Agenda of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 4 February 2020

Subject: Confirmation of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Member Appointments

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the means for the Joint Committee to confirm its membership as resolved by participating organisations.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Council officers recommend that the Joint Committee confirms the appointments as advised by participating organisations as attached.

Executive Summary

3. Following the 2019 Local Body Elections, the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) was re-established by resolution of each Partner Council with appointed Councillors and a Terms of Reference.

4. The Tangata Whenua members of the previous Joint Committee are not affected by the elections and no changes to their appointments have been advised by those appointing entities.

5. Hastings District Council representation on the Joint Committee is unchanged. Joint Committee appointees from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Napier City Council are starting their first term on the Joint Committee, with the exception of returning Napier City Councillor Annette Brosnan.

Background/Discussion

6. By resolution of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council at their respective first meetings following the 2019 Local Elections, the Joint Committee was re-established with the current Terms of Reference, and councillors appointed.

7. The Partner Council appointments to the Joint Committee are:

7.1. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council: Councillors Rick Barker, Hinewai Ormsby and Jerf van Beek

7.2. Hastings District Council: Councillors Tania Kerr, Ann Redstone and Malcolm Dixon

7.3. Napier City Council: Councillors Annette Brosnan, Hayley Browne, Keith Price and Nigel Simpson (alternate).

8. Correspondence confirming these appointments is attached.

9. Tangata Whenua members of the Joint Committee have not been affected by the 2019 Local Elections. Subject to being advised of any changes by the Tangata Whenua members, the Tangata Whenua members continue to be:

9.1. Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust: Tania Hopmans

9.2. Mana Ahuriri Inc: Tania Huata

9.3. Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust: Peter Paku

10. The project team advised Tangata Whenua members that the Joint Committee was re-established and who the new Councillor appointments are by correspondence dated 16 December 2019.

11. The Technical Advisory Group welcomes new and returning members of the Joint Committee and looks forward to continuing our work together.

Financial and Resource Implications

12. The Joint Committee is administered by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, with operational costs shared equally between all Partner Councils.

13. Operational costs are minimal and are provided for within the allocated project budget.

Decision Making Process

14. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

14.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset

14.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation

14.3. The persons affected by this decision are rate payers within the Napier and Hastings Districts and those with an interest in the coastal margins of those districts

14.4. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

14.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

1. Receives and notes the Confirmation of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Member Appointments staff report.

2. Confirms the appointments of the following as members of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

2.1. Representatives of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council – Councillors Rick Barker, Hinewai Ormsby and Jerf van Beek

2.2. Representatives of Hastings District Council – Councillors Tania Kerr, Ann Redstone and Malcolm Dixon

2.3. Representatives of Napier City Council – Councillors Annette Brosnan, Hayley Browne, Keith Price and Nigel Simpson (alternate)

2.4. Representative of Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust – Peter Paku

2.5. Representative of Mana Ahuriri Inc – Tania Huata

2.6. Representative of Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust – Tania Hopmans.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1	Hawke's Bay Regional Council - appointments to the Coastal Joint Committee
⇩2	Hastings District Council - appointments to the Coastal Joint Committee
⇩3	Napier City Council - appointments to the Coastal Joint Committee

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 04 February 2020

Subject: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. This item provides an opportunity for the Joint Committee to review and amend or re-confirm its Terms of Reference.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) recommends that the Joint Committee considers the appointment of an independent chair and agrees resulting amendments to the Terms of Reference if it the decision is to pursue that option.

Executive Summary

3. The current Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee have been in place, with only minor modifications, since the Joint Committee was formed in late 2014.

4. While the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) considers that the Terms of Reference remain fit for purpose, it also considers that the concept of appointing an independent Chair (which would require a change to the Terms of Reference) warrants further discussion.

5. Other than discussing this option, and updates to confirm the new members, it is the TAG’s view that no further changes to the Terms of Reference are required at this time.

Background/Discussion

6. By resolution of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council at their respective first meetings following the 2019 Local Elections, the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) was re-established with appointed Councillors and a Terms of Reference.

7. The TAG considers this new term of the Joint Committee an opportune time to review the existing Terms of Reference (attached), which have remained in place with only minor updates and changes since the Terms of Reference were first confirmed in late 2014.

8. While the TAG considers that the current Terms of Reference otherwise remains fit for purpose at this point in time, TAG wishes to discuss the idea of an independent chair with the Joint Committee.

