Meeting of the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
Date: Monday 15 August 2022
Time: 10.00am
|
Venue:
|
Council
Chamber
Hawke's
Bay Regional Council
159
Dalton Street
NAPIER
|
Agenda
Item Title Page
1. Welcome/Karakia/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict
of Interest Declarations
3. Confirmation of Minutes of
the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee held on 3 June
2022
4. Actions
from previous Joint Committee meetings 3
5. Doug
Dickson deputation - Whirinaki Erosion
Information
or Performance Monitoring
6. The
future of our coastline update 9
7. Current
Coastal projects update 13
8. Triggers
workstream update 17
9. Mātauranga
Māori workstream development update 31
10. Managed
Retreat workstream update 33
11. Project
Manager's update 37
Decision
Items (Public Excluded)
12. Confirmation
of the 3 June 2022 Public Excluded Minutes 39
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
SUBJECT:
Actions from previous Joint Committee meetings
Reason for Report
1. This item
tracks items raised at previous meetings that require action. A list of
outstanding items is prepared for each meeting, including who is responsible
for each, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment.
2. Once the items
have been completed and reported to the Committee they will be removed from the
list.
Decision Making Process
3. 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 and notes the Actions
from previous Joint Committee meetings staff report.
|
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
Actions from previous Joint
Committee meetings
|
|
|
|
Actions from previous Joint Committee
meetings
|
Attachment
1
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: The future of our coastline update
Reason for Report
1. This report provides the Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee with an update on the
community feedback (attached) received on The future of our coastline proposal.
Background
2. Following the adoption of the
Memorandum of Transition (MOT) by the three partner councils in May 2022,
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has developed a consultation process
to gauge community support for the proposal that HBRC leads implementation of
the Strategy.
3. At the Regional Council meeting on 29
June 2022, HBRC adopted the consultation document The future of our
coastline, agreed to the proposed public consultation period of 1-31 July
2022, and agreed the planned consultation complied with section 82 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
Scope of the feedback process
4. The scope of the consultation process
was whether HBRC should, in principle, take charge of coastal hazard adaptation
for the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio subject to confirming the
proposal through its Long Term Plan.
5. It did not include the content of the
Strategy, funding to implement it, or how the rates are proposed to be
allocated. If HBRC does take charge, it will be responsible for developing
these matters, and consulting on them separately.
6. The purpose was to gauge public
sentiment ahead of bigger consultation and difficult decisions in the future,
including funding.
7. HBRC sought feedback on the question
“Who should take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton
and Tangoio?”.
8. Two options were proposed with a
yes/no tick box.
8.1. Option 1: (the preferred option) HBRC
takes charge.
8.2. Option 2: (status quo) Continue with
coastal hazards managed in various ways by all three councils, with no defined
lead agency.
8.3. The consultation document stated that
doing nothing is not an option.
9. Submitters were also invited to give
their reasons for why they supported the option they did.
Feedback
process
10. The community feedback process ran
from 1 to 31 July 2022.
11. Staff used several platforms to
promote the engagement and encourage people to provide feedback. Postcards were
sent to 3,500 households in the Clifton to Tangoio coastal area and to 200
households in Waimārama informing them of the consultation and directing
them to the Regional Council’s website. There was an online submission
form on the website. A submission form was also provided in the consultation
document which was also online. That form included
details of where to email, post, or hand deliver submission forms.
12. Promotion also included a media
release on 1 July 2022, a public notice in Hawke’s Bay Today on Saturday
2 July, an advert in the July/August 2022 BayBuzz, digital adverts,
social media (Facebook and LinkedIn) and content on the Regional
Council’s website. It was also promoted via the HB Coast e-newsletter.
13. HBRC’s Facebook social media
channel delivered five posts concerning this consultation, resulting in:
13.1. Impressions (content served): 17,786
13.2. Reach (content seen): 14,402
13.3. Engagement (interactions): 1,023
14. LinkedIn delivered one post, resulting
in:
14.1. Impressions: 522
14.2. Engagement: 9
Submissions
received
15. A total of 59 submissions were
received. Of those:
15.1. 51 (86 %) supported Option 1: (the
preferred option) HBRC takes charge of adapting to coastal hazards between
Clifton and Tangoio.
