|
Cr van Beek, Chair of the Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Committee, introduced the item by providing an
overview of the history of the Strategy’s development including:
·
Several
workshops over the last 2 years failed to achieve agreement between the
Partner Councils on their respective roles for funding and implementing the
Strategy so Raynor Asher QC (retired judge) was engaged to carry out a Funding
Review. The main purpose of the review was to clarify who should lead and
fund the implementation of the strategy and execution of the planned response
using the “adaptive pathways” developed collaboratively with the
community. The key recommendation from the independent review is that HBRC takes
charge of all aspects of the coastal hazards activities within the scope of
the Strategy.
Chris Dolley highlighted:
·
The
decision sought today is Gateway 1 “Agreement in Principle” to
the Raynor Asher and Joint Committee recommendation that HBRC leads and funds
the implementation of coastal hazard mitigation projects under the Strategy
– required, to enable the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to progress to
the next phase.
·
Next
phase (Gateway 2) is preparation of a draft Memorandum of Understanding
(August-September 2021) to set out the detail of how the councils will work
together in practice under the new operational regime proposed by the Funding
Review.
·
Further
future Council decision gateways will be based on detailed technical work and
financials.
·
Significant
pre-consultation with tangata whenua and key stakeholders (to test ideas and concepts) and public engagement (LTP
amendment) processes will further inform decision gateways still to come.
· Some examples of
potential rates and financials (for lower cost options) provided for context
only for today’s discussions, will need to be further developed and more
detailed financials will be presented to the Council for future decision
gateways.
· The financial impacts of the
potential transfer of existing coastal hazards mitigation assets held by NCC
and HDC have yet to be assessed and will be included in the more detailed financial
information to be provided to the Council for future decision gateways.
· Council needs to keep sight
of Central Government’s (CG) proposed Climate Change Adaptation Act
(CCAA) and new legislation replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) however the Joint
Committee has recommended the region forges its own path forward without
waiting for CG direction, which is several years away at best. Also there is
no guarantee that future CG direction will provide the clarity Council is
looking for. To date CG has referred to HB as the leading example of a framework for assessing coastal
hazards risks and identifying options for the management of those risks.
· If timelines outlined are
not met, the next opportunity to move the Strategy forward doesn’t
arise until July 2023, so this is a ‘circuit breaker’ decision
point.
Queries and discussions covered:
· Whether an operating
model similar to CDEM Group (or a CCO) could work for Coastal Hazards physical
works programme.
· The adaptive pathways
have been developed through the Technical Advisory Group working extensively
with the community ‘panels’ and are supported by the TAG and the
Joint Committee as well as having previously been adopted by the partner
councils.
· Huge amount of
preparatory work required in terms of monitoring and collecting data on
environmental impacts through the consenting processes (for pathways) which
will include their own consultation processes. The pathways were subjected to
a “consentability” review to test their viability, the result of
which was that some pathways did not proceed to inclusion in the Strategy.
· The Strategy provides the
rationale and methodology that is now able to be expanded to the north and
south to the remainder of the coast, with the CHB and Wairoa councils when
they are ready to engage.
· Potential liabilities and
consequences for Council will be developed through the work programme.
Empowering provisions in legislation do not ‘guarantee’ full
protection, instead Councils agree to levels of service (e.g. level of
protection) to be provided.
· The pathways in the
Strategy do not guarantee any particular protection in any place – they
are adaptive.
· The Regional Coastal
Environment Plan is due for review, which will be carried out as part of the
Kotahi Plan Change.
· If the timeframes slip by
one month, they slip by one year. The urgency to move forward relates to the
fact that the Strategy and the adaptive pathways were adopted some time ago
(2018) by the partner councils, and there has been no action to implement the
Strategy and execute solutions to address the issues because the partner
councils have not been able to agree how the interventions will be funded.
· The Draft Memorandum of Transition
needs to include options for operational models for Council to consider.
· Concerns raised about
“prevention” of coastal hazards were resolved through subsequent
discussions and agreement that staff will note those concerns for
consideration when Council is making decisions about how or whether
particular mitigation projects are progressed in accordance with Central
Government legislation (e.g. Coastal National Policy Statement) and
Council’s planning provisions (currently RCEP, future Kotahi)
· Endorse HBRC being lead
agency, however concerned the ‘global exemplar’ that the Strategy
represents, will be stymied by politicians conflating the Council’s consenting
authority responsibilities. View that CCO type model required – to take
mitigation projects resulting from years of work with the Community through
consent application processes without political interference, where
they will succeed or fail based on merit.
|
