BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE

Transcription

1

2 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Saunders, W. S. A.; Beban, J. G Petone Plan Change 29: An example of science influencing land use planning policy, GNS Science Report 2014/ p. W. S. A. Saunders, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt J. G. Beban, GNS Science, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2014 ISSN (Print) ISSN (Online) ISBN

3 CONTENTS ABSTRACT... III KEYWORDS... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION HAZARDSCAPE OF PETONE FAULT RUPTURE GROUND SHAKING LIQUEFACTION FLOODING LANDSLIDES CLIMATE CHANGE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT AND NATURAL HAZARDS HUTT CITY DISTRICT PLAN AND PLAN CHANGE HUTT CITY DISTRICT PLAN PLAN CHANGE MAYORAL MEETING GNS SUBMISSION PRE-HEARING MEETINGS OFFICER S REPORT EVIDENCE PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OFFICER S RIGHT OF REPLY DECISION URBAN DESIGN GUIDE SUMMARY OF POLICY CHANGES CONCLUSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Location of Wellington Fault, and associated surface rupture hazards zones, through Upper and Lower Hutt, including Petone West (Beetham, Cousins, Craig, Dellow, & van Dissen, 2012)... 3 Estimated subsidence values for the Lower Hutt Valley resulting from a single-event displacement (large earthquake) on the Wellington Fault Site subsoil class in Lower Hutt as determined by the methods described in NZS1170.5:2004 (Boon, Perrin, Dellow, & Lukovic, 2010a; Boon, Perrin, Dellow, Van Dissen, & Lukovic, 2011) GNS Science Report 2014/23 i

4 Figure 4 Liquefaction potential for Lower Hutt (adapted from Beetham, et al., 2012) Figure 5 Probabilistic tsunami modelling results for Wellington (Power, 2013) Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Tsunami evacuation zones for Lower Hutt (Leonard, et al., 2008; Wellington Region Emergency Management Office, 2013) Flood extent of the Hutt River for a 2300 cumec flood extent (440-year-event) with no breaches under the upgraded flood protection system (Wellington Regional Council, 2001, p. 9) Flooding of the Hutt Valley with breaches for a 2300 cumec flood extent (440-year-event) under the upgraded flood protection system (Wellington Regional Council, 2001, p. 8) Flooding from Korokoro Stream in 1976 (Source: The Evening Post). The Petone Plan Change 29 area extends from the approximately the Odlins Timber Yard corner between The Esplanade (located underwater on the far right) and the railway line Figure 10 Landslide after the 1855 Wairarapa earthquake (EQC, n.d.) Figure 11 Figure 12 The landslide in modern day times, with State Highway 2 and the railway located at the base (Source: Lloyd Homer, GNS Science) Snapshot of the HCC planning map for Petone West. Not to scale (Hutt City Council, 2006) Figure 13 Location of Plan Change 29, Petone West (Hutt City Council, 2012b, p. 101) TABLES Table 1 Natural hazard provisions in Plan Change 29 before and after submission process APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: DISTRICT PLANS AND THE PLAN CHANGE PROCESS A1.1 WHAT IS A DISTRICT PLAN? A1.2 PLAN CHANGE PROCESS APPENDIX 2: GNS SCIENCE SUBMISSION LODGED WITH HUTT CITY COUNCIL APPENDIX 3: HCC OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX 4: GNS SCIENCE PRESENTATION TO THE HEARING APPENDIX 5: GNS SCIENCE SUBMISSION TO THE DESIGN GUIDE APPENDIX FIGURES Figure A 1 Schematic depiction of the New Zealand plan change process (Ministry for the Environment, 2009, pp. 2 3) GNS Science Report 2014/23 ii

5 ABSTRACT In June 2012, the Hutt City Council notified a plan change (known as Plan Change 29) that allowed for an increased level of development within the south western portion of Petone. The proposed plan change area is subject to a number of natural hazards including fault rupture, subsidence, sea level rise, liquefaction, flooding, and tsunami. The previous district plan provisions for the area, subject to the plan change, had very limited rules to address the risks from natural hazards, and no new rules were proposed as part of this plan change. As a corporate citizen of Hutt City, GNS Science lodged a submission opposing the plan change. Much of the submission was informed by natural hazard information gathered from the It s Our Fault research project. While the plan change still proceeded, as a result of the submissions, a number of new provisions (objectives, policies and rules) were included in final plan change which strengthens the requirement for new development within the south western portion of Petone to take into account the various natural hazards that affect the area. This report describes the plan change process, and the changes that occurred to the natural hazard provisions as a result of the involvement of GNS Science and the other submitters. KEYWORDS Natural hazards, plan change, land use planning, Hutt City Council GNS Science Report 2014/23 iii

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION In June 2012, the Hutt City Council notified a plan change (known as Plan Change 29) within the south western portion of Petone, Lower Hutt (herein referred to as Petone West). This plan change allowed for an increased level of development and encouraged mixed-use development. Prior to the plan change, the land use was predominantly business and commercial; this plan change proposed introducing residential, educational and emergency facilities. The proposed plan change area is subject to a number of natural hazards including fault rupture, ground shaking, subsidence, sea level rise, liquefaction, flooding, and tsunami. The previous district plan provisions for the area, subject to the plan change, had very limited rules to address and mitigate the risks from natural hazards, and no new rules were proposed as part of this plan change. Being a good corporate citizen of Hutt City, GNS Science lodged a submission opposing the plan change based on the range of natural hazards that were not addressed in the plan change. A number of GNS Science staff (who live locally), were also personally concerned with the plan change. The purpose of this report is to record the plan change process, and the role GNS Science played in providing information that informed and changed local planning policy to reduce risks. While the plan change still went ahead, natural hazard provisions were improved through the submission process. As such, this report outlines the natural hazards that have the potential to affect Petone West; describes the plan change process, and discusses the plan change and changes that occurred to the natural hazard provisions as a result of the involvement of GNS Science and the other submitters. Many aspects of the submission were based around the natural hazard research and social science undertaken within the It s Our Fault 1 project (IOF), and other core-funded GNS Science research, largely undertaken within the Natural Hazards Research Platform The goal of the It s Our Fault programme is to see Wellington positioned to become a more resilient city through a comprehensive study of the likelihood of large Wellington earthquakes, the effects of these earthquakes, and their impacts on humans and the built environment. Further information can be found at: GNS Science Report 2014/23 1

7 2.0 HAZARDSCAPE OF PETONE Petone West is susceptible to a range of hazards including: fault rupture; ground shaking; liquefaction; tsunami; flooding; landslides; and climate change. Each of these are discussed in further detail below. While GNS Science did not address flooding in our submission, it is included in this section as part of the hazardscape. Greater Wellington Regional Council however submitted on the flood hazard. 2.1 FAULT RUPTURE The Wellington Region lies within the deforming boundary zone between the Pacific and Australian plates, and is located within one of the most seismically active areas of the country. The region is cut by a number of earthquake producing active faults both on and off shore, it is underlain by the subduction interface between the Australian and Pacific plates, and since 1840, the region has been violently shaken by earthquakes in 1848, 1855 and 1942 (Downs, 1995; Robinson, Van Dissen, & Litchfield, 2011; Stirling et al., 2012). The likelihood of a Wellington Fault earthquake (approximately magnitude 7.5) occurring within the next 100 years is approximately 10 15% (Rhoades, 2011). The Wellington Fault is located along the western edge of the valley floor of Hutt City, as shown in Figure 1. It is expected that in a single Wellington Fault event, the Hutt City could experience subsidence of up to ~1.2m at Petone West (Figure 2). GNS Science Report 2014/23 2

8 Figure 1 Location of Wellington Fault, and associated surface rupture hazards zones, through Upper and Lower Hutt, including Petone West (Beetham, Cousins, Craig, Dellow, & van Dissen, 2012) GNS Science Report 2014/23 3

9 Figure 2 Estimated subsidence values for the Lower Hutt Valley resulting from a single-event displacement (large earthquake) on the Wellington Fault. Contour intervals vary across the valley; approximately 1.2m at Petone West and approximately 0.9m at Point Howard (Begg, Van Dissen, & Rhoades, 2004; Begg et al., 2002). As well as the hazard of fault rupture (and associated ground shaking), liquefaction, tsunami, and landslides could also occur and are outlined further below. 2.2 GROUND SHAKING The amount of ground shaking a location experiences is dependent on the ground materials. As a general rule, the weaker the materials are, the longer and stronger the ground shaking is. To assess soil types, five ground shaking amplification classes have been formulated (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2004): Class A Strong Rock; Class B Weak Rock; Class C Shallow Soil; Class D Deep or Soft Soil; or Class E Very Soft Soil. These soil classes have implications for the foundations and subsequent performance of buildings, e.g., a ground classification of Class D can require far more extensive engineering that Class C ground, which adds to the cost of building. Figure 3 shows the ground classifications for the Hutt Valley. GNS Science Report 2014/23 4

10 Figure 3 Site subsoil class in Lower Hutt as determined by the methods described in NZS1170.5:2004 (Boon, Perrin, Dellow, & Lukovic, 2010a; Boon, Perrin, Dellow, Van Dissen, & Lukovic, 2011). As can be seen in Figure 3, the Petone Plan Change 29 area is within the Class D (deep or soft soil sites) overlain with a zone that may contain Class E sites. This has implications for building foundation design, liquefaction potential, and non-structural building damage. 2.3 LIQUEFACTION Figure 4 presents the liquefaction potential for Lower Hutt, based on a recently completed wastewater report using information from the IOF study. While there are no areas of very high susceptibility, the Petone West area is classified as having high susceptibility. In order for liquefaction to occur in the most susceptible soils, ground shaking would be required of peak ground acceleration of 0.1g or more (Saunders & Berryman, 2012), which will certainly be exceeded if the Wellington Fault (shown in Figures 1 3) ruptures. The expected return time of g shaking in Petone West is about 100 years, or a bit more (based on Stirling et al., 2012, and applying deep soil site conditions). GNS Science Report 2014/23 5

