REPORT TO: Planning
and Regulatory Committee
MEETING DATE: Thursday 10
May 2018
FROM: Building Consents Manager
Malcom
Hart
SUBJECT: Building
Consent Authority Accreditation Update
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to update the Council on the results of the biennial
accreditation assessment of Councils Building Consent Authority (BCA) completed
in November 2017.
1.2 The
assessment was carried out by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ).
Accreditation is required to maintain Council’s status as a registered
Building Consent Authority and to enable the Council to continue issuing and
certifying building consents.
1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local
government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That
purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and
businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that
are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.
1.4 This
report addresses Council’s obligation to provide good quality regulatory
activities.
1.5 This
report concludes by recommending that the report be received.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Hastings
District Council is deemed a Building Consent Authority (BCA) pursuant to the
Building Act 2004, and is registered as a BCA with the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment.
2.2 The
Council is required to comply with the relevant statutory controls affecting
BCA’s. In particular, Council is required to achieve and maintain
Accreditation as a BCA, and comply with the Building (Accreditation of Building
Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 in order to issue and certify building
consents.
2.3 BCA’s
are assessed by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) every two years,
and sometimes more frequently as each situation demands, to ensure all relevant
statutory, systems and performance requirements are being complied with.
2.4 Hastings
District Council has been registered as a BCA since 2006 and five assessments
have been carried out since then.
2.5 The Council’s BCA has maintained its accreditation as a
Building Consent Authority during this time. The Council’s BCA has never
had its accreditation suspended or removed.
3.0 CURRENT
SITUATION
3.1 An
accreditation assessment was completed in November 2017. An intensive
assessment of the BCA’s systems, policies and procedures took place over
four days. At the end of the assessment the BCA was left with one general
non-compliance item to resolve.
3.2 The
non-complying item has been addressed to the satisfaction of IANZ and MBIE. As
a consequence the Council has retained its accreditation as a Building Consent
Authority pursuant to the Building (Accreditation of Consent Authorities)
Regulations 2006.
3.3 The
non-complying item related to our use of a modified building consent
application form in hard copy for wood burner consent applications.
3.4 Disappointingly,
IANZ and MBIE deemed that the use of a modified form did not strictly conform
to the Building (Forms) Regulations 2004, despite accepting a modified form for
the past three assessments.
3.5 The
next accreditation assessment is scheduled for November 2019.
4.0 OPTIONS
4.1 This report serves to update the Committee on building control
activities and improvement initiatives, and no options have been identified.
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE
AND ENGAGEMENT
5.1 The
improvement initiatives identified do not trigger Council’s
Significance and Engagement Policy.
6.0 PREFERRED
OPTION/S AND REASONS
6.1 The
preferred option is for this report to be received.
|
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND
REASONS
A) That
the report of the Building Consents Manager titled “Building
Consent Authority Accreditation Update” dated 10/05/2018
be received.
With the reasons for this decision
being that the objective of the decision will contribute to the performance
of regulatory functions by:
i) Ensuring compliance with statutory processes and maintaining
accreditation and registration as a Building Consent Authority.
|
Attachments:
There are no attachments
for this report.
REPORT TO: Planning
and Regulatory Committee
MEETING DATE: Thursday 10
May 2018
FROM: Environmental Policy Manager
Rowan
Wallis
SUBJECT: Update
on Proposed District Plan Appeals
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 The purpose of this report is to update/inform the Committee/
Council about the appeals on the Proposed District Plan
1.2 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local
government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That
purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and
businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that
are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future
circumstances.
1.3 The
purpose of this report relevant to the purpose of Local Government is the
performance of a regulatory function through the provision of a District Plan
which will help to create an attractive and healthy environment for people,
which promote the best use of natural resources and which is responsive to
community needs. This report concludes by recommending that this report
be received for information purposes.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 A total
of 47 appeals were received to the Proposed Hastings District Plan. This
includes a later appeal by Golden Oaks as this hearing was held by
Commissioners after the others were heard by the Hearings Committee. It
also includes appeals on later Plan variations 1 (Omahu), 2 (Irongate) and 3
(Howard Street).
