Agenda of Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Actions from previous Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee meeting - 4 February 2020

Attachment 1

Agreed actions from 4 February 2020 Joint Committee

Task	Meeting / Agenda Item	Actions	Resp.	Status/Comment
1.	Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference	 Provide a paper to the next meeting outlining the options, potential appointment process, skills requirements, benefits and disadvantages to the appointment of an independent chair/facilitator.	TAG	· Deferred to 7 August 2020 meeting.
2.	Coastal Hazards Strategy	 Provide a paper on what a Contributory fund is and what it is going to fund, different models and the rules and regulations around the fund (technical report) to the next Joint Committee meeting	Funding TAG	· On the agenda for 1 May joint committee meeting workshop.
3.	Coastal Hazards Strategy	 Requested that the Draft Funding Deed to be distributed to committee again.	TAG	· Complete.
4.	Coastal Hazards Strategy	 Proposed to have a joint Coastal Hazards briefing workshop with partner Councils (preferably early March).	TAG	· Workshop on 3 March 2020 was cancelled. · TAG is aiming to schedule a virtual workshop post 1 May joint committee meeting.
5.	Communication and Engagement Plan	 Create a one pager for information/media release on key points of discussed items/highlights on the Strategy.	Comms TAG	· In progress.

Agreed actions from 3 September 2019 Joint Committee

Task	Meeting / Agenda Item	Actions	Resp.	Status/Comment
6.	Assessment Panel supplementary recommendations	· Include a request for specific action from Councils on response to the Mana Whenua recommendations re risks of sedimentation and protection of urupa at Bay View (letter to councils (consenting & policy manager) raising concerns.	TAG	· Letters circulated to Councils in December 2019. · Following up responses.
7.	Current Coastal Projects Update	· Proposed that Port of Napier give an update in early 2020 on the construction work of Wharf 6 and when it will commence.	TAG	· Napier Port are scheduled to attend the 7 August 2020 meeting to provide an update.

Task

Meeting / Agenda Item

Actions

Resp.

Status/Comment

Assessment Panel supplementary recommendations

· Include a request for specific action from Councils on response to the Mana Whenua recommendations re risks of sedimentation and protection of urupa at Bay View (letter to councils (consenting & policy manager) raising concerns.

TAG

· Letters circulated to Councils in December 2019.

· Following up responses.

Current Coastal Projects Update

· Proposed that Port of Napier give an update in early 2020 on the construction work of Wharf 6 and when it will commence.

TAG

· Napier Port are scheduled to attend the 7 August 2020 meeting to provide an update.

Agreed actions from 18 March 2019 Joint Committee

Task	Meeting / Agenda Item	Actions	Resp.	Status/Comment
8.	Project Manager’s Update	· Proposed to engage with Dave Cull at an earlier stage and to attend the presentation with James Shaw.	TAG	· On hold – pending Joint Committee reforming.

Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee

Friday 01 May 2020

Subject: Confirm Alternate Appointments

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the means for the Joint Committee to confirm the appointments of Alternate representatives on the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

Background /Discussion

2. At the meeting on 4 February 2020 it was noted that HBRC and HDC had yet to appoint alternates and that those appointments would be made prior to the next meeting.

3. The names of the Alternate Members have been provided to HBRC staff and so it is appropriate for the Joint Committee to formally confirm those.

Decision Making Process

4. 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:

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

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

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

4.4. The persons affected by this decision are the members of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.

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

4.6. 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. 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 this issue without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

2. Confirms the appointments of:

2.1. Councillor Martin Williams, as the Alternate Hawke’s Bay Regional Council representative.

2.2. Councillor Alwyn Corban as the Alternate Hastings District Council representative.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Lead

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

Friday 01 May 2020

Subject: Strategy engagement in 2020 during Covid-19

Reason for Report

1. This item outlines community engagement options for the Strategy in 2020, including associated risks and benefits, due to Covid19 impacting planned 2020 communications.

Background

2. The communication plan presented to the Joint Committee on 4 February proposed community engagement through the middle of the year, beginning in April through a series of community workshops.

3. There are a total of 12 workshops planned to cover design workstream outputs, signals, triggers, and thresholds, and managed retreat.

