Agenda of Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting

Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

10 April 2025

9 Pūrongo | Reports

9.1 District Plan: Approach for Review of Coastal Provisions

Kaituhi | Author: Jason Holland, District Planning Manager

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 This paper seeks the Committee’s approval of the proposed scope and timing for a Coastal Environment Plan Change to the Operative District Plan.

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 ‘Preparation of the District Plan and Plan Changes’.

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

A. Notes the findings of the Gap Analysis for the coastal provisions of the District Plan (Attachment 2).

B. Notes that staff are currently undertaking a monitoring and reporting exercise for the coastal provisions in accordance with Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

C. Agree, as assessed by the Gap Analysis, that the 1999 Operative District Plan coastal provisions require alteration, pursuant to section 79 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

D. Approve as outlined in this report:

D.1 the proposed scope of the coastal plan change including coastal hazards and other coastal provisions (as described in paragraphs 19-26 of this paper).

D.2 the recommended timing (Table 1, Option C) for the review of the coastal provisions of the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan up to notification of a coastal plan change.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 On 30 January 2025 Council approved the commencement of a review of the coastal provisions in the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan.

5 As background to approving the approach to progress this work, a summary of the history related to coastal provisions within the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan is provided. It shares an overview of key decisions and events diagrammatically (below) and a more detailed explanation follows.

6 In 1999: under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), coastal provisions were included in the “first generation” Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan. It included:

6.1 Objectives and policies for the coastal environment covering natural character and amenity values, public access, tangata whenua and coastal hazards.

6.2 Rules for the coastal environment imposing coastal building line restrictions and relocatable building requirements, and limiting modification of naturally occurring indigenous vegetation removal adjacent to the coastal marine area.

6.3 Planning maps spatially identifying the location of a “coastal building line” and a “relocatable building area”.

7 In 2008: a full review of the 1999 Operative District Plan under section 79 of the RMA commenced. As a result of that review, a proposed “second generation” District Plan was publicly notified for submissions in 2012. In relation to coastal provisions, it included:

7.1 A general objective for the coastal environment covering natural character, public access and coastal hazards.

7.2 Policies and rules for coastal natural character, public access and coastal hazards.

7.3 Planning maps spatially identifying the extent of the coastal environment; areas of high natural character; and coastal hazard management areas which included “Rural No Build”, “Urban Relocatable Build” and “Urban No Build” areas.

8 In 2013: as a result of community and submitter concerns surrounding many of the 2012 Proposed District Plan provisions, Council commissioned two independent review reports:

8.1 “Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessments for the Kāpiti Coast: Review of the Science & Assessment Undertaken for the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan 2012” (Carley et al).

8.2 “Independent Review of the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan” (Sylvia Allan and Richard Fowler).

9 In 2014: Council made decisions in response to those reports, including (but not limited to):

9.1 Proceeding with a modified process for completing the 2012 Proposed District Plan (as recommended by Allan and Fowler); this meant that coastal and other provisions not withdrawn in 2014 would continue through to a hearing, Council decisions and subsequent appeals).

9.2 Withdrawing coastal hazard (and some other) provisions (which occurred in 2014) with the intention being that a future plan change would address coastal hazard issues.

9.3 Adopting the Carley et al recommendations, and endorsing the formulation of a coastal advisory group.

10 In 2016: concerned at Council’s process and decisions, NOBRG^{^[1]} filed declaratory proceedings to the Environment Court in March 2016. CRU^{^[2]} joined those proceedings.

10.1 In June 2016, Council reached an agreement with NOBRG which ended those proceedings. Those agreements centred around early engagement with (and involvement of) the community, including NOBRG, early in the process of addressing coastal hazards; evaluating a range of management options for coastal hazard management (including those identified in Carley et al), and considering possible responses not restricted to hazard lines.

10.2 Further to this, Council agreed that it would achieve integrated coastal management and sustainable management by ensuring any coastal hazards plan change:

· Is of sufficient scope to enable submissions on the full range of management options.

· Includes potential for amending provisions relating to resources relevant to coastal hazard management within the coastal environment.

10.3 Following the withdrawal of proceedings by NOBRG, CRU filed their own proceedings against Council. One central aspect of those proceedings was a request for a declaration that the Council had to re-notify the existing ODP coastal provisions if it intended for those provisions to remain in place pending a future plan change. Both the Environment Court and the High Court rejected that position. However, CRU were successful in arguing that the withdrawal of coastal hazard provisions in 2014 had inadvertently amended a small number of other plan provisions; as a result, Council withdrew additional provisions in 2017.