2.2 The
appeals process is entirely managed by the Environment Court. The Council
is automatically a party to the proceedings and must be available to attend any
hearing to discuss or clarify matters in the hearing report/s, give evidence to
the Court about its planning report and any other relevant information. Council
staff will be required to act as witnesses and technical advisers. For
each appeal, careful consideration is given to who are the best staff,
consultants and/or independent experts needed for each case.
2.3 It is
an expectation of the Court that Council have legal representation for all
appeals. Council provided the first of its reporting memorandums to the
Court in December 2015 and has provided further reports approximately every
eight weeks’ since.
2.4 The
Court has an expectation that all appeals will involve mediation (where early
resolution is not achieved) and memorandums and consent orders signed where an
agreement can be reached. Mediation was facilitated by the Environment
Court who appointed an independent commissioner to mediate appeals. Where
agreement is not reached, the mediation process is useful in refining the
issues before any Environment Court hearing. There is a court expectation
that a number of appeals be resolved through this process rather than ending up
at a hearing.
2.5 Mediation
on all appeals has largely concluded, with Council staff involved in
approximately 8 weeks of mediation. The remaining appeal requiring mediation is
Bourke a residential rezoning in
Havelock North, which is pending the completion of further investigations by
the appellant. Informal mediation on Howard Street has been ongoing and has
involved expert engineering caucusing on an appropriate stormwater solution.
3.0 CURRENT
SITUATION
3.1 Appended
to this report as Attachment 1 is an appeals tracking document which
shows all appeals and where they are at in the appeals process. Included
are several tables, broken down into the following categories: matters for
which mediation has been held but all matters are not yet resolved (including
where they are at in the process); on hold appeals and finally resolved
appeals.
3.2 To
date 41 appeals have been resolved, either through withdrawal, consent orders
which have been lodged by parties and signed off by the Environment Court or
through pending consent documents. 4 appeals have been placed on hold by
the Environment Court, and are due to the:
· outcome of the Iona Streamlined Planning Process
which affects 2 appeals. As a result of a Council resolution on August 8 2017
an application was lodged with the Environment Minister to adopt a Streamlined
Planning Process (SPP) for the rezoning of land at Iona. The benefits of
adopting a Streamlined Planning Process versus the standard planning process to rezone this land (by
way of Plan Variation under the Resource Management Act 1991) were outlined in a Council Workshop on July 18
2017.
Council staff prepared and released a draft Structure Plan
in August of this year for public comment. The draft Structure Plan
incorporated the design elements worked on by the Iona Working Group with specialist
input from Isthmus Group (landscape and urban design consultants).
Comments received on the draft Structure Plan were used to shape the Structure
Plan which has been incorporated as part of the Plan Variation.
The Minister issued a direction on the SPP application in
late Feb 2018, and the variation was notified in conformity with the direction
timetable on 6 the April 2018. Submissions closed 7th May and the
hearing of submissions will begin on 30 May 2018.
· expert engineering conferencing on the appropriate stormwater
solution for the Howard Street variation.
· structure planning work is carried out at Brookvale by the appellant
in consultation with Council staff (Bourke appeal). Mediation will resume
once the structure planning work has been completed; and
· due to matters that do not involve Council.
3.3 If
hearings are needed on remaining outstanding appeals these will be on refined
matters.
3.4 Since
the last appeal update to Council the Environment Court has heard the
Maungararu Tangitu Trust’s appeal on the outstanding larger wāhi
taonga sites and with the district plan provisions that manage the wāhi
taonga sites. The decision from the Court is yet to be received.
3.5 The
Federated Farmers of New Zealand appeal as it relates to Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs) has also not yet been resolved. The Environment Court
issued a decision in Federated Farmers of New
Zealand v Northland Regional Council [2015] NZEnvC
159 which confirmed that there is jurisdiction for GMOs to be regulated in
Resource Management planning documents. This decision
was challenged by Federated Farmers of New Zealand because the question of
whether GMOs should be managed with under the Resource Management Act
1991 as opposed to whether they can be so managed (the
latter having already been confirmed) needs to be determined. The High Court recently issued its decision on the appeal and upheld
the decision of the Environment Court. As a result an evidence exchange
timetable has been entered into, and evidence has been exchanged to defend the
Council’s provisions relating to the management of GMO’s. A hearing
date has not yet been set by the Court, but is unlikely to be before July.