9. Only minor updates are proposed to capture membership changes.

Options Assessment

10. TAG considers that the appointment of an independent chair may offer some benefits over a Chair being appointed from within the existing Joint Committee membership, as currently provided for by the existing Terms of Reference.

11. This is particularly the case for this phase of the Strategy, where alignment between all partner councils on how Strategy implementation is to be funded is crucial. Without that agreement, the Strategy will stall. An effective independent chair may assist with this conversation, by being better placed to independently facilitate a conversation between all three Partner Councils.

12. It is noted for completeness that the Chair does not have a casting or deliberative vote (as set out in the Terms of Reference). If the concept has the support of the Joint Committee, a change to the Terms of Reference would be required, alongside a further discussion on identifying and appointing someone to the role.

13. The process to appoint an independent chair, should the Joint Committee decide to pursue this option, may be initiated by the formation of a sub-committee or working group to agree the criteria or abilities required of the Chair before then seeking expressions of interest and embarking on interviews and selection of a preferred candidate for recommendation to the Joint Committee for appointment.

Financial and Resource Implications

14. Adoption of the Terms of Reference as they stand will have no additional financial or resource implications.

15. An independent chair would carry additional cost, with the scope of those costs subject to the appointee and expectations of them. At a minimum, they would be expected to attend 4 to 6 Joint Committee meetings per year, however it is noted that the previous Chair, Cr Peter Beaven, also voluntarily attended all TAG meetings and a number of project briefings with each Partner Council.

16. Subject to these matters, TAG expects an independent Chair may cost in the region of $5k to $15k per year. This would be additional, unbudgeted expenditure but can be accommodated as a variation to the existing project budget.

Decision Making Process

17. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

17.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

17.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

17.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

17.4. The persons affected by this decision are all existing member organisations of the Joint Committee, rate payers within the Napier and Hastings districts and those with an interest in the coastal margins of those districts.

17.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

17.6. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

1. Receives and considers the Joint Committee Terms of Reference staff report

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Councils’ adopted Significance and Engagement policies, and that the Joint Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring with the community.

AND EITHER

3. Recommends the agreed Terms of Reference as proposed to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri Inc, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust for adoption.

4. Agrees that the appointment of an Independent Chair is to be made

4.1. that the Terms of Reference is to be amended accordingly, including the process for the Appointment being:

4.1.1. Selection Committee comprising _________________________________ to convene to agree criteria for role and seek expressions of interest, interview potential candidates and recommend a preferred candidate to the 1 May 2020 Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee meeting for appointment.

AND

5. Recommends the agreed Terms of Reference, incorporating the amendments made in accordance with 4. above, to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri Inc, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust for adoption.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 04 February 2020

Subject: Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the means for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) to elect its Chairperson and up to two Deputy Chairpersons.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Council officers recommend that the Joint Committee appoints an Independent Chairperson as proposed in the previous “Terms of Reference” item, and elects one Deputy Chairperson from amongst its members.

Executive Summary

3. As a newly re-established committee, the roles of Joint Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson(s) are currently vacant.

4. In accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee agreed by resolution of the previous “Terms of Reference” agenda item, the Chairperson is to either be elected from amongst the Councillor members on the Joint Committee or an Independent Appointment Process to be undertaken, and the Deputy Chairperson(s) is to be elected from amongst the members of the Joint Committee.

Background /Discussion

5. Following the 2019 Local Elections, the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) was re-established by resolution of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council at their respective first meetings.

6. As a newly re-established committee, the roles of Joint Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons are currently vacant.

7. In accordance with the previous triennium’s Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee, the Chairperson is to be elected from amongst the Councillor members on the Joint Committee and the Deputy Chairperson(s) may be any member of the Joint Committee.

8. Prior to the 2019 Local Elections, Cr Peter Beavan (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) performed the role of Chairperson, and councillors Tania Kerr (Hastings District Council) and Tony Jeffrey (Napier City Council) were the Deputy Chairpersons.

Options

9. Depending on the Joint Committee resolutions on the previous “Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference” agenda item in relation to the role of Chairperson, the options for the Joint Committee are to:

9.1. elect one of the Councillor members as Chairperson, or

9.2. to confirm that the process to appoint an Independent Chairperson is to be undertaken.

