You are here:
Publications 
Climate change Coastal Hazards and Climate Change: A Guidance Manual for Local Governmentin New Zealand Online version
6 Managing Coastal Hazard and Related Climate Change Risks
6.1 Introduction
The risk assessment process and use of up-to-date knowledge of climate change can help local government and communities adapt to known climate change. The risk assessment process outlined in the previous chapter fits comfortably into the plan preparation and review required by the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEM Act) at the stages where issues are being identified and a range of possible response options evaluated. With the advanced knowledge of general climate change effects on coastal hazards, the need for an unplanned response to climate change can be avoided.
In managing and reducing coastal hazard risks, the main purpose of this Guidance Manual is to ensure the following:
-
a precautionary approach is adopted when making land-use planning decisions relating to new, and changes to existing, development in coastal margins that takes account of the level of risk; and uses existing scientific knowledge and accounts for scientific uncertainties
-
new development is not exposed to, or does not increase the levels of, coastal hazard risks over its intended serviceable lifetime. Progressively, the levels of risk to existing development are reduced over time
-
the role of natural coastal margins is recognised in decision-making processes, and consequently coastal margins are secured and promoted as the fundamental form of coastal defence and as an economic, environmental, social and cultural resource
-
an integrated and sustainable approach to the management of development and coastal hazard risk is adopted, which contributes to the environmental, cultural, social and economic wellbeing of people and communities.
6.1.1 The legislative context
Successful management of coastal hazard risk and the effect of climate change on coastal development, and sustainable management and development of our coastal margins, do not take place in isolation. Rather, they are integral components of protecting the natural character, public access and amenity values of the coastal environment, as well as the significant values and perceptions for the cultural, social and economic well-being of people and communities.
Figure 6.1: Planning framework under the RMA for the coastal environment
Text description of figure 6.1: A hierarchy for planning for the coastal environment under the Resource Management Act showing the linkages between:
- Resource Management Act
- NZ Coastal Policy Statement
- National Policy Statements and National Environment Standards
- Regional Policy Statement (Regional Council)
- Regional Coastal (Environment) Plan (Regional or Unitary Councils)
- District Plan (District, City or Unitary Councils)
- Resource Consents
Regional and territorial authorities have responsibilities and duties relating to avoiding, remedying and mitigating coastal hazard risk, primarily under the planning framework of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act (Figure 6.1). The RMA was amended in 2004 to include the effects of climate change as a matter for councils to have particular regard to in decision-making, including in relation to managing coastal hazards. The RMA is effects-based, with the purpose of bringing about sustainable management of natural and physical resources through planning of both land and the coastal marine area.
The other key legislation of relevance to coastal hazard risk management is the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. The CDEM Act primarily focuses on the sustainable management of hazards, and the safety or people, property and infrastructure in an emergency, through an emphasis on risk reduction, readiness, response and recovery. Risk reduction is primarily achieved through proactive planning as required by the RMA, the Local Government Act 2002, the Building Act 2004, and the CDEM Act.
Appendix 1 provides a brief summary of the RMA, Local Government Act and CDEM Act in relation to coastal hazards and climate change, along with the associated New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS);57 it also summarises other legislation of particular relevance to coastal development and hazard management: primarily the Building Act 2004, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the Reserves Act 1997.
A growing body of case law is available that is also directly relevant to managing climate change effects and local authorities’ responsibilities for managing natural hazards. Summaries of relevant cases are provided in Appendix 2.
Figure 6.2: The risk-management triangle
Text description of figure 6.2: A triangle representation of the components of risk management in coastal margins being a combination of
- risk reduction activities through planning and resource consenting (base of the triangle) which can be non-regulatory (left-half of the base) or regulatory (right-half of the base), and
- risk transfer activities which can be regulatory, for example emergency management (right-hand side of the triangle), or non-regulatory, for example insurance (left-hand side of the triangle)
Note: Effective coastal hazard risk management is
a combination of planning and resource consenting,
emergency management and insurance.
Key themes include:58
-
recognising the reality of climate change
-
clarifying the respective roles of regional and territorial authorities
-
indicating principles of hazard avoidance, generally, and in areas which are already developed
-
indicating timescales over which to consider effects
-
clarifying the relationship between resource and building consents
-
adopting climate change information and a cautious approach.
More detail on the legislative frameworks in relation to coastal development decision-making is provided in the Coastal Development Guidance Note on the Quality Planning website of the Ministry for the Environment,59 in The Community Guide to Coastal Development under the Resource Management Act 199160 and (in terms of natural hazards in general) in the Natural Hazards Guidance Note on the Quality Planning website,61 with a comprehensive review of coastal hazard management issues provided by Jacobson as part of the NZCPS review.62
6.2 Principles for managing coastal hazard risks
Local government management of present-day and future risk from coastal hazards through policy development, planning and resource consenting involves a combination of inter-related risk-avoidance and risk-reduction activities. However, planning approaches will never completely nullify all coastal hazard risks that affect coastal communities.
Figure 6.3: Relative contribution of risk-management activities for effective adaptation to coastal hazard-related climate change risks in coastal margins
Text description of figure 6.3: A conceptual representation of the relative contribution of risk management activities contributes to effective adaptation. An upturned triangle contains three risk-management activities: risk avoidance, at the top, risk reduction, in the middle, and risk transfer, at the bottom tip of the triangle. This signifies that the most effective adaptation occurs when most risk management effort relates to risk avoidance activities and to a lesser extent risk reduction and risk transfer. Effective adaptation is shown as an arrow to the left of the triangle increasing with a move from the bottom to top of the risk-management triangle. Examples of effective adaptation are: building adaptive capacity, providing no and/or low-regrets solutions and win-win solutions.