15.2. Six (10%) supported Option 2: (status
quo) Continue with coastal hazards managed in various ways by all three
councils, with no defined lead agency.
15.3. Two submissions (3%) didn’t
support either of the options.
16. Five submitters wish to speak at the
hearing on 23 August 2022. One submitter is unable to make the hearing, but has
indicated he would appreciate an opportunity to discuss his submission. Staff
have emailed him and provided some options to enable him to provide his views.
Key
themes in the submissions received
Option 1: (the preferred option) HBRC takes charge of
adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton and Tangoio.
17. Of the 51 submissions that supported
this option, 39 gave additional feedback. Two clear main themes emerged of why
submitters supported HBRC taking charge. They are:
17.1. Needs to/it makes sense to have one
organisation lead this.
17.2. It's logical that HBRC takes this
role.
18. Three submissions supported this
option with a proviso or conditionally. Please see submissions #43, #48 and
#59.
19. There was some feedback that this was
a national issue and that the Government should take charge or provide support.
This came through from two submitters who supported Option 1, and one who chose
Option 2, and one who didn’t support either option (see below).
Option
2: (status quo) Continue with coastal hazards managed in various ways by all
three councils, with no defined lead agency.
20. Of the six submitters, five gave
reasons of why they supported this option. Two preferred to keep coastal hazards
management local – to have local council representation (Hastings
District Council) and for HDC assets to stay with that council continuing the
work they have started.
21. One submitter thought district
councils will make better decisions balancing cost versus action, and one said
the Regional Council is too political and lacks a practical approach.
Did not
support Option 1 or 2
22. Of the two submitters who didn’t
support either option, one provided a reason. This submitter felt that the
Regional Council is better placed than local municipalities to address this,
coastal protection should be addressed at a national level and the approach
should be consistent across New Zealand.
Strategic
Fit
23. This engagement is an important step
in progressing the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120.
24. The Strategy’s implementation is
one of the 24 strategic goals in the Regional Council’s Strategic Plan
2020-2025, contributing to the focus area of sustainable and climate-resilient
services and infrastructure: By 2025 the Coastal Hazards Joint Committee is
implementing its strategy to manage coastal hazards in Clifton to Tangoio and
by 2040 for the rest of the region to adapt to foreseeable climate change risks
to coastal communities out to 2100.
Financial
and resource implications
25. If HBRC does decide to take charge and
lead the Strategy’s implementation, there will be financial and resource
implications for:
25.1. Strategy development – HBRC will
take primary responsibility to finish developing and consult on the Strategy.
However, the partner councils have agreed to continue contributing equally and
jointly until HBRC takes on the new activity, which, if confirmed following
consultation, is planned to take effect from 1 July 2024. These costs are
within existing budgets, with each council contributing $100,000 per year.
25.2. The transfer of coastal hazard assets
– an agreement in principle to transfer specified assets has been
established by the MOT. The actual transfer will occur subject to developing
and agreeing further detail in an Asset Transfer Agreement. If this is
confirmed, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council will transfer the
ownership of existing infrastructure assets that manage coastal hazards to
HBRC. HBRC will take over responsibility for the assets, such as ongoing
maintenance, monitoring, any debt, and collecting associated rates. These costs
and funding sources will take effect from the date the assets are transferred,
which is proposed to be 1 July 2024.
25.3. Strategy implementation –
significant capital and operational funding will be needed to implement actions
to mitigate hazard risks under the Strategy. This is likely to include detailed
design, resource consents, construction, and ongoing maintenance. These costs
and funding sources will be proposed and consulted on as part of the next
stage.
Next
Steps
26. A hearing will be held by HBRC on 23
August 2022 for those that wish to present their submission verbally.
27. At the time of writing this report,
staff were contacting submitters (who had indicated they would like to present
to the Council hearing) to arrange a suitable time.
28. HBRC will deliberate on the feedback
and staff analysis and decide at its meeting on 31 August 2022, in principle,
whether or not to take charge of coastal adaption between Clifton and Tangoio
subject to confirming the proposal through its next Long Term Plan.