11 In 2017: Hearings on submissions on the 2012 Proposed District Plan occurred from April 2016 to April 2017. In November 2017, Council adopted the recommendations of the hearings panel as its own decision, including their recommendations on the remaining coastal provisions.

12 In 2018: eighteen appeals were lodged to the Environment Court on Council’s decision, including an appeal from CRU in relation to the remaining coastal provisions. This appeal was joined by other parties including DOC ^{^[3]}.

12.1 The appeal from CRU was settled in 2019 by Council agreeing to specific amendments to the remaining coastal provisions, which the Environment Court confirmed by consent notice.

12.2 DOC's acceptance of those changes was achieved by Council committing to initiate a plan change to address natural character and biodiversity provisions of the NZCPS. A letter from Council to DOC outlining this commitment is Attachment 1 to this report.

12.3 Council also chose at that time to enter into an agreement with CRU making the same commitments as it did to NORBG.

13 In 2021: Following resolution of the last of the appeals on the District Plan, in May 2021, Council resolved to make the District Plan (including the remaining coastal provisions) operative. By that time, staff had also prepared amendments to the District Plan to give effect to National Planning Standards.^{^[4]} These amendments included “re-housing” plan content within a mandatory structure, including a “Coastal Environment” chapter, and incorporating standard definitions for certain words and phrases^{^[5]}.

14 In parallel to the final stages of completing the District Plan process, work had begun on establishing a coastal advisory group including in response to the commitments to NORBG and CRU. The history of the Takutai Kāpiti project and Coastal Advisory Panel has been summarised in recent Council reports which will not be repeated here.^{^[6]} However, to clarify and in the context of decisions sought today, we note that the project was initiated as part of Council’s response to the aforementioned agreements Council reached with both NOBRG and CRU. Decisions related to receipt of the Coastal Advisory Panel’s Report in June 2024, and Council’s agreement in December 2024 to investigate the risk-based planning approach can be read here.

15 In 2022: Finally, an aspect of Plan Change 2 (Council’s intensification planning instrument) being the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct was introduced to the District Plan as a temporary measure, until provisions to manage coastal hazards are incorporated into the District Plan as part of a future coastal plan change.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

16 This paper seeks your approval of the proposed scope and timing for the review of the coastal provisions of the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan up to notification, and as provided for in this paper.

17 To support this decision we have confirmed (as set out in paragraph 37) and are now progressing due diligence requirements. This includes:

17.1 Section 79 (s79): assessing whether the existing (1999 Operative District Plan) coastal provisions require alteration, pursuant to s79 of the RMA. In response to this requirement, a completed “Gap Analysis” Report is attached in Attachment 2 for your information. Key findings are summarised in paragraph 18 (below), with the purpose of the Report being to:

(1) Provide a comprehensive review of the current provisions of the District Plan relevant to coastal hazards and coastal natural character.

(2) Identify and review the available higher order policy framework, direction and guidance, including recent and ongoing changes.

(3) Provide an analysis of the degree to which the most relevant provisions relating to coastal hazards and coastal natural character give effect to and align with higher order requirements, especially the NZCPS^{^[7]}, the RPS^{^[8]} and the NRP.^{^[9]}

(4) Maintain a “live document” in two respects (for feedback; but also that it may need to be amended as national and regional direction evolves during the preparation of the proposed plan change).

17.2 Section 35 (s35): undertaking a monitoring and reporting exercise for provisions relating to coastal hazards and natural character of the District Plan to determine their efficiency and effectiveness, pursuant to s35 of the RMA. This work is underway but not finalised.

17.2.1 Officers are in the process of undertaking this assessment. The monitoring report is being drafted to review available data for resource consent applications and pre-application meetings in relation to the following key topics:

§ Scope of Provisions

§ Approaches

§ Affected Zones; and sites affected by multiple overlays (e.g. multiple hazards).

§ Adaptability of Provisions / Responsiveness to Change

§ Consistency of Assessments / Quality of Information / Further Information

17.2.2 Once finalised, the findings of this review will be made publicly available as prescribed by s35 of the RMA.

18 Key findings from the “Gap Analysis” include:

18.1 That the current provisions need to be altered to achieve the effective management of the risk from coastal hazards and the appropriate protection of coastal natural character.

