HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
28 July 2021
Subject: Coastal Hazards
Strategy Implementation & Execution Funding Model
Reason for
Report
1. This item presents recommendations from the Environment and
Integrated Catchments Committee (EICC) to the Council in relation to the
implementation of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy (the
Strategy).
Officers’ Recommendations
2. Council officers recommend that the Council confirms and resolves
recommendations from the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee as
proposed.
Executive Summary
3. Following the completion of a review (Funding Review) led by Raynor
Asher QC to consider which Council should lead and fund the implementation of
coastal hazard mitigation projects under the Strategy, the Clifton to Tangoio
Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee (Joint Committee) met to consider the
report’s recommendations and recommend the way forward to the Napier City
Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
(Partner Councils).
4. The primary
recommendation is that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council should lead the
implementation of coastal hazard mitigation projects under the Strategy.
5. Following EICC consideration of these recommendations, it is now
necessary for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to agree (or not) the
findings of the Funding Review and the recommendations of the Joint Committee
and EICC, to allow the Strategy to progress.
Environment and
Integrated Catchments Committee Recommendations
6. At the EICC meeting on 23 June 2021, Councillors considered the
recommendations of the Joint Committee.
7. The following resolutions were passed by majority.
1. That the
Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and considers the
“Coastal Hazards Funding Model” staff report.
2. The
Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee recommends that Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council:
2.1 Agrees in principle to the outcome of the Funding Review and
recommendations of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee; being:
2.1.1 Endorses the findings of the review undertaken by Mr Raynor Asher QC
titled “Review and Recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy Joint Committee” (as attached), including the following
key recommendations, for the purposes of commencing consultation under s.16 of
the Local Government Act 2002:
2.1.1.1 That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council takes charge of all
aspects of the prevention and mitigation of coastal hazards on the Clifton to
Tangoio coast
2.1.1.2 That the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council enter into a memorandum of understanding
setting out agreed positions on this arrangement
2.1.1.3 That an
advisory committee is formed by elected representatives from Napier City
Council, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri, Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust to support forward
work
2.1.1.4 That a Transition Plan is prepared to set out the timing and orderly
process of transitioning functions to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in
accordance with the terms set out in the memorandum of understanding.
2.2 Directs staff to prepare a draft Memorandum of Transition between
the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council and Hastings
District Council that details the proposed operational regime for implementing
coastal hazards mitigation projects under the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy.
8. A decision is now sought from Council on these recommendations.
Background /Discussion
9. 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.
10. To date,
the Strategy development process has been jointly and equally funded by the
Partner Councils.
11. The
Strategy:
11.1. Covers
the coastal area from Clifton to Tangoio
11.2. Seeks
to develop a planned response to the following coastal hazards out to the year 2120
11.2.1. Coastal erosion (storm
cut, trends, effects of sea level rise); and
11.2.2. Coastal inundation
(storm surge, set-up, run-up, overtopping and sea level rise)
11.3. Incorporates
climate change as an overriding influence, and
11.4. Follows
the Ministry for the Environment’s “Coastal hazards and climate
change: Guidance for local government” released in December 2017.
12. The
vision of the Strategy is:
12.1. That
coastal communities, businesses and critical infrastructure from Tangoio to
Clifton are resilient to the effects of coastal hazards.
13. The
Strategy is being developed in 4 stages (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Development
Process
14. A key
feature of the project has been its collaborative approach. Working with two
community-based panels formed mana whenua, coastal communities, regional
representatives, business interests, lifelines, and Department of Conservation,
the Strategy has developed recommended “adaptive pathways” for the
highest risk areas of the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio.
15. Each
pathway is built from a combination of short term (indicatively 0 – 20
years), medium term (indicatively 20 – 50 years) and long term
(indicatively 50 – 100 years) hazard response actions.
16. An important
concept is that each pathway is ‘adaptive’; the timeframe of each
action (short, medium, and long) can 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. The actions
themselves can also be reviewed or changed over time.
17. The
Strategy will be reviewed every 10 years, to ensure that the pathways remain
fit for purpose as new information becomes available over time.
18. The
current set of recommended pathways, which have recently been refined following
further community engagement and design work, is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Recommended
Adaptive Pathways - revised 2021
|
Cell
|
Unit
|
Short term
(0 - 20 years)
|
Medium term
(20 - 50 years)
|
Long term
(50 - 100 years)
|
|
Southern Cell
|
Clifton
|
Status quo
|
Sea wall
|
Managed Retreat
|
|
Te Awanga
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
|
Haumoana
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
Managed Retreat
|
|
Clive / East Clive
|
Status quo
|
Renourishment + Groynes
|
Retreat the Line / Managed Retreat
|
|
Northern Cell
|
Ahuriri
|
Status quo
|
Sea wall
|
Sea wall
|
|
Pandora
|
Status quo
|
Storm surge barrier
|
Storm surge barrier
|
|
Westshore
|
Renourishment
|
Renourishment + Control Structures
|
Renourishment + Control Structures
|
|
Bay View
|
Status Quo / Renourishment
|
Renourishment + Control Structures
|
Renourishment + Control Structures
|
|
Whirinaki
|
Status Quo / Renourishment
|
Renourishment + Control Structures
|
Sea wall
|
19. In the
short to medium term, the pathways generally involve beach nourishment
programmes, the construction of groynes (at Te Awanga and Haumoana) to reduce
erosion losses, and the build-up of the beach crest to mitigate risks of
overtopping and inundation. Consistent with the adaptive pathways approach,
monitoring of these actions will determine their ongoing effectiveness, with
trigger points set to determine when a different response becomes necessary as
conditions change.
