before greater wellington regional council under …

1

BEFORE GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

UNDER the Resource

Management Act 1991

IN THE MATTER OF the Proposed Natural

Resources Plan for the

Wellington Region

AND

IN THE MATTER OF Submissions by the

Kapiti Coast District

Council

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF EMILY THOMSON

ON BEHALF OF THE KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL

Planning

Hearing Group 6

18 May 2018

2

INTRODUCTION

1.1 My full name is Emily Jane Thomson. I am a Senior Policy Planner at the

Kāpiti Coast District Council (District Council). I have held this position since

October 2004. My qualifications are Master of Resource and Environmental

Planning, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture with honours, and a Bachelor of

Science.

1.2 I have 14 years of experience in local government resource management. My

main role as a Senior Policy Planner responsible for the completion of the

Proposed District Plan and to prepare and process District Plan changes and

to provide advice for resource consents sought under the Kāpiti Coast District

Plan. Since 2004, I have written planning evidence for 10 plan changes and

have been involved in the preparation or processing of 16 further plan

changes. I have recently been a section 42A report author for parts of the

review of the Kapiti Coast District Plan.

1.3 I prepared the District Council’s submissions on the Proposed Wellington

Regional Policy Statement and the Proposed New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement (NZCPS) (now operative) and presented the submissions at the

hearing for the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (now operative) and

Board of Inquiry for the NZCPS. I also attended consultation sessions and

provided feedback for the review of the Wellington Regional Plans at the early

stages of development of the plans and assisted in the preparation of the

District Council’s submission on the Draft Regional Plans. In addition I

provided evidence for the District Council to the Boards of Inquiry for the

Transmission Gully Regional Freshwater Plan Change, the Transmission

Gully Motorway Project and MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway Project.

1.4 I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in

the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I agree to comply with that Code.

Other than where I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this

evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material

facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

3

2. OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 My evidence is organised under the following headings:

(a) Executive summary.

(b) Background / context

(c) Statutory matters

(d) Response to Section 42A report

(e) Recommended changes to provisions

(f) Conclusion.

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3.1 The Kapiti Coast District sits at the north western extent of the Wellington

Region and includes land north of the Pukerua Bay to north of Otaki.

3.2 The Kapiti Coast District Council (District Council) made a submission, in

relation to matters being considered in this hearing, the submission supported

the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (PNRP) in part and sought

amendments relating to location of mean high water springs and coastal

hazards.

3.3 My evidence focuses on outstanding matters in relation to the District

Council’s submission, following the release of the Regional Council’s Section

42A report. This includes outlining recommended amendments to methods in

the Proposed Regional Plan and the implications of these rules for the

Council’s management of infrastructure on the coast and natural hazards.

4. BACKGROUND / CONTEXT

4.1 The Kapiti Coast District sits at the north western end of the Wellington

Region with a population of approximately 50,000 with approximately 40

kilometres of sandy open coastline, with two large rivers and associated

estuarine areas, and five streams with mouths in the District. At the current

time the Coast is experiencing erosion which in many places has been

occurring consistently over a long period of time.

4

4.2 The District Council made a submission on the PNRP stating that it supported

the PNRP in part, but has concerns about specific methods of the PNRP

relating to the Council’s management of the coast and natural hazards. The

issues for the development of regionally significant infrastructure are

addressed in more detail in the evidence of Rita O’Brien, Stormwater and

Coastal Engineer from the District Council’s Infrastructure Group.

4.3 The District Council’s submission supported the majority of the PNRP

provisions including objectives and policies. The core concern the District

Council has, with a small number of methods in the PNRP is that they are not

assisting in the management of natural hazards and coastal management for

the District Council and its ratepayers.

4.4 The District Council’s submission supported the following objectives and

policies and sought that these objectives and policies be retained as notified.

4.5 Objective O20 as notified was:

Objective O20 Risk from natural hazards

The risk, residual risk, and adverse effects from natural hazards and

climate change on people, the community and infrastructure are

acceptable.


Objective O21 High hazard areas

Inappropriate use and development in high hazard areas is avoided.


Objective O22 Hard engineering

Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as a

last practicable option.

4.8 Policy P27 as notified was:

Policy P27 Hard engineering

Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as a

last practicable option.

5


Policy P28: Hazard mitigation measures

Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods shall be avoided

except where it is necessary to protect existing development from

unacceptable risk, assessed using the risk-based approach, and the

works either form part of a hazard management strategy or the

environmental effects are considered to be no more than minor.

4.10 Policy 29 was notified as:

Policy P29: Climate change

Particular regard shall be given to the potential for climate change to

cause or exacerbate natural hazard events that could adversely affect use

and development including:

(a) coastal erosion and inundation (storm surge), and

(b) river and lake flooding and erosion or aggradation, and

(c) stormwater ponding and impeded drainage, and

(d) sea level rise, using the best available guidance for the Wellington

Region.

4.11 Policy P30 was notified as:

Policy P30: Natural buffers

The adverse effects of use and development on natural features such as

beaches, dunes or wetlands that buffer development from natural hazards

shall be minimised.


Policy P132: Functional need and efficient use

Use and development in the coastal marine area shall:

(a) have a functional need, or

(b) have an operational requirement to locate within the coastal

marine area, and no reasonable or practicable alternative to

locating in the coastal marine area, or

(c) for any other activity, it shall have no reasonable or practicable

alternative to locating in the coastal marine area, and in respect of

(a), (b) and (c):

6

(d) only use the minimum area necessary, and

(e) be made available for public or multiple use where appropriate, and

(f) result in the removal of structures once redundant, and

(g) concentrate in locations where similar use and development

already.


