template agenda - wharekawa coast 2120 joint working party ... · 2. project update [including a...

Wharekawa Coast 2120 JWP Agenda 20.05.2020 – Document Ref

WHAREKAWA COAST 2120 JOINT WORKING PARTY

AGENDA

Wednesday, 20 May 2020, 12:30pm - 02:30pm

Zoom meeting (https://haurakidc.zoom.us/j/92792842897)

Meeting ID: 927 9284 2897

Password: 958349

Order of Business Page

1. Confirm minutes of previous meeting 2727307 2

2. Project Update [including a presentation on the Social Impact 11

Assessment from Cerasela Stancu (Envirostrat)] 2759907

3. Cultural Values Assessment 2762013 16

4. Research Paper Review 2760000 24

5. Hauarahi Stream Flood Report [including a presentation by Rick 29

Liefting (WRC)] 2762044 (Appendix A to be forwarded via separate

email)

6. Project Implementation Funding Consideration 2761861 32

https://haurakidc.zoom.us/j/92792842897

of 9 Minutes of the Kaiaua Coast 2120 Joint Working Party – 18-02-20 Document number: 2727307

KAIAUA COAST 2120 MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKING PARTY MEETING

MEETING,

Tuesday 18 February 2020

12:00 pm – 02:30pm

Hauraki District Council – Council Chamber, William Street Paeroa

PRESENT D A Adams (HDC), R Harris (HDC), A M Spicer (HDC), D Tegg (WRC),

Charles Royal (Iwi Representative)

IN ATTENDANCE Peter Thom (HDC), Nina Murphy (HDC), Marina van Steenbergen

(HDC), Larn Wilkinson (HDC), Linthea Visser (HDC) Brett Otto

(HDC), Andrew Bubear (WRC), Alejandro Cifuentes (WRC), Adam

Munro (WRC); Susan Brennan (WRC), Sophie Marsh (WRC), Rick

Liefting (WRC), Simon Bendall (Traverse Environmental Ltd),

Deborah Kissick (Traverse Environmental Ltd), Dr. Terry Hume

(Hume Consulting Ltd),

VIA PHONE Michelle Wilson (Iwi Representative)

APOLOGIES J Sedgwick (WDC), K Hodge (WRC), Tipa Compain (Iwi

Representative), Frank Rawiri (Iwi Representative)

Welcome

The Chair, Toby Adams, welcomed all to the meeting.

Previous Meeting Minutes

Cr D Tegg advised that recorded conclusion around the Honorarium and the way that the

WRC is WRC are currently uncomfortable with paying such honorarium (as it will cause a

precedent). As far as he remembers, it was decided that the HDC will approach the WRC.

He requested that the minutes be updated reflect this. WRC is prepared to assist with

some (contractual service based) funding that could be made available, but the amount is

not confirmed yet. It was agreed that HDC should hold off on their letter for now. WRC

will advise of the outcome of their discussions through WRC staff.


A question was raised around the appointment of an Iwi Co-Chair. This is not urgent, but

someone will have to be appointed should the Chair not be available. Charles Royal will

discuss this with the other Iwi representatives to get a resolution as soon as possible.

Action Point: L Visser to update previous meeting minutes.

Action Point: Charles Royal to revert with a resolution regarding the appointment of an

Iwi Co-Chair.

Agenda Items

1. Coastal Processes and Hazard

1.1. Rick Liefting provided a short background and introduced the expert, Dr. Terry

Hume.

1.2. Dr. Hume is a coastal geomorphologist who was requested by WRC to do a hazard

assessment of the coastline. Dr. Hume went through a PowerPoint presentation of

his report findings. His report discusses the current hazards versus possible future

hazards and its impacts. It focuses mainly on coastal inundation, erosion and

tsunami hazards.

1.3. With regard to vertical land movement, it was mentioned that recorders are

measuring the hard rock ground to the south of Kaiaua. Recorders to the South of

the Firth of Thames confirm that that land is actually sinking (millimetres per year).

This hazard is parked for now due to the small amount of movement occurring

annually.

1.4. Rick Liefting mentioned that if an earthquake is experienced on the Kerepehi fault

line and Pūkorokoro Miranda is on the lowering side, it can result in the sea-level

rising. Charles Royal mentioned that a project measuring sea-level rise for the whole

of NZ exists.

1.5. The Hauraki Plains area is sinking, rather than lifting.

1.6. Cr. D Tegg raised a question regarding sediment. Dr. Hume advised that it should

not have an effect. Cr. D Tegg requested that the language in the frequency graph

be simplified in order for a reader to better understand it.

1.7. At the previous JWP meeting, Cr. D Tegg provided some information on climate

change predictions by Professor Tim Naish. These are more recent than the Ministry

for the Environment’s Climate Change Guidance for Coastal Hazards (Dec 2017). As

time goes on, predictions will become more certain. However, due to inherent and

ongoing uncertainty, the method and principles of adaptive management are

beneficial.


2. Review of GNS Report

2.1. Nina Murphy discussed the key recommendations of the GNS report (see paragraph

3.5 of the review report).

2.2. Cr. D Tegg advised that there are more reports containing more information on:

2.2.1. Liability of councils with regard to climate change (Katherine Iorns, Deep

South Science Challenge)

2.2.2. Treaty of Waitangi climate change implications (Deep South Science

Challenge) (for both reports refer to:

https://www.deepsouthchallenge.co.nz/projects/sea-level-rise-housing-and-insurance-

liability-and-compensation)

2.2.3. Funding implications (the Productivity Commission released a report last

year November with recommendations). How do we champion

recommendations?

2.3. Review of relevant reports will become a standing agenda item.

Action Point: Nina Murphy to work with Cr. D Tegg to review and do a presentation on

the reports mentioned under item 2.2.1 – 2.2.3.

2.4. There is also a report by UK Climate Committee that was published in October 2018

(https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/managing-the-coast-in-a-changing-climate/). In reviews

done in 1994 and 2000, it was found that a third of the UK coastline cannot be

protected against sea-level rise.

2.5. In the Hawke’s Bay project, it was found that the issue is not the quantum of costs,

but rather where those costs fall. At this stage there is a lack of clarity over roles

and responsibilities in this area.

2.6. Peter Thom mentioned that three parties play a role, namely Government, Regional

and District councils.

3. Community Advisory Panel – Panel formation and appointment

3.1. The task of the Community Advisory Panel is to drive the project in the next twelve

months.

3.2. The goal of the Terms of Reference is to set clearly defined rules for the engagement

of the Panel.

3.3. During the last JWP the make-up of the panel was discussed and agreed upon in

principle. (Table 1 in Information Report).

3.4. The Community Advisory Panel support roles (Table 2) was also discussed, but roles

(Chair/Co-chair) were not allocated.

3.5. JWP members attending community panel meetings are to be observers only. They

will not have voting rights within the community panel.


3.6. DOC and NZTA confirmed that they want to be involved in the community panel. The

details of their representatives still have to be provided.

3.7. Issues requiring discussion:

3.7.1. Appointment of Mana Whenua Panel Members:

• A question was raised regarding the Mana Whenua positions, specifically

on how and who may be approached.

