Agenda of Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting

Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

13 March 2025

9 Pūrongo | Reports

9.1 Initial Decision on Welhom Developments Ltd Private Plan Change

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper seeks a resolution from the Committee as to how to proceed with the private plan change request received from Welhom Developments Ltd (“Welhom”, or “the requestor”), given the four options available under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2 This paper also provides a summary of the private plan change request for the Committee.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

3 Welhom has applied to the Council for a private plan change (PPC) request to change the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan (District Plan). The PPC request was lodged on 2 December 2024. The Council issued a further information request on 16 January 2025. Welhom’s response to further information which now forms part of the PPC request was completed on 27 February 2025. The PPC request is provided as Attachment 1.

4 The PPC request seeks to rezone approximately 12.65 hectares of land for part of 65 and 73 Ratanui Road from Rural Lifestyle Zone to General Residential Zone (a map of this land is shown as Attachment 2). In addition to the rezoning, the PPC request seeks to introduce a new Development Area, including an associated Structure Plan, policies and rules. The PPC request includes bespoke provisions for uses associated with a retirement village.

5 There are four options under the RMA available to the Council on how to deal with the request:

5.1 To adopt the PPC request as a Council plan change.

5.2 To accept the PPC request to continue as a private plan change pursued by a private party (Welhom).

5.3 To reject the PPC request.

5.4 To convert the PPC request into a resource consent.

6 Under clause 25 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, the Council has to make a decision whether to accept, adopt, reject or convert a private plan change request within 30 working days of receipt of all further information.

7 Of these four options, it is recommended the Committee accepts the PPC request for the following reasons (which are addressed in more detail later in this report) and provide for the PPC to move through the statutory RMA process:

7.1 Accepting the PPC request:

7.1.1 Does not pre-empt the final outcome of the PPC through the formal Schedule 1 RMA process and the decision of the Hearings Panel.

7.1.2 Allows the Council to maintain its regulatory position, as well as providing the Council the opportunity to submit on it, so that it can seek changes as appropriate.

7.1.3 As opposed to adopting, would allow the Council to recover its costs in processing it through the Schedule 1 RMA process.

7.1.4 Means it will follow the Schedule 1 RMA process, including public notification, submissions and further submissions and a hearing and recommended decision by a Hearings Panel. The recommendation then comes back to Council for a decision.

7.2 There is no reason for the request to be adopted by the Council.

7.3 There are no grounds under the RMA to reject the request.

8 Welhom has noted a preference that the request be accepted and not adopted.

9 For completeness, we note that converting the request to a resource consent would not be appropriate resource management practice as the District Plan zone provisions would not support the outcome sought by the PPC. Further, the requestor would not support that approach and indeed it provides no benefit to either the requestor or the community.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

10 Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process a local authority must follow when deciding whether to reject, accept or adopt a private plan change request. It states:

(2) The local authority may either—

(a) adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed policy statement or plan made by the local authority itself and, if it does so, —

(i) the request must be notified in accordance with clause 5 or 5A within 4 months of the local authority adopting the request; and

(ii) the provisions of Part 1 or 4 must apply; and

(iii) the request has legal effect once publicly notified; or

(b) accept the request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 26.

(3) The local authority may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 shall apply accordingly.

(4) The local authority may reject the request in whole or in part, but only on the grounds that—

(a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) within the last 2 years, the substance of the request or part of the request—

(i) has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

(ii) has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

(d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

(e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

11 The Committee has delegated authority to consider this under Section B.1 of the 2022 – 2025 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations ‘Preparation of the District Plan and Plan Changes’.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

A. Receives the report “Initial Decision on Welhom Developments Ltd Private Plan Change”; and

B. Note that the RMA requires a decision within 30 working days on whether to accept, adopt, reject or convert the Private Plan Change from the date of receipt of all further information from the requestor; and

C. Accepts the Request for the Private Plan Change for part of 65 and 73 Ratanui Road (Attachment 1) as Private Plan Change 4; and

D. Agrees independent commissioners will be appointed to consider Private Plan Change 4 and to make recommendations to Council; and

E. Agree that the decision-making options are set out in clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 and that this clause 25 decision is a process decision in Council’s capacity as regulator; and

F. Agrees that the significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the Private Plan Change that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA. Accordingly, consultation under the Local Government Act on this clause 25 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Tūāpapa | Background

Private Plan Change Requests

12 The process for a private plan change (PPC) is set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA. Any person may request a change to a district plan (or regional plan) and the Council must consider how that request will be dealt with, once it is satisfied it has all the information it needs.

13 A PPC follows the same statutory process as a Council-initiated plan change, with one important additional step. Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the Council at the start of the process to either:

13.1 Adopt the request (or part of it) as if it were a plan change made by the Council itself.

13.2 Accept the request (in whole or part) which enables it to proceed as a PPC through the normal submission and decision process.

13.3 Reject the request (in whole or part) on the grounds set out in clause 25(4)(a)-(e) of Schedule 1 of the RMA (and only on those grounds).

13.4 Decide to deal with the request (convert) as if it were an application for resource consent.

14 In terms of the rejection option, this is constrained by the RMA and decision by the Council to reject a private plan change is only available where one of five specific grounds in Clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are met:

14.1 the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

14.2 within the last 2 years, the substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

14.3 the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

14.4 the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

14.5 in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

15 If there are no grounds for rejection then the Council must decide to adopt it, accept it or convert it to a resource consent application.

16 The Council's decision under Clause 25 is made in advance of public notification of the PPC and therefore does not have the benefit of public submissions, evidence and a full analysis from the Council officers or experts engaged by the Council. It is accordingly described by the High Court as a 'coarse filter'^{^[1]} of the PPC - in effect, a screening exercise. It is not the Council’s full merits decision based on all relevant submissions and information. That comes later, after a full RMA process and opportunity for public involvement.