Risk management also involves understanding and assessing the boundaries between risk-avoidance and risk-reduction activities, and risk-transfer activities – which deals with any portion of risk that is left over, after agreement is reached on levels of risk protection (Figure 6.2).
How these risk-management activities (ie, the typical relative contribution of each) relate to successful climate change adaptation in relation to coastal hazard risk is shown conceptually in Figure 6.3. The most effective adaptation will occur when the risk is avoided, but in many cases (eg, existing development), avoidance may be impractical and a mix of risk-reduction and risk-transfer approaches are required.
These risk-management activities involve a range of statutory and non-statutory measures. Some of these measures are applicable in many situations and others are suitable or effective in only exceptional circumstances. Measures include those that are well established and accepted compared to others that are relatively new, untested or trialled. The mix of measures will depend very much on: the nature of the hazard; the risk characteristics and how these are changing (specifically the duration, location, extent and nature of the issue in question); whether there is a particular driver present; and people’s awareness, risk tolerance and willingness to adapt or pay to reduce risk.
The basic principles for coastal hazard risk management and how they apply to different categories of coastal development are summarised in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4: Basic hierarchy of principles relating to managing coastal hazard risk and the different levels of coastal development to which the principles apply
Text description of figure 6.4: A diagram showing a hierarchy of four basic principles for coastal hazard risk management and three different levels of coastal development to which the principles apply.
Principle 1: Identify and understand coastal hazard risk and how it is changing (hazard, vulnerabilities, consequences and risk).
Principle 2: Plan to avoid new development in coastal hazard areas.
Principle 3: Plan to sustainably reduce coastal hazard risks in areas already developed or subdivided using a risk-based approach.
Principle 4: Plan for evacuation which relates back to principle 3.
Underpinning all principles (1 to 4), there should be communication of the risk of hazards and consultation and participation with the coastal community.
Principles 1 and 2 are applicable to all coastal margins including undeveloped coastal areas, partly developed coastal areas and developed coastal areas.
Principle 3 is applicable to partly developed and developed coastal areas.
Principle 4 is applicable to partly developed, depending on the level of development coastal areas and applicable to developed coastal areas.
Identifying and understanding coastal hazards, vulnerabilities and potential consequences within coastal margins (eg, through the risk framework detailed in the previous chapter) provides a foundation for land-use and emergency planning policies, and strategies for managing the associated risks.
These basic principles must also be underpinned by effective communication to build community awareness and public and political support for coastal hazard risk planning activities, and to support the processes of community consultation and participation for achieving effective community planning outcomes. There must also be a community acceptance of the upper threshold of risk treatment before emergency management arrangements come into play (especially for episodic events such as tsunami or storm-tide inundation).
6.3 Mechanisms for avoiding and reducing coastal hazard risks
Taking a precautionary approach to planning new development, infrastructure and services to avoid coastal hazards over their intended lifetime (see Figure 5.1 in section 5.2) is the most effective and sustainable long-term approach. This approach is relevant to all coastal development situations, from completely undeveloped coastal margins to high-density urban areas. It helps build effective adaptive capacity in permitting the human and built environment as well as natural coastal systems, to adjust or respond to climate change – thereby limiting the potential for damage, and providing opportunity for the natural coastal system to absorb much of the potential consequences.
For greenfield sites, ensuring that new development is located beyond (landward of) defined coastal hazard zones (left-hand side of Figure 6.4) should be effected through the appropriate controls in the regulatory processes of regional and district planning.
A more complex planning issue is dealing with existing development that is already located in areas identified as being susceptible to coastal hazards in the foreseeable future. This issue requires a wider mix of mechanisms for managing coastal hazard risk and promoting adaptation, which typically involve a combination of methods such as:
-
information and education
-
land-use planning regulation
-
building consent controls
-
financial mechanisms, eg, land purchase
-
long-term infrastructure planning
-
protection structures (soft and hard) where ‘holding the line’ is necessary.
Some of these methods are discussed in the sections that follow.
|
Box 6.1: Coastal hazard avoidance: different meanings for different coastal hazards |
|---|
|
In the context of coastal erosion, avoidance means ensuring that an asset is not affected by retreat of a coastline over a specific period of time (typically 50–100 years). For storm inundation, avoidance means ensuring that an asset is not significantly damaged by, or is located beyond (or above) an area prone to, inundation to a certain acceptable or defined risk level (usually expressed as an Annual Exceedence Probability) over a specific period of time. Residual risk, due to more extreme events, may be managed (depending on the asset) by adopting risk-reduction measures related to the asset’s location and construction: the aim is to minimise impact and facilitate evacuation, emergency management and insurance. For tsunami inundation, avoidance means ensuring that an asset is not damaged by, or is located beyond an area prone to, inundation to an acceptable or defined risk level. (This may be expressed as an AEP or in terms of the magnitude, type and location of the event causing the tsunami.) Residual risk due to more extreme events should be managed (depending on the asset) by adopting risk-reduction measures related to the asset’s location and construction: here too, the aim is to minimise impact and facilitate evacuation, emergency management and insurance. It is important to realise that, all other things being equal, the level of damage (consequence) experienced due to a tsunami that inundates an area to a certain level will typically be much greater than storm-related inundation to the same level. For example, a 1-m storm surge will be less damaging than a 1-m-high tsunami wave.63 |
6.4 Information and education
Public information and education on coastal hazards and risk underpins all aspects of coastal hazard risk management planning (Figure 6.4). Increased public awareness of coastal hazard risk is typically achieved through:64
-
non-statutory approaches such as making available and/or facilitating and supporting: educational material, websites, public talks and meetings, effective use of media, Coastcare groups (to build practical community experience and ‘ownership’ of issues). Technical reports on the extent and significance of coastal hazards, and on options for reducing risks associated with these hazards are also important.
