Skip to main content.

Archived publication

This publication is no longer current or has been superseded.

5. Integrating Coastal Hazard Assessment and Climate Change into Council Planning and Decisions

This chapter aims to:

  • identify mechanisms available to local authorities to implement management options;
  • develop a context for the selection of management options;
  • identify principles and management options to address coastal hazard risks assessed in Section 4;
  • evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of the management options;
  • provide guidance on the preparation of a "Response Strategy";
  • briefly address liability and insurance issues.

5.1 Introduction

This Guidance Manual has the underlying premise of trying to manage the consequences of potentially hazardous coastal processes. While it is very difficult to reduce the likelihood of a particular coastal hazard event occurring, it needs to be remembered that the frequency of particular hazards occurring may increase because of climate change.

A range of circumstances can be identified (including physical, political, demographic) that will influence the degree of success of managing the consequences of coastal hazard events. Management of the consequences can be achieved by preparing a response strategy that manages the effects of hazards (including climate change-induced coastal hazards), and recognizes the various timeframes to implement each response option.

This Manual establishes a model for developing a response to climate change-induced coastal hazards and generally involves:

  • determination of the context;
  • assessment of the risks;
  • analysis and evaluation of risk (including scenario loss studies);
  • appraisal and treatment.

Section 4 of this Manual sets out the process of assessing the risks posed by coastal hazards on a district or region-wide basis. This current section addresses the 'treatment' of the assessed risks through the development of a "Response Strategy" to integrate coastal hazard assessment and climate change into council planning and decisions. It has the following stages:

  • identification of mechanisms available to respond to issues;
  • issue identification and context (including potential loss assessment);
  • determining Principles and Management Options;
  • formulation of Response Strategy.

The challenge is to address climate change-induced coastal hazards recognising that a range of circumstances exist, for example ranging from areas where there is no development or development pressure through to established developed areas where sensitive activities already exist. It is acknowledged that the more developed the area, the greater is the challenge to address the hazards. There are also usually fewer options available to manage the consequences of the hazard event.

Other influences on the management of coastal hazards include insurance and liability - these are discussed in Sections 5.7 and 5.8.

5.2 Mechanisms available

A range of mechanisms is available to local government to implement the management options for addressing climate change-induced coastal hazards. The choice of mechanisms will be determined by several factors including:

  • the nature of the coastal hazard and level of information available;
  • the nature of the coastal area (developed vs undeveloped);
  • the assessed level of risk;
  • time frames of changing risks and response options;
  • community expectations
  • political assumptions;
  • costs and benefits;
  • what mechanisms already exist in the community;
  • insurance issues;
  • liability issues.

Set out below is a list of those mechanisms that are currently available, based on present statutory and jurisdictional requirements. Depending on the above factors, one or several mechanisms may be appropriate in a region or district. In addition, the appropriateness of specific mechanisms may change over time as issues change, and as (for example) the frequency of hazards changes as a result of climate change.

  • Coastal strategies - identification of values, threats and hazards/risks, specific responses and policies for specific areas etc. These can be developed for specific areas. A coastal specialist should be involved in this process. The strategy for a particular area may, for example, go through the process of considering the hierarchy of response options required under the NZ Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) which considers the management of hazards within the coastal environment according to the potential environmental effects of the selected technique. In so doing it outlines a broad hierarchy of response options [ Refer to Outcomes 3 and 3.3 or Policies 3.3.1 and Policy 3.3.2 of the NZCPS]. These options are summarised in a simplified order of priority, as shown in Figure 5.1.
  • Growth strategies - setting out the predictions for growth over given timeframes, identifying areas which may come under pressure, predictions for infrastructure expansion and location requirements etc.
  • Policy statements and plans prepared under statute including regional and district plans, strategic plans, annual plans, long-term financial plans, community plans - these plans can include objectives, policies and methods to manage adverse effects of climate change-induced coastal hazards. They can identify future management strategies, allocate funding for specific works and identify community aspirations and expectations.
  • Planning mechanisms incorporated in plans including building set-backs, restriction areas, special zones etc.
  • Resource consent decisions - the resource consent process can be used to implement the objectives and policies in regional and district plans, and coastal strategies, and can be used to restrict or control further development in already developed areas, to manage development where no development currently exists, and to address adverse environmental effects that may arise from climate change-induced coastal hazards;
  • Building Act requirements - compliance with specific structural and engineering standards for buildings or structures subject to certain coastal hazards using NZS standards or building Codes of Practice.
  • Structure and development plans may be required for specific developments on 'greenfield' sites - these mechanisms provide an opportunity for large developments to be designed and managed taking coastal hazards into account, including the location and provision of infrastructure and placing the onus on the developer to include provisions addressing coastal hazards in their development plans.
  • Civil Defence Plans - these plans prepared under the Civil Defence Act can identify specific coastal hazards and evacuation and support strategies including training needs and community education;
  • Emergency Response Plans/Recovery Plans - these plans identify appropriate responses to specific events and what the needs of the community will be in the near future after an event - these mechanisms are likely to be required regardless of the management option chosen.
  • State of the Environment Reporting - this process of monitoring and reporting on the state of the environment can identify climate change-induced coastal hazards, trends in coastal processes, changes in risk, and further monitoring required to fill information gaps. Specifically it can identify long-term research and investigation needs.
  • Covenants on land titles - this mechanism can be used to ensure that development on any site that is at risk from coastal hazards is undertaken appropriately and can influence the ability of the owner to develop the site.
  • Non-statutory agreements - this involves reaching non-statutory agreements with property owners or managers on how existing or proposed developments may be managed in the future, or to set-up "first option" agreements to ensure properties at risk can be purchased by local authorities in the future when sale is contemplated.
  • Increasing public awareness through education programmes, publications, and signage (in vulnerable locations) - these mechanisms are effective in raising the community's understanding and expectations in relation to climate change-induced coastal hazards, and can help local authorities determine directions to be incorporated in plans and infrastructure investments. This can involve specifically listing climate change-induced hazards as an issue to be addressed, for example on a consent application form or in a consent processing manual.
  • NZS/Codes of Practice - these mechanisms are engineering solutions that can be adopted to manage certain coastal hazards in certain circumstances and give some degree of certainty.
  • Availability of specialist advice - ensuring adequate recognition is given in budgets and work programmes to involve coastal specialists in assessing specific development proposals or undertaking research and investigations. This has links back to Annual Plans and long-term financial strategies.
  • Input to other organisations' development plans and strategies - e.g. ongoing consultation and input to Conservation Strategies or State Highway Strategies.
  • Investigations and research - this covers a range of activities, such as ensuring regular and close interaction with research organisations, links with local education providers, regular consultation with lifeline providers and managers etc.

