New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 includes policies dealing with the identification of coastal hazards, natural defences against coastal hazards, subdivision use and development in areas of coastal hazard risk and strategies for protecting significant existing development from coastal hazard risk. ³⁸⁴¹  

The NZCPS 1994 contained six natural hazard related policies. The effectiveness of these was reviewed in 2004 and they were regarded as ranging from effective to ineffective.  The review identified a number of ways the policies could be strengthened.Compared to the NZCPS 1994 the NZCPS 2010 has a much stronger focus on mapping coastal hazards and adopts a risk-based management approach. In terms of response to coastal hazards, the NZCPS 2010 differentiates between “general” subdivision, use, and development (Policy 25) and “significant existing” development (Policy 27).

In 2017, new guidance was released on the NZCPS. The guidance covers the coastal hazard objective (Objective 5) and the four policies that primarily address coastal hazards (Policies 24 - 27). It can be viewed here. 

Identification of coastal hazards

Policy 24 of the NZCPS provides guidance on the identification of coastal hazards. It requires identification of areas which will potentially be affected by coastal hazards. Hazard risk must be assessed over a 100 year timeframe. The assessment is to have regard to a number of factors including sea-level rise, natural fluctuations of erosion and accretion, potential for inundation, human influences and the effects of climate change.

Councils are directed to take into account any national guidance and the best available information on the likely effects of climate change on the region and district. National guidance has been provided in the form of the Ministry for the Environment’s 2017 publication titled Coastal hazards and climate change: A guidance manual for local government which can be viewed here. The guide states that New Zealand's “eustatic (or absolute) sea-level rise is around 2.0 mm per year.” ³⁸⁴³  

New development

Policy 25 of the NZCPS 2010 addresses subdivision, use and development generally (with Policy 27 specifically addressing strategies for significant existing development). It begins with a general direction that councils should avoid increasing the risk of social, environment and economic harm from coastal hazards. Policy 25(b) then more specifically directs that changes in land use (which includes subdivision and new development) which increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards should be avoided. Therefore new development should be located away from areas which will potentially be affected by coastal hazards over the next 100 years.

Redevelopment

In relation to existing risk, the management response directed by the NZCPS 2010 is more complex. Local authorities are directed through Policy 25 to “avoid” redevelopment or changes in land use that would increase the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards and to “encourage” redevelopment or change in land use where that would reduce the risk of adverse effects from coastal hazards. This includes promoting managed retreat by relocation or abandonment, designing for relocatability or recoverability from hazard events, and discouraging hard protection structures. Where existing development is significant, there is also guidance on long term strategies in Policy 27.

Significant existing development

Policy 27 contains detailed guidance on developing strategies for areas of “significant” existing development that are likely to be affected by coastal hazards. It directs local authorities to consider a range of options for reducing coastal hazard risk over the long term, including relocation or removal of existing development. Innovative financial or insurance options could help facilitate this. The Policy recognises that hard protection structures may be the only practical means to protect existing infrastructure of “national or regional importance”, but also recognises the environmental and social costs of permitting hard protection structures to protect private property.

Natural defences

Policy 26 recognises the importance of natural defences in reducing coastal hazards. Natural defences are specified to include beaches, estuaries, wetlands, intertidal areas, coastal vegetation, dunes and barrier islands. Policy 26 requires local authorities to provide for the protection, restoration and enhancement of natural defences. Regional policy statements and plans should identify natural features which provide a natural defence to erosion and/or inundation and objectives, policies and rules should ensure they are protected. No new development should be allowed if it will have negative impacts on natural defence systems such as dunes, and the revegetation of dune areas should be encouraged.

Hard protection structures

The NZCPS 2010 contains a number of provisions relating to hard protection methods. Policy 25(e) requires local authorities to discourage the use of hard protection structures and to promote the use of alternatives. Policies 27(3) and (4) specifically address the design and location of hard protection structures and direct that they should not be built on public land for the purpose of protecting private property if there is no significant public or environmental benefit in doing so.

Where hard protection structures are considered necessary, policy 27 directs that they are to be designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment. Policies 25, 26 and 27 suggest that, in general, hard protection structures should not be allowed (or at least should be discouraged and reliance on them reduced over time) except where they are necessary to protect “existing” infrastructure of “regional or national importance, to sustain the potential of built physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations.” As a result, objectives, policies and rules should ensure that hard protection works will be allowed only after all other options have been considered and proved impractical. They are a hazard response that should be mainly reserved for existing regionally or nationally significant infrastructure.

Last updated at 1:11PM on February 8, 2018