3.6 Changes
required to the Proposed Plan as a result of signed consent orders will be
incorporated into E-Plan (online version of the District Plan) and for later
adoption as part of the new Operative District Plan.
3.7 Council
is required under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to have in place a
District Plan. The District Plan has been prepared following an extensive
consultation process which has been carried out in accordance with the
RMA. Consultation on the draft Structure Plan for Iona has occurred,
through individual and neighbourhood meetings and a community open day with an
opportunity to provide feedback. Notification of this plan change will
occur in accordance with any direction issued under the Streamlined Planning
Application lodged or if the regular Schedule 1 process is to be adopted, a
decision on its notification will be brought to Council.
|
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
AND REASONS
A) That
the report of the Environmental Policy Manager titled “Update
on Proposed District Plan Appeals ” dated 10/05/2018
be received.
|
Attachments:
|
1
|
Appeals Tracking Table as at 30 April 2018
|
ENV-9-18-5-18-701
|
|
REPORT TO: Planning
and Regulatory Committee
MEETING DATE: Thursday 10
May 2018
FROM: Group Manager: Planning &
Regulatory
John
O'Shaughnessy
SUBJECT: Clifton
Revetment Emergency Works
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on whether to
undertake emergency protection works at Clifton.
1.2 This
issue arises as a consequence of a request by Mr Paul Hursthouse of the Clifton
Marine Club (CMC) to undertake emergency works where the proposed Clifton
revetment is proposed to protect access to Clifton Camp No. 1 and the CMC boat
ramp and facilities. Mr Hursthouse considers there is an imminent threat
of loss of access due to possible winter storms.
1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local
government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That
purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality
local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory
functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and
businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that
are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future
circumstances.
1.4 The
objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is
related to the provision of good quality local infrastructure and local public
service and how best to fund this infrastructure and services in accordance
with funding principles as set down in the Local Government Act 2002.
1.5 This
report concludes by recommending:
A) That the report of the Group Manager: Planning &
Regulatory titled “Clifton Revetment Emergency Works” dated
10/05/2018 be received.
B) That Council delegate powers under section 330 of the
Resource Management Act (RMA) to the Chief Executive Officer, to authorize
emergency works within Hastings District.
C) That Council Transportation staff monitor the
physical condition of the Clifton Camp No. 1 access road to ensure public
safety.
D) That Council supports the relocation of the existing
Clifton Camp No. 1 access road back further into Clifton Station.
E) That Council obtain a letter confirming that Clifton
Marine Club and Clifton Reserve Society will fund the relocation of Clifton
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The
Clifton Reserve is the location of the Clifton boat ramp which is the only ramp
with access to Hawke Bay between Cape Kidnappers and Napier. The Reserve,
and more particularly that part of the Reserve that includes the access to the
boat ramp, has been subject over the years to significant erosion
activity. As a consequence of this erosion activity, access to the Camp
and Reserve have become particularly difficult and at risk.
2.2 The
consent granted for a short term protection wall to protect road access to the
Clifton Camp No. 1 expires 31 August 2018. This has triggered a proposal
to apply for a new 35 year consent to extend the protection wall by way of a
revetment through to the Clifton Café. Both the Clifton Reserve
Society (CRS) and Clifton Marine Club (CMC) wish to have certainty over their
respective futures.
2.3 The
basis for the five year consent was to enable the relocation of the Clifton
Camp No. 1 and the CMC. This meant HB Regional Council consent staff
accepted a lower level of engineering design durability due to the fixed
period. The consent also requires Hastings District Council (HDC) to
remove the revetment at the end of the five year period.
2.4 The
Council resolved to include funding for the proposed Clifton revetment in its
Annual Plan following consultation in the 2017/18 Annual Plan at “whole
of life cost” ($2,800,000, 35 years) comprised of a capital cost of
$1,163,000 and annual operating costs of $80,000 per annum. Following
public consultation, this funding was approved. The Council also asked
officers to seek a resource consent for the proposed revetment. Assuming
a consent is granted with conditions, a report will come back to Council to
seek instruction on whether to proceed with the revetment or not.