Figure 5.1: Hierarchy of Response Options as Recommended in NZCPS

Thumbnail of image. See figure at its full size (including text description).

Risk management fits comfortably into plan preparation and review processes at the stages where issues are being identified and a range of possible response options are being evaluated. With the advance knowledge of climate change effects, an unplanned response should rarely be needed.

The iterative process of plan administration, monitoring and review allows for modification of plans over time to take account of improved understanding of risks and effects associated with climate change. Planning for climate change needs to take into account the combined effect of future climate change and superimpose natural climate variability.

5.3 Issue identification and context

5.3.1 Background

Local authority planning and decision-making is guided by a number of legislative requirements (as described in Section 3) that develop a range of principles that they must operate within. These include:

  • sustainability - sustainable development (LGA) and sustainable management (RMA);
  • the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
  • identification and avoidance, remedy and mitigation of adverse environmental effects;
  • precautionary principles (discussed further below);
  • the ethic of stewardship (Kaitiakitanga);
  • consultation and participation;
  • financial responsibility;
  • liability.

The extent to which the effects of climate change on coastal hazards need to be taken into account depends on:

  • the duration of the issue being addressed;
  • whether there is a particular 'driver' present (such as a major investment decision);
  • the location of the issue being addressed;
  • the extent of the issue being addressed;
  • the nature of the issue being addressed.

These issues are relevant whatever the type of hazard (and are addressed in the companion guidance manual "Climate Change Effects and Impacts Assessment). However each is addressed below specifically in relation to coastal hazards.

5.3.2 The duration of the issue being addressed

In considering the effects of climate change in the coastal area, the period over which any decision will have effect is important to the overall success of the management option chosen. As a general rule of thumb, whenever a decision is likely to have effects that will last 30 years or more, the implications of climate change should be taken into account in making the decision. This is because the effects of climate change noticeably start to exceed the normal bounds of climatic variability within this rough timescale.

Local government instruments have a range of implications in terms of time. For example:

  • district land use resource consents and subdivision consents are, in effect, permanent (unless restricted to a set period), as existing use rights generally apply;
  • regional resource consents may be issues for up to 35 years;
  • building consents assume new structures have a life of 50 years, but many structures are intended to, or do, last much longer;
  • infrastructure projects generally assume a life of 50-80years. They may be able to be designed to provide extra capacity in the future, being built on a staged basis taking climate change into account or they may need to be designed for the conditions at the end of their lifetime right from the beginning;
  • land care, biodiversity, and pest management strategies may be in the context of a 3, 5 or 10-year strategy;
  • Community Plans have a focus of greater than 10 years;
  • the most reliable climate change information available at the time should be taken into account in terms of the duration of the decision being made. While the general trend of climate change is relatively robust, projections of specific changes do and will evolve over time.

As a general principle, it is recommended that all proposals in the vicinity of the coast be evaluated in terms of expected sea level rise over the next century, as well as other 'downstream' effects including increased coastal erosion, salt water intrusion, and increased flooding in the vicinity. Longer time scales may be appropriate for coastal greenfield developments because of the establishment of existing use rights.

5.3.3 Whether there is a particular driver present

Climate change considerations become particularly important when specific decisions are required that involve already developed areas, or areas (where coastal hazards are evident) which are now under pressure of new development. In such cases, it is recommended that any significant investment in infrastructure be preceded by a risk assessment which builds in climate change implications and a cost benefit analysis.

When climate change is factored into new investment decisions, the resulting asset "life-cycle" costs should be less than the additional costs from premature retirement of the asset or later unprogrammed upgrades. In some situations, the design of new infrastructure may "lock in" resource requirements in a way that makes later upgrading virtually impossible.

There is a danger of a similar "lock in" in greenfield subdivision for new housing developments. On receipt of consent applications councils are required to make decisions within short statutory timeframes. However, it is worth considering these decisions in the context that climate change effects will possibly exacerbate natural hazards through the consequences and/or the increased frequency of hazard events. If a council considers there is inadequate consideration of climate change factors in an application and that such factors are relevant, it is recommended that further information be sought rather than making a hasty decision.

One of the biggest challenges in planning for climate change is the change in risk over time. An example would be a 20 metre set-back placed in a district plan to address sea level rise. With changes in the sea level rise predictions and subsequent risks over time, the 20 metre set-back could prove to be more than adequate, or very inadequate. This process would need to be regularly reviewed at the plan review stage, incorporating a review of the risk profile for a given location and land use. However, complications would arise when planning decisions for "lock in" land uses are made based on the 20 metre set-back that proves inadequate. It is therefore useful if set-back zones are combined with more flexible measures such as relocatable buildings, or options for additional protection of natural defences, including dune protection.