-
statutory mechanisms including:
- incorporating hazard and risk information in regional and district plans, and other supporting statutory and non-statutory planning documents such as Long-term Council Community Plans (LTCCP), strategic plans and possibly annual plans
- the Land Information Memorandum (LIM), which summarises all information that a council holds for a piece of land (see section 6.6). Among other things, it may contain information on potential erosion and inundation hazards that may affect the site, and is typically prepared for members of the public who are considering purchasing a property. An important consideration for council relates to the accuracy of the hazard information and potential liability issues (see also section 4.3)
- placing notices of coastal hazard risk on property titles under sections 73 and 74 of the Building Act 2004.
It is well established, both in New Zealand and elsewhere, that the provision of information on coastal hazard risks does not always influence people’s decision-making on purchasing or living in property within at-risk areas. Nor does it in general result in property owners proactively and sustainably reducing coastal hazard risk to their property.
Whilst education and the provision of hazard and risk information underpin all aspects of coastal hazard risk management, these are ineffective in managing coastal hazard risk on their own.
6.5 Risk management and adaptation through land-use planning
6.5.1 RMA planning framework
Coastal development and the effects of coastal hazards (and resulting effects climate change has on these hazards) is primarily managed by regional councils and territorial and unitary councils through the statutory land-use planning process:
-
regional policy statements, regional coastal (environment) plans and district plans are prepared under the RMA and must give effect to national policy statements and the NZCPS65
-
subdivision and resource consent considerations must have regard to the objectives, policies, methods and rules defined in the regional policy statement, regional and district plans, and the provisions of the NZCPS, national policy statements and Part II of the RMA.
A regional policy statement defines the regionally significant resource management issues over both land and the coastal marine area within a particular region and sets region-wide objectives and policies. It also details the methods to use in addressing and implementing the objectives and policies. The regional policy statement has a key role in integrating resource management issues. However, it does not contain rules and therefore does not control activities directly.
Under the RMA, regional councils are responsible for controlling the use of land for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards. They may control any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land within the coastal marine area (defined as the area from Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) out to the 12 nautical mile limit), for avoiding or mitigating natural hazards.
City and district councils are empowered by the RMA to control the effects of land-use activities for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating natural hazards.
In the context of land-use controls for avoiding or mitigating natural hazards, the functions of the regional councils and territorial authorities are similar. It is vital that a collaborative and integrated approach between the authorities is adopted to ensure that consistent structures for environmental policy and rules are developed.
The purpose of the regional policy statement is to provide an overview of the significant resource management issues of the region and policies and methods to achieve integration.66 In regard to natural hazards, this purpose is reinforced through RMA section 62(1)(i)(i), which requires the regional policy statement to specify which local authority (region, district, city or unitary) is responsible for controlling the use of land for avoiding or mitigating natural hazards or any group of hazards.
This statement of relative responsibility will help clarify district and regional responsibilities for managing coastal hazards. Most first-generation regional coastal plans addressed only the coastal marine area, but some regional councils have developed regional coastal environment plans. These latter plans focused on the integrated management of the coastal marine area and the landward areas. Some regional coastal environment plans concern only the objective and policy level, while others also include rules controlling activities on land for hazard and soil conservation purposes (Figure 6.5 shows one regional coastal environment plan). For example, regional plans cannot control subdivision, but may state policies directing how subdivision in coastal hazard areas is to be managed.
Figure 6.5: Plan boundaries as defined in Environment Bay of Plenty’s Regional Coastal Environmental Plan
Text description of figure 6.5: A diagram depicting the boundaries as defined in Environment Bay of Plenty’s Regional Coastal Environmental Plan:
Seabed: The sea up to the Mean Low Water Spring mark.
Foreshore: The area from the Mean Low Water Spring to the Mean High Water Spring mark.
Coastal Marine Area (CMA): The foreshore and seabed out to the 12 mile limit at sea.
Coastal Environment: From the 12 mile sea limit to the edge of the sand dunes on the land side.
Regional Coastal Environment Plan: Covers the Coastal Environment.
Rules, policies and objectives: Cover the Coastal Environment within the CMA.
Policies and objectives: Cover the Coastal Environment from the CMA to the land edge of the sand dunes.
Regional and District Plans (Rules, Policies and Objectives): Cover the area from the edge of the CMA landward.
Note: A number of regional coastal plans cover only the coastal marine area (ie, seaward of MHWS), whereas others also include the land–sea interface in the coastal environment. CMA = Coastal Marine Area.
Source: Environment Bay of Plenty 2003.
District plans focus on the subdivision, use and development of land; they include objectives, policies, rules or other methods that guide and control related activities. District plans must give effect to the objectives and policies of the NZCPS and the regional policy statement and must not be inconsistent with any objective, policy, rules or other methods in a regional plan. Some key issues and differences relating to regional and district plans are summarised in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Some key issues and differences between regional and district plans relevant to coastal hazard risk management and climate change
Regional plans |
District plans |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Adapted from Turbott and Stewart 2006.
