Section 32 Evaluation Report Proposed Change 2 … · Section 32 Evaluation Report Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) Bay of Plenty Regional Council 2 Immediately after the RPS is

Version 4.1 October 2014

OPERATIVE BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT

Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards)

SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

PO Box 364 Whakatāne 3158

Section 32 Evaluation Report Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) Bay of Plenty Regional Council

i

Contents

Part 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of the report 1

1.2 Requirements of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 1

1.3 Other relevant documentation 2

1.4 Legal framework for natural hazard management in New Zealand 2

1.5 Role and responsibility of the Regional Council for natural hazards management 4

1.6 Issue identification 5

Part 2: Process framework 7

2.1 Background 7

2.2 Project principles 7

2.3 Workstreams 7

2.4 Timeline 8

2.5 Consultation 8

Part 3: Scale and significance assessment 11

3.1 Change to baseline 11

3.2 Overall effects of the Proposal 12

3.3 Targeted consultation 12

Part 4: Evaluation of Objective 23 13

4.1 Background to terms used in Objective 23 13

4.2 The term “objective” 13

4.3 Section 32 and objectives 13

4.4 The Natural Hazards Objective in context 14

4.5 Components of the objective 14


ii

4.6 Appropriateness of the objective in achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act 15

4.7 Conclusion 17

Part 5: Reasonably practicable options for achieving the objective 19

5.1 Consideration of options 19

5.2 Other regions’ approaches to managing natural hazards and reducing risk to people and communities 20

5.3 Conclusion 21

Part 6: Efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions 23

6.1 Introduction 23

6.2 Policy design features aimed at minimising cost 24

6.3 The effects of the baseline 25

6.4 The effects of the provisions in Proposed Change 2 25

6.5 Evaluation of policies 27

Part 7: Assessment of the risks of acting or not acting 45

7.1 Uncertain or insufficient information? 45

7.2 Risk of not acting 45

Part 8: Conclusion 47


1

Part 1: Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the report

This is an evaluation report prepared to meet the requirements of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for public notification of Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement. The section 32 evaluation is a key statutory requirement of the process of preparing such a change to an operative Regional Policy Statement (RPS).

Change 2 (the Proposal) proposes natural hazards provisions to be inserted into the operative RPS.

1.2 Requirements of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991

In preparing this evaluation report, regard has been given to the interim guidance on section 32 produced by the Ministry for the Environment (December 2013)1. Under section 322 of the RMA, a change to an RPS must be accompanied by an evaluation report at the time of public notification. The level of detail depends on the scale and significance of anticipated effects, particularly for the assessment of benefits and costs. This report records the process that has been used to develop the Proposal.

The evaluation report must:

Contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the effects anticipated from implementing the Proposal.

Assess the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

Consider alternative options for achieving the objective.

Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions (policies and methods) in achieving the objective.

Assess the risk of taking or not taking action if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the identified issues.

Section 32(2) requires that the benefits and costs of implementing provisions be assessed in terms of the environmental, economic, social and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth and employment. If practical, these benefits and costs should be quantified.

1 Ministry for the Environment, 2013, A guide to section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991: Incorporating changes as a result of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013, Interim guidance. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington 2 The Resource Management Amendment Act 2013 provides greater guidance and specificity about what is required in a section 32 evaluation report. There are now more comprehensive mandatory requirements relating to process and content.


2

Immediately after the RPS is made operative, Proposed Change 2 will be publicly notified for submissions. The operative RPS does not contain any natural hazard objective or policies, except Policy NH 11B regarding climate change. In terms of the requirements of section 32(3)3, the Proposal is therefore an ‘amending proposal’ because it inserts natural hazard provisions into an operative RPS.

1.3 Other relevant documentation

This section 32 evaluation report should be read in conjunction with the Proposal which sets out the objective, policies and other provisions. There is one attachment to this report:

Attachment 1 – Technical specialist policy review.

Furthermore, the following documents should also be referred to:

Risk Threshold Engagement, Supporting Document to item 5.2 Proposed RPS Variation 2 (Natural Hazards): Principles and Process, Bay of Plenty Regional Council Regional Direction and Delivery Committee agenda for 15 May 2014 meeting.

Saunders, W.S.A.; Beban, J.G.; Kilvington, M. 2013. Risk-based approach to land use planning, GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 67 (GNS Risk-based Toolbox).

Natural Hazards Guidance Note (2013), RMA Quality Planning Resource, Ministry for the Environment.

Further to the above, the Regional Council already has a substantial information base on natural hazard susceptibility across the region, and is currently undertaking related work in collaboration with territorial authorities, such as the Regional Flood Risk Management Framework and the River Scheme Sustainability Project.

1.4 Legal framework for natural hazard management in New Zealand

This evaluation report has been prepared to meet the statutory requirements of the RMA. There is also other legislation that provides part of the legal framework as follows (source: Natural Hazards Guidance Note).

1.4.1 Local Government Act 2002

The Local Government Act 2002 provides the general framework, obligations, restrictions and powers under which local authorities operate.

3 (3) If the proposal (an amending proposal) will amend a … statement … that … already exists (an existing proposal), the examination under subsection (1)(b) must relate to— (a) the provisions and objectives of the amending proposal; and (b) the objectives of the existing proposal to the extent that those objectives— (i) are relevant to the objectives of the amending proposal; and (ii) would remain if the amending proposal were to take effect.


3

The key sections of relevance to the proposal are:

Section 10 (1) The purpose of local government is—

(a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and

(b) to meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses.

Section 11A In performing its role, a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities:

(…)

(d) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:

(…)

1.4.2 Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002

The CDEM Act aims at the comprehensive management of hazards and risks, and emergency response and recovery, through coordinated and integrated policy, planning and decision-making processes at the national and local level. It sets out the duties, functions and powers of central government, local government, emergency services, lifeline utilities and the general public. The Act is administered by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management.

A key concept of the CDEM Act is applying the '4 Rs' (Reduction, Readiness, Response, and Recovery) to hazard management. Reduction aims to mitigate or avoid the risks of hazards, readiness to minimise potential impacts from an event through preparedness steps, and response and recovery to address the impacts in an event including any escalation of them. Each 'R' is related to, and overlaps with, the others. For example, recovery can begin alongside response; and reduction measures can be part of recovery activities. RMA planning generally (but not exclusively) falls under ‛reduction'. Risk reduction approaches are the primary focus of the provisions in the Proposal.

1.4.3 Building Act 2004

The Building Act 2004 provides for the regulation of building work, the licensing regime for building practitioners, and the setting of performance standards for buildings. It manages natural hazards in relation to the construction and modification of buildings. Also relevant are the Building Regulations 1992 (including the Building Code) and Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005.

The key sections of the Building Act 2004 are:

Section 35 Content of project information memoranda.

Section 37 Additional certificates that must be attached to project information memoranda.

Section 71 Building on land subject to hazards. Includes a definition of natural hazard for Building Act purposes.

Section 72 Building consents for building on land subject to natural hazards must be granted in certain cases.

Section 73 Conditions on building consents granted under section 72.


4

1.4.4 Relationship between key legislation for the land use management of natural hazards

The figure below shows the relationship between the key pieces of legislation for the management of natural hazards in New Zealand. Each piece of legislation is represented by a box linked by arrows to other relevant legislation. The coordination role of the regional policy statement is clearly evident. In this diagram the regional policy statement draws on the long-term plan, national policy statements and standards, and CDEM Group Plans (the latter being influenced by the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy and National Civil Defence and Emergency Plan).

1.5 Role and responsibility of the Regional Council for natural

hazards management

Under the RMA the Regional Council functions include control of the use of land for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards (section 30 RMA 1991). Section 62(1)(i) of the RMA requires a regional policy statement to specify objectives, policies and methods relating to the avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards. In accordance with section 62(2) of the RMA, if a regional council does not set out responsibilities for functions for the control of the use of land for the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards, then the regional council retains the primary responsibility.

In contrast, territorial authorities control the effects of the use of land for the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards (section 31 RMA 1991). Territorial authorities are also given the authority to control subdivision under section 31(2) and have discretion under section 106 to refuse a subdivision consent where the land is subject to hazards, or the subsequent use of the land will exacerbate the hazard.


5

Integrated management requires many agencies to co-ordinate their roles in avoiding and mitigating natural hazards, and managing any residual risk. For this reason, the Regional Council acknowledged the need to engage relevant public agencies in the process of preparing the Proposal, including civil defence emergency management (CDEM) agencies and the territorial authorities across the Bay of Plenty. The preparation of the provisions involved collaboration with seven city/district councils, consultation with adjoining regional councils, public consultation and hui on the risk threshold setting portion of the project, involvement of selected policy consultants, engagement of selected technical specialist consultants, engagement with stakeholders who had previously indicated an interest in natural hazards policy, expert peer review and legal review.

1.6 Issue identification

As discussed above, local authorities control the use of land to avoid or mitigate natural hazards (regional councils) or control any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land to avoid or mitigate natural hazards (territorial authorities). Local authorities also have a broad CDEM role, which includes identifying and communicating hazards, and the ‘four R’s’ as follows:

Planning and implementing risk reduction.

Maintaining a state of readiness - having the capacity and planning in place should an event occur.

Responding at the time of a civil defence emergency.

Overseeing recovery operations once an event has occurred.

The Bay of Plenty CDEM Group Plan identifies a wide range of natural hazards that affect the region. The extent to which we need to manage natural hazards depends on the risk they present. Risk is the combination of likelihood and consequence, and this evaluation report undertakes a rigorous assessment of the extent to which the proposed risk management approach is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

The regionally significant natural hazard issues for the Bay of Plenty are:

1 Potential for natural hazard events to generate severe consequences.

A wide range of natural hazards in the Bay of Plenty has the potential to generate severe consequences for people and communities.