• Charles Royal suggested that they discuss it amongst themselves. It is

important that the appointees to the Community Panel has direct

relationships to the area. There are many marked and unmarked urupā

in the area and it will be good to have conversations with those families.

Charles Royal confirmed that Iwi will facilitate herein. Michelle Williams

advised that Iwi will attend to internal discussions and facilitate with

those directly affected.

• Simon Bendall raised a concern regarding the urgency of the appointment

of the iwi representatives. The project team is looking at the 17th March

2020 as a date for the first community panel meeting.

Action Point: Larn Wilkinson and Charles Royal to advise with regard to the appointment

of mana whenua representatives on the community panel, being mindful of the suggested

date of 17 March 2020 for the first meeting. To confirm whether a meeting for the 17th

March 2020 may continue.

3.7.2. Panel Support Roles

Chair / Co-chair

• During the previous meeting, it was suggested that the community panel

assign the Chair / Co- Chari roles itself.

• The Chair will be expected to work closely with the facilitators.

• Either a Deputy / Co-chair has to be appointed to lead the meeting if the

Chair is not available.

• Charles Royal queried the reason for appointing an Iwi Co-chair / Deputy

Chair. The JWP Chair, Toby Adams, advised that the goal is to have a

collaborative process between the two groups. It is important that Iwi

be part of the project with input. Thus, it has to be an inclusive

partnership.

• Charles Royal advised that this is a great idea, but availability and skill

set may be an issue.

• Simon Bendall advised that the Community Panel Terms of Reference can

be amended to provide for Co-Chairs, but if two is not elected, then one


chair is acceptable. Charles Royal suggested that the Community Panel

Terms of Reference also confirm the reason for appointing Co-chairs; (i)

to ensure Iwi representation; and (ii) if they do not want to appoint a Co-

chair, then the panel may proceed to appoint a Deputy Chair.

Cultural Advisor

• The thinking behind the appointment of a cultural advisor is to appoint

someone in a specific role for the purpose of providing guidance from an

iwi point of view.

• The author of the Cultural Value Assessment (if an assessment is done)

could also fulfil this role.

• As this is a panel support role, it was suggested that the community panel

appoint someone in this role to guide the community panel.

• The motivation for this role is to ensure that iwi is represented properly,

and to specifically assist with (i) building and sustaining relationships;

and (ii) interpretation of iwi interests & what the issues would be.

• The Chair, Toby Adams, suggested that Larn Wilkinson be considered to

facilitate on both sides of this role.

• Larn Wilkinson advised that to build relationships one should rather look

at iwi fulfilling this role.

• Charles Royal however commented that building relationships is part of

Larn’s work, but it would be better to wait and see what iwi presents in

this regard.

• Peter Thom advised that a second hui is being considered to discuss

issues with iwi and that it may be prudent to include this issue in the

agenda.

3.7.3. Panel Advisory Panel Terms of Reference

• Cr. R Harris suggested that any communication to the public from the

community panel be well-constructed. Written messages have to be

disciplined.

• Simon Bendall advised that he will chat with staff offline to establish

whether we can get support herein.

Action Point: Simon Bendall to amend the Community Panel Terms of Reference to reflect

the suggested amendments regarding the Co-Chair / Deputy Chair as suggested by

Charles Royal. The Rationale for the appointment of a cultural advisor to be left open at

this stage.

Action Point: Simon Bendall to discuss vetting of communications to public with staff.


4. Project Update

4.1. This item will become a standing agenda item.

4.2. The project is going well and staff is working well together.

4.3. Charles Royal asked for clarity regarding the difference between the Social Impact

Assessment (SIA) and a Cultural Value Assessment (CVA). Some questions are more

cultural than social.

4.4. Simon Bendall provided the following update on the SIA:

4.4.1. Envirostrat was appointed as an expert in this area.

4.4.2. Since commencing, they have interviewed 24 people.

4.4.3. The scope was pre-circulated.

4.4.4. Community concerns so far relates mostly to freshwater flooding. Erosion is

not really a concern, but mixed responses were provided with regard to

growth and development. The East Coast Road is seen as a key asset and is

a critical factor when it comes to evacuation.

4.4.5. Overall, the process is seen as a useful way to connect with people on a one

on one basis.

4.4.6. With regard to the question about the difference between the SIA and the

CVA; there may be blurred lines and overlapping. The consultant advised

that a parallel process is required as the SIA will inform the CVA and vice

versa.

4.4.7. SIA interviewees should not be excluded from CVA interviews. E.g. Boating

club: why wouldn’t they also be interviewed for the CVA. Thus, all applicable

parties to be asked all questions of both the SIA and CVA.

4.4.8. Simon advised that the consultant expressed the desire to directly involve

Māori with the SIA. Simon suggested that contact with the 4 JWP iwi

representatives, if possible, would be a useful place to start.

4.4.9. Simon raised the question of how the CVA should be scoped. It was

suggested that it be approached like any other project, setting out goals,

resources and authority. Someone from the area should do the work.

Assistance is required with drafting and setting the Terms of Reference.

Action Point: Simon Bendall and Larn Wilkinson to prepare a Draft Terms of Reference

for CVA

Action Point: Share TOR with iwi representatives for feedback

Action Point: Iwi representatives to provide names of who could be approached to

undertake the CVA.


4.5. Peter Thom asked when an update report should go to Councils. The Chair, Toby

Adams, advised that it should be done soon. Nina Murphy proposed that an update

report be sent after each quarterly Joint Working Party meeting.

Action Point: Nina Murphy and relevant staff at each council to prepare update reports

to be taken to councils (HDC, WRC, WDC) after each JWP meeting.

4.6. Charles Royal advised that he was requested by Tipa Compain to raise issues

regarding the utilisation of Māori language in communications and discussions. Some

names /terms/words may cause confusion. E.g. Kaiaua is a specific town and does

not refer to the whole area covered by the project and it is not the original name. It

was suggested that the project team consider changing the name of the joint working

party from Kaiaua Coast to Wharekawa Coast. Consideration was also given to

changing the project name to Wharekawa Coast 2120. It was confirmed that this

issue will be discussed further.

Action Point: Nina Murphy to take report to HDC to change name of the joint working

party to Wharekawa Coast.

The workshop concluded at 02:30pm.


ACTIONS LIST FROM JWP MEETING 18.02.2020

Future Action Current Priority Task Overdue Action

Task Allocation: TA – Toby Adams, RH – Ross Harris, AMS – Anne Marie Spicer, DT – Denis Tegg, KH – Kataraina

Hodge, JS – Jan Sedgwick, CR – Charles Royal, MW – Michelle Wilson, TC – Tipa Compain, FR – Frank Rawiri,

AC - Alejandro Cifuentes, AM - Adam Munro, LV - Linthea Visser, MS - Marina van Steenbergen, NM - Nina Murphy,

PT - Peter Thom, PAT - Paula Trubshaw, RL - Rick Liefting, SDB - Simon Bendall, DK - Deborah Kissick, BO – Brett Otto,

AB – Andrew Bubear, LW – Larn Wilkinson

Project Management

Task Actions Resp. Due

Previous minutes L Visser to update previous meeting minutes. LV 4 March

Appointment of

Co-Chair

Charles Royal to revert with a resolution regarding the

appointment of an Iwi Co-Chair.