3.0 PROGRESS
ON RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION
3.1 Following
Council’s resolution at its December 2016 meeting to engage a resource
management consultant, Council has engaged Sage Planning (Planning Consultant)
to prepare the necessary resource applications for a permanent revetment
structure at Clifton Reserve.
Coastal engineering,
landscape, ecological, archaeological and recreation specialists have also been
engaged to confirm the layout and prepare the necessary technical assessments
required to support the resource consent applications.
3.2 Resource
consent for the proposed Clifton Revetment was lodged with HB Regional Council
and Hastings District Council. Following various requests for
information, the application was notified on the request of the Project
Manager. Approximately 20 submissions in support and one in opposition
were received. This means that the consent will have to progress to a
hearing before Commissioners as mediation was attempted but unsuccessful.
3.3 During
this period Sage Planning were informed by the regulatory section of the
Hastings District Council that due to workload pressures and resourcing within
the resource consent section, no further progress had been made on the Hastings
District Council’s part of the resource consent application for the
revetment.
3.4 Since
28 March 2018 the consent has been publicly notified and submissions closed on
30 April 2018. It has been agreed that a Joint Hearing will be held to
hear both components of the consent by Independent Commissioners. The
hearing has been set down for Wednesday 6th June 2018.
4.0 CURRENT
SITUATION
4.1 With
the recent delay in getting to a hearing date in early June, concerns have been
raised by the CMC, supported by the CRS that by the time the hearing has been
completed, a decision issued, the cost implications reported back to Council, a
tender let and the wall has been constructed, a further 6-8 months could have
lapsed. The CMC and the CRS believe in that time there is a real risk
that access to the camp will be lost due to erosion as a result of winter
storms.
4.2 These
concerns are outlined in an email from Mr Paul Hursthouse appended as Attachment
1. When this matter was initially referred to Council as an informal,
Council directed that a formal report come back to Council, therefore this
report has been prepared.
Council has also
received further correspondence from the CMC regarding erosion at the camp and
boat ramp and the CMC view of emergency works.
4.3 With
the issues raised by the CMC and the CRS, Council’s Transportation
Engineer undertook a site assessment at Clifton on Wednesday 2 May 2018.
At that point in time his recommendation was:
i) Confirm the archaeological
requirements for protecting the ‘hollows’.
ii) Commence building of a new
temporary road on the land side of the existing fence, leaving the current
fence line in its current position. This activity is to be done in accordance
with item i) above requirements
iii) Consider options to minimise future
impact of wave action on the existing road.
Options exist to minimise further deterioration of the road such as
placing large limestone rocks (>5t each) into the papa along the beachfront
between the two camps. This will reduce the impact of the wave action on the
road, but will not eliminate the need to move the road in the interim. The
alignment of the large rocks should be designed, as should the sizing and
definition of rock type. This is to ensure rock work is not wasted should
future protection works necessitate the use of this material. These design
elements, the rock sourcing and placement is a lengthy process and can be done
in conjunction of emergency works provisions.
Since
that first inspection, Council Transportation staff have been undertaking daily
checks to monitor the situation in relation to the safety of the access road into
Clifton Camp No. 1. The responsibility for closing of the road into
Clifton Camp No. 1 rests with the CRS as leasee. Due to the constantly
changing nature of coast here related to sea storm conditions, an update of the
situation will be provided at the meeting.
4.4 The
relocation of the Clifton Camp No. 1 access road will require consent from the
landowner, Mr Angus Gordon, who is currently overseas and returning 13 May
2018. Mr Gordon has been contacted to seek his consent to move the access
road inland of the existing fence. The proposed new road alignment will
cross over archaeological sites located on Angus Gordon’s land.
4.5 Council
staff that have been working on this project have considered this situation may
arise and had obtained a general authority from Heritage NZ to create a
temporary access. The general authority is subject to a number of
conditions including consultation with Matahiwi Marae (the general authority is
included as Attachment 2).
