BEFORE Kapiti Coast District Council

BEFORE Kapiti Coast District Council

Under the Resource Management Act 1991

and

In the matter of Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan

Chapter 3 – Natural Environment

Date 11 July 2016

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY CAROLINE WATSON ON BEHALF OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

Introduction

My name is Caroline Watson. I am a policy advisor for Greater Wellington Regional Council. I have been employed by Greater Wellington Regional Council in this capacity since 2009.

I have a Bachelor of geography and environmental studies and a Masters of Environmental Studies from Victoria University, Wellington. I have processed resource consents, provided regional policy advice on notified resource consents and district plan changes, presented evidence at hearings and have resource management policy development experience.

1. Scope of evidence and Greater Wellington Regional Council’s submission

1.1  The following evidence relates to submissions from Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) made on 01 March and 02 April, 2013 on the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan (PDP).

1.2  GWRC’s submission assessed the PDP for consistency with the Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (2013) (the RPS). The assessment focussed on how the PDP fits within the regional policy framework for the management of effects on indigenous biodiversity and whether it has been adequately addressed through the PDP process.

1.3  The purpose of this evidence is to provide responses to the recommendations in the Officer’s Report and to highlight outstanding areas of concern.

1.4  My evidence today will:

(a)  outline the policy and strategic context of this evidence,

(b)  summarise GWRC’s submission,

(c)  respond to the Officer’s Report recommendations on the matters covered in GWRC’s submission, and

(d)  request decisions on the PDP.

1. Policy and strategic context

2.1  The RPS is a regional document that identifies significant resource management issues within the region and sets out the objectives, policies, and methods to achieve the integrated management of natural and physical resources for the Wellington region.

2.2  The RPS sets out objectives and policies that provide local authorities with direction and guidance on resource management issues that must be given effect to when making changes to district and regional plans (in accordance with section 75 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)) (policies 134). The RPS also provides direction on policies that must be considered as part of resource consent application (policies 35-60).

2.3  GWRC is particularly interested in how the PDP will support and contribute to achieving the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the Wellington region.

1. Summary of submission

3.1  GWRC made submissions largely in support of the provisions in Chapter 3 – Natural Environment of the PDP, with minor amendments.

3.2  I consider that overall the recommended amendments to the policies in Chapter 3 have resulted in less directive policies, and now have a reduced amount of guidance for plan users than was in the notified provisions.

3.3  It is therefore important that KCDC consider the use of good management practice guidance to assist plan users.

1. Response to the Officer’s Report recommendations

4.1  Policy 3.2 – Identification of sensitive natural features

4.1.1  In our submission, GWRC considered that the current wording of Policy 3.2 was unclear in that “sensitive natural features” encapsulated more than just locally indigenous vegetation. GWRC sought that the intent of Policy 3.2 should be clarified and the policy reworded if necessary.

4.1.2  Point 104 of the Officer’s Report (General, landscapes and earthworks), agrees with this point in that “sensitive natural features” was meant to act as an ‘umbrella’ definition to capture a number of areas, sites and features with specific values.

4.1.3  The Officer’s Report considers that there is some difficulty with this approach in that some policies and rules in the PDP may only apply to some areas and not others, and instead considers that specifically referring to the particular areas, sites, features is more appropriate and clear. The Officer’s recommendation is to delete Policy 3.2.

4.1.4  I agree that it is more useful to refer to the specific scheduled areas, sites and features rather than grouping these as “sensitive natural features”, and that these scheduled areas, sites and features are better specifically addressed in other policies.

4.1.5  I support the recommendation in the Officer’s Report to delete Policy 3.2, and ask that it be accepted.

4.2  Policy 3.3 – Protection

4.2.1  In our submission, GWRC supported the intention of this policy to protect significant locally indigenous vegetation.

4.2.2  The Officer’s Report considers that there is no requirement under section 6 (c) of the RMA to protect significant locally indigenous vegetation unless it is within an ‘area’ of significant indigenous vegetation. It has therefore amended the policy to include only ecological sites containing identified significant vegetation.

4.2.3  I consider that the areas containing significant indigenous vegetation in the Kapiti Coast district are not contained exclusively within the identified ecological sites.

