Bretherton, E.; Feeney, A.; Kelly, S.D.; Tang, X.; Lawson, R.V. 2023 Management of sensitive or vulnerable activities in relation to natural hazards in planning documents. Lower Hutt, N.Z.: GNS Science. GNS Science report 2023/30. 74 p.; doi: 10.21420/CZTJ-8B15
Abstract
Since 2017, the “management of the significant risks from natural hazards” has been a matter of national importance under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Risk is typically defined as the likelihood and consequences of a hazard. The consequences of a hazard are influenced by predetermined factors, including the vulnerability or sensitivity of those activities where a hazard may potentially intersect them. Previous research (Saunders et al. 2020) identified that vulnerability is not expressly provided for in the five key pieces of legislation that contribute to natural hazard risk management, as well as that the inclusion of vulnerability into land-use planning is an opportunity to improve Aotearoa New Zealand’s implementation of the Sendai Framework. Notwithstanding this, the concept of ‘sensitive’ or ‘vulnerable’ activities is established in resource management practise in relation to issues such as reverse sensitivity and sensitivity to noise, dust and odour effects, as well as defined in the National Policy Statement for Electricity Transmission (NPS-ET). The complexity of definitions may be further compounded or relieved should the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazard Decisions (NPS-NHD), which includes a definition for ‘new hazard sensitive development’, be gazetted (currently out for feedback).
This report provides analysis and discussion on how ‘sensitive’ or ‘vulnerable’ activities are defined in relation to natural hazard risk in planning documents prepared under the RMA. It does so by examining the inclusion of these terms generally and in relation to natural hazard risk, what these definitions include and, through that, whether an appropriate collective definition emerges.
A desktop review of proposed and operative planning documents prepared under the RMA was undertaken; these were first searched for ‘sensitive’ and ‘vulnerable’ terminology. Where the term was used within the natural hazard provisions, what was included in that definition was extracted and assessed for consistencies and outliers. The results have also been analysed for regional consistencies.
The term ‘sensitive activity’ is not used or defined in 47% of all plans, including district plans, and 30% of all district plans reviewed. The term is defined but not used for natural hazard management in 39% of all plans, including district plans, and 33% of all district plans reviewed. Of the total plans reviewed, including district plans, 20% use sensitive activities to manage natural hazard risk; this drops to 13% for district plans. Including just the term ‘vulnerable activities’ rather than ‘sensitive activities’ per se in the proposed Far North District Plan, operative Auckland Unitary Plan, proposed Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan and operative Hamilton City District Plan, this is a total of 7% of all plans reviewed, including district plans, and 10% of all district plans. This can be compared with the 2.9% of the district plans in Saunders et al. (2014) that discuss or assess vulnerable communities. This is not considered a statistically significant increase and is therefore considered to be evidence that the opportunity to implement the Sendai Framework by the use of this term has not currently been realised.
Where sensitive activities are used in relation to natural hazards, the definitions are broadly similar; however, there is no one activity included in all definitions. Of the 11 plans, most include residential activities (10), healthcare (8) and community facilities (10), but the scale of these activity types varies, and there are different inclusions within those types of use. The Far North District Plan and Auckland Unitary Plan include medical buildings with overnight-stay facilities; this would preclude most community medical centres but would include hospitals. The Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan only includes hospitals. The other plans include medical facilities generally. The definition of ‘residential use’ also has exemptions. Waitomo District Plan excludes tiny houses and campgrounds. Conversely, the Auckland Unitary Plan includes campgrounds within its visitor accommodation definition. ‘Education’ is also used in different ways – the Far North District Plan only includes day care, and tertiary education is only included in the Combined West Coast Plan, New Plymouth District Plan and Horowhenua District Plan. The other districts only include education facilities effectively to the end of secondary school. There are also some activities only included in one plan – the Dunedin City Plan includes prisons, detention centres, crematoria and cemeteries. The proposed Combined Wairarapa District Plan includes entertainment facilities and service stations – hazardous facilities included in other plans could include a service station.
Considering the consistencies within these definitions, one type of definition incorporates two key factors; principally, places where people sleep, including residential and visitor accommodation, and places where people who may also need more time to evacuate, such as day care, hospitals and retirement villages. The other main type of activity use in definitions is used by the Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan, which also gives policy direction on facilities needed for post-natural-hazard-event response and recovery.
There does not appear to be a purposeful use of the term ‘sensitive activity’ in relation to natural-hazard risk management in the hierarchy and development of regional and district plans under the RMA. Where the terms are used in relation to natural hazards, this is in recently operative plans and those that are still in RMA Schedule 1 development. The way in which these terms are used in draft plans, and whether that use changes through the plan development process, will be of interest. Further analysis beyond the scope of this review, such as of s32 and s42a reports , hearings evidence and deliberations, may illuminate reasons for use/inclusion/exclusion of the term and specifics of its definition.
The plans that have included the term, and whether its use has reduced the significant risk from natural hazards, has not yet been tested via either analysis of resource consents or a natural hazard event. It is also important to consider the hazard-scape when drafting provisions as, while land-use and subdivision are controlled through RMA plans, councils also have a duty under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 to respond to and recover from emergencies. The interactions between hazards, evacuation and infrastructure for response and recovery, as well as day-to-day life, all need to be considered. Ensuring that lifeline utilities can operate to provide for both emergency response and day-to-day activities is critical for communities to function. Once more plans are operative, there may be opportunity to reflect on a wider set of more recently operative plans, on the use of the NPS-ET and NPS-NHD definitions regarding sensitive activities and on how a collective definition may be formed.