20. The
Strategy’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG) is currently finalising
information and details to prepare the Strategy for notification as a proposed
Long Term Plan amendment. However, before this can occur, a decision is
required on which Council (or Councils) should lead this next phase of the
project.
21. Various
workshops and proposals over the past 18 months have failed to achieve an
agreed position between the Partner Councils on this question. Uncertainties in
current legislation about the respective roles of each Council in the funding
and implementation of works under the Strategy has contributed to the issue.
22. To
facilitate an outcome, the Partner Councils collectively agreed that the Joint
Committee should engage a retired judge to lead a review of implementation
options and deliver recommendations on a way forward (Funding Review).
Following a shortlisting and evaluation process, the Joint Committee appointed
Mr Raynor Asher QC to lead the Review.
23. Mr Asher
was appointed to the High Court Bench in 2005 and to the Court of Appeal in
2016. He retired from the Court of Appeal in 2019 and is now practicing as a
barrister and arbitrator/mediator. Mr Asher was tasked with answering the
following question:
23.1. Which
Council or Councils should lead and fund the implementation of coastal hazard
mitigation projects (including design, consenting, construction and maintenance
cost) under the Strategy?
24. In
undertaking his review, Mr Asher engaged with the Joint Committee, staff and
councillors from each Partner Council, considered material developed to date
under the Strategy, reviewed relevant historical information, legislation and
case law, and has been assisted with local legal advice.
25. Mr Asher
completed his review and presents his findings in the report “Review
and Recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee” which is attached.
26. The key recommendation of the report is that the Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council should lead and fund the implementation of coastal hazard
mitigation projects under the Strategy.
Financial Impact
to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council - Indicative Example
27. The
project team have developed high level costings for each of the first steps of
the pathways, which involved identifying a number of potential design variants.
Depending on the design variant selected, costs vary significantly. From these variants, recommended options for each coastal unit have
been validated through further discussion with members of the community panels
in workshops held through 2021.
28. For implementing the first action in all pathways, capital costs of
the preferred design variants have been estimated at between $9.4 million and
$26.4 million, and annual operating costs at between $2.7 and $4.6 million. The
project team has adopted an approximate midpoint (un-inflated)
of $15 million in capital and $3.6 million in annual
operating costs for financial analysis purposes.
29. While these costs will continue to be refined through community
engagement and more detailed design work, they provide
a baseline to consider the potential financial impact for HBRC should the
EICC’s recommendations be adopted (Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2 - Uninflated Operating Costs over 2021-31
LTP
Table 3 - Uninflated Capital Expenditure
All dollars in 2020 $000’s
un-inflated
30. When considering the rating impact, forecast operating and capital expenditure
has been inflated using the 2021-31 LTP assumptions. Capital expenditure is
modelled for repayment over a 20-year term. Table 4 below shows the rate
requirement based on the illustrative expenditure above, including debt
servicing.
Table 4 - Cost (as a result of Tables 2 and 3) to
be collected from rates over 2021-31 LTP
31. The impact on rates is represented in Table 5 following, which shows
the impact of the expenditure detailed above on Council’s planned total
rate increases (general and targeted rates combined). The main impacts are in
2026-27 and 2028-29 where the renourishment budget is progressively introduced.
The appropriate funding mechanism has not yet been determined, so these
increases are indicative only as averages. The actual rating impact on
particular ratepayers will vary significantly i.e. possible that ratepayers in
CHB and Wairoa will not contribute.
Table 5 - Impact to (Total) Rates over 2021-31 LTP
32. While a method of funding has not yet been determined, the following
Table 6 shows the per property impact if the proposed additional costs are
funded in the same manner as the existing Coastal Hazards Strategy targeted
rate. This is charged as a uniform fixed amount per rateable property on
all Hastings District and Napier City properties.
33. For clarity Table 6 does not reflect the proposed approach to
funding Strategy implementation; it is provided for financial scenario purposes
only.
Table 6 - Unit Cost of Uniformed Charge across
Napier and Hastings Ratepayers
*Note that it
is not intended to uniform annual charge this activity. The strategy suggests a
private and public targeted rate. This information is provided for context only
as to the relative magnitude of this activity compared to the current rates
revenue.
34. The
impact on Council’s debt levels and on the debt to revenue ratio is
demonstrated below at Table 7.
35. The proposed borrowing does not adversely affect the Council’s
peak of 158% in 2023-24 as the proposed borrowing occurs in later years where,
based on the planned LTP expenditure, there is more capacity.
Table 7 - Impact on Debt and Debt to Revenue Ratio
36. Mr Asher
also recommended that, along with assuming responsibility for leading future
hazards mitigation projects, HBRC take over the management of existing coastal
hazards mitigation assets held by Napier City Council and Hastings District
Council. If enacted, this could see the transfer of existing rock revetments at
Waimarama, Clifton, Cape View Corner and Ahuriri to HBRC. Ongoing projects such
as the Westshore renourishment programme and resource consents held for the
proposed rock revetment at Whakarire Avenue would also need to be considered.