6.5.2 Management of coastal hazard risk through rules in regional and district plans
The effectiveness of managing coastal hazard risk through the RMA process primarily comes down to:
-
how effective are the rules in the district plan in controlling subdivision, use and development activities in coastal hazard areas?
-
how well are the overarching policies and objectives – that are defined within the NZCPS, the regional policy statement and regional plans – encapsulated and specified within the district plans?
The effectiveness also depends on the degree to which compliance with the district plan is monitored and enforced. Requirements will vary between districts and regions, but effective regional and district plans that relate to managing coastal hazard risks, and the effects of climate change, must include rules and other methods that:
-
are based on risk, in particular, are related to the importance or vulnerability of the specific elements (receptors) at risk (Figure 6.6 and Box 6.2)
Figure 6.6: Conceptual representation of the
relationship between the magnitude of the risk and
the restrictiveness of resource consent category within
the coastal environment
Text description of figure 6.6: A representation of how the
magnitude of risk relates to the provisions of resource
consent within the coastal environment, shows that as the
risk increases (or consequence and likelihood move from
insignificant and exceptionally unlikely towards major and
virtually certain), resource consent moves from being
permitted to having increasingly restrictive provisions and rules. -
recognise the importance of specific and well-defined coastal setback zones for coastal hazard areas covering a lengthy planning horizon such as 100 years. They need to be periodically reviewed and redefined and may also incorporate other setback requirements, such as those related to landscape and natural character requirements
-
are flexible enough (through precautionary or risk-tracking approaches) to accommodate the variability and uncertainty associated with natural coastal hazards and the uncertainties associated with future climate change and its impact on coastal hazards (see Figure 4.2)
-
specify coastal hazards as a regionally significant issue and state a preference for risk avoidance for new development and risk reduction for existing developed areas
-
do not lock in future generations to particular or restrictive approaches to risk management; nor do they reduce the range of risk-management approaches that are available at present (eg, constructing coastal defences typically results in the expectation that such defences will be maintained in perpetuum, leading to ever increasing financial commitment to maintain and upgrade such defences)
-
encourage no-regrets and win–win solutions to reducing risks and building long-term community resilience
-
place a strong emphasis on integrated planning across the MHWS boundary
-
maintain the natural coastal defences and buffers and encourage mechanisms for their enhancement (such as Coastcare)
-
strategically identify in the regional and district plans (or, where appropriate, in other non-statutory plans or strategies) where certain management approaches (such as ‘hold the line’ approaches) may be appropriate and acceptable
-
are specific, particularly about what is not permitted in district plans in relation to: 1) new or intensified coastal development in coastal hazard areas, and 2) building new or upgrading coastal protection works within the coastal environment
-
integrate the range of coastal hazard risk, rather than treating coastal erosion, storm inundation and tsunami risk independently
-
identify and permit a mix of complementary statutory and non-statutory risk-reduction activities
-
define transition mechanisms and timeframes for current unsustainable approaches to risk management, so as to move towards sustainable approaches
-
facilitate ongoing research and understanding of coastal hazards, vulnerabilities and potential consequences within coastal margins, how these are changing and what is driving these changes. Facilitate also the subsequent incorporation of this information in: regional and district plans; strategic, community, annual and management plans; and community awareness and education activities.
There are some significant barriers to achieving effective risk reduction through the land-use planning framework. These relate particularly to relocating property at risk and managing existing use rights, the management of esplanade reserves on eroding coastlines, and managing the ongoing public and political pressure for coastal protection works to ‘hold the line’ on eroding coasts. These issues are addressed in the sections that follow.
|
Box 6.2: Vulnerability zoning – increasing risk standards in Europe |
|---|
|
In many places in the world, coastal hazard risk is expressed in terms of an acceptable event return period (or AEP; see Box 5.3). In Sweden, risk is defined this way, but the definition varies depending on the ‘social tolerance’ of inundation expressed in terms of the impact. Hence, inner city areas with a high level of people at risk and a high level of investment have the lowest tolerance. Such an approach is increasingly being used elsewhere, including in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland for flood policy (which includes coastal erosion and inundation). An example of one of these risk frameworks (in simplified form) is outlined below (adapted from Scottish Planning Policy SPP7: Planning and flooding).
|
Sources: Crichton 2005a; Scottish Executive 2004.
Planned or managed retreat
Given the level of existing coastal development in coastal margins around New Zealand, the use of planned or managed retreat will need to become a fundamental and commonly applied risk-reduction measure within the next few decades. The alternative would be a considerable increase in the scale of hard coastal protection works that are installed. This may be an appropriate long-term strategy in certain (exceptional) circumstances, but such an approach does not fit comfortably with the values and principles of sustainably managing coastal margins: it would impact significantly on beaches, and on natural character, amenity and public access values.
Figure 6.7: Relocation of a property back from the eroding coastline on the
West Coast
‘Managed retreat’ is defined as any strategic decision to withdraw, relocate (Figure 6.7) or abandon private or public assets that are at risk of being impacted by coastal hazards.67 At present, relocation of properties tends to occur on a case-by-case, occasional basis, with no council having yet developed a district or region-wide strategic approach to reducing coastal hazard risk this way.
The various scales of managed retreat include:
-
micro-retreat, where the elevation of the building floor is raised, for example, by elevating a building on piles (suitable only for inundation-related hazards)
-
relocation within a property boundary
-
relocation to another site
-
large-scale relocation of settlements and infrastructure.