Policy P134: Public open space values and visual amenity

The adverse effects of new use and development on public open space

and visual amenity viewed within, to and from the coastal marine area

shall be minimised by:

(a) having particular regard to any relevant provisions contained in any

bordering territorial authorities’ proposed and/or operative district

plan, and

(b) managing use and development to be of a scale, location, density

and design which is compatible with the natural character, natural

features and landscapes and amenity values of the coastal

environment, and

(c) taking account of the future need for public open space in the

coastal marine area.


Policy P138: Structures in sites with significant values

New structures, replacement of a structure or any addition or alteration to

a structure in a site identified in Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule F4

(coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological

features) shall be avoided, except where:

(a) the new structure, replacement of the structure or any addition or

alteration to the structure is for the specific purpose of providing

protection for the values identified in Schedule C (mana whenua),

Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) or

Schedule J (geological features), or

(b) the structure is for educational, scientific or research purposes that

will enhance the understanding and long-term protection of the

coastal marine area, or

(c) the structure will provide for navigational safety, or

7

(d) it is necessary to enable the development, operation, maintenance

and upgrade of regionally significant infrastructure, and in

respect of (a) to (d):

(e) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the

activity.

4.15 Policy P139 as notified as:

Policy P139: Seawalls

The construction of a new seawall is inappropriate except where the

seawall is required to protect:

(a) existing, or upgrades to, infrastructure, or

(b) new regionally significant infrastructure, and in respect of (a)

and (b):

(c) there is no reasonable or practicable alternative means, and

(d) suitably located, designed and certified by a qualified, professional

engineer, and

(e) designed to incorporate the use of soft engineering options

where appropriate.


Policy P143: Deposition in a site of significance

Deposition of sand, shingle or shell in a site identified in Schedule C

(mana whenua), Schedule E4 (archaeological sites), Schedule F4

(coastal sites),

Schedule F5 (coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological features) shall

be avoided except where:

(a) the activity is for the specific purpose of providing protection for

the values identified in Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule E4

(archaeological sites), Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5

(coastal habitats) and Schedule J (geological features), or

(b) it involves renourishment for the purpose of managing coastal

erosion, or

(c) it provides for public amenity, or

(d) the activity is carried out for the purposes of flood protection

and/or erosion mitigation, or

(e) the activity is carried out by or for local authorities, or

8

(f) it is necessary to enable the efficient development, operation,

maintenance and upgrade of regionally significant

infrastructure, and in respect of (a) to (f):

(g) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the

activity.

4.17 Policy P145 as notified as:

Policy P145: Reclamation, drainage and destruction

Reclamation, drainage or destruction in the coastal marine area shall be

avoided except where:

(a) the reclamation, drainage or destruction is associated with the

development, operation, maintenance and upgrade of regionally

significant infrastructure, and

(b) there are no other locations outside the coastal marine area for the

activity associated with the reclamation, drainage or destruction,

and

(c) there are no practicable alternative methods of providing for the

associated activity.


Policy P147: Motor vehicles on the foreshore

District and city councils may restrict the use of motor vehicles on the

foreshore, with the exception of vehicles associated with:

(a) surf lifesaving operations, or

(b) emergency situations, including (but not restricted to) firefighting, oil

spills, rescue operations, salvage of vessels and marine mammal

strandings, or

(c) local authority activities, or

(d) the development, operation, maintenance and upgrade of

regionally significant infrastructure.


Policy P148: Motor vehicles in sites with significant value

The use of motor vehicles on the foreshore in a site identified in

Schedule C (mana whenua), Schedule E4 (archaeological sites),

Schedule F2c

9

(birds-coastal), Schedule F4 (coastal sites), Schedule F5 (coastal

habitats) shall be avoided, except when required for surf lifesaving,

emergency, law enforcement, local authority or regionally significant

infrastructure purposes.

4.20 The District Council’s submission requests that rules R189, R191, R193 and

R197 and method M4 be retained as notified.

4.21 Rule 189 was notified as:

Rule R189: Clearance of stormwater pipes - permitted activity

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed from the clearance of a

stormwater pipe in the coastal marine area, including any associated:

(a) occupation of space in the common marine and coastal area,

and

(b) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and

(c) discharge of contaminants is a permitted activity, provided the

following conditions are met:

(d) the disturbance is undertaken by or for a local authority or a road

controlling authority or is required for port maintenance, and

(e) the extent of the foreshore or seabed disturbance is limited to that

required to create a free-draining path from the stormwater outlet

to the sea, and

(f) the disturbance shall not prevent public access to or along the

foreshore, and

(g) all material excavated is retained within the active beach system

except for visibly contaminated material. Any visibly contaminated

material shall be removed from the beach system and disposed of

appropriately, and

(h) excavated material is not mounded, bunded and/or deposited in a

manner that creates ponding or the diversion of water on the

foreshore or seabed, and

(i) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general

conditions specified above in Section 5.7.2.