17 At this stage, the Council's decision is only whether the PPC should be able to continue being processed as a plan change and if so, whether it is treated as a Council initiated plan change (the adopt option) or whether it continues as a PPC request (the accept option).

Private Plan Change Proposal

18 The PPC request is Attachment 1 to this report. The proposed changes to the District Plan are located at Appendix A of the PPC request and the RMA section 32 evaluation is located at section 5 of the PPC request. The PPC relates to the sites shown in the map as Attachment 2 being part of 65 and 73 Ratanui Road.

19 In brief, the PPC seeks to:

19.1 Rezone the land from its current Rural Lifestyle Zone to General Residential Zone.

19.2 Include a new Development Area Chapter within the Operative District Plan.

19.3 Include a new Structure Plan within the Operative District Plan.

19.4 Include bespoke provisions within the Development Area Chapter, associated with the Structure Plan. This would include specific provision for a retirement village.

20 The requestor has provided the following information within the PPC request:

20.1 The PPC request document itself (as updated with further information).

20.2 The Structure Plan (as updated with further information).

20.3 Amendments to the District Plan Maps.

20.4 Technical assessment documents as follows:

20.4.1 Landscape and visual assessment.

20.4.2 Ecological assessment.

20.4.3 Archaeological assessment.

20.4.4 Integrated transport assessment.

20.4.5 Civil engineering infrastructure assessment.

20.4.6 Geotechnical assessment.

20.4.7 Economic assessment.

20.4.8 Preliminary site investigation (report into contaminated land issues).

20.5 Letters of support from Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira.

21 In response to the Council’s further information request, the requestor provided:

21.1 Further information in respect to landscape, urban design and ecology.

21.2 Further information regarding traffic and transport.

21.3 An updated structure plan, showing more information to guide any future development.

21.4 Updated provisions.

22 At the Council’s request, this further information has now been incorporated into the updated PPC request (Attachment 1).

Higher level and relevant planning documents

23 Section 74 of the RMA outlines matters to be considered by a territorial authority in preparing or changing its district plan. This is relevant to a PPC request. Considerations include:

23.1 An evaluation report prepared in accordance with section 32 of the RMA.

23.2 A national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement and a national planning standard.

23.3 Any regulations.

23.4 Relevant management plans and strategies prepared under other legislation.

23.5 Any relevant planning document prepared by an iwi authority.

24 The requestor has provided an assessment against relevant documents in Section 4 of the PPC request.

Section 32 evaluation

25 Clause 25(1A) requires that the local authority must have particular regard to the evaluation report prepared for the PPC in accordance with clause 22(1) when determining whether to adopt, accept, reject or convert the request.

26 The requestor has provided a section 32 evaluation report (Section 5 of the PPC request). Officers consider that the evaluation report addresses the relevant tests under section 32 of the RMA in terms of the appropriateness of the objective(s) to achieve the purpose of the Act and whether the proposed provisions are the most appropriate means to achieve the objective(s). The requestor has undertaken an analysis of the different options available to pursuing a PPC request.

27 Having reviewed the section 32 evaluation report, officers consider that it demonstrates that the PPC request is an appropriate RMA response and can achieve the purpose of the RMA. A more substantive evaluation of the section 32 report would occur through the formal RMA process as relevant in response to any submissions, should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

National Policy Statements

28 The request identifies the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity as being relevant to the request. Officers agree that these are the relevant national policy statements. Officers also agree that the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land is not relevant given the land is zoned Rural Lifestyle.

29 Having reviewed the assessment of these national policy statements at a high level, officers agree with the requestor that there are no aspects of the request that would make it inconsistent with any of the national policy statements.

National Planning Standards

30 Officers are satisfied that the request has been prepared in accordance with the National Planning Standards and the format of the Operative District Plan which already implements the National Planning Standards.

National Environmental Standards

31 The request identifies the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health and the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater as being relevant to the request. Officers agree that these are the relevant national environmental standards.

32 Having reviewed the assessment of these national environmental standards at a high level, officers agree with the requestor that there are no aspects of the request that would make it inconsistent with either of them. In both instances, relevant resource consents will be required at the time of site development.

Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region, including Change 1

33 Appendix B of the PPC request provides an assessment against the relevant objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement, including Change 1. Officers consider that there are no aspects of the proposal that would make it inconsistent with the RPS, including Change 1. However, should the PPC be accepted or adopted, it will require a more substantive assessment against some of the policies, in particular:

33.1 Policy 55: Managing greenfield development to contribute to well-functioning urban areas and rural areas.

33.2 Policy UD.5: Contributing to well-functioning urban areas.

33.3 Policy 56: Managing development in rural areas.

33.4 Policy UD.3: Plan changes that provide for significant development capacity.

33.5 Policy UD.4 Achieving a compact regional form – district and regional plans.

Wellington Natural Resources Plan

34 Having reviewed the assessment of the Natural Resources Plan at a high level, officers agree with the requestor that there are no aspects of the PPC request that would make it inconsistent with it. Officers agree that relevant resource consents will be required from the Regional Council at the time of site development.

Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan

35 Having reviewed the assessment of the objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan at a high level, officers agree with the requestor that there are no aspects of the PPC request that would make it inconsistent with it. A further detailed assessment would occur should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

Wairarapa-Wellington-Horowhenua Future Development Strategy

36 Officers agree with the requestor that the Wairarapa-Wellington-Horowhenua Future Development Strategy 2024-2054 (FDS) is a relevant consideration. Officers also agree that:

36.1 The site does not appear to be identified as an area where development is to be avoided or is subject to constraints

36.2 The site does not appear to be in a location that is prioritised for development.

37 Officers note that the maps are of a scale that it is very difficult to identify sites at a granular level.

38 At a high level, officers agree that the PPC request is generally consistent with the FDS, subject to a more detailed assessment should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

Te Tupu Pai Growth Strategy 2022

39 Officers agree that Te Tupu Pai is a relevant consideration, and that the site is located in a medium-priority greenfield growth area. Te Tupu Pai is at a more granular level than the FDS, given it is specific to the Kāpiti District. At a high level, officers agree that the PPC request is consistent with Te Tupu Pai, subject to a more detailed assessment should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

Iwi management plans

40 There are three iwi management plans (IMP) that have been lodged with the Council that are relevant to the PPC request, as follows:

40.1 Nga Korero Kaupapa mo Te Taiao: Policy Statement Manul for Kapakapanui: Te Runanga o Ati Awa ki Whakarongotai (2001);

40.2 Te Haerenga Whakamua – A review of the District Plan Provisions for Māori: A vision to the Future for the Kāpiti Coast District Council District Plan Review (2012);

40.3 Whakarongotai o te moana o te wai Kaitikitanga Plan for Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai (2019).

41 Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai has expressed support to the PPC request, and as such, officers assume that they are comfortable that the request appropriately takes into account their IMPs. Ngā Hapū o Otaki has deferred to Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai. Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira does not have an IMP.

Other strategies

42 The PPC request also references the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development and Better Later Life – He Oranga Kaumātua 2019 to 2034 as being relevant. Officers consider that the PPC generally sits comfortably with these high-level strategies.

43 The PPC also references Te Whaitua o Kāpiti Implementation Programme. This is a non-statutory strategy that is proposed to inform a future plan change to the NRP. Officers agree that this programme sets out mana whenua aspirations for freshwater, noting that the Regional Council has the function of freshwater management under the RMA.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

Private Plan Change Request

44 Section 73 of the RMA provides that any person may request a change to a district plan and the plan may be changed in the manner set out in the First Schedule of the RMA. The first step in the process is that the Council must consider the request and how it will be dealt with. This is the clause 25 decision.

45 Clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA requires the Council to do one of four things with this PPC:

45.1 Adopt it in whole or in part as if it were a plan change by Council itself, and notify it as a Council initiated plan change; or

45.2 Accept it in whole or in part, which allows it to proceed as a PPC through the normal submission and decision process (it is notified as a PPC); or

45.3 Decide to deal with it as a resource consent (convert to a resource consent); or

45.4 Reject it in whole or in part on the grounds set out in clause 25(4)(a)-(e) of Schedule 1 of the RMA (and only on those grounds).

46 If the Council decides to adopt the plan change, it is treated as if it is a plan change made by the Council itself. The plan change must be publicly notified within four months of adoption and follow the process set out in Part 1 of the First Schedule of the RMA. All costs associated with the plan change would be borne by Council and not Welhom, unless agreed otherwise. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 70 and 71, officers recommend the PPC should not be adopted.

47 If the Council decides to accept the plan change (as opposed to adopt) then Council agrees that the plan change can proceed to notification. As the clause 25 decision is made prior to public notification of the PPC there are no submissions, evidence or full analysis from the Council officers or experts engaged by Council. It is accordingly described by the High Court as a 'coarse filter'^{^[2]} of the PPC - in effect, a screening exercise. It is not the Council’s full merits decision based on all relevant submissions and information. This consideration occurs at the hearing of the plan change.

48 If accepted under clause 25, the process then follows the PPC decision-making procedures set out in Part 2 of the First Schedule of the RMA. The request must be publicly notified within four months of Council agreeing to accept the request. The plan change remains a PPC. Under this option, all costs associated with the plan change are borne by the person who made the request, in this case Welhom. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 70 to 74, officers recommend the PPC should be accepted.

49 Irrespective of whether a decision to accept or adopt is made (i.e. what path the request takes) the proposed plan change will be considered fully by the Council as to whether it is necessary and appropriate ((in this case delegated to Hearing Commissioners) and (if appealed) the Environment Court. The fact that the request was adopted or accepted under clause 25 is irrelevant to the substantive assessment.

50 The third option the Council has under clause 25 is to convert the PPC request into a resource consent application. This means that the application goes through the usual resource consent procedures of notification, submissions, hearing, decision, and appeal. This option would not change the current zoning of the site, and the proposal would have to be considered under the existing provisions of the Operative District Plan. For the reasons set out in paragraph 69, officers recommend that there are no reasons to support converting the request to a resource consent.

51 The final option under clause 25 is for Council to reject the plan change request. The only grounds for rejection are listed in Clause 25(4) of the First Schedule of the RMA. They are limited to:

51.1 The request is in whole or in part, frivolous or vexatious; or

51.2 The substance of the request or part of the request has been considered and given effect to or rejected by the local authority or Environment Court within the last two years or has been given effect to by Regulations; or

51.3 The request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

51.4 The request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA; or

51.5 The plan has been operative for less than two years.

52 These narrow grounds for rejecting a plan change reflect that this stage of the process is simply to determine whether a request should proceed to full consideration, through the process of notification, submissions and determination of the merits, but it is not determinative of the outcome (i.e., whether the plan change is ultimately approved or not). Officers recommend that there are no legally defensible grounds for rejecting the PPC and this is discussed further at paragraphs 66 to 68.

53 If the Council decides to reject the PPC request the requestor can appeal that decision to the Environment Court or challenge Council’s decision on procedural grounds by way of High Court judicial review.

54 Accepting the PPC will allow the community the opportunity to submit on the request through a formal RMA process. The Council would also retain the right to lodge submissions or further submissions to ensure there is sufficient scope to support amendments to the PPC.

55 Finally, the requestor has formally sought that the PPC request be accepted, and not adopted, by Council. They have also provided their views that there are no valid grounds for it to be rejected in whole or in part and it is not a proposal that could be processed as an application for resource consent, as it has not been designed to the standard required for that to occur.