2 Individual choices rarely take natural hazards risks into account.

In making their individual choices about where they live and work, and how they develop the land, people rarely take natural hazard risks into account.

3 Existing risks from low-likelihood high-consequence natural hazards.

Existing land uses are at risk from low-likelihood but high-consequence natural hazards (particularly earthquake and volcano related hazards).

4 Co-ordinating agencies’ roles to avoid and mitigate natural hazards and manage residual risk.

Integrated management requires many agencies to co-ordinate their roles in avoiding and mitigating natural hazards, and managing any residual risk.

The aim of the Proposal is to insert natural hazard provisions into the operative RPS to ensure that these issues are resolved through implementation of best practice risk management of natural hazards.


7

Part 2: Process framework

2.1 Background

On 9 October 2013 the Regional Council decided to initiate a variation to the (then proposed) RPS to insert replacement natural hazards provisions. The RMA requires the Council to have a Regional Policy Statement and to regularly renew it. A second generation RPS had already been notified, submissions received and heard, and appeals lodged with the Environment Court against the Council’s decisions on submissions.

Resolution of all the appeals on the proposed natural hazards provisions had been the purpose of a working party established under the auspices of the Environment Court. This process ended without the appeals being resolved. The Environment Court agreed to adjourn consideration or hearing of the natural hazards appeals to allow for a variation to be prepared. With the RPS being made operative, the new natural hazards provisions will be a “change” to that operative RPS.

Throughout the development of the Proposal and the section 32 evaluation report, the Project Team members and Stakeholder Reference Group members have had a number of opportunities to provide input into the development of the Proposal. All of the points raised were considered in the development of the provisions.

2.2 Project principles

Starting principles for policy formulation, to direct the further preparation of the policy framework, were adopted by the Regional Council’s Regional Direction and Delivery Committee at its meeting on 15 May 2014.

2.3 Workstreams

A project management approach was adopted to achieve the timely preparation and weaving together of content delivered by the various work streams. The deliverables of the project were produced by concurrent policy and technical work streams to address the following:

A Risk threshold engagement

The setting of levels of risk and the thresholds between them. This has been informed by a process of community engagement.

B Consistent risk assessment

The development of a consistent approach to risk assessment across the range of natural hazards, taking into account the variety of current practices for managing different types of hazards.

C Policy framework development

The establishment of a policy framework that guides the management of land use and associated activities according to the level of natural hazard risk they are subject to.

D Implementation guidance

The preparation of guidance for the practical implementation of the policy through regional, city and district plans and in the consideration of applications for resource consent.


8

E Process compliance

Compliance with the RMA’s prescribed process for the preparation of a variation (now a change) including the requirements set out in Part 5 of the RMA and its references to Schedule 1 and section 32, and any relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 2002.

In making its decision on 9 October 2013 to prepare a variation, the Regional Council acknowledged the need to engage the community and relevant public agencies, including CDEM agencies and local authorities. Accordingly, the process for preparing the variation included collaboration with territorial authorities, consultation with adjoining regional councils, public consultation and hui on the risk threshold setting portion of the project, involvement of selected policy consultants, engagement of selected technical specialist consultants, engagement with stakeholders who had previously indicated an interest in natural hazards policy, peer review and legal review.

The Project Team comprised staff representatives from the region’s local authorities and the Bay of Plenty CDEM Group Emergency Management Office. The Project Team’s role was to provide direction for the policy development and oversee application of the project management methodology.

A Stakeholder Reference Group was established from those interested parties who submitted on the original proposed RPS natural hazard provisions. This group has provided much constructive response to drafts of Change 2.

2.4 Timeline

The Risk Threshold Engagement workstream began at the end of January 2014 and was completed in April 2014. The Consistent Risk Assessment workstream began in December 2013 and was completed in March 2014. The development of the Proposal itself (Policy Framework Development Workstream) began in February 2014 and followed an iterative process alongside the preparation of the section 32. The Implementation Guidance workstream incorporated into the policy development workstream. Finally, the Process Compliance workstream began in December 2013 and was completed in August 2014.

2.5 Consultation

As reported to the 15 May 2014 meeting of the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee, clause 3(1) of Schedule 1 to the RMA sets out parties the Regional Council must consult. They are:

(a) the Minister for the Environment;

(b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement;

(c) local authorities who may be so affected;

(d) the tāngata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and

(e) any customary marine title group in the area.

Accordingly, a draft version of the natural hazards policy provisions was sent to the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM), the Department of Internal Affairs on behalf of the Minister of Local Government who is the territorial authority for the region’s off-shore islands, constituent territorial authorities, adjacent regional councils and iwi authorities. The Ministry of Justice’s Office of Treaty Settlements advised that there are no customary marine title groups in the Bay of Plenty Region.


9

Clause 3(2) states that the Regional Council “may consult anyone else during the preparation” of the Proposal, allowing the Committee discretion. At its meeting on 15 May 2014, the Committee also noted that:

The project included a Stakeholder Reference Group comprising agencies that submitted on the natural hazards provisions of the Proposed RPS after it was publicly notified in November 2010.

The community, including tāngata whenua, was engaged with on the setting of risk thresholds between March and April 2014. The aims of the community engagement programme were to gain peoples’ input into what level of risk they wanted their community to be safeguarded from and to ensure the community had an input into identifying the measures of whether a risk of a natural hazard is acceptable, tolerable or intolerable. The Workstream A: Risk Threshold Engagement Report (April 2014) provides detail on the consideration of different engagement options, the chosen option for community and tāngata whenua engagement activities. It also outlines the way in which these were promoted and managed, and the feedback received, including identification of themes.

Preparation of the Proposal was overseen by a project team comprising representatives of the region’s city and district councils and the CDEM Group Emergency Management Office.

On this basis, the Regional Council confirmed that it was satisfied that community interests were being sufficiently taken into account and release of a draft variation for informal comment was not required.

Reflecting the involvement of the main interests throughout the preparation of the natural hazards policy provisions, little feedback on the latest draft was received.

MCDEM advised that its interest was that the proposed natural hazards chapter is consistent with existing CDEM planning (i.e., CDEM Group Plans) and national level planning and strategy documents (e.g. the National CDEM Plan and the National CDEM Strategy). It stated that “the proposed variation and the CDEM Group Plan appear broadly consistent” and encouraged the continuation of the Regional Council and CDEM working together during finalisation of the policy and its implementation.


11

Part 3: Scale and significance assessment

Pursuant to section 32(1)(c), an evaluation report must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal (section 32(1)(c)). This means that the scale and significance of the Proposal is the key factor influencing the level of detail type required for a section 32 evaluation.4

3.1 Change to baseline

There are two possible baseline options:

1 The proposed provisions in the second generation RPS notified in 2010 and amended through the Regional Council decisions in 2012 were required to replace the operative first generation RPS provisions. These provisions have been challenged at every stage and the territorial authorities of the region were never required to give effect to them. In order to pave the way for the Proposal to replace those provisions in their entirety, Regional Council has withdrawn them.

2 The operative RPS, in which the Natural Hazards chapter includes eight natural hazards issues, one objective, 15 policies and 25 methods of implementation. The overriding objective of the Natural Hazards chapter is avoiding or mitigating the vulnerability to natural hazards of the region’s people and communities and its natural and physical resources.

The RMA has been amended 11 times since the RPS was originally notified in 1993. Perhaps the most significant amendment to the RMA as it relates to an RPS is the change to sections 67 and 75. Prior to 2005, those sections had stated that regional and district plans must “not be inconsistent with” the RPS. The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 changed those sections to state that regional and district plans must “give effect to” an RPS.

This amendment had two implications. First, the enhanced role of an RPS directing regional and district plans can achieve greater integration of regional and territorial policy. Secondly, by implication, RPS provisions must be drafted in a way that territorial authorities (through their district plans) can “give effect” to them. The new wording suggests a role for RPS in providing direction to district plan policy and therefore has implications for the way RPS policy is drafted.

The operative RPS was formally reviewed in 2008 and in regards to natural hazard provisions, the monitoring and evaluation report states:

“Since the RPS was made operative in 1999 the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 was introduced and the Bay of Plenty Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2005 developed. The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 now requires local authorities shall have particular regard to ‘the effects of climate change’ (see section 7(i)). The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 requires that district and regional plans ‘give effect’ to the regional policy statement. Building Act amendments have also introduced new requirements for earthquake prone buildings and dangerous dams.

4 Ministry for the Environment, 2013, A guide to section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991: Incorporating changes as a result of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013, Interim guidance. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, p.24


12

The main changes recommended centre around the need for:

Rationalising the eight existing natural hazards issues for the region to avoid unnecessary duplication and reduce the total number of issues.

A more achievable and measurable objective.

A greater understanding of the risks and potential effects of natural hazards, particularly in urban or planned growth areas.

More proactive and directive natural hazard management policy.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council to be better prepared for an emergency (in its role as an emergency management agency).

Greater community understanding of their hazard risk reduction and readiness responsibilities.”

Given that all these findings were adopted by the Regional Council in 2008, it is considered that the first generation RPS provisions are now outdated. They do not reflect legislative changes or improvements to best practice nationally and internationally in respect to natural hazards management. For these reasons, it is not considered necessary to describe in full the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects of retaining the first generation provisions from 1999. Reverting back to those provisions is not a rational or practical option.

3.2 Overall effects of the Proposal

While there is a notable shift from the operative provisions to the current Proposal, Policy 11.3.1(b)(ii) in the 1999 RPS sought to “ensure a co-operative and integrated approach to natural hazard risk management”. Hence the move to a risk management approach in the Proposal is not new. It was promoted in the 2010 version and again in the 2012 BOPRC Decisions version following hearings on the second generation RPS.