It is suggested that the most likely methods for implementing managed retreat would be a mix of some or all of the following:
-
district and regional plan rules that relate to managing existing use rights and limiting or controlling the construction of protection works
-
property title covenants, to prevent undesirable activities such as construction of coastal defences. Covenants may also specify where and when retreat and/or relocation is required
-
financial instruments or assistance measures including:
- purchase of property
- subsidies for relocation
- taxation of risk or adverse effects
- pre-paid community relocation fund
- transferable development rights
-
relocation of infrastructure out of hazard areas
-
insurance incentives or disincentives.
-
relocation of infrastructure out of hazard areas
-
insurance incentives or disincentives.
Financial mechanisms are likely to play a key role, but their use to date in reducing coastal hazard risk has tended to be on a case-by-case basis by councils and other agencies. If financial mechanisms are to be incorporated more fully into activities to avoid and reduce coastal hazard risk, decision tools such as cost–benefit analyses will need to be part of option appraisal processes (and include more research into aspects such as non-market valuation).
|
Box 6.3: Relocatable buildings – a mechanism for facilitating managed retreat? |
|---|
|
Rules specifying that new buildings within coastal erosion hazard zones are able to be relocated are used in a number of district plans. Typically, such provisions relate to buildings in hazard zones that are likely to be impacted by erosion in the next 50–100 years (ie, not immediately) and relate to replacement of either existing buildings where existing use rights apply, or to new buildings in existing subdivisions. To be effective, a number of conditions are required; these will depend on the nature of the location but generally include:
As requirements for relocatable buildings have been a relatively new development, there are no examples where relocation has yet been undertaken. Key provisions are the trigger point and ensuing timeframe for relocation. These vary with each situation, but they tend to be based on one trigger and one timeframe. In some situations, timeframes can be a matter of hours after the trigger point is reached: this may be unrealistic, particularly if there are a number of buildings to be relocated. A more effective approach would be to identify an initial trigger point (when erosion reaches it, the property owner is put on notice to relocate), and an ultimate trigger point (if erosion continues and reaches this point, removal must occur within a short timeframe). While relocatable buildings may be appropriate in some circumstances, it is debatable whether they provide an effective balance between coastal development and managing coastal hazard risk. In essence, the provisions still permit development in areas that will likely experience coastal erosion within the next 50–100 years (and that may be at risk from other hazards such as tsunamis). As such, current provisions permit levels of risk to continue to increase in coastal margins. Rather than being viewed as a long-term option, use of such measures should perhaps be considered more as a transition mechanism until more comprehensive forms of planned retreat have been adopted and until there are tighter controls on existing use rights on development and redevelopment in coastal hazard areas. |
For managed retreat to be implemented, Turbott and Stewart (2006) suggest that regulation must also include two key elements: 1) prohibiting hard protection works in the coastal marine area and adjacent land, and 2) specifying control of land-use rights for both new and existing buildings plus the trigger levels that would require relocation. Despite Turbott’s and Stewart’s work, significant barriers remain to managed retreat becoming a strategic and more commonly applied mechanism.
These barriers include:
-
public perception, existing use rights (see next section), financial issues, and the relative involvement of central government, and regional / district councils in applying and managing retreat
-
the sporadic use of more robust decision-making tools, particularly cost–benefit analysis incorporating non-market valuations
-
the lack of clear processes relating to transition mechanisms and timeframes for staging a strategic approach to managed retreat.
6.5.3 Existing use rights
Issues around existing use rights68 are a key barrier to the effective implementation of planned retreat approaches and, in general, to reducing coastal hazard risks on coastal margins where existing development is located.
Under the RMA, there are no existing use rights for structures in rivers and lakes or in the coastal marine area (except for reclamations), or for water takes and discharges. All consents are given for specific terms. Note, however, that the term of a consent, once set, cannot be changed. Reviews of conditions by a local authority can require changes to mitigate effects, but cannot extinguish the rights granted with the consent.
Land uses, if established through permitted activity status in a district plan, or through a consent, have existing use rights; they are thus effectively permanent, unless a rule in a regional plan provides otherwise (see RMA sections 9(3) and 20(2)). However, the wording of section 10 of the RMA, which provides for existing use rights, incorporates the ability to consider the effects of a use or development whenever an alteration is proposed. This may mean, for example, that building upgrades or extensions in hazard areas may not be able to rely on existing use rights. However, for coastal hazard zones, controlling existing use rights within the district plan would remain a problem where existing buildings are not altered (see Box 6.4).
Councils need to consider carefully the implications of activities permitted in a district plan, the terms of consents granted, and the extent of existing use rights in circumstances where coastal hazards may be exacerbated – or new coastal hazards may occur – within the lifetime of a development or new activity.
|
Box 6.4: Management of existing use rights in the Canterbury Regional Coastal Environment Plan |
|---|
|
The Canterbury Regional Coastal Environment Plan is one of the few regional plans that currently contain specific rules controlling existing use rights within defined coastal hazard zones. The rules permit existing uses to continue, but control the reconstruction or replacement of structures within the coastal erosion hazard zone. For all reconstruction and replacement activities, rules require specifications to be similar to those of the existing structure, they control the location relative to the existing structure, and they prevent any increase in floor area of any habitable building (the exception is a number of defined areas where an increase in floor area of up to 25 square metres is permitted relative to the floor area that existed at 1 July 1994). Where a building is damaged or destroyed by the sea, rules also control the minimum section size upon which reconstruction or replacement is permitted. Hence, the plan also provides the scope to roll existing unaltered development landward, should the need arise. |
Regional land-use rules, which may relate to the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards (enabled through the provisions of sections 30(1)(c) and 68), effectively extinguish existing use rights if those rights are incorporated in a regional plan (see section 20A(2) of the RMA) (see Box 6.4). These provisions sit alongside district plan provisions but override section 10 of the Act. Activities that are not permitted must obtain new consents once the plan becomes operative, and new consents may be of a limited duration.