37. The
financial impact of this potential asset transfer has yet to be assessed as
information on those assets is still being collated, but it is expected to be
net-neutral from a ratepayer perspective, i.e. existing assets would transfer
with incumbent funding mechanisms.
38. It is noted that HBRC is also considering new spending (through a
potential Long Term Plan amendment) on possum control and economic development.
The collective impact of these new activities alongside coastal hazards will
need to be assessed before a final Long Term Plan proposal is developed.
Costs: Doing
Nothing
39. Work
under the Strategy has estimated the number of properties that would need to be
retreated from the coast if no actions were taken to reduce hazards risks. This
work serves as a useful proxy for the economic cost of doing nothing in
response to coastal hazards.
40. Just over
1,000 properties within the project area were identified as needing to be
relocated within the 100-year planning timeframe of the Strategy, with a
combined present day value of approximately $1 billion.
41. It is
noted however that the true cost would include the social, cultural, and
environmental effects from unchecked impacts on built infrastructure and
coastal areas. A small-scale example of these types of impacts is evident at
some of the ‘Haumoana 18’ properties.
Managed Retreat
42. The
Strategy is founded on the premise that any form of coastal defence is only
able to “buy time”. It is not a permanent solution to ongoing
climate change and sea level rise impacts.
43. Some of
the pathways (e.g., Clifton, Haumoana, East Clive) propose managed retreat as
the third action in the pathway, in around 50 years’ time. A form of
managed retreat is likely to be inevitable at some point in the future for many
other areas of coastline.
44. Work
under the Strategy is developing the costings and detail of a managed retreat
response as the primary alternative to the recommended pathways. Consultants
Tonkin + Taylor have been engaged to undertake this work. The work is nearing
completion, with a final report due to be presented to the Joint Committee
shortly. This work will be presented during community consultation alongside
the pathways as currently proposed.
Recommended
Operational Model for Strategy Implementation
45. Raynor
Asher has recommended an operating model for Strategy implementation in which:
45.1. HBRC
takes responsibility for implementing actions under the Strategy
45.2. An
Advisory Committee is formed, with members from HBRC, NCC, HDC and Mana Whenua
to support HBRC decision-making; and
45.3. Key
technical staff from the three Councils support the Advisory Committee and
HBRC, in a similar way to the current Technical Advisory Group.
46. This
model can be represented by Figure 2.
Figure 2: Strategy implementation operational model
47. The
concept of an independent advisor has been subsequently raised by Councillors
as a potential resource to assist with the consideration of complex issues,
represented by the grey / dotted box in Figure 2 (an addition to the model
recommended by Raynor Asher). The merits of this approach will be explored as
the detail of implementation is developed.
48. In
practice, should HBRC agree to take the lead role as recommended by Mr Asher, a
proposed amendment to HBRC’s Long Term Plan (LTP) would be notified for
public consultation (the orange box in Figure 2 above). That proposed amendment
would include the proposed pathways, their costs and funding models, an
analysis of alternative options (including managed retreat), confirmation of
Councils preferred option, etc.
49. Following
due process as required by the Local Government Act 2002, should the Council
adopt the proposed LTP amendment, the Strategy would become embedded into
Councils LTP and Infrastructure Strategy.
50. Responsibility
for implementation will then pass to HBRC’s Asset Management Group, who
would be charged with monitoring triggers, undertaking pre-consenting
investigations, consent applications, construction and operations and
maintenance of any infrastructure approved under the amended LTP.
51. It is
noted that the decision on when to implement a given coastal hazard
mitigation project will largely be answered by signals, triggers and
thresholds; pre-defined conditions that will prompt action. The question of
what the work should be has been proposed by the current pathways but will be
the subject of future reviews as more is learned about the impacts of climate
change and the performance of existing coastal hazard mitigation projects. It
is likely that the pathways (particularly the medium- and long-term actions)
will be modified over time, perhaps significantly, through successive reviews.
Any such changes would be implemented through amendments to HBRC’s
Infrastructure Strategy and associated LTP.
Liability and
Risk Considerations
52. Should
the HBRC accept the recommendations of Raynor Asher QC, it would represent a
change in the status quo and a commencement of a significant new activity for
HBRC.
53. Under
existing arrangements (albeit without any specific legislative direction), the
territorial authorities lead the implementation of coastal hazards mitigation
projects. Current examples include the rock revetments at Clifton and Cape View
Corner (HDC) and the consented (but not yet constructed) rock revetment at
Whakarire Ave (NCC).
54. As a new
activity for Council, consideration of the liability and risk exposure for HBRC
is warranted and has been raised by Councillors.
55. Current
thinking on the liability question suggests there are risks both ways, i.e.
there are potential liability risks from constructing a coastal hazard
mitigation project that later fails due to climate change impacts; but there
are also risks from not responding to climate change and coastal hazards
effects.
56. This was
the conclusion reached by Jack Hodder QC, in an opinion commissioned by Local
Government New Zealand[1].
57. The
report, titled “Climate Change Litigation: Who’s Afraid of Creative
Judges” considers the potential litigation risks councils face by
choosing to recognise or ignore climate change-related risks in their
decision-making.
58. An
excerpt from that opinion is provided below and summarises the key points.