29. There is scope to provide any feedback
or further recommendations from this Joint Committee to inform the HBRC
decision on 31 August, should the Joint Committee wish to do so.
Decision
Making Process
30. 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 and notes The Future of
our coastline update staff report.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
Arlene Crispin
Communications
Advisor
|
|
Mandy Sharpe
Project
Manager
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy
& Governance Manager
|
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇨
|
The future of our coastline feedback
received
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: Current Coastal projects update
Reason
for Report
1. This report provides an opportunity
for the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to update the Joint Committee on various
coastal projects that members have expressed an interest in keeping abreast of.
Whakarire
Avenue Rock Revetment
2. This project went out to tender in
November 2021, but no tender was let as the costs exceeded the budget
available.
3. A tender de-brief was subsequently
undertaken and Napier City Council’s consultant is currently preparing
revised tender documents for re-tender in the near future.
4. Once this process is complete, further
stakeholder engagement will be completed.
5. Napier City Council is targeting a
March 2023 start for construction of the revetment.
Extended
consent area for sand deposition at Westshore
6. The Westshore sand deposition has been
deferred due to other priorities.
7. A meeting has been scheduled for Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council (HBRC) and Napier City Council (NCC) on 15 August 2022 to
discuss the Westshore programme further.
Haumoana
18
8. The proponents of the Westlock Sea
Wall proposal for the H18 properties were unable to secure the support of all
the parties to fund their share of the proposed works. Accordingly, the Annual
Plan proposal for joint HDC and landowner funding for the project, with
ownership retained by the property owners, was not adopted by the Council for
the 2022-2023 year.
9. Discussions between the parties are
ongoing and the Hastings District Council (HDC) resolved to continue to support
the H18 residents to obtain full support for a preferred solution for this
section of coast and would support a future application for this project.
Whirinaki
10. The ongoing issue of erosion in this
area has been exacerbated during a sea event in mid-July. Erosion has brought
the embankment to within 4m of the road edge in places along Northshore Road.
11. The Tonkin + Taylor report prepared
earlier for HDC and residents, suggests that localised re-nourishment would be
short lived and the stage 1 strategy pathway relies of re-nourishment in
several locations along the northern cell as an integrated approach, is likely
to be needed.
12. The damage is similar to the H18
challenge as to possible solutions and who pays. The threat to the road owned
by HDC is being suggested by locals as a reason for HDC involvement. There may
be opportunity for HBRC and HDC to work more closely together on this in terms
of an interim or emergency works approach, pending the implementation of the
longer-term strategy pathways and transfer of responsibilities. HDC and HBRC
officers are meeting on 18 August to discuss further.
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 Current
coastal projects update.
Authored by: Approved
by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
Chris Dolley
Group Manager Asset Management
|
Attachment/s
There are no attachments for this
report.
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: Triggers workstream update
Reason for Report
1. This agenda item provides an update on
the Triggers workstream.
Background
2. An update on the Triggers Workstream
was provided to the Joint Committee at their 8 April 2022 meeting. As a recap
on the information provided in that paper, the community panels formed under
the Strategy have developed recommended pathways in each priority unit as
follows.
Table
1: Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard’s Strategy Recommend 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
|
3. These pathways, however, are not
currently ‘adaptive’. They are simply a series of steps over
time with no method for responding to real world conditions and the uncertain
effects of climate change.
4. In order for the pathways to be
adaptive, tools are needed to drive decision making on when (and under what
conditions) the next step in the pathway is implemented, or an alternative
approach determined. These tools are known as signals, triggers and adaptation
thresholds (‘STATs’).
4.1. Signals are early warnings of change.
4.2. Triggers are a decision point(s) that have
been identified to allow sufficient time to make a decision and take action
prior to an adaptation threshold being reached.
4.3. Adaptation thresholds describe a situation where
performance measures are no longer being met or start to fail, resulting in an
outcome(s) that the community do not want.
5. It was a deliberate decision made
during the panel process to defer the development of STATs to later in the
Strategy development process. This decision was made because:
5.1. it was determined that pathways could
be defined and a preferred pathway selected without STATs.
5.2. there was no guidance available at
that time on how to develop STATs, and
5.3. the collaborative process had already
been very time and resource intensive up to that point, without adding further
tasks and complexity.