CR 20 May

Review of GNS Report


Review reports Nina Murphy to work with Cr. D Tegg to review and do a

presentation on the reports mentioned under item 2.2.1 – 2.2.3.

NM; DT 20 May

Community Advisory Panel


Appointment of

mana whenua

reps

Larn Wilkinson and Charles Royal to advise with regard to the

appointment of mana whenua representatives and to confirm

whether a meeting for the 17th March 2020 may continue.

LW; CR 5 March

Terms of

Reference

Simon Bendall to amend the Community Panel Terms of Reference SDB 5 March

Assistance with

written

communications

Simon Bendall to discuss assistance with communications to public

with staff.

SDB 5 March

Project Update


Cultural Value

Assessment

Simon Bendall and Larn Wilkinson to Draft Terms of Reference for

CVA

SDB; LW 20 May

Share TOR with iwi representatives for feedback SDB 20 May

Iwi representatives to provide names of who could be approached CR; MW 20 May


Update reports Nina Murphy and relevant staff at each council to prepare update

reports to be taken to councils (HDC, WRC, WDC) after each JWP

meeting.

NM; AC Ongoing

(first

report by

31 March)

Name change Nina Murphy to take report to HDC to change name of the joint

working party to Wharekawa Coast.

NM 31 March

Whaarangi 1 | 5 M 2759907

FOR INFORMATION

NGĀ MŌHIOTANGA

TO Wharekawa Coast 2120 Joint Working Party

AUTHOR Nina Murphy Simon Bendall

Strategic Planner Project Advisor

FILE REFERENCE Document: 2759907

Appendix A: Extract from Community Panel Meeting Minutes 17

March 2736046

PORTFOLIO HOLDER/S Mayor

MEETING DATE Wednesday, 20 May 2020

SUBJECT Project Update

RECOMMENDATION | TE WHAIKUPU

THAT the report be received.

1 PURPOSE | TE ARONGA

This report provides an update on general project-related matters and provides an opportunity

for questions and discussion with the joint working party.

2 BACKGROUND | TE KŌRERO Ā MUA The last meeting of the joint working party (JWP) (18 February 2020) included a presentation

on coastal hazards, and reports on:

• a review of the GNS Sciences report about the Resource Management Act 1991 and

existing uses, and

• the appointment and formation of the community panel.

Updates were also provided by the project team on the preparation of the social impact

assessment, and considerations around providing a cultural values assessment.

The JWP made a recommendation that the project name be changed to Wharekawa Coast

2120, as suggested by the Iwi representatives, to better reflect the project area.


3 PROJECT UPDATE

This report will update the JWP on:

• the project name change,

• progress of the community panel, and

• preparation of the social impact and risk assessments.

Other matters will be considered under separate reports on this agenda – including river

flooding hazards, funding questions and issues, undertaking a cultural values assessment, and

a review of a research paper on liability for councils in the climate change area.

3.1 NAME CHANGE

At its meeting of 11 March, Hauraki District Council (HDC) considered a report which provided

an update on the progress of the project and requested consideration of the recommendation

from the Kaiaua Coast 2120 Joint Working Party to change the name of the overall project.

HDC resolved as follows:

THAT the “Kaiaua Community Plan Joint Working Party (Kaiaua Coast 2120)” be renamed the “Wharekawa Coast 2120 Joint Working Party” and THAT the project be renamed “Wharekawa Coast 2120”, and THAT Council delay the renaming of the project until feedback has been sought from the Kaiaua Coast 2120 Community Advisory Panel at their meeting of 17th of March 2020, and THAT the feedback received from the Kaiaua Coast 2120 Community Advisory Panel be reported to the Kaiaua Coast 2120 Joint Working Party at their meeting of 20th May 2020.

In accordance with the HDC’s resolutions, the renaming matter was raised at the community

panel meeting of 17 March. After consideration, the panel supported the name change (refer to

extract from the meeting minutes Appendix A).

An email to this effect was sent to the JWP and the project team have completed renaming

project materials, including the project website: https://wharekawacoast2120.hauraki-

dc.govt.nz/.

3.2 COMMUNITY PANEL

The community panel have had two workshop meetings and a test zoom meeting. The first

meeting on 17 March 2020 was well attended by panel members and observers, but agencies

such as DOC, NZTA, Rural Support and WRC did not attend due to COVID-19 concerns. All

further meetings have been by zoom.

The panel elected Justin Johnstone as Co-Chair and have adopted a Terms of Reference. At

their workshop on 5 May 2020, presentations were made on: Coastal Hazards by Terry Hume

(Hume Consulting); and River Flooding of the Hauarahi Stream by Rick Liefting (Waikato

Regional Council (WRC)).

A survey of the Panel has been undertaken, following the second workshop, to gauge how they

feel the workshop went, and about the process as a whole. This survey will be repeated after

each workshop and will allow the project team to monitor how the project is going and respond

to any issues.


The results from the first survey show panel members are keen to wait until a site visit and

face-to-face meetings can be held before proceeding further. Because of this, it is proposed to

pause meetings of the Community Panel until such time as we can undertake a site visit and

members are comfortable with meeting, preferably face-to-face. The wider community catch-

up scheduled for May 2020 will also be postponed.

It is difficult to estimate how long this pause will be, but the project team suggest 1-2 months

as a starting point. This timeframe will be reviewed as necessary. The rest of the project work

will continue.

3.3 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Undertaking a social impact assessment (SIA) is an important part of the project, as it will

provide an in-depth understanding of how people may be affected by hazards, and in particular

coastal inundation.

The first draft of the Social Impact Assessment has been completed and is being circulated to

the interviewees for their comment. This key findings of the report will be presented by

Cerasela Stancu from Envirostrat at this meeting.

Feedback from the JWP, Technical Advisory Group and the Community Panel will be

incorporated in the report before it is finalised.

3.4 NATURAL HAZARDS RISK ASSESSMENT

The Natural Hazards Risk Assessment is another important part of the project. It allows us to

identify and quantify what is important (such as: council infrastructure like roads; community

halls; peoples' houses and businesses; and natural habitats like shorebird areas), and

determine what the levels of risk to these are from the significant natural hazards of coastal

inundation, coastal erosion and river flooding.

WRC has developed a natural hazards risk assessment framework to use. Wharekawa Coast

2120 is the first project to use the new framework.

Currently, WRC staff (with oversight by consultants) are using the NIWA GNS Science

RiskScape programme to generate a quantitative risk assessment for selected natural hazard

scenarios. This information will be supplemented by impact information from previous events,

and qualitative assessment based on expert opinion.

This will then feed into information to present to the councils, lifeline utility operators and the

community to enable them to define thresholds of risk, e.g. at what level of hazard does the

risk become intolerable. This will then start to inform where and what options are identified to

manage this risk.

The risk assessment report is due in July 2020.

