Kāpiti Coast District Council
Proposed District Plan
Submitter Facilitated Meeting Notes & Actions
Topic:
PDP
Meeting Date:
Wednesday 4 February 2016
Meeting Start Time:
2.00pm
Meeting Finish Time:
4.00pm
Venue:
Nikau Meeting Room, Council Offices, Rimu Road,
Paraparaumu
Attendees
Coastal Ratepayers United Inc (CRU)
Christopher Ruthe (CR)
Submitter
Joan Allin (JA)
Submitter
Katharine Moody (KM)
Kapiti Coast District Council
Sherilyn Hinton (SH)
Principal Policy Planner – Chapter Lead
Matt Muspratt (MM)
Senior Consents Planner
Rebecca Lloyd (RL)
Consultant (Rebecca Lloyd Consulting) – Chapter Lead
Carolyn Wratt (CW)
Consultant (MWH) – Chapter Lead
Kirsty Austin (KA)
Consultant (4Sight Consulting)– Chapter Lead
Suzanne Rushmere (SR)
Intermediate Policy Planner – Chapter Lead
Vincent Fallon (FA)
Facilitator – Portfolio Manager
Matters Discussed
1. General Comments

JA recommended we disregard her earlier comments in the feedback provided by
CRU on Objective 2.9 as the Submitter Engagement Version (SEV) is more
consistent with the RMA. JA also noted that she was now not enamoured with her
suggested changes to the Chapter 8 policies.

Chapter 8 as a zone chapter needs further work to enable activities to take place
such as constructing coastal protection structures. JA considers the focus has been
on parks in this chapter but needs to encompass coastal activities / structures.

KA agreed that the Chapter 8 objectives and policies are silent on coastal open
space matters and will make sure it is considered in relevant chapters (e.g. Chapter
3, 8 & 9).

JA considers some things in the Proposed District Plan (PDP) are wrong from a legal
perspective.

Expressed concern about the permitted and non-complying default activity statuses.

Discussed the challenges with the fence rules (particularly Chapters 5 & 8) including
definitions, intent, permeability, standards, and integration with walls.

JA cautioned against deleting the reference column and deleting the summary tables
as this may have made the PDP shorter but has made it less user-friendly.

CRU supports the NZCPS and RPS, they are familiar with them and the people that
wrote them did a good job. Both documents are far kinder and more practical than
the PDP. Supports the Operative District Plan (ODP) where all standards are in one
place. JA considers a failing of the PDP is that each chapter doesn’t have a rule that
identifies all standards that are required to be complied with.

JA went through some example activities that could happen in the District and tried to
show how she believed they would be assessed under the plan. This exercise
showed that there is currently overlapping and confusion with the status of some
activities under the PDP. JA pointed out the problems for coastal hazard mitigation
activities in an area of high natural character in light of eg Rule 3A.5.9 in the SEV.
That rule provides that buildings, structures and earthworks in an area of outstanding
natural character or high natural character that do not meet the discretionary activity
standards in Rule 3A.3.12 are a non-complying activity. So if areas of high natural
character remain as they are in the SEV running along almost the entire coast, there
are serious practical problems for coastal hazard mitigation activities.

Expressed concern at the section 42A report being circulated 20 working days in
advance of the hearing of each topic and experts only having 10 working days to
read the s 42A report, think about whether the provisions are appropriate or not,
identify what changes are sought and what those changes are, and prepare their
written material / evidence.

JA cautioned use of the word “potential” in relation to the effects of climate change –
whereas the legally correct wording from the NZCPS is “likely” effects of climate
change. She encouraged use of wording directly from the RPS and NZCPS
wherever
practical.

KM considered urban amenity is an important part of the beach / coastal
environment.

KM drew attention to the use of precautionary principle. Advised reading Joan Allin’s
notes on the Shand report and the DOC Guidance Note on NZCPS Policy 3.

JA highlighted that care needed to be taken to use defined terms carefully . For
example, removing the term structure from some rules would mean that the
structures excluded from the definition of building would not be covered.
2. Coastal hazards

JA, KM & CR expressed concern that submitters cannot participate effectively in the
hearing without knowing what Operative Plan provisions will remain in force, what
they say, what they apply to, how they relate to PDP provisions, and on what legal
basis they are to remain in force, given that the RMA provides for 1 district plan.
Requested that specifics on these matters are identified and communicated with
submitters now. This is most important.