11 Figure 4 Liquefaction potential for Lower Hutt (adapted from Beetham, et al., 2012). Since the Canterbury earthquakes of , there is a higher level of understanding amongst the public and councils about what liquefaction is, its consequences zones (e.g., red zoning of residential properties in Christchurch, resulting in the retirement of land subject to liquefaction), and options to mitigate the hazard i.e., engineered remediation. As a result, Technical Category (TC) areas have been assigned to describe how the land is expected to perform in future earthquakes, and also describe the foundation systems most likely to be required in the corresponding areas. Wellington is susceptible to tsunami of both distal and regional sources. In 2013 a review of tsunami hazard was undertaken, which summarises the current state of knowledge and produced revised probabilistic hazard models. The results for Wellington (including the Wellington harbour) are shown in Figure 5 below. GNS Science Report 2014/23 6

12 Figure 5 Probabilistic tsunami modelling results for Wellington (Power, 2013). Petone West is located directly opposite the Wellington Harbour, within the red and orange tsunami evacuation zones (Figure 6, based on distant and regional source modelling) (Leonard et al., 2008). The red zone is intended as a shore-exclusion zone that can be designated off limits in the event of any expected tsunami. This represents the highest risk zone and is the first place people should evacuate from in any sort of tsunami warning. People could expect activation of this zone several times during their life. The orange zone is intended to be the area evacuated in most if not all distant and regional-source official warnings (i.e., warnings that extend beyond the red zone, for tsunami from sources more than one hour of travel time away from the mapped location) (MCDEM, 2008). For near source tsunami, evacuation is limited to vertical structures due to the infrastructural and topographical nature of the landscape. For example, to evacuate on foot up the nearest hill at Korokoro, one would need to get over a two metre high fence to cross the railway line, over another two metre high fence to State Highway 2 (including hoping over a concrete median barrier), then proceed up a very steep, scrub-clad hill, and wait for hours as the many waves swept in. This option is not very realistic due to the number of hurdles (fences, railway line and State Highway 2), and steepness of the hills. As yet, there is no certified tsunami evacuation buildings located in Petone West. GNS Science Report 2014/23 7

13 Figure 6 Tsunami evacuation zones for Lower Hutt (Leonard, et al., 2008; Wellington Region Emergency Management Office, 2013). GNS Science Report 2014/23 8

14 2.4 FLOODING Flooding from the Hutt River is one of the biggest environmental and emergency management issues facing residents of the Hutt Valley. The Hutt Valley is the second most densely populated (approx. 130,000) and asset-rich floodplain in New Zealand. As such, the key focus of floodplain management planning is keeping floodwaters away from people and development (Wellington Regional Council, 2001). This means continued reliance on physical protection (i.e., stopbanks) against flooding. Figure 7 shows the flood extent for a 440-year event with no flood protection breaches. Under this scenario, there is no impact to Petone West under the upgraded flood protection system. Figure 7 Flood extent of the Hutt River for a 2300 cumec flood extent (440-year-event) with no breaches under the upgraded flood protection system (Wellington Regional Council, 2001, p. 9). In contrast, if there is a breach of the flood protection system, Figure 8 shows that parts of Petone West will be impacted. Consideration is also required for the impact of a high tide, and water needing to drain across The Esplanade (which could be impeded by the sea wall). GNS Science Report 2014/23 9

15 Figure 8 Flooding of the Hutt Valley with breaches for a 2300 cumec flood extent (440-year-event) under the upgraded flood protection system (Wellington Regional Council, 2001, p. 8). Within the Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan, it is acknowledged there are both structural (i.e., physical works, such as stopbanks, rock linings and vegetation buffers) and non-structural measures to reduce risks. Non-structural measures include land use planning regulations, to keep people, possessions and development out of or away from flood prone areas. It is stated that In a nutshell, non-structural measures enable a community to be more resilient to flooding through flood awareness, preparation, and sensible land use (Wellington Regional Council, 2001, p. 13, emphasis added). However, the Hutt River is not the only source of flooding for Petone. The Korokoro Stream also has a history of flooding, with the last major event being in 1976, the consequences of which are shown in Figure 9. As shown in this figure, State Highway 2, the railway, and access to the overbridge from The Esplanade are all affected by the flood water, making evacuation options limited. GNS Science Report 2014/23 10

16 Figure 9 Flooding from Korokoro Stream in 1976 (Source: The Evening Post). The Petone Plan Change 29 area extends from the approximately the Odlins Timber Yard corner between The Esplanade (located underwater on the far right) and the railway line. GNS Science Report 2014/23 11

17 2.5 LANDSLIDES While not directly a hazard that will impact on Petone West, landslides do have the potential to make access to Petone difficult. For example, after the 1855 Wairarapa Earthquake, a large landslide occurred at the site of State Highway 2 (see Figures 10 and 11). If this was to happen in modern times, it is likely that State Highway 2 and the railway (servicing the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa) could be blocked for many days or more (Brabhaharan, 2010). Figure 10 Landslide after the 1855 Wairarapa earthquake (EQC, n.d.) Figure 11 The landslide in modern day times, with State Highway 2 and the railway located at the base (Source: Lloyd Homer, GNS Science) GNS Science Report 2014/23 12

18 2.6 CLIMATE CHANGE One of the main outcomes of climate change on Petone is sea level rise. In July 2012 Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW), released a report (Bell & Hannah, 2012) that assessed sea-level rise and coastal flooding from storm events in the Wellington region. The report includes current trends and future scenarios based on those trends. Wave heights, wind strength, storm-tide levels, sea-level variability and large-scale storm events are all assessed. The long term record from New Zealand shows that sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7mm/yr. However, in Wellington it is slightly higher due to tectonic subsidence, and is currently increasing at 2.03mm/yr. This equates to a little over 0.2m over the last 100 years alone. Most of this rise is due to climate change but is being exacerbated by subsidence of the city over the past decade, caused in part by slow-slip seismic events from deep tectonic plate movements (Bell & Hannah, 2012). Projections for the end of this century indicate sea level in Wellington region could rise by 0.8m by the 2090s or 1.0m by Implications of sea level rise include increased storm surge, rising of the water table (which increases liquefaction potential), and salt water intrusion into the aquifer. In summary, Wellington has the highest rate of sea-level rise in New Zealand and the Bell & Hannah (2012) report highlights areas in the region that are vulnerable to coastal flooding over the next 100 years. All low-lying areas around the coast are subject to storm-tide flooding but this vulnerability will increase due to sea-level rise. Areas at risk include the mouth of the Hutt River and low-lying parts of Petone, including Petone West which is the area subject to the Hutt City Council plan change. GNS Science Report 2014/23 13

19 3.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT AND NATURAL HAZARDS Saunders & Beban (2012) and Saunders et al. (2013) provide in-depth analysis on how the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) manages the relationship being land use and natural hazards. This analysis also includes the relationship between the RMA and other pieces of legislation for reducing the risk and damage from natural hazards. The main relevant sections of the RMA pertaining to natural hazards for a plan change are sections 2, 31, and 74. Section 2 of the RMA defines a natural hazard as follows: any atmospheric or earth or water related occurrence (including earthquake, tsunami, erosion, volcanic and geothermal activity, landslip, subsidence, sedimentation, wind, drought, fire, or flooding) the action of which adversely affects or may adversely affect human life, property, or other aspects of the environment. This definition of a natural hazard is very broad and covers all possible natural hazards that could eventuate. Section 31 of the RMA states: Functions of territorial authorities under this Act (1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and Section 74 of the RMA identifies the matters than must be considered under the District Plan. Section 74 (1) states: A territorial authority must prepare and change its district plan in accordance with its functions under section 31; Section 74 therefore requires territorial authorities to avoid, or mitigate, the effects of natural hazards when undertaking a plan change. This is of relevance for Plan Change 29 and the Hutt City District Plan, as Petone West is subject to a number of natural hazards including fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami, flooding, fault induced subsidence, and climate change. As such, Plan Change 29 needed to include provisions to avoid and mitigate the effects from the natural hazards that affect this area. Appendix 1 provides an explanation of what a district plan is, and an overview of the plan change process. GNS Science Report 2014/23 14

20 4.0 HUTT CITY DISTRICT PLAN AND PLAN CHANGE HUTT CITY DISTRICT PLAN The Hutt City District Plan became operative in 2004, and has subsequently been subject to 33 plan changes. Some of these changes have been initiated in response to changes in development needs, and some are part of the ten-year review cycle that all district plans must undertake. The Hutt City District Plan zones the city into several distinct categories: Residential; Rural; Business/Industrial; Recreation; and Commercial. Each of these categories is broken up into several zones. These zones not only recognise the differing character of different areas, but the corresponding objectives, policies and rules identify how these areas are to be developed overtime. In addition to the broad zones, the Hutt City District Plan contains a general rules section (Chapter 14). General rules apply over all of the zones and relate to: Traffic; Signs; Noise; Heritage; Protected trees; Earthworks; and Natural Hazards. The natural hazards chapter of the District Plan sets the objective, policies and rules pertaining to the natural hazards in the Hutt Valley. While the objective and policies of the District Plan apply to flooding, seismic hazards, coastal hazards and landslides, the only rule in the natural hazard chapter relates to fault rupture. In the District Plan, a 150m wide band identifies the inferred position of the Wellington Fault (Figure 12). This band is identified on the District Plan maps and is known as the Wellington Fault Special Study Area. The width of the Wellington Fault Special Study Area was determined by measuring 75m perpendicular either side of the inferred position of the Wellington Fault. In the Wellington Fault Special Study Area, all new buildings require resource consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. The intent is to ensure that new buildings (including additions to existing habitable buildings) are more than 20m from the faultline. If the building is to be closer than 20m, then the applicant needs to demonstrate that suitable engineering precautions have been undertaken to reduce the risks associated with building within this 20m zone. There are no rules currently pertaining to a change of use to buildings within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area or limiting certain activities within this zone. GNS Science Report 2014/23 15