Approval

Prepared by Nina Murphy Simon Bendall


Approved by Peter Thom

Group Manager – Planning & Environmental Services


APPENDIX A

Kaiaua Coast 2120 Henceforth known as:

Wharekawa Coast 2120 COMMUNITY PANEL MEETING MINUTES

WORKSHOP 1

MEETING,

Tuesday 17 March 2020

05:30 pm – 08:00pm

Committee Room, Kaiaua Community Hall, Lipscombe Road, Kaiaua

PRESENT Justin Johnstone, Allan Yee, Stephen Cooper, Stephanie Brough,

David Twiname, Ria Bejaart, Jonathan Clark, Eddie Johnson, Tessa

Watts, John Waata

IN ATTENDANCE D A Adams (HDC Mayor), Peter Thom (HDC), Nina Murphy (HDC),

Larn Wilkinson (HDC), Linthea Visser (HDC), Simon Bendall

(Traverse Environmental Ltd), Deborah Kissick (Traverse

Environmental Ltd), Frank Rawiri (JWP Observer); Charles Royal

(JWP Observer)

VIA SKYPE/ZOOM None

APOLOGIES Brett Otto (CDEM), Leanne Irvine (DOC), Wanda Leadbeater (Rural

Support Trust), David Greig (NZTA), Cr. Ross Harris (JWP

Observer), Rick Liefting (WRC)

EARLY DEPARTURE D A Adams (HDC Mayor), Larn Wilkinson (HDC)


1. Welcome and brief introduction to project

1.1. Larn Wilkinson opened the meeting with karakia, followed by the HDC Mayor, Toby Adams,

welcoming all to the meeting. The HDC Mayor also mentioned the precautions and rules

with regard to COVID-19 and advised that some of the members representing

organisations apologised for not attending the meeting due to COVID-19.

1.2. Suggested project name change: There Mayor advised that a suggestion was made during

the Joint Working Party (JWP) meeting held on 18 February 2020 that the name of the

project; Kaiaua Coast 2120 be updated to Wharekawa Coast 2120. The reason for the

suggestion was to avoid confusion as Kaiaua is a specific town, whilst the project covers a

larger area. The name Wharekawa is a better representation of the area covered in the

project. HDC Councillors considered the name change and were largely in agreement that

the project name be changed. The panel confirmed that they agreed with the name change.

Action: Wharekawa Coast 2120 be used as the project name on all project materials going

forward.

Extract from Minutes of the Kaiaua/Wharekawa Coast 2120 Community Panel Meeting – 17-03-2020 Document number: 2736046

of 3

Information Report

To: Wharekawa Coast 2120 Joint Working Party

From: Nina Murphy, Simon Bendall

Date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020

File reference: Document:2762013

Attachment A: 2762024

Portfolio holder: Mayor

Meeting date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020

Subject: Cultural Values Assessment

Recommendation: THAT the report be received.

1 Purpose

This report presents, as Attachment A, a draft scope of works for a Cultural Values

Assessment (CVA) to inform the Wharekawa Coast 2120 project.

2 Background

At the last meeting of the Joint Working Party (JWP) on 18 February 2020, the Technical

Advisory Group (TAG) sought feedback from members on the process, scope and expertise

required for undertaking a CVA to inform the Wharekawa Coast 2120 project.

A similar assessment was already underway for assessing the social impacts stemming from

natural hazards.

JWP members requested that a scope of work be prepared and presented back to the JWP.

3 Discussion

The attached draft CVA scope has been prepared by TAG for discussion with the JWP. It is

based on a similar study undertaken in Hawke’s Bay in support of a similar coastal hazards

planning process.

of 3

With changes and refinements from the JWP, TAG seek to confirm a draft CVA scope and

commence work to identify a preferred contractor as soon as possible. The project team are

having discussions regarding the budget and funding of this project.

The suggested process and timeline is as follows:

1. Draft CVA scope endorsed by JWP – 20 May 2020

2. Procurement process commences – 21 May 2020

3. Contractor appointed – 1 June 2020

4. CVA scope finalised with preferred contractor – 5 June 2020

5. CVA inputs to Risk Assessment – 17 June 2020

6. CVA draft report – 3 July 2020

The suggested timeline has been designed to support project timeframes, however it is tight.

TAG acknowledges that this work is late to start (the Social Impact Assessment commenced in

December 2019) and this has impacted the time available to complete the work. It is critical to

project outcomes that this work is completed to a high standard and is supported and

resourced fairly. Discussion is sought with JWP members on these matters.

For context purposes, the following assessments are being undertaken in support of the

Wharekawa Coast 2120 project:

Report Resourcing Status Next steps

Cultural Values

Assessment

External - TBC Not started Confirm scope +

contractor

appointment process

Social Impact

Assessment

External - Envirostrat Draft report

complete - with

interviewees for

confirmation

Incorporate feedback

from interviewees,

final report due late

May

Ecological Values

Assessment

Internal - WRC Scope confirmed,

commenced May

2020

Draft report due 10

June 2020

Community Overview

Report

Internal - HDC Draft report

complete

Share draft report

with Community Panel

for feedback

Economic Profile

Report

Internal - HDC Initial draft report

complete

Share draft with TAG,

peer review by WRC

Coastal Hazards and

Process

External – Dr Terry

Hume

Draft report

complete –

presented to JWP +

Community Panel

Receive and

incorporate feedback

from Panel, external

peer review

Rapid Flood Hazard

Assessment of

Hauarahi Stream,

Kaiaua

Internal - WRC Draft report

complete –

presented to

Community Panel

Receive and

incorporate feedback

from Panel, present to

of 3

Report Resourcing Status Next steps

JWP, external peer

review

Wharekawa Coast

2120 Risk

Assessment

Internal - WRC In progress,

commenced May

2020

Drafting

4 Conclusion

This report presents a draft CVA scope and a range of associated process and timeframe

matters for discussion with the JWP.

TAG seeks:

1. Endorsement to a final draft CVA from the JWP

2. Direction from the JWP on a process to identify and appoint a specialist to undertake

the work

3. Discussion with the JWP on timeframes and project risks associated with a delayed

start to the CVA process.

HDC Ref 2762024 May 2020

WHAREKAWA COAST 2120- ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL VALUES

Background and Context

The Wharekawa Coast 2120 project seeks to, among other things, determine options for responding to natural hazard risks over the next 100 years.

To guide and direct the development of the project, a Joint Working Party (JWP) was established late in 2019. The JWP is made up of representatives of Ngāti Paoa and Ngāti Whanaunga and elected representatives from the Hauraki District Council, Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council (the Partner Councils).

Supporting the JWP is a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) consisting of senior staff from each of the Partner Councils, with consultant advisers as required.

A Community Advisory Panel (the Panel) has also been formed, consisting of 14 members representing mana whenua, community and other groups with connections to and interests in this coastline. The key role of the Panel is to develop options and recommendations for responding to natural hazards risks for the JWP and Partner Councils to consider.

Cultural Values

It is vitally important that Maori cultural values associated with the coast, and how these values may be impacted by natural hazards (and the agreed responses to those hazards), are reflected in the final recommendations developed by the Community Panel.

In order to ensure that that Community Panel has the best information on hand and are able to make informed assessments, we seek to compile a cultural values assessment for the coast between Pūkorokoro-Miranda and Waharau.

This will be a desktop exercise, to stocktake and analyse all existing sources and details relevant to a consideration of cultural values along this part of the coast.