6. The Triggers workstream was
established to ‘backfill’ this gap in the Strategy by developing
STATs for the recommended pathways.
7. Guidance was developed by the Deep
South National Science Challenge in 2020[1]
that assists this process. The guidance identifies a series of 13 steps from
identifying signals and triggers through to monitoring and review. It
recommends starting with defining adaptation thresholds, and then working to
identify signals and triggers that will inform decision makers that conditions
are changing and guide actions to ensure that adaptation thresholds are not
reached.
8. Figure 1 below is from this guidance
material, and provides a summary of how signals, triggers and adaption
thresholds work together.
Figure
1: Signals, Triggers and Thresholds. Source: Deep South Challenge
Development
Approach
9. Work under the Signals and Triggers
workstream began in 2021.
10. The project commenced with reviewing
literature and looking for case studies and practice examples. This work has
been reported in Supporting Adaptation using Signals, Triggers and Adaptation
Thresholds (STATs): a brief review, Coastal Management Collective, May
2021.
11. Key findings of this work identified
that it was important to ensure that signals, triggers and adaptation
thresholds are community-driven, that there is alignment with existing
monitoring and evaluation activities or that they can be readily integrated
into those activities, and a robust, pragmatic and flexible monitoring,
evaluation, reporting and learning plan is developed to track progress.
12. It was also found that there are no
published examples of signals triggers and thresholds as envisaged by the 2017
MfE guidance, however the use of trigger points is not new, and examples of
their use were found in various national and international settings, including
at Wainui Beach in Gisborne.
13. With this background in place, the
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) started with the development of adaptation
thresholds for each of the priority units.
14. This has been a collaborative process,
working with community members through the community workshops and with Council
asset managers and planners. While somewhat interrupted by COVID, the following
process has been followed.
14.1. In June 2021, a workshop was held with
community members to identify potential consequences of coastal hazard events.
This was baseline work to understand the kinds of coastal hazards impacts
people are concerned about. These were broadly grouped into Human, Natural
Environment, Economy and Built Environment categories.
14.2. In November 2021, a duplicate workshop
was then held with Asset Managers across the three Partner Councils so that the
consequences identified also factored in Council assets and responsibilities.
14.3. The coastal hazard consequences
identified through these workshops where then assessed and refined to identify
those that could be suitable as thresholds. For example, a suitable threshold
needed to be monitorable and have a causal link to coastal hazards.
14.4. We then worked to identify which
thresholds were relevant to which priority units. In many cases the thresholds
were applicable across all units (e.g. loss of road access) while in other
cases there were unit-specific considerations.
14.5. In February 2022, a second workshop
was held with community members to refine these outcomes and to develop
‘threshold measures’. For example, some thresholds are frequency
based, i.e. we need to determine how often and for how long the impacts are
experienced before the threshold is reached.
14.6. In June 2022, a third workshop was
held with community members to present draft thresholds, developed by compiling
inputs and discussion from all previous workshops and feedback from TAG. The
draft thresholds were presented as General Proposed Thresholds (these apply
across all priority units), and a series of unit-specific thresholds for each
of the priority units.
15. The draft thresholds presented to
community members in the June workshop are attached.
16. It is noted that there was a range of
feedback provided from community members in the June workshop that needs to be
integrated, and a follow up workshop with Council staff is yet to be held.
However, the same information presented to the community is being presented to
the Joint Committee for information and any feedback.
Next Steps
17. As noted, community member feedback
from the June workshop will be compiled with feedback from Council staff (and
any feedback the Joint Committee may have) to produce final proposed adaptation
thresholds. The next critical step will be to test the proposed thresholds with
the wider community. This will occur alongside, and as part of, consultation on
the full Strategy planned for 2023.
18. With the work on adaptation thresholds
now well advanced, the development of signals and triggers has been able to
commence.
19. The process of developing signals and
triggers for each of the adaptation thresholds is intended to be more
technically driven and will primarily be developed through TAG and with Council
staff.
20. This process has commenced with
preliminary signals and triggers prepared initially for Haumoana, Te Awanga and
Westshore. These are being refined and will be workshopped with TAG in August.