The Proposal requires land use planning across the region to take a risk management approach to natural hazards. The policies work together as a package and there is a detailed methodology provided in order to apply a consistent risk management approach to natural hazards across the region. The environmental, economic, social and cultural effects of the proposal are described in Part 6 of this report.

3.3 Targeted consultation

The targeted stakeholder engagement carried out over several months during the preparation of the Proposal was a critical component of the section 32 evaluation process. It enabled multiple reviews of the approach being taken in the draft versions of the Proposal. For this reason, much of the detailed discussion and comparison of possible policies and their efficiency and effectiveness, including extensive discussions of Appendix K, took place in this collaborative process. The level of written detail in this report is influenced by that process.

The targeted stakeholder engagement carried out over several months during the preparation of the Proposal was a critical component of the section 32 evaluation process. It enabled multiple reviews of the approach being taken in the draft versions of the Proposal. Much of the detailed discussion and comparison of possible policies and their efficiency and effectiveness is based on feedback received during this collaborative process.


13

Part 4: Evaluation of Objective 23

The Proposal contains one objective for natural hazards as follows. It will become Objective 23 in the RPS:

Objective 23: Avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards by reducing risk where necessary for people’s safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities.

4.1 Background to terms used in Objective 23

1 ‘avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards’ is used in sections 30 and 31 of the RMA;

2 ‘reducing risk’ derives from the risk reduction-related purpose of the CDEM Act, ‘risk’ is used in Schedule 4 to the RMA;

3 ‘people’s safety’ is used in section 5 of the RMA;

4 ‘protection’ is used in section 5 in relation to natural and physical resources which includes ‘all structures’;

5 ‘property’ is used in the section 2 definition of natural hazard;

6 ‘lifeline utility’ is defined in section 4 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and its Schedule 1.

4.2 The term “objective”

In considering the extent to which the objective is the most appropriate, it is useful to consider the description of the term “objective” in section 1.3 of the parent RPS:

“An ‘objective’ is a desirable and achievable condition or position towards which effort is to be directed.”

4.3 Section 32 and objectives

Section 32 of the RMA addresses objectives as follows:

“(1) An evaluation report required under this Act must—

(a) examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act;”

The purpose of the RMA, set out in section 5(1), is:

“to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.”


14

Section 5(2) goes on to define sustainable management:

“In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while –

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

The section 32 requirement regarding the objective is therefore to examine the extent to which the objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

4.4 The Natural Hazards Objective in context

The Natural Hazards Objective is but one of many objectives in the RPS. Together the objectives address promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The Natural Hazards Objective focuses on promotion of sustainable management in respect to natural hazards.

4.5 Components of the objective

Sections 30 and 31 of the RMA establish functions of regional councils and territorial authorities respectively. These include “avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards”, the first words in the objective, the managing function.

The words that follow, “by reducing risk where necessary”, introduce the need for a measure of when and how much avoidance and mitigation is required.

The remaining words in the objective, “for people’s safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities”, provide the intention or purpose of the objective.

The three factors (detailed below) of the objective are addressed in turn:

1 “avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards”;

2 “by reducing risk where necessary”; and

3 “for people’s safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities.”

The managing function: “Avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards”.

This factor of the objective provides more specificity to the “managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources” element of the meaning of sustainable management under the RMA. It references an element of the control of the use of land functions of local authorities under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA. It comes into play in and influences decision making about the continuing use of land, changes in the use of land (development) and the need for protection of physical resources.


15

The ‘measure’ factor: “By reducing risk where necessary”.

This factor of the objective provides for the section 30 and 31 avoidance or mitigation functions to be carried out in a measurable way. The expression “where necessary” provides for a threshold between two different ways of managing natural hazard risk:

(a) Local authorities carrying out their regulatory “control of the use of land” functions for medium and high risk situations, and

(b) Allowing and enabling people and communities to take responsibility for managing any low risk they are subject to and provide for their own well-being.

The intention or purpose: “For people’s safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities”

Sustainable management means managing … in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

The intention or purpose of the natural hazards objective focuses on an appropriately narrower subset of this meaning. This subset comprises:

Enabling people to provide for their safety; and

The protection of specified structures: people’s property and lifeline utilities.

4.6 Appropriateness of the objective in achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act

The following table summarises the appropriateness of the objective in achieving the purpose of the RMA, the promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Element of sustainable management of natural and physical resources

The extent to which the objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the promotion of this element

Managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources.

In the context of the whole gamut of objectives in the RPS, the specificity of “avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards” is an appropriate management factor to be implemented in decision making about land use and development, and the protection of physical resources. Its referencing of local authorities’ functions contributes to it being the most appropriate management expression for achieving the promotion of this element of sustainable management.


16

Element of sustainable management of natural and physical resources

The extent to which the objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the promotion of this element

Managing … in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

The intention or purpose: “for people’s safety and the protection of property and lifeline utilities” focuses on an appropriately narrower subset of this meaning:

1 enabling people to provide for their safety, and

2 the protection of specified structures: people’s property and lifeline utilities, essential aspects of social, economic and cultural well-being.

This narrower focus is appropriate for a natural hazards objective and contributes to it being the most appropriate purpose expression for achieving the promotion of this element of sustainable management.

Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.

The protection of the specified physical resources (structures) — people’s property and lifeline utilities — from natural hazards contributes to the sustaining of those resources to meet the needs of future generations. Inclusion of the ‘measure’ factor, “by reducing risk where necessary”, addresses the reasonably foreseeable part of this element of the meaning of sustainable management. Together these factors contribute to this purpose expression being the most appropriate for achieving the promotion of this element of sustainable management.

Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems.

Lifeline utilities include water supply. Although water in pipes is not part of the definition of “water” in the Act, the continued delivery of water following a natural hazard event allows for its life-supporting capacity to be delivered in a time of need. Inclusion of “the protection of … lifeline utilities” in the purpose statement contributes to it being the most appropriate for achieving the promotion of this element of sustainable management.

Avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the environment.

This relates directly to the territorial authority function in the RMA of “the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards”. The management factor, “avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards”, captures this directly and therefore contributes to it being the most appropriate management expression for achieving the promotion of this element of sustainable management.


17

4.7 Conclusion

On the basis of the above, Objective 23 is the most appropriate for achieving the purpose of the RMA, to promote of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, in the context of natural hazards and the wider range of objectives in the Regional Policy Statement.


19

Part 5: Reasonably practicable options for achieving the objective

A range of reasonably practicable options for achieving the objective identified and considered, pursuant to section 32(1)(b)(i)) of the RMA.

The Proposal is for 13 policies, and these work together as a package to achieve Objective 23. The policies also seek to address the resource management issues listed in the Proposal.

The following reasonably practicable options were considered:

1 To manage hazards according to likelihood - this option would rely on policies that require avoidance of development in those areas subject to a specific threshold of likelihood only (e.g. 100 year return period).

2 To adopt the Proposed RPS 2010 approach – involves retaining provisions for natural hazards as notified in the second generation RPS in November 2010.

3 To pursue the 2012 Council Decisions version, subject to resolution of the specific appeals against them.

4 To adopt a risk management approach – the option being pursued in Proposed Change 2.

5.1 Consideration of options

Option Consideration

1 Manage hazards according to likelihood.

For:

Recognises and uses existing knowledge base, engineering solutions approach.

Against:

Defaults to blanket restriction as opposed to focus on actual consequence.

Does not follow current best practice as outlined in the GNS Risk-based Toolkit5 and other supporting documents.

2 Proposed RPS 2010 approach. For:

Adopted a risk management approach taking consequences into account as well as likelihood.

Against:

This was evaluated through hearings and deliberations between 2010 and 2012. It had been interpreted to mean that communities alone could determine their level of risk acceptability.

5 Saunders, W.S.A.; Beban, J.G.; Kilvington, M. 2013. Risk-based approach to land use planning, GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 67


20

Option Consideration

3 2012 Council Decisions version subject to resolution of the specific appeals against them.

For:

Amended as a result of submissions, this combination of policies and methods provided more focused direction.

Against:

Appeals raised issues of impracticality of application and lack of certainty; attempted resolution was beyond the scope of the appeals.

4 Adopt a risk management approach.

For:

Applies generic risk management process of “identify, analyse, evaluate and reduce risk” (likelihood and consequence) consistently to all natural hazards.

Thresholds provide a measure to prescribe “where necessary” contained in Objective 23 to determine whether intervention is needed or not and how much — therefore is efficient.

Allows targeting of whatever consequence elevates risk.

Allows a nuanced, considered and practical approach to land use controls in response to hazard.

Against:

Requires further investigation of risk with costs and time involved.