5.3.4 The location of the issue being addressed

Some locations are more vulnerable than others to climate change-induced coastal hazards. The risk assessment process can determine the vulnerability of a location when considering the causes and drivers of coastal hazards, including the nature of the coastal area. The level of development will be a challenging factor when determining the nature of the coastal area.

Existing development and potential future development of an area is significant in determining the appropriate coastal hazard management technique, as is the extent of land between the coastline and that development, and the rate of erosion [Refer for example to Policy 1.1.1 and Policies 3.1.1 to 3.5.4 of the NZCPS 1994]. The expectations of protection (continued or otherwise), political pressures, and existing use rights that are afforded by section 10 of the RMA have to be considered within the wider context of Part II of the RMA. Section 10 allows a building to remain in a no-build hazard area (provided that there are no regional rules requiring otherwise [Refer for example, to McKinley v Timaru DC C24/2001, which considers the application of regional and district plan provisions to existing use rights. This case is considered further in section 8 of this guide.]), and this is generally not legally contentious. The difficulty and the conflict between landowner expectations and Part II generally arise when new buildings, extension works or protection works are proposed by property owners. These new projects and alternatives need to be considered on their merits under Part II.

This Guidance Manual advocates a management approach that recognises the level of coastal development as but one factor of risk assessment. In each case, there is a range of options beyond the conventionally preferred hard structural works that can be applied to both developed and undeveloped coastlines, with the intention of satisfying Part II of the RMA. In any event, caution based on informed judgement should be the guiding principle.

5.3.5 The extent of the issue being addressed

It is important to properly define the extent of the issues relating to any proposed development where the consequences of climate change-induced coastal hazards will have to be managed. For example, where a proposal is for a single building or a small part of an infrastructure asset (unless the latter constrains the rest of the system), such proposals are less likely to have fundamental and long-term implications than projects that affect larger areas or are for major developments. The exception is where a small development has the potential to contribute to the cumulative effects of coastal hazards. In this case it is recommended that councils look past the 'case by case' principle of considering consent applications, and place more weight on cumulative effects associated with coastal hazards.

5.3.6 The nature of the issue being addressed

It is important to clearly identify whether a single climate parameter (such as sea level rise) needs to be considered when making decisions, or whether there are complex climate parameters (sea level rise, plus higher rainfall and increased flood events etc) with multiple effects and implications over time. The risk management assessment (outlined in Section 4) would determine this matter, and the principles and management options adopted would reflect the nature of the issue being addressed.

5.4 Principles and management options

After assessing the risks as outlined in Section 4, the management options for different scenarios that are developed need to be assessed. It is considered that the following seven principles provide a basis for determining the management options [The principles are based on the Seven Principles for Planning and Design for Tsunami Hazards developed as part of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Programme (March 2001). This programme is a multi-state mitigation project funded by the US Department of Commerce and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A close examination of these principles show they are applicable to climate change induced coastal hazards in general, as outlined.].

Each principle is followed by the strategies recommended to give effect to it. The means to implement these strategies are suggested, using the mechanisms available as set out in Section 5.2. Note that some of the principles are more clearly applicable to some coastal hazards (e.g., periodic inundation) than to others (e.g., erosion and sea level rise).

The costs to councils of considering the effects and response options to climate change can be minimised when and where they are integrated in wider coastal hazards assessments.

5.4.1 Principle 1 - Know your community's coastal risks: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure

Background

Understanding the community's coastal hazards, vulnerability and exposure to damage is the foundation for land use and building strategies that can mitigate risk. Coastal hazard risk is a function of four factors:

  • the nature and extent of the coastal hazard
  • the vulnerability of facilities and people to damage
  • the amount of development or the number of people exposed to the hazard
  • the time (year/decade) for which the assessment applies

Previous sections, especially Sections 2 and 4, have described how to go about assessing these. In summary, investigations are required to provide a basis for identifying the nature and extent of the coastal hazard in an area or region. The classification of key elements at risk around an area or region identifies the amount of development or number of people exposed to the hazard.

Such an investigation could develop a Coastal Hazard Loss Scenario Study for a region/district to assess potential loss to important buildings and structures, transportation systems and utility services, and provide the basis for reducing potential loss. Such a study would be a mechanism to address vulnerability of facilities and people to damage, and therefore the risk (consequences) from climate change-induced coastal hazards.

Management Option 1 - Identification of risk: hazard, vulnerability and exposure

The following strategies can be developed for applying hazard information to reducing future losses:

  • incorporate hazard information into short and long term planning processes;
  • use hazard information to build public and political support for mitigation measures;
  • estimate reduced future losses by evaluating the effectiveness of loss-prevention measures;
  • periodically re-evaluate community vulnerability and exposure;
  • continue to manage, monitor and assess the risk, and modify the response option(s) as appropriate.

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies would be through:

  • use of coastal hazard information in local authority strategic, annual, community, and management plans;
  • incorporation of coastal hazard information into natural hazard planning in regional and district plans;
  • incorporation of coastal hazard information into community education programmes, and publications, and resource consent, manuals;
  • initiation of Coastal Hazard Loss Scenario Studies for regions/districts;
  • initiation of public awareness and co-ordination through regional/district councils' Emergency Management Officer roles - information, signs etc;
  • ensuring annual plans provide financial support for these initiatives;
  • preparation and implementation of monitoring programmes, including review processes.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • clear indication of potential losses from coastal hazard events allows the community to appreciate their vulnerability and exposure of facilities, and gives councils a planning mandate that can also feed into strategic, annual and community plans;
  • raised community awareness and increased political support for forward hazard planning;
  • identification of information gaps through Loss Scenario Studies;
  • clear evaluation of future losses and cost/benefits of strategies;
  • coastal hazards induced by climate change are given regional issue status in regional plans and direction to district plans;
  • cost-effective, as information and plan based work use existing mechanisms (some with statutory basis);
  • allows continual review and response in an iterative process.