The intent is to develop an approach that can be applied to all units. As
noted, there are no examples of other work that TAG is aware of that can be
considered for guidance, so the work is being developed iteratively.
Decision Making Process
21. 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.
Recommendations
That the
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee receives and
considers the Triggers workstream update.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
Draft thresholds presented to
community members
|
|
|
|
Draft thresholds presented to community
members
|
Attachment
1
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: Mātauranga Māori workstream development update
Reason
for Report
1. This report provides an update on
progress with development of the Mātauranga Māori workstream.
Background
2. At the previous Joint Committee
meeting, a paper was presented discussing the development of the
Mātauranga Māori Workstream. In broad terms, the workstream has been
established to allocate additional project resources to facilitate more
effective input from mana whenua and to seek that the Strategy is informed by Mātauranga
Māori.
3. The Joint Committee directed the
establishment of a working group to further develop workstream scope,
comprising Joint Committee Members Tania Hopmans, Alana Hiha and Councillor
Hinewai Ormsby, with support from HBRC Māori Partnerships Team and the Strategy’s
Project Manager. Christine Hilton has also joined our hui as a representative
of the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust, pending confirmation of a formal
appointment to the Joint Committee.
Discussion
4. The working group has held two hui to
refine and further develop the workstream scope.
5. Key outcomes to date are:
5.1. The development of a draft purpose and
objectives for the workstream – these are currently being refined by the
working group.
5.2. The identification of 5 potential
suppliers/consultants with suitable experience and expertise that could support
various parts of the workstream. Contact has been made with all potential
suppliers to confirm interest and availability to support this work.
5.3. The identification of three workstream
outputs.
6. While the above elements are a work in
progress, to give the Joint Committee a sense of the direction of travel the
draft workstream outputs are noted below.
[draft]
Output One: Cultural Values Frameworks
7. Task: Develop cultural framework
documents based on PSGE areas, that:
7.1. Capture what’s important /
valued by whanau / the depth of relatedness at the Coast / spiritual
connections.
7.2. Articulate aspirations of whanua /
hapū.
7.3. Reflect knowledge / mātauranga
(appropriately).
7.4. Support cross-application e.g. has
utility for Kotahi / District Plans / RM Reform, etc.
[draft]
Output Two: Mātauranga Māori Implementation and Reporting Plan
8. Task: Develop a plan that responds to
the Cultural Values Framework to demonstrate how the Strategy Project Team /
Joint Committee / Councils will respond to / incorporate the Values Frameworks
and monitor for success.
[draft]
Output Three: Taio Monitoring Plan
9. Task: Develop an actionable plan for
gathering and reporting on coastal attributes / values identified by the Values
Frameworks to establish a baseline of information that can support analysis of
impacts from climate change / coastal hazards and efforts to respond to /
mitigate coastal hazards risks.
Next
Steps
10. Support from an external consultant is
proposed to assist with refining and developing the draft workstream scope to a
final draft. This will be workshopped with the working group, prior to being
presented to the Joint Committee. This is targeted to occur at the September
meeting.
11. Discussions are also ongoing with
HBRC’s Kotahi team to explore synergies and cross-application
opportunities. The results of these discussions will also be reported up to the
Joint Committee.
Decision
Making Process
12. 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 and notes the Mātauranga
Māori workstream development update.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy 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
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: Managed Retreat workstream update
Reason for Report
1. This paper provides an update on the
Managed Retreat workstream.
Background
2. Managed retreat has been recommended
by the community panels as the preferred long-term option in Clifton, Haumoana,
and East Clive. In other units, managed retreat is the primary alternative to
the proposed interventions and represents the eventual outcome if dictated by
future environmental conditions.
3. While there are some New Zealand
examples of managed retreat, each case has been bespoke. This leaves a range of
significant questions that do not have nationally-established answers, such as
who pays to implement managed retreat, what does it mean for affected property
owners, how it is achieved at scale, and how much it costs.
4. The lack of clarity on what managed
retreat actually is, and how much it costs, makes it difficult both to
understand what is being recommended as the long-term action in Clifton,
Haumoana, and East Clive, and to sensibly compare the recommended pathways with
managed retreat as an alternative response.