4.2.4  Schedule 3.3 of the PDP lists rare and threatened vegetation species in the district that would likely meet the criteria for significance under Policy 23 (b) of the RPS. The location and area covered in the district for each of these species is provided in the schedule. I therefore request Policy 3.3 be amended to include Schedule 3.3 and the wording ‘rare and threatened vegetation species’.

4.2.5  I support the other amendments to Policy 3.3.

4.2.6  And I recommend the following additional amendments (in double underline) to Policy 3.3:

Policy 3.3 - Protection

All new Manage subdivision, land use or and development in the District shall a way that protects ecological sites, rare and threatened vegetation species, geological features, historic heritage sites and the values of the District’s outstanding natural features and landscapes, identified in Schedules 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6 and 10.1 of this plan. sensitive natural features, significant locally indigenous vegetation, lookout points, dominant ridgelines and dominant sand dunes and avoid significant adverse effects on these features, in accordance with the following principles:

4.3  Policy 3.5 – Ecological off-setting

4.3.1  In our submission, GWRC supported the intention of this policy to provide certainty around the practice of biodiversity offsetting. It was also sought that amendments be made to make use of some defendable references around biodiversity offsetting practice, as well as requiring adherence to the mitigation hierarchy.

4.3.2  The submission also sought that Policy 3.5 make explicit that any offsets must provide additional benefits that would not have otherwise been realised (i.e. no net-loss, preferable net-gain). It also sought that it be made explicit where consideration of offsetting is inappropriate.

4.3.3  The Officer’s Report agrees that the wording of Policy 3.5 should be amended to be more in line with good practice and be more consistent with RPS Policy 47 (in terms of a mitigation hierarchy), and with Policy P41 and the principles in Schedule G of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington region (PNRP).

4.3.4  The Officer’s Report also includes additional recommendations to include a new definition of ‘biodiversity offsets’ in Chapter 1 and a new Schedule 3.9 – ‘Principles to be applied when proposing and considering biodiversity offsets’ into Chapter 3.

4.3.5  I request an amendment to the wording of Policy 3.5 to ensure that ‘the adverse effects of the activities on the ecological sites may must be managed’. The term ‘may’ in this policy makes not only offsetting, but the entire mitigation hierarchy, appear to be optional. For reference, the mitigation hierarchy policy in the PNRP (Policy P32) uses the word “shall”.

4.3.6  I also request that an amendment be made to ensure that any adverse effects on areas determined to have significant biodiversity values can also be managed according to the mitigation hierarchy in Policy 3.5. This amendment will ensure that council officers have a clear framework for determining the appropriateness of resource consents applied for under discretionary activity Rule 3A.4.2.

4.3.7  Finally, I request an amendment to the title of the policy to reflect the fact that the policy now deals with the management of effects in general, including avoid, remedy and mitigate. The policy is no longer specific to biodiversity offsetting.

4.3.8  I support the other recommended amendments, including the additional recommendations in the Officer’s Report to Policy 3.5 and ask that they be accepted.

4.3.9  I recommend the following amendments to Policy 3.5:

Policy 3.5 - Environmental off-setting Management of effects

When re considering an application for a resource consent for subdivision, land use or development activities that will not avoid ecological sites or areas determined to contain significant biodiversity values under Policy 3.11, the adverse effects of the activities on the ecological sites or area may must be managed by: the adverse effects of the activities may be managed by is not practicable, deemed or considered to have adverse effects (including cumulative) on land containing sensitive natural features, or locally indigenous vegetation, lookout points, dominant ridgelines and dominant sand dunes, which cannot be avoided without preventing reasonable use of the land, environmental offsetting will be considered as part of remediation or mitigation where all the following principles can be demonstrated to have been achieved:

a) it should only be considered where remediation or mitigation on-site is not possible avoiding more than minor effects; and

b) where more than minor adverse effects cannot be avoided, remedying them; and

c) where more than minor adverse effects cannot be remedied, mitigating them; and

d) where residual adverse effects remain, consider the use of biodiversity offsets.