21 Figure 12 Snapshot of the HCC planning map for Petone West. Not to scale (Hutt City Council, 2006). While not in the natural hazards chapter of the District Plan, the earthworks rules also allow for the consideration of natural hazards, insofar as the earthworks on site potentially affect stability or flooding. The earthworks rules are only triggered when the volume of material disturbed exceeds 50m 3 or the change in ground level is greater than 1.2m vertical. It is important to note that the earthworks rules do not allow the Council to consider the site stability or flooding effects associated with the construction of new buildings. It only allows for the consideration of the effects of the earthworks on these hazards i.e., earthworks cannot increase the risk of flooding or slope failure. Again while not in the natural hazards chapter, there are also rules in the District Plan relating to the 1:100 year flood event from the Hutt River. These rules limit development of habitable buildings in this flood extent, but only apply to a limited number of properties in the suburb of Belmont Domain. There are no rules in the District Plan pertaining to liquefaction, climate change, or tsunami. GNS Science Report 2014/23 16

22 4.2 PLAN CHANGE 29 In June 2012, Hutt City Council notified a plan change (proposed Plan Change 29) for the south-western corner of Petone, Lower Hutt. Proposed Plan Change 29 sought to expand the existing zone known as Petone Commercial Activity Area 2. To achieve this, an area of General Business Activity Area was required to be rezoned to Petone Commercial Activity Area Area 2. The plan change area is bordered by The Esplanade, Hutt Road, Petone Avenue, Campbell Terrace, Victoria Street and Sydney Street and also includes three properties on the eastern side of Victoria Street immediately south of Campbell Terrace (Figure 13). Figure 13 Location of Plan Change 29, Petone West (Hutt City Council, 2012b, p. 101) Plan Change 29 proposed a single set of objectives, policies, and rules to encompass the area subject to the plan change. These new objectives, policies, and rules would replace the existing provisions for the Petone Commercial Activity Area Area 2 as well as the area of the General Business Activity Area subject to the plan change. When notified, Plan Change 29 proposed a number of changes. Key changes included (but were not limited to) (Hutt City Council, 2012a): Building Height Maximum permitted Building Height of 30m throughout the area, with any building over 12m requiring a wind assessment (and non-notified resource consent). In addition to this rule, along the area s three main roads Jackson Street, Hutt Road and The Esplanade on the road frontage the maximum permitted building height will be 15m, with a 45-degree recession plane sloping inwards from this 15m height up to the maximum permitted height of 30m. GNS Science Report 2014/23 17

23 Design Guidelines New and more specific Design Guidelines for buildings along the three main roads of Jackson Street, Hutt Road and The Esplanade. Retail Retail developments permitted up to a maximum of 10,000m 2 of floor space, subject to compliance with the permitted activity conditions. Residential Residential development is permitted, subject to compliance with the permitted activity conditions. Commercial Commercial development permitted everywhere, subject to compliance with the permitted activity conditions, along with some light industrial uses. Wellington Fault Retaining current requirements to cope with the extra risk of building within the Wellington Fault Area. Building heights and density provisions within the fault area would be the same as elsewhere in the area. Essentially, Plan Change 29 sought to increase the types of activities and intensity of development, when compared to the existing situation, through the establishment of a mixed use area within the south western portion of Petone. The rules of the District Plan prior to Plan Change 29 allowed for development that significantly increased the risk to people and property. The s.32 analysis that was prepared for Plan Change 29, explored the following three options to address natural hazards within the area subject to the plan change (Hutt City Council, 2012a, p177). 1. Retain current approach This option is the do nothing option (i.e., retain existing District Plan provisions). The existing provisions identify the approximate location of the Wellington fault line in Petone West where fault rupture may occur with all structures and buildings requiring a resource consent as a restricted discretionary activity. Reliance on the New Zealand Building Code and related engineering standards and emergency management/civil defence response for the other natural hazards. 2. Rely on Building Code and Emergency Management/Civil Deference Response This option would remove the current Plan provisions relating to the Wellington Fault Special Study Area and rely on the New Zealand Building Code and related engineering standards and emergency management/civil defence response for avoiding or mitigating the risks posed by all natural hazards. 3. Add specific policies and rules to restrict development and activities in areas identified as being subject to natural hazards. This option proposes to add specific requirements to restrict activities and development (could be all development/activities or certain development/activities which may place a greater number of people at risk such as residential) in areas identified at risk from natural hazards. If activities/development was proposed in the identified hazard areas, resource consent would be required. Furthermore, all new structures and buildings, and those being retrofitted to an increased standard would require comprehensive ground investigations and analysis. The s.32 analysis considered Option 1 was the best option for addressing the natural hazard risk within the area subject to the proposed plan change. It was considered that the existing Wellington Fault Special Study Area represented best practice for addressing the risks GNS Science Report 2014/23 18

24 associated with fault rupture. In relation to the other natural hazards that affected the area, it was considered other standards outside of the district plan represented the best approach for addressing the associated risk (Hutt City Council, 2012a). As such, proposed Plan Change 29 was notified with no new or additional rules to address the risks associated with natural hazards. 4.3 MAYORAL MEETING After the close of the request for further submissions (December 2012), Terry Webb, Russ Van Dissen and Wendy Saunders with a council officer met with the Mayor to ensure he was aware, and understood, the range of natural hazards that Petone is susceptible to. At this meeting, information was presented on ground shaking, liquefaction, fault rupture, subsidence, sea level rise, landslides, and evacuation difficulties. Based on this information, the Mayor decided to appoint commissioners to the hearing, rather than elected Councillors. This was to ensure that a decision was less likely to be influenced from certain political incentives or conflicts of interest. 4.4 GNS SUBMISSION In response to the notified plan change, GNS Science decided to lodge a submission in opposition to the suggested changes (Appendix 2 contains a copy of the submission lodged). This submission was prepared with the input of several GNS Staff members including: Sally Dellow Engineering Geologist; Russ Van Dissen Earthquake Geologist; Wendy Saunders Natural Hazards Planner; James Beban Natural Hazards Planner; and Stuart Fraser PhD student investigating vertical evacuation structures for tsunami. The submission outlined the hazard environment of the plan change area and, where appropriate, identified measures to avoid or reduce the risk associated with these hazards. The hazards identified in the submission included: Fault rupture; Earthquake induced subsidence; Tsunami hazard; Liquefaction; and Climate change. In addition to providing information of the specific hazards and the measures required to avoid or reduce the risk associated with the hazards, the submission also commented on specific portions of the plan change. These specific comments included: The s.32 report be updated to include the economic, social and health and safety costs associated with building in a hazardous area as well as the costs associated with future proofing and repairing infrastructure; Changes to the s.32 report so that the hazard specific rules as recommended in a GHD report (Curley, Beetham, & Simms, 13 March 2013,) prepared for Council were included; GNS Science Report 2014/23 19

25 Changes to the existing hazard district plan rules to close several loopholes; Requesting that emergency facilities become Discretionary or Non-Complying Activities; and The s.32 report amended to remove the reliance on the Building Act 2004 to reduce the risks associated with natural hazards. The submission was lodged with Hutt City Council on 8 August PRE-HEARING MEETINGS At the close of the submission period, approximately 250 submissions on the plan change were received, with the majority of these raising concerns regarding natural hazards and seeking further measures to reduce the associated risks. In response to the concerns raised, Hutt City Council organised a series of pre-hearing meetings. A pre-hearing meeting is an opportunity for Council and submitters to discuss concerns, clarify issues, and if possible, resolve some, or all of the matters. The pre-hearing meetings for Plan Change 29 were held in February Four meetings were held, with each meeting covering a specific theme. The natural hazards pre-hearing meeting was held on 18 February. Terry Webb and Wendy Saunders attended from GNS Science, and gave a powerpoint presentation outlining the natural hazards of Petone, followed by a discussion with other submitters. The following notes are from the minutes of that meeting (Hutt City Council, 2013a): Some 25 people attended representing c.15 submitters. Submitters highlighted their chief concerns. GNS and Greater Wellington Regional Council presented information about the hazard risks for the Western Petone area. All those at the meeting agreed that they were concerned that: Plan change does not adequately assess nor address the key natural hazard risks for the area being flooding (including stormwater issues), seismic activity (including fault rupture, liquefaction and subsidence), tsunami and the impact of rising sea levels. Plan change does not give effect to the Wellington Regional Policy Statement (Chapter 11 Natural Hazards). Plan change does not meet other legislative requirements to reduce risk e.g., Civil Defence Emergency Management Act Submitters agreed a plan change needed to address risk reduction and that addressing the likely impact of the changes in the proposed plan change was very difficult without an assessment of the natural hazard risks. The meeting acknowledged that reliance on the existing rules (e.g., Wellington Fault Special Study Area provisions) to manage risks will lead to increased risks to people and property. Residential development (e.g., apartments), education and emergency facilities were especially considered to increase the impact of those risks. The meeting agreed that the risks associated with intensification of development in the area could not be addressed without assessment of the hazard risks. GNS Science Report 2014/23 20

