PROPOSED KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN 2012
ALL HEARINGS
MEMORANDUM OF COASTAL RATEPAYERS UNITED INC. (CRU) re
HEARINGS PANEL MINUTE 7 AND OTHER MATTERS
CRU writes further to our memorandum headed ‘CRU Response to Hearings Panel Minute 6’
forwarded to Leanne Taylor via email on 23 April 2016.
This memorandum seeks the Panel’s reconsideration of the earlier decision not to ‘ring fence’
Chapters 5 and 7, and a six week lead time from release of s42A reports to commencement of
hearings on the “coastal bundle” of PDP chapters.
Minute 7 decision on ‘ring fenced’ chapters
1. We note at para. 10, Hearings Panel Minute 7 states the Panel would not include the above
Chapters within the so-called ‘ring fenced’ coastal management groups of Chapters.”
2. We also note in Minute 7 at para. 11 – 13, the Panel offers what it believes should address
the concerns of coastal management submitters (including CRU) on the across-chapter
integration issues. However, for reasons set out below CRU has considerable remaining
concerns.
3. It is noted the Panel did not give specific reasons in determining that Chapters 5 and 7 did
not need to be ‘ring fenced’ as Chapters 3, 4, 8, and 9 were. CRU therefore assumes the Panel
took the view on the material then before it that Chapters 5 and 7 had little relevance to
management of coastal resources in the district. We would ask the Panel to now take into
account the s42A report recently released on Chapter 5.
4. A search of the word “coastal” in the report (using case sensitive search so as not to count
references to Coastal Ratepayers United submissions) brings up 102 ‘hits’ relating to
matters associated with “coastal environment”, coastal hazards”, “coastal yards”, “coastal
erosion”, “coastal interface”, “coastal boundary”, “coastal property” and so on.
Integration of coastal issues
5. More specifically, at para. 27 – 29 the s42A report author concurs with the fact that a
number of provisions in Chapter 5 do relate to coastal management issues, pointing out that
(emphasis ours);
1
6. “Chapter 4 (Coastal Environment) of the PDP is the primary means by which the Plan gives
effect to these NZCPS provisions; however, Chapter 5 includes policies and rules that relate
to and integrate with the Chapter 4 provisions”.
7. Additionally, at para. 486, the s42A report author points out the relationship of the Chapter
5 issue under discussion to Chapter 3 matters, pointing out that (emphasis ours);
“… there is a need to consider this submission in the context of the Chapter 3 provisions
and any changes to those provisions that may occur through the hearing on Chapter 3. It
should be noted that I have proposed consequential amendments to the terminology
used in the clause in order to reflect the changes being recommended to Chapter 3
provisions ...”
8. The question for CRU is, how are we to form an opinion on the appropriateness or otherwise
of this proposed Chapter 5 amendment, given we do not know what the changes being
recommended to Chapter 3 provisions are?
9. Additionally, at para. 714, the s42A report author rejects the submitters’ recommended
addition of text based on an unsubstantiated opinion that:
“.. this is not the most efficient way for the PDP policies to implement the higher order
objectives relevant to coastal hazard issues (Objectives 2.4 and 2.5). However, I also
note that specific coastal hazard provisions have been withdrawn from the PDP (as a
result of the independent review of the PDP) and are expected to be addressed as
separate future plan change process, as per the Schedule 1 process in the RMA. I
therefore consider it more appropriate to address this specific concern as part of the
development of new coastal hazard provisions for the PDP”.
10. Here the author mixes the language/terminology regarding a plan change process with a
variation process. It is our current understanding there will not be “new coastal hazard
provisions for the PDP” (i.e., a variation to the PDP with respect to coastal hazard
provisions), rather the PDP will be made operative prior to a plan change being notified for
“new coastal hazard provisions”.