Proposals for biodiversity offsets will be assessed against the principles listed in Schedule 3.9 of this Plan.

e) it should be as close as possible to the site (because benefit diminishes with distance) so that it is in the same area, landscape or environment as the proposed activity;

f) there should be a substantial, significant, demonstrable and measureable net environmental benefit as opposed to mere mitigation of effects;

g) it must be effective; usually there should be conditions (a condition precedent or a bond) to ensure that it is completed or supplied;

h) there should be public consultation or at least the opportunity for public participation in the process by which the environmental compensation or offsetting is set; and

i) the methodology for setting the degree of biodiversity off-set shall be recognised and transparent, and shall include best practice monitoring and adaptive management procedures and processes.

4.4  Policy 3.7 – Subdivision and sensitive natural features

4.4.1  GWRC’s submission supported Policy 3.7 as notified in the PDP.

4.4.2  However, I do not support the recommended amendments to Policy 3.7 in the Officer’s Report.

4.4.3  I consider that the recommended amendments do not provide enough clarity as to what is an outstanding natural feature and landscape, ecological site or geological feature and should refer to the relevant Natural Environment schedules.

4.4.4  I also consider that clause d) in Policy 3.7 now unnecessarily limits the mechanisms that can be used to manage adverse effects. I therefore recommend that the range of mechanisms to manage adverse effects is extended by amending clause d).

4.4.5  I recommend the following amendments to Policy 3.7:

Policy 3.7- Subdivision and sensitive natural features

When considering applications for Where subdivision of land is proposed that is within outstanding natural features and landscapes or contains ing ecological sites or geological features identified in Schedules 3.1, 3.4, and 3.6 sensitive natural features the following matters must be considered: principles will be applied;

a)  avoidance of whether the subdivision which creates will create lots, which are located entirely within an outstanding natural feature and landscape, geological feature or ecological site the sensitive natural feature;

b)  avoidance of whether the subdivision will create lots which creates with boundaries that cutting through an outstanding natural feature and landscape, geological feature or ecological site sensitive natural feature;

c)  avoidance of shelter belts or plantation forestry within a sensitive natural feature; and

d)  requiring sensitive natural features to be mapped and legally protected to prevent buildings and earthworks in mapped areas. whether a consent notice or other legal mechanism or any other method is required to protect the ecological site or geological feature or the values of outstanding natural features and landscapes.

4.5  Policy 3.8 – Cumulative effects

4.5.1  GWRC supported Policy 3.8 and its intent to avoid cumulative effects on a range of natural features in the Kapiti District, which was consistent with a number of policies in the RPS.

4.5.2  The Officer’s Report recommends significant amendments to Policy 3.8, and I consider that these amendments are not effective and do not add anything more than is required under the RMA to address cumulative effects.

4.5.3  In order to improve the effectiveness of the policy, I recommend that Policy 3.8 is amended to refer to Chapter 2 of the PDP as this is the chapter that contains the objectives.

4.5.4  I recommend that Policy 3.8 be amended as follows:

Policy 3.8 – Cumulative effects

Ensure that the Subdivision and development will be designed and located to avoid further actual or potential cumulative effects of further subdivision, use and development do not compromise the objectives and policies of Chapter 2 (Objectives), Chapter 3 (Natural Environment) and Chapter 4 (Coastal Environment) of this Plan deterioration of sensitive natural features, locally indigenous vegetation, lookout points, dominant ridgelines and dominant sand dunes in the District.

4.6  Policy 3.10 – Active participation

4.6.1  GWRC supported Policy 3.10 as it is consistent with methods in the RPS around supporting the community and landowners in environmental restoration.

4.6.2  I support the recommendations in the Officer’s Report to amend Policy 3.10, but seek additional amendments in that the specific schedules should be referenced in Policy 3.10, to provide clarity and be consistent with Policy 3.3.

4.6.3  I recommend that Policy 3.10 be amended as follows:

POLICY 3.10 – Active Participation

Active participation of landowners is seen as vital to the protection and enhancement of sensitive natural features ecological sites, geological features and historic heritage sites and the values of outstanding natural features and landscapes identified in Schedules 3.1, 3.4, 3.6 and 10.1 of this Plan. The Council will work with landowners, recognise their stewardship and current management practices, and will promote the use of non regulatory methods, including assistance with the establishment of protective covenants, service delivery, education, and other incentives