5.2 Other regions’ approaches to managing natural hazards and reducing risk to people and communities

5.2.1 Waikato Regional Council

The Waikato Regional Council’s approach is to reduce the risk to people, property and the environment from natural hazards (Waikato Regional Policy Statement Objective 3.23), which introduced a risk management approach to the region. This objective is considered achievable and reasonable because it sets out a framework for managing activities that may influence the vulnerability of the environment to natural hazards which is based on a reduction approach. This objective requires that the vulnerability of people, property and the environment is assessed and activities managed appropriately. It also supports a management approach that would avoid increasing the vulnerability of communities to the impacts of natural hazards, and recognises that there are significant economic and social costs associated with preparing for, responding to and recovering from natural hazard events.6

6 Waikato Regional Policy Statement, Section 32 Analysis of Costs, Benefits and Alternatives (November 2010).


21

5.2.2 Auckland Council

Objective 1 of the Auckland RPS (Natural Hazards section) is to reduce the risk to people, property and infrastructure from natural hazards while minimising any adverse effects on the environment. This objective is considered to be reasonable as it aims to reduce the risk of natural hazards across people, property and the environment rather than to completely remove all risk. This is reasonable as it recognised world-wide in natural hazard literature that risk can never be fully removed. This also means that the natural hazard rules still enable development in Auckland, provided it is appropriate and reduces the risks. This will help to ensure Auckland builds its resilience to natural hazards in the future through adaptation and mitigation. Objectives provided in Auckland-wide Objectives and Policies (5.12 Natural Hazards) are considered to be reasonable as they still allow for development on land so long as the risks are well managed, rather than taking a strict regulatory approach that may have left some parts of Auckland “off limits”. 7

5.2.3 Northland Regional Council

Objective 3.14 seeks to minimise the risks and impacts of natural hazard events through a number of channels, including by minimising inappropriate development in hazard prone areas. It seeks to ensure that risk posed by natural hazard events does not increase as a result of human activity. The objective is considered reasonable because this is the only objective directly related to natural hazards and reducing natural hazard risk in the RPS. If left to the market, the incentives often lead to people developing in hazard prone areas. It is likely that this would lead to greater damage to people, property and buildings/infrastructure. Leaving people to ‘build at their own risk’ is not appropriate because the cost is often passed onto subsequent owners of property and councils. This objective is seen as appropriate because there is now a greater amount of information concerning where hazards exist in Northland and the Northland Regional Council are in a better position to minimise the risks and impacts of hazard events.8

5.3 Conclusion

The Proposal’s approach is the most appropriate to achieve the objective. Other practicable options considered do not provide the efficiency of having measures for levels of risk and corresponding policy direction. By following a generic risk management approach, the practicality of the policy suite has been improved from the previous approaches. Inclusion of a default methodology provides direction for consistent implementation across all hazards and the region.

7 Section 32 evaluation for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Section 2.28 – Natural Hazards 8 Section 32 analysis report, Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland, Volume One, October 2012


23

Part 6: Efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions

6.1 Introduction

Pursuant to section 32(1)(b)(ii) of the RMA, the following assessment evaluates whether the provisions prepared are the most appropriate for achieving the objective, having regard to efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions. In this section ‘provisions’ includes policies and methods.

An assessment is completed for each policy or group of policies noting costs and benefits associated with the effects of the Proposal. The provisions of the Proposal are at the policy rather than regulatory level. Although methods are included these do not include rules. Policies must be given effect to through regional and district plans, but the way they will be given effect to will be dependent on subsequent policy and regulatory decsions of the Council and individual territorial authorities. While the Proposal directs the future management of natural hazards in the Bay of Plenty Region, much discretion remains as to how this is to be undertaken, what risk reduction measures might be required and where future restrictions might apply. Hence, the full and precise cost of the Proposal can only be fully revealed in the context of section 32 evaluations undertaken in respect of plans giving effect to the Proposal.

For that reason, of necessity, this evaluation follows a qualitative approach.

In broad terms, the costs and benefits associated with the Proposal flow from two proposed obligations.

1 The obligation to assess risk: In most cases costs flow to local authorities and in some circumstances to resource consent or private plan change applicants. The benefits relate to the increased awareness of risk and the ability to manage risk more transparently.

2 The obligation to reduce risk, where necessary, to meet prescribed risk levels: The costs are the associated physical works or other measures required to reduce risk as part of land development proposals and, in extreme cases, development opportunities foregone. The benefits arise from the damage and lives lost that will be avoided in future natural hazard events.

The following evaluation describes those potential costs and benefits in respect of specific policies and groups of policies.

In the absence of detailed natural hazard risk assessment (as required by the Proposal), the on-the-ground consequences of the obligations to meet specific risk levels is very difficult to predict. For that reason, many of the costs identified (partly those in relation to 2 above) are broad and partly speculative. They may or may not arise in practice, depending on a range of factors. In the interests of full disclosure these costs are identified despite the fact that they are far from certain to occur.

In weighing those costs (and their uncertain nature) it is important to take into account the many areas of discretion that remain to be exercised on a case by case basis and design features described in the following section.


24

6.2 Policy design features aimed at minimising cost

In designing the Proposal and participating in the consultative process described in Part 2 of this report, very significant attention was paid to the potential costs associated with the policies proposed. As a result, the draft Proposal was amended many times and in many different ways in response to stakeholder feedback in an effort to avoid unnecessary cost and minimise unavoidable cost.

Aspects of the Proposal introduced during the policy development process that were specifically aimed at reducing the costs described in 1 above include the following:

Provision for councils to first map natural hazards susceptability. This avoids the need for unnecessary risk assessment [Policy NH 3A].

Provision for risk assessment to be undertaken through regional and district plans rather than being an obligation that falls on all applicants [Policy NH 4A].

Provision for risk assessment obligations that do fall on applicants to do so only in limited cases (with councils retaining discretion over whether there could be a significant consequence) [Policy NH 5B].

Provision that risk assessment obligations do not fall on geothermal development in addition to the obligations of Section 2.4 [Policy NH 5B].

Allowance for risk assessment methodologies to be used instead of the default methodology described in Appendix K. This avoids duplication of risk assessment by those activities undertaking risk assessment outside of the RPS obligations.

Departing from the approach promoted in the GNS Guideline such that there is no obligation under Appendix K to assess the economic (GDP) consequence of a hazard event [Table 21, Appendix K].

Specifically provide for risk analysis to be qualitative rather than quantitative in many instances [Appendix K].

The introduction of two new methods allowing for a phase-in of the requirement for regional and district plans to give effect to the Proposal (rather than the obligation requiring compliance within two years, as would otherwise apply under Method 1 and Method 2). That allows for changes to plans to give effect to the natural hazards policies of the RPS to occur as part of scheduled plan reviews [Methods 1A and 2A].

Aspects of the Proposal introduced during the policy development process that were specifcally aimed at reducing the costs described in 2 above include the following:

The exclusion of rural activities and activities generally in rural areas from the obligation to achieve a low risk level (recognising that smaller one-off development will not present a significant risk beyond the development site) [Policy NH 7B].

Specific recognition for risk reduction measures to include a wide range of matters including activities outside of the direct perview of the RMA (i.e. CDEM measures).

Providing a clear signal that the natural hazard provisions ought not result in areas identified within the RPS for urban development not being developed [Section 2.8]

Qualifying any obligation to reduce natural hazard risk to existing development with the words “where practicable” [Policy NH 8A(b)].

Providing specifically for exceptions to the need to achieve specified levels of natural hazard risk (meaning that certain activities will continue to be able to locate in high risk locations notwithstanding the general approach) [Policy NH 10B].


25

6.3 The effects of the baseline

As discussed in the assessment of the scale and significance of the Proposal, there are two possible baseline options, as well as (in theory) the do nothing option. The ‘do nothing’ option would mean no natural hazards chapter in the RPS and instead rely on the statutory functions, powers and duties of local authorities in sections 30 and 31 of the RMA to plan for avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards.

It is important to note that:

Doing nothing is not a feasible option as Council has the statutory functions and duties described in Section 1 of this report; and

The baseline proposals also have effects, costs and benefits. While the effect of previous RPS natural hazards policies has been less dependable they have certainly had an influence on development outcomes in the Region and hence generated a series of costs (and benefits).

Hence, when considering the costs outlined in the following sections it is important to recall that the relevant consideration is the marginal net cost over and above what would otherwise apply. Fulfilling the statutory functions and duties to manage natural hazards cannot be a costless exercise. What is of key importance is the cost relative to the benefit generated.

6.4 The effects of the provisions in Proposed Change 2

The provisions in the Proposal are designed to work together as a policy package to achieve the stated objective. As a starting point before considering benefits and costs, all likely environmental, economic, social and cultural effects of the proposed provisions should be identified. While section 32 assigns effects to these four categories, they often have complex characteristics that overlap these categories. The table below provides the overall context for the identification and assessment of benefits and costs.

Effect Description

Environmental

The environmental effects of introducing new provisions are potentially very broad, such as effects on quantity or quality of natural and physical resources referred to in Part II of the RMA.

Provides for natural geomorphological processes to be considered in land use planning, including use of natural defences, rather than engineering solutions (such as stopbanks and sea walls) which can potentially increase overall risk to communities and rural land uses for low likelihood events. See Appendix L to the Proposal.

Promotes a best practice ‘all hazards’ approach to address multiple, interrelated hazards that extend across catchments and communities (territorial authority boundaries). This provides for consideration of how hazards may interact and a broader range of environmental mitigation measures through adaptation might be required to avoid secondary hazard consequences. A positive effect in terms of role clarity compared with the operative RPS policies.

Provides for the latest available information and environmental research to be used at the time of a development proposal or land re-zoning being considered, rather than imposing a solution in advance. This is a positive long-term effect, for example there may be new research on how wetlands and stormwater basins may reduce natural hazard risk, or the impacts of climate change on rainfall intensities and coastal erosion.


26

Effect Description

Encourages mitigation options that may improve or degrade water quality, biodiversity and the resilience and functioning of ecosystems.

Economic

Economic effects are a function of the resources consumed and the tangible and intangible benefits derived from a particular planning provision, or from the course of action to which it gives rise.

Provides greater certainty in terms of a framework for resource management decisions to occur, compared with the existing situation of the operative policies not being efficient or effective.

Provides clear methodology for assessing risk at a range of geographic scales and the policies work together to require a sequential process with clear responsibility for each part of the process. This has positive economic effects for the private sector developers due to the susceptibility mapping giving greater certainty to subsequent risk assessment and investment decisions, the insurance industry and property values.

Control is to be applied only where the risk is beyond a threshold. Therefore development is not controlled when not needed and at the same time we are not putting value at great risk

The Proposal allows flexibility as to how risk thresholds are to be met – land use control is expressly just part of the policy mix. It’s not that one can’t build (a blunt approach), it’s about achieving a low risk in how one builds.