Disadvantages:

There are no real disadvantages of knowing the risks to a community from coastal hazards. There may, however, be implications or 'side-effects', including:

  • no clear outcomes with set timeframes - any benefits are likely to be long term;
  • reliance on regional/district councils to commit resources to incorporate hazard information into plans and decisions;
  • possible inconsistencies between regions/districts with different priorities and resources available;
  • implications of liability related to actual or perceived accuracy of hazard and risk determination;
  • political or other pressure to act on certain information.

5.4.2 Principle 2 - Avoid new development in coastal hazard areas to minimise future losses

Background

The effects from a coastal hazard event can be mitigated most effectively by avoiding or minimising the exposure of people and property through land use planning. This can be achieved by preventing development in risk areas wherever possible, and protecting the natural defence systems. This recognises the first two principles of the NZCPS.

Management Option 2 - Avoid new development in coastal hazard areas

The following specific land use planning strategies are suggested to reduce risk:

  • require protection of natural defences;
  • designate or zone coastal hazard areas for protection or open space uses - recreational access, parks and recreation, horticulture/agriculture etc;
  • acquire coastal hazard areas for protection or open-space uses - could also include purchasing development rights and requiring easements, and/or land swaps;
  • restrict development through land use regulations - strategically control the type of development and uses allowed in hazard areas and avoid high-value and high-occupancy uses; could also use large-lot zoning requirements for subdivision or clustering of activities on site areas where risks are lowest;
  • require minimum floor heights to address inundation by storm surges; building setbacks etc;
  • support land use planning through Capital Improvement Planning and Budgeting - control community facilities and infrastructure in areas where coastal hazards exist to discourage development; integrate hazard risk mitigation into infrastructure policy.

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies could be through:

  • regional plans - identify coastal hazards as regionally significant issue and state preference for avoidance of new development in hazard areas; review risk management provisions for coastal erosion and sea level rise in light of any new hazard or risk information; co-ordination of integrated management;
  • district plans - specific zoning of hazard areas with policies to avoid or control development, rules to prohibit development, and regulation (such as subdivision rules); build on existing plan provisions for coastal erosion and sea level rise (building line restrictions/setbacks); require financial contributions to address coastal hazards - including easements;
  • strategic, community and annual plans - identification of areas that should be open space and a purchase programme for land or development rights;
  • public education programmes - ensure that throughout these and other processes, the level of risk is communicated accurately and without exaggeration;
  • facilitation of inter-agency and community volunteer initiatives, such as Coastcare or Landcare groups.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • provides the most robust mechanism of avoiding future problems, particularly for erosion hazard;
  • reduces long-term risk, and likelihood of insurance claims;
  • increases public awareness of issue;
  • provides opportunity to create and maintain a natural protective buffer and viable beach area, including provision for public access to coastal resources, and retention of ecological resource.

Disadvantages:

  • requires justifiable assessment of level of risk and identification of hazard line;
  • may restrict areas available for development and cause increasing pressure and land prices elsewhere in the district;
  • may cause conflict between different sectors of the community;
  • cost implications from obtaining tenure and maintenance requirements.

5.4.3 Principle 3 - Locate and configure new development that occurs in coastal hazard areas to minimise future losses

Background

If avoidance is not possible or there is a degree of existing use, the physical configuration of structures and uses on-site can reduce potential loss of life and property damage. Techniques include progressive strategic location of structures and open spaces, interaction of uses and landforms, design of landscaping, and the erection of barriers. A development plan, for example, could include site planning that determines the location, configuration, and density of development on particular sites in a way that reduces risk.

Management Option 3 - Control the location and nature of new development

The following specific site planning and mitigation strategies can be considered to reduce risk particularly from periodic coastal hazards (e.g., storm surges), but also from erosion and sea level rise in some circumstances:

  • site buildings and infrastructure on the high side of a site or raise structures above likely inundation levels on piers or hardened podiums;
  • encourage landscaping that will slow or steer water away from vulnerable structures and people (e.g.,. by strategically designed vegetation, ditches, walls, slopes and berms);
  • use hard structures such as walls, compacted terraces and berms, parking structures and other rigid construction to prevent inundation;
  • require new buildings to be relocatable;
  • restrict use septic tanks for sewage disposal;
  • infill housing - raise buildings above inundation levels, add engineering features to their design, and require new structures to be built as far back on sections as possible;
  • new subdivisions -maximise setbacks; elevate buildings above inundation levels; place houses behind vegetation or hardened buildings; site primary access roads outside hazard areas and secondary access roads perpendicular to the shore;
  • high-rise buildings - lower levels can be designated for public areas such as lobbies and support uses (car parking); buildings can be designed to allow waves to pass through the ground floor without damaging upper floors;
  • resorts - open space and vegetated areas, elevating or locating structures above estimated inundation levels, and buffering smaller buildings with larger buildings and waterfront structures;
  • industrial - destruction or flooding of industrial facilities can add another environmental dimension to a coastal hazard event with hazardous materials, and floating debris - protect industrial facilities by walls and stronger anchoring is one option; locating these types of facilities outside of hazard zone is the most effective approach;
  • essential and critical facilities - fire stations, power stations, hospitals, sewage treatment facilities etc should be located outside of hazard zones; relocation of existing facilities or retrofitting should be considered;
  • consider hard protection works in specific areas;
  • design off-shore/coastal structures and infrastructure (pipelines, breakwaters etc) to withstand additional forces and frequencies of hazards (e.g. sea level rise, storm frequency).