4.22 Rule R191 was notified as:

Rule R191: Disturbance associated with beach grooming - permitted

activity

10

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for beach grooming including

any removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material in the coastal

marine area, including any associated:

(a) deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, and

(b) discharge of contaminants on the following beaches: Ōtaki, Te

Horo, Peka Peka, Waikanae, Paraparaumu, Raumati, Paekakariki,

Tītahi Bay (excluding the area of fossil forest shown on Map 35),

Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, Browns Bay, Bradley Point,

Motukaraka Point, Mana Foreshore, Onehunga Bay, Dolly Varden

Beach, Pukerua Bay, Lyall Bay, Island Bay, Princess Bay, Worser

Bay, Scorching Bay, Oriental Bay, Freyberg, Petone, Point Howard,

Sorrento Bay, Days Bay, Rona Bay, Castlepoint, Riversdale

is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions are met:

(a) the beach grooming shall be carried out for the purpose of

grooming and the removal of marine debris and litter, and

(b) the activity shall be undertaken by or for a local authority, and

(c) the activity shall not occur when shellfish beds are exposed, and

(d) the activity shall not be within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua) or Schedule E4 (archaeological sites), and

(e) the activity shall not be within the Tītahi Bay fossil forest shown on

Map 35.

Note While the removal of natural materials from a marine reserve (unless

authorised for research purposes) is prohibited under the Marine

Reserves Act 1971, a memorandum of understanding between the

Department of Conservation and Wellington City Council enables beach

grooming within Taputeranga Marine Reserve with particular conditions.

4.23 Rule R193 was notified as:

Rule R193: River and stream mouth cutting - permitted activity

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for river and stream mouth

cutting in the coastal marine area, including any associated:


(b) discharge of contaminants, and

(c) diversion of open coastal water, and

(d) discharge of contaminants

11

for the following rivers and lakes:

(e) Waitohu Stream, Ōtaki River, Mangaone Stream, Waimeha

Stream, Waikanae River, Hadfield Drain, Wharemauku Stream,

Whareroa Stream, Wainui Stream, Waikakariki Stream, Makara

Stream, Motuwaireka Stream, Castlepoint Stream, Whakataki

River, Tikotu Stream, and Lake Kohangapiripiri, Lake Kohangatera

and Lake Onoke, and

(g) an unnamed stream approximately 190m south of the seaward end

of Sunrise Way, Riversdale, and

(h) an unnamed stream approximately 145m north of the seaward end

of Sunrise Way, Riversdale, and

(i) an unnamed stream at the seaward end of Karaka Drive,

Riversdale is a permitted activity, provided the following conditions

are met:

(j) the activity shall be carried out for the purposes of flood protection

and/or erosion mitigation, and

(k) the activity shall only be carried out by or for a local authority, and

(l) the activity is only undertaken when the trigger level defined in

Schedule U (river mouth cutting) is equalled or exceeded, and

(m) the foreshore shall not be mechanically disturbed to a depth greater

than required to divert stream flow, and

(n) the activity shall not prevent public access to or along the foreshore

(this condition shall not apply to any restrictions on access arising

from water flowing in any outlet channel), and

(o) any material excavated shall be placed on the immediately adjacent

foreshore area, and no material shall be removed from the site

unless the material is contaminated and/or it contains hazardous

substances, and

(p) for activities undertaken in the mouths of either Lake

Kohangapiripiri or Lake Kohangatera, any cutting operation shall be

in accordance with the Wellington Regional Council Parangarahu

Lakes Area Co-Management Plan (August 2014), and

(q) for activities undertaken in the Lake Onoke mouth, the mechanical

opening shall not occur during the period 1 February to 31 May

12

(inclusive) each year without notification to a nominated

representative (or in their absence, a nominated deputy) from the

Tuhirangi Marae, and

(r) for activities undertaken in the Waikanae River, the Department of

Conservation shall be notified at least two working days prior to the

commencement of the cutting operation, and

(s) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general


4.24 Rule R197 as notified was:

Rule R197: Motor vehicles for certain purposes - permitted activity

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed from motor vehicles in the

coastal marine area, for the following purposes:

(a) surf lifesaving operations, or

(b) emergency situations, including firefighting, oil spills, rescue

operations, salvage of vessels and marine mammal strandings, or

(c) local authority activities, including law enforcement, or

(d) the maintenance, upgrade and operation of regionally significant

infrastructure


(e) the vehicle shall take the most direct route, and shall only operate

within the area necessary to carry out the activity to ensure minimal

disturbance to the foreshore or seabed, and

(f) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general


4.25 The “coastal management general conditions specified above in Section

5.7.2” include the following of particular relevance to relevant to the activities

carried out by the District Council on the Kapiti Coast:

Coastal management general conditions

Coastal management general conditions for activities in the coastal

marine area that apply when specified in a rule.

Disturbance

13

(a) the coastal marine area, including river mouths shall not be

disturbed to an extent greater than that required to undertake the

activity, and

(b) any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed is removed in 48 hours,

and

(c) …

(d) all machinery, equipment and materials used for the activity shall

be removed from the foreshore or seabed at the completion of the

activity, and

Discharges

(a) …

(b) The discharge of sediment to water from an activity in, on, over or

under the foreshore or seabed in the coastal marine area shall

meet the following:

(i) the release of sediment associated with the activity shall not

be undertaken for more than five consecutive days, and for

more than 12 hours per day, and

(ii) it shall not, after reasonable mixing, cause any conspicuous

change in the colour of the water in the receiving water or

any change in horizontal visibility greater than 30% more

than 24 hours after the completion of the activity, and

Erosion and scouring

(c) The activity shall not result in erosion or scouring of river banks

(that are part of the coastal marine area) and shall not result in

flooding of a neighbouring property, and

Diversion

(d) …

(e) Any diversion of open coastal water undertaken as part of an

activity shall only be temporary and for a period no longer than that

required to complete the activity. All work shall be contained within

the coastal marine area, and any diversion channel required must

have sufficient capacity to carry the same flow as the original

channel, so as not to cause flooding or erosion of any neighbouring

property, and

14

Dumping

(f) Demolition materials shall not be used for any purpose in the

coastal marine area, and

Fish passage

(g) Any structure constructed in the coastal marine area shall provide

for fish passage (including between fresh water and coastal water)