Policy 5B provides an option for the development community to give effect to Policies 3A and 4A in the interim period prior to district and city council’s completion of risk assessments and review of their district plans. This could be viewed as a negative effect on those developers who wish to pursue large-scale intensification or zone changes in the short-term, where natural hazard information is not yet known.

The Proposal takes a long-term view, and therefore potentially creates a negative effect in terms of uncertainty for those areas with known hazard risk that are experiencing intensification through infill development.

A positive effect is that many of the risk reduction measures suggested in Appendix L of the Proposal can be monetised by developers for the context of their particular proposal. These potential costs can then be calculated and recovered from owners/occupiers.

The protection of ‘lifeline utilities’ in the objective and policy level of the Proposal provides for economic resilience and faster recovery.

Reassurance is provided to those land uses with a functional need to be in a particular location, for example renewable energy companies utilising geothermal fields or major rivers.

Addresses a market failure issue, where the transaction costs for individuals and communities are too high (information costs) and therefore individual choices about where people live and work rarely take natural hazard risks into account.


27

Effect Description

Social

Social effects refer to the effects of the new provisions on people and communities. Examples of social effects include effects on people’s way of life and wellbeing. There is often strong cross over with environmental and cultural effects.

The Proposal is consistent with the National CDEM Plan which requires various organisations to work together to improve emergency readiness, response and recovery for communities.

The Proposal is consistent with the region’s CDEM Group Plan for coordinated emergency management response in accordance with the National CDEM Plan and the CDEM Act 2002. On this basis the Proposal provides for a positive long-term effect on people’s well-being in the region, including opportunities for more resilient, stable and cohesive communities.

The Proposal should enable communities to become more resilient to hazard events.

The community engagement responses indicate that people are less tolerant of risk (even as the chance of this decreases) when they are including a consideration of consequences and potential impact of the event. They are more optimistic about risk when they are considering how rules and restrictions might impact on them.

The Proposal enables people and communities to create their own innovative risk reduction measures, through particular building typologies that lessen the risk to the occupiers.

There are potentially negative effects of giving effect to the Proposal provisions in terms of making information available to the public that shows susceptibility of specific areas to natural hazards. The public release of this new and up to date information mapped at a site-specific cadastral scale could potentially affect property values and insurance premiums in some areas. Furthermore making decisions about where thresholds are between low-medium-high risks can be contentious due to differing appetites to accept that risk to life or property.

There may be some negative social impacts on those people that want to develop but are impeded by the regulation falling out of these policies.

Cultural

Cultural effects include both effects on the overall cultural well-being of people and communities and, specifically, the effects of a proposal on Māori.

The policy direction in the Proposal takes a long-term view and may result in some areas of cultural importance and value, such as reserves, heritage places, marae, urupa, wāhi tapu and other taonga being assessed as high risk. This could raise concerns with respect to the ongoing use, management and development of such places and structures. However, as the objective seeks to recognise the importance and effectiveness of existing natural defences (such as sand dunes) it is anticipated that it will lead to positive cultural impacts.

Councils across the region may be required to establish the cultural effects of new provisions through consultation with, and advice from, relevant tāngata whenua in order to understand the implications of introducing new district plan land-use provisions on tāngata whenua values.

6.5 Evaluation of policies

The following proves a detailed evaluation of each policy based on its environmental, social, cultural and economic costs and benefits. Each of the policies is also evaluated for their efficiency and effectiveness. Some of the policies where relevant have been grouped together for this evaluation. Policy NH 11B does not require evaluation, as decisions have already been made and that policy is now in the operative provisions of the RPS.


28

6.5.1 Evaluation of Policies NH 1B and NH 2B

6.5.1.1 Proposed policies

Policy NH 1B: Taking a risk management approach

Take a risk management approach to control the use, development and protection of land to avoid or mitigate natural hazards by assessing the level of risk according to the likelihood of natural hazards occurring and their potential consequences.

Policy NH 2B: Classifying risk

Classify risk according to the following three-category risk management framework:

1 High natural hazard risk being a level of risk beyond what should be tolerated, (although exceptional circumstances will apply).

2 Medium natural hazard risk being a level of risk that, although tolerable where it already exists, should generally be avoided through future decision-making.

3 Low natural hazard risk being the level of risk generally acceptable (i.e. any level of risk below the medium risk threshold).

6.5.1.2 Costs and benefits

Costs Benefits

Environmental There are no environmental costs identified as a result of these high-level policies and their methods.

The environmental benefits anticipated as a result of these high-level policies and their methods are from the principle of the precautionary approach in risk management.

Social Some people and communities may object in principle to their land and businesses being subject to a classification of medium or high risk by a third party expert.

Addresses market failure. The high transaction costs associated with gathering and interpreting information impede the ability of individuals and communities to make optimal decisions about their own safety.

Levels of risk are based on established levels of community tolerance to risk. This is a benefit for communities that experience a natural hazard event.

Provides natural hazard risk information which will assist individuals to make informed decisions about where they work and live.

The framework recognises community tolerance to risk in the levels of risk in the assessment methodology.

Contributes to individual and community understanding of risk.

Links to CDEM role in mitigating risk to personal safety.


29

Costs Benefits

Cultural Some cultural groups currently subject to intolerable risk may suffer disruption to their circumstances.

Potentially allows for tāngata whenua remaining in present location but encompasses a long-term view encouraging reduction of risk.

Provides for the opportunity to reduce impacts on future generations (which is less tolerable than when it occurs directly to the individuals present now).

Economic These polices and the associated more directive policies assessed below will result in some costs to the community in taking additional precautions, particularly when developing land that susceptible to multiple hazards. This will be the case for the majority of the land in the region.

The three-tier risk framework is well-established and is consistent with national risk standards and associated guidance.

Classifies risk in a rational and consistent manner, potentially leading to better economic outcomes for communities, both in the event of a natural hazard and in the development of safer communities.

Provides a consistent approach across the region, reducing cross boundary issues and has the flexibility to be applied at any scale.

6.5.1.3 Efficiency

The risk management approach enables resources to be efficiently targeted to natural hazards that matter, rather than based on the existence of a hazard. The level of response corresponds with the level of risk and the approach allows the full range of mitigation measures to be taken into account. The risk framework is a well-established framework, following the risk management process prescribed in the New Zealand Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.

Levels of risk are based on identified levels of community tolerance to risk (Workstream A: Risk Threshold engagement report, April 2014). Individual choices of where people work and live typically do not take into account for natural hazard risks. Understanding risk requires considering the range of social and cultural, infrastructural, lifeline and health and safety costs, against the likelihood of a hazard event. This approach avoids market failure related to high transaction costs for individuals and communities in finding and interpreting hazard and consequence information, and therefore increases efficiency.

While the implementation of a risk-management approach through Policies NH 1B and NH 2B and the rest of the package of provisions and methods that flow from them will impose some costs on Councils and many landowners, the long-term gains will be more resilient and sustainable communities. On this basis these broad directive policies are considered to be highly efficient.

With regard to section 32(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the provisions do not specifically provide for or restrict opportunities for economic growth or employment.


30

6.5.1.4 Effectiveness

These two policies are highly effective in achieving the objective by providing the base structure for a package of provisions that provide for avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards by reducing risk. As stated in the explanations to the policies, risk management differs from the approaches that have tended to be taken in the past. The approach focuses on the presence and level of the risk rather than the presence and likelihood of the hazard. Policies NH 1B and NH 2B provide the framework for the management of natural hazards in the Bay of Plenty Region. They apply to the development of plans and to the consideration of resource consent applications. The policies provide for individual and community safety, and protection of property and lifeline utilities.

6.5.1.5 Conclusion

Having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, and taking into account the benefits and costs of the various effects that are anticipated from implementation of Policies NH 1B and NH 2B, it is concluded that they are the most appropriate way to achieve the objective.

6.5.2 Evaluation of Policy NH 3A

6.5.2.1 Proposed policy

Policy NH 3A: Identifying areas susceptible to natural hazards

Identify natural hazards and the locations where those natural hazards could affect people and property by mapping areas of susceptibility to the following natural hazards:

(a) Volcanic activity

pyroclastic and lava flow;

landslip, debris flow and lahar;

ash fall; and

geothermal hazard.

(b) Earthquake

liquefaction and lateral spreading;

fault rupture;

landslide and rock fall; and

tsunami*.

(c) Coastal/marine processes

coastal erosion; and

coastal inundation.

(d) Extreme rainfall

landslip and debris flow; and

flooding.

* For the avoidance of doubt, the potential inundation effect of tsunami from any source (whether seismic or submarine landslide) should be mapped in accordance with Policy NH 3A.


31


Costs Benefits

Environmental There are no environmental costs identified as a result of this policy and its methods.

Will provide clarity around the role of natural features in reducing susceptibility to natural hazards.

Social New information about areas prone to natural hazards can lead to distress for residents and communities within these areas.

Provides the community with information about the location areas susceptible to natural hazards. This may assist in individual decisions about reducing risk.

Should assist with making communities more resilient to natural hazards.

Cultural New information about areas prone to natural hazards can lead to distress for groups which live or have culturally important resources in these areas.

Information about the location of areas susceptible to natural hazards may assist in decisions around protecting culturally important buildings and taonga.

Improved preparedness for specific natural hazard events may help to reduce risk to existing marae and papakainga developments over time.

Economic Costs can be staged. Technical expertise is required for mapping and may not be within the current capacity of the regional council and territorial authorities. It is likely that agencies will hire in expertise.

The phased approach should ensure that fiscal costs are moderate to the Regional Council and to territorial authorities as they change and align their processes and train staff.

