Submission Form:
Instructions
Section 1: Background This section should include some background information about yourself and your property.
When you moved into your property How you have been living there with your family What this home means to you What have you done in the past to maintain your property (i.e. built extension, upgrades) How far is the high tide now from your boundary as opposed to when you purchased (i.e. has there been a build-up of sand dunes If you have sea walls, how long have they been there, who is maintaining them What do you see as your future in Kapiti and your home (i.e. a legacy for your children, to grow old there with your family etc)
Section 2: Objections This section includes a series of objections. However, if you feel you would like to add extra objections on your behalf, this would be the section to do so. Section 3: Relief This section should include what you are seeking from the Council in reference to the proposed district plan. It could include some of the following points. If you feel you would like to seek additional relief then below, please do so.
It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that it has a hazard assessment that is based correctly in fact and law. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Council to shift the burden onto submitters to seek a coastal expert Council need to get legal advice and begun to look at how to fix the problem Delete the coastal hazard provisions from the PDP and revert to operative plan provisions, consider the extent to which alternative coastal protection methods could work along the coast, and then propose new provisions Withdraw the PDP and treat it as a consultative document Independent review of the hazard assessment, (seems there hasn’t been a peer review and access to all of Dr. Shand’s data) Reassessment of the risks based on a proper understanding of the RMA and the NZCPS Legal and planning audit of PDP provisions by experienced resource management practitioners Identify areas of real risk Conduct proper s32 evaluation, taking into account revised assessment of the erosion risk Managed retreat is premature and needs further community consultation
Section 1: Background
Section 2: Provisions and reasons We oppose the coastal hazard lines shown on the planning maps and the associated provisions and restrictions contained in the Proposed District Plan. Our grounds for opposition are that we consider the provisions are contrary to the Resource Management Act 1991 and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. The lines on the maps are based on a report that is inappropriately conservative and precautionary. Therefore, that report does not provide a suitable basis for the Council’s decision-making process. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that it has an appropriate report to enable it to make the decisions that it needs to make. Telling us that we must employ scientists to be able to have the lines removed or altered has placed a heavy burden on people like myself to fund experts to challenge the assessment. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that it has a report that is suitable for the decision-making process. The provisions and restrictions that apply to properties affected by the lines are too restrictive and do not allow property owners to use their properties in appropriate ways. The policy of managed retreat is inapplicable to an accreting coastline. Also, there is no need for managed retreat in areas where the effects of erosion can be mitigated cost-effectively. Under s 85 of the RMA, the lines and associated restrictions affecting my property would render my interest in land incapable of reasonable use and would place an unfair and unreasonable burden on me and my family. The Council has failed to undertake an adequate assessment as required by Section 32 of the Resource Management Act. Given the implications for property owners of the provisions in the Proposed District Plan, a thorough assessment of alternatives, benefits and costs should have been undertaken and it has not been. We ask that a proper section 32 evaluation be done. We also adopt the Coastal Ratepayers United Incorporated submission.
3: Relief sought We seek: • the removal of the coastal hazard lines shown on the planning maps and the associated provisions and restrictions contained throughout the Proposed District Plan; and • the relief sought in the Coastal Ratepayers United Incorporated submission, which we support. In addition,