10. The Joint Committee has the option to elect either one or two Deputy Chairpersons from amongst its members.

Decision Making Process

11. Council and its committees are required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

11.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

11.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

11.3. The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all existing member organisations of the Joint Committee, rate payers within the Napier and Hastings districts and those with an interest in the coastal margins of those districts.

11.5. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

11.6. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

1. Receives and considers the Election of Chair and Deputy Chair staff report

AND EITHER

3. Confirms that the process to appoint an Independent Chairperson is to be undertaken

4. Elects Councillor _______________________ as the Chairperson of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

AND

5. Elects ______________________ as the Deputy Chairperson of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Tuesday 04 February 2020

Subject: Coastal Hazards Strategy

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an overall summary and update on the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy (Strategy), for the benefit of new and returning members of the Joint Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Strategy is now in Stage 4 of a four-stage development process that began in late 2014.

3. It is a coordinated approach to identifying and responding to the coastal hazards of erosion and inundation, and the influence of sea level rise, over the next 100 years.

4. While significant progress has been made and the project is seen nationally as a leading example of coastal hazards and climate change planning, key challenges remain.

5. Principle among these is seeking agreement between the Partner Councils on funding mechanisms for Strategy implementation. While the Joint Committee has resolved to recommend the formation of a Coastal Contributory Fund, agreement between Partner Councils on the implementation of such a fund has not yet been reached.

6. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) are continuing to advance Stage 4, and look forward to resolving outstanding matters with the Joint Committee and Partner Councils, to enable the commencement of public consultation on the implementation detail of the Strategy in 2021.

Background

7. The Strategy represents a coordinated approach to identifying and responding to coastal hazards and the influence of sea level rise over the next 100 years. It provides a platform for long-term planning and decision making.

8. The Strategy:

8.1. Covers the coastal area between Clifton to Tangoio

8.2. Seeks to develop a planned response to coastal hazards out to the year 2120

8.3. Assesses and plans response to the following coastal hazards

8.3.1. Coastal erosion (storm cut, trends, effects of sea level rise)

8.3.2. Coastal inundation (storm surge, set-up, run-up, overtopping and sea level rise)

8.4. Incorporates climate change as an overriding influence.

9. The vision of the Strategy is:

9.1. “That coastal communities, businesses and critical infrastructure from Tangoio to Clifton are resilient to the effects of coastal hazards.”

10. The Strategy is being developed in 4 stages, as outlined in Figure 1 and described in the following sections:

Figure 1: Strategy Development Stages

11. Stage 1 (Define the Problem) commenced in late 2014. Fundamental to Stage 1 was the identification of the extent of coastal erosion and coastal inundation hazards out to 2120, and the risks these present. This work resulted in two reports being produced: Coastal Hazards Assessment^{^[1]} and Coastal Risk Assessment^{^[2]}. The coastal hazard assessment work was independently peer reviewed by Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University.

12. A mapping tool was also developed to show the newly mapped hazard extents. This information is available online through the Hawke’s Bay Hazard Information Portal at: http://www.hbemergency.govt.nz/hazards/portal.

13. Stage 2 (Framework for Decisions) began in 2016 and included the development of a decision-making framework for the 100-year Strategy^{^[3]}, based on a community decision-making model and utilising a range of decision making tools including Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (“MCDA”), Dynamic Adaptive Planning Pathways (“DAPP”) and Real Options Analysis (“ROA”).

14. The decision-making framework was guided by the Ministry for the Environment (“MfE”) document “Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government” released in December 2017. The Strategy was the first in New Zealand to implement this guidance material. Figure 2 represents the process recommended by the guidance. While the Strategy process is described differently (i.e. 4 stages, rather than 10 steps, because the guidance was released part way through Strategy development), the principles outlined in the guidance have been followed, particularly in the use of DAPP.

Figure 2: 10 Step Decision Cycle, from “Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government”, Ministry for the Environment 2017

15. Also during Stage 2, a funding model think-piece report was prepared^{^[4]}. The preliminary funding model identified options for how planned responses to coastal hazards risks identified in the Strategy might be paid for. The report covers public / private benefits, the sharing of costs between Councils, and mechanisms for securing funds, including the proposed establishment of a Coastal Contributory Fund.

16. Stage 3 (Develop Responses) commenced in 2017 and involved the implementation of the decision-making framework developed in Stage 2.