4. These engagement processes are considered important, to provide an opportunity for community and panel member input as we develop the Assessment Panel’s recommendations to the next level of detail. This collaborative style of involvement and engagement is consistent with the philosophy adopted by this project from its earliest stages of development.

5. Due to Covid19, the workshops have been postponed.

6. It is noted that a planed Partner Council Workshop has also been deferred.

7. This report assumes that within six months Hawke’s Bay will be largely back to normal and able to engage face to face with the community and considers options for engaging with the community in the interim period.

Discussion

8. There are two options for re-starting our planned engagement: virtual or face to face.

9. Virtually:

9.1. There are benefits and drawbacks to continuing to engage via a virtual forum. The benefits of virtual engagement are:

9.1.1. Allows the Strategy to progress

9.1.2. Gives community members a voice as the Strategy progresses

9.1.3. Cost effective

9.1.4. Potentially deeper engagement, e.g. participatory approach through interaction

9.1.5. Builds trust by sticking to the planned time to engage (with a slight delay)

9.1.6. Engage with the community at a time when people may have more time on their hands

9.1.7. Taps into community willingness and interest to engage and input into the Strategy.

9.2. The drawbacks of virtual engagement are:

9.2.1. May isolate some community members who are unable to access online tools

9.2.2. Due to Covid19, some members of the community may be under additional pressure and are unable or unwilling to engage

9.2.3. Some community members may not find it an easy way to engage and struggle to participate

9.2.4. Potential for misunderstanding and inability to clarify.

9.3. The most useful and accessible tools that would replicate kanohi ki te kanohi hui are Zoom (or equivalent videoconference service) and Facebook Live, which both come with benefits and drawbacks.

9.4. Zoom enables multiple people (up to 100) to be on a call. With Zoom, the meeting can be managed through targeted invitees, screen sharing, an agenda, muting participants’ microphones, and questions asked only through the chat. Zoom is a good option for private forums to have in-depth discussions with targeted audiences.

9.5. Facebook Live has no limit on the number of people who can watch or join, meaning anyone would be able to join at any time, increasing the chances of misunderstanding. Facebook Live videos are public and remain on the Facebook page afterwards. Questions can be asked through the comments section of the live post. Facebook Live is a good option for Q&A sessions where reach is important and the information is broad, and where live sharing is desired.

9.6. Zoom meetings can be simultaneously streamed using Facebook live, to deliver a transparent experience to wider public. Recorded meetings can be saved to the Regional Council’s YouTube channel.

9.7. Online engagement tools such as Zoom and Facebook Live have been used by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for Council meetings. Using both tools and utilising the chat and comments section we have shown that we can provide a rich engagement experience.

10. Face to face:

10.1. The alternative to commencing virtual engagement is to delay our approach until face to face engagement is deemed safe and appropriate.

10.2. There are benefits and drawbacks to delaying until we can engage face-to-face.

10.3. The benefits of face to face engagement are:

10.3.1. A tried and true, familiar way to engage with these particular communities

10.3.2. More members of the community may desire to engage, without the constraints of Covid19 restrictions and/or technology

10.3.3. Face to face engagement builds trust and enhances relationships

10.3.4. There is more opportunity for in-depth, ad-hoc conversations

10.3.5. Avoid potential misunderstanding

10.4. The drawbacks of face to face engagement are:

10.4.1. Strategy progress would be delayed and more uncertain, as we don’t know when face to face meetings will be able to be held

10.4.2. May lose some trust with community due to being engaged at a later date than promised

10.4.3. It is more expensive than virtual engagement.

Next Steps

11. The Technical Advisory Group seeks feedback from the Joint Committee on the proposed engagement options, and, with any changes as may be requested, seeks endorsement for the proposed approach.

12. The Communications Plan will then be updated to reflect the agreed approach, for presentation to the Joint Committee at the next meeting.

Decision Making Process

13. 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 Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the “Strategy engagement in 2020 during Covid-19” report.

Authored by:

Rebecca Ashcroft-Cullen

Communications Advisor

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

Friday 01 May 2020

Subject: Project Managers Update including impact of Covid-19 on the Project

Reason for Report

1. This report provides a general project update and assesses the impact of COVID-19 on the ability of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and the Joint Committee to progress the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 (Strategy).