at all times, unless a temporary restriction is required for

construction activities, and

Inanga spawning

(h) In any part of the coastal marine area (including any part of a river

in the coastal marine area) identified as inanga spawning habitat in

Schedule F1b (inanga spawning habitat), no disturbance of or

deposition in, on or under the foreshore or seabed shall occur and

no diversion of open coastal water or sediment discharge shall

occur between 1 March and 31 May, and

Design and maintenance of structures

(i) Any structure shall be designed and maintained so that it does not

reduce the ability of the river (that is part of the coastal marine

area) to convey flood flows, including the management of flood

debris accumulated against the structure, and

Refuelling

(j) …

Lighting and glare

(k) …

Noise in the coastal marine area

(l) …

4.26 Method M4 was notified as:

Method M4: Sea level rise

Wellington Regional Council will develop regional guidance for managing

the impacts from sea level rise. This will include providing the best

available information on the local rates of change using tide gauge

records and continuous GPS records to understand relative sea level

change and forecast estimates using the latest internationally peer-

reviewed science and measurements.

15

Forecasts of sea level rise will be reviewed after each International Panel

of

Climate Change report and a re-analysis of the local rates of sea level

change will be undertaken at least every 10 years.

The purpose of this is to enable a consistent approach between local

authorities to manage climate change related coastal hazards.

4.27 The District Council’s submission sought the following methods and maps be

amended as set out below:

4.28 Method M3 was notified as:

Method M3: Wellington regional hazards management strategy

Wellington Regional Council will work in partnership with city and district

councils and stakeholders to develop and implement a Wellington

regional hazards management strategy. The purpose of the strategy is to

facilitate a consistent approach to managing natural hazards between

local authorities in the region.

4.29 The District Council’s submission sought Method 3 is amended to read as

follows:

Method M3: Wellington regional hazards management strategy

Wellington Regional Council will work in partnership with city and district

councils and stakeholders the community to: (a) identify areas of

significant natural hazards, and (b) develop and implement a Wellington

regional hazard management strategy, and (c) produce maps of areas of

significant natural hazards and other instruments by 2017 for inclusion in

the Plan by change or variation. The purpose of the strategy is to facilitate

a consistent approach to managing natural hazards between local

authorities in the region.

4.30 The reason for this submission is to ensure that the Regional Hazards

Management Strategy takes a more directive approach to providing a

consistent approach to planning for natural hazards across the region. The

notified method does not provide any certainty that the hazard management

strategy (that member councils have provided some funding for) will deliver a

useful outcome to the District Council in terms of natural hazard planning.

16

4.31 The District Council submission sought that Maps 42-48 be amended to

identify the landward extent of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). Maps 42-48

were notified showing the landward extent of the coastal marine area at river

mouths only. The District Council’s submission sought that:

“Council establishes, and includes a mapped boundary to the CMA, and

prepares maps that show the location of coastal protection structures in

relation to the CMA boundary within the Regional Plan”

4.32 The reason these map amendments were sought is the District Council has

found that it is unclear whether or not coastal protection structures and

stormwater outlets are located in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and what

parts of the ‘beach’ are outside the CMA.

4.33 The costs incurred and time involved in consent applications under these rules

may prove to be unnecessary if the CMA is located on maps and it is possible

to provide practical access without driving in the CMA to carry out works

outside of the CMA. Alternatively clarity within the rules relating to heavy

vehicles, in associated with permitted activities in the CMA, may provide

some relief in relation to maintenance or upgrade of infrastructure activities

where those activities are permitted by the rules.

4.34 The construction, upgrade and maintenance of regionally significant

infrastructure is a necessity for health and safety of people and communities

within urban areas. Therefore, having impediments to permitted activities for

infrastructure maintenance creates additional unnecessary costs to the

community to carry out essential maintenance of the infrastructure.

5. STATUTORY MATTERS

5.1 Having carefully reviewed the proposed recommendations to provisions and

maps in the relevant Section 42A Reports I am concerned that the proposed

provisions do not meet the purpose and principles of the RMA.

5.2 It is my opinion that these provisions need to be amended or retained as

notified to ensure that sustainable management of natural and physical

17

resources is achieved. This is particularly important given that the purpose of

the RMA is to enable the wellbeing of people and communities to provide for

their health and safety while:

(i) Sustaining the potential of resources to meet the foreseeable needs of

future generations and

(ii) safeguarding the life supporting capacity of water, soil and

ecosystems

5.3 I consider that the provision of regionally significant infrastructure is an

important component of enabling the wellbeing of people and communities

while safeguarding the life supporting capacity of water, soil and ecosystems.

I consider that the provision, upgrading and maintenance of regionally

significant infrastructure, including where there is a functional need for this

infrastructure to occur in the CMA, is important in ensuring that the needs of

people are provided for while maintaining environmental standards.

5.4 The Kapiti Coast’s urban areas, like other areas in the Wellington Region, are

very susceptible to natural hazard risks which are significantly mitigated by

the efficient management of stormwater runoff from urban areas by the

District Council. In my opinion the life supporting capacity of water, would be

significantly compromised if the outlets networks of piped stormwater were

not maintained or fall into disrepair due to an overly onerous consenting

regime. If the water is unable to discharge into the CMA it will cause

significant flood hazards to occur further inland.

5.5 In relation to other matters in Section 7 of the RMA it is my opinion that

amendments are required to the rules and their conditions to address

concerns related to the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the

environment.