17. Two Assessment Panels were formed to drive the community-led process (Table 1, Table 2)

Table 1: Northern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel Structure

Panel Members	Observer Participants	Support Roles
Tangata Whenua (3)	HBRC Councillor (1)	Independent Chair (1)
Whirinaki Community (3)	NCC Councillor (1)	Kaitiaki o te Roopu (1)
Bayview Community (2)	HDC Councillor (1)	Facilitator (1)
Westshore Community (2)	Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (1)	Assistant Facilitator (1)
Ahuriri / Pandora Community (2)	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated (1)	Technical Advisory Group (6)
Recreational Interests (1)		Panel Secretary (1)
Port of Napier (1)		Living at the Edge (2)
Ahuriri / Pandora Businesses (1)
NZTA / Lifelines (1)
Department of Conservation (1)
Regional representative (1)
Total Voting (18)

Table 2: Southern Assessment Cell Evaluation Panel Structure

Panel Members	Observer Participants	Support Roles
Tangata Whenua (3)	HBRC Councillor (1)	Independent Chair (1)
Clifton/Te Awanga Community (3)	NCC Councillor (1)	Kaumatua (1)
Haumoana Community (3)	HDC Councillor (1)	Facilitator (1)
East Clive Community (4)	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated (1)	Assistant Facilitator (1)
Marine Parade Community (1)	He Toa Takitini (1)	Technical Advisory Group (6)
Recreational Interests (1)	Port of Napier (1)	Technical Advisory Group (3)
Awatoto Businesses (1)		Panel Secretary (1)
Napier CBD Businesses (1)		Living at the Edge (2)
NZTA / Lifelines (1)
Department of Conservation (1)
Regional representative (1)
Total Voting (20)

18. Figure 3 shows the areas each Assessment Panel considered as part of their process and how the coastline was broken down into individual units for assessment. Importantly, the area of interest for each Panel crossed territorial authority boundaries.

Figure 3: Coastal Units and Assessment Panel Area of Enquiry

19. The Assessment Panels worked through a structured decision-making assessment process completed through a series of 11 workshops during 2017 and 2018 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Assessment Panel Process

20. Applying a modified Dynamic Adaptive Planning Pathways or DAPP process, the panels developed 100-year pathways for 9 priority units along the coast. Each pathway is built from a combination of short term (0 – 20 years), medium term (20 – 50 years) and long term (50 – 100 years) hazard response actions. An example pathway is shown in Figure 5.

Short term

(0 – 20 years)

→

Medium term

(20 – 50 years)

→

Long term

(50 – 100 years)

Beach Renourishment

→

Renourishment + Groynes

→

Managed Retreat

Figure 5: Example Pathway

21. Six potential pathways were developed for each priority unit. The pathways were designed to represent the spectrum of possible responses, from no or low intervention, to soft engineering (e.g. beach re-nourishment), hard engineering (e.g. sea walls) and retreat responses. The pathways were then assessed using MCDA to determine an order of preference in terms of each pathway’s performance against defined criteria.

22. Capital construction and maintenance costs for each pathway were then introduced, and by considering each pathway against is non-cost (i.e. MDCA) and cost assessments, the Panels confirmed a recommended pathway for each of the 9 priority units.

23. The final recommended pathways from the Panels are presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Unit	Preferred Pathway	Short Term (0-20 yrs)	→	Medium Term (20 – 50 yrs)	→	Long Term (50 – 100 yrs)
Ahuriri (E1)	Pathway 6	Status quo	→	Sea wall	→	Sea wall
Pandora (E2)	Pathway 3	Inundation Protection	→	Inundation Protection	→	Inundation Protection
Westshore (D)	Pathway 3	Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Bayview (C)	Pathway 3	Status Quo/ Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Whirinaki (B)	Pathway 4	Status quo/ Renourishment	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Sea wall

Figure 6: Recommend Pathways: Northern Cell Assessment Panel

Unit	Preferred Pathway	Short Term (0-20 yrs)	→	Medium Term (20 – 50 yrs)	→	Long Term (50 – 100 yrs)
Clifton (L)	Pathway 5	Sea wall	→	Sea wall	→	Managed Retreat
Te Awanga (K2)	Pathway 3	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures
Haumoana (K1)	Pathway 2	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Managed Retreat
Clive (J)	Pathway 1	Status Quo	→	Renourishment + Control Structures	→	Retreat the Line / Managed Retreat

Figure 7: Recommend Pathways: Southern Cell Assessment Panel

24. An important concept is that each pathway is ‘adaptive’; the timeframe of each action (short, medium and long) may be brought forward or delayed, depending on the actual effects of coastal hazards and climate change over time. If sea level rises more than expected or at a faster rate, actions can be implemented earlier in response; if less or slower, actions can be delayed. If necessary, the actions themselves can also be reviewed or changed.