18.2 Regarding coastal hazards:

18.2.1 The existing provisions for managing coastal hazards are a mix of outdated rules from the 1999 District Plan and newer zone-specific provisions (i.e. Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct) introduced through recent plan changes.

18.2.2 Overall, the current provisions need significant alteration to ensure they effectively manage coastal hazards, align with higher order direction, and incorporate best practices for risk management and climate change adaptation.

18.2.3 The only provisions of the Operative District Plan that are currently overdue for review under s79(1) of the RMA are the coastal hazard provisions which have been carried over from the 1999 Operative District Plan. Earlier reviews have come to the conclusion that the 1999 provisions are not sufficient and do not give effect to current legislation.^{^[10]}

18.3 Regarding coastal character:

18.3.1 Provisions have been reviewed more recently (i.e. the 2012 Proposed District Plan process), but were inadvertently affected by the withdrawal of coastal hazard provisions leading to a 2018 commitment by Council to DOC to review them (see Attachment 1).

18.3.2 The Gap Analysis suggests relevant policies are relatively detailed and generally well aligned with higher order guidance, however, the rules need significant improvement to effectively protect and manage the coastal natural character as intended by the higher-order directives and the District Plan's objectives.

Scope and timing for the review of the coastal provisions

19 The following section outlines the proposed approach to both the scope and timing of the coastal plan change, for which we seek your approval. Of note, with respect to:

19.1 Scope: a separate discussion is provided for the coastal hazards component of the proposed plan change, acknowledging its special history and that Council has entered into specific agreements in relation to this work. For avoidance of doubt, while not specifically discussed below, the proposed scope will include removal of the Coastal Qualifying Matter Precinct (as this is a commitment of Council), and any necessary consequential work.

19.2 Timing: the following discussion sets out proposed phases of work. This is a guide rather than a prescriptive “set-in-stone” approach. It is acknowledged that further engagement with iwi, GWRC,^{^[11]} CRU and NOBRG may result in amendments to the steps set out here.

Scope for Coastal Hazards

20 The scope for the coastal hazard component of the plan change encompasses the 1999 Operative District Plan provisions which are set out in the Coastal Environment chapter of the 2021 Operative District Plan.

21 In relation to these provisions, the proposed process will provide for a comprehensive review of coastal hazard science to ensure the data that informs the plan change is independently tested and robust. It then reviews existing District Plan provisions and will propose the necessary amendments in response to the updated science. The process also allows for, and includes, engagement at several stages with interested parties and stakeholders including CRU, NOBRG, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and GWRC.

22 The proposed process for coastal hazards up to the decision to notify a coastal plan change is proposed to progress through five phases, as below, and detailed in Attachment 3.

Phase A: (Science expert panel) Review the science.

Phase B: Council considers / implements science expert panel recommendations.

Phase C: Consultation with stakeholders (including CRU, NOBRG, Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and GWRC) on individual provisions.

Phase D: Prepare Plan Change and Section 32 Evaluation Report.`

Phase E: Final Pre-notification consultation (coastal hazards and coastal natural character) including community consultation on a full draft plan change.

Scope for Coastal Natural Character

23 The proposed scope for the coastal natural character component includes all other provisions in the Coastal Environment chapter of the 2021 Operative District Plan (as many of these provisions relate in some way to natural character, this term is used as a “catch-all”) and related provisions in other chapters as identified in the Gap Analysis.

24 The process for reviewing these provisions is linked to the process for reviewing the coastal hazard provisions. While being slightly less complex, it still allows for extensive engagement with interested parties.

25 The review of the coastal natural character component will be informed by the Kāpiti Coast Natural Character Evaluation. This evidence has been previously commissioned by Kāpiti Coast District Council and GWRC and prepared by Boffa Miskell Ltd and NIWA. The Kāpiti Coast Natural Character Evaluation ^{^[12]} included:

25.1 Identification of the extent of the coastal environment, including the inland extent.

25.2 Identification of the marine and terrestrial coastal areas within the coastal environment including a description and documentation of each area.

25.3 Evaluation of the levels of natural character for each marine and terrestrial areas.

25.4 Identification of the spatial extent and the attribute ratings of natural character components with high or very high levels of natural character.

