Mr C B Ruthe 199 Manly Street Paraparaumu Beach Kapiti 5032 christopherruthe@gmail.com Kapiti Coast District Council 7 Kapiti Lights Paraparumu kapiti.council@kapiticoast.govt.nz September 18, 2012 Your Worship Mayor Rowan, I am a resident affected by the coastal erosion hazard identification project and related District Plan change processes. I am working with a number of the other 1800 or thereabouts affected residents on the Kapiti Coast. It has come to my/our attention that Council staff have recently materially altered the Council’s advertised consultation plan and timeline associated with the District Plan Review process. As of the 11th of September 2012, your website under the page heading District Plan Review: Review Timeline advised the following consultation process: 2012 July – September • Consultation with stakeholders and interested parties on draft provisions prior to formal notification. On 11th September an affected resident spoke with Mr Ebenhoh inquiring as to the date/venue where consultation was to take place regarding the draft provisions. Mr Ebenhoh stated that no consultation was to take place, the full draft provisions would not be released prior to notification, and instead only some draft provisions would be “communicated” to affected residents prior to notification. Subsequently, your staff amended the related web page to read: 2012 July – October • Communication with stakeholders and interested parties on a range of 1|Page
draft provisions prior to formal notification. A print screen of the earlier commitment to consultation on the full draft provisions from your website is attached. You can find the amended page here; http://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/Planning/District-Planning/District-Plan-Review/District-PlanReview-Timeline/
We appreciate that you will no doubt realise the very material difference between “consultation” and “communication” under the Resource Management Act. Consultation is a statutory process with clearly articulated meanings both in professional practice literature as well as in case law. Additionally, failure to deliver the full draft provisions prior to notification is a material change in procedure which has significant potential to disadvantage the District’s public, and in particular those persons affected by the coastal hazard management provisions of the Plan. Finally, the late amendment to your advertised consultation process and subsequent slippage in terms of forward of the draft provisions to stakeholders and interested parties serves to impact very seriously on my/our ability to consider and provide feedback to your Plan Change review staff prior to notification of the proposed Plan. Good practice guidelines with respect to Plan Change processes refer (for example see http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz/), see in particular the guidance note on Consultation for plan development. To summarise: 1. I/we have been denied the promised consultation on the draft provisions of the proposed Plan; 2. I/we have been denied the opportunity to review the full set of draft provisions prior to notification of the proposed Plan; 3. I/we have been disadvantaged regarding our ability to prepare prior to notification of the proposed Plan. To remedy the situation to my/our satisfaction, we would request you instruct staff as follows: 1. Re-instatement of consultation on the full draft provisions of the proposed District Plan. 2. Amendment of the timeframe for notification of the proposed District Plan to January 2013 (the mid-point of the period of time that stakeholders and interested parties might have reasonably expected to have available to them had the earlier stated July – September release of the full draft provisions been met by staff). 3. Advice of the above timeframe and intentions with respect to the District Plan Review process to be provided to all 1800 residents affected by the 2|Page
erosion hazard zone identification.
Yours faithfully
C B Ruthe
3|Page