25. The Strategy will also be reviewed every 10 years, to ensure that the pathways remain fit for purpose as new information becomes available over time.

26. Note the use of the generic term, “Control Structures” in the recommended pathways refers to structures that are designed to hold the beach in situ and/or build up beach sediment. These structures are usually groynes, but may also include offshore breakwaters and constructed reefs.

27. The Strategy is now in Stage 4 (Implementation Planning and Response), which commenced in 2019.

28. Stage 4 is being advanced in three key phases:

28.1. Phase 1: Pathway Concept Development, Testing and Planning (current);

28.2. Phase 2: Community Consultation and Approvals (planned for 2021); and

28.3. Phase 3: Pathway Implementation Projects (post 2021).

29. Phase 1 involves multiple tasks, grouped into five, interrelated workstreams (Figure 8). Collectively, these workstreams are developing the next level detail on the Panel’s recommended pathways to enable an informed Council decision gateway and (if approved by the Joint Committee and Councils) effective community consultation in Phase 2 to commence.

Figure 8: Stage 4 Workstreams

30. Each Workstream, including its current status, is discussed in the following sections. A verbal update and presentation will also be given at the meeting to supplement the following.

31. The Design Workstream is being led by in-house expertise from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. It has three primary outputs:

31.1. Detailed concept plans for the recommended pathway in each priority unit and updated capital construction and maintenance costs

31.2. A works programme detailing the order, timing and duration of the physical works programmes that form the first step of the recommended pathways in each priority unit; and

31.3. A high-level assessment of the recommended pathway in each priority unit to assist the regulatory workstream to consider consenting risks.

32. Over the past 12 months, a significant body of work has been undertaken by HBRC to produce a coastal processes model for the northern and southern cell. This model is required to allow the development of design details for each of the recommended responses, and for the effects of those structures on coastal processes to be tested.

33. With the exception of revised costings for the proposed Pandora stopbank, the Design Workstream has completed Phase 1 work with a draft report which is in the process of being peer reviewed.

34. The Triggers Workstream is tasked with developing signals, triggers and thresholds for the proposed pathways. The pathways in this Strategy have been developed based on the Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP) approach recommended by the Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal Hazards and Climate Change Guidance for Local Government. This means that the pathways are flexible and able to adapt to changing circumstances; this is particularly important in the context of highly uncertain future climate-change effects.

35. In order for the pathways to be adaptive, signals and triggers are required. These will provide both the early warning signals, and the ultimate trigger point when a decision is required to action a shift to the next step in the pathway, or potentially shift to an entirely new action if necessary. Thresholds will also need to be defined; that is, the circumstances or effects that communities wish to avoid; pathway actions will need to be implemented before threshold conditions are reached.

36. The Triggers Workstream will develop signals, triggers and thresholds for each priority unit of the coast.

37. One of the challenges for this workstream is that signals and triggers have not yet been developed for coastal hazards pathways anywhere else in New Zealand; there is no defined process for doing this or other examples to learn from.

38. TAG are expecting the release of a report from the Deep South National Science Challenge, which presents learnings from a series of workshops held (including with TAG and the Northern and Southern Cell Assessment Panels) on signal and trigger development. An initial workshop has been held with the authors of this report, which will allow TAG to proceed with the design of a collaborative process which will involve former panel members. There is also a preliminary agreement for some support from Living at the Edge (a National Science Challenge funded project) to assist with a peer review of the triggers development process, given that it will be the first of its kind in New Zealand.

39. TAG envisions that once the trigger development process has been designed and peer reviewed, collaborative workshops with Assessment Panel and community members will be held in the first and second quarter of 2020. This is a work in progress.

40. The Funding Workstream is tasked with:

40.1. Developing a funding model to support the implementation of the Strategy, including the detail of a proposed contributory fund; and

40.2. Providing an analysis sufficient to satisfy the requirements of s.101(3) of the Local Government Act to implement the pathways in each priority unit.

41. Much of the focus of the past 12 months has been on working with the Joint Committee and each Partner Council directly to seek agreement on funding matters, particularly on questions of responsibility and accountability.