5.6 I consider that the amendments and further provisions proposed in section 7

of this evidence would assist to achieve the purpose of the RMA and more

adequately address these matters. This is because with my recommended

changes, the rules and conditions would provide more guidance and clearer

requirements about how the section 6 of the RMA matters will be recognised

18

and provided for, and about how particular regard has been given to the

section 7 matters.

5.7 In terms of section 32 (and section 32AA) analysis I do not consider that the

Policies (P139, P30) Maps (42-48) and Rule (R191) as recommended in the

Section 42A reports are the most efficient and effective method of giving

effect to the objectives of the plan. In particular I consider that the provisions,

recommended in the Section 42A report, do not implement Objectives 12 and

20-22 of this plan relating to the management of natural hazards and benefits

of regionally significant infrastructure which state:

Objective O12

The social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally

significant infrastructure and renewable energy generation

activities are recognised.

Objective O20

The risk, residual risk, and adverse effects from natural hazards and

climate change on people, the community and infrastructure are

acceptable.

Objective O21

Inappropriate use and development in high hazard areas is avoided.

Objective O22

Hard engineering mitigation and protection methods are only used as

a last practicable option.

5.8 It is my view that the amendments to Policies P30 and P139 as recommended

in the section 42a reports, also do not adequately recognise the social,

economic, cultural and environmental benefits of regionally significant

infrastructure including stormwater networks and the necessary functions

required for it as set out in Policy 12 of the Regional Policy Statement below.

Policy 12: benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and

renewable electricity generation facilities

19

The benefits of regionally significant infrastructure and renewable energy

generation activities are recognised by having regard to:

(a) The strategic integration of infrastructure and land use, and

(b) The location of existing infrastructure and structures, and

(c) The need for renewable energy generation activities to locate

where the renewable energy resources exist, and

(d) the functional need for port activities to be located within the

coastal marine area, and

(e) operational requirements associated with developing, operating,

maintaining and upgrading regionally significant infrastructure

and renewable energy generation activities.

5.9 I consider that the lack of a consistent CMA landward extent also does not

currently recognise and provide for the ‘operational requirements’ of

regionally significant infrastructure. Therefore they do not implement the

objectives or the policies. The District Council’s submission included options

for these rules which would specifically provide for regionally significant

infrastructure and implement these objectives. Recommended amendments

to the provisions are provided in section 7 of this evidence.

The National Policy Statements

5.10 I consider that in addition to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

(NZCPS),and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management,

identified in the Section 42A reports, that the National Policy Statement for

Urban Development Capacity (2016)(NPSUDC) is particularly relevant to this

hearing.

5.11 The NPSUDC is identified in the Part A Section 42A report, provided for

Hearing 1. The Hearing 1 Section 42A report considers that none of these are

“directive as to the amendments required to the proposed plan, the Council

must progress any necessary amendments through the normal RMA

Schedule 1 process”. I agree that any amendments to comply with the

NPSUDC that are not within the scope of submissions will need to be

undertaken via the Schedule 1 process however consideration of the

NPSUDC in relation to submission requests is relevant as part of this hearing.

20

This National Policy Statement has not been considered in the Section 42A

reports for this hearing.

5.12 The Wellington Region is identified as a Medium Growth Area in the NPSUDC

and therefore all the objectives and policies PA1-4, PC1-4 and PD 1-2 must

be given effect to as soon as practicable. The District Council needs to

provide for a growing population within the District under these objectives and

policies, which means that the infrastructure to provide for new urban areas

and intensification in existing urban areas to accommodate growth is a

nationally mandated activity. The PNRP rules which hinder the development

or maintenance of this regionally significant infrastructure are in my opinion

not giving effect to the NPSUDC. The recommended amendments in Section

7 of this evidence seek to give effect to the NPSUDC by enabling efficient

infrastructure development upgrading and maintenance.

6. RESPONSE TO THE SECTION 42A REPORT

6.1 I have read the Section 42A reports dated 4 May 2018. My comments will

focus on the Management of the CMA, Natural Hazards and Activities in the

CMA reports.

6.2 It is disappointing that the Recommended Decisions on Submissions table for

the Natural Hazards Section 42A report contains errors including that it rejects

the District Council's submissions in relation to O20, O21, O22, M3 however

the report agrees with the submission and retains Objectives O20, O21 and

O22 and Method M3 as notified. Similarly the Activities in the Coastal Marine

Area Section 42A report Recommended Decisions on Submissions table also

shows the District Council’s submissions on R191 and R193 to be accepted

however these provisions have been amended as the result of other

submissions. These errors between the tables and the reports make it very

difficult for submitters to focus evidence on the most relevant submission

points.

6.3 The Section 42A report for Management of the CMA recommends changes to

Policy 139 and therefore can only accept the District Council’s submission

point in part. The policy is recommended to be amended as set out below:

21

Policy P139: Seawalls

The construction of a new seawall is inappropriate except where the

seawall is required to protect:

(a) existing, or upgrades to, infrastructure, or

(b) new regionally significant infrastructure, and in respect of (a)

and (b):

(c) there is no reasonable or practicable alternative means, and

(d) suitably located, and designed to minimise adverse effects on the

coastal environment, and certified by a qualified, professional

engineer, and

(e) designed to incorporate the use of soft engineering options

where appropriate.

6.4 I consider that the addition proposed to clause d) of this policy changes the

emphasis of the clause from a focus on an engineering design to withstand

coastal processes to a focus on adverse effects. I note that this clause has

been amended to align with clause 3 of Policy 27 of the NZCPS however I

consider that the emphasis added results in a policy which is less consistent

with Policy 27 of the NZCPS overall as it lacks the balancing included in this

policy regarding the costs and risks of all coastal protection methods and

planning for transition to more sustainable practices. I consider this change of

emphasis is inconsistent with Objective O12 of this plan and Policy 27 of the

NZCPS.