25.5 Evaluation and identification of outstanding natural character areas.

26 Four primary steps are proposed for the review of the coastal natural character provisions, including:

I. Option Identification: Council summarises the resource management issues that need to be addressed in relation to coastal natural character and identifies potential options to address these issues. Further, evaluation of these options and identification of a preferred option.

II. Initial Consultation: Council engages with special interest groups on the identified options and review and incorporate the feedback received.

III. Prepare Draft Provisions and Section 32 Evaluation: Council prepares the full set of proposed provisions and the s32 evaluation report.

IV. Final Pre-Notification Consultation: This step is progressed in parallel to the coastal hazards review phases, noted in Phase E (refer to paragraph 22). It will include the final round of pre-notification consultation with interested parties and the wider community on the combined coastal plan change.

Timeframes

27 Given the scope outlined for coastal hazards, and coastal natural character (above) we anticipate an extended timeframe for the pre-notification process. A project chart has been prepared to visualise the different phases of the process and the overlap between the coastal hazard and coastal natural character components. This is provided as Attachment 4 to this report. Of note:

27.1 Estimated timeframes have been allocated to each of the phases and steps identified above. The more streamlined process for the coastal natural character provisions will run parallel to the coastal hazards, referred to as Phases A to D, and will then merge together in the final step, referred to as Phase E, and Pre-Notification Consultation.

27.2 This extended process for coastal hazards is expected to stretch over a period of approximately 84 weeks; starting on 5 May 2025.

28 Other (shorter) timelines are considered in more detail in the options below. It is acknowledged that some parties may expect shorter timeframes, and a reduced scope.

He take | Issues

29 There are five issues of significance in regards to determining the scope and optimal timing for this proposed Plan Change:

29.1 Alignment with previous Council agreements, regarding community engagement:

29.1.1 Based on previous plan change processes and the resulting settlement agreements with CRU and NOBRG, there is an increased expectation that Council enables involvement of interested parties in the process leading up to the notification decision for a coastal plan change. This will require allowance for extended opportunities for interested parties to review and provide feedback on the draft provisions throughout the proposed process.

29.1.2 It is acknowledged that there are currently unresolved differences in opinions regarding the appropriate science and data that is used to inform the development of coastal hazard provisions. Addressing these issues will require additional work to progress, over an extended timeframe with a moderate additional cost.

29.2 Alignment with a previous Council commitment to DOC to initiate a plan change to give effect to NZCPS natural character and biodiversity provisions (see Attachment 1).

29.3 The need to review the science (see Attachment 3, Phase A).

29.4 The timing of (potential) RMA Reforms on the basis that:

29.4.1 The Government has announced that the RMA will be further amended, with a new Act being gazetted in 2026 and implemented in 2027. Any coastal plan change would overlap with the new legislation and therefore the potential implications for the plan change would likely be required.

29.4.2 Any process entered into prior to the new legislation being gazetted will continue to be processed under the current RMA process. Currently, there is no moratorium for starting new plan change processes.

29.4.3 It is expected that the development of the Spatial Plan and Regulatory Plan under the new legislation will take several years. As such, there will still be a need for the District Plan to manage development in the coastal environment until the new regulatory plan is developed.

29.5 The timing of (potential) changes to National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards:

29.5.1 Currently, we understand that a new a National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decision-Making (NPS-NHD) will be notified in 2025. It is expected to set further directions, beyond the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, on how councils are to manage their natural hazard risks.

29.5.2 Any direction within the National Policy Statement will need to be adhered to, as it is a higher order document in the context of the RMA. Progressing work at a pace that enables alignment with this timeframe will reduce the likelihood of duplication, and additional associated costs of rework.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