26 4.6 OFFICER S REPORT In accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA, council officers must make a recommendation on the submissions. This recommendation is prepared as a report and is distributed to the submitters prior to the plan change hearing. The report explores the issues raised in the submissions, and identifies any changes required to the plan change as it was notified. A number of changes were recommended to the Plan Change 29 as a result of the submissions received. These changes covered a number of issues; however, this report explores the new provisions that were made only in respect to natural hazards. The officer s report (Tindale, Wesney, & Baily, 2013) recommended significant changes were made to the plan change in response to the risks presented by natural hazards. This is illustrated by the following commentary from the report: We are of the view that the plan change increases the risk of property and persons to damage from natural hazards as a result of providing for the intensification of the area. Existing provisions in the Operative District Plan will not adequately manage the range of natural hazards and the increased risk.. It is recommended that additional natural hazard provisions be introduced within the plan change area which: 1. Limits the location of high intensity and particularly vulnerable types of development within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area (WFSSA); 2. Require geotechnical investigation as a matter of consideration for new buildings within the plan change area; and 3. Inclusion of additional information which communicates the level of natural hazard risks within the plan change area. (Tindale, et al., 2013). This recognition of the natural hazard risk resulted in proposed new policies and rules, which only applied to the area subject to the plan change being proposed. These policies and rules sought to limit the extent of development within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area as well as requiring new building developments to investigate the liquefaction, subsidence and fault rupture hazards, and for measures to be incorporated into the design of these structures to avoid or mitigate the risk and effects from these hazards (Tindale, et al., 2013). While beyond the scope of proposed plan change, it was also suggested that the Natural Hazards Chapter of the District Plan was systematically reviewed so that the relevant provisions within the Plan Change Area are extended across the City where appropriate (Tindale, et al., 2013). Council has agreed to undertake this review and at the time of writing this report, a timeframe for this review was still to be set. A detailed list of changes suggested to the plan change in the officers report is presented in Appendix EVIDENCE PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION Terry Webb, James Crampton and Wendy Saunders attended the plan change hearing and presented evidence in support of GNS Science s submission. This presentation is provided in Appendix 4. GNS Science Report 2014/23 21

27 4.8 OFFICER S RIGHT OF REPLY As part of the plan change process, council officers prepare a right of reply to the submissions that have been verbally presented at the hearing, as well as responding to any outstanding concerns the hearing commissioners may have. The officer s right of reply is the final part of the hearing process and allows for the council officers to recommend any final changes to the proposed plan change. In relation to proposed Plan Change 29, the council officers recommended a number of changes within their right of reply. A significant number of these suggested changes were in response to the concerns raised regarding the risk from natural hazards in the area. This is illustrated below in the following extract from the officer s right of reply (Hutt City Council, 2013b, p5-6): From the submitters heard, we consider the relief sought regarding seismic hazard risks and potential consequences can be categorised into two groups (these two groups effectively form two options): a) Do not allow change and/or restrict land use activities and development (i.e., status quo and/or reduce development potential further) b) Provide for land use change and development provided the necessary precautions are taken (e.g., restrict sensitive or high occupancy activities, apply specific building regulations, limit scale of development) After considering all the evidence presented and applying an overall broad judgement of Part II of the RMA, other relevant legislation, Regional Policy Statement and other statutory considerations (as set out in Section 42A Report), we consider option (b) above is the most effective and efficient approach for achieving the objectives of the District Plan for the following reasons: a) This area already has a high level of investment in existing infrastructure, development, community facilities and other physical resources. Providing for a mixed use area with a wide range of land use activities in this location provides for the efficient use and development of resources including land, infrastructure, community facilities and other physical resources. Developing a new area mixed use area or further intensifying another location is not considered as efficient. b) The recognition of the risks and the requirement for appropriate responses will remedy and build a more resilient place than exists currently. c) Considers other matters and priorities of central government and Council, such as affordable housing and provision of land supply. d) The potential effects on the health and safety of the community will be avoided or mitigated by the adoption of a series of District Plan provisions. e) The mixed use area contributes to the overall social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the Petone area and Lower Hutt City through providing opportunities for new land use activities and development GNS Science Report 2014/23 22

28 f) Current legislative and national policy context on planning and management of natural hazard risks lacks clear direction for land use planning for seismic hazard risks and consequences. The Resource Management Act 1991 identifies a requirement to avoid, remedy or mitigate impacts. Furthermore, there is no clear indication that all risks need to be eliminated. Based on this overall conclusion, and considering specific matters raised in evidence about the nature, type and scale of development and land use activities in this area and natural hazard risks, in addition to our earlier recommendations, natural hazard provisions have been further revised to add the following recommended amendments to the Plan Change to address natural hazards (refer to Appendix 1 for specific wording and amendments): a) Add a new specific Issue, Objective, Policies and Explanation and Reasons specifically addressing natural hazards in the Petone Mixed Use Area. b) A case-by-case assessment through the resource consent process is required for all new buildings and most additions to existing buildings, to assess the natural hazard risks and consequences, including adding a specific reference to risk from tsunami. c) Emergency facilities are made a Non-Complying Activity for the entire Petone Mixed Use Area. d) Places of Assembly, Childcare Facilities, Education and Training Facilities, Commercial Activities (accommodating more than 300 people), Community Activities/Facilities, Housing for the Elderly and Residential Facility are made a Discretionary Activity for the entire Petone Mixed Use Area These suggested changes in the officers right of reply, further strengthened the provisions relation to natural hazards within the proposed plan change area. These changes to the natural hazards provisions demonstrate that quality verbal presentations on submissions have the ability to convince council officers that further changes to a plan change are required. It should, however, be recognised that these changes are only a recommendation, and the final decision on the objectives, policies and rules and their associated wording are made by the commissioners hearing the plan change. The commissioners do not have to accept the council officer s recommendations. 4.9 DECISION The decision for proposed Plan Change 29 was notified on 24 September This decision reflected many of the suggested changes proposed by the council officers over the course of the hearing. When compared to the notified plan change, the key changes that were made in relation to natural hazards as follows: A natural hazard specific objective and supporting policies were developed for the plan change area. All new buildings require a case-by-case assessment of the natural hazard risks and consequences. These are specific references to the ground rupture, subsidence, liquefaction and tsunami risks as well as the requirement for sea level rise to be considered. GNS Science Report 2014/23 23

29 Emergency facilities were made a Non-Complying Activity for the entire Petone Mixed Use Area, in response to the risk from natural hazards. In response to the natural hazard risk, Places of Assembly, Childcare Facilities, Education and Training Facilities, Commercial Activities (accommodating more than 300 people), Community Activities/Facilities, Housing for the Elderly and Residential Facility were made a Discretionary Activity. Any development that includes these activities must consider the natural hazard risk and measures to avoid or reduce this risk. As such, the following was recommended to be added to the plan (Hutt City Council, 2013b): 5B 1.1.2B Area 2 Petone Mixed Use Natural Hazards Issue Petone West is susceptible to a number of natural hazards due to its location in proximity to the Wellington fault line, its coastal position, high watertable, soil profile and anticipated exposure to ground shaking. Development in this area would increase the potential consequences and impacts of these hazards. Given the natural hazard risks and potential consequences, it is necessary to reduce the risk and vulnerability of people and their property from natural hazards. Risks from natural hazards needs to be balanced with risk of negative economic and social consequences from preventing or restricting any further development (and corresponding investment) in this existing urban area and the benefits of allowing for the use of previously developed land in proximity to strategic transport links and a range of amenities. Objective To avoid or mitigate the vulnerability and risk of people and development to natural hazards to an acceptable level. Policies (a) Restrict the establishment of certain activities such as emergency facilities, childcare centres, places of assembly, commercial activities accommodating large number of people, education and training, housing for the elderly, and residential facilities in recognition of their higher vulnerability to natural hazard risks and potential for higher consequences in the event of a natural disaster occurring. (b) (c) (d) (e) Manage developments containing higher numbers of people, more vulnerable types of development and developments with higher consequences in the event of a natural disaster, to ensure that the use and development avoids or mitigates the risks posed by seismic hazards to a degree considered acceptable by the Council. Ensure that new development does not occur without an understanding of natural hazard risks. New development does not take place without appropriate precautions and mitigation measures against natural hazard risks. Ensure developments, including buildings and structures, are located, designed and constructed to reduce the risk to building failure and loss of life from seismic hazards, including fault rupture hazard, subsidence, liquefaction and tsunami inundation. GNS Science Report 2014/23 24