Executive Summary

2. In the months following the previous Joint Committee meeting, COVID-19 has impacted the ability of TAG to advance some elements of the Strategy.

3. Discussion and direction is sought on whether TAG should continue to advance the Strategy as much as possible within current constraints, or whether the Joint Committee favours an alternative response.

Background

4. The Strategy is currently in Stage 4 of a 4-stage development process.

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

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

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

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

6. Phase 1 involves multiple tasks, grouped into five, interrelated workstreams (Design, Triggers, Funding, Regulatory and Governance) with the recent addition of Managed Retreat as a 6th workstream.

7. These workstreams are developing the next level of detail on the Panel’s recommended pathways and primary alternative options for consultation purposes, to enable an informed Council decision gateway and (if approved by the Joint Committee and Partner Councils) effective community consultation in Phase 2 to commence.

8. At the Joint Committee meeting on 4 February 2020 an update was provided on each workstream to indicate progress. COVID-19 has since impacted the project in various ways.

Discussion

9. A further update on each of the Phase 1 workstreams is provided below, which includes and evaluation of COVID-19 effects.

Workstream	Status Update	Intended next steps	Evaluation of COVID-19 Impact
Design	Well advanced. External peer review of HBRC study complete. Recommendations now being responded to.	Engage with Panel members in March / April 2020 to test design outcomes / assumptions etc.	Impacted - moderate. All external engagement currently deferred until further notice, subject to decision on engagement options. Can continue to integrate peer review feedback. Can progress with next phase of technical work – stress testing of pathways
Triggers	National guidance material from the Deep South National Science Challenge has just been released (29 March 2020) and can be applied to designing a process for Hawke’s Bay.	Design process with input from national guidance + engage with Panel members in March / April 2020.	Impacted – moderate. All external engagement currently deferred until further notice, subject to decision on engagement options.
Funding	Requires cross-Council agreement to proceed.	Intensive engagement with Councillors to seek alignment, including planned workshop with all Councillors from Partner Councils	Impacted – major. Deferred Councillor engagement. Implications for our ability to reach alignment and commence consultation on a new rate / establish Contributory Fund. Need to review position + plan forward with Joint Committee Workshop with Joint Committee to be held 1.5.2020.
Regulatory	External consultants engaged to develop report, delay of 1 Month for report – now due May 2020.	Workshops (electronic) with Council staff, development of draft report	Unaffected Work continues
Governance	On hold, pending outcome of funding workstream.	No planned activity	Unaffected No planned activity
Managed Retreat (new)	External consultants engaged to develop report, delay of 1 Month for report – now due June 2020.	Workshops (electronic) with Council staff, development of draft report	Unaffected Work continues

10. While some elements of the project can proceed, the funding workstream in particular is likely to be significantly impacted. TAG will discuss this further in the workshop following this meeting.

11. Following the completion of Phase 1 work, TAG were planning for consultation under Phase 2 to occur initially through the Council Long Term Plan process (principally contributory fund aspects) early in 2021, followed by a dedicated consultation process under the Local Government Act later in 2021. Achieving the first of these consultative steps, given the impact of COVID-19, now seems unlikely.

12. In a recent meeting of TAG on 16 April 2020, Council staff confirmed that, with some exceptions, most TAG members can continue to support the project in a business as usual capacity. Key resource pressures exist where staff have been seconded to emergency response positions, and in the funding workstream where all workstream members are focused on Council financial issues associated with COVID-19 response and recovery.

13. Importantly, Councils have committed to maintain core project budget support, however staff have signaled that any new spending will be incredibly challenging in the new climate.

14. Project budget planning for the 2019-2020 financial year is projecting a minor overspend of approximately $45k, but this is a fluid situation as COVID-19 impacts and slows most workstreams to a greater or lesser extent with an associated reduction in project spending expected.

15. In consideration of these issues, TAG have at this stage elected to proceed on a business as usual basis and are working on opportunities to advance all workstreams as quickly as possible within current restrictions.

16. However, TAG are mindful that there are challenges with this approach, particularly in relation to our ability to effectively engage with community / panel members and Councillors.

17. With these challenges in mind, TAG have identified 4 options for Strategy progression under COVID-19 for Joint Committee consideration. These are presented below.

