Issues and options paper for coastal hazards plan change

The objectives we are seeking to achieve from this Plan Change reflect those from the Resource Management Act, New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and Regional Policy Statement:

• Ensuring that coastal hazard risks are addressed by managing activities in areas prone to coastal hazards, having regard to the level of risk. This aligns with our responsibilities to implement national and regional direction that seeks the following:
  
  • Management of significant risks of natural hazards, (section 6(h) of the Resource Management Act), and controlling potential effects of the use of land including for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards (section 31(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act).
  • New subdivision, use and development is to be avoided where it increases risks associated with coastal hazards (Objective 11.2.1 of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement).
• Enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and their health and safety through subdivision, use and development (Objective 6 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement).

This is our preferred option. It involves managing activities according to the level of risk in that location, acknowledging the uncertainty (of when land may be affected by rising sea levels) and the vulnerability of the activity to risk.

It reflects the approach taken to other hazards in the District Plan (areas identified at a higher risk of river flooding that could cause harm are classified as High Hazard Management Areas. Similarly on the Port Hills, a graduated approach is taken with a more restrictive set of rules applying to properties subject to a higher risk of rock fall, cliff collapse and mass movement compared with other areas where there is a lower risk.). It is also consistent with international risk management best practice(external link).

It recognises that the level of risk is not the same in every location and that a range of restrictions should therefore apply to reflect the circumstances in different areas.

The risk-based approach to coastal hazards would limit land use, development and subdivision in areas at High risk, and would remove or reduce the opportunities for further investment and development in some of these areas. 

In areas of Lower to Medium risk, there would continue to be development opportunities with people still able to extend their house, subdivide their property, and change the use of a building. However, there would be conditions on land use and development to improve the adaptability and resilience of any future development.

Read the full detail on this option in the Issues and Options Discussion Document. 

This option bolsters existing District Plan policies and rules with practical methods that would better manage risk, for example, requirements to raise floor levels and identifying areas of high risk where subdivision, land use and development would be restricted.

This option involves relying on the existing objective of the District Plan below, which is generic to all hazards.

New subdivision, use and development (other than new critical infrastructure or strategic infrastructure)… is to be avoided in areas where the risks from natural hazards to people, property and infrastructure are assessed as being unacceptable’, while ensuring that the ‘risks of natural hazards to people, property and infrastructure are appropriately mitigated’ in other areas (Objective 3.3.6 of the Christchurch District Plan).

The existing objective aligns with direction in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and Regional Policy Statement and is therefore included as part of this option. However, the methods of achieving this objective, described below, would not give effect to either document to the extent that Option 1 would.

The change to the existing District Plan would be in the methods to achieve the existing objective including:

• Definition of coastal hazards on the planning maps
• Requirements for higher floor levels
• Inclusion of additional matters of discretion to enable assessment of the risks to subdivision, land use and development from coastal hazards
• Reliance would otherwise be on existing rules, where resource consent is already required for other reasons, to assess the risks of coastal hazards.

Methods of implementation in District Plan:

• Application of Objectives and Policies to the assessment of resources consents
• District Plan Rules & standards for flood hazard areas, which include coastal as well as inland areas.

This option is not preferred because land use, development and subdivision would likely continue to occur in areas at risk of coastal hazards, where resource consent is obtained, including on sites subject to coastal flooding and erosion over the next 100 years and beyond. This means there is a high likelihood that people and communities are exposed to harm/adverse effects at some time in the future. The lack of specific provisions also creates uncertainty for those living in and developing the area, and there is a risk of ad hoc and inconsistent decisions.

This option would seek to avoid all land use, development, and subdivision that increases any level of risk of harm or adverse effects from coastal hazards – within and outside of the existing urban areas.

Development, subdivision and land use activities would only be allowed where it can be demonstrated that there is no increase in ‘adverse effects’ – which means everything from physical effects on people and property, to environmental, economic, financial, social or other effects.

Opportunities for development, changes in land use, and improvements to existing developments would therefore be limited in affected areas. ‘Non-complying’ activity status would apply to subdivision and development, being activities that are not generally consistent with objectives of the District Plan and subject to additional requirements.

Methods of implementation in District Plan:

• Objectives and policies that seek to avoid new development in identified coastal hazard areas.
• Restrictive activity status requiring resource consent for most development, land use and subdivision.
• Non habitable buildings and recreational activities would continue to be enabled subject to meeting standards.

While this option provides the greatest resilience to future events, it is not preferred because it does not differentiate between relative levels of risk, and would therefore not reflect that the risk in one location could be quite different to another. We have a much better understanding of the different levels of risk and can respond accordingly.

Limitations on new development and increased costs are unlikely to be justified across the existing urban area, and outside of it. Option 3 would therefore be unduly restrictive.

This option is a two-pronged approach, comprising elements of options 1 (risk-based approach) and 3 (avoiding activities):

• It would seek to avoid land use, development, and subdivision that increase the risk of harm or adverse effects from coastal hazards, outside of the urban area.

The opportunities for development and land use would be limited under this option unless it could be demonstrated that there is not an increased risk of harm or adverse effect. This would preclude further urban growth in areas where there is increased risk beyond the existing urban area.

• In the existing urban area, it would take an approach of managing the risk to new development and changes in land use.
  Within urban areas, a managed approach would enable development and land use activities to occur in areas of lower risk while limiting development and land use activities in areas at high risk, removing or reducing the opportunities for further investment and development.

Urban areas includes those areas that are zoned for residential, commercial or industrial activities in the District Plan, are already built up and are serviced by infrastructure. The Canterbury Regional Policy Statement defines existing and future urban areas in Map A.

Methods of implementation in District Plan:

• A combination of Options 1 & 3 above.

This option is not preferred because it does not reflect the differences in the nature of the hazard which has a strong influence on the level of risk. As a result, there could be unnecessary restrictions on people’s ability to develop outside the urban area. Conversely, within urban areas, it may not adequately manage development in areas at higher risk where avoidance may be more appropriate.

We will consider the feedback received on the Issues and Options Discussion Paper, and then prepare a draft change to the District Plan. This will include objectives, policies and rules. Currently we are planning to have a draft Plan Change completed in the first half of 2022.

We're then proposing to formally notify the Plan Change under the Resource Management Act in the third quarter of 2022. After this, further submissions can be made, supporting or opposing what others have said. This will be followed by a hearing before an panel of independent commissioners who will make recommendations to Council on whether the Plan Change is approved or rejected. By appointing an independent panel, we want to ensure there is thorough testing of the Plan Change and supporting documents.