Views of those affected/consultation

56 If the recommendation to accept the request for notification is agreed by Council, the content of the PPC will be subject to statutory consultative provisions of the RMA where the opportunity for public involvement is mandatory. There is a requirement to publicly notify the PPC and serve notice on all directly affected parties, who will then have the opportunity to lodge submissions, further submissions and be heard at a hearing.

57 The PPC request identifies that the requestor has consulted with the Council in preparing the PPC. Section 6, Consultation, of the PPC sets out who the requestor has consulted with, and it includes the Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Ngā Hapū o Otaki, Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira. The request includes letters of support from Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira. Officers are also aware that the requestor has undertaken a letter drop and attended a Paraparaumu Community Board meeting subsequent to lodging the PPC request with the Council.

Local Government Act decision making principles

58 Council is required to apply the decision-making principles in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to every decision made by it, unless they are inconsistent with specific requirements in the relevant Act under which it is making a decision (in this case, the RMA).

59 Section 79(2)(c) of the LGA requires that when Council is making a judgement about how to achieve compliance with sections 77 and 78 of the LGA, it must have regard to the nature and circumstances in which a decision is taken. Section 79(3) provides that:

The nature and circumstances of a decision referred to in subsection 2(c) include the extent to which the requirements for such decision-making are prescribed in or under any other enactment (for example, the Resource Management Act 1991).

60 This clause 25 decision is a process decision only in Council's capacity as regulator and the decision-making options are set out in clause 25 itself. The significance of this process decision is low to medium because it is the substantive decision on the PPC that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA. On that basis, officers recommend that consultation under the LGA on this process decision under the RMA is neither necessary nor appropriate.

He take | Issues

61 The matter considered in this paper is the decision required of Council under clause 25 of the RMA relating to the PPC request by Welhom. This matter has a low degree of significance under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy because it is the substantive decision on the PPC that has the potential impact and that substantive decision will be subject to a public process, prescribed by the RMA.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

62 The available options for deciding how this PPC requested is processed, and their respective advantages and disadvantages, are summarised below.

Table 1: Options for deciding how the PPC request is processed

Kōwhiringa \| Options	Hua \| Benefits	Tūraru \| Risks
Option A Adopt the PPC	· Council controls what is notified and its scope and the process. · Aligned with Council’s FDS, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes. · Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD. · Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.	· Council has to take the position that it supports the plan change at a policy level as it adopts it as “if it were its own”. · Council bears the cost and potential legal challenges. No provisions have been made in the Long-Term Plan for this plan change, so it would require additional funding and have impact an on rates.
Option B Accept the PPC (recommended)	· The requestor bears the cost of the complete plan change process (including costs for hearings, experts and costs associated with the resolution of any appeals). · Council would be supporting the implementation of its Growth Strategy, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes. · Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD. · Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.	· It can be perceived that the Council supports the plan change by accepting it. However, this option still enables the Council to submit on the plan change and does not mean it would be approved.
Option C Reject the PPC	· Limited impact on Council resources and capacity to process the PPC.	· The decision could be challenged through the Courts and Council would be vulnerable if it rejected the PPC on unreasonable grounds that are not in the accordance with the criteria in the RMA. · The Council could be seen as not implementing or supporting its own Growth Strategy. · May affect long term housing supply/capacity and out of alignment with NPSUD requirements.
Option D Convert the PPC to a resource consent	· This removes the need for a PPC and could achieve a faster decision for the requestor (if there are no appeals). · Capacity may be delivered to the market faster.	· This may not be the most appropriate vehicle to achieve the outcome sought by the requestor, as the application may not sit comfortably with the current Plan provisions. · This is not the option sought by the requestor, and they may choose to appeal.

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks

Option A

Adopt the PPC

· Council controls what is notified and its scope and the process.

· Aligned with Council’s FDS, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes.

· Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD.

· Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.

· Council has to take the position that it supports the plan change at a policy level as it adopts it as “if it were its own”.

· Council bears the cost and potential legal challenges. No provisions have been made in the Long-Term Plan for this plan change, so it would require additional funding and have impact an on rates.

Option B

Accept the PPC (recommended)

· The requestor bears the cost of the complete plan change process (including costs for hearings, experts and costs associated with the resolution of any appeals).

· Council would be supporting the implementation of its Growth Strategy, which identifies this site by broad location as a potential growth area subject to plan change and/or zoning change processes.

· Council would be giving effect to the NPSUD.

· Council would manage the process for engaging with iwi, agencies and the community.

· It can be perceived that the Council supports the plan change by accepting it. However, this option still enables the Council to submit on the plan change and does not mean it would be approved.

Option C

Reject the PPC

· Limited impact on Council resources and capacity to process the PPC.

· The decision could be challenged through the Courts and Council would be vulnerable if it rejected the PPC on unreasonable grounds that are not in the accordance with the criteria in the RMA.

· The Council could be seen as not implementing or supporting its own Growth Strategy.

· May affect long term housing supply/capacity and out of alignment with NPSUD requirements.

Option D

Convert the PPC to a resource consent

· This removes the need for a PPC and could achieve a faster decision for the requestor (if there are no appeals).

· Capacity may be delivered to the market faster.

· This may not be the most appropriate vehicle to achieve the outcome sought by the requestor, as the application may not sit comfortably with the current Plan provisions.

· This is not the option sought by the requestor, and they may choose to appeal.

Mana whenua

63 Section 6 of the PPC request confirms that mana whenua through iwi authorities have been consulted by Welhom. The PPC also attaches letters of support from Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira.