30 Three^{^[13]} timing options for progressing the coastal plan change were considered and assessed, as follows:

Table 1: Options analysis

Kōwhiringa \| Options	Hua \| Benefits	Tūraru \| Risks
Option A: Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by July 2025 Not recommended	· Accelerated process. · Earlier notification decision, which does not overlap with local election period. · Process can be undertaken under the current RMA and is unlikely to be affected by RMA reforms.	· Minimal time for pre-notification engagement. · Not aligned to settlement agreements, as timeframe fails to provide time for community engagement. · Higher risk for appeals and judicial review. · No time to test and agree on ‘correct’ science and data. · Plan change would be advanced without knowledge of the upcoming NPS-NHD, and require further change to progress.
Option B: Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by February 2026 Not recommended	· Extended time and scope for pre-notification engagement. · Allows more meaningful consultation on provisions. · Allows some time to determine appropriate science and data. · Process is unlikely to be affected by RMA reforms.	· Longer process, and later time to notification. · May overlap with local election timeframes (significant notification decision would be early in new triennium). · Does not guarantee agreement and buy in from all parties. · Difficult to run an independent process to review the science and make meaningful changes to the science used, based on feedback from the expert panel, because of truncated timeframes.
Option C: Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by December 2026 Recommended	· Allows for meaningful engagement with interested parties, in accordance with mediated outcomes. · Provides for separate reviews of objectives, policies and rules and wider consultation on the combined framework. · Allows for thorough review process to determine correct science and data. · Avoids conflict with local election timeframes. · Will allow for consideration of any relevant provisions in the NPS-NH or wider central government reforms.	· Longer process, and later time to notification · Does not guarantee agreement and buy in from all parties. · May result in overlap with RMA reforms (depending on how quickly this progresses).

Kōwhiringa | Options

Hua | Benefits

Tūraru | Risks

Option A:

Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by July 2025

Not recommended

· Accelerated process.

· Earlier notification decision,

which does not overlap with local election period.

· Process can be undertaken under the current RMA and is unlikely to be affected by RMA reforms.

· Minimal time for pre-notification engagement.

· Not aligned to settlement agreements, as timeframe fails to provide time for community engagement.

· Higher risk for appeals and judicial review.

· No time to test and agree on ‘correct’ science and data.

· Plan change would be advanced without knowledge of the upcoming NPS-NHD, and require further change to progress.

Option B:

Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by February 2026

Not recommended

· Extended time and scope for pre-notification engagement.

· Allows more meaningful consultation on provisions.

· Allows some time to determine appropriate science and data.

· Process is unlikely to be affected by RMA reforms.

· Longer process, and later time to notification.

· May overlap with local election timeframes (significant notification decision would be early in new triennium).

· Does not guarantee agreement and buy in from all parties.

· Difficult to run an independent process to review the science and make meaningful changes to the science used, based on feedback from the expert panel, because of truncated timeframes.

Option C:

Finalise pre-notification consultation and decision to notify a proposed plan change by December 2026

Recommended

· Allows for meaningful engagement with interested parties, in accordance with mediated outcomes.

· Provides for separate reviews of objectives, policies and rules and wider consultation on the combined framework.

· Allows for thorough review process to determine correct science and data.

· Avoids conflict with local election timeframes.

· Will allow for consideration of any relevant provisions in the NPS-NH or wider central government reforms.

· Longer process, and later time to notification

· Does not guarantee agreement and buy in from all parties.

· May result in overlap with RMA reforms (depending on how quickly this progresses).

31 The preferred recommendation, Option C (above), is the most effective in ensuring consistency with previous agreements and commitment; and that Council gives effect to higher order legislation; enables meaningful engagement; and that any provision is based on robust and tested science.

Mana whenua

32 Policy 2 of the NZCPS (“The Treaty of Waitangi, tangata whenua and Māori heritage”) requires Council to (among other things): 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.

33 Council also has general obligations to consult with iwi in respect of plan changes under the RMA.

34 The proposed scope and timing of the coastal plan change is intended to allow for extensive engagement with mana whenua.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

35 Any review of coastal hazard provisions must consider and respond to the issue of climate change as required by higher order policy and planning instruments such as the NZCPS and the RPS.

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

36 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

37 The Council will be advised by lawyers as necessary throughout the coastal plan change process. Legislative requirements for this Plan Change include:

The Local Government Act 2002:

37.1 Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) outlines the status and powers of local authorities and establishes that in performing its role Council is bound by other relevant legislation, in this case the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

The Resource Management Act 1991:

37.2 The RMA contains two main sections that require Councils to review District Plans at prescribed timeframes:

37.2.1 Section 35 (s35) of the RMA outlines Councils obligation to gather information and monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of its District Plan policies, rules and other methods, and to compile and make publicly available a review of the results of that monitoring at intervals of not more than 5 years.^{^[14]}

37.2.2 Section 79 (s79) of the RMA requires Council to commence a review of its District Plan provisions at least every 10 years.

