as Local Purpose Reserve (Road)) as legal road, the information provided by officers in the report of 28 November 2024 (Attachment 1) continues to be relevant. Additional information and clarification is set out below to assist Council with the further consideration of this matter.

Consideration of number of lots in traffic advice

11 The Transportation Assessment 2006 submitted as part of the previous resource consent for the Flemming subdivision assessed 200 residential lots using Sue Ave and Moy Place for access. This assessment did not consider any additional access onto Main Highway for future developments, access was always intended to be through the Moy Place and Sue Ave connection. In accounting for future growth the assessment does consider additional access south onto Riverbank Road and north onto Waerenga Road, which would ultimately provide some reduction in the numbers using Moy Place and Sue Ave.

12 The assessment concludes that the Sue Ave and Moy Place intersection can accommodate the proposed and predicated traffic flows if the adjoining sites were to be developed for 200 residential units. The roading network was designed specifically for additional traffic from adjoining sites. The Moy Estates development and the existing residential units will result in 171 units being accessed via Sue Ave and Moy Place, less than what was assessed and determined to be appropriate under the previous consent.

13 In addition to this further traffic modelling was commissioned by officers to assist in assessing the access arrangement as part of the fast-track consenting process. This modelling included all existing traffic, the proposed 137 lots as part of the Moy Estates application and future development of the sites to the north (145 Waerenga Road) and the west (15 Main Highway). It is likely that if these sites were developed, as per the 2006 report, alternate accesses from these developments would reduce the amount of traffic through Moy Place and Sue Ave. The modelling demonstrated that the existing roading network had sufficient capacity to cater for more than 300 units and any additional delay at the Sue Ave/ Main Highway intersection are acceptable.

Main Highway speed limit

14 The Interim NZTA Speed Management Plan proposed to reduce the speed limit between the Ōtaki River Bridge and Waerenga Road from 70km/h to 50km/h. NZTA have informed Council that because of the new Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024 released last year this is unable to be implemented. The speed limit will remain at 70km/h along this part of Main Highway and any changes to speed limits in the future would need to be in accordance with the Rule, therefore, there is no certainty that the speed limit will be reduced in the future.

‘Hybrid’ dual access option

15 In December 2024, the developer informed Council officers of their intent to look at an option for dual access through both the Moy Place local purpose reserve (as per the approved consent), and onto the Main Highway.

16 Officers met with the developers’ representatives, Cuttriss Consultants, on 17 January 2025 to further discuss the hybrid access option. Although no plans were tabled, it is understood that the hybrid option would introduce another vehicle access from the development directly onto Main Highway. This would require the development to be re-designed resulting in the reduction in the number of lots. The developer would have to apply to Council to either amend the consent or apply for a new consent.

17 Cuttriss made it clear that unless NZTA, as the Main Highway road controlling authority, and Council officers were likely to support the hybrid option, the developer would not proceed with further investigating access to the Main Highway.

18 NZTA stated their position on an access to the Main Highway and their comments to the expert consenting panel stated:

‘As the traffic generated can be accommodated entirely within the local network, a new vehicle access from Main Highway is not supported’

19 NZTA confirmed that this is still their position on access from the Main Highway and it would not support this access option if proposed by the developer. This was confirmed in a conversation with Council officers on 22 January 2025.

20 Council’s Access and Transport team have also stated that an additional access to the Main Highway is unlikely to be supported from a transport safety perspective. Through the fast-track consenting process, traffic experts acting on behalf of the applicant, Council and an independent expert assisting the panel assessed that the safest access option for the development is via the consented Sue Ave and Moy Place arrangement. This was also confirmed through the independent Safe Systems Assessment completed by Urban Connections.

21 There are also several other development sites within the immediate area that if developed could seek access directly from the Main Highway. Officers are mindful that each new intersection/access onto the Main Highway increases the risk of accidents and serious injuries to road users. While officers have not completed a formal assessment, which would occur further to an application to vary the existing consent, it is understood from the current traffic safety information that it is unlikely that officers would support an access onto Main Highway for this development. Further information on the safety risks is in the Urban Connections Safe System Assessment which states that the safest access option for the development is via Moy Place and Sue Ave and the existing Sue Ave/Main Highway intersection. The fast-track consent conditions also require the developer to implement safety improvements to this route which were recommended and supported by Council officers.

22 There are several other environmental effects such as noise, flood hazards, infrastructure servicing, streetscape and urban design that will also need to be assessed and considered as part of any amended proposal. Until an application is received along with expert reports addressing these potential effects, it is unclear what the impacts on the development and surrounding area would be. It is possible that the change in access arrangements and additional considerations and effects would not be supported. This is regardless of whether NZTA and Council officers support the access from a transport perspective.