42. Importantly, on 31 May 2019, the Joint Committee passed a resolution recommending that the Partner Councils establish a Coastal Contributory Fund, which would help offset the future cost of Strategy implementation. The full text of the resolution is reproduced below:

42.1. That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee:

42.1.1. Receives and notes the “Contributory Fund” report.

42.1.2. Recommends to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council, and Hastings District Council that a Coastal Contributory Fund be established.

42.1.3. Recommends to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council, and Hastings District Council that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council be the Council that administers the Fund on behalf of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council and Hastings District Council.

42.1.4. Recommends to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council, and Hastings District Council that they consider rating towards the public good component of the implementation strategy in the 2021-22 financial year at the rate to be determined and subject to public consultation at a preferred option of $15.00 per rating unit, with amount to be reviewed annually thereafter.

42.1.5. Notes and receives the Contributory Fund Rules Deed as an early draft and acknowledging more work to be done.

43. Through late July and early August 2019, TAG workshopped these recommendations with Council Chief Executives and each Partner Council, however, was not able to confirm an agreed position on implementation.

44. Reaching an aligned position on the proposed contributory fund and funding concepts more broadly will be necessary if the Strategy is to proceed. This needs to be a key focus for TAG and the Joint Committee in the coming months.

45. The Regulatory Workstream has been tasked with considering 4 key questions:

45.1. Does the existing planning and regulatory framework in Hawke’s Bay require changes to improve consistency across jurisdictions?

45.2. How supportive/restrictive is the existing framework in terms of Strategy implementation and what changes could be made to better facilitate implementation while appropriately managing adverse effects?

45.3. How can the moral hazard risk associated with implementing coastal defence measures be managed? That is, the risk of inadvertently encouraging further development/investment in an area only temporarily protected by a coastal defence.

45.4. In consideration of the existing planning and regulatory framework including the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, and based on a high-level assessment of the actual and potential effects (including cumulative effects) of the proposed pathways, what are the challenges with gaining resource consents to implement the proposed pathways?

46. It was originally intended that this workstream could be advanced with in-house Council expertise, however with resource limitations this has not been achieved.

47. TAG have now contracted Mitchell Daysh to develop this workstream as an externally produced report. The report is expected in the first quarter of 2020.

48. The Governance Workstream is tasked with confirming the role that each Partner Council and Iwi member of the Joint Committee will take in Strategy implementation.

49. With much of the focus on roles and responsibilities currently being debated within the Funding Workstream, the Governance Workstream is currently on hold.

50. As an additional package of work, TAG have also recently commenced investigating managed retreat. This work seeks to fill a gap in our understanding of what managed retreat might actually look like in Hawke’s Bay, and what it might cost. Consultants Tonkin & Taylor have been engaged to prepare a desktop study, which is expected to be completed by May 2020.

51. The Table 3 below provides a summary of each of the workstreams discussed above.

Table 3: Workstream Status Update

Workstream	Status Update
Design	Well advanced. Draft report currently being externally peer reviewed.
Triggers	Waiting on national guidance material. Process is being designed with agreement from Living at the Edge researchers to assist in peer review capacity. Intention to engage with Panel members in March / April 2020.
Funding	Requires cross-Council agreement to proceed.
Regulatory	External consultants engaged to develop report, due April 2020.
Governance	On hold, pending outcome of funding workstream.
Managed Retreat (new)	External consultants engaged to develop report, due May 2020.

Next Steps

52. This paper, which will be supplemented by a presentation from TAG members, is intended to provide a high-level overview of the Strategy process to date.

53. As noted above, a key focus for TAG and the Joint Committee is to seek agreement between Partner Councils on funding mechanisms for Strategy implementation. Without this agreement, the Strategy cannot proceed.

54. TAG intend to continue to advance each of the workstreams in Stage 4, with regular reporting and workshops with the Joint Committee. The intention is to develop a set of agreed outcomes in each of the workstreams to allow public consultation to commence in 2021.

Decision Making Process

55. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Joint Committee receives the “Coastal Hazards Strategy” report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Tonkin & Taylor, 2016. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 - Coastal Hazard Assessment.

[2] Tonkin & Taylor, 2016. Hawke Bay Coastal Strategy - Coastal Risk Assessment.

[3] Mitchell Daysh, 2017. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 – Stage Two Report: Decision Making Framework.

[4] Maven & Environmental Management Services Limited, 2016. Stage Two – Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120: Hazards Response Funding Model.