37.3 Both sections prescribe maximum repeat timeframes for the respective reviews to be undertaken but do not restrict Councils from undertaking them any earlier if the need arises. Councils are entitled to review their District Plans for any reason at any time.

Higher Order Policy and Guidance

37.4 Council also has an obligation to give effect to and implement higher order policy and guidance relating to coastal and natural hazards through its District Plan. In the case of the coastal plan change process it is of particular note that Council needs to ”give effect to”:

37.4.1 NZCPS: contains objectives and policies addressing the management of coastal hazard risks and the protection of coastal natural character.

37.4.2 RPS: contains objectives, policies and methods relating to the coastal environment, natural hazards and climate change.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

38 The proposed scope and timing of the coastal plan change does not impact Council policies.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

39 Subject to the Committee’s decisions today, staff will prepare comprehensive engagement plans in accordance with the phases of work outlined in this paper.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

40 A media statement will be released to communicate the Committee’s decision. For wider consultation later in the process, Council will use its established communications channels to inform and consult with the wider community.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Council letter to Department of Conservation in 2018 (under separate cover)

2. Gap Analysis (under separate cover)

3. Proposed process for coastal hazards up to the decision to notify a coastal plan change (under separate cover)

4. Project Chart (under separate cover)

Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee Meeting Agenda

10 April 2025

9.2 Economic Development Strategy (2024 to 2027) Go-Live

Kaituhi | Author: Matthew Adamson, Strategic Advisor

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

Te pūtake | Purpose

1 To report-back on final engagement on the refreshed Economic Development Strategy (2024 to 2027) ahead of its publication on the Business Kāpiti page.

He whakarāpopoto | EXecutive summary

2 An executive summary is not required for this paper.

Te tuku haepapa | Delegation

3 The Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee has delegated authority to consider this matter under section B.1 of the Governance Structure and Delegations (2022-25 Triennium).

Taunakitanga | RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Strategy, Operations and Finance Committee:

A. Note that:

A.1 Requested stakeholder and community engagement was completed between January and March 2025, with general support received by the business community.

A.2 One change was made, as a result of feedback from the construction sector, to strengthen the focus on removing regulatory barriers for business growth.

A.3 The new Economic Development Strategy will be published on the Business Kāpiti website page in May 2025.

Tūāpapa | Background

4 Supporting Economic Development in Kāpiti is one of Council’s Top 10 priorities, with a key action for this triennium including review and refresh of the Economic Development Strategy. The review is focused on building on the success of the previous Strategy that has been delivered in collaboration with business.

5 Elected members, businesses, stakeholders and the wider community have been engaged at key points throughout the development of the Strategy. As a result of this feedback^{^[15]}, and in response to the recessionary conditions that the New Zealand economy is experiencing, there is a strong focus in the refreshed Strategy to:

5.1 Address areas where our local economy lags behind.

5.2 Enhance Kāpiti Coast’s competitive advantage.

5.3 Embed economic development in the broader context of community values.

6 On 5 December 2024 this Committee considered and endorsed the substantive content of the refreshed Economic Development Strategy, noting that a final round of engagement with targeted stakeholders and the public would occur in early 2025. Following which, the finalised Strategy (incorporating any substantive feedback) would be published in an interactive website format to enable engagement and greater accessibility.

He kōrerorero | Discussion

7 This paper updates you on the final rounds of targeted engagement and public consultation, and shares the interactive website format that goes live on 1 May 2025.

Online publication – Economic Development, and how we support economic growth

8 In the interim of go-live, an overview of the online publication of the refreshed Economic Strategy is set out in Appendix 1 for your information. Of note:

8.1 The primary website for the Economic Strategy is on the Business Kāpiti website, offering links to:

8.1.1 Focus areas for working together to improve economic growth, and how to get involved;

8.1.2 Connection with the ecosystem (including the Chamber, Te Rōpū Pakihi, KEDA and others); and

8.1.3 Activity already underway, including case studies of activity with businesses already underway in food and beverage, creativity, sustainability, education and skills, and tourism.

8.2 A “sister” website page for Economic Development, highlighting Council’s role in supporting economic growth shares the refreshed Strategy’s Focus Areas; workstreams; and links to the Business Kāpiti website, and how to get involved.