64 The substantive decision on the PPC will be subject to a public process, which as prescribed by the RMA will provide an opportunity for mana whenua to make a submission on the PPC.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

65 In section 4 of their PPC request, Welhom assessed relevant higher order planning documents including several that require consideration of climate change in resource management decision-making. At a high level, officers agree that the request is generally consistent with higher order directions to consider climate change. This will be subject to a more detailed assessment should the PPC be accepted or adopted.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

66 The costs to Council of processing this PPC to date have all been recovered from Welhom. A decision by this Committee to accept the PPC for further processing would see Council continue to recover all of its costs from Welhom. Alternatively, a decision to adopt the PPC would mean Council would take on additional costs including (but not limited to) its consultants and all costs associated with hearing submissions. These costs would be subject to confirmation but exceed $100,000.

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

67 Council is managing risk by engaging suitably qualified and experienced professionals to evaluate the PPC.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

68 The decision Council is required to make under clause 25 of the RMA does not have any impact on Council policy. The appropriateness of the PPC will be tested through a full RMA process including the opportunity for public involvement.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

69 If the Committee accepts or adopts the PPC, the RMA requires Council to issue a public notice within four months of that decision. This public notice will:

69.1 Include details about how to make a formal submission on the plan change.

69.2 Be published in a local newspaper and online.

69.3 Be sent directly to every ratepayer that Council considers to be in an area likely to be directly affected by the PPC (Council also has discretion to send the public notice to any other person).

70 Prior to public notification, Council will continue to maintain a dedicated Welhom Developments Ltd PPC webpage.^{^[3]} This webpage has already been used to explain the steps in the PPC process and to proactively release key documents about the PPC. Following Council’s decision, the webpage will be further updated to explain the decision that the Committee makes under clause 25 of the RMA.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

71 A brief media statement will be developed to explain the Committee’s decision and to clarify the next steps in the PPC process.

RECOMMENDATION

72 In respect of the five grounds on which a request can be rejected, as set out in paragraphs 11 to 12, neither (2) or (5) apply (relating to the substance of the request being previously considered within the last 2 years or the district plan being operative less than 2 years). In terms of the other three grounds:

72.1 The request is frivolous or vexatious: In this case, the request is not frivolous. The requestor provided supporting technical information and the PPC has a resource management purpose. The request is not vexatious. The requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a PPC request.

72.2 The request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice: The 'coarse grain' assessment of the request (as required at this stage of the PPC process) does not indicate that the PPC is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. Whether the PPC request’s objectives are the most appropriate way of achieving the promotion of sustainable management will be tested through the submission and hearing processes. The RMA’s purpose is set out at section 5 and the principles are set out in sections 6 to 8. In respect of these Part 2 matters, the PPC proposes to rezone private property to enable its development for additional housing to provide for the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the community. The initial review of the PPC has at a coarse level identified that any adverse effects will be able to be avoided, remedied or mitigated, either through the PPC itself or subsequent resource consents. At a coarse level, the PPC demonstrates that it generally responds to the principles in sections 6 to 8, which will be able to be evaluated through a subsequent process. Having reviewed the requestor's expert reports, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the PPC request, and taken the purpose and principles of the RMA into account, officers consider the PPC is in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c), Schedule 1.

72.3 The request would not make the Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA: Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. District plan provisions must give effect to the regional policy statement and higher order RMA documents and not be inconsistent with any regional plan. The objective of the PPC is to rezone the properties to enable either a bespoke retirement village development or residential development. The proposed zoning at a coarse level appears to give effect to both the RPS and NPSUD in this regard.

73 In respect to Clause 23 and the provision of further information, Council officers consider they have sufficient information to understand the requestor and for it to be publicly notified, if accepted.

74 For these reasons, officers recommend that there are no grounds under the RMA to reject the PPC.

75 Officers consider that converting the request to a resource consent is not appropriate resource management practice as the Operative District Plan zone provisions would not support the outcome sought by the PPC and the proposal is not in a form that would enable it to proceed through a resource consent process. Further, the requestor would not support that approach and indeed it provides no benefit to either the requestor or community.

76 In respect of whether the Council should consider adoption or accepting the PPC:

76.1 Officers consider that the proposal is generally aligned with the District Plan’s approach to sustainable management, in that it follows the same approach to other new development areas that have been included in the District Plan and it would be subject to the District Plan provisions.

76.2 It generally aligns with the ambitions of the Growth Strategy, FDS and higher order documents.

76.3 The requestor’s technical documents show that the PPC area would be able to be serviced by infrastructure.

76.4 The request itself is not complex.

76.5 The requestor would not necessarily benefit from Council co-ordinating the PPC process.

76.6 The requestor has requested that the PPC be accepted and not adopted.

76.7 Council meets all the costs of processing the plan change if the request is adopted. If accepted, the requestor bears those costs.

77 Officers do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the Council to adopt the PPC request as its own. Adopting the PPC would mean that the Council would attract all costs associated with its resourcing and associated costs and Council would need to be satisfied that it supports the plan change at a policy level. Accepting the PPC request allows the requestor the ability to have the request tested and considered against the RMA requirements, it also allows the community, iwi and relevant stakeholders to participate in that process and for Council to on-charge its costs to the requestor.

78 As outlined earlier, accepting the PPC request does not pre-empt the final outcome of the PPC through the formal Schedule 1 RMA process and the decision of the Hearings Panel.

79 Accepting a PPC also allows the Council to maintain its regulatory position, as well as providing the Council the opportunity to submit on it, so that it can seek changes as appropriate. If it chooses to do so, the purpose of the Council submitting on the PPC would ensure jurisdiction (scope) for seeking any necessary changes to be made at the substantive hearing.

80 Overall, it is recommended that the PPC be accepted for processing under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

conclusion

81 Welhom has applied to the Council for a PPC request to the Operative District Plan and seek that it be accepted by the Council for processing under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

82 Of the four options available to the Council under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, it is recommended that there are no grounds for rejecting the request or converting it to a resource consent and that PPC request be accepted for processing rather than adopted as a Council initiated plan change.