Costs for agencies will differ in relative terms depending on their geomorphological make up. Allocation of responsibilities (Policy NH 12C) reflects the source of existing natural hazards information and the core technical competencies of the Regional Council.

The availability of existing information, such as for coastal erosion and coastal inundation, will assist in reducing implementation costs.

Ongoing costs in keeping susceptibility maps up to date are expected to be minor.

Providing certainty about areas susceptible to natural hazards is a moderate benefit.

Providing information for district plan review decisions regarding existing and future zoning, including both intensification of existing urban areas and greenfield growth areas is a moderate benefit.

Providing information for resource consent applicants is a minor to moderate benefit which will decrease compliance costs for individual applicants.

Reducing the duplication of effort for individual resource consent applications and reducing transaction costs for those applying for resource consents is a minor benefit.


32

Costs Benefits

Has the potential for increased insurance premiums for properties located within hazard zones, especially if taken as a stand-alone.

6.5.2.3 Efficiency

This policy provides a range of economic benefits to the community, including the provision of information which allows for smoother council processes (such as resource consent applications), reduces transaction costs, and allows individuals and communities to be better informed. The economic costs relate to establishing the risk management approach to natural hazards. Although maps will be updated with new information and conditions, this is a long term approach to natural hazard risk and ongoing mapping costs are expected to be relatively low.

With regard to section 32(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the policy does not specifically provide for or restrict opportunities for economic growth or employment.


This policy is a building block of the risk management approach. The policy relies on local authorities having sufficient resources to undertake identification and mapping. Some districts may be disadvantaged relative to others, depending on resources and topography. However, the phased approach will assist in managing costs and therefore contributing to its effectiveness in achieving the objective.

Note: The consequences of some natural hazard events are dealt with under the Building Act 2004, such as wind, weather-tightness of properties and ground shaking.

6.5.2.5 Conclusion

Having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness and taking into account the specific costs and benefits identified in the above table, it is concluded that Policy 3A and its associated methods are both necessary and appropriate for achieving the objective. There are no relevant alternative approaches as susceptibility mapping is a critical first step in the risk management process and is already being done at varying scales by local authorities across the region.


33

6.5.3 Evaluation of Policies NH 4A and NH 5B


Policy NH 4A: Assessment of natural hazard risk at the time of plan development

Assess natural hazard risk by:

(a) Determining the level of natural hazard risk within each area mapped in accordance with Policy NH 3A by undertaking a risk analysis using the methodology set out in Appendix K.

(b) Classifying each natural hazard risk at each location within areas mapped in accordance with Policy NH 3A as either high, medium or low natural hazard risk using the methodology set out in Appendix K.

Policy NH 5B: Assessment of natural hazard at the time of subdivision, or land use change or intensification

Assess natural hazard risk associated with proposals to subdivide land or change or intensify land use using the methodology set out in Appendix K:

(a) Where the subdivision of land or the change or intensification of land use is:

(i) Of a scale and/or a nature that could, if affected by a hazard event, represent a significant consequence; and

(ii) Proposed before a district or (where applicable) regional plan gives effect to Policies NH 3A and NH 4A and the applicable operative or proposed plan provides for the proposal as a discretionary or non-complying activity; or

(iii) Proposed after a district or (where applicable) regional plan has given effect to Policies NH 3A and NH 4A but the proposal is not provided for in the district or regional plan or is provided for only as a non-complying activity.

Or

(b) Where the district or regional plan specifically provides for natural hazard risk assessment to be undertaken.

For the avoidance of doubt, the obligation to assess the risk of a natural hazard under this policy shall not arise where:

i an assessment of the susceptibility of the subject land to that hazard has demonstrated that the land is not susceptible to that natural hazard; or

ii the risk derives from geothermal hazard which is managed under this Statement’s Section 2.4 and the Geothermal Resources Policies and Methods.


34


Costs Benefits

Environmental Medium or high-density residential intensification proposals in locations that are susceptible to natural hazards may be discouraged from proceeding through the resource consent process because of the new risk-assessment process they are required to go through. If this occurs, then the benefits of a denser and more compact urban form in and around existing major business and tourism activity centres could be reduced. Examples include low-lying coastal urban areas such as Mount Maunganui and Whakatāne.

When reviewing their district plans, territorial authorities can better plan for urban growth and potential areas of long-term retreat on the basis of definitive information on natural hazard risk for various types of land use.

Social There may be minor costs related to potential to slow the release of affordable medium or high-density residential housing in some hazard susceptible areas if developers are discouraged by a more restrictive or complex regulatory framework.

Risk assessments, along with the susceptibility maps, are a useful tool to communicate natural hazard risk to individuals and communities, and will help improve an understanding of risk.

Significant benefits to communities and individuals by ensuring that potential adverse effects (such as loss of life, injury, property loss/damage, infrastructure loss/damage and social cultural and economic loss and disruption from hazard events), are taken into account in district and regional plans.

The location of future development will not increase risk to communities and individuals and does not increase the legacy of high risk development for future generations.

Provides a way of calculating risk on behalf of people who expect local authorities to make decisions with the best information available.

Cultural Potential cultural costs if more intense use is proposed for sites with heritage values that are assessed as high risk.

Moderate benefits, with assessment of natural hazard risk assisting decisions around protecting culturally important buildings and taonga.

Economic Redirection of existing expenditure by regional council and the territorial authorities in gathering information and moderate costs in undertaking risk assessment. However phasing of costs within the District Plan review cycle enables forward planning for expenditure and offsets some these economic costs.

The long-term view of this policy allows for better land use planning.

Moderate benefits relating to certainty about level of risk from natural hazards.

Moderate benefits by the provision of comprehensive information for district plan decisions regarding existing and future zoning.


35

Costs Benefits

The extended period for implementation of the policy… of the policy means that after the initial assessment, ongoing costs are expected to be minor.

Allocation of responsibilities (Policy NH 12C) reflects the source of existing natural hazards information and the core technical competencies of the Regional Council. This split minimises the cost implications for those smaller territorial authorities with lower capacity to absorb the increase in operating expenditure.

Moderate to significant compliance costs for those wanting to subdivide or undertake new intensive residential or commercial developments in situations where assessment is not already included in district plans. Applicants may choose to delay their development plans until the relevant local authority undertakes assessment. For intensification areas, this may be contrary to the policies of the territorial authority that seek an increased proportion of brownfield development through medium-density infill.

Minor to moderate benefits for resource consent applicants where assessment is included in plans. This will also reduce compliance costs for applicants.

Consistency across the region.

6.5.3.3 Efficiency

In the medium to long-term, assessment of risk will provide certainty to district plan decisions regarding existing and future zoning, however in the shorter term development may be inhibited by the need to consider risk. For communities, implementation of these policies is expected to increase awareness of natural hazard risks and will lead to significant benefits in the event of a natural hazard. These benefits might include fewer deaths and injuries, less disruption to infrastructure, more rapid recovery for businesses, and a lower impact on the monetary economy.

It is acknowledged that implementation of these policies is expected to impose moderate to significant costs on local authorities. However this can be managed through phasing within the policy development cycle, and mitigated somewhat by the flexibility and long term nature of this policy. After the initial moderately high costs, ongoing costs are expected to be relatively low and lead to more resilient and sustainable communities.



36


Implementation may be slowed by the inability of the Regional Council and territorial authorities to adequately resource the risk assessments, and the dependence of an availability of the necessary information. The phased approach allows for planning, and the long-term nature of this policy ensures that although upfront costs may be significant, the ongoing costs will be low. The policies are considered to be effective at achieving the objective, in that they fit within the responsibilities designated to regional councils and territorial authorities under the RMA.

6.5.3.5 Conclusion

Having regard to efficiency and effectiveness, and taking into account the balance between the costs and benefits identified in the table above, it is concluded that Policies 4A and 5B and their associated methods are necessary and appropriate for achieving the objective. There are no relevant alternative approaches because these policies stipulate the compulsory risk assessment process using the methodology outlined in Appendix K of the Proposal (Policy 4A) and clarify its implementation (Policy 5B).

6.5.4 Evaluation of Policies NH 6B, NH 7B and NH 8A


Policy NH 6B: Natural Hazard Risk Management Strategy

By the application of policies NH 7B and NH 8A, achieve the following natural hazard risk strategy:

(a) In natural hazard zones subject to high natural hazard risk reduce the level of risk from natural hazards to medium levels (and lower if reasonably practicable); and

(b) In natural hazard zones subject to medium natural hazard risk reduce the level of risk from natural hazards to be as low as reasonably practicable.

(c) In natural hazard zones subject to low natural hazard risk maintain the level of risk within the low natural hazard risk range.

Policy NH 7B: Managing natural hazard risk on land subject to urban development

When policies NH 4A or NH 5B apply, require a low natural hazard risk to be achieved on development sites after completion of the development (without increasing risk outside of the development site) by controlling the form, density and design of:

(a) Greenfield development;

(b) Any establishment, re-establishment or intensification of an urban activity within the existing urban area (including any subdivision associated with such activities); and

(c) Rural lifestyle activities.


37

Policy NH 8A: Managing natural hazard risk at time of plan development

Manage land use and land use change in district and where necessary regional plans, to promote the risk management strategy set out in Policy NH 6B by:

(a) Controlling the location, scale and density of the subdivision, use, development and protection of land; and

(b) Ensuring the application of natural hazard risk reduction measures including, where practicable, to existing land use activities.


Costs Benefits

Environmental Control of the use of land to achieve low risk may lead to pressure for hard protection. Costs to the environment, such as on natural features and habitats for biodiversity would be assessed when such proposals are considered.