30 (f) Ensure the design and layout of developments, including buildings, avoids or mitigates the effects of sea level rises, taking into account rises to such levels as a result of climate change. Explanation and Reasons The Wellington Fault traverses the Petone Mixed Use Area, which places the area at high risk from seismic activity. This area is at risk from a range of hazards including: 1. Surface fault rupture within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area 2. Wellington fault subsidence and ground level change 3. Ground shaking; 4. Liquefaction and associated subsidence 5. Tsunami inundation; and 6. Climate change impacts, including absolute and relative sea level rise Fault rupture has the potential to cause significance damage to buildings, structures and life without warning. The Wellington Fault Special Study Area has been identified to manage the risks posed by fault rupture, although other earthquake related risks apply outside this area. A significant portion of the mixed use area has been identified as having a medium to high overall earthquake risk, with liquefaction potential identified as high and very high. The assessment of hazard risks involves a consideration of potential consequences from natural hazards, in addition to the likelihood of an event occurring. Due to the potential for large numbers of people to congregate or work in community facilities and large commercial buildings, as well as facilities which provide critical services during emergency events, the establishment of specific activities are restricted. These restricted activities are based on the Building Importance Categories in the Building Code. In addition, any new development will need to undertake a site specific investigation of the seismic hazards (fault rupture, liquefaction, tsunami and subsidence) to determine the risks to people and property posed by the hazards and the measures proposed to avoid or mitigate these risks. Although the risk of damage from natural hazards can be reduced by the adoption of a range of mitigation measures, natural hazard risks cannot be completely eliminated. Consideration should be given to the risks posed by natural hazards over the anticipated lifetime of development (not less than 50 years). Prior to any development occurring, it is important there is understanding and consideration of the natural hazard risks and assessment of precautions and mitigation measures proposed in response to these risks. A site specific assessment would ensure these risks are assessed. This assessment needs to take into account the future use and occupancy of the development. All new buildings and extensions and extensions and alterations to existing buildings which increase gross floor area above 5% will require resource consent. Matters of consideration will include natural hazards and will require the submission of geotechnical information provided by a suitably qualified person assessing the seismic risks for the subject site, including fault rupture, ground shaking, subsidence, tsunami and liquefaction. The information shall identify the location and depth of any fault trace and/or fault trace deformation, location and depth of subsidence, liquefaction risk and risk of tsunami inundation. At the time of proposing new development, geotechnical information will be GNS Science Report 2014/23 25

31 required to demonstrate new buildings avoid and setback from being sited directly over a fault trace. For subsidence, liquefaction and ground shaking, geotechnical investigations will be required to assess the ground conditions of the site, and assess the intensity and nature of future development of the site, including building design and construction techniques. Due to the position of the aquifer under part of the plan change area, applicants should be aware that intrusive ground investigation intended as part of an assessment of hazard risk, may also require resource consent from Greater Wellington Regional Council. The design and layout of development, including buildings is also expected to take into account methods to avoid or mitigate the risks from sea level rises, taken into account changes to these levels as a result of climate change. Sea levels in Wellington Harbour are predicted to rise by 0.8m by the 2090 s or approximately 1m in the next 100 years. This prediction does not take into account relative sea level rises, caused by polar ice-sheet loss and tectonic subsidence. The plan change is not operative as it has been appealed to the Environment Court. However, the matters on which it has been appealed do not include the natural hazard provisions. This means that the objective, policies and rules pertaining to natural hazards for the plan change area will only apply once the appeals have been resolved. The issue of what an acceptable level of risk referred to in the Objective will also need to be discussed and decided upon to ensure the objective will result in a reduction of risk URBAN DESIGN GUIDE As part of the Council Officers report prepared for the plan change, they recommended that a design guide for future buildings in plan change area. The Commissioners considered that this design guide represented a significant change to the plan change that was notified and that parties have the ability to submit on it. Subsequently, the Commissioners decided to notify the design guide and seek formal submissions on this component of the plan change. The Council notified the design guide on 20 May 2012, with submissions closing on 21 June GNS Science lodged a submission on the guidelines seeking changes to section 2.12 Adaptation & Resilience and the Natural Hazard provisions on Page 38 of the Design Guide (See Appendix 5 for a copy of the submission). The decision on the guideline was notified on 24 September No changes were made to the natural hazards provisions of the design guide as a result of submissions. GNS Science Report 2014/23 26

32 5.0 SUMMARY OF POLICY CHANGES Prior to the submission process, the plan change did not include any specific natural hazard related objectives, policies or additional restrictions. What was included was focused on the Wellington Fault Special Study Area; no other hazards were specified. Based on the submission process outlined prior, a new section was inserted on natural hazards (detailed in the previous section), which specifically includes ground rupture as well as subsidence, liquefaction, tsunami, and sea level rise. Without GNS Science input, the result may have been different. Table 1 summarise the before and after provisions, showing the direct changes as a result of the submission process. Table 1 Natural hazard provisions in Plan Change 29 before and after submission process. Before submission process Proposed Plan Change 29 (26/6/12) After submission process Decision for Plan Change 29 (24/9/13) Wellington Faultline Retaining current requirements to cope with the extra risk of building within the Wellington Fault Area. Building heights and density provisions within the fault area would be the same as elsewhere in the area. Include a natural hazard specific objective: To avoid or mitigate the vulnerability and risk of people and development to natural hazards to an acceptable level. All new buildings require a case-by-case assessment of the natural hazard risks and consequences. These are specific references to the ground rupture, subsidence, liquefaction and tsunami risks as well as the requirement for sea level rise to be considered. Emergency facilities were made a Non-Complying Activity for the entire Petone Mixed Use Area, in response to the risk from natural hazards. In response to the natural hazard risk, Places of Assembly, Childcare Facilities, Education and Training Facilities, Commercial Activities (accommodating more than 300 people), Community Activities/Facilities, Housing for the Elderly and Residential Facility were made a Discretionary Activity. Any development that includes these activities must consider the natural hazard risk and measures to avoid or reduce this risk. Ideally, at least from a GNS Science perspective, these provisions should be incorporated into the entire district plan. Currently the plan only includes the Wellington Special Fault Study Area and flooding, yet these other hazards (i.e., subsidence, liquefaction, tsunami and sea level rise) have the potential to affect other areas outside of the Petone West plan change area. GNS Science Report 2014/23 27

33 6.0 CONCLUSION Petone is subject to a range of natural hazards, including strong earthquake ground shaking, ground-surface fault rupture, subsidence, liquefaction, tsunami, sea level rise, landslides, and flooding. Despite these range of hazards, only two are mapped within the HCC district plan: flooding from the Hutt River and Waiwhetu Stream; and the Wellington Fault. Notwithstanding these hazards, the Hutt City Council proposed to intensify development in Petone West. Current best practice relating to planning, urban design, and housing is to intensify the level of development within existing urban boundaries. This creates a tension between managing the risks associated with natural hazards and increasing the level and variety of development within existing urban boundaries. Plan Change 29 demonstrates that even after the Canterbury Earthquake sequence and the large amount of damage that was done to infrastructure and buildings that were located in hazard prone area (such as areas susceptible to liquefaction), councils are still considering intensifying development in areas that are at high risk from a variety natural hazards. In the case of this plan change, the submitters played an important role in changing the content of the plan change. An important submitter to the proposed plan change was GNS Science (acting in the role of good corporate citizen ), who presented the latest scientific understanding of the geological hazards in this area, and the legislative responsibility of the Council. It is our understanding, that the presentation of the scientific information to the Council planners, the community (via the pre-hearing meeting), and the Commissioners, played a key role in ensuring the objective, policies and rules pertaining to natural hazards were included in the plan change. This demonstrates that it is important that the scientific work that GNS Science is undertaken is used in appropriate forums to help educate and inform important policy debate regarding development and the mitigation of risks due to natural hazards. Often it is assumed that councils and decision makers are aware of the natural hazards in their area. However, often there is only a basic understanding of the natural hazards, while the scale and potential risks from the natural hazards are often poorly understood. While Plan Change 29 still went ahead in highly hazardous area, it does represent a success story in how GNS Science research was used with positive effect at a local scale. GNS Science s role helped to educate decision makers, and inform policy, to ensure future risks from development in areas subject to natural hazards are reduced. GNS Science Report 2014/23 28

34 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was gratefully funded from the It s Our Fault research project. The authors would like to thank Dr Terry Webb and Dr Russ van Dissen for their review, and Dr James Crampton for his involvement in the submission process. 8.0 REFERENCES Beetham, R. D., Cousins, J., Craig, M., Dellow, G. D., & van Dissen, R. J. (2012). Hutt Valley trunk wastewater earthquake vulnerability study. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Begg, J. G., Van Dissen, R. J., & Rhoades, D. A. (2004). Subsidence in the Lower Hutt Valley and the interplay between Wellington and Wairarapa Fault earthquakes. Paper presented at the Getting the message across and moving ahead. Begg, J. G., Van Dissen, R. J., Rhoades, D. A., Lukovic, B., Heron, D. W., Darby, D. J., et al. (2002). Coseismic subsidence in the Lower Hutt Valley resulting from rupture of the Wellington Fault. Wellington: GNS Science. Bell, R. G., & Hannah, J. (2012). Sea-level variability and trends: Wellington Region. Hamilton: NIWA. Berryman, K. (2005). Review of tsunami hazard and risk in New Zealand. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Boon, D. P., Perrin, N. D., Dellow, G. D., & Lukovic, B. (2010a). It's Our Fault - Geological and geotechnical characterisation and site subsoil class revision of the Lower Hutt Valley. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Boon, D. P., Perrin, N. D., Dellow, G. D., & Lukovic, B. (2010b). It's Our Fault: Geological and geotechnical characterisation and site class revision of the Lower Hutt Valley. GNS Science consultancy report 2010/163, 56. Boon, D. P., Perrin, N. D., Dellow, G. D., Van Dissen, R., & Lukovic, B. (2011). NZS1170.5:2004 site subsoil classification of Lower Hutt. Paper presented at the 9th Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Brabhaharan, P. (2010). Initiatives towards integrated resilience of road transportation lifelines in the Wellington region. Paper presented at the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineers. Curley, B., Beetham, R. D., & Simms, B. (13 March 2013). Proposed Plan Change 29: Petone mixed use area; Natural hazard technical response to submissions. Wellington: GHD Ltd. Downs, G. L. (1995). Atlas of isoseismal maps of New Zealand earthquakes. Lower Hutt: Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences. EQC. (n.d.). On this day: Wairarapa earthquake Retrieved 23 January, 2013, from Garside, R., Johnston, D. M., Saunders, W. S. A., & Leonard, G. (2009). Planning for tsunami evacuations: the case of the Marine Education Centre, Wellington, New Zealand. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 24(3), Hutt City Council. (2006). District Plan - City of Lower Hutt. Lower Hutt: Hutt City Council. Hutt City Council. (2012a). District Plan Change 29. from Hutt City Council. (2012b). Proposed District Plan Change 29. Lower Hutt. Hutt City Council. (2013a). Notes of Plan Change 29 pre-hearing meeting to discuss natural hazard risks. Hutt City Council. Hutt City Council. (2013b). Officer's right of reply [Plan Change 29]. from fficers%20right%20of%20reply%20report.pdf Leonard, G. S., Power, W., Lukovic, B., Smith, W., Johnston, D., & Downes, G. (2008). Tsunami evacuation zones for Wellington and Horizons regions defined by a GNS-calculated attenuation rule. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. GNS Science Report 2014/23 29