Next steps

83 If the Council accepts the PPC request, officers will prepare it for public notification and publicly notify it within four months of the date of acceptance.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Welhom Developments Ltd Private Plan Change Request (under separate cover)

2. Map showing Part of 65 and 73 Ratanui Road ⇩

Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

13 March 2025

9.2 Review of draft Climate Change Mitigation Strategy

Kaituhi | Author: Damian Ryan, Principal Advisor Strategy

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper provides introduces the first draft of the Climate Mitigation Sub-Strategy for initial high-level feedback, following this Committee’s decision in December 2024 to recommence and advance work as quickly as possible.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 No executive summary is required

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 The Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee has the authority to approve the Climate Mitigation Sub-Strategy under section B.1. of the 2022-2025 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

A. Provide feedback focused on key substantive content of the draft Climate Change Mitigation Sub-Strategy attached as Appendix A of this report.

B. Note that this draft document builds on previous councillor, mana whenua, community, and Climate Change and Resilience Community Thinktank.

C. Note that early engagement with mana whenua partners, Council advisory groups and stakeholders on this draft document will occur in mid-to-late March 2025, ahead of the formal public consultation process in May 2025.

D. Note that a revised draft document will be presented to the Climate and Environment Committee for information and endorsement on 8 April 2025.

E. Note that the revised draft document will also be presented to this Committee on 10 April 2025 for approval for public consultation from late-April through May 2025.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 The role of local government in supporting and driving climate action is well established. Under the Resource Management Act 1991, local authorities are required to consider the effects of climate change on the community and incorporate climate change considerations into their planning, projects and decision-making processes. Statutory central government climate plans, such as the Emissions Reduction Plan and the National Adaptation Plan, also emphasise the importance of local government in supporting national climate goals.

5 Kāpiti Coast District Council has often been at the forefront of climate action within local government. Of note:

5.1 In 2009/10 we began measuring and managing our organisational carbon footprint. Progress has continued since then, and preliminary results from our 2023/24 emissions inventory (still subject to final verification) indicate that we have reduced our corporate emission by 72% since 2009/10.

5.2 In 2019/20, Council declared a Climate Emergency to focus attention on climate action, including a commitment to being a carbon neutral council and incorporating climate considerations in all future council decisions.

5.3 In 2021/22, a Climate Emergency Action Framework was adopted to give a structure to this ambition.

5.4 In 2022/23, a Climate Emergency Action Plan was published identifying specific actions the Council should take to achieve its goals.

5.5 In December 2023, Council adopted an aspirational district-wide net-zero target.

6 In July 2023, this Committee approved development of a Climate Change and Resilience (CCR) Strategy under the Council’s Policy Work Programme (PWP). This reflected the need to improve overall cohesion and long-term direction to Council’s climate-related activities, including mitigation (emissions reduction), adaptation (to the impacts of climate change) and resilience (community ability to respond to climate events). Given its importance, development of the CCR strategy was included as one of the Council’s Top 10 priorities for the current triennium.

7 Progress on developing the Strategy has included:

7.1 In September 2023, establishing a Climate Change and Resilience Community Think Tank (CCRCTT) to provide community input into the strategy development process.

7.2 In December 2023, this Committee received the draft ‘Direction of Travel’ (DoT) paper, setting out the scope, key focus areas, and stakeholders as a basis for the strategy, was presented to SOF.

7.3 In February 2024, the CCRCT provided feedback on the draft DoT, recommending more input from mana whenua and incorporation of adaptation as a key area of focus.

7.4 In April 2024, on the basis of feedback, this Committee agreed to extend the delivery deadline to September 2024, reflecting the need for further consultation and the resourcing constraints created by competing PWP priorities.

7.5 In June 2024, the Takutai Kāpiti report was received by the Council, including a range of issues relevant to climate change adaptation. Council resolved to take further analysis before making any decisions on the report’s recommendations. As a consequence of this decision, work on the draft CCR strategy was paused.

7.6 In December 2024, to recommence and advance work as quickly as possible, this Committee resolved to split the CCR Strategy into three sub-strategies covering mitigation; adaptation; and resilience. It was agreed that the Climate Mitigation Sub-Strategy would progress first, and timing for the remaining components would be determined at a later date.

8 As a result of the most recent decisions, three separate sub-strategies will be developed. Once completed, an overarching strategy will be formed. This paper progresses discussion on the first sub-strategy, Climate Change Mitigation.

9 On 18 February 2025, information on the substantive content of the Climate Change: Mitigation Sub-Strategy was provided to councillors. Questions raised by councillors on this material has been addressed in the development of the document appended to this paper.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

He take | Issues

10 The redrafted Climate Change: Mitigation Sub-Strategy (CCM), is attached for this Committee’s consideration. The structure and content of the CCM build and expand on the DoT paper and CCRCT input, as noted in the background of this paper. Of note:

10.1 The draft document includes detail for full context but it is expected that the final version for public consultation will be a much shorter document.

10.2 This final version will be reviewed by the Climate and Environment Committee on 8 April and then presented to this Committee in May 2025 for approval to consult with the public.

11 The CCM includes five sections including:

‘Purpose’

11.1 This section has been drafted to set the tone of the strategy by introducing and emphasising a positive, opportunity-based narrative for climate mitigation.

11.2 Thus the ‘purpose’ of the strategy is to create a more prosperous, healthier, low-carbon Kāpiti as the primary objective driven by ambitious emission reductions to reflect some of the key benefits from decarbonisation.

11.3 It contains some additional and important contextual information including the time horizon of the strategy (15 years), the review period (every 5 years), the practical implementation of the strategy through separate action plans, the scope and intent of the strategy to enable district-wide emission reduction, the importance of partnerships to the strategy’s success, and the fact that climate adaptation will be addressed in a separate strategy.