11. Within the s42A report, the author recommends a change to Rule 5A.1.2, which refers to
new provisions for seawalls for “hazard mitigation purposes” which is to be included in
Chapter 9 (Hazards). We are unsure whether the intention is to introduce “new coastal
hazard provisions” to the PDP but not by way of a variation1?2
It should be noted in relation to Rule 5A.1.2 that a number of fences on seaward property boundaries in
the district were built last year under the permitted activity rules for fencing in the ODP, with both KCDC
and GWRC having determined the structures were permitted in accordance with operative district and
regional council plans. Therefore, any change from this permitted activity categorisation for a fence of this
type of construction would we assume require a variation to the PDP.
1
2
2
12. Given we do not know what these new seawall provisions in Chapter 9 are, again the
question for CRU is, how is it to form an opinion on the appropriateness or otherwise of this
proposed Chapter 5 amendment and the engagements of experts given we do not know
what the changes referred to in Chapter 9 are? The above examples are only a sample of the
integration issues we have identified so far with respect to Chapter 5 and other ‘ring fenced’
chapters. The examples are only a sample of the integration issues we have identified so far
with respect to Chapter 5 and other ‘ring fenced’ chapters.
13. With respect to Chapter 7, we will not be able to form a detailed view until such time as the
s42A report for Chapter 7 is released, but we trust Ms Allin’s judgement on this matter and
therefore our preliminary view is that it too should be ‘ring fenced’.
Evidence and hearing for the “coastal bundle”
14. We note the PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS SCHEDULE 2016, dated 2 May 2016
showing a chapter by chapter hearings schedule. That schedule does not refer to the release
of the “additional s42A Report” (referred to at para. 12 of Minute 7), nor does it indicate
whether a separate hearing is to be scheduled to hear evidence and submissions on the
additional report.
15. We refer you to the Hearing Panel Minute 7, para. 13.
“[To bring an appropriate focus to the ‘management of the coastal resource’ issue] all of
the s42A reports (five in total) will be released at the same time, being four weeks in
advance of the hearing on Chapter 3 (Natural Environment) scheduled to commence on
13 July 2016. The date for the release of the reports has therefore been set as
Wednesday 15 June 2016. “
16. Given the intention for five s42A reports to be released on a single day (15 June 2016), CRU
estimates that the number of pages to be considered as part of this “coastal bundle” could
well be upwards of 1000.
17. The Panel has, we believe, come to understand and appreciate that, subsequent to the
withdrawal of coastal hazards provisions from the PDP, these other PDP chapters and the
enduring provisions of the ODP are intended to form an integrated and interrelated set of
provisions addressing coastal management matters.
18. Accordingly, CRU and its experts will need to consider all of the materials across all of the
s42A reports in order to form a complete picture on the full complement and integrated
nature of coastal management matters, before being in a position to determine the scope of
evidence required on matters across any individual issue or chapter.
3
19. Alternately, the Panel may wish to consider a separate hearing for the “additional s42A
report” and a single topic hearing for the ‘ring fenced’ PDP chapters. Whatever the Panel
decides in relation to the hearing of this “coastal bundle”, CRU requests a six week lead time
to the first hearing.
Directions Sought
20.
a. “ring fence” Chapter 5 so it’ is treated in the same manner as the other chapters in the
“coastal bundle”.
b. grant a six week (as opposed to four week) lead time between the release of the s42A
reports and the commencement of the first hearing (or the topic hearing, if the Panel
accepts (b) supra.
c. We request, for the sake of certainty clarity and fairness to submitters that the Panel
revise the hearings schedule to deal with coastal management as a topic, rather than
chapter by chapter.
CRU as a submitter
21. CRU is a community organisation administered by a committee of part-time volunteers. Of
the 415 submitters to the PDP who made submissions on Chapter 4, 186 specifically sought
the relief sought in the CRU submission as part of their submission. We have a large
membership relying on our representation; a membership with which we need to canvas
opinions and views. These aspects of our organisation require slightly longer lead times
than a commercial organisation with full time executive management and sophisticated
systems around decision-making processes
Your consideration is appreciated.
C B Ruthe,
Chairman
Coastal Ratepayers United Inc.
6 May 2016
E&OE
4