58.1. There
are an increasing number of climate change cases being litigated around the
world, mainly brought by private individuals against public authorities
58.2. Groups
and individuals are getting more and more creative with bringing claims –
unless central government steps in, the judiciary will likely play a greater
role in developing legal rules in this area
58.3. Current
local government litigation risk mostly relates to decisions to limit
development (short-term judicial review). In the future it seems likely to
extend to the consequences of allowing development and failing to implement
adaptation measures (e.g. from homeowners suffering the physical and economic
consequences of climate change in the longer term)
58.4. There
have not yet been any large damages claim in relation to failure to implement
adaptation measures in New Zealand. However, it may be only a matter of time
58.5. In
the New Zealand statutory context, it is up to local authorities to consider
carefully the consequences of decisions to take or not take steps – for
example, adaptation measures such as controlling development and protecting
coastal regions. With limited guidance from central government, they require
lots of evidence and information to make decisions that will withstand legal
challenge
58.6. A
more fundamental solution would sensibly recognise that anthropogenic climate
change is a major “negative meta-externality” requiring collective
action on the broadest scale, and funded on the broadest base (i.e., central
government taxation).
59. It is
useful to consider parallels with the river flood control schemes operated by
HBRC. HBRC designs and delivers works programmes to provide levels of service
to mitigate flood risk over large areas of Hawke’s Bay. It is recognised
that certain storm events will exceed design parameters; 100% protection cannot
be provided and is not offered. Coastal defence structures would operate in a
similar way.
Environmental and
Regulatory Considerations
60. With
reference to Table 1 above, the first set of actions (approximately the
first 20 years of the Strategy) in the recommended pathways would see hard
structures (groynes) at Te Awanga and Haumoana, with onshore gravel
renourishment programmes at Te Awanga, Haumoana, Bay View and Whirinaki. At
Westshore, both sand and offshore gravel renourishment is proposed.
61. The
Strategy will be reviewed, likely at least twice, before the next set of
actions would be implemented, likely some time from 2040 onwards. Those reviews
would take account of most up to date information on climate change, the
performance of the existing hazard mitigation approaches, and the status of
signals and triggers set at each part of the coast, among other considerations.
62. It is
fundamental to the adaptive planning approach taken by the Strategy that the
timing of the actions, and the actions themselves, can be changed in response
to real world conditions. The medium-term steps outlined in Table 1 should be
considered in this context.
63. With this
flexibility (and inherent uncertainty) in mind, the consenting challenges that
may be faced by the pathways have been considered under the Strategy’s Regulatory
Workstream through two reports prepared by consultants Mitchell Daysh.
64. The first
report[2]
provides a review of the policy and regulatory environment as it relates to the
Strategy.
65. The
second report[3]
considers the resource consenting process and challenges for implementing the
short-term actions proposed by the current recommended pathways.
66. Considering
the regulatory and planning framework in Hawke’s Bay, the report
identified that the key potential consenting challenge was the original
proposal for Pandora (stop banks to reduce coastal inundation risks). That
proposal many constitute “impoundment” of the Ahuriri Estuary, a
prohibited activity under the Regional Coastal Environment Plan. This prompted
a re-think of the approach, and working with community members, the proposal
for Pandora has been modified to consider a storm surge barrier at the harbour
entrance as a medium-term action (refer Table 1).
67. The
reports also highlight the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) as a
key document. The following excerpts from Section 5.3 of the consentability
report are pertinent.
67.1. “The
directive language used within Policies 11, 13 and 15 [of the NZCPS]
effectively establishes ‘bottom lines’ as the policies all seek to avoid
(i.e., not allow or prevent the occurrence of) certain effects in the interests
of protecting indigenous biodiversity (Policy 11), preserving natural character
(Policy 13) and the protection of natural features and landscapes (Policy 15).
In places of outstanding or high natural character or landscape value, or where
ecological values are significant, the ‘avoid’ language in Policies
11, 13 and 15 (and the policies in corresponding lower-order plans) can
effectively act as a bar to consents being able to be obtained
67.2. “…there is a clear preference for natural or “soft”
defences (such as renourishment and planting) to be established over hard
protection structures (such as sea walls and groynes). The weight afforded to
these provisions could therefore be determinative for future applications at
Clifton, Pandora, Haumoana and Te Awanga, particularly where resource consent
is required for a non-complying activity. Recent consent applications for
non-complying hard protection structures within the region (Clifton and
Whakarire Avenue – refer to section 6 for case studies) have not found
these provisions to present insurmountable consenting challenges.
68. Further
to the above comments, it is noted that a rock revetment at Cape View Corner
has also recently gained resource consents, adding to the consents obtained for
revetments at Clifton and Whakarire Avenue.
69. The
NZCPS, while not preventing coastal hazards mitigation projects within the
Strategy area to date, sets a high bar for future projects. There are examples
(such as at Wainui Beach near Gisborne) where the NZCPS has prevented resource
consents from being granted for such projects. While the nourishment programmes
proposed are generally not at odds with the NZCPS, the groynes proposed at Te Awanga
and Haumoana will need to be carefully considered against this policy.
70. A key
element of work being developed under the Strategy is the Coastal Ecology
Workstream. This will ultimately provide information on existing coastal values
and attributes to assist with a full assessment of effects and more detailed
analysis against the NZCPS for work proposed under the Strategy.