It is acknowledged that desk top studies have limitations; for example, any values captured in other documents or processes for various purposes may not have been provided by Paoa and Whanaunga people of this area or may not be fit for the kaupapa1 of the Wharekawa Coast 2120 project. Any such limitations will need to be appropriately identified through this process and recorded in the final report. This may include identifying recommendations for further work to resolve or reduce these limitations.

Scope of Work

To identify the Maori cultural values of the Wharekawa Coast 2120 project area (Attachment 1) that:

1. May be impacted by natural hazards risks2 over the next 100 years if no actions are taken to reduce those risks; and

2. May be impacted by actions taken to reduce natural hazards risks (e.g. beach nourishment, built structures, river channel works, etc).

1 Purpose/subject/matter for discussion 2 For the purposes of this work, the natural hazards that are in scope for the Wharekawa Coast 2120 project are coastal erosion, coastal inundation, freshwater flooding and land instability.

HDC Ref 2762024 May 2020

Statutory Context

The Wharekawa Coast 2120 project is a non-statutory, foundational process for the future of the coastline. It will produce recommendations for responding to natural hazards risks and provide the basis for a community plan. Regulatory processes (including District Plan review) will follow.

The work required

An appropriately skilled contractor that is endorsed by the JWP is sought to undertake the following tasks.

It is noted that the following tasks have been developed as a guide and will be further refined and finalised in discussion with the confirmed contractor.

It is further highlighted that a Social Impact Assessment is also being prepared for the Wharekawa 2120 project. To the extent possible, the Cultural Values and Social Impact Assessments should complement and inform each other.

1. Literature Review: undertake an assessment of relevant existing sources that describe / identify cultural values along the coast (considering both on-shore and off-shore sites and values) between Pūkorokoro-Miranda and Waharau. Information sources may include:

- Iwi/hapū management plans - Statutory acknowledgements in Treaty legislation and Deeds of Settlement - Marine and Coastal Area Act (MACA) application materials - Regional Coastal Plan – areas of significance to tangata whenua and community values

of significance information - District Plan wāhi taonga records - Marine oil spill Response Planning documentation - Heritage New Zealand and NZAA registers - Treaty of Waitangi reports and research - Reports prepared for or held by the Hauraki District Council, Waikato District Council,

Waikato Regional Council and former Franklin District Council including Maori policy / historical studies, submissions to plan changes and notified resource consents

- Maori Land Court Records - Personal communications (as may be appropriate) - Department of Conservation partnership studies, protocols and/or submissions - Any other sources of information as may be identified

2. Reporting: prepare a report which draws from the source material and identifies the areas of

cultural interest within the project area and their associated values to hapū, marae, mana whenua. Each area or site may be grouped into ‘type’ or category (i.e. mahinga kai, waka Tauranga, wāhi tapu etc.), noting the following:

a. The information presented in the report will be made available to the Community Panel and may be made public, requiring a careful consideration of any confidentiality requirements that may attach to certain information.

b. A methodology for effectively capturing and summarising the values described in the source material should be agreed with TAG prior to the work commencing. For example, a preliminary list of the site-specific information required to be collected is

HDC Ref 2762024 May 2020

provided in Attachment 2 and this should be finalised and agreed prior to the work commencing.

c. TAG will provide some source material as an initial, but not necessarily exhaustive, set of information.

d. The report will be developed with support from TAG as required and require input from mana whenua Panel members and JWP members.

e. The draft report for the Panel will be confirmed through the JWP prior to its release to panel members.

f. Where there are gaps in the source material that need to be addressed to allow a full assessment of cultural impacts, these should be identified, and a method to resolve the gap recommended.

3. Panel Support: The appointed contractor shall also be available to assist Panel Members directly to interpret and apply the key findings of the report. This will involve:

a. Leading a site visit along the coast to assist knowledge exchange and Panel Member understanding of the history of the Wharekawa Coast and associated Maori cultural values; and

b. Attending meetings of the Community Panel, to initially present the key findings and later to assist the Panel with the application of those findings to assess various options for responding to coastal hazards risks.

HDC Ref 2762024 May 2020

Attachment 1 – Project Area

HDC Ref 2762024 May 2020

Attachment 2 –Site Specific Information Requirements (preliminary)

The following information is expected to be collected for each site or area identified within an area potentially impacted by a natural hazard (e.g. erosion) or a natural hazard response option (e.g. beach nourishment).

1. Site Name / ID 2. Source of information 3. Site Description 4. Nature of the site 5. Location and extent 6. Any kōrero3 related to the site 7. Sensitivity to impacts 8. Confidentiality

3 Narrative/story/discussion


FOR INFORMATION

NGĀ MŌHIOTANGA


AUTHOR Nina Murphy Simon Bendall





SUBJECT Research Papers Review




This report provides a summary of the research paper: ADAPTATION TO SEA-LEVEL RISE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY ISSUES (Iorns & Watts, 2019). The paper is one in a series

prepared as part of the Deep South National Science Challenge.

2 BACKGROUND | TE KŌRERO Ā MUA This is a standing agenda item devoted to reviewing relevant reports and case studies in the

evolving area of climate change adaptation.

At the last Joint Working Party (JWP) meeting in February 2020, members considered a report

on the GNS Science paper which looks at how the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) can

be, and is being, used to manage existing uses where natural hazard risk is increasing.

The paper currently under review is one of three proposed for consideration at the last JWP

meeting. These included: Treaty of Waitangi climate change considerations, liability issues for

local government arising from sea level rise, and the UK’s Climate Commission report on

managing the coast. It was decided to review the liability paper first as it builds on the GNS

paper. The other papers will be reviewed for the next JWP meeting.


3 ADAPTATION TO SEA-LEVEL RISE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY ISSUES

This research paper addresses the legal frameworks and rules about what local and regional

councils in New Zealand can and cannot do to adapt to the coastal hazards associated with

sea-level rise and climate change. The focus is on what councils might be liable for in respect

of housing affected by coastal hazards.

The first part of the paper addresses background matters, such as a summary of the issues

and how the RMA can be applied to climate adaptation measures (this content is similar to the

GNS paper).

The second part addresses specific tools that will be required to implement climate adaptation,

including:

• prevention of new development or placing conditions on it,

• coastal protection works, and

• managed retreat of houses from future coastal hazard areas.

Part three looks at information instruments, such as Land Information Memorandums (LIMs),

and how to provide information about climate hazards to current and future owners.

This review will focus on the second part of the paper, as well as considering LIMs.

3.1 TOOLS FOR IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

The paper notes that adaptation strategies include; avoid, accommodate, protect and retreat.

These will be considered further below:

3.1.1 Avoid

Avoidance strategies aim to prevent new development in hazardous coastal areas. There are

many tools available to councils, to prevent new development, using the RMA.

There is strong policy direction in the NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) for decision-

makers to both prohibit future resident development in areas subject to natural hazards, and

prevent redevelopment that would intensify these risks.1

This is backed up by case law, the Environment Court has held on multiple occasions that the

allowance of hazardous development in the coastal zone is not an efficient use of natural and

physical resources, in part because the gains may only accrue to the developer, while the

wider community is potentially threatened by having to bear the future costs or harms.2

NZ courts have also held that there is no liability in negligence under the RMA for failing to

decline a resource consent, even if a decision-maker knows or ought to have known about a

natural hazard affecting the property.3

3.1.2 Accommodate

Strategies to accommodate risk include adding consent conditions such as provision for

relocation/removal of buildings and bonds.