4.6 The
physical solution to protect the pit sites involves the
laying of geotextile matting over the pit sites then filling the ground
inundations with road base material as shown in Attachment 3.
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE
AND ENGAGEMENT
5.1 The
issues for discussion are not significant in terms of the Council’s
policy on significance and engagement.
Staff have been in
contact with both the CMC and the CRS regarding this issue. Liaison has
also occurred with HBRC regulatory staff over the emergency works provision of
Section 330 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). As has been mentioned,
staff have contacted Mr Gordon to seek his consent on this matter.
The Group Manager
Planning & Regulatory will also talk with Matahiwi Marae prior to the
meeting regarding the access road relocation and possible emergency rock
works. This will be reported back at the meeting.
6.0 EMERGENCY
WORKS PROVISIONS OF THE RMA – SECTION 330
Determining
whether to take action under s330 of the RMA
Exercising s330
powers requires that the authorised persons form an opinion on whether an
emergency situation as defined in sections 330(1)(d)-(f) of the RMA exists
before undertaking any emergency works. Section 330 does not require that
anyone else is first advised, or that approval by anyone else is first
obtained. However, there is a requirement to advise the appropriate consent
authority after the event.
The brief
checklist for action pursuant to s330 provides a good
practice example of the steps a local authority should follow, in determining
whether to undertake emergency works under s330 of the RMA.
The document 'detailed steps by party
invoking s330 ' provides a more comprehensive series of steps for any
authorised person to follow to determine whether to undertake emergency works
under s330.
There are a number of important
matters for authorised persons to consider, when determining whether to take
action under s330. Section 330 applies where the authorised person is of the
opinion that any matter over which it has jurisdiction is affected or likely to be affected
by either:
· an adverse
effect on the environment which requires immediate preventative or remedial
measures
· any sudden event causing or
likely to cause loss of life, injury, or serious damage to property.
The matters to be considered in
respect of emergency works apply whether or not the adverse effect or sudden
event was foreseeable. For example, removing a growing tree that one day might
prove a hazard because it will interfere with power lines, does not meet the
test for emergency works. This is because the event is not sudden nor does it
require immediate intervention. But it could, if the tree falling onto lines
was imminent.
The use of s330(2) also requires a
local or consent authority to form a reasonable opinion when entering onto
private property, and undertaking such action as is immediately necessary and sufficient
to avert the particular issue. This is an important test and any authorised
persons should, where possible, consult with the local or consent authority
before undertaking any emergency works. Where this is not possible, the
authorised person should keep good records of the decision-making process.
Immediate measures
Those relying on Section 330 powers
must form an opinion as to whether immediate preventative or remedial measures
are required to deal with an adverse effect on the environment; or whether
there is a sudden event causing or likely to cause loss of life, injury or serious
damage to property.
Preventative measures include for
example:
· breaching a
stop-bank to release flood waters and avoid overtopping in more vulnerable
areas downstream
· removing a
scheduled tree that is about to topple and cause a major power outage
· bulldozing a
fire break through native bush to prevent the spread of a fire.
Remedial measures
include for example:
· clearing and
disposing of slip debris from a roadway after an earthquake
· repairing a
railway embankment in the coastal marine area following storm surge.
'Measures' can include any physical
work or action specifically directed at removing the cause of, or mitigating,
any actual or likely adverse effect of the emergency (refer s330(2) of the
RMA).
The immediate measures undertaken must
only extend to what is necessary and sufficient for dealing with the emergency.
The provisions in sections 330 and 330B of the RMA do not extend to any actions
that would go beyond either removing the cause of, or mitigating, any actual or
likely adverse effect of the emergency. For example, taking extra steps to
widen a road following a slip, simply because the equipment is there, would not
fall within the scope of the emergency powers under the RMA.
The following two guidelines are
useful to apply when determining immediate measures:
1. The relevant body
or person should consider:
· the impact
of selected measures on the environment
· whether, on
balance, preventing or remedying the anticipated adverse effects of the
emergency outweighs any foreseeable and irreversible adverse effects on the
environment resulting from the emergency works
· whether any
less damaging, yet more suitable, alternative measures are available.