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies would be through:

  • district plans - specific zoning of hazard areas with policies and rules to control location and nature of development, development of Design Guidelines associated with the zone requiring development plans, and regulation;
  • regional plans - require consideration of climate change-induced effects to be taken into account in consent applications for coastal structures and infrastructure;
  • Building Act/consents - LIMs and PIMs identifying coastal hazard area, building consents consider structural integrity of calming measures;
  • development plans - require comprehensive development plans for new developments; determine location of structures and high occupancy buildings and measures to mitigate the effects of inundation and erosion;
  • community plans - control community facilities and infrastructure;
  • public education programmes.

See Principle 6 for critical facilities.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • particularly appropriate for areas subject to periodic inundation (e.g., storm surges);
  • may allow development of some areas, reducing pressure on limited land resources.

Disadvantages:

  • certain degree of risk still apparent;
  • not as appropriate for areas subject to erosion, apart from those structures and/or infrastructure that must be located in coastal zone;
  • limited (timeframes) applicability to land areas vulnerable to gradual sea level rise;
  • have cost implications for existing land uses and property owners if required to put mitigation works in place.

5.4.4 Principle 4 - Design and construct new buildings and structures to minimise damage

Background

Where buildings and/or structures are to be located in a coastal hazard area, their design and construction (including construction materials, building configuration and specific design features) can reduce loss of life, property and structural damage particularly from hazard events involving periodic inundation. Performance objectives for buildings and structures will depend on several matters including:

  • location of building/structure and configuration;
  • intensity and frequency of the hazard selected for design;
  • structural and non-structural design standards;
  • choice of structural and finished materials;
  • reliability of utilities;
  • professional abilities of designers;
  • quality of construction;
  • level of confidence in these factors.

Management Option 4 - Regulate the design and construction of buildings/structures in coastal hazard areas

The following specific design and construction strategies can be considered to reduce risk caused by coastal hazards:

  • choose appropriate design solutions based on expected effects - design and construction of new buildings and structures should address forces associated with water pressure, buoyancy, currents and waves, debris impact, undermining and scour etc until such time remedial works can be put into place if appropriate;
  • require qualified architects and engineers to design large buildings - competent engineering, design, construction and quality assurance. Involve coastal specialist in process to ensure hazards are correctly understood;
  • inspect construction to ensure requirements are met.

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies would be through:

  • district plan - specific zoning of coastal hazard areas with policies and rules to control the design and construction of buildings through Design Guidelines associated with the zone requiring development plans, and regulation;
  • Building Act/consents - LIMs and PIMs identifying coastal hazard area, building consents consider structural integrity of buildings to withstand a hazard event;
  • regional plans - require consideration of climate change-induced effects to be taken into account in consent applications for coastal structures and infrastructure;
  • public education programmes;
  • a building code, adopting performance objectives for buildings in coastal hazard areas, should be considered.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • appropriate for areas subject to periodic inundation (storm surges);
  • may allow development of some areas, reducing pressure on limited land resources;
  • may 'buy time' allowing remedial works to delay eventual relocation/removal.

Disadvantages:

  • certain degree of risk still apparent;
  • not as appropriate for areas subject to erosion apart from those structures and/or infrastructure that must be located in coastal zone;
  • limited (timeframes) applicability to areas vulnerable to gradual sea level rise;
  • potential for conflict with property owners on what is considered to be appropriate design. May include cost implications.

5.4.5 Principle 5 - Protect existing development from losses through redevelopment, retrofit, and land reuse plans and projects

Background

For existing coastal communities, protecting existing resources may be the only real mitigation option available. Changes in land uses, buildings, and infrastructure create opportunities to incorporate loss-prevention measures to help make communities less vulnerable in the future. Techniques for renewal of communities include redefining permitted land uses, changing zoning standards, changing building uses and occupancies, retrofitting and rehabilitation of buildings and structures, and redeveloping districts to improve their economic vitality.

Some special considerations in coastal hazard vulnerable areas are:

  • protecting landmarks and historic structures;
  • creating scenic vistas;
  • providing improved access to coastal amenities;
  • improving services;
  • accommodating needed housing and commercial activities.

A process for reducing vulnerability through renewal efforts might include:

  • preparing an inventory of at risk areas and properties;
  • evaluation and revision of plans and regulations to address redevelopment, retrofit and reuse issues, including identifying areas for various types of protection with priority given to 'soft protection', planned or 'managed retreat' (i.e., recognising the long-term vulnerability of certain areas and specifically accepting their eventual loss).

Management Option 5 - Protect existing natural and physical resources

The following specific strategies can be considered to reduce risk:

  • adopt special programmes (including soft protection programmes such as through coastcare groups) and development regulations;
  • redesignate and rezone land in coastal hazard areas for uses more consistent with the risk, as non-conforming uses are phased out;
  • limit additions to existing buildings in coastal hazard areas;
  • buy specific properties in coastal hazard areas and removing or relocating buildings;
  • identify areas for managed retreat, and implement programme, including consultation with affected parties;
  • use redevelopment strategies to reduce risk - reconfigure uses or infrastructure, retrofit specific buildings or remove buildings altogether, install additional pumping facilities, raise stopbanks and other infrastructure, etc;
  • use incentives and other financial measures to support loss prevention - e.g., reduced property rates, waiving application, permit and inspection fees, waiving financial contributions;
  • adopt and enforce special provisions for the retrofit of existing buildings - require retrofitting of all buildings within a defined hazard zone, or may be mandatory only when substantial modifications are made to existing structures or where there are changes to the building occupancy;
  • require qualified architects and engineers to design effective measures to protect existing development - important when considering measures to strengthen existing development where experience and judgement are paramount;
  • provide protection at key locations (e.g., dune protection or beach renourishment), or hard structures as interim measure, until other more permanent responses can be appropriately carried out.