Recognises and provides for natural geological and geomorphological processes to be considered in land use planning decisions at the appropriate scale for mitigation through risk treatment. For example retention and/or enhancement of coastal dunes and wetlands, planting of appropriate vegetation for slope stability and rockfall protection, and creation of stormwater detention basins to attenuate flash floods.

Social Landowners and developers may become disenchanted by the increased discretion given to local authorities over the form, density and design of their developments. Consequently there may be minor costs related to the potential slowing of the development of buildings and infrastructure in areas deemed to be susceptible to natural hazards.

Benefits to individuals and communities by ensuring that natural hazard risk is managed and reduced.

Provides for a range of solutions for reducing risk on behalf of the community.

Ensures that risks from natural hazards of new developments are managed within that development rather than borne by the wider community.

Cultural There may be some adverse cultural impacts on iwi groups that want to develop certain land areas but will be impeded by the regulation.

Potentially allows for tangata whenua to remain on their land and to take a long-term approach that encourages risk reduction.

Measures may support the protection of areas with cultural values (such as protection of dune and wetland areas).


38

Economic Allows development and intensification of land use subject to levels of risk provided they can control the form, density and design to treat the risk to the level required by these policies. This may result in additional costs to developers or in opportunity costs where development does not proceed because costs are prohibitive.

Medium and long-term benefits as risk is reduced.

The focus on risk (likelihood and consequence) allows a range of mitigation measures to be used by developers where risk needs to be reduced.

Provides potential for the treatment of risk to be monetised and the costs recovered from occupiers.

6.5.4.3 Efficiency

These policies are very specific and directive in order to provide the clarity and tools needed by territorial authorities to give effect to this new approach to avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards in their district plans. The various identified costs are acknowledged; however they are generally short-term and in most cases are borne by individuals rather than the community as a whole. The three policies are efficient in that they represent the important risk reduction (treatment) stage of the process.



Policies NH 6B, NH 7B and NH 8A are action oriented and clearly directed toward achieving Objective 23 – “Avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards by reducing risk where necessary…” Policy NH 6B stipulates ‘what’ you must do if risk comes out at high – medium – low, and policies NH 7B and NH 8A provide the ‘how’ this is to be achieved.

The three policies work together as a package and are considered highly effective at achieving Objective 23.

6.5.4.5 Conclusion

This bundle of policies and methods work together to provide clarity for decision-makers about the outcome expected through implementation of the provisions. They are considered to be cost-effective and outcome oriented, and will help ensure that Objective 23 is achieved over the medium to long-term.

6.5.5 Evaluation of Policy NH 9B


Policy NH 9B: Avoiding or mitigating natural hazards in the coastal environment

Despite Policies NH 6B, NH 7B and NH 8A, ensure that on any land within the coastal environment that is potentially affected by a coastal erosion or coastal inundation over at least the next 100 years:

(a) no land use change or redevelopment occurs that would increase the risk from that coastal hazard; and

(b) land use change or redevelopment that reduces the risk from that coastal hazard is encouraged.


39


Costs Benefits

Environmental Where hazards create ‘coastal squeeze’ from proximity to development, natural character and landscape features are generally lost.

Recognises that erosion and inundation are natural coastal processes:

Natural defences, such as dunes and vegetation, are critical natural defence features.

Provides capacity for ecosystems and biodiversity to adjust, resulting in environmental benefits.

Protection from inappropriate use and development.

The potential impact of sea level rise is likely to exacerbate current coastal erosion issues. The effects of the Proposal are to avoid increasing risk of these coastal hazards.

Social People may be subject to higher levels of risk than they would otherwise be subject to.

Will provide protection of natural coastal features which will deliver wider social benefits through improved amenity and recreational values.

Builds resilience to coastal natural hazards by ensuring communities are aware of hazard risks and that there needs to be a focus on community and individual resilience.

Cultural Cultural heritage resources may be subject to higher levels of risk than they would otherwise be subject to.

Sites of cultural significance such as pā sites, middens or koiwi tāngata (human remains) are often located in the coastal environment, particularly around sand dunes. Managing the risks from potential hazards proactively can mitigate the effects on sites of taonga of significance to Maori.

Economic The potential impact of sea level rise is likely to exacerbate current erosion issues. This is likely to impact on existing low-lying areas developed in close to the boundary with the coastal marine area.

Improved resilience for development of the regions coastal environment, which has significant heritage and economic value.


40

6.5.5.3 Efficiency

The RPS is required under section 62(3) of the RMA to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). That is the higher order document in the RMA planning hierarchy. For that reason Policy NH 9B is included for clarity to cover coastal erosion and inundation. As stated in the explanation to the policy, it provides a bottom line obligation on all local authorities to avoid land use change in areas subject to coastal hazards over a 100-year planning period. While the costs identified above are noted, the policy is considered efficient as it is consistent with the approach that must be taken across New Zealand and provides flexibility for a range of solutions.

With regard to section 32(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the policy does not specifically provide for or restrict opportunities for economic growth or employment.


Policy NH9B gives effect to the NZCPS and is consistent with the Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan9 (RCEP), the objective of which recognises ‘the need to increase community awareness of risks and the need to consider mitigation options’. That plan recognises ‘the need to find a reasonable balance between natural processes and location of coastal development’. It also increases the onus on ensuring communities are aware of hazard risks and that there needs to be a focus on community and individual resilience.

Given the relationship of the RPS natural hazard provisions with the NZCPS and the Proposed RCEP, the precautionary approach promoted in Policy NH 9B is considered highly effective. The policy is also considered effective at achieving Objective 23 as it focuses on reducing risk from coastal hazards over time.

6.5.5.5 Conclusion

Policy NH 9B is necessary to impose a higher threshold (no increase in risk, risk reduction encouraged) to be considered when dealing with land use change in the coastal environment across the whole region. This higher threshold is justifiable for coastal erosion or inundation hazards due to the very directive policies in the NZCPS.

6.5.6 Evaluation of Policy NH 10B


Policy NH 10B: Exceptions to the natural hazard risk management strategy

Despite Policies NH 6B, NH 7B, NH 8A and NH 9B, provide for the establishment, operation and maintenance of activities that have more than low natural hazard risk or which are located in high and medium natural hazard zones if the activity:

(a) Has a significant social, economic or cultural benefit to the community it serves, or is a lifeline utility; and

(b) Has a functional need for the location.

In the circumstances described in (a) and (b) above, risk reduction measures (including industry standards, guidelines or procedures) must be applied to reduce risk to life and property to be as low as reasonably practicable.

9 Refer Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan. Section 32 Report. Bay of Plenty Regional Council Strategic Publication 2014/02. June 2014.


41


Costs Benefits

Environmental This policy focuses on the social, economic and cultural benefits of new activities, which may be perceived to lessen the importance of adverse environmental costs in the assessment of individual development proposals against this policy.

In the long term this policy may reduce the visual impact of new residential buildings and structures in sensitive low-lying coastal environments as they are unlikely to meet the test for exceptions to this policy. This benefit will mainly be realised after the review of district plans across the region to give effect to all natural hazard provisions.

Social Adverse social impact could result from existing activities needing to relocate.

Significant social benefits may relate to examples such as surf lifesaving clubs, for example.

Cultural Potential for some cultural activities that are not considered to meet the exclusions to have further restrictions placed upon them.

Cultural benefits as a result of enabling and facilitating cultural activities and associated structures and buildings with a functional need to be located within an area susceptible to natural hazards.

Economic Some public and private costs over the long-term associated with some established buildings and infrastructure in certain high risk areas having to be built in alternative locations and/or to a higher engineering standard, at the time of their replacement. This risk reduction would only be required where necessary to decrease risk to life and property, and would be expected in most cases due to more stringent requirements to meet industry best practice. For example, risk treatment to lessen the likelihood and consequences of liquefaction has changed following the Canterbury earthquakes.

Supporting the economic growth of communities, where appropriate. For example, geothermal resources provide a significant economic benefit to the region, delivering a direct contribution of around $110m and 2,000 jobs to the Bay of Plenty economy in 2013.10

6.5.6.3 Efficiency

This policy is efficient because it promotes a balanced approach that enables economic growth of communities while not imposing significant restrictions or costs on a limited range of exceptions with a functional need to locate in a hazard prone area.

10 Conroy and Donald Consultants Ltd (2014). Valuing uses of the Bay of Plenty regional geothermal resource. Report prepared for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.


42

With regard to section 32(2)(a)(i) and (ii), the policy provides opportunities for economic growth and employment in that it allows exceptions for certain activities to establish under this natural hazards policy framework in certain circumstances. Renewable energy generation (such as geothermal, hydro or wind) may be one of those exceptions, given the positive economic benefits of regional or national significance that can accrue from expansion of electricity generation.


Policy NH 10B is effective at achieving Objective 23 because it provides the context of ‘reducing risk where necessary’ in the wording in the objective. It provides a high threshold for exceptions, and the explanation to the policy is clear that the policy:

“does not obviate the need for activities to undertake hazard risk assessment to the extent that Policy NH 5B applies. Nor does it obviate the need for local authorities to assess risk in accordance with Policy NH 4A.”

6.5.6.5 Conclusion

Policy NH 10B is considered to be both efficient and effective, having regard to regard to the reasons above and the specific aims of policies NH 6B to NH 9B.

6.5.7 Evaluation of Policy NH 12C


Policy NH 12C: Allocation of responsibility for risk assessment of natural hazards

Requires the risk management approach described in Policies NH 1B to NH 4A above to be given effect to by:

(a) Regional council undertaking natural hazard susceptibility mapping in accordance with Policy NH 3A for:

(i) Hazards related to volcanic activity;

(ii) Hazards related to earthquakes;

(iii) Tsunami;

(iv) Coastal erosion and coastal inundation; and

(v) Flooding from natural water courses outside urban areas with reticulated stormwater networks.