2. The
relevant body or person should keep sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the
situation required an immediate response.
Foreseeability of an emergency
Section 330(1A) of the RMA provides
emergency works powers, regardless whether or not an adverse effect or sudden
event was foreseeable. This recognises that:
· immediate
action may be required whether or not an event was foreseeable
· the
emergency does not need to have been unpredictable. It could be the end result
of a gradual build-up in effects or change to the environment that may have
been predictable or observable (e.g. increasing rates of coastal erosion in an
urban area).
A person or body might anticipate that
a sudden event could occur sometime in the future and implement measures
designed to cope with the contingency. However, they may also decide not to put
required measures in place, whether through lack of finance or community
support, other practical constraints, or on-going uncertainty as to what can be
done. Knowing in advance whether or not a situation exists (or could exist)
which may lead to an emergency is not relevant to the decisions made under s330
of the RMA to act once the emergency occurs. The focus is on what is necessary
'on the day', and not on what has happened beforehand.
However, as noted by the Court in Auckland City Council v Minister for the
Environment and Others [1998]
A112/98 authorities should endeavour to get their forward
planning right under the RMA and avoid using s330 as a fallback provision.
Reasonable opinion
Section 330 of the RMA requires that
the opinion formed in deciding whether or not to use the emergency powers, be
one a reasonable person would form.
The test is an objective one, as to
whether the situation is one in which any reasonable person or body would
consider that it qualifies for emergency action
In exercising emergency works powers
on private property, examples of situations which might meet the test could
include:
· insufficient
time given the nature and urgency of the risk to use alternative enforcement
provisions in Part 12 of the RMA
· where the
owner or occupier of a building or place is not responsible for, or is
unwilling or incapable of, acting alone to address the emergency.
Reasonableness is as much about the
process of forming the opinion, as the opinion which is ultimately reached. The
person or body might be expected to:
· gather as
much information and relevant facts as possible, given the urgency of the
situation (noting that there generally is not time to undertake a full study of
the effects of the action required)
· make logical
assumptions and assessments of risks and options for managing them
· draw on
suitable levels of knowledge and experience in making judgments and decisions.
It is important to document what was
done to provide evidence that the opinion formed was reasonable. This
information may be critical in establishing a defence to any prosecution which
is based on a challenge to the reliance on emergency powers.
Reviewing and discussing previous
cases with experienced colleagues and like agencies, and consulting with
relevant consent authorities, will assist decision-makers in determining what
is likely to be reasonable in different circumstances.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
OF OPTIONS
7.1 In
this matter I believe Council has three options available, these being:
a) Do nothing.
b) Relocate Clifton Camp No. 1 access
road behind the fence line (subject to Angus Gordon’s consent) and
continue to monitor the erosion before undertaking any limestone rock
protection work.
c) Decide to allow the suggested
limestone rock protection work to be undertaken as emergency works under s330
of the RMA.
It needs to be noted
that only a territorial authority or regional council can undertake emergency
works.
7.2 The
Council has applied for a resource consent to construct a revetment at Clifton
Camp. The application is awaiting consideration via a Hearing in early
June 2018. While acknowledging the ability for HDC to undertake emergency
works, the HB Regional Council has indicated that its preference for dealing
with coastal works at Clifton is via a formal application for consent rather
than via emergency work provisions.
Two questions before
HDC are:
1. Whether emergency conditions exist sufficient to
justify emergency works, and
2. What the best form of emergency works are.
As
discussed above, emergency provisions under section 330 are likely to apply where
an authorised person is of the opinion that a matter under its jurisdiction is
affected or likely to be affected by either:
· An adverse effect on the environment which requires immediate
preventative or remedial measures; or
· Any sudden event causing or likely to cause loss of life, injury, or
serious damage to property.
In this set of
circumstances, the land at Clifton is subject to natural coastal
processes. It is difficult to see this as an adverse effect on the
environment which requires preventative or remedial measures.