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies would be through:

  • regional plans - identifying existing development in coastal hazard areas is a regionally significant resource management issue that needs to be addressed; provide direction regarding regionally significant resources; co-ordination of integrated management of resources;
  • regional council landcare priorities and programmes - coastal protection programmes (e.g., revegetation and retirement of areas as part of operations programmes);
  • district plan changes - redesignating or rezoning land in coastal hazard area; policies and rules to control change in land uses and building extensions;
  • community plans - consider redevelopment of community resources and infrastructure when due for renewal or replacement;
  • building consents - require compliance with Code of Practice for retrofitting of existing buildings;
  • strategic and annual plans - financial incentives to encourage change in land uses - rates relief and fee waiver;
  • public education programmes;
  • coordinating community coastcare groups

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • may be the most practicable option in the short-term;
  • allows varying degree of continued existing use.

Disadvantages:

  • hard protection may have limited success (both long-term and spatially) and create false sense of security;
  • requires good communication and buy-in from community to implement and accept some options (e.g. managed retreat and/or rezoning);
  • may have high cost implications for community and/or individuals;
  • may cause conflict in different sectors of the community.

5.4.6 Principle 6 - Take special precautions in locating and designing infrastructure and critical facilities to minimise damage

Background

Key infrastructure such as transport systems for people and goods, and utility systems such as communication, natural gas, water supply, power generation and transmission/distribution networks are essential to the continued operation of a community. These facilities need to be planned and designed to minimise any damage from coastal hazards.

In addition, critical facilities such as fire stations, hazardous facilities (chemical and fuel storage tanks) and buildings with high occupancy or occupants who are difficult to evacuate also need careful planning and design.

Management Option 6 - Planning and design of key infrastructure and critical facilities

The following specific infrastructure and critical facility location and design strategies can be considered to reduce risk:

  • locate new infrastructure and critical facilities outside the coastal hazard area or design to resist coastal hazards;
  • examine plans to see if alternative locations, alignments and routes can be used; designate/zone sites outside coastal hazard area for these facilities;
  • develop standards for facilities in coastal hazard area (coastal location dependent; risk reduced by mitigation and emergency planning measures; need for facility outweighs the consequence of loss);
  • control infrastructure improvements that will encourage construction of other facilities;
  • employ design professionals qualified in key areas - coastal, structural, geotechnical engineering;
  • where location is essential in hazard zone, ensure mechanisms to isolate damage such as shut off valves, detours etc;
  • protect or relocate existing infrastructure and critical facilities - only allow expansion or renovation of existing facilities in coastal hazard areas with measures to reduce risk; construct barriers to protect against impact forces and scour; elevate existing facilities above inundation level; relocate high-risk facilities; relocate facilities that require renewal or incorporate new design standards;
  • plan for emergency and recovery - prepare emergency response plans to cope with the emergency situation and expedite recovery; plan for evacuation, emergency response, recovery and replacement facilities.

Implementation

Implementation of these strategies would be through:

  • district plans - to control location and design of key infrastructure and critical facilities, and information to be included with consents to assist with decision making;
  • community and strategic plans - to provide a strategic approach to locating and/or protecting these facilities;
  • Building Act/consents - to ensure integrity of buildings and structures;
  • emergency response plans;
  • public education programmes.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • ensures appropriate recognition of key facilities, lifelines etc.

Disadvantages:

  • there are no real disadvantages of adopting this option.

5.4.7 Principle 7 - Plan for evacuation

Background

This principle relates mainly to 'non-gradual' coastal hazards; e.g. periodic storm surges and/or tsunami, or severe coastal erosion brought about by storm events. A key strategy to saving lives before a coastal hazard event either arrives or causes significant damage is to evacuate people from the hazard area. This may be through horizontal evacuation by moving people to more distant locations or higher ground, or vertical evacuation by moving people to higher floors in buildings for events which are expected to be short-term (e.g., tsunami wave). Vertical evacuation is linked to issues of land use, siting, and building design and construction.

Management Option 7 - Emergency Response Plans

The following specific strategies can be considered to reduce danger to people:

  • ensure procedures exist to receive and disseminate warnings;
  • implement effective information and education programmes;
  • maintain the programme over the long term;
  • identify the most likely coastal hazard for specific locations and its likely duration, to enable identification of response needs (e.g., severe erosion and residence losses, leading to short to medium term housing requirements, or short term inundation requiring temporary shelter in community facilities);
  • identify specific locations to serve as shelters or safe distances;
  • work out agreements and procedures with building and/or landowners and occupiers to ensure access to shelter is able to be achieved in an emergency.

Implementation

Implementation of the above strategies would be through:

  • emergency response/recovery plans;
  • establishment of appropriate warning systems;
  • annual plans - to provide financial support;
  • public awareness, education and signs etc.

Planning and management for evacuation and emergency responses need to recognise that due to the nature of some coastal hazard events, there may not necessarily be adequate time to warn and evacuate people.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:

  • reduces disruption to community and individuals;
  • allows rapid response and minimising of losses and costs.