5. The Managed Retreat Workstream was
established in response to these uncertainties. The primary output of this
workstream is the report prepared by Tonkin + Taylor titled Hawke's Bay
Coastal Strategy: Implementation approaches and indicative costs for planned
retreat, dated July 2022 (the Report).
6. The Report provides guidance on what
retreat might look like in Hawke’s Bay as an alternative to the
recommended pathways. In other words, what would need to be retreated, by when
and at what cost, if nothing else was done to increase resilience to coastal
hazards. The Joint Committee has previously workshopped the Report, which was
released publicly in mid-July 2022..
7. The Report presents options to
implement retreat and associated high level costs and potential losses for the
Strategy’s priority units of Whirinaki, Bayview, Westshore, Pandora,
Ahuriri, East Clive, Haumoana, Te Awanga and Clifton. These are summarised in Table
1 below.
Table
1: Planned retreat high-level cost estimate for all coastal units including
potential losses (source: Tonkin + Taylor 2022)
|
Timeframe
|
Estimate
|
|
Short
term (0-20 years)
|
$196,585,230
|
|
Medium
term (20-50 years)
|
$620,683,700
|
|
Long
term (50-100 years)
|
$1,170,049,168
|
|
Total
|
$1,987,318,099
|
8. For comparison purposes, under the
Design workstream the short-term actions in all pathways have been estimated to
cost between $9.4 million and $26.4 million in capital costs, and between $2.7
and $4.6 million in annual operating costs.
9. While it would be overly simplistic to
directly compare these costs to the $197 million estimate for retreat in the
short term (for example, in most cases coastal defences are likely to only buy
time before some form of retreat in future, so implementing the short-term
pathways does not mean that these costs for retreat will be permanently
avoided), it does give a sense of the relative scale of potential costs over
the next 20 or so years.
10. In terms of potential implementation
methods, the Report identifies a range of options and their relative advantages
and disadvantages including:
10.1. Property acquisition options
10.1.1. Purchase and lease back
10.1.2. Purchase and convent sell
10.1.3. Purchase then demolish
10.2. Planning provisions
10.3. Signalling and
10.4. Withdrawal of Insurance.
11. The Report does not identify a
preferred or recommended method, and as noted there is at this stage no
nationally-established approach.
12. It is highlighted that the term
‘planned retreat’ in used in the Report, in preference to
‘managed retreat’. The authors note that planned retreat speaks to
the proactive, planned and coordinated consideration of the movement and
rebuilding of communities well in advance. While a subtle change, staff
consider that this is useful terminology to adopt for the Strategy as a whole
moving forward.
Next
Steps
13. Under previous analysis undertaken for
the Strategy development process, managed/planned retreat has been costed
(simplistically) using the total capital costs of at-risk assets.
14. With the work undertaken by Tonkin +
Taylor, a much more refined costing methodology has been developed and applied,
and these updated costs can be used to re-test earlier analysis to better
inform decision-making.
15. With this new information on potential
costs and process steps for retreat, and revised costs for the recommended
pathways developed through the Design Workstream, TAG have engaged Infometrics
to update the Real Options Analysis (ROA) they developed for the Strategy in
2017.
16. Infometrics describe ROA in their 2017
report as being:
16.1. “…an expanded version of
cost-benefit analysis that assesses whether there is value in waiting for more
information before an expensive and possibly irreversible investment is undertaken,
and whether an alternative investment might suffice in the meantime.
16.2. In the case of an increasing risk of
coastal inundation for example, is it better for a community to retreat inland
in the very near future (which is effective, but expensive), or is it better to
construct some form of coastal defence that provides protection from most
inundation scenarios for the next 20-30 years, and perhaps for much longer if
the effects of climate change end up being less severe than anticipated?”
17. The updated ROA analysis has been
completed and presented in a draft report which will be workshopped with TAG at
their August meeting. The final outcome will be presented to the Joint
Committee at their next meeting in September.
Decision
Making Process
18. 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 and notes the Managed Retreat workstream
update.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy 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
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject: Project Manager's update
Reason for report
1. This report provides an update on
project-related matters including timeframes, budgets and tracking towards milestones.