23 If the hybrid option were progressed, it is understood that the developer would still require Lot 72 DP 400543 to be converted to legal road for access to the development. Therefore, while information on the hybrid option may be of interest to Councillors in considering this decision, this option is still in the early stages of investigation and would not change the underlying consent condition requirement for Lot 72 DP 4000543 to be converted to legal road.

24 Council officers have not sought a view from affected residents regarding a dual access option and whether this would resolve their concerns.

He take | Issues

25 The issues outlined in the previous report (Attachment 1) still stand. There are no further issues to note in this report.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

26 Under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977, Council has the delegation to resolve whether to approve or decline the dedication of Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road. Council must consider requirements under section 111 of the Reserves Act 1977 as well as the Local Government Act 2022 in making its decision.

27 The options, benefits and risks of each are outlined in the previous report (Attachment 1) still stand. Information on legal risk is set out under the heading ‘Legal and Organisational Risk’ below.

Mana whenua

28 The advice on mana whenua provided in the previous report (Attachment 1) still stands.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

29 The advice on climate and environment provided in the previous report (Attachment 1) still stands.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

30 Financial costs associated with a judicial review of this matter are estimated to be between $100,000-$200,000.

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

31 Council has sought legal advice in relation to Council’s further consideration of this matter. All legal requirements under the Reserves Act and Local Government Act 2002 have been met in relation to proposed dedication of Local Purpose Reserve (Road) as road.

32 If Council approves the resolution to dedicate the Local Purpose Reserve (Road) as road, a notice will be published in the New Zealand Gazette and registered against the land title. On publication and registration of that notice at LINZ, the land status will change from reserve to road. Councils’ solicitors will prepare the necessary documentation if this recommendation is approved.

33 As set out earlier in this report, Wakefield Group Holdings Limited has applied to the High Court to judicially review Council’s consideration of Item 11.2 of the Council agenda on 28 November 2024 of whether to dedicate Lot 72 DP 400543 as legal road.

34 All decisions made by Council have some risk of judicial review. Council must ensure in making its decisions that they are made according to the law, are fair and reasonable. This includes ensuring there is no bias or predetermination in making a decision, complying with legitimate expectations of the community (to the extent that historical decisions may be relevant), and that decisions made are supported by the available information and evidence. In addition, Council must ensure that decisions only account for relevant considerations (and no irrelevant considerations), and that there are no errors in fact or law.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

35 There is no specific impact on Council policy.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

36 The advice provided relating to the communications and engagement in the previous report (Attachment 1) still stands.

37 Consistent with our previous notification of affected residents following the 28 November 2024 report, Council will also advise affected residents of the outcome of the 30 January 2025 meeting.

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

38 No further information is provided on engagement planning.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

39 We understand local media are aware of this report and this may result in publication of further news articles. No further information is provided on publicity.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. 28 November 2024 Council Report ⇩

12 Te Whakaūnga o Ngā Āmiki Kāore e Wātea ki te Marea | Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes

13 Purongo Kāore e Wātea ki te Marea | Public Excluded Reports

Resolution to Exclude the Public

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ReSOLUtion

That, pursuant to Section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the public now be excluded from the meeting for the reasons given below, while the following matters are considered.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
12.1 - Confirmation of Minutes	Section 7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons Section 7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information Section 7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities Section 7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.1 - Gallup Engagement Survey - Insights and Update	Section 7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.2 - Senior Leadership Team - Leadership Development Feedback and Insights	Section 7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.3 - Appointment of District Licensing Committee list member	Section 7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

[1] Noting that the High Court decision records the s79 review was commenced in 2008.

[2] This chapter is available at: https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/media/kclooe32/01-coastalenvironment_201_25-sep-2024.pdf

[3] Refer introductory text in the General Residential Zone, Town Centre Zone and Local Centre Zone chapters.

[4] For instance, an amendment to section 6 of the RMA in 2004 requires council to have “particular regard to the effects of climate change” when exercising its functions and powers under that Act.

[5] For instance, Policy 24 of the NZCPS requires that (in summary) hazard risks, over at least 100 years, are to be assessed having regard to the effects of climate change on a range of matters including cumulative effects of sea level rise, storm surge and wave height under storm conditions.


RĀRANGI TAKE AGENDA 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, 30 January 2025
Te Wā \| Time:	9.30am
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