‘Strategic Framework’

11.4 This section will include an A3 overview, similar to that used in the Economic Development Strategy, to summarise the sub-strategy on one page.

11.5 Currently, a one page ‘placeholder’ is included because the A3 is still in development. It will be included in the next version of the draft strategy that this Committee will receive in May 2025.

‘Where are we now’

11.6 This section describes the factual baseline for the strategy. It briefly summarises how the Council and the district got to where it is now, the operating environment for climate action, the current emissions profile of the district, and the key challenges and opportunities to accelerating our decarbonisation efforts.

‘Where we want to be’

11.7 This section describes a positive, optimistic vision for the district in 2040 as a result of ambitious decarbonisation in key sectors (transport, energy, and waste) supported by increased levels of sequestration.

‘How do we get there’

11.8 This section is in three parts. The first covers the strategy’s principles, the second the key pathways for emissions reduction, and the third the partners and stakeholders that Council needs to work with.to achieve success.

11.9 The addition of principles to this Strategy reflects some of the key considerations highlighted in conversations with the CCRTT. These have been updated to reflect workshop feedback, including the addition of two new principles– one relating to fiscal management and the other to setting of ambitious but achievable objectives.

11.10 The pathways sub-section details the key shifts, levers and partners for driving emission reductions/removals in the key emission areas of travel, energy, waste and sequestration. Key levers include use of Council powers (e.g. district planning), advocacy (to central government), and partnerships. A balance has been sought in this section between providing enough guidance and direction to be credible while avoiding prescription, recognising that pathway details will be described in separate action plans that will be developed later.

11.11 The partners section identifies and describes in more detail the key partners / stakeholders, their roles and what the partnership with Council should look like. The list of partners and stakeholders is the same as presented in the briefing prepared for Councillors ahead of the February workshop.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

12 No options are set out, as this report seeks feedback on the substantive direction of draft sub-strategy.

Mana whenua

13 Consideration of mana whenua interests and concerns, as well as Council’s obligations to tangata whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, informed drafting the CCM.

14 Initial engagement occurred through Te Whakaminenga o Kāpiti (TWOK). In October 2023, TWOK agreed to advise Council on how best to engage with mana whenua to jointly develop the strategy and agreed that ideally two mana whenua representatives be identified for appointment to the CCRTT. TWOK appointed a representative for mana whenua, but unfortunately, they were unable to attend any meetings of the CCRTT. We will, however, approach the appointed representative to seek engagement on the draft sub-strategy.

15 Council’s Iwi Partnerships team is working with mana whenua to identify the best means to engage on next steps, ahead of the public consultation process. This is in addition to existing involvement of mana whenua representatives through Committee discussions.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

16 Once approved, the strategy will provide the long-term direction and focus for all climate mitigation action undertaken and enabled by Council, including partnering with business and community groups to effect change, in the district over the next 5-15 years. It will be a key document for guiding a range of climate and environment-related activities and objectives under the Council’s ‘People, Place, Partnership’ community outcomes framework.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

17 There are no additional financial or resourcing costs associated with the development of this strategy.

18 Implementation of this strategy, however, will likely lead to new activities, changes to existing activities, or spending and investment decisions in the future that will need to be incorporated into future budgets, annual plans, and long-term plans. Any financial implications related to these changes will need to be considered as and when they are made.

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

19 No legal or organisational risks have been identified concerning the draft strategy.

20 However, transparent public engagement and communication will be critical to ensuring the wider community is able to have input into the document, and support community understanding of the aims of this strategy.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

21 There are immediate policy impacts related to the development of this draft strategy. The draft strategy builds on and provides more specificity to the emission reduction elements of Council’s existing Climate Emergency Action Framework. The Climate Emergency Action Framework will remain active for the foreseeable future, as it also sets out the Council’s current approach to adaptation

22 Implementation of the strategy, however, may lead to policy changes in the future given the broad scope and impact of climate action across multiple Council work programmes. No specific future policy changes have been identified at this point.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

23 Given the significance of this strategy to much of Council’s work, and the high level of community interest in climate action, a detailed communication and engagement plan has been created for the public consultation phase for this strategy. This plan will be tabled in April 2025, as approval to consult is sought. In summary:

23.1 Proposed engagement will be in two phases. The first will occur in mid to late March following this SOF meeting. This will involve engagement with mana whenua partners, key Council advisory groups and stakeholders actively involved in climate action in the community. The purpose of this targeted engagement is to test the main substantive elements of the strategy ahead of full public consultation.

23.2 The second phase – formal public consultation – is planned from late-April through May 2025 to test the draft with the general community. A range of communication channels will be used for this phase, including social media, the Have Your Say website, and in-person engagement in libraries and other public spaces. FAQs will also be prepared to support councillors in their interactions with community members.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

24 The communication and engagement plan will set out the channels, key messages and timing for publicising the strategy and the opportunity for public input over the coming three to four months.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Initial Draft Climate Change Mitigation Sub-Strategy (under separate cover)

Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

13 March 2025

9.3 Progressing the establishment of an Urban Design Panel for the Kapiti District

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper seeks approval from the Strategy and Operations Committee to progress next steps towards establishing an urban design panel for the Kāpiti district.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 The Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee has delegated authority to consider this under Section B.1 of the 2022-2025 Triennium Governance Structure and Delegations ‘Considering and confirming recommendations made by the Social Sustainability Committee and the Climate and Environment Committee.’

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

A. acknowledges and thanks Councillor Rob Kofoed for his efforts to promote the urban design panel concept.

B. notes the paper considered by the Social Sustainability Committee at its meeting on 11 February 2025 titled “Exploring the Urban Design Panel Concept” (Attachment 1).

C. confirms its support for a resolution passed by that Committee to “endorse progressing work to establish an Urban Design Panel for the Kāpiti Coast district”.