71. Preliminary
work under the Coastal Ecology Workstream to date has identified the key
ecological issues or risks that may arise from works proposed under the
Strategy:
71.1. smothering
by deposited or redistributed sand (subtidal and potentially intertidal) and
gravel (intertidal)
71.2. sediment
suspension and redispersal
71.3. burying
benthic communities beneath control structures
71.4. the
hardening of the shoreline through the construction of artificial structures,
with associated effects on the types and composition of shoreline communities
and susceptibility to invasive marine pests
71.5. sudden,
localised changes in coastal processes caused by the construction of physical
barriers and control structures that influence coastal erosion and sediment
dispersal
71.6. physical
disturbance of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) by machinery involved in the
construction of structures, or beach renourishment
71.7. changes
in the presence of mobile species (particularly birds) that either favour or
are inhibited by interventions
71.8. dune
planting.
72. The first
phase of work in the Coastal Ecology Workstream is to identify gaps in our knowledge
about existing coastal ecology values and attributes, and to design a
monitoring and information gathering programme to address those gaps.
73. This
information, coupled with more detailed design of the proposed coastal hazards
mitigation projects, will allow an analysis of these potential effects as part
of early phase work leading into resource consenting processes.
Alignment with
Central Government
74. The
Climate Change Adaptation Act (“CCAA”) has been announced as part
of a suite of new legalisation being developed to replace the Resource
Management Act.
75. The CCAA
is expected to address the shortcomings in existing legislation associated with
managed retreat and funding and financing adaptation to climate change effects.
76. At this stage,
no definitive advice is available on when the proposed CCAA may be available
for public comment or when Government expects the new legalisation to come into
effect, although it is understood to be targeted for implementation within the
current parliamentary term (i.e. before the end of 2023).
77. To date
the standing direction from the Partner Councils has been to proceed with
developing a local solution to the funding and responsibility questions facing
the Strategy. It was considered desirable for the Strategy to continue its
development path and to contribute to and inform, rather than wait for, central
government direction.
78. Opportunities
for engagement in and contribution to the development of the CCAA are being
actively pursed with the Ministry for the Environment.
79. The
Memorandum of Transition (refer to 2.2 of the EICC resolution of 23 June) is
proposed to include provisions for responding to the CCAA once enacted.
Extending
Strategy Area
80. The
Strategy was initiated with the intention of establishing a template approach
for responding to coastal hazards risks in the Hawke’s Bay Region.
81. The
Strategy area was defined to incorporate the most urgent areas of coastal
hazards risks, while being manageable in scale. There are ongoing coastal
hazards issues outside of the Strategy area that do require attention.
82. Notably,
Raynor Asher makes the point in his review of funding arrangements that only
HBRC is capable of extending a consistent, region-wide approach to coastal
hazards management, and this was one of the reasons given for recommending that
HBRC take a leadership role in Strategy implementation.
83. The
project team has presented to regional forums on the work of the Strategy, and
to date has had some interest expressed by Central Hawke’s Bay District
Council.
84. While the
approach at this stage is to seek a successful outcome for the Strategy before
commencing work in other parts of the region, it is expected that the Strategy
will ultimately provide a model for rolling out to other parts of the Hastings
District, and for the Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay Districts. Under
current legislative settings, similar discussions to those taking place now
between Strategy Partner Councils, would need to take place between HBRC,
Wairoa District Council, and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council for
this to occur.
Decision-Making
85. The
decision sought from all Partner Councils at this stage is an agreement in
principle to the Joint Committee’s recommendations. With this agreement,
the Strategy team will proceed to developing the next level of detail,
including the particulars of a draft Memorandum of Transition.
86. Table 8 proposes a decision-making
framework for the implementation of the Joint Committee’s
recommendations. It sets out the key decision-gateways from the agreement in
principle sought by this paper (Gateway 1), through to the final adoption of a
Long Term Plan amendment (Gateway 7).
Table 8: Proposed decision-making framework
|
Gateway
|
Action
|
Description
|
|
1
|
Agreement in
Principle
|
Secure
agreement in principle to the Joint Committee’s recommendation that
HBRC leads and funds the implementation of coastal hazard mitigation projects
under the Strategy
|
|
2
|
Memorandum
of Transition
|
Sets out
particulars of arrangement between Councils for implementing coastal hazards
mitigation projects under the Strategy, including roles and responsibilities,
transfer of assets, ongoing management, how Councils will work together in
future, etc.
|
|
3
|
Financial
analysis
|
Develop and
workshop with Council:
· Level of Service statements and measures
· Funding model
· Overall impact across all rates
· Revenue and Financing Policy
· Budget
|
|
4
|
Pre-consultation
feedback
|
Initiate
pre-consultation with key parties to test ideas and concepts, present
feedback to Council
|
|
5
|
Transition
Plan
|
Develop
detailed plan for orderly process of transitioning functions, assets and
responsibilities from HDC and NCC to HBRC
|
|
6
|
Notify Long
Term Plan amendment
|
Formal
notification of proposed LTP amendment
|
|
7
|
Adoption of
Long Term Plan Amendment
|
Review of
submissions, hearings (if required) and adoption of final LTP amendment
|
Timeframes
87. The
Strategy Team have scoped out a draft timeframe, presented in Table 9, for
advancing the Joint Committees recommendations through to a proposed Long Term
Plan amendment.