6.5 The Natural Hazards Section 42A report, recommends amending Policies

P27, P28, P29 and P30 as set out below:

Policy P27: High hazard areas

Use and development, including hazard mitigation methods, in high

hazard areas shall be avoided except where:

(a) they have a functional need or operational requirement or there is

no practicable alternative to be so located, and

(b) the risk to the development and/or residual risk after hazard

mitigation measures, assessed using a risk-based approach, is

low acceptable, and

(c) the development does not cause or exacerbate natural hazards in

other areas, and

22

(d) interference with adverse effects on natural processes (coastal,

river and lake fluvial and lacustrine processes) is minimised, and

(e) natural cycles of erosion and accretion and the potential for natural

features to fluctuate in position over time, including movements

due to climate change and sea level rise over at least the next 100

years, are taken

Policy P28

“Hard hazard engineering mitigation and protection shall be avoided except:

(a) where necessary to protect development from unacceptable risk,

assessed using the risk-based approach; and

(b) the development demonstrates a functional need or operational

requirement to locate in a particular location; and

(i) where the environmental effects are more than minor the works

form part of a hazard management strategy; or

(ii) any adverse effects are no more than minor and are otherwise

avoided, remedied or mitigated the environmental effects are

considered to be no more than minor”.

Policy P29: Effects of cClimate change

Particular regard shall be given to the potential for climate change to

threaten biodiversity, aquatic ecosystem health and mahinga kai, or to cause

or exacerbate natural events over at least the next 100 years that could

adversely affect use and development, including:

(a) coastal erosion and inundation (storm surge), and

(b) river and lake flooding and erosion, or aggradation, decreased

minimum flows, and

(c) stormwater ponding and impeded drainage, and

(d) relative sea level rise, using the best available guidance for the

Wellington Region.

Policy P30: Natural buffers

The adverse effects of use and development on natural features such as

beaches, dunes or natural wetlands that buffer development from natural

hazards shall be minimised, and the restoration and enhancement of

natural buffers shall be provided for.

23

6.6 I consider that these recommended amendments to Policies P27 – P29 are

generally helpful to plan users however the recommended amendment to

Policy P30 adds a potentially significant additional cost to the District Council if

any works proposed by the Council would impact on the dunes or beaches.

This Policy amendment could require significant restoration or enhancement

works as a result of the District Council requiring resource consent to drive

heavy vehicles on the beach to access coastal protection structures or

stormwater outlets to carry out routine maintenance. I do not consider

restoration and enhancement is required in this policy and I consider that

these additions to Policy P30 place a significant cost burden on the

maintenance of regionally significant infrastructure.

6.7 The Section 42A report for Activities in the Coastal Marine Area recommends

amending rules R191 and R193 as set out below:

Rule R191: Disturbance associated with beach grooming –

permitted activity

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for beach grooming

including any removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material in

the coastal marine area, including any associated:


(b) discharge of contaminants on the following beaches: Ōtaki, Te

Horo, Peka Peka, Waikanae, Paraparaumu, Raumati, Paekakariki,

Tītahi Bay (excluding the area of fossil forest shown on Map 35),

Karehana Bay, Plimmerton, Browns Bay, Bradley Point,

Motukaraka Point, Mana Foreshore, Onehunga Bay, Dolly Varden

Beach, Pukerua Bay, Lyall Bay, Island Bay, Princess Bay, Worser

Bay, Scorching Bay, Oriental Bay, Freyberg, Petone, Point

Howard, Sorrento Bay, Days Bay, Rona Bay, Castlepoint,

Riversdale


(c) the beach grooming shall be carried out for the purpose of

grooming and the removal of marine debris and litter, and

(d) the activity shall be undertaken by or for a local authority, and

(e) the activity shall not occur when shellfish beds are exposed, and

24

(f) the activity shall not be within a site identified in Schedule C (mana

whenua) or Schedule E4 (archaeological sites) or Schedule F4

(significant indigenous biodiversity values in the coastal marine

area), and

(g) the activity shall not be within the Tītahi Bay fossil forest shown on

Map 35., and

(h) the activity shall comply with the coastal management general


6.8 I consider the amendments to Rule R191 are intended to have the effect of

achieving consistency with the other permitted activities. However this is not

appropriate for beach grooming as the ‘coastal management general

conditions’ include requirements relating to “disturbance of the foreshore”

being “removed after 48 hours”, which will not occur with grooming and

therefore all grooming will be unable to comply with the general conditions. I

do not consider it is appropriate to add these general conditions to this rule.

These additions would create a situation where it is not possible to undertake

the activity as a permitted activity anywhere in the region.

Rule R193: River and stream and lake mouth cutting - permitted activity

The disturbance of the foreshore or seabed for river and stream mouth

cutting in the coastal marine area, including any associated:


(b) discharge of contaminants, and

(c) diversion of open coastal water, and

(d) discharge of contaminants

for the following rivers and lakes:

...

6.9 I consider the amendment to R193 to be minor as it primarily removes

duplication of clause b) and adds lake mouths to the rule. Therefore I consider

these amendments are helpful to the plan user and are generally consistent

with the objectives and higher order documents.