Final round of consultation completed

9 The final round of targeted stakeholder engagement occurred during January and February 2025, involving 12 business networks and industry clusters, alongside meetings with Council advisory groups. Detail on the groups and their key feedback is provided in Appendix 2.

9.1 Stakeholder engagement focused on understanding how well the Strategy met the needs of each sector and testing the proposed approach and workstreams. Overall, the stakeholders we engaged with were supportive of the direction proposed by the Strategy. Key themes for improvement were as follows:

Theme	Response and/or amendment
Businesses are finding Council regulatory processes difficult to navigate, which is having impact on delivery of projects. An opportunity was identified to make this a strategic priority and support business and developers through these processes.	Elevated support with regulatory processes to a priority area in the final Strategy. This involves a new dedicated priority action, workstreams and supporting measures, as detailed in paragraph 10.
The success measures were viewed as too high-level and needing to be better supported by baseline data.	Reviewed the initial measures and refined these with reference to baseline data where we already have information. These measures will be regularly updated on the Council and Business Kāpiti webpages. They will also form part of the six-monthly progress reports to this Committee.
Interest in seeing other specific clusters included (e.g., health, retail, retirement).	No change to strategy itself. The cluster approach is as an evolving process, where clusters form, establish their focus, and then transition to independence. The clusters identified in the Strategy were selected on their potential for growth and job creation in Kāpiti. Future economic development strategies will be able to consider the inclusion of new cluster groups.
Interest in leveraging the tourism potential of the coastal trails network, including through better signage and connectivity	No change to strategy itself. However, more specific comments made on topics like the focus of tourism selling points for Kāpiti, will be considered through other initiatives. Several themes are already reflected in work underway/planned through the Destination Management Plan or will likely be responded to through the Culture and Creativity Strategy.
Lack of accommodation and suitable event venues cited as barriers to tourism growth.

10 The refreshed Strategy was also shared with our community for feedback. The number of responses received was small. However, we note that previously we have received strong support from consultation^{^[16]} on economic development, with many residents through Vision Kāpiti confirming that they want to see more local employment opportunities and more local support for business. In regard to this round of engagement:

10.1 Consultation occurred between 11 February and 7 March 2025.This included five ‘pop-ups’ across the district^{^[17]} and marketing and promotion across social media and Everything Kāpiti. Twenty-four submissions were received via the Have Your Say Platform and five submissions were received through email. Details are provided in Appendix 3, however, of note:

10.1.1 In line with previous feedback^{^[18]}, through the Have Your Say Platform, 50% of submitters thought the Strategy would meet the needs of the community; and 66% were happy or neutral with the Strategy’s approach.

10.1.2 Around 30% of feedback through the Have Your Say Platform (11 people) reiterated feedback on the need for Council to tighten its finances, and reduce services. They are not supportive of economic development, but made no specific comments on proposed changes to the Strategy itself.

10.2 Themes from public submissions, which are already addressed through comments in paragraph 9.3, can be summarised as follows:

10.2.1 Council should set the conditions for businesses to thrive. This could include making regulatory processes more user friendly or reducing business rates

10.2.2 Support for a strong emphasis on sustainable economic development through climate friendly economic models.

10.2.3 The Strategy is too high level, and the success measures are too broad.

10.2.4 A stronger focus on arts and culture as drivers of economic development.

11 One change has been introduced as a result of consultation, related to the existing Focus Area: Kāpiti Coast is an inclusive community and is recognised as a great and easy place to invest and do business. This includes:

11.1 A new priority action: Support regulatory requirements and processes which are clear, coordinated and easy to navigate.

11.2 Four workstreams introduced to support business, proposed to be delivered in collaboration with key ecosystem bodies (including the Chamber and Te Rōpū Pakihi):

· Support to navigate regulatory/compliance requirements.

· Feedback to council on issues related to efficiency in the regulatory process.

· Learn from others to inform continuous improvement.

· Advocate to central and local government for regulatory reform that supports ease of doing business and sustainable economic growth.

11.3 Two performance measures will be introduced: Rates of business survey respondents who – a) understand their regulatory compliance requirements; and b) indicate that council consenting and compliance processes were straightforward to use.

He take | Issues

12 There are no significant issues to raise with Council at this time.

Ngā kōwhiringa | Options

13 No options are proposed. Elected Members have previously endorsed the strategy content and are asked to note the feedback received and changes made.