88. The key
date in this schedule is the notification of a proposed Long Term Plan
amendment in March 2022. Subject to the outcome of consultation, this would
allow for the introduction of a new rating regime to fund Strategy
implementation from July 2022.
Table 9: Indicative timeframe
|
Task
|
Activity
|
Draft Timing
|
|
Funding
Review
|
Funding Review undertaken to provide recommendations on
responsibility for Coastal Hazards
|
Complete
|
|
|
Joint Committee resolution and recommendation on Funding Review
|
Complete
|
|
|
Partner
Council in-principle decision on Funding Review
|
HDC, HBRC,
NCC decision-making in progress
|
|
|
Develop
Memorandum of Transition between Partner Councils on Funding Review outcome
|
August
– September 2021
|
|
LTP
Amendment
|
Preparatory
work:
· Level of service statement and measures
· Funding model
· Rates modelling
· Budgeting
· Revenue and Finance Policy
· Auditing
|
September
– December 2021
|
|
|
Pre-consultation
|
September
– November 2021
|
|
|
Consultation
on Strategy as LTP amendment
|
March 2022
|
|
|
Finalise LTP
following consultation
|
June 2022
|
89. If the timeframes in Table 9 are not met, the next opportunity to
introduce a new rate to fund Strategy implementation will be July 2023 (i.e.
the start of the 2023-2024 financial year).
Next Steps
90. If the recommendations of the EICC are confirmed and resolved, staff
will initiate preparation of a draft Memorandum of Transition that sets out the
detail of how the Councils will work together in practice under the new
operational regime proposed by the Funding Review. This document will form the
next key decision gateway for Councils.
91. It is noted that in response to feedback from Councillors, a small
change has been made to the proposed resolution in this paper, from that
considered and endorsed by the EICC. The change is made at 2.1.1.1 to clarify
that HBRC cannot prevent coastal hazards from occurring; they are a natural and
inevitable process. What is required is a strategy to adapt to these changing
risks and impacts, and that is the role that HBRC are being asked to lead.
Recommendations
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and
considers the “Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation & Execution
Funding Model” staff report.
2. Agrees in
principle to the outcome of the Funding Review and recommendations of the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee; being:
2.1. Endorses the findings of the review undertaken by Mr Raynor Asher QC
titled “Review and Recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy Joint Committee”, including the following key
recommendations, for the purposes of commencing
consultation under s.16 of the Local Government Act 2002:
2.1.1. That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council takes charge of all
aspects of adapting to and mitigating coastal hazards risks on the Clifton to
Tangoio coast
2.1.2. That the Napier City Council, Hastings
District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council enter into a memorandum
of understanding setting out agreed positions on this arrangement
2.1.3. That an advisory committee is formed by elected representatives from
Napier City Council, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust,
Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and
Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust to support forward work
2.1.4. That a Transition Plan is prepared to set out the timing and orderly
process of transitioning functions to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in
accordance with the terms set out in the memorandum of understanding.
3. Directs staff
to prepare a draft Memorandum of Transition between the Hawke’s Bay
Regional Council, Napier City Council and Hastings District Council that
details the proposed operational regime for implementing coastal hazards mitigation projects under the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
Raynor Asher
QC report: Review and Recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
|
|
|
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
28 July 2021
Subject: Report and
Recommendations from the Hawke's Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee
Reason for
Report
1. This item provides an overview of the matters discussed at the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water
Governance Joint Committee meeting on 2 July 2021 for Council’s consideration alongside any additional
commentary the HBRC representatives who attended the meeting may wish to add.
Agenda Items
2. The Taumata Arowai Presentation from Bill Bayfield and Ray McMillan covered:
2.1. The history of Taumata Arowai (TA), an Independent Crown Entity that
will be empowered upon enactment of the Water Services Bill
2.2. TA is currently establishing offices and relationship building with
stakeholders and the community, targeting ‘go live’ on 1 November
2021, and during this establishment phase the Ministry of Health will remain
the regulatory authority for Drinking Water
2.3. Water Services Bill, developed pre Covid-19 with a focus on drinking
water, received more than 1000 submissions, therefore the reporting deadline
for the Health Select Committee considering the Bill has been extended to 11
August 2021
2.4. It is likely changes to the Bill from the Select Committee process
will address wastewater and stormwater issues in addition to drinking water
2.5. Responsibility for freshwater matters will remain with regional
councils
2.6. TA is working with private training providers to find solutions to
issues around a national shortage of technical water staff.
3. The Review of Terms of Reference for the
Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee (the Committee) item provided the Committee with a proposal,
developed by a sub-committee tasked with revisiting the Committee’s Terms
of Reference, for the disestablishment of the Committee.
4. The Terms of Reference Review Sub-committee, comprising Councillors
Hinewai Ormsby (HBRC) and Nigel Simpson (NCC) and Garth Cowie (Independent
Chair of both the Committee and JWG), was established by the 29 March 2021
Joint Committee meeting to consider, whether to amend the terms of reference
and expand the scope of the Committee to include Three Waters responsibilities.
5. Following the March 2021 Joint Committee meeting, the sub-committee
met to discuss the way forward for the Joint Committee and to make appropriate
amendments to the Terms of Reference if required. Members of the JWG held a
separate workshop on this topic.