Case law on relocation/removal shows that the Courts require the details of the relocation or

removal to be specified at the time of consent rather than allowing this to be determined at a

later date. Such details include how the building will be removed and where it will be removed

to, and may necessitate obtaining easements to secure access for removing the building.4

With regards to imposing bonds, it is recognised that a relocation/removal condition needs to

be paired with a requirement for a bond. This is possible under the RMA, and the Court has

1 IORNS & WATTS, ADAPTATION TO SEA-LEVEL RISE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY ISSUES (2019), pg 116 2 Ibid, pg 81 3 Ibid, pg 221 4 Ibid, pg 148


favoured proposals that are detailed, and have simple financial arrangements that protect

councils against being left carrying the cost.5

3.1.3 Protect

Protection strategies include undertaking coastal protection works such as hard defences (e.g.

sea walls and groynes) and softer defences (e.g., dune restoration and beach renourishment).

Demand for such protection works generally arise where development already exists in

hazardous coastal areas. Such works are already in widespread use in NZ. However, the paper

notes that hard defences such as sea walls and banks of large rocks, will rarely be financial

viable long-term, as replacement and maintenance costs will rise over time.6

The Environment Court has stated on multiple occasions that it does not have the authority to

compel a regional or district council to erect any coastal protection works. Furthermore, a

council cannot be liable in negligence for failing to erect coastal protection works. However, the

Court does have a role in determining whether a proposal is in compliance with the Act.7

In terms of liability for existing defence works, the Courts have established that councils owe a

duty of care to ratepayers to maintain flood and coastal hazard protection works. However, for

liability there needs to be proof of causation of the damage; whether the flood was due to a

breach of duty or it would have happened anyway, maybe due to the size of the event (e.g.

strength of storm, or the amount of rain).8 Proving this negligence has been difficult and there

has been very little litigation over flood events in NZ.9

Also refer to section 3.2 below on LIMs regarding existing protection works.

3.1.4 Retreat

This paper notes that the legal and political obstacles to addressing existing development at

risk of coastal hazards, are far greater than those faced in preventing further development.

This was also a conclusion of the GNS paper. Both papers note that there is potential to use

regional council’s power to revoke existing use rights if they become contrary to a rule in a

regional plan.10 The GNS paper also raises some doubt over the legality of this power.

However, since that report was written, proposed plan changes at Matatā, which are seen as a

test case of the regional council’s powers, have now been approved by Independent

Commissioners.

The Commissioners made the following key findings:11

While noting that this appeared to be the first decision in which existing land uses were extinguished through a regional rule, there was no legal reason why regional rules could not be used for this purpose;

The Commissioners followed previous case law that, in terms of section 8512 of the RMA, use of land subject to a high natural hazard risk is not “reasonable use” of that land. A land owner therefore cannot use section 85 to object to natural hazard rules that adversely affect their property, where that risk is established in evidence;

While some residents argued that they should be entitled to voluntarily accept risk, the Commissioners found that wider community risk of allowing residents to remain on the fanhead outweighed the perceived benefits that might accrue to those individuals staying in their homes.

The decision reiterates the strong weight given to the management of natural hazards in the RMA, including Part 2. The Commissioners concluded that while there will be an

5 Ibid, pg 149 6 Ibid, pg 160 7 Ibid, pg 170 8 Ibid, pg 181 9 Ibid, pg 178 10 Ibid, pg 183 11 Environment Planning & RMA Update, Simpson Grierson, 9-April-2020 12 This provision allows for a challenge on the basis of reasonable use and the Court can direct the Council to pay compensation as per the Public Works Act 1981, if the submitter agrees


inevitable impact of loss of homes and property rights for affected owners/occupiers and indirect social and economic impacts from displacement of part of the community, that impact is outweighed by the economic and social benefits from reducing the risk to life.

Though this decision is likely to be appealed, it it appears reasonably clear as a matter of law

that regional authorities have the ability to require (and enforce if necessary) the managed

retreat from areas subject to an unacceptably high natural hazard risk.13

The proposed plan changes at Matatā are accompanied with a buy-out scheme, which is jointly

funded by the local authorities and central government. Although not a requirement of the

RMA, it is also likely that the decision on the plan changes may not have been so clear cut in

the absence of a buy-out scheme, due to considerations of fairness.14

The buy-out scheme may also raise the expectations of property owners in other parts of NZ,

that they will get an offer at full market value (assuming the hazard risk did not exist). This

may be unaffordable to local authorities and central government on a large scale.15

3.2 LIM REPORTS

LIM reports are covered by LGOIMA16 and in summary require territorial authorities to provide

all information that is known to it about a given piece of land, within 10 working days (with the

exception of information that is apparent in the District Plan).

The liability paper considers that LIM reports are council’s biggest exposure to liability.17

Councils can be sued for including information that is deemed to overstate the hazard risk,

whilst also being liable for omitting or understating hazard risk. However, for action to succeed

it must be proved that there was reliance on the LIM leading to purchase and that such

reliance was reasonable. For instance, if it can be shown that the LIM report was not read, or

that the plaintiff had better information at their disposal, then reliance will not be established.9

The paper notes that there is an obligation on the Council to ensure the accuracy of

information and that this is heightened when the information could have a significant financial

impact on the owners of the properties affected. Further, matters that are the subject of

expert contention and/or scientific uncertainty ought to be identified as such.18

Councils do not have to provide information on potential changes in policy in a LIM report. This

is particularly significant for the disestablishment of flood defences, or for other coastal

protection works. It means that council cannot be sued because they did not disclose a

pending disestablishment policy on the LIM report, for example.19

3.3 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

The paper provides a summary of findings under the topics of new development, coastal

protection works and existing uses20. These are reviewed below.

New development:

• there are a range of tools that councils can use to prevent new development in

hazardous coastal areas (e.g. prohibited activity status, s106 RMA)

• NZ courts have held that there is no liability in negligence under the RMA for failing to

decline a resource consent, even if a decision-maker knows or ought to have known

about a natural hazard affecting the property

13 Environment Planning & RMA Update, Simpson Grierson, 9-April-2020 14 Ibid 15 Ibid 16 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 17 IORNS & WATTS, ADAPTATION TO SEA-LEVEL RISE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY ISSUES (2019), pg 210, 220 18 Ibid, pg 214 19 Ibid, pg 213 20Ibid, pg 9-13


• Liability for negligence under the Building Act is possible for the granting of consents

which are exposed to natural hazards, if a plaintiff can show that these hazards were

negligently inspected, leading to the issuance of a consent.

Coastal protection works:

• there is no obligation under law which can be used to force councils to undertake

coastal protection works, and councils cannot be found liable in negligence for not

erecting such works

• the Environment Court cannot order a council to undertake such works

• such works have been allowed by the courts to protect existing assets, but no such

works are allowed for new developments, for fear this will create an expectation that

council will have to maintain the works in the future

• council do not need to include information, on pending policy on disestablishing such

works, in LIMs

• action against councils for not maintaining existing works is possible where it can be

proven that this caused damage.