35 MCDEM. (2008). Tsunami evacuation zones: Director's guideline for Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups [DGL08/08]. Wellington: Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Ministry for the Environment. (2009). Making a submission about a proposed plan or plan change. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Power, W. L. C. (2013). Review of tsunami hazard in New Zealand (2013 update). Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Rhoades, D. A., Van Dissen, R. J., Langridge, R. M., Little, T. A., Ninis, D., Smith, E. G. C., & Robinson, R. (2011). Re-evaluation of conditional probability of rupture of the Wellington-Hutt Valley segment of the Wellington Fault. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44(2), 9. Robinson, R., Van Dissen, R. J., & Litchfield, N. J. (2011). Using synthetic seismicity to evaluate seismic hazard in the Wellington region, New Zealand. Geophysical Journal International, 187(1), Saunders, W. S. A., & Beban, J. G. (2011). Risk-based approach to natural hazards. Planning Quarterly, 183, Saunders, W. S. A., & Beban, J. G. (2012). Putting R(isk) in the RMA: Technical Advisory Group recommendations on the Resource Management Act 1991 and implications for natural hazards planning. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Saunders, W. S. A., Beban, J. G., & Kilvington, M. (2013). Risk-based land use planning for natural hazard risk reduction. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Saunders, W. S. A., & Beban, J. S. (2012). Putting R(isk) in the RMA: Technical Advisory Group recommendations on the Resource Management Act 1991 and implications for natural hazards planning. GNS Science Miscellaneous Series 48. Saunders, W. S. A., & Berryman, K. R. (2012). Just add water: When should liquefaction be considered in land use planning? (Vol. 47). Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Saunders, W. S. A., Prasetya, G., & Leonard, G. (2011). New Zealand's Next Top Model: incorporating tsunami inundation modelling into land use planning. Lower Hutt: GNS Science. Standards Australia/New Zealand. (2002). Standard for structural design actions, Part 0 General Principles, AS/NZS :2002: Standards New Zealand. Standards Australia/New Zealand. (2004). NZS Sturctural design actions - Part 5: Earthquake actions: Standards New Zealand. Stirling, M. W., McVerry, G. H., Gerstenberger, M. C., Litchfield, N. J., Van Dissen, R. J., Berryman, K. R., et al. (2012). National seismic hazard model for New Zealand: 2010 update. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4), Tindale, A., Wesney, H., & Baily, M. (2013). Officer's Report. Lower Hutt. Wellington Region Emergency Management Office. (2013). Wellington region tsunami evacuation zones: Lower Hutt. 2013, from Wellington Regional Council. (2001). Hutt River Floodplain Management Plan - for the Hutt River and its environment. Wellington: Wellington Regional Council. Stirling, M., McVerry, G., Gerstenberger, M., Litchfield, N., Van Dissen, R., Berryman, K., Barnes, P., Wallace, L., Bradley, B., Villamor, P., Langridge, R., Lamarche, G., Noder, S., Reyners, M., Rhoades, D., Smith, W., Nicol, A., Pettinga, J., Clark, K., Jacobs, K. (2012). National seismic hazard model for New Zealand: 2012 update. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 102(4), doi: / GNS Science Report 2014/23 30

36 APPENDICES

37 APPENDIX 1: DISTRICT PLANS AND THE PLAN CHANGE PROCESS A1.1 WHAT IS A DISTRICT PLAN? City and district councils are required under the Resource Management Act 1991 to prepare a district plan for their respective jurisdiction. Section 31 of the RMA outlines the matters that must be addressed in a district plan and states: Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: b) The control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of (i) (ii) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and (iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land: (iii) c) Repealed the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: d) the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: e) the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes: f) any other functions specified in this Act. To achieve these requirements, a district plan assigns each property a zone within a council s jurisdiction. Each zone has its own objectives, policies, rules, and anticipated environmental outcomes, which determine the type and form of development that can be undertaken in that zone. Each council has its own zones, and therefore the provisions pertaining to zones vary between councils. However, the following are common zone themes across the various councils: Residential Rural Business/Industrial Commercial; and Recreational. In addition to these themes, many councils have hazards overlays. These hazard overlays apply to the areas of the region subject to certain natural hazards. While the natural hazard definition under the RMA is broad and covers all natural hazards, the hazards addressed by district plans are sporadic and inconsistent across the country. The most common hazards GNS Science Report 2014/23 32

38 addressed by district plans are flooding, fault rupture, and landslides. There are very few district plans that address coastal erosion, climate change, liquefaction, and tsunami. A more complete analysis of the hazards covered by regional, district and Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plans are currently being undertaken by GNS Science and will be completed by June A1.2 PLAN CHANGE PROCESS A plan change is a change to a district plan. A plan change can be initiated by either the Council or a member of public. The plan change process is a public process that requires research, evaluation and consultation. A plan change can change any aspect of the district plan. However, the most common plan changes are as follows: Rezoning of land; or Changing objectives, policies, and/or rules of an existing zone. Plan changes occur for a variety of reasons. The primary reason for a plan change is due to the RMA requiring district plans to be reviewed every 10 years. This review process often identifies the need for a district plan to change to better address the development pressures and associated environmental effects. A plan change may also be initiated by a council in response to new information or important events that have occurred. An example of when this might occur is in relation to natural hazards; a council may commission a report or modelling that identifies the need to restrict or alter development within a given area to ensure the risks from the natural hazard are reduced over time. The plan change process is a statutory process that is identified in the Resource Management Act and all plan changes are required to follow this process (Figure A 1). Generally, the process can be described as follows: The council identifies an issue that needs to be responded to and prepares an options paper that is presented to the council politicians. The politicians provide directive on which option they would like council officers to proceed with. Council officers prepare a plan change. This plan change includes an s.32 report which considers the environmental effects associated with the plan change, the consistency of the change with the objectives and policies of other documents (for example Regional Policy Statements), the costs and benefit of the change when compared to other options, and the extent to which change is the most appropriate way to achieving the purpose of the RMA. The council notifies the plan change. It does this by putting a notice in the paper, on their website and/or by sending information in the mail to directly affected parties. The plan change is notified for 20 working days. People who support, oppose, or wish to comment on the plan change can lodge a submission during this notification period. Any person can lodge a submission. The Council prepares a summary of the matters raised in the submissions. This summary of submission is then notified for 10 working days. A person can make a further submission that either supports or opposes an original submission. GNS Science Report 2014/23 33

39 The council will then consider the submissions and will hold a hearing if there are submitters who wish to be heard in support of their submissions. The council officers will prepare a report and circulate this to the submitters prior to the hearing. The report contains the council officers recommendations in regard to the matters raised by submitters, whether any changes are required to the plan change, and their overall recommendation on whether the plan change should proceed or be declined. The hearing committee will consider the plan change, the submissions received, and any points raised by submitters speaking in support of their submission. The hearing committee makes a decision on the plan change. If a submitter/submitters disagree with the decision, they have 30 working days to appeal the plan change to the Environment Court. Figure A , pp. 2 3). Schematic depiction of the New Zealand plan change process (Ministry for the Environment, GNS Science Report 2014/23 34

40 APPENDIX 2: GNS SCIENCE SUBMISSION LODGED WITH HUTT COUNCIL CITY 8 August 2012 Tony Stallinger Chief Executive Hutt City Council Private Bag LOWER HUTT district.plan@huttcity.govt.nz Dear Mr Stallinger, PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN CHANGE 29: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE TO THE WEST END OF PETONE PETONE MIXED USE Please find attached a submission on Proposed Plan Change 29 which is seeking to establish mixed use development within the western portion of Petone. This submission was compiled by Dr Wendy Saunders and James Beban with technical input from Grant Dellow, Engineering Geologist, Russ Van Dissen, Earthquake Geologist and Stuart Fraser, PhD student investigating vertical evacuation structures for tsunami. GNS Science is New Zealand's leading provider of Earth, geoscience and isotope research and consultancy services. We apply our scientific knowledge from the atomic to the planetary scale to create wealth, protect the environment, and improve the safety of people. In this regard, our submission focuses on the natural hazard risk to the area subject to the Proposed Plan Change. Dr Wendy Saunders wishes to be heard in support of this submission. If you have any questions regard this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Wendy on w.saunders@gns.cri.nz. Yours faithfully Terry Webb General Manager Natural Hazards GNS Science Report 2014/23 35