5.1. The
sub-committee considered the potential for the Committee to provide a feedback
mechanism to the new Three Waters Entity and to provide closer oversight of the
service delivery aspects of three waters infrastructure for Hawke’s
Bay. They also saw the opportunity for the Committee to become a key
advisory or advocacy group. As well, the sub-committee considered that the
Committee potentially had a more aspirational role to play in governance in
this area. However, in the absence of any clear decisions about the construct
of the new entities this was not able to be pursued in any detail.
5.2. The JWG
workshop traversed the future role of the Joint Drinking Water Working Group.
The consensus is that there is value in retaining the JWG for several reasons,
including that the established collaborative cross-agency group ensures
improved communications and understanding between the member agencies on
drinking water matters. The JWG has strong input from a public health
perspective, which does not appear to be prevalent in the development of the
new infrastructure entities, which will provide additional support in this
important area, and given the level of reform there will be the need to develop
new policies, by-laws and potentially codes of practice. The JWG would be
a suitable vehicle for working through these collaboratively.
5.3. The Joint
Committee was established following the Havelock North drinking water
contamination event, with its purpose being to provide governance oversight to
the JWG to implement the recommendations from the Board of Inquiry, and the
evolution of the JWG to a more permanent officials working group – which
has been accomplished.
5.3.1. The 17 recommendations from the first stage of the Board of Inquiry
hearings were centred around the safety and integrity of the Brookfield Road
bores and the wider Hastings District Council water supply and are either part
of ongoing maintenance and monitoring work or were completed within twelve
months of being issued.
5.3.2. Part 2 of the Board of Inquiry report looked at the wider management
of drinking water and the 40 recommendations from Part 2 focussed on
legislative reform (including to the RMA for source protection), the establishment
of a national drinking water regulator, and a range of recommendations to and
for the Ministry of Health. Both the Joint Committee and JWG have contributed
to the development of these changes when given the opportunity to do so.
5.3.3. A White Paper prepared by the JWG at its inception also included a
range of actions to be undertaken by the Group to enhance its operations and
effectiveness. These included agreement on a communications protocol to be used
in the event of a drinking water contamination event (or potential event) and a
project to look at digital data sharing. The communications protocol is in
place and being used. The data sharing project is not yet completed, due in
part to the precedence given to developing the TANK source protection plan
provisions and in part to the establishment of Taumata Arowai as the national
drinking water regulator and its role in data collection and distribution not
yet clarified.
5.4. Submissions to the TANK Plan Change in relation to drinking water
provisions that were developed and written by the JWG were reviewed by the
Committee and then approved for lodging
5.5. Challenges and major changes ahead in the water control sector may
be more efficiently addressed if the JWG has simplified reporting lines
5.6. The future of the Joint Committee was also raised with the
region’s CEs. They reflected back the views of the HB Leaders Forum that
the oversight of the broader Three Waters Reform should continue to occur at
the leaders’ (Mayors and HBRC Chair) level, and that the Committee has
achieved what it was established to do and should be wound up.
5.6.1. The ongoing oversight of the Working Group’s work programme
can be undertaken directly by the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum, in
conjunction with the work being undertaken in the Three Waters space. The
kaupapa of the regional leaders around infrastructure planning and operational
delivery will require the Working Group to continue to ensure that public
health issues are also considered within the wider work programme. This will
also allow for the Working Group to be realigned to ensure that all three
waters activities, and all relevant parties, are represented on the Working
Group.
6. Following
consideration of related issues and discussions with members of the JWG, HB
Leaders Forum and CEs, the recommendation from the Sub-committee to the Joint
Committee was that the Joint Committee be disestablished, and that governance
oversight of the JWG be transferred to the HB Leaders Forum. This will enable
not only the financial aspects of Three Waters Reform to be overseen by the
Regional Leaders, but also the advocacy and communications aspects of the
transition.
7. The Report on the Joint Committee's
verbal submission to the TANK Hearing Panel item
provided a report-back to the Joint Committee on the verbal submission made to
the TANK (Plan Change 9) Hearing Panel on behalf of the Committee, covering:
7.1. two specific matters spoken to at the Hearing were the impact on the proposed provisions of changes to legislation and
regulation at a national level, and the development of, and potential changes
to, the Source Protection Zone (SPZ) maps.
7.1.1. The reform of drinking water safety and wider three waters reform is
happening at a national level across a range of government work programmes. The
original submission to TANK was premised in part on the
ability for the Hearing Panel to respond to national direction as part of its
decision making and the verbal submission requested
that the Hearing Panel takes into account the latest
information available to it from the Water Services Bill and possibly the
review of the NES for Drinking Water at the time of making their decisions.
7.1.2. With respect to the Source Protection Zones the submission supported
the HDC submission to include both the analytical and numerical models for
their water supplies as providing extended protection and noted that the s.42A
Officer’s report recommended that all source protection zones be included
in the Planning maps, rather than as a GIS layer outside the formal plan. The
principal drinking water supplies for the TANK area – the Napier and
Hastings urban supplies – are included in Plan Change 9, as the
investigations have already occurred on these.
7.2. Questions the Hearing Panel asked following the verbal presentation
related to the definition of registered drinking water supplies and appropriate
community size for source protection zones, and to the status of the maps.
Decision Making
Process
8. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act
2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that these items were
specifically considered by the HB Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee and
are now the subject of the following recommendations to Council.
|
Recommendations
The Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee recommends that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (and all
other member agencies):
1. Receives and
considers the “Report and Recommendations from the Hawke's Bay
Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee”.
