This section contains questions and answers relating to the withdrawal of provisions and the Proposed District Plan process
As a result of community and submitter concerns surrounding many of the PDP provisions, the Council commissioned two independent review reports of the PDP in November 2013.
On 24 June 2014 the Council received final copies of the two independent review reports entitled 'Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment for the Kāpiti Coast: Review of the Science & Assessment Undertaken for the Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan' and 'Independent Review of the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan'. The key finding of the Independent Coastal Hazard review panel was:
"The opinion of the Panel based on its review is that the existing recommended hazard lines are not sufficiently robust for incorporation into the Proposed District Plan. However there are components of the analyses undertaken by Lumsden and CSL, which if updated and combined could potentially yield scientifically–sound, best practice hazard lines for the Kāpiti Coast."
The report then presented a series of further technical recommendations to improve the scientific evidence to quantify the coastal hazard risks posed to the Kāpiti coastline.
Sylvia Allan, in the 'Independent Review of the Kāpiti Coast Proposed District Plan’, recommended the formal withdrawal of the coastal hazard provisions of the PDP.
Council has committed to a two-to-three year programme of scientific and engineering research for coastal hazards.
Yes, but the nature of those provisions will not be decided until the research programme has been completed. It is too early to say what such provisions could look like.
Council is forming a Coastal Advisory Group (CAG) comprised of statutory agencies and community representatives to guide Council's future work programme decisions on coastal hazard issues and to facilitate Community engagement.
Consultation will be undertaken as part of this process.
Any decision to use updated District Plan provisions (or non-regulatory methods or both) to deal with coastal erosion hazards will only be made after the new research has been completed and all of the management options have been assessed through the CAG.
For these reasons, any revised coastal provisions are not expected to be notified until 2019.
The land that was covered by Coastal Hazard Management Areas overlays in the PDP is still covered by an underlying PDP zone such as Beach Residential.
Coastal hazards will continue to be addressed by the Operative District Plan while the coastal hazards research continues.
Section C9 of the Operative District Plan contains objectives and policies regarding the coast and addresses issues such as coastal amenity, natural character and hazards.
Yard setbacks are the key mechanism in the Operative District Plan for managing buildings in the coastal environment. Section D1 contains the standards for the Residential Zones:
(iii) Coastal Building Line Restriction
Waikanae, Te Horo Beach - 7.5 metres from the seaward title boundary.
Peka Peka - 70.0 metres from the seaward edge of the existing Esplanade Reserve.
Paraparaumu, Raumati, Paekakariki - 20 metres as shown on Paraparaumu Urban Zone Maps 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, 21 and 26 and Paekakariki Urban Zone Maps 1-3.
Section D1 also contains standards for residential buildings in certain areas to be relocatable:
(iv) Relocatable Buildings
Buildings within the relocatable area, as defined in Part Q of this Plan and shown on Paraparaumu Urban Zone Maps 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 16, 21 and 26 and Paekakariki Urban Zone Maps 1-3, between 20 metres and 50 metres, shall be relocatable. Section 36 of the Building Act 2004 may be implemented for new and relocated buildings in areas subject to coastal erosion or flooding to indemnify Council against possible damages.
Similarly D2 contains coastal yard setback rules for the rural environment
All buildings including relocated buildings, replacements and extensions shall be set back at least 100 metres (50 metres on Kapiti Island) from the seaward title boundary or Esplanade Reserve Boundary, whichever is the most seaward, or the seaward toe of the foredune or vegetation line where this is within the title.
They have been withdrawn, in a similar process to the coastal hazard provisions.
The reasons include the previous process being considered not best practice, conflicts with requirements for landowners to comply with Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) legislation, and the evidence base for Priority Areas for Restoration being extremely limited.
Withdrawing these provisions results in the removal of objectives, policies, map information, rules, some definitions (which relate to these issues only) and cross references to these provisions.
Council has undertaken a benchmarking exercise to see how other district plans are managing their hazardous substances and facilities.
Based on research and best-practice planning, Council will develop replacement provisions and progress a change to the district plan.
Consultation with the community and affected parties will be a key part of the process of developing these provisions. In due course, new district plan provisions will go through a public notification process with submissions, hearings and decisions.
The Operative District Plan provisions relating to hazardous substances and facilities will prevail while a plan change is being developed. Objectives and policies relating to hazardous substances are contained in Part C.17 of the Operative District Plan. Standards relating to Hazardous Facilities are contained in Part M of the Operative District Plan.
There are also standards contained in the zone rules which require that no activity shall exceed a Hazardous Facility Threshold (effects ratio) of 0.2.
The Operative District Plan's provisions relating to coastal hazards and hazardous substances and facilities continue to apply.
As part of its ongoing full district plan review programme, the Council is continuing its work to develop new provisions relating to coastal hazards and hazardous substances and facilities.
In relation to coastal hazards, that work includes a two-to-three year programme of scientific and engineering research, guided by the Coastal Advisory Group comprised of statutory agencies and community representatives.
In due course, the Council will be consulting on and then notifying new provisions to replace the proposed provisions that were withdrawn on 30 October 2014.
These points of submission (and in some cases the full submission) will effectively fall away as the provisions to which they relate have been withdrawn. Further submissions on these matters will also be affected.
Council has annotated the summary of submissions to indicate points of submission that are affected by the withdrawal. You can find your summarised submission on the Council website and search for your submission or further submission by your name or by your submission number.
Submission points which are affected by the withdrawal have been annotated in the summary of submissions. The table below gives the wording used in the annotations and describes what those annotations mean:
Description of effect
[Submission point is about plan provisions withdrawn on 30 October 2014 and / or about associated process matters.]
Whole submission point is affected by the withdrawal of provisions.
This annotation indicates that the submission point as a whole is no longer relevant as the provision to which it relates has been withdrawn.
[Submission point is, in part, about plan provisions withdrawn on 30 October 2014 and / or about associated process matters.]
Part of the submission point is affected by the withdrawal of provisions.
This annotation indicates that part of the submission point is no longer relevant as the provision to which it relates has been withdrawn. However part of the submission point is still relevant as it relates to remaining provisions.