Expressed concern at the lack of detail around a range of hard and soft engineering
coastal hazard mitigation activities. For example re seawalls – does a seawall come
within the definition of building or is it one of the exceptions to the definition?, the
rules, the activity status, and maintenance activities.

Supported a permitted activity status as is the case in the Operative Plan for the
placement of retaining walls/fences on seaward residential boundaries, as per the
recently erected retaining walls/fences in the Raumati North beachfront area.

Supported a coastal edge comprised of three appropriately identified areas: those of
outstanding natural character (i.e., Waikanae Estuary), those of high natural
character (i.e., as per RPS definition, pp 91-93 –where “there are no apparent
buildings, structures or infrastructure”), and those areas that are special amenity
landscapes (i.e., the coastal edge from which buildings, structures or infrastucture
are visible, including river and stream mouths from which buildings, seawalls or
infrastructure are visible).
3. Coastal Environment

KM concerned that the extent of coastal environment has dramatically changed in the
reassessment by Isthmus in 2015. KM feels that the methodology used in the
Isthmus assessment (Coastal Environment Background Report, dated 10 June 2015)
is not robust, does not give effect to the NZCPS (Policy 1) or the RPS (Policy 4) and
is littered with anomalies.

JA considered that the Regional Policy Strategy (RPS) and New Zealand Coastal
Policy Statement (NZCPS) are explicit on what matters should be considered when
defining the coastal environment. Is of the opinion that Isthmus 2015 uses cases
inappropriately and is legally flawed as it does not give effect to the NZCPS and the
RPS which, as a matter of law, is required. Expressed concern that the Isthmus
report has not considered all these matters. For example, the Policy 4(b) of the RPS
includes the criterion “any landform affected by active coastal processes, excluding
tsunami”. The explanation to Policy 4 says “Active coastal processes include: storm
surge, inundation, liquefaction, aeolian (the action of wind on coastal landforms and
features, such as dunes), and the effects of sea level rise.”

From a practical perspective, suggested that should use KCDC’s existing relevant
maps as the basis for the coastal environment ie the Operative Plan maps for coastal
hazards and the existing maps for liquefaction areas as these identify areas of active
coastal processes as identified in the explanation to Policy 4. Then it could be
considered if there are areas that need to be added or deleted by considering all of
the remaining Policy 4 matters.
4. High Natural Character

KM expressed concern that the Area of High Natural Character along the coastal
edge does not match the RPS criteria.

JA considers the Area of High Natural Character should only include natural
elements and areas uncompromised by human activities as outlined in the RPS.
Areas of high natural character are particularly relevant because of the noncomplying activity Rule 8.

KM and JA expressed concern at the lack of detail to support the location of the High
Natural Character line.
5. Dominant Ridgelines and Dominant Dunes

JA expressed her view that dominant ridgelines and dominant dunes need to be
mapped or the definition and provisions about dominant ridgelines and dominant
dunes removed. The PDP describes them as being largely undeveloped features but
no concept of that in the definition.

KM commented that the Isthmus 2015 report was inconsistent in their identification
and use of dominant ridgelines and dominant dunes in their assessment, giving
further weight to the need to map these features if they are to be used for
assessment purposes.
ACTIONS:
1. Council staff to consider the material provided by Joan Allin and Katharine Moody in
preparation of their Section 42A reports.
2. Council staff to provide information on the enduring coastal hazard provisions in the
Operative District Plan; and consider as part of the integration work on the PDP and
the hearings process. This will include what Operative District Plan provisions will
remain in force, what they say, what they apply to, how they relate to PDP provisions,
on what legal basis they are to remain in force (given that the RMA provides for 1
district plan), and how any such enduring coastal hazard provisions in the Operative
District Plan are to be conveyed to users of the PDP once it becomes operative.
3. Council to discuss with Isthmus their 2015 assessment of the coastal environment
line and its alignment with the criteria in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and to
bring to Isthmus’s attention the relevant matters in these notes.
4. Council to discuss with Isthmus the analysis of the Areas of High Natural Character
and its alignment with the criteria in the RPS, as well as the level of detail provided in
the supporting assessment sheets and to bring to Isthmus’s attention the relevant
matters in these notes.
5. Suzanne Rushmere to email PDP Hearings Panel Minute 1, draft hearings schedule
and hearings procedures to KM.
6. Both JA & KM advised that they are available if Chapter Leads have any questions or
wish to clarify any of their comments.
Meeting Closed 4pm