2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the
criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement
Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on
these items without conferring directly with the community or persons likely
to have an interest in them.
Review of Terms
of Reference for the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint
Committee
3. Agrees that the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint
Committee is disestablished, having concluded the functions for which it was
set up, and that governance oversight of drinking water safety is transferred
to the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum, which may consider
incorporating appropriate additional representation, particularly public
health and Iwi.
4. Agrees to the retention of the Joint Drinking Water Working Group
(JWG) and that the JWG will report directly to the Regional Leaders’
Forum, with a report on its future institutional and administrative support
to be prepared by consultant Liz Lambert for consideration and approval by
the Hawke’s Bay Leaders’ Forum.
Reports
Received
5. Notes that the following reports were provided to the
Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee:
5.1. Taumata Arowai Presentation
5.2. Report on the Joint Committee's Verbal Submission to the TANK
Hearing Panel.
|
Authored by:
|
Leeanne
Hooper
Team Leader Governance
|
Peter Martin
Senior Governance Advisor
|
Approved by:
|
Katrina
Brunton
Group Manager
Policy & Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
28 July 2021
Subject: Results of the 2021
Resident Survey
Reason for Report
1. This item covers the results of the 2021 Resident Survey, conducted
every two years. It indicates Hawke’s Bay residents’ attitudes to
the environment, measures awareness and satisfaction with the Council’s
work, and confirms the most preferable ways for the Council to communicate with
the region’s community.
Executive
Summary
2. The survey (attached) gives a general impression of how the Regional
Council is tracking in providing its core services, broken down into the
categories of water, air, land and other services.
2.1. In general, the community’s rating of importance and the
Regional Council’s perceived performance or delivery sits in the upper
quartile. This indicates on-track service delivery at a high level.
2.2. By a narrow margin, the only two exceptions are swimmable rivers and
streams, and water security, which are both areas of focus for the Regional
Council in the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.
Water related services 2021 – perceptual map
3. This year’s analysis of 800 survey responses found that:
3.1. 64% named the Regional Council as the main environmental
organisation in Hawke’s Bay – down from 76.5% in 2019
3.2. The Council’s main roles are perceived to be in waterway and
coastal management, and flood control
3.3. The Regional Council’s most popular work is in the areas of
river access/quality outdoor places, and native bush/ reserves and wetlands
3.4. The five most important services provided by the Council this year
(rating 4+ out of 5) were:
3.4.1. monitoring
river and groundwater levels and quality
3.4.2. improving
water security
3.4.3. looking
after native bush, reserves and wetlands
3.4.4. protecting
communities from flooding – with relevance to Napier (Nov 2020)
3.4.5. making
rivers and streams more swimmable.
3.5. The Regional Council is encouraged to seek greater improvements in
the areas of:
3.5.1. water
security
3.5.2. swimmable
rivers and streams
3.5.3. river and
groundwater levels and quality
3.5.4. plant and
animal pest control
3.5.5. flood control.
3.6. The Council’s performance in relation to Tukituki catchment,
Ahuriri estuary, Lake Tūtira,
Protecting the region’s biodiversity and, Overseeing the performance of
both local councils and farmers/growers has improved since these questions were
first asked in 2019.
3.7. 82% believed they receive ‘acceptable to very good’
value for their rates
3.8. 49% of residents disagreed about paying more - such as in rates,
fees or charges - for the Regional Council to expand current efforts to protect
and enhance the environment
3.9. Of the one-third of residents who were in direct contact with the
Regional Council in the past year, 63% were satisfied with their contact
– an improvement on 56% from the 2019 survey
3.10. The
most preferred ways for the Regional Council to contact residents are:
3.10.1. email (52%)
3.10.2. flyer or
letter (44.5%)
3.10.3. Facebook/
social media (27%)
3.11. In the
area of emergency management, emergency alerts on mobile were by far the most
preferred way to communicate information during an emergency (74%), also:
3.11.1. 86% had
food stored for 3 days
3.11.2. 81% had
ways of cooking without electricity
3.11.3. 62% had
water stored for 3 days
3.11.4. 61% had an
emergency plan.
4. This year’s survey was also timed to gain residents’
feedback on the Long Term Plan consultation topics. These results were included
with Long Term Plan 2021-31 reporting for Council deliberations in May 2021.
Background
5. The gathering of resident feedback is conducted by an independent
provider.
6. This year the provider used a mixed methodology of telephone (353),
online (300) and postal (147) responses to achieve a representative sample of
Hawke’s Bay residents.
7. The surveys have been conducted on a two-yearly cycle since 2013,
providing a trackable benchmark of changing community perceptions, and are
available online at hbrc.govt.nz, search: #hbrcsurvey.
Discussion
8. A brochure (attached) has been prepared this year, to better
highlight the survey results in a more digestible and engaging format.
Next
Steps
9. Staff will disseminate the results across the organisation, and
focus follow up in the areas of customer service, emergency management and
communications.
Decision Making
Process
10. 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 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
receives and notes the “Results of the 2021 Resident Survey”
staff report.
Authored by:
|
Drew Broadley
Marketing & Communications Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
2021 HBRC
Resident Survey Report
|
|
|
|
2⇩
|
2021 HBRC
Community Survey Brochure
|
|
|