6.5.4 Esplanade reserves and strips
The RMA enables territorial authorities to create esplanade reserves or strips at the time of consent for new subdivision to contribute to the protection of conservation values, to enable public access to or along the coast, and to enable public recreational use adjacent to the sea. Amendments to the RMA in 1993 gave more discretion to councils to waive or vary esplanade requirements following subdivision.
There are three forms:
Esplanade reserves extend up to a width of 20 m inland from the MHWS position, have fixed landward boundaries and are owned by the council.
Esplanade strips are created as part of the title of the land and remain in private ownership. Boundaries are fixed only in relation to the MHWS position and move with changes in erosion and accretion.
Access strips are used to provide access to the coast, commonly to join a road end to the coast via private land. They can be achieved only through negotiation, are not conditions on consents and are not added to land titles. They can be varied or cancelled without public input. They can also be acquired along coastal margins to join up other public lands or reserves.
Where land is subdivided adjacent to the coast into lots less than 4 ha, then local authorities can require an esplanade reserve or strip. Territorial authorities have considerable discretion to vary this requirement, but the default is that it should be taken for the purpose of protection of conservation values, public access and recreational use.69
Despite providing a buffer at the coast, reserves or strips do not provide a primary mechanism for reducing coastal hazard risk; they can assist in mitigating natural hazards while protecting conservation values and enabling public access and compatible recreational use.70
Esplanade reserve land is typically backed by residential development, or infrastructure serving residential development, so ongoing coastal erosion causes the progressive loss of the reserve, resulting in a potential loss of legal public access to the coast. In many places, there is also considerable pressure on councils from property owners backing the reserve to protect it and hence their property. There are also cases of un-consented protection works that have been constructed on public reserves by front row property owners. However, councils do not have responsibility to protect reserves as a means of protecting private property.71
How councils will manage loss of esplanade reserve, and hence the public values associated with such areas, is a difficult and complex issue for councils. The issue will strongly influence their approach to strategically implementing managed retreat.
Figure 6.8: Typical timeline of the protection provided by, and effects of, ad hoc coastal defences on an eroding coastline (and to a certain extent, engineered coastal defences)
Text description of figure 6.8: A flow diagram showing the typical process that occurs from using ad hoc coastal defences for protection on an eroding coastline, over a yearly to decadal timescale:
- Ongoing erosion of unprotected but developed coastline
- Leads to ad hoc defence built to protect property
- Leads to unprotected adjacent coastline continues to move landward
- Leads to defence increasingly protrudes on to active beach and beach levels lower in front of defence
- Leads to larger waves reach defence more frequently
- Leads to ultimately significant damage and destruction of defence
- Leads to land behind destroyed defence retreats to be in line with unprotected section of coast (may occur during the same storm)
- Leads to rapid increase in risk to property previously protected by the defence
- Leads to ultimate acceptance of the hazard and relocation of assets
Step 4 can also lead to an increasing risk of ad hoc defence being outflanked and exacerbating erosion on adjacent sections of coast. This in turn can lead on to step 3 or step 5.
Steps 3 and 5 can also lead to further cost to repair or maintain ad hoc defence to a certain standard. This step can lead back to step 3.
Step 8 can also lead to building a larger and longer ad hoc defence, higher costs and larger impacts. This in turn can lead back to step 3.
6.5.5 Coastal protection structures
On eroding coastlines that have been developed, there is typically high public (and often political) demand for coast protection measures to ‘hold the line’ and protect private property, infrastructure or utilities. Such measures are often viewed by the public as ‘solutions’ to coastal erosion problems. Unfortunately, they tend to:
-
be reactive
-
rarely be the most effective or sustainable option in the long term
-
lead to a false sense of future security and often encourage further development behind the structures (see the Development-defend-development cycle in Box 1.2)
-
lead to other environmental damage and severe impacts on other coastal values
-
lead to an expectation that such defences will be maintained in perpetuum, leading to ever increasing financial commitment to maintain and upgrade such defences.
Most constructed coastal defences on New Zealand’s coastline that protect residential property will have a limited lifetime – at best, probably around 10–20 years. Generally they are not constructed to a standard to effectively withstand the more significant storm events that can occur. They are, in most cases, not as permanent as the residents apparently ‘protected’ by them assume. On coastlines that are retreating, the effectiveness of such defences is continually being reduced while the potential negative impacts caused by the defence often increase. A typical process, over a yearly to decadal timescale, in a general sense, is summarised in Figure 6.8.This process is likely to be sped up by climate change.