(b) Regional council undertaking natural hazard risk assessment in accordance with Policy NH 4A for:

(i) Hazards related to volcanic activity;

(ii) Liquefaction; and

(iii) Tsunami.

(c) City and district councils undertaking:

(i) Natural hazard susceptibility mapping in accordance with Policy NH 3A for all hazards not listed in (a) above; and

(ii) Natural hazard risk assessment in accordance with Policy NH 4A for all hazards not listed in (b) above.


43


Costs Benefits

Environmental There are no environmental costs anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

There are no environmental benefits anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

Social There are no social costs anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

There are no social benefits anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

Cultural There are no cultural costs anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

There are no cultural benefits anticipated as a result of this policy and its methods.

Economic Moderate costs to the Regional Council in retaining suitably qualified staff and/or consultants to undertake the technical work required.

Minor to moderate costs to territorial authorities. Responsibilities for territorial authorities are relatively minor and can leverage on existing information and local expertise in most cases. Districts with large-scale urban areas, varied topography and numerous waterways (e.g. Tauranga City) will bear moderate costs due to the scale and complexity of susceptibility mapping and risk assessment for flooding.

Recognises and stipulates where responsibilities lie which contributes to the efficiency of the policy. For example, it clarifies potential areas of overlap

6.5.7.3 Efficiency

Divides responsibility to reflect the source of existing natural hazards information and the core technical competencies of the Regional Council, leveraging on information and local expertise held with territorial authorities. Importantly, this policy was prepared in collaboration with senior staff from all territorial authorities across the region.

With regard to section 32(2)(a)(i) and (ii), this policy does not specifically provide for or restrict opportunities for economic growth or employment.


Policy NH 12C is necessary for the effective implementation of the package of policies, in particular Policies NH 3A and NH 4A. It clarifies what needs to be done and by whom. On this basis it is highly effective as a ‘C’ policy in the RPS that allocates responsibilities between the Regional Council and the region’s territorial authorities.

6.5.7.5 Conclusion

Having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness, and taking into account the costs and benefits, it is concluded that Policy NH 12C and its associated methods are necessary and appropriate for achieving the objective. There are no relevant alternative approaches.


44

6.5.8 Evaluation of Policy NH 13C


Policy NH 13C: Allocation of responsibility for land use control for natural hazards

Require regional and district plans to specify objectives, policies and methods, including any rules, for the control of the use of land for the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards as set out in the table below.

Table 3 Natural hazards land use control responsibility table.

Responsibility for developing objectives

and policies

Responsibility for developing any rules

Responsibility for developing methods

other than rules

Land except land in the coastal marine area.

City and district councils and Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

City and district councils. Existing uses:

Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

City and district councils and Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Land in the coastal marine area.





An assessment of benefits and costs for this policy is not considered necessary because it simply clarifies statutory responsibilities pursuant to section 62 of the RMA.

6.5.8.3 Efficiency

Policy NH 13C divides responsibility to reflect the source of existing natural hazards information and the core technical competencies of regional council, leveraging on information and local expertise held with territorial authorities. Importantly, this policy was prepared in collaboration with senior staff from all territorial authorities across the region.

With regard to section 32(2)(a), this policy does not generate ‘effects’ in and of itself. Therefore there are no costs or benefits and it does not specifically provide for or restrict opportunities for economic growth or employment.


Policy NH 13C is effective at achieving Objective 23 because it promotes the shared responsibility for the control of land use for avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards.

6.5.8.5 Conclusion

Having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness, it is concluded that the policy and its associated methods are necessary and appropriate for achieving the objective. There are no relevant alternative approaches.


45

Part 7: Assessment of the risks of acting or not acting

Having considered the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions, pursuant to section 32(1)(b)(ii) of the RMA an evaluation report must also:

“…assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. …”

For the purpose of section 32, risk relates to changes in circumstances or an unforeseen event. This circumstance or event may increase the potential economic, social, cultural or environmental costs that may be incurred by a proposal. Risk may also be associated with a failure of a provision to achieve or move significantly towards the benefits sought by the objective11.

7.1 Uncertain or insufficient information?

The subject matter of the Proposal is risk management of natural hazards, where there is always inherent uncertainty about likelihood of an event occurring compared to the relatively short–term planning horizon of a RPS. In most cases there is also insufficient information, for example about potential consequences of a low likelihood high magnitude event affecting a large part of the region such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake.

The aim of the Proposal is to insert natural hazard provisions into the operative RPS to ensure that these uncertainties can be resolved through the use of a consistent methodology that brings together risk management and land use planning. In some cases there is a lot of information on the likely effects of a particular hazard on specific parts of the region (such as coastal hazards affecting urban development) but a lack of information to ensure an appropriate regulatory response that affects private property interests.

The topic is significant and highly complex. We are all potentially affected by natural hazards, however identifying the risk from such hazards is also complex and must be considered over long timeframes.

7.2 Risk of not acting

There is a significant legislative and procedural risk from not including natural hazards provisions in the RPS. As covered in Part 1 of this report, it is a mandatory function under the RMA for regional council’s to control the use of land for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. Therefore it is not an option to avoid providing guidance on the careful management of natural hazard issues. Given the geophysical setting of the Bay of Plenty, a risk of not acting is to miss the opportunity to provide for the development of more resilient communities over time, as sought by Part 2 of the RMA. On this basis, the Proposal is required so updated natural hazard provisions can be given effect to across the region.

11 Source: Ministry for the Environment, 2013, A guide to section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991: Incorporating changes as a result of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013, Interim guidance. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington

A1930389 47

Part 8: Conclusion

An assessment has been undertaken in this evaluation report to ensure that all statutory requirements have been met. The level of detail is commensurate with the scale and significance of the effects of this Proposal to insert natural hazard provisions into the RPS.

The current version of the provisions is the result of a lengthy process that began with the notification of the natural hazard provisions in the Proposed RPS in 2010. Those provisions promoted a new risk based approach to replace the operative 1999 RPS provisions, and were improved and refined through an iterative process during the last four years to get to this point where we now seek public submissions once again. Notably, the risk based approach has been described by the Environment Court in its minute dated 22 November 2013 as being at the leading edge in New Zealand for dealing with natural hazards in a comprehensive and meaningful way.

It is considered that the policy approach being proposed through this change has been demonstrated in the above assessment to be an appropriate way to achieve the objective and therefore the purpose of the RMA. It requires all local authorities and developers across the region to give effect to a risk management approach in accordance with current best practice. The aim has been to reduce costs to local authorities and resource users as far as possible, for example through phasing the introduction of provisions, giving exceptions to certain activities with a functional need for a location, and allowing for various approaches to risk assessment in Appendix K. While there may be significant costs of giving effect to these proposed provisions in some instances, this evaluation report has demonstrated that these need to be balanced against the benefits of avoiding major economic consequences of hazards affecting people, property and lifeline utilities in the region.

It is anticipated that some amendments to the Proposal may occur through the subsequent public submissions, hearings and decisions processes pursuant to the RMA. If this occurs there will need to be a further re-evaluation to add to or replace parts of this report, to ensure that the final regional council decisions on matters raised in submissions follow statutory process.

A1930389 49

Attachment 1 Technical specialist review

Technical specialist policy review

Eleven technical specialists from four consultancies were asked to review the policy framework and implementation guidance on 8 July 2014. This involved the review and drafting of comments in a template which was developed by the BOPRC.

Three consultancies responded:

Coffey (Sally Hargraves)

Aurecon Group (Neill Raynor)

GNS Science (Wendy Saunders, William Power; Brad Scott; Pilar Villamor; Sally Dellow)

Feedback summary

Key comments are summarised below:

The policy intention and order of the policies were clear and definitions considered good. All hazards were covered.

There were a number of comments received on the consequence table:

A recommendation was made to ensure whoever is assessing the consequences is doing a thorough job rather than Bay of Plenty Regional Council providing a framework. (Note: This has been addressed through the introduction of the ability to use other methodologies subject to the BOPRC CE approval and Appendix K as the default).

It was agreed that when assessing across the range of consequences one needs to use the worst consequence.

There was support for the removal of the economic consequence relating to GDP.

Natural hazards were considered by one expert part of the natural environment so it was considered unnecessary to have a separate measure.

The Health & Safety factor was considered to address public health concerns in extreme events. Measuring health and safety was considered by one expert to be difficult and a recommendation was to cover the main issues and monitor future events for unforeseen or rare consequences. Also to utilise other acts such as CDEM/Public Health Act to manage sewage spills.

Scale

There was agreement that the scale was correct, noting that the scale varies for hazards, and they can still be assessed within framework.

Experts agreed that any land-use change should trigger a natural hazard risk assessment irrespective of scale.

50

Likelihoods

The experts considered it clear how likelihoods are analysed and the descriptors, although not where the measures came from. Further justification was sought on the background of these measures.

Risk thresholds

Engagement was considered good, it was noted that it is important to be able to explain certain parts in lay terms.

Definitions

Were considered good with a few suggestions.

Biases

An intention has been to ensure consistent land use planning irrespective of the type of hazard. Overall it was considered that no additional biases remain.

Process

One expert was happy with the process, another didn’t comment and the third advised it was clear that each hazard should be assessed by someone adequately specialised in that field.

Appendix K

Figure 1: Conceptual curve of maximum risk was considered confusing by one set of experts who sought the need to consider how this analysis would work for a hazard whose curve is less ’peaky’, i.e. the risk is distributed across a broad range of likelihoods.

General

One expert considered there to be some ‘good suggestions in Appendix L’.

There were also a number of other cosmetic suggestions.

Documents

Section 32 Evaluation Report Proposed Change 2 … · Section 32 Evaluation Report Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) Bay of Plenty Regional Council 2 Immediately after the RPS is