Disadvantages:

  • may be required to be repeated with increasing frequency as climate change effects increase;
  • may have substantial cost implications to community and individuals.

5.5 Evaluation of management options

The identification of management options and implementation techniques provides a basis to determine which management option(s) may be appropriate to adopt at any particular place to minimise the risk of climate change induced coastal hazards on people and facilities (the 'elements at risk').

The choice of the best management option, including the possibility of doing nothing, depends initially on the context of the hazard and an assessment of the risk. Before management options are chosen for a specific location, the risk also needs to be evaluated in relation to the values and benefits that are seen to be derived from living in a particular locality, as described in Section 4. In other words the benefits may make a given level of risk acceptable or tolerable; or alternatively dictate that mitigation methods are necessary. Part of the decision for any particular management option is also an assessment of the cost/ effectiveness of the proposed measure, and the likely change in frequency of a hazard over time brought about by climate change.

The following criteria are suggested to guide the evaluation of management options:

  • legislative requirements that will be met (as outlined in Section 5.2);
  • consistency of the timeframes with the degree of risk assessed;
  • identification of clear environmental and social outcomes;
  • identification of vulnerability and exposure to risks, and how these may change over time;
  • identification of costs of implementation and ongoing monitoring/review, and reassessment;
  • identification of clear benefits to the community (and future generations) and the community's expected response;
  • ease of implementation including whether the mechanisms are existing or new; whether the options are statutory or non-statutory; whether there are conflicts with key stakeholders;
  • identification of roles and responsibilities for the option to succeed;
  • any liability issues;
  • any insurance issues.

The following preferred Management Options may be considered for different land uses (or elements at risk) located along the coast.

5.5.1 Lifelines/essential infrastructure

Management Option 6 primarily addresses these elements at risk. In essence, it is considered that the preferred options are:

  • any new critical facilities should be located outside of a coastal hazard area wherever possible;
  • any new critical facilities that cannot be located outside the coastal hazard area should be specifically sited and designed to withstand a climate change induced coastal hazards;
  • any existing critical facilities should be relocated where possible, or assessed for vulnerability and retrofitted if relocation is not possible;
  • any existing non-critical facilities should be assessed to determine vulnerability and retrofitted if required.

The above options can be implemented through Community, Strategic, Infrastructure, Regional and District Plans, and consent decision-making processes.

It is also considered that a Coastal Hazard Loss Scenario Study referred to in Management Option 1 is desirable for all lifelines/essential infrastructures.

5.5.2 Urban residential

Management Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are relevant to urban residential areas. It is considered that the following are the preferred approaches, depending on the nature of the residential areas:

  • avoid new development in coastal hazard areas (Management Option 2);
  • if avoidance is not possible, place an emphasis on location, configuration and building design (Management Options 3 & 4) and purchase of vulnerable areas for open spaces and coastal hazard protection mitigation (Management Options 2 & 3);
  • for those residential areas with vulnerable communities and facilities, protect existing facilities (Management Option 5) and plan for evacuation and recovery (Management Option 7).

These options can be implemented through Regional and District Plans, Community Plans, building and resource consent decisions, Annual Plans and Emergency Response Plans.

5.5.3 Urban industrial/commercial

Management Options 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are relevant to urban industrial/commercial areas. It is considered the following are the preferred approaches, depending on the nature of the industrial/commercial areas:

  • avoid new development (particularly high value and occupancy uses) in coastal hazard areas (Management Option 2);
  • if avoidance is not possible, place an emphasis on location, configuration and building design (Management Options 3 & 4) and purchase of vulnerable areas for open spaces and coastal hazard protection mitigation (Management Option 2 & 3), and protection of existing facilities (Management Option 5);
  • for those industrial/commercial areas with critical facilities including hazardous facilities, take special precautions with existing facilities (Management Option 6) and plan for evacuation and recovery (Management Option 7).

These options can be implemented through Regional and District Plans, Community Plans, building and resource consent decisions, Annual plans and Civil Defence/Emergency Response Plans.

5.5.4 Semi rural/semi urban

Management Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are relevant to semi rural/ semi urban areas. It is considered that the following are the preferred approaches, depending on the nature of the semi rural/semi urban areas:

  • avoid new development in coastal hazard areas or restrict development through land use regulations including large-lot zoning requirements (Management Option 2);
  • if avoidance is not possible, place an emphasis on location, configuration and building design (Management Options 3 & 4);
  • for those semi rural/semi urban areas with vulnerable communities and facilities, protect existing facilities (Management Option 5) and raise public awareness through information (Management Option 7).

These options can be implemented through Regional and District Plans, Community Plans, building consents, Annual plans and public awareness programmes.

5.5.5 Potential/future development

Management Option 2 is relevant to potential/future development areas. Even in areas that are currently rural and unlikely to have pressure from development for some time, it is recommended that potential development demands are still monitored, and coastal hazard areas identified.

On the assumption that people may still use such areas (as distinct from develop and reside in such areas), Option 7 still needs to be kept in mind. It is considered that the following are the preferred approaches, depending on the nature of the potential/future development areas:

  • avoid new development in coastal hazard areas is the most preferred option through zoning with land use restrictions and controls (Management Option 2);
  • public awareness of the coastal hazard risks through information, including warning and signs for people using these areas (Management Option 7).

These options can be implemented through regional and district plans, building consents, and public awareness programmes.

5.5.6 Coastal infrastructure

Management Options 3, 4, 5 and 7 are relevant to coastal infrastructure areas. The following are the preferred approaches, depending on the nature of the coastal infrastructure areas:

  • place an emphasis on location, configuration and building/structure design (Management Options 3 & 4);
  • for those coastal infrastructure areas with vulnerable communities and facilities, protect existing facilities (Management Option 5) and plan for evacuation and recovery (Management Option 7).