Existing uses:

• LIMs are useful to provide information about coastal hazards faced by existing

properties

• it is harder to address natural hazards for existing uses as the RMA contains strong

protections for existing use rights and uncertainty over managed retreat.

• the Matatā Plan changes, though likely to be appealed, provide reasonable clarity as a

matter of law that regional authorities have the ability to require (and enforce if

necessary) the managed retreat from areas subject to an unacceptably high natural

hazard risk

• there is a lack of central government guidance on how to implement managed retreat,

and options for the payment of compensation.21

4 NEXT STEPS | TE ARA KI MUA

Timeframe Action Comments

Aug 2020 Review the remaining identified reports

for the next JWP meeting

Reports are: Treaty of Waitangi &

Climate Adaptation, UK Climate

Commission - Managing the Coast

Approval

Prepared by Nina Murphy Simon Bendall



Group Manager – Planning & Environmental Services

21 Ibid, pg 105


FOR INFORMATION

NGĀ MŌHIOTANGA


AUTHOR Nina Murphy Rick Liefting

Strategic Planner Team Leader Regional Hazards


Appendix A: Hauarahi Stream Flood Report (via separate report)



SUBJECT Flood Report for Hauarahi Stream




To present the flood report on the Hauarahi Stream for the consideration of the Joint Working

Party (JWP). This will allow feedback from the JWP to be incorporated in the report prior to it

being finalised.

2 BACKGROUND | TE KŌRERO Ā MUA This report presents the methodology and results of a rapid flood hazard assessment of the

Hauarahi Stream, Kaiaua. It also includes background information on the March 2017 river

flood event in the Hauarahi Stream, and on the history and options of flood, river and

catchment management in the area.

This report is intended to provide preliminary information to the Wharekawa Coast 2120 JWP,

TAG (Technical Advisory Group) and Community Panel to enable a better understanding of the

flood hazard posed by the Hauarahi Stream for different magnitude events and considering the

effects of climate change, including sea level rise.

Further investigation will be required for any specific flood protection mitigation options, as

determined by the community planning process.


3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The results of the hydraulic modelling show that even a 2-year ARI (50% AEP) flood event in

the Hauarahi Stream will cause some flooding. As the magnitude of the event increases (and

frequency decreases), the flood hazard progressively increases, for both farmland and

residential.

The projected effects of climate change on rainfall intensity alone is not shown to cause a

substantial increase in the severity of flooding. However, 1.0m of projected sea level rise (SLR)

is shown to increase the flood hazard such that the majority of Kaiaua township may be

inundated. Here it is important to note that much of the flooding in the lower reaches is the

result of SLR causing coastal inundation, rather than river flooding. This highlights the

importance of considering the effects of river flooding in conjunction with those of coastal

inundation, particularly when assessing mitigation options.

4 PRESENTATION

Rick Liefting from Waikato Regional Council will present the report at this meeting and answer

questions.

5 NEXT STEPS | TE ARA KI MUA

Timeframe Action Comments

Aug 2020 Update the report in response to TAG,

Community Panel and JWP feedback.

Once updated, seek external peer

review, then finalise the report

Approval

Prepared by Nina Murphy Rick Liefting

Strategic Planner Team Leader Regional Hazards


Group Manager Planning and Environmental

Appendix A: Hauarahi Stream Flood Report

(to be forward via separate email)

of 7

Information Report

To: Wharekawa Coast 2120 Joint Working Party

From: Nina Murphy, Simon Bendall

Date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020

File reference: Document: 2761861

Portfolio holder: Mayor

Meeting date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020

Subject: Project Implementation Funding Considerations

Recommendation: THAT the report be received.

1 Purpose

This report has been prepared to introduce, at a high level, some of the funding considerations

that the Joint Working Party (and by extension the Councils) will need to traverse in order to

implement the adaptive planning responses to natural hazards developed as part of the

Wharekawa Coast 2120 project.

The intention of this paper is to initiate early thinking and discussion in preparation for future

decision-making, rather than to seek any specific decision or direction from the JWP at this

time.

2 Discussion

Wharekawa Coast 2120 will consider the long-term effects of climate change and natural

hazards risks for the Wharekawa coast, and through a community advisory panel process,

recommend a series of actions to respond to those risks.

Those actions will be defined as a series of steps over time – divided into a short term,

medium term and long-term response, using some combination of defending, accommodating

and retreating from the hazard affected areas.

Importantly, the response will be “adaptive”, meaning that the timeframe for implementing

each action, and even the actions themselves, can be modified over time in response to real-

world conditions.

of 7

These “adaptive pathways” will be developed for defined compartments along the Wharekawa

coastline.

An example pathway from a similar project being developed in Hawke’s Bay is provided in

Figure 1.

Short term(0 – 20 years) →

Medium term(20 – 50 years) →

Long term (50 – 100 years)

Beach Renourishment

→ Renourishment + Groynes

→ Managed Retreat

FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE PATHWAY

A key challenge for Councils in developing plans like the Wharekawa Coast 2120 is

implementation, and more specifically, the funding of responses identified in adaptive

pathways.

The following sections identify key funding matters for further discussion and future resolution

if the Wharekawa Coast 2120 is to be successfully implemented.

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities

Regional Council and Territorial Authority (“TA”) responsibilities in relation to planning for and

managing natural hazards are derived from a range of statutes including the Resource

Management Act (and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement beneath it), the Local

Government Act and the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2: LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR NATURAL HAZARDS. Source: Productivity Commission's report on Local Government Funding and Financing 2019

of 7

Notably:

• the Local Government Act does not explicitly mention climate change

• the Resource Management Act defines roles for both Regional Councils (s.30) and TA’s

(s.31) to control land use to avoid or mitigate natural hazards

• there is no clearly defined role in legislation between Regional Councils and TA’s to

lead the implementation of adaptive planning responses to natural hazards and

climate change.

While this lack of role clarity need not (and is not) a barrier to commencing adaptive planning

processes, it can become problematic when Councils move to the implementation phases of

these projects when the following questions inevitably arise:

1. Should the Regional Council or TA (or both) collect rates to fund the implementation of

adaptive pathways?

2. Which Council(s) should hold debt to fund physical works / retreat projects?

3. Which Council(s) should seek resource consents for and “own” any new assets created

as a result of pathway implementation (e.g. a sea wall or groyne)?

4. Which Council(s) should be responsible for ongoing asset management?

5. Which Council(s) should be responsible for monitoring and managing the signals,

triggers and thresholds required for adaptive response?

6. What is the role of central government is assisting local government to implement

adaptive planning responses to natural hazard risks?

These questions can become particularly problematic at a political-level; it can be difficult for

local government politicians to defend a rates increase and/or new targeted rates (for

example, through a Long Term Plan process) on behalf of their Council, when these roles are

not well defined.

The Councils engaged in Wharekawa Coast 2120 will need to agree on their respective roles

and funding arrangements if the project is to be successfully implemented.