6.10 In relation to the District Council’s submission point seeking amendments to

Method M3 the Natural Hazards Section 42A report states:

25

“KCDC’s concern is that while the proposed Plan does confirm a hazard

management strategy will be developed, it does not commit to a

timeframe to develop the strategy. …

451. Since that submission was made, Council has developed, drafted

and made operational a Hazards Management Strategy (in consultation

with the region’s territorial authorities, including KCDC). I consider that

this largely addresses the concerns raised by the Kāpiti Coast District

Council.

…

454. I consider that the development of the Hazard Management

Strategy by the Council has addressed the concerns articulated by the

Kāpiti Coast District Council, and my recommendation is therefore that

this submission point is accepted in part. No amendment is required.”

6.11 I concur with the Section 42A Report writers’ comments that the Regional

Natural Hazards Strategy work has now been completed therefore the

submission point is no longer necessary.

6.12 The District Council sought that Maps 42-48 be amended Maps 42-48 were

notified showing the landward extent of the coastal marine area at river

mouths only. The District Council’s submission sought that:

“Council establishes, and includes a mapped boundary to the CMA, and

prepares maps that show the location of coastal protection structures in

relation to the CMA boundary within the Regional Plan”

6.13 The Activities in the CMA Section 42A report responded to this request as

follows:

“In response to the first request, for the reasons set out earlier in

response to a similar request by Wellington City Council (286/002) (see

paragraph 746), I also recommend that this request within submission

point S117/084 is rejected.

771. In response to the second request, I note that Councils GIS tool

maps the CMA throughout the Wellington region and this mapping tool is

on a recent aerial photograph, which allows you to identify coastal

protection structures. In my view, it is not effective or efficient to replicate

26

this information in the proposed Plan. Accordingly, I also recommend that

this request by Kapiti Coast District Council (S117/084) is rejected.”

6.14 Paragraph 746 states that:

“746. I agree that this would be useful from plan user’s perspective,

particularly to determine when an activity is within a site of significance.

However, the GWRC GIS tool maps the CMA (and the MHWS)

throughout the region.

Further to this, Map 42 – 48 also identify the CMA on a number of river

and stream mouths. I do not see how duplicating this information would

provide any additional benefit for plan users. Accordingly, I recommend

that the requested amendment by Wellington City Council (S286/022) is

rejected.”

6.15 It is my understanding that mapping of MHWS is now proposed to be

undertaken, by Greater Wellington, in the 2018-2019 financial year for the

Kapiti Coast and adjacent areas of the coast, therefore I was surprised by the

Section 42A Report indicating that this has already been completed and is

publicly available.

6.16 I have spent a significant amount of time trying to locate this information within

the Greater Wellington Web GIS system and am unable to find Mean High

Water Springs (MHWS) on the mapping tool, apart from at major river mouth

locations as shown on Maps 42-48. The tool is very difficult to find on the

Greater Wellington website and I have tried looking for MHWS or the extent

of the CMA in many of the ‘galleries’ without success. If this information is

available it would greatly assist plan users to include it as part of the

Proposed Natural Resources Plan data set (where the stream mouth CMA

extent is included) for completeness. The District Council’s submission

sought clarity in the form of mapping of the landward extent of the CMA along

the whole coast. I consider that this certainty is required to enable the PNRP

rules to be implemented.

6.17 It is important to have clarity about the landward extent of the CMA as many

permitted activities such as clearing stormwater outlets (R189) may require

27

resource consent for the vehicles in the CMA in relation to Policy P147 and

Rules R196 and R197 and the definition of ‘motor vehicles’.

6.18 The regional council advice to the district council about the location of MHWS

(the landward extent of the CMA) has been on a case by case basis. The

most recent advice in relation to a specific project was:

“... MHWS is a mobile boundary rather than a fixed one and it is highly

variable on sandy beaches, particularly in places like this that are tightly

constrained along the backshore with development and structures that

inhibit or prevent the normal cut and fill cycles that result in the transfer of

sediments between the backshore, foreshore and nearshore. There can

be vertical fluctuations of 1.0 m or more in the beach sediment volumes

along this stretch of coast and this significantly alters the horizontal limit of

the MHWS, to the degree that it can vary from week to week by many

metres in the foreshore. Therefore, it is more realistic to consider the

MHWS has having an envelope within which it fluctuates from week to

week and month to month.

When the winter storms of 2016 caused severe erosion damage along

this stretch of coast the MHWS moved inland and wave activity was

eroding a vertical scarp in the backshore. The block wall was put in place

as an emergency response to this and at the time, was emplaced within

the CMA. During this period, the volume of the beach of the beach was

low, as you might expect after an erosion event. Some sand volume has

subsequently returned and the MHWS has moved slightly seaward. This

is part of the normal fluctuation of the beach. Another storm cycle will

lower the beach again and the MHWS will migrate inland again as a

response.

Over time however, the general trend will be for the MHWS to move

inland due to sea level rise (2.1 mm/yr) and regional subsidence that is

currently measured at rates equal to and higher than the long term rate of

sea level rise (1-3 mm/yr), effectively doubling the relative rate of sea

level rise to over 4.0 mm/yr. This subsidence has been occurring for as

long as records show (over 17 yrs) and feasibly longer as it is thought to

28

relate to regional tectonics of which a measurable effect is the slow slip

earthquake events that occur off the Kapiti Coast.

Taking this into account, MHWS runs along the toe of the Marine Parade

revetment then moves inland to run within +/- 1.0 m of the toe of the

seawall structures on average. The toe of these structures can be

considered as within the MHWS envelope.”

6.19 I accept that MHWS is a moving boundary however it can be calculated over a

specific time period therefore the District Council is keen to have clarity about

the location of MHWS at this time to enable the PNRP rules to be used. The

CMA rules only apply below MHWS and other rules including the Kapiti Coast

District Plan rules apply above MHWS.