Analysis must then
turn to whether a sudden event is causing or is likely to cause loss of life,
injury or serious damage to property. It is possible to imagine a threat
to life if part of the access washed away and appropriate safety and warning
measures were not put in place. However such a circumstance seems best
measured by road closure or usage restrictions or warning signage and other
relevant safety measures (or some combination of the above). The situation
is being reviewed regularly to allow decisions to be made on when and if these
measures became necessary.
Aside from this
consequential danger to life, there is unlikely to be a danger to life or a
risk of injury as a result of further damage to the access way. The
question then becomes whether there is likely to be serious damage to property.
While there is no
doubt that significant wave energy could foreseeably cause further damage to
the road access way, officers were not comfortable determining that this constituted
a justification for the emergency works in the coastal area proposed by Mr
Hursthouse. The damage likely to be caused is not to high value property
and the cost of the emergency works might be greater than that of the damage
likely to be incurred if nothing were done, or in replacing the access way via
the alternative method identified.
Engineering advice
received suggests relocation of the access way is the best approach to
maintaining road access. Immediate placement of rock ahead of a properly
designed revetment is not preferred as immediate measure although is not ruled
out in conjunction with the relocation in a property planned fashion.
7.3 Relocate
Camp Access Road
This option involves
relocating the Clifton Camp No. 1 access road back behind the front fence of
Clifton Station as shown in Attachment 2. This option could happen
relatively quickly as this work could be considered as emergency works under
s330 of the RMA, due to the possible risk that the camp access road is
undermined further and a vehicle using the road drives off the road into the
sea or beach. This would be considered a situation where “any
sudden event causing or likely to cause loss of life, or serious damage to
property” (s330 RMA). However in a practical sense the Clifton
Marine Society would close the road access in such a situation to avoid this
type of situation.
This option would not
rule out undertaking the rock work at a future time, but would effectively buy
time while the formal resource consent process is completed.
The estimated cost of
this work will be provided at the meeting.
This option does not
immediately increase Council’s commitment in terms of removal of the rock
work at a future date.
7.4 Undertake
the rock work
This option involves
the proposal outlined in Attachment 1 from Mr Paul Hursthouse of the CMC
and shown as an aerial photo under section 4.2 of this report. The CMC
and CRS are suggesting as in the previous option, that emergency works could be
undertaken on the basis of “any sudden event causing or likely to cause
loss of life, or serious damage to property” by the placement of 1,200
tonnes of limestone rock along the area under threat. Again as in the
previous option, the sudden or immediate threat would in a practical sense be
removed by CMC closing the camp access road.
The CMC and CRS have
indicated the work would cost approximately $96,000 and that the two
organisations would be prepared to fund this work.
This option would
commit Council to removing the new limestone boulders if consent was not
granted to HDC by HBRC to the formal consent. However the limestone
boulders would be able to be re-used by Council.
8.0 PREFERRED
OPTION & REASONS
8.1 The
preferred option is the Relocate Camp Access Road (awaiting costs on
relocating Camp Access Road).
8.2 This
report may be significantly amended following further site inspectios by
Council transportation staff.
|
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
AND REASONS
A) That
the report of the Group Manager: Planning & Regulatory titled “Clifton
Revetment Emergency Works” dated 10/05/2018 be
received.
B) That Council delegate powers under section 330 of the Resource
Management Act (RMA) to the Chief Executive Officer, to authorize emergency
works within Hastings District.
C) That Council Transportation staff monitor the physical condition
of the Clifton Camp No. 1 access road to ensure public safety.
D) That Council supports the relocation of the existing Clifton Camp
No. 1 access road back further into Clifton Station.
E) That Council obtain a letter confirming that Clifton Marine Club
and Clifton Reserve Society will fund the relocation of Clifton
With the reasons for this decision
being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the
current and future needs of communities for (good quality local
infrastructure) OR (local public services OR (performance
of regulatory functions) in a way that is most cost-effective for households
and business by:
|
Attachments:
|
1
|
Clifton Marine Club - Emergency Works at Clifton
|
CG-14-4-00061
|
|
|
2
|
Heritage NZ General Authority
|
PRJ16-16-0104
|
|
|
3
|
Clifton Revetment - Mitigation for Pit Sites
|
CG-14-4-00062
|
|
Hastings District
Council