D. directs that staff report back to Council in early 2026 with a final proposal for its approval.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 On 11 February 2025 the Social Sustainability Committee considered a paper titled “Exploring the Urban Design Panel Concept” (Attachment 1). In summary, the paper advised the Committee that:

4.1 The mandate for exploring the urban design panel concept was provided by Council in August 2023 as part of decisions on Plan Change 2 (Intensification), when it directed staff to explore options for strengthening its urban design capacity and expertise

4.2 Staff have now completed desktop research into urban design panels operated by other councils around New Zealand, have had initial discussions with staff and other councils and experienced practitioners, and have been supported by advice from Councillor Rob Kofoed.

4.3 The urban design panel concept is supported by the Ministry for the Environment and has been in use by many territorial authorities in New Zealand for a number of years. Some of the benefits of urban design panels reported by those councils include:

4.3.1 improved urban design quality

4.3.2 streamlined consenting processes

4.3.3 enhanced collaboration with developers.

4.4 Establishing an urban design panel requires decisions about:

4.4.1 a terms of reference for the urban design panel, including its objectives, scope and the types of projects it will review

4.4.2 sources of funding and resources for panel members and administrative support (e.g. general rates versus user pays)

4.4.3 composition of the Panel (membership), noting that urban design panels are independent from council and typically include a range of expertise (e.g. urban designers, architects, cultural design experts and planners).

4.5 To operate effectively staff also identified the need for clear operational guidelines, including scheduling regular meetings, defining the review process, and specifying how feedback will be communicated to applicants.

4.6 In addition to work on the matters noted in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4, staff anticipated that preparations would also include:

4.6.1 collaboration with mana whenua to ensure (to the extent desired by mana whenua) that the panel’s processes integrated kaupapa Māori and tikanga

4.6.2 engagement with developers, community groups and other stakeholders to build support and refine the panel’s objectives

4.6.3 the development of a comprehensive plan to Council for approval, including recommendations and implementation details.

4.7 To allow sufficient time for the necessary preparatory work, including iwi and stakeholder engagement, staff indicated a final proposal could be presented to the next Council for its approval in early 2026.

5 Following discussion, the Committee resolved to:^{^[4]}

A. Note the Urban Design Panel concept, which has a national protocol set by the Ministry for the Environment, which is already in use by several councils in New Zealand to support achieving good urban design outcomes.

B. Endorse progressing work to establish an Urban Design Panel for the Kāpiti Coast district.

C. Note that following this Committee’s endorsement, approval will be sought from the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee in April 2025 to progress next steps.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

6 The Committee is asked to confirm support for the Social Sustainability’s recommendation to endorse progressing work to establish an Urban Design Panel for the Kāpiti Coast district. The information supporting the Social Sustainability’s recommendation is attached in Appendix 1. In summary, it sets out:

6.1 Clear benefit and value from introducing a further mechanism to support “good growth” in our district, as development activity progresses over future periods.

6.2 That urban panels are already well utilised in other districts around New Zealand, and supported by the Ministry for the Environment as an important component of the wider regulatory system and its tools.

6.3 That it was valuable to engage with other districts to learn about what has worked well (or not) as they have established urban panels. The findings will support Council Officials to develop options that take advantage of lessons learnt.

7 Following the Committee’s decision today, if agreed, Council officers will progress work to develop options for consideration, and outline more detailed information around scope, focus, cost and place in the existing processes which support development activity in the Kāpiti Coast district.

He take | Issues

8 The issues outlined in the 11 February 2025 paper (Attachment 1) still stand. There are no further issues to note in this report.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

9 The options outlined in the 11 February 2025 paper (Attachment 1) still stand.

Mana whenua

10 As part of next steps, staff propose to seek advice from mana whenua to inform the proposal for the design and operation of an urban design panel, including with regards to how the panel’s processes integrate kaupapa Māori and tikanga.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

11 Further investigations and stakeholder engagement will provide an opportunity for staff to explore how an urban design panel in Kāpiti could consider climate change and environment issues.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

12 Costs to Council associated with progressing work to establish an urban design panel will be met from the existing Districtwide Planning budget.

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

13 Any legal and organisational risks associated with establishing an urban design panel will be identified (along with options to avoid or mitigate those risks) as part of preparing a proposal for Council’s consideration in early 2026.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

14 Any policy impacts that may arise from establishing an urban design panel will be identified (along with options to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts) as part of preparing a proposal for Council’s consideration in early 2026.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

15 An engagement plan will be prepared to support the next phase of work.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

16 In the event that this Committee resolves to support the Social Sustainability Committee’s resolution, a brief media statement is proposed highlighting that Council is progressing work to establish an urban design panel.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Paper to Social Sustainability Committee, 11 February 2025 ⇩

[1] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392, at para 33

[2] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392, at para 33

[3] See: https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/council/forms-documents/district-plan/private-plan-changes/welhom-developments-ltd/

[4] Resolution SSC2025/2. The Committee will have the opportunity to confirm all resolutions passed on 11 February when it is next scheduled to meet on 25 March.


RĀRANGI TAKE AGENDA Rautaki, Whakahaere, me te Ahumoni \| Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Rautaki, Whakahaere, me te Ahumoni \| Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee will be held on:
Te Rā \| Date:	Thursday, 13 March 2025
Te Wā \| Time:	9:30 am
Te Wāhi \| Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Kris Pervan Group Manager Strategy & Growth

Cr Sophie Handford	Chair
Cr Liz Koh	Deputy
Mayor Janet Holborow	Member
Deputy Mayor Lawrence Kirby	Member
Cr Glen Cooper	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Rob Kofoed	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Shelly Warwick	Member
Cr Nigel Wilson	Member
Cr Kathy Spiers	Member
Ms Kim Tahiwi	Member
Mr Huriwai Paki	Member
Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Representative	Member