6.20 The mapping is of particular relevance to the Council in relation to seawalls

and other coastal hazard management structures but it is also relevant to

stormwater outlets onto the coast. The general conditions clause (k) as

recommended in the Section 42A report requires fish passage be provided if

a structure in the existing reticulated netorrks (such as a stormwater pipe) is

constructed in the CMA. Stormwater pipes on sandy coasts are commonly

designed with one way valves, socks or flaps which allow water out but do not

allow sand or other debris to enter the pipe. These types of mechanisms

would also prevent fish passage in these systems. Therefore certainty about

the location of the CMA in relation to this infrastructure is critical.

6.21 This issue has become even more important in the context of rule

interpretations the District Council has received from the Regional Council

staff. As a practical example of the need for clarity Rule R196 would

potentially require non-complying activity resource consent for vehicles

required to clear debris from stormwater outlets in the CMA at Waikanae

Beach and Estuary, Paraparaumu Beach, Waitohu Stream mouth and the

Otaki River mouth as these are scheduled areas excluded in the permitted

activity standards. However the stormwater outlets in these areas may be

outside of the CMA and heavy vehicle access could potentially occur in some

or all locations without entering the CMA if the outlets are located outside the

CMA.

29

6.22 The District Council is further concerned that due to the definition of “motor

vehicle” being “…limited to cars,…weighing up to 3,500kg.” means machinery

for cleaning stormwater outlets and other necessary coastal activities will be

excluded from the vehicle rules and therefore the vehicles driving along the

foreshore will need to be considered under other rules. I consider that the

rules that should be used for this ‘heavy vehicle’ driving are Rule R185 - R187

however the advice the District Council has received from consent officers is

that rules R194 and R195 should be used. The Regional Council resource

consent staff have advised in relation to works on the foreshore that:

“The tracking of the digger for approximately 1km along the beach and

through the Wharemauku Stream estuary is a discretionary and a non-

complying activity (respectively on the beach and in the estuary).

The Sumitoto SH120 digger is not classed as a motor vehicle under the

PNRP as it is ~12,700kg and a motor vehicle needs to be 3000kg or

under according to the interpretation.

Therefore, the relevant rules for the disturbance of the beach (for the

transit along approx. 1km of beach and through the Wharemauku

Estuary, not the disturbance associated with its construction in the

vicinity of the structure) are:

R194 – Discretionary activity – Disturbance of the CMA outside of a site

of significance

R195 – Non complying activity - Disturbance of the CMA inside of a site

of significance”

6.23 It is unclear to me why rules R194 and R195 are cited when rule R185 applies

to “general foreshore and seabed activities” and includes “disturbance of the

foreshore or seabed” this rule appears to more appropriately relate to driving

along the foreshore than rule R195 as the disturbance by driving a vehicle is

not necessarily “damage of the foreshore” which appears to be the reason

this interpretation has been made. The District Council did not anticipate the

rules being applied in this way when making a submission on this proposed

plan. The interpretation of these rules as set out above will add considerable

costs to the maintenance of infrastructure including stormwater outlets.

30

6.24 Any equipment used for these purposes can comply with best practice

standards including complying with the following guidance for heavy vehicles

on the beach provided by the Greater Wellington Resource Consent staff:

a. light vehicles should be used in preference over heavier vehicles

(reduce weight to reduce disturbance)

b. wide tyres or tracks should be used in preference over narrow tyres (disperse weight to reduce disturbance)

c. vehicles should take the shortest and most direct route to the work site (reduce area of disturbance)

d. vehicles should make as few movements along the beach as possible (reduce the amount of vehicle traffic to reduce disturbance)

e. vehicles should be driven over the same tracks - the first vehicle passage does the most damage (reduce the area of disturbance)

f. vehicles should be driven immediately below MHWS - high up the tidal zone of the beach (movement can occur at any time of the tidal cycle, will not disturb bird-nesting sites or foredunes, and the disturbance is removed by the tide within 48 hours)

g. particular care should be taken in estuaries, river mouths and dunes to reduce disturbance to areas with high biodiversity values.

6.25 It is my view that regionally significant infrastructure has tight functional

requirements in relation to the maintenance and upgrading of the systems,

especially when these systems are located on a coast with significant

fluctuation in sand movement. These functional requirements mean

infrastructure maintenance or upgrading needs to occur frequently on the

coast without unnecessary restrictions and easily accessible information

about the extent of the CMA is required to enable this efficiency.

7. RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PROVISIONS

7.1 I therefore recommend the following amendments to Maps 42 to 48 (or

electronically) provide an entire coast map of the CMA extent accessible to

plan users. If this is to be electronic provide guidance (eg a weblink) to get to

this information in the coastal rules section.

31

7.2 I recommend that Policy P30, Policy P139 and Rule R191 are not amended

as recommended and the notified wording is retained. The amendments

recommended in the Section 42A reports would in my opinion result in

inconsistencies with objectives of this plan and provisions of higher order

documents identified in section 6 of this evidence.

8. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 In conclusion, I recommend that Maps 42-48 be amended and as set out in

section 7 of this evidence and Policy P30, Policy P139 and Rule R191 are

retained as notified. I consider that the inclusion of these provisions, or similar

amendments, will better implement the Objectives of the Plan than the

amendments recommended in the Section 42A reports to ensure that the

PNRP provides for regionally significant infrastructure provided by the District

Council for the community of Kapiti.

Emily Thomson

Senior Policy Planner

Kapiti Coast District Council

18 May 2018

before greater wellington regional council under …

Documents