Unless – or even if – there are specific rules in regional and district plans (Box 6.5) that control the use of coast protection works, there will continue to be considerable pressure on councils to consent protection structures – particularly in the aftermath of storm events where retreat or inundation has occurred. There is a temptation to use coastal protection works as a short-term measure to ‘buy some time’ (to permit more long-term options to be explored and implemented); but in reality, once defence works are in place, it is extremely difficult to then remove them. Illegally constructed defences present a similar problem.
|
Box 6.5: Hard protection works to become non-complying activities in Whakatane District |
|---|
|
Whakatane District Council is currently undertaking a variation to the district plan to better manage coastal hazards in the Whakatane District. As part of the variation, hard protection works to protect private or public land anywhere in the defined coastal erosion risk zone (to 2100) are classified as non-complying activities. For public roads, ‘protection’ is classified as a restricted discretionary activity, as are ‘softer’ protection options such as beach nourishment and ‘sand sausages’. The provisions have resulted in considerable community concern; the district council, with support from Environment Bay of Plenty, have been working through these concerns with the communities. As part of this process, the council commissioned an assessment of the economic costs and benefits of the proposed variation as required under section 32 of the RMA. |
There are locations where ongoing coastal protection is a long-term option (typically in highly developed urban areas with a long history of coastal protection). Regional and district plans can strategically identify where ‘hold the line’ options may be appropriate, and make hard protection works a prohibited activity outside these areas: this would send a clear signal about where such measures are acceptable and, more importantly, where they will not be considered.
The introduction of such measures can be difficult for councils and involve considerable controversy and litigation, particularly with front row property owners. Yet the complications that arise from not managing coastal development and protection works are far more complex and expensive in the long run.72 In implementing such measures, the council can reduce much of the wider community’s concern by providing good information and participation processes. Acceptability of these measures, however, will never be universal.
6.6 Building controls and consents
Section 71 of the Building Act 2004 requires district and city councils to refuse a building consent if the following applies: the land is subject to one or more natural hazards; or the building work is likely to accelerate, worsen or result in a natural hazard on that land or any other property – unless adequate provision is made to protect the land or restore the damage.
However, under section 72 of the Building Act, district and city councils must issue building consents on land that is at risk from coastal hazards, or any other hazard, provided that the building complies with the Building Code and that the building itself does not accelerate or worsen or extend the hazard to another property.
Under the Building Act, Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) and Project Information Memoranda (PIMs)73 are key elements in providing known site and hazard risk information to someone interested in a particular piece of land. Their purpose is to help individuals decide for themselves whether to proceed with a purchase of land or development. A LIM74 is prepared by the council on request: it is based on all the information a council holds about a piece of land and generally provides a more up-to-date and detailed source of hazard information than will be contained in a district plan. LIM information needs to be periodically updated by district and city councils when new hazard information comes available; the information provided by the LIM may become the basis for liability actions (see section 4.3).
The purpose of the Building Act is to ensure the safety and integrity of a structure during its construction and subsequent use, and district councils can exercise some judgement about whether to allow a subdivision or development. The RMA process is important because the outcome of it will generally decide whether a building can be sited in the relevant area in the first place. The Building Act (specifically sections 72 and 73) is particularly important where coastal (or other) hazards are discovered after titles have been created, or even after development is already established.
6.7 Non-statutory and other supporting measures
There are a range of other tools and techniques that can be used to support the main statutory measures for managing coastal hazard risks, to promote awareness and understanding among the public, and to provide integrated and effective coastal development. Their use will vary between regions and include75 the following:
-
coastcare initiatives may be supported in regional and district plans and be allocated funding support in annual plans. Such programmes have proven to be highly successful in enhancing the buffer provided by the natural dune system and are an effective way of empowering communities and raising their awareness of coastal hazard issues
-
structure plans and growth strategies provide direction for integrated urban growth: they can be used to avoid development and infrastructure being located in areas prone to coastal hazards. They have no legal effect in their own right to ensure this happens, unless they become part of a document such as an RMA plan (which often occurs)
-
design guidelines promote good practice for matters such as subdivision layout, development location and building design. Design guidelines can be used to avoid and reduce the potential impact of coastal hazards on structures, and also facilitate emergency management through designing for evacuation (eg, in areas at risk from tsunami inundation). Again, they have no legal effect unless incorporated into a RMA plan
-
community- or issue-based strategies can provide long-term direction for, and identification of, the range of issues relating to coastal development. Often developed in consultation with communities, they are not statutory but are generally used to feed into regional and district planning. An example is the Mana Whenua Mana Moana paper developed by the Mana Whenua Reference Group as part of the New Plymouth District Coastal Strategy76
-
iwi management plans or other documents identify important issues relating to Māori. Any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the territorial authority needs to be taken into account in RMA planning documents and consent processes.
-
financial measures can be provided by the council (eg, rating relief or grants – which may include land management agreements), by other organisations such as Queen Elizabeth II National Trust (encouraging rural landowners to maintain undeveloped coastal areas and/or to assist with land management for conservation purposes), or by the government (through reserves).
6.8 Risk transfer – managing residual risk
Risk-avoidance and risk-reduction measures will never completely remove coastal hazard risks. Managing the component of risk that is left over, the residual risk, usually involves transferring that risk. This typically means living with and accepting this residual risk, and dealing with any associated consequences via emergency management and insurance arrangements.
6.8.1 Emergency management
Emergency management under the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002 primarily focuses on the safety of people, property and infrastructure in an emergency. It puts an emphasis on readiness, response and recovery (risk reduction being the fourth component). The CDEM Act also requires a risk-management approach be taken when local government deals with hazards, considering both the hazard aspects and the resulting consequences.
Risk reduction is one of the four key components of the CDEM framework but it has generally been given less emphasis than the three other components in the first generation of CDEM Group Plans. This lack of emphasis has been recognised, along with the need for much closer integration between the CDEM framework and regional policy statements, and regional and district plans prepared under the RMA.77,78 Upcoming reviews of regional policy statements and associated plans provide an opportunity for planners to consider and incorporate measures and actions from their region’s CDEM Group Plan into the regional policy statements and plans and vice versa.