41 Proposed Plan Change 29: GNS Science submission This submission is in two parts: the first provides background information on the earthquake, tsunami, liquefaction and climate change hazards to be considered; the second part is a submission on specific provisions of the plan change. PART 1: Background hazard information The information provided in this section forms part of this submission. For each of the hazards listed (but not limited to these hazards), a risk-based approach to planning is recommended. Information on this approach is available from the December 2011 issue of Planning Quarterly (Saunders & Beban, 2011). Dr Wendy Saunders is available to council staff to provide further information on this approach. Earthquake Hazard Background The Wellington Region lies within the deforming boundary zone between the Pacific and Australian plates, and is located within one of the most seismically active areas of the country. The region is cut by a number of earthquake producing active faults both on and off shore, it is underlain by the subduction interface between the Australian and Pacific plates, and since ca AD 1840, the region has been violently shaken by earthquakes in 1848, 1855 and 1942 (Downes 1995, Robinson et al., 2011, Stirling et al., in press). The likelihood of a Wellington Fault earthquake (approximately magnitude 7.5) occurring within the next 100 years is approximately 10% (Rhoades et al., 2011). The western portion of Petone is vulnerable to a number of different earthquake hazards (surface fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides and tsunami). Any future development of this area should take into account these hazards, and include risk reduction measures that would reduce the consequences from an earthquake event. Tsunami and liquefaction are described in more detail below. Where appropriate, risk reduction measures have been identified to assist in reducing the consequences (economic, built environment, health and safety and social and cultural) of a large earthquake. Tsunami Hazard New Zealand s location on a plate boundary means it experiences many large earthquakes, some causing large tsunami. New Zealand s coasts are also exposed to tsunami from submarine and coastal landslides, and from island and submarine volcanoes. A repeat of the 1855 West Wairarapa Fault earthquake would result in a 1m high tsunami for the Petone West Area. A subduction zone earthquake in the Cook Strait would result in flow depths of up to 2m (Cousins, Power et al., 2011). For these scenarios, initial tsunami waves are expected to arrive as little as minutes after the earthquake. In addition, tsunami generated by large earthquakes at distant locations (i.e. South America, western North America and the Aleutians in the north Pacific Ocean) can also be damaging in New Zealand (Berryman, 2005). Lower Hutt s tsunami risk is documented in the 2005 report Review of Tsunami Hazard and Risk in New Zealand (Berryman, 2005). While avoidance of high risk areas is preferable, often this is not practical. However, several risk reduction measures should be considered to reduce the consequences from a tsunami. These measures can be divided into three categories structural and evacuation requirements, and land use planning options. However, it should be noted that structural and evacuation requirements can be required using land use planning processes. These different categories are described in more detail below: GNS Science Report 2014/23 36

42 Structural Require buildings to be constructed from reinforced concrete, with timber-frame and steel-frame construction being avoided. Data from Japan shows that tsunami flow depth of 1.5m 2m is sufficient to cause significant damage to, or collapse of, timberframe buildings. Reinforced concrete buildings also provide greatest resistance to debris strike (e.g., motor vehicles, boats, parts of other structures), which can cause collapse of steel and timber construction (Fraser, Leonard, et al., 2011); Require piled foundations which resist scour during tsunami; and Require elevated building foundations which would reduce flow depths at and around buildings. Evacuation For a local source tsunami event (where no official warnings may be given due to the short timeframe), high ground may not be able to be reached in a timely way particularly when the closest (and very steep, bush laden) hill side requires people to cross over the railway line and State Highway 2. New buildings in the plan-change area should be constructed to enable emergency vertical evacuation function, in cases where high ground cannot be reached before inundation. This function requires buildings to have several features, based on previous experience from the recent Japan tsunami [(Fraser, Leonard, et al., 2011), including: 24 hour external access (ideally via external stairs) to safe storeys. Safe storeys are likely to be the third storey and above for the expected tsunami flow depths, but should be determined through site-specific tsunami modelling; There would be the requirement for on-going education of the community and building occupants. Community education programs are required to communicate appropriate evacuation actions in the case of local earthquake and natural and official tsunami warnings. Signage indicating evacuation routes and vertical evacuation facilities is required at street-level and on all evacuation buildings. Regular community evacuation training and exercising is important to ensure efficient evacuation can occur. Dedicated emergency provisions should be established at the upper storeys of the building (including communications equipment, shelter, food and water, first aid). These provisions may be in use for over 24 hours in an evacuation. Consideration will need to be given to the evacuation needs of vulnerable populations (e.g., disabled, elderly and children) as well as the evacuation needs of public and private buildings. Such populations/facilities may require external help to evacuate large numbers of people. These matters should be considered for new developments as well as for the change in use of existing buildings. In 2007, the Environment Court (W082/2007) decided to uphold appeals relating to the effects of a proposed Marine Education Centre to be built on an exposed coastal site, susceptible to tsunami risk, south of Wellington city. This resulted in a significant ruling that applicants seeking resource consents for the establishment and operation of public facilities in areas susceptible to natural hazards should not overlook evacuation planning in their application (Garside, Johnston, Saunders, & Leonard, 2009). Similarly, the Hutt City Council should give sufficient weighting to the issue of evacuation planning. GNS Science Report 2014/23 37

43 Planning options Guidance is available on how to incorporate tsunami modelling into land use planning, and this is strongly recommended. The report New Zealand s Next Top Model: integrating tsunami inundation into land use planning (Saunders, Prasetya, & Leonard, 2011) is available to download at Partnerships/Policy-and-Planning. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a potential hazard in the area subject to Plan Change 29. Although data is limited (Boon, Perrin, Dellow, & Lukovic, 2010b), what does exist shows that fine-grained, non-cohesive sediments less than 10,000 years old are present where the water table is expected to be close to the ground surface due to the area s proximity to the coastline. All of these conditions are required to be met for liquefaction to be a hazard, and are met in areas to the east of the Wellington Fault in Petone. The earthquake sequence in Christchurch has demonstrated the vulnerability of underground infrastructure and buildings to damage from liquefaction. Underground infrastructure (i.e., water reticulation networks, wastewater networks, storm-water networks, buried electricity cables and buried telecom cables) can all be broken and rendered inoperable as a result of liquefaction damage. Buildings too can be badly damaged by liquefaction through lateral spreading (extension of the foundations) or differential settlements, where even relatively small displacements can be amplified if one end of a large building disproportionally settles compared to the other end of the building. Liquefaction hazards can often be mitigated using geotechnical design. However these may not always be technically or financially feasible. In the area subject to the Proposed Plan Change, the potential risks from liquefaction on the built environment require further consideration. In particular, the effects of liquefaction on the in-ground infrastructure (including any new infrastructure required to support an increased level of development within this area), as well as any potential new buildings. It should be noted that the construction of high-rise buildings to the east of the Wellington Fault may be problematic deep piled foundations would be required, an activity that is currently prohibited. As such, further consideration may be required around what is an appropriate building height within the area subject to the proposed plan change, given the need to reduce risks from liquefaction. We consider further understanding of the liquefaction hazard is required to ascertain the impact of liquefaction on the proposed redevelopment area. This requires the systematic acquisition of subsurface information specifically targeted at the liquefaction hazard. Much is being learnt in Christchurch from this approach using cone penetrometer tests. The cost of an investigation program to undertake this work is small compared to the costs of developing the area, and ultimately the costs (e.g., economic, social, life safety, and infrastructure resilience) to repair damage following a large earthquake. GNS Science Report 2014/23 38

44 Climate Change In July 2012 Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW), released a report (Bell & Hannah, 2012) that assessed sea-level rise and coastal flooding from storm events in the Wellington region (the report is available at The reports include current trends and future scenarios based on those trends. Wave heights, wind strength, storm-tide levels, sea-level variability and large-scale storm events are all assessed. The long term record from New Zealand shows that sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7mm/yr. However, in Wellington it is slightly higher due to subsidence and is currently increasing at 2.03mm/yr. This equates to a little over 0.2m over the last 100 years alone. Wellington Harbour has experienced an average rise in sea level of about 2mm per year over the past 100 years. Most of this rise is due to climate change but is being exacerbated by subsidence of the city over the past decade, caused by slow-slip seismic events from deep tectonic plate movements. Projections for the end of this century indicate sea level in Wellington region could rise by 0.8m by the 2090s or 1.0m by In summary, Wellington has the highest rate of sea-level rise in New Zealand and the report highlights areas in the region that are vulnerable to coastal flooding over the next 100 years. All low-lying areas around the coast are subject to storm-tide flooding but this vulnerability will increase due to sea-level rise. Areas at risk include the mouth of the Hutt River and lowlying parts of Petone. Based on this most recent (July 2012) research, it is essential that the Council prepare for climate change, in particularly around the Petone West area. Further intensification of development should be carefully considered, as outlined in the NIWA report: Depending on the future risks and potential for future adaptation, sea-level rises above 1.5m, irrespective of the likely timeframe in which they will be attained, should be considered for new greenfield developments (Bell & Hannah, 2012, p. 59) For existing communities and developed areas plan for a sea-level rise of at least 1.0m by 2115 (Bell & Hannah, 2012, p. 61). It is recommend the Hutt City Council review and reconsider this proposed plan change with regard to this latest research. GNS Science Report 2014/23 39