These options can be implemented through regional and district plans, building consents, and Emergency Response Plans.

5.6 Preparing a response strategy

This Manual advocates that local authorities consider preparing a Response Strategy that builds on the risk assessment undertaken in Section 4, and incorporates the relevant principles and management options developed in Section 5.4 for particular areas of their region or district that are exposed to climate change induced coastal hazards.

5.6.1 Key elements of a response strategy

In undertaking and preparing a response strategy, the key elements include:

  • participation of and partnership between regional and district councils, infrastructure and service providers, key stake holders and the community;
  • information gathering, identification of information deficiencies, understanding of coastal processes and identifying coastal hazard areas;
  • consultation, with the community, tangata whenua and key stakeholders, to identify the range of preferred response options and identify community based and stakeholder based information;
  • consideration of a range of options (including corresponding issues, objectives and policies) and their relative merits and costs, and the selection of the appropriate response option(s) - this includes those provisions outlined in section 32 of the RMA;
  • education on the range and implications of each response option;
  • monitoring and review, including amend response options.

5.6.2 Response timeframes

The selection of a realistic planning timeframe relies on the extent to which future activities can be anticipated and provided for within the context of anticipated environmental effects. In this regard, case law contemplating the purpose of the RMA, (in particular section 5), provides some guidance.

In the case Christchurch Regional Council and others v Christchurch City Council C 127/01, the Environment Court considered that two generations is a minimum to consider when planning for the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. This is flexible upwards depending of the nature of the resource and the threat.

A minimum 40 - 50 year planning horizon is considered as providing sufficient certainty to address the needs of future generations, whilst recognising the limitations on current information in predicting the level of future climate change and future living environments and lifestyles.

Nonetheless this timeframe is indicative only and based on the timeframes for implementation of regional and district planning documents. Timeframes of up to 100 years have been identified through the Courts as being suitable based on technical evidence at particular coastal locations [Refer for example to Bay of Plenty v Western Bay of Plenty District Council A 27/02 and Skinner v Tauranga District Council A 163/02, case notes on which are provided in section 7.], and on this basis both the 50 and 100 year timeframe are considered as part of any general council strategy.

Councils could consider strategies for particular sites that look beyond 100 years where it is foreseeable that climate change is likely to have significant impacts on a wide range of development scenarios for those sites.

In practical terms, the timeframe should also consider the lifetime of the asset or infrastructure that will be affected. If this is temporary, then it may be appropriately located within a vulnerable area (subject to understanding impacts on natural character and the environmental effects of its removal), provided that it is relocated or removed before being placed at risk. This approach should be adopted with caution, however, as there are often expectations of continued use rights with assets expressed as having a short-term (for example 20 year) horizon. Likewise, the temporary status of land use can often be made more permanent, and temporary activities can have adverse effects and impact natural character. If limits are not imposed on the lifetime of the asset under RMA consent conditions, there may be rights of continued use, notwithstanding the likelihood of damage, under existing use right provisions [Refer for example section 10 and 10B of the RMA.]. Even consents of specified duration will not avoid occupiers and their successors developing expectations.

This response strategy timeframe is illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 5.2 below.

Figure 5.2: Response Strategy for Climate Change Induced Coastal Hazards.

Thumbnail of image. See figure at its full size (including text description).

In considering Figure 5.2, structural options such as seawalls should only be adopted after considering planning or soft-engineering options as part of a comprehensive assessment of the full range of response options, and demonstrating that these alternatives are not viable (refer to Section 5 for consideration of these options). Structural options may be included with a planning option to manage an erosion problem until planning techniques such as managed retreat have relocated development at risk. This is likely to occur where coastal hazards have already been identified, and climate change is likely to make the situation worse. Interim measures may involve temporary works (e.g., sandbag seawalls), or works designed to last until planning techniques are fully implemented. Of course, such interim measures will only be appropriate if the natural character and values of the coast are protected. In this manner a hierarchy of options is established. Such an approach is consistent with the principles of the RM A and in particular the policy direction of the NZCPS.

5.7 Insurance issues

The approach of insurance companies towards meeting the cost of hazard-induced asset loss has, in the past, been largely reactive. Insurance rate 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, or on the other hand can result in extreme pressure on councils to provide 'protection' against the hazard. This approach does not send a clear market signal to property owners, as at risk areas will not necessarily be affected by insurance premiums, if there has not already been a hazard event.

Some insurance companies are, however, adopting a more proactive approach in the risk management process by partnering with councils to identify mitigation options for flood management and encouraging the adoption of suitable response options. Depending on the success of this approach in 'test cases', insurance companies may take a greater role in future coastal hazard risk management, including hazards induced by climate change effects.

In particular, insurance could be an efficient market-based economic tool to distribute and reflect actual risk for coastal properties. However, it does not necessarily reflect long-term changes in risk, and its efficient application may require intervention and collaboration between councils and insurance companies. Even if insurance is applied as a risk management tool, it will also have to have social consequences (e.g. following from withdrawal of insurance cover) or environmental consequences (e.g. a stop bank may be cost-effective to protect property but destroy important habitat) that councils need to deal with.

While s.36(4) provides protection for a council from civil liability in the circumstances specified, the result of a s.36(2) notification on a title is that an insurer may refuse insurance. That decision, however, is not one which can be made by anyone other than the insurer, and this leaves a degree of uncertainty as to the likely impact a s.36 certificate on a title will have.