2.2 Beneficiary Pays Principle and Considering Affordability

Councils are required under Section 101 of the Local Government Act to consider the funding

needs of the local authority:

(3) The funding needs of the local authority must be met from those sources that the local authority determines to be appropriate, following consideration of,—

(a) in relation to each activity to be funded,— (i) the community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes; (ii) the distribution of benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable

part of the community, and individuals; (iii) the period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur; (iv) the extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group

contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and (v) the costs and benefits, including consequences for transparency and

accountability, of funding the activity distinctly from other activities;

(b) the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the community.

of 7

Among other considerations, this section requires councils to consider who benefits from a

given work (101(3)(a)(ii)) and the overall affordability of those works (101(3)(b)).

These questions present challenges for Councils in determining how to fund the

implementation of adaptive pathways to respond to natural hazards, including:

1. How do Councils identify private beneficiaries and the degree of private benefit

attributable to pathway implementation (e.g. protection of private property)?

2. How do Councils identify the degree of public benefit attributable to pathway

implementation (e.g. protection of reserves, ecologically sensitive areas, public

amenities, etc)?

3. How do Councils determine affordability for both targeted rates (private beneficiaries)

and any general rate applies for public benefits?

2.3 A Possible Model

Staff and project advisors in Hawke’s Bay have developed an initial model for undertaking a

s.101 analysis for coastal adaption projects. While the approach is preliminary, it offers some

ideas on how these questions might be approached. This process is summarised in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3: S101 PROCESS EXAMPLE

The first step was to define a series of “base case” public – private split scenarios for different

responses to coastal hazards. The rationale for this approach is that different structures /

responses may have different beneficiaries; a sea wall provides greater benefit to private

landowners at the expense of amenity and beach access, while beach nourishment will

maintain public amenity and access but provide less protection for private property owners.

The base case scenarios developed in Hawke’s Bay are presented in Table 1 below.

Notably, there was no agreed approach to defining a base case split for managed retreat, as it

was difficult to define beneficiaries. While those being retreated would benefit in one sense

from moving out of the hazard area, they were also being asked to leave their homes and with

no clear model for how a managed retreat response would work in practice. As a fallback

position, it was proposed that the cost of cleaning up after a retreat had occurred (removing

underground infrastructure, building platforms, waste etc) and reinstating the area to a public

reserve or similar could be borne as a public cost.

The second step is to modify the base case to reflect the circumstances of a specific project.

For example, a particular sea wall may be installed primarily to protect a road or reserve area

with very little if any private property protection, requiring a significant change to the base

case for that particular project.

The third step is to identify private beneficiaries associated with a specific response, and

whether there are any differences between them in terms of the benefit they might receive.

This “shadow” effect for example might identify that beachfront properties receive the most

benefit, followed by the next row back, and so on.

Confirm base-case public / private

splits

Confirm public / private split for specific project

Identify private beneficiaries /

shadow effectsTest affordability

Re-balance costs (if required / justifiable)

of 7

The last step was to consider affordability. This was done by assuming a 25-year loan was

taken to fund the project and apportioning those costs in accordance with the public / private

split and shadow effects. While there was no attempt to define what “affordable” is, the option

to re-balance costs by adjusting the public/private split (essentially providing for some form of

general rate “subsidy”) was available.

TABLE 1: PROPOSED BASE CASE PUBLIC / PRIVATE COST ALLOCATION FOR DIFFERENT HAZARD RESPONSE OPTIONS (Source: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy)

Type of structure / response

Private contribution

(%)

Public contribution

(%) Reasons

Status quo 0% 100%

• No new works or initiatives, maintenance of any existing coastal protection structures / renourishment programmes.

• Existing funding arrangements remain unchanged (assumption here that the status quo is limited and currently funded through general rates)

Renourishment 50% 50% • 50% of work is to maintain public

assets / amenity, 50% private property protection

Renourishment + control structures 60% 40%

• Better standard of protection for private property, slightly reduced amenity value (compared with nourishment on its own)

Sea wall / rock revetment 80% 20%

• Coast is protected but likely loss of beach and beach access

• Higher degree of protection afforded to private property compared with other types of structures

Retreat the Line 90% 10%

• Main purpose is inundation protection for properties landward of the new defence, public good component is for retaining residual community

• Properties seaward of the new line of defence would not be asked to contribute

Managed Retreat 0% 100%

• Only for costs in relation to making good / cleaning up properties following a retreat. No position taken on apportioning costs for implementing managed retreat given difficulty with identifying beneficiaries.

The key message here is that in order to fund implementation of adaptive pathways, Councils

will need to determine who pays for what and come to some determination on affordability.

These are complex questions, with no “right” answer. The process that has evolved in Hawke’s

Bay has not been tested with the community and remains a working proposal, however does

offer a possible approach.

of 7

3 Central Government Update

JWP members may be interested in a case study report recently completed as a joint initiative

between Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Ministry for the Environment.

The study focuses on the implementation challenges of adaptive planning projects, and

identifies three key challenges:

• Core responsibilities for adaptation are ambiguous.

• Tools and mechanisms to manage current and future hazards are limited or inefficient.

• There is a lack of agreed approach and principles for share costs of works.

The report also identifies six recommendations for central government to consider in

developing a response to these challenges.

The full report can be accessed here: https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-

change/challenges-implementing-clifton-tangoio-coastal-hazards-strategy-2120

While no concrete outcomes have yet been confirmed, the increased level of engagement from

central government on these issues is encouraging.

4 Next steps

This paper seeks to introduce some of the concepts around funding which will need to be

addressed if responses to natural hazards developed through the Wharekawa Coast 2120

project are to be implemented.

At this early stage in the project it remains to be seen what responses may be developed and

what the costs of those responses might be. However, TAG felt it prudent to raise these issues

conceptually at this early stage, as their ultimate resolution is vital to successful

implementation.

To summarise, the following questions / discussion topics have been identified in this paper:

1. Should the Regional Council or TA (or both) collect rates to fund the implementation of

adaptive pathways?

2. Which Council(s) should hold debt to fund physical works projects?

3. Which Council(s) should seek resource consents for and “own” any new assets created

as a result of pathway implementation (e.g. a sea wall or groyne)?

4. Which Council(s) should be responsible for ongoing asset management?

5. Which Council(s) should be responsible for monitoring and managing the signals,

triggers and thresholds required for adaptive response?

6. What is the role of central government is assisting local government to implement

adaptive planning responses to natural hazard risks?

7. How do Councils identify private beneficiaries and the degree of private benefit

attributable to pathway implementation (e.g. protection of private property)?

8. How do Councils identify the degree of public benefit attributable to pathway

implementation (e.g. protection of reserves, ecologically sensitive areas, public

amenities, etc)?

9. How do Councils determine affordability for both targeted rates (private beneficiaries)

and any general rate applied for public benefits?

of 7

TAG welcomes discussion with the JWP on these matters, and seeks direction on when, how

and with whom these discussions should be progressed.

5 Conclusion

This report has introduced some of the funding considerations that the partner Councils will

need to resolved in order for the Wharekawa Coast 2120 outcomes to be implemented.

template agenda - wharekawa coast 2120 joint working party ... · 2. project update [including a...

Documents