Improve management of risks from natural hazards in decision-making on subdivisionapplications

Problem

222. Currently, when considering applications for subdivision consents under section 106 (which specifies circumstances under which consents can be refused or conditions placed) decision- makers can consider a limited list of natural hazards but not all natural hazards that may affect the potentialsubdivision.

223. In addition, section 106 is worded in such a way that a risk management approach does not have to be taken. In particular, some court decisions have excluded low-likelihood and high- consequence hazards from beingconsidered.

Proposal

224. The proposal is to amend sections 106 and 220 of the RMA to enable decision-makers to decline or place conditions on subdivision consents where there are significant risks from natural hazards. The sections which specify the circumstances in which a consent authority may refuse subdivision consent, and the conditions on which a subdivision consent may be granted (sections 106 and 220 respectively) will be amended to introduce a risk-based approach to subdivision consent decision-making and ensure all natural hazards are considered (rather than a limited list of hazards that currentlyexists).

Alternativeoptions

225. No alternatives were considered for thisproposal.

Conclusion

226. The proposal is the preferred option to address the problem outlined. It is supported by the proposal to include "the management of significant risks from natural hazards" as a general consideration under Part 2 of the RMA (P1.4).

227. This proposal would improve the management approach by mandating risk management as well as include all natural hazards, and would contribute to achieving the outcome of ensuring accountabilities are clear in managing theserisks.