Project
Dashboard
2. The following project dashboard is
provided to summarise current project status for budget, timeline and all eight
active workstreams (WS). An assessment of each project element is made on a
‘traffic light’ basis, with a brief commentary provided to explain
the rating given.
3. Where a rating has changed from the
preceding report, the metric is shown in red underline with an arrow showing
the change in status.
Project
Dashboard Report: August 2022
|
Metric
|
Status
|
Commentary
|
|
Project
Budget
|
|
|
|
New
Financial Year – no known budget issues
|
|
Project
Timeline
|
|
|
|
Key
project milestones on track
|
|
WS1:
Funding / Governance
|
|
|
|
MOT
signed
|
|
WS2:
LGA Consultation
|
|
->
|
|
July
consultation process successfully completed
|
|
WS3:
Comms & Engagement
|
|
|
|
COVID
impacts, Mana Whenua engagement low
|
|
WS4:
Design
|
|
|
|
Substantially
complete
|
|
WS5:
Mātauranga Māori
|
|
|
|
Workstream
scoping in progress
|
|
WS6:
Coastal Ecology
|
|
|
|
Mana
whenua engagement required for next steps
|
|
WS7:
Regulatory
|
|
|
|
Target
HBRC + NCC plans – significant work coming
|
|
WS8:
Signals and Triggers
|
|
|
|
Update
provided to this Joint Committee meeting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
Key
Risk
|
|
Under Stress
|
|
On Track
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. There is one status change to report
from the last meeting of the Joint Committee on 3 June, with WS2: LGA
Consultation shifting to ‘On Track’ with the LGA consultation
process led by HBRC nearing completion. A separate paper in today’s
agenda provides a full update on that process.
5. Also noted in blue is the addition of WS5:
Mātauranga Māori. This will now be reported against as a new
workstream, replacing the Managed Retreat Workstream which was completed with
the delivery and publication of the Tonkin + Taylor report. A separate item in
today’s agenda provides an update on that workstream.
Budget
Reporting
6. The 2021-2022 financial year concluded
on 30 June 2022. Of the total project budget of $300k for the year, $273,000
was spent, leaving $27,000 unspent.
7. The primary reason for underspending
relative to budget was the change in approach to the consultation process to
implement the arrangements set out in the Memorandum of Transition.
8. The original approach (which was
costed in the 2021-2022 budget) was to undertake a comprehensive LGA s.16
consultation process that would propose to amend HBRC’s Long Term Plan to
provide for its new lead role in Strategy implementation. That process includes
significant costs associated with financial analysis, legal support, document
preparation, external audit, etc.
9. With the decision by HBRC (following
advice from the auditors) to instead run the consultation as a general (and
informal) process, with amendments to HBRC’s Long Term Plan deferred,
much of these additional costs were also deferred.
10. A project budget for the 2022-2023
financial year has been prepared and accepted by TAG, with project costs now
being tracked against it. The 2022-2023 budget allocates funding to the
following elements:
10.1. WS1: Funding / Governance
10.2. WS2: LGA Consultation
10.3. WS3: Comms & Engagement
10.4. WS4: Design
10.5. WS5: Mātauranga Māori
10.6. WS6: Coastal Ecology
10.7. WS7: Regulatory
10.8. WS8: Signals and Triggers
10.9. Project Management
10.10. Joint Committee.
Decision
Making Process
11. 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 and notes the Project Manager’s
update.
Authored by: Approved
by:
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
Chris Dolley
Group Manager Asset Management
|
Attachment/s
There are no attachments for this
report.
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee
Monday 15
August 2022
Subject:
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council excludes the public from this section of the
meeting being Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes Agenda Item 12 with the
general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded. The
reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48
(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the
passing of this resolution are:
|
General subject of the item to
be considered
|
Reason for passing this
resolution
|
Grounds under section 48(1) for
the passing of the resolution
|
|
Tonkin + Taylor Hawke's Bay
Coastal Strategy Implementation approaches and indicative costs for planned
retreat
|
7(2)s7(2)(d)
That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is
necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of
members of the public
7(2)s7(2)(j)
That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is
necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for
improper gain or improper advantage
7(2)s7(2)(e)
That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is
necessary to avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate loss to
members of the public
|
The Council is specified, in
the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.
|
Authored and Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