45 PART 2: Specific provisions that this submission relates to The specific provisions of the proposal that our submission relates to are: Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule 5B (a) Emergency Facilities Section 32 Analysis Chapter Option 1 retain the existing provisions of the District Plan to address the risks from natural hazards Section 32 Analysis Chapter Our submission is that: Emergency facilities should either be an identified Discretionary Activity or Non-Complying Activity within the area subject to the Proposed Plan Change. Given the variety of natural hazards located within the western portion of Petone, it is unlikely any emergency facilities established within this area would be able to undertake their post disaster functions following an earthquake. As such, making emergency facilities a Discretionary or Non-Complying Activity, will allow for a consideration of the risk from the natural hazard on the ability for the emergency facility to operate post an event. The section 32 analysis for Option 1 does not identify all costs associated with this option. Namely it does not recognise: - The costs (economic, social and health and safety) arising from the damage from an earthquake on future buildings established on the area. - The potential issues associated with obtaining insurance cover on hazard prone land. - The potential costs to Council from future proofing infrastructure in this area so that it can function post-earthquake. - The cost to Council associated with repairing services in the area following a large earthquake. The section 32 analysis does not recognise that there are loopholes within the existing rules which can result in an increase in risk from a natural hazard. These include: - The rules for the Wellington Fault Special Study Area do not apply to a change in use to an existing building. They only apply to new buildings. As such it is possible for an existing warehouse on the fault to have its use change to a childcare centre (which would increase the risk as there are more people on the site) without the need for resource consent, if no external building alternations were being undertaken. - The earthworks rules only allow for the consideration of slope stability and flooding effects associated with the undertaking of the works. It does not allow for the consideration of liquefaction. We seek the following decisions from Hutt City Council: That emergency facilities are either an identified Discretionary Activity or Non- Complying Activity within the area subject to the Proposed Plan Change. That these costs are included in Option 1; and a determination as to whether this is still the most appropriate option to proceed with in regards to addressing the natural hazard risk to this area. That the rules of Chapter 14H and 14I are amended to ensure that these loopholes are addressed.

46 The specific provisions of the proposal that our submission relates to are: Section 32 Analysis Chapter Section 32 Analysis Chapter Section 32 Analysis Chapter Section 32 Analysis Chapter Our submission is that: The section 32 analysis does not consider of the mitigation measures detailed within the GHD report titled Hutt City Council Report for Petone West District Plan Change Natural Hazards Review & Geotechnical Considerations dated February These suggested mitigation measures would assist with reducing the consequences associated with natural hazards. There is no discussion within the s. 32 analysis regarding why the recommendations of this report have not been considered further. The s. 32 analysis relies of the Building Act 2004 to address the consequences from liquefaction, tsunami and fault rupture. However, the Loadings Standard (Standards Australia/New Zealand, 2002) on which the Building Act relies, only covers loadings for snow, wind, and ground shaking. As such, the Building Act 2004 currently does not cover these natural hazards. Since this Plan Change has been notified, the Minister for the Environment has released a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) report which reviewed ss. 6 and 7 of the RMA. As part of this review, the TAG was asked to see whether natural hazards needed to be more strongly recognised within the RMA. This TAG report has recommended several potential changes to the RMA to better recognise natural hazards within this piece of legislation. Included within these recommendations is the consideration of risks from natural hazards. Further information on the implications of the TAG recommendations on natural hazard planning is available at Hazards/Active-Partnerships/Policy-and-Planning (W. S. A. Saunders & J. S. Beban, 2012) The objectives and policies of a District Plan detail the environmental outcomes which the supporting rules are seeking to achieve. The s.32 analysis recognises that rules that reduce the risks from natural hazards would be effective and efficient in achieving the natural hazards objectives. However, it was concluded in the s.32 analysis that rules that addressed the natural hazard risk would not be effective and efficient in addressing the objectives for the Petone Commercial Zone Area 2. We do not agree with this statement. We believe that rules that address the natural hazard risk will also be consistent with the objectives and policies for Petone Commercial Zone Area 2 as they will: Still allow for mixed use development to occur (objective 5B and policy (a)); Will ensure that that the adverse effects generated by the activity are avoided or mitigated (policy h). We seek the following decisions from Hutt City Council: That the mitigation measures outlined in the GHD report (particularly recommendations 6 and 7) are adopted into the plan change as specific rules to reduce the consequences from an earthquake. These recommendations should be viewed as a potential minimum set of rules to be considered. That the s. 32 analysis is updated to the reflect this; and specific land use planning rules are created to address these natural hazards as opposed to relying on the Building Act 2004/Loading Standard. While the TAG report has no legal weighting, the Council should revisit its s. 32 analysis regarding natural hazards; and ensure that appropriate rules are proposed to reduce the risks to future development from the various natural hazards which this area of land is subjected to. That rules are developed to address the natural hazard risk for the Petone West Area.

47 APPENDIX 3: HCC OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS The following are Hutt City Council officers recommendations on the submissions received for this topic/issue and amendments to the above PC29 provisions and other actions: Accept and Reject all submissions relating to the above Amendments to the extent that: AMENDMENT 4 [5B (Area 2 Petone Commercial Activity Area)] New policy added regarding natural hazards, as follows: (l) Manage higher density and higher risk land use activities and development to ensure that the use and development avoids or mitigates the risks posed by seismic hazards. New text added to Explanation and Reasons as follows: The Wellington Fault traverses the Petone Mixed Use Area, which places the area at high risk from seismic activity. Due to the potential for large numbers of people to congregate or work in community facilities and large commercial buildings, as well as facilities which provide critical services during emergency events, the establishment of specific activities are restricted. These restricted activities are based on the Building Importance Categories in the Building Code. In addition, any new development will need to undertake a site specific investigation of the seismic hazards (fault rupture, liquefaction and subsidence) to determine the risks to people and property posed by the hazards and the measures proposed to avoid or mitigate these risks. AMENDMENT 10 [Rule 5B (Permitted Activities)] is amended to read: Amendment to activity (j) (j) Places of assembly, except for sites within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area New activities added (r) Childcare facility, except for sites within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area (s) Education and Training except for sites within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area (t) Marae, except for sites within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area (u) Cultural Centres, expect for sites within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area AMENDMENT 11 [Rule 5B (b) (c) (Bulk and Location Standards) is amended to read: Maximum Height and Recession Plane of Buildings and Structures: (i) 30.0m 20.0m, provided that (ii) 15.0m 12.0m on road front boundary of Jackson Street, Hutt Road and The Esplanade with a recession plane of 45 sloping inwards up to 30.0m 20.0m in height (iii) 14.0 m for properties to the east of Victoria Street, except for those site which abut the General Residential Activity Area. GNS Science Report 2014/23 42

48 AMENDMENT 20 [Rules 5B2.2.2 (a) and (a) (Restricted Discretionary Activity)] is amended to read: Rule 5B Restricted Discretionary Activity (a)(b) Emergency facilities. Matters in which Council has Restricted its Discretion and Standard and Terms (i) Traffic effects: - The adverse Effects on the roading transport network generated by the emergency facilities, including the adverse effects on traffic, cycle and pedestrian movement, parking and access in the immediate vicinity of the site. - Appearance of buildings and structures. (ii) Appearance of Buildings and Structures: - The adverse Visual effects on the visual impression of the streetscape. In this respect an important consideration is the likely impact on the continuous display window frontage requirements. - Design, external appearance and siting of the building or structures. (iii) Amenity Values - Effects upon the amenity values both within the site concerned and upon surrounding land uses. (iv) Natural Hazards - Vulnerability to risks from natural hazards - Measures to avoid or mitigate risks from natural hazards (v) Public Health Benefits - Operational needs and requirements of facility; - Public health benefits arising from facility Rule 5B Non-Complying Activities (b) Emergency facilities within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area AMENDMENT 21 is amended to read: (b) The construction, alteration of, addition to buildings and structures fronting Hutt Road, The Esplanade or Jackson Street, except for those works permitted under Rule 5B (n) and (o). New matter of discretion: (vi) Natural hazards The outcomes of the geotechnical investigation on seismic hazards, including fault rupture, subsidence and liquefaction. Whether the potential risk to the health and safety of people and property from fault rupture, subsidence and liquefaction can be avoided or mitigated. The design and layout of the development, including buildings, to avoid or mitigate the effects from fault rupture, subsidence and liquefaction. GNS Science Report 2014/23 43

49 AMENDMENT 34 is amended to add higher risk land use activities in the WFSSA as Discretionary Activities: (h) Within the Wellington Fault Special Study Area, the following: (i) Places of assembly (ii) Childcare facility (iii) Education and training facility (iv) Marae (v) Cultural Centres AMENDMENT 35 is amended to add a new assessment matter for Discretionary Activities: (c) Natural hazards, including geotechnical investigation on seismic hazards, including fault rupture, subsidence and liquefaction, and measures to avoid or mitigate the effects from fault rupture, subsidence and liquefaction. AMENDMENT 59: Add a new with new information requirements to Sections and to read as follows: Land Use Consents (h) In areas subject to high risk from seismic activity, including the Wellington Fault Special Study Area, geotechnical information provided by a suitably qualified person assessing the seismic risks for the subject site, including fault rupture, ground shaking, subsidence and liquefaction. The information shall identify the location and depth of any fault trace and/or fault trace deformation, location and depth of subsidence, and liquefaction risk Subdivision Consents (g) In areas subject to high risk from seismic activity, including the Wellington Fault Special Study Area, geotechnical information provided by a suitably qualified person assessing the seismic risks for the subject site, including fault rupture, ground shaking, subsidence and liquefaction. The information shall identify the location and depth of any fault trace and/or fault trace deformation, location and depth of subsidence, and liquefaction risk. The Natural Hazards section of the Operative District Plan be systematically reviewed, so that relevant provisions within the Plan Change Area are extended across the City where appropriate. The Natural Hazards section of the Operative District Plan be reviewed following any legislative changes to the RMA regarding natural hazard management. GNS Science Report 2014/23 44

50 APPENDIX 4: GNS SCIENCE PRESENTATION TO THE HEARING

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58