6.8.2 Insurance
The approach of insurance companies towards meeting the cost of hazard-induced asset loss has, in the past, been largely reactive. Increased insurance premiums and refusal of reinsurance are based on previous losses incurred. These can provide a disincentive for asset investment within high-risk hazard areas that have previously suffered financial loss.
This combination can result in extreme pressure on councils to provide ‘protection’ against the hazard. The insurance approach does not send a clear signal to property owners, as at-risk areas will not necessarily be affected by insurance premiums, unless there have already been hazard events in the past. Likewise, premiums are generally not targeted to the affected areas of a coastal margin.
However, insurance companies are becoming increasingly proactive in hazard risk management and are working in partnership with councils to identify sustainable options for mitigating hazard risks (Box 6.6). Such an approach has been adopted in the Coromandel in response to developing sustainable options for mitigating river flooding. It is likely that insurance companies will take a greater role in future coastal hazard risk management, including for hazards induced by climate change effects.
Whilst insurance could be an efficient market-based economic tool to distribute and reflect actual risk for coastal properties, it does not necessarily reflect long-term changes in risk. Its efficient application may require intervention and collaboration between councils and insurance companies – and require detailed risk assessment information, at the property level, much of which is currently not available.
|
Box 6.6: Flood Liaison and Advice Groups – effective flood and coastal risk management in Scotland |
|---|
|
Flood Liaison and Advice Groups (FLAGs) address fluvial flooding, coastal flooding and erosion. They now cover 98% of Scotland and have made substantial progress in virtually eliminating new building in flood and coastal hazard areas. The first of these groups was set up in 1995.They involve all statutory and relevant non-statutory organisations with interests in flood and coastal hazard management, to provide advice on planning and flood alleviation measures and insurance. Specifically, FLAGs have brought together planners, building control officers and the insurance industry to assess development issues in hazard areas in a non-confrontational, collaborative and ‘joined-up thinking’ approach. The success of the FLAGs has been recognised by the Scottish Executive: that recognition is encapsulated in a policy that every local planning authority should establish or participate in such a group. While flood insurance becomes more difficult and costly to obtain in the UK, areas with FLAGs are experiencing fewer insurance problems. |
Source: Crichton 2005a, 2005b.
6.9 Monitoring changing risk
Section 35 of the RMA delegates councils the responsibility of gathering information and undertaking or commissioning research to the extent necessary to carry out the Act’s functions. Such research also needs to be made available to the public. Under the same section, councils are also responsible for monitoring the state of the whole (or any part of) the environment ‘to the extent that it is appropriate, to enable the local authority to effectively carry out’ its responsibilities under the RMA.79
In terms of managing coastal hazard risk, planning approaches need to have measurable outcomes to ensure that the risk-management activities being undertaken are effective. Several regional councils are now attempting to measure and monitor how coastal hazard risk is changing. In general, such indicators for monitoring risk need80 to:
-
be policy-relevant
-
provide information on which decisions can be made
-
be based on data that can be consistently gathered and consistently interpreted
-
be simple and easily understood
-
be readily collected without significant additional cost
-
be comparable over the area under study.
The focus of these indicators is the landward component of the coastal environment, ie, that which is impacted by coastal hazards. Particularly in a context of a changing climate, monitoring the drivers of coastal hazards (eg, sea levels, waves) and the magnitude of the hazards themselves (eg, beach profiling) is also important: it can help identify which aspects are due to natural climate variability and which are due to climate change.
|
Box 6.7: Monitoring coastal hazard risk in the Bay of Plenty |
|---|
|
Environment Bay of Plenty has investigated, developed and trialled a quantifiable process of monitoring coastal hazard risk in support of its Regional Coastal Environment Plan objective of No increase in the total physical risk from coastal hazards. The process began in 2003 with the development of a set of proposed indicators and a pilot trial of the indicators to assess whether they were workable. This process proved useful as it was found that there were some difficulties with collating the data required for the indicators and many were found to be too complex. The seven core coastal hazard risk indicators that were subsequently adopted are:
|
Sources: Hill Young Cooper and Eco Nomos 2003; Gordon and Fraser 2005; Gordon 2006.
57 Under review – out for public consultation: March 2008.
58 MfE 2008a.
59 MfE 2008b.
60 Peart 2005.
61 MfE 2008c.
62 Jacobson 2004.
63 A 1-m high tsunami from a local or regional source will generally cause more direct physical damage than a 1-m high tsunami wave from a remote Pacific source. However, the latter will generally result in greater inundation volumes as the period of the wave is larger, and hence it encapsulates a larger volume of water.
64 Turbott and Stewart 2006.
65 RMA sections 62(3), 67(3)I, 75(3).
66 RMA section 59.
67 Turbott and Stewart (2006), from which this section has been summarised. Further consideration of managed retreat is provided in Jacobson (2004).
68 This section is adapted from MfE (2008a).
69 RMA sections 229, 230 and 237.
70 RMA section 229(2)(v).
71 Turbott and Stewart 2006.
72 Dahm 2007.
73 A PIM is a summary of all the information a council holds in relation to a particular project associated with a piece of land, and outlines all other consents required to complete the project.
74 LIMs are issued under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (section 44A).
75 Adapted from MfE (2008b, 2008c) and Peart (2005).
76 Available from: www.newplymouthnz.com/NR/rdonlyres/D085B4C4-F872-49C0-91D7-C3CFACE456D0/ 0/ManaWhenuaManaMoana2006.pdf (30 June 2008).
77 Saunders et al 2007.
78 Department of Conservation 2006.
79 Paragraph adapted from MfE (2008a).
80 MfE 1996.