Mana whenua

14 Iwi Māori and Māori business representatives have been involved in the development of this strategy. Mana whenua are represented on the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board and the views of Māori business were captured through engagement with Te Rōpū Pakihi.

Panonitanga Āhuarangi me te Taiao | Climate change and Environment

15 Several submissions emphasised the need to utilise sustainable, climate-friendly models of economic development. The Strategy uses the Doughnut Economic Model and places a strong focus on sustainability and resilience ( for example, regenerative agriculture and sustainable tourism).

Ahumoni me ngā rawa | Financial and resourcing

16 There are no direct financial or resourcing implications arising from this decision as the existing Budget for economic development will be used to fund the work proposed.

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

17 No legal or organisational risks have been identified.

Ngā pānga ki ngā kaupapa here | Policy impact

18 The refreshed Strategy will replace the existing Economic Development Strategy 2020-23. The Strategy is one of Council’s five core operating strategies in its strategic architecture.

TE whakawhiti kōrero me te tūhono | Communications & engagement

Te mahere tūhono | Engagement planning

19 Council and the Economic Development Kotahitanga Board have now engaged with business, the sector, and public on the Direction of Travel and final Strategy refresh. No further engagement is proposed on the Strategy itself.

Whakatairanga | Publicity

20 A webpage with the final document and supporting document will be launched and a joint media release will be issued by the Council and the EDKB. This will be supported by digital marketing through Council’s social media channels and a notice in Everything Kāpiti.

Ngā āpitihanga | Attachments

1. Appendix 1: Overview of the online publication of the refreshed Economic Strategy (under separate cover)

2. Appendix 2: Summary of feedback gathered through stakeholder engagement (under separate cover)

3. Appendix 3: Public feedback received on the draft Economic Development Strategy (under separate cover)

[1] NOBRG - North Otaki Beach Residents Group.

[4] The National Planning Standards amendments took effect on the same date as the operative date for the District Plan (30 June 2021).

[5] The 1999 Operative District Plan coastal hazard provisions that continued to apply were housed within the Coastal Environment chapter, with an explanatory note advising that specific coastal hazard-related provisions would remain operative and in force until they are replaced through a RMA Schedule 1 process.

[6] See in particular the Council Report of 20 June 2024 which concluded the Takutai Kāpiti project, available at: https://kapiticoast.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/06/CO_20240620_AGN_2689_AT_WEB.htm. See the Panel’s Report (appended to the Council Report) for a more fulsome account of the history of the project.

[7] NZCPS – New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

[8] RPS - Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region.

[9] NRP – Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region.

[10] In Coastal Ratepayers United v Kapiti Coast District Council [2017] NZEnvC 31 at [21]-[22], the Environment Court acknowledged this was the conclusion reached by Council.

[11] GWRC – Greater Wellington Regional Council.

[12] The assessments and evaluations undertaken applied relevant criteria of the NZCPS and the RPS, thereby giving effect to higher order legislation and guidance. The methodology used is consistent with the other coastal natural character studies that have been recently undertaken in the Wellington region.

[13] A fourth option was considered in relation to limiting scope to coastal hazards only, but is not progressed on the grounds that it would not enable Council to meet its commitment to DOC; the Gap Analysis provided evidence that coastal natural character provisions do not suitably give effect to higher order documents; and that by incorporating all coastal provisions into the review process, Council is better placed to meet its section 31(1)(a) RMA function of “establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district”.

[14] The requirement to comply with section 35 as a distinct and separate statutory obligation was recently confirmed by the High Court in Environmental Law Initiative v Environment Southland [2025] NZHC 191.

[15] Including targeted engagement with business on the strategy, and Vision Kāpiti and Long-Term Plan 2024-34 engagements.

[16] This is the third round of consultation on Economic Development, and the refreshed strategy which occurred in 2023 and 2024 (Early 2024: Direction of Travel; and 2023/24: via Stage 1 of Vision Kāpiti)

[17] Pop-up engagements were held in Paekākāriki, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu, Waikanae and Ōtaki. These provided the public an opportunity to learn more about the strategy and ask questions of staff.

[18] Previously we have received strong support from consultation on economic development, with many residents through Vision Kāpiti confirming that they want to see more local employment opportunities and more local support for business.


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, 10 April 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