Locational planning approach

None of the locational planning codes are mentioned in the BOPCDEM Group plan (as this plan does not control land-use), BOPRC AP, ODC LTP, ODC AP, TCC LTP or the TCC AP. Due to the controls on land-use set out in RPS and DPs these plans feature a number of codes as would be expected.

Figure 12 Locational approach in BOP plans and policies

5.3.4.1 Operative RPS

The ‘No build areas’ and ‘Retreat/Retire’ codes are not mentioned in the RPS. However, the difficulty of relocating existing settlements is acknowledged in the policy, stating that in many cases it is not “a practicable option” (BOPRC RPS, 2010, p143). The ‘growth management’ code is mentioned four times with an example being: “new development should be located and designed to avoid significant natural hazards unless there is a specific need for the development in the risk area” (BOPRC RPS, 2010, p147). With regards to lifeline

0 5 10 15 20 Operative

RPS ProposedRPS ODC DP operative DPTCC proposed CPTCC

4 1 6 16 6 3 1 2 5 ₄ 3 3 12 # of c od es

Locational approach in BOP plans and policies

infrastructure, the RPS has policy 11.3.1(b)(x) that requires significant

infrastructure to be “located and designed to avoid significant natural hazards” (BOPRC RPS, 2010, p143) and policy 11.3.1(b)(xi) that requires the avoidance or mitigation of significant infrastructure that is at risk.

5.3.4.2 Proposed RPS

Like the operative RPS the proposed RPS doesn’t mention ‘No build areas’ and ‘Retreat/Retire’ codes. It does not mention lifeline location and has only one limited ‘growth management’ code: Policy NH2B “Managing natural hazard risk for new development” (BOPRC Proposed RPS, 2012, p86).

5.3.4.3 BOPRC LTP

The BOPRC LTP only mentions ‘growth management’ and that only once in the form of encouraging development elsewhere through advice:

We provide engineering and technical advice on flood

management, flood risk and flood hazard mitigation. We do this to prevent development in flood prone or hazardous areas, and increase the region’s resilience to flood events

(BOPRC LTP, 2012, p41).

5.3.4.4 ODC DP

Opotiki’s district plan acknowledges the need for growth management by stating that new development must be located “so that the need for hazard protection works is avoided” (ODC DP, 2005, p82). This DP was the only DP that specifically mentioned locating lifeline infrastructure out of harm’s way. Regarding the ‘No build areas’ code, building within the Ohiwa Spit Coastal Hazard Overlay Area is a non-complying activity (p87); therefore a resource consent is required. Retreat or retirement of at risk land is mentioned within the plan; policy 2.3 states “abandonment or relocation of buildings and other assets will be considered among options when subdivision land is threatened by a coastal hazard” (p83).

5.3.4.5 TCC operative DP

This plan recognises that the risk of potential erosion and inundation in the Current Erosion Risk Zone (CERZ) is too high to allow any further subdivision or new buildings (TCC DP, 2011, p9) and this was coded under ‘growth

management.’ However, the plan cites the existing use provisions in section 10(1)(a) of the RMA which protect existing or occupation so long as the activity was “lawfully established” before the plan was notified and the effects of the activity are “similar in character, intensity and scale.” For land that is yet to be developed there are no constraints on district plans; policy 6.1.4.8 on

subdivision states, “Subdivision shall not be undertaken on land wholly located within the CERZ” (p4). The council has a policy of retreat/retire from areas exposed to erosion and inundation; policy 6.1.4.2 states

Relocation, avoidance of further development and/or retreat of lawfully established existing buildings and activities are the appropriate means of managing coastal erosion and inundation hazards in the CHEPA (p3).

However, existing use provisions of the RMA still apply and the DP does not have the ability to require relocation of activities that were lawfully established prior to its notification.

5.3.4.6 TCC proposed CP

The proposed CP has a lower proportion of codes in growth management than the operative DP but substantially more ‘retreat/retire’ codes. Like the DP it has no ‘lifeline’ codes. On growth management this plan has a policy that further development in existing areas does not result in increased vulnerability. With regards to no build areas, policy 8B.3.1.5 on the CERZ prohibits development unless it “maintains or enhances the natural buffering effect of the foredune” (TCC CP, 2011, p5); this policy has been appealed. The largest code

mentioned in the CP is ‘retreat/retire;’ this is coded 12 times against three times in the TCC operative DP. Within the CHEPA “buildings and structures must be able to be relocated and removed with minimal disturbance to the land or

adjacent land” (p10). Policy 8B.3.1.3 (a) on managing erosion and inundation for existing buildings and activities is “relocation and avoiding further

development and/or retreat of lawfully established existing buildings and

activities within the CHEPA” (p10). Again this policy is subject to appeal and it is questionable how effective it will be considering the existing use provisions of the RMA.

5.3.4.7 Findings

There are no ‘retreat/retire’ or ‘no build’ codes in either the operative or the proposed RPS so it is curious that there are a number of these codes in the ODC DP, TCC operative DP and proposed CP. Retirement or relocation of buildings and other assets policies are mentioned in The DPs and CP but it is questionable whether these policies can be implemented considering the existing use rights given in the RMA. Perhaps there is a glimpse of a solution to this conundrum in the BOPRC LTP, which encourages development out of harm’s way through education/advice. The ODC DP was the only plan to mention keeping lifeline infrastructure out of harm’s way.