Options for Strategy progression under COVID-19
Option	Description	Discussion
1. Business as usual	TAG and the Joint Committee continue to advance the project as much as possible within the constraints of COVID-19	As outlined above, most elements of the project can continue to be advanced. Core project funding remains available to advance workstreams where not otherwise restricted by COVID-19. Key challenges remain with the funding workstream, which will be significantly impacted by COVID-19 in terms of engaging with Partner Councils and contemplating new funding initiatives in a financially constrained period. Continuing work on the Strategy would assist Councils to take advantage of any Government funding opportunities associated with COVID-19 recovery that may arise over the coming weeks and months.
2. Partial pause	The Joint Committee elects to pause all project work requiring significant staff time and/or community and Councillor engagement.	This option would pause workstreams requiring internal staff time and external engagement with community / panel members and Councillors, pending greater clarity on the impacts of COIVD-19 and the ability to effectively engage in face to face discussions. The following workstreams would pause: · Funding · Triggers · Design (some elements could continue) While the following workstreams being undertaken by external consultants would be completed: · Regulatory · Managed Retreat This option would reduce project expenditure and demands on staff time, while avoiding risks associated with pursuing decisions in an uncertain and difficult time, however would impact further on project timeframes. Councils would still likely be able to take advantage of any Government funding opportunities in the short term.
3. Pause	The Joint Committee elects to pause all aspects of the project, to be reviewed at the next Joint Committee meeting on 7 August 2020.	The Joint Committee could elect to ‘down tools’ on this project completely, with a decision on restarting the project to be considered at the next meeting in 3 months’ time. This option would zero-out all project related expenditure and resourcing needs for the next 3 months, pending greater clarity on the impacts of COIVD-19 and the ability to effectively engage in face to face discussions. When taking the decision to re-start, the Joint Committee may be able to more strategically direct effort with greater knowledge of COVID-19 economic and societal effects. This option may hinder the ability of Councils to take advantage of any Government funding opportunities in the short term.
4. Hold and review	The Joint Committee elects to place the project on hold until further notice and instructs TAG to complete a full project review.	If the Joint Committee considers that sufficient uncertainty exists, it may wish to place the Strategy on hold for a longer period and instruct a wider project review. The scope of the review would need to be developed, but could include a reconsideration of all Strategy parameters in a post CVOID-19 world, particularly in relation to changing Government roles in New Zealand’s recovery phase, the changing ability of Councils to raise new funds, and the effect of recent Government initiatives in the climate change space (such as the MfE Case Study on this project which investigated barriers to implementation). This option may jeopardize the ability of Councils to take advantage of any Government funding opportunities in the short term given a lack of dedicated resources, but may also generate new opportunities to strategically reposition the Strategy. A hold and review approach does risk generating significant community concern given the amount of progress and work undertaken to date, and that coastal hazards issues remain a live and rapidly changing issue for coastal settlements and infrastructure.

18. As noted, TAG are currently pursing Option 1 (Business as usual), however welcome discussion and direction from the Joint Committee.

Central Government Update

19. Joint Committee members have been advised by email of a case study report on the implementation of this Strategy, recently completed as a joint initiative between HBRC and Ministry for the Environment. The report was circulated to members by email on 13 February 2020.

20. The report identifies three key challenges with the implementation phase of adaptive planning processes:

20.1. Core responsibilities for adaptation are ambiguous

20.2. Tools and mechanisms to manage current and future hazards are limited or inefficient

20.3. There is a lack of agreed approach and principles for share costs of works.

21. The report also identifies six recommendations for central government to consider in developing a response to these challenges.

22. Chris Dolley from HBRC attended a meeting of the Resource Management Reform Panel in Wellington to speak to the report and its key findings.

23. While no concrete outcomes have yet been confirmed, the increased level of engagement between central government and the Councils involved in this Strategy is encouraging. TAG will continue to appraise members of further developments in this space.

Next Steps

24. TAG seeks direction from the Joint Committee on the preferred response of the strategy development process to COVID-19 impacts.

25. With an option agreed (and with any refinements) TAG will initiate all necessary steps to implement the preferred option.

Decision Making Process

26. 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 Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives the “Project Managers Update including impact of Covid-19 on the Project” report.

Authored by:

Simon Bendall

Project Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Topic	Raised by

Item	